Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 13

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

General Visceral Efferent Fibers

The page on this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GVE ) is a little confusing. My understanding of GVEs is that they only contain parasympathetic outputs from the brainstem; however, 90% of this article, as well as the image, is devoted to explaining sympathetic output from the thoracic cord.

At the very least, the way the article is currently written seems to imply that CN 3,7,9,10 contain SNS, as opposed to PNS. corvus.ag (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Society for Neuroscience

If you can take a break from the swine flu, I noticed this page about the Society for Neuroscience undertaking to improve neuroscience-related articles on Wikipedia. The Medicine and other WikiProjects might be able to help them — should we try to contact them? I already left a note on the MCB WikiProject talk page. Proteins (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Neuroscience#Society for Neuroscience is Coming. Certainly anybody who's interested is invited to get involved. Looie496 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for obstetrical input on disputed Home birth article

The WP article on Home birth could use some input from medical professionals. There have been safety and other claims put forward which are PoV and probably should not be part of this article. I've only been there because of a request on the NPoV board, not as an expert. But it is fairly obvious that the article's slant, and perhaps the facts being put forth, may contain serious error. The partisanship to date may require more serious intervention than I can offer. Astynax (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

You are subscribed to the Alerts but neither display the alerts nor give a link to them. Giving a link on your main page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts) or removed the display=none parameter from the subscription banner would be a good idea.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's in the navbox at the top of the page (click "Show" under 'How you can help'). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Displaying below the dashboard might be helpful, or at least stop this since I think this has come up a couple times already. See [1] for both right next to each other. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Offwiki RfC

This isn't exactly about Wikipedia, but it may interest some editors: The U.S. National Institutes of Health is requesting comments about the possibility of expanding the results section of the clinicaltrials.gov website. Currently, researchers are required to report, in tabular form, the "basic results information" from each listed trial, such as the demographics and measurements for each major outcome, on a schedule tied to FDA approval work. Narrative text has been prohibited primarily because of concerns about what Wikipedia would call WP:NPOV issues.

There are ten specific questions open in this RfC, and several of them, such as how to present technical information so that non-experts can understand it, and how to make the information be accurate and unbiased, seem like areas that experienced Wikipedia editors understand extremely well. If you have an interest in this area, or some suggestions for them, or if you have an idea about how their reports could be made more useful to our work here at Wikipedia, then please consider submitting your comments or suggestions to Docket No. NIH–2009–0002 at http://www.regulations.gov/ before Monday, June 22, 2009. (This process is open to "all interested parties", not merely U.S. citizens. All submitted comments become part of the public record, meaning "can be freely read by anyone with an internet connection".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine influenza

Due to the outbreak of a new strain of swine flu in Mexico and the southwestern United States, Swine influenza is being groomed to appear on the Main page, section In the news. Please help improve this article. --Una Smith (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I have tried to structure the article as per MOS:MED. Also, I added a bunch of review articles under "Further reading" incase someone wants to read through them and add some facts. ---kilbad (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 outbreak is top of the news on Main Page now, and a cluster of new related articles are in development:

Swine influenza needs still more work, as it confuses a number of technical issues. As a model, see Human influenza. --Una Smith (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The article and outbreak templates suffer from improper application of MOS:MED with regards to naming conventions, source reliability, and other technical issues related to medical articles. Flipper9 (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request on my talk page, I added the Medicine project to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a week after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! (note that there is an encoding issue with some non-ascii titles, this will be fixed in the next update). Mr.Z-man 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit review

Would someone look at this edit: [2]. The information is added within a citation I placed, for which the additional information is not found. Also, I think the additional text may be misinformation. Perhaps someone could look it over? ---kilbad (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Is MDMA/Ecstasy article within the scope of this project?

Is 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine article within the scope of this project? I tried to apply WP:MEDMOS conventions arguing in favor of renaming the article back to MDMA (see here [3]) and was told that MEDMOS does not apply. I would appreciate you input. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That article is not currently tagged by this project, so probably not. It's possible that it would still be sufficiently "medicine-related" for parts of MEDMOS to be helpful. However, please remember that the existence of MEDMOS (a guideline) does not give you a free pass to ignore the main naming conventions policy.
In the specific case, there are half a dozen 'official' names for this compound. I think that the editors at the page are going to have to do the hard work of having a full discussion and using good judgment to make a decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Waverly Health Center

I've prodded this one; I haven't been able to find a notability policy that covers hospitals. See the talk page; none of the 80 or so "news, books, scholar" hits suggested notability, but I would have no objection if the article is de-prodded or speedied, as long as you educate me in the process as to why. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The standard is WP:CORP; hospitals are specifically named in the third paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Influenza-like illness

Influenza-like illness has just been moved into the queue to appear on the Main Page in the "Did you know" section. I have to go offline most of the next 6 hours or so, and won't be able to fix any problems that arise. Please watchlist the article and prepare to be responsive to queries. Thanks in advance! --Una Smith (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

On my watchlist. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Position of History section

Arising from the Peer Review of Oxygen toxicity, it was suggested that the article would benefit from the History section being moved nearer the top (after Signs and symptoms). I've read through WP:MOSMED#Diseases/disorders/syndromes several times and checked the talk page there, but remain unsure how prescriptive the order of sections really is. My instinct is to follow the order given (for consistency between articles), but do not wish to disregard a peer-reviewer's suggestions unless necessary. Can anybody help me out in deciding the best position of the History section? Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey RexxS, notice that MEDMOS is a guideline, not a policy, and is therefore descriptive not prescriptive. The MEDMOS headings are suggested, but not always required. Unfortunately I haven't got enough time to look at the article tonight, I'll leave that to someone else, but I thought I'd let you know that MEDMOS isn't always followed. That said, the order given is also often the best course of action. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Sensible variations are explicitly allowed by WP:MEDMOS#Sections: "The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied...". The goal is a good encyclopedia, not mindless adherence to a rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Medical procedures?

Should Category:Medical procedures be created? It seems logical to me, but you guys are the experts. There's a whole list at medical procedures that would be appropriate for this category. ~EdGl ★ 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While you are addressing the issues of whether a medical procedures category is a good idea, perhaps you could look at a conversation I started at MOS:MED and, if avaliable, add your thoughts? See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Guidelines_for_articles_relating_to_medical_procedures. ---kilbad (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
For the category: strong support. For the MOS addition: If you come up with a specific and concise proposed addition, and provide a deadline for objection, you probably can push it forward. --Arcadian (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't figure out where it would fit in the Category hierarchy, or if articles about medical procedures should just be in a category like Category:Medical tests or Category:Surgery or something. Sorry but I'm leaving all this to you, since I am no expert on Medicine. ~EdGl ★ 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just created Category:Medical procedures as a subcategory of Category:Medical treatments. Many articles currently in Category:Medical treatments could be moved to Category:Medical procedures. The hard part will be differentiating procedures from other medical treatments. Any surgical procedures should be placed only in Category:Surgical procedures, which is a subcategory of Category:Medical procedures. --Scott Alter 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Review move

What do you think of the following move: [4]. Could we just make an "HSP" redirect? ---kilbad (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

eraser Undone I've reverted back. HSP already exists as a perfectly valid TLA disambiguation page to lots of topics, so quite wrong to have HSP redirect to just our own single medical topic. Further articles are generally named for the condition and will not have the abbreviation bundled up (ie "Myocardial infarction", not "Myocardial infarction (MI)") David Ruben Talk 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

ruddy cheeks

Nonspecific but useful finding in mitral stenosis. Article worthy IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.79 (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You're probably referring to malar flush, which is the correct term. Now I can't remember but it should only have its own article if it has a specific differential diagnosis and workup. JFW | T@lk 09:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
just referring to how MKSAP described it, or maybe it was Case Files. CAn't remember —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Belair-rtmkb

Someone may want to go over his contribs.Unomi (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

List of dermatologists

I would like to place this listing into a table, and wanted to know what people though the best names for the columns would be? I was thinking "Name" "Life" (dates of lifespan), "Notable contribution(s)", "Reference(s)" ? What do you think? ---kilbad (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding keeping lists...I have been watching List of psychiatrists. Do other medical groups keep lists ? List of physicians at least has some topic headings. Isnt it better to simpy place a category (e.g. Category:Psychiatrists ) on any actual article written on a doctor, rather than manual lists? Earlypsychosis (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
These lists strike me as spambait. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
and that isnt a good thing! Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
What if, for the derm list, we made it for deceased dermatologist only? ---kilbad (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
That might reduce its attractiveness to spammers. Another reasonable option might be to pick an arbitrary year -- say, 1950, or 50 years ago, or something like that -- and admit individuals to the list only if they began practicing before that date, or only if they had quit seeing patients at least ten years ago, or something like that. That might let you include some retired or elderly people, while reducing the risk that the vast majority of people currently in practice could use it as an advertising opportunity. I'm sure you could come up with several acceptable schemes ("dead" certainly has the advantage of being easily sourced and easily understood).
If you're determined to organize it in a table, then I might combine the four columns you suggest into two (name/dates in one column; contribution/refs in another), and add location (continent/country/local, so "Europe, United Kingdom, London" or "North America, USA, Texas") for the third. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
How is the table looking now? Also, I think the lead needs some work. Perhaps someone could help me with that? ---kilbad (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing topics about medicine

I recently updated my page about missing topics related to medicine (and some of the subpages as well) and I wonder if anyone could have a new look at it. And whether some of the topics qualify only as redirects... - Skysmith (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could be persuaded to break it down across multiple pages? I'm trying to help, but it's such an enormous page that reloading it (when I save a section) is killing my browser. Maralia (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to do so and have already separated some other parts of it (see. for example, this, this, this & this). However, I could try to form new pages when I can find time. Do you have any good suggestion for any new sensible divisions? . Skysmith (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've created a couple of redirects, and passed along the relevant sections of the list to WP:NURSE and WP:DENT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
One more thought: if no article exists, but you want to have readers end up on a relevant page (a worthy goal), then please consider tagging your redirect with {{R with possibilities}}, so that we'll be able to find them easily if anyone decides to grow the articles later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There is also a Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine. I suspect that many articles on Skysmith's lists can either be redirects or should not be created (e.g. individual research studies). JFW | T@lk 09:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I have used mainly dictionaries and the like, not research studies - Skysmith (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Buddha Jumps Over the Wall

Buddha Jumps Over the Wall, a variety of shark fin soup, is currently on the main page as a DYK. Unfortunately, the lead section makes two extraordinary health claims: 1) It is an aid in digestion, and ;2) It claims to be a good health supplement in the summer. Both claims are sourced to a popular Korean newspaper JoongAng Ilbo. Now, while it may or may not be possible to attribute such health claims in the body of the article, their placement in the lead is deceptive, and it insists the dish is both a digestive aid and health supplement. When one looks closer at this, it appears to be rooted in belief that shark fin cartilage has anti-cancer properties. It might be a good idea to discuss based on the evidence, rather than asserting outright health benefits that have not been proved. I don't think the health claims that are sourced to a popular newspaper should appear in the lead section, per WP:MEDRS. How do I proceed? I have opened a discussion on the talk page, here. I have removed the claims, here. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hand, foot and mouth disease

What should the actual title of the article be, particularly with respect to the punctuation? Should there be dashes? a single or multiple commas? I realize there are multiple redirects already, but wanted to see what the community thought the official title should be. Certain ICD codes use no punctuation. ---kilbad (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be a comma, because hand is not modifying foot. However, whether to use a serial comma (resulting in two commas) or just one is something that Wikipedia's style mavens firmly refuse to express an opinion on. (It's a "religious debate" no less fraught that Mac vs Windows.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thomas Henry Flewett named it Hand, foot, and mouth disease[1] and, he used a serial comma,  :-) Graham Colm Talk 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ FLEWETT TH, WARIN RP, CLARKE SK (1963). "'Hand, foot, and mouth disease' associated with Coxsackie A5 virus". J. Clin. Pathol. 16: 53–5. PMC 480485. PMID 13945538. Retrieved 2009-05-10. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
ICD-10 uses "Hand, foot and mouth disease", so in the absence of an excellent reason to override, we should follow that convention. --Arcadian (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
In this instance, matching the ICD-10 style has the additional virtue of complying with WP:RETAIN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Awww... I love the serial comma. This discussion reminds me of a song :) Everybody now: Who gives a... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hairy cell leukemia

Should the actual article title use a dash as per the ICD codes (i.e. Hairy-cell leukemia), then with the redirect from the undashed title? ---kilbad (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The hyphen is grammatically correct, but it is rarely used (in journal articles; it is never used outside them). Is there, by the way, any particular reason that you're checking the punctuation on article titles these days? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
One more question: Is HCL really a "lymphoid-related skin condition"? Is that category going to be materially different from lymphoid-related conditions in general? I don't usually think of leukemias as skin conditions, or as liver conditions, or brain conditions -- although leukemic cells can and do infiltrate all of those body parts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. In response to your comments, most of my work right now is on the list of skin-related conditions, and in the process crawling that list, I periodically come across articles for which I am uncertain (1) what the article versus redirect titles should be, or (2) how the article title punctuation should be treated. If, then, I am uncertain about something, or if the existing article title is not the same as the ICD codes, then I try to post a question here to see how the community feels about the issue. ---kilbad (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
With regard to lymphoid-related skin conditions, the conditions I am planning on placing in that category are listed at List_of_skin-related_conditions#Lymphoid-related, which was developed from several unabridged dermatology texts (namely Andrews and Fitzpatrick's (see WP:DERM:REF for full citations)). I hope this helps? ---kilbad (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
So, with regard to Hairy cell leukemia, should the actual article be moved to Hairy-cell leukemia? ---kilbad (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
About the specific article, I'd WP:RETAIN the original title.
So "skin-related conditions" means "any condition that has any possible manifestation in the skin, even if it is not derived from the skin"? Put another way, can you think of a single hematological malignancy that has never been seen to infiltrate other organs, such as the skin? If we add a cat for skin, then we really need to add a cat for every organ that could be affected, and it just seems so unimportant. Leukemias and lymphomas are not fundamentally dermatological conditions even when they are visible in the skin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is a "list of skin-related conditions of or affecting the human integumentary system," so I think it is important to include hematologic malignancies that have been known to affect the skin. ---kilbad (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
HCL (as an example) is also known to do exactly what it does to the skin to other organs, including (offhand) the brain, the spine, the gut, the liver, the spleen, the lungs, the pelvis, the femur, the blood vessels, and probably more. The list is highly similar for every form of leukemia and lymphoma. So leaving aside the list, do you think that the HCL article needs to be tagged with:
and so forth? Or does it seem a little silly to you to add a cat for each and every location in the body that might be infiltrated by leukemic cells? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. To begin, there are several primary cutaneous T-cell lymphomas that arise from the skin, and which, at times, may spread internally. I think the most notable example would be mycosis fungoides, but, again, there are others. Therefore, there are lymphoid-related conditions of, and not just affecting, the skin. With that being stated, I think both are appropriate for inclusion within the list_of_skin-related_conditions; however, I understand the point you are making, and would not object if we were only to include primary (i.e. arising from the skin) lymphoid-related conditions in the Category:Lymphoid-related skin conditions. ---kilbad (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
With the caveat that even cutaneous leukemias technically arise from lymphocytes (that happen to be located in the skin) instead of from the skin itself, that sounds fine to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That's fair. Thank you again for your feedback. ---kilbad (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Protect article

Someone with admin bit please semi-protect Swine influenza; since protection was removed yesterday the frequency of vandalism by anons has been high. --Una Smith (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected, ouch. Just wondering, why didn't you request over at WP:RFPP if it was so bad? It usually gets a considerably faster response. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
At the moment I was ready to post it, I was called away and had no time to find the best place to post. I never thought it would take so long. --Una Smith (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Head-louse infestation

Should the article instead be found at Pediculosis capitis with a redirect from "Head-louse infestation"? ---kilbad (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As there's no difference in meaning between the Latin name and the common name, I think we can leave it at the common name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Np. Sounds good. ---kilbad (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm itching to help sort out that article... Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Ouch! Recently working Typhus, I came across a novel POV: that of the vector who, unlike the human, invariably dies of the disease. For that louse, diseased humans are very bad news. LeadSongDog come howl 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct terminology needed at a Cfd

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_12#Category:Medical_disasters. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

PlayStation palmar hidradenitis

How does the community feel about this condition? I have not found any great sources for the article, and wanted to know if it's worth keeping? I don't have strong feeling either way, but am looking to read what people think. If we end up keeping it, perhaps we could improve the references? ---kilbad (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an article on video-game related dermatology is in place, and if a legitimate publication used this name, and we don't have alternatives, I don't see any reason to change it. Perhaps we can use one of the references of the article, it mentions videogame-induced knuckle pad. Perhaps we can also mention PlayStation thumb? Or move to a general article on videogame-induced medical problems, e.g. Wiiitis and Nintendinitis? I would suggest discussing this with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I posted a link there. ---kilbad (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is annoying. Just because a case report makes the news doesn't turn the newly coined condition into a notable subject. It is not undifferent from the cello scrotum and all sort of other weird and wonderful musculoskeletal and dermatological phenomena associated with some popular activity (here's another one: PMID 10688714).

