Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 127

Archive 120

←

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Pod mod article

A redirect was reverted and unsourced content as well as failed verification content was restored.

Citation 2 is a blog and thus unreliable. This is the blog for citation 2. Citation 12 does not even mention pod mods. This is the source for citation 12.

Is there a reason the redirect should not be restored? Does anyone think the page is even notable? QuackGuru (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of this article, and your actions on it, have been under way for some time at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#QuackGuru_and_disruption_over_e-cigs_and_pod_mods. Why are you ignoring that? Why have you not previously raised any specific issues before removing the whole article? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Re citation #2. It is used to support the text about commercial introduction to market, far away from MEDRS, of a particular product, "The key factors Pax Lab targeted included a more compact design and a higher concentration of nicotine delivery to target smokers, introducing it’s finalised pod mod in 2015" That being based on a blog source is no reason to remove an entire article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• What is your claimed reason that all references must specifically mention the narrow subject of an article, rather than the obviously relevant broader context in which the general class of devices operate? And again, why would any issue with a single citation become reason to remove an entire article? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Citation 2 is a blog and unreliable. Mass failed verification content is a valid reason for deleting the enter article. It is also not notable.

• What does "mass" mean here? What does "failed verification" mean?

We are talking about one citation to a source with the string "blog" in its URL. It is supporting one very minor claim about a commercial, not medical, matter. Even if we are to discount that source altogether, how is that a "mass" issue? Has the claim being made failed verification? Or do you simply dislike the URL of the site currently doing so? Have you any evidence that the claim it supports is factually wrong? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pod_mod&type=revision&diff=917998073&oldid=917995014 Pod mods are not heat-not burn products. QuackGuru (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's a separate question, and you've been invited to explain your claim on the article talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• You think the cat should be restored when the article does not mention heat-not-burn products? QuackGuru (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Have I not made that clear enough for you yet? Same as for the other synonyms listed at heat-not-burn product, this is another instance of such a device (heating nicotine-containing liquids without combusting them, in order to produce an aerosol). Thus it is appropriate to include it there. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• See "There are forty synonyms listed at Heat-not-burn_product#cite_note-33. This is no different."[1] Pod mod is not list as a synonym at Heat-not-burn product. E-cigs heat liquids without combusting them, but they are not called heat-not-burn product. Get it? QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• So you're following my comment at talk:Pod mod now and restricting heat-not-burn to the solid sourced devices alone? That excludes half of the synonyms listed at that article (they're using liquids). I now understand your unexplained removals at pod mod (wouldn't it just have been easier to use an edit summary in the first place?). However that's a dubious and unsourced distinction to be drawing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Pod mods are the same as e-cigs except for the shape and design. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

After the page was redirected the original research[2] was restored. E-cigs don't produce smoke. QuackGuru (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I propose the redirect be restored. After the MEDRS violations, unsourced content and failed verification would be removed there would virtually be no content left. The page is also a content fork. There is a section for the content. See Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes#Pod_mods. QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A "content fork"? Of a section that you created afterwards, by copying from it? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not copy original research or failed verification or any sentence from the content fork. Before a new subarticle is created a section in the main article should be too long. Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes#Pod_mods is not long enough for a new subarticle and the content fork its littered with unsourced content. It is clear there are problems such as failed verification. See the discussion. This edit claims "Pod mods offer higher concentrations of nicotine salts compared to normal e-cigarettes." That also FV. Regular e-cigs do not contain nicotine salts. It may be a waste of time trying to fix a content fork with so many problems. For example, see "Research reveals potential health risks in aerosolizing nicotine salts and metal toxins that are produced.[4]" Nicotine salts are mentioned in the 2018 book on page 95 and 96. It does not verify the claim in the pod mod article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The FV tag was removed when the first source only verifies content to Juul. See the discussion. Sourced content was deleted and the citation was moved to another sentence. Source says "Some of these pods contain higher concentrations than others, and some, called “pod mods,” are made from nicotine salts that have an even higher concentration of nicotine than the traditional e-cigarette pod."[3] It does not verify "with a smaller amount of power". Throughout the new article there are problems with failed verification like this. QuackGuru (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Construction_of_electronic_cigarettes#Pod_mods contains more citations and more verifiable content, while more than half the content in the content fork article contains unsourced content. There is still no answer why all the unsourced content (and failed verification content) should remain in the pod mod article. After the problematic content was expunged it was all restored. I spent a lot of time trying to verify the content in the pod mod article. Virtually 100% of all the content in the pod mod article either fails verification, is unsourced or is poorly sourced or is a MEDRS violation. QuackGuru (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of the problematic content has been tagged. So far, no explanation has been given for the obvious problematic content to remain in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like just 24 minutes elapsed between you tagging those sentences and you posting your complaint here that the sources hadn't been already supplied. That's unreasonable.

Quack, do you actually doubt the accuracy of those statements? Do you have any reason to believe that they're wrong? For example, you've tagged a sentence that says "the health risks are currently undetermined". Do you have any reason to believe that the health risks for this particular four-year-old product are fully established?

I'm asking this because Wikipedia is not some kind of MMPORG. This sentence does not involve a quotation or a contentious claim about a BLP. It therefore only needs an inline citation if it should be WP:CHALLENGEd. And you, as an experienced editor, should only challenge information when you honestly believe that this claim cannot be verified in any reliable source ever published in the entire world (NB: That's millions and millions of sources, not just the sources that happen to be in the article). When you're pretty sure that the information is correct, you should not add {{fact}} tags to it. You're welcome to supply any "extra" citations, but you should not be demanding that other people provide you with citations, under threat of quickly blanking information that you personally believe is correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I previously discussed the unsourced content and failed verification on the talk page. It is reasonable to tag the content for challenged content. There are other sources that make similar but different claims. Therefore, the unsourced and FV can be removed. I think the first step is to cleanup the article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It is reasonable to tag content that you challenge.

However, it is NOT reasonable for you to challenge content that you believe is probably correct. For example, unless you have an honest and genuine belief that pod mods come in exactly one shape and size, then you should not be challenging the claim that they are available in different shapes and sizes. Do you understand that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to tag FV content when the source does not verify different shapes and sizes? QuackGuru (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

That particular citation supports some of the content in the sentence, but not all of the content. It is not good to tag it as "failed verification" when it verifies some of the content. If you find that confusing, one option would be to split the sentence in two: One sentence on "different shapes and sizes" (no citation, and no obvious need for an inline citation [so no tags]) and another sentence on "about the size of a USB stick" (with the citation that says that). Alternatively, you could just add another citation to the end of the sentence. The size and shape of a non-medical device is definitely not subject to MEDRS's ideal standards; almost any (non-personal) website about e-cigarettes that describes pod mods as being made in different sizes and shapes should be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I stated above "the source does not verify different shapes and sizes" One sentence on "different shapes and sizes" would require a source. That is the way this topic area has been edited for years. Did you see the e-cig article recently? 100% of the content is sourced. Not a single unsourced sentence. You can also check some of the main subarticles. All the content is also 100% sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

1. If you think that "different shapes and sizes" requires a source, then you should add that source all by yourself. There is no special exemption for you or for e-cigs around what should be challenged. WP:CHALLENGE says "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable". If you cannot honestly state that you have a concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for that claim, then you should not challenge that material. Note, by the way, that the definition of "verifiable" is "possible to find a published reliable source". That means "The material is already verifiable if QuackGuru can go to the library or open his favorite web search engine and find a published reliable source", even if there isn't a single citation anywhere in the entire Wikipedia article.
2. "Not a single unsourced sentence" is not actually proof of writing a good article. The percentage of sourced sentences is not the ultimate goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

1. See WP:BURDEN: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]
2. See WP:BURDEN: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
3. Content that is unsourced can be removed especially when no source was found. QuackGuru (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE is every bit as much a policy as WP:V, and it tells you to fix problems yourself – not to uncollegially threaten to blank content that you know to be accurate and verifiable from articles if people don't drop everything to provide you with sources right away.

