Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 111

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 105 ← Archive 109 Archive 110 Archive 111 Archive 112 Archive 113 → Archive 115

Need some GA reviewers

Malaria

I don't know how many folks are watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts these days, so I thought I'd say that the following GA nominations might be interesting to some editors here:

You can find more (especially articles on different species) at WP:GAN#BIO. If you've never reviewed an article before, then it's pretty straightforward. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing will lead you through the process step-by-step, but the overall idea is that you check the article against the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and either "pass" or "fail" it on (only) that basis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

very important, thank you WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC

The potential for a blanket consensus reached on Wikidata may have a large impact on the infoboxes of this project. Please contribute with your thoughts here Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not use Wikidata much for infoboxes here. Waiting for the ability to track these changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I've commented on the RfC. It is pretty broad-ranging in its implications! Bondegezou (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

2003 Union for Reform Judaism resolution on the medicinal use of marijuana

Project members are invited to help improve the newly created 2003 Union for Reform Judaism resolution on the medicinal use of marijuana. By the way, WP:420, a campaign to create and improve cannabis-related content, runs during the month of April. You're more than welcome to help out, if interested. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

A whole article on one resolution from 2003? I doubt it's sufficiently notable for a standalone article. As for our our cannabis content - in general it's in pretty bad shape still: this list[1] from SandyGeorgia is still pertinent. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I share Alex's skepticism about notability. It feels like a candidate for merging to Cannabis and Judaism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
It passes GNG, so it can be kept -- though if no one lengthens the article it could still be merged if that is most convenient, without prejudice to future recreation and expansion. A comparable article is Matrimonial nullity trial reforms of Pope Francis. We must be careful not to let majoritarianism, under guise of "notability", turn into anti-Semitism. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that it passes GNG. I see no "significant coverage". The cited sources are mostly about something else and give only two or three sentences about the resolution. They all basically repeat the same simple facts (which probably explains why the article is only five sentences long: we can't verify anything else about it). There's no indication of any significance other than a disputed claim to being "first". There's no analysis of why the resolution matters (assuming it does, which I begin to doubt), no explanation of any effects produced by the resolution, or anything else. It's just "Hey, this woman wanted them to pass a resolution on this topic, and they did, and they might have been the first religious 'body' (but definitely not the first religious 'organization') to do that."
AFAICT, URJ has an annual meeting whose main purpose seems to be passing resolutions. In 2003, they passed a dozen such resolutions. Neither the current stub nor any of the cited sources give any explanation why anyone should care about this resolution, much less why this one is worth attention and not the one congratulating the American Conference Of Cantors on their 50th anniversary, or their resolution in favor of stem cell research. We don't need an entire article to say "They might have been the first (or second, or fourth) religious body to pass a resolution on this subject." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
"turn into anti-Semitism" ← in what has been a bad week at WT:MED, Wnt tops it off with the most fucking stupid contribution of all! Alexbrn (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I was not suggesting anyone here wanted to be anti-Semitic, but if we start deciding whether religious concepts and events are notable based on the proportional amount of publicity, we inevitably will end up with that result, regardless of initial intention, because there are fewer Jews and presumably fewer Jewish religious periodicals. We should look only whether we have multiple sources to make an article, which is a fixed threshold, and should be a low one -- I would abolish that threshold were it possible to make an article without any way to learn about the topic. I should also note that what any religion thinks about the use of medical marijuana, or any other therapy, is strictly a religious question, not a medical issue at all. There are not, nor ever have been, any medical claims in that article. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The GNG requires more than multiple sources. It requires:
  • multiple –  got that
  • independent –  got that
  • secondary – Not sure Maybe we have that, and maybe we don't.
  • reliable sources –  got that
  • with significant coverage –  missing that
The problem isn't getting two-sentence mentions in mainstream media. The problem is that nobody – not the pro-cannabis people, not the Jewish people, not the anti-marijuana people – during the last decade and a half seems to have thought that this vote was worth writing 500 words about it. We've got "multiple" sources. What we don't have is any hope of getting past the WP:PERMASTUB range or meeting the goals of WP:WHYN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hot tooth syndrome

Project members might want to look at this. It seems not good from a WP:MEDRS point of view. --NeilN talk to me 03:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems not good from any point of view. Natureium (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Have redirected to pulpitis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Links to DAB pages

Diagram showing lobular carcinoma in situ

I have just cleaned up the browser bookmarks folder where I had saved bad links to medicine-related topics. Four problems remain (search for "disam" on these pages):

Thanks in advance if you can solve any of these problems. If you do solve one of them, mark it as {{done}}. Narky Blert (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

All are done, mostly by others. — soupvector (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I didn't think we should let you have all the fun this time... ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Gaslighting

Dear medical experts:

Re Gaslighting

A paragraph about self-help to combat the psychological effects of "gaslighting" has been added to the above article. I'm not sure that it's appropriate. Can someone take a look?—Anne Delong (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The citations in the paragraph added fail WP:MEDRS. The medical literature does discuss gaslighting. However, I am struggling to find anything that meets MEDRS that is suitable as a replacement here. It would seem worth citing Gass & Nichols (Contemp Fam Ther (1988) 10: 3. doi:10.1007/BF00922429) as a key early paper, but it doesn't help much in terms of treatment. There's a recent, non-systematic, kind-of review by Davendralingam (2018, doi:10.1177/0141076818763326) that may be of some use. Bondegezou (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the passages, not because they fail WP:MEDRS, but because they were either very poorly sourced according to WP:RS or just simply unsourced. Medium is not an acceptable source, neither is lonerwolf.com — and that is for any statement. Dbaechle, Anne Delong — I have no problem with the message conveyed, but you need to use better sources. Aslo, be careful when saying things about psychological health, you then need to adhere to MEDRS. Carl Fredrik talk 05:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Bondegezou and Carl Fredrik. I was worried about the sourcing, but since the information seemed to have been added in good faith, I wanted to check with more knowledgeable editors.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Medium.com actually would be an acceptable source if the author meets WP:SPS standards. It is certainly no worse than Facebook posts or Twitter links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
True, but in the presence of other better sources I think we should prefer them. I do not feel Medium is acceptable in this case, especially as it straddles invoking MEDRS — where SPS is even less acceptable, nigh on forbidden. Carl Fredrik talk 20:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What kind of paper is this?

Somebody thought it was Very Important at Replication crisis, see diffs.

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

rather different[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

In case anybody is curious the ten most-ever-cited clinical trial papers discussed in that paper (in chronological order) are the following:

Extended content

-- Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, those diffs might contain about three times as many paragraphs as is warranted, but it's probably reasonable to consider it reliable for some of the claims made, e.g., "This one paper suggested this as a problem, and that as a potential mitigation effort". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks like a fascinating paper, and I'll have to read it properly, but it does say "This study assesses the 10 most cited RCTs worldwide and shows that trials inevitably produce bias." which seems a stretch. You'd have to look at significantly more RCTs to come to this conclusion, even though it is quite notable. Carl Fredrik talk 08:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that the examples given in the article suggest that it's formally impossible to remove all bias, in which case the findings aren't particularly interesting. — soupvector (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals.Bermicourt (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Move request

Talk:GBA_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_13_April_2018 Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • What relevance does that dab page have to this WikiProject? Are you attempting to votestack? —Xezbeth (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
a little different--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Xezbeth: Didn't you read the dab page? Or did you miss Glucocerebrosidase, GBA2, GBA3? A cause of Gaucher's disease and an association with Parkinson's disease would indicate that WPMED is likely to have some interest. --RexxS (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of source and content at Finasteride

Finasteride

Would folks please comment at Talk:Finasteride#Bad_Source? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

commented[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Ozzie. We do need more voices there. This article is a consistent pain in the butt. Men and their penises, argh. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate the feedback and contribution to the article but please keep your judgments to yourself and stick to building an encyclopedia. This is a serious topic that addresses public health concerns.2604:2000:E0CF:5100:1834:939A:68B4:17FE (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Stay serious. Always. Outback the koala (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

National Rifle Association Eddie Eagle a child safety program?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:National Rifle Association#RfC: Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?. An editor has requested comment on stating, in Wikipedia voice, that the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle firearms program for children is a "safety" program, contrary to WP:MEDRS. PeteW15 (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Review articles

