Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 137

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 130 ← Archive 135 Archive 136 Archive 137 Archive 138 Archive 139 Archive 140

Template:Oral hypoglycemics and insulin analogs

I've tried to refactor the template to be in line with the ATC ordering of the drugs, but I can't get it to "look pretty" after I've changed up the order - my current try is at User:Berchanhimez/sandbox and any help would be appreciated - I didn't want to try to do this on the active template for hopefully obvious reasons. Thanks bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Does all of that really need to be in the same navbox? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: - not sure. It was all in the navbox before, I just reorganized it. If it *were* split, the only logical split I can think of is “oral agents” versus “injection” agents, but even that would be blurry because of things like semaglutide which is available as both, and would still result in a large navbox. I posted here and on the talk page of the template to see about suggestions (and advice as to why my edit has broken the “lining up” of the various parts, but I’m happy to work further on it if a split can be identified. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I've replaced the regular "child" navboxes with collapsible ones, which makes it a little bit cleaner. It seems that all the ATC code based navboxes vary in size greatly depending on the organization/size of the code, and *very* few are split further within a code. See Template:Analgesics and Template:Chemotherapeutic agents for examples of other large ones. Those two don't use collapsible navboxes, but they also aren't as clearly separated as "insulins" and "non-insulins" are. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 denial, disinformation, and propaganda

COVID-19

One of the most highly shared propaganda pieces that coronavirus deniers like to bring up on social media is an anonymous website now known as “Swiss Policy Research” (swprs.org). The German Wikipedia has courageously dealt with these people by creating an informative article about the group. Unfortunately, we don’t have anything in English, and people are still actively sharing links to their coronavirus denial website without knowing who they are and how they’ve been debunked in Europe. Would it be a good idea to translate this for the English Wikipedia or to incorporate this information elsewhere? When gullible people post links to the group on social media and elsewhere, it would be helpful to have an English article on Wikipedia to point them to in the future. Whatever you decide, I leave this in your capable hands. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

doesn't seem notable[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Based on those German sources, it looks like a candidate for inclusion into misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s only notable in relation to its use by coronavirus deniers and by the German media which successfully debunked it. Unfortunately, the source is widely cited on US social media, and because there is no link or entry for it here in English, nobody has been able to adequately point to a rebuttal, so it is being used without a counterpoint hundreds of times per day, and that indirectly promotes coronavirus misinformation and denial. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Viriditas would support adding coverage of it to misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and than redirecting the term there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Viriditas, yes, agree about adding coverage, and adding a redirect. Do you need help with any de->en translation? Please ping me on my talk page if you do. Mathglot (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Malignant chondroid syringoma

malignant chondroid syringoma - hi! I have a strong interest in this topic and have been researching it for a while. I just added some information to the page and was wondering if anyone experienced in the field would be interested in reading over the page. I wouldn't want to give out false information, but everything I have written has a source. Thanks so much!

Malignant chondroid syringoma Julia9909 (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Julia9909, I took a quick look at it, and I think you're on the right track. You've managed to turn a one-sentence stub into a significant article. You're doing really well for being a new editor!
I have added a bunch of links to the top part of the article, and I encourage you to:
(a) check the links I added, and change or remove any that you don't like or don't agree with!
(b) add more links to the rest of the article. (We don't usually duplicate links, but there are other opportunities for new links.)
You have probably used "direct quotations" more often than is strictly necessary, but copyediting can be sorted out later. I am really glad that you included the ==Prognosis== information. When we collected feedback from readers some years back, that was one of the topics that was often overlooked in articles, and of very high importance to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, thank you very much for your feedback! I really appreciate it. Thank you also for adding the links. I have also attempted to add some more relevant information. Hopefully I can remove some of the direct quotations - I have mainly included them as I don't want to plagiarise my sources and I find it difficult to paraphrase medical terms and diagnoses. I will continue to work at the article. Thanks again! Julia9909 (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine trial

Main page: Talk:Vaccine trial § Success for each phase?

I was a bit surprised to see there's no information about the general success of trials Phase I/II, Phase II/III, III/approved, and then approved/phase IV trials. Like, for every 1000 vaccines/drugs in phase 1 trial, how many go on to phase 2? In phase 2, how many go on to phase 3? etc.

This seems of high interest for covid times. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if there have been enough vaccine attempts to give numbers for that. For more common types of drugs, I believe that if a molecule starts Phase 1 testing, it has about a 10–20% chance of getting approval.
"Success" might be a hard thing to define, as safety and efficacy depend upon what you're treating. You can have a "successful" trial that convinces you to stop development.
Also, the same side effect profile could be wonderful or unacceptable, depending upon whether you're treating a life-threatening condition or a minor illness, and what the alternatives are. As I'm fond of pointing out occasionally, the pre-modern-medicine skin cancer treatment Black salve, which our article is calling "pseudoscientific" and "alternative", actually does kill a small fraction of thin, superficial skin cancers. It would never get approval because its efficacy is about one-tenth of the standard treatment (which is a quick, simple surgical removal), and the side effects are dramatically worse (click the link and see the pictures if you want to know how bad it is). But that same profile would be acceptable, if the treatment in question were proposed for a disease that was otherwise an untreatable death sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Success being defined as going to the next phase. If not for vaccines, then for drugs in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Five days ago VRT reported on progress of the COVID-19 vaccine being developed at KU Leuven ([2] – in Dutch). Theirs is one of an estimated 120 COVID-19 candidate vaccines under development worldwide that will make it to trials on humans, and around 10% of these candidate vaccines are expected to be still in the running after these trials. So, according to the interviewed professor, ultimately around 10 different vaccine types becoming commercially available would be good, while different vaccines that make it that far might still behave different (e.g. one being more effective than another); and for production capacity, while so many doses will be necessary, it is also good that there are multiple vaccine manufacturers. A vaccine ready for roll-out is not expected before 2021. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Medicine + COVID + news May 2020

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

CBS news...very well done by Doc James!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be useful to create a list of those willing to speak on the subject of Wikipedia and medicine to the press. I am not sure if other projects have done this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Nicorette - brand name given special treatment?

I just ran across Nicorette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which seems to be getting special treatment as a brand of nicotine replacement therapy products. I'd like to remove it from Category:World_Health_Organization_essential_medicines, and hope someone more familiar with such articles would look it over for other problems.

Also, the page is rendering improperly, suggesting there are formatting problems somewhere inside the article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the category: nicorette is not on the 2019 list. I can't see a rendering problem, can you be more specific, please?
For the article itself, my inclination would be to merge it into Nicotine replacement therapy and get rid of the advertising sections like yacht and car racing sponsorship. I see that Nicoderm has already been merged there. It would need a requested move, though. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.
The rendering problem disappeared as I was tracking it down. I'm guessing it was from a template. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
If you have a separate article on Nicorette, it should focus on the business, marketing, and historical aspects of the subject, and merely summarize the things that it has in common with the generics. We have several articles about health-related brands. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Nicorette is something of a special case; it was the first and for a long time only nicotine replacement therapy, so was at the center of all the early court cases and regulatory hearings. As such, there's undoubtedly a viable article to be written on it, independently of the now-genericized product. (We wouldn't consider merging Ford Model T into Automobile.) ‑ Iridescent 23:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but there's no advertising agenda behind the Ford Model T article. I can't say the same for Nicorette. --RexxS (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Make it "We wouldn't consider merging iPhone into Smartphone" or "We wouldn't consider merging Tesla Roadster into Electric car" if you prefer; the principle of "the brand that opened the market is more likely to be notable since when it had a monopoly it was by definition mentioned in all coverage of the topic" is the same, and we certainly spend an inordinate amount of time shooing away Apple and Tesla's corporate puffery. That a brand still has commercial value and said value is potentially affected by the contents of its Wikipedia article, doesn't render the brand non-notable, it just means we need to be careful to cover it neutrally. ‑ Iridescent 17:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we do a good job of keeping Apple and Tesla's corporate puffery out of iPhone and Tesla Roadster (2008). I still can't say the same for Nicorette. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

COVID Health and Gender Editathon with UNFPA and UN Women this Friday - Sunday

Dear all

You are invited to an editathon to improve COVID-19 information on Wikipedia in collaboration with UNFPA and UN Women. Wikimedia Sverige has been trailing a new process to make it easier for expert organisations to share information on Wikipedia.

The editathon workshop will take place on Friday 5th June at 15:30 - 17:30 UTC (17:30 - 19:30 CET, 11:30 - 13:30 ET) and will continue remotely until Sunday evening. To find out more and sign up please follow the link.

Please share this message with others who may be interested.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

very important editathon for COVID-19 --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Spanish flu

I don't know if this is covered by the COVID-19 community general sanctions but there are some sources in Spanish flu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that do not meet MEDRS and some preprints or other questionable copies as well. I think it would benefit from some expert review. Guy (help!) 09:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Naming of isotope containing drugs

Anypodetos (talk · contribs) I see that you renamed Flortaucipir (18F) to use a superscript. What is the standard convention for the naming of isotope containing drugs? It doesn't look like there is one. We don't use the official name of the drug?

These pages don't use superscripts in the title. 11C ME@HAPTHI, 19-Iodocholesterol, 25B-NBOMe, Altanserin, Carbon-11-choline, carbon-11, Chromium-51, Cobalt-57, Copper-64, Copper-64, Fluorine-18, Fluoroestradiol F-18, Fluorothymidine F-18, gallium-67, Gallium-68, Indium-111, Iobenguane, Iodine (125I) minretumomab, Iodine-123, Iodine-125, Iodine-131, Iomazenil, Krypton-81m, Nitrogen-13, Oxygen-15, Rubidium-82 chloride, Rubidium-82, Samarium-153, SeHCAT, Selenium-75, Technetium (99mTc) albumin aggregated, Technetium (99mTc) hynic-octreotide, Technetium-99m, Thallium-201, Xenon-133

These pages use superscripts in the title. Florbetapir (18F), Flortaucipir F18, Fluciclovine (18F), Fludeoxyglucose (18F), Fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine (18F), Flutemetamol (18F), Indium (111In) capromab pendetide, Indium (111In) imciromab, Indium (111In) satumomab pendetide, Iofetamine (123I), Ioflupane (123I), Technetium (99mTc) arcitumomab, Technetium (99mTc) exametazime, Technetium (99mTc) medronic acid, Technetium (99mTc) sestamibi, Technetium (99mTc) sulesomab, Technetium (99mTc) tetrofosmin, Technetium (99mTc) tilmanocept, Technetium (99mTc) votumumab

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see anything about it in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Article_titles or in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide#Article_name Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I see two distinct patterns here, each one followed reasonably well: "[isotope][element]" vs "[element]-[isotope]". When the isotope precedes the element (its symbol), it's superscripted; a different way is to have it hyphenated after (usually the element name not symbol). Both of those are standard IUPAC/ACS style...one more chemical-symbol the other more linguistic. DMacks (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
As there is consensus on using international nonproprietary names for pharmaceuticals, we should stick to the WHO's convention as far as drugs are concerned, which is along the lines of "cyanocobalamin (60Co)" (see https://www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/FINAL_WHO_PHARM_S_NOM_1570_web.pdf p 12). I have no opinion on entities that are not (exclusively) pharmaceuticals, such as Samarium-153. Probably WP:CHEM has some naming convention for these. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Whywhenwhohow, are you asking about the "renaming" part, which is from "F18" to "18F", or about the addition of superscript formatting tags to make the name display differently on the page (not technically "the title" as far as most editors are concerned)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Both. I am unaware of a standard naming convention here for drugs containing isotopes. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Have you looked at what the INN says? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Yay for multiple standards! INN gives "technetium (99mTc) sestamibi"[3] as an example but USAN gives as an example "technetium Tc 99m butilfenin"[4] as an example. DMacks (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
USAN is US specific and sometimes different from INN, which is international or at least supposed to be (compare acetaminophen [USAN] vs. paracetamol [INN]). Trying and failing not to be annoyed about US standardisation bodies trying to be different from anybody else ;-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Huntington's disease FAR—again

I have nominated Huntington's disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The process was temporarily halted in March but it's up and running again. buidhe 08:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Pervasive refusal syndrome article

Opinions needed at Talk:Pervasive refusal syndrome#No original research & potential bias. A permalink is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


Pegylated interferon - another questionable World Health Organization essential medicines category entry

The article is simply a list with three entries: Pegylated interferon-alpha-2a (redirects to Peginterferon alfa-2a), Pegylated interferon-alpha-2b (redirects to Peginterferon alfa-2b, and Pegylated interferon-beta-1a. Both the peginterferon articles are entries in the WHO category.