And that bit that I quoted in green text is straight out of BURDEN. The fact that editors "can" blank unsourced content does not give you license to blank anything you want. Blanking unsourced content can be WP:POINTy and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, too. BURDEN itself tells experienced editors like you to not blank unsourced content when you (meaning you personally, not some hypothetical other editor) happen to know that the material is appropriate. And in this case, I can't imagine anyone who has read the cited source about USB-shaped pod mods and also done a basic search for pod mod badge having any trouble recognizing that indeed, pod mods come in very different sizes and shapes. If that's truly news to you at this point, then it might be better for you to stop editing those articles entirely. And if it's not news to you, then your continued insistence that somebody else owes you a source to "verify" what you already know to be true and verifiable is exactly the kind of tendentious behavior that's gotten you blocked and topic-banned so many times before, and you should stop it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced content that is inaccurate and not verifiable to any source is still in the article.

How does one fix a problem when the source used to verify the claim does not pass V policy? I discussed it on the talk page. More than a few sentences fail verification. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The claim that there are different shapes and sizes is not inaccurate.

You fix the problem by opening your favorite web search engine and finding additional sources yourself. This is not a difficult concept. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I tried to explain the content about the different shapes and sizes FV. How do I fix a problem when others do not acknowledge there is a problem? I discussed it on the talk page but I am still waiting for a response. QuackGuru (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You do not need "them" to acknowledge anything. You need "you" to supply whatever sources you think should be included at the end of that claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I did that. Thanks. See Construction of electronic cigarettes#Pod mods. Now see pod mod written by the broader community. I wrote more overall content and only sourced content. What do you think? QuackGuru (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What is this review about?

Hello, with other editors we are having trouble agreeing on the interpretation to get from a review[4]. It's about energetic errors and obesity/weight loss. Could someone share with us their own understanding of its results? Thank you very much in advance! --Signimu (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry please let me reformulate, no need for the results, just if we can get someone else's understanding of what this review is about (what hypothesis is being tested)? Thank you again! --Signimu (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I found another way, please consider this thread solved, thank you very much! --Signimu (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Paper on Wikidata and medicine

In case it is of interest, a paper has just been published in JBI on Wikidata's medical content:

• Turki, Houcemeddine; et al. (2019). "Wikidata: A large-scale collaborative ontological medical database". Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 99: 103292. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103292.
  Green OA copies at Researchgate and Zenodo

It is, in part, a wikidata followup to the Heilman et al 2011 paper in JMIR. It aims to introduce medical researchers and practitioners to the relevance of wikidata to biomedicine, how to edit and read it, and some of its future potential. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Congrats to all involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Very nice work; well done, Houcemeddine and Thomas. --RexxS (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I must admit I don't understand much of the article, but I get the gist and it is awesome! I love the international collaboration too. Congratulazioni! Tillykke! Llongyfarchiadau! ... Good on ya mate! ;^]   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Product pricing

At Pyrimethamine, the lead includes "the price was increased from US$13.50 to $750 a tablet ($75,000 for a course of treatment). In other areas ... $0.05 to $0.10 per dose." That kind of price information is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Clarification requested for product pricing (Sales catalogues). Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think WP:MEDRS should cover this with a new shortcut: WP:MEDPRICE QuackGuru (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Or merge it into WP:MEDMOS? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I started a discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles

I'm looking to confirm what proportion of the medical topics at WP:Requested_articles (e.g.Missing_diseases are in in-scope for needing of wikipedia articles. As a part of WP:Expert_help and v:WikiJMed, these lists would be valuable 'most wanted' lists for reaching out to non-wikipedians to help write if they are well-curated. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

aside from percentages listed here [5] not certain about other medical topics--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you peer review Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States?

I requested peer review for this article: Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States. Would you help improve the article by reviewing the article on its peer review page? You do not have to write a comprehensive review. Every little bit helps! Thank you.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for also inviting WT:MILHIST to do the same. This type of article needs editors with different perspectives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree! Public policy & government, medicine, psychology, military history, economics, and more. It's a complex area for sure. I very much appreciate your input and look forward to any feedback on the article you might want to offer. All the best   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Data on Commons

See or edit source data.

Child mortality by year from 1960 until 2017.

The ability to add CC BY attribution to data on Commons has finally been technically fixed. This means that we can finally begin importing the thousands of graphs from Our World in Data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

very useful!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

We need to get the "image frame" to handle smaller sizes aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Figured out steps for getting the data from .csv to JSON and onto Commons. Just made this map on infant mortality. Bunch of improvement I would like such as 1) the color scale remaining fixed for the whole set to allow easier comparison between years. 2) A play features such that it will move through all the years like a gif. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Including the source link makes that an ideal target for WP:Sneaky vandalism. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yah been think about that. We really need changes to the data set to appear in the history of the articles the data set is used within. (same with respect to Wikidata). We might be able to build a bot that does this... This is what we have for videowiki (when new voices are added) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Refugee barriers to health

Hey all, I was wondering what you guys would consider barriers to refugee health?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsang99 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Atsang99. If you're asking for your own information, then you might want to post this question on the Wikipedia:Reference desk. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like it would make a helpful addition as a new section to Refugee health, a page which at 47k can still accommodate plenty of expansion. Klbrain (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Ganfyd

The medical wiki Ganfyd is no more... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RIP Ganfyd. I suspect its demise is mostly due to the abundance of very good Wikipedia medical articles rendering separate medical wikis unnecessary. Kudos to WP:MED!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

How can we encourage all their contributors to come here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing agree. Will try to figure out how to reach out unless others have contacts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Content is being added and restored. Is popular press articles acceptable to use for chiropractic content? See Talk:Chiropractic#Popular press articles. QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer if we rely on WP:MEDRS as much as possible, even (or, especially) when describing alternative medicine or treatments. However, when discussing general non-medical matters (origins, history, finances, etc.), reliable sources of the general genre are acceptable. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Casliber, I think Kashmiri's right overall, but part of it deals with Australian terminology for people who are licensed to practice medicine. Maybe you could take a look? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I need more coffee before looking at that....maybe a bit later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

See Chiropractic#Australia. The citation with the little black box is a compatible license. You can copy content from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

COI editing: Activity-specific approach in temperament research, Vladimir Rusalov, Structure of Temperament Questionnaire, Functional Ensemble of Temperament

All these articles were created/heavily edited by Iratrofimov (talk · contribs), which declares themselves to be Dr. Irina Trofimova. Those four articles are about Trofimov's areas of research, and close collaborators. I'm unqualified to determine if those things are notable and salvageable, but surely some here can make that call. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• left note[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, early Editors from academia were confused by rules that are opposite to COI

Within several past hours, I've received emails notifying me that Ozzie10aaaa left this tag and also a message from t. The statement from t says that I 1) created 4 named pages and that 2) I was "heavily involved" in their editing.

Re: 1) Indeed, when in 2013 the colleagues who used Rusalov's STQ started wondering if there should be Wikipedia's pages on the STQ, Rusalov and also an explanation of the approach, including FET. The STQ is apparently still most used psychological test in Russia, so the significance is similar to the significance of culture-specific object (like Great Wall in China, even though many walls exist in the world). That was the STQ in psychometrics in Russia. Our only fault was that we assumed that Wikipedia, as encyclopedia, employs the same requirements as used in academic encyclopedias (we are all too much involved in academia and not at all in public social media). Many of us wrote articles for various encyclopedias before and we knew that the authors are chosen on the bases of involvement with the subject. In other words, we expected that (similarly to academic encyclopedias) the author of the article should be either the author of the theory/subject/concept or work closely with the authors. Quite opposite to COI (!) but in 2013 it wasn't so clear. My colleagues in Russia knew that I worked in Canada for many years and proposed that it would be me who presents (submit) the pages to English Wikipedia. They did pages for the Russian branch of it without me. At that point, I wasn't the first person to use English STQ, but I agreed to do it, as I honestly thought that my association with the STQ will help the pages to be accepted. Still, there are 20 language versions of the STQ, with many colleagues around the world working on it - if they are prohibited from editing it, please post this prohibition clearly.