  • Dowd, MD; Sege, RD; Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention Executive, Committee.; American Academy of, Pediatrics. (November 2012). "Firearm-related injuries affecting the pediatric population". Pediatrics. 130 (5): e1416-23. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2481. PMID 23080412. Gun avoidance programs are designed to educate children as a way of reducing firearm injury (eg, Eddie Eagle, STAR); however, several evaluation studies have demonstrated that such programs do not prevent risk behaviors.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Jackman, Geoffrey A.; Farah, Mirna M.; Kellermann, Arthur L.; Simon, Harold K. (June 2001). "Seeing Is Believing: What Do Boys Do When They Find a Real Gun?". Pediatrics. 107 (6). American Academy of Pediatrics: 1247–1250. doi:10.1542/peds.107.6.1247. [although the Eddie Eagle program] has been promoted heavily, it never has been evaluated formally to prove that it works. If gun safety education gives parents a sense of complacency without fundamentally altering child behavior, then it might do more harm than good.
thanks for posting?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Whether the article about the (US) National Rifle Association should state that they sponsor safety programs or certify firearm instructors does not seem even remotely like biomedical information. Whether the safety programs produce safer behavior (their most famous likely doesn't) is not being discussed here. The statement being made is purely about organizational activities, not about whether those activities meet their stated goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
That turns out to be not the case. When the NRA baldly claim that they run safety programmes without further qualification, it gives the reader the impression that those safety programmes actually have a significant effect on safety - for which there is no evidence. It's called 'spin'. The misapplication of the label "safety" is the problem there, not the factual accuracy of these programmes' existence. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure not getting shot in the head is a medical issue as such. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Preventing (accidental and intentional) firearm injuries is a public health issue, but that's not really the point of the NRA article. The point of that article is pretty much "There's this org, which does lobbying and gives classes". The proposed sentence "The organization issues credentials and trains firearm instructors", OTOH, is unrelated to health.
RexxS, I think it's fair to mention the existence of their programs (especially remembering that the proposed list includes programs with no clear connection to safety). The fact is that these programs exist, and it's one of the two main things that the org does. There'd be nothing wrong with saying "They offer a bunch of classes, including a safety class that has been criticized as ineffective", but there is something wrong with omitting the fact that they offer classes altogether. Eddie Eagle (their independently notable, largely ineffective safety program) needs to be mentioned somewhere in that article, and right now, there's no connection from the NRA to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I like your wording! There certainly wouldn't be anything wrong with saying "They offer a bunch of classes, including a safety class that has been criticized as ineffective". Sadly, that alternative is not on the table as far as I can see. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
My impression of that discussion is that far too many editors have interpreted it as a Request For All-or-Nothing Votes, and what they needed was a Request for Help Finding a Compromise. (Feel free to dress up that idea in an encyclopedic tone and propose it as an alternative if you want to.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia voice in an article hat at Eddie Eagle says it is a "safety" program. Can someone familiar with WP:MEDRS please review this for compliance? 64.134.172.62 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Eddie Eagle is a safety program. The fact that it is a safety program does not mean that it is an effective program, but the fact that it is ineffective at improving safety does not magically transform it into some other kind of program. It shouldn't be surprising that it's a failure; most Behavior-based safety programs are failures, and almost all one-off information sessions with children are doomed. (Need proof? Find the nearest parent and ask them how many years they spent saying things like "Don't run around in busy parking lots".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
We agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics and the review article that the Eddie Eagle program is ineffective. My understanding of WP:MEDRS is that we may no more say in Wikipedia voice that Eddie Eagle is a "firearms safety program for children," then we could for example describe apricot seeds as a cancer cure. What is your understanding? Better would be "This article is about the NRA's firearm program for children." 50.233.97.130 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Your metaphor fails: the primary purpose of apricot seeds is making more apricot trees, not treating disease.
A more apt comparison would be to something like the US FAA's old Air Transportation Oversight System safety program. ATOS didn't work. It was still a safety program. It did not stop being a safety program even though everyone concluded (eventually) that it was ineffective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Like most of us WAID is subject to a cognitive bias in favour of the mature complex organism. Dawkins argued convincingly that the tree is just an elaborate means for the reproduction of the seed, or at a more basic level, the reproduction of its constituent genes. However, the idea that the NRA is anything other than an elaborate sales organization rings false to most of the world. Even if Eddie had been effective as a user training program, its objective was still to sell more firearms to hit more targets. For those whose only interaction with firearms is in the role of potential targets, that does not seem like any kind of safety program.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Requests for approval

Hello, I Running a bot for add {{WikiProject Medicine}} to redirects based on what articles that in Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles for example. Are there any notes? Or problems?. The bot made 20 edits for trial in this task Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JarBot 3.--جار الله (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

they[4] seem fine but you need more opinions from other editors..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
As a new page patroller, I don't think I've ever seen a new redirect page created with a WikiProject tagged on it. The only redirect tags I see are on pages that were once filled with content but moved to another page at some later time (rather than submit an AfD, for instance). Then the old page gets the tag for historical purposes (and it shows we've been there before). Tagging every single redirect just for the heck of it will add tens of thousands of pages to this project's article count, and I don't really see the positive of doing so. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Wikiproject tags seem to be only added to redirects that used to be pages. I don't see the value in adding them to thousands of redirects. Natureium (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Me too. Personally I remove them from the old name when a page is moved. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with this practice. The Wikipedia category system is for human browsing, and I cannot think of a reason why a human would want to have easy access to a list of redirects. If such a list existed, then it should be in its own category of redirects and not mixed with Wikipedia articles, because it would add a lot of text which most readers should not see. I do not know what guidelines exist for discussing categories for redirects. What is your motivation for doing this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    • جار الله, please stop. This WikiProject doesn't normally tag redirects (with the occasional exception for redirects that might be targets for edit warring or deletion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Per here[5] we have more than 4000 redirects that are tagged by WPMED. Not sure what is wrong with tagging them? Not completely sure what the use of tagging them is either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Don't see anything wrong with tagging. For the Academic Journals project, we tag redirects. The advantage is that if one if, say, taken to RfD, then the Article Alert Bot will alert the project. Makes tracking things easier. We still have many untagged redirects, perhaps Jarbot 3 could next tackle WP:WikiProject Academic Journals? --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Randykitty: Q: Would it not be simpler and more reliable if Article Alert Bot looked for project tags on the target of the redirect rather than the redirect itself? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    • We usually have tags on pages if it was tagged before the article was moved. The other reason is if there's been a controversy about a particular one. It's pointless to tag most most redirects (how many different hyphens and dashes are there?), and tagging everything makes it harder to find the few redirects that we care about (or even to use the stats table at WP:MEDA to see how many real articles we're watching, because redirects get tallied there exactly like a real article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio source

PMID 25337402 copies material word-for-word from this 2006 diff by User:Stevenfruitsmaak. Does anyone feel like getting in touch with the journal and/or updating that article, which has barely been touched since then? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

LOL. I'm reminded of the hilarity with "glucojasinogen". ;) I can't believe nobody has made a bot to search all of PubMed abstracts, or at least new ones, vs. all of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It is this journal Journal of Thoracic Disease based out of China. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, someone did something better than that: They wrote a bunch of missing encyclopedia articles, posted half on Wikipedia (and kept the others offline, as a control group), waited a while, and then checked a huge database to see how many had been plagiarized.
I believe that the conclusion on their side was that plagiarism of Wikipedia articles was a serious problem in low-ranking journals (perhaps the lowest quartile as measured by WP:Impact factor; I believe that journals with a significant number of non-Western/non-native English-speaking authors was a particular risk), and the conclusion on our side was that newbies creating short articles on complex scientific subjects is an unreasonable burden on existing editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I will send them a serious letter... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. PS: WhatamIdoing thank you for clarifying that my early work as a med student qualifies as "newbies creating short articles on complex scientific subjects is an unreasonable burden on existing editors." :-) LOL !!
On a side note I had to search >30min before finding some guidance on Wikipedia on how to deal with these kind of matters. James, what if we took an initiative to ask for corrections and/or retractions of all scholarly papers which contain medical backward copyvio? That would certainly discourage future "fake" OA journals to continue this practice... Do we know anyone who can make a bot for that? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The community has changed since 2005. Back when you were a newbie, everyone thought it was awesome that anyone who actually knew anything would help out. Now, I guess we think we're too good for grad students to try their best at expanding.  :-/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
still a problem though--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A list of featured medical articles?