Individual stubs on each phenomenon are not going to anyone any favours. I think that rather we should have a longer article covering all those conditions in a reasonable framework (medical conditions related to game computer use or somesuch). JFW | T@lk 09:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support a longer article covering all those conditions. ---kilbad (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Me too: how about Videogame-related health problems or Health consequences of videogames? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I would favor something like Video game-related health problems. ---kilbad (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and turned that last redlink into a blue link. Feedback welcome. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Should UK Gov help improve our medical coverage?

Interesting discussion on the blog of Tom Watson MP here: Talk:Swine_influenza#British_Government_to_ensure_Wikipedia_is_"correct_and_up_to_date"? and here: http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2009/05/what-is-swine-flu .

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Governments know what is "correct and up to date", read this for an example. Unomi (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I support their contributions, nothing to stop them contributing to wiki, they can contribute valuable uptodate data which we (wikipedians) may miss. Only concern is that I hope they wouldn't be given preferential treatment and effectively be given control of the article of what stays and what goes and what gets entered. That would be unfair to other editors but I could see that possibly happening even unintentionally.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Great idea.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration request

I have made some minor edits in the last year or so and as a medical student I feel that helping advance articles improves my education. I want to get involved with Wikipedia in my spare time by working with others who care about medicine and who are interested with sharing their knowledge and research abilities with the community. Can anyone give me some insight into how to get into an article creation group or a collaboration with others to improve the current topics? Thanks so much, Orlandoturner (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The existing collaboration program would love to have your help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination for Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak

Hi, folks! I have been spending a great deal of time on the Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak article. I basically took the barebones article and added a tons of sources, expanded it, etc. Anyhow, I just nominated it for GA status. I thought I'd let you all know so you. Thanks!!!! Basket of Puppies 06:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Iron overload disorder - page move

Iron overload disorder should be moved to Iron overload, which is the condition of having too much iron stored in the body. There are no pages called "Iron deficiency disorder", "Anemia disorder" or "Hypertension disorder". Tocant (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a candidate for WP:RM. --Una Smith (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think it should move to either Iron overload disorders or to List of iron overload disorders: it's a glorified disambiguation page instead of a proper article about iron overload. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree - I think a move to iron overload disorders would be good. The page could then briefly summarize iron overload disorders as a group, including the common pathophysiological and clinical elements, and then provide links to various specific iron overload disorders (hemochromatosis, transfusional iron overload, PCT, etc). MastCell Talk 18:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the article should be expanded with symptoms, complications and treatment. The current content would become "causes/classfication". This would duplicate some content from haemochromatosis, but is similar to the structure of the article about Anemia which has a classification section and also lists the different causes (hemolytic, megaloblastic, iron deficiency...), which all have their own articles. I think Iron overload is more correct in this context, since it is the medical condition. "Iron overload disorder" just means "disorder that causes iron overload" and there are in general no lists of this kind on Wikipedia for every medical condition ("Iron deficiency disorders", "Obesity disorders", ...). Also, multiple blood transfusions may cause iron overload, but that is not really a "disorder"? Tocant (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There is some ambiguity about when Haemochromatosis is referring to HFE-linked conditions, and when it is used in a more general sense. If the content is going to be be rearranged, this might be a good time to address that ambiguity. --Arcadian (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it has to be structured in a good way. Iron overload is a somewhat confusing subject since the mutations responsible for the hereditary forms were not discovered until recently. "Hemochromatosis" has sometimes been used as an equivalent to iron overload in general, but I think that is changing. There are also articles on Hemochromatosis type 3, neonatal hemochromatosis and juvenile hemochromatosis that could be seen as separate diseases or variants of hemochromatosis. Then there is the term "Hemosiderosis" that could refer to "iron overload in general", "hemochromatosis", "the process of accumulation of hemosiderin" or just be used as a word in the terms "transfusion hemosiderosis" or "idiopathic pulmonary haemosiderosis". I think the most logical structure would be to have Iron overload (the opposite of Iron deficiency) as the main article (in a similar way that the article about Anemia defines "low hemoglobin" and discusses causes/classifications, diagnosis and complications among other things) since this is the end result of all conditions. The problem might be that hemochromatosis (type 1, HFE mutation) is responsible for most cases of iron overload and that there would be a lot of duplicated content, however as it is now the other forms of iron overload have almost no information about the effects of iron overload. This is just my opinion however and there might be a better solution. Tocant (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

While Wikipedia does not have the exact articles you name, it does have some highly similar ones, such as Inborn error of lipid metabolism, Movement disorder, and Nutrition disorder.
What you describe here might be best as a completely new article, instead of a change to this one. Wikipedia ultimately needs both a description of the "too much iron here" aspect and a list of "all the specific diseases you might be looking for". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You might be right, although I'm not too sure about the name "Iron overload disorders", maybe "Causes of iron overload" or "Forms of iron overload" in that case? Nevertheless, it probably could be just a subsection of "Iron overload" in that case, i don't know. There is still however, as Arcadian pointed out, the issue of correctly defining "iron overload"/"hemochromatosis"/"hemosiderosis". Theoretically haemochromatosis could be moved to "Hemochromatosis, type 1" but that might not be a very good idea since it is almost always called only "hemochromatosis". The term "hereditary haemochromatosis" (only HFE-linked???) is also confusing since it implies that hemochromatosis could mean just "iron overload". And then there is siderosis. Primary and secondary iron overload is at least easy to define (genetic vs. not genetic), although there could be an interaction of the two causes... Tocant (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd support moving haemochromatosis to "Hemochromatosis, type 1", moving the non-HFE content in that article into Iron overload disorder, and adding hatnotes to the top of both articles to help orient people who were used the idea that HFE=Hemochromatosis. --Arcadian (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of moving it to Iron overload, and expanding it along the lines of Hypouricemia and Hyperuricemia. Explain what it is, how it works, how it is diagnosed, and its causes and consequences. --Una Smith (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

~After the changes made by Arcadian everything is now much clearer, especially the Terminology sections are very good to have! Tocant (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect for Vaccine-preventable diseases

Vaccine-preventable diseases is a redlink. Where would you point the link to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Vaccine doesn't cover preventable diseases nor does immunization or vaccination. Start a new article? Or redirect after it has been covered in vaccination. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
We also need Vaccine-preventable deaths to go somewhere, since it's a critical WHO measurement. Presumably these could be the same page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I've started the article at the first link, and pointed the second at it. Feel free to add some more sources and to correct any errors I've made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oooo-kay...

Why does Medical treatment redirect to Psychotherapy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of this brilliance it seems : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Therapy
Note that there is also [Medical guideline] which seems to be the first redirect. Unomi (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Fixed. I've re-pointed the redirects that seemed appropriate. Someone (perhaps someone at WP:PHARM) should decide whether Therapeutic activity and Therapeutics should be re-re-pointed to pharmacological articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHARM:CAT

I have been working with several other editors to create an organize categorization of pharmacology-related articles. My personal interest is the categorization of dermatology-related pharmacology; therefore, I wanted to know if those of you active in other taskforces might consider getting involved as well, so you can help create and guide the categorization of pharmacology that pertains to your field? ---kilbad (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

List of extraordinary diseases and conditions

Is this a appropriate type of list? Who determines what items are "extraordinary"? ---kilbad (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow.
The title will almost certainly have to be changed; it's POVish. The author is correct that some sort of verifiable inclusion guideline will have to be created.
Honestly, I'm not sure that it would survive an AfD. It's more "magazine article" than "encyclopedia article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I came here to start a discussion but see that it has already been started. The boundaries of this list are really vague; it's a mixture of rare and bizarre, the latter of which is certainly difficult to verify. I don't think this meets inclusion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Surely we may need a more proper definition of extraordinary. Basically, I started the article as a medical/psychological version of List of unusual deaths. It defines its inclusions as unique, or extremely rare circumstances – recorded throughout history. Perhaps we'll phrase this one similarly. Frankly, it's rather list of unusual deaths that should be rephrased to list of extraordinary deaths, since it doesn't include deaths from very unusual diseases or every less rare death of prominent people. Rather, it seems it has found some implicit equilibrium among its editors of what is included and not. Furthermore, this article is not meant to stigmatize any people with any of the conditions, e.g. making people believe that all people with Tourette syndrome exhibit coprolalia. Preferably, it merely states the definitions of the terms where possible. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps changing it to diseases and conditions with unusual or rare presentations/symptoms or causes will make it more neutral? After all, that's what separates this list from a mere list of rare diseases. The only major change is that the conditions themselves don't have to be rare or unusual, as long as the presentations/symptoms are, and I'm ok with that. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
So, similar to Category:Rare diseases, you want Category:Rare signs and symptoms? --Una Smith (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Having such a category or not doesn't matter - I prefer an overview with short explanations. But yes, that would be among the basic criteria for inclusion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
However, there would often only be one condition for each sign (e.g. fused legs in sirenomelia), and there is no need for a separate article on fused legs. If we are going to introduce an additional category as well, it would rather go something like Category:Diseases and conditions with rare signs and symptoms. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of what? The scope still is unclear. A common disease can have a rare presentation, which may have no diagnostic value or high diagnostic value, depending on what other causes of the presentation exist. Also, rare and common are relative. For example, the recurrent fever that is typical of malaria is uncommon in the United States but common where malaria is common. Yet, where malaria is common, a recurrent fever has low diagnostic value (see Malaria). --Una Smith (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
All right, symptoms may need to be specified with pathognomonic symptoms or symptoms of high diagnostic value. And unusual/rare may need to be specified that it is mainly relative to other diseases and conditions. Recurrent or periodic fever may be typical in malaria, but also appears in many other diseases (e.g. all the ones listed in Periodic fever syndrome), motivating against inclusion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There are an awful lot of rare diseases (the NORD database documents 1,150), each fascinating in their own way but perhaps such a list would test the patience of any reader. The article as it stands seems to take its entry criteria from a certain channel Five series -- i.e. what makes people stare. For example, Guinea worm disease and Elephantiasis are neither rare nor extraordinary, merely ghoulish. Colin°Talk 15:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know there was such a series. Anyhow, as for Guinea worm disease we may have to expand the scope to ...or unusual treatments'. But you're right, however, in that Elephantiasis may be excluded, since many relatively common conditions may cause similar swelling. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting list. Unfortunately it's a synthesis of original research. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I admit it mainly is a synthesis from contents from the main articles, but I didn't exaggerate it to make it seem more fantastic. For instance, the main article on necrotizing fasciitis said that debridement is the only treatment available, when in fact it may rather be the only first-line treatment, and Guinea worm disease still says that the stick method is the only treatment, while there actually are antiparasitic drugs nowadays. But surely, the article would improve by ongoing review and addition of sources. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I also think that verifying the rareness of a presenting symptom is really difficult: are there any sources for example for how many patients present with "accelerated ageing" as a symptom, that might indicate progeria? I fear this is a more a freak show or a personal extravaganza selection disguised as a List. There's simply not an objective criterion for "bizarre". --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I do believe consensus and common sense among editors can cope with the difficulty of deciding what is unusual or not. At least, it's more tangible than what is unusual in List of unusual deaths, and it was the fact that that article had made it that inspired me to start a rather medical version [5]. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
...and if this one continues to get this flow of feedback, it will easily beat its predecessor in no time. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the list may tend to promote facts that are of interest to the human reader, making the inclusions deviate slightly from what would have been included by a review and selection among all known diseases based strictly upon the criteria. But, as long as we are aware of that deviation and keep it from going too far, I actually think it's a good thing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It is subjective and sensationalist original research, not an encyclopedic topic. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Another reason to get advice from the past. Talk:List of unusual deaths#Original Synthesis tag seems to discuss the same thing. (Thanks for all your comments, I'm logging out now for today.) Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

verifiability

I think we need to focus on the single issue of WP:V (that is, how to prevent the decision to include an item, or not include an item, from being WP:OR violation). Are we likely to find reliable sources that say "this disease is bizarre" or "this is a bit strange, or uncommon, but really not really sufficiently odd"? Otherwise, it's just going to be "well, I think this should be included, because I personally think it's weird-looking", and we can't have that. We must have actual independent reliable sources that are making the ordinary/extraordinary decision for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is an issue, but I don't think that sources that specifically state "this is bizarre" etc is a solution. Rather, I think we shouldn't do anything - for now. Currently, the included conditions basically fulfill what is said in the introduction, and the main problem is what might be added from now on. So I think we should wait and see what kind of additional entries may show up - "know our enemies" as Sun Tzu would have put it - and from there on develop specific inclusion (or exclusion) criteria (like antibodies) to make our article what we want it to be with minimal OR. As long as the list hasn't become inconveniently long, I'd actually accept some relatively less fantastic or grotesque diseases and conditions as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any interest from the community in openning up an AfD and discussing it there? I certainly don't want to step on any toes here, but I think we could get even more opinions through an AfD. ---kilbad (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

An AfD tag to discuss it in this article specifically would be the wrong way to go - I'd rather bring it to an even more centralized place, because the main issue (that is, defining "unusual" without the risk of committing original research) is not specific for this case. Indeed, there is a whole Category:Lists of things considered unusual, and if we would open up an AfD, then it would be most fair to do it in all of those articles at the same time, or at least some of them, if we want more attention to the subject. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'm no AfD expert, but unless a set of articles are highly regular in both name and content, a class-action AfD is not productive. While "unusual" or "extraordinary" are probably hard to quantify objectively for any subject, the similar term "rare" is not. It is possible to set a population threshold below which a disease is considered rare. As long as that arbitrary threshold has some authority behind it, then it could be a useful WP list or category entry criterion.
I didn't intend a WP:ALLORNOTHING or anything like that - it was merely a suggestion of how to get more advice from contributors from similar pages. However, I doubt that is necessary, since they don't necessarily have to repeat everything again, like the all the AfD discussions linked from Talk:List of unusual deaths.Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
While there are sources in this list, they support the prose within the list, not the list itself and its entries' right to be there. Currently this is "Mikael Häggström's list of weird medical curiosities". It would be swiftly deleted IMO because the actual list is unsourced and 100% original research. Colin°Talk 15:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Somebody always has to start an article, but it's still your article just as much. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How about WP:RFC? My PO: this is a list of (ahem) "freak of the week" conditions; sensationalistic, not encyclopedic. --Una Smith (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The entries don's necessarily have to be utterly sensationalistic, and as long as the list isn't reaching inconvenient length, then I'm okay with that "less sensationalistic" also are added to the list. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
And perhaps the traffic to the article is sufficient to attract people to make comments. It has already a viewcount of ~1000 per day. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
And no freakingation of people with the conditions would be allowed in the article. It's the conditions that are extraordinary, not necessarily the people with them. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Mikael Häggström has nominated this list for DYK. See Template talk:Did you know. --Una Smith (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seemed to be entering a regression at that time, but obviously we are having enough discussion here already, so I put it on ice. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


So I took a look at some of the other articles in the cat named above, just to get some perspective. Here's what I find:

  • Place names considered unusual is filled with refs like "Odd or Interesting Irish Place Names", "Alberta has its share of striking and unusual place names", Newfoundland Placenames: "Newfoundland has the most unusual collection of place names of any country in the world", and"Arkansas's Colorful Names Amuse Some, Intrigue Others".
  • At List of unusual personal names, I find refs like "The most unusual footballer names ever" from Guardian Unlimited and "NZ judge orders 'odd' name change" from the BBC News, and others that are indicative of unusual issues, like "Couple Fights To Name Baby 'Metallica', Swedish Couple Locked In Court Battle With Authorities" from CBS News.
  • At List of chemical compounds with unusual names, I find refs like a book entitled Molecules with Silly or Unusual Names (ISBN 9781848162075).
  • At List of unusual deaths, I find refs filled with words like "unusual", "mysterious", "curious", "strange" and "odd".

By contrast, at this one, I find -- nothing. There's not a single source that says that these conditions are "unusual" in any sense other than "not very common". Therefore, I have to assume that the decision to include an item, or to not include an item, is based solely on the personal opinion of the editor adding the item, instead of being verifiably based on reliable sources.