Are there any problems with removing this? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Why shouldn't that category contain links to classes of medications? (Are you also proposing to remove condoms from it?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That's why I'm bringing it up here. I've gone over maybe 3/4 of the entries in the category, and I believe it's the only link to a class of medications. I've not looked for any discussion on what the category should contain, but the category is being used to identify all the individual medicines in the WHO list. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
All the individual medicines, plus Category:Condoms and Category:World Health Organization essential medicines (vaccines) – all of which are "class of medication" articles, even though nobody actually gets a generic vaccine (because they don't exist. Biologics produced by different companies are not identical). I'm inclined to leave that page in there. As for whether there ought to be more, price is a factor for the WHO EM list. The result is that only some of the statins are on the list (for example). In an area that sees few or no new drugs, then including the "class of medication" article is probably reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of classes of medicines, entries in the EML that are tagged with a square box symbol are examples of a drug in a pharmacological class. How should the category be applied to those entries and to other medicines in the same class?

The square box symbol () is primarily intended to indicate similar clinical performance within a pharmacological class. The listed medicine should be the example of the class for which there is the best evidence for effectiveness and safety. In some cases, this may be the first medicine that is licensed for marketing; in other instances, subsequently licensed compounds may be safer or more effective. Where there is no difference in terms of efficacy and safety data, the listed medicine should be the one that is generally available at the lowest price, based on international drug price information sources. Not all square boxes are applicable to medicine selection for children.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
For example, the proposal to add tiotropium to the WHO EML states

Section 25: Medicines acting on the respiratory tract
The Expert Committee recommended the addition of tiotropium to the core list of the EML, with a square box as representative of the pharmacological class of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, based on evidence of effectiveness in controlling COPD symptoms and reducing exacerbations, and acceptable safety.

— hdl:10665/325773

Individual/Square box listing
Square box listing incorporating tiotropium bromide, glycopyrronium bromide, aclidinium bromide and umeclidinium bromide.

— hdl:10665/330668
Should glycopyrronium bromide, aclidinium bromide, and umeclidinium bromide be added to the World Health Organization essential medicines category? Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a reason to add long-acting muscarinic antagonist to that category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

MEDRS for an article about a fictional character's death

I found an article about the fictional death of Sybil Crawley (Downton Abbey), analyzed from the perspective of a fourth year medical student.

I am not familiar with the impact factor of this journal and not sure, whether, under MEDRS, this should be used at all to express Adrienne K Ho's opinion. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a good journal.[5] As a general point, though, fictional characters' health is not WP:Biomedical information and therefore does not usually need to conform to MEDRS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved, archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Circumorbital, Postocular, Preocular, Subocular

The following are redirects for discussion: Circumorbital, Postocular, Preocular, Subocular. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 3. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Overspecialization

I recently got an article Overspecialization accepted by AfC and was seeking help replacing one of the sources (Ref. 5, I believe) with a better-quality one on advice of reviewer Spicy (talk · contribs). (My expertise is mainly in physics, not medicine.) Is this information covered in Ref. 6? I can't tell because it's paywalled. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you checked the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library to see whether it's in their list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Category change requests

Can the be moved? Is there a standard place to discuss Category changes that are likely to be non-controversial?

Not classified as psych disorders:

Sorry there's so many Amousey (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Changes that are likely to be non-controversial are usually boldly implemented. If you are feeling less bold, then you can mention then on the article's talk page, and if nobody objects after a week, then make the change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, will do Amousey (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Odd references at SS Jagiełło

The new article SS Jagiełło, about a passenger liner built for Turkey as the Dogu in a German shipyard, seized by the Germans following the outbreak of World War II, and transferred to Poland after the end of the war, and later passed on to the Soviet Union, has as its only reference Slapa, R.Z.; Jakubowski, W.; Kasperlik-Zaluska, A.; Piwowonski, A.; Szopinski, K.T. (August 2011). "Shear Wave Elastography of Abdominal and Retroperitoneal Masses and Inflammatory Processes: A Feasibility Study". Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. 37 (8): S33–S34. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2011.05.163. ISSN 0301-5629.. This seems an unlikely source for details on a passenger liner, but if anyone has access to this source, it would be helpful to know if it is relevant at all. (The article does not appear to be a hoax).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nigel Ish,
That seems unlikely, doesn't it? I wonder whether it was a copy/paste error in some search results. The article about this ship at the Polish Wikipedia (w:pl:SS Jagiełło) has a source whose author has the same last name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I changed the reference to correct one. Ruslik_Zero 20:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Done, good to archive Nigel Ish ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes - it looks like the article's fixed now.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Of potential interest

Editors in this project may perhaps want to know about the final decision in the ArbCom Medicine case, which is here, and which can be discussed here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

not a good final decision...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I've already said this: [6]. But to some extent, if editors do not take an active role in their own defense during the case, they may not get a fair result. I felt for much of the time that I was carrying the load for other people who should have been doing it themselves, and frankly, it was very unpleasant for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I sympathise, Tryptofish, but for my own part, I'm currently juggling a dozen different things, and the case was brought at an extremely inconvenient time. Not only that but removing any constraint on the volume of posts that could be made to the case left it open to be overwhelmed by those who were willing to spend time in generating masses of text. I found it such an unpleasant experience, feeling that I had to defend myself against lies, distortions and cherry-picked evidence, that I simply ended up unwatching the case for weeks at a time, so that I could get other work done. The one-sided remedies were no surprise as a result. I find it astonishing that ArbCom learned nothing from the last time they took sides in a content dispute and sanctioned just those who supported infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll gladly take sympathy anywhere I can get it. For what it's worth, I think that your level of involvement was very good. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Doc James hasn't logged in since May 30[7](a person that never misses a day editing) that's the bottom line, and he's the person that leads this project in edits, in contacts w/ health organizations, most any/every positive thing! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)clarify, this isn't toward Trypto or RexxS

Old Cochrane reviews

Just to let folks here know that this is happening: [8] [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Wasn't there a template we were using to mark old Cochrane reviews that needed to be updated? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing these edits and for posting this Sandy. I will touch base with this volunteer to clarify WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE. Yes WAID, you are correct. Cochrane Reviews cited in Wikipedia articles for which a more recent version exists (an update) are flagged by a bot that includes with a link to the updated version. This bot runs once a month. JenOttawa (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem that we might all be on the look out for; I am unsure why there is an idea that old Cochrane information should be added to articles, or why it is being added without making sure the information is still accurate and up to date. [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Should "mechanical asphyxia" redirect to "smothering" or something else?

I came across this article [11] which stated: We report the case of death ... produced by three different ways of mechanical asphyxia: smothering and strangulation by hand and traumatic asphyxia by thoracic compression. As such I am wondering whether the redirect is correct or not, because it seems that there can be multiple forms of mechanical asphyxia. starship.paint (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It redirects to Asphyxia#Smothering. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: - yes, it does. I'm questioning if that is correct. From the above, it seems that both strangulation and traumatic asphyxia are also mechanical asphyxia. So why should it redirect to smothering? starship.paint (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
{{re|}} The problem is that there are no consistently agreed classifications of asphyxia. You can search Google Scholar and get lots of different interpretations, and I found an article on Researchgate devoted to the very issue. I agree that a redirect to smothering isn't the best target, so perhaps an extra section on Mechanical asphyxiation which discusses the possible meanings might be a useful addition to Asphyxia. In the meantime, I think that if the principal meanings of mechanical asphyxia are likely to be positional asphyxia and traumatic asphyxia, then the redirect might be better pointing to Asphyxia #Compressive asphyxia or perhaps even to Positional asphyxia. --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: - thanks, I assume you were trying to ping me. I'll write up something based on the reference you provided. starship.paint (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
done. starship.paint (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved, archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We need two DYK reviewers

Template:Did you know nominations/Pill mill and Template:Did you know nominations/Wells curve are looking for reviewers.

WP:DYK's instructions are about a million miles long, but it's easier than it looks. Your mission, should you choose to accept, is to see that the article isn't a copyvio, that it's in basically okay shape (for having been started recently), and that the "hook" (the bit that appears on the Main Page) corresponds to a sentence with an WP:Inline citation in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

And (the most important part, but which gets skipped surprisingly often): check the cited source for the hook actually says what the hook claims that it says. It's astonishing how many people try to slip bullshit through, and even more astonishing how often they succeed. ‑ Iridescent 22:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you to User:Ajpolino and User:Johnbod for reviewing these two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation time

Let's try to get ahead of our friends in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Here's a list of WPMED-tagged articles with the wrong link:

  • Sorry Sandy I have no knowledge here, haven't even heard of the districts.  :( You could post at WT:INDIA Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an easy game. Fixing this normally requires only basic wikitext skills, so if you're a newer editor and you like medical jargon (or geography), then try this.

  1. Click on one of these articles.
  2. Search (⌘F, ^F, or equivalent on your device) for "disamb" to find the link that needs to be fixed. For example, it's a link to "Toxemia" in the infobox at Kidney disease.
  3. Re-point the marked link to something sensible. For example, switch that link to Bacteremia. Usually, the link that you want is listed on the currently linked page.
  4. If you were able to fix the page, then mark the fixed page off this list. If you couldn't figure out the right link, then leave a note here, and we'll all try to figure it out together.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Dome, archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this can be archived. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Any interest in a WP:MED newsletter?