In 2014 my colleagues put together drafts of these pages and we have contacted Wikipedia asking for permission and approval (without posting the pages). We didn't even know that we simply could post them. After waiting for a year for a reply, we sent another message and waited for another year. I hope Wikipedia has archives of letters. You can laugh now but we just reacted to the words "online encyclopedia" and used our professional expectations for these settings. I was simply chosen as submitting Editor, exactly because I had published on this matter in English, as usually required by grants and other encyclopedias. So, guys, give academicians some mercy - they didn't know that the same words might mean different (even opposite) rules. Anyway, in 2016 my colleagues suggested that I post it from my name. Just think about it - if I would know about the COI at that time - would I agree to it? Especially since the texts were done partially by other people? I would just suggest them to create pages themselves. Now I am not sure how to fix it. I think Wikipedia should give some slack to people from non-English countries, especially from academia, and especially in early stages of development of Wikipedia. A lot of misconceptions were flying around when Wikipedia was being adapted in Russia, and when I was contacted by colleagues to create pages, I had no clue what I was getting into. Even now I barely do editing or know who does it aggressively. Regardless, the pages that we discuss here represent not my personal matter but the achievement of Russian psychophology that the public would benefit from. It is a core science, based on fundamental psychophysiology, so I suggest keeping the pages. FYI, I am not even psychophysiologist so how can I benefit personally in medicine or psychophysiology if I promote psychophysiological theories?

2) Here comes the reply on the second issue. After posting (creating pages) I didn't edit it much - just look at the history. I checked pages maybe once a year. So, I don't agree with the second statement of t.

Plus, none of people who work with the STQ or FET benefits financially from it as the test is free for use. Plus I, personally, am an Adjunct Professor, and our University doesn't pay me even a penny, allowing me to supervise students and participate in exams for residents. So my participation in these pages do nothing for my career too. I am also retired, by Russian standards and will be retiring soon in Canada - so no personal benefits from this even in the future. Still, I am happy to contribute my knowledge for the public good.

I wonder how Wikipedia plans to have pages related to scientific concepts without allowing specialists from academia (who cannot avoid being involved in the subject matter) to edit pages. The Editor should know the facts about the important figure and the nature of this figure's contribution so some familiarity should be allowed. Still, when it comes to Rusalov, I never worked in Rusalov's lab, moved to another country in 1997 after my PhD in 1995. Out of his 200 and out mine 80 publications we only had two joint publications on the very subject of his Approach, and we lived in different continents when preparing it, so the contact was really minimal. Meanwhile, he had colleagues who collaborated with him on many publications and some of them likely edited his pages, probably several times. It is hard to imagine complete sterility in relationships when Editors should be expert on the subject of the Wikipedia page. I saw so many Wikipedia pages where Editors added their theories or results to the text. Should we open this can of worms or should we appreciate how encyclopedias in academia are being written? Iratrofimov (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a wall of text that misses most of the point here. Taking Structure of Temperament Questionnaire as an example, if you read the article, you get the impression that the STQ is the exclusive work of two people, Rusalov and Trofimova, that 70-75% of the scholarship on the STQ is from yourself (Trofimova), followed by Rusalov at ~15%. Now that may indeed be the case, but it could also very well be the case that you've given WP:UNDUE weight to your own contributions to the field, relative to how a dispassionate 3rd party would cover the subject, both in what is/isn't significant developments, and in which sources best reflect the consensus of scholars on the topic. This doesn't have to come from nefarious motives, it could simply be that you know the subject well, and that you refer to your own work because you are familiar with it and satisfied by its quality. But it could also be nefarious, that you're using Wikipedia to bolster your own reputation / viewpoints / importance of your contribution to the field. That's what conflicts of interests are. It doesn't mean that you're wrong, or that your work isn't good. It's that we need objectivity to make sure that our article reflect the broad consensus of scholars, rather than the views of one specific scholar (and their co-authors).

I have zero background on this topic, neurochemistry/biology, or behavioural sciences in general. However, an article which is based predominantly on the work of one person and co-authors, written by that person and their co-authors... well that raises a lot of red flags. Hence the COI tag, and the discussion here to ensure that coverage of these topics follow both WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

concur w/ Headbomb... that raises a lot of red flags. Hence the COI tag, and the discussion here to ensure that coverage of these topics follow both WP:DUE and WP:NPOV--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, Iratrofimov. The English Wikipedia is surprisingly complicated "underneath" the surface. You might want to read Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine). There might not be any real conflict of interest, but when we see someone citing their own papers (which is allowed within reason) – well, you can probably guess that we've seen more than a few people try to publicize themselves and their less-than-ideal publications that way, and we can get nervous when we see it. Our nervousness can result in some concerns for people who are really trying to do the right thing.

Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia talks about some of the key differences between academic writing and Wikipedia.

And lastly, I have a question for you: Is ru:Опросник структуры темперамента the same as Structure of Temperament Questionnaire? If so, we can get the articles connected properly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

First, thank you all for this discussion, it is useful for other users, I am sure. Second (in order of appearance), the comment of Headbomb on 75/25% contribution - is it indeed how the page sounds like? It was very much another way around: 90% Rusalov, following his teachers (Luria, etc), offered his theory in 1980-s, with the test translated eventually to 20 languages. :I believe he is celebrating his 80 today in Russia as the IP RAN sent the invites to related scholars for the official celebratory session in this Institute on Monday. I am in Canada, of course, and can't attend - but just to make a point that I am not a main figure here. I am just one of many who worked on his test. I translated it only to one (1) language (English), and I wasn't even the first one, Australians and Americans translated his test in 1990s. My part on that W-page appeared only because, out of other versions of the STQ, it is the only version that differs in the STQ structure (list of scales). Other versions (including children's) all follow the same split between scales - most of them are Rusalov's, and only some recent ones are Compact version. This is important distinction, even though it occured only recently but researchers should be aware of differences. I thought, from the references and from the text, my minimal contribution will be clear but I should invite colleagues to revise the text.

Third, why do you insist that the article is written by me or my co-authors? When we submitted it originally from my account (and I explained that we believed it was a requirement), it was a product of a team. Later we asked indeed one of my colleague to check for English, but I had a very minimal edit of this article, and my Editor-colleague was not Rusalov's co-author even once! He just knew the test and approach.

Fourth, you insisted that the article is based on my work - and I explain that the article summarize the work of a third party (Rusalov) and (in FET article) collaboration within neurochemistry, especially of the Cambride's group. I asked for arvise how to fix our early mistake of trying to prove association of a submitting Editor with the content of the article - any suggestions? Literally, all eyes were on me when in 2013 people suggested to post STQ-Rusalov pages on English W-pedia, as out of all specialists using this approach I was working on the English STQ. Now I know it was a wrong move but I can't fix it. It's true that I was an initial submitter, but not so much a subsequent editor.

Fifth, I appreciate that "our article should reflect the broad consensus of scholars" but here the article is not about the theory or opinion. It's simply about the existing structure: we say that human body has 2 legs, 2 arms, we say that such-and-such movie runs for 2 hr 39 min - this is just factual information, very easy to find out, no expert verification is needed as there are other sources of information. Same with tests - W-pedia doesn't discuss psychometric value of it, it just lists plain technical information on N of scales and their contents.

Fifth, I am grateful for participation of Ozzie10aaaa and WhatamIdoing in this discussion. Yes, as I said, my Russian colleagues asked me to submit these pages exactly because I could cite my own papers, we all believet that, as in grants or as in paper-based encyclopedias (I myself participated in such with several articles in my earlier career) it is important to attach your published work :( :( So now, for W-pedia it is a totally red flag, and, thinking back, and knowing the W-rules, I should of decline that invitation to be a submitting Editor. Australians and US colleagues who used the STQ in 1990s (decade earlier than me) have their support network - one of their users could probably submit it. It is a very specialised field - temperament testing, so only professional test users know what they are doing but I am sure they could find someone. So, yes, I totally see your point, and I feel like a "bad guy" here...

I bet the Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia were gradually edited from 2013 when my colleagues, with their limited English were putting first drafts of the pages. We actually sent letters using "contact" information to Wikipedia asking for advise and approval of pages (from my account). So, we were very transparent and wanted to do everything right, and were waiting patiently for reply. We agree with WhatamIdoing that the W-pedia editing is a complex process, and it also evolves in terms of rules.