If Wikipedia is going to have a list of medical conditions that make people stare, then every item in it needs to be supported by a ref that specifically identifies the condition as the sort of thing that makes people stare. Similar articles have managed to do this, and this one must, or it must be sent to AfD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the list itself in Place names considered unusual doesn't contain a single reference, and others have the same issue. But I get the point that there need to be external references stating that the conditions are extraordinary or of unusual character, and I'll look into it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Um, what do you think is in Place names considered unusual#References, if it's not the refs I named? If you, for example, go to the Newfoundland ref, you'll see that Dildo, Newfoundland is named in the ref. The editor simply didn't repeat the lead's ref in the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, I didn't catch that structure. Anyhow, I'm very optimistic that this article can be be referenced at least as acceptably. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it will be swiftly deleted: List of unusual deaths survived 5 AfDs. It will hopefully attract more opinions. I'm really bothered with the argument that it has many viewers: that doesn't matter at all, and we shouldn't be preoccupied with the fact that we have such a big audience. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The page views are no reason to keep the article. Anyway, a surge in page views is normal when a page is nominated for DYK and has problems, and when incoming links are added to many other pages. I removed many of the incoming links. --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree the size of the audience is no argument in the discussion. My mentioning of it earlier was in relation to whether we should attract more notice to this discussion or not. And I'm a bit split on that question. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent editions in Pixantrone

I have noticed that a recently created user (User talk:OfCinicalInterest) has edited more than 50 times this (and only this) article. Most of the edits are quite positive towards the medicine. I believe there could be some conflict of interest here and since I am no expert in pharmacology maybe somebody feels like taking a look. I will also post the message in the pharmacology project. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Disruption on psychiatry, particularly ADHD articles

If anyone is familar with the editor by the username scuro there is a discussion on admin noticeboard which could do with some additional input Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_of_User:Scuro_from_Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder. If you have positive or negative or even neutral views regarding disruption to ADHD and ADHD medication articles please feel free to give your viewpoint. Be forewarned it is a very lengthy discussion!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have weighted in with my view, which that some editors (including Literaturegeek) are trying to make a content dispute into a user conduct issue. --Una Smith (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not true but fair enough you are entitled to your views. There are two editors with opposing viewpoints to me who would like scuro blocked. None of my additions are being challenged by scuro.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

New venue: Wikipedia:RFAR#Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. --Una Smith (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have striked out my first post as that admin notice board discussion has been closed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a very controversial topic. The issue from my perspective is that Scuro edits without following WP:V. If anyone wishes to comment it would be appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Cellulite

Help needed in bringing Cellulite up to WP:MEDRS standard. At the moment it's a dustbin of material by anon/SPA contributors, mostly with obvious commercial agendas. 86.161.33.63 (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

probably just normal appearance of the older pospubertal female skin if a healthy subcutaneous adipose layer (and more pronounced uneveness if of higher weight). I've added refs to its status as a disorder vs normal apapearnce feature. Added pictures from Commons. Much of those fact tags highlighting material ripe for removal if citations to support are not forthcoming. David Ruben Talk 02:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

benzodiazepine at GAN

Given the importance of the topic, anyone is welcome to add to the review before I give it a final look over and pass. Be nice to give it a big boot toward FAC :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine article is now a good article. Next step is to get it up to featured article. Thank you for taking the time to review this article Casliber and thank you to any other editors here who have invested time on this article. I know Jdwolf did a fair amount of editing a while back and was good at fighting back the vandals.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hypertension at GAN

I'd just like to mention that the Hypertension article has been nominated at WP:Good article nominations#Biology and medicine, and is currently waiting for a reviewer. Given the importance of the topic, it would be very nice to have a reviewer who has expertise. (I'm completely uninvolved and definitely don't have expertise, just thought it would be good to give a pointer here.) Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific review

Hi, I recently modified the following images, making a separate unique image for every triangle of the neck, please I want some review for them, here they are

and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and

and I added these images to the appropriate articles of the triangles, those images replaced 1 image was used on all these articles, and I added that Image at the end of each article, please view the images, and notify me if there is anything wrong with the labels or the borders, of the triangles, thank you all :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

They look correct to me. Beautiful work. --Arcadian (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed: Occipital triangle is spelled wrong. --Arcadian (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, and it is corrected now :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

please remember adding dates to drug articles

if you write an article on a drug, please remember to write dates or approximate dates of discovery, FDA or other country approval, date drug goes generic, etc. this is important historical information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You posted along those lines on WT:PHARM. Please see my note there about the importance of "going generic". JFW | T@lk 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Scleredema

Will someone merge and delete this? Thanks in advance! My mistake. I have added some references, category, and small see also section. ---kilbad (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you comparing it to "scleroderma"? I searched and "scleredema" appears to be different from "scleroderma". Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This is indeed a distinct condition. Worth populating. JFW | T@lk 22:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest project: radiation-induced lung injury

I just noticed that we didn't have an article on radiation pneumonitis, so I've started a stub at radiation-induced lung injury (probably the most useful supercategory, which would also include late fibrotic lung injury from radiation). I'll expand it over the next few days, but wanted to invite anyone else with an interest. Also, if you come across any reasonably good spots in other articles that should link radiation pneumonitis etc, please go ahead and wikilink it. Thanks. MastCell Talk 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Category:Viral skin conditions

I have been try to populate and refine this category, and in doing so, I have come to feel that a rename is probably warranted. Currently, there are conditions in the category that may affect both the skin and mucous membranes, therefore, I was thinking about renaming it to something like Category:Virus-related cutaneous conditions. I also feel using "virus" instead of "viral" may make the name more accessible for general readers. What does the community think of that name? ---kilbad (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Leishmaniasis americana is synonymous with Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis, and my question is this, should "americana" be capitalized? ---kilbad (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the capitalisation rules of adjectives in Latin. JFW | T@lk 09:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
My husband, who knows much more about Latin than I, says that it is "not necessary" to capitalize it. I can add that if this were a species name, instead of a disease name, then it would certainly not be capitalized. So perhaps in the absence of a good reason to capitalize, it would be left lowercase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. ---kilbad (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
In general, genus species should either be italicized or underlined when handwriting because handwriting italics is difficult. Genus is capitalized, species is not. This leads to the follow up question: On Wikipedia, when the article title is also a genus species classification, should they be italicized? It also seems that throughout Wikipedia there is a lot of inconsistency on this. Often genus species classifications are left uninitialized. I bring this up because I have had some biology professors who were maniacal about this point. They would take points off of tests for not underlining genus species. (They would also take off points for underlining the space between genus| |species. Apparently that space is sacred and should not be underlined! (or italicized, for that matter...)
So, what is the Wikipedia style policy on genus species? Always italicize, genus capitalized, species lowercase? If that is the case, I can try to make a point to change them when I run into them. Mba123 (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life#Article titles. --Una Smith (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists of Diseases are not maintained confused me

Many of these articles seem un-maintained. Note the number of redlinks at List of diseases (A) or List of diseases (Q). Some of the listed items may not be diseases.

  • Should all of these articles and the template Template:DiseasesTOC be deleted?
  • Can the whole thing be replaced using Category:Disease_and_disorder_templates such as [[6]]?
  • Could something be done with transclusion of already-existing categories?

--SV Resolution(Talk) 14:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that the number of redlinks is a valid metric for the level of maintenance that these lists receive.
The point behind the lists is that they are (1) relatively complete and (2) alphabetical, so that if someone knows the beginning of the name for a disease, s/he has a chance of finding it. It really is not appropriate to create navboxes with thousands of items in them, and splitting up the list by subject area (which is what the navboxes do) defeats the purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I think I get it. Its purpose is a bit like the ICD-10 lists -- just making sure everything gets listed, even if it is not covered (yet) in Wikipedia. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Having said that, if you have any clue what some of those are, feel free to WP:REDIRECT away. I always think that a link to a general article (like Inborn errors of metabolism for specific kinds of IEMs) is at least a little helpful to the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll be happy to do it if I can. Generally, though, I won't have a clue. --SV Resolution(Talk) 00:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mucolytics v. Expectorants

The article Mucolytic agent could do with some attention. Template:Cough and cold preparations has two separate sections for Mucolytics and Expectorants, but expectorant and expectorants redirects to mucolytic agents. The article itself doesn't overly make clear whether they're the same or different. Someone with some knowledge on the topic may be able to clean it up fairly quickly. --Limegreen (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for WP:PHARM? JFW | T@lk 05:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The mucolytic agent article makes it quite clear IMHO, with a direct quote from a pharmacology textbook. As their name implies, mucolytics break up mucus. Expectorants increase respiratory secretions (purportedly, their efficacy has been questioned for quite some time). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Anophthalmia (or Anophtalmos) vs. Cryptophthalmos (or Cryptophthalmia)

Would anyone here be able to give an oppinion on whether the two articles above (i.e. Anophthalmia & Cryptophthalmos) are reffering to the same thing or two seperate eye conditions? If they are the same, I would suggest a merger, but if they appear to be different, then let them be. My initial confusion came from this [7] but I remember someone here telling me that the disease database shouldn't always be taken as gospel, and hence why I thought I would check here. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Simply from the articles and their titles I would suspect that they are different. OMIM also seems to make the distinction (eg Fraser syndrome. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough! Thanks for the insight.Calaka (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

asbestosis

can someone clarify the symptoms page of asbestosis. it is unclear and has an extra paragraph not about symptoms within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.162.212 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Histopathology

the definition reads like it was written by a medical student revising for their preclinical exams. i've removed some components, then read the rest and gave up in despair. the article has focussed on a couple of irrelevant conditions and suggests that histopath exists almost exclusively to diagnose the conditions mentioned; myocardial infarction, and 'cancer' (whatever definition of the day is for that - in fact on a seperate note I'd like to encourage all medical professionals editing wikipedia to refrain from using the term 'cancer' unless specifically talking about invasive metastatic neoplasms, as the term is widely misunderstood and carries enormous gravity with the general public). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.124.222 (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting are NOT symptoms of swine flu

yet, they appear in the dang article. One reporter reported this and now people believe this wrong information. Please support the decision to either correct the image in swine flu article or remove it. Spring breakers also drink alcohol in mass quantities which makes people nauseous. They also get traveler's diarrhea... doesn't mean the flu caused gastric-intestinal symptoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.241.7 (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The source for these symptoms is the World Health Organization. Generally, someone with influenza will have most of the listed symptoms, not just one or two of them. --Una Smith (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
well, the WHO is wrong. diarrhea and nausea only happens in children - and even that is rare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
no, you are wrong. diarrhoea and nausea are uncommon findings in most influenza cases, but are certainly not rare. diarrhoea and nausea may be sequelae to the pyrexia associated with influenza infection or to direct epithelial infection. I trust the WHO's assessment at this stage, and am surprised by your somewhat arrogant appraisal of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.124.222 (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


  • FLU SYMPTOMS — Symptoms of the flu can vary from person to person, but usually include a fever, headache, muscle aches, and fatigue; cough and sore throat may also be present. People with the flu usually have fevers for two to five days, in contrast to fevers in other upper respiratory viruses that usually resolve after 24 to 48 hours.

Some people experience cold-like symptoms while others have fever and muscle aches. Symptoms usually improve over two to five days, although the illness may last for a week or more. Weakness and fatigue may persist for several weeks (show figure 1). - UPTODATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

UK definition of Health Protection Agency:
On pointing out this discrepency in the current active website documents, I am informed in personal communication from HCA to stick to the latest guidence. David Ruben Talk 20:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Diarrhea, nausea and vomiting can also be a side effect of tamiflu, those symptoms I believe.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And the CDC says at What to Do If You Get Flu-Like Symptoms: "The symptoms of this new H1N1 flu virus in people are similar to the symptoms of seasonal flu and include fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. A significant number of people who have been infected with this new H1N1 virus also have reported diarrhea and vomiting."LeadSongDog come howl 21:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
the word significant is not backed up anywhere. Mexican travelers often get "Traveler's Diarrhea" - if you don't know what it is - look it up. It's possible to have 2 infections at once and 1 NPR news reporter ruins it for the whole world. 99.22.220.61 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is: the word "significant" is on the CDC's website. We don't care whether a reliable source 'shows their work' or 'backs up their assertions'; we trust them to get it right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is the other way around: we consider these sources reliable because they typically do back up what they say. But that does not mean that we trust them blindly. Each case is different and can be investigated. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems easy enough to resolve - the CDC and UK HPA have also noted d&v as possible symptoms. Easily attributed, the lack of clarity is documented. Since it's not unequivocal, we show that it is a possibility according to X, Y and Z agencies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Done, still badly written, full of advice, and the tone is off. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Benzodiazepine is a featured article candidate

join in the fun and help out, make some comments on how to improve. Be nice to do this one well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reactive arthritis

Hey folks. I've recently been making a number of changes/additions to the Reactive arthritis article. However, I Am Not A Doctor (although, at the risk of getting mugged, I'll own up to an MPH and a law degree focusing on medlaw - yes, I'm one of those, please don't hurt me), and I'm especially not a rheumatologist, so can I recruit an expert witness? I've cited everything as best I can, but I simply don't have the clinical experience that so importantly differentiates a doctor from some random dude with a copy of Harrison's. I'd appreciate any insight from real actual practitioners. --George (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

Question: Does this image fulfill copyright wrt Wikipedia?

They have this image at Anabolic steroid and there are three more similar ones at Bupropion.

A vial of injectable testosterone cypionate

I have a whole bunch more pictures but before I upload need to make sure they are okay.

Here it seems to imply that they are not [8] which means that if this is the case many of the images from this project will have to be removed. I have found some more info [9] see to say that we can use them on the English language encyclopedia under fair use? Our images of drugs however are not currently labeled as fair use but under creative commons.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

These images are perfectly acceptable if you took them yourself, and should be uploaded to Commons, not Wikipedia. They can be released under any license you feel acceptable—CC, GFDL, public domain, etc. The presence of the manufacturer's logo and/or wordmark is a non-copyright restriction, and in no way means the image is non-free content; it only needs to be tagged with {{trademarked}}.
These images would need to be placed under fair use if they came from a company website, press pack, or from some other non–user-created source. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

GA reviews

I have nominated the following medical articles for GA review.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation renominated as Featured Article

After many edits, Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been renominated as a Featured Article. Please feel free to leave comments; instructions for commenters can be found at WP:FAC. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's three medical articles currently at FAC (see also Tay-Sachs disease and Benzodiazepine). Colin°Talk 07:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Make that four: Osteitis fibrosa cystica! Colin°Talk 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Tay-Sachs disease has pulled out. Enter: Hippocampus.

Walla Walla General Hospital

Declined the speedy; 110-yr-old hospital. Notability is probably a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Combined hyperlipidaemia

I've put a rename suggestion for Combined hyperlipidemia to be renamed as Mixed hyperlipidaemia (or Mixed hyperlipidemia). The article indicates referring to common acquired cholesterol/triglyceridaemia of Type IIb, this though is E78.2 clearly to be called "Mixed hyperlipidaemia". The only "combined" form in E78 group is for "Familial combined hyperlipidaemia" of E78.4 which WHO somewhat denigrates to just "Other hyperlipidaemia". Now maybe I'm just misreading this, so I seek comment at Talk:Combined hyperlipidemia#Requested move. David Ruben Talk 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Both names seem equivalent, but we should probably follow the WHO on this unless there are other authorities that use the former term. JFW | T@lk 06:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cutis verticis gyrata

Could someone look at the move being suggested for Cutis verticis gyrata at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/current#29_May_2009. Is that an appropriate rename? ---kilbad (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cardiomyopthrapy and possible infection causes

By accident, my doctor found that I do have this disease to the heart. After wearing the defibulator vest, taking heart medicine for three months, there was no significant change, so later that month I was operated on and received a defibulator/pacemaker implant.

My question is" my doctor can not understand why my heart rate is high when I work out at the gym; as high as 165 and higher. The medicine should control the heart rate but in my case it doesn't . He requested another opinion by a specialist, and to consult with my doctor at his findings.

I had polio as a child in the mid 40's and couldn't walk for a few years. I had the Sister Kenney method at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, and I did have parolitic polio. My question is : would this virus have caused any heart problems later in my life? I have always been very healthy, and until this problem, I never ever had any chest pain or fatigue at all. Could polio have caused my heart problem???

Thank you. Sheila Whitehead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilawmom (talk • contribs) 03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This guideline was written for the reference desk, but it applies equally here - Wikipedia is not the place to request or give medical advice. I am sorry if this is disappointing or frustrating, and I wish you the very best. --Scray (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Scray is spot on, here's the relevent non-reference desk disclaimer. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


AfD nomination of Facial mole

I have nominated Facial mole for deletion. If interested, see the AfD at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_30#Facial_mole. ---kilbad (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Myxoma, Atrial myxoma and Left atrial myxoma (no right atrial myxoma?)