Is there a list of featured medical articles somewhere? I clicked on the link under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine#Metrics (tools.wmflabs.org) but it timed out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Ozzie. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
There is also a bot-maintained list of all featured content here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Recognized content. --WS (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Anthonyhcole: the list of FAs can be found at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Health and medicine.
A problem though: the medical FAs are not being maintained and many of them would not survive WP:FAR. A particularly bad example right now is Alzheimer's disease, which I promoted TEN years ago. Both of the original FA writers are gone, and the article is in very bad shape. Just comparing the Table of Contents from the 2008 promoted version to the current Table of Contents gives you an idea of how much unreviewed text the article has taken on, and the field has certainly changed in 10 years.
Same can be said for any of the medical FAs where the original authors have moved on.
When I started working up dementia with Lewy bodies, I was surprised to find that not only was there no article on Parkinson's disease dementia, but it sure isn't linked at Parkinson's disease. But AD is in bad shape, and should either be rewritten or defeatured.
I suspect you will find the same if you look closely at schizophrenia, autism, Asperger syndrome, and both of the multiple sclerosis articles. I have my doubts about Chagas disease, Dengue fever and Huntington's disease as well, but don't see anything obviously wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Update, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Sandy. I just noticed the WMF (I presume) is paying Google to promote Wikipedia as "the fact-checked online encyclopedia" [7]. I'm looking for a group of articles to submit to independent experts for fact-checking, just to test how well fact-checked Wikipedia is, and thought all of our featured disease articles (as they stand today) might be an appropriate sample. Maybe those plus the same number of randomly-selected disease GAs, Bs and Cs. Not sure. Still thinking about the best approach. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Do they specify what they mean by "fact-checked"? There is a whole spectrum of fact-checking quality, and just using the term without qualification does not convey much information and could reasonably be described as "hype" and "click-bait". Some of the facts are checked some of the time would be more accurate. Even in FA reviews I doubt anyone checks every statement, except sometimes maybe the nominator. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It's just a typical Google ad at the top of the search results page, Peter. There's a screenshot here. Hard to read on mobile. It says: "Explore the fact-checked online encyclopedia. Over 40 million articles. 295 languages. Edited by volunteers." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
So basically clickbait. As such it is quite possible that Google did it for no reason other than encouraging people to use their search engine, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Almost every one of our medical GAs is in serious trouble (GA has little meaning, one person review), but I think your best shot at fact checking to show the problem just now is the Alzheimer's article. I do wish there were some focus on keeping at least the FAs accurate, or submitting them to FAR, but not the case ... I found a number of deficiencies at attention deficit hyperactivity disorder last month, and that was based on only a quick scan of what I knew (tics). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The GAs are listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Medicine, but unlike the FA list, there is no person in charge of making sure that list is accurate, so I don't know what meaning that list has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Answered that question myself: ADHD says it is a Good article, but it is not listed at the Good article page, so ... GA has no oversight, and is only one person's review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Promoted to GA at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&diff=prev&oldid=568864931
Latest review at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/GA1 · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes ... since I helped develop the original {{Article history}} template and implement its rollout on every FA at the time we developed it (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches), I do know how to check for that data :) Point being, the GA list is not accurate, because ADHD is not listed at WP:GA. I don't participate in GA, so do not know if the bot was supposed to add it, if the reviewer was supposed to add it, if it was added and later deleted, etc ... don't much care, other than pointing out that Anthony can't rely on the GA list as he can the FA list. (For that matter, the last time I audited the FA list was several years ago, and I am not sure if the current delegates audit it as I did.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought that would be the case, but as it took me a bit of effort to find them I posted here for those like me who don't know the system inside out. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Pbsouthwood, you should always be able to find the link to the event (FAC, FAR, GA, DYK, etc) in the Article milestones, and you can find the article version that goes with that event by clicking on the date next to the event. Assuming the various bots are keeping up with their chores :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I doubt the WMF is actually paying Google for that - in fact I think they sensibly avoid any "fact-checked" claim, which they certainly should. Does anyone know differently? Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It says it's an ad, John, and that usually means someone has paid for it. But you may be right that WMF didn't pay for it. Maybe a benevolent third party did. Maybe Google gave it to them. (WMF's ED Katherine Maher and Chief Revenue Officer Lisa Gruwell are both telling the big companies that use us to "give back in some way."[8]) Whatever. It's a claim that's likely to mislead and imo shouldn't be made. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I missed the small print. There is a little icon specifying [Ad] and wikipedia.org, not WMF, Wikipedia. Interesting. Who would be able to or be authorised to advertise in Wikipedia's name? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not getting it. Two things. First, when I google Wikipedia, I don't get that (has it been removed already)? Second, which icon or small print tells me it's an ad? I don't see that in the image ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm in Australia and the ad is probably geographically restricted. The green text begins with a square with rounded corners enclosing "ad". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Same thinking here. Of more concern ... what do we have to do to get that to stop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I've raised it at wikimedia-l and on Jimbo's talk page. The first two commenters on wikimedia-l seem unconcerned. No one's opined on Jimbo talk. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Par for the course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: and @Anthonyhcole: we have to go through the FAR process for articles that clearly fail criteria - start with the worst one, notify, wait two weeks and if not sufficient response list away. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I try to avoid FARing (or involving myself in FARs) of articles I promoted. And a much better outcome would be for folks here to bring those articles back to standard :( I don't know if this page is accurate, but it appears that they get HUGE amounts of hits, and it would seem that the Medicine Project would want to prioritize maintenance on high-profile medical FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Open source mental health organization

https://osmihelp.org may be interesting to some of the regulars here (e.g., as a potential partner for some projects). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

good source, thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a good organization. Thanks for the heads up!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"More video"

If you're interested in the idea that (some) readers want "more video", then you might want to look at mw:User Interaction Consultation for some related ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks WAID :) I looked and saw only a brief mention of video there. Is there a more specific link? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. My current thinking is that readers probably don't want (just) "more video"; they want "more multimedia and interactive features", of which video is simply one small example and possibly not the most important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
would agree, but at least videos would be a first step--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Given that the question was "How can we make Wikipedia more interactive for readers?" it's not surprising that there was relatively little mention of video. Video can be a wonderful medium for enriching articles, but it's not interactive. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that normal people make a sharp distinction between the categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Are these sources reliable to include information on Ayurveda#History, that "The origins of Ayurveda have been traced to around 6,000 BCE"? I am copying the most convincing texts from the discussion held on Talk:Ayurveda.

JzG agreed with first source to be fine, but made no comments on other two.

What do people think? I was going to post this on WP:RSN but that board is stale, and not really everyone there is familiar with medical subjects. My Lord (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • anyone editing that article should be aware of ..WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES[11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the first and third are solid, mostly because they are more focused on that topic in the first place. The second source is not ostensibly about Ayurdeva and therefore the author of that probably isn't an expert in the dating and probably got it elsewhere (perhaps one of the other references here!) I see nothing wrong with including them, be sure to double check with other editors on its talk page though. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree that first and third are great sources where as second one can be included as a backup. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


This is a side note about arbitration remedies: Getting a notice about discretionary sanctions is scary for most editors, especially if you don't happen to be particularly familiar with Wikipedia's backend work. So for those who follow this page but not the drama pages, let me say that "discretionary sanctions" means that people who are NOT YOU have previously screwed up in a big way on those articles, and admins may be in a "shoot first, and ask questions later" mode. It's meant to be fair warning about problems created by other people, and getting a "warning" about other people's problems really, truly doesn't say anything about you.

And, in the spirit of scaring off as few folks as possible, if you see a new editor fix a typo or slightly change a sentence in a sanctioned article, please don't warn them off. Tracking warnings issued over uncontroversial changes creates pointless and wasteful bureaucracy as well as discouraging editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Zone diet

Needs eyes. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

[12]another predatory journal ..per [13]/publishers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

11k open access articles to be linked

After new data harvests from various sources, about 11,500 PubMedCentral identifiers have been found which need to be added to existing citations in English Wikipedia articles. Each PMC identifier helps verifiability and the consultation of reliable sources: the open access version of an article, registered in PubMed, gets linked from the title of the citation and from the ID link next to a green open access open lock (Freely accessible).

Example edit: [14] (Vunjak-Novakovic, G.; Tandon, N.; Godier, A.; Maidhof, R.; Marsano, A.; Martens, T. P.; Radisic, M. (2010). "Challenges in Cardiac Tissue Engineering". Tissue Engineering Part B: Reviews. 16 (2): 169–187. doi:10.1089/ten.teb.2009.0352. PMC 2946883.).

Please comment in Wikipedia talk:OABOT#Automate PubMedCentral on whether it would be a good idea to have an automatic bot run to add such PMC identifiers. --Nemo 07:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

commented[15]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've commented too, with a potential concern - hope folks will set me straight if I'm wrong. — soupvector (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Bone Score

Hello, the above article has recently come out of the Articles for Creation process; it could use some expert attention as it might be an advert for a particular device. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

editor Special:Contributions/Alexandermproctor edits are of 1. Paul K. Hansma who in turn had a hand in 2. (OsteoProbe)>>Bone Score...COI?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sociological and cultural aspects

Per WP:MEDMOS, we have Sociological and cultural aspects ...

Sociological and cultural aspects of autism contains info about every condition on the autism spectrum, and is linked from FAs autism, Asperger syndrome and others. Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome covers the media fascination and sensationalism that goes along with (FA) TS. We have others. They work well to explore the non-medical aspects of the conditions, summarized back to the main article with summary style.

Like the autism spectrum, with Lewy bodies and synucleinopathies, we have overlapping conditions in the Lewy body dementias (LBD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD), along with Parkinson's disease (PD). The terminology is so dreadful, that when I started working up dementia with Lewy bodies, I was amazed to find that we did not even have articles on LBD or PDD, our PD article (another FA) doesn't even mention PDD, and that the DLB article was quite confused, mixing text about LBD into DLB. So ...

