Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 105

Archive 100

←

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

→

Archive 110

How simple is too simple?

I know that we are supposed to write the lead of medical articles in a simple way (although I think this is unnecessary, as most medical words are linked to anyway), but how simple is too simple? There's a difference between writing for someone with a high school education and someone with a fifth grade education, and over-simplifying things can be detrimental. For example, "feeling like the world is spinning" instead of "vertigo" in a list of symptoms makes the article look like it was written by a fifth-grader. As some point, we might as well just add a link to the Simple English Wikipedia at the top of the page. Natureium (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the goal (please correct me if I'm wrong folks) is about an eighth grade reading level. It's surprising sometimes how simplified it needs to be for people to really understand but it's definitely important for us to be mindful of others' health literacy levels. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Here you got the term incorrect[1] which sort of proves the need for simple to understand language. I would rather Wikipedia look unprofessional and people understand our content than the other way around.

Dizziness comes in three types

1. Light headed / presyncope
2. Vertigo / world spinning
3. Non specific / a sort of unsteadness

It is critical to determine which type is present. Dizziness does not equal vertigo but is simple a larger category within which it exists.

I have spoken with 100s of people about this condition. More than a decade ago I used to ask, "do you have vertigo" and the patient would solemnly assure me that they did. And 30 minutes later I would realized that 90% of them had no idea what I actually meant and we were both heading in the wrong direction.

Now I say "do you feel light heading or like you are going to faint or pass out when you stand up" and "does it feel like the world is spinning". I now get at the underlying difficult much more quickly.

Does simple language matter? You bet it does. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with James' assessment. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, "feeling like the world is spinning" could also mean that they are intoxicated. I'm aware that dizziness can refer to multiple symptoms, but "feeling like the world is spinning" is can also mean multiple things, and not all cases of vertigo involve feeling like the world is spinning. Natureium (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There is an issue with assuming that just because you've linked a piece of jargon, you've explained it. You haven't.

I have no training in anatomy and I remember reading in Aquatic ape hypothesis #The Hardy/Morgan hypothesis that the position of the trachea differed between humans and apes. I wanted to visualise exactly what the difference was, so I used navigation popups to see the start of the Trachea article, only to be told that it "connects the pharynx and larynx to the lungs". You can see where I'm going with this, can't you? I'm lucky compared to a unregistered reader, or someone using a touch-screen that has no 'hover', because I don't have to leave the page to check a link. Most of our readers could be going from one article to another and another, just to understand one sentence. That's no way to write an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The last time I checked we had around 150 medical articles tagged as “too technical”, so I think the question raised here is a good one. CV9933 (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There have been articles in lots of disciplines that I've stumbled on that were confusing to me because I was unfamiliar with the terms used, and I clicked on the links and figured it out. (Or decided that I wasn't really all that interested in axial multipole moments.) There are plenty of websites that serve to provide a brief description of medical information in layman's terms. We have the opportunity to provide much more detailed information for people that are looking for more than just a dumbed-down list of symptoms. Natureium (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Following with interest. This issue is coming up a lot with student editors and new editors. How do you feel about using words like "presentation" or "presents with" when describing a symptom, for example? For Rexx's example, is using the technical/proper anatomical word (with a wiki-link), following by a brief lay-terminology description in brackets, a good way to find a happy medium? JenOttawa (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

"could also mean that they are intoxicated" Well, yeah, but that's because it's the same thing. The inner ear doesn't work properly when you're drunk, and that makes you feel like the world's spinning around. Drunk people get vertigo (world-spinning) and several other symptoms, some of which, such as positional alcohol nystagmus, are not very well-known or not correctly understood by most people. The world-spinning sensation is called vertigo in medical-ese, and alcohol intoxication is one of the more popular methods of inducing that symptom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Many (perhaps even most?) readers on the English Wikipedia are not en-n. Their conceptual grasp in their native language is beyond their English reading level. I generally seek the "as simple as possible and no simpler" goal. This sometimes means only writing for post-grad and sometimes for grade school levels. In general, the broader the topic's interest area, the easier the reading should be. I hold that lede sections should be written for two or three years younger level than the article body. There are numerous tools available to assess readability by several different indices. Shouldn't they routinely become part of article assessment? There is a side benefit: copy-pasted text tends to be written at a less readable level, making it stand out. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I ask these two questions out of curiosity, not animosity: 1) What does "en-n" mean? 2) "as simple as possible and no simpler" - Is this an intentional redundancy, i.e., saying the same thing twice for emphasis? If not, "as simple as possible" would suffice.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Markworthen: We would use "en-n" to emphatically indicate "a native English speaker" – abbreviations similar to that are found as a parameters to the Babel userbox (although just "en" is sufficient for "native speaker" in that template). HTH --RexxS (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah ha! I have learned something new. :O) Thanks RexxS!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the stats for our readers specifically, but from English language: "As of 2016, 400 million people spoke English as their first language, and 1.1 billion spoke it as a secondary language." In other words, English is not the first language of roughly three-quarters of the people who speak it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Babel boxes

For everyone: Please take a moment to add a "Babel box", aka a useful note about which languages you can read and write, to your user page here and (especially) at Meta ("User:Example", not your talk page).

It's quick and easy if you speak only English: paste {{#babel:en}} somewhere on to your user page.

If you speak multiple languages, then you add the extra codes like a simple template. Your native/preferred language goes first, and then you name the others by ISO language code, with your level of skill.

The language codes should normally match the Wikipedia language code. For example, the English Wikipedia is at en.wikipedia.org, so the language code is "en", and the French Wikipedia is at fr.wikipedia.org, so the language code is "fr".

You self-rate your skill on a scale from 0 to 4, with 0 meaning nothing at all, 1 meaning basic, 2 meaning intermediate, 3 meaning advanced, and 4 meaning near-native.

For example, I speak English natively, and I've learned a little Spanish and German, so my user page says {{#babel:en|de-1|es-1}}, which means native English and basic Spanish and German.

Wikipedia:Babel has more details for anyone who's curious. This is even more useful now that compact language links will check your Meta page for the languages you can read, and prioritize those for what it offers to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiCV for contributors

Hi all, I'm a 4th year Computer Science undergraduate student based out of India. I've been selected as an intern for Wikimedia under Round-15 of Outreachy. I'll be building a web tool called WikiCV (under the mentorship of Gergő Tisza and Stephen LaPorte), somewhat similar to your LinkedIn, StackOverflow or Github profile. Before starting with the project, I wanted inputs from users who are my target audience, that is you all! So thought of asking it over the talk page.(My mentors pointed me to this page as here many ardent users are present.)
We came up with this project because we feel that Wikipedia needs a powerful force to draw new editors to the project and allow existing editors to spend more time on it without harming their career; unfortunately, due to the highly collaborative nature of Wikipedia, the value of one's participation is hard to measure for an outsider, which makes it very hard for contributors to take credit for value added to Wikipedia.
Hence, we want to create a contribution summarizing tool which (unlike the existing ones that focus on statistics and are hard to interpret for someone not familiar with Wikipedia editing) highlights contributions in an easy-to-understand manner.

I want your inputs on:
1. What all things would you like to see in your CV for Wikipedia contributions?
2. In what way should we present the data/ contribution summary so that it is understandable by a non-Wikipedia user?
3. What are the benefits/problems of the current tools that summarize the contribution of a user (like Xtools)?
4. The CV will definitely reflect your contribution, but would it be better if it shows your current standing with respect to other users? For example, reputation points in Stack Overflow reflect how good you are relatively. One idea that I thought was - Imagine a tool that tells someone is in the top 1% of editors. Would it be nice? If yes, what would you consider a good basis for that statement?

Also, I prepared a mockup for the CV to give a rough idea as to what we are thinking of. Please check it out as well.
Apart from this, I thought of presenting the contributions in a manner similar to Github. I've prepared a tool for that. Kindly have a look at that as well and give your reviews about it.

My work is largely dependent on your inputs, so please pour in your comments/views. Your help will be quite appreciated!
Anyone can reach out to me through mail(meghasharma4910@gmail.com) as well.
Eagerly waiting for your inputs :)
Meghasharma213 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

What an interesting project! My first thought was that employers/promotion panels might see heavy Wikipedia participation (e.g. looking at edits per day) and see that as a negative thing. It might be better to emphasise things created (or maintained) rather than on the volume of activity.

I edit Wikipedia a lot, but most of my edits aren't related to my work... but some are. Would there be a way of separating these? I'd want an employer to be impressed that I created forest plot, but not that I'd created Stephen Lipson. Likewise, a Wikipedian-in-residence might want to highlight their work on a particular in-residence project separate to other editing. Bondegezou (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Firsly, thanks for your inputs! And yes you would be able to separate work-related edits from others. The idea of pinned repositories is based on this only. But for this, you need to pin them their own. I'm also looking for a way to do it programmatically too. But any which ways, this feature would be there.
Meghasharma213 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Meghasharma213: not a medicine editor, but I'll chip in since I've mentioned my contributions on my CV in the past. What I would consider appropriate material is anything

• Articles created
• Articles that have undergone significant expansions/rewrites
• DYKs
• Featured/Good article/list/topic/media/anything covered by WP:RECOG
• WikiProject membership
• High level rights/responsibilities that require formal community endorsement WP:ADMIN/WP:ARBCOM/WP:BAG/WP:CRAT
• Edit counts [as flawed as this is]
• Selected contributions (signpost articles, creation of large-ish project like the creation of a taskforce, or projects like WP:AALERTS)

See also User:Headbomb/My work, although I would not include everything there in a CV. Sometimes I'd just include a summary, e.g. "Created 152 articles about academic publications and 53 about other topics". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

An interesting project. I agree with most of the previous suggestions, and suggest also analysing whether the person is a largely a content creator, copyeditor, generalist maintenance gnome, vandalism fighter, specialist in policy or MOS discussions, new page reviewer, dispute resolver, and what proportion of their input goes into these aspects. You could also analyse trends over time, spread of editing over projects, translation, contribution to other Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects, and spread of work over Wikipedia projects. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

— Meghasharma213 — For this project to be useful it needs to provide something that doesn't exist today. We already have a portal where we can show off our "Curiculum wikiae" on our userpages, for example mine: User:CFCF. So, if this is to bring something new it has to be automatic updates and tracking of certain metrics as well as a standardized way to show these off.