Anyone care to take a look at these articles? Myxoma seems to be fine, but Atrial myxoma tends to repeat a bit of it and it lacks references, while Left atrial myxoma is stubby, has no refs and repeats much of what is said in atrial myxoma. Finally there is no article on Right atrial myxoma and I would assume there should be if there is one for the left atrial myxoma. If anyone feels up to expanding these out, feel free to do so. Or possibly do a few mergers/redirects. Thank you. Calaka (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not all occur in the heart I read, so Myxoma is top level here, the left atrial myxoma is both duplicate of atrial myxoma and itself mentions all that the very rare right sided ones need cover - so I've added the tags to merge to just atrial myxoma which can deal with both. Finally i've created redirect for Right atrial myxoma to atrial myxoma. David Ruben Talk 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! :) Cheers!Calaka (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done David Ruben Talk 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Trigger point

This article is, on the surface, a pseudoscientific disaster zone. The discussion rests largely on one rather old key text, and two apparently substantive 2008 studies (Chen et al., Shah et al.) The latter two receive duplicate mentions, in language that is euphoric and lifted directly from an abstract of a medical editorial. Neither the methodology, the findings, nor the technical terminology (nociceptors, etc.) is explained in any specific, lay terms. It is graded "B" in quality, but strikes me as much poorer than that.

This topic is fascinating, but it could benefit greatly from some calm, knowledgable vetting by interested specialists in physiology or physical therapy. I am not calling for censorship, but I am calling for help in restoring balance either to the treatment context or to the evidentiary weight behind it.

Thank you very much for all of your good work on the Medical articles. -a.k.a. [just not logged in]71.178.65.59 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right: it does not meet the [current] B-class article standards. It was last assessed in 2007, and both the article and the standards have changed since then. Thanks for pointing it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another medical encyclopedia

Here is another medical encyclopedia http://wiki.medpedia.com/ This one is under the same license as Wikipedia and does not appear to be a cut and paste of Wikipedia.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Since I edit autism-related articles a lot, I couldn't resist reading Medpedia's page on autism. At first I was not at all impressed, as the article starts off on the wrong foot by making a completely incorrect claim (its lead sentence says that classic autism is the most common of the autism spectrum disorders, which is incorrect: PDD-NOS is). However, in reading the rest of the article I found that while the article is overall inferior to Wikipedia's Autism in many ways, its heart is clearly in the right place with respect to fairly describing mainstream opinion, and in some areas (e.g., its list of therapies) the article can be the source of ideas to improve Autism.
  • Perhaps it's not fair to compare Medpedia to a featured article, so I went further and looked at its article on Tay-Sachs disease. This article is, I think, better than what's in Wikipedia's Tay-Sachs disease, in that it covers the overall topic better (even though it's much worse in covering the history of our understanding of the disorder).
That's just two examples, but it does look like Medpedia would be a useful source to check for the coverage and weight of Wikipedia articles, and perhaps in some cases to copy some content (with appropriate attribution). Any copying would have to be made from Medpedia's content pages only; we can't copy from Medpedia's talk pages, or from its "accredited" pages, as they are not distributed under the GFDL terms.[10] Eubulides (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
They do cut an paste some articel such as altitude sickness and do not attribute Wikipedia. Have mailed this wrt this. They have not got back to me yet.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hereditary spastic paraplegia

There are a number of issues I would like to address in re: this article:

  1. It was vandalized (lot of useful stuff removed) a while back and I had to manually put a few things back since there were normal edits in the mean time. Anyone please feel free to check I didn't miss anything.
  2. I was going through the process of adding all the subtypes in a neat table from the OMIM search result I got (Go here [11] and type in "Spastic paraplegia" with OMIM search database selected). I was happy to add them all before I realized there were 162 results! I just thought it was the one page. Anyone care to help me out on this/advise me on whether I should continue doing so? I did the first page, with the remaining pages 2-9 needing to be added/updated on the wiki article.
  3. Following on from 3, I want you all to consider the length of the table and its place on the article? I am predicting that it is going to be longer than the article itself after all of the above eventually get added! Should they be divided up into boxes (Autosomal dominant,recessive, xlinked recessive, dominant for example?) and made to automatically hide just to shorten the whole thing out and only list the most common on the main box bellow (kind off like how there are two tables in the Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease article.
  4. Should some of the subtypes of this disease that have common names be redlinked so as to encourage article creation? E.g. silver syndrome.
  • All comments are welcome. Calaka (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would use a category. Perhaps Category:Causes of spastic paraplegia? --Una Smith (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, what do you mean by placing them in a category? Calaka (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Medicinal mushrooms

Can you review this page I recently created? Jatlas (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I very briefly looked over the article. It is appears to be indepth and comprehensive and well sourced. Good job, but as they are not used in general medicine you would probably be better posting on this project WP:ALTMED and WP:PLANTS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Gave a bit more of a read over. It seems to focus almost entirely on its benefits so there may be WP:NPOV issues. Article might need some additional topics, I dunno like where the plants come from, some more info on history. I am not familar with the literature of whether there is any controversy or criticism so it may be citing only one point of view. But anyway for an article which is only about a month old I think that it is job well done and I am sure it will improve with time. Your best bet on improvements and feedback is the folks over at WP:ALTMED.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Task Force Suggestions

I see that task force suggestions are sort of being neglected, and I'd suggest everybody take a few minutes to browse through one you like (preferrabley oncology ;) ). Renaissancee (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Congress to end public domain research?

Hi all,

I was quite disturbed by this: US Congress introduces bill to end free access to federally funded research.

Could have negative consequences for us, dunno if we could do something about it?

cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes supposedly this was the last thing GW Bush did before he left office. It would be a travesty.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Open access has been standard policy for several years now (since 2005, I think), and was made permanent in a budget bill in March. This is a "write your congressman" sort of issue. Those outside of this country might consider writing to any member of the House's Judiciary committee. The bill, BTW, is the brainchild of a Democrat who (1) has introduced it repeatedly over the last few years and (2) is the chair of the relevant committee. Several publishing houses appear to be prominent campaign donors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Human Anatomy

Hey guys,

Just to let you know I've removed WP:MED's template on Human Anatomy. Upon reading the WPMED reading WPMED's assessment scope, I've found that the article does not meet the scope in any way. WPMED is meant for diseases, treatments, and conditions. Human Anatomy is none of those. I plan to do a little sweep for our articles, to make sure they all meet our scope, alright? Thanks. Renaissancee (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there are (at least) hundreds of articles that should probably be tagged {{WikiProject Anatomy}} instead of WPMED; the trend over the last year has been to reduce needless overlap there. So long as you look at the articles themselves instead of relying on the name (because if there's any significant clinical/disease/medical information, instead of pure anatomical details, then including/retaining WPMED is appropriate), then I would welcome a sweep.
I don't believe that we have a consensus about what to do with molecular/signaling articles; perhaps next year we'll have better developed views there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I just read that page now and I understand more from your response in the task force suggestions page Renaissancee. I always assumed WP:Anatomy to be under WP:Med but if that is no longer how it is classified (or never was that way?) then that is understandable. Cheers! Calaka (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
WhatamI,
If you only look at the articles name when assessing, your wasting your time :P. I check the content and sources, and check for over use or jargon, and ect. I make sure that there are no issues. If there is, I add the appropriate tags. Renaissancee (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Then we agree -- fully, if you also avoid WP:overtagging stubs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Erb-Goldflam disease

I saw this to be the same as Myasthenia gravis and I hence placed a redirect of it. But then after doing a bit more research, the only source I found was Disease database. Hence after a bit more research I found that the disease is seperate and should probably deserve its own article. If anyone is able to write up an article for Erb-Goldflam disease (also known as: Erb's syndrome, Erb-Oppenheim-Goldflam syndrome, Hoppe-Goldflam syndrome, Hoppe-Goldflam symptom complex) please do so. Otherwise I would most likely have to speedy delete the redirect, since it is leading to an unrelated disease. Thank you. Calaka (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've killed the redirect, as it is incorrect. JFW | T@lk 20:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Drug categorization: consensus sought

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Comments are much appreciated! Thanks ---kilbad (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cholesterol, statins, etc

For a little while I've been having a slow edit war with Eddievos (talk · contribs), mainly on Talk:Atorvastatin, about the way cholesterol and statins are represented on Wikipedia. There is a small but rather noisy movement, mainly on the internet, that seems to oppose either the lipid hypothesis or at least the benefits of pharmacological cholesterol lowering. They certainly got the ear of Business Week in 2008 when they did a large article that dropped a large number of names but didn't actually name the studies that they disputed;[12] it mainly seems to target the ASCOT study.

Now a small series of articles has cropped up (mevalonate inhibition and Cholesterol Depletion), seemingly being forks of the cholesterol/statin articles and using case reports and laboratory studies to discredit widespread cholesterol lowering. I've send both articles to AFD currently, but I was wondering if the audience could review both articles and determine if any of the content is worth salvaging. JFW | T@lk 06:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

More votes needed in these discussions, because at the moment they are likely to be closed for lack of consensus JFW | T@lk 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You'll find the complete list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Retinoblastoma

Retinoblastoma has a support group link farm. Delete it? --Una Smith (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean at Retinoblastoma#Support. I looked at #External links first, and completely missed the problem. Yes, that's horrible -- a table of a bunch of orgs, with websites and descriptions of how wonderful their services are -- and I've killed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a table. Far worse than a regular external links farm. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It's back, and so is some advice. --Una Smith (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An RFC to comment on

On Talk:Multiple myeloma I'm having a somewhat circular argument with the webmaster of myelomaforums.com. The argument (as usual) revolves around the suitability of support forums in the external links section. I'm frankly quite tired of having to conduct these discussions all the time, but I continue to believe that forums, however well moderated, are not great resources from a Wikipedia perspective exactly because their moderation may not be optimal and the sites turn into hype-promoting, named-physician-bashing, alt-med-touting mostrosities. If we could have a clear line on this, perhaps we could simply stop having these discussions time and time again. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I identify with the circular argument problems on wiki, they are very frustrating. Believe me you have my sympathy JFW! I will add my comments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I know you do. :) We need medals!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Few Administrative things

Hi Again.

I was scowering through some other WikiProjects to see if I wanted to join and I see they all had coordinators and leaders and ect. WPMED doesn't have any, and we really have no back bone organization. I'd sort of suggest that we make some sort of ranking system so our newcomers can ask appropriate people, instead of the user that hasn't editted since 1997. With that, I was thinking something along the lines of this... (low to high) Anoymous IP users> Wikipedia Users > WPMED Members > Task Force Coordinator(s) > WPMED Coordinator(s) Bad? Good? Not going to work? What do you think? I'd kind of like to see a little more backbone here. Renaissancee (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just ask questions right here? It makes more sense for project-related questions to be in the project space instead of being directed to specific users' talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
True, you don't like copying 50 of the same messages either:P ? Still, your actions at the Task Force talk sort of concern me. After getting enough supports, a task force(can't remember which) just sat there till somebody came along (you) and decided that it can be a task force now. I'd like (mind you, this is me) for WPMED to have more organization so we can get our articles and intentions out even better. More administration = more success. For newcomers, I'm not really sure if all of them are just going to come out of the shadows and start asking questions. When you just start at Wikipedia, it's kind of a scary place in all with all the ivory towers and rules and structures. I was scared that if I put out an idea it would be immediately shunned upon by the community because it broke some important rule that I didn't know about at the time. Do you get my drift? Renaissancee (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree on more organization better functioning. I believe the project works well right now.--Garrondo (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Fully opposed to any sort of structuring of rank here, it goes against the Wikipedia spirit. Even administrators aren't ranked higher than average users here, or even IP users for that matter, so it doesn't make much sense to assign coordinators. Also, the project works just fine at the moment, we all have equal responsibilities and no one is forced into looking after a certain area. If it ain't broke, don't fix it :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  09:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Opposed. Appointing coordinators equals more "ivory towers and rules and structures", not less. Also, administration has a cost in time and effort. So, no, let's not have "coordinators" here. Anyway, what it seems Renaissancee really wants is to help newbies over the hump from reading to contributing. The best way I know to do that is to be responsive in a positive way. I would like to see fewer replies that direct the newbie to the reference desk, and more that respond to the content issues in newbie's questions. So someone asks "I have these symptoms; do I have this disease?" Let's not shoot them down for seeking medical advice here; instead, treat it as an encyclopedia question, and make clearer or expand the articles about the symptoms and the disease. --Una Smith (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't really have enough editors involved to warrant extra bureaucracy I feel. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, glad I could get your opinions. Renaissancee (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

10/90 gap

Does this fall under our scope? All it is is a stastistic from a report. To be honest, I think it should be deleted. Renaissancee (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Article nominated for AfD. Please put your two cents in. Renaissancee (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Medical encyclopedia

Can someone have a look over Medical encyclopedia ? I removed the images attached to the article, because per WP:IMAGES, they have little relation to the topic at hand. The creator of the article seems to have a difference of opinion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? Renaissancee (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:3O - third opinion on the usefulness of the images I removed. Preferably, leaving a comment on the talk page of the article. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lupus anticoagulant --- Antiphospholipid syndrome, different or the same?

I came across Lupus anticoagulant and after a bit of looking around I noticed that it had the same ICD9, DiseasesDB and most importantly OMIM with Antiphospholipid syndrome. Can anyone with more knowledge take a look at the two articles, their external links and make a judgment on whether they are completelly differet, one is a subset of another, or the exact same? I am guessing they might be different but the OMIM indicates that they are the same confused me. If they are the exact same, then I would recomend a merger. Thank you.Calaka (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that I have also read the OMIM describing the difference between the two, but I repeat that I am no expert and have trouble actually understanding the difference between the two from that description. Calaka (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The antiphospholipid syndrome requires medical complications (miscarriage, arterial/venous thrombosis, etc) plus detection of antiphospholipid antibodies (which include lupus anticoagulant and anticardiolipin antibodies). Lupus anticoagulant is inferred from laboratory tests, but is not a syndrome and hence can be detected in the absence of any disease. Thus, they overlap incompletely. --Scray (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Lupus anticoagulant is a laboratory finding, which may or may not be associated with the APS but may nonetheless be relevant in its own right. It would be better to keep the laboratory determination in the LAC article. JFW | T@lk 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonne-Milroy-Meige syndrome = Milroy disease... Another potential merger?

Similar to the above section I posted, would anyone like to recommend a merger between Nonne-Milroy-Meige syndrome and Milroy disease. The evidence of them being the same (in my opinion) is provided here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=153100 & here: http://www.whonamedit.com/synd.cfm/1326.html but I still didn't feel bold enough to do the merger myself (I am no doctor after all, so I figure an expert can do the confirmation first!). Thanks. Calaka (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge complete. Please restrict discussion to the appropriate Talk page. --Scray (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
While we are talking about mergers I found another potential pair that can probably be merged (I went ahead and added the merger tags on these two as I was more confident on them: Nager syndrome and Acrofacial dysostosis, Nager type. Any thoughts? Calaka (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but this proposal should be discussed on the appropriate Talk page. --Scray (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Pineal gland

Would someone who knows about ectoderm / endoderm please take a look at recent IP changes to Pineal gland? I can't tell if these are honest attempts to get something right, or not. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Free photos

I found a CDC site that offers public domain photos of skin diseases. Does anyone else know of sites where I can get photos of skin diseases for use on wikipedia? ---kilbad (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked if there were any open source dermatology journals in BioMed Central and found BMC Dermatology, dunno if they have pretty pics. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Kilbad, if we were able to determine the right paperwork and processes, would you be willing to ask certain patients if they would be willing to donate non-identifiable images of their skin to the Foundation through you, and would you be willing to caption the image in cases where the condition was unambiguous? I think that with sufficient support from the WPMED community, we might be able to get Mike Godwin's assistance on this issue. --Arcadian (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be fine with me, particularly as I am about to by a new Nikon with lighting rig. However, if I take a non-identifiable photo of a patient's skin condition, can't I upload it without getting consent? ---kilbad (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This may depend on local laws and policies. At my institution, policy forbids taking any photograph without consent, and the consent must specify "publication and presentation" to use it in this way. Realize also that rules may change (and apply retroactively) so it's best to just get the consent (and of course, "non-identifiable" is a pretty subjective thing anyway). Patients have a right to know what you're doing, IMHO. --Scray (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Scray, could you put together a paragraph that captures the spirit (but not the language) of the policies of your institution? We could then get feedback from Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:OTRS, and Godwin (or a delegate of his.) --Arcadian (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
See also an overview of previous discussions and a general essay on this topic at Commons:Patient images. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's my list of US Gov image sites. Not all images on all sites are in the public domain.

Site Licence
CDC Public Health Image Library {{PD-USGov-HHS-CDC}}
CDC Photos of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases {{PD-USGov-HHS-CDC}}
U.S. Government Photos and Graphics {{PD-USGov}}
Library of Congress : Prints & Photographs Online Catalog {{PD-US-LOC}}
Library of Congress : American Memory {{PD-US-LOC}}
NCI Visuals Online {{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}
NIH History of Medicine {{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}
NIH Photo Galleries {{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}

—G716 <T·C> 17:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Stub reorganization

I just wanted to let the community know that there is a move to reorganize disease article stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2009/June. ---kilbad (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Seckel syndrome & Virchow-Seckel syndrome merger.

Another merger suggestion. Please comment at Talk:Seckel_syndrome#Merge_Virchow-Seckel_syndrome_here. and if you think the merger is appropriate enough, be bold. Thank you. Calaka (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

This is nothing more than trivia and yet is listed as a GA under WP:MED Michael Jackson's health and appearance. I think it belong to another project if anything?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivia, and not notable under medicine. Shouldn't be under WPMED. Renaissancee (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another merger... Synovial chondromatosis and Synovial osteochondromatosis

Please see here: [[13]] for reasoning of possible merger. Any input would be greatly appreciated and if you are knowledgeable enough about these two terms as being the same, then by all means be bold. Thank you.Calaka (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete style page ?

Trawling around some links found Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions, I believe this is now covered in MOS in further detail, suggest delteing it? L∴V 14:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge/redirect with WP:MEDMOS JFW | T@lk 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
√ resolved; jmh649 has redirected the page.L∴V 10:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Deep penetrating light therapy

Anyone want to have a look at the Deep penetrating light therapy stub? It was a mess before, so I trimmed out the massive source dump. Now it's kinda naked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Better naked then trashy. Renaissancee (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009 WPMED Member Sweep

Hey guys, I just finished a member sweep, and I'd like to tell you some interesting facts. For borderline any members that have not edited Wikipedia since 1 January 2009 were removed from the active members list and put into the inactive. At the begging of the sweep, we had a total of 254 members listed. After reviewing all of members contributions, 72 of those 254 were illegible for the inactive members' list. Roughly 28.3% of our members where inactive. A fifth. I'd like to suggest that we do yearly regular member sweeps, as this one I did was very brief and quick. All I did was check their contributions and if I saw a 2008, 2007, and I did see a few 2006's, I removed them. Renaissancee (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So how many active WP:MED member does that make it?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
We currently have 182 "active" members that have posted before 1 January 2009. Renaissancee (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
There may be more of us than is listed - I just checked and am not listed myself, I see the list isn't automated and I originally signed manually to medgen, but I feel we should have a better celebration of past collaborators a wiki monument of a kind - ideas on a postcard please? L∴V 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I am listed in the Category:WikiProject Medicine members though.. L∴V 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The only reason your listed there is because you have one or multiple of WPMED's user templates on your userpage. Renaissancee (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that before we can decide how to manage the list, we need to understand why it even exists. A means of contacting contributors? Roll call of fame? A way for new editors to signal their interest? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
As a note, I post here with low-moderate frequency, but I'm not signed up anywhere, nor do I have a userbox. Don't know what that means. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

HFPEF

Currently, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction does not have its own article. It is covered as a paragraph on 'diastolic heart failure' under the main heart failure article. Would anyone object if I created a new HFPEF article to separate it out from HF with reduced EF? Antelan 22:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think that enough information about the specific condition exists to perhaps someday be a good article, then feel free. If it's more likely to end up as a little stub, then I wouldn't split them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Papillary eccrine adenoma

Would someone mind reviewing the addition of a CSD G3 tag to this recent stub I created? ---kilbad (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed. Well, thanks anyway! ---kilbad (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Strengthen_COMMONNAME

Hey everbody (puts fingers in teeth and whistles loudly), there's a debate here about common names policy strengthening vs those of individual wikiprojects. Are the two compatible, and how? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal rejected, i.e. Common name is just a basic default with wikiprojects bringing special knowledge of best naming practice to their fields (a poor summation of a good debate) David Ruben Talk 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Diagnosis

Anybody have a good source for Medical diagnosis? It seems like it would be useful to describe subtypes, such as those based on "how" (e.g., clinical vs lab diagnosis), "who" (e.g., nursing diagnosis) and "when" (prenatal diagnosis) the diagnosis is made. Anyone else have any favorite ways to divide up this rather large territory? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A good diagnostic approach involves all of these - such a separation seems contrary to proper diagnosis. --Scray (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I would rather approach it from the other end: differential diagnosis, first approximation, etc. There are academic papers and probably a book or two on the theory behind diagnosis, which is distinct from details of application (who is the patient and what kinds of information are useful). --Una Smith (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles on medical abbreviations

Should there be individual articles on medical abbreviations? We currently have EOMI and PERRLA. I don't think these are necessary, and I'd like to delete them/redirect them to List of medical abbreviations. There are also articles on some Medical mnemonics, which could be left as-is. --Scott Alter 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Abbreviations should at most be listed, and redirected to the relevant page when appropriate. No need for dedicated pages like these. --Scray (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article on alt med

Here is an interesting article on alt med. 2.5 billion spent with lots of negative results. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_he_me/us_med_unproven_remedies_research_3 --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting...this is something that further supports that alternative medicine acts as a placebo. Renaissancee (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how on-topic this is...there are lots of interesting articles out there. For comparison, while the NCCAM spent $2.5 billion in ten years, as of $2004 the NIH spent about $27 billion per year. Working on the generous foundation of NIH basic research, I read in Investor's Business Daily the other day that the pharmaceutical industry manages to get 8% of cancer drugs to market, and 20% of regular drugs to market. I'm not sure what sort of relationship that figure has with the fact that somewhere around 75% of drugs are me-too drugs, which nevertheless are marketed heavily enough to bring in plenty of cash. The pharma industry spends a ton on R&D, although it's hard to know for sure how much is really R&D vrs marketing and legal expenses, since at least as of 2001 Public Citizen said the books weren't really open [14]. Anyway, I agree that the NCCAM is misguided in many ways, but it's certainly too soon for an end. The neverending homeopathy trials certainly need to end, although considering how many of them there are and where they are published, I suspect many of those were funded by the NIH. II | (t - c) 08:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Just as a point of fact, NCCAM is the NIH -- or one of them. There are currently 27 separate agencies that make up the National Institutes of Health. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
True, I noticed that I'd worded that badly at the end - homeopathy is one of those misguided pursuits. However, in 2005 there were at least 110 trials on homeopathy (PMID 16125589). I somehow doubt that the NCCAM did all those in 7 years. Maybe the OAM did a fair bit of the rest. II | (t - c) 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if by OAM you mean the federal agency, then the answer is no. OAM = NCCAM, just in different year. The organization was renamed and reorganized in 1998. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Inter/intracellar signal transduction

Does anyone have any good techniques/suggestions/etc for outlining signal transduction outside or inside a cell without using cartoons/diagrams (i.e. some type of all-text approach)? ---kilbad (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you going for? What's the subject matter? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Flu

I've been seeing notices that the flu does not fall under WikiProject Medicine, I find that very strange. The tags have been replaced with WP:VIRUS tags, but the articles don't talk about the virus, only the disease it causes, and WP:VIRUS is a Tree-of-life related WikiProject... I also saw a notice saying that bacteria do not fall under WPMED... so that cuts off a whole lot of disease, if all bateriological and viral diseases do not fall under WPMED, and drugs fall under WP:PHARMA... is all you cover surgery, malnutrition, and autoimmune disease? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The flu is listed under WP:MED. Not sure what the concern is?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Renaissancee says that the H1N1 flu articles don't come under WPMED, they fall under WPVIRUS... but WPVIRUS seems to not be focused on disease, just the virus particles. So, the H1N1 flu outbreak articles, documenting disease cases have been removed from WPMED and placed under WPVIRUS by Renaissancee. Further s/he left a scope explanation about this project at User_talk:70.29.208.129#WPMED_Scope saying that WPMED does not cover viruses or bacteria (in relation to the flu disease articles). Seeing as s/he removed the banner from the flu articles, it indicates that this project does not support viral disease or bacteriological disease. The reasoning is illustrated by several talk page explanations such as the one found at Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak in North America. — 70.29.210.174 (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion of the virus is not part of WP:MED but the discussion of the disease caused by the virus is. Therefore IMO these pages falls under WP:MED.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
So I should re-add the banners, per this discussion? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
We've recently been refining the rules here, so here's a summary of the current state:
  • YES: disease, transmission, public health actions, outbreaks. Note that in the grand scheme of medicine, an outbreak or other historical event is always |importance=Low -- even if it's big news at the time of the outbreak -- unless, like Black Death#Causes_of_the_bubonic_infection, it contains substantial information about the disease, or it permanently changed the field of medicine.
  • NO: articles solely about the virus itself, articles solely about non-medical events (e.g., government actions or media coverage) that happen in the context of a medical situation.
The standards are in bit of a state of flux, so I suggest waiting a day or two and seeing whether anyone has any other opinions before making any changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sorry about that. Scope and stuff is getting more and more complicated, so I'm bound to screw up sometime. Looks like this was one of them. Yes, you should probably readd the banners. Renaissancee (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatry task force

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces#Psychiatry lists five editors that are interested in a task force dedicated to psychiatry. I think this is enough, but none of you seem to be watching the task force page, and if we set up this task force, then I want to make sure that you'll actually show up. So: anyone still interested? Are we ready to launch? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't such a task force be joint with WP:WikiProject Psychology? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
WPMED has no objections -- it's really just a matter of them putting a link to the task force page on their main project page -- but the psych folks often try to keep psychology and psychiatry separate, so I don't know if they'll be interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a link or diffs showing the desire to keep material separate as I have not come across it up till now. I would be interested in seeing this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I could provide comments in other contexts from individuals (e.g., Mattisse) that give me this impression, but I'm not sure that this would be representative of the entire membership. I just don't expect unanimous support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Would support this task force, but would also be happy continuing here at the main project as well.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. I guess the question is, what benefits are there from a task force? The biggest potential one is trying to get some more large/core articles to FAC as these can be a challenge and potential burnout if things go awry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Calf page moves

Recently I discovered Calf is mostly about baby cattle, and there was no Wikipedia article about the human calf. I wrote Calf (of leg) and began disambiguating links to Calf. I also proposed to move the article about baby cattle to Calf (cattle) and to move Calf (disambiguation) to Calf, so that future links to Calf will continue to be disambiguated.

Some of the arguments against moving these pages are absurd. For example, the leg part isn't really a "calf" and for god's sake, it's utterly ridiculous to create separate articles on the leg part and the muscle. Argh. Please help. --Una Smith (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is the discussion actually happening? I see long conversations at Talk:Calf, but the move discussion also appears at Talk:Calf (disambiguation). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The discussion seems to be at Talk:Calf. In a related matter about medical-related calf articles, we currently have Calf (of leg), Calf muscle, and Triceps surae. I recommend that we merge "calf muscle" in to "triceps surae" and move "calf (of leg)" to "calf (anatomy)." "Calf (anatomy)" would contain a link to "triceps surae." --Scott Alter 23:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Primarily Talk:Calf#Requested move. I have no objection to moving Calf (of leg) to Calf (anatomy). I am not pushing to move it to Calf, although I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would favor that; when there is dispute about what is the primary topic, I prefer to put the disambiguation page at the page name in dispute. --Una Smith (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Calf (of leg) has been moved to Calf (anatomy). Discussion re moving Calf (disambiguation) to Calf, displacing the article now at Calf, is continuing. I appreciate the help of Scott Alter and Doc James. --Una Smith (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Examining other anatomy articles, I see the convention favors Calf (anatomy). As that page name is already occupied (by a redirect), an admin will have to move it. I will hold off on disambiguating the rest of the links to Calf and Calf muscle until the move proposals are resolved. Links to Calf muscle need to be disambiguated because many of them actually intend the calf, not the calf muscle. This is a big mess resulting from the absence of a page on a minor but basic topic of human anatomy. A stub would have been better. --Una Smith (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Calf (anatomy) promoting systematic bias? Shouldn't it be calf (human) or calf (human anatomy) ? The anatomy of non-human subjects can contain a part called "calf" can it not? 70.29.212.226 (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. But this is true of most of the anatomy articles on Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Still, we should attempt to avoid systematic bias. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it is okay to merge Calf muscle to Triceps surae? Both articles are on the same topic. "Calf muscle" is somewhat ambiguous, as it actually relates to several muscles. We seem to favor titles using the full scientific name of muscles (eg Quadriceps femoris muscle, Biceps brachii muscle, Triceps brachii muscle), so I think this merge is appropriate. --Scott Alter 01:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, merge and make Calf muscle a redirect. --Una Smith (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Expert med attention needed! Cowchock syndrome, Cystic hygroma & Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome

After going through the mess of trying to work out what is what, I managed to work out that Cowchock Syndrome AND Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome (also known as Cystic hygroma) are NOT the same thing. Can someone please take a look at these and merge Cowchock Wapner Kutz into Cystic hygroma (since the former has a number of incorrect statements in my opinion due to the mistaken belief that Cowchock syndrome = Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome). There is no indication of the OMIM of Cowchock syndrome to have a Wapner or Kurtz anywhere [15]. Furthermore these two links (they are government pages so I assume they can be trusted) show clearly the distinction between the above: [16] and [17]. I will redirect Cowchock to the more correct Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (as it is a subtype or X linked type 4). Thank you.Calaka (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome is a subset of Cystic hygroma but the rarity of it would only require the term to be mentioned in the Cystic hygroma article and not have its own (in my oppinion): [18]
I decided to be bold and do it all myself. If I am incorrect in any way though please feel free to correct anything I do. Calaka (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neospora

It looks like Neospora caninum and Neospora need to be merged. --Una Smith (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neospora is the genus, whilst Neospora caninum is one of two species. As such both articles should exist, although perhaps overlap of informaion in the genus article that should be devolved downwards? David Ruben Talk 00:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I see that today Arcadian has added a second species. For small genera with little published about each species, it is not unusual to put the species in sections within the genus article. In any case, Neospora caninum and Neospora are written as though the genus were monotypic, and have excessive overlap, so if not a merge then some heavy pruning is in order. --Una Smith (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

neurosergeon in 100 years from now.....

hello, i'm AQ. i am have lot of interest to be neurosergeon in future. i would love to share a little about something that we as the reality of this field. as all of we know, this job is the most challenging field in the medical choices. but after all i'm thinking, i'm afraid this field could be treated in the future because of many of the young lad today have shown very less interest to involve in this field.even if they do, mostly they only have interest about the salary. this is only my opinion.i am talk based on my observation.tq.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.79.104 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that neurosurgery is a challenging discipline to study and perform, but I wouldn't be so sure it's the most challenging in all of medicine. Many surgical specialities require require equal levels of precision: paediatric surgery, ophthalmic surgery, etc. All forms of medicine are challenging in some way or another. Secondly, do you actually have a question? Lastly, if you do have a question, it's probably best to discuss it here. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  10:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hippocampus at FAC

In case anyone missed it, this is at FAC - might be good to see if anything left out comprehensivenesswise and see what else needs to be done (or help out). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Antihypertensive article

I suggest that we rename this article to Treatment of hypertension, Antihypertensive drugs, or Pharmacologic treatment of hypertension, what do you think?? MaenK.A.Talk 13:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with "Antihypertensive drugs", but I'd object to renaming the article to "Treatment of hypertension". The antihypertensives are an internationally recognized class (per ATC code C02). It should be self-evident to future editors what belongs on that page and what doesn't. But if we renamed the article to "Treatment of hypertension", then the subject of the article becomes fuzzy, and the proper location for information for non-pharmaceutical approaches will become unclear. Information at higher levels of abstraction would be better at Hypertension#Treatment. --Arcadian (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree one would be a pharmaceutical classification and the other would be a disease approach.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a specific case of something which should be covered in MEDMOS. Can we take the discussion to WT:MEDMOS and couch it in more general terms? (geven the way that search box type-ahead works, I'd like to see "Hypertension", "Hypertension drugs", "Hypertension therapies", but consistency of approach counts.LeadSongDog come howl 18:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done , I renamed the article into Antihypertensive drugs MaenK.A.Talk 09:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Could use some fresh voices at Talk:Rorschach test

We could use some fresh voices in the long-running dispute over whether to display, how many to display, and where to place, the Rorschach test inkblot image(s). The most recent debate, at Talk:Rorschach test#All 10 images is over whether to include a gallery with all the images. –xenotalk 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


SIDS Clarification Requested

On the SIDS page "Infant being overweight" is called a prenatal risk factor and "Low birth weight" is called a post-natal risk factor. I think they should be classified similarly, and if so, should they both be put under prenatal or post-natal?Sidsmaven (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Polyclinic

Are there any other names for Polyclinic? It seems like the kind of concept that would have a different name in different countries, and we don't really need multiple articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a European term founded in England. But I don't know, it doesn't say anything about any other areas, so... Renaissancee (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The term has existed well before 2004 in Holland ("polikliniek" is the equivalent of a clinic) and probably in Germany ("Poliklinikum") too. There are some factual issues with that article. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems pretty similar to private acute care clinics in the states. ChillyMD (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unwinding needed

It looks like User:Deathstyler2 has done a cut-and-paste move of Environmental factor to Environmental disease. Aside from the minor problem that these terms aren't actually identical, it screws up the edit history. Does anyone want to figure out how to unwind these pages?

Fair warning: Based on a quick trip through the editor's contributions, I can't guarantee that this will necessarily be a simple, one-time fix. Among other things, the editor redirected Cardiovascular disease to this stub. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

CMP Medica links

A question about one of this publisher's website came up on the wiki spam project talk page a few days ago that's probably more suitable listed here. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#cancernetwork.com. The company produces a number of publications, newsletters, websites, conferences, etc., which seems to include custom publications, advertorials and supplements. There appear to be several editors adding content sourced to their publications, as well as external links. There are definitely COI issues that need to be addressed, but the edits, suitability of the links and determination of its publications as RS would probably best be discussed here. Flowanda | Talk 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

There has been discussion about using flagged revisions for BLPs. Wondering if this is something we should consider for this project? Here is comments from Jimbo [[19]] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Which articles do you expect to protect in such a manner? 70.29.212.226 (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

It appears that the entire article on Schizoid Personality Disorder was lifted word-for-word from http;//www.schizoid.eu , which claims copyright over the information.

I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia's rules for correcting this, but I have also notified them so this can be worked out.

J. Kulacz 24.117.91.92 (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It appears that the copying has actually gone the other way around. (Wikipedia allows websites to copy any articles they want, so long as they place a note about the GFDL license on the page (which this one has done in very small type at the bottom of the page).
For future reference, though, you'll want to know where Template:Copyvio is. It has instructions and links to other similar templates (like one for new articles, and one if you're not entirely sure that it's a copyvio.
Thanks again for paying attention to these issues, and happy editing! WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Zona orbicularis" in English?

I just redirected Annular ligament of femur to Zona orbicularis (expanded the unassessed article and name-dropped a few alternative names). However, I'm not a native English-speaker, so I'm wondering what you people actually call this ligament. --Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 17:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Television Movies

Guys, is there a sub-team that could make comments on some of the television and movies articles that center around medicine? I notice some have your project banner and I think several more could use it, but would like to make sure that they get tagged for the appropriate sub-team? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Like medical fiction ? (so that it would cover novels as well?) 70.29.212.226 (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The appropriate sub-team is "not part of this project at all." Please remove the banners from TV shows, movies, and other fiction when you find them. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Paper blindness: prod as hoax

Paper Blindness has been prod'd as a potential hoax by a new editor. The condition it describes doesn't sound entirely unreasonable, and it's possible that it's a made-up name for a real condition. It's also possible that it's a garden-variety hoax. If you're curious, please take a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol. "Other treatments involve the use of eyedrops and hallucinogens to increase the eye's moisture and relax the patient, respectively." I wonder if that is FDA approved. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The condition isn't unreasonable at all; in fact, we have an article on it at Asthenopia :) Unfortunately, the rest is completely unverifiable. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Gay Bowel Syndrome"

Thoughts about how to handle this recently created article? The term itself is quite dated, to say the least. In an ideal world, our article on proctitis would already cover the relevant material. I'm not really supportive of a standalone article with this title, especially since the references are so sparse and date largely from the 1970s. In fact, the McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery has this to say:

Coined in the pre-HIV era, the term "gay bowel syndrome" comprised a rather unselective potpourri of unusual anorectal and GI symptoms experienced by homosexual males... with better understanding of the underlying causes, this term is outdated: the derogatory terminology should be abandoned and more specific entities and terms recognized and used. [20]

My thoughts exactly. Anyone else? MastCell Talk 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm still familiarizing myself with all of Wiki's guidlines, my thought is that for an article with an inherently stereotypical name which doesn't describe a distinct medical condition, it should probably just be {{prod}}'ed, or whatever is appropriate here on Wiki. --Rob (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion imo Fuzbaby (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
IMHO this should be treated as a hoax article: either sent to AfD or overhauled completely to make it about the descriptor, not the thing described. If there are enough references, perhaps it can be turned into something along the lines of "Gay bowel syndrome is an outdated umbrella term coined in the 1970s and used to describe a number of unrelated conditions of the lower gastrointestinal tract when diagnosed in homosexual men." Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to treat it like a hoax (which is always vandalism). I think that several possible options exist:
The quickest way to find what appears to be a complete of the elderly papers using this term is at Conservapedia's very extensive article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply this is a hoax (it certainly isn't). I was simply saying that the approach described here is applicable; I'm sorry if it came across differently. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
How did I guess that Conservapedia would have a substantially larger article on this subject than we do? In fact, it's longer and more detailed than their article on HIV (the first footnote of which, incidentally, goes to duesberg.com, but I digress). I would support redirecting this to proctitis, though perhaps stubbing it would be a better option in the short term since our proctitis article is not particularly well-developed. MastCell Talk 20:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I too would support redirecting it to proctitis, though I'd have no objections to stubbing it. --Rob (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

... and done. What do you think? MastCell Talk 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not see this discussion so I did not participate, I think it goes against wikipedia policies to delete sourced text and 'stub' an article, whether you like the term or not, it is widely referenced in the medical literature see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Gay+Bowel+Syndrome%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search, also most of the sources for the article were published in the 1990s or 2000s not the 1970s Thisglad (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're seeing 1990's and 2000's...in the first page that comes up in the link you provided, only one reference is dated after the 80's. Or am I misunderstanding something? --Rob (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It does not go against Wikipedia policy to bring an article in line with respected, expert thought on a topic - in fact, Wikipedia policy requires that we do so. It is utter sophistry to claim that the term is current because "sources were published in the 1990s and 2000s" - I'm sure you realize that those modern sources are, for the most part, explicitly calling out the term as obsolete, right? MastCell Talk 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I misread the original point and am revising what I said a moment ago (struckout): In the first page of the link you provided, only one reference is dated after the 80's. Having found a couple dated after that does not make it "widely referenced in the medical literature". --Rob (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Where is the wikipedia policy that says you can 'stub' an article by deleting sourced text? http://books.google.com/books?id=k_9sjs-n0nIC&pg=PA296 was published in 1997 and includes an entire chapter on the syndrome, that doesn't mean the term is not outdated according to many, but it does not give you the right to delete text just because you dislike the topic, I don't have a problem with the fact you want to criticise the use of the term, but I don't have a valid reason for deleting the list of pathogens or methods of transmission which describe the syndrome in detail, that is bordering on vandalism, also for the record I agree that the term is offensive but I believe it is better to describe it in detail rather than 'stub' it Thisglad (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Where is the Wikipedia policy that says you can repeatedly revert without discussing things at Talk:Gay Bowel Syndrome? Or the policy that says you can insert inaccurate information (the 2004 study was not "performed at Johns Hopkins", for example)? Or that you can use a source to argue a point which the source itself explicitly rebuts (the Medscape piece you're citing as evidence of currency explicitly notes that the term is little-used since the 1970s)? Maybe we should proceed at Talk:Gay Bowel Syndrome, where I've left a more detailed explanation of my concerns. I'd invite any outside editors, since more eyes will probably help keep this from turning into a back-and-forth. MastCell Talk 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it should stay. Its presented in a reasonable manner and it makes it clear that it is a obsolete medical term. Other articles such as Hysteria and Neurosis are about obsolete diagnoses, but they aren't merged into the relevant psychology articles. Asarelah (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I too support keeping the article, also provided that the text clearly states that "Gay Bowel Syndrome" is an obsolete term. Additionally, I support those editors who want to temporarily stub the article and re-write each line on the talk page to ensure the accuracy of the article's content. ---kilbad (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ectasia

Perhaps someone could consider working on this article a bit? ---kilbad (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome

It would be appreciated if a few people who have knowledge of CFS-related fields would have a look at the various articles that relate to chronic fatigue syndrome. The biggest article of concern is the main article itself, however, many related articles could also use some review, such as: Clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome, Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome, Daniel Peterson (physician), David Sheffield Bell, Leonard A. Jason, Malcolm Hooper, Medically unexplained physical symptoms, and Pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome.

In particular, neutral point of view presentation is a concern. There have been accusations of the articles taking pro-biological viewpoints, and reversions against consensus to counteract the perceived bias. I think someone (or probably several someones) with a more hands-off approach would be appreciated at this point.

Thanks everyone! --Rob (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked in depth yet, but why does CFS need its own main page, and a seperate description and pathophysiology pages? Much more complex medical pages manage to contain everything in one article. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Most complex medical conditions don't have five or six major definitions, either. I can't say I'm surprised by the POV concerns at these articles; it would be more surprising if someone said that there wasn't a dispute there! WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As to why there are so many pages, I can only speculate, as I've only really gotten involved in those articles fairly recently. But my speculation is that it's due to the number of disputes that have arisen over the years since the article was created, as well as the fact that a lot of the medical information is speculative at this point. By creating separate pages, it tends to confine disputes to smaller areas which can be focussed on appropriately. But like I say, I'm just guessing that that was the motive for their creation...you'd have to trace back in their history and look at appropriate discussion around the time to be certain (a project in and of itself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's really simple. Those who know anything about CFS are already editing these articles, and everyone else has been thoroughly put off by the attitude of a few contributors (the most difficult one of which has now been banned). This is POV tiger country.
I agree with Fuzbaby that the article probably shouldn't have been forked, and I disagree with Robinhood70 that forking can be helpful in containing POV disputes; instead, the dispute just spreads to more articles.
With regards to the little biographies of Jason, Bell, Peterson and Hooper, I don't actually see a problem there. In fact, they are pretty mild in the sense that I know several of these men to be highly opinionated with regards to the "psychiatric school" and deny them legitimacy. JFW | T@lk 09:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
While I'll agree it may have been read that way, I wasn't saying that the forking was necessarily helpful, just that that might have been the thought at their creation. Personally, I think the amount of related pages for CFS is getting ridiculous as well, but given the ongoing issues on the main page, as well as its already fairly large size (currently 62k, IIRC), I'm extremely hesitant to try to re-integrate anything.
And apart from a few minor issues that are being worked on, I don't see major issues with the bios either, but I do believe they would be well-served by third-party editors to judge whether the content is unbiased, if it's notable, etc.
I most certainly agree that this is POV tiger country, but if you really look at the talk page, I think it's obvious that most of us can work together. There are more NPOV editors on this article than it may appear, however those who are strongly in support of a particular POV often make those who oppose the more problematic additions look like they're supporting the other POV. In fact, a look at recent contributions will show that several of those who have been accused of POV bias have been adding/editing information both for and against a psychological basis. --Rob (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support a merger of clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome, controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome, and pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome into chronic fatigue syndrome. Would anyone else support this? ---kilbad (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, though due to my recent involvement on the article and perception of bias, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to contribute significantly (beyond smoothing out minor editing glitches and the like). --Rob (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe combining is not a good idea. Last year the article was very long and was spilt accordingly (see the articles about midyear 2008). There are many conflicting study results due to the different ME/CFS definitions used. Also there are many avenues of research due to the lack of understanding of the systemic nature of the illness. Much verifiable material in the article has been removed in the last year and the result has been fighting over various POVs instead of proper documentation of the incredible complex and divergent viewpoints within the patient and medical community concerning the illness. Presently there is a lot of bald assertion of opinion in opposition to policy. It takes more wording to properly attribute opinions subject to dispute. If the material in the chronic fatigue syndrome article was properly documented and attributed, it would be much larger and IMO there would be less POV issues. Ward20 (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with ward, merging would make the article too big.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

With regards to merging, I think most of the content could be removed from the subarticles if editors agreed to adhere to WP:MEDRS, which sets specific limits on the type of articles we use as references. JFW | T@lk 04:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly schizophrenia and Major depressive disorder have a few subpages, but I do think there is some potential for rationalization here. Need to think about it a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe as a start, it would be useful for someone to go through and flag all the non-MEDRS references so that they can be improved or removed? I know I've seen a lot of citations from older sources (early 1990's) and citations from newspapers, which by MEDRS, are generally undesirable. Of course at the same time, we also need to present significant-minority viewpoints as well, which may necessitate referencing non-MEDRS (or "weak MEDRS") sources in some cases. --Rob (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
They are certainly problematic pages; the medical stuff should certainly adhere to MEDRS and good 'uns too, but there is a lot of non-medical stuff attached. Patient reactions, hatred of the name, approach, descriptions and popular appreciation of the disorder, etc. I would worry about the article becoming a single monster page. The whole set needs dedicated contributors with a lot of patients - I finally got tired and pretty much left, they're high-maintenance pages in both senses of the word. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Short catheter

Last year, when my duodenum became perforated, a short catheter was inserted into my urethra while I was in the emergency room. It was unlike any in the Wikipedia article on catheters. It had a cylindrically-shaped bulb on the end which was lubricated and inserted only about ten centimeters into the urethra. It was referred to as a Foley catheter, but evidently was something else. What could it have been? It was probably inserted for the operation I soon underwent, but was left in for about a week, at least. Unfree (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think it was not a Foley catheter? Can you find an url to a photo of the kind of catheter you mean? The photo does not have to be free, just on the web where we can see it. --Una Smith (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70110-0

Review of animal bite-associated infections in next week's Lancet Infectious Diseases; does anyone have access to the full text? It could be used to improve a number of articles, and I don't feel like imposing on the nice folks over at WP:REX :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone hasn't already helped you, feel free to email me for the paper. II | (t - c) 23:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll take you up on that. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rumination Syndrome

Hello to all (But not to the world). For the past couple weeks I've been working extensively on Rumination Syndrome, an eating disorder characterised by the involuntary and effortless regurgitation of meals immediately following their ingestion. It is severly underdiagnosed and its prevalence in the general population is unknown, though predictably large. It affects up to 10% of cognitively disabled children and adults in their lifetime.

Anyways, descriptions aside, I'm looking for a fellow editor - Preferably one who is better with the technicalities of english than myself - to help me polish the article off and get more citations in place. Since I started working on it, the article has been significantly filled out from its former self. There is still plenty of information to be added (Especially the technical stuff... Goodie goodie!), and another section at the least (Causes). I think this could potentially reach Good Article status with enough effort.

note to deletionists: This is still a work in progress, and some information has yet to be cited. I will revert any negative changes to the article! -- ʄɭoyd̪iaɲ τ ç 04:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You may want to put an {{underconstruction}} template on it, then, just so people know. --Rob (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Although I feel it makes the article look really craptastic to have that blob at the top. I only put the note there because I firmly oppose the deletionist ideals of most wikipedians and believe that articles transition from heresay to factuality through their life. -- ʄɭoyd̪iaɲ τ ç 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that there's any danger of the article being deleted, and unsourced material is much more likely to earn a {{fact}} tag than removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course. I'd appreciate no date set on them though at this point (At least until major work is completed), but otherwise they help me figure out where citations are actually needed. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The date is not optional: if you don't add it, a bot will. But there's no time limit; I provided a citation a day or two ago for something that had been tagged for more than two years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I wasn't aware that there was no time limit (What is the point of the date then though?). -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be lower-case syndrome? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe you're right. A lot of the medical texts capitalize the s as well, so I wasn't sure what to do. An admin will need to make the move since Rumination syndrome already exists. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit more cumbersome for us regular users to do it, but it's quite possible (as you can see if you access both articles now). --Rob (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, articles should never be cut and pasted...an admin is required for this move. I undid your move, so the article is currently back at Rumination Syndrome. I appropriately tagged the page with {{db-move}}, which will alert an admin to perform the necessary procedure to move the page. --Scott Alter 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done David Ruben Talk 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't aware that was an issue. What's the reasoning behind not doing C&P moves? As I understand it, at the database level, it still stores everything anyway, so it's not actually using any more space. That's why I figured a C&P for a single page was sufficient. --Rob (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Space is not an issue on Wikipedia. The main reason is to keep the page history in tact for legal reasons. Edits need to be able to be properly attributed to the actual author contributing the content, per the GFDL. There is information about how to properly move a page and the rationale for it at Help:Moving a page and Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Also, I have requested that the talk page also be moved to the new capitalization...so please, continue discussions at Talk:Rumination Syndrome and do not use Talk:Rumination syndrome. --Scott Alter 01:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah, thank you, that makes sense. The wiki I'm most active on doesn't really have legal issues to worry about. I'm distinctly having the problem that while my wiki technical knowledge is fairly good, the environment at Wikipedia is very different. I appreciate the explanation and links. --Rob (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please continue using Talk:Rumination Syndrome until an admin undoes the creation of Talk: Rumination syndrome, at which point the former article will be moved to the latter. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I am having major issues on the benzodiazepine article and other editors there seem to be wanting to "avoid the conflict". I really would appreciate some eyes on this. Everytime the article is ready to be promoted original research and systematic reviews are deleted and replaced with weak non-systematic reviews of uncontrolled clinical trials. The editor keeps either outright deleting NICE clinical guidelines or minimising them as well as other reviews. Please intervene, even if you agree with systematic review guidelines being deleted. I am at the point where if I lose my argument I don't care, just want the community to simply intervene.Talk:Benzodiazepine#RfC:_Is_is_right_to_keep_deleting_systematic_review_and_clinical_guidelines.3F Thank you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It might actually be better if someone neutral with understanding of medical and pharmacology knowledge and wiki policies would act as a mediator.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Talk:Benzodiazepine#Mediation.2C_any_volunteers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue is being looked into by admin over next few days.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear (as the admin who is looking into this), more experienced eyes on the situation at benzodiazepine - whether as editors, admins, or both - would be welcome. MastCell Talk 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Macular degeneration

Anyone know anything about nutrition and macular degeneration? Witness this edit on nutrition - Cochrane supports a lack of evidence, while there are a surprising number of studies on pubmed that seem to arrive at the opposite conclusion, but all seem to come out of Tufts University's Age-Related Eye Disease Study: PMID 19508997, PMID 19410952, PMID 17435429, PMID 11594942, PMID 18425071; that there are a couple articles pimping supplements in the abstracts seems very, very odd to me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to describe this as a controversial or emerging area. There aren't many treatments for macular degeneration, and supplements are perceived as mostly harmless, so I think there's a tendency to err on the side of using them where the evidence is a bit gray. PMID 17435429, a review by authors from the National Eye Institute, might be useful; we should certainly incorporate Cochrane as well. Basically, I think we can use the available sources to give a useful overview which is neither too negative nor too infomerically. Just outline that there have been several positive results reported in the literature, leading some experts (cite NEI review) to recommend supplementation, but that Cochrane's review was more skeptical, noted that all of the positive results came from a single study, and that replication/more data were needed before making a definitive statement or recommendation on the utility of supplements. MastCell Talk 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

chart with amount of cc for each type of blood product

I don't know if this is standard internationally, but most people say, 1 unit of prbc, 1 unit cryo, 1 unit of platelets... but when I see it recorded in the computer it's always in cc of each blood product. and since 1 unit of prbc is a different number of cc than 1 unit of platelets, i always waste time converting back and forth for when I report to the attending. do we have a table somewhere on wikipedia which shows what a Unit of each blood product is in cc or is this not standard across nations? thanks 163.40.12.37 (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To merge, or not to merge

Hi guys, me again. We've been having a discussion the last little while about whether or not the Post-viral fatigue syndrome article should be merged into the Chronic fatigue syndrome article. Unlike some CFS-related discussions <g>, it's been very amicable and there are some good points both for and against the merger, but ultimately, I think we're all unsure about what the best course of action is here. Any suggestions? Thanks everyone! --Rob (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Again?

I thought we'd been over this "endless case history" thing at Brown-Séquard syndrome with User:A E Francis before, but

In addition to getting these articles cleaned up (any volunteers?), should we consider specifically naming this problem at WP:MEDMOS#Writing_style? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to move his additions over to a page on WikiUniversity? Fuzbaby (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Deadfully misconceived/misplaced in wikipedia. Don't know about moving, but could copy & paste - whilst carefully written and interesting read for myself a doctor, the sections are at a level only suitable for a physician or medical student and are far too high a level for a general reader (i.e. insufficient explanation of what is being described, why certain details relevant etc etc) and WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK applies. This urgently needs relocating if anyone can figure out the WikiUniversity structures to link into - but sections need rapid removal from these articles in wikipedia. David Ruben Talk 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've notified A E Francis of this discussion, as they are perhaps best to relocate material to WikiUniversity with a suitable introductory leadin section.David Ruben Talk 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the casuistry from failed back syndrome (is that not entirely NOR?) but in the other two the case reports are intertwined with the actual content and will need careful removal, ideally by the original author. We skirmished in the past over his list of causes for Brown-Sequard syndome. On a separate note, none of the extensive references are templated, which makes it harder to judge the content by the title (it's of the first author/journal/volume/pages variety). JFW | T@lk 07:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Blood type GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Blood type for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to clean it up a bit, drop me a line if you can think of anything else. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Dear doctors mess, can you please tell me how many total medical articles are on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it. I couldn't find a category for medicine to count myself. Greatly appreciated. Will crosspost at Reference Desk. 207.59.144.196 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As of June 22,2009 there were 17,885 pages with the {{WikiProject Medicine}} banner. (See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality statistics) I'm not sure how far that number is from all articles in the root category (Category:Medicine). -Optigan13 (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The above ~18K number should be taken as no more than a very rough estimate. It includes pages that are not (now) considered to be within the scope of this project (e.g., some articles about anatomy and drugs), and does not include articles that do belong but haven't yet been tagged (e.g., new articles). It also includes articles that are within the scope of this project but that most people would not consider to be medical articles (e.g., articles about laws, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, and medical charities). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
One more minor point: the template is actually at {{WPMED}}; Template:WikiProject Medicine is a redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Request by User:208.78.62.116

Dr please can you help with some points as regards to the relevance of parasitology to medicine? User:208.78.62.116

Reintroduce request that deleted previous section: Ward20 (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Try asking the question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Spongiosis

I have two very good sources that have conflicting information. One states spongiosis is intracellular edema, while the other states it is extracellular edema. Do any of you have additional sources that can be used to clarify what the strict definition of spongiosis is? Perhaps you could add them to the article? Thanks in advance for your help. ---kilbad (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

MMR vaccine

Can some physicians please put eyes on recent edits at MMR vaccine controversy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like his sources are accurate; as for their location or deserving their own section I'm not sure how it affects the balance and npov of the article. The part from the AMA about parents changing vaccine habbits, in particular is worth inclusion (somewhere in the article) as it is a growing public health concern both in the US and the UK. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it really relevant to the subject to compare public conerns (even if those concerns are unfounded) about vaccines to "holocaust denial" and anti-science conspiracies theories though? I think Sandy's reverts/deletions were good.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Struck out my comments, I see that you were just referring to public stats and not the other paragraph. Apologies Fuzbaby.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the other paragraph is harsh, and if the person wanted to include it could just say its a form of denailism; I don't think that would really add anything to the article though, and the link to the denailism wikipage at the end seems out of place. I think the AMA survey paragraph is relevant, though perhaps better moved to the section on disease outbreaks. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps stats were worth keeping, dunno Sandy's reasoning. How about raising it on the article talk page or with Sandy on her talk page? :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not on my talk (eeeeek) ... I'm only able to keep up with my FAC duties these days, really busy ... that's why I brought this here, for others to work out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok no probs Sandy. I am not opposed to the stats being included, they are recent and should be interesting to the reader. The other paragraph clearly did need deleting. :) Why not just add the stats and ref back in Fuzbaby and if anyone challenges it you can take it to the article talk page. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Done! Fuzbaby (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The AMA poll isn't directly relevant to MMR vaccine controversy, as it doesn't mention MMR vaccine. It is a US poll, and the main US concerns about vaccines are not about MMR. (MMR concerns are more of a UK thing.) It might be suited for Vaccine controversy, I suppose, but it'd be much better to cite a review on the topic instead of that popular-press piece (see WP:MEDRS for why). Eubulides (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion polls aren't really a scientific statement and are unlikely to appear in a review article in my opinion. Improved sourcing might not be possible. Agree that it the stats are not directly relevant to MMR.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that sort of information isn't going to be on pubmed. However, I can't find the primary source from the AMAs website (even with member access) and I dislike using a secondary source. It is of growing concern in the US though (California) though not as bad as in the UK. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia, because it is an encyclopedia (a tertiary source) has a clearly stated preference for using secondary sources. Information about public opinion might well turn up in journal articles, since the public's beliefs about a medical intervention have a significant impact on public health. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I think in the case of the primary source being a publication of a professional organization that fits under the accepted use; more specifically though I meant I didn't like the current secondary source (press article). Fuzbaby (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Scholarly papers discussing the consequences of public perception on vaccination uptake absolutely belong in WP. See this list of papers since 2007 for several candidate examples. This one is as direct to the point as one might wish.LeadSongDog come howl 18:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Emotional Freedom Technique

I know I'm going to get pushback on this, but I am not pleased with a series of single studies with no aggregation being reported approvingly over at emotional freedom technique. So I've culled. I'd love to point out that the studies were almost universally flawed - small n, no control groups, poor follow-up, horrible methodology, published in partisan press, etc. (the only good study was negative, and it's not pubmed indexed [21]). As I said, my main concern is that the page reports the very small number of studies individually, with no aggregation. Since this is exploratory, with few studies, of little scientific merit, of a borderline pseudoscience, I'm rather uncomfortable with the the previous reporting of individual results, methodologies, etc. that existed before my trim. Spam is an obvious concern, as is WP:CRYSTAL. Opinions of experienced contributors is welcome and appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Emu oil: Can review for adspam please?

We have an article on Emu oil, which discusses various healthcare-related properties and uses of this substance.
The cites in this article seem to be largely from various promotional websites.
Could members of this project please review these cites for adspam? Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Behold the new, improved(?) version, now with 80% less infomercial tone and fewer citations to buy-emu-oil.com. The typical story: there are a handful of groups doing rodent-level research on the compound; it improves some cytokine parameters in some rodent models of inflammation in the hands of a few researchers; no human studies have been published. It is then marketed as a panacea; heck, it even made the FDA's roundup on "How to Spot Health Fraud" earlier this year. MastCell Talk 22:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thx much. :-) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

Sorry, we've probably been over this a bunch already, but we don't accept the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a reliable source, right? It's the publication of a fringe activist group as I understand it. I'm going to take something that uses it as a source out of shaken baby syndrome, see Talk:shaken baby syndrome#Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. delldot ∇. 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a very poor encyclopedic source; I could go into the details, but they are voluminous and I'll save that for later, if needed. MastCell Talk 23:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to thank whomever wrote the JPandS section of that article. It contains all the information I need to know about whether it's the kind of source that I'd want to use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Although, of course, it wasn't just me. MastCell Talk 18:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Scope (drugs)

We've been refining our scope as part of our ongoing assessment work. Your opinions on the latest big-picture questions are wanted.

All of the following are within the scope of WP:PHARM. Are they also within WPMED's scope?

  1. Vaccines
  2. Medications
  3. Pharmaceutical companies

Options include everything from "Yes" to "No", with considerable room for complexity as needed. For example, someone might want WPMED to support major classes of medications (NSAIDs) but not individual medications (aspirin); to support over-the-counter drugs (aspirin) but not prescription-only medications (cisplatin); to support common medications (paroxetine) but not uncommon ones (alpha-galactosidase); to support legally regulated drugs but not "dietary supplements" — or any other system you think appropriate.

Whatever your personal opinions, please feel free to share them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to say yes, yes and no in that order. Vaccines and medications have clear implications within medicine (medication, medicine, anyone seeing the similarity?). Pharmaceutical companies, on the other hand, have little relevance to the practice of clinical medicine itself. I think that should remain entirely under WP:PHARM's scope. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
My vote is 1. Yes, definitely, without a doubt, 100%. 2. Yes, but not dietary suppliments unless they have a clear role in medicine (so mostly, no on dietary suppliments, but I can see room for exceptions). 3. No, however, I do think that medical device manufacturers and their products that are commonly used could be in the scope of the project, as could articles about events surrounding pharma companies that affect healthcare. Additionally, perhaps as a #4, articles related to medical practice and education?Fuzbaby (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Compulsive overeating and friends

Seems there are 4 seperate articles, mostly stubs, that deal with practically the same subject. I am not good with merging pages that are in different stances, but I thought I'd provide the list for anyone interested in it.

I'm sure with some searching another one or two may be uncovered. These articles all have merge templates but no discussion on the proposed merge has begun. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulimia nervosa is a far better article. Polyphagia is a stub.LeadSongDog come howl 19:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Bulimia is a related condition that also includes the purging behavior in addition to this binge eating. Compulsive overeating is basically eating a lot. Polyphagia seems like it would be a much better suitor for the information to end up. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note the hatnote on Polyphagia; I think the biological usage is the more notable one, in which case this article should be about polyphagia in the biological sense, which refers to having a very broad diet, similar to omnivory. --Una Smith (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Real NICE guidelines

Talk:Benzodiazepine#Questions_about_U_Sheffield_paper has an open question about whether genuine, official NICE guidelines include statements like "The views expressed in this Publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of either the Royal College of General Practitioners or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence". If one (or more) of our UK editors could please take a look, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in the UK, but this is clearly "genuine" NICE guidance; it is Clinical guideline 22 ("Anxiety"), linked to as such from NICE's full list of published clinical guidelines. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a psychiatric text book which calls them "NICE guidelines".--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I would encourage some sustained follow-up attention to matters at Talk:Benzodiazepine from project editors; this sort of pettifogging (i.e. claiming at length that a NICE guideline is not a NICE guideline) seems to be a recurring theme. MastCell Talk 03:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The Maudsley hospital (most important psychiatric hospital in the UK, world famous) also refer to that paper as NICE guidelines. Another one is that the word general doesn't really mean general and arguing about that, filling talk pages arguing one word at a time. It is really frustrating these endless arguments and it has paralysed the editing environment and destroyed the article going to FA.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Colin has resolved this issue. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Lord. If an editor is capable of fighting tooth-and-nail like that to avoid conceding an inch even the most tangential issue, where they are clearly in the wrong, then what hope is there to move the article forward in a meaningful way? MastCell Talk 22:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A new reason has come up now, apparently the NICE guidelines are too technical and long for non-professionals or something. This is what happens you resolve one frivilous problem and then another problem is found which you have to argue about. WP:DISRUPT is appropriate. This has been going on for over a month now. I should point out that due weight and balance is given to both sides of the controversy in this section. Benzodiazepine#Tolerance.2C_dependence_and_withdrawal This apparently isn't enough because by me citing the "extremist" NICE systematic review and the clinical guidelines in the anxiety section, I am being "radical".--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Colin's description of the NICE guidelines was fantastic. Colin, I don't suppose you'd move that into NICE guidelines for us, would you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Way to go, guys! You just decided by majority that a document saying "The views expressed in this Publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of either the Royal College of General Practitioners or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence" - is a NICE guideline. While a document[22] saying "This document, which contains the Institute's full guidance on Anxiety" is not a NICE guideline.

You are too absorbed, LG and MS, in attacking me personally to look into the problem. Please note that Colin eventually agreed with me on the only issue I tried to clarify. He wrote ""full version" is the one they call the "full guideline", not the one they call the "NICE guideline" "The NICE guideline presents the recommendations from the full guideline in a format that focuses on implementation by healthcare professionals and NHS organisations" (bold mine, TSC)."

I agreed with Colin in principle that it does not really matter what to use:"Regardless, the recommendation sections of both documents say the same." He insisted that full NICE guideline is more appropriate, and I did not further argue with that. What is your problem, LG and MS? The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Colin explained the NICE articles to you but the problem is not NICE guidance. My problem is I just find you a difficult editor to get along with even in the most simplest of things.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Chiari Institute

This new article seems very problematic. First it praises the institute citing articles that would not be good sources according to MEDRS, then it lists a number of "controversies" in ways that seem to violate BLP because they are based on poor sources. I bring this here because it's outside my domain; I only saw it as part of a Bot-search result. Looie496 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't really apply to organizations. It looks like the quality of the refs has been upgraded, however: most of the lawsuit-related information is now cited to local newspaper articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
While it's extremely tangential, I'm going to plead WP:COI on this one for reasons which I won't elaborate here. Looks like the Daily News has really sunk their teeth into this one. MastCell Talk 18:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I entirely understand how to fix it. I've found an NBC report and an online UPI article, which say exactly the same thing as the Daily News articles. Is the Daily News not a credible source? I want to make this a working article, I think I'm just not understanding how to do that....(Rpenni (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
The Daily News is a bit tabloidy, but arguably useful. NBC and UPI are generally considered reliable sources. Those are general opinions; you might want to discuss the specific uses at Talk:The Chiari Institute, or possibly at the reliable sources noticeboard if more input is needed - though you might also get some additional input here, once I quiet down :) MastCell Talk 21:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you kindly.  :) I have added the NBC and UPI references, and added notes to the articles talk page. (Rpenni (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Shared decision making

I recently ported Shared decision making over from CZ (recent update of licenses allows this granted that acknowledgment is given) and since it is related to medicine, I was hoping someone here can give an expert view on it. Mainly to check for NPOV, references are valid and ensure the article is not biased etc, since I have heard that some of the articles over at CZ (such as the ones about homeopathy) are pushed towards a POV. Cheers. Calaka (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol and cancer

The alcohol and cancer page is a mess. A bit of quick background, as some of you may remember I raised problems (which are now resolved) a while back with the long-term effects of alcohol article regarding it being severely abused by a sociologist from the drinks industry who had a wealth of references to give massive undue weight to the benefits of moderate alcohol, misusing references and using old sources which were disproven with later research etc etc. The same thing happened with the alcohol and cancer page. Anyway one of the main problems is editors copying and pasting sentences from references and doing direct quotes. This editing style was used by the sociologist (who is banned now after resorting to sockpuppeteering), the response of some of the community was then to copy the editing style of the sociologist by doing direct copy and paste tactics, wrongly thinking that this would mean that the "alcohol industry" wouldn't be able to "touch their edits". It has resulted in a comprehensive article but is borderline violating copyright issues throughout it. It would be a shame to just delete all of the hard work. If the community could reword these quotes we could end up with a reasonable B class medicine article. Please join in and lend a helping hand to fix this article. It's been a mess with these quotes for over a year and is only partially resolved. Thanks. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a slight correction to the above: One of the sociologist / lobbyist's many tricks was to give his own highly tendentious 'interpretations' of some research papers. A good example is here [23] where one of his sock puppets presents a study on mice as being a study on rats (God knows what was going through his mind at the time). By directly quoting what the researchers actually said, I and a few others limited his room for manoeuvre. However the article has consequently become a mass of quotes, though quoting typically one sentence from a paper's conclusion isn't a copyright violation as Literaturegeek seems to fear. I second Literaturegeek's plea; the article does need expert attention from someone with medical knowledge. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of cancer

When clicking on some of the cancer links on the alcohol and cancer page, I stumbled across an old unresolved merge proposal. See Salivary gland neoplasm, I was about to merge them myself but then realised a neoplasm can be benign so then had second thoughts and thought I would bring it to the attention of this project.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Skin Grafting

This message is in reference to the existing Skin grafting article, and the final image that is displayed (a skin graft applied to a lower leg trauma injury, benefiting from VAC). The photograph is of my own leg, and was taken in December 2007 following a motorcycle accident. Would the article benefit from having a photograph of the graft now it is completely healed, with no moist areas? And how about any intermediate images? I can try to crop and rotate to the same orientation so the images are consistent. Furthermore, would the article benefit from any reference to long-term implications of full thickness grafts and their potential impact on the lymphatic system? For example, where mine is sited means that I suffer from significant swelling without several hours of daily elevation. Clearly this is not going to affect every patient but is a potential long-term complication as a result of having a skin graft. This can also be accommodated in an image time-line if I do contribute one in the manner I have suggested - I can intentionally lay up to make the surrounding tissue sit flush with the graft on the edge where the tissue loss is at its thinnest, and likewise I can intentionally keep the leg down for a day or two to swell up somewhat grotesquely, and make the surrounding tissue taught and angry. Would this be of any use whatsoever, or would it over-complicate the article? To make this clear, I'm not doing this for some sort of personal kick of sharing photos of my injuries - I personally feel that it would be of some use to patients to see how things might possibly look during the healing process as well as possibly illustrating possible long-term side effects, but of course if it would detract from the factual nature of "what is a skin graft" then I will bow to your collective greater knowledge and not embark on this little project. If anyone from the profession wants to see the intermediate-stage images I intend to use (not yet rotated etc) then I've put them on photobucket - you can view them through the following links: [24] [25] [26]. I've not yet uploaded the fully healed images. I would of course be happy to work with anyone from the profession in creating any amendment to make it relevant from the get-go, and save people the effort of re-edits later. Thanks. --El Gordo 78 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Placebo

In the Symptoms and conditions section of the article there is a list of conditions with references to placebo controlled studies and metastudies. The only explanation for the list is "List of medical conditions". There has been some discussion of keeping the list as is or removing it until better context for the list is included in the article here. Some more input or clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Three reasons exist for this section.
  1. The list follows individual discussions of three conditions in which the placebo effect is found: pain, depression and gastric and duodenal ulcers. Without the list after these three separate discussions, readers of the article might mistakenly feel that research has only been published upon them and the placebo effect, whereas in fact, the three are detailed largely as illustrations. One possibility is that the list is expanded into similar discussions on each of the listed conditions. But that would greatly extend the length of the article: to list the existence of such work rather than fully detail them individually is a compromise.
  2. A key aspect of the placebo effect is the diversity of symptoms and conditions that it effects. This is implied elsewhere in the article by the use of abstract words such as “condition” but the collecting together of differing conditions in the list directly shows this.
  3. It has a further reading role. It provides in a bulleted alphabetized list additional reading for those wanting to read about the placebo effect where in various conditions it has been researched and reviewed. If an individual reader has an interest in a particular condition they might want to read more about the placebo effect and that condition. The list provides the opportunity for doing this. Again it could be done differently with each condition directly linked to further relevant reading rather than a numbered citation. But in any article there is a compromise between space and providing information a reader might reasonably appreciate. --LittleHow (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you just write two sentences to introduce the list? Perhaps something like "Sham treatments have been used in dozens of conditions. Here is a partial list..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I did some work on this a while ago. There are a bunch of examples in prose in the Placebo#Definitions.2C_effects.2C_and_ethics section and the Placebo#Expectancy_and_conditioning section. II | (t - c) 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Snakebite article

Hi everyone,

I've been editing the snakebite article recently (I'm 98.232.98.144 (talk · contribs) when too lazy to log in) and I noticed it is rated as mid-importance for this Wikiproject group. The article is also a former good article, but was demoted for a variety of reasons. I've tried to address some of the problems on the to-do list, but I don't have enough free time in my day to do everything I'd like to. The article as it is now has the potential to regain good article status with a little more work, but I would like help from this group if anyone's willing. It would be nice to have some fresh eyes look over it and note potential problems and improvements, and add citation tags where they're needed. Thanks!--Eightofnine (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Private practice "Before & After" shots

What is going on? Why are private practices posting before and after shots to encyclopedia articles? What are the terms and conditions regarding this type of "contribution"? The pages that I have come across have become significantly less reputable due to these types of images being posted (and a *lot* less aesthetically pleasing). A list of the articles that I have found include: abdominoplasty, liposuction, rhinoplasty, and rhytidectomy, but the list is realistically longer than that. I am an avid medical photographer and have been given a great opportunity to take photos during actual surgeries, also having been given full legal rights from both the patients and surgeon to my images, and the rights to contribute my work to the Wikimedia projects and global community in general.

After adding some images to the abdominoplasty article, I was contacted by a Dr. Otto J. Placik from Arlington Heights, IL, USA regarding the article and that he was "there first" and would appreciate it if I would leave his work alone (I had edited one of his photo captions in the liposuction article to remove the phrase "PLEASE CLICK ON PHOTO FOR MORE INFORMATION")--with the subtle hint that my contributions are not welcome. He then proceeded to remove an extremely valuable and descriptive image of this surgery (which I re-added late last night after deciding to disregard his requests). How do I contact an administrator, or what is the Wikimedia/Wikipedia policy on this type of behavior? Dr. Otto Placik has also been "contributing" using multiple accounts, including Emilymiller123, Sarahjjohnson123, and the "anonymous" 75.63.221.230 IP address in an eff ort to ghost his marketing and self-promotion.

I'm not at all opposed to anyone from the medical community being involved in contributing to this great work. But seriously, what defines "crossing the line", and what can be done to keep people like Dr. Otto J. Placik from controlling and degrading the quality of this collaborative project? I'm new here, so I really don't know where to turn for help or advice on this matter. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paravis (talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that some of this appears to be little more than advertising. Links to his personal pages must be removed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarahjjohnson123LeadSongDog come howl 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

DocJames you may agree with Paravis above that "links to his personal pages must be removed" when referring to me Otto Placik. but I have removed all links while the user you seem to agree with (Pararvis) continues to have links on all his phtos to a Dr. Michael Schwartz. I find this type of behavior dispicable and evidence that PAravis is operating in bad faith. How can he disparage me "keep people like Dr. Otto J. Placik from controlling and degrading the quality of this collaborative project" (his words) and he continues to attach links to a commercial website. Seems hypocritical to me! Otto Placik (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, advertising should be removed w/o hesitation. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a new low in the misuse of Wikipedia for advertising purposes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As a plastic surgeon and wiki contributor, it gets under my skin when people try to use wikipedia as part of a marketing campaign. Periodically I try to cull some of the vanity bio pieces and listed a few today. PLEASE help remove these types of entries in the AFD section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Zbar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Steinbrech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_K._Herman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gentile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Charles_Edwards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrick_E._Antell

Thanks! Rob Droliver (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

About a year ago, there was a great deal of spam centered around a couple of now blacklisted physician directories -- cosmeticsurgery.com and plasticsurgery.com, along with a number fake blogs and websites, such as ienhance.com. I believe plasticsurgery.org was also blacklisted due to editing abuse (ignoring other editors, sockpuppeting, overzealous adding/readding of links), which I didn't agree with since it's the association website and probably useful as an external link when identified. I'm less clear about cosmeticsurgery.org, which is another association. Flowanda | Talk 21:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I posted the latest images edits at WP:RSPAM: [27]. Flowanda | Talk 01:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Paravis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) adding before and after images for a Dr. Michael S. Schwartz with direct links to his promotional website. Is that allowed? The source field on the image summary has a direct hyperlink to the physician's website and has terms of use that seem to give direct credit to this physician. I find this to be contradictory to the advertising bans and non-promotional nature of Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fat_removal_using_cannula_during_tumescent_liposuction.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto Placik (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Otto Placik (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Oliver I am a little confused you state emphatically above: "As a plastic surgeon and wiki contributor, it gets under my skin when people try to use wikipedia as part of a marketing campaign." Yet you post links to your personal blog on your user page and ask Wikipedia visitors to go there and you also post "before and after pictures of breat augmentation" here: [28] and list yourself as author. Can you explain why this only applies to you and not to me. I would gladly post my pictures in the exact manner in which you posted yours. Would this meet with your satisfaction? Otto Placik (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are the standard rules of thumb:
  • Links to your own website in userspace are generally acceptable. Links to your own website in articles are not.
  • Identification of photographers on the image page itself (begins with File:) is acceptable and generally preferred. Naming the photographer in the article (e.g., in the caption underneath the picture) is strongly discouraged.
  • Links to your own website on the image page (File:Whatever.jpg) is generally accepted.
I hope this helps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you WhatamIdoing. I believe my images are therefore in compliance. However, I have recieved numerous criticisms for links to my website on the image page itself as you state. User: Paravis amd Doc James above criticize links to my website and therefore I removed them. This seems very confusing.Otto Placik (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Plastic surgery photos

We need to add:

Paravis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

since the photos lead to Michael Schartz, a plastic surgeon's website. Flowanda | Talk 06:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that this needs review. Multiple photos contributed by User:Paravis for example [[29]] have direct links to a Dr. Michael S. Schwartz's website. He claims that he is giving credit and I agree that this is reasonable. However, it was my impression that direct links to a personal website for promotional purposes is strongly discouraged. I believe that Paravis should not be allowed to upload these images (I counted 17 photos) without removing the links. Changing the links to the Physician's name only would diminish the obvious nature of this blatant promotional use of Wikipedia and at least give the impression that his efforts were sincere in intent.--Otto Placik (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Image spam discussions

There are a number of images on various article pages that show uploaded photos to Wikimedia Commons that contain links to physicians' websites, including the editor above who complained about harassment. I think the notice I placed on this user's talk page provides the links to current and past discussions :[30]. I think the best way to keep the discussion together would be to make any replies to the WP:RSPAM noticeboard [31]. Thanks, Flowanda | Talk 00:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between marketing spam and legitimate photographic documentation of medical procedures. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to show off before/after images (or to enlarge these images, or place them in awkward parts of an article that are not subjectively related to the image). I have been given a great opportunity to take videos and photos by a surgeon. And even though I took the photos/videos, I am only documenting the artistic talent and work of the surgeon. How else would I give credit to my source?
You csn give credit by writing his name and eliminating the link--Otto Placik (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
And, in contrast with some images that are disrupting the aesthetics and functionality of certain articles, the work I am contributing is extremely informative and descriptive simply within the image itself. I have been studying Wikipedia's medical articles for over a year now; and there are definite "information gaps". It is in everyone's best interest for these gaps to be filled in appropriately. I feel as if that is exactly what I have been attempting to do, with trouble coming from an individual who felt as if his "territory" was being encroached upon.
I was actually almost denied the privilege of documenting any more surgeries after Otto Placik made phone calls to Michael Schwartz's office. It took me a day and a half to prove to Michael Schwartz that I had not been doing anything out of line, nor abusing Wikipedia's policies, nor making a bad name for him or his practice. And the phone call that started all this trouble for me was totally uncalled for, and quite unnecessary. I would have been really disappointed had I not been able to continue this work, since the media I capture gets better and better every time! Anyways, thanks for your concern. Paravis (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


The photos may provide some illustration but the direct link to his personal website is completely unnecessary and gives one the impression that you are promoting his services rather than achieving an educational intent. Give him credit but remove the link and your efforts will appear more honest in intent. --Otto Placik (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force

...is open for business. See the talk page and join in the fun. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Scintific review

Hi all, I created the following SVGs, serving the wikiproject medicine, I want some review, thank you all :-)

please comment on this MaenK.A.Talk 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The colors of the nuclei on Thalmus.png appear to be reversed. It would also be better if it were renamed to a variant of "Thalamus.png". --Arcadian (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)  Done MaenK.A.Talk
On Electrical conduction system of the heart.svg, it would be useful to label the left-anterior and left-posterior. (See Left bundle branch block for details.) --Arcadian (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This next bit of feedback is trickier, but would be useful: On Midbraincrosssection.svg (and the derived diagrams), could you make the sensory tracts blue and the motor tracts red? This is fairly standard in most modern neuro texts I've seen (and the convention dates at least back to the classic edition of Gray's Anatomy). If you're not sure which is which, I'd be happy to advise. --Arcadian (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)  Done MaenK.A.Talk
Here are the new ones one is svg, and one is png
  • SVG
    SVG
  • PNG
    PNG
For File:Trig innervation.svg could you add in (as a light grey outline) the rest of the scalp/head and at least an indication of the start of the neck. Its quite hard othewise to see where the boundary lies with respect to the angle of the jaw, the ear etc. Thanks David Ruben Talk 03:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about the heart conduction system labels??, and thank you for the constructive comments :-) MaenK.A.Talk 11:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
And thank you for all your image work! Per the heart conduction system: look at this and this. --Arcadian (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the aprecation, and I ll be working on that :-) MaenK.A.Talk 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The diabetes quagmire

For a long time I have been disappointed with the quality of the diabetes content on Wikipedia. Given the large amount of articles involved I thought this might be right forum to raise these issues. To be honest, I think one of the main problems is the lack of agreement whether all content should remain on diabetes mellitus (lumpers) or whether this should be a placeholder article that primarily links to numerous subarticles (splitters).

Could I make the following proposals:

  • The "main" diabetes article discusses only the presenting symptoms, diagnosis (especially how to distinguish the subtypes) and the complications. It splits off all relevant subcontent at a high level (e.g. not spending too much time on the various oral hypoglycaemics in DM2 or attempts to cure DM1).
  • The "main" article is sourced only sparsely with the very highest quality WP:MEDRS sources (reviews in high-impact journals).
  • The subarticles are allowed to refer back to the main article with regards to the unified content (e.g. complications) without duplicating all that is already in the main article.

It would be lovely to have a task force set up for diabetes and endocrinology, but I suspect there is not currently enough manpower to do this. JFW | T@lk 10:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with User:Jfdwolff. As a relative newcomer to the diabetes articles, I found it very frustrating to find so many articles on the subject spread throughout Wikipedia. There is tremendous duplication. Having it all in one article would be best (one-stop shopping). However, the main article already has a size advisory.
  • Between JFW's alternatives, "DM" should become a placeholder article that primarily links to numerous subarticles (splitters).
  • The "main" [[Diabetes Mellitus]] (DM) article should keep its redirect from [[Diabetes]].
I will be glad to assist. Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

added ca risk to azo dye drug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenazopyridine#Cancer_Risk

i know this page is monitored by the makers of this drug. Please help me bring middle of the road information to the article about azo dyes. Does the pharm box at the top have a category for class of pharmaceutical? Thanks, 99.22.220.61 (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you use information specific to phenazopyridine, such as its profile in the latest edition of the Report on Carcinogens (which notes there is "inadequate evidence" of a cancer risk in humans)?
There's no field in the Drugbox for drug class—it's been discussed before, but found unnecessary if memory serves. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this needs to be removed. The "azo dyes cause cancer" source is specifically about unrelated (now banned) azo dyes. There's no connection to this azo dye. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I added "While Phenazopyridine has never been shown to cause human cancer, evidence from animal models suggests that it's potentially carcinogenic [1]" ...or we could just delete the section. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I vote keep (I'm the person who made the first post = don't know if my ip address has chnged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I could go either way with respect to inclusion or removal, but since the cancer risk in humans is essentially speculative, perhaps it should be merged with the adverse effects section instead of appearing separately/importantly in the table of contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


The source actually says that limited tests in humans have shown no increased risk of cancer. I think that this should be included in the article as well as the animal sttudies.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've merged the two sections.Fuzbaby (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s144phen.pdf | National Toxicology Program
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_13"