Lastly, for the WhatamIdoing ("I have a question for you: Is ru:Опросник структуры темперамента the same as Structure of Temperament Questionnaire? If so, we can get the articles connected properly.") - that would be fantastic! It seems that Editors didn't find a way to do it, and I am too busy to play with W-pedia. I am writing here as I am officially responsible for creation of pages and a mess that it caused but I am motivated in establishment of good efficient source of knowledge as much as you do.

Once more, for all three of you - I believe that you simply want the W-pedia objectively representing knowledge, without biases. So I don't take it personally that you raised red flags - you have good grounds for that. But perhaps you could consider this specific situation, that:

1) the initial submitting team was not from English-based culture and picked me as a "messenger" for English pages specifically because I had publications on the subject.

2) that, contrarily to other Editors, professionals in academia established opposite rules for Editors of "encyclopedias' about 300 years ago, and W-pedia didn't make the difference very explicit right away.

3) the pages in question don't promote an opinion but simply give technical information about N of scales and its contents, or names of neurotransmitters. It's just an information on the psychometric instruments, similar to the information on optical instruments or software. No oposite opinions could be possible as to how many scales were there.

Thank you all. Iratrofimov (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri has attached the two articles, so that's done. Iratrofimov, we don't expect you to know how to do that. Lots of experienced editors aren't familiar with the process.

Headbomb, when I looked at the article today (i.e., after Doc James blanked the extensive Wikipedia:Further reading section), about three-quarters of the sources in the ==References== section were written by Trofimov. I assume this is the main basis for thinking that it's paying WP:UNDUE attention to Trofimov's publications. However, when I go to PubMed and search for the quoted phrase "Structure of Temperament Questionnaire", then 100% of the available sources were written by Trofimov, and when I go to scholar.google.com with the same search (limited to the last 10 years), eight of the first 10 hits were written by Trofimov, and the only one that contains "Structure of Temperament Questionnaire" within the title is also written by Trofimov.

Using a lot of sources by the same person isn't a problem if that person actually has published most of the sources (or most of the English-language sources, which is likely to be another factor here). If we can't identify stuff that's missing, then it's unfair of us to insist that there must be other, better sources somewhere. Have you found an example of a source that you think should be included, or something that you think is wrong? It's okay to start with a general suspicion, but it's time to get down to details. Given the information that we have now, what specifically (if anything) needs to be fixed in the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Like I said above, I'm completely unqualified to even begin to offer an opinion here. I saw red flags, so I raised the concern. If WP:MED people think everything's fine and dandy, that's fine by me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this subject at all, and I admit that I was very surprised to see how closely the article matched my search results. There were red flags; they just might have been false positives in this one case. Could there be another translation of the subject's name? (That would definitely skew my search results, after all.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, WhatamIdoing, for this search. Yes, you are right that search parameters scew the results: language of search and 10-years limit. Fist, STQ celebrated 30 years recently, and if you search only last 10 years you miss publications of the initial 20 years. Second, it started in Russia, and PubMed doesn't list much publications from non-English journals, even if they are mainstream academia in non-English countries. Third, I just found out that Headbomb deleted the sections of the STQ page (Revision as of 18:34, 25 April 2019) where STQ-related references and language versions were listed. I think, it only created the confusion and impression that most of references listed are mine - and it's a pity that Headbomb used his/her own edit to come with the COI. Forth, the initial name of the test was indeed different - Опросник Структуры Темперамента, i.e. in non-English language. English version was published in 1989, then Australians published results on it in 1993 and 1995, then Americans in 1993 and 1996, i.e. Googlesearch of the past 10 years would not pick it up. Same with any other instrument - if there are users of a specific technical instrument, only those users can comment on it, and in English culture it is me at this stage but it were other people before me. Iratrofimov (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "Third, I just found out that Headbomb deleted the sections of the STQ page". My only edits to that page on April 25 was tidying up citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, Headbomb, I didn't check all the history, only big cuts. The Languages-versions section was deleted by Ozzie10aaaa at 09:53, 3 October 2019, and Additional-References section was deleted at 15:54, 4 October 2019 by Doc James, right at the middle of the COI discussion. Perhaps, we should restore these sections, to make the matter of "who are the players" more transparent? Other users, similarly to WhatamIdoing, might want to look for this info, and PubMed can't deliver it. Otherwise the STQ page and derivatives really sound that it is only me who initiated the whole thing Iratrofimov (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

We use inline references not simple a list of stuff at the end.[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

yep--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Except removing it during the discussion of the COI made the page look very biased and "heavily edited" by me. There are inline references but for the psychometric instrument that was created 30 years ago in non-English country readers, like WhatamIdoing might want to see indeed other sources (not cited in the text). Otherwise it is easy for you, Ozzie10aaaa push the matter of the COI. Wikipedia should be open to the knowledge about important psychometric instruments in non-English countries, and when mainly-English PubMed is not helping, there should be some evidence that information about these instruments wasn't just made up by one person. Iratrofimov (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of The Epoch Times

There is a request for comment on the reliability of The Epoch Times. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: The Epoch Times. --MarioGom (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing for categorization

We are wondering for the article Intermittent fasting whether qualifying and categorizing a diet as a fad diet requires a scientific source or not per WP:MEDRS.

I am not sure about the argument against requiring a scientific source but I guess it's that a fad diet qualifies whether a diet is popular/trending, and also in the absence of scientific evidence supporting the diet (burden of proof is on proving effectiveness).

Argument in favor of a scientific source is that a fad diet qualify a diet as much for its popularity as for its ineffectiveness/dangerosity, thus its health impact and should thus require medical/scientific sources per WP:MEDRS. In the case of Intermittent fasting, there are dozens of systematic reviews all concluding about efficacy and limited adverse effects. Thus, claims of ineffectiveness/dangerosity would need at least scientifically grounded sources too?

Please let me know what you think, thank you for your feedback. Best regards. --Signimu (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether a diet is (or is not) a "fad" is not a determination in the realm of biomedicine. Rather it is a question of social attitude and news. See WP:Biomedical information for help in this matter. Alexbrn (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Signimu: Categorisation is not often equivalent to making a biomedical claim, so does not always require a MEDRS source. I would have though that the defining features of a fad diet are its rapid rise in popularity, in combination with celebrity endorsement (whether it is efficacious or not). wikt:fad suggests "A phenomenon that becomes popular for a very short time". Perhaps we need to wait until the popularity has faded to be certain in the categorisation. As for the sourcing, the Medical Daily source] attests to the celebrity endorsements: "Given the large number of people including celebrities who swear by it, it’s not surprising why this diet is getting a lot of attention." It's not a great source, but probably sufficient to support a claim of popularity and celebrity interest. --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thank you for your thoughts. I entirely agree about the popularity/fad quality of IF, even though the source is not that strong as you say. However, fad diet has a different definition from wikt:fad, here is an excerpt: «Fad diets are generally restrictive, and are characterized by promises of fast weight loss[2][4] or great physical health,[6]:9 and which are not grounded in sound science. [...] The restrictive approach [...] tend to be nutritionally unsound, and can cause serious health problems if followed for more than a few days.». In this instance, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly contradicts this description for therapeutic intermittent fasting. Since we are describing intermittent fasting as a fad diet and not only as a fad (as one of the two sources writes BTW[8]), shouldn't we also consider the health aspect of a fad diet when assigning the category? --Signimu (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: I don't think a Wikipedia article is a good source for definitions in itself. We need to examine the sources that were used in that article:

The BDA states:

A fad diet is the kind of plan where you eat a very restrictive diet with few foods or an unusual combination of foods for a short period of time and often lose weight very quickly. However, most people then get fed-up with the restrictions, start eating more, choose less healthy foods and pile the pounds back on.

American Academy of Family Physicians states:

A fad diet is a stylish weight-loss plan that promises dramatic results. Typically, these diets are not healthy and don’t result in long-term weight loss. In fact, some diets actually can be dangerous to your health.

Boston University School of Medicine states:

Patients may fall prey to the newest fad diets, which often promise dramatic weight loss despite being largely untested.