Hi all, while much of my editing overlaps with the WP:MED scope, I often find there's so much activity here that I have trouble keeping up. Someone recently mentioned the possibility of a WP:MED newsletter, and so I figured I'd post here to gauge interest. I'd imagine a format based on Enwebb's WP:WikiProject Tree of Life newsletter, which I think has been a really valuable resource (a recent example here). A section to recognize newly reviewed GAs and FAs, as well as outstanding nominations at either forum (which could benefit from knowledgable reviewers). A section to note outstanding RfCs on WP:MED-tagged articles that are seeking comments. A section to note discussions from around Wikipedia that could influence WP:MED editors. And if anyone is interested in crafting one, perhaps a section to highlight some rotating topic (as the ToL newsletter often does). The newsletter would be crafted on a subpage of this project, and "delivered" monthly to the talk pages of those who opt-in. If folks find it valuable, anyone can contribute and it'll continue. If not, it'll fizzle out no harm done (it looks like there was The Pulse in the past?). If people are interested, I'm happy to draft a newsletter to get us started. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

its not a bad idea, particularly now with so much COVID-19 news(and articles)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Draft transcluded from my sandbox below (formatting shamelessly ripped from the ToL newsletter). The hope is that a newsletter could serve two purposes: (1) display, at a glance, places where medical-interested editors could be useful, and (2) provide some small project cohesion. This would use the same page structure as the old WP:MED newsletter, so if you're interested in having it delivered to your talk page, add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing list. If anyone is interested, I'm happy to draft monthly newsletters for the time being. If no one is interested, I won't bother. I hope all are staying well. Ajpolino (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Draft newsletter
Issue 1—June 2020


WikiProject Medicine Newsletter


Welcome to the test issue of the newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Dementia with Lewy bodies nominated by SandyGeorgia
Chagas disease cleaned up at FAR by Spicy and Ajpolino
Trachea by Tom (LT), reviewed by Ajpolino
J. Hartwell Harrison by Hoppyh, reviewed by Sainsf
Thymus by Tom (LT), reviewed by Cinadon36
Complete blood count by SpicyMilkBoy, reviewed Tom (LT)

Nominated for review

Huntington's disease for Featured article review
Homeopathy by Heptor, under review by Aircorn
Prostate by Tom (LT)
Joseph Ray Watkins by Doug Coldwell
Niacin by David notMD
Willis J. Potts by Larry Hockett

News from around the site


Discussions of interest

For a list of ongoing discussions in WP:MED-tagged articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Discussions
Also, a reminder to see Article Alerts for a list of medicine-related AfDs, CfDs, merge discussions, and more!


A short feature section goes here
Maybe usually on some current event that impacts editing here? An obvious first candidate is covid, the proliferation of covid-related pages, and an influx of new editors interested in the topic. On months where no one is interested in writing a feature, the newsletter would get sent without one. No big deal.


Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the WikiProject Medicine mailing list. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

User:Ajpolino, I like the way that it starts with good content and acknowledges the role of both writers such as SandyGeorgia, Tom (LT), and SpicyMilkBoy and reviewers such as yourself and Cinadon36.
I don't want to volunteer anyone for a lot of work, but I wonder whether people would be interested in occasionally involving other groups, such as WP:WikiProject COVID-19, or WP:CHEM or the WP:FTN regulars? I'm always interested in hearing from our neighbors about how we can help them and how they would like to help us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, WAID ... Ajpolino, very nice work! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree it looks great. From my experience trying to write the newsletter here and also doing the ones at WikiProject Anatomy a short-form newsletter like the one you've done is best; just putting in the links and such to active discussions along with some small updates is useful. I don't think the focus section is 100% necessary every issue - I found it is the most time-consuming element by far to write. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Great idea. I'll try to rope in med-adjacent groups from time to time. If anyone has particular ideas they'd like to see, feel free to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter. I'll leave the June issue as is, and move on to starting the July issue (to be delivered at the beginning of July). All are welcome to pitch in. Again, if you'd like to receive the newsletter on your talk page, add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing list. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, off-topic, but I'd like to highlight to everyone the great work that SpicyMilkBoy has done at Full blood count. I think it's a complex topic and difficult to write about and to structure an article about, and that this article has been written in a particularly easy to understand and pretty comprehensive format. It's a pretty interesting article and I'd encourage others to have a look as well. Well done! --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ajpolino: have added to top of talk [12]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ajpolino:, might I suggest two changes before you publish?

  1. You have not mentioned the amazing save at FAR of Chagas disease by yourself and User:Spicy; this is the equivalent of new Featured content, since the two of you restored it top to bottom and it would have otherwise been defeatured. If you are too modest to add mention of yourself, perhaps one of us can add this to your draft? It would be most encouraging to see this kind of work highlighted, since at least Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, Multiple sclerosis, Management of multiple sclerosis, autism and so many other medical FAs are no longer at Featured standard, and would benefit from similar work and recognition, so please do toot your own horn on the work done to save a bronze star!
  2. I am uncomfortable describing dementia with Lewy bodies as "by SandyGeorgia"; it would not have been possible for that article to be featured without the collaboration of about a dozen other editors. Perhaps you could change it to "nominated by SandyGeorgia", and rather than linking to my name, link to the FAC instead, where all the collaborators are listed? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dementia with Lewy bodies/archive1

Generally, I am very happy to see this effort, as the newsletter contains the kind of information that was once displayed on the WP:MED page and encouraged collaboration; I do not agree that the newsletter should be linked at the top of this talk page, and if it takes hold, it should be linked prominently on the main project page, at WP:MED. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll reply in reverse order. To your second point, in the future I'll ping all listed names a week before the newsletter goes out to ask if they'd like to add collaborators or change the attribution in some way. I agree "by" is not ideal attribution for a wiki. "Nominated by" is probably better going forward. To your first point, thank you. I've added it with a short note to say that it's an FARC cleanup. Consider our horns tooted. I won't bother delivering the June issue since all the subscribers have seen it here. But I've updated it above (transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Newsletter/June 2020) for good measure. The July issue will be delivered at the beginning of July. Anyone's welcome to fiddle with it here. Otherwise, those listed will get pings in a few weeks. Thanks for the thoughts! Ajpolino (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxychloroquine

Could use a few more eyes due to some questionable material being proposed and included. I don't have time to do a deep dive at the moment but thought I would bring it to the community's attention. Thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

will keep eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

John Webb (paediatrician)

Hi all. Just over from WP:CRICKET. I've created an article on John Webb (paediatrician), who played one first-class cricket match for Oxford University. However, he appears to have had an interesting and notable paediatric career, mostly in India where he was a pioneer in paediatric medicine. I've filled out the bare bones of that, but just leaving him here if anyone has more sources with which to expand his medical career section. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ... I will have a read. Are you nominating it for a dyk? Whispyhistory (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Editors with the inclination may check this out. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Image for granulocyte transfusion

I was surprised to see that we didn't have an article on granulocyte transfusion, and I have been working on a draft for it. I've had no luck, however, finding a freely licensed image of a bag of granulocytes. I couldn't find anything using Google's license search or on Wellcome Images, and I cannot figure out how to search for images on Pubmed with their terrible new redesign. I'd like to take the article to GA eventually, so an image would be nice. I am prepared to send out OTRS letters if I need to, but I know some people here have connections that might make getting an image easier. Does anyone here work somewhere that does granulocyte transfusions, or know someone who would be willing to donate an image? Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

[13]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, hadn't seen that before! Sadly I wasn't able to find any relevant pictures. OTRS it is, I suppose... Spicy (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Corticobasal syndrome - RfC

RfC on rarely edited page.Amousey (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolved, amousey’s intended target was corticobasal degeneration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC about late termination of pregnancy

There is an RfC [14] concerning a sentence in the lead of the Abortion article. The two issues are: whether late termination of pregnancy should be defined in terms of fetus viability or in terms of gestational age, and whether late term abortion is neutral terminology. NightHeron (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Violence interruption

I've created a stub on violence interruption, which seems like a very relevant topic at the moment. I'd appreciate any help other editors can provide to expand and improve it. -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

seems well done, and for a very important reason Wikipedia:WikiProject_Black_Lives_Matter/June_2020--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

List of oldest fathers

What's up doc? I was recently looking at the List of oldest fathers page which has an entry for an anonymous 66 year old man who was proven to be the father of his kid. The study that confirmed his paternity also concluded that male fertility had a biological upper limit of 65 or 66 years old. For that reason, I would like to find scientific evidence proving any man has fathered a child after age 66. Does it exist in the literature? Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I intend to add any scientific evidence of men fathering children after 66 to the page. If that evidence is not forthcoming, then I would say the page needs to be divided into two parts: scientifically confirmed dads and journalistically confirmed dads. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
There is obviously no hard limit. This is the sort of terrible article that makes me think Wikipedia is a bad idea. Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, but is there any scientific backing, namely a known positive paternity test, supporting the claim that any specific man over 66 sired an offspring? Once I have that, then the study cited on that page is "rekt" so to speak. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
If you're referring to PMID 25694621 then that's a primary source, so not WP:MEDRS and unreliable for any assertion about human biology. The idea that a small sample of immigration testing DNA can be used to infer something universal about an upper age limit of male fertility is beyond ridiculous, as is the entire premise of the Wikipedia article. Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay doc, I'm convinced! But how can we make the article better? I've still got an itch for my million dollar question: how old is the oldest genetically confirmed dad? I'm on your side! I want a medically sound Wikipedia too! Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I significantly changed the tone of the page by adding the word 'claims'. I can't find medical literature about positive paternity for old dads. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Reference desk might be interested in helping you search for sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: They recommended me here because this is an interesting scientific and medical question. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Geographyinitiative, Reference desk is different from the Teahouse. Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia, usually things very new users find confusing. Reference desk, that WhatamIdoing mentioned, is a different beast altogether. They take general questions not related to Wikipedia editing at all, like quora or stack exchange. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not coming here asking for help because I can't google the words "oldest father ever". The problem is is that I don't have the educational background to clean up the List of oldest fathers way in a manner that would please Alexbrn. I'm coming here because I'm looking for people who know what's up with medicine to help find the answers to an interesting question for the better enlightenment of the Wikipedia community. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
As I've said there is obviously no hard upper age, and any claim that there is unreliably-sourced, misunderstood and wrong. How many fathers over 65 have there been: 1,000? 10,000?, 100,000? more? The answer is not the handful we have in this article: it's ridiculous. A more honest title for the article would be A random assortment of older fathers mentioned mostly in crappy sources LOL. Alexbrn (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I get it! Based our recent interactions, someone has moved the age limit up to 75 and deleted the entries 65-75. What do you think of it now? Getting any better? I'm trying to find a way for Wikipedia to address fatherhood at extreme old age in a rational way that doesn't make you laugh at us! haha! The REAL question is: are ANY of the births on the page scientifically confirmed? Is there anything in medical literature that shows a man 75 years or older has been proven to have had a child? I'm sorry for causing a ruckus, but I think this is a legitimate question. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
If you wait a month or two you can add Bernie Ecclestone age 89 baby expected in summer. I presume news reports are allowed if only sourcing a basic event. Amousey (they/then pronouns) (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
In terms of WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, there are plenty of articles about the effects of paternal age on mutation rates, fertility &c., but I couldn't see much on very old fathers. There was doi:10.21522/TIJNR.2015.03.02.Art013 that cites Myers (1972), saying "however it an assumed fact that men are capable of spermatogenic activity beyond age 60 with world oldest father procreating at age 97. (Myers, 1972)" I can't find an online copy of Myers (1972) however. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
According to Fertility and the Aging Male, "In 1969, Sasano and Ichijo first described the decrease in sperm concentration as men age. They reported that 90% of seminiferous tubules in men in their 20s and 30s contained spermatids, whereas men in their 40s and 50s had spermatids in 50% of their seminiferous tubules. Only 10% of seminiferous tubules from men aged > 80 years contained spermatids". That suggests that male fertility declines over time, but there is definitely a presence of viable semen being produced in some percentage of octogenarian testes. BD2412 T 14:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, that's the science I was looking for. If there are no objections, I plan to add this info into the article in a little bit. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
With the new info from these posts, I have made the article 5000% more sciencey. Please add more if you find anything else. We have two options: leave the human race in ignorance or edit Wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Penile implant article