Now that I have worked up dementia with Lewy bodies, I created a Sociological and cultural aspects of Lewy body dementia sub-article, because the DLB article is already 7,000 words.

And it promptly was tagged with a merge proposal, to take it back to one of the main articles (when it applies to four articles, spectrum style). Could people please have a look at Talk:Lewy body dementia for discussion of the merge proposal? I laid out the reason for the sub-article there, but the editor who suggested the merge isn't convinced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Merged it-- don't have years to settle this. Followed MEDMOS suggestion, fell into a time sink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wording

Thiamin

Wondering peoples thoughts on the wording discussion here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors 2016 (all) has statistics for 2016, but there is nothing for 2017. Has this effort been abandoned? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The user who ran the script to scrape the data is too busy to carry on doing the work. We can't get hold of the script, so I'm in the process of trying to re-write the whole thing from scratch. That will take some considerable time unless somebody comes up with a better idea. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
per[17] sent email to analytics-owner@lists.wikimedia.org(no response yet/not sure it'll work)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@User:Guy Macon I would love this data. I have sent off dozens of emails trying to get this done aswell. Simple very hard to find someone. User:Ladsgroup and User:West.andrew.g ran the numbers in the past but as mentioned are busy with other things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
at least we tried(and RexxS is trying)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Sorry about my late response - I've been super busy lately. It's unfortunate that we don't have the old scripts for this to modify and use for 2017. I would've taken this on if we had those. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we can make a place where old scripts can be archived and maybe even make archiving a requirement for using a script? It seems strange that we keep every old article version yet keep losing important scripts and other tools. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
[18]maybe?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • still ongoing(only en edits were solved, not across all languages)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • phabricator picked-up assignment....[19]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Translatathon April 2018 in NYC

File:LAGCC.png
LaGuardia Community College

I know this is late notice of the event, but I am sharing information rather than seeking any particular response or engagement.

LaGuardia Community College is hosting an April 2018 Wikipedia Translatathon tomorrow and Friday, 26-27 April 2018. The context is that LaGuardia is the most linguistically diverse school in NYC and the world because it actively seeks to enroll students of diverse backgrounds from NYC's already diverse population. This school and its various faculty and staff have engaged in Wikipedia programs since perhaps 2010. Wikipedia:LaGuardia Community College has some information about their projects, which include participation in the WP:Wikipedia Education Program and student and faculty engagement in various public events which Wiki NYC has presented.

@Doc James, CFCF, and Lucas559: I would like for you to be aware of this event because you name yourselves as coordinators for the Translation Task Force. The LaGuardia nursing program, which with the rest of the school is part of the City University of New York system, is one of this event's presenters. I am recommending the translation of the leads of medical articles as one of the program activities. There have been other casual translation events in NYC in the past. This is the first event in NYC which we have actually called a "translatathon" and where we have featured the leads of these medical articles as ideal to translate.

For the rest of WikiProject Medicine, I would like to share the story of this event as an example of innovative outreach which would not be possible without a community base of editors who develop medical content. For other languages Wikipedia is often the only available source of health information, as equivalents of the NHS, CDC, and NIH do not exist for other languages, and the United Nations and World Health Organization only operate in a few languages. The idea of bringing health information into other languages has been an inspiring goal.

For this particular event we are assembling undergraduate students, including many 18-19 year olds for whom English is not their native language, and we have some faculty from the nursing program present to coach them on editing. This is a modest event, and includes anyone who wants to translate anything and not just medical content. For the medical content though, the basis is what is in English Wikipedia, which is the best free information which anyone in the world has to offer. Thanks to everyone here who develops the quality of this content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Lane. Sounds like an excellent initiative. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Lane; that's an excellent initiative. I can be online and available as an extra pair of hands remotely up to around 14:45 EST if needed. Just drop a line on my talk page to attract my attention. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing this Lane. I am happy to help as well. JenOttawa (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

student editing issue

there is a class editing from[20] one in particular is reverting at Liver transplant[21](as well as issues at liver disease[22] and Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease[23], all articles could use some watching), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that time of year again (where I remember why I keep giving up on Wikipedia). From that list, I'll take parkinsonism. Also, ADHD was hit this week. I attempted (in vain) to have a discussion with the editor about appropriate sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Surprise surprise, another instance of WikiEdu churning out good faith vandalism. Thanks for the heads up. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Parkinsonism was an improvement over what is typically seen with classroom editing projects; I was able to save four sentences. And, honestly, the article was a wreck before the student edited, so they at least chose a good target (which is rare), and did have some grasp of MEDRS sourcing (used mostly secondary reviews). But I did have to delete a lot of what they added because it was either poorly sourced, written in unencyclopedic tone, or didn't belong in that article, rather was already covered at Parkinson's disease, where it did belong. Still, much better than what we usually find from student editing, so I commend Se Lawson (talk · contribs) and hope they will pass that on the prof. The situation at ADHD was more frustrating. I tried to engage the student to explain sourcing, but they were having none of it, and none of their content was salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, my comment was directed at the mess I saw at ADHD and another where Jytdog was involved haha. The few I looked at weren't overly bad, just poor grammar and punctuation (which is a problem site-wide, not just with classes). SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
now an edit war[24]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping us up to date with this. I tackled Rhinitis. JenOttawa (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Alfie Evans case

Inevitably, Wikipedia is maintaining a running commentary on this. Could probably be usefully added to a few medical editors' watchlists. Alexbrn (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

yes, its been all over the news[25]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I am sure that tweets by THE POPE are accounted for there. Just checked. yep. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Is the Pope catholic? Alexbrn (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It's about to get even more attantion – he's just died ([26]). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Shingles vaccine

One in six get sick enough to affect normal daily activity? For two to three days. They coulda told me, no? This thing is nasty ... anyone want to write article? https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/index.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Found the place, got it done![27] (now that i feel better). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
That seems over the top compared to say, NHS advice, and could be better integrated into the article. Most people have minor side effects, but that just means a sore arm. Bondegezou (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's what the CDC says, and I had it all, so not sure why you say it's over the top. And I added it to the Side effects section-- how else would I better integrate it? Also, 1 out of 6 is a real number. And this sore arm was not like a typical vaccine sore arm, so it seems to me that the CDC has it right.

As a result, you are likely to have temporary side effects from getting the shots. The side effects may affect your ability to do normal daily activities for 2 to 3 days. Most people got a sore arm with mild or moderate pain after getting Shingrix, and some also had redness and swelling where they got the shot. Some people felt tired, had muscle pain, a headache, shivering, fever, stomach pain, or nausea. About 1 out of 6 people who got Shingrix experienced side effects that prevented them from doing regular activities. Symptoms went away on their own in about 2 to 3 days. Side effects were more common in younger people.

Feel free to also add the NHS, though. I also reported my reaction to https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The package insert also indicates high likelihood of more than a sore arm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I was intending to add the NHS content to the article, when I realized it was not about Shingrix, but about Zostavax (scroll to the bottom of the page), which explains the difference. Best I am able to tell, Shingrix is not mentioned on the NHS website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if they used years, but it appears from this, that it was just approved in the UK in March? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed by this press release. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I had Zostavax in the UK three days ago when I would have preferred Shingrix, which I was told has not (yet) been approved by NICE. It does not appear to be available in the UK privately either. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
When I was searching, I came across some place in the UK that was offering it, but I can't re-produce that. Just be sure to have it on a Friday, in case you end up like me! I think it's worth it, but I would have appreciated better disclosure from my doctor, as this was not a good time for me to be sick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Antipsychotic switching

Risperdal Consta injection(for antipsychotic switching)

I just reviewed the new article Antipsychotic switching. I'm wondering what others think of the appropriateness of the article topic. It seems instructive in nature and may be best suited as a section in an article on antipsychotics. Natureium (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the central concept, of "switching" is not sufficiently widely sourced so the article shouldn't exist. Some material may be salvageable to be merged elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
should be merged to Antipsychotics...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Vitamin B3

An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitamin B3—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SusanLesch (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


DLB

Dementia with Lewy bodies is "done" to the best of my ability. Once the fact/opinion issue is resolved, I would like to ask a Wikifriend for a thorough copyedit, so we (all who contributed) can take it to FAC, as a collaboration. So, for anyone who may be interested, now is a good time to comb through the content. Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Silent treatment

what should we do with this. it was a cesspool of bad content sourced to pop-psychology crap citations. Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Not by way of an answer - just to note that i've made some changes to the page.--Iztwoz (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Refusing to speak to someone is not a medical subject. The origin of the name (but not the behavior) is in the way that some (Western, mostly English-speaking) prisons treated their inmates. None of that sounds like this group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The version before i edited it down was all full of pop-psych crap, see here.
I struggle with the perspective that psychology content is completely outside of what we do in WP:MED but please hear me when i say that i have not thought carefully about where the the not-MED line is. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
If you're not sure where MEDRS stops and psychology begins maybe don't edit articles where the line isn't clear to you. I don't agree with some of your edits on Silent Treatment and am wondering whether to make changes or not. Everything human beings do impacts their physiologies so its understandable that the line separating behaviour and health related articles is blurred. However, this is primarily an article about behavior not physical health so I don't think MEDRS applies. I also wonder if Silent Treatment is a clinical term; if not we don't necessarily need research papers to describe it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC))
I like it when people say that they don't know everything.
That seemed like an aggressive purge (e.g., blanking the paragraph that says it's a common tactic by bullies in the workplace), but looking at a few sources, I'm thinking that this might be a good candidate for a merge/redirect (as might several others). There are so many different terms for the same basic behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I had the same thought, that there is a bunch of merging that could be done. maybe we would end up with enough sources by the end of that. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Psychiatry and neurophysiology

Input would be welcome at Talk:Neurophysiology#Neurophysiology relationship to psychiatry. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-59519-6_9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte135 (talk • contribs) 00:24, May 2, 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, we resolved it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your self-revert Tryptofish. The relatedness to psychiatry is quite obvious.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Adenoid vs Pharyngeal tonsil

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.