When chosing which metrics we should track we need to be very careful, and need to weigh a number of factors before we promote or choose any as defaults (or even allow them at all). We also have to take into account that any metric chosen will promote edits that increase this metric (not necessarily good, See Goodhart's law). This means that they should be chosen with care, and not be ones that are open to "gaming", such as was done in an older Arb-com case where an editor decided to be the "top editor", racking up edit numbers at the expense of article quality, rather than by promoting quality [2]. Incentivizing edit count further risks promoting bad behaviours and leads to objectively worse quality articles on Wikipedia because spam-edits fill up watchlists and make it harder to keep track of who did what and when in article histories.

I'd also like to give some constructive feedback on the creation of a rating system. Designed as in your mock-up — it will not work on Wikipedia — because it promotes editing in non-controversial areas only. If you edit on alternative medicine, politics, religion etc. anyone who does not agree with your view is very likely to give you a poor rating. If this rating matters for editors, it may decrease editing in controversial topics — which is the opposite of what we want, especially as studies (which I should link, but it's getting late and I need to go to bed) have shown a correlation between number of editors and quality of articles. An alternative is to tally "thanks" or something similar where only positive feedback can be added, but this is also up for gaming, by for example sock-puppets and tag-teams (if quite a lot less destructive than outright rating).

Any CV-app worth having on Wikipedia needs to be heavily customizable and allow for project specific metrics to be shown off, such as DYK, GA, FA etc. — and it needs to be customizable by the user who wants it — so that they can choose which badges and metrics they want to show off. What you created at [3] has in fact been made already, but was blocked for being too much of a privacy invasion in Xtools, and is today only available as an opt-in. I suggest you make any tools you create opt-in, where you can not look up other editors. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: @Pbsouthwood: @Soupvector: thanks a lot for your suggestions! I've incorporated your ideas and will get back to your when the design is ready!
Meghasharma213 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Who is the consumer (whom does the novice editor want to impress with their WikiCV)? That would help inform how you approach this. For example, as university professor I admit skepticism (but I'm intrigued to see whether a consensus develops). I would rather hear from a job/training applicant about how they feel about Wikipedia editing than about their edit count, DYK, etc metrics. As Carl Fredrik notes, any scoring system is likely to be gamed. Hoping others will have better ideas, but in my mind the audience is the first question to answer. — soupvector (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Who is the intended audience? does seem to be the most important question as soupvector said (in addition to the other editors excellent suggestions and questions). I'm not sure if this will be helpful, but on my regular CV, under Community and Professional Service, I added the following:

Wikipedian (volunteer editor), Wikipedia, 2008-present. (Why is this important?).

At least for the purposes of a standard CV, this seems to be enough information.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The consumers can be divided into 3 categories -

1. Those editors who want to take credit for their contributions and show it to say, their bosses.

2. Those editors who are new. For them, this tool can act a motivation factor to make more and better edits.

3. Those editors who don't want to derive something out of it but just want to gain a sense of how much and how well they have contributed.:::
Meghasharma213 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• for me and probably many others, the tool has no value as i edit pseudonymously and plan to do so for a long time to come. But i hear it that it might be useful for some folks, who choose to link their RW identity to their WP account. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • IMO greater clarity to the wider world regarding who writes WP would be useful. I have had many academics request this. Thankfully we have it to some extend. Will this help with recruiting editors, maybe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I think academics have a lot to learn from editing WP anonymously - such as the focus on content rather than personality (where the latter can corrode the former in some academic spheres). I would prefer a layer of oversight (where someone in a position of trust is aware of identity, to manage COI etc) that would allow us to leave badges at the door on the way in. — soupvector (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Hum. I agree it is an interesting balance. We do not want the wider world to continue to paint our efforts as "non professional" yet we want our content to stand on the shoulders of the sources rather than that of the Wikipedians who wrote it. Additionally we do not want Wikipedia to seem anti intellectual and evidence that a large portion of contributors are professionals I think decreases that. But at the same time we want to remain open to the wider public. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• As with Jytdog above, I've speaking as an outside observer since (although anyone who really wants to can find out my RL identity easily enough) I see Wikipedia's commitment to anonymity as a core value and don't publicly link myself to my account. Assuming your mockup is roughly what it will look like, I can see a few potential issues. The one that jumps out at me right away is that—as with Wikipedia's existing edit-count tools—without context the numbers can often be very misleading. If an editor has 50% of their edits to talk-pages, is it because they're somebody misusing Wikipedia as a social networking site, or because they're a dedicated collaborator who ensures they thoroughly discuss everything before making changes? Is 200 edits to an article more impressive than one edit, given that the 200 edits might all be very minor tweaks and the one edit might be something like taking an article from 400 to 12700 words in one edit? This isn't a criticism of you—these are all issues both the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikipedia community have struggled with for years. What I'd find more useful is, rather than try to automate the process completely, create something that will create something like this page of mine listing everything I've done substantial work on or have taken through a particular review process, outputting it in an editable format so I can remove false-positives or irrelevances (I'm nominally the creator of Cats That Look Like Hitler, but I did no substantive work on it nor is it something I'd be likely to mention on a CV), manually add things that the script has missed, and add annotations to put things in context. I again echo those above who say that such a tool should be opt-in; yes, Wikipedia editors' contribution histories are public information, but we have s serious problem with doxxing and opposition research, and in many cases this kind of tool can be used to build up an image of any given editor's hobbies, occupation, and place of residence against their wishes. ‑ Iridescent 20:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• This is a cool idea, but let me join in to agree with the above on what would be useful in a short summary for non-Wikipedian professional consumption. I also prefer to be pseudonymous here, but keeping mum about my real-life identity on Wikipedia is (mostly!) not the same as keeping mum about my Wikipedia work in real life ;) I have in fact made reference to my Wikipedia experience on occasion in real life, usually in the course of discussing science communication and public outreach, so I'd potentially find something like this project useful. But what I'd want to see is, like Iridescent, a summary of my major content contributions, not so much stats like edits per day or thanks received. (My much less impressive equivalent of Iri's page is here.) I realize this is a harder task and may be beyond the scope of your project, but if you're aiming for something that will get used in the wild, I think you'd need to look at something like this.
  This is definitely out of the scope of your project, but I'm just going to put this here for general interest - awhile back I floated the idea (I don't remember in what context) of encouraging expert content review on Wikipedia by giving credit to reviewers via the Publons system (which is designed to track and credit academics for their participation in peer review). Not quite the same as a full wiki-CV, but a potential way for people to document their Wikipedia activities within the umbrella of a recognized professional context. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Urination pages

We have Frequent urination and Urinary urgency trying to distinguish each other. Any reason they should not be merged?

We also have Urinary incontinence, Overactive bladder and Polyuria. Urge incontinence is covered at the Overactive bladder article instead of having its own Wikipedia article. I think having all these separate articles is more confusing than educational, especially since sources define some of them differently or in the same way. I understand Nocturia (being specifically about urination at night) having its own article. I also understand Polyuria having its own Wikipedia article. And overactive bladder is a well-known term/topic. So, of course, it has its own Wikipedia article. Similar goes for urinary incontinence.

I'll alert WP:Anatomy to this discussion section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

should merge Frequent urination and Urinary urgency...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What would one call the merge?

Frequency is just peeing often.

Urgency is the immediate need to pee without delay.