No doubt there are more. But the point is that there doesn't seem to be much agreement on a single definition of "fad diet", beyond "weight-loss plan", which merely defines a diet, I think. None of the three 'definitions' above suggest that the diets don't work – at least not in the short term – so I wouldn't get hung up on trying to make a point that "fad diet means ineffective diet". --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thank you for taking the time to dig this up. You are right, I should have checked more carefully the sources. Nevertheless, the entry was reflecting the source correctly: «In fact, some diets actually can be dangerous to your health». Which is not backed by anything for therapeutic intermittent fasting. But I think the issue is that, like for calorie restriction diet, there are two different kinds: the wide public/commercial one (which could be considered fad diet and potentially dangerous), and the therapeutic application, which is controlled and thus very different. Would you think then that it would make sense to differentiate both to clarify? --Signimu (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: As always, I advise going to the sources: read as many as you can; and look for clear evidence that there are different kinds – or perhaps even a spectrum – of diet described as "fad". Certainly it's worth differentiating between diets followed under medical supervision and those merely fashionable. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thank you again for your enlightening replies. Have a great day! --Signimu (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Fad diet article is not one of our finest. There seems to have been an effort to divide the world into "healthy, balanced diet" vs "fad diet". Despite some cleanup work in the past, we're still listing a bona fide medical treatment for epilepsy (I thought I'd pulled that one out months ago?) and the Low-fat diet as "fads" there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought you were going to fix that article :-) The ketogenic diet is a case in point for the above discussion. Yes, it is a bona fide medical treatment for epilepsy, but it is also a raging fad diet of our times. Intermittent fasting so far as I can see isn't recommended for anything (rather the opposite). Alexbrn (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree that IMO a ketogenic diet could be (I haven't looked at the sources) both a legitimate treatment for some, and a fad diet. I would say Gluten-free diet is one which definitely falls into that category. I wonder if a Low-FODMAP diet is another likely to take off. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The "keto" thing that the bodybuilders do probably is a fad (i.e., something with temporary popularity). The thing that desperate parents of kids with refractory epilepsy do is definitely not a fad. Fad diet had a link (which I just removed) to the article about the epilepsy treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah! I just saw all the new comments, thank you everyone! Sorry Alexbrn I in fact forgot (I was making illustrations for various entries, a new kind of contribution for me :-) ), I'll try to have a look next week! --Signimu (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Care domiciles (broad sense)

Regarding the articles touching on residential care, home care, nursing homes, social housing, assisted living, almshouses, Abbeyfield, et cetera: Browsing through the 63 hits from a search on "domiciliary care" there were some things that struck me about article scope and navigation aids.

• Navigation through Template:Care navbox is inconsistent: some targets are not included in the template, while some target pages don't transclude the template.
• The navbox displays the title "Caregiving" but must be linked as "Template:Care navbox", which may have made it difficult for editors to find.
• Some types of domicile have specific local pages such as for ...in the United Kingdom or ...in the United States, but not a corresponding global page (nor list).
• There are numerous pages for individual regulators, funding agencies, service provider agencies, case management agencies, programs, charities, and businesses that are more or less orphan articles which could be tied together through wp:CLT links.

The whole topic area could use a systematic survey and scrubdown if someone is up to tackling it. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That's probably going to be complicated by different places using different names for the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but we cope with that complication on many subjects, including drug names (aspirin/acetylsalicylic acid/...) and diseases (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neurone disease/...). I don't see any reason it has to be a showstopper. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Possibly non-notable electronic cigarette-related articles

I looked at the electronic cigarette category. The top three articles that don't seem notable are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarkTen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOGIC_(electronic_cigarette)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riccardo_Polosa

I think a deletion discussion for each one would resolve the matter. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Will you be posting deletion discussions on the respective Talk pages or via AfD? I support deletion of all three. The first two are stubby wubbies anyway, and if the third one meets Notability (academics) standards I'm gonna send a telegram to all my colleagues telling them to "Get your Wikipedia page up now, before they come to their senses!"   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Well if all your colleagues have Impact Factor equal to 641.7, Citation Index equal to 6056, and the H index equal to 40, according to Web of Science, then yes, you should do that. The bio was cut in half as soon as created, by one of the dogs who eat the other dogs in our vaping corner. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been properly taken to task. I apologize for not researching Professor Polosa's notability more thoroughly. Thank you for correcting my error Johnbod.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't nominated an article for deletion in years. Someone will eventually nominate the e-cig brands. It probably won't be me. There is also the new article called pod mod. I am not convinced the pod mod article deserved an independent article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Should we merge most / all ecig brands to an article called electronic cigarette brands? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That would a redundant fork. There is an electronic cigarette brands article. It is a plain list without the details for each brand. A merge would not work. Only an AFD for each one would work. I would start with MarkTen and LOGIC (electronic_cigarette). QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions for three e-cigarette articles

I think Vuse should merge into R. J. Reynolds Vapor Company. Both are stubs. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Company owns the brand Vuse. QuackGuru (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A redirect to List of electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid brands for MarkTen without a merge.

A redirect to Japan Tobacco International and discuss LOGIC under the Brands section.

A redirect to R. J. Reynolds Vapor Company and discuss Vuse in the main article. Vuse is part of R. J. Reynolds Vapor Company.

There is not enough content for splinter articles and LOGIC and Vuse are not notable enough for stand alone articles.

I think these are the best options for these articles. QuackGuru (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Naturopathy

See PDF file criticizing the Naturopathy article. See Talk:Naturopathy#Clear_bias:_20_inaccurate_statements_and_6_statements_that_are_incomplete_or_inappropriately_placed_or_included. It would take several hours reading many sources to write a better summary for the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Update on my (Steve Joordens) return and where things are

Hey again all. I just wanted to post an update on where things are with my class (History of Psychology) to keep you informed and to make sure I'm thinking of everything I should be. I appreciate the opportunity to do this right, and I want to stay as open and connected as possible as the process unfolds. Now that we've nailed things down I felt it was time for an update.

My class and I have been going through all of the WikiEdu Modules which, by the way, are fantastic. As part of the process we initially identified 59 figures from the History of Psychology that we considered both notable in the Wikipedia sense, and for which there is either no existing page or just a stub. We then choose 22 figures from the list that will be the target of our work. Each figure-article will be composed by a group of 5 students, each of whom are to provide content from reliable sources. In addition each also has a role related to the "Elements of Quality Articles". So, for example, one member will focus squarely on the "Detailed lead section". As the article takes shape it will be their responsibility to ensure the lead reflects the article and is clear and simple to read. Other members will focus on structure, balanced content, neutral tone and good sourcing respectively. They will play this role when evaluating their own evolving article, and drafts of those articles will be built within the sandbox of the Captain of each group. Their draft articles have a completion due date of Oct 30th.

At that point we will use peerScholar to do peer-review. Each group will assess the draft article of six other groups. The assessment will have rating scores and constructive comment boxes related to the five elements highlighted above. So if I played the "Detailed lead section" role for my article, I would also play that role when assessing the other group's articles ... giving each a rating for how good I think their lead is in the draft, and providing explicit feedback about how I think it can be improved. My other team mates will similarly assess the other elements. Thus each group will ultimate receive feedback from 6 other groups on how their article can be better in terms of possible improvements related to each of the five elements. This process will be complete by Nov 13th.

The groups will then have an additional week to improve their drafts based on the feedback they received, so by Nov 20th we should have 22 highly scrutinized draft articles sitting in the sandboxes of each group's Captains. This is where I hope some of you may come in. Specifically ...

Given the damage I have done in the past (which I understand better each day) I have agreed that my class will not copy these articles over to main-space until they have been vetted by at least some of you, and found to be worthy. We're going to try very hard to make them very worthy because I very much want my students to feel the thrill of making their work available to the world. So I'm hoping that shortly after the 20th some of you could have a look and maybe we can push to main-space with a few days so that the following week we can see how the articles fare. . But I know, they may or may not happen ... we all understand that. At that point we are in your hands and if the articles never get to main-space, so be it.

I know for you guys to do your thing you need to know who these Captains are. I will collect their usernames and share them here, along with the names of the historical figures each is focused on. That aside, are there any comments on any of the above? Anything you think I've missed or should be doing?

SteveJoordens (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

SteveJoordens, thanks for the update. Is it safe to assume that as these are historical figures, WP:COI is not going to be an issue for any of the students?