Hello, as I mentioned here, that text books said "adenoids are a symptomatic pathological hypertrophy of the nasopharyngeal tonsil. That in presence of certain predisposing factors (like allergy, environmental pollution..etc), abnormal hypertrophy of the nasopharyngeal tonsil occurs and normal physiological regression is slowed down (nasopharyngeal tonsil normally starts to diminish in size at the age of 7-8 years), and the hypertrophy condition here called adenoids". So if there's no objection I'll move the article from Adenoid to Pharyngeal tonsil? --Alaa :)..! 11:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

علاء — This belong on WT:ANAT, moving it. Carl Fredrik talk 13:24, 2 May 2018 (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.

Draft: List of journals accused of being a predatory open access publisher

Extended content
  1. Advances in Aging Research
  2. Advances in Alzheimer's Disease
  3. Advances in Anthropology
  4. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology
  5. Advances in Entomology
  6. Advances in Enzyme Research
  7. Advances in Microbiology
  8. Advances in Molecular Imaging
  9. Advances in Nanoparticles
  10. Advances in Parkinson's Disease
  11. Agricultural Sciences (SCIRP journal)
  12. American Journal of Molecular Biology
  13. CellBio
  14. Clinical Practice
  15. Computational Molecular Bioscience
  16. Food and Nutrition Sciences
  17. Food and Nutrition Sciences (SCIRP journal)
  18. Frontiers in Bioscience
  19. Health (SCIRP journal)
  20. Imaging in Medicine
  21. International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology
  22. International Journal of Organic Chemistry
  23. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science
  24. Journal of Biomaterials and Nanobiotechnology
  25. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering
  26. Journal of Biosciences and Medicines
  27. Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications
  28. Journal of Modern Physics
  29. Journal of Quantum Information Science
  30. Journal of Tuberculosis Research
  31. Materials Sciences and Applications
  32. Microscopy Research
  33. Natural Science (journal)
  34. Natural science journal
  35. Neuropsychiatry (journal)
  36. Open Journal of Anesthesiology
  37. Open Journal of Ecology
  38. Open Journal of Fluid Dynamics
  39. Psychology (journal)
  40. World Journal of Gastroenterology
  41. Category:Allied Academies academic journals
  42. Category:Pulsus Group academic journals

See Category:Potential predatory journals.

I think a List of journals accused of being a predatory open access publisher will be a good article. Before it goes live we can create a draft. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Bad idea. 1/ Will be an enormous list. Beall had over 1000 entries on his list. 2/ Near impossible to maintain. 3/ Magnet for edit warring between supporters and opponents of these journals. Note: Most of the entries in the above list (which is copied from Category:Potential predatory journals were placed in that cat by me, before giving up). --Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This would be a huge undertaking. I have no strong feeling for or against, but if you need help I'm in. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to start a draft. I don't know all the sources to cite. If someone else creates it then I will pitch in. Someone who is familiar with the topic can provide sources here. QuackGuru (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I think we need very clear inclusion criteria, one of which should ideally be a secondary source that claims a publication is predatory. I think there is a lot to be said for maintaining such a list, if Quackguru is game. (Conflict of interest: I get spammed on an almost daily basis by predatory publishers wanting me to "submit my research" to them. All because my email address is on Pubmed.) JFW | T@lk 18:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I know very little about this topic. I will wait for sources and wait for others to start the draft. We don't need a source that claims a publication *is* predatory. There could be a source that claims a publication maybe a predatory or potentially or other similar words. In other words, we can follow each source accurately and include supported weasel words such as *possible* predatory. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Starting with Beall's list as a reference seems reasonable. Just make sure every item is referenced. One could group them alphabetically. We have larger lists than this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a bad idea. It refers to Beall's list which has been challenged and withdrawn. This list will be out-dated, inaccurate and hedged with weaselly words like "accused", "potential". Yes, those of us who are in academia get invitations all the time to publish in "new" journals and would not aim for this or usually dream of citing them in WP reviews. But occasionally a relevant source may end up in one of them. For instance, World Journal of Gastroenterology has had mistakes along the way but now has an adequate review process and a reasonable impact factor in the top half of Gastro journals. Maybe we should just list journals with citation indices < 1 (or 2 or 20) as Potential low impact journals.Jrfw51 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Including supported weasel words will make it accurate. We can also include a list of journals with a zero impact factor in a separate section. The impact factor for World Journal of Gastroenterology has increased. I'm not sure if this should be included in the list for a new article. QuackGuru (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For transparency, Jytdog has removed a comment that strongly opposes this idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I removed a comment that is or is very close to a BLP violation. That they oppose or support is not the issue. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • fwiw i oppose this approach to the issue. i think list articles are generally a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please provide sources below. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Neutral - It could be a helpful list. My worry is that over time, if an editor or group of editors does not diligently keep it up-to-date, we might end up denigrating a "reformed" journal, as in the example Jrfw51 provided. On a related topic, if we decide to include impact factor, we should include a variety of journal citation metrics, not just the Impact Factor marketed by Clarivate Analytics.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • In general, this is a bad idea. The list would feature thousands of entries, if not more. The best way to do this is to add links to those lists in predatory journal/predatory publishing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Per Headbomb, Randykitty, and others—we shouldn't be trying to place ourselves in the position of creating and curating a list of predatory publishers and journals. While such lists are useful and valuable resources, they're out of scope for Wikipedia's mission. Keeping such a list complete and up to date in perpetuity isn't something we can reliably and robustly do with Wikipedia's general volunteer labor pool, and presenting such a list that is incomplete and out of date does a disservice to our readers. Wikipedia can and should link appropriately to respected outside resources (through external links sections and inline references) on this topic, but we shouldn't try to become the last word ourselves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with TenOfAllTrades and others. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That being said, a Wikipedia-space worklist to make sure those aren't used in our articles for referencing things beyond WP:SELFSOURCE would be entirely fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree. An 'internal' list of useful resources for identifying predatory publishers would be quite handy to have. Lists of publishers and individual journals would be, again, subject to concerns regarding completeness and curation, but editors – as opposed to readers – are much better positioned to understand the limitations of a work-in-progress crib sheet. Such a page might also be used retain and consolidate links to historical discussions on Wikipedia (on article talk pages and on noticeboards like WT:MED, WP:FTN, WP:RSN, etc.) about particular publishers/journals to help reduce the need to 'reinvent the wheel' when questions about a particular source arise.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I like this idea. On a couple of occasions I've had some citation edits reverted because the next editor knew the journal/book I was citing was unreliable for one reason or another - something I wouldn't have known without previous knowledge or a hard lit search. It would be a nice resource to check before including a journal/publisher/etc. It would also be a daunting task though...there's been hundreds of citations I've come across (usually through Google Books) that are just horrible and I couldn't imagine the process it would require to round those all up in a Wiki page. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Well... It's great when folks can collaborate together like that, but I also hope that you'd think about whether the other person is correct. Over the years, I've had editors tell me that journals are bad because you have to buy the article, because it's not written in English, because it's not in a particular database, because it's WP:Impact factor is only the median for its field (most editors don't understand how low typical impact factors are, especially for specialized journals) – even because the editor-in-chief wasn't a successful businessman. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
See this request at TWL. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I think the main problem here may be that we need to define what qualifies as an "accusation". Does it just have to be some random blogger calling a journal predatory for us to list it on our hypothetical list of such journals? What kind of sources would be used to decide whether a journal should be listed or not? This is aside from the other issues with such a list already mentioned above. Every morning (there's a halo...) 23:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hans Asperger and the Nazis