They are slightly different symptoms but often go together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I was also wondering what one would call the merge. Maybe "Frequent and urgent urination"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

perhaps not a bad idea for a title...Frequent or urgent urination--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

On a side note: I'm not stating that the subarticles noted at Urinary incontinence should not exist, but, man, do we have a lot of urination pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose merge as proposed. The danger here is conflating urinary urgency and frequent urination - as Doc James says, they are distinct but often (not always) linked. These symptoms are most prominent (common and severe) in overactive bladder so addressing them (as distinct symptoms) there seems sensible, but they are likely to appear (separately or together) in other articles. — soupvector (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The above is a suggestion rather than an official WP:Merge discussion. I understand the oppose, but we do have articles where different terms/concepts are covered in one article. HIV/AIDS is one example; I know that is different because of a change in medical language/views, but there are still many people who distinguish between HIV and AIDS, and HIV still has its own Wikipedia article. Looking at what some of the sources state about urination and the different terms for urination problems, I was wondering if perhaps one or more of the urination pages could be merged or be something like a WP:Broad-concept article (emphasis on "like"). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

One could have an article on "urinary symptoms" were each has its own section. The big one gets their own section and article, the ones with less content just get a section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That could work. Or better yet, "Urinary disorders" (or just "Urinary disorder") since it's a matter of disorders and their symptoms. And the "Frequent urination" and "Urinary urgency" pages could be merged into that. But creating a "Urinary symptoms" article might not be a solution if it just turns out to be yet another urination page with no smaller pages being merged within in. When it comes to merging the "Frequent urination" and "Urinary urgency" pages, the MedlinePlus article that Ozzie10aaaa added in above is what I was talking about. MedlinePlus obviously saw it as beneficial to cover the two in one article. It's easy enough to distinguish the two in one article titled "Frequent and urgent urination." Anyway, I'm not hard-pressed on any of this. Just wanted to address it and throw out ideas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Disorders are diseases and what we are discussing here are symptoms and signs. Should likely keep the two separate even though we often use them interchangeably. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Doc, something like urinary urgency can be considered a disorder. But, yes, of course, it and other urination disorders can also be a sign or symptom of some other disorder. So I understand what you mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As for disorder vs. disease, sources do not always agree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

For example, phobias are disorders, but no one would call them diseases (hardly anyone anyway). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James and am inclined to keep them separate, but perhaps the lead could more readily distinguish the two for the sake of readers. In the case of UTIs, it might be common to have both, but in the case of, say, untreated diabetes insipidus, you would have "frequent" but not "urgent" urination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(Update: I added a few sentences to the first. Perhaps someone else would like to add a bit to the other. It's so short that it would be a super-easy article to expand.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Eh, I don't see any benefit in keeping them separate. Reading a lot on them these past two days, seeing the MedlinePlus article, and knowing that the separate articles can be redundant and unnecessarily cause readers to go to separate articles, has further convinced me of that. And Doc did consider an umbrella article by suggesting a name. But like I stated, I'm not hard-pressed on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I can get to it today, I've got a bunch of textbooks open here and it would take just a short time. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 09:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Medical college list

I asked the following question at Talk:Medical college and would appreciate opinions: What is the purpose of having a list here? A complete list would take over the entire article, as there are 250 articles just in the medical associations in the US category. What's to determine what articles are worthy of being listed here? Natureium (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Commented at the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

XX male syndrome article

Translocation of chromosomes

Student editor Tbechar recently significantly expanded XX male syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Noting this here in case anyone here wants to take a look at the expansions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

could add to the SRY positive subsection[4]pg 101--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sugar - Tangent, medref?

Sucrose(table sugar).

Could I get an opinion on whether a reverted edit of mine is a tangent or a medical claim requiring medrefs? I thought it was a relevant claim about political actions, but I am not as familiar as I might be with medical article convention, and I may well be wrong. HLHJ (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That should go in the "society and culture" section not the heath effects section IMO. Good reviews will take into account those sorts of concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Skimming, with search tool, the review cited thus in the article:

The United Nations meta-analysis and WHO studies showed contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms.

it doesn't really seem to support the statement. It lumps "sugars-sweetened soft drinks and fruit juices" together, and while it positively mentions "unrefined carbohydrates", the closest it gets to mentioning refined or unrefined sugar seems to be "Nutrient factors under investigation [as causing weight gain] include fat, carbohydrate type (including refined carbohydrates such as sugar), the glycaemic index of foods, and fibre". It finds "moderately strong" evidence that a high intake of sugary drinks promotes weight gain, with phrases like "It has been estimated that each additional can or glass of sugars-sweetened drink that they consume every day increases the risk of becoming obese by 60%", and says "Sugars are undoubtedly the most important dietary factor in the development of dental caries".

It totally does not support the leading statement "Studies examining the health impact of sugars are inconclusive".

On the smaller problems side, I will see if I can also find a medical review mentioning these problems.

- HLHJ (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, Doc James, I've had a hack at bringing the article text into line with the source it cites. And I moved my text to a "society and culture" section. Comments and additional refs welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sugar#Health_effects also have some rather indigestible prose, if anyone wants a go at copyediting as well as checking whether the rest of the text also doesn't match the refs. HLHJ (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The refs were terrible in Sugar#Health_effects. I have cleaned out the trash but that whole section needs updating with recent reviews and medical statements. There was a 1995 review, bizarre 10 year old primary sources about genetics of diabetes in Mexico. Lot of content about "now" sourced to things from 10 years ago, etc. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog. The section has already changed again. Looking back at the article's history, much of it dated to the good-article review in Sept 2012. It seems to have got good article status with a health section that really needed further work. If there are medrefs, it might be possible to restore a section on macular degeneration. An unsourced but probably sourcable section on sugar subsidies has also vanished. Would a good article reassessment or any association of the article with this Wikiproject be a good idea? HLHJ (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessmentmay be needed...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It feels a little odd to need to point this out, but: articles about food should not follow the suggested sections given in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles for diseases. Sugar is a food. It is not a disease. There should not be a separate ==Society and culture== section in articles about anything with as much cultural significance as food. If you need "rules" about how to structure articles on food, then you may want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Tools/guidelines, but with a few exceptions, their recommendation it to use common sense and good writing – which might, in this instance, mean putting information about corruption in health research practices right next to the other information about health research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, WhatamIdoing. Would it also be OK to cite an online version of an International New York Times article (technically a blog, but a very similar text by the same author) for the funding, actions, and public health messages of a nonprofit called Global Energy Balance Network, as long as the messages are immediately contrasted with the public health messages of a reliable medref review? HLHJ (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Everything depends upon exactly what you want to say. "A diet high in sugar is bad for your health" would ideally get a scientific/medical source rather than a newspaper article. "There's a big political scandal because this company quietly paid for that research" is not WP:Biomedical information and can be sourced to a news story. (In fact, that sentence probably should be sourced to news media, since it's primarily about the marketing choices of a multinational corporation, rather than about the actual science.)

I think that the edit summary when you were reverted is correct and pointful: This information is "Not about the health effects of sugar". If you want to build it into a bigger story, then the ===Modern history=== section might be appropriate. A century ago, when under-nutrition due to poverty was a major social concern, scientists were recommending a diet of sugar candy and peanuts as a perfectly balanced and low-cost diet to Americans. (This was a decade or two before they discovered vitamins.) So the history runs something like this: in 1850, sugar is evil because slavery; in 1910, sugar is good because cheap; in 1945, sugar is a luxury because WWII; in 1965, sugar makes you fat, and low-carb dieting breaks out again; in 1980, sugar is fine, and everyone's on a low-fat diet; in 2000, sugar is evil and everyone's on a low-carb diet yet again; in ~2015, people learned that the low-fat trend was because evil corporate marketers wanted people to drink more soda. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I wanted to know. I'm mostly wanting to say "An industry has worked for decades on disguising their marketing messages as independent medical research and advice on the health effects of sugar, and they are still at it". If I've understood, this not really about the health effects of sugar, as long as I don't explicitly give and contrast marketing and health messages. If I cite a health message I need to give a medref for it. If I cite a marketing message claiming to be a health message as such, I probably can't find a medref; is this OK if I directly contrast it with a medref-supported health statement, or would it be better to avoid mentioning the claims in dispute entirely? I'd have to write a bit more for an independent section, but there is an orderliness in requiring medrefs for everything in the "Health effects" section.

Apologies for taking so much time, but I expect I'll write about analogous situations, deliberate distortions of scientific research, again.

You missed "sugar is magic, because it heals the severely ill" :). I hadn't heard of the peanut-brittle diet, that's interesting. Presumably no-one tried feeding pigs on it first. I'm still not sure why (some) chocolate is no longer evil because slavery. HLHJ (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Aquinas said that Catholics should eat sugar candy during Lent on the grounds that it was medicine, but that falls outside of ===Modern history===. Drinking chocolate was condemned by some English-speaking religious groups during the 18th century, which probably does fall into that section, but I understand that the objections had more to do with the traditional vices present in chocolate houses than with the presence or absence of sugar, so it's not very relevant for that particular article. (Besides, everyone knows that chocolate counts as a vegetable, albeit one that's commonly matched weight for weight with sugar, and all vegetables are inherently healthy.  ;-)

On your real question: Is there any need to explicitly state the marketing-tainted messages? If so, then you might be able to use a (high-quality) news source to support a statement such as, "During the 1960s, Slimy Company secretly funded research that concluded things such as X and Y, which most scientists now agree is false." For reasons of on-wiki politics, you wouldn't be able to make that fly on a hot-button subject such as climate change or abortion, but the policies do technically accept journalists determining whether companies funded something, and whether most people in a (any) group agree or disagree with something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Opinions please

Radiopedia seems promotional. What do other editors think? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 09:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much promotional as basically unsourced, or merely self-sourced. If more secondary sourcing can be found, it should be salvageable, but I'm guessing that it will have to be sent to AfD before anybody takes any interest. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 13:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Violence against women (by country)

I brought this idea to attention on the talk page for violence against women. I recognized that there are no "Violence against women in (country)" articles. In cases like Peru (where I created that Femicides in Peru article), or even in larger countries like the United States (there is not a Violence against women in the United States article), it may be beneficial to have articles surrounding the topic. An example of an article would be Violence against women in India. I also proposed a List of violence against women by country article for better organization.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

IMO it is better generally to keep it all in one article or a couple. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It's probably better to leave comments about the proposal on the article's talk page.