I was really glad to see you added some content to Mirror test. I encourage you to do lots more, and to watchlist lots of articles. The more you edit, and the more you see how other people edit and respond to each other's edits, the better you will understand this strange place we call Wikipedia :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Lovaas Method

Medical editors may be interested in this. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

curious articleOle Ivar Lovaas--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Placebo

There is a debate at placebo which is a bit stale, but unresolved. Fourteen WP:MEDRS studies find evidence that placebos can find objective improvements in patient outcomes in various diseases. No medline indexed review from the last five years finds otherwise. However, there is a ten year old Cochran review that reaches a different conclusion. Though Cochrane reviews are supposed to be updated every two years, this one has not. Some editors have argued that since this source is a Cochran review, it is immune to the five year rule and should be kept. I argue since Cochrane reviews are only immune to the five year rule because they are regularly updated, this one should be thrown out as an outdated source. Outside opinions are needed to settle this issue so that editing may resume. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Placebo#Real or not this seems to be the link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be a long and emotional argument, and the underlying problem is probably explained at User talk:Sunrise/Archive 5#Looking for a name (there has got to be a name for this. How, in this world with millions of grad students seeking thesis topics could there still not be a name for that?).

The one side says "Placebos don't work! They don't heal anything!"

The other side says "Yes, they do! Some people feel better!"

"But nobody gets healed according to my personal definition of healing."

"The problem is pain. Feeling better is healing!"

"Well, maybe, but it doesn't produce a total and permanent cure!"

"Yeah, well, if you've got certain kinds of nerve damage, nothing else does, either! You're using a double-standard in which temporary pain relief due to opioids is 'healing' but equally temporary pain relief due to sugar pills is something else!"

On the "source" side, the Cochrane paper is 18 years old, and was last updated 10 years ago. That's really pushing the limits for WP:MEDDATE in such an actively researched field. If you look at the sources from the last five years, they don't say the same thing. They instead say that placebos produce temporary improvements, in certain limited conditions, for a small subset of people. I think this is a case in which our dedication to the goal of Looking Like We're Anti-Woo may be getting in the way of accurately reporting the current mainstream POV. The solution probably requires someone who can write (e.g., to not overstate any POV), and is not inclined to personally peer-review every article, or reject the sources that they personally disagree with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the majority of reviews are collecting together the work of True Believers, often SCAM proponents like Ted Kaptchuk, whose business depends on the ability to claim that placebos have mystical powers. When you look at the papers themselves, you find that placebo effects are visible almost exclusively in self-reported measures of subjective symptoms. So the "placebo effect" makes you feel better without being better. This is important because when you compare that with objective effects - as was done with asthma medication - you find that people feel better with zero demonstrable physical benefit. People think they have treated their asthma, but there is no measurable change in lung function. The Parkinsons studies under discussion at Talk are the only ones of which I am aware where there is any actual objectively testable effect, albeit small.

This is important because we have had fringe-pushers at that article for literally years trying to rewrite it to reflect the SCAM mystique of the placebo effect, so beloved of homeopaths looking for a free pass against the utter scientific impossibility of their beliefs. The placebo effect is largely an article of faith, as we document, and that faith is based on no small part on the original powerful placebo paper which was, bluntly, fraudulent. Not one of its conclusions could be supported form its original sources when it was finally investigated. Guy (help!) 22:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

When the main problem is subjectively feeling bad, then subjectively feeling better == being better. This is why pain and depression are some of the major areas of research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Does your expensive sugar pill work better than my expensive magic water? Can you show that, with a significant margin, in independently replicated experiments, and for large N? How large does N have to be to achieve significance? What is the NNT, and what alternative is foregone? (As a sidebar, this has always been my gripe against placebo-controlled trials: I contend that comparators should be the current best practice instead. PCTs have become a pathway to evergreen patents without real innovation, and willow bark works better than sugar pills, but it's not close to the best analgesic option possible.) LeadSongDog come howl! 16:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)LeadSongDog come howl! 16:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Willow bark is going to have more side effects, too. (I have a strange desire for some of your magic water, but I want a discount, except that studies have also shown that analgesics work better when they cost more, so...)

The problem with comparing against current best practice is that "current best practice" doesn't work for everyone. If the current best practice doesn't work for you for a serious problem, then you probably want some more options, even if those other options don't work as well as current best practice, as measured against the average (mostly white, mostly male, mostly adult, mostly non-pregnant, etc.) person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Monkeypox

Hi...A recent edit on Monkeypox...section on cure not cited and some of the information is in 'prevention'. Another section on treatment is not cited and similar information is in prevention too. I had been thinking of how to tidy it...but failed. I found this and this with regards to the smallpox vaccine. Or...do those edits need reverting? Whispyhistory (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

We include discussion of the vaccine. Have trimmed the unreffed new section which simple duplicates content already present. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Research paper/essay like articles

Please see two new articles created by an editor Seizure and epilepsy classification and The origin of epileptology and the historical evolution of epilepsy, both of which are written in unsuitable style for WP. We already have a GA on Epilepsy but I reckon there might be something worth merging? SD0001 (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like these were inappropriate moved from draft space by the author; suggest a move back to draft (as least for The origin of epileptology and the historical evolution of epilepsy). Account has only been active since 15th September 2019, so initiating their own move from draft space doesn't seem appropriate. Klbrain (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Seizure and epilepsy classification, suggest merge to Epileptic seizure#Classification and Epilepsy#Classification, with thanks to the author for new content, but a suggestion that it is better to build existing articles than write essays which duplicate the scope of existing sections. Klbrain (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Well Seizure and epilepsy classification could use further wikification, it is an excessive amount of content to merge. Have added a hatnote at those pages instead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Is Cortisone within the scope of this wikiproject?

Cortisone

Currently, it is not listed on the talk page as such, but I was wondering if it should be? Clovermoss (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

for the natural process of Steroid#Steroidogenesis no it isn't, for the use of cortisone as treatment, yes its under the scope of this project--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa Is it okay if the talk page includes this wikiproject, then? Clovermoss (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. If you're looking for general advice on what we cover, then WP:MED? might be useful to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Coprophagia article

Need more eyes at Coprophagia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

watching[9] (and reverted)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Enquiry about Medical neutrality article

Hello. I am a very inexperienced editor, but while doing some research for an opera production (of all things), I came across the Medical neutrality article, and I noticed that the recorded historical violations don't go back very far (1977). Would it be appropriate to add the sinking of the HMHS Llandovery Castle in WWI to this article? The event was significant because the deaths of the Nursing Sisters caused outrage and was subsiquently used in war propaganda and because German officers were tried for the crime after the war. --LadyIslay (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

LadyIslay, if you've got a source that talks about the concept of medical neutrality and gives the HMHS Llandovery Castle as an example, then please add that information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

One such example can be found in Medical War Crimes (page 269) by Sigrid Mehring, where it is used as an example of "supirior orders" as a possible defense for medical war crimes. German War Trials: Judgement in Case of Lieutenants Dithmar and Boldt is the document that Mehring references, and it describes the lieutenants of being found guilty of firing upon persons in lifeboats... and that the reason they fired on the people in the lifeboats was to cover up the crime of having torpedoed a properly marked medical ship that he could not prove was acting as anything other than a hospital ship.

"If finally the question is asked-what can have induced Patzig to sink the lifeboats, the answer is to be found in the previous torpedoing of the Llandovery Castle. Patzig wished to keep this quiet and to prevent any news of it reaching England. He may not have desired to avoid taking sole responsibility for the deed. This fits in with the descriptions given of his personality. He may have argued to himself that, if the sinking of the ship became known (the legality of which he, in view of the fruitlessness of his endeavors to prove the misuse of the ship, was not able to establish), great difficulties would be caused to the German Government in their relations with other powers. Irregular torpedoings had already brought the German Government several times into complications with other states, and there was the possibility that this fresh case might still further prejudice the international position of Germany. This might bring powers, that were still neutral, into the field against her. Patzig may have fished to prevent this, by wiping out all traces of his action. The false entries in the log-book and the chart, which have already been mentioned, were intended, having regard to his position in the service, to achieve this object. This illusion could be, however, of but short duration, if the passengers in the lifeboats, some of whom had been on board the U-boat, and who, therefore, could fully describe it, were allowed to get home. It was, therefore, necessary to get rid of them, if Patzig did not wish the sinking of the Llandovery Castle to be known. Herein is to be found the explanation of the unholy decision, which he came to and promptly carried out after his fruitless examination of the boats"(page 718)

Is that the kind of thing you're looking for, WhatamIdoing?

