Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Potential new articles log

Hello again. This post contains multiple questions so I have numbered them.

1. Does anyone currently use these: User:AlexNewArtBot#Biology_and_medicine (specifically, User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult or User:InceptionBot/NewPageSearch/Medicine/log which are filled using articles matching the regexp patterns at User:AlexNewArtBot/Medicine?
2. Has a better tool replaced it? I'm wondering because the only WikiProject Medicine page I saw linking to it (other than archives) (User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult) appears to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Tasks (which itself, or part of it is reported to be transcluded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Tools, which is what the main project's menu links to (but I still failed to see the link in the latter, interestingly)).
3. If this is still considered useful, perhaps links to these could be made more prominent (or the results transcluded on a more prominent page)?
4. I'm wondering if the project would also be interested in tracking alternative medicine using this tool. Various reports I have made here were as a result of pages reported by the WikiProject Skepticism filters which includes some alternate medicine terms (User:AlexNewArtBot/Skepticism). While that project also deals with other fringe topics and pseudoscience, it would be possible to create a rules list specific and specialized to finding new articles related to alternate medicine (alternatively, it would be possible to add related terms to the existing main medicine rules). Of course, this also depends on if the project is interested in tracking new alternative medicine article creations.

Thanks, --PaleoNeonate - 09:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

tracking alternative medicine using this tool... might be useful, though you'd need more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I have used those lists in the past, but not for more than a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Proposed deletion of Exonucleophagy

The article Exonucleophagy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable; term does not exist in English; no attestations in English outside wikis and other user-provided content; one Croatian journal ref has it double-quoted as a neologism in the article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I redirected to a target article where the term is used. But the term is not in wide use, so deletion would not a a great loss. --Mark viking (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirect seems fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect, but I'm currently looking at the history of that article, and I'm not sure I'm satisfied with the redirect, as there seems to be a very tenuous connection of that non-word to the article, plus the term was introduced by some of the same editors in both cases, with sources that I'm not sure hold up. I will update later, if need be. Mathglot (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Addiction suppression

This article was created today.

Is anyone willing to go through this article and do a WP:MEDRS+WP:V check? Whatever is left following a reference check should be merged into Addiction#Research. I'd be fine with doing the merger, but I don't really feel like checking the references for MEDRS and WP:V at the moment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Nevermind, it's been nominated for deletion due to copyright infringement. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This ref does not even mention the topic in question.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The source it is copied from is under an open license.

But the references do not say the things they are attached too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: If the articles used images that were CC-BY-SA-4.0 from the source, that would be okay. But, the text of a CC-BY-SA-4.0-copyrighted source can't be published under CC-BY-SA-3.0 if it's reproduced verbatim because CC-BY-SA-4.0 requires that the republication be licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0. That's required by the share-alike (SA) portion of the license: "ShareAlike -- If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.". All Wikipedia articles are published under CC-BY-SA-3.0, so, despite the fact that the 3.0 and 4.0 licenses having almost the same licensing terms, the non-compliance with the SA clause in that license technically is copyright infringement. That's why it was nominated for deletion for copyright infringement. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

We are moving to CC BY SA 4.0 soon. The article should be deleted because it is poorly referenced not because of copyright issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I haven't looked at the references, but it'd probably be deleted faster for copyvio than for lack of notability as an independent article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It is bad regardless. This route will keep it deleted longer as when WP goes CC BY SA 4.0 than the copyright reason will follow away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright #Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? The table shows CC-BY-SA 4.0 as not compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0. However the associated footnote states "According to the WMF legal team, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not backwards compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, mixing text licenses under 3.0 and 4.0 would be problematic, however media files uploaded under this license are fine." The licence is backwards compatible for images, but not for text??? How much are we paying these people? --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason it's fine for images but not text is that images can be published under a 4.0 license on Wikimedia Commons as well as on Wikipedia, but, as per the the WMF's terms of use, all text on WP is licensed under 3.0 by default. Also, the 4.0 license is forwards compatible with the 3.0 license, but not backwards compatible; so, text published under 3.0 can be published under 4.0, but not vice versa. See https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses for further information about this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

