Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.50.148.105 (talk) at 04:08, 5 December 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

List of archives
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Recent changes in WP:Medicine
Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

 Top  High  Mid  Low  NA  ??? Total
 99  1,063  11,549  38,875  20,125 1,179  72,890 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:


Human Nutrition help

I have been editing human nutrition as part of a class assignment in recent months, and am seeking feedback and advice on Human Nutrition. The article was previously exclusively made up of the same exact content as Nutrition, and as tagged as so. I am wondering if any of that content should remain there or not? How can I get the banner to be removed? I have been adding content to provide a social perspective to understanding access to nutrition, nutritional status of countries internationally, organizations involved with nutrition, and the prevalence and effects of malnutrition. Any feedback, edits, additions, or guidance would be appreciated. thank you! Lbockhorn (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad title, merge and delete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. However, I have been advised by our education coordinator not to remove any of the material in the article that originated from Nutrition. I found this to be a perfectly advisable strategy. I foresee that eventually someone may find it useful to provide more information about nutrition not pertaining to humans in the article Nutrition, therefore, I would not like to be responsible for removing human specific information from Human Nutrition. Thank you for your suggestion. Lbockhorn (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine-specific advice for educational projects

(@SandyGeorgia, Tryptofish, Jmh649, Biosthmors, and Colin: cross-posting here from the education noticeboard, since I know some of you folks are trying to keep that off your watchlists.)

I've gone ahead and taken a first stab at building a module of topic-specific advice for the educators training. (We can similarly add these to the student trainings as well.) Take a look at the trainings starting here: Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Topic-specific modules.

The content for the medical editing module lives here:

Please improve! We can add more pages if necessary, but I strongly recommend not letting any individual pages get much longer than these; the less information on each page, the more of what's there will sink in. --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sage. I am, for now, completely burnt out and unable to face this topic any more, but I have made myself a sticky note and I *will* get over there as soon as I can ... stomach ... it :) :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1, though Sandy will probably make it over there before I do. What a shitshow. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 07:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sage Ross (WMF), Mike Christie and Jami (Wiki Ed): I've regained ... ummm ... my composure and gotten a second wind, and would like to get this done before holiday guests arrive. But I'm unsure where you want to coordinate the discussion. Do we just put comments on the talk pages associated with the pages above, or do you want everything here, at ENB, what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Here is a good place. --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from SandyGeorgia

Collapse done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Topic-specific modules

A problem that we have is that the profs/students don't always realize the extent of MEDRS (that is, health-related or medical content). I would suggest changing:
  • If you plan to have students contribute in medicine-related topic areas (including psychology), please go through this additional section. ... My class will be working on medical topics.
to
  • If you plan to have students contribute in health or medicine-related topic areas (including psychology), please go through this additional section. ... My class will be working on health-related or medical topics.
 Done --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Medical topics 1

Looks fine to me.

3. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Medical topics 2

"including reports of original medical research published in respected journals ... "

They don't get this ... heck, most established editors don't get it. I suggest changing it to ...

"including reports of original medical research, such as case reports or clinical studies, published in respected journals ... "
 Done, with some related rewording.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Medical topics 3

This is the page where we might strongly advise them to have their students *first* propose their sources, before they waste time writing. Much frustration can be avoided if we can get them to have us review their sources before we all waste a lot of time.
 Done, and this content now lives at Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Medical topics 4. --Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. Missing: we need to somehow get them to add PMIDs. That could involve adding one more page explaining how to search pubmed for a PMID. Having a PMID in the citation significantly lessens our burden when we review the student's work. Can we add one more page on this?
6. Missing: Could we link somewhere to Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Sections. A big problem with student work is that they haven't focused in on what they are writing and where it will be added. If they see how we typically organize articles, that will avoid a lot of agida. Is one more page getting too long ?

 Done, sort of. I put both of these in a new page on "style conventions", which is the new page 3: Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Medical topics 3. I don't know how to explain searching for PMIDs efficiently, but if folks agree that it's important to have a howto and someone writes one (maybe just for the students, and in the educator module we note that such instructions are in the student version), I don't think adding more pages is a problem.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the excellent suggestions.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Ross (WMF) Nice job of incorporating my concerns, Sage Ross-- thanks. There is only one thing that we might look further at:

In the interest of space and not overwhelming the students, sending them to the "cite pmid" template is the fastest and easiest. But most medical articles don't use that template, and it generates a horrid citation that we don't mostly use in medicine (we use the Diberri/BogHog citation filler template, which yields a more compact citation). And since most students use regular citation templates, the cite journal generated by BogHog would make sense to them. But I'm not sure you can work that citation filling template in with brevity. But I don't want to be recommending they use the cite pmid template, because in most medical articles, that will run them afoul of WP:CITEVAR-- don't change established citation style, which is usually Diberri/BogHog. I'm not sure how you can fix this ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I've replaced the cite pmid bit with a simpler exhortation to include the PMID within the citation. (It's unfortunate that our citation conventions are so convoluted. We really need a single standard way of inputting reference info, with control of how they get displayed at the article level rather than determined by the citation itself. Alas.)--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sage Ross (WMF) Yes, that is the problem! Your newer text is great. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

APS

By the way, User:Mike Christie and User:Jami (Wiki Ed), will the WEF please ask the American Psychological Society to cut back on promoting their garbage? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 07:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only have time for a brief glance as I have to go to work, but will look again tonight. Can you clarify? Is this a course that is going badly? Or are you referring to APS's general attempts to improve coverage of psychology topics on-wiki? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the class I forwarded you my email about and the APS initative. People need to know that disruptive classrooms can be blocked. They need to know our policies and guidelines. I've had enough of this "anyone can edit" garbage. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OH dear, I wish I hadn't seen this thread just when I can't take any more of this. Psych students encouraged to further theories from one specific book via Wikipedia. Talk about COI, potential promotion, all kinds of issues. I don't want to know about this; I had just gotten over the desire to quit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's a sad sad sad situation. But let me bring us full circle, if you don't mind. The real issue here is that students were being abused by professors (and supported by the WMF) into paid advocacy editing (because any abuse of primary sources necessarily leads to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues), in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cough medications

Is this info reasonable in a section on society and culture in the cough medicine article? [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User has deleted a review article and replaced it with a fact tag [2]. Review article is here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in, and see what looks like a good-faith content dispute; I'm not sure I can take a position on that one, but I'm no Dr-- maybe something I'm missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Issue is the removal of the review article and replacing it with a fact tag.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what australianprescriber.com is, and I'm getting a dead link. Is there a PMID? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Review article is here [5] Pubmed of course has the best coverage for US stuff. Less from other parts of the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if it adds anything to the discussion, but in Sweden we almost exclusively use pubmed for all research, but not for guidelines which are administered by [6]Socialstyrelsen & [7]Läkemedelsverket - The medical products agency. It may only be that the prescription guidelines from many countries aren't present on pubmed. It could be a good idea to summarize the different agencies of the world in a list (if it hasn't already been done), so that we can see what sources are reliable. CFCF (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the Medical Products Agency - Sweden, translated by me (with great care not to influence the guidelines)[8]:

Hos vuxna är den akut påkomna hostan i samband med en infektion svår att påverka men lindras nog bäst med varm dryck. Olika läkemedels effekt på hosta är dåligt studerad och resultaten svårtolkade. Läkemedel mot hosta är därför inte rabattberättigade. Om torr rethosta föreligger, kan man pröva centralt hostdämpande farmaka, t ex noskapin, och är hostan mycket besvärande nattetid kan man med vederbörlig försiktighet skriva ut läkemedel innehållande etylmorfin, såsom Cocillana-Etyfin. Antibiotika påverkar inte förloppet.

In adults acute cough in conjunction with an infection is diffucult to influence, but is most likely helped best with warm beverages. The effect of different medication on cough is poorly studied, and the results difficult to interpret. Therefor pharmaceuticals against cough are not entitled to reduced rate[in Sweden]. If dry irritating cough is found it is possible to to try a centrally cough-reducing medicine, for example noskapin, och if the cough is very inconveniencing during the night one can with proper caution prescribe pharmaceuticals containing ethylmorphine such as Cocillana-Etyfin. Antibiotics do not effect the course of events.

Hos barn är det viktigt att först skapa sig en bild av den underliggande infektionen. Det gäller att behandla en eventuell obstruktivitet i första hand. Får man obstruktiviteten under kontroll avtar ofta också hostan. Att ge slemlösande medel är verkningslöst. Hostan kan ofta förklaras av att det tar tid för flimmerhåren att återbildas efter infektionen och den går över efter 1–2 månader utan behandling. Ett barn i 4–7-årsåldern kan efter en period av recidiverande nedre luftvägsinfektioner ha utvecklat postinfektiös hyperreaktivitet och hostreflexen har blivit mer lättutlöst. Sannolikt finns ett kroniskt inflammatoriskt tillstånd i slemhinnan. Vid långvarig hyperreaktivitet kan man pröva inhalationssteroid i lågdos 1–2 gånger/dag. Antibiotika påverkar inte förloppet.

In children it is important to form an image of the underlying infection. It is due to treat a possible obstructivity in first hand. If you get the obstructivity under controll the cough will often subside. To give exporants is without effect. The cough can often be explained by the time it takes to regain the cilia after an ifection and it will pass after 1-2 months without treatment. A child 4-7 years of age can after a period of recidivating lower airway-infection have developed a postinfectious hyperactivity and the cough-reflex has become easier to provoke. Most likelt there is a chronic inflammatory condition in the mucous membrane. During prolonged hyperreactivity one can try an inhalation-steroid in low dosage 1-2 times a day. Antibiotics do not effect the course of events.

CFCF (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has recently been rearranged against WP:MEDMOS and a summary of the best available evidence removed from the lead. Wondering if people can comment on these changes here [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble understanding why you presented this as having been "rearranged against MEDMOS". The dispute is over exactly two sections, ==Examples== and ==Effectiveness==. MEDMOS doesn't have either of these sections, and therefore it is actually impossible to put them in a place that MEDMOS recommends against. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contraindications do not go at the end and the stuff moved into contraindications wasn't. Typically we discuss effectiveness under medical uses.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MEDMOS does not demand that the sections suggested in it be placed before sections that are not listed in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High importance article- Human nutrition

I am in the process of editing Human Nutrition, and having trouble organizing the different challenges involved with malnutrition. There needs to be consideration not only for the individual effects that malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies can have on an individual, but also a consideration of the social affects of widespread malnutrition issues. The organizational structure of malnutrition needs some more work I believe. Does the following structure provide a better combination of the previous article and the new social information that needs to be incorporated?

Individual nutrition challenges

4.2.3.1 Illnesses caused by improper nutrient consumption

4.2.3.3 Mental agility

4.2.3.4 Mental disorders

4.2.3.5 Cancer

4.2.3.6 Metabolic syndrome and obesity

4.2.3.7 Hyponatremia


Global nutrition challenges

2.1 Malnutrition and causes of death and disability

2.2 Child malnutrition

2.3 Adult overweight and obesity

2.4 Vitamin and mineral malnutrition

2.4.1 Iron deficiency and anaemia

2.4.2 Vitamin A deficiency

2.4.3 Iodine deficiency

2.5 Infant and young child feeding

2.6 Undernourishment

Are there any comments on this structure? Thank you Lbockhorn (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How much time to you intend to spend on this? If you plan on doing a complete rewrite of this article and have 200 hours to commit to doing it, then discussing a huge upheaval of content could make sense. The article already has the precedent of several thousands of hours of review to have gotten it where it is now, so shifting a lot of content and seeking a dozen people to weigh in on this is not something which will lightly be done.
My advice would be to neglect a full re-outline for now. Spend 10-20 hours thinking about the article as you work on 3-4 sections, and after you have done that much work, then propose a grand vision for sweeping change. When you propose a total change, find a nutrition textbook which seems comprehensive and propose to model your changes after what an established respected textbook has done.
Article outlines are very difficult. If you want to discuss malnutrition, here is how the medical manual of style would recommend that you do it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed and thorough response. I agree that much work needs to be done on this page, and still needs to be done. I have implemented some of the structure suggestions I listed before, which turned out to help organize content I had already provided in a more accessible manner. However, I did not edit the structure of any of the material that was already provided from the creators of Nutrition, from where all the material has been copied from. I did not implement all of my structure changes. I have left some subsections blank in the hopes that other Wikipedians may have interest in further providing information for this article. You have been very helpful and I appreciate your comments. Lbockhorn (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wegener's granulomatosis or granulomatosis with polyangiitis.

Please participate in the move discussion on Talk:Wegener's granulomatosis whether the eponym or the descriptive name should be the article title. JFW | T@lk 13:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cholera

Student editing cleanup needed, see Talk:Cholera. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Sandy and Biosthmors have both expressed negative opinions about the addition, I've opened a discussion at the Education Noticeboard incidents page. I'd like to suggest we have the discussion over there, rather than at Talk:Cholera, since it's of interest to both medical editors and editors working with the education program. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have reverted the most of the changes in question based on the issues mentioned on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer's disease

Another at WP:ENI#University of Manchester, AD; regulars here might as well watchlist the education noticeboard incidents page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the post at WP:ENI#University of Manchester, AD-- the problems here go beyond Alzheimer's. This editor has created numerous articles that have MEDRS, notability, and UNDUE issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postmenopausal confusion

Another at WP:ENI#Postmenopausal confusion, Georgia IT SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neural control of limb stiffness

Should this even be an article? Don't even know where to start ... student editing, perhaps someone should open an incident at WP:ENI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am prioritize my efforts and more or less turning a blind eye to articles that are infrequently read. One can easily burn on working on these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Tweaked, then left tp advice. Seems notable (several cited works address the topic more or less directly). Probably worth (eventually) fixing. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a topic in motor neuroscience and biomechanics; GScholar shows 1,260 hits for the search expression "limb stiffness" neural. If you have ever "braced for impact", you have probably exerted neural control over the stiffness of your limbs. While it has some medical implications (I think there are diseases that affect neural control of limb stiffness and stiffness is an issue in medical prosthetic limbs), this isn't a pure medical article. There is a unfortunate lack of secondary sources, but it is in pretty good shape for a nine day old article--inline citations to lots of reliable sources, the prose could be improved but is readable. I don't see how this warrants WP:ENI, especially since there has already been some engagement. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Incoming students --Mark viking (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flow invitation to kick-the-tires

Hey all, We've reached the stage with Flow where it's relatively stable, and we'd like to invite you to take some time to try it out and chase bugs. It currently lives on a staff-run test server, which means it isn't hooked up to Single User Login - you can either edit anonymously or, preferably, create a new account under your current username.

The software has a minimal set of features at the moment; normal discussions with wikitext and templates should work fine (although Quiddity has only imported a few hundred templates), but there are some known bugs (and features that we're working on this fortnight) with the software. We're not looking to deploy Flow to enwiki in its current form, nor asking you to give your seal of approval to that.

What we'd like is for you to use the software, test it out and let us know two things:

  1. If there are any bugs (you can report them here);
  2. What changes or features you'd need added, to be personally comfortable with deploying it on your WikiProject (which you can explain here)

On the off chance that Flow is really, really broken for you, to the point where you can't post (maybe a browser issue?) you can of course use the enwiki talkpage for both purposes. If you have any questions about the test, you can post them there too :). We're going to be holding this testing open for a week to allow people to really hammer on the software, although we may not be around Thursday or Friday (it's Thanksgiving). If not, don't worry: we'll reply to you when we return.

Thanks! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Psychological Aspects of Pediatric HIV/AIDS

Dear medical experts: Here's another old declined Afc submission that is about to be deleted. If there is any value in it, please someone make an edit to postpone deletion so that it can be improved. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could use an article on HIV/AIDS in children. Some of this content could possibly go there. Much of it is unreffed though the few refs there appear to be secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it has now been automatically deleted. If anyone want it back to use some of the content, it can be retrieved by clicking on the link and following the instructions. Sorry for the short notice. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be "automatically deleted"? It looks like Sphilbrick deleted it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatically deleted, but deleted per G13 because it was started in May 2012, and then abandoned.

Sorry, I should have been more careful to write clearly. It was automatically nominated for deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the content, if someone wants to work on it, let me know and I'll restore it

History of HIV/AIDS and Pediatrics

The Human Immunodeficiency Virus(HIV) was discovered in 1981. In the thirty-one years that we have known about HIV substantial progress has been made in understanding and treating the virus. However, understanding of the virus as it pertains to children and adolescents is still a relatively new research area. In the late 1980s, researchers and health care professionals turned their attention toward adolescents as an at-risk population[1]. This population was cited as at-risk due to adolescents believing they are impervious to the virus as well as the risky sexual and drug experimentation that occurs during this period of development. In order to prevent high-risk behaviors that could result in the acquisition of HIV, the authors called for HIV/AIDS education in the schools.

Children who have been perinatally infected with HIV are now living longer and relatively healthy lives due mostly to antiretroviral therapy (ART)[2]. Researchers take the stance that HIV/AIDS should be viewed not as a death sentence as it once was, but as a chronic illness and calls for an integrative and multidisciplinary approach in caring for these individuals that takes into account many factors including psychological well-being. Children infected with HIV/AIDS as well as their families have many new challenges to face due to longer longevity. These challenges are affecting children with HIV/AIDS differently from other chronic or incurable diseases. For example, children may have had to watch family members become ill and die from HIV/AIDS. They face stigmatization, lack of resources, family disruption, and exposure to abuse. Not only do they have to deal with external sources of stress they are also dealing with thoughts of their own mortality and feelings of guilt, loss, anger, etc.

[2]states that mental health interventions must become incorporated into the standard of care for those children living with HIV/AIDS. However, health care systems often fail to provide this need. Researchers call for a multidimensional approach that would incorporate primary care physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, and families. Primary care nurses, school nurses, and general practitioners can learn to recognize the signs of mental illness and manage the most basic of mental illnesses or make an appropriate referral. Or, a clinical psychologist could be present at these children’s primary care facilities.

[3] states a particularly disturbing statistic that more HIV infections are attributable to adolescents and young adults between the ages of 13-29 years of age. Researchers state that “HIV is an epidemic primarily of young people.” Psychiatric disorders that have high prevalence rates among adolescents with HIV/AIDS which include but are not limited to: attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety, behavior problems, and oppositional defiant disorder.

--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muse Cell

...has all the hallmarks of a student creation, but nothing explicit to indicate that. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't look like a student article to me. It looks like it was created by somebody with a high level of topic-area expertise. Looie496 (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the technical stuff would be better with a simpler explanation. Interestingly, the original creator is Muse2000 (talk page). Benboy00 inappropriately warned Muse2000 for vandalism, including the reversion edit summary.
The quality of the referencing and the accuracy of information are good—not suggestive of typical student assignment editing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While the article may need work I believe the behavior of Benboy00 is detrimental to Wikipedia as a new and potentially knowledgeable/helpful editor can be scared off from contributing further when their edits don't seem to be appreciated. Would probably be good to inform Muse2000 that the warning was in error. CFCF (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but I do not believe that the warning was in error. Muse2000 edited after a revert. I left a level one (i think its level one), polite warning on his/her talk page. This succeeded in getting him/her to stop making those disruptive edits, and did not scare him/her off. Benboy00 (talk)
Benboy00,
"Editing after a revert" is not vandalism. This odd formatting is not vandalism. This says, "Hey, this is my fourth-ever edit to a very complicated page, and I'm trying to make it look right on my computer screen". This does not say "I have bad faith and am deliberately trying to break things".
If you're going to issue even "polite" warnings for vandalism, then you need to actually know what the definition of vandalism is. See the lead of the policy: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Manually increasing the size of the section heading, rather than using the normal level 2 section heading, is not vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it may not have been deliberate, but the warning i left was completely appropriate. I apologize for saying that it was vandalism, because its not, but I still feel that the warning is not overly harsh in any way. It assumed good faith, and directed the user to experiment in the sandbox, which seems like a good idea. Since that user seems to be a one page SPA anyway, I doubt it matters very much in the long term, but even if that weren't the case, I still think that that warning was fine. Benboy00 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You left a warning that says the user was "making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia", when in fact all the user did was use <big> to change the size of the text rather than the Wikipedia-specific method of doing this, which is ==Level 2== headers. You left a warning that says these "edits appear to constitute vandalism", which by definition means "these edits appear to constitute a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". If you still think that these accusations are "completely appropriate", then IMO you do not have enough experience and judgment to issue warnings of any kind whatsoever to anyone. The fact that the last half of the vandalism warning contains some useful advice does nothing at all to make up for your false accusations in the first half.
Oh, and what you're deriding as a "one page SPA", and therefore concluding that it's unimportant whether the person sticks around, is what the rest of us call a likely subject-matter expert who is trying to add only information that he or she actually knows something about, rather than random garbage he read on the internet. We have enough problems with WP:Expert retention without people like you calling them vandals because they didn't know how to format(!) a Wikipedia page! WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Benboy00, I notice that you've now posted a note at the user's talk page saying that you simultaneously:
  • "fully stand by this warning" and
  • "apologise for using the vandalism template, instead of the disruptive editing template".
This is a self-contradiction. If you think you used the wrong template, then you cannot "fully" stand by the template you chose. You can only "partly" stand by using that warning if you think the first couple of sentences in your warning were inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. I also apologise for my momentary lapse in concentration. What I meant to say is, I fully stand by the giving of a warning, just not the giving of that particular warning. Hopefully that straightens things out (I will correct this on the talk page). Making a page hard to read with strange formatting (twice) would, in my opinion, count as an unconstructive edit. The alternative is that its a constructive edit. Would you consider that a constructive edit? Someone did something wrong. I reverted it. They then did the same thing again. I gave them an AGF warning. Again, I apologize for the wrong template. However, it appears that it worked. It also appears that the person wasnt "scared off". If you would like to start some sort of official procedure to revoke my ability to warn people, then I would have no problem with this. However, until that time, I have nothing further to say. Benboy00 (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your ability to issue warnings can only be revoked by removing your ability to edit any page at all, i.e., a WP:BLOCK of your account. Your permission to issue warnings can be revoked through a topic ban. If you will agree to make an effort to improve, e.g., by not ever calling good-faith edits "vandalism", then I will agree not to request a topic ban at AN today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already said several times that using the term vandalism was a mistake. However, you are still more than welcome to ask for a topic ban. Benboy00 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wider advice requested as to which personages constitute notable cases in trigeminal neuralgia

In the last several months a few different persons have added various "celebrity" figures, often unreferenced to this section of the above article. My gut feeling is that we should scrap the whole section. Or if you have any thoughts on who should stay and who should go, please comment here Talk:Trigeminal_neuralgia#Notable_cases_section. Thank you, Lesion (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLP stuff should just go immediately. Most disease articles have a small section of notable individuals who have had the condition, I don't see the need to remove it out of hand. Canada Hky (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the general question, these lists normally want two kinds of people:
  • Something that is clearly historical, like the first person diagnosed or a really famous, long-dead person.
  • Something that had a significant effect on modern times, like a person who founded a large charity. In these instances, you should be able to easily find something to say that goes far beyond "Joe Film has this disease", and extends to something like "Joe Film has helped raise six billion dollars for patient support in the last ten years" or "After his daughter was diagnosed with this disease, Peter Politician sponsored the 'Cure My Daughter' law that tripled research funding".
When we find more or less random examples of entertainers or business people who happen to have the disease, then those should normally be removed as trivia. There is some information at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Notable cases; we could expand it if that seemed helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested: is a description of an ongoing clinical trial an acceptable Wiki page?

I would like to ask for your opinion on a draft text I've written, describing an elaborate clinical trial which is currently ongoing and funded by the European Commission (FP7 project). We simply wanted to increase our exposure in the scientific community before the results come in (expected in 2 years from now, study started 3 years ago). The intention is explicitly NOT to recruit patients or new sites through this page.

The 'general' Wiki team took a look at the text I wrote and recommended to ask for advice here. They indicated they rather see the description of a completed study, results, impact etc. They indicated that describing an ongoing clinical trial -even within any indication that we are still looking for new patients and/or participating sites- may not be appropriate. I certainly agree that it is much more interesting to report about new results, but I also think it is important to show what innovative research is currently being conducted.

Anybody willing to give some advice? Many thanks in advance, Inge Winter, PhDIngeWinter (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say this topic is certainly unsuitable for a general encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not part of the scientific community, and its role is not to drive research. We tend to reference reviews, systematic reviews and meta analyses, as well as mainstream textbooks when writing encyclopedia articles. Whilst Schizophrenia is very much a notable topic for an encyclopedia article, the page you have written is not an encyclopedic topic. Even if the study had reached completion and been published, we do not dedicate whole encyclopedia articles to individual studies. Advice is to wait for the study to be published and other authors and organizations start commentating on the results, at which time content might be generated on the schizophrenia article. See WP:MEDRS for more info. Thank you, Lesion (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lesion. The only exception would be if there are multiple, independent reliable sources talking about the study, see our general notability guidelines. However if you need exposure, I suppose there aren't. --cyclopiaspeak! 11:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah what they said - sorry, unless independently notable, we'd be waiting for a Review Article (i.e. secondary source) to comment on it before adding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback - however there seem to be various wikipages on other ongoing research within the same funding institution (framework 7 program from the European Commission), don't think it's reasonable to allow some and not others? IngeWinter (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the subpages of this list: [10] I wasn't aware we had any such articles. They strike me as not particularly notable. I don't have any problem with the projects being summarized as they are currently on the organization's article. Not sure how others feel. Lesion (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not suitable for a medical article until summarized and put in context by a secondary source. Not sure if it would be appropriate for that page. Are there secondary sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly unusual for ongoing trials to have sufficient notability for independent mention. This becomes relevant only after their findings have been published, and it becomes easier when the notability of a trial is confirmed by its appearance in secondary sources. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: A somewhat similar discussion to this one occurred in 2011-2012 about articles about EU research projects. It is generally more friendly to the idea of such articles in Wikipedia than the current one is. It's a long page and it's here. Hordaland (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for asking, IngeWinter. I like the idea of having articles on clinical trials when this can be done in compliance with Wikipedia community guidelines. The biggest problem in complying with guidelines is finding third-party sources to cite. Wikipedia has a policy that all content added to articles - ideally every sentence - ought to come with a citation. Your proposal does not do that. Furthermore, the citations should reference a source which is not written by the subject of the article. Since you are not using hyperlinks and do not have all your material referenced anyway, I am unable to quickly judge whether your proposal can comply with this, but in past attempts to cover clinical trials, this has been difficult.
I am a big fan of clinical research and I came to Wikipedia to explore using it as a communication channel to bring information about clinical research to the public. Wikipedia could be a great platform for this but it would take a lot of dedication to build the policy infrastructure to make this easy to do. If you want to explore this further then let's talk more sometime. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody for your comments! Unfortunately, we cannot comply to the requirements regarding citations just yet, but as soon as the first publications appear I will definitely re-visit this plan! IngeWinter (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, Inge!
Clinical trials are a particular challenge due to Wikipedia's rules. On the one hand, to qualify for its own separate article, you must have:
  1. multiple,
  2. third-party/independent sources (i.e., nobody who is working on, funding, or associated with the trial), and
  3. secondary sources (e.g. a review article or graduate-level textbook).
And for medical content, we often add #4: it must be a "scholarly" source (e.g., peer-reviewed papers).
So your best bet for an independent source about an ongoing clinical trial is often a newspaper or magazine article—but that's not "scholarly" (and often not "secondary", since they rarely analyze trials themselves), and is removed on sight by some editors. And your best bet for a "scholarly" source is papers written by the people actually involved in the trial—but that's not "independent", and is removed on sight by some other editors. And so forth.
And if you try to put a paragraph in an article, like saying in Hypertension that there is a clinical trial about hypertension, then yet another group of editors will come around and complain that it's WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#NEWS relative to the main subject of that article.
So I'm not trying to be discouraging, but I want you to know that it is difficult, mostly because Wikipedia's rules weren't written with clinical trials in mind. (They were written mostly with garage bands and herbal-fad-of-the-week in mind.)
My suggestion for you is to consider writing an article about the organization—WP:ORG has the notability requirements, which don't normally fall afoul of these problems, because a medical organization is subject to the same rules as any other government agency, non-profit, or commercial business—and to consider a list with a very brief description of each major activity inside that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Refugees Access to US Healthcare

Hello again, medical experts! Is this a notable topic, and can the "essaylike" qualities be removed to make a good article? If not edited right away, it will be deleted as a stale draft. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical disclaimer

After discussion on multiple talk pages, it was revealed that multiple other language Wikipedias do have medical disclaimers. Initially, I was concerned about the decline in participation at WT:MED, where basic concerns are no longer being addressed:

  1. Archived with no resolution
  2. Most of these moved into mainspace with limited feedback, and now need to be dealt with
  3. No one else helped with these, archived without further feedback
  4. This problem was raised here and on an external website

Separately, I have been concerned with the effect of the education program on medical content-- considering declining participation in Wikipedia, I don't believe we can keep up with the bad content being added by students:

  1. Problems with student editing, discussed at WP:ENB, moved to newly created WP:ENI: original thread
  2. Continued discussion at User talk:SandyGeorgia
  3. Continued discussion at User talk:MastCell
  4. Separate but related discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales

Those discussions led to various proposals at:

  1. User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer

Other language Wikipedia medical disclaimers

Wikipedia language Number of articles Template Position in article
Chinese 732,000 zh:Template:Medical small Top
Dutch 1,700,000 nl:Sjabloon:Disclaimer medisch lemma Top
German 1,600,000 de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen Bottom
Indonesian 322,000 id:Templat:Penyangkalan-medis Top
Norwegian 399,000 no:Mal:Helsenotis Bottom
Portuguese 802,000 pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico Section: Treatment
Turkish 220,000 tr:Şablon:TıpUyarı Top

Proposed

This proposed version for use on en.wikipedia emerged from discussion at User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer and several other on-Wiki talk pages and external websites:

Anyone can edit Wikipedia; do not rely on its medical content. See the full site disclaimer.

I am planning to install it on Tourette syndrome (where I am the only significant contributor) unless a significant consensus against emerges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing to blanket this template on all medical pages, or just a selection, and if so how are the articles to be selected? Lesion (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And for those of is that have missed all those discussions elsewhere, could You explain the reasons to add it? --WS (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the discussions I'm aware of above; there may be some I missed. I'm not "proposing to blanket this template" anywhere yet, but I do believe it's time to reconsider and discuss. There is too much evidence that people take Wikipedia medical content seriously, and aren't aware much of it is written by RandyFromBoise. As I am the "RandyFromBoise" author of a medical FA, I am more than happy to be one test case, and install the disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support adding it to the bottom of all medical articles by bot. Additionally would want it centered. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I want it at the top of drugs, conditions, but not BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have WP:NDA. Much content exist on the web that is wrong. Maybe we need to convince manufactures of computers to add a warning when people turn their computers on or log onto the internet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you buy a power tool, it says "Warning, death may result". Not, warning if you're a dork and don't know how to use this tool, death may result. Anyway, thanks for the link to the NDA page (which I note is guideline, not policy)-- I will point that page here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a trial if it combined a stronger statement inviting people to edit. I think anthony proposed somethinglike this a couple of years ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Articles may contain errors. Please help us fix them using high quality sources

Per WP:NDA, it's weird that we consider {{recent death}} and {{current}} reason enough for a disclaimer, but not potentially life-altering content. I wouldn't mind working in some of your wording, but I'm still in favor of a more prominent disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason that those are acceptable is because they are temporary and provide information to experienced editors (namely, that they shouldn't be surprised by edit conflicts). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree 100% with your take. Both of those templates most clearly contain wording to warn readers (rather than "experienced editors" as you say) that the information may not be correct, as it is changing rapidly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what they say. But IMO what they say is not the most important reason why they are permitted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit Wikipedia; do not rely on its medical content. Articles may contain errors; please help us fix them using high quality sources. See the full site disclaimer.

How about this version (below)? It links the disclaimer more subtly to make the box smaller and makes the text a little less semicolon-happy. I also think "medical content" sounds a bit weird, like "content used as medicine", so I thought "do not rely on it for medical guidance" is a bit more clear. (I'll add this to the versions in my userspace as well.) alanyst 04:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Do not rely on it for medical guidance. Articles may contain errors; please help us fix them using high quality sources.
I like Alanyst's version. Would be interested in trialing it to see if it increases the frequency of positive edits. I know last time we tried this people came around and removed them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the bottom-most one as it doesn't state not to rely on medical content, but to be cautious when it comes to guidance. Saying do not rely on its medical content is like completely undermining the hard work we do here, and saying its all rubbish not to be trusted. CFCF (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Medical content on Wikipedia is not a substitute for medical advice from health care professionals. See the disclaimer.

I shortened it and made it sound less negative. Not sure we should be using such a template. The rationale that because other language wikipedias use these templates should be qualified with the fact that their medical content is likely of lower quality then the medical content on the English Wikipedia. Lesion (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only support a trial of this template at the top of the page if it clearly invites people to come and fix the content in question. Additionally IMO we should keep it to one line.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Articles may contain errors; help us fix them using high quality sources.
Something like this was tried a while ago, but I don't think that the data were ever analyzed completely. And we did have problems with people removing them "per NDA". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a moral obligation to warn our readers that what they're reading is unreliable, and that the warning needs to be prominent at the top of the article. Whether that warning has a measurable effect on the quality of editing is completely irrelevant. But that said, I think WhatamIdoing's version is concise, to the point, and may help to educate potential editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not proposed any versions. I don't know who wrote the unsigned one above my earlier comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we have six versions up here now, and it's no longer clear to me which is which or if any have consensus. Could we address the principle of a disclaimer, yes or no, and then sort out the specifics over at Alanyst's page or a proposed template page? Because I no longer know who supports what, if anything. The last one on the page now is fine with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical disclaimer: yes or no?

Should Wikipedia have a warning about our reliability at the top of each article or section that contains health-related information? (Let's address the nature of the warning in a separate discussion.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. For all the reasons I listed at the top of this discussion. We can't keep up, RandyFromBoise writes our content, we have bad student edits, internet readers hit us first from Google and take us seriously, and unlike other "bad" medical content websites, ours changes by the minute. Readers ned to know that they are reading content that anyone could have added, not even someone qualified to trim a toenail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All things considered, No-- whilst I appreciate the ethical arguments for, I think this template makes things look unprofessional and will further crowd the lead of articles. The rest of Wikipedia makes do with linking the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. By placing such a template we are saying that medical articles are more important, when other types of articles could also be "dangerous" to readers if they used them for guidance. The argument that non English wikis use a disclaimer template is also not particularly strong imo, since I imagine the medical content on other wikis is less well developed. Lesion (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes in principle, though I'd phrase it as allowing disclaimers on pages with health-related information, and (as a rule of thumb) encouraged for articles or sections discussing serious maladies or treatments; but ultimately the question of whether the disclaimer is appropriate for a particular article or section should be a matter of local (article or Wikiproject) consensus, and neither mandated nor prohibited as a matter of site-wide policy. (For instance, I'd support a disclaimer on heart attack but not skin cream even though both are health related.) But this is an improvement over the standard site disclaimer, which is hardly visible enough to alert the reader to potential misinformation in what they read. IMO "help readers avoid being misled" outweighs "looking unprofessional" or "treating one type of article different than another". alanyst 19:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only as a trial and only if it is brief and contains an invitation to edit. Otherwise no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative yes. I agree with Doc James, we need to be inviting readers to become editors rather than simply warning that our content is questionable. If these criteria are filled I will support a template message for a limited run after which evaluation can occur.CFCF (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with James. Trial first, clear indication that better writing improves the content. Anything else will make us look like a joke. JFW | T@lk 22:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I feel conflicted about this, but since so much of the medical material on WP is poor I think there is really a moral obligation at least to trial it. I think it would also be useful if, when editing an article within the scope of Wikiproject medicine, the text that appeared above the edit box very prominently pointed editors at MEDRS (analagous to what happens for BLPs): that might help address the problem "at source". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes, absolutely yes. An "invitation to edit" is irrelevant. — Scott • talk 15:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Have insert my comment here so that it follows the above edits. I feel the harms of such a proposal outweigh the gains (detailed below). --LT910001 (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any disclaimer which includes anything saying "Do not rely on it for medical guidance." Wikipedia is not a resource for the exclusive benefit of the upper classes of society who are empowered to be able to use Wikipedia as a supplement to the other privileges they have to access medical information. It would be unfair and oppressive to people with less access to medical resources if the community which maintains medical content here perpetuate the false idea that most of society has better choices for access to health information than Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a radically ambitious project and its failure to be a perfect medical resource highlights society's failure to provide good medical information, and not the Wikipedia community's failure to deliver this. Readers should use Wikipedia as they like and not get a bogus consumer disclaimer that they should do otherwise or even that they could do otherwise if they wished. Readers might be fairly warned of the many problems with Wikipedia's content but for most people in the world, Wikipedia is and will be for the foreseeable future the best or only medical guidance they can have for most purposes. I would sooner favor a demand that every health organization in the world drop all their other educational projects and devote all their resources to Wikipedia than I would discourage people from using Wikipedia in favor of other resources. People who have better access to better services will use them. Online and for most people, Wikipedia is the best the world has to offer despite its many faults. If this disclaimer is used then it should explicitly state what people should do instead. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposal. Given the nature of wikipedia - that material is not vetted, that it is open to anyone to edit anonymously, and that content on WP can and does contain errors and distortions - I think that a prominent disclaimer is necessary for medical content in particular. I think that this is ethically necessary regardless of how WP medical content compares to other online sources, the putative impact of such a disclaimer on any readership (readers have their own responsibilities), or whether such a disclaimer might be used to attract editors to medical articles. As a largely anonymous body of editors and in the absence of any formal system of article curatorship, fact-checking or peer-review, the relationship of writers to readers is somewhat abnormal on WP. As a reader of WP content I cannot trace responsibility for content back to any individual or accountable body in any meaningful way. Given that no WP editor, even those who have eschewed the comforts of anonymity, can reasonably stand over the content of any article throughout the article's lifetime to say "I am responsible for this", there's an minimal obligation to communicate to a readership that medical content has not been verified.
The placement of a hyperlink to a general disclaimer at the bottom of the article, as is current practice, appears to me insufficient. This disclaimer is, practically, invisible - I wasn't even aware that it existed until I read this thread.
However, I think that any disclaimer should not demoralise those editors who have made good and often excellent contributions to medical content by suggesting that all such content is or should be treated as uniformly awful. I would therefore favour a more standard and moderate disclaimer, in a reasonable prominent position, to the effect that medical content "does not constitute medical advice and should not serve as the basis for any medical decision" which would link to the general disclaimer. Communicating honestly to any readership the limitations of WP content is not an act of oppression - it simply informs people and puts them in a better position to negotiate their own decisions. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the u.S. practically every health care provider has a disclaimer that basically says "If this is an emergency, hang up and dial 911." It's not there to deprive callers of medical advice from their doctor, rather it's an acknowledgement that persons with emergent conditions may call their doctor instead of an A&E hospital or 911. We should at least be cognizant of the fact that before someone calls their doctor, they may consult Wikipedia to their peril. We need a similar "Hang up and call your doctor" message just like every healthcare professional puts on their call system. --DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the disclaimer because our medical content is unreliable, and a good number of our readers don't know that. It is the morally necessary thing to do. Not doing so is highly negligent. Would Lesion, James, JFW, CFCF or anyone else who opposes putting a disclaimer above all health information please explain to me the harm/s a disclaimer would do to outweigh the obvious good it would do in informing our readers? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many less reliable sources on the internet than Wikipedia.[11] [12] [13] among hundreds of others. So yes if the warning drive people to other less reliable websites it will do harm. Some physicians provide advice that is less good than here [14]
Any evidence the disclaimer will do any good? What are people going to do instead? Read Cochrane reviews? Find systematic reviews in the Lancet / BMJ / JAMA regarding their condition? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence that a clear warning about the reliability of our articles would be a fair, reasonable, inexpensive, morally necessary thing? No. I can't prove that. I'm speechless that anyone would even have to ask for proof of that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, you're being asked for evidence that it will work. If we slap a banner on the top of the page, will the typical reader exhibit the well-documented phenomenon of banner blindness or will the typical reader suddenly acquire and apply critical thinking skills? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. Let's do a trial. But let's measure both the impact on the reader's grasp of our reliability and the impact on editor behaviour. Study design and sample size is everything. If our volunteer community can't throw up someone with demonstrated expertise in this kind of research, do you think we could hire someone? It's tedious and exacting work. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the vast majority of people who do not contribute to Wikipedia tend to have a low opinion of the information on Wikipedia, and those who regularly contribute certainly understand that it is advisable to take this information cum grano salis. What we are actually doing is then duplicating information already supplied by the disclaimer at the bottom of every article, and telling people what they already know. It may just be more clutter a the top of the article imo... Lesion (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know that. Do you? Vast majority, eh? Where's your source? What you just said there doesn't match my experience at all. There is a wide spectrum of understanding about the reliability of Wikipedia among the people I know - it seems to be related to how much time they spend online. We have to duplicate the information found in the current disclaimer because most people don't read it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, a lot of the people coming to the web for health information are not web-savvy research-savvy people like most of us, but often people who aren't necessarily heavy information consumers, who may have just been diagnosed with some scary disease and are desperately looking for more information. The web is notorious bad for this: it would be good if WP could become an oasis of reliability, but right now it's not. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here I trace out a roadmap to that oasis. I'd very much appreciate your feedback on that, if it interests you. It's off-topic for this thread, but I'd welcome your thoughts on my talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony: I based that view on my conversations about Wikipedia with people offline and online (not wikipedia). Vast majority have generally low opinion of Wikipedia in my experience. You ask for a source yet you provide no source for your own opinions apart from your own experience. It could be argued that there is no real evidence that people use medical information on Wikipedia and end up harming themselves. Perhaps your link is evidence that people don't read the disclaimer, I don't know. Perhaps people do read it, but only once and then not again. This whole thread is opinion in fact, so kindly do not selectively ask for sources for my opinion =D Lesion (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. You sum this up nicely. You propose we wait for someone to get hurt before we act. I think it is just self-evident that we have a duty to advise our readers of the unreliability of our content. I've seen comparisons above with crap medical sites and the impenetrable user-unfriendly scholarly literature. Are you, James, saying we should model our transparency on that of those crap sites? And no, due to its density, the scholarly literature is no substitute for Wikipedia. We own the encyclopedia space. And we have a duty to our readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we can show that it improves the quality of our articles I oppose its addition. Will clutter the page. Emedicine has issues and is better than many sites [15]. They put their warning at the bottom. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely as I said, Anthony. We already have a general disclaimer, and there is plenty of rubbish health content online that doesn't have a disclaimer at all (e.g. people's personal web pages about obscure medical theories). That is the status quo. What would I like to see in a disclaimer that makes it worth the implied embarrassment of saying "what you are about to read may or may not suck"?
Firstly, I want the decision to be reversible. Therefore, a trial seems reasonable. Ideally we should have some way of determining whether the trial is achieving the desired effect. We could look at article feedback results with and without a disclaimer.
Secondly, we want people to understand that if an article does suck, its informative vacuum is not forever but it can be fixed provided people improve the content based on sources that everyone can trust.
I share Sandy's frustration with the accumulation of bad stuff in so many articles, but I think we need a little bit more faith, and we need to support people like James who are systematically attacking the highest-impact articles and working them up to impeccably high standard (as evidenced by GA/FA status). I am saddened that with work and other commitments I currently lack the uninterrupted editing time to make beautiful articles (although I still want to get aortic dissection to GA and get Barend Joseph Stokvis to FA - one day....) JFW | T@lk 13:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Support James?" What are you talking about?
Why do you want it reversible? Please tell me, what harm does a disclaimer do that clearly outweighs the obvious good it would do those who are unaware of an open wiki's inherent unreliability? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthonyhcole. What I am talking about is this: James has been systematically working on high-impact articles, and that is an effort that deserves all the support it can get. Even if it's cheering from the sidelines and the occasional GA review.
I think it is very easy to support a disclaimer on the basis of the precautionary principle (more warnings = better), but I prefer to start from the premise that people currently know that our content is likely to suffer from variations in quality, and any warning must therefore confer a measurable benefit compared to the status quo. JFW | T@lk 15:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you base that premise on, JFW (people currently know that our content is likely to suffer from variations in quality)? Have you never met anyone who is amazed to discover Wikipedia can be altered by anyone at any time? Never? Not one? Your position is morally bankrupt. And all of this mewling that "Oh, warnings don't work; it might make people stop looking stuff up on the internet; there are worse sites; etc., etc., ad nauseam simply disgusts me. I don't know if I have the stomach for this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, I am surprised at the sudden rhetoric. If you are disgusted by other people's positions you should leave the discussion. I am certainly not planning to respond further. JFW | T@lk 14:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That works both ways: it will warn the reader off both the good and the bad information. The reader does not actually know which is which. Because of cognitive biases, people who are told "This is unreliable" are prone to believing that the stuff they personally disagree with is the unreliable stuff and the stuff they agree with is the reliable stuff. So let's imagine an article that really is correct, but the reader doesn't agree with it: do you want the reader to say, "Huh, it says that when your blood pressure is 160/100 that you really should take your meds, but it says at the top that this is all unreliable anyway, so I'll just skip taking my blood pressure pills." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't have to put it on articles that are reliable. Here I outline a proposal to create a class of reliable article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@JFW: the difficulty lies in getting that mini-essay message across in one concisely worded line-- see above discussion =D Lesion (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I cannot speak for James, but I don't think there is "obvious good" (unless one simply assumes that the disclaimer will have its intended effect) and the harm is clutter. I agree with doing this as a reversible trial, because the argument for doing it is unconvincing (i.e. not clearly "better" than what we have now). A similar argument could be used to support pop-up disclaimers with required acceptance, etc - I know that's a bit of a straw man, but it's along the same path without a clear barrier. -- Scray (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think this will be eye catching clutter, which will trigger a mental "Well duh" from 95% of readers. I don't believe it will stop someone using Wikipedia for personal medical information. Lesion (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is to be a trial, we should agree on some method of quantifying the baseline status of article(s) compared to the status at the end of the trial period, and how to distinguish this from any change in the article that would have occurred anyway. Someone mentioned analyzing reader feedback. Lesion (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is intended to be a trial, we should get plenty of people to do the boring work of analyzing the data, so that it's not just one (possibly very busy) person stuck with the grunt work. Good design is important, but unprocessed data is worthless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's to be a trial, yes. Does anyone know of a volunteer who has genuine expertise in this kind of study design, and who might be interested in taking this on? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The intended effect we're discussing in this thread is informed readers. We can, in fact must, survey the readership before and after deployment to see if they're better informed about Wikipedia's reliability. If you want to discuss trialling WP:Invitation to edit, please do so in another thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why we are discussing an "invitation to edit" is that I (and it appears others) only support a banner if it results in improved articles / more positive edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your proposal for me, if I'm reading you correctly, is that you'll remove the disclaimer if the "invitation to edit" aspect fails to show an impact. Have I got that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would not support full rollout if the "invitation to edit" aspect does not have a benefit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that logic, Doc J, is that we'd be initially (per these samples) inviting people to contribute only if they have access to high quality medical sources ... not everyone does ... it may not be a fair trial. For example, if we start by me putting a template on Tourette syndrome, and no edits result, does that say a) the article was fine, b) readers didn't have access to journal sources, or c) something else? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed various trial designs in the archive of WT:ITE. I'm sure a fair trial could be run on that aspect. You'd need a big sample size. The problem with this discussion is we're not being engaged on the merits or demerits of a prominent medical disclaimer. James and JFW are just saying a prominent stand-alone disclaimer is out of the question - and not justifying their position. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure we should put such a notification on any FA? Maybe should choose non GA/FA articles... Lesion (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the point of surveying readers: This is currently very difficult. And I'm superbusy for the next couple of weeks. But if you'll remind me about it, say, after Christmas, then I'd be happy to see whether something like WP:AFT5 could be used for gathering reader feedback on specific articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sue, a bonus please. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the mild qualification that the exact optimum wording be worked out soon, and perhaps some indications regarding whether or not some articles of this type, which could perhaps result in serious negative consequences for people who might follow them blindly, should perhaps be included in "pending revisions" and, maybe, a new form of "expert pending revisions" of people perhaps vetted by the community to be considered trustworthy in such matters. Maybe an RfC or some other means to get broad input would be best. I myself, as a non-medical editor, might like "Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia anyone is allowed to edit. As such, it can happen that less than reliable information or biased information can and often is added to various articles. While we do everything in our power to ensure that such information is quickly appropriately edited, and welcome all editing based on high-quality sources, wikipedia should not be considered a substitute for professional advice." or something like that. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Musing on this, ultimately I think I support - prefer the disclaimer to have a request and link to WP:MEDRS which I think we need to promote any way possible. I'd try and slot this in the top of the infobox at the top RHS rather than a tag at top-centre. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article proposal

OK, I see some resistance to putting a template on an FA (personally, I disagree ... autism is not in good shape, and I was willing to be a guinea pig at TS, but whatevs).

How about if someone who knows how to figure such things out (I don't) determines which is our most important and most viewed GA and we trial that?

While we're here dickering over the small print, Wikipedia is busy promoting massive poorly sourced POV medical content (in an area upon which our readers surely based medical decisions) throughout the walled garden of {{Cannabis}} articles, which two sections down, you'll find more work than the two editors who are engaging can pretend to deal with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a consensus to add these templates and am become more and more hesitant that we should pursue this after reading the above discussion. I see a bunch of potential problems and have a lot of unanswered questions regarding it:
  1. Does it make any difference? People may just have banner blindness and ignore them all together. Thus it may be wasted effort that could be better spent on improving content.
  2. And if it does make people's change their behavior will this change be positive or negative? What do we view as positive and negative behavior changes in our readers and how do we measure these? If people stop using Wikipedia, which I think is unlikely, what will they use instead? Nothing, emedicine, the websites of manufacturers, uptodate? Is this a positive or negative change?
  3. Have we done a comparison of the accuracy of Wikipedia to other sites? Samir and I tried to do an analysis with medical students at the U of T. We had a protocol drawn up using medical students with access to Wikipedia versus uptodate versus nothing. We wanted to look at tests scores on a licensing type exam. The ethics review committee denied the application.
  4. If people decide to use nothing and become less educated about their own condition is this a good or bad thing? There are people who argue it both ways. IMO you want people activity engaged with the literature around their condition.
  5. While this increase or decrease the number of positive / negative edits being make? Could this banner increase poor quality edits to articles? How does one determine this? With respect to the education program we have groups that state that it is an over all benefit to Wikipedia's quality and groups who say it is an overall harm. Who and how do we decide if this works if we trial it?
  6. How much time are we going to spend working on this? It will require broad reaching consensus for implementation. This is exceedingly hard to get and requires a lot of time. Think of VE and pending changes. And determining if it works and what we define as working will be equally hard.
  7. We cannot even agree on the wording to start with. Some want harsher word. Some want wording to invite people to edit.
  8. There are requests that "experts" should be involved with running the trial. We of course have no money to pay said experts. Convincing the WMF to fund something is difficult / a full time job. I would say that having the foundation work on WP:Turnitin is more important.
  9. What is an "expert"? This is far from a single unified group. I have asked a good dozen lawyers questions regarding the copyright of X-rays and have gotten more than a dozen different answers. The same occurs in medicine. With respect to breast cancer screening we have people come to Wikipedia and curse us as we contain the conclusions of the Cochrane collaboration and we have people come and curse us as we contain the conclusions of the US services task force among others. The conclusions of these two groups are more or less opposite. And each camp things we at Wikipedia are killing people if we provide any space for the views of the other camp.
Anyway I am not convinced and going back to editing content. One of may favorite teachings from medical school is "don't just do something, stand there" used in the context of interventions of unknown benefit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
James:
2. Does it make any difference? We won't know until we try. Some not-completely-stupid people think it may and is therefore worth doing - some such people disagree.
3. Have we done a comparison with other sites? Why are you asking that? That other sites are more or less reliable would be good to know but you have failed to show what relevance that has to this question.
4. People may stop looking things up on the internet. Really?
5. "Will this increase or decrease the number of positive / negative edits being make? Could this banner increase poor quality edits to articles? How does one determine this?" Intelligent, non-biased before/after study. The few "studies" I've seen of the education program have featured none of these qualities.
6. You don't have to do a thing. In fact, given your and JFW's attitudes, I'd rather you both stay right out of it.
7. "We cannot even agree on the wording to start with." We're still discussing that. We (those who actually want a disclaimer) will agree on wording easily enough if those who don't will stop throwing spanners in.
8. "There are requests that "experts" should be involved with running the trial. We of course have no money to pay said experts." The WMF does. You're the one who insists we "prove" that warning our readers of our unreliability is a good thing. Please don't turn around and say, "Oh, but that can't be proven because we can't afford the expertise, it's too hard to convince the WMF, they should spend their money on other things."
9. What is an expert? In this instance it's simple, since we're doing a straightforward reader survey. There are polling companies in every civilised nation whose expertise is for sale.
Frankly, unless you can come up with something better than this to oppose a disclaimer, I'd rather you did go back to editing and JFW went back to whatever it is he does. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is increasing my opposition. We should all go back to improving content. At least we all agree that that is something which needs to be done and will likely have a positive effect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LT910001

Have made a separate section to stop this getting too messy. I do not support this proposal. Although I agree that we should strive to keep information accurate, reliable, and sourced, and I agree it's noble goal, I don't support this for the following reasons:

  1. It will probably drive many users away from Wikipedia to other sites that do not contain this tag. The majority of which will be less reliable.
  2. I think that at some point we will need to acknowledge our readers as free agents liable to make their own decisions about reliability (as flawed as this may be), there is no claim to reliability anywhere.
  3. This tag does not appear in every article on other (print) encyclopedias, of which we have been shown to be of equal or greater reliability.
  4. Putting the tag on pages is very effort-intensive and there doesn't appear to be consensus, so if consensus is built around removing it this will be equally intensive.
  5. I shudder to think of the appearance of pages with several tags already and this additionally.
  6. Additional tags already exist for information that is not reliable: a tag for articles of unknown reliability, tags for pages with poor sourcing, tags for pages with disputed neutrality, and so on. These serve a similar purpose.

We could create a new tag along the lines of ('this page appears to be written like medical advice, of which it is not '), and then treat this like a cleanup tag. From my read of the above text, at this stage there does not appear to be consensus in either direction. --LT910001 (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I don't think User:Casliber's version, below, is going to scare anyone away - it conveys the need for caution without insulting the authors of our better work. Can you live with that wording?
  2. "There is no claim to reliability anywhere." Yes there is. We claim it for scholarly reviews, high-quality textbook chapters, government and professional and scholarly society position statements, etc. Our articles can achieve that level of "reliability" with scholarly review but until an article has received that attention from the same calibre of scholars who bestow "reliability" on our reliable sources, our readers deserve to know.
  3. The Nature study that found our quality comparable to that of Britannica was tiny - as have been any subsequent similar studies. Randy can't impose his theory of cannabis and cancer on Britannica.
  4. Adding and removing the disclaimer can be done by a bot, automatically.
  5. Sorry. I have no answer to that criticism. Other than to say that 90% of the tags I see at the top of articles can safely be dispensed with - but not this one.
  6. None of our content is WP:MEDRS reliable. It can all be. It should all be. We have a duty to make it so ASAP. But presently it isn't.
Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version Cas Liber

I oppose a disclaimer trial as unnecessary. I especially oppose a trial whose success or failure is determined by whether it measurably affects readers' conversion to editors. But if we're to persuade the wider community, we'll need unanimity within WPMED - all of us behind it, including long-time contributors such as James, JFW and new chums. None of us will get exactly what we want but I think we're approaching something most of us can support.

User:Casliber has proposed version CL here (Please read his thoughtful reasoning):

Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please do not rely on it for medical advice. Help us improve our medical articles using high quality sources.

Is this a version you can support? (We can discuss issues such as the nature of the trial and where to place the disclaimer elsewhere.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sandy recommends removing the 'us'. I am okay with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seppi333's 2¢

Too lazy to read through the whole thread, so I'll just give my thoughts/advice:

A medical disclaimer is a good idea, but some people personalize things, so don't address the reader directly when disclaiming and, more importantly, don't tell the reader what to do. A disclaimer of any kind, be it investments, medicine, or, more important than both of those, your skydiving parachute, should just be cautionary (if legally possible), not a request or command. An unnecessarily strong statement just runs the risk of alienating/offending the target audience.


no.

Okey lets go through the basics. There is a very long standing consensus that such disclaimers are a bad idea. No localised position on single wikiproject can overturn that. You want to introduce them I'm afraid its the slog through the village pump and similar.

The idea that medical is a special case doesn't really hold. For example cooling towers which I doubt you would classify as medical have a multiple square mile kill radius (ah Legionnaires’). And despite what you may think the number of unregistered ones the HSE tends to find after each outbreak suggests not everyone with one knows what they are doing. Our articles on aspects of driving and motor vehicles again have a fairly impressive risk profile. Forestry industry, american football (given the head industry risk) the list goes on. Then there is the usual stuff on law and finance.

Oh and your notices don't even work on the mobile site so general disclaimer it is.

©Geni (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at the top says "occasional exceptions may apply" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs

I would propose that we remove BLPs from WPMED. I consider this to be a project more about diseases and their treatments than about specific individuals. There is WP:BIOG.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ack -- there are plenty of medical BLPs that fall within our territory and need our expertise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they belong here. BIO is really a catchall, rather than a home for all BLPs, it is tough to have medicine without people. Perhaps a Disease task force, but certainly not removing bios. Canada Hky (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LT made a similar proposal to this I recall. Lesion (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who's LT? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. user:LT910001, a very active editor when s/he is not on holiday (like now). Lesion (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly people whose pages may fall under our aegis, as actively practicing physicians whose notability is mainly in their medical practice, or clinical scientists whose main notability is their medical research. I think we should remove {{WPMED}} from any doctor's or clinical scientist's page whose main notability is not because of their medical practice or research. JFW | T@lk 22:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Lesion. I think there are certainly compelling reasons to remove BLPs from MED, most notably that there can and will be an awful lot that may overwhelm the majority of other clinical medicine-based articles by factors. On the other hand, I agree with JFW that it's strange to not include these under our aegis and so support their continued inclusion. I intended for the Society and Medicine task force (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Society_and_medicine_task_force) to be an umbrella for all these BLPs, articles about relatively non-notable charities and so forth, so that we could at least start to get some stats about these articles (and also so that, if these are branched at a later date, these are already collected). Unfortunately I can't get the articles by quality table to work, so at the moment it's a bit of a limp duck; consequently I haven't made a formal announcement about this taskforce. Perhaps DePiep can help. --LT910001 (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From outside. I am not convinced by the original problem, posted here. No Nobel prize mentionings in WPMED then?
My first suggestion is to group the BLPs into a WP:Taskforce, within/below WP:MED. That allows searches and overviews (bots) to separate them systematically.
Second thought is: expand it to all BIOs, not just BLP. Importance & relevance for MED does not change by death, I hope.
Example: see WP:Military history, five times the size of WP:MED. It has taskforce Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military (organised in WP:BIO, btw). -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All biographies, organizations, and similar non-disease/non-treatment articles are (or should be!) already listed as |importance=low for WPMED. Most of them (physicians, surgeons, researchers, etc.) should additionally be listed with WPBIO's group set to |s&a-work-group=yes (probably not patients, although there aren't that many of them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why separate the person from their contribution to medicine always? Why would their work be "Low importance", just because it is in a WP biography, and has not split into a separate article? -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Importance" is misleading. It's really "priority", and it means "what we want to work on first" (and what we think the WP:1.0 team ought to include first).
It isn't possible to merge in every organization and person into a relevant medicine-related article. There are thousands of these. Just a paragraph on, say, each dermatologist who did research on acne or wrinkles, in the articles about those conditions, would result in a ==Research== section that is half the length of the article and WP:DUE complaints.
The problem ultimately (IMO) is that notability standards for BLPs are too weak. Two stories about you (and your business) in your local newspaper, plus either enough persistence to learn wikitext or a paid editor, is all you need to create an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This reply is not about your 23:57 remark I wrote about. Your point was: "BIO so always low importance". That is what I object to. It does not allow any BIO ever to be relevant for MED, which is simply not true or correct. WHO is low-importance? You are abusing the "low" criteria when grouping bios/orgs by that. At 17:16 you approach your point from the other side, starting about "every" organisation or person, I won't go into that. I stick to: a BIO or ORG can be of any importance. -DePiep (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again: "importance" does not mean wikt:importance; it means which articles this group of people happens to feel like improving sooner than others. This group of people has decided that their WP:VOLUNTEER hours are far better spent working on Common cold than working on World Health Organization (and they have, if you look at WP:MEDA; the fact that nobody's updated the rating at the article since I was a newbie is neither here nor there). It means "As far as my time as a volunteer is concerned, I think it's more important to have a good article about Common cold than about WHO." That decision has nothing to do with the relatively importance of the subjects in the real world. You will notice, by the way, that other WikiProjects put a very different priority on these articles. That's fine: an article can be very low on our list and very high on theirs.
We have talked about following WPBIO's lead and renaming the parameter to "priority", which is more obvious, but it would require a bot run on thirty thousand talk pages. So we're stuck explaining this misleading name to someone every year or so. It doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means, just like WP:Notability, WP:Neutral, and a whole lot of other wikijargon terms don't mean exactly what the dictionary says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about understanding the "importance". It appears that WPMED has decided that persons may never be other than "Low importance". That is new to me, and explains why I didn't get it in the first place. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical cannabis

I've begun cleaning up primary sources, but the task there is larger than one editor can complete. Any help? I know there are reviews on some uses ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of the problems I mention above ... there is no way I can get to everything in this article myself, it is citing primary sources galore, and because it looked well cited, people might take medical advice from it. Help!!! Or add a disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine this will be tricky (not having looked at it yet), and a good example of why elevating at least some of MEDRS to policy would be useful. WP:DISCLAIM would be cited against disclaimers. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 02:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We allow {{current}} and {{recent death}}; would ya think medical misinfo is at least as important? Anyway, on Medical cannabis, I can strip the primary sources, but since I don't have full journal access, it's harder for me to re-add reviews. I Would Love Some Help in there-- it's massive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, personally I think the quality of medical content on WP is a big (maybe one of its biggest) problems; I'm just anticipating the arguments you'll run into in what is likely to be a controversial editing area ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 02:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, as SandyGeorgia has posted on my Talk page, further digging shows we have:

These, in their health information, constitute a gigantic festival of POV, built on poor medical sources and selective, spurious interpretations. Anybody getting their information from WP on this would think cannabis is not only harmless, but a wonder cure for many things from bipolar disorder to cancer. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are occasionally attempts to add this sort of content to other articles. And I try my best to keep it well sourced. Agree that there appears to be a number of editors very favorable to its use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are they smoking? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Charming. I do not see a neutral point of view towards the article subject matter in some of the comments here, and that is unfortunate. At this point, 52% of Americans support medical cannabis, so to find editors who appear to also is hardly noteworthy. I question Alexbrn's ability to be neutral and, lacking NPOV, to use PUBMED appropriately. Sandy helped me to understand MEDRS and the use of PUBMED only last night. Yet with only one day of experience, I was able to find a wealth of information that conflicted with Alexbrn's take. I see from comments above what appears to be a lack of understanding or education about the topic, and a clear POV. This isn't going to help. I hope someone will review Alexbrn's edits to the cannabis articles, as well as research to see what was missed, or twisted. It took a good 45 minutes just to deal with this one (MS) section. I want help reviewing these edits, or please stop changing the articles and instead just tag them so as to not make things worse. petrarchan47tc 04:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you know what my clear POV is on this topic, because I certainly don't! If you can improve the article over what I've done that is great (and you seem to have found better sources for the MS stuff than I did, which is likewise great) - but that doesn't somehow validate prior poor sourcing or misrepresentation, of which there is a lot in this suite of articles. I'm not sure why you seem to bear some kind of grudge here; in the face of the serious and extensive problems these articles present it isn't helpful: editing resources need to be going into improving the content, not bickering. If you find something specifically wrong raise it in Talk or fix it, but please don't try and make this a venue for a continuation of an argument about Monsanto from several months ago. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Add:) Actually, though initially blithely accepting Petrarchan47's replacement content as better than mine, on closer inspection I'm not quite sure that the sourcing is the best:
  • this has a principal author who is chairman of the German Association for Cannabinoid Medicines, and a co-author who serves on a working group of the International Association of Cannabinoid Medicine; follow-up correspondence has raised an eyebrow.
  • this seems to be a rather polemical opinion piece by three gentlemen who are not best-credentialed (two Jesuits and a lawyer, it seems). And - is this not a pay-to-publish journal?
  • this I can't say anything about since I cannot locate a full-text online and it seems it's in Spanish (which I don't speak). I am assuming Petrarchan47 has reviewed the full text.
So yes, further thoughts on this sourcing would be useful. It seems (in general, at least) Europe and US may have slightly diverging views. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Petra, are you saying that a scientific, evidence-based approach to editing medical articles is "POV"? If so, perhaps you would take that discussion to the talk page of WP:MEDRS. I've responded to similar personalization of this issue on my talk page; I hope we will see no more of this. We can discuss which are the highest quality, and most recent reviews, without resorting to personalization. There are problems in Muller-Vahl's work, and a built-in bias. We all want accurate medical information presented to our readers: like Alexbrn, if you detect a POV in my editing, I'd like to know what it is, other than the POV that says we follow MEDRS. Also, I do speak fluent Spanish, and I have subscribed to that Revista, and no, Petra did not fully represent that source, so I'm not sure whether s/he speaks Spanish or accessed the full text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the above list we can add:

Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is akin to the POV walled garden of articles found in the autism suite back in 2007; it took Eubulides about a year to clean it up. We've got duplicate, poorly sourced text all over the place, and it is of the worst kind-- that is, the kind that people might mistakenly use for (bad) medical advice, because it looks well sourced. We could use some attention on this entire suite of articles. Too much for one or two editors to deal with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. I've come across some usable secondary material on this, but there won't be enough for a standalone article IMO. Looking at the cannabis "suite" as a whole, I'm beginning to think there is enough for two articles, "Cannabis" (history, botany, sociology, cultural, etc.) and "Cannabis and health" (or somesuch) about medical uses and consequences. But how to get from here to there? My first impulse is to remove some of the worst primary-based material across all the articles, and see what that leaves ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo (Lesion). Dealing with the POV walled garden will be more expedient if the text is rationalized, duplication minimized. It's the same primary-sourced crap repeated across multiple articles. I will be busy for a few days, Alexbrn is hard at work on it, hope someone can help. There are secondary reviews available, but I don't have full journal access (only Cochrane). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now nuked the cannabis in pregnancy article, leaving two sentences. There were two reasonable sources, one of which was being misrepresented (now fixed). The remaining stub should probably be merged somewhere in the long run and expanded with material based on good sources (for those interested, I have preserved the removed article content on the article's Talk page). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a merge proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this hot-off-the-press article looks like it might be very pertinent. Unfortunately, Springer journals are about the one thing I don't have access to :-( Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be:
  • Gordon AJ, Conley JW, Gordon JM (2013). "Medical consequences of marijuana use: a review of current literature". Curr Psychiatry Rep. 15 (12): 419. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0419-7. PMID 24234874. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).
I will try to get hold of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Alexbrn, one thing that I think a lot of wikiprojects and subjects would greatly benefit from would be some sort of "prospectus" of topics which are demonstrably significant enough for inclusion here, and sources which could be used to gather preliminary material. Basically, I'm thinking of pages like those in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, and some others which I am still developing along those lines. At least one such list, from the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, I'm still a day or two of active review of the sources themselves to adding here, because of the markedly different content and outline structures of the two editions. But if someone wanted to review reference works on cannibis or any other medical topic to see what gets more and less attention, or none at all, in them, that would probably help in developing the comprehensive nature of the content here on those topics a lot. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The garden grows

and {{Cannabis}}.

All with medical content that relies on primary sources, all containing original research and synth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to add:
Similar problems in evidence. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And

Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

  • It's because I was uneasy with the heavy implication of medical effectiveness by accumulation of anecdote, without at least some properly-sourced medical context. This is an area I think where WP:FRINGE comes into play: articles shouldn't be devoting a lot of space to uncontextualized claims that (e.g.) cannabis has halted somebody's tumour progression. Searching around, I haven't (yet) found any high-quality medical material on this (there is http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J175v02n01_02 - but this seems a bit iffy ... but might be useful for helping with the BLP aspects). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request prior to my Amphetamine FA nom

Hi everyone,
I was wondering if any of you would be willing to help me with this before I nominate amphetamine for FA. Per Sasata's suggestion in Talk:Amphetamine/GA1, I'd like to get some feedback on the article's readability in the Pharmacodynamics and Detection in body fluids sections from anyone without a background or working knowledge of molecular neuropharmacology or chemistry respectively. Time permitting, reviewing the entire pharmacology section for readability would be a big help if anyone is willing to do more.
I just need to know what statements, if any, are unclear or a bit too technical for a layperson to understand.

Thanks,
Seppi333 (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Very high doses can a psychosis..." doesn't make sense. Hordaland (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Acupuncture a form of pseudoscience?

Looking at the earlier discussions above, the field of acupuncture is obviously a very controversial topic, not just within the scientific community, but here on Wikipedia as well.

The way forward, I believe, is to come to a consensus about whether it is indeed pseudoscience - if it is, then the article at acupuncture should say so. I personally believe that it is not pseudoscience, because

1) A plausible theory for its mechanism was proposed in 2009

2) Further studies have now proven that this theory is indeed true

3) Mainstream medical journals have reviewed and accepted this theory

4) Mainstream medical textbooks have accepted this theory

5) The latest review by the National Cancer Institute says that

There is strong evidence from clinical trials that acupuncture relieves nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy

— National Cancer Institute

Strangely, readers are not going to find any of this on Wikipedia, neither at the article acupuncture or elsewhere. In fact, acupuncture is still included in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience based on a misrepresentation of a 1997 NIH consensus statement.

I have been accused countless times of promoting acupuncture, but I can disclose that I am not trained in acupuncture and have never tried it out myself, but I am a firm believer in accepting hard evidence and keeping an open mind.

If acupuncture is a form of pseudoscience as claimed by the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience, can someone please show me a reliable source that explicitly says so based on widely accpeted scientific consensus? That way, it would be easier for me to keep a neutral perspective. -A1candidate (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how constructive that is supposed to be -A1candidate (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As constructive as the question. What's the point of trying to form a local consensus on this question? If the view WP contains (as stated in, e.g. the article you mention, List of topics characterized as pseudoscience) is not reliably sourced then get it overturned there. If reliable sources characterize it as pseudoscience, WP follows, and trying to originate our own conclusion based on what the NCI - or anybody else - says is not a gainful activity. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a consensus will result in much less edit-wars. This issue is related to multiple articles, not just the one you pointed out. -A1candidate (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors - If you're here because Alexbrn told you to consolidate responses to my inquiry, you're of course welcome to do so, but I hope you'll give me a fair response supported by hard evidence. -A1candidate (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely viewed as alternative medicine. Since placebo needling works as well as acupuncture needling (were you put the needle doesn't seem to make a deference) the mechanism behind acupuncture would be viewed as pseudoscience by some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the National Cancer Institute website says that "The study found that patients in both the true and sham acupuncture groups developed less nausea and vomiting than those in the standard care group." [16] Which would seem to imply that, if acupuncture is a legitimate treatment, sham acupuncture is also. I would have thought sham acupuncture would be regarded as a perfect example of pseudo-science, even by acupuncturists. Perhaps not. --Rbreen (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, sham acupuncture is probably less pseudoscientific since unlike "real" acupuncture is lacks the back-story of Qi energy, and instead is marshaled as an element in pursuit of evidence-based medical study (a scientific pursuit). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These studies indicate that there is no documented benefit to acupuncture beyond that of the placebo effect. To claim that there is would be a pseudoscientific claim, certainly. jps (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture is an alternative medicine practice. The explanations offered by believers in its efficacy for its functionality beyond the placebo effect are, at this time, pseudoscientific. These include some of the statements made by government regulators and NGO advisories. Experts in quackery such as Edzard Ernst, David Gorski, Stephen Barrett, and Simon Singh have written extensively on the matter and basically have come to the consensus decision that there are no non-pseudoscientific mechanisms that acupuncturists promote. jps (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not endorsing Quackwatch, but I am mentioning that it has information about acupuncture.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that points 1 to 4 in the opening post of this discussion are just science admitting that when quacks stick sharp needles into human flesh, it hurts --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should endorse quackwatch, personally. It's a much more reliable source than many other sources I see being used at acupuncture currently including some apparently "peer reviewed" journal articles that are prime indicators of the problems that can happen when peer review fails. jps (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
QW is a fine source for altmed topics, and has been endorsed on numerous occasions by WP:RS/N. Sometimes, QW is the only RS on a fringe topic. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can a non-expert (seeking expertise without bias) be certain that Quackwatch is not at least partly influenced by mainstream professionals whose desire to protect their business turf closes their minds to alternative practices which might have some validity?
—Wavelength (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can answer the question by considering the answer to this one: How can we be certain that when a scientist predicts the Sun will rise tomorrow, that scientist is not at least partly influenced by mainstream professionals who desire to protect their academic reputations and close their mind to the alternative proposal that the Earth is going to stop rotating this evening? jps (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by A1candidate:

@Doc James - It depends on how you define "alternative medicine". For millions of people across East Asia and parts of Southeast Asia who cannot afford Western medical treatment, acupuncture/TCM is the only form of treatment available to them. Your second point is a compelling one, except that simply putting a needle anywhere in the skin is not a valid placebo, and there are different biological responses between a sham acupuncture and a verum (true) acupuncture.
@Rbreen - There is no question that sham acupuncture is a legitimate treatment option. The National Cancer Institute website states that both forms of acupuncture are superior to standard care. The issue at hand is whether true acupuncture is superior to sham acupuncture or not. Some recent reviews do suggest that this may be the case.
@jps - Could you show me the specific mechanism of an acupuncture-induced placebo effect?
@Roxy the dog - No, there is a demonstrable pain relief which can be felt after 30 minutes

-A1candidate (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to placebo effect above. Feel free to read that article and the references it contains. jps (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles is based on an "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience", and that work gives one of its longer articles to the topic of acupuncture. On that basis, I would have to say that there is sufficient basis from the standpoint of that part of the academic world which deals with matters of pseudoscience to say that they consider acupuncture to fall broadly in the range of pseudoscience. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling like part of the problem is that we aren't working with the same meaning.
"Pseudoscience" (and "alternative", for that matter) does not mean "something that doesn't work". It means "something that has a fake scientific explanation". So if I tell my nephew that light bulbs give off light because tiny men light tiny candles inside them, I'm telling a fairy tale. If I tell him that light bulbs give off light because there are phosphorescent bacteria on the surface of the bulb and flipping the light switch causes them to change state, then I'm engaging in pseudoscience. No matter what explanation I give him, the light bulb still works, right?
Acupuncture can be both "pseudoscience" and effective (for some purposes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but acupuncture has the added wrinkle that there is no good evidence that is effective beyond a placebo either. Normally, this would be the end of the story. Quackery happens because the acupuncturists continue to claim that it is effective with pseudoscientific excuses. jps (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The World Health Organization has published Acupuncture: Review and Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trials.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. Please indicate whether the document in question directly addresses the matter of whether or not acupuncture can be reasonably described as pseudoscience or not, and specifically where such a statement might be made. I also once again note that there have been several forms of pseudoscientific medicine which have been demonstrated to produce some positive results, even if the principles upon which they are based are pseudoscientific, so I believe it is reasonable to request such statements directly relating to the matter of whether the principles upon which acupuncture is based, whatever they might be, are considered scientific or pseudoscientific, which is really the only kind of sourcing which is directly relevant to this discussion. John Carter (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me, at this moment, that I am unable to find the information which you request.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that there is an important distinction that doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. Just sticking needles into people any old way is, most likely, not considered acupuncture by the vast majority of people. Certainly, I imagine that most practitioners would not hold this view, otherwise their "degrees" and training, and indeed any qualification that they possess (except perhaps basic nursing), is worthless. I also imagine that most patients do not hold this view either. Therefore, it seems important to keep in mind that acupuncture is in fact sticking needles in specific places in response to specific patient complaints (i.e. patients stomach hurts, so put a needle in this place because the qi is wrong (or something)), and must include the whole belief system that goes along with that. From this point of view, acupuncture is clearly pseudoscience (the explanation for it is mystic gibberish), especially since it doesnt appear to matter where you stick the needles. The debate on whether just sticking needles into people helps is a different matter. It does bring up an interesting hypothetical though: supposing acupuncture did work, but practitioners still used the current mythical belief system. Would it still count as pseudoscience? I would say probably. Benboy00 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "definitely". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by A1candidate:

@jps - Unfortunately, the article on placebo effect makes no mention whatsoever of acupuncture. I would like to see hard evidence of an acupuncture-induced placebo effect instead of mere speculation, even if this may be plausible.

@John Carter - The source cited by Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles is a book called the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience that is published in the year 2000, which is more than a decade ago. Could you show me a reliable, independent source that has been published more recently to back up such claims? I believe there is indeed a great deal of scientific studies performed in this field since 2000 (see below).

@WhatamIdoing - That is a very good point you've made. A core concept of acupuncture, according to Traditional Chinese Medicine, is the principle of Qi. In acupuncture, this can by observed by deqi ("flow of Qi"), which has a specific biological effect on people receiving acupuncture as proven by many different studies published in numerous mainstream scientific journals, as you can see for yourself here, here, here, here, here, here, and many more. Granted, there is still a lot of research to do and not all of these studies are conclusive, but so far, I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

@Benboy00 - It does matter where you stick the needles. Most of these neuroimaging studies are very new, but they do exist and have been reviewed in medical literature.

If I may quote from a mainstream medical textbook:

The overwhelming body of evidence supports the acupuncture endorphin hypothesis as the primary mechanism of AA's (acupuncture analgesia) action

— Human Physiology: From Cells to Systems (2013)

-A1candidate (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT and WP:TE. Tiresome. jps (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares, aka, WP:MED has lost its way

From our acupuncture article:

A 2013 systematic review of English-language case reports found that serious adverse events associated with acupuncture are rare, but acupuncture is not without risk.[4] Between 2000 and 2011, the incidence of English-language reported adverse events was 294 cases from 25 countries and regions.[4] The most common adverse effect observed was infection, and the majority of infections were bacterial in nature, caused by skin contact at the needling site.[4] Other adverse complications include bilateral hand edema, epithelioid granuloma, pseudolymphoma, argyria, pustules, pancytopenia, and scarring due to hot needle technique.[4]

So, benefits attributed to acupuncture may be due to the placebo effect, and a small number of people using acupuncture may get skin infections. WOW !!! That's dangerous stuff. Let's get all of WP:MED to weigh in on this serious issue, lest someone in China get a positive placebo effect result and a skin infection to boot.

On the other hand, no one from WP:MED can be bothered to help out at the POV, poorly sourced mess in the suite of articles at {{cannabis}}, also discussed on this page, where secondary reviews indicate real potential for physical, mental, behavioral and social harm among a huge number of persons, considering the prevalence of cannabis use.

What's wrong in here? This is why we need a medical disclaimer on our medical content. We can't even get medical editors to help out or keep up with our really dangerous articles; the battleground du jour seems to be acupuncture.

Disclaimer: I have a bias. I respect MEDRS when editing, and I voted to delete German Acupuncture Trials because they are a coatrack and content could be included in acupuncture, but I don't really care if the benefits from acupuncture are real or due to the placebo effect. When my 12-yo-son lost a year of his academic life due to two-week-long status migraines, only the relief from acupuncture helped him regain some of his life when nothing else helped. I don't care if it was placebo or not; I saw the pain go out of his face and body when the needles went in from a good practitioner, and I saw nothing happen when that man was on vacation and a poor practitioner used different needle placement, and I saw good acupuncture help him when even when morphine didn't help.

So, I don't see the problems with our acupuncture content as much of a big deal, and wonder why can't we all go fix our really bad articles. If folks can't be bothered to help out at medical cannabis, long-term effects of cannabis, effects of cannabis, cannabis in pregnancy etc, which were massively POV and medically incorrect until just two of us started working on them two days ago, expect me to continue pushing for a medical disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here as elsewhere, there just aren't enough editors who can handle tricky specialized stuff, and they don't have enough time that they are willing to spend volunteering. But I agree re the disclaimer. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor who edits predominantly on WP:FRINGE topics, acupuncture is exactly the kind of article where I spend most of my time fretting about details. However, Sandy is absolutely right: in comparison to this type of nicety, the problem in the "cannabis suite" is real & serious. The Cannabis (drug) article has over 1,000 watchers, over 6,000 distinct authors and ~7,500 daily page views. These article were crammed (and I mean crammed) with bogus health information, ranging from assertions that cannabis use was totally harmless to a statement that it was an established treatment for brain cancer (seriously). The voluminous Talk page archives show that a lot of effort and consensus-building went into getting them as they were. I think this raises some questions for us: how could comparatively mainstream articles like this have got into such an abysmal state with nobody even noticing? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes many of the articles on Wikipedia dealing with sex and drugs are a disaster. And you are correct that I more or less ignore them (other than having removed many of the sex related articles from WP:MED).
I am happy to weight in if specific issues are encountered over disagreements regarding how to apply WP:MEDRS. Or how to interpret a reference.
We however have many articles on key health care topics that are more or less completely unloved. They are relatively easy to improve as so few people work on them. The ones I refer to of course are this list [17] and I am slowly bringing them to GA. I assume many people who are looking up "cannabis" have already made their mind up regarding the topic and any content we contain will have no effect on their decisions.
I would strongly support efforts to more clearly mark if an reference is a review or primary source. I know User:Zad68 has build a tool to help with this. If we had a bot to add it as a ref parameter in individual articles that people from this project are working to improve it may help with this effort. Zad how easy would it be to adapt your tool to do this? If it was added to this would also be helpful [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to give my Python code to anybody who wants to pursue hooking it up to a bot as things get moved to the new Toolserver host. Zad68 21:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay am wading in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: rant, I think there are a few essays on this general theme (e.g. WP:Wikipedia is failing/WP:Wikipedia is succeeding). It generally depends on your outlook on life. You could, arguably quite legitimately, say "most of our content is not great". You could say "things are better than they were in 2005, maybe they will slowly keep getting better". I generally align with the second view, but I feel Wikipedia is plagued by WP:CREEP and bureaucracy that just puts most people immediately off due to the unpleasant atmosphere. We are our own worst enemy. We complain of not having enough volunteers, and yet on the other hand we essentially discourage new editorship. Lesion (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree completely. I am not sure what the balance is between pushing people to improve the content they add and pushing those away who seem to lack competence or reverting too aggressively.
I am confident that we can get all 80 of or top importance articles to either 80 GA or GA over the next 3 to 5 years. These articles receive about 5% of our total page views. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for wading in, Doc ... with your help, one article out of a suite of about 15 really bad articles is now better. I don't know if things are getting better or worse, but with student editing, I expect everything to be harder to keep up with, and my point was, why are we focused on the relatively benign area of acupuncture when we have much bigger problems in here with more serious potential for adverse affects on consumers using our content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
why are we focused on the relatively benign area of acupuncture
Because someone asked us for help with a question about it, just like you are asking for far more dramatic levels of help with the cannabis articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now the pushback begins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review notification

FYI, an editor has significantly expanded dental implant and has now requested a peer review which has gone unanswered for a while: Wikipedia:Peer review/Dental implant/archive2. If anyone familiar with MEDRS/MEDMOS is interested please have a look. Possibly @Zad68: who has experience writing another surgical topic, perhaps some advice is transferable? Lesion (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


And there is also Mylohyoid muscle at WP:ANATOMY. --WS (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mylohyoid has some comments now. Please anyone feel free to add. Dental implant peer review remains unanswered. Review page located here: [19]. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a student essay

Diet and bone health Have returned it to their sandboc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student editors on dental articles

@Ian Furst:@Biosthmors:@Leighblackall:

There seems to be a group of students who will be working on the some dental pages as part of a class from La Trobe University. Here is their Wikiversity page [20], and I think this is the list of articles they will be working on:

Welcome to all and please feel free to ask here or on the talk pages of each article if you have any Qs. Lesion (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome everyone, thank you for helping with Wikipedia.
Yes, welcome. Dental articles as a whole are so neglected that almost any change would be an improvement.
Speaking of which, I'd like to request that some of our most zealous editors keep in mind that we don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, especially if the article is a near-disaster. It's easy to remove hours' worth of work because someone didn't have exactly the right way of saying it or use one of the ideal sources, but really: these are general subjects that need a lot of work. If the edit is a net improvement, you ought to leave it alone (and then go request even further improvements, if you want). WP:PRESERVE is a policy, and WP:MEDRS is not. (Or, if you want to look at it another way, even though I've written more of MEDRS than of PRESERVE ). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you were not referring to me when you said "most zealous" ;-) indeed I was not specifically plotting to remove content, but I don't think it hurts to point them towards MEDRS and MEDMOS from the start. I have the first two pages watchlisted and I've done this on those talkpages. I was planning to expand dental emergency at some point anyway, so this is great news imo. Lesion (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not.
I'm personally fond of {{MedWelcome}} as a way to tell new users about MEDRS and MEDMOS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata - medical condition and voluntary body modification

Hi, I have proposed a person property at Wikidata that I think members of this WikiProject should review, and probably can improve upon. It is a way to record notable medical conditions/procedures/causes. Please see d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#medical_condition. I am not convinced that 'medical condition' is the best term. Ideally this property would also cater for voluntary body modifications such as tattoos/piercings/cyborgs, if it is a notable attribute (and on Wikipedia there is usually always one article where the person is notable for anything). Is ICD10 L81.8 the code for a tattoo? Is there a code for horns? ;-) There is also the concern that in the future there will be voluntary amputations for athletic performance reasons[21], which we can add to the list of weird and wonderful reasons why people would do strange things to their body. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Absorption (skin)

Hello again medical experts! Here's another Afc submission that may be of interest. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COTM: December 2013

This month's COTM has been selected as Psoriasis! The COTM, here (WP:MCOTM), is selected be affirmative voting. Editors are encouraged to post any projects on the page so that they may be voted in as future endeavors. Last month's effort was a bit of a flop, so let's hope that this month's effort is somewhat more encouraging!

Ping to the following users who have expressed interest: Peter.C, Wouterstomp, jfdwolff, LT910001. Any other interested editors are of course welcome to participate, and with any luck we can bring this article up to GA-status by the end of the year. --LT910001 (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a while back that we focus on the students in WP:MEDUCSF in December, which generated press in the New York Times. Anybody? I suggest saving the other article for another month. I'd rather January just be "get the numbers down" in regards to cleanup templates. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expert input

May I suggest that we ask The American Academy of Dermatology, whose mission is to promote "leadership in dermatology and excellence in patient care through education, research and advocacy", to provide us with one or two interested experts to collaborate on this? They don't expressly have a remit for public education but they may be willing to help - especially considering the number their students and medical professionals that use Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would anybody object to me approaching the AAD, in the name of this project, asking for their assistance? If they agree, would they be welcome here? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. Ofc they would be welcome. Not sure if request will be fruitful-- >50% of my Wikipedia-related requests to authors/organizations go unanswered. Lesion (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and buffer them from the idiosyncratic policies that tend to discount experts. It will only take one edit by a Dermatology doctor to start the COI machinations of the layperson "expert." --DHeyward (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that much of our dermatology content was written by a dermatologist the issue is not with "layperson's" discounting "experts". It is that most experts are clueless regarding how Wikipedia works. That one cannot plaster their most recent study of 25 individuals across 50 pages while removing all the secondary sources that disagree with your work.
If you read WP:MEDRS you will see that this project values the positions of experts as published and in review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a professional relationship with this organization. Anthonyhcole can we talk by phone soon? Yes this is a good idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's confidential, I prefer to discuss this sort of thing on-wiki. If you'd rather talk, though, I'll email you my number, or email me yours. Or I can Skype: ahcole2. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ask a lot of people to voice chat. We already have each others' phone numbers and Skype from like 18 months ago - I think it has been a while. If you like I can setup audio recording of our talk and post it on-wiki; confidentiality is not my concern. Conversations just go faster with voice than on-wiki. Let me know what you think. If we talked I would say that one strategy for going to an organization is to present them with an example of how their work can be used, giving them some metrics reporting, and asking them about the extent of their interest in taking a tour of Wikipedia's health content. After that I would ask them if they have a single staff person who could commit three hours to putting their own scholarly MEDRS-compliant content onto Wikipedia sometime over a period of a month, then watching the impact of what they did over 2-3 months. If they like the outcome, then I would probe for deeper engagement. I do not have this documented anywhere on wiki but that is what I have done in the past. Thoughts? Do you want to discuss this right here in this thread? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMI1

This article is in desperate need of some love. Recent papers are showing it to be a theraputic target in preventing oncogenesis for many types of cancers, but the article doesn't have any refs from the past decade! LeadSongDog come howl! 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medically reliable sources on human population genetics

Hi, everyone, I've been reading university textbooks on human genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. I am not a medical doctor by training, but I still enjoy this kind of recreational reading. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us who collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for improving articles on human genetic history and related articles. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.

As you know, the guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."

On the topic of human population genetics and variation within and among human populations, a widely cited primary research article is a 1972 article by Richard Lewontin, which I have seen cited in many of the review articles, monographs, and textbooks I have read over the years.

Quite a few Wikipedia articles specifically disagree with Lewontin's overall conclusion (which has been updated in a source listed below) but don't always rely on medically reliable sources to do so. As Wikipedians, we can evaluate where the findings in Lewontin's article fit in the current understanding of the topic of human genetic variation by reading current reliable secondary sources in medicine.

Some Wikipedia articles give weighty emphasis to a commentary essay published years after Lewontin published his primary research article on human diversity, when his primary research results had been replicated in many other studies and his bottom line conclusion that "about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups" had been taken up by many textbooks on genetics and medicine. In 2003, A. W. F. Edwards wrote a commentary essay in the journal BioEssays

in which Edwards proposes a statistical model for classifying individuals into groupings based on haplotype data. Edwards wrote, "There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification," pointing to his own work with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the author of the book

which I read soon after it was published in 1994. In general, Edwards cites a lot of publications from his collaboration with Cavalli-Sforza, and mentions that collaboration prominently in his subsequent review article

in which he describes their method for tracing ancestry with genes. Edwards even shows a photograph of Cavalli-Sforza with him in 1963 in his 2009 article, emphasizing their scholarly friendship.

So I wanted to look up Cavalli-Sforza's current views as well while I traced citations of the Lewontin 1972 article and the Edwards 2003 article in subsequent secondary sources. Through searches with Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books, both from my home office computer and from a university library computer, I found a number of books and articles that cite both the Lewontin paper and the Edwards paper. Through a specialized set of wide-reaching keyword searches (for example, "Lewontin Edwards") on the university library's vast database subscriptions, I was able to obtain the full text of many of those articles and of whole books that discuss what current science says about grouping individuals of species Homo sapiens into race groups. I also found more up to date discussions by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza of the Human Genome Diversity Project.

Listed here are sources that have the following characteristics: (1) they cite both previous articles by Lewontin and the 2003 article by Edwards, discussing the underlying factual disagreement between those authors, (2) they are Wikipedia reliable sources for medicine (in particular, they are secondary sources such as review articles or textbooks rather than primary research articles), and (3) they are or have been available to me in full text through book-buying, library lending, author sharing of full text on the Internet, or a university library database. They are arranged in approximate chronological order, so that you can see how the newer sources cite and evaluate the previous sources as genetics research continues. The sources listed here are not exhaustive, but they are varied and authoritative, and they cite most of the dozens of primary research articles on the topic, analyzing and summarizing the current scientific consensus.

  • Koenig, Barbara A.; Lee, Sandra Soo-jin; Richardson, Sarah S., eds. (2008). Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-4324-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

This first book (Koenig, Lee, and Richardson 2008) is useful because it includes a chapter co-authored by Richard Lewontin in which he updates his views.

  • Whitmarsh, Ian; Jones, David S., eds. (2010). What's the Use of Race?: Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51424-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

The Whitmarsh and Jones (2010) source has several very useful chapters on medical genetics.

  • Ramachandran, Sohini; Tang, Hua; Gutenkunst, Ryan N.; Bustamante, Carlos D. (2010). "Chapter 20: Genetics and Genomics of Human Population Structure". In Speicher, Michael R.; Antonarakis, Stylianos E.; Motulsky, Arno G. (eds.). Vogel and Motulsky's Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches (PDF). Heidelberg: Springer Scientific. pp. 589–615. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-37654-5. ISBN 978-3-540-37653-8. Retrieved 29 October 2013. Most studies of human population genetics begin by citing a seminal 1972 paper by Richard Lewontin bearing the title of this subsection [29]. Given the central role this work has played in our field, we will begin by discussing it briefl y and return to its conclusions throughout the chapter. In this paper, Lewontin summarized patterns of variation across 17 polymorphic human loci (including classical blood groups such as ABO and M/N as well as enzymes which exhibit electrophoretic variation) genotyped in individuals across classically defined 'races' (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, Australian Aborigines [29] ). A key conclusion of the paper is that 85.4% of the total genetic variation observed occurred within each group. That is, he reported that the vast majority of genetic differences are found within populations rather than between them. In this paper and his book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change [30], Lewontin concluded that genetic variation, therefore, provided no basis for human racial classifications. ... His finding has been reproduced in study after study up through the present: two random individuals from any one group (which could be a continent or even a local population) are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world (see proportion of variation within populations in Table 20.1 and [20]). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

Like Whitmarsh and Jones (2010), the Krimsky and Sloan (2011) source has several useful chapters on medical genetics.

  • Tattersall, Ian; DeSalle, Rob (1 September 2011). Race?: Debunking a Scientific Myth. Texas A&M University Anthropology series number fifteen. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 978-1-60344-425-5. Retrieved 17 November 2013. Actually, the plant geneticist Jeffry Mitton had made the same observation in 1970, without finding that Lewontin's conclusion was fallacious. And Lewontin himself not long ago pointed out that the 85 percent within-group genetic variability figure has remained remarkably stable as studies and genetic markers have multiplied, whether you define populations on linguistic or physical grounds. What's more, with a hugely larger and more refined database to deal with, D. J. Witherspoon and colleagues concluded in 2007 that although, armed with enough genetic information, you could assign most individuals to 'their' population quite reliably, 'individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own.' {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Barbujani, Guido; Colonna, Vincenza (15 September 2011). "Chapter 6: Genetic Basis of Human Biodiversity: An Update". In Zachos, Frank E.; Habel, Jan Christian (eds.). Biodiversity Hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Conservation Priority Areas. Springer. pp. 97–119. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_6. ISBN 978-3-642-20992-5. Retrieved 23 November 2013. The massive efforts to study the human genome in detail have produced extraordinary amounts of genetic data. Although we still fail to understand the molecular bases of most complex traits, including many common diseases, we now have a clearer idea of the degree of genetic resemblance between humans and other primate species. We also know that humans are genetically very close to each other, indeed more than any other primates, that most of our genetic diversity is accounted for by individual differences within populations, and that only a small fraction of the species' genetic variance falls between populations and geographic groups thereof.

The book chapter by Barbujani and Colonna (2011) above is especially useful for various Wikipedia articles as a contrast between biodiversity in other animals and biodiversity in Homo sapiens.

  • Bliss, Catherine (23 May 2012). Race Decoded: The Genomic Fight for Social Justice. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-7408-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Barbujani, Guido; Ghirotto, S.; Tassi, F. (2013). "Nine things to remember about human genome diversity". Tissue Antigens. 82 (3): 155–164. doi:10.1111/tan.12165. ISSN 0001-2815. The small genomic differences between populations and the extensive allele sharing across continents explain why historical attempts to identify, once and for good, major biological groups in humans have always failed. ... We argue that racial labels may not only obscure important differences between patients but also that they have become positively useless now that cheap and reliable methods for genotyping are making it possible to pursue the development of truly personalized medicine.

By the way, the Barbujani, Ghirotto, and Tassi (2013) article has a very interesting discussion of SNP typing overlaps across the entire individual genome among some of the first human beings to have their entire individual genomes sequenced, with an especially interesting Venn diagram that would be a good graphic to add to some Wikipedia articles.

An author who is intimately familiar with Edwards's statistical approach, because he has been a collaborator in fieldwork and co-author on primary research articles with Edwards, is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Cavalli-Sforza is a medical doctor who was a student of Ronald Fisher in statistics, who has devoted most of his career to genetic research. In an invited review article for the 2007 Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Cavalli-Sforza joins issue directly with the underlying factual disagreement among previous authors, but cites different previous publications.

GENETIC VARIATION BETWEEN AND WITHIN POPULATIONS, AND THE RACE PROBLEM

In the early 1980s, Lewontin (11) showed that when genetic variation for protein markers is estimated by comparing two or more random individuals from the same populations, or two or more individuals from the whole world, the former is 85% as large as the latter. This means that the variation between populations is the residual 15%, and hence relatively trivial. Later research carried out on a limited number of populations and mostly, though not only, on protein markers has confirmed this analysis. The Rosenberg et al. data actually bring down Lewontin’s estimate to 5%, or even less. Therefore, the variation between populations is even smaller than the original 15%, and we also know that the exact value depends on the choice of populations and markers. But the between-population variation, even if it is very small is certainly enough to reconstruct the genetic history of populations—that is their evolution—but is it enough for distinguishing races in some useful way? The comparison with other mammals shows that humans are almost at the lower extreme of the scale of between-population variation. Even so, subtle statistical methods let us assign individuals to the populations of origin, even distinguishing populations from the same continent, if we use enough genetic markers. But is this enough for distinguishing races? Darwin already had an answer. He gave two reasons for doubting the usefulness of races: (1) most characters show a clear geographic continuity, and (2) taxonomists generated a great variety of race classifications. Darwin lists the numbers of races estimated by his contemporaries, which varied from 2 to 63 races.

Rosenberg et al. (16 and later work) analyzed the relative statistical power of the most efficient subdivisions of the data with a number of clusters varying from 2 to 6, and showed that five clusters have a reasonable statistical power. Note that this result is certainly influenced by the populations chosen for the analysis. The five clusters are not very different from those of a few partitions that had already existed in the literature for some time, and the clusters are: (a) a sub-Saharan African cluster, (b) North Africa–Europe plus a part of western Asia that is approximately bounded eastward by the central Asian desert and mountains, (c) the eastern rest of Asia, (d ) Oceania, and (e) the Americas. But what good is this partition? The Ramachandran et al. (15) analysis of the same data provides a very close prediction of the genetic differences between the same populations by the simplest geographic tool: the geographic distance between the two populations, and two populations from the same continent are on average geographically closer than two from different ones. However, the Rosenberg et al. analysis (16) adds the important conclusion that the standard classification into classical continents must be modified to replace continental boundaries with the real geographic barriers: major oceans, or deserts like the Sahara, or other deserts and major mountains like those of central Asia. These barriers have certainly decreased, but they have not entirely suppressed genetic exchanges across them. Thus, the Rosenberg et al. analysis confirms a pattern of variation based on pseudocontinents that does not eliminate the basic geographic continuity of genetic variation. In fact, the extension by Ramachandran et al. of the original Rosenberg et al. analysis showed that populations that are geographically close have an overwhelming genetic similarity, well beyond that suggested by continental or pseudocontinental partitions.

A year later Cavalli-Sforza joined seventeen other genetics researchers as co-authors of a review article, published as an "open letter" to other scholars, on using racial categories in human genetics.

  • Lee, Sandra; Mountain, Joanna; Koenig, Barbara; Altman, Russ; Brown, Melissa; Camarillo, Albert; Cavalli-Sforza, Luca; Cho, Mildred; Eberhardt, Jennifer; Feldman, Marcus; Ford, Richard; Greely, Henry; King, Roy; Markus, Hazel; Satz, Debra; Snipp, Matthew; Steele, Claude; Underhill, Peter (2008). "The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics" (PDF). Genome Biology. 9 (7): 404. doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-7-404. ISSN 1465-6906. Retrieved 3 December 2013. We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time Human genetic variation within continents is, for the most part, geographically continuous and clinal, particularly in regions of the world that have not received many immigrants in recent centuries [18]. Genetic data cannot reveal an individual's full geographic ancestry precisely, although emerging research has been used to identify geographic ancestry at the continental and subcontinental levels [3,19]. Genetic clusters, however, are far from being equivalent to sociopolitical racial or ethnic categories. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Other current review articles related to human population structure include

  • Barbujani, Guido; Pigliucci, Massimo (2013). "Human races" (PDF). Current Biology. 23 (5): R185–R187. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.024. ISSN 0960-9822. Retrieved 2 December 2013. What does this imply for the existence of human races? Basically, that people with similar genetic features can be found in distant places, and that each local population contains a vast array of genotypes. Among the first genomes completely typed were those of James Watson and Craig Venter, two U.S. geneticists of European origin; they share more alleles with Seong-Jin Kim, a Korean scientist (1,824,482 and 1,736,340, respectively) than with each other (1,715,851). This does not mean that two random Europeans are expected to be genetically closer to Koreans than to each other, but certainly highlights the coarseness of racial categorizations.

There are a lot of factual claims about humankind that impinge on specifically medical claims. I appreciate the work of the participants in this project who put together the WP:MEDRS guidelines over the last several years, as those help improve Wikipedia articles by identifying better sources. I look forward to working collaboratively with the Wikipedians involved in this project in updating a variety of articles within the scope of this project in the next several years. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the short version? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, I think that WeijiBaikeBianji's general point is aptly summarised in this comment randomly selected from the interweb:

Here! Here! You talk the truth my bruther and your smart too. Everyone trys to make nazees sound like a bunch of dumasses but they forget how close we came to winning world war 2. Hitler was not a dumass — their the dumasses. White people have allways bin smarter then everyone else its just that we let blacks and jewdiasm get into our blood which is making us weak. We need to get smart again like you and Hitler and become doctors like those other guys you talk about. Only white people are smart enough to be doctors. Did you ever notice that? I don’t see any jew or black doctors at my hospital. Never have never will. 88!!!

Or, if you prefer, Lewontin's thesis that there's more genetic variation within rather than between human breeding populations has been broadly supported and refined by much recent research on population genetics. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there may have been some doubt in 2003 that imputation of ancestry by tracing genes that covary indicates that there is not a lot of variation within each geographic population, but there is no doubt at all in 2013 that imputation of ancestry by tracing genes that covary sometimes produces surprises, and in any event does nothing to constrain most genes of phenotypic effect from appearing in most or all world populations, with great variation even in local populations. The statement that "about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups" is indeed a finding replicated multiple times, and taken up by all the professional literature on human genetics these days, as is the related statement "individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own." -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your interweb source spelt docters wrong. Igit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on finding these sources. I see that you've posted it on WikiProject Genetics and certain article talk pages as well, so it should hopefully result in improvements at these projects. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Academy

Are interested in collaborating. They are looking into the issue of copyright non compatability. Thoughts on this end? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When we talk about copyright non-compatability are we talking about images or text? Does this have to do with diagnostic images? CFCF (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
External videos
video icon Post-Impressionism, Seurat's A Sunday on La Grande Jatte - 1884, Smarthistory[5]
CFCF, we are talking about both of those and video and audio, plus probably technical support to develop those resources and routes to get things translated to other languages. I think most people here desire their media content. Khan Academy is already on Wikipedia in a major way with their Smarthistory project. Controversially, what they have wanted in the past is for Wikipedia to provide outgoing links to their content. Their content is excellent but the consensus of the Wikipedia community has been that non-commercial licensing is incompatible with Wikipedia's mission and putting outgoing links into the bodies of articles is a discouraged and worrying practice. My personal wish is that Khan Academy could adopt Wikipedia-compatible licenses, but barring that, I wish that they could at least make a thoughtful public statement about why they insist on noncommercial licenses. Though it seems extraordinary, I sometimes wonder if their policy makers on licensing fail to recognize the high costs of using non-free licenses, because otherwise I cannot imagine how an organization with such prestige and so much stake in the open movement can be so cavalier and silent about the unorthodox way in which they do their outreach.
  • Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory - this Smarthistory project is fantastic. I am so grateful that this radical project has been tested on Wikipedia. I encourage everyone to support it, but I am doubtful about applying this external-link model to aspects of Wikipedia other than art history and do not want it in medicine at this time without some public discussion and some answers from Khan Academy.
  • The Signpost - Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate
  • Smallbones has organized Khan Academy collaboration with Wikipedia in the past and he is highly conscious of methods by means of which outside influences exploit Wikipedia's community. I have a lot of respect for the input he has had in making the Smarthistory project work on Wikipedia in a way that benefits the community, because it could have been otherwise.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have made it very clear that for Khan academy material to be within medical articles it must be under a CC BY SA license. They are having internal discussions about this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was informed of this conversation by that little red box thingee at the top of the page, and have been thinking about how this might work. I'll give much more advice later, but first
  • to see how this might work, see [22]
  • understand that 3 separate non-profits are at work here (at least in the example above). Nobody should get involved with this if there is any commercial or monetary motive - it would just ruin everything. At the same time dictating license requirements might be impossible. An external media template (a long time Wikipedia option - nothing new here) might be the best way to go. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose linking within articles to external videos. If organizations wish to have their content considered for on Wikipedia than they need to release it under a license that we can use.
Otherwise they can link it to DMOZ and we will link to it there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some background

I don't know much about this project or your need for videos and other media provided by well-recognized non-profit educational organizations, and only a bit that I've heard about the need for external validation/checking of medical articles. I have seen Doc James and Blue Raspberry around and respect their work. I think I've only edited one or two medical articles in the 7 years I've edited on Wikipedia. That said, I think if you need either good media or some (however weak) type of "external verification" then this would be a good opportunity for this project. I just ran into this discussion via the Wikipedia notification system today and wanted to give you a thoroughly researched overview of all the issues, but it's taking too long, so some bullet points will have to do for now.

  • Khan Academy (KA) is well-respected organization with a goal of providing "A free world-class education for anyone anywhere." I take this to be almost identical to our goal of "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."
External videos
video icon Flu Epidemiology, Stanford School of Medicine with Khan Academy[6]
  • KA is well financed by the likes of the Gates Foundation, Google, and many well-known foundations [23]. They would not be trying to get any money or commercial advantage from us (since they give away all their products for free), but they might turn out to be important partners in ways beyond just providing media.
  • About me
    • I have no connection to KA except through the WP:Smart project which I do entirely on an independent volunteer basis.
    • I may be something of a leader in the fight against paid and commercial editing on Wikipedia. Among several other reasons for opposing this type of activity, I think it complicates cooperation with non-profit educational organizations like KA and GLAMs
    • I've worked with WP:GLAM since before it was started, but don't concentrate on GLAM projects. Mostly I work with WP:NRHP and take photos
    • I'm very interested in seeing WP get up to date on videos, which is my main interest here.
  • KA licenses its videos (entire website?) CC-BY-SA NC 3.0 US and encourages everybody to download them. The only limitation is that they can't be used for commercial purposes (which they give a meaningful definition to). The NC restriction is, of course, the main problem with uploading their material to Wikimedia sites. But I have to say that this is mostly our problem, not theirs. They are about as open with their material as any site I've seen, except Wikipedia.
  • Wikipedia has a major problem displaying any video. Have you noticed that if you're not using a Chrome browser, or haven't gone through a long song and dance installing various add-ons, that you can't reliably view videos on Wikipedia?
External videos
video icon Fragonard's The Meeting, Smarthistory[5]
video icon Fragonard's The Swing, Smarthistory[7]
video icon Beneath the Painted Surface: Fragonard's Fountain of Love, Getty Museum
  • The external media template has been around on Wikipedia essentially forever, and has long had a specific exemption in the WP:EL guideline allowing it to be used in the body of the text. The template actually encourages it or even requires it to be used in the body of the text. The media should be used where it gives the best experience to the reader.
  • The external media template is a bit clumsy the first 10 times you use it, but is actually very flexible. For example, it can include multiple photos, audio, and video from different sources, as well as text you want to add.
  • I've used the external media template hundreds of times on Wikipedia and not just for Smarthistory (the art history arm of KA). I've used it to link to half a dozen museums, TED talks, to YouTube (when I know that the uploader there has the copyright), and likely several other sites.
  • There is a group of Wikipedians who are horrified that any external link can be put in the body of the text, but mostly, when I explain the rules and the specific exemption in WP:EL they will go along with the use of the template. In deference to the widely held mistaken belief that the template is not allowed in the body of the text, I generally use it near the bottom of the article.
  • The Smarthistory website is linked to in 379 articles, probably about half via the external media template. They are likely linked via YouTube in 100 or so more articles. Some of these are plain links in the external links section by random editors who like the site, but most of them have been done via WP:Smart. Smarthistory has 562 videos and 302 essays, all done by professional art historians or otherwise well qualified educators. I think the KA site is almost exclusively videos.
  • I've only seen 5-10 of these links removed over the year that the project has been going. This is likely a record for non-removal of "external links", so I think it's fair to say that the links are generally accepted. That said there are 3-4 editors who concentrate on art history who dislike these links and have in some cases made them hard to include. I think it's a shame when otherwise good editors claim ownership like this, but I just avoid articles where I see they've edited.
  • It takes some work knowing what to include and where to include the links - one size does not fit all. I started with a "one painting-one video - one article" model, which works pretty well. But other models work almost as well, e.g. "one artist-multiple videos-one template". Other situations, like an article on an art movement, rarely work.
  • While I've gotten to know one of the Smarthistory principals fairly well, via 6-8 e-mails, she and Smarthistory in general have been totally hands-off, making 2-3 suggestions, answering my questions, but understanding that I am an independent editor exercising my independent judgement. Otherwise KA has been totally absent in any discussions.

Well, that probably more information than you wanted to know. Feel free to ask any questions here or on my talk page or even via e-mail. I do hope that you get something going with KA because I think it would improve the encyclopedia, especially improving our use of videos. since I don't know much about medical articles, I doubt that I'd do too much inserting of videos. Maybe just enough to show a couple of people how it can work.

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) (minor ec)[reply]

An even better solution would be for Wikipedia to allow NC images and videos :-) Anyone interested in taking that on? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general I'm not afraid to take on big projects (one or two at a time), but that one seems too big for me. There would be one huge downside. Since Wikipedia really cannot reliably display videos stored on our sites, uploading CC-BY-SA NC videos might do more harm than good, in the short term. As far as the big question, the argument against NC videos is that we want to encourage totally free (including format) media, and if we accept NC videos, nobody will make non-NC videos anymore. It's quite wiki-centric in my view, and if that is really the main goal of our policy we probably want to think in terms of achieving part of that, rather than aiming for an unrealistic total victory. Redeploy, retreat, whatever you want to call it. We've already lost the war if total victory is our only goal. But some folks are married to a fully-free media policy, to the extent that they are willing to exclude 99% of all educational videos ever produced. Show me how we'd win the battle against that attitude and I may join in. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could be convinced to have these in the external link section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's a good place to start. And since you guys are the ones who will implement it, that may be as far as you'll get. But I will argue that almost nobody reads the external links section (1 out of 1000 readers?) and even then it's just skimming so they won't even know it's a video. And then the link gets removed in a few months by somebody in good faith trimming the external links. In my view, I think that would be a waste of time. Try it if you'd like, then decide if it's worth the effort or you want to upscale to examples similar to the above. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My hope is to convince the Khan academy to release some content under a CC BY SA license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. But see below. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excluding CC-NC content is important to me. A lot of educational projects are commercial and non-profit and NGO infrastructure is a luxury for the developed world. Many places in the developing world have commercial models for providing what would be non-profit services elsewhere. While I am tolerant of the idea of illegally or illicitly distributed educational materials to promote health awareness even in violation of copyright, I recognize that this is not an ideal solution and I hate the idea of forcing the poor and underprivileged to continually be in the state of violating the law and maintaining what is perceived as good citizenship. People should have legal access to educational materials and as Creative Commons has stated, there is little agreement or understanding anywhere of the concept of non-commerical use. I do not oppose Khan Academy using non-commercial licenses but I do object to them using these licenses carelessly. I would be very interested to learn if they have a rationale for doing this other than arbitrary choice or following of precedent without considering other options. It seems to me antithetical to their educational mission. Is there more to learn about their perspective? Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need to keep all the text CC BY SA. But having images and files that are both CC BY SA and CC BY SA NC I do not consider to be an issue. People reusing our content will just need to figure out which they need and just use that part.
I have managed to convince one fairly large organization to switch from CC BY SA NC to CC BY SA :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to hear about that organization and what points they saw as most important in making the switch. My guess on why most organizations, including KA, use NC licenses has to do with funders. For example, if Google or Microsoft are funding, they may well be saying to themselves "This is a great thing to do in general, it's great for the internet, it'll probably have some indirect benefit for us (maybe in hiring or just making the internet bigger), and besides that - we can't figure out how to make any money off of education. If we do ever figure out how to make money off of education, KA's experience will probably help us, and their material won't be able to directly compete with us because of the NC license." In short, the NC license makes sense for the funders and can't hurt them.
The other reason (mostly for the funders) is that there is some control - at least psychologically - over the material. Most nightmare scenarios can be ruled out, at least in a legal sense, e.g. a wacko doctor with a cancer cure-all can't mix his material in with theirs and charge $millions for snake-oil cures. Of course the wacko could still do that, but legally there is some deniability from the funders in that they could sue.
In short, I think there are some good reasons for some of the participants to go along with NC licenses, and little or no downsides for almost all participants, so all it takes is one participant to insist on NC.
We should probably learn to deal with NC licenses, otherwise we are going to be missing out on 99% of all educational videos. Perhaps we could have an NC Commons, with material we could use if no other equivalent material is available, and at least it would be saved when copyright runs out rather than simply lost in the haze of history. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Excretion

A user added a number of articles to the above category recently, which I feel are at best indirectly linked. I asked the user if they had any evidence that such articles were classified as excretion in the real world, but they failed to respond so far (User_talk:SummerWithMorons#Excretion). Should articles such as pus be in this category? Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I've apologised to JFW and James elsewhere but I'd like to do it here, too, for my uncalled-for insults yesterday. They didn't deserve that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your anger shows that you have passion and that Wikipedia is important to you. I wish that more people cared so much. I appreciate that you made an attempt to protect the project but the differences between people on this board are only nuance compared to the antagonism against us all lurking on the outside. We are all friends here. Be upset at the forces which discount the public's right to access encyclopedic health information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad to see this, although I can't endorse the notion of "antagonism against us all lurking on the outside"; I believe those on the outside most often believe that content in here is vetted and are frequently unaware that our content is written by RandyfromBoise.

    On a related note about our differences, I want to bring up a historical example that some folks might not be aware of. Some want a disclaimer, some want expert review, and some want to work as hard and as fast as they can to improve content. My comment is about the feasibility of bringing our content to any level and keeping there.

    Who has been here long enough to have remembered or to have worked with TimVickers? He arrived here with the same enthusiasm of DocJames and Anthony, he did boatloads of good work (quickly writing a number of GAs and FAs, helping restore and maintain others), he helped develop resources like our dispatch on sources in medicine, and he published some journal articles about Wikipedia and medical content. I was particularly fond of him.[25] Tim has made about eight edits this year. What has happened to all that content he developed and defended? Well, together Tim and I improved tuberculosis when it was at Featured article review, and for quite some time, we tried to defend it to FA standard. After Tim's departure, tuberculosis fell into disprepair, and it is now defeatured.

    Draw what conclusions you may about how likely we are to ever raise and keep any number of articles in here to standard. I appreciate everyone's attempts, but offer this example as one explanation for our differing views. I hope DocJames doesn't burn out, but if he does, history shows us that all of the content he has upgraded and defended will quickly sink to the usual low level in here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again the answer is to have more people. An article's long term success or failure should not be dependent upon one person. And yet we drive people away by making them jump through so many arbitrary hoops that any sane person quickly realizes they have better things to do. Currently, Wikipedia is a place for people who love rules. Lesion (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tuberculosis is at GA (I updated it not to long ago). FA and GA standards have increased significantly over the last 5 years on English Wikipedia. Articles go out of date eventually as the underlying science changes. So yes continual work is needed to keep any article at a high standard. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, previous FAs (and GAs) can act as a single reference/stable point to check against and save a helluva lot of time - so like with schizophrenia, one can, after time, check the curent version against a set point when it was deemed to have Featured Status and quickly review and adjust. I think this really helps when reviewing articles. This is the single and by far the best reason for pursuing GA/FA status and is the main reason I try and park everything I work on at a stable point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to rain on this parade, but I'm just not a believer in the notion that FA/GA status means anything wrt these concerns. Autism hasn't been updated since Eubulides left, so what are we flagging? And the FA process is ... well ... not functioning as it used to. And GAs are only as good as the reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what is the problem with FAC? Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the best reviewers are gone, new reviewers haven't appeared, and sub-par articles can pass FAC these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improving citations

Just a wild idea: since much of the thrash is around recent work that hasn't yet got high quality secondary sources, let's make the work of identifying the lower-quality sources easier. The {{cite journal}} template takes parameter |type=review or alternately |type=clinical trial etc. If we actually made use of this parameter, it would be far simpler to know where we need to seek secondary sources. Failing that, perhaps MOSMED could ghettoize the primary recentism in one limited-size section. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. Does Boghog know that? I suppose it's not possible for a bot to pick up that info, and we need to do it manually? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that getting that parameter in would help a lot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible, yes. Desireable, maybe, but only with human intervention. Pubmed has an equivalent XML "<articletype>" field which a bot could copy. It isn't universally reliable, or even populated, so human agency is necessary. This is particularly the case for "oldmedline" or new "in process" records. It could, though, be usefully done in a hidden comment. As a general rule, if the field says "editorial", "systematic review" or "review" it will be correct. A very special case comes up for "withdrawn" articles, which we need to do a much better job of identifying. There occasional articles that need to cite these (e.g. Andrew Wakefield) but mostly we need to revisit any article referencing such papers. Cyclic systematic reviews, such as Cochrane's, routinely withdraw outdate releases when the new one comes out. This should trigger re-examination of statements citing them.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as well. It would be nice if we had someone to flag Cochrane reviews as soon as an update comes out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the most practical way to make this happen on a relatively large scale is to update Diberri's tool to add it. It's possible that the citation tool could automatically interpreting some of the simpler items, but if it simply added the blank parameter, that subtle suggestion would result in the field being populated far more than it is now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally know how, but it's certainly technically feasible. Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia harvests all of the values for "journal=" in the template on a regular basis, so once the information is there (the main sticking point), a bot could pick it up. Choess (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the {{cite journal}} documentation: Type: Additional information about the media type of the source. Hence using this field to store the PubMed publication type might clash with the current usage of this field. It might be better to create a new special purpose field in Module:Citation/CS1 to store the publication type. It appears that the Publication Type (PT) (see list of publication types) is accessible from the Entrez E-utilities. So in principle it should be possible to modify Diberri's template filling tool to populate this field as well as create a bot that could add this information to existing citations. Boghog (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so it's meant to be a MIME type (e.g. "application/pdf") then ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could be, or it might encompass a wider list of media types (e.g., print, web, radio, tv, audiocassette, etc.). Boghog (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} that also use Module:Citation/CS1: Type: Examples: Thesis, Booklet, CD liner, Press release. Boghog (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oh, my, I don't want to have to deal with that mean jargony person over at the cite template pages again; I don't know what language that person speaks. Anyway, I've been trying to flag reviews at medical cannabis today, and even doing it manually, it is not always clear to me when sources are really reviews, or just partial reviews ... so I'm not sure how a bot can do this or how we can incorporate it into Boghog/Diberri. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, if {{cite journal}} is used, the medium should be obvious (print and possibly also web). Hence one should not normally need to specify the medium for a journal citation. Therefore we could modify the definition of the type parameter to be the PubMed publication type only within the cite journal template. This way we leave Module:Citation/CS1 untouched. The only change we need to make is to the cite journal documentation. The required modifications to the template filler and creation of a bot should be straight forward. Boghog (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose the "format" param already can give an indication of "media type" ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I forgot about the format parameter Format of the work referred to by url; for example: PDF, DOC, or XLS; displayed in parentheses after title. One minor issue is that the type parameter is displayed after the journal name:
  • {{cite journal | author = author | title = title | journal = journal | type = type | year = year | format = PDF | url = http://en.wikipedia.org }} →
  • author (year). "title" (PDF). journal (type). {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
Logically the publication type should come after the title and not the journal name (many journals publish more than one kind of article type). Boghog (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dentistry

I noticed that Template:DentPortalTalk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. This showed that WP:WikiProject Dentistry is inactive. Perhaps dentistry should be merged as a taskforce into this project? And Portal:Dentistry should come under the WPMED banner? -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Medheader}}

Template:Medheader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.148.105 (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Olson, R.A., Huszti, H.C., Mason, P.J., & Seibert, J.M. (1989). Pediatric AIDS/HIV infection: An emerging challenge to pediatric psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 14(1), 1-21.
  2. ^ a b Domek, G.J. (2009). Facing adolescence and adulthood: The importance of mental health care in the global pediatric AIDS epidemic. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 30, 147-150.
  3. ^ Benton, T.D. (2010). Treatment of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents with HIV/AIDS.Current Psychiatry Reports, 12, 104-110.
  4. ^ a b c d Xu, Shifen; et al. (2013). "Adverse Events of Acupuncture: A Systematic Review of Case Reports". Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2013: 581203. doi:10.1155/2013/581203. PMC 3616356. PMID 23573135. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  5. ^ a b "Post-Impressionism, Seurat's A Sunday on La Grande Jatte - 1884". Smarthistory at Khan Academy. Retrieved January 4, 2013. Cite error: The named reference "smarth" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Flu Epidemiology". Stanford School of Medicine with Khan Academy. Retrieved December 4, 2013.
  7. ^ "Fragonard's The Swing". Smarthistory at Khan Academy. Retrieved January 21, 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=584636197"