--LadyIslay (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

LadyIslay, I'm not sure that's close enough. To oversimplify, we probably need the words "Llandovery Castle" (or at least hospital ships in general) and "medical neutrality" (or synonyms) to be in the same paragraph. Also, it may not be the best example, since the main legal question of Llandovery Castle is, having already sunk the hospital ship, was it okay to then murder any survivors (to cover up the illegal attack on the hospital ship – ever so much more convenient for the attackers if the ship merely "disappears" and nobody reaches shore to say that it was illegally attacked, right?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Circulating tumor cell

I just came across this article - circulating tumor cell - and removed a good chunk of unsourced and promotional sounding content, including a copyvio that had been there since 2017. I feel like this article could use some more attention from experienced medical editors. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

should be under MCB as well[10]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Two projects at McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada)

Hello - I'm a librarian at the Health Sciences Library, McMaster University. I am also a PhD Candidate in LIS at Western University where I intend to conduct qualitative research on Wikipedia as a consumer health information resource. Right now I am leading two projects at McMaster in my capacity as a librarian and course instructor. I thought I'd share the information here so that the community is aware.

1. HTHSCI 3E03 is an Inquiry core course all third year Bachelor of Health Sciences students must take. My section, The Politics of Health Information, dedicates 6 weeks to a small-group project in which students are required to select 1-2 Wikipedia articles, make a case for why they require improvement, and a plan for how they will contribute to their selected articles. You may recall I did a similar project with this course in January to April 2019. The project for this iteration of the course will conclude in December 2019. We have a project dashboard and all edit summaries will be tagged with #macbhsc201F
2. The Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care has a three volunteer students in their 3rd year of various science programs at McMaster who I will be working with to focus pain-related articles on Wikipedia. This project is in collaboration with Dr. Jason Busse, and the research coordinator at the institute, Rachel Couban. I will be supporting students as they edit Wikipedia, beginning will small scale edits initially, and moving to more robust contributions in the new year. Dr. Jason Busse will advise the students as the content expert. We have a project dashboard, a project plan, and I'll update this section when the team has a shared tag to include in their edit summaries. This project will run until April 2020 Mcbrarian (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Mcbrarian. Have you talked to User:Bluerasberry about your research work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the rec WhatamIdoing! I have been chatting with Bluerasberry periodically and have even shared an early draft of a comprehensive review. He's been wonderful.Mcbrarian (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

:) Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A probable hoax

over Arbiskov cell. May warrant some eyes ...... ∯WBG^converse 14:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

agree best to delete--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've searched too; agree that it isn't notable and best to delete; may be neologism or local use (being generous). Klbrain (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Advice on a draft please

Hi,

I came to review an old draft, containing a lot of substance and references, but I don't think it meets MEDRES standards. I was initially inclined to accept a very focused scientific coverage of some mitochondrial thing, but that was reversed when google showed me it is a health supplement.

The draft is: Draft:Mitoquinol Mesylate

An author previously asked about it here: WT:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 124#Trying to get an article out of draft space and ready for review.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

per[11] Okay so looked at this stuff further. There have been a total of 4 clinical trials of this stuff per pubmed. Three is healthy people and one in people with Parkinsons. The only trial in a disease state found "We showed no difference between MitoQ and placebo on any measure of PD progression (not to mention probable COI)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did read that. I do highly respect MEDRES standards, but they don’t speak easily to Wikipedia-notability. I think my response could be that by referencing scientific papers directly, so much, that they are breaking WP:SYNTH. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

See "Mitoquinol mesylate is a form of coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) having the same identical active component as CoQ10 (Ubiquinone) and is currently being evaluated in a number of diseases.[1]" This is misleading information. See "This was achieved by incorporating a positively charged lipophilic cation onto the active ubiquinone.[5] The lipophilic cation used is based on the triphenylphosphonium structure, which is known to accumulate within the negative mitochondrial matrix.[5][6]" Mitoquinol mesylate is a patented molecule. There is no safety or side effects section. Read under Side Effects & Precautions. Yikes. QuackGuru (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• It continues to read like an advert and is unbalanced. Raised some concerns here Draft_talk:Mitoquinol_Mesylate#What_Supports_This?. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What supports that text? Nothing. The entire article needs a complete rewrite. I would MFD it. QuackGuru (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I have declined the submission and referred to the draft talk page. I see no deletion reason to warrant nominating at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jacek Jassem

Dear medical experts:

The draft above is about an oncologist and medical professor. It's too CV-like in its organization, but I am willing to work to correct that if this is a notable doctor and professor. Can someone please check it out? Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Hello I'm not sure this WikiProject is the best since it would be an autobiography, you may want to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography. However I did a quick check and there seems to be several polish news sources centered on this person, but I can't read them, so maybe you should first see with the polish Wikipedia (https://pl.wikipedia.org/) if the sources fit the notability criteria there? The main problem being that I don't know if the news agencies are notable/reliable or not, someone from there would certainly have more knowledge on this issue. Hope this helps --Signimu (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Anne Delong another wiki is not exactly a reliable source https://www.gedanopedia.pl/index.php?title=JASSEM_JACEK This also appears to be a user generated website https://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=54231&_k=wx1qu4 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Signimu and talk. Those are good tips. There is an article about him in the Polish Wikipedia, but it may not have been checked very carefully, since it also has multiple references to Gedanopedia. I'll try the Polish WikiProject.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Systematic review of a dozen cohort studies, what reliability?

Hello, with another editor we had a disagreement on a source that was a systematic review of a dozen cohort studies. The argument is about whether a systematic review can be considered of high quality if it's based on cohort studies, or if we can only accept systematic reviews of RCT studies. IMO the fact that makes systematic reviews more reliable is that they aggregate multiple studies and quantify the uncertainty at a higher level (which is the goal of confidence intervals), but I'm not sure anymore. Could someone enlighten me? Thank you!

PS: the context is not the problem as currently in the article the highest quality source is a narrative review, so it's not like there are already lots of authoritative resources that would supercede a systematic review ;-) --Signimu (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Signimu, the short answer is you can do a systematic review over anything, including sources that don't contain any trials of any kind. (I know: Why would you? But it's technically possible.) The real answer sounds a lot like "I think you'll find it's more complicated than that".

Different types of sources are more (or less) appropriate than other types, depending upon the content you're trying to write. You can't set up a clinical trial to determine what something's name is, or what year it happened in. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are only the best option when we're wanting to make narrow but often important statements like whether a drug works or the rate at which side effects appear. Also, even if you're dealing with a subject for which clinical trials are typical, the kind of evidence that is considered "good enough" in one area (e.g., nutrition or rare diseases) could be considered inadequate in another (e.g., childhood cancer treatments, or identifying the gene involved in a single-mutation genetic syndromes). Also, realistically, some evidence can't be had. (Tangent: How is it that we still don't have an article about the proposed Randomized, double-blind controlled trial of parachutes?)

Assuming that there's enough active research in the area, if two experienced editors disagree with each other over whether to accept a given review, I'd encourage them to put down their existing sources and see if they can find others. Think of is as something similar to getting a Wikipedia:Third opinion from the literature. A source can be "correct" and "reliable" and still turn out to be a minority view within the field.