A paper recently published in Molecular Autism (full text here) has claimed that, in Nazi Germany, Hans Asperger "joined several organizations affiliated with the NSDAP (although not the Nazi party itself), publicly legitimized race hygiene policies including forced sterilizations and, on several occasions, actively cooperated with the child ‘euthanasia’ program." It has gotten a lot of media attention and I wanted to see if other editors think it is fairly incorporated into the current article on Asperger himself. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(not an easy article) however your edit[29] seems consistent w/ source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose — Per rationale on that talk page. Carl Fredrik talk 11:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
This has been all over the news recently; I'm surprised that there hasn't been even more effort to expand upon possible Nazi ties. Looking at the article's talk page, I see that it's almost the only thing that readers and editors have posted about for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Children in emergencies and conflicts

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Children in emergencies and conflicts#Redirecting this article. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for a merge

Greetings! I've been combing through stale drafts, and happened upon one User:Garfieldandcows/Pes anserinus bursitis. Wikipedia already has an article over this topic, at Pes anserine bursitis. However, the draft contains a number of useful pieces of information that should be merged into that article. Unfortunately, I lack any expertise in this area, meaning the merge could be better performed by someone here. I was wondering if someone could do me a favor and take care of that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

looks ok[30]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

New articles

Some of you might be interested in another way to find new articles and new redirects that are related to health and medicine: https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/index.php?by=group&name=Education+%26+Research

Here's the list that it finds under "health" today:

Extended content
  1. 2017 Healthy Ageing Tour
  2. 2018 Healthy Ageing Tour
  3. 2019 Grand National
  4. Abigail Ashley
  5. Adv Public Health
  6. Adv. Public Health
  7. Advances in Public Health
  8. Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries
  9. Ann John
  10. Ayushman Bharat Yojana
  11. Baan Dek Foundation
  12. Best Health Magazine
  13. Booksy
  14. Carbon farming
  15. CareRooms
  16. Catholic Health Association
  17. Celina de Sola
  18. Centria Healthcare, LLC
  19. Centro de Salud Familiar La Fe
  20. Charlie Reeve
  21. CHBD
  22. Children in emergencies and conflicts
  23. Confl Health
  24. Confl. Health
  25. Conflict and Health
  26. Cornelia Prüfer-Storcks
  27. Corporate integrity agreement
  28. Criticism of mental health institutions in the United Kingdom
  29. Criticisms of medicine
  30. Department of Public Health Engineering
  31. Elizabeth Karlin
  32. Erica Schwartz
  33. Fu Ching Yen
  34. Gordon Stewart (epidemiologist)
  35. Graham Jukes
  36. Health equity in the United States
  37. Health Inequality in Thailand
  38. Health inequality in the United States
  39. Health insurance in Australia
  40. Health insurance in Belgium
  41. Health insurance in Iowa
  42. Health insurance in Rwanda
  43. Health o Meter
  44. Health Progress
  45. Healthcare (journal)
  46. Healthcare in Houston
  47. Healthcare in Jakarta
  48. Healthcare in Kerala
  49. Healthcare in Maharashtra
  50. Healthcare in Oxfordshire
  51. Healthcare in Saskatchewan
  52. Healthcare in the Gaza Strip
  53. Healthcare in Uttar Pradesh
  54. Healthcare insurance in the United States
  55. Healthier IN
  56. HealthSparq
  57. Htv.com.pk
  58. J Environ Public Health
  59. J Health Law
  60. J Healthc Eng
  61. J. Environ. Public Health
  62. J. Health L.
  63. J. Health Law
  64. J. Health Pol. Pol'y & L.
  65. J. Healthc. Eng.
  66. Jackie Daniel
  67. James W. Dilley
  68. Jane Wadsworth (Statistician)
  69. Jenny Morris (environmental health)
  70. John Aitken (biologist)
  71. Jonathan Skinner (economist)
  72. Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy
  73. Journal of Environmental & Public Health
  74. Journal of Environmental and Public Health
  75. Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law
  76. Journal of Healthcare Engineering
  77. June E. Osborn
  78. Karen Hein
  79. Karen Witten
  80. Kate Diesfeld
  81. Kaye Wellings
  82. KNR University of Health Sciences
  83. KNRUHS
  84. Kupat Holim Leumit
  85. Lagos State College of Health Technology
  86. Lead poisoning in raptors
  87. Lesley McCowan
  88. Leticia Adelaide Appiah
  89. Linda Saltzman
  90. Local board
  91. Maricopa Integrated Health System
  92. Marjorie Bear Don't Walk
  93. Mary Starke Harper
  94. McLaren Bay Region
  95. McLaren Bay Special Care Hospital
  96. McLaren Central Michigan
  97. McLaren Greater Lansing
  98. McLaren Lapeer Region
  99. McLaren Macomb
  100. McLaren Northern Michigan
  101. McLaren Oakland
  102. McLaren Orthopedic Hospital
  103. Medicare for all
  104. Nada Kostić
  105. Nashua Memorial Hospital
  106. National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences
  107. NDCHealth
  108. NDCHealth Corporation
  109. NHSU
  110. Nikki Sharp
  111. Notifiable diseases in Norway
  112. Nychhc
  113. O Sowthapuram
  114. Occupational health concerns of cannabis use
  115. Onsite health
  116. Open access in Canada
  117. Platt Report
  118. Project Child
  119. Racial health gap
  120. Racial health gap in the United States
  121. Ratchaburi Hospital
  122. Reach A Hand Uganda
  123. Sawanpracharak Hospital
  124. SCUHS
  125. Stephen Battersby
  126. Structural competency
  127. Virtual reality in healthcare
  128. Vitreology
  129. Wake Early College High School
  130. Weathering hypothesis
  131. WECHS
  132. William T. Jarvis
  133. William Tibbles

(There's another list for "biology".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

very useful[31] thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC about vitamin B3

Talk:Vitamin_B3#RfC_Do_the_refs_support_this_content? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

HTML errors in medicine-related articles

I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a few high-priority HTML errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject.  The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers.  If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry.  If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.  

The first list is all "deletable table" errors.  If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag.  Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the ==I== section. The cause is probably the bad wikitext code at the end of the previous section, which currently ends with |-}. In the current parser, this error makes the H and I tables be connected; in the upcoming parser, it will make them separate but the ==I== section heading will still be misplaced. It should be an easy fix.

This second list is "misnested tags".  See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information.  For the first link, the highlighting indicates that the problem is in the ==References== section.

For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter.  Good luck,  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

[32]seems to have additional info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Castleman disease rewrite

Castleman disease

Hi everyone, thanks in advance for any help, it is much appreciated! Full disclosure about a potential COI, I am a medical student working for the non-profit Castleman Disease Collaborative Network.

I have been working to rewrite the page for Castleman disease. When I was considering my approach to rewriting the page I figured I would have to include 3 subcategories for each heading reflecting the 3 commonly accepted subtypes of the disease (Unicentric Castleman disease, HHV-8-associated multicentric Castleman disease, idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease). I thought that would be cumbersome and it would be better to have a separate page for each subtype instead. My feeling (which I believe reflects that of experts in the rather small field) is that these 3 diseases likely differ enough in pathogenesis, symptoms, treatment, and prognosis that they are best thought of independently. Recently published high impact articles tend to focus on a single subtype rather than all 3.

I have drafted all 3 articles:

Draft:HHV-8-associated MCD

Draft:Unicentric Castleman disease

Draft:Idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease

I am new to wikipedia and I was hoping to get feedback on:

1) Whether my approach with 3 articles makes sense

2) General feedback on my drafts, is the content appropriate? is the tone correct? Do I have enough sources?

3) What is the fastest way to get these articles up? Should I wait for the formal review process as I am currently doing?

4) Is my COI significant, I tried to be as unbiased as possible. I did mention the CDCN in the article as I feel it is a notable and valuable resource, but I understand if my COI might be concerning.

Thank you so much for any feedback!--CDK55 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CDK55 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

For rare diseases, it is normal and appropriate to mention the largest non-profit organization in the article.
I started an infobox at the top of the Draft:Unicentric Castleman disease. If you open the page in the visual editor, and click on it, then you can get a list of things you can add (like ICD-10 codes and OMIM numbers). Including an infobox is typical in this kind of article, but if you don't like it, then you can remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the help! I'll try add an infobox to the other pages and expand on the one you added to the UCD page. CDK55 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
will take a look as well[33]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

New editor

A few here might want to assess Olivia482 (talk · contribs)'s edits and help her improve as an editor. I've left a brief message on her talk page about WP:MEDRS. The good thing is that she is sourcing her material and it's usually not essay-like. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I said hello and invited this person to post to this board anytime for feedback. I recommend the same to all new editors. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ivanhoe and medical marketing

We have just been through a bit of a slog at the AfD about Greg J. Marchand (about to be deleted), an ob/gyn who got his MD at Spartan Health Sciences University, practices laparoscopic surgery, and likes to go after "world records" for removing biggest X and then put out press releases about them. He uses morcellation to get the big things out but still work laparoscopically.