(It'd probably also make sense for such a wide-ranging and fundamentally sociological subject to be discussed with non-medical editors.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I was pointed in this direction on that talk page. What other projects would you recommend?--ZiaLater (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health, Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies, Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology, WP:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, even Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history (because war rape), plus any or all of the country-specific WikiProjects (which presumably have ideas about how to find country-specific information). And there are probably a dozen or more other groups that would be relevant. It's such a wide-ranging subject that any number of groups might be interested. In fact, you might want to consider Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) for a central notice, rather than posting messages for separate groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A recommended procedure is to have one top level article until there is enough content to split off dedicated national articles, leaving a summary section for each country in the main article. When there is enough content to create a substantial daughter article of about C-class, complete with adequate referencing, that content can be split off, leaving all the rest until they also can be split off to substantial articles. Eventually there would be a whole set of articles for countries and a summary top level article linking to them all. The India article is extensive enough to justify a full article, the Peru article would be too small to split off at this stage.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess what I'm proposing is a Violence against women by country article. It could be similar to the LGBT rights by country or territory, discussing laws protecting women and linking to parent articles for countries (which could be represented in sections) such as the Violence against women in India in an India section. And responding to your reception of the Peruvian article, I made this proposal since the Peruvian article is too small, it can actually be substantially larger. Thanks for the great responses everyone.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yah so move from one main article to a bit over two. I would support that rather than 200 some articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Template of advice for students

People want to move it for not clear reason.Template_talk:Student#Requested_move_12_December_2017

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine[5])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Complement components duplicate articles

Hello! I would like to request some assistance in merging some articles related to the complement system. Some are duplicates and some not created yet, namely:

Y C1q: C1q domain --> Complement component 1q

Y C1s: C1S --> Complement component 1s

Y C1r: C1R--> Complement component 1r

and creating the article C1 (proposed name: "C1-complex"). Seeing another similar article exists (C1 domain), a move into the new article name (C1-complex) could be a start?

N C1: C1 domain --> C1-complex (non-redirect link)

also, creating C5b

C5b: Complement component 5b

Since there are many external links, references, gene infoboxes, etc, in these articles that I hereby propose to merge into the "correct" article name (naming could be another discussion), I am not sure how to go through with this. I have tried to do some cleaning up and renaming in the articles previously, including linking to the correct article names in Template:Complement system.

Seeing these are articles with a moderate level of substance, I am not skilled enough to go through with page moves/merges. Your help and thoughts on this are much appreciated! --Treetear (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Which of the above do you think has the best/most and well-cited content? When I need to work on a group of articles like you want to do, I first assess the sources to see which article has the most recent citations. Are they linked together somehow already? I trust your judgement and if you need help moving, let me know. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 13:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The first pair of articles is about a protein domain and protein/gene and in this particular case, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two, hence I went ahead and merged them. The second two pairs are about the gene and corresponding protein. Gene Wiki articles normally cover both in the same article, hence I went ahead and merged them. I did not merge the fourth pair of articles because they are about unrelated proteins. Complement component 5 covers both C5a and C5b, so I don't think any change there is necessary. I hope this is OK. Boghog (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This whole topic on the complement system fascinates me. I'll bet that you handled the whole thing quite well and if it makes you feel better I'll take a look at the histories. If I have a question, I'll leave it on your talk page. I admire the editors like you who have the expertise that I don't. I'm sure I'll learn a lot while taking a look at the articles you repaired and merged. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 13:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Boghog, extremely nicely done! Also thank you Barbara for your comments. I think the current edits and redirects are excellent, and thank you for providing the reasoning for not doing the fourth proposed edit in my list - makes sense to me! This is exactly the help I needed, to figure out how to properly move the pages and which ones to move or actually leave as is. Many thanks! --Treetear (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Atrial fibrillation

Hello all, more eyes are needed at atrial fibrillation please. There is significant disagreement about whether oral anticoagulants are preferred over aspirin according to cardiology guidelines and more opinions would be welcomed to gain consensus. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we all agree that oral anticoagulants are preferred over aspirin for anyone at more than low risk (unless contraindications).

The disagreement is not so much about the recommendations but about the complexity of the wording we should use.

Started RfC here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Nutrient, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Huntington's disease

A few extra eyes appreciated here Talk:Huntington's_disease#26_versus_36 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Spam emails through wikipedia

Is there a place to report a user sending spam emails?

I got this from someone sending emails through wikipedia: "Hi Natureium,I read your write about the aicar, I Work in a biochemcial lab, we supply aicar,other peptides and recombinant proteins for research or industry. And it take cost. If your company like to buy we would like to supply and make a good price for you. Merry Christmas! Bruce"

Natureium (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Natureium if you forward me the email I can remove the ability of the account in question to send emails. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Is your email address listed publicly? Or is there a way to forward it through the wikipedia website? Natureium (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Natureium sent you my email. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Natureium (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Jelqing, increasing penile size

Yup, we just got an article for that: Jelqing. Not sure if it is a myth/urban legend. Besing said that, i am not sure if it deserves an article on enwiki. Would somebody please take a look at it? Thanks, —usernamekiran(talk) 10:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have started same discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Jelqing, increasing penile size. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Adjusted some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 13:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Good move to have jelqing as a section of the penis enlargement article instead of its own article. Btw, the penis enlargement article is informative with what look to be good references.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Defined daily dose

This is a concept by the World Health Organization that equals the typical total daily dose of a medication for a typical 70 Kg person.

We have added ~1,000 of these added to Wikidata. As an effort to maintain quality assurance I have put them all here User:Doc_James/DDD via a SPARQL query that will be run daily by bot.

I have than created a new Wikipedia account such that any changes to this list will automatically result in an email to me. Peoples thoughts about using this kind of data? Users of our offline content often request this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Could be useful when addressing consumption of drugs; it's important to note in this context the stated purpose of and governance approach to DDD - it's explicitly for consumption research, and not (for example) to assist understanding of therapeutics, pricing, etc. Depending on how these data are presented in WP articles, they could inform (if explicitly described as the WHO's DDD for consumption research purposes). Many of the listed doses could be misleading if interpreted as the appropriate dose (drugs not dosed daily, various doses used in various combinations with other drugs, various routes and indications, etc). So - IMHO these could be useful, or misleading, depending on application. Not readily understood by most WP readers. — soupvector (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes will need to link to DDD and improve that article aswell.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are offline users requesting? Practical information about which dose to prescribe for which patient groups, or the academic-style information necessary for calculating country-wide consumption/economic data? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is also "The DDD is the assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults."[6] It is a part of what some are requesting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This response does not answer my question. I know what a DDD is; I don't know what these users want to accomplish. Think about one of the individuals who asked you for "this". What do you (realistically) think this person is going to do with it?

Possible answers to my question include statements such as, "I think he'll use it to verify that the typical adult dose for amoxicillin is 1 gram per day, when he's writing a prescription for a patient with a strep infection" or "I think he'll find out how much amoxicillin is sold each year several different countries, and write a paper about which countries use the most." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes many reflect the typical daily dose well others are off by a factor of 2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to interpret this comment as meaning, "If we put these numbers in Wikipedia articles, then I think people are going to use it to figure out how much of each drug they should take".

Historically, English Wikipedia editors, and particularly editors in this group, have not wanted to be responsible for providing this information in encyclopedia articles. Does any other editor want to change that decision? (I've no objection to having a full discussion of the risks and benefits, but there's no point if nobody even wants to.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The concerns in the past has been people changing the values without us having a sufficient ability to provide oversight. We may now have the ability to provide such oversight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Concerns in the past also included a question about whether drug dosing information was actually encyclopedic content (for average/typical drugs), and whether we wanted to be a reference manual for how much of a drug someone should take. With DDD, we can now add "whether people will wrongly (and perhaps (in a few cases) somewhat dangerously) assume that the DDD is the amount they should take" to the list of concerns. IMO none of these worries are absolute show-stoppers (nor is the technical problem that it's only being checked for vandalism every 24 hours, meaning that readers may see bad data for as long as 23 hours and 59 minutes, plus however long it takes for the user's article cache to clear, which could be as long as 30 days), but the first step is finding out: Does any editor actually want to have dosing information in all Wikipedia pharma articles? Anyone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it bears emphasis that this is NOT dosing information as generally understood - as I noted above, the dosage of a drug varies by route, formulation, combination... many factors. The DDD is a measure used for consumption research purposes - a context that (I predict) will be lost on most readers. Therefore, I think these data will be misunderstood more often than they are understood if included routinely in our articles. — soupvector (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Alternative Mental Health

• Draft:Alternative Mental Health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Possibly of interest. I have removed "evidence-based" from the infobox, as this appears to be about alternative medicine. —PaleoNeonate – 10:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

needs to be trimmedWP:PROMO...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary reminded me of this recent news article: "Why American doctors keep doing expensive procedures that don’t work". Depending upon which review you look at, approximately half of all medical procedures done in the US are non-evidence-based. We need to be rigorous about distinguishing between "evidence-based medicine" and "mainstream medicine". The two are nowhere near synonymous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

blatant advertisement: "Safe Harbor is recognized as the first web-based platform for alternative mental health resources.[1] The term "alternative mental health" was coined by Stradford to fill the gap in the psychiatric field for healthy nondrug options already being employed by those in "alternative medicine." Safe Harbor's site, www.AlternativeMentalHealth.com, has had more than 9 million visitors since its creation in the year 2000." Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the draft tends to be a bit WP:PUFFy, but I think that the bigger problem isn't saying that they're the first or biggest (those could be the plain facts, after all), but that it's not an encyclopedic summary of the org. OTOH, I'm not sure that it's worth cleaning up, because zero of the cited sources are independent, third-party sources. The Los Angeles Times piece is an op-ed by the founder. The Amazon link is proof that the founder wrote the forward to another book. There's a link to "ect.org", but that's just somebody's blog. The other two are links to the org's own website. There's no reason to believe that this non-profit meets WP:ORG, and I'm very doubtful that their website meets WP:WEB. Even if the tone were ideal, it'd end up deleted at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice and Trunk invented "Fake News" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ravi Kiran Yadav

• Draft:Ravi Kiran Yadav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"He is also a Homeopathy doctor. His treatment achieved 85% to 90% results in case of infertility, hepatitis, psychology problems like depression, autism, allergies, cancers, arthritis, renal problems & gastric problems." —PaleoNeonate – 05:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Author of first draft is the man himself. However, he may be notable for his films/productions. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Teratophobia article

This individual suffers from hand eczema, which causes much harm to the skin.

Teratophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I searched PubMed & Google Scholar: Zero articles in peer reviewed journals or scholarly books, as I suspected. The topic is not notable.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If we accept Doctor, Ronald M; Kahn, Ada P; Adamec, Christine (2010). The Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties, Third Edition. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 9781438120980. as a reliable source, then it probably meets MEDRS, although it's a bit old. Teratophobia is probably worth a dictionary definition, but there's not much more to say about it. --RexxS (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I also think this subject does not appear to be notable--most phobias apparently aren't--due to the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Everymorning (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Take any word in Latin or Greek and add phobia and we can technically have an article. These really all need redirecting with only the actual couple notable ones given their own article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Terrible. Merged the only really useful ref to Disfigurement and redirected there. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Right on. ... I just hope the author does not suffer from enissophobia. ;^]   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2017‎ (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate – 16:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting article in Medical Acupuncture

When searching Google Scholar, I recently came across this article that was recently published in the Mary Ann Liebert journal Medical Acupuncture (which does not appear to have an impact factor [7]). The interesting part about it (at least as far as this project is concerned) is the last two paragraphs: "In terms of public perception, Wikipedia is the most popular and widely cited encyclopedia in the world. Its entries, however, often reflect the prejudices of established groups. In the early 2000s, a group of professional skeptics assumed control of the Wikipedia entries on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). These skeptics rewrote the entries according to their own agendas, with pertinent facts omitted and biased assessments emphasized. When reputable scholars and subject matter experts attempted to correct misleading statements, the pages were “protected” (locked) from any other editors. This is why the Wikipedia entry on acupuncture, whose principles are at the foundation of EFT, begins with the assertion: “traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)…theory and practice are not based upon scientific knowledge, and acupuncture is a pseudoscience.” The wealth of scientific information contradicting these assertions—found in empirically grounded texts on acupuncture and in a dozen scholarly acupuncture-related journals in the English language alone—is ignored.

The skeptics regularly “update” the Wikipedia article, adding such statements as: “Many within the scientific community consider attempts to rationalize acupuncture in science to be quackery, pseudoscience and ‘theatrical placebo.’” The top of the article on acupressure reflects a similar bias, informing the reader of Quackwatch's warning that “acupressure is a dubious practice, and its practitioners use irrational methods.” Likewise, Wikipedia's EFT article tells the reader: “EFT has no benefit as a therapy beyond the placebo effect or any known effective psychological techniques that may be provided in addition to the purported ‘energy’ technique. … It is generally characterized as pseudoscience and has not garnered significant support in clinical psychology.” None of the studies cited in this article are listed. Such widely disseminated systematic opposition to unconventional evidence-based therapies extends the translational gap, preventing the timely utilization of efficacious innovations with patients in need of more effective care." (Note: there were references cited in the original paper that I have removed because they just displayed as numbers here.)

I am curious what other members of this project have to say about these claims. Interestingly, the source cited for the statement "Its entries, however, often reflect the prejudices of established groups." is this article by Eric Leskowitz of Harvard. Everymorning (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The "professional skeptics" conspiracy theory takes this stuff to a higher plane of lunacy. Best ignored. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing interesting or new here. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Everymorning, FYI, the link you placed for the Leskowitz article doesn't work. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tyler, I fixed it. The problem was that you have to add http://, but not https://, before the URL. Everymorning (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that they're right and wrong at the same time. We are sometimes overly aggressive about evidence in ways that distort the practical reality. That doesn't mean that we were wrong in that particular case.

I've seen an interesting development in the Chiropractic articles over the last decade. In the skeptics' minds, they've always been "alternative" and evil charlatans. But now, it's a bit more nuanced. Now, because the balance of evidence has shifted, some of the core things that chiropractors do are okay (in some circumstances), but the chiropractors themselves are still evil. What's the difference between a chiropractor doing joint manipulation and an (American) D.O. or a physical therapist doing the same thing to the same patient? For that matter, why do freshly minted MDs keep chasing down the DOs in their residency programs to request free spinal adjustments, given that they have presumably just been taught what works and what doesn't? Apparently, according to some of our more strident Wikipedia editors, the only real difference between a chiropractor and anyone else doing the same thing is the practitioner's thoughts. According to this brand of Wikiskeptic, chiropractic is inherently and irredeemably pseudoscientific because the 19th-century founder told some wildly implausible stories, but physical therapy is scientific because they're (now, when not legally prevented by laws written to protect chiropractors) doing the same thing on the grounds that Science Says that people self-report less pain if you push there. We focus on the theory and lose sight of what happens to actual patients: Are they able to walk, work, and play? Does it offer a reasonable balance of benefits and harms? Are other options better?

We may be in a similar place with these Emotional Freedom Techniques. It may actually be true that some people with some conditions get better if they think about distressing incidents while tapping on a particular spot on their bodies. The program truly might "work". But Wikipedia's skeptics are never going to accept EFT unless you prove that Qi physically exists, that it can be affected by tapping on (only) some spots, that EFT only works if the patient taps on exactly the correct spot, and probably also that it still works if you don't give the patients any reason or cover story for tapping that spot. When it comes to anything that sounds like "alternative" practices, our skeptics – whom we do need, and whose attention I wish were turned towards the ways that mainstream medicine ignores and rejects evidence when it conflicts with The Gospel According to What My Attending Told Me Twenty Years Ago – seem to care more about the theory than about whether the patient gets better.

P.S. The Choosing Wisely campaign would be a good place to start, for anyone interested in reducing pointless and harmful non-evidence-based mainstream procedures. Everything in their list has been dis-recommended for general use by collections of specialists, based on good evidence. Wikipedia's articles have a role to play in helping people learn about these situations, and our articles should be clear about the lack of evidence for, and often evidence against, common procedures such as antibiotic use for sinusitis, preoperative chest x-rays, and diagnostic imaging for low-back pain (in the absence of particular symptoms). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: All insightful and thanks for this answer.

To everyone else - the American Academy of Acupuncture publishes the journal Medical Acupuncture. I have talked with active participants in this organization for perhaps 15 hours in early 2017. One of the people who speaks about their work at conferences had planned to come to Wikimania 2017 in Montreal but these plans fell through. I should not speak for them, but as I recall, they wished to counter the perception that acupuncturists usually believe in spiritual qi and they wanted to establish an article on sham acupuncture which is the standard placebo for studying acupuncture in clinical trials. They were emphatic that sham/fake acupuncture as a placebo is a good treatment and that evidence shows that acupuncture is even better. If Wiki Project Med or some other organization was established enough to maintain ongoing conversation with them then I can imagine some kind of collaboration being useful. There is a middle ground and it is not helpful when Wikipedia is in a conflict which might be resolved with relatively little time and effort. The time and labor cost with them did begin to escalate for me as they requested non-standard support, but that is not so unusual to get any institutional collaboration started. I could say other things if anyone ever saw fit to try to re-establish a connection. Perhaps other opportunities are easier to take when so many larger health organizations take wiki support whenever anyone as a volunteer can show to them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure they wished to "counter perception that acupuncturists usually believe in spiritual qi". It's an inconvenient fact, isn't it? I'm not surprised they wanted to create a POV fork to move the evidence about sham acupuncture out of the main article. Everybody expects them to be emphatic about wanting people to believe acupuncture is more effective than sham acupuncture. But it isn't. There isn't any middle ground between truth and falsehood, and we're not doing the encyclopedia any favours by trying to accommodate special interest groups whose clear COI ought to disqualify them instantly from even thinking about collaboration. Of course it would be easy to just let POV interests have their way: this week Altmed; next week Big Pharma; after that every PR shill wanting to earn an easy buck. But that's not what our encyclopedia should be. --RexxS (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure. Everything you say is correct including your tone. I agree that we cannot devote scarce labor resources to any time sink which will consume but not improve the encyclopedia. There are more ripe directions for outreach than contrarian collaborations.

I wish it were more easy to collaborate in all directions but it is not. There are obvious directions where we get much more impact with much less work than in the alt med space. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes collaboration is a very bad idea. Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly adding the same hidden comment in all caps 8 times

Wondering peoples thoughts on this?