(Or, you know, you and User:Zefr can bring it here, and we can all take a look. User:PeaBrainC, I told you that I'd pester you with statistical questions; I'm doing it again.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The key is to use the best avaliable sources. Yes a systematic review of a dozen cohort studies may have a place if published by a reputable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think WAID and Doc James have summed it up pretty well. In some areas, the best primary evidence we have is from cohort studies because, for example, the field or question is new and RCTs have not yet been performed or would be unfeasible. In this case, a systematic review of the best available evidence if published by a reputable source should be fine to cite. My understanding of the principles underlying MEDRS is that we should aim to use sources that provide a balanced view of the best available evidence - if all the evidence relating to a question comes from cohort studies then this should be fine. On the other hand, if this was a systematic review that included only cohort studies when higher quality evidence was out there then the review may not be the best available. Probably best to judge in context based on its own merits.PeaBrainC (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW, When it comes to RCTs of parachute use, we may not have a double blinded trial, but we're getting closer: see PMID:30545967 . . PeaBrainC (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you all very much! I think I understand, it's back to the current (and in fact quite old) debate on statistical significance vs clinical/practical significance. I did not think we had to assess the latter here, this complexifies things quite a bit Following your advices, I went to the Cochrane Library to find better reviews, and so they supercede the previous sources I have found, I hope this will solve the issue Thank you again and have a nice day! --Signimu (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Deeper layers of consideration are needed about the prospective cohort designs in question, with this review (it's a long report - see part VII. Conclusions) as the example source disputed. Main issues having dubious rigor include 1) whether the 12 cohort studies are sufficiently consistent in design to be clearly analyzed (inconsistencies among controls, blinding, compliance, metabolic data collection, etc.) 2) whether dietary patterns across diverse subject groups are controllable, 3) whether post-hoc interviews about polyphenol-rich foods consumed are reliable, 4) whether foods in a mixed diet can be reliably defined from interviews for polyphenol content, and 5) whether the fate and organ effects of polyphenols in vivo for people with diseases can ever be definitively measured. All these uncontrollable deficiencies make dietary cohort studies on polyphenols useless. WP:MEDASSESS appropriately identifies the information as "unfiltered" and primary (pyramid graphics). Although a systematic review of cohort studies raises the source quality level, a review of low-quality, non-definitive, dietary cohort studies remains unreliable and useless for an encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. This is one of those cases that (if you can't find better sources), you can use it, but you need to be careful about how you use it. You might write, for example "One 2018 paper found that eating chocolate might have the potential to make people happy", rather than "Eating chocolate always makes everyone happy" (although it does, doesn't it? ;-)).

PeaBrainC, that source made me so happy. Thank you for sharing it. Now if I can just find some decent chocolate, I can run an experiment about whether it would sustain the euphoric effects of the BMJ Christmas edition... WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing - the phrase "might have the potential" is vapid non-evidence and unencyclopedic. Why use it at all in addressing spurious dietary studies with countless design problems? It is a non-conclusion not worth mentioning. Paraphrasing MEDASSESS, non-evidence statements are "anecdotal and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources." --Zefr (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Because:

1. "It's not entirely clear" is IMO encyclopedic content, when the situation actually is unclear. Cochrane's logo is a graph from a famous 1990 meta-analysis. Before that study happened, the relevant article should have said that the situation was unclear. Saying nothing is not the same as saying that the situation is uncertain, or that the situation is uncertain and the evidence that exists is currently leaning this way or that way.
2. It's not our job to declare that the authors and editors of a reputable journal made a mistake in setting their inclusion criteria for the systematic review. It's our job to recognize that a reputable academic journal produces reliable sources, and to not reject studies just because they don't meet our personal standards. Having editors claim that their education and professional background results in them know better than the sources give us has caused a lot of trouble in the past. We go by the sources (ideally multiple sources), even when we don't like what they say.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth adding here that "encyclopedic" means that we do a comprehensive description of what's known and not-known about the subject – not merely a comprehensive description of those small parts of a subject that happen to meet thresholds for scientific evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for your explanations, and thank you Zefr to clarify those interesting points I agree the methodology is important to account, and for example the Cochrane reviews I've found were way better than the previous systematic reviews since the Cochrane ones focused on the compound of interest itself rather than a diet (mediteranean diet in this case) and indirectly inferring to what was of interest for the entry. So the methodology is important to account to correctly describe what was found. But uncertainty is a big issue in science, and I'm not sure where rejecting such sources would start being a WP:OR on my part, and in particular rejecting inconclusive/uncertain results might lead to a file drawer bias... Maybe MEDRS should have an update to clarify this point? --Signimu (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur with WhatamIdoing. We have to be careful of WP:OR and of expecting or requiring Wikipedia editors to get into the detail of studies when assessing them. Many of us could do that in some areas, but this is Wikipedia, not Citizendium, and we do not privilege expert knowledge. We follow reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Review of a draft to update Fad diet

Main page: Talk:Fad diet § New MEDRS draft

Hello everyone I have worked on a draft to update Fad diet (here is my draft: User:Signimu/Fad diet, starting from newer high quality sources. I would like some feedback/review to check if it's OK and viable to replace the current entry To summarize what I did, I started from the latest entry's version, and went from recent MEDRS quality sources such as BDA (British Dietary Association) and other professional associations and encyclopaedias (for non health related parts) to rewrite the article. I tried not to remove what was already there except for a few where they failed verification (I detailed the biggest offenders at: Talk:Fad diet#Clinical lore), and in fact I reused and extended sentences from high quality sources already there. The entry is not yet part of the Medicine WikiProject yet, but if my draft is accepted I'd like to include it in the project, as I mostly used MEDRS sources except for non-health related sections (History, Marketing, Statistics). Thank you very much in advance

The draft: User:Signimu/Fad diet - feel free to directly edit! Main talk page for feedbacks: Talk:Fad diet#New MEDRS draft --Signimu (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --Signimu (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS Spanish Translation

Hello, I just posted a translated version of MEDMOS on es.wikipedia. This is my first time linking via the english version so please do correct any errors that I made (and please also let me know my mistakes so that I can learn).
Wikipedia:Manual_de_estilo/Artículos_Relacionados_con_la_Medicina
If you speak spanish and want to help with some formatting, links, clean-up of this it would be greatly appreciated. I did not perform the translation, it was a spanish-speaking Cochrane volunteer. The volunteers also hope to translate the Spanish Cochrane Wikipedia Project Page as well.
Please do reach out if you have any suggestions are you are interested in being involved in any of these projects.
Thank you!
JenOttawa (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

it was deleted[12] by someone over there, not sure why however I did leave a note[13]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this @Ozzie10aaaa:. I still have the original in a word doc from the volunteer. I think the deletion says "G10 For elementary maintenance. Deletion of redirects that do not point to another page or of disambiguations with an article." I cannot find the original submission online to copy my formatting changes. Thanks also for leaving a message here. I replied as well. I hope my translation (using google translate) maintained a polite tone! @Doc James: do you have any experience here? JenOttawa (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

minor c/e[14]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we have any reason to believe that the Spanish Wikipedia wants us to impose our rules and advice on their articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Very good point @WhatamIdoing:! The idea was more of a guide for new editors, not a "rule book". Suggestions welcome on how to proceed. JenOttawa (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

we could ask Spanish Wikiproject Medicine it doesn't look terribly active...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@JenOttawa: I suggest you go in very small steps. MEDMOS is a guideline – and a guideline has, by definition, general community support (see WP:PGLIFE). If the Spanish Wikipedia would benefit from that guideline, they will need to adopt it; we can't just insert into an existing guideline like their MOS. The best bet would be to create a draft in your user-space on eswiki and seek feedback on the formatting and style of the writing. Perhaps some interested Spanish-speaker will do any cleanup needed. The next step would be to move it into mainspace and mark it as an essay. That should then give other Spanish editors a chance to evaluate the advice and see if they find it useful. If so, then at some future point, someone could go through a community approval process to have it adopted as a guideline. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with above. Post the translation in your talk space Jenny and than start a discussion on the Spanish WP MED. Agree it is inactive. Maybe through your efforts you can help bring it alive :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

w:es:Wikipedia:Políticas y convenciones#Ciclo de vida has the instructions for proposing a new policy or guideline. There's a link there to the Village Pump page. Of course, you could also ignore any sort of "status" and post advice as a subpage of your own user page or the WikiProject.

The other thing I would add is that some of MEDMOS is culture-specific. For example, we try to recognize the that people who are sick or injured have an existence beyond their health status by not using the word patient. However, another culture might think that it's best to recognize their status or role, and thus make the opposite choice. Or they might think it's unimportant and skip it all. These aren't objectively right/wrong choices. They're just the ones that we thought were best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)