Here is how it looked when it was created. I one point I pared it down to something as good-as-it-could be given the sources, and got this.

The socks argued that syndicated news stories about this guy each counted toward N and one of them wrote this: these 14 news stories did not come from a press release, they came from national reporter. The original story was produced by Wendy Chioji of Ivanhoe Media (they do a lot of the medical interest national stories for CBS, NBC, ABC. Her original story is easy to find so I suspect you already knew this. It's a real national story shared with many legitimate CBS, NBC, and ABC affiliate stations.

Nobody bought this argument, but it was such a clear (and egregious) example that I thought it worth posting at INDY, and did so here, and have made a bold edit to INDY to explicitly address syndicated stories in discussions of notability and weight.

But what I wanted to discuss here was Ivanhoe Broadcast News (I just nominated that for speedy as it is mostly a copy/paste from their website) which apparently creates pieces about "breakthroughs in medicine" and sells them to other news organizations. I don't know much about them. If they are doing legit news, or are really oriented toward doing PR, or if they don't care what subjects want and will just do anything if they think they can sell it. I can say that their piece on Marchand was pretty much a mouthpiece, and not at all independent journalism. (Here is the one piece i found with INDY reporting on Marchand; the Ivanhoe syndicated pieces - for example this, are nothing like that.)

Anyway, I wanted to post here to see if anybody is aware of Ivanhoe. ?? Their stuff is not MEDRS of course but there is lots of non-biomedical content we all deal with. Is anybody familiar with them? Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  • i checked at healthnewsreview.org and they have some discussion of ivanhoe:

Dean Edell, the syndicated multimedia medical reporter who calls himself "America's Doctor," has built a thriving business dispensing news and advice about everything from cancer treatments to erectile dysfunction. What followers of his "Medical Journal" on KGO Channel 7 may not realize is that the reporting he takes credit for on the air often is not his own. Many of his TV stories, along with transcripts under his byline on the KGO Web site, were taken nearly verbatim from a low-profile news service in Florida that mails out prepackaged video reports to more than 100 TV stations across the country.The company, Ivanhoe Broadcast News, allows local reporters to put their names on stories they didn't report, film or write -- without mentioning Ivanhoe. Stations also are permitted to omit geographical information, giving viewers the false impression that the stories were locally produced and the patients and doctors quoted in the stories could be their neighbors

  • This 2009 piece which is their most substantial discussion
  • two 2010 reactions to their "“Pomegranates Prevent Breast Cancer?” "question mark journalism" story -- here and here
  • another on "blue m&ms" here from 2009
That thats what healthnewsreview has to say... Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing about Print syndication that makes it inherently non-independent.
However, WP:N has said (for years and years) that when the same story is republished in a bunch of different media outlets, that's still exactly one (1) story. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the wording of WP:GNG

Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

is liable to ambiguous interpretation (the problem is in the "or"). We know it means that when Wendy Chioji of Ivanhoe Media writes a story and gives it to multiple news stations, that counts for only one source for the purpose of satisfying GNG. But you only have to look at the socks voting "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg J. Marchand to realise that the UPEs will read our policy as stating that each news station counts as a separate independent source becaus they are not the same organisation.
Examples:
  • "In the US [he] has articles all over the national news about him";
  • "There's no way this can fail WP:GNG. If you read WP:GNG it plainly says:""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Individual ABC, NBC and CBS stations all over the nation ran the story.";
  • "That is not what WP:GNG says. It says they have to be independent from the Subject, not independent from each other. Most stories you see on the news will come from the same Associated Press press releases no matter where you are in the United States."
and so on. That's the sort of persuasive crap that leads to AfDs ending in "no consensus to delete", because not even the closers pay enough attention to the point that "1 story = 1 source for GNG". It's time you spruced up that policy again, WAID --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The rule is explained in Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-3, but Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions. If it's a pervasive and good-faith problem (e.g., not just a bunch of socks at AFD), then it might be worth expanding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The snag with the current system is that you have to prove that the comments are coming from socks before their deceptive comments can be exposed for what they are. Most of the time we just don't know whether the SPAs are socks or not. I shudder to think how many AfDs may have given free passes to UPEs and their sockfarms because the nominator lacked Jytdog's insight and tenacity. My vote is for spelling the guidance out clearly in GNG. Something like

"Multiple publications from the same author or organization, and the same source repeated by multiple organizations are almost always regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."

--RexxS (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I spent a little while looking into Ivanhoe. It appears that they're basically a standard news media organization. It's sort of freelancing on a larger scale: they write stories, and they sell stories to outlets. It's licensing rules are different from (i.e., worse than) the Associated Press's, but it's not necessarily different in kind. Since they are profitable, I assume that they're talking to media outlets about the kinds of content that will get bought, but I also assume that their independence is approximately the same as every other newsroom: they get jillions of press releases whether they want them or not, they are under a lot of time/productivity pressure, and they are more skilled than the average person at noticing when someone's trying to twist the facts.
I think that there may be some confusion of "hard-hitting" with "independent". Glowing puff pieces can be absolutely independent, just like critical pieces can be wildly non-independent (see: every attack ad ever published during a political campaign). You can build a journalistic career on writing positive stories, without compromising your independence. There's a market for good/hopeful news, especially for health content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on Invanhoe, WAID. The whole point of journalistic independence is that we look for them to actually look into stuff and report what they find. A "piece" that is just a puff piece providing a mouthpiece for the subject is not independent, in the spirit of what we are looking for. This is a much murkier ball of wax, I know... Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
No, that's not what journalistic independence means. Journalistic independence does not mean that you get a complete or accurate story. It means that you get a story that was published because the journalists (e.g., not the advertisers or the government) wanted to publish it.
This is why journalistic independence is so valuable for determining notability: the decision to publish a story on X tells us that someone with no vested interest in X thought that X was important enough to bring X to the attention of the world at large. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • happy to have dialogue but I intended this thread to be about Ivanhoe as source of medical "news". My sense is we should avoid it like the plague.
Folks have seemed tetchy lately, about what is "in-scope" here on this talk page. The general issues should (in my view) be discussed at the INDY talk page, here as they are not specific to MED. If folks agree there, it might well be worth adding a clarification about syndidated stories at N, BIO, CORP, etc. but those are discussions for those guidelines/essays.... Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that Ivanhoe is probably every bit as good a source of medical news as your typical local newspaper.
I am curious where you draw the line between "medical news" and information that needs to meet MEDRS standards for biomedical content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
So something like Marchand getting a guinness world record would be Society and Culture. something about first X would be history (although popular media is generally bad for that). Perhaps for public controversy. That's not a surprising answer is it? Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that Ivanhoe is a reliable source for that kind of news.
I also think that news stories (in any typical news media) that are initiated through press releases and PR campaigns are reliable for that kind of news, too. What we need from a source for WP:V is a reason to think that the facts are accurate; a typical news story provides us with that. What we need from a source for WP:N is their "gatekeeper" function, to determine what deserves their readers' attention; the fact that they can't (and won't) run a story on every single press release provides us with that.
The main problem with the Marchand stuff isn't the "wow, modern medicine is so amazing" aspect of the stories. It's just that there's not much to say about him. Stripped of puffery, trivia, and stuff pulled from self-published and non-independent sources, the article would probably be a WP:PERMASTUB – a few sentences that would say little more than "He did this, and he was criticized for it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If anyone who can code Lua modules cares

See Template talk:Infobox journal#Need parameter Medline_abbreviation for the dozens of journals where it does not match ISO 4. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
BTW, no LUA was needed for this, and {{Infobox journal}} now supports |nlm=. It will prompt you to create relevant redirects if the parameter is not empty. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Frontier journals

https://www.frontiersin.org/

What are peoples thoughts on these? They have been described as predatory here.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