So the situation is that images published under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence on another website (e.g. Commons) are ok to include in a Wikipedia article, but text that's published under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence on another website is not ok to include in a Wikipedia article. Got it. Is it just me that thinks that there a teeny little bit of contradiction there? --RexxS (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup that is why I would not delete it based on copyright. That copyright rule is silly. There are better reasons to delete. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• [2]now that its been deleted, the Addiction 'epidemiology' section needs some referencing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

• Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bilateral stimulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few years back when noticing the first article I wondered if it wasn't fringe promotion. Today it was added to the pseudoscience category which reminded me of it. More eyes welcome, --PaleoNeonate - 16:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) for PTSD/U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs...interesting(added "see also" section)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It's now CSD tagged, but since it's PTSD related: Draft:Wordcommando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --PaleoNeonate - 04:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

At this point in the history of the treatment, the criticisms emphasized in the recent editing in both articles are fringy. This is a relatively recent change in how EMDR is viewed, and I wouldn't be surprised if the perceptions swung again after more research is published. While I've not kept up with all the discussions and editing, I believe all the substantial criticisms were published outside MEDRS date requirements, so those criticisms should be treated as minority viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

yes true, sometimes perceptions swing again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Surely the categorisation as pseudoscience is inconsistent with endorsement by WHO, NICE, SAMHSA, and the other organisations listed at EMDR#Position_statements? Also the guidance at Category:Pseudoscience: "Generally speaking, if an article belongs in this category, the article's lead will contain a well-sourced statement that the subject is considered pseudoscience." Adrian J. Hunter^{(talkocontribs)} 23:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I've removed it from the category and removed much of the changes to both articles as POV and MEDRS violations. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

src: i0.wp.com

2017 best article prize (WikiJournal of Medicine)

There are 8 weeks left to submit an article to the WikiJournal of Medicine for it to be eligible for the 2017 prize. For more information, see this advertisment from January or visit this author information page.

• Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start (example)
• Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review, either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review (example)
• Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram (example)

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

great opportunity!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

src: i1.wp.com

Queen's University Student Editing: Active Talk Page Suggestions

Students have begun to post their content on the talk pages of their articles. Thanks to those that have already noticed and commented. If you are interested in checking it out or have any suggestions related to the content that they are suggesting, please take a look. If you did not see the previous post, please see it here (above) for an overview of the approach we are taking. Talk Pages:

• Talk:Basic symptoms of schizophrenia David notMD commented
• Talk:Encephalitis (responded--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC))
• Talk:Takotsubo cardiomyopathy #Suggested Edits David notMD commented
• Talk:Peanut_allergy#Proposed_Edits Zefr and David notMD commented
• Talk:Gangrene#Citations_and_Small_Additions.2FRemovals RexxS and David notMD commented
• Talk:Neural_tube_defect David notMD commented
• Talk:Failure_to_thrive David notMD commented
• Talk:Frostbite#Suggested changes David notMD and Doc James commented
• Talk:Prostate cancer staging RexxS and David notMD commented
• Talk:Pica_(disorder)#Possible_updates David notMD commented
• Talk:African_tick_bite_fever#Suggested_Changes David notMD commented
• Talk:Urinary retention David notMD commented
• Talk:Kidney_failure -- (responded Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC))
• Talk:Cardiac_catheterization -- (responded Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC))
• Talk:Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_self David notMD and RexxS commented
• Talk:Tularemia#Suggested_Changes(responded--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC))

Thanks again to all of you for your patience, feedback, and suggestions. JenOttawa (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

their doing great at Talk:Encephalitis--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I did two and marked them. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for updating this @Jytdog:, it was a good idea. I commented on the Neural Tube Defect article. If anyone has a few extra minutes, I would appreciate another set of eyes on my comments :) JenOttawa (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far - the suggestions are really helpful! We are meeting in class on November 15th and will have the students start making their edits then. We are planning to have them do small amounts every few days over a 2 week period, so as not to overwhelm the community with edits. The students have done a lot of work finding new sources and planning changes, and we are really appreciative of the effort from the community to help us with content, lay language and formatting. Please send any questions or issue to my talk page or to JenOttawa. HeatherMurray Queen's (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Noted other responders. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Medscape reference in Munchausen syndrome