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

Could use some WP:Med editors taking a look. There is also a merge proposal. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: could you look in here? It appears that the two articles should be merged, but I cannot convince myself which title is the correct target. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi, there's an edit request which has been laying dormant for a while at Talk:Alzheimer's_disease#editsemiprotected, but I don't feel competent in the matter to judge whether or how this should be mentioned. Could one of you please take a look? Oh, and what a shame about the recent Wikidrama... Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The sources look like good quality primary studies supporting a novel hypothesis, but without a secondary review of them (considering they span 2015–2020), it seems to me undue to make as much of them as the requester suggests, and they certainly are not strong enough to justify a section in Causes. I've added a sentence, citing the sources, into the Research directions section. Please feel free to review. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The addition looks good, RexxS, but alas and alack, AZ is no longer at FA standard. I could repair it if others collaborated, as much of the content is related to content I understand from dementia with Lewy bodies, but it is more work than I can do alone and need to prioritize where to start, because almost all medical FAs have fallen into disrepair. Will start a thread later ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

COI

Hi folks. I saw a change (link) where a contributor added a reference which they likely (partly) wrote themselves. Is the COI template I posted to the contributor's Talk page appropriate? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

yes that's COI[15]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
See also WP:CITESELF; citing a paper that you wrote is a permitted action (when the source is otherwise appropriate). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
It's always appropriate when the editor is genuinely trying, first and foremost, to improve the article and not promote their own work. The problem with a CoI is the editor is all too often the least able to make that determination dispassionately. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thank you, it's serendipity time :-) A couple of analogous instances (by the same good-faith, newly registered account - @User:Doricke) here and here. I'll welcome the new contributor and try to do my best to communicate when I have a moment, though others might be better at that and get there first. Of course, in many real-world borderline individual COI situations there's no bright line between trying to improve an article and promote one's own work. (Fwiw, my own first medical content edit here, over a decade ago, was actually also both technically self-citation and a genuine attempt to improve a page with relevant peer-reviewed information, though I had no idea then about Wikipedia guidelines such as reliable medical sourcing WP:MEDRS, etc. Anyway, I'm still here or hereabouts, albeit now as an ip contributor :). Cheers, 86.186.155.159 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Difference between adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome and healthy controls shows less salient network activity in certain regions of the brain

Wondering people's thoughts at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#RfC: How should we begin this article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This RFC – or "vote", really – is about the wording for the introduction. They're now voting on options 1a, 1b, 2, 2b, 3, and 4. A vote is not usually an effective method of writing a good introduction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
That is not the only problem on that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback discussion - CFS

Discussion about whether to rollback recent changes on Chronic fatigue syndrome#Roll back RfC about lead also still active. Amousey (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Your attention might be helpful...

...at Talk:Neuralgia#Rewrite. A new editor has removed/rewritten some of the content (some of which was sourced), and is proposing a few changes on the article talk pages, but this is far out of my league so if any of you more experienced in the topic could help. Thanks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This discussion needs better attention: a new editor who appears to know what they are talking about (of the type we should be interested in retaining) is seeking to make improvements but not getting much help. (Telling an editor who knows the field that the best sources are less than five years old could be off-putting if this editor knows what the most authoritative sources are.) @WhatamIdoing: might you look in here? Some more structured and sustained help might be useful here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Authentication-based access and the Library Bundle now available!

Sam posted this at WP:VPM, but I think it may interest people here:

The Wikipedia Library is pleased to announce the implementation of authentication-based access and the Library Bundle! These new features will help improve your research workflow by minimizing the number of individual logins you need to remember, and by providing on-demand access to a set of partners to all qualifying users without the need for manual application and approval. Along with the launch of Bundle/EZProxy, we are happy to announce several major new partnerships are now available, including large multidisciplinary collections from Springer Nature and ProQuest. Check out your Bundle eligibility and the new available collections by logging in at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. Please let me know if you have any questions, and feedback on the new systems can be left at the project page. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Copying this here since it hasn't got a timely response at the Covid wikiproject page Since this has been there without an answer from a while and since I have some reservations as I pointed out, would somebody of you knowledgeable persons who somehow missed this in their watchlist please take a look? Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

good idea to post here--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, archived at that page, archive here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Splits

Yes, we have no bananas, so I'm here to talk about Wikipedia's kind of WP:SPLIT.

We have three old proposals to split articles that need to be closed:

All of these have been open for more than a year. If someone could either split these articles (it's easy!) or remove the tags, that would be great. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

yesDysfibrinogenemia... Hereditary fibrinogen Aα-Chain amyloidosis, at the least should be split out of there but feedback would be niceTalk:Dysfibrinogenemia#Split--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm really sorry to contribute to the problem rather than to the solution as I'd prefer, but I've never understood why Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and Lynch syndrome are merged into a single article. Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
CDC:Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal (colon) cancer.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
But that's like merging water and drowning! :)
Lynch syndrome and HNPCC are conceptually different.
I'm not saying we definitely should split it, but it's the example that always comes to my mind when I think about articles within WP Medicine being split or merged. Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
the source is CDC and NIH[16] and [17]US national Library of Medicine/Genetics Home Reference--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course. I agree with you about the quality of the sources. But it's also true that those same sources also say that Lynch Syndrome can give you other things that are not HNPCC, and that you can get colon cancer that is non-polipotic and hereditary without having Lynch syndrome. So they're conceptually different. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
DrVogel, you are not contributing to any problems.  :-)
Those are different things – just like those sources explain, when you read a little further along. Perhaps a more obvious comparison would be merging genetic mutation and cancer. You can have a genetic mutation without getting cancer, and you can have Lynch syndrome (the mutations) without getting HNPCC (the most common eventual result of those mutations).
The cause and the result don't always belong in the same article, but if we put them together, we should explain the difference. I wonder whether any of the content in this series of edits from 2009 would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that they're 2 separate things, that was exactly my point! :) I had seen those old edits when somebody merged the 2 articles into 1. I personally would prefer to have 2 separate articles, because, albeit highly correlated, they are a) conceptually different and b) you can get any of the 2 without the other. I'm not saying this is urgent, but I am interested in knowing how people feel about this one. Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Code of conduct for WikiProjects?

Friendly collaboration in WikiProjects

I propose that WikiProject Medicine, along with other WikiProjects, commit to being an especially friendly place in Wikipedia. WikiProject Medicine should do this by adopting a code of conduct which requires that people posting here avoid negativity, and instead be a front-facing community space for new users and people who want friendly enjoyment of Wikipedia.

I have a proposed draft here

The Wikimedia Foundation itself is in the process of developing a "Universal Code of Conduct".

The WMF has not shared many details of what this will mean, but they have said that they intend to implement it across Wikimedia projects by 30 August. When there is opportunity to post comment on the universal code of conduct, I wish to advocate that among community forums in Wikipedia, that the WikiProjects be exceptionally friendly spaces with highly positive interaction and the avoidance of negative interaction.

I am proposing this in the context of an WP:Arbitration Committee case, "Medicine", in which various people including me made claims that this WikiProject was a place with negative social interaction. I would like to make some effort to improve the environment here.

Thoughts from others? Under what circumstances could participants at this WikiProject support the adoption of a code of conduct? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The think the code of conduct is too vague. "Say nice things" doesn't cover the range of things that need to be expressed in an environment such as this. I'd recommend basing any code of conduct on existing work which has received a lot of effort, such as this one from ISO. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Fine, I support adopting the ISO code of conduct instead of the one I proposed. I also added the ISO one to the list at meta:Wikimedia community code of conduct. Alexbrn, would you propose any changes to the ISO one, or is it ready to adopt now and revise as needed? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It's focussed on deliverables & formal meetings but I think all of the underlying principles could be usefully considered. One of the interesting ones is the call for quick escalation of disputes - better surely than letter things fester. Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems great, if we enforced that one rule alone then that would prevent many problems. Let's do it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Alex, I believe that Lane's goal isn't really captured by "Say nice things". It appears to be more like "Don't say not-nice things", or more specifically, "Don't use any phrases that an artificial intelligence system would match, in isolation, with phrases marked in its database as having 'negative sentiment'".
If you write, for example, "I don't think that will work" or "That's a serious copyright violation", then these AI systems would ding you for expressing negative sentiments. On the other hand, if you write something like "The marvelous thing about Wikipedia is that it lets editors rise above their true levels of real-world competence", then you're a positive asset to the community who can shortly expect to win a trip to ANI.
I've got no problems with a universal code of conduct, but "Let's not sound negative" isn't what I'd recommend for the contents. The contents I'd like to see in it sound more like "We don't care where you're from, what your politics are, what your identity is, whether you speak the 'wrong' language: Anyone can edit, and we'll back that up even to the point of getting rid of editors who 'just happen' to only attack editors from the 'wrong' groups." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: "we'll back that up even to the point of getting rid of editors who 'just happen' to only attack editors from the 'wrong' groups" What do you mean by this? Can you restate please? Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Imagine that your Code of Conduct decides that real-world disputes should not be imported to Wikipedia. It might say, for example, "No attacking the McCoy editors at the Hatfield Wikipedia, and no attacking the Hatfield editors at the McCoy Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to edit both Wikipedias, no matter which side of the real-world dispute they're on".
Now imagine that an editor in one of those communities decides that it's important to drive away as many editors from the "wrong" group as possible. Your code of conduct doesn't mean much if that editor isn't stopped. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think WT:MED should be a place where editors can discuss medical related issues on Wikipedia and expect to get feedback and discussion from editors who are interested in medical related topics on Wikipedia. Anything beyond that expectation is something to discuss and agree at a Wikipedia level, not a project level. The same goes for all other Wiki Projects. I think BlueRasberry's proposal is quite fundamentally flawed, but most importantly, is nothing to do with medicine or healthcare. -- Colin°Talk 10:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec with Colin) Sorry Blue, but Wikipedia already has a whole slather of conduct policies that apply site-wide, and if they're deemed inadequate, I'd rather we improve (or just better enforce) those. I don't want a suite of policies for the site as a whole and then an additional code for WikiProjects. Wikipedia is widely ridiculed for being overly bureaucratic as it is (eg); let's not facilitate further instruction creep, as it just raises the barrier to participation. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. Poor conduct is disruptive and against aims of project. Amousey (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. We've got other guidelines, we don't need to have Wikiproject-specific ones. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I think it's premature to be voting about this idea. The community as a whole is still struggling with the definition of "civility". Some people think that "civility" means being friendly, or hospitable, or positive, and others have less cheery definitions, like not swearing very much.
    • As a matter of verifiable facts, "the cut direct" (deliberately making eye contact with a [former] friend, looking away, and then refusing to speak to them or acknowledge their presence) is civil behavior. It is "civil" both in the sense that etiquette manuals endorsed it (so much less messy than a duel!) and also in the sense that its goal and effect built up the civitas (by letting society in general, rather than just the law, punish any civis who was believed to have engaged in anti-social behaviors). I doubt that Blue's notion of civility includes deliberate snubs and shunning behaviors, but the community has long endorsed them, e.g., WP:Revert, block, ignore and WP:Shunning.
    • IMO until we figure out what we mean by "civil", we'll never get agreement on whether we're being civil. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Too true. It is almost always the other party who is failing to be civil. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not see how it can be a good idea for one WikiProject to get ahead of other Wikipedia-wide Policy discussions. If we want WPMED to “be a front-facing community space for new users and people who want friendly enjoyment of Wikipedia”, we have plenty of policy and guideline-based ways to do that. Avoid editwarring, avoid casting aspersions, avoid personal,attacks, call out those who do these things, welcome newcomers, respect the frustration of experts who are trying to improve articles but may not yet know how and don’t just give them pat answers that overinterpret guidelines, respond to requests for help on this page ... and so on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • support a code of conduct is important if some editor(s) wont leave this project and edit elsewhere(Arbcom case and the individual(s) involved) there should be a policy to keep these/this editor(s) in place and civil and contribute in a positive manner--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I would like to keep our editors ("keep them in place", which means that I want them here at WT:MED and in WPMED-tagged articles. I don't want to "keep them in their places", meaning "make sure that they act like they're inferior to others"). However, I disagree that we want editors to be "positive". I want people to be "constructive", even when that means telling me that I'm wrong or have a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • WAID I think Blue Rasberry's idea is a good one and hope disruptive editing/incivility does not continue as it seems to have driven Doc James away from editing for 2 weeks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • comment: it seems susceptible to gaming: literal/strict interpretation of expressing *negativity* about another person's ideas or *contributions* could commonly be used to chill reasoned censure of any new content (and therefore as an aid to pov pushing of particular "ideas", etc). 86.186.155.159 (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Sometimes, "chilling reasoned censure" is appropriate, or people wouldn't have invented (and kept using) approval voting. But a literal interpretation of expressing negativity means that you don't want people saying "That's not a good source. Use this one instead". I just put that in one of the many online short-phrase sentiment analyzers, and that's a "negative" statement. It's also one of the most helpful and constructive things that an editor writing medical content could say on wiki. This is why I don't want to focus on negativity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose I'm relatively new here, so I'm aware that most of you are more wiki-experienced than me and that perhaps if I was more experienced I would think differently. Feel free to dismiss what I'm going to say, I'm fine with that because I am aware that I know very little about the dynamics of all this. I know that I don't know.
Having said that, I can't support this proposal, for the following reasons:
The best thing about working in healthcare is you can make people better. The worst thing about working in healthcare is the bureaucracy. The last thing I'd like to see here is more rules and regulations.
Here, it should just be about never being horrible to your fellow editors, assuming good faith (even with a low threshold) and writing with a neutral point of view in mind.
If someone is chronically disruptive and won't listen to the group, I don't think having a book of rules that we can get out of the cupboard to throw at them is the right way to deal with it - there are several things wrong with that.
And from what I've seen so far, Wikipedia seems to have procedures to deal with disruption anyway. So I don't see the need for another layer of bureaucracy in the form of project-specific rules and regulations.
To be honest with you all, I feel far more satisfaction when the group comes together to get stuff done, than when my particular opinion is on the "winning" side of a discussion. Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

hepcidin

Hi guys, bit of a silly question today. Is there a reliable source, or at least consensus, for whether we should say "hep-sid-in" or "hep-sigh-din"? Even the Oxford dictionary won't answer this question. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've heard it both ways but in the US I hear the latter much more frequently, for what that's worth. Most video lecture-type things I've seen say /heːp'saɪdɪn/ as opposed to /'he:psɪdɪn/ as well. This may very well be an American/British thing? Keilana (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it may well be, because although I keep hearing both, I hear /'he:psɪdɪn/ much more often than /heːp'saɪdɪn/ around here. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
According to the USAN it is pronounced hep sye’ din Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Sid, as in Sydney. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Roxy the dog, if you're happy to reveal what country you live in, I'm trying to test Keilana's hypothesis :) Don't worry if not Dr. Vogel (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


Archive, resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, please don't archive it yet, I've been working silly hours the last few days, things are pretty much still crazy IRL.
So, from the kind replies that there have been, people have heard both pronunciations. So I'd like to add both of them to the article. But the trouble is we only have the 1 source that Whywhenwhohow found.
Would it be acceptable to add both pronunciations to the article but only cite a source for one of them? That feels somewhat wrong. But I do want to add them. Dr. Vogel (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Serge Voronoff

Looking at Reputation_and_legacy I'm concerned that there's an attempt to push WP:FRINGE by trying to paint the subject as a pioneer for modern techniques such as those related to Sertoli_cells. I don't have a medical background, so I'm not the best judge of what is a reliable source in this context. Could someone please take a look at this? I realise that it's a low priority article, so I'm not asking for anything urgent. Autarch (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I had a quick look. It looks like a case of alternative views since what is cited is fun mainstream publishing, plus breaking the WP:NOR by linking it into diabetes. Quote a few weasel words. The start is a vague and poorly worded sentence that does not have adequate support. There are statements without any sources, plus the last source is primary research which when you go to the bottom of the pubmed page https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16131605 PMID 16131605] shows two strong letters doubting the results and criticizing the ethics. I don't see how that article establishes that Voronoff was right in his monkey testies transplants. WP:MEDRS does state to be wary of primary sources in case the results aren't repeatable. Anyone can complain to a newspaper (as cited) but there's no indication of who complained, or of others showing support for that. That section appears to have been changed well over 6 months earlier, and wasn't great before. I quick search of his surname in pubmed brings up many commentaries and articles reflecting on his work, including whether it may have caused AIDS or not (probably not). Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Autarch: you were quite right; I did quite a bit of rewriting and puffery removing, incorporating newer secondary review sources as well; the sources there were not only poor, but poorly summarized, including synthesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Archiving

It's difficult to find a good balance between a short auto-archiving period like 10 days, when we may have to fetch prematurely archived discussions back out of the archive, and a long auto-archiving period like 30 days, when we may have to manually archive threads to stop the page growing too large. This is a page with high activity – I count 25 new threads started in the last two weeks – so I'm going to try a compromise period of 20 days. Can we see if that works well enough to reduce manual interventions either way? --RexxS (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you RexxS (manual archiving is disruptive[18], yours is a better idea)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: 20 is better than the older 10, but manual archiving of resolved threads is not difficult either ... let’s see if 20 works for a while. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
not in agreement, manual archiving as done today is disruptive if editors are relying on the bot/archive not a person who archives without consensus(that is being disruptive, lets hope it doesn't happen again)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I can not agree that manual archiving of long-finished discussions is disruptive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Im not so certain everything that was archived yesterday was long-finished...IMO, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa, the archiving days parameter was set to 10 until I updated it a few days ago to 30, because things were being archived too fast. Rexx's 20 is a compromise, to see how things work. Nothing that I archived yesterday would not have been archived at the previous 10 days anyway, so nothing changed. Because I was the editor who upped the number of days, I took the responsibilty to archive those older than the previous 10 days. If you think something was prematurely archived, by all means, bring it back. The objective on a busy talk page is to make sure that things that are unresolved receive attention rather than getting lost amid things already addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
no worries, RexxS (is a very good administrator)and has set it to 20 days, thank you (hopefully when Doc James gets back he can mind this page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think he (or any single individual) should he be the person minding this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
not clear on "he" in the question being asked, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
You wrote "hopefully when Doc James gets back he can mind this page". I want to know why you think Doc James should be the person minding this page. In fact, I want to know why any single individual should mind this page. I think it belongs to the whole group: you, me, SandyGeorgia, RexxS, Doc James, and anyone else who likes hanging out here. It sounds like you don't share my view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It's our collective responsibility to mind this page. I feel that saying otherwise would be unfair in at least 2 ways: it would be unfair to us as a group and it would also be unfair to throw that responsibility at Doc James. Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, page archiving is not a sysop thing-- no tools required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
WAID, your correct, generally speaking, I do hope Doc James gets back(as Im certain do many others per his talkpage[19]) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Watching all the pages

This is your occasional reminder that Special:RecentChangesLinked exists, and that you can use it as an alternative to Special:Watchlist. For example, Special:RecentChangesLinked/Coronavirus disease 2019 will give you a list of all the changes that have been made to any article that is linked in the COVID-19 article. At the top of the page, you can switch it from the default setting of links in ("from") that article to links to that article, which would let you discover articles (e.g., BLPs, drugs, laws, books, etc.) that have had information added to them about COVID-19. This can help you find articles that interest you.

Similarly, this link will give you a list of the last 500 edits to any top- or high-importance article tagged by WPMED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Current event: First video game treatment approved for prescription

This Monday, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first video game treatment, a game for children with certain types of ADHD called EndeavorRx.[1] See the copy at WT:VG for discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

rather interesting, never heard of it before--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ CNN, Naomi Thomas and Amy Woodyatt (16 June 2020). "Children with ADHD can now be prescribed a video game, FDA says". CNN. Retrieved 18 June 2020. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

Here is a link to the press release Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Dexamethasone

Could a knowledgeable user please take a look at Dexamethasone#COVID-19 (and the end of the first paragraph of the lead) and see if it complies with WP:MEDRS? Thank you! —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Details were also added to COVID-19_pandemic#Treatment, COVID-19_drug_development#Recovery_Trial, COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research#Dexamethasone Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a report of preliminary findings of a study. That's really not the sort of evidence we can use to make definite biomedical claims. However the research is interesting and the Oxford announcement contains expert commentary which elevates it above the run-of-the-mill reporting like BBC news, I've tried to ameliorate some of the language used in those articles and I've replaced BBC news with the Oxford announcement. Let's see what international and national bodies make of the report. --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The entire section on COVID-19 has now been removed from the Dexamethasone article. People here may wish to contribute to the discussion on the talk page trying to achieve consensus about what if anything the article should say.Hallucegenia (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that the wider WP:MED community decided against using medical claims backed by preprints in the discussion at discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints. The text added to the dexamethasone article about the use of it for COVID-19 is based essentially on a press release which is less useful than a preprint. WP:CONLEVEL states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Given that, why is it okay to add that information to the dexamethasone and Coronavirus disease 2019 articles among others? Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I think some editors are in a hurry to get any promising information posted right away, with the hope that we'll clean it all up to normal standards m:eventually. The middle source in that section, which is to https://www.gpni.co.uk/, might be more useful than the others, but I don't know what GPNI is, and the website declines to provide information about itself. It doesn't even have so much as the organization's name in the terms of use.
On the subject, I've wondered whether it's really dexamethasone, or if any corticosteroid would have a similar benefit. When (eventually) we get proper sources, we'll probably know whether it's WP:DUE to put this in the specific article, or if it ought to be in a more general article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The GPNI seems to have been set up recently as a resource site for General Practitioners in Northern Ireland, but whether it has any official status is indeed unclear. Nevertheless, it does contain online texts of some useful documents, for example https://www.gpni.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/DEXAMETHASONE-IN-COVID-19.pdf which is a letter from the UK Chief Medical Officers and the Medical Director of NHS England. That source looks to me to meet our standards for MEDRS, so I expect it can be used to replace the press releases and news reports that editors have been attempting to use so far. --RexxS (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
P.S. If folks don't like GPNI, you can get the same source from https://www.cas.mhra.gov.uk/ViewandAcknowledgment/ViewAlert.aspx?AlertID=103054 which is the Central Alerting System of the UK Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Populate medical resources in disease articles with information from curated sources

Hi, at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Populate_medical_resources_in_disease_articles_with_information_from_curated_sources we're discussing the best way to improve the medical resources (i.e. associated disease codes) in disease articles. Currently many articles about disease contain either few or no medial resources, which hinders interoperatibility. Maybe you could contribute with some ideas. Thanks! --Eduardo P. García del Valle (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a good project, and I hope it goes well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

ILAE Wikipedia Project

The purpose of the ILAE Wikipedia Epilepsy Project (project page) is to improve the coverage of epilepsy related articles on Wikipedia. This would involve tagging the existing articles, assessing their quality, making a to do list for those articles, making the changes, submitting them for evaluation by epilepsy experts, and to make further changes as needed. The scope will also extend to creation of new articles either using article drafts and new article review process or by overall following the process delineated above. You can learn further by reading a more detailed project plan. The project aims to bridge the gap between academia and Wikipedia and to create a community of epilepsy professionals on Wikipedia. I have been selected as the editor in chief of the project (news) and would be facilitating the process. Members from Wikimedia Medicine and WikiEdu are providing active support. Creation of 'epilepsy task force' has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Epilepsy task force. The project needs your support to proceed. Any sort of help in welcome. Most important of all, we would need experienced WikiProject Medicine contributors to mentor the academicians whom the project is trying to induct into Wikipedia. Diptanshu 💬 09:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Epilepsy task force. --Scott Alter (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Topical irritation agents

Hello friends! Does anyone have any idea if the above-noted article is something we should actually have an article about, or is it nonsense? I can't make heads or tails of it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello PMC, have removed some redlinks and is an article of Alternative medicine; no real opinion of relevance; it might make an addition to an Irritation article. (but the book is unsearchable) --Iztwoz (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the article belongs in mainspace in its current state. I wonder if redirecting it to Irritant contact dermatitis would be plausible enough. Spicy (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
ugh. Calling that an article is an injustice to the word article ... ? Spicy's suggestion seems best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I've boldly redirected it. Might be a bit of a stretch for a redirect but this seems better than having a poorly sourced, incoherent, apparently pseudoscience article in mainspace. No objections if someone wants to AFD or PROD it instead (or improve the article, if sources are available). Spicy (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks guys. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, archive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources: Non-systematic reviews

How can we determine what counts as a non-systematic review? I usually use pubmed but many things are not in there, and a few articles have dubious categorization eg a potential secondary source classed by pubmed as "Randomized controlled trial" when it actually refers to one already conducted. I see many article with "A review" in part of the title that are clearly not systematic reviews. I've come across too many to list, but surely there are more places to check than pubmed? If it's peer reviewed and in an established non-predatory journal should these be classified as a secondary source due to not containing original research? If so are these classed as reviews as per WP:MEDRS?

Examples 1-Scoping review not classed as review 2- text begins "this review" 3 dubious hypothesis /review classed as review in Frontiers and pubmed -Also book chapters in a book by others that were previously published as primary sources - do these now class as secondary? Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

For medical reviews, it would be quite unusual not to be "in" PUBMED, and searching for "reviews" and "meta-analysis" should give the secondary material which isn't systematic reviews. I would never user Frontiers journals for any non-mundane claims. Sometimes, on rare occasions, the PUBMED classification seems doubtful. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Review articles come in two types: "systematic" and "narrative". You will be able to identify a systematic review because it will say something like "We searched PubMed for keywords. We found 103 articles, of which 12 met our criteria for inclusion." Both types of reviews (also practice guidelines and textbooks) are treated equally under MEDRS. You should use them differently, but they're all secondary sources.
The (near) opposite of "review article" is "original paper". You can identify original papers by the fact that they are reporting research for the first time, so they're describing research (e.g., number of patients enrolled, what they did to the participants, etc.) There is no document type that means "bad science". You can have an excellent original paper (which MEDRS usually won't let you use for much) and a lousy review article (which MEDRS does accept).
For example, that paper that you describe as having a "dubious hypothesis" is a review article. It is also from one of the better-ranked neurology journals, even if it is published by Frontiers. It is important that our own beliefs don't interfere with presenting all the relevant viewpoints. Maybe there really is a dopamine problem in MS, and if more than one or two sources mention this, then the Wikipedia article should, too. We don't have to present it as The Truth™, but we do have to present it as something that researchers are talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
And that's why we have Research sections in many articles. I'm not keen to see our content opened up to every half-baked hypothesis that happens to get a couple of op-ed pieces written. --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Also, since MS is heavily researched, it should be possible to find at least two sources for any idea that really needs to be mentioned in the article. If you wanted to make a statement, for example, that fatigue in MS might have something to do with dopamine, then you could additionally cite PMID 30683707, which comes from a top-tier neurology journal and which calls it "a potentially highly relevant mechanism for fatigue". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for those helpful and detailed replies. To see a review article on a hypothesis was somewhat odd to say the least. The Op-ed stuff is irrating when used to challenge widely accepted facts. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

ATC code templates

Hello,

To avoid segmenting any discussion, I won't reinvent the wheel here, but if you have any information about past discussion or wish to comment on some questions I posed regarding the templates for each individual ATC class of medications, please head to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology § ATC code templates. For those who may not know, the ATC code templates are navbox templates that are placed at the bottom of medications in their individual classes - such as (but not limited to) Template:Oral hypoglycemics and insulin analogs. Any input would be appreciated. Thank you. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Heal (2017 documentary film)

I want help editing this draft. This movie is about mind–body interventions, which we all know doesn't work in reality. I want to edit the wording so it complies with WP:FRINGE, but it seems like I've done all I could. Oops, I forgot, this is the first result when I typed in "Cortisol and Immunoglobulin A". Feel free to look for more. 2601:4A:C300:412:7D00:84F1:F94A:5D07 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times. Slate magazine. Hollywood Reporter. The very definition of notable. Some rewrite would be helpful, but the article meets notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I think this is good to go, but I posted to the Film WP for a final check, and to have someone else publish if all is good. The decline on notability is odd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Heal (film), done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Great work fixing up the draft. The original page came from a student in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Florida International University/2020 Narratives of Medicine, Health and Healing (Spring 2020). I have just run into a couple articles from this group at NPP and there are some problems with them, mainly making medical claims without MEDRS sources, and using sources about the general topic of the film rather than sources that actually discuss the film itself. See e.g. Fasting (2017), Hepatitis Country. The articles from this group could use a closer look, some need various kinds of cleanup and some might have to go to AFD. Spicy (talk)
Ugh. A good deal of that should never have been moved in to mainspace. I will tackle some as I have time, but I am a disaster at AFD. @Shalor (Wiki Ed): this course needs closer supervision and better understanding of MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps someone will get to Pandemic before I do. Oh, my. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Pandemic: How to Prevent an Outbreak ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
seems mostly cleaned up ... add The Truth About Alcohol to the course list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
And Alive Inside: A Story of Music and Memory ... not all articles they created are listed on course page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This bunch will need checking as well: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Florida International University/Narratives of Medicine Health and Healing (Fall 2019). I will make a list of articles to review tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Florida International University/Narratives of Medicine, Health and Healing (Spring 2019) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I did some cleanup at Take Your Pills (others might have a look), and will next work on a complete list for all of us to tackle-- too many of these are problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Medical film and book articles from this course to be checked

This list is from the courses at Spring 2020, Fall 2019, and Spring 2019. I did not look at Spring 2018 or Fall 2018.

Most of the course articles are medical-related films or books. Many of the articles have already been deleted or redirected when notability was not established. Quite a few of the students have enrolled in three subsequent and similar courses to continue their work, and still have drafts in Draft or User space.

All need to be checked for MEDRS compliance, and dubious or unattributed medical opinions, but there are other cleanup needs. Some are named wrong and need to be moved, some have lots of uncited text, some have not established notability, some breach guidelines for writing synopses, some go off-topic, talk pages are not tagged with WProjects, some use primary sources incorrectly, most fail to base the articles on reviews of the subject and independent sources, opinions need attribution, etc. Almost all need Manual of Style cleanup. Many are tagged with significant cleanup needs.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Guidelines are helpful. If something is in particularly bad shape, you might add to the note at the WP:FILM talk page for film editor review. If you look into any of these articles, just leave a note here, and together we can get through all of them. Remember that an article about a documentary or a book can spread medical misinformation just as an article about a medical condition can, so based on the two I already cleaned up, checking is a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have asked WT:FILM and WT:BOOK to join us here. I thought a central location for discussions would be more effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello - I'm poking around from the books wikiproject. I'll see if I can improve some of these. I won't cross them off as "done" though, since I can't check for the medical side of things -- I'll just try to make them less work for when one of you takes a look.
The things I notice that are important from a books standpoint are mostly to do with the "reviews" section, which should really be "reception". The basic 'rescue' work can be done by deleting promotional puffery. Material about reviews and accolades should never be sourced to the author's own website, always to the reviewing magazines. Most "best book" awards are not notable; it's prizes (with money!) that are actually competitive. The only non-prize I personally bother mentioning is if it was a NYT bestseller. (It can be annoying to find NYT bestseller placement-- search "site:nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/" "book title" and pick any week's listing to verify the basic fact of appearing on the list.) For reviews, I'll specify that a Kirkus review was a starred review if applicable, and mostly just say "It was reviewed by X, Y, and Z" with refs for each venue. That covers bookcrit and gives people a way to learn more, and I prefer "underselling" a book to "overselling" it. To write a slightly better reception section, quotes from reviews can be incorporated into a paragraph to highlight key positive and negative traits that the reviewers mention. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 02:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi! I was the Wiki Ed person for this course - some of the work that was moved live was not meant to be moved live, as it looked incomplete and I assumed that the student was not going to move it. With some of the pages that are up for deletion but are extremely likely to be deleted like Fasting (2017), I didn't know if this is a possible workaround, but here's a potential solution: I could serve as the defacto "editor" for the user request speedy deletion, since I was in charge of the class. This could help preserve time with some of the articles that are clearly non-notable at this point in time like the Fasting article. Let me know what you think of this proposal. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Shalor (Wiki Ed); you could do that if you are sure they will stick. There is no hurry, and we can wait seven days, if you don't want the extra work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm going to give it a try with Fasting and the Better Brain Health articles. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
        • It was rejected, but it was worth a try. I think with most of these you could likely just PROD them.

List

To review

Accuracy disputed. Needs to be done by someone with a copy of the book, an understanding of Bessel's previous work would be helpful. Unfortunately I don't have the book. Removing what can't be verification leaves so little that I suggest AfD unless someone can pick it up. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
WLU, if you're around, I wonder whether this book rings any bells. The BLP for the author says that (some of?) his work is dismissed as pseudoscience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I can find nothing but glowing reviews. But eye movement desensitization and reprocessing still raises eyebrows, IMO. But there are enough reviews and mentions that this is not an AFD candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Addressed

  • Alex: The Life of a Child
    • Probably notable, has a review in the NYT so there's probably more on Gale, Newspapers.com, etc.; but needs to be rewritten, currently full of original research and doesn't cite any sources that are actually about the book/film. Spicy (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
      •  Done cleaned up with library access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Alive Inside: A Story of Music and Memory  Done needs to be watched, was attempting to use primary sources to justify medical statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Better Brain Health
    • Refbombed with unrelated sources, can't find any RS coverage on this, probably needs AFD. Produced by Deutsche Welle - maybe there's a German version that might have sources? Wasn't able to find one with a quick search though... Spicy (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I nominated at AfD without seeing Spicy's comment. No evidence of notability, nothing in the article to suggest notability. Kingsif (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Bleed Out
    •  Partly done Clearly notable. Plot summary is a bit too long, possibly undue weight. Perhaps someone with a better eye for NPOV issues than me can take a look at it. Spicy (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Code Black (Documentary)
    •  Done moved to correct title, filled out citations, removed puffery, meets notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Followup

This course has been taught now for three years, and it does not appear that the professor is fully versed on Wikipedia editing or aware of the number of issues that others have been correcting. The course will again be offered in the fall, at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Florida International University/2020 Fall Narratives of Medicine Health and Healing (Fall 2020). From the list above, it can be seen that there are numerous issues in this course's work, the most significant being:

  • The students do not seem to understand that they need to first establish notability of the topic via independent, reliable sources-- that is, unrelated to the topic.
  • Failing to do that, they then chunk in an excessively long plot summary, and then ...
  • Add unrelated sources to that plot summary, such that the articles appear to meet notability when they do not.
  • Often the sources added are to lend (false) support to medical statements, using primary sources that don't meet WP:MEDRS.

There are numerous other issues, and from looking at the course lists, it is apparent that a lot of their work must be deleted. Generally, there is puffery, incorrect use of WP:HONORIFICS, overly long plot summaries, lack of awareness of MEDRS, and lack of awareness of notability.

I just spent almost an hour doing some cleanup on a very short bio started by the professor, User:Castelamfr at Laurence Zitvogel. The most successful student editing courses occur when the professor is engaged and understands basic guidelines and policy. @Ian (Wiki Ed):, this course does not seem to be producing work that should be moved into Wikipedia mainspace. Could you give us some assurance of some changes that will be made in the Fall 2020 course? Would it be possible to make sure their work stays in Draft space? Many editors have spent much time cleaning up several years' work from this course, and it would seem that by now the same mistakes would not be occurring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I talked with Castelamfr this afternoon, and for the Fall 2020 term, his students will keep their work in sandboxes and will be moved by Wiki Education staff where appropriate. Hopefully, this way we can address any of the above concerns before the work goes live. Thanks. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Helaine (Wiki Ed):, thanks for the assistance, and please let WPMED know If we help in any way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

H-GAPS User Group

There is a new Wikimedia m:affiliate called the m:H-GAPS User Group. The name stands for "Helping Give Away Psychological Science". Many of our psych-related articles need improvement, so please welcome these editors if you encounter them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at a few articles under their umbrella, and despair. Just as we have finished cleaning up the film and book articles, there is enough in the articles from this group to occupy a month of work. It would be nice to focus on cleaning up some dated and very high pageview articles. WAID, there are primary studies sourcing treatment options which are refuted by secondary reviews, as an example. Of much lesser significiance, it would be good for them to know about WP:HONORIFICS and the correct use of WP:ITALICS (the DSM is a book and should be italicized, while many other things should not, and Dr. so-and-so is everywhere). But much more significant is the primary study issue ... might you be the person to best communicate with them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
There is also quite a problem at Eric Youngstrom, this version with three COI contributors, unsupported text, puffery, and inappropriate use of sources (most of the sources are to his own bio, submitted to other websites, very little independent mention). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
And Mitch Prinstein. Students creating bios for their professors seems fraught. There is more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
With paid editing at Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. Shalor (Wiki Ed) could you help me understand where the red-linked course description here went? I raised significant problems with this course for years, yet WMF has decided to make the participants an "affiliate", even with COI and paid editing on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There is much more: these are samples only. Ian (Wiki Ed) I have been concerned for a number of years about the COIs with his course, and raised this years ago on the ENB. There is a lot of citing their professors, writing about their professors, and promoting their professor and affiliated orgs. Why are the articles they edit not listed on their course pages so they can be checked? WhatamIdoing could you elaborate what sort of screening process goes in to the “affiliate” application and approval process? Did WMF review their work? The concern I have is that, while they were working as student editing projects, it was WikiEd staff responsibility to keep an eye on their work (I am unclear if that was done as articles are not listed on their course pages). That supervision will presumably end now ... ??? ... yet I see indications of extensive COI editing. I do not think we have resources to track down all the problems, much less fix them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I think m:AffCom handles that, so Rosiestep could probably answer any questions. I think that for user groups (the most informal style of group), the process is fairly lightweight. I assume that it would be possible for students to join the user group without taking the class, and the other way around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not understand why Wiki Ed deletes old course pages instead of redirecting them, nor why this group is no longer listing the articles they edit (the new group and the student editors are pretty much the same), nor whether Wiki Ed is still keeping an eye on them, but there are definitely still problems, and I am not sure what is next. I did find this very old post here on Wt:med, and this on my talk, but after that, articles edited are not listed. It appears that the affiliations group does not require much at all, but one would hope COI editing would be a disqualifier. Perhaps this matter should go to COIN ??? Not sure what is next ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Here are links regarding User Group application requirements and regarding the H-GAPS User Group itself. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
In other words, not much in the way of requirements. Do you consider COI? That page says, “Please be aware that if you do not meet the three criteria outlined above ... “, but lists two requirements. So, Rosiestep, would you recommend the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard next, or is this something within your remit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, yes, it is within the remit of AffCom to deal with potential issues of COI of a User Group. If you suspect potential COI, you may contact AffCom via email: affcom(_AT_)lists.wikimedia.org . Note, I have not read any of the comments on this talkpage other than where I've been pinged, so I have not formed any opinions on this matter. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Rosiestep I am not in the habit of using maillists for Wikipedia business, transparency is best, and samples of the COI concerns are listed above. This is basically a group of student editors and their professor, whose past work has shown COI issues. Discussing how to handle this openly is preferred, and how things are optimally done on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia I am checking on whether this is within AffCom's remit and will circle back once I have an answer. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks ever so much, Rosiestep, as I have been unsure what the next step is, considering the involvement of both Wiki Ed and WMF, along with incomplete use of the Wiki Ed course pages. I will work up a hopefully clearer and more comprehensive list of the concerns to post here, and ping involved editors to the discussion once I've finished that (in a few hours). This removal of a paid editing declaration (with a misleading edit summary) is a new concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Rosiestep and others, you also are welcome to join the working meeting next Thursday or email me (eay@unc.edu), as well as continuing the thread here. I am trying to maximize communication quickly, recognizing that my relatively weaker experience navigating the Wikimedia creates a bottleneck. I agree with the importance of transparency, and am grateful for the dialog and coaching. Best to all, Eric Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Here is the link for the Zoom meeting 6-8 pm EDT (23-01 UTC) [21]. We will do brief introductions at 6, and then split into breakout rooms to work on things. I will drop links to our draft SOPs here after the meeting, too. All are welcome. RSVP list is here if people want to [22]. Looking forward to it! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, all who came to the meeting last night! We had more than 20 people attend, and have developed a plan to address the concerns on the Wikipedia pages. We have made a start on them, and will continue to work on them until resolved. I will add some thoughts and points of clarification here, too, over coming days. Because much of the growth of HGAPS has been outside of Wikipedia, I am realizing that better documentation within Wikipedia would be very helpful. We have been active over on Wikiversity for several years now, with that pivot being largely a result of taking feedback from Sandy>Georgia (Talk circa 2015/2016 to heart. Specifically, the more technical content about measures got moved over to Wikiversity, any didactic information about how to use or do research with them is over there, and we have not been bringing cadres of new student editors to work on Wikipedia pages until we grew more skills. An unintendend consequence of that is that our early efforts have languished on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia was right to call our attention to this, and HGAPS is sending some of the more experienced editors to work on them. Before conversations around this, I had not realized that editing activity on Wikiversity would not be salient to the Wikipedia editor community. I would welcome guidance about appropriate ways to document the activity better. Also, it may be helpful to note that HGAPS is a 501c3, recognized by the IRS in 2018, listed on Charity Navigator, and has affiliated chapters at several universities with a variety of projects. This, too, is an outgrowth of SandyGeorgia's earlier feedback about working on topics not directly related to faculty members' primary areas of research. I will add information about the timeline of development of HGAPS to the Wikiversity page. There is a freestanding site for the organization, too, HGAPS.org. Thank you again for the continued dialog, and best to all! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for engaging and for delivering this encouraging news, Eyoungstrom. For ease of editing, I will start a new section below for follow up questions. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Follow up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Excellent! I will bookmark the above link and work mostly there. Thanks for the constructive engagement -- you have been very influential (apparently more than was evident to you!), and I am glad to have the opportunity to publicly thank you for the positive aspects. I wish I had made a better first impression or learned faster, and I am looking forward to working together. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

List of concerns

@WhatamIdoing, Rosiestep, Ian (Wiki Ed), Shalor (Wiki Ed), Eyoungstrom, and Ongmianli: see discussion above (I will next notify Youngstrom and Ongmianli on talk of this discussion).

The H-GAPS User Group is a new Wikipedia affiliate. There are very few requirements to become an affiliate (either two or three depending on the text on the WMF page).

The designated contacts are UNC professor User:Eyoungstrom (Eric Youngstrom), and User:Ongmianli, a doctoral student at UNC and a declared paid editor (also declared here) for the Society of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, of which professor Youngstrom was a 2016 president (that fact is uncited howerver, at both Youngstom's article and at Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology#Presidents-- both articles mainly edited by Youngstrom and students in his courses).

Ongmianli is listed on (every ?) course listed at Youngstrom's user page, and involved with Youngstrom's courses since at least 2014. (The list of courses is incomplete because, for some reason, when Wiki Ed went to a new system, the old course pages were deleted but not redirected, for example, Education Program:University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill/PSYC500 - Developmental Psychopathology (Fall 2014).

My early encounters with this student editing was in 2014 to 2015;[23] [24] [25] with most of those course pages gone, it is hard to determine the articles affected, and curiously, almost all of the subsequent course pages do not list articles edited, so it is unclear if Wiki Ed staff has been actively following course edits. Multiple issues are found in all of this courses's editing-- the most significant of which is COI. Some of the older issues have not been corrected and continue to occur.

The list of members populating the new User Group affiliate appear to all be students of professor Youngstom. Because the Wiki Ed course pages do not list the articles edited, one must check the contribs of every single editor to discover the extent of articles edited.

Listed below are samples of the kinds of problems occurring. (Some of them are minor MOS issues, but nonetheless, after six years of course editing, it can be expected that this group will be aware of and correct these issues, to make for less cleanup needs from other editors.) Overall, I am concerned about whether this affiliate will be focused on improving the encyclopedia, or if their main focus will follow their course editing, which appears to be directed at including mention of their professor and his work.

Perhaps the next best step is to nofify the community of these issues via the COI noticeboard, so that others can become more involved in edits, both from the new affiliate, and from the courses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hipal and DGG are just a ping away, and both have considerable experience with both COI and medicine-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
They are also assessing the articles they create/edit themselves, as B-class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
COI
  • Eric Youngstrom is almost entirely contributed by Youngstom's students.[26]
    • This version shows uncited puffery, unsupported text, and very few independently sourced mentions of Youngstrom (most are likely submitted bios).
    • There were no COI declarations on talk until I added them yesterday.
  • Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology is almost exclusively contributed by Youngstrom's students.[27]
    • In breach of WP:NOT (a webhost) and WP:EL, that article is acting like a webhost, with considerable uncited text, and external jumps and farms at sections on News and publications, Professional resources, and Presidents.
    • There were no COI tags on talk until I added them yesterday.
    • With a clear declaration of paid editing from Ongmianli, Eyoungstrom removed the paid editing declaration with an edit summary of "Fixed typo in account name".
    • A concern about this kind of editing (besides the COI) is that since the courses have not been listed their articles edited on course pages, it appears that Wiki Ed staff has had a limited effect on being able to orient the course members (many of whom have enrolled in multiple Youngstrom courses) towards better editing practices.
  • General Behavior Inventory is almost exclusively edited by Youngstrom students.[28]
    • They have included 7 Up 7 Down – a rating instrument apparently developed by Youngstrom, about which there are no secondary reviews; the only published literature about the instrument is authored by Youngstrom
  • Mitch Prinstein is another UNC psych professor, almost exclusively edited by these students,[29] no COI tags on talk.
    • I spent several hours attempting cleanup (not very successfully) at Prinstein; I am concerned that this group needs to be much better versed in how to write a professional and encyclopedic BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Students in these courses frequently added primary sources authored by Youngstrom to articles. There is a lot of this-- just a few samples are here, here, another article almost entirely edited by Youngstrom and students, same at Kiddie Schedule, and it continues. Almost none of these pages, edited by Youngstrom, include COI templates on talk.
    • And unpublished work of Prof Youngstrom, sourced to his website.
  • Students in these courses add unnecessary links to articles their prof is affiliated with: sample
General

Better awareness of WP:MEDRS (secondary vs. primary sources) would be helpful.

Manual of style

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for taking the time to craft the detailed list of suggestions, Sandy! We'll take it up with Wiki Ed, and work on these recommendations in time. Everything we do is intended to be maximally transparent. On a related note, I (finally) graduated and moved on to a postdoctoral position! I changed my bio to reflect that. Any further consultation and input appreciated! Ongmianli (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at Eric Youngstrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Youngstrom article didn't look too bad, though rather resume-like. The awards and positions may need trimming if references cannot be found or they are not of enough importance to justify mention. The Society article needs a complete rewrite from better references, assuming it's notable enough to avoid deletion. I think it would help if these students would follow COI closely. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I had mostly already cleaned up Eric Youngstrom. Is anyone able to attend the zoom next Thursday (I cannot)? Alternately, Ongmianli do you have questions about any of the issues raised? Besides the basics of COI and minor manual of style things, typically if something is worth mentioning, it will have been covered in a secondary review, and we generally avoid primary studies per WP:MEDRS. The Psych WikiProject is not very active, so feel free to pop in here with questions, or if you want an independent editor to view proposed text where there may be a COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for rounding back on this, SG. The COI, manual of style and secondary review comments make great sense. I had a question about recency versus quality of study with citing secondary articles. The most recent one can often (rather regularly, unfortunately) not be the best-quality/most exhaustive one. Given this, I am inclined to cite the one of better quality, instead of the most recent one, but also understand that recency is valued. Would be glad to hear your thoughts, and any others! Thanks again in advance! Ongmianli (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ongmianli: In general terms, I suspect that most of us would agree that most recent and highest quality are not always the same. Editor discretion, examination, discussion and consensus always come in to play in evaluating sources. But in this case (that is, considering there is considerable COI in most of the topics that have so far been edited by this group), you all would be best advised to seek wider consensus on "best" sources. (In one case, I found recent secondary reviews being replaced by primary sources written by Youngstom. You could seek independent review of sources by posting to this talk page, for example.) For example, in every assessment article, I have found source texted to Youngstrom's website! I have removed some, but there is still a lot that needs to be removed. Besides being a COI and MEDRS issue, this text could also raise copyright issues that are beyond my remit. Directly copying text from a website probably involves some sort of need for a release-- not an area I understand well, and not something we need to explore anyway, since Youngstom's website should not be used to source these articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
We often say that you should consider the last five years for heavily researched subjects, and maybe about 10 years for areas with little research. This is what the article should be Wikipedia:Based upon; it does not mean that you must never use an older source or a primary source.
The underlying rule is that you want at least two "review cycles". To determine that directly, you need to know how long it takes for a paper get published, but you can think of it this way: I publish a review article, and then you read my review article and write your own. That's how long one "cycle" is. The second cycle happens when a third person reads your review article and publishes their own. The idea is that I put out my idea, you publish a paper correcting or expanding upon my idea, and the third writer can look at both of ours, and either agree or disagree. Wikipedia editors want to consider all three of those reviews (and any other secondary sources published during that timeframe) so they can figure out the overall view in the field, rather than relying too much on a single paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Notes about Wiki Education course data

User:SandyGeorgia: A few notes about keeping track of courses and articles edited.

  • The older courses from 2013-14 were part of the now-removed "Education Program" MediaWiki extension, but when we switched to using dashboard.wikiedu.org in 2015, we imported all the earlier Wiki Education courses. For example, the Fall 2014 Development Psychology course.
  • You can see the full list of any instructor's courses on their dashboard.wikiedu.org user profile page, including the imported versions of any 2013-2014 course pages that were removed when the EP extension was disabled. For example, https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Eyoungstrom
  • The on-wiki mirror pages we have used for new courses since 2015 includes a table of "assigned" articles, which most courses use to document which articles each editor plans to work on. The dashboard.wikiedu.org course pages also keep track of all the articles edited during the course (whether or not they are assigned), and you can use that to find a full list of edited articles for any particular course. For example, articles edited by the Spring 2017 H-GAPS class.

--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Sage (Wiki Ed) — just what the Dr ordered! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, all, Thanks for looping me in. As many of you are aware, I have been trying to advocate for more engagement with Wikipedia and Wikiversity in various professional societies, and through founding HGAPS. The work has received a lot of attention in professional societies, and we have gotten a lot of underrepresented groups to start engaging with Wikipedia and Wikiversity at multiple universities. I would love an opportunity to talk through things together. A challenge with this is that I am still more skilled with email and Zoom than Wiki editing (though my skills are improving), and I know that some users will not use other media besides wikimedia to interact. I may be slower (and clumsier) responding in this format. Preparing the user group application was instructive, as it got me thinking about how much of the activity we are doing to increase engagement is not visible within Wiki, and I would welcome coaching and guidance about improving our efforts at that. Everything we are doing is intended to be transparent, and anything that isn't, please assume good faith and help us learn how to document better. With warmest regards in the meantime, Eric Youngstrom, PhD Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Prof Youngstrom, most of my concerns are laid out above. Hopefully this list will provide all you need. Please feel free to ask questions here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the detail. The next HGAPS meeting is Thursday 6-8 pm EDT. You and others are welcome to attend. We could use that as a "train the trainers" session; that would get the recommendations implemented most quickly. We also are working on written checklists and protocols to help new members learn best practices, so this is an excellent time to get consultation and input. My email is eay@unc.edu; I am happy to correspond with you or anyone interested to help get things elevated to the next level. Please let me know what else would be helpful, and best regards to all! -Eric Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eyoungstrom: is that a virtual or real meeting? If virtual, perhaps one of the Wiki Ed or WMF staff can join to review the list above with you all? That would probably go a long ways towards resolving any issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Virtual. We are using Zoom to connect people, breakout rooms for specific projects and teams. It lets us screenshare as well. We have been using email and Googledocs for agenda, too. Could try using an Etherpad for the meeting. Happy to send whatever details are helpful. Let me know! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In my experience, projects do not go well when at least one of the people involved does not have extensive experience with both wikipedia conventions, both in writing articles, and in discussing them. Besides the evidence of COI collected above, the overall quality of the articles varies widely--some are the merest introductions, that do not even discuss the validation of the test, or stateclearly what is being meausred . It's the expected convention that discussion regarding any WP article be conducted on enwiki. It's the required convention that a new article be started by a new user in draft space, not main space. I think this group needs to justify its presence here by bringing at least some of the existing articles up to GA-class standards. This is not a field where we need low quality articles.
And as for COI, it is reckless and inappropriate for a class to write articles about faculty at its own university. Way back we once had a member of a department in another field having a class writing articles about the professors in the same department.
I'm also concerned about the interface between psychology and medicine. The article we are discussing would clearly fall within medicine--not all topics would.
For the articles on media mentioned in a previous section, I also want to remind prospective editors about the existence of WP:BLP. Medicine properly has its own high standards about presenting information about living or recently deceased people, and so do we--they both have to be followed. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Follow up

@Eyoungstrom, Diannaa, and Emmagch: This is not an area I am well enough versed in, so I have pinged in Diannaa. See example at Screen for child anxiety related disorders and this discussion at Talk:Screen for child anxiety related disorders#Reliability. There are multiple (dozens?) articles that contain tables cited to "Table from Youngstrom et al., unpublished, extending Hunsley & Mash, 2008". (Sample). I have reverted this content in only some of those articles, for two reasons:

  1. We don't cite unpublished research on Wikipedia, and
  2. There may be copyright concerns; that is, is it your intent to release the rights to this work? If so, I believe some sort of paperwork may be needed, but Diannaa can address that.

Now, Emmagch has reverted that work back into the SCARED article linked above, with the statement that the work is from Husley and Mash. Am I understanding correctly that it is the format only that is from Hunsley and Mash? And that students are adding the parameters, citing them to other sources? If I am understandgint that correctly, are we not getting into WP:SYNTH here? We should be basing encyclopedic content on secondary reviews, not building original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying to be helpful -- the rubric is from the book (and they list the criteria for excellent, good, adequate). Chapter authors in the published book used the same table structure to organize the information for their respective reviews. What we were trying to accomplish is (a) not violating copyright, (b) providing structure to organize the information, (c) that is organized in the same way that the current generation of handbooks in the field are using. This makes the editing easier for new editors (providing scaffolding, and making it easier to integrate the information from high quality secondary sources), and also easier for the reader, having a lot of information distilled into a table. The Hunsley & Mash is one of the most respected texts in the area. In full disclosure, Hunsley, Mash, and Youngstrom (me) are aware of each other's work and harmonizing our approaches. The older version of the table that was cited to me was a clumsy effort to avoid CopyVio on Hunsley & Mash, while building scaffolding to have the edits harmonize with their book as well as with other projects that are in progress. Any pro tips about how to accomplish the goal of similar structure and organization, and source appropriately, are very welcome. Getting this right will establish the template that we can use to fix the other pages. Thank you! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
All right, Eyoungstrom, let’s hope more people will weigh in here. If you could supply your best updated example from one article, that would give us a basis for discussion, to make sure all is in order before you proceed with a templated format to multiple articles. It sounds like you have understood and attempted to address some of my concerns, but I am not yet clear on SYNTH or COPYVIO or unpublished research wrt the tables, so a concrete example would help. We should be reporting what existing secondary reviews say, rather than building that data here. I am unsure if Wikiversity is more lax ... and for other researchers to be aware is not the same as granting copyright release. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think that it would be helpful we can understand where the content of the tables come from specifically. Looking at the "Reliability" table, I assume that the headings and the content of the first column ('norms', etc.) come from Hunsley & Mash (2018). What I'm not sure of where the contents of the second column ('Good', etc.) come from. My apologies that I'm not able to visit libraries at present to check for myself. If the contents of the second column come from the students' own assessments, then it's original research and you'll need to think again. If they come from Hunsley & Mash, then I think the issue shifts to the amount of content we can quote verbatim from a copyrighted work without exceeding a "fair use" allowance. In my opinion, we're probably within that allowance even if the second column comes from Hunsley & Mash because it's not a substantial portion of the work being quoted, but I would defer to Diannaa's opinion on that.
I would apply exactly the same considerations to the "Validity" table. I've cleaned them up a bit, principally to make them easier for screen readers. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi RexxS. It's impossible for me to assess the copyright concern without having access to the source documents so that I can see what-all is identical. SandyGeorgia: There are eight articles that use the citation "Table from Youngstrom et al., extending Hunsley & Mash, 2008" and they are as follows: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Child Behavior Checklist, Stanford Sleepiness Scale, CAGE questionnaire, ADHD rating scale, Vanderbilt ADHD diagnostic rating scale, General Behavior Inventory, and Attribution questionnaire. — Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Diannaa (there were others I already removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Follow up: this discussion has continued here, and could use additional feedback. Diannaa, typing from a real keyboard now, my concern was that you might explain in the event we need some sort of copyright release from Eyoungstom, but I believe (unsure?) we have moved beyond that point now in the discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_137"