For those interested in some background that led to this question, I recommend seeing my talk page, wherein Doc James and I discussed this matter. It also includes my rationale for at least selectively using Frontiers journals as citations to articles so long as the article or study being cited is otherwise acceptable, as well as my stated concerns about considering Frontiers Media to be a predatory publisher. As I said in the aforementioned talk page discussion, I agree that there appear to be some problems with Frontiers journals, but I would nonetheless consider it a problematic publisher (like with Hindawi Publishing Corporation) rather a predatory one. This conclusion was primarily based on a review of sources mentioning or otherwise discussing the status of Frontiers journals as predatory, which I deemed mixed and overall inconclusive. Links to those sources can be found on my talk page, as well.
I would also like to note Archive 78 § On the use of Frontiers journals as sources, whose consensus seemed likewise inconclusive but which appears to accept selective usage so long as that which is being cited is otherwise acceptable. If necessary, I would also support including a {{better source}} template along with any such citation, though I personally do not think that should be necessary. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
at the very least questionable[34] and [35]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes it depends on the claim. Any exceptional claim (e.g. of treatment efficacy) which appears only in a Frontiers journal is a huge WP:REDFLAG, and as for the AIDS denialism &c. stuff they've run .... In general anything worth including that appears in a Frontiers journal will almost certainly be source-able to something more conspicuously reputable. Same goes for Hindawi journals, PLOS ONE, etc. Most of the times we see these sources being raised from WP:PROFRINGE editors banging an altmed drum. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I definitely don't consider Frontiers journals to be predatory -- I have read dozens if not hundreds of useful articles in them. However, the fact that something is published in a Frontiers journal should not imply that it should be treated as a reliable source. They are better than things like Medical Hypotheses, but reliability is not their primary goal. Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
We should lean on the side of caution if as reported we shold error on the right side. They are by far not alone ...as there are thousands of other publishers we can use instead. Editors are expected to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia....thus simply avoid questionable sources if we want to look credible.--Moxy (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
This was just added based on Frontier journal: "In vitro and in vivo studies found that methadone significantly inhibited the growth of human lung cancer cells"[36]
An extraordinary claim IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Yup, and it's wacky articles like this that exemplify why Frontiers journals need to be treated with extreme caution. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I actually think this Frontiers article is quite good, but the edit to the methadone article does not accurately reflect what it says. The Frontiers article notes that methadone has shown anti-tumor activity in preclinical studies, which is perfectly true; it also notes that these effects have not been tested at the clinical level. Looie496 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The specific subject of methadone as antineoplastic is reviewed in Int J Cancer at PMID 29516505. No need to use the primary source. More generally though, it's worth restating that no source is reliable (or unreliable) for all statements: one can cite an issue of Mad Magazine for a statement describing the cover of that particular issue. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
It appears, at least to me, that the consensus (or lack thereof) on generally citing Frontiers journals has thus far remained the same as I described above. This discussion originated from my citation of two specific review articles, namely the following two: 1 and 2. Does anyone have any opinion on these two particular sources, especially as worthwhile additions to the Asperger syndrome, Autism, Autism spectrum, or other such article? I originally included it as another theory in Asperger syndrome § Mechanism and its reversion is what led to this. If any of you would like more context, I recommend reading the discussion on my talk page. Everything, including relevant diffs, is documented therein. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, both URLs you give caused my browser to raise a security alert - so I wouldn't include those links! Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It does for me, too, specifically SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN. This is because the certificate is not valid for the journal.frontiersin.org subdomain, only the www.frontiersin.org subdomain and the subdomain-free frontiersin.org. I have no clue why the website's certificate does not include the journal subdomain, even though it's just used as a hop to the www subdomain anyway (adding a temporary exception demonstrates as much). My guess is that someone misconfigured the certificate and nobody ever bothered to fix it. Regardless, the landing pages for each are as follows: 1 and 2. I was trying to include the original articles, but forgot about the subdomain nonsense. My apologies for not linking them initially, Alexbrn; it has been a long day for me.
I might as well note that in my original edit (which Doc James had moved to Talk:Asperger syndrome § Frontier journals), those bad subdomain links are only available (unavoidably) in the DOI parameter of the citations. The URLs I included were PDF copies from ResearchGate, namely 1 and 2. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
So these sources are about the "Intense World Syndrome" which is the idea of a few researchers. The question is has this been picked up and discussed by decent secondary sources? If so, we can cite them; if not we ignore the topic as Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary publication summarizing "accepted knowledge" (which is generally found only at the secondary level or deeper). Alexbrn (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I think that might be a secondary source. It's not labeled as a review article, which is a particular type of secondary source, but it synthesizes previous work into a coherent whole. Putting together puzzle pieces is pretty much the definition of secondary. (Maybe you meant that this idea needed to be picked up by someone independent of the original authors?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what content the OP want to source, but if it's about the novel "hypothesis" of Intense World Syndrome so far as I can see these works are primary for that hypothesis. But yes coverage would need to be independent. Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Alexbrn, I specifically want to include this "intense world" theory because I believe it is a relevant and appropriate addition to Asperger syndrome § Mechanism. I was simply stating the theory in a brief paragraph as a significant hypothesis for the neurological mechanism(s) behind Asperger syndrome and the autism spectrum alongside the others. The theory has been mentioned, discussed, or otherwise cited by hundreds of papers, if Google Scholar is any estimate; and it has received significant media coverage from reliable sources (some of which are listed on my talk page). I therefore think a paragraph on the theory is due.
What specifically would constitute sufficient "independent coverage" of this theory (or these specific papers) in your opinion? For example, do you basically just mean a review article about this theory and whatever research may have occurred since its publication by those "independent of the original authors" (as WhatamIdoing stated)? Or do you mean it in some other way? I apologize if my inexperience is showing; although I have been editing Wikipedia for years, I am still new to adding and editing medical content. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
According to the two articles, WhatamIdoing, they are indeed both labeled as review articles. I am talking about these two links specifically: 1 and 2. Am I misunderstanding something here? Are they not technically review articles? I agree that they are both secondary sources, though I understand Alexbrn's point that the "intense world" theory is primary to these papers and their authors. From what I can tell, if there is any basis for excluding these two particular sources, it appears to be on them not being secondary for the theory itself, despite otherwise satisfying WP:MEDRS. Perhaps that is what you meant? That they are not review articles for the theory itself, since the papers are the primary source for them? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Usually – but not always, and it's not a requirement – journals submit metadata to PubMed about their articles, to identify things such as whether they're review articles. The PubMed records contain no such data for these papers. That's not proof that it's not a review article, but it does mean that the papers are excluded from search results (at PubMed) that are limited to review articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, WhatamIdoing. I will be sure to keep that in mind in the future. I also appreciate the work you did to document the potential notability of this "intense world" theory. Given that you mentioned notability, however, do you think that it may be more prudent in this case to focus on developing a separate article about this before including it in a section like Asperger syndrome § Mechanism (which was the original edit)? Or should the focus—at least, at this time—remain with including it somewhere within an appropriate Wikipedia article, assuming it should be included at all? Perhaps someday this "intense world" theory will have its own article, anyway, but I am not sure if that day should be anytime soon. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that this subject meets or exceeds the minimum requirement for having a stand-alone article about just IWS. However, considering everything, I think that you may have an easier time getting it mentioned (perhaps only briefly) in some article(s) first, and later creating the article specifically about that theory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Intense world syndrome

I'm looking into this idea, and I think it's probably WP:Notable. Here's some sources:

  • "A prominent hypothesis about neurodevelopmental disorders in general and autism in particular is the intense world syndrome/theory of autism by Markram and Markram" [37]
  • "Two theories for which there is limited support but which have attracted much media attention deserve mention. These are the intense world syndrome theory and the broken mirror theory." [38]
  • "Perhaps autistics don't experience a socially numbed world but rather a socially intense world. In fact, Henry Markram, Tania Rinaldi, and Kamila Markram proposed such a theory in a 2007 article aptly titled,“The Intense World Syndrome—An Alternative Hypothesis for Autism."[39]
  • Reportedly reviewed in "Sensory Symptoms in Autism: A Blooming, Buzzing Confusion?" (2013).
  • and more: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], etc.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A note

As a note WP:JCW/Target1 will contain usage information about most Frontiers journals. WP:JCW/F17 will have information about the three standalone journals Frontiers in Endocrinology/Frontiers in Plant Science/Frontiers in Psychology. The exact pages may differ over time but you can always find them based on Special:WhatLinksHere/Foobar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This also works for things like Special:WhatLinksHere/Scientific Research Publishing. This tells you, for instance, that Psychology (journal) is an SCIRP journal, which can be found at WP:JCW/P55, where it is cited 5 times on Wikipedia (with links to those articles). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger of Ultrasoft/soft/hard radiation to Ionizing radiation

I have suggested that

be merged into

For the discussion, see Talk: Ionizing radiation#Merge (2018) from Ultrasoft radiation & soft radiation & hard radiation to Ionizing radiation

-- 65.94.42.219 (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


Still more links to DAB pages

The following are all recent (within the last 6 weeks or so?) medicine-related links to DAB pages where expert attention seems needed. Some may need minor rewriting or unlinking. Two are about dinosaur anatomy, but I have a strong suspicion that paleontologists borrowed existing terms rather than attributed new meanings to existing ones. As always, search for "disam" in the displayed text; and if you solve one of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

checked the remaining ones..Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Impressed, again. Narky Blert (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your work rounding up this disambigs! Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Longitudinal study

An article which may be of interest to this project—Longitudinal study —has been proposed for merging with Long-term experiment. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

commented[46]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox journal#RFC on abbreviation usage

Please comment above. This concerns the usage of NLM/MEDLINE abbreviations in {{infobox journal}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the post, very important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Help desk question may need help from someone with medical expertise

See Wikipedia:Help desk#drugbox template "half-life" --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

have addressed at editors/talk[47]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk:D A Patriarche#question about half-life

need further opinions on the about link, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at Template talk:Infobox drug #Half-life, as that is where any solution will need to be carried out. --RexxS (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thank you RexxS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_111"