This might interest you, HeatherMurray Queen's and JenOttawa, so I've placed it here, rather than in a new section. While commenting about Munchausen syndrome, I realised that the entire diagnosis section is sourced to a single webpage that deals with Munchausen syndrome by proxy (a different condition). I've made a request at Talk:Munchausen syndrome #Medscape reference for anybody who can suggest some sources that relate to the actual condition that the article is about. Can anyone here help? --RexxS (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @RexxS:, I will notify the student group. Great observation! JenOttawa (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

DSM5, where the term is "Factitious disorder imposed on self" Page 325 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Galactooligosaccharide

spammy dietary supplement article that could use love. i will try to get to it in due course but perhaps someone can get there earlier. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

books?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Hysterical strength

This gives me a headache and I wouldn't even know where to begin to make things right. The editing history of the most recent editor makes for interesting reading and gives a clue to why the article exists in its present form. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ? ? 01:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ya, that seems to give too much weight to non-MEDRS sources. Granted, it is a topic that is more likely to get attention in the popular press rather than the medical one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I also noticed this but because of the WP:SKEPTIC untagging, I have retagged it for monitoring, but can't work on that article at current time myself. --PaleoNeonate - 07:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Should it simple be merged with "strength" as a subsection? Trim all the primary sources / pop press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Community wish list is open

For applications Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine[3])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Ref spamming

Accounts spamming this author ("Kyle BD"). Ref does not support the text it is added to.

• 68.147.72.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 76.75.136.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 23.92.128.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• SiriusDragon

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

8 papers...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Sophrology

Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to make claims, so can't be cleaned up using MEDRS. However, it only uses sources from one side of the topic, so it needs more critical sources to be added. I've made a small start. --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested some possible sources on talkpage, but it might be considered for a merge to hypnotherapy, which has lots of (mostly poor) sources: one of several problems.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

French Wikipedia

Analysis of their medical content finds a less than 2% error rate.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

very skilled--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It did only analyse five articles, but nevertheless quite impressive. I note that he cites James' articles, Quantifying Readership, Editors, and the Significance of Natural Language (2015), and A Key Tool for Global Public Health Promotion (2011). --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Taser safety issues

I haven't read through the vast majority of this article, but just from looking at the lead and "Other medical issues" section, it appears to need a rewrite in the relevant parts containing medical statements. The lead itself contains a several significant uncited and seemingly promotional medical claims that aren't repeated with a citation in the body (e.g., the entire first paragraph and the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the current lead (this is a permalink)). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

[5]review may help article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Medicine/Selected Article

I don't know how commonly the medical portal is viewed by readers, but we really need to revise/update the summaries of most of the portal's selected articles; one of those is randomly selected and transcluded onto the portal page each time the portal is viewed or the portal page is refreshed. E.g., special:diff/675993011/810283684 and special:diff/412149141/810284578 are examples of very noticeable problems in two of our "selected article" summaries. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, we should probably only include featured medical articles on the portal page. All the existing selected article summaries could be deleted and replaced with the "Today's Featured Article" (TFA) excerpt/summary for each featured medical article that appeared on the main page. The TFA summaries could be copy/pasted directly into the selected article sub-pages since the formatting/style of a TFA summary is exactly the same as a portal's "selected article" summary. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

On the question of popularity: "Not popular" looks like a reasonable interpretation. It's averaging 127 page views per day. For comparison, article #1000 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages gets more than ten times that number of page views each day. Overall, I think that portals have outlived their usefulness.