Discussion here[8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Good source

FYI, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, a public resource for summaries of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes agree they are excellent. They are also interested in collaborating with us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sharecare

So Sharecare is a "health information" website created by the guy who founded WebMD, Sony TV, and Mehmet Oz, with funding from Oprah's company's etc. I did a search for uses tonight and found two kinds, mostly:

• using for biographical information for medicalish people, like this:

"Flores received a B.A. in biochemistry from New York University in 1988 and his M.D. from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1992. His internship (1992–1993) and residency (1993–1997) at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center were followed by a Thoracic Oncology Clinical Research Fellowship (1997–1998) in Intraoperative Chemotherapy, Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and a Cardiothoracic Surgery Residency (1998-2000) at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

• using as a medical citation, like this

"Chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis can be used to detect NF-1 in the fetus.

References

Seems not very useful for the first (pretty much on par with any promotional canned bio) and not MEDRS for the second. I removed most all of them. I still need to clean up the Sharecare article as well as the article about its subsidiary. RealAge.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur. As a note I find the use of "promotional canned bio"s in general problematic. They tend to be used to support notability and thus promotion of a glob of someone's work(s) that don't have substantive significance.MrBill3 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree does not look like a suitable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Sharecare is not a good source. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Another referencing question

This document claims to be a book but doesn't have an isbn. It comes from pubmed. Opinions? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 19:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

that is GeneReviews and it is fine; we use it all the time for content about gene-mutation-driven orphan diseases. Probably has limited utility for general health articles. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The collection has an ISSN (ISSN 2372-0697) instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Good source. Even though hosted by the NIH not under an open license so will need to fully paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 21:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexey Karetnikov "homosexual men" vs "MSM"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editor Alexey Karetnikov is waging a war of revisions [9] [10] [11], changing the term "homosexual man" to "MSM." I propose to discuss this practice. Here all sources on immunology, including 2016, use the term "homosexual man".

For example:

"During the 1980s, experimental studies in rabbits demonstrated that nontraumatic weekly deposition of sperm in the rectum led to the formation of ASA [ 80 , 81 ]. Taking into account this evidence, it seems logical that unprotected anal intercourse in homosexual men could constitute a risk factor for ASA formation. Wolff and Schill [ 36 ] evaluated the incidence of ASA in the serum of different groups of men. Four percent of dermatologic patients ( n = 223), 9.6 % of andrologic patients ( n = 178), and 28.6 % of homosexual men ( n = 42) were positive for IgG and/or IgM antibodies. They concluded that there was a high incidence of ASA among homosexual men, probably because of contact of spermatozoa with the immune system by passive anal intercourse. Five years later, Mulhall et al. [ 82 ] reported a 10 % prevalence of ASA in homosexual men and 17 % in those who had practiced unprotected anal receptive intercourse in the previous 6 months."

"ASA occur in both men and women, and also in homosexual men"

"There is a high incidence of Antisperm Antibodies among homosexual men (up to 28.6% comparing to 0–2% in the general population), probably due to the contact of spermatozoa with the immune system during receptive anal intercourse"

"Many causal factors found to date include: previous urogenital surgery, vasectomy, inflammatory events localized to the genital tract and/or accessory glands, trauma to epipidymis or deferens, congenital obstruction of the vasa deferentia, infection, orchitis, testicular cancer, varicocele, cryptorchidism, testicular torsion, bone marrow disorders, and homosexuality."

etc.

As I understand it, when quoting a source, you must do it accurately, without distorting the quote. Путеец (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• The rule about "war of revisions" works both ways, and moreover it is usually implied that the attempts to push a certain point of view into an article are unacceptable. Here, the war of edits has been initiated by you: First, you have added the fragments containing the term homosexual: [12]. Then, I have replaced the term by MSM:[13]. However, you have repeatedly been trying to return the refused information to the article: [14][15][16][17][18]. In this situation, I have already provided a detailed explanation of my position on the discussion page of the article. Briefly, the term MSM was introduced to be used in medicine [19] already after those old primary sources had been published. The reviews you are citing are written by specialists in reproductive medicine, not by specialists in epidemiology or sexual orientation studies. Therefore, the authors of these reviews are not reliable sources for proper usage of the terms homosexual and MSM. In this situation, the most optimal solution is to use the term MSM as the most commonly used in various fields of biomedical sciences, as recommended by experts [20], and to avoid direct citations, using instead close-to-the-original-text description containing the term MSM. Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me as if the attempts of user Путеец to add information based on the term homosexual, as opposed to MSM, to the article Antisperm antibodies were related to his recent attempts (or initiatives without attempts) to add similar information to articles Homosexuality, Infertility, Bareback (sex), Anal sex. However, all of these previous attempts or initiatives have been refused by other users: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• These messages were deleted because the sources were primary. I will bring in with the secondary.
• WP:IRS : The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). Путеец (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the English Wikipedia, Путеец. I think this might be a complicated area to address if you're not thoroughly familiar with the cultural issues and the specific language. The translations aren't simple.
    • In most English-language publications, we separate the ideas of "a man who is homosexual" (we would usually say "a gay man") and "a man who has anal sex". The first is a psychological idea; the section is an action that any man can do. It is possible to be gay without ever having any kind of sex, and to have anal sex without being gay. Compare, for example, a gay man who is also a virgin, versus a straight (i.e., not gay) man who has been raped.
    • If you think it through, it is obvious that "being" something does not inherently cause this immune reaction. The immune reaction comes from "doing" something. The gay man in my example has no extra risk for anti-sperm antibodies, and the raped straight man has a higher risk.
    • So if we say "homosexuals have this risk, and straight men do not", we are factually wrong. It is not "being" gay that causes the risk. The source of the risk is "doing" (specifically, receiving) anal sex – or any other method of getting sperm in a biologically strange place. The immune system does not care whether the man "is" gay; the immune system cares whether sperm is out of place. To get the biology correct, we need to say "men who have sex with men (even if they are bisexual or straight, but someone still put sperm in their anuses) have this risk".
    • It looks like this study used men who were both: they "are" gay and they "did" anal sex. But it is their actions that mattered, not their identities.
  • On the question of quotations: We should avoid long quotations. It is usually better to stop quoting the old sources, and to write the same information, in our own words, using modern terminology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    • My two translator's cents: if the sources explicitly refer to gays and homosexuals, we shouldn't swap these to "MSM", as this is a distortion that fails WP:V. It's not the case of writing the same "in our own words, using modern terminology", but accurately reflecting the sources. Care should be taken when paraphrasing reliable sources so as not to stray from the original meaning. Brandmeister^talk 19:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
      • IMHO WhatamIdoing explains the distinction between the terms--and the importance of using MSM--very well. If there are important references in a language other than English, and an important quote from such a reference contains the words "homosexual" or "gay man", when modern research would use the term "MSM", then we should not change the quote, but perhaps we could add an explanatory note indicating the problems with using psychological instead of behavioral terminology. (I don't know enough about the topic to determine if there are important references in another language that should definitely be cited in the article, and that such references contain important quotes that should definitely be included in the article.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
        • He's not actually translating a source, but since English isn't his native language, I think it's reasonable to assume that he may be less familiar with some specialized terms. The editor is (in at least one instance) quoting the abstract of a 1985 source, meaning he's quoting a source that is almost 30 years older than MEDRS prefers, and which predates common usage of MSM by about a decade. Whether the "oral and rectal administration of semen" actually "triggers the production of antibodies in serum of homosexual men" doesn't depend upon anyone's psychosocial identity. It depends upon that the biological effects of that "administration" process. Thirty-odd years ago, we didn't have terms that easily differentiated between those two aspects, but now that we do, we should use them correctly (assuming that we're going to use such antiquated sources in the first place). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Colleagues, the question is not about translating words. In the source of 2017, the word "homosexual man" is used, even when there is no quoting. Politicians speak about LGBT rights, but not about L(MSM)BT. And when the question relates to medical consequences, the epidemiological term MSM is proposed. I agree with Alexei that the term MSM more accurately describes the physiology of pathology. And I propose to use the original quote from sources with the addition in brackets of references to MSM. Perhaps this is done to ensure that the search is not stigmatizing the LGBT behavior of the article. [27] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov blocks my IP address, after the second request "antisperm antibodies homosexual men". Google Academy does the same thing [28]. I think this is a political act, to hide the consequences of homosexual behavior. So that users do not find articles on Wikipedia that point to side effects of this practice. Perhaps this does not correspond to the ideas of Wikipedia. Sorry for my english. Путеец (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

"Men who have sex with men" (MSM) is a term used by researchers in cases where the sexual identities of men engaging in sexual activity (not just anal sex) with other men are not the focus. "Homosexual men" and "gay men" are not interchangeable with "MSM." One cannot validly compare "MSM" with "heterosexual," unless one or more sources are comparing MSM as a group to heterosexual men. That stated, as I made clear elsewhere, homosexual may refer to sexual attraction, identity and/or behavior. Regarding the case at hand, I would not try to guess what the sources meant and trade out "homosexual" for "MSM." James Cantor, can we get your thoughts on this? Also, Rivertorch, you got anything to state on this matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer. The research literature (most of it, anyway) follows what WhatamIdoing described. The phrase (and acronym) started within the HIV-prevention field, because having (anal) sex with men was a primary transmission route, and it included bisexual men (who rejected the term homosexual for themselves) as well as men who had sex with men for money (or because only men were available to them, such as in prison) even though they preferred women. "MSM" also included men who really were gay, but were closeted, and denied that they were gay/homosexual. Conversely (and as WAIS also said), there are men who are homosexual but are not having sex with men, such as virgins or closeted gay men who are married to women. There do exist activists who dislike the term "homosexual" because it was the term in widest use when homophobia was particularly bad, and the term carries a negative connotation from their view, even though it is neutral in and of itself. I hope that's a help! — James Cantor (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

James Cantor, as always, thanks for weighing in. I know the history of the term MSM (and I also watch and occasionally edit the Men who have sex with men article). And I know that the term homosexual is used by some anti-LGBT groups due to bias; this has been discussed times before at WP:LGBT and once here at WP:Med; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual.", and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 53#"Homosexual" vs. "Gay" – Wikipedia policy?. The discussions show that use of homosexual is a case-by-case matter. And I've noted that use of homosexuality, as opposed to homosexual, is usually more accepted because it more often refers to behavior instead of to a person or to a person's sexual orientation.

The issue at hand is trading out "homosexual" for "MSM." I reiterate that these two terms are not synonyms. This is not like using "gay" in place of "homosexual." I was hoping that you would give your opinion on that. My opinion aligns with Brandmeister's opinion. And, per MOS:QUOTE, we certainly should not be changing quotes (except for the exceptions made clear at MOS:QUOTE). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I will also go ahead and weigh in at Talk:Antisperm antibodies. What we don't need is editors trading out "homosexual" for "MSM" at articles, as if they automatically mean the same thing. This is regardless of whether or not the content is focused on sexual behavior instead of identity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I have already shown a screenshot of the proof that the term homosexual is used in modern sources, even when primary research is not cited. 2017 — [29] 2014 — [30]. I propose a compromise option: give an exact quote, but add it with the term MSM in brackets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Путеец (talk • contribs) 06:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subsection

Jytdog, I understand the concern about Путеец. I was one of the editors concerned about his editing. But I am concerned about Alexey Karetnikov's editing at the moment. Like I stated at the article's talk page, it is not up to us to forgo the source's terminology and use our own in place of the source's terminology, unless we actually are using synonyms. If a study is specifically about gay/homosexual men, we should not be stating "MSM" in its place; this is because "MSM" covers more than just gay/homosexual men. In response to Markworthen's query above, modern research does not would use the term "MSM" in place of "gay" and "homosexual." It uses "MSM" for a broader group of men. Above, Brandmeister stated "if the sources explicitly refer to gays and homosexuals, we shouldn't swap these to 'MSM', as this is a distortion that fails WP:V." And he is right. If we were to take this matter to the WP:Verifiability (WP:V) talk page or start a WP:RfC on it, others would agree with Brandmeister as well. Sexual orientation falls under "biomedical literature." A simple Google search of "Sexual orientation biomedical literature" shows that. And the terms heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual are still used in this biomedical literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In response to Markworthen's query above, modern research does not use the term 'MSM' in place of 'gay' and 'homosexual'." - Yes, I know. Modern research uses 'MSM' to refer to behavior, and 'gay' to refer to identity.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, gay may also refer to sexual behavior, as in "gay sexual practices" or "gay sex," but, yes, gay is more so used for identity. I just wanted to be clear that the terms homosexual and gay should not be swapped with MSM as though they are synonyms. If sources are using them as synonyms, that's different, but it's not something I usually see. Anyway, we are working (trying to work) the matter out on the article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop continuing with the WP:BLUDGEONing of the general issue. Just stop. Instead please discuss specific content and the sources for it, like we always do. I am opening a section on the relevant talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not WP:BLUDGEONing the issue. I have expressed concern about a so-called newbie being taught to forgo our WP:Verifiability policy. Brandmeister also expressed concern about this. I am very much willing to continue this at the article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: More discussion was had at James Cantor's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

MEDMOS/diagnosis section

wanted to comment that for some time Ive been doing a fair bit of MEDMOS[31](and MEDRS, infobox, images, and so on, with stubs and then several article[32]including GA), the one thing I found many times is that the diagnosis section was missing even from some rather important articles[33], its important to include this section per MEDMOS when doing an article no matter how much or little text is included in said section, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing. In addition, some article content confuses the signs and symptoms with cause but there can be overlap. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

yes Ive seen that as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Amazing maps under an Open License

I just came across these amazing maps by Max Roser and they are all under a Wikipedia compatible license.

Next I need to figure out how to get them into Wikipedia. User:Kaldari will this be part of this community tech team effort? This was why I voted for that specific effort by the way.

We need to support this sort of stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about the malaria maps for different years, or all the maps on that site? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoa! They are totally interactive! You can move the slider at the bottom of a map through the years and watch the changes. Try child mortality. What great visuals. Someone needs to give that guy some money. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 00:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Kartographer is software for displaying tile-based scaling maps. The maps you've linked to are interactive SVGs (basically SVGs + SMIL or JavaScript code). This type of map isn't what Kartographer is designed to work with. The task most closely related to supporting SVGs like these (maps or otherwise) is T138665 (see also T5593). One of the main problems with supporting these is that it would open up a big security risk for users. (Every time they viewed an interactive SVG it would be running un-vetted code in their browser.) A better solution for implementing these types of maps in Wikipedia would probably be to use something like this: mw:Extension:Graph/Demo#Vega 2.0 interactive examples. Kaldari (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Kaldari would love to see mw:Extension:Graph/Demo#Vega 2.0 interactive examples developed further. Have played around with it some. Has it rolled out to EN WP yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

How would something like this support wp:V? The visualization is marvelous, but the data being visualized needs to have clear attribution to a wp:RS if it is going to be trusted. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

For each image, when you click on sources it gives you all the background. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

[34]very useful and will benefit our project...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

They have these iframe things.[35] User:Kaldari how hard would it be to host their stuff and use iframes ourselves from a technical POV? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Technically, it would be easy, but there are way too many security (and privacy) problems with embedding iframes from another site within Wikipedia :( Kaldari (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem, James, is that when you allow external content into a Wikipedia page, you risk external vandalism and hacking. In this case in particular, the animation uses JavaScript, so you'd be running external code, which is really, really something we don't want to be doing.

The licence on the site is CC-BY-SA 4.0 which isn't 100% compatible with Wikipedia, but I guess we could get around that if we wanted to use the static images. We could also write our own JavaScript handler – or reverse engineer the 1Mb of script at https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/build/charts.bundle.f80c8ed73c8649676b9c.js (I'm not volunteering!) – but that would need considerable negotiation to get such a handler included in our sitewide MediaWiki:Common.js.

My advice is to include a deep link as an external link on relevant articles for now. Per WP:ELYES #3, such links should be acceptable. --RexxS (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Kaldari and User:RexxS Yes which is why I said "host their stuff" by which I mean "host a copy of it locally" to solve the privacy and security issues mentioned. :-)

I want to get this stuff working in our offline work. While an EL or static version of their stuff is okay would be nice to be able to have live interactive versions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

We have CC BY SA 4.0 images on Commons which we use within Wikipedia already so I am not convinced the compatible argument is significant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Update

See or edit source data.

Percentage of the population either overweight or obese by year.

Okay I have figured some things out. Basically we can get these maps working in a couple of days today but their is one cultural blocker. We need to allow CC BY SA 4.0 licensed data on Commons.

There is a RfC on the topic started back in Oct of 2017 HERE

Currently support is significant / universal. Just needs someone to close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Map attached :-) Which means we are live. Are improvements needed, sure a bunch, but IMO we have a minimal viable product. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Just strolling around, bumped into this discussion, found that really cool map, tried to zoom in on it on my phone, and I can't zoom back out (my specifics are the desktop site on Chrome on Android 7.0 on a Motorola Moto G4). So that's one improvement to be made. !dave 11:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:My name is not dave. I have requested the same thing. Supposedly it is a fair bit of work to get the size scaling working but it is on the volunteer programmers road map.

Zooming out on my browser works though... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah right, it appears the specific problem only happens after one has tapped on a country. So zoom in to the point where nothing else is covering the browser screen, tap on a country, and then try to zoom out. Won't move. !dave 11:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I am using Chrome and a Chromium machine and still having success? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

How do you zoom the map? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Cannot be zoomed by code yet. You can zoom with your browser though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

We need more of these maps. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup and we can add a few hundred of them as soon as we deal with this issue.[36] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

References

The tyranny of MEDRS / Ketamine musings

Ketamine

A complaint us medical editors sometimes get for controversial topics is that our articles are over-medicalized, and that Wikipedia should be presenting topics more from a lay/popular angle. Two articles that spring to mind where this often happens are Ketogenic diet and Circumcision – and I am generally not sympathetic to these complaints. Our counter-argument generally is that the best sources (by which we mean MEDRS) discuss the topic medically, so Wikipedia follows that.

Listening the other day to my teenage children talk about what young people do these days, I was prompted to look at our Ketamine article – which was generally okay, and our Recreational use of ketamine article – which was definitely not okay, containing for example in the lede the unsourced statement that ketamine is a "physically very safe substance in comparison to other psychoactives like opioids or even alcohol".[37]

Now the issue is that ketamine is one of our most popular medical articles (No. 28 in the chart) getting > 5000 hits/day. I think it can be safely assumed most of these are because of interest in recreational use, rather than interest in ketamine in a medical setting. In contrast, our Recreational use of ketamine article is a backwater, with a current daily average of 221 hits.

If my assumption is correct, are we not failing to direct our readership to the content that is relevant to them? We have two sections in the main ketamine article about non-medical use, both of which link to Recreational use of ketamine as a sub-article; it is only the second of these near the end of our article which mentions "Ketamine use as a recreational drug has been implicated in deaths globally, with more than 90 deaths in England and Wales in the years of 2005–2013".

I think in this case the "Recreational" article content should be merged into the main ketamine article. But more generally this has made me re-think our general approach of pushing the "messy" non-medical content into sub-articles, as it may risk creating forks which don't serve our readership well.

Thoughts?

Alexbrn (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

yes it(recreational article content) could be merged into the main ketamine article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Practically, merging the large article Recreational use of ketamine into Ketamine would likely unbalance that article. Recreational use of ketamine is undoubtedly a notable topic and keeping this spun off into a separate article seems reasonable according the WP practice. One unsourced yet pretty accurate assertion does not make Recreational use of ketamine a bad article. Indeed, in the Ketamine article we also assert in the lede that ketamine is "most effective and safe". The sources referenced for the 90 deaths assertion don't make it clear the role of ketamine in the deaths--was it due to ketamine overdose, overdose of other drugs, or just due to bad judgement produced by these substances? --Mark viking (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that illustrates the problem nicely: the "effective and safe" in our main article refers to ketamine use in a health system. Considered as a substance of abuse our MEDRS (e.g. PMID 27261367 ) seem to be saying "its abuse has posted severe harms on individuals and society." My meta-point is that by taking a purist approach to medical topics we're doing a disservice to our readership by hiving off significant aspects to ghetto articles, and actually misleading readers if they think they can get all they need to know from our one article. Alexbrn (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Recreational use of ketamine should be merged into ketamine. That article is a WP:content fork, not a sub-page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done I did the merge. It fits OK in my view. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I was skeptical, but nice job on the merge. I agree it fits OK. --Mark viking (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

very well done merge--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Autassassinophilia article

Autassassinophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saw this yesterday. I'm thinking it should simply be merged to the Paraphilia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we need to consider specific guidance on the -philias and -phobias, to say that 99% of them aren't notable and should be merged to larger articles. I suppose that the main exception would be something like "an unusually substantial body of work about the specific condition, often amounting to dozens or even hundreds of high-quality reliable sources". One wants to keep Arachnophobia (because so much research) and Acrophobia (because typical psychological treatments are typically useless, and because a patient presenting with a chief complaint of acrophobia often has purely physical problems, such as inner ear damage), but most of the "thing that makes me scared" or "thing that makes me feel sexy" ideas are IMO not worth a separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Would support that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I second the motion. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

MEDMOS (properly, but inconveniently) contains nothing on notability. User:Sebwite's proposal (draft?) at WP:HEA failed in 2008. I don't think that either WPMED or WikiProject Psychology has any kind of WikiProject guide for subject-specific notability, and we pretty much rely on WP:GNG. WP:OUTCOMES doesn't have an obvious home for this idea. So perhaps a new page? Does anyone know of an existing page where this could be added? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Pressure half-time

Hi. Saredyer has stopped editing, so can anyone complete User:Saredyer/sandbox and move it to Pressure half-time? Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

maybe merge/add to Echocardiography...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For licensing/attribution reasons, it might be best to WP:MOVE it to the proposed title, and then merge/redirect if needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Elysium Health

We could use more input here, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

seems the discussion is over, therefore...will watch[38]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

PLAID syndrome

Would some medical expert like to look at PLAID syndrome? I'm out of my depth there, and don't even know if it is notable. I've tried cleaning it up a bit, to the best of my ability, but have been reverted – twice, actually. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• I worked that over. STAR syndrome has the same issues. This is User:Virion123 who is steadfastly refusing to follow WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS, etc. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog – as I said, I'm out of my depth (I see that I made a silly mistake there). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You did great, thanks for bringing it here. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A planned edit on Autopsy

Hello fellow medics, I would like to hear on opinion on a planned edit on said site. I have noted my intention and reason on the talk page of the article. Thanks -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever...) 02:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Trehalose

Lots of bombing of this article with news about the Nature study with respect to C. Dificile. More eyes would be helpful, and please see Talk:Trehalose#C_diff_correlation.Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome

Hello,

I am still working through trying to improve the Kallmann syndrome article. I have completed the introduction, symptoms and osteoporosis section. I hope the fact that these have not been reverted means that they are acceptable.

I am going to have a go at updating the genetics section. I want to produce a new table with more relevant, easy to read information. I have left an example on the Talk page. If anybody has the time to have a look I would be interested to know if the new table looks better. There is a way to go yet, there are more genes to add to the list. The table comes from a review article published last year.

There were some major edits of other sections done today. I can see why they were done. I was hoping to be able to work through them as I go since they have been there for a while already. I do have some good review articles which I have already used earlier in the article which I will use to restore the content over time.

I wish to make the article as good as possible for fellow patients, while still following the rules of course.

Best wishes.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like about a quarter of the page was blanked today. You should be able to restore the blanked content when you're ready to add the citations that support it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

......I have updated the genetics section box today and left in on the talk page. I have linked the gene defects to the symptoms mentioned in the previous section. I have used two recent review paper to produce the table. A few of the genes do come from single sources but they are listed in the review articles. I have cited the review article rather than the original paper in each case. I hope this is acceptable. I believe the two references I used are both suitable.

I think the gene table looks a lot clearer now and I think linking the physical symptom to the specific gene defect will be of interest.

Neilsmith38 (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Another cautionary tale in early reports of efficacy

Apparently, Axovant had a little trouble reporting the correct p value in a post hoc analysis of their candidate drug nelotanserin. Perhaps folks will want to watch for back-and-forth on relevant pages. — soupvector (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of the articles had a lot of paid editors about a year ago, it appears such as Axovant Sciences. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request @ Template talk:HumanTemperature

Would a qualified editor have a look at the request? Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks will find a better source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Frequency Therapeutics

Needs more eyes at Talk:Frequency Therapeutics#Hype. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Mild cognitive impairment

I cited this clinical practice guideline in the neurobiological effects of physical exercise article; there's a lot in this guideline that could be added to the MCI article, but I'm not sure about the best way to cover it. So, in the event anyone is interested in adding content from this guideline to that article, I've uploaded it here for temporary accessibility. Alternatively, the complete guideline (110 pages) is open access: [39]. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

NB: the PMID in this citation needs to be verified in January since it's not currently assigned on pubmed; it came from https://neurology.altmetric.com/details/30979395.

This PMID is now assigned to this article on pubmed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

References

I took a stab at covering this guideline in these edits: Special:diff/813312694/818081889. The guidance to clinicians was difficult/awkward to write about since I've never covered a guideline that included direct guidance to clinicians before; it seems prudent to include that in the article though. This article still needs more work, so any help would be appreciated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Bump. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Go to Wikimania

Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2018, which is being held in Cape Town, South Africa in July 2018, are now being accepted.​ The deadline is this Monday, 22 January at 23:59 UTC. Please go to https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply

I've not looked into this year's scholarship rules, but they don't request information about your income. If you do good stuff for the movement, or have a good story about how Wikipedia or the movement overall would benefit from you being there, then please apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

great info, thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And we are once again working on a day of medicine related talks.

If people are interested in being speakers let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Binding Affinity - What's the difference between pK_i and K_i (nM)

Haven't been able to find an article that describes what K_i (nM) stands for. Could someone describe pK_i and K_i (nM), their meanings, the differences between them, how they apply to binding affinity, and which to draw on depending on the circumstance. Much appreciated. 95.128.118.58 (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The K_i is the absolute inhibition constant (see IC50#Competition_binding_assays) that can be calculated from the IC₅₀ using the Cheng-Prusoff equation. The pK_i is just the negative logarithm of the K_i [pK_i = -log₁₀(K_i)] and is analogous to pH. For the reasons why one might use the the negative log, see why using pIC₅₀ instead of IC₅₀ will change your life ;-) Boghog (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) K_i is the inhibitor constant, which indicates its potency. There's a reasonably simple explanation at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbcdab/enzass/inhibition.htm – you should note that K_i has units of concentration, so I would expect (nM) to be the molar concentration in nano-moles per litre (or nanomolars). Because concentrations vary so widely in value, it is convenient to define pK as -log10K (this convention is commonly recognised as pH which is the log of the reciprocal of hydrogen ion concentration). I would expect pK_i to be easier to handle, although its conversion to K_i is simple, if needed. Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Certainly :) Thanks for clarifying it! Sadly I'm not much of a biochemist but I get a relative sense of the distinction. Onwards to more learning! :) Best. 95.128.118.58 (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Massage

I noticed that a whole section on "Georgia" was added to the massage article. No references. I do not know anything about massage in Georgia, does anyone have time to look at this, or should we just delete the whole paragraph? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massage&type=revision&diff=820966744&oldid=817822038 Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree refs are needed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check it and revert it Doc James. Sorry that I did not have time to go through it more thoroughly, was pretty poor.JenOttawa (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

RIGVIR

It would be helpful to have additional eyes on Rigvir: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RIGVIR. Thanks.KC LV (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Have adjusted a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! It looks so much better now.KC LV (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A53T Mutation

New article. scope_creep (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Animal testing and animal cruelty

Additional eyes at Talk:Animal testing#Adding "Cruelty to animals" category in Animal Testing article would be helpful. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• BTW since the article is GA it should not have any missing references... Animal testing#Pain and suffering last paragraph--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably should raise that at the article talk page, where it will be more likely to get action. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I see it's already been done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)