On the question of what to include: FAs and GAs is probably reasonable and a fairly typical cutoff. We could probably expand/update the list of DYKs as well. Also, it's not just WPMED's articles; it should include things from other healthcare fields, such as dentistry and pharmacology. So updates should check those as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think portals have ever had any usefulness on Wikipedia. The basic problem is that there is no mechanism to motivate people to look at them. The only important portal is the main page, because it is the default for so many people. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

List of genetic disorders

This list is long and unwieldy. There must be a better way to divide it than by listing everything alphabetically. Any suggestions? Natureium (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Ditch it entirely. Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is somehow missing the most important genetic disorder: life. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

best to keep Full list and mark those conditions on it that are 'most common'(thereby eliminating the need for the smaller list first)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Could list just the main ones, and than have separate a b c etc lists for the full list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind the a,b,c,d lists idea, but would you list them by gene names, each name (since most have multiple names), or some other scheme? I thought at first the it's a pointless list and just the most common should be kept, but I have no idea how most common should be defined. I also considered dividing the list by chromosome, but many are polygenic. Natureium (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not nearly as long as I expected. I think it's fine.

If you want, you can add anchors inside the table, and put {{Compact TOC}} at the top of the full list. Also: I strongly recommend that you use the visual editor when you're working on tables. (You'll also like its automatic citation tool: just paste in a PMID and get your citation back.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

And I strongly recommend that you don't use the visual editor when creating tables until such time as the visual editor is upgraded to comply with MOS:DTT by marking up row headers and adding scopes for column and row headers. We're never going to make any progress in making tables accessible for visitors using assistive technology while it's considered okay to ignore their accessibility needs. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

RexxS is right. Of course, no reader on medical topics would ever need assistive devices. Oh, wait... LeadSongDog come howl! 17:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If we wanted to make progress on that, then presumably the place to start is at the top of Help:Table. VisualEditor, WikiEditor, and RefToolbar all produce the same basic wikitext that you'll find in that help page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The very top of Help:Table says "For accessibility, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial." VisualEditor does not produce the "same basic wikitext" that that link calls for. It's just the usual "let's ignore everything that doesn't affect us directly" attitude that everybody working to improve accessibility is so used to seeing. Sadly. --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not extremely long now, but it's nowhere near complete. I started to add more, but decided to wait until a decision was made so as to not make division of the table harder. Natureium (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

complete--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, those are only rare diseases. Natureium (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Genetic Home Reference lists about 1,200[6] We can copy their list as it is PD as it is a US gov site. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse vs. child molestation

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Child sexual abuse#Child sexual abuse vs. child molestation again. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to differentiate child sexual abuse from child molestation in the lead of (and/or possibly lower in) the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Aversion therapy

Can someone review the aversion therapy article? It cites a lot of small and pretty dated studies, e.g. on smoking. The (critical) Cochrane review on aversive smoking isn't cited however etc. 86.127.42.70 (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, the page completely fails to mention that aversion therapy was the most used "treatment" for homosexuality; see PMC4265253 for instance. All in all, the page is a curious combination of the 1984 version of Wikipedia and a strange amnesia. 86.127.42.70 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and improve :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Renal fibrosis / Renal interstitial fibrosis / Kidney interstitial fibrosis / Tubulointerstitial fibrosis

Links for context: PMC article & Pubmed article & indoxyl sulfate. Do we have an article on this topic for these pages to redirect to? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis -- Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Kidney disease is the best I can come up with. Additional terms: ICD-10 conflates renal fibrosis with renal sclerosis, which goes to acquired unspecified contracted kidney (at N26). Little pob (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Circumcision and PTSD, more eyes pls

Some issues at Posttraumatic stress disorder

See

• Talk:Circumcision#Needs_discussion_first
• Talk:Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Circumcision_and_PTSD

Key ref being spammed around that has apparently kicked this off, is an oddly old primary source: Ramos, S; Boyle (2001). "Ritual and Medical Circumcision among Filipino Boys". In Denniston, George C; Hodges, Frederick Mansfield; Milos, Marilyn Fayre. Understanding circumcision : a multidisciplinary approach to a multi-dimensional problem. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4419-3375-1. 

other articles where it is being spammed include

• PTSD Symptom Scale - Self-Report Version
• Clinician Administered PTSD Scale
• Circumcision
• Impact of Event Scale - Revised (IES-R)

Non-MEDRS ref being spammed into WP and other non-MEDRS refs piled on top; some likely socking, some advocacy... Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia