Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 43

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 → Archive 50

Is Acupuncture a form of pseudoscience?

Looking at the earlier discussions above, the field of acupuncture is obviously a very controversial topic, not just within the scientific community, but here on Wikipedia as well.

The way forward, I believe, is to come to a consensus about whether it is indeed pseudoscience - if it is, then the article at acupuncture should say so. I personally believe that it is not pseudoscience, because

1) A plausible theory for its mechanism was proposed in 2009

2) Further studies have now proven that this theory is indeed true

3) Mainstream medical journals have reviewed and accepted this theory

4) Mainstream medical textbooks have accepted this theory

5) The latest review by the National Cancer Institute says that

There is strong evidence from clinical trials that acupuncture relieves nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy

— National Cancer Institute

Strangely, readers are not going to find any of this on Wikipedia, neither at the article acupuncture or elsewhere. In fact, acupuncture is still included in the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience based on a misrepresentation of a 1997 NIH consensus statement.

I have been accused countless times of promoting acupuncture, but I can disclose that I am not trained in acupuncture and have never tried it out myself, but I am a firm believer in accepting hard evidence and keeping an open mind.

If acupuncture is a form of pseudoscience as claimed by the list of topics characterized as pseudoscience, can someone please show me a reliable source that explicitly says so based on widely accpeted scientific consensus? That way, it would be easier for me to keep a neutral perspective. -A1candidate (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how constructive that is supposed to be -A1candidate (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
As constructive as the question. What's the point of trying to form a local consensus on this question? If the view WP contains (as stated in, e.g. the article you mention, List of topics characterized as pseudoscience) is not reliably sourced then get it overturned there. If reliable sources characterize it as pseudoscience, WP follows, and trying to originate our own conclusion based on what the NCI - or anybody else - says is not a gainful activity. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Getting a consensus will result in much less edit-wars. This issue is related to multiple articles, not just the one you pointed out. -A1candidate (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Note to editors - If you're here because Alexbrn told you to consolidate responses to my inquiry, you're of course welcome to do so, but I hope you'll give me a fair response supported by hard evidence. -A1candidate (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It is definitely viewed as alternative medicine. Since placebo needling works as well as acupuncture needling (were you put the needle doesn't seem to make a deference) the mechanism behind acupuncture would be viewed as pseudoscience by some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I notice that the National Cancer Institute website says that "The study found that patients in both the true and sham acupuncture groups developed less nausea and vomiting than those in the standard care group." [1] Which would seem to imply that, if acupuncture is a legitimate treatment, sham acupuncture is also. I would have thought sham acupuncture would be regarded as a perfect example of pseudo-science, even by acupuncturists. Perhaps not. --Rbreen (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Curiously, sham acupuncture is probably less pseudoscientific since unlike "real" acupuncture is lacks the back-story of Qi energy, and instead is marshaled as an element in pursuit of evidence-based medical study (a scientific pursuit). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
These studies indicate that there is no documented benefit to acupuncture beyond that of the placebo effect. To claim that there is would be a pseudoscientific claim, certainly. jps (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Acupuncture is an alternative medicine practice. The explanations offered by believers in its efficacy for its functionality beyond the placebo effect are, at this time, pseudoscientific. These include some of the statements made by government regulators and NGO advisories. Experts in quackery such as Edzard Ernst, David Gorski, Stephen Barrett, and Simon Singh have written extensively on the matter and basically have come to the consensus decision that there are no non-pseudoscientific mechanisms that acupuncturists promote. jps (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not endorsing Quackwatch, but I am mentioning that it has information about acupuncture.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that points 1 to 4 in the opening post of this discussion are just science admitting that when quacks stick sharp needles into human flesh, it hurts --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we should endorse quackwatch, personally. It's a much more reliable source than many other sources I see being used at acupuncture currently including some apparently "peer reviewed" journal articles that are prime indicators of the problems that can happen when peer review fails. jps (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
QW is a fine source for altmed topics, and has been endorsed on numerous occasions by WP:RS/N. Sometimes, QW is the only RS on a fringe topic. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
How can a non-expert (seeking expertise without bias) be certain that Quackwatch is not at least partly influenced by mainstream professionals whose desire to protect their business turf closes their minds to alternative practices which might have some validity?
—Wavelength (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you can answer the question by considering the answer to this one: How can we be certain that when a scientist predicts the Sun will rise tomorrow, that scientist is not at least partly influenced by mainstream professionals who desire to protect their academic reputations and close their mind to the alternative proposal that the Earth is going to stop rotating this evening? jps (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by A1candidate:

@Doc James - It depends on how you define "alternative medicine". For millions of people across East Asia and parts of Southeast Asia who cannot afford Western medical treatment, acupuncture/TCM is the only form of treatment available to them. Your second point is a compelling one, except that simply putting a needle anywhere in the skin is not a valid placebo, and there are different biological responses between a sham acupuncture and a verum (true) acupuncture.
@Rbreen - There is no question that sham acupuncture is a legitimate treatment option. The National Cancer Institute website states that both forms of acupuncture are superior to standard care. The issue at hand is whether true acupuncture is superior to sham acupuncture or not. Some recent reviews do suggest that this may be the case.
@jps - Could you show me the specific mechanism of an acupuncture-induced placebo effect?
@Roxy the dog - No, there is a demonstrable pain relief which can be felt after 30 minutes

-A1candidate (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I linked to placebo effect above. Feel free to read that article and the references it contains. jps (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles is based on an "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience", and that work gives one of its longer articles to the topic of acupuncture. On that basis, I would have to say that there is sufficient basis from the standpoint of that part of the academic world which deals with matters of pseudoscience to say that they consider acupuncture to fall broadly in the range of pseudoscience. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling like part of the problem is that we aren't working with the same meaning.
"Pseudoscience" (and "alternative", for that matter) does not mean "something that doesn't work". It means "something that has a fake scientific explanation". So if I tell my nephew that light bulbs give off light because tiny men light tiny candles inside them, I'm telling a fairy tale. If I tell him that light bulbs give off light because there are phosphorescent bacteria on the surface of the bulb and flipping the light switch causes them to change state, then I'm engaging in pseudoscience. No matter what explanation I give him, the light bulb still works, right?
Acupuncture can be both "pseudoscience" and effective (for some purposes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but acupuncture has the added wrinkle that there is no good evidence that is effective beyond a placebo either. Normally, this would be the end of the story. Quackery happens because the acupuncturists continue to claim that it is effective with pseudoscientific excuses. jps (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The World Health Organization has published Acupuncture: Review and Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trials.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
That's nice. Please indicate whether the document in question directly addresses the matter of whether or not acupuncture can be reasonably described as pseudoscience or not, and specifically where such a statement might be made. I also once again note that there have been several forms of pseudoscientific medicine which have been demonstrated to produce some positive results, even if the principles upon which they are based are pseudoscientific, so I believe it is reasonable to request such statements directly relating to the matter of whether the principles upon which acupuncture is based, whatever they might be, are considered scientific or pseudoscientific, which is really the only kind of sourcing which is directly relevant to this discussion. John Carter (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me, at this moment, that I am unable to find the information which you request.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that there is an important distinction that doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. Just sticking needles into people any old way is, most likely, not considered acupuncture by the vast majority of people. Certainly, I imagine that most practitioners would not hold this view, otherwise their "degrees" and training, and indeed any qualification that they possess (except perhaps basic nursing), is worthless. I also imagine that most patients do not hold this view either. Therefore, it seems important to keep in mind that acupuncture is in fact sticking needles in specific places in response to specific patient complaints (i.e. patients stomach hurts, so put a needle in this place because the qi is wrong (or something)), and must include the whole belief system that goes along with that. From this point of view, acupuncture is clearly pseudoscience (the explanation for it is mystic gibberish), especially since it doesnt appear to matter where you stick the needles. The debate on whether just sticking needles into people helps is a different matter. It does bring up an interesting hypothetical though: supposing acupuncture did work, but practitioners still used the current mythical belief system. Would it still count as pseudoscience? I would say probably. Benboy00 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say "definitely". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by A1candidate:

@jps - Unfortunately, the article on placebo effect makes no mention whatsoever of acupuncture. I would like to see hard evidence of an acupuncture-induced placebo effect instead of mere speculation, even if this may be plausible.

@John Carter - The source cited by Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Encyclopedic articles is a book called the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience that is published in the year 2000, which is more than a decade ago. Could you show me a reliable, independent source that has been published more recently to back up such claims? I believe there is indeed a great deal of scientific studies performed in this field since 2000 (see below).

@WhatamIdoing - That is a very good point you've made. A core concept of acupuncture, according to Traditional Chinese Medicine, is the principle of Qi. In acupuncture, this can by observed by deqi ("flow of Qi"), which has a specific biological effect on people receiving acupuncture as proven by many different studies published in numerous mainstream scientific journals, as you can see for yourself here, here, here, here, here, here, and many more. Granted, there is still a lot of research to do and not all of these studies are conclusive, but so far, I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

@Benboy00 - It does matter where you stick the needles. Most of these neuroimaging studies are very new, but they do exist and have been reviewed in medical literature.

If I may quote from a mainstream medical textbook:

The overwhelming body of evidence supports the acupuncture endorphin hypothesis as the primary mechanism of AA's (acupuncture analgesia) action

— Human Physiology: From Cells to Systems (2013)

-A1candidate (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDHT and WP:TE. Tiresome. jps (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm just looking for hard evidence. Is that too much to ask for? -A1candidate (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Forgive me, but that just comes across as a kind of willful ignorance. We are in the business of describing the contemporary understanding of topics here. Pretending that most thoughtful people who aren't caught up in the program don't look askance at the claims of acupuncturists as to how acupuncture works is an argument essentially not worth entertaining. The fact that acupuncture's claimed qi mechanisms are pseudoscientific claptrap is not debatable. The "hard evidence" that these claims are nonsense is no more available for this fact than it is for the fact that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Pseudoscience is defined by the features which an idea lacks. jps (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@jps - The general populace may or may not look askance at acupunctural treatment, but when it comes to medical articles, WP:MEDRS clearly states that we should summarize scientific consensus only. You cannot ignore the existence of hard evidence just by brushing it off as "non-debatable" or "nonsensical" - that's not how Evidence-based medicine works. You do not have to prove the existence of Santa Claus. Nobody is asking you to do so. -A1candidate (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerns of LT910001

This boat may already have set sail, but I finally took a look at the Acupuncture article, where some very strange things are going on. I refer here to just two:

  • "A report for CSICOP on pseudoscience in China written by Wallace Sampson and Barry Beyerstein said:... A few Chinese scientists we met ..." (?!!)
  • "A 2012 meta-analysis found significant differences between true and sham acupuncture, which indicates that acupuncture is more than a placebo when treating chronic pain (even though the differences were modest). [99] Commenting on this meta-analysis, professor Edzard Ernst stated"

Amongst others, recorded here (Talk:Acupuncture#Commentary_from_individuals). A lot of weight (WP:UNDUE) is given to quotes from certain individuals (WP:MEDRS), which I find strange given the high-quality sources available on both sides of the aisle for this article. At any rate I feel I ought to flag this here, while we are discussing MEDRS in Acupuncture. --LT910001 (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see the problem is that a couple of editors at the acupuncture article (who call themselves skeptics) are straying from the path of objectiveness and science... We have a couple of reliable meta-reviews in the article concluding that acupuncture is effective for certain pain conditions. But some editors just refuse to accept that, because it doesn't fit their world view... and are now waging a sort of guerrilla war - which includes adding quotes like the ones above. Or this one: "Quackwatch stated that, the TCM theories are so nebulous that no amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care". The rationale I hear in these cases is always the same: to counter a perceived pro-acupuncture POV. Which is just not there. The acupuncture article is one of the best sourced articles I know. Just take a look at the reflist. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Skeptic editors are extremely vigilant in enforcing MEDRS, deleting individual randomized controlled trials wherever they see them. But then they add Ernst's comments from The Guardian. These comments fail MEDRS because they are "non-evidence-based expert opinion," which MEDRS places at the bottom of the hierarchy of sources. Plus, MEDRS clearly states that popular media shouldn't be used as a source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It's simply not true that "expert opinions" (of whatever shade) fail MEDRS. WP:MEDASSESS asks us to assess them as lower-quality sources, but specifically does not exclude them from consideration. The order suggested must also be treated with some degree of understanding: in the field of diving medicine, for example, an opinion by Peter B. Bennett or Simon Mitchell is likely to be given far more credence in the mainstream view than an individual RCT. Our guidelines are extremely useful, and valid for the vast majority of cases, but we should not make the mistake of treating them as utterly infallible. --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As far as I understood User:LT910001 they are concerned about WP:UNDUE, not about expert opinions failing MEDRS. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned for several reasons.

  • Firstly, I don't believe Quackwatch constitutes an expert medical opinion, of which there are numerous other national and international medical bodies which can provide equivalent and medically-based expert opinion. This includes the WHO and numerous national-level medical bodies. Additionally WP:UNDUE whole paragraphs are given to the perspective, however well-informed, of individuals - for example, one entire paragraphs are given to reporting the opinion of a Felix Mann. For a world-wide practice thousands of years old with numerous reviews and meta-analyses, and consensus statements to boot, this is not balanced.
  • Secondly, I'm concerned, as documented, by the numerous use of individuals as sources. Not only do these give undue weight but I'm concerned that it significantly biases the article. Not only that, but there is implicit cultural sensitivities here. For example, the quote above "A report for CSICOP on pseudoscience in China written by Wallace Sampson and Barry Beyerstein said:... A few Chinese scientists we met ..." is equivalent in my mind at least equivalent to inserting in the Malaria article "However, a report by MalariaWatch, written by X and Y, said... A few African scientists we met...", and this occurs twice. I cannot stress how profoundly this quote fails WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS. And, while we are on the subject, if quotes of this ilk are included, why are no quotes of Chinese origin included? This appears to be a practice 3,000 years old and yet there is not a single quote from either a historical source or Chinese body to represent this?
  • Thirdly, I do not see any other medical article where facts are reported, in the name of BALANCE, like this: "A 2013 metaanalysis found X. However, a professor in a university disagreed." To stress this, let's consider "A 2013 metaanalysis reported the efficacy of the combined oral birth control pill as Y. However, in an opinion piece, professor X from Y university disagreed." This is an example of WP:OR, which explicitly states " If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C". Shall we state the position of every professor with an opinion on this matter?

If we are to take MEDRS at all seriously, this article needs to have these replaced with secondary sources that are of higher reliability than the expert medical or non-medical opinion of individuals. WP:BALANCE does not trump WP:MEDRS. There is a whole list of reviews and metaanalyses detailing where acupuncture does and does not have an evidence base for efficacy that are documented within this article, and I strongly feel that these constitute a strong enough evidence without the addition of arbitrarily-selected expert opinions and quotes to justify this. I hope this clarifies my concerns. --LT910001 (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Who cares, aka, WP:MED has lost its way

From our acupuncture article:

A 2013 systematic review of English-language case reports found that serious adverse events associated with acupuncture are rare, but acupuncture is not without risk.[1] Between 2000 and 2011, the incidence of English-language reported adverse events was 294 cases from 25 countries and regions.[1] The most common adverse effect observed was infection, and the majority of infections were bacterial in nature, caused by skin contact at the needling site.[1] Other adverse complications include bilateral hand edema, epithelioid granuloma, pseudolymphoma, argyria, pustules, pancytopenia, and scarring due to hot needle technique.[1]

So, benefits attributed to acupuncture may be due to the placebo effect, and a small number of people using acupuncture may get skin infections. WOW !!! That's dangerous stuff. Let's get all of WP:MED to weigh in on this serious issue, lest someone in China get a positive placebo effect result and a skin infection to boot.

On the other hand, no one from WP:MED can be bothered to help out at the POV, poorly sourced mess in the suite of articles at {{cannabis}}, also discussed on this page, where secondary reviews indicate real potential for physical, mental, behavioral and social harm among a huge number of persons, considering the prevalence of cannabis use.

What's wrong in here? This is why we need a medical disclaimer on our medical content. We can't even get medical editors to help out or keep up with our really dangerous articles; the battleground du jour seems to be acupuncture.

Disclaimer: I have a bias. I respect MEDRS when editing, and I voted to delete German Acupuncture Trials because they are a coatrack and content could be included in acupuncture, but I don't really care if the benefits from acupuncture are real or due to the placebo effect. When my 12-yo-son lost a year of his academic life due to two-week-long status migraines, only the relief from acupuncture helped him regain some of his life when nothing else helped. I don't care if it was placebo or not; I saw the pain go out of his face and body when the needles went in from a good practitioner, and I saw nothing happen when that man was on vacation and a poor practitioner used different needle placement, and I saw good acupuncture help him when even when morphine didn't help.

So, I don't see the problems with our acupuncture content as much of a big deal, and wonder why can't we all go fix our really bad articles. If folks can't be bothered to help out at medical cannabis, long-term effects of cannabis, effects of cannabis, cannabis in pregnancy etc, which were massively POV and medically incorrect until just two of us started working on them two days ago, expect me to continue pushing for a medical disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Here as elsewhere, there just aren't enough editors who can handle tricky specialized stuff, and they don't have enough time that they are willing to spend volunteering. But I agree re the disclaimer. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As an editor who edits predominantly on WP:FRINGE topics, acupuncture is exactly the kind of article where I spend most of my time fretting about details. However, Sandy is absolutely right: in comparison to this type of nicety, the problem in the "cannabis suite" is real & serious. The Cannabis (drug) article has over 1,000 watchers, over 6,000 distinct authors and ~7,500 daily page views. These article were crammed (and I mean crammed) with bogus health information, ranging from assertions that cannabis use was totally harmless to a statement that it was an established treatment for brain cancer (seriously). The voluminous Talk page archives show that a lot of effort and consensus-building went into getting them as they were. I think this raises some questions for us: how could comparatively mainstream articles like this have got into such an abysmal state with nobody even noticing? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes many of the articles on Wikipedia dealing with sex and drugs are a disaster. And you are correct that I more or less ignore them (other than having removed many of the sex related articles from WP:MED).
I am happy to weight in if specific issues are encountered over disagreements regarding how to apply WP:MEDRS. Or how to interpret a reference.
We however have many articles on key health care topics that are more or less completely unloved. They are relatively easy to improve as so few people work on them. The ones I refer to of course are this list [2] and I am slowly bringing them to GA. I assume many people who are looking up "cannabis" have already made their mind up regarding the topic and any content we contain will have no effect on their decisions.
I would strongly support efforts to more clearly mark if an reference is a review or primary source. I know User:Zad68 has build a tool to help with this. If we had a bot to add it as a ref parameter in individual articles that people from this project are working to improve it may help with this effort. Zad how easy would it be to adapt your tool to do this? If it was added to this would also be helpful [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to give my Python code to anybody who wants to pursue hooking it up to a bot as things get moved to the new Toolserver host. Zad68 21:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay am wading in a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Re: rant, I think there are a few essays on this general theme (e.g. WP:Wikipedia is failing/WP:Wikipedia is succeeding). It generally depends on your outlook on life. You could, arguably quite legitimately, say "most of our content is not great". You could say "things are better than they were in 2005, maybe they will slowly keep getting better". I generally align with the second view, but I feel Wikipedia is plagued by WP:CREEP and bureaucracy that just puts most people immediately off due to the unpleasant atmosphere. We are our own worst enemy. We complain of not having enough volunteers, and yet on the other hand we essentially discourage new editorship. Lesion (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes agree completely. I am not sure what the balance is between pushing people to improve the content they add and pushing those away who seem to lack competence or reverting too aggressively.
I am confident that we can get all 80 of or top importance articles to either 80 GA or GA over the next 3 to 5 years. These articles receive about 5% of our total page views. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for wading in, Doc ... with your help, one article out of a suite of about 15 really bad articles is now better. I don't know if things are getting better or worse, but with student editing, I expect everything to be harder to keep up with, and my point was, why are we focused on the relatively benign area of acupuncture when we have much bigger problems in here with more serious potential for adverse affects on consumers using our content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
why are we focused on the relatively benign area of acupuncture
Because someone asked us for help with a question about it, just like you are asking for far more dramatic levels of help with the cannabis articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And now the pushback begins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"No amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care"

This discussion was also started at Talk:Traditional_Chinese_medicine#Recent_edits. In the future, avoid this type of canvassing/splitting discussions. Keep them together. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A few editors are trying to add the following statement to Traditional Chinese Medicine:

Quackwatch stated that, the TCM theories are so nebulous that no amount of scientific study will enable TCM to offer rational care"

This clearly falls under WP:SPECULATION. Could someone take a look at it? -A1candidate (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. It isn't WP:SPECULATION at all, particularly on a page so full of dubious claims about efficacy --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you should list each of the dubious claims then? If there is a claim that isn't justified by reliable sources, it should be removed. I think that would be a much more logical approach, as opposed to making angry edit summaries like "Facts??? In an article about TCM?? Bit rich." which give off the impression that you're merely here to wage war in support of your own pre-existing opinions. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This isn't really a question for this noticeboard. It's not speculation that QW have expressed this view (which is what the text says). The questions here are about weight/neutrality - in other words, is QW's view worthy of inclusion? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand we are out there with Cochrane reviews, does really Quackwatch place as high in credibility as Cochrane? To me it seems a fringe view that isn't either backed up by science properly. The theories may be faulty, but that's a damn hell of a statement when several ancient Chinese medicines have been shown to have effect. CFCF (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
When we can get excellent scholarly sources on a subject, then I don't see any reason to cite QuackWatch. If we were talking about some individual commercial product ("WhatamIdoing's All-Natural Cure-All") for which few sources existed, then it might be okay sometimes, just like citing a magazine article might be okay sometimes. But I would not use it at the article about TCM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Quackwatch is not what we would typically consider a good source of medical information, and agree we should preferentially use high-quality secondary sources where such exist. --LT910001 (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
To me, any phrase that reads "no amount of X will ever Y" is a crystal ball phrase. Such a statement is largely unsupportable, as it makes a definite future prediction, and nobody can make future predictions with such certainty. Remember, the line is not an assumption ("it is unlikely that...") but a definite statement. It would be akin to George W. Bush saying in 2002 that "nothing can ever disprove Iraq's posession of WMDs", or clergymen in the 19th Century stating that "no amount of foolish blasphemy will ever prove the theory of evolution, and disprove His almighty creation of all that is around us". We might not have enough randomised controlled trials and clinically useful studies done on TCM now, but that doesn't mean that in 10 or 20 years time there will never be; it makes zero sense to state that something will never happen in future, if the people of the present have no control over the future. It's logically absurd. I can only interpret those words by QuackWatch as an unbalanced POV statement, since it relies on literary hyperbole to bring its message across, instead of a logically valid statement. --benlisquareT•C•E 00:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually the statement is about as precise as the nebulous nature of TCM, which is a hodgepodge of ideas, some of which are religious, traditional, prescientific, and/or outright pseudoscientific. Now if Barrett were speaking about a specific aspect like acupuncture, I would be able to follow your reasoning, but we're talking about TCM, which is an umbrella term, and that umbrella has lots of holes in it. That statement points out that with so many holes, it will never be able to keep anyone completely dry. Now if that statement were to be used about a specific segment of the umbrella which had no holes, or only a few, it would be wrong to use it, but that's not the case here, so it's actually very apt. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the content and placement (the content in the lead is significantly different) have been significantly altered from what they were at the beginning, to the seeming satisfaction of some members of both POV, can we close this discussion? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. I just deleted the crystal balling part of QW's quote in the article [4]. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Extreme MEDRS violations

The specific results of discredited studies are repeatedly being inserted into the German Acupuncture Trials. There are a lot more MEDRS violations. The lead should summarise the body but the text in the body was deleted. The German Acupuncture Trials could be the worse written medrs-related article on Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems there. I would like to talk with people there more. I think the difficulties can be resolved in a way which satisfies everyone. I am on that talk page now. This problem is not insurmountable and I am interested in establishing best practices for covering clinical trials on Wikipedia. Trials themselves can be worth covering but I am very concerned about MEDRS violations also. I want to work on this some more. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The huge mess was restored against Wikipedia policy. QuackGuru (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You deleted large chunks of MEDRS material without consensus and while the discussion about it is ongoing. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Medical claims based on newspaper commentary

A few pseudoskeptics are edit-warring and trying to add medical claims to Acupuncture based on newspaper commentary in The Guardian, instead of a proper academic journal. They are arguing that WP:MEDRS does not apply here. Can someone please stop them? -A1candidate (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have commented on that article's Talk page. Incidentally, it's not really good form to label your fellow editors pseudoskeptics. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE/PS answers this question: No

I agree that this is an interesting and nuanced topic area, a mixed bag evidence-wise, and (for those reasons) a lame windmill for would-be debunkers to tilt at. But the question "is it a pseudoscience" is already addressed by policy.

We had an ArbCom case on pseudoscience that produced guidelines on when to characterize topics as pseudoscience. See WP:FRINGE/PS. Acupuncture:

  • has a following, and also
  • has critics who say it's a pseudoscience, but
  • is not generally considered pseudoscience in the scientific community,

which means we can't characterize it as pseudoscience (unambiguously, e.g., by putting it in category:pseudoscience). But we can (and do) include in the article good critical RS's that say it's pseudoscientific. We can also put it on a list, e.g. List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, because its inclusion can be annotated and thereby qualified.

How do we know if a position is held by the scientific community at large? Simple, we need an adequate source that is clear on the point, per WP:RS/AC. Examples include statements by scientific academies. There is no such source for acupuncture (as opposed to e.g. homeopathy).

The idea of a literal qi running through the body is just as pseudoscientific as any vitalistic notion, but there is active mainstream research -- with mixed results -- into acupuncture as a treatment. Cochrane reviews, among the most highly regarded in medicine, find evidence of acu being effective for certain conditions, but the effects are small and the design of proper controls non-trivial, so the debate goes on over whether or not it's really just a placebo. Good reviews exist, pro [5] and con [6].

So no, we don't consider acupuncture to be a pseudoscience, even if some sources do. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone have access to [7]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ping! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to map my understanding of "Ping" to this request. If still needed, I have it. -- Scray (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have assumed that it is the sound that most people's e-mail inboxes make when something arrives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Medical disclaimer RFC launched

Should this EL stay on Trigeminal neuralgia?

I did not immediately remove this link. The whole site is not as bad as the initial appearance. Still not sure though. Comments appreciated her: Talk:Trigeminal_neuralgia#Suitable_EL_for_Wikipedia. Many thanks, Lesion (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would remove and have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.  Done ready for archive 18:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stress sweating (emotional sweating)

Dear medical experts: Here's another one of these old abandoned Afc submissions. It could be deleted at any time. It appears to have references, though. If anyone here thinks it has value, please make an edit of some kind, which will postpone its deletion for six months. If no one does, it will fade away... Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not distinguishable from hyperhidrosis imo. Lesion (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Gah the refs are so old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds like it's a no go. If the subject exists and the refs are not useful to improve the existing article, it seems to be of little use. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status of images by Frank Netter

Hoping this may interest some of you here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy/Open_Tasks#Copyright_enquiry_of_images_by_Frank_Netter There is a chance that some of these images lack copyright and can be used for articles on anatomy as well as medicine. Currently in discussion at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Obstetrics_book. If anyone here who is good at copyright law, or maybe just has access to any of the CIBA collections for high quality scans do not hesitate to contact me or anyone else who wished to get involved. CFCF (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably one of the best medical illustrators of all time. Is it if 50 years has expired since publication? I understand that Elsevier currently "own" (or say they own) the "Netter collection". Lesion (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
They hold the copyright for a large portion of the images by Frank Netter as far as I'm aware, making up what they call The Netter Collection and will hold that collection until either they sell it or the year is 2062 (ridiculous), but a large portion were published in CIBAs medical books which at least one of which doesn't seem to have its copyright renewed meaning it could already be in the public domain. CFCF (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Copyright renewal was a required practice for books published in the United States between 1923-1962 in order for their copyright to hold for more than 28 years after publication. This applies in the US, and hence to Wikipedia. CFCF (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Have contacted knowledgeable Wikipedians at: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Frank_Netter CFCF (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Any pictures of seizures available? I know Netter did a few. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately it seems if any images at all are available they would concern the gastrointestinal tract or female reproductive health, and even concerning these I am still cautious before uploading. I will keep a lookout seeing as there are not really any adequate images in the Epileptic seizure article. CFCF (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

3 Proposed merges

3 pages into oral and maxillofacial pathology. Comments appreciated here: Talk:Oral_and_maxillofacial_pathology#Proposed_merges many thanks, Lesion (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to those who already commentated, but there is still no consensus. There are 2 articles with duplication of scope. They should be merged. There is an editor who is resistant to this mainly I understand because they do not like the title of oral and maxillofacial pathology. I was the one who renamed that page a while ago for the reason that it could then accurately discuss both the actual diseases of region and the medical/dental specialty called (most commonly) oral and maxillofacial pathology. Lesion (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Simon Baron-Cohen

More eyes needed on long-time uncited, primary-sourced, puffery maintained by two WP:SPAs. 3RR note issued and removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not uncited, but IMO the most obvious problem at the moment is the inclusion of nearly 400 publications that this person had (at least a minimal) hand in. I've started a discussion on the talk page and I would be happy to hear other people's views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure which article you're reading. It is most certainly uncited, and the SPA keeps removing the CN tags, adding citations that don't verify the text, blanking critic reviews of SBC books, and adding a list of every journal publication the man has. Perhaps you missed all of that in your review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm reading the one that has 13 footnotes to reliable sources under ==References==. "Uncited" normally means that there are zero reliable sources on the entire page, not that there is no inline citation after the guy's birthdate or after the first instance in which his PhD adviser is named (you may not have noticed that the second such instance is provided with an inline citation). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a pedant; the article is uncited by any normal measure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

So, faced with multiple and changing SPAs, I have been trying to get this article cited for almost six years. SPAs POVing and reverting the article date to at least 2007, suggestive of WP:COI editing:

(and other minor contributors). It will take considerable work to bring this article in line with Wikipedia's sourcing standards, and although WAID may not have studied the history of the article, I've been doing this for six or seven years and have decided the only remedy left is to install multiple tags until something is done. Extra eyes may be needed to make sure this article conforms to Wikipedia's standards.

Further, possible COI editing by Baron-Cohen was identified four years ago.

I doubt that there isn't copyvio, but I'm unable to locate the source of it, as this uncited content is now mirrored all over the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have semiprotected it for three months just to help get a handle on things and so editing can be limited to accounts with whom discussion can take place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Would an admin please review Talk:Simon Baron-Cohen and User talk:Minsk101? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

After (I've lost track) seven or eight warnings, same continues at Simon Baron-Cohen, with talk queries unanswered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

At WP:ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Just so people know, I've gotten the troublesome editor to stop making edits to the article, looking OK now. Zad68 20:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS query

Isabelle Rapin is a recognized autism expert, and one whose secondary reviews we cite in numerous neuropsych articles. At Talk:Simon Baron-Cohen, WhatamIdoing invokes WP:MEDRS to say that a quote from Rapin in the Wall Street Journal book review of The Essential Difference by Simon Baron-Cohen "is not usually the kind of MEDRS-type source that we prefer".[9] Rapin is a recognized expert on autism: to the best of my knowledge, none of Baron-Cohen's theories on autism have gained acceptance. Why is Rapin not a reliable source to review a book by Baron-Cohen, about his autism theories? These are autism experts commenting on book reviews of pop psychology theories of autism. If Rapin is not an RS on the topic of autism, why do we cite her secondary reviews all over Wikipedia?

(As a side note, I just wrote Rapin's article in an hour and a half, while in six years, I haven't been able to get the POV and uncited text cleaned up at Baron-Cohen.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is proposing that a newspaper article, written by a staff reporter (not a "recognized autism expert") at The Wall Street Journal, be used as a source to say whether this scientific idea is good or bad. The newspaper article, at one point, quotes a somewhat negative viewpoint from a recognized expert. It also quotes the originator of this idea, and it comes to no actual conclusion about whether the idea is any good.
The question I asked is, "Is there really no scholarly criticism of his ideas?" MEDRS isn't really supportive of Science by press release, even when it includes a quotation from an expert, and it directly states that "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information". But perhaps a somewhat more direct question would be helpful: :Why should we cite a newspaper article on whether this scientific idea is any good, when peer-reviewed, scholarly review articles about this idea (like PMID 22369368) exist? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
We are talking about a book review; did a medical reliable source summarize the book in the article? (No. Statements about what the book claims are not sourced to MEDRS sources-- they are sourced to the book.) So we allow an author's article to make statements about what his book proposes as a theory (not accepted by mainstream medical consensus) but we would disallow reliable expert's commentaries in a book review? Just because the book reviews are published well, where book reviews are usually published?

Pushing MEDRS to these limits will give MEDRS a bad name. It looks like disallowing an acknowledged expert book review just because she is quoted in the laypress-- which is where books are usually reviewed.

Since you hadn't reviewed the history of the article, I wonder if you really even considered the expertise brought to bear in the review.

Further, where do you intend to draw this line? We can't quote Rapin, an autism expert, from the Wall Street Journal, but the article can cite Time magazine and Nature and any other manner of laypress in support of the book? In a bio, where COI editing is evident, anything printed by magazines has been allowed, but critical review by an expert is disallowed, in a book review, in the name of MEDRS? Recipe for POV, which is what the article is now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually see anything in the WSJ article that indicates that it is a book review. The Los Angeles Times piece is a book review, but the WSJ piece appears to be a plain old article, in the "Health" section and about the subject matter, not about the book. The fact that his theory was described in a book gets less than half a sentence out of the entire article ("his theory, outlined in a recent book, The Essential Difference..."). The WSJ has a dedicated section for book reviews, but as far as I can tell, this particular article wasn't in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Expert opinion is one of the categories of content that can be considered as set out at WP:MEDASSESS. Care is needed of course but since Rapin is "considered by many the doyenne of autism" then I'd have thought her expert opinion is both relevant and usable here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. At any rate, better understanding of WAID's novel position wrt MEDRS is needed, as article progess is at a standstill pending resolution of her opposition to secondary laypress sources in a BLP, to express what SBC's views are. The article makes extensive use of sources like Time magazine, NY Times, The Guardian, Scientific American, Nature and others, as secondary sources documenting the views of Simon Baron-Cohen. (Yes, there are few other secondary reviews of his work beause as far as I know none of his theories have gained traction, but he does attract media attention.) Since WAID is rejecting lay sources for writing about his views, including those expressed in his books, shall we delete all lay sources from his article? That would leave his book opinions unopposed and unbalanced.

Without pedantry, we need to understand if:

  • WAID rejects Isabelle Rapin (and other medical experts quoted in the laypress) as an authoritative reliable source on the topic, only because she was quoted in the laypress, or
  • because the report in the laypress has no author in the byline,
  • or because she rejects anything for this kind of BLP written in the laypress.
Until this is resolved, it's hard to proceed with article work. Shall we remove all mention of SBC's theories, for example, as documented in Time magazine? And if WAID is rejecting all laypress book reviews on medical topics, we've got big problems in scores of articles, because most book reviews happen in the laypress. (I won't engage the pedantry that this particular WSJ article is not a book review, since SBC's views are clearly put forward in those books.) Considering this pedantic black-and-white view of how to use laypress sources in a BLP, I'm not sure how much of an article SBC will have left if we follow WAID's interpretation of MEDRS.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't reject any person, expert or otherwise. I am concerned about using publications that do not meet the standards set forth in MEDRS, not people. Experts get misquoted and misrepresented in the laypress all the time. If you want to know what Rapin thinks about this, then go look for something that Rapin wrote herself.
  • Since I'm merely repeating to you the exact text of MEDRS, it's a little difficult to see how this is my "novel position". MEDRS directly says, The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles....Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, and historical information in a medical article. If you don't like it, then go get the guideline changed.
  • I'm not telling you that the source can't be used. I'm telling you that it's not a great source for medical information.
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a pathetic argument. My view about using a newspaper article written by a non-expert reporter applies to all of the other sources, too. If you want to use them (or, indeed, the two that we've discussed here) to support "social, biographical, current-affairs, and historical information", then go for it. If you want to use them for "scientific and medical information", then that's not okay.
  • Newspaper articles are not generally considered to be secondary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. You are allowed to WP:USEPRIMARY sources, but MEDRS discourages it. For that matter, you could simply cite his own books for the contents of his books. We do that so routinely in articles about books that we normally don't bother providing any citation at all.
  • There are, obviously (because I linked one above), scholarly reviews about his ideas. If your deliberate search for negative viewpoints has turned up no criticism except in one quotation from an expert in the laypress and one book review by a non-expert, then IMO you need to consider whether those negative viewpoints are WP:DUE. And if there are more significant or more scholarly criticisms (surely there are!), then IMO you ought to be citing those other sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, you have not addressed the query or dealt with the extensive use of other laypress sources in that article (and no, my alleged "deliberate search for negative viewpoints" did not turn up "no criticism"-- there is boatloads-- the point is, there is essentially no support for SBC's theories in journal-published secondary reviews).

Please stop prevaricating; do you want laysources removed from that article, or not? If you do, most of the article needs to be gutted, and there will be little left to say, since his theories have little coverage/traction in secondary journal sources, while plenty of play in laysources, and if we remove laysources (indeed, commentary from recognized experts in the field), the propositions put forward in his books will be left unbalanced and unopposed.

Your interpretation of MEDRS that Isabelle Rapin being quoted in a very high quality newspaper as unreliable for a review of another researcher's personal theories is most certainly novel.

In the meantime, the main editor of that article continues POV editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed your query about the extensive use of other laypress sources. Specifically, I said that "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a pathetic argument". But so that we can be clear, here is a more detailed statement:
I want all laysources "removed" from this and all other articles in the entire English Wikipedia:
  1. where "laysources" specifically means "popular press" rather than reputable sources that intend to provide medical information to people who are not professional healthcare providers (e.g., lay summaries like this from USPSTF);
  2. if and only if said laysources are used to support scientific or medical information, e.g., what flaws might be present in a scientific idea;
  3. where the primary and preferred definition of "removed" is "replaced by a stronger source, if possible"; and
  4. so that action is taken at some point before the WP:DEADLINE, explicitly including any time in the next hundred years.
So that there may be no confusion, I will also state the obvious converse:
I do not want laysources removed from this article, if said laysources are not used to support scientific or medical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't read the article myself but looking through this discussion I think WhatamIdoing has a point. I don't trust newspapers to not cherry pick quotations or to quote out-of-context or even to quote accurately. We do have a problem in general with ideas promoted in the lay or popular press that are simply shunned in academia rather than publicly rejected (which may or may not be the case here). The increasing use of blogs by scientists doesn't help us find reliable sources. Books are sometimes reviewed in academic press, though such a review may concentrate more on the quality of writing or methods of argument rather than whether the theory is valid. -- Colin°Talk 10:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Icotinib

Dear medical experts: There is already a small stub article about this topic. Is this Afc submission suitable for mainspace? If so, we can work on getting the two combined. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne,

While awaiting a reviewer, it would be helpful to clean up the citations. Right now they're a bit of a trainwreck. wp:CITEMED has guidance. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I know nothing about medical matters, which is why I posted here for some expert advice. If it's just the reference format that's bad, that can be fixed before or after acceptance. If you mean that the references are inappropriate, or don't support the information in the article, that's a more serious issue. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Lactate and exercise

Anyone have access? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8883213

I only have access to that journal back to 1997 :(.

Thanks, CFCF (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources citing the above
I don't have access but these reviews cite it:

1. Title: Distribution of power output during cycling - Impact and mechanisms

Author(s): Atkinson, Greg; Peacock, Oliver; Gibson, Alan St Clair; et al.

Source: SPORTS MEDICINE Volume: 37 Issue: 8 Pages: 647-667 doi:10.2165/00007256-200737080-00001 Published: 2007

Times Cited: 22 (from Web of Science)

2. Title: Training to enhance the physiological determinants of long-distance running performance? Can valid recommendations be given to runners and coaches based on current scientific knowledge?

Author(s): Midgley, Adrian W.; McNaughton, Lars R.; Jones, Andrew M.

Source: SPORTS MEDICINE Volume: 37 Issue: 10 Pages: 857-880 Published: 2007

Times Cited: 51 (from Web of Science)

3. Title: Science and cycling: current knowledge and future directions for research

Author(s): Atkinson, G; Davison, R; Jeukendrup, A; et al.

Source: JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES Volume: 21 Issue: 9 Pages: 767-787 doi:10.1080/0264041031000102097 Published: SEP 2003

Times Cited: 52 (from Web of Science)

4. Title: Anaerobic threshold: The concept and methods of measurement

Author(s): Svedahl, K; MacIntosh, BR

Source: CANADIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE PHYSIOLOGIE APPLIQUEE Volume: 28 Issue: 2 Pages: 299-323 Published: APR 2003

Times Cited: 118 (from Web of Science)

5. Title: PASSCLAIM - Physical performance and fitness

Author(s): Saris, WHM; Antoine, JM; Brouns, F; et al.

Source: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUTRITION Volume: 42 Supplement: 1 Pages: 50-95 doi:10.1007/s00394-003-1104-0 Published: MAR 2003

Times Cited: 15 (from Web of Science)

6. Title: The concept of maximal lactate steady state - A bridge between biochemistry, physiology and sport science

Author(s): Billat, VL; Sirvent, P; Py, G; et al.

Source: SPORTS MEDICINE Volume: 33 Issue: 6 Pages: 407-426 doi:10.2165/00007256-200333060-00003 Published: 2003

Times Cited: 100 (from Web of Science)

7. Title: Criterion-related validity of the Borg ratings of perceived exertion scale in healthy individuals: a meta-analysis

Author(s): Chen, MJ; Fan, XT; Moe, ST

Source: JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES Volume: 20 Issue: 11 Pages: 873-899 doi:10.1080/026404102320761787 Published: NOV 2002

Times Cited: 117 (from Web of Science)

8. Title: The scientific basis for high-intensity interval training - Optimising training programmes and maximising performance in highly trained endurance athletes

Author(s): Laursen, PB; Jenkins, DG

Source: SPORTS MEDICINE Volume: 32 Issue: 1 Pages: 53-73 doi:10.2165/00007256-200232010-00003 Published: 2002

Times Cited: 173 (from Web of Science)

9. Title: A review of the concept of the heart rate deflection point

Author(s): Bodner, ME; Rhodes, C

Source: SPORTS MEDICINE Volume: 30 Issue: 1 Pages: 31-46 doi:10.2165/00007256-200030010-00004 Published: JUL 2000

Times Cited: 35 (from Web of Science)

Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Those sources weren't as precise as the one I found for what I was looking for, but in sheer number they probably outperform. Thanks a lot! CFCF (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Also they have the benefit of being quite a bit newer. CFCF (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Attention needed on multiple

After seeing Template:Did you know nominations/Intercostal nerve block, I pulled up this, and found at least Forced normalization and hypobulia, so more checking may be needed. The language used at Intercostal nerve block is at odds with the language in the DYK, so copyvio checks may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A new form of epilepsy. As defended in court cases. Limbic psychotic trigger reaction.

I would like feedback, please, on the Articles for Creation submission currently at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Limbic psychotic trigger reaction. Apparently, this is 'A new sub-form of partial epilepsies ("focal epilepsy")' and has been 'defended in 24 Court cases'.

A large number of journal articles are presented as references, but without inline citations. Do they (can they) support the facts being proffered in the article? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There are at least 12 pubmed-indexed articles, including one review: PMID 8302991. But that article is a mess and needs cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The only PubMed secondary source article (review, systematic review or meta-analysis) containing this phrase is PMID 8302991 from 1993, and the review is written by Pontius AA. In her review Pontius appears to be using primary sources also written by Pontius so the secondary source wouldn't be entirely independent, which is required by WP:N. I think the article could be declined with a clear conscience. Zad68 17:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well! Agree with Zad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Engel & Pedley's Epilepsy: A Comprehensive Textbook (2008, p. 2205) addresses this rather more succinctly than usual:

"a putative link between very specific forms of epilepsy and...pyromania or arson...has been discussed to be possibly triggered by a putative mechanism called the limbic psychotic trigger reaction (LPTR). This is believed to be a form of nonconvulsive behavioral seizure (NCBS); following this theory, seizure-like limbic pathomechanisms that are kindled by memory stimuli result in brief psychotic episodes in which the affected patients impulsively set fire. It should be stressed that these hypotheses are purely based on a few case reports, and that no solid epidemiologic data support the theory that these forms of impulse control disorder are truly more common in epilepsy as compared to the general population."

I would decline it at this time. Maralia (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks to all for the prompt and detailed replies. I have declined the submission with a link to this page and a few extra details. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Do these veins exist?

In Template:Veins of the thorax and vertebral column, there are the Striolae (striola luteola · striola aureola · striola rubella) and the Kacheshmarova's vein, vena xiphia and vena africana, all added by ip's long ago. Do any of these exist or should they all be deleted? --WS (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

After a Google Scholar search that came up empty, I have removed those items from the template. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Bacopa monnieri

This article got a huge amount of text added by an IP and I am not sure whether this is appropriate (it's about the pharmacological and medicinal properties of this plant). It seems well sourced, but perhaps someone from this project could also have a look? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish pruned the article, but I suggest Jmh649 might have a look, because of prior issues he has uncovered with Indian pharmacy journals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like Trypto has done a good job. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, many thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources on behavior genetics

Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in behavior genetics, both in humans and in nonhuman animals. I've been reading university textbooks on genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. That university has long been a center of research on human behavior genetics, being the site of a major study of monozygotic twins reared apart. I currently participate in a weekly "journal club" there with multidisciplinary postgraduate discussion of human genetics. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for updating the articles on behavior genetics and related topics. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources. The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original).

Other Wikipedians who watch the article Behavioural genetics did all of us a great favor on the article talk page by suggesting helpful sources. In particular, User:Pete.Hurd suggested an authoritative textbook on behavior genetics, covering both the human and the animal research, and following up on his suggestion led me to several other helpful sources with similar subject cataloging in libraries.

Noting that Behavioural genetics is listed as a start-class, high-importance article by the WikiProjects for both genetics and psychology, I will start a workpage of an article update draft in my user space, relying on the sources recommended on the article talk page and on others listed here (in approximate order of date of publication, which is also almost but not exactly the order in which I have read them over the last few years):

  • Bazzett, Terence J. (2008). An Introduction to Behavior Genetics. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer. pp. 241–242. ISBN 978-0-87893-049-4. Taken together, these findings suggest that about 50% of the variation seen in IQ scores is accounted for by genetics and a nearly equal percentage is accounted for by environment. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Anholt, Robert R. H.; Mackay, Trudy F. C. (2010). Principles of behavioral genetics. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-372575-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Segal, Nancy L. (2012). Born Together—Reared Apart. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-05546-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behaviorial Genetics). Worth Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

There are many useful review articles and overview news stories from peer-reviewed scientific journals that meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines and are very useful sources for updating articles about behavior genetics (and I encourage Wikipedians to suggest others besides those listed here).

Some more general reference books about genetics or behavior also touch on behavior genetics issues through book chapters.

  • Spinath, Frank M.; Johnson, Wendy (2011). "Chapter 10: Behavior Genetics". In Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas; von Stumm, Sophie; Furnham, Adrian (eds.). The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Individual Differences. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781444343120. ISBN 978-1-4443-3438-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Maxson, Stephen C. (10 October 2012). "Chapter 1: Behavioral Genetics". In Weiner, Irving B.; Nelson, Randy J.; Mizumori, Sheri (eds.). Handbook of Psychology (PDF). Vol. Volume 3: Behavioral Neuroscience. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-89059-2. Archived from the original on 2013. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help)

I'm particularly mentioning this here on the WikiProject Medicine project talk page because some of the article edits I plan to clean up what another active editor here describes as a "mess" while in greater or smaller part impinge on articles that are more squarely on topics of medicine-as-such. I generally leave most articles on purely medical topics in the hands of editors who have formal training in medicine (I have a few of those on my watchlist), but as I surf by articles that link over to the behavior genetics articles, I may have occasion, as I did yesterday, to update wikilinks or otherwise incidentally edit minor details of articles in the scope of this project. I welcome all of you to suggest how I may most collaboratively proceed to clean up the mess in the many articles that pertain to behavior genetics, and I invite all of you to suggest sources on the topic of behavior genetics that fit the most stringent interpretation of the WP:MEDRS guidelines. Best wishes for a happy new year with many article improvements. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Spanish refs with one author in common, part two

This user seems to be adding these [10] Wondering what people think? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we are looking at a subject expert editor here, and some of the sources seem at least at a glance to be sound. I think it would be best to inform about policy and inform that English sources are preferred unless translation is available. That said quite a few of the sources (if not all) are from Luis Joaquín García López, who seems to have published numerous (200+) papers on the subject, a number of which are CC-BY. Its difficult because if the sources are sound there is no reason to remove them, but on the other hand review is more difficult.CFCF (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I will look at them later today-- I've spotted one problem already. (Authors translating from other languages frequently commit copyvio.) We also have a likely COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I speak fluent Spanish, but I didn't even make it to the Spanish-language sources at Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory before finding copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I went through all of this editor's contribs, found two instances of cut-and-paste, multiple instances of adding sources where we already had them (that is, pushing one researcher's publications into entire suite of articles), and several instances of off-topic text. Addressed everything DocJames hadn't already gotten to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I've brought this back from archives because PsicoFS[11] continues to spam sources from one author into articles (sample). Specifically, PsicoFS is editwarring and inserting Spanish-language articles from one author into already cited articles (sample) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thigh gap

I'm trying to find some decent coverage of thigh gap for this, but I'm struggling. Does anybody have anything in any medical journals?--Launchballer 21:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you could find something if you looked for sources on how to diagnose Rickets or Genu varum. A "thigh gap" seems to be a fashion subject, not a medical one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, the DYK nomination pointed me to this WikiProject because it makes health claims relating to extreme dieting...--Launchballer 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Change Nature and nurture title back to Nature versus nurture?

Comments are needed on this matter this matter: Talk:Nature and nurture#Requested move -- Change title of article to back to Nature versus nurture?. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As noted in the article talk page discussion, I am always delighted to hear of suggestions of medically reliable sources on any issue that impinges on human medicine, broadly construed. I will be suggesting some sources of that nature in a moment in a section of this talk page on behavior genetics sources. Your further suggestions of good sources are always very welcome. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be the kind of question that the Google Books Ngram Viewer was built to help answer. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"In the news" article that needs a watcher or two

Just FYI, there's a Jahi mcmath article about a California girl that's making quite a few headlines here in the US, dealing with some pretty thorny medical ethics issues. The article needs cleanup but has no outrageous issues. Asking whether this is a BLP is a major headache. The article probably should have a watcher or two to make sure it doesn't attract any adverse content. 24.18.193.73 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering, how is this biographical article notable beyond one event, or compliant with WP:NOTNEWS? --benlisquareT•C•E 09:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It is mildly notable because the outcome has implications for many future cases. If the family gets what it wants it will become very notable, but I don't think that is likely. Beyond that it is notable simply because of the breadth of coverage by the news media. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It might be better to merge the content into another article, but what would be the target? There's a "teachable moment" in the McMath case (the article, as with Schiavo, should probably be about the case and not about the individual) in understanding the distinction between coma and death, and it might even have a home in brain death or some other overview article. 24.18.193.73 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It can be merged into a parent article. Coverage by the news media doesn't necessarily guarantee notability, and WP:BLP1E still applies. The information can easily be incorporated in a larger article. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this has reached the point where the event / case is easily worthy of an article. A biographical article is the logical starting point when someone is looking to create the page, but a move is probably needed. Canada Hky (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
It's tragic just to see a 13-year old girl with obstructive sleep apnoea, let alone that she received surgery and then had a fatal complication. (I treat OSA.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Tinnitus

Is getting some poor quality edits by IPs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, high-visibility article and IPs removing well-sourced material, semi-protected one week. Zad68 18:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

IP at autism articles

Long day, and it's still morning. [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"However a lot of research and funding is going into the idea that the genetic is related to genetics.", don't care if it was a typo - still my favorite line. Ian Furst (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
=D Lesion (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
This was the best diff [13]. Lesion (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Stupid bots

While bots are sometimes useful, other times they are not. Here we have an IP removing a whole section of an article.[14] The bot after it just saved the refs [15]. The problem with bots working so frequently is that it hides the edits on the watchlist. This is our 56th most viewed article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyway have protected this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
need help restoring the ref's, or was it just the one? Ian Furst (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Restored it fine. Just commenting on how this vandalism was missed on one of our most read articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and untick the box that says "Hide bot edits from the watchlist". You may want to do the same thing that to the "minor edits" item. You can see watchlist items that were most recently edited by a bot if you want to. (I do.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Meth GA

I'm in the process of doing a large restructuring, expansion, and re-sourcing of methamphetamine. Since I intend to GA-nom it once I'm done, I welcome any feedback/suggestions on the article - it's pretty high traffic for WP:MED (typically in top 20). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've revised or expanded every section (except synthesis, which Boghog did) in Methamphetamine over the past week: Before – After.
Besides a few minor issues, I'm finished with my edits on the article. Does anyone have any suggestions before I GA-nominate this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Expert help needed over at WT:WikiProject Neuroscience

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neuroscience#Expert_help_needed.21 A user brings up a question which really seems to belong here as it is about the effects of neurotransmitters relating to a psychiatric disorder. Seems to partly be a sourcing issue.

The section Antisocial_personality_disorder#Hormones_and_neurotransmitters feels very shakey. It was basically only about serotonines, so I added some text about serotonine and cortisol. However, I feel I'm out of my depth with this section. An article is used as a source that in its summary says: Trait aggression was significantly higher in the combinations “high T + high cortisol responses” (indicating decreased 5-HT availability), and “low T + low cortisol responses” (indicating increased 5-HT availability), after S-citalopram. Now I can copyedit these words but it doesn't make any sense to me - especially as I thought cortisol counteracts testosterone, so I would expect most trait aggression in the high T and low cortisol responses, and the least trait aggression in the low T and high cortisol responses. Now obviously this is not the case - showing that I don't get it. Could any of you with more insight into this copyedit the text so it becomes clear not for all of us who are not neuroscientists? Lova Falk talk 16:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

-- CFCF (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a really complicated question, because the neuroendocrine system involved encompasses the whole hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (cortisol) and hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis (testosterone, esp. in men) - that's to say there's a lot of feedback back and forth between the axes. In a nutshell, the regulatory mechanism goes both ways. Cortisol affects testosterone and testosterone affects cortisol by regulating the HPA axis under certain conditions (see bullet 2) through the hypothalamus (probably are indirect mechanisms as well). The above ref's statement is more or less in line with that bullet's ref and its explanation. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Arvind Kumar

Dear medical experts: Are there notability requirements for those in the medical profession as there are for professors, athletes, etc.? Or do they have to pass the general notability requirements (for example, the article above)? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

GNG, but this person is also a prof, so you could use those, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, just to make sure, I found some news reports. Between the professorship, the directorship and the news coverage, I think that should do it. I have postponed deletion for six months; I am hoping that someone with some medical knowledge can check to see if the references are reliable and maybe make them into citations where appropriate. —Anne Delong (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously?

Not a pubmed-indexed article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

But, it's cited five times! And this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Fine examples of why we have a dogged insistence on requiring med articles to be based on secondary sources. :) --Mark viking (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes another fine research article by Mr. Dan Bollinger. His name had come up a few times so about a year ago I did some research to figure out what his academic credentials are. The best I could tell is that he pursued a degree in Industrial Design and has a business selling refrigerator magnets, but I cannot find any evidence that he is affiliated with any university or hospital, holds a Ph.D. or M.D., or in fact has any formal medical or scientific training whatsoever. For a bit of background on him see here and here. Needless to say the journal the source article is published in isn't MEDLINE indexed. Reverted by Yobol before I could get to it... I can't tell you how many times I've seen sneaky IP edits like this. Zad68 20:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find any reliable sources that connected alexithymia with circumcision. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

SPA promoting "love-shyness" in medical articles

Bobvancleef38 (talk · contribs · logs) promoting apparently a book by Brian G. Gilmartin and a syndrome he calls Love-shyness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit says it all. I think a journey to AFD would not be a bad thing. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the question is whether any of the references not by Gilmartin and used in the article actually mention the term at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe things have changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love-shyness? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. I am surprised that no keeps quote any policy-related reasons as to why the page should be kept. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

PubMed returns one hit (from 1987): PMID 3681636 But the google scholar hits would have to be evaluated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

TBH, it should be syonymised or redirected to something like avoidant personailty disorder or social phobia or somesuch, but this would need a reliable secondary source saying as much. Will take a look at google. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Still at it: [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And a whole new slew of additions. I guess it's ANI time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love-shyness (2nd nomination) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD with a clear Delete and am actively handling the SPA. Zad68 20:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Love-shy.com

Where/how does one go about asking to have www.love-shy.com blacklisted? It's spammed all over the place, and that will probably continue even with the AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done Here. Zad68 20:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Zach! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy (incel)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up SandyGeorgia, involuntarycelibacy.com added to the spam blacklist too. SPA tagged at the AFD, it's certainly plausible there's a connection between the two SPAs identified here but not actionable yet. Zad68 13:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

Is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And now, Brian G. Gilmartin

Some clever person should look for off-Wiki canvassing, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian G. Gilmartin looks to be malformed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I may have fixed the formatting problems, but someone familiar with AFD should check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to the recruiting (affecting both the involuntary celibacy AFD and the Brian G. Gilmartin AFD. Because love shy dot com is blacklisted, you'll have to remove the spaces.

  • http:// www. love-shy. com/lsbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24171

Could someone add notice of the recruiting on both of the AFD pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(Beaten to the punch; somehow, tripping the blacklist warning didn't show the edit conflict)There does seem to be activity originating at www.love-shy.com/lsbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24171&p=475751 (blacklisted, so no direct link). I'll see if anything else shows up.Novangelis (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Holy long article title, batman

I seem to recall someone inquiring here or elsewhere, but ... what the heck ???

An excessively detailed article title like this may indicate that some particular POV (in this case, a particular set of mathematical models) is being pushed. I don't know the literature well enough to judge POV, but it seems like a more general title, such as Computational model of epilepsy, would be a better choice. At this level of generality, there are review articles like [17], [18], [19], and [20]. --Mark viking (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That's more in the realm of WP:MATH and MOSMATH; however, that article isn't compliant with MOSMATH (or really, an encyclopedic style in general), because it's rhetorical in the analysis section. Reads a lot more like a summary/amalgamation of research papers than an encyclopedia article. I'm not going to comment on notability, because I'm not familiar with that particular sub-field of mathematical biology (computational neuroscience); at the very least, it needs a restructuring/rewrite to conform to encyclopedic standards. I've added the appropriate WP temps to the talk page though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, it started as an essay on one model, overly specific, [21] and Tryptofish attempted to correct the article name to Electrophysiological hypersynchronization in epilepsy, but the SPA moved it back to a long name. The article was set up as the Shusterman-Troy model. I added what PMIDs I could find; someone really should give Trypto a hand in there, as it's not clear this should be an article, or at least, not the article it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • As soon as I saw the article title I thought, "I bet this article has 99% of its edits from one editor with a redlink for the User page" and I wasn't disappointed. It appears to be an article that's essentially a single primary research paper, PMID 18643304. It was published in the journal Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics which isn't even a journal focused on medicine, it is described as covering "Soft matter and biological physics; Chaos, hydrodynamics, plasmas, and related topics." PubMed shows that there is only one PMC article that cites the work, and it is another primary source that does so only in passing. Honestly this Wikipedia article should probably be deleted. Zad68 14:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I moved it to a shorter broader title until this is decided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, everybody, thanks for the fresh eyes! I tried PRODding the page, but the editor who created it (yes, pretty much an SPI) reverted it, and tends to revert most things that I try. I'd support an AfD of the page in its present state, because it really is just a promo for one rather isolated bit of research, but I also think that there's a place on Wikipedia for a broader page about synchronization in epilepsy, with a lot of coverage of the mathematical modeling, but also with some experimental neuroscience and neurology. I haven't had the ambition to really fight it out with the other editor, but if we can have a couple of editors with eyes on it, I'd really like to see the page changed from the essay that it is now, to something broader and encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to even know where to start, but if someone comes up with an AFD rationale, I'm there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Synesthesia#Organization

Have reorganized synesthesia to match other health condition related articles. The new layout can be seen here [22]. The old layout is here [23]. Seems it is controversial. Wondering if others wish to comment? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yikes. Well, organization is not the only problem here. It's been a long time since I've encountered such an extreme reliance on case reports and primary studies, we have a COI main editor, other recruited editors, and denials on talk that this is a medical concept. Eyes needed; sustained attention to cleanup necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Antisexualism

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisexualism (2nd nomination) see Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Noticeboard discussions

There currently are two discussions at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding WP:MEDICINE-scope concerns raised about the article Circumcision. The discussions are:

Input would be appreciated. Thanks... Zad68 15:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine)

We may need a guideline dealing with COI as it pertains to medicine. I have seen a fair number of experts who are here to promote themselves or there business more than write a balanced encyclopedia.

This would include using references written by yourself. Mentioning yourself in articles. Adding images with your clinic or your own name listed within the image.

Issues around the pharmaceutical industry / device manufacturers may be harder to articulate. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for that redlink, I meant the essay WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine). Although this is not a guideline, not sure if you were aware of it when posting this. Lesion (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
And as always my response when someone proposes a new guideline is "please god no". Just find a suitable existing guideline to mention it in... in this case it can probably be tacked on to WP:COI or MEDMOS or even MEDRS without yet another guideline... If there is one thing wikipedia does not need is more. Lesion (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree! Please no additional guidelines. LT910001 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Wherever it might end up, this issue takes about 75% of my editing time. It is a miserable time-sink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There any guidelines/essays on gray areas and ethical considerations w.r.t. article content? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC) - Added - The context for this question: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive1#GrayArea (In plain terms, it's a question of whether or not to plainly disclose a mechanism to maximize absorption/bioavailability of an addictive drug) 23:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I do at some point recall SandyGeorgia proposing a policy to deal with information added to med articles in a 'quick remove' sense, such as if uncited information is added, as apparently is used by WP:BIO (I apologise if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly, Sandy). If such a policy were to be formed, it could incorporate a sensible removal policy of: (1) unsourced content; (2) primary sources on articles. Part (2) would cover the majority of COI sources anyway, I believe. --LT910001 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm with LT910001 that we need no further pages with extra guidance. Decisions to remove unverifiable information require case-by-case editorial decisions on verifiability. I generally agree that information medical that cannot be sourced to a MEDRS-compliant source is often best removed (although it requires a modicum of effort to determine that something is not sourceable). For BLPs the trigger is lower because of the risk of defamation. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see this problem as specific to medicine. The wp:COI problem affects virtually all areas of WP, always running up against wp:AGF and wp:OUTING. I doubt that a new guideline would go far. Our best tools are wp:SECONDARY (to constrain the use of POV sources), wp:NOTMYSPACE (to deter self-promotion) and of course simple education for the well-intentioned but overenthusiastic newbies. Essays can help with educating the latter group. Once in a while, as at ALCAT test, we see the law of unintended consequences bites the culprits. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
User:LT910001, I think you're referring to the oft-expressed notion that we might elevate MEDRS to a BLP-like policy, enabling us to more easily remove unsourced or poorly sourced content. I don't see that as the same as COI? Jfdwolff, it is easier for the docs among us-- and particularly those who have journal access-- to easily remove poorly sourced content. It is harder for those of us who aren't docs or don't have journal access-- it can take us (me :) a very long time to determine if content should be removed, which is why I often can only go through and flag primary sources, and let the docs decide if the content should be removed. If we had a policy to allow the removal of poorly sourced content, it would make my work easier and faster, but I don't see the relation to COI ... I think we already have that covered, except that often COI editors are trying to add primary sources (this has been the theme of most of my editing for the last two weeks, as we seem to have been hit with a lot of editors pushing their pet theories into articles). I don't think we need a new guideline page for medical COI: we just need more admins to enforce it! In one BLP I've been working on this week, it took the non-medical admins a bit longer than the docs to see the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to make a provision in WP:MEDRS that content obviously based on primary sources should be considered for removal. JFW | T@lk 00:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
As a caveat to this, from the anatomical perspective, if editors were to consider MEDRS as applying to Anatomy, most of Anatomy is based on a chain of whispers emerging from primary sources. I may be thinking three steps ahead here, as this is not an issue we face at the moment. --LT910001 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. Problem for a lay-person is that, if I know the topic semi-well (hypothyroidism, say), I can see what is likely incorrect and should be removed, vs. what is poorly sourced but could be sourced to a secondary review if I had journal access. If I don't know the topic, I can't be of much help. It is painstaking work for a layperson with limited journal access, and I often feel I am of little help. I don't know what the solution is, but in those cases where we have intransigent POV-pushers (eg a BLP I worked on this week, and for six years), a policy allowing us to remove poorly sourced content (which I knew to be poorly sourced) would have saved me a lot of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep SandyGeorgia, I feel that the vast majority of COI editing is editing which relies on sources which are not reliable or are primary, so a stronger MEDRS grounding may have a significant impact on our ability to manage COI and student-based editing. Additionally, I feel an elevated MEDRS would be able to be used with a clarity and ease that would not be found in a new COI-policy.--LT910001 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A combination of google books and the free reviews provided on pubmed can go a long way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's worth reminding people that Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request‎ can be very helpful in winkling out these sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Slate.com review of a couple of pages

FYI: Not sure if anyone has seen this yet - slate.com has done a somewhat tongue-in-cheek review of the penis and vagina pages. Deeper in they've got someone talking about gender bias within the pages. Ian Furst (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Your link has an extra pipe. This link should work. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Already mentioned here at the Vagina article and here at WP:Anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, Ian, with regard to the topic of the penis, that Slate article is more so focused on the Human penis article rather than the Penis article. Flyer22 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Naomi Wolf, author of the recent book Vagina: "I've never seen a labia like that." Back to anatomy school for you, Ms Wolf. (The singular is labium.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe Wolf can hook up with WMUK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)

Another one in need of attention - would be good to run a reference-sniffing tool over this article ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Meditation and hypertension

A user would like further opinions here Talk:Hypertension#Alternative_Approaches_to_Lowering_Blood_Pressure_-_A_Scientific_Statement_From_the_AHA_Part_Deux Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Trypophobia

Trypophobia lacks any WP:MEDRS compliant sources, and has already been deleted once for this reason. There are no reviews on the subject, yet the article seems to be used by various sources to claim the reality of the phenomenon. Almost only tertiary sources in the article, and one primary. Should this be deleted? CFCF (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

PMID 23982244 from October 2013 says this common phobia is "hitherto unreported in the scientific literature". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't normally watch here, but was pinged. I just saw this, and was relieved to realize that it isn't Tryptophobia. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This is sort of a special case. It is obviously medical-related, but its notability arises from the level of media coverage -- there are dozens of articles in media sources that would easily meet RS for non-medical topics. My inclination is to apply IAR here. (I recently wrote a short news piece about this for a magazine, so I'm pretty familiar with the topic.) Looie496 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sentence case in article title

There is a discussion about whether a syndrome is an acronym, and therefore should not use the sentence case in the title. Comment appreciated: Talk:Olfactory_Reference_Syndrome#Requested_move_08_January_2014. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  •  Done Lesion (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's not done yet-- I tried to move, but an admin needs to delete the old for the move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, to clarify admin still needed, but consensus achieved. Lesion (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
correct (in the future, just ask an admin here to do this). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok now it's done, ty. Lesion (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Resource request

Does anyone have access to these 2 reviews?

  • Begum M, McKenna PJ. Olfactory reference syndrome: a systematic review of the world literature. Psychol Med. 2011 Mar;41(3):453-61. PubMed entry: [24], paywalled at Cambridge Journals: [25]
  • Bizamcer AN, Dubin WR, Hayburn B. Olfactory reference syndrome. Psychosomatics. 2008 Jan-Feb;49(1):77-81. PubMed entry: [26], Paywalled at Elsevier/science direct(?): [27]

Cross-posted on resource request page. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you (again!),  Done Lesion (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I find out if a journal is pubmed indexed?

This source seems useful:

Phillips KA, Castle DJ (2007). "How to help patients with olfactory reference syndrome" (PDF). Current Psychiatry. 6 (3).

But I could not find it on pubmed. What are peoples' thoughts about the suitability of this source and does anyone know of a way to find if any given journal is listed on MEDLINE? Lesion (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Pubmed indexing is a sort of sign of quality. For very rare topics such as this one I would not have an issue with your source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In that case, in it goes. There are hundreds of case reports, and this condition is supposed to be significantly more common in Japan, but just only 4 dedicated secondary/tertiary sources we can use (1 in Spanish). This adds a 5th. I just can't find out if the journal is peer reviewed. Interestingly, there are only 4 articles from this journal listed on PubMed, all available via PMC [jour. Not sure why the rest of the articles from this journal are not listed. Lesion (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It is peer reviewed [28]. Lesion (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Tepi the way you can check if a journal is MEDLINE-indexed is to look at the NLM Catalog record for it. For this particular journal Current Psychiatry the NLM Catalog record is here and unfortunately the journal is explicitly listed as not MEDLINE-indexed. MEDLINE indexing is a relatively low bar and there are LOTS of psychology journals that are MEDLINE-indexed and so I'd be concerned about the quality of that source. I'd dig deep into the author's credentials and affiliations before using. You have to ask yourself why the author couldn't get the article published in a more established MEDLINE indexed journal? Zad68 19:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This is interesting, because the journal seems legit. From their website: "Current Psychiatry is a peer-reviewed journal for 40,000 U.S. psychiatrists in community and hospital practice, psychiatry residents, and advance-practice psychiatric nurses with prescribing authority." I wonder why it is not on PubMed... Regarding the article itself, it has a "tacked on" case report, so maybe it is inappropriate to call this a secondary source. First author is a prof of psychiatry, both have disclosed links to pharmaceutical companies. Lesion (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't know why it isn't, Tepi, but it would certainly make me treat the source from a "guilty until proven innocent" frame of mind. Are there really absolutely no other better articles available that cover treatment? Just use your best judgment, of course. And I don't see any issue at all with review having a "tacked on" case report actually, I've seen a number of perfectly well-qualified WP:MEDRS articles written that way, especially when the articles are written by/for practicing ER docs or clinicians. The case report gives a framework that drives the organization of the article, just a style thing. Zad68 20:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Including this source, there are 5 dedicated, MEDRS compliant sources, 2 of which are described as systematic reviews, so yes I would say there better sources for treatment. I will use those for the treatment section then instead of this source. Thanks for advice, Lesion (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Lesion, let me know if you need help with a Spanish-language source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Google translate seems OK so far, but I may very well take you up on this offer later. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge notification

The one line derm stub Bromidrosiphobia has been proposed for merging into Olfactory reference syndrome, comments appreciated here [29], many thanks, Lesion (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I found a reliable source which states they are synonyms, merged.  Done Lesion (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft at AfC needs medical expert help.

This draft about a probably notable medical topic needs a lot of help to get it into shape. The content looks comprehensive (to my in-expert eye) but in terms of style, formatting, referencing and other "technicalities" it is a very rough draft. Rather than the draft being submitted to AfC numerous times and thus having problems pointed out for fixing one at a time, I believe it would be far better for the writer to be given fairly comprehensive assistance by someone familiar with the specific standards and requirements of medical articles. Going through AfC will require a large number of submit/decline/fix/repeat-cycles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work. I responded to the basic issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, massive work ahead. And there's the concern about due weight relative to self-citing by the main author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on. I have declined the AfC submission and requested that the author does not resubmit it to AfC before you folks are satisfied that it is acceptable - in which case one of you could just as well accept it into mainspace anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV

Following the recent drama around this topic, I stumbled into this - which needs attention. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It would take me a full day to go through 104 sources and flag reviews and primary sources; I'm wondering if Boghog has any magic tricks up his sleeve to get a bot to do this work (or at least a first pass, since PubMed doesn't always record them accurately). I will attempt to look at it after I finish the work pending at Schizophrenia and psilocybin et al, where I still haven't gotten back to Sasata. Considering the amount of work pending, I can't promise to get to this anytime soon; the hard, time-consuming work is first checking sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn this article is a super opportunity for improvement. There are TONS of sources available. I do not want to drive the development of this article but will support. SandyGeorgia I wrote a script that pulls the refs and tags them with the PubMed article type, I will run that for the article and post the results on the article Talk page. However I feel that the best thing to do would be to simply throw out the entire article and start over. Zad68 15:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You did ?!?!? Why am I just hearing about this-- I spent hours flagging primary sources at synesthesia. Can others use your script, or do we have to contact you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes... it's not really super-clever but it does the job. It is actually a piece of a bigger script that I wrote to assist me in reviewing the sourcing for medical article GA candidates. I've run it ad-hoc for a few things Doc needed. I had intended to put it up on the toolserver (I got an account and everything) but am not familiar enough with that to get it done, and then I lost momentum. I can still run it ad-hoc on request but the definitely sucks to make everyone dependent on me. Zad68 15:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk to Boghog about getting it implemented somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
He can help with that? That'd be great! Zad68 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes! a script! I was thinking along the same lines but (AIUI) even if one gets the CrossRef record for an article, there's no article classification data (i.e. whether it's a research article, a review, or whatever) in there. However, one can I suppose pull in the classification data from PubMed if it's got a PMID - is that what you do? Otherwise I have to confess I was thinking a delete and re-start might be easier -- does this article need to say much more than the corresponding section does at Circumcision ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have run my script and posted my results at the article Talk page, hope it's useful. Yes my script pulls the article type from PubMed. I think there's enough out there to fill out a real article on this topic, possibly even enough to support a GA. The main article should provide a brief overview and use the {{Main}} template to point to this article. Probably the main article could use an update on this, actually. Zad68 16:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Adding--I'm going to look into getting my script to pull the year and also whether it's MEDLINE indexed... Zad68 16:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Done adding MEDLINE status and year of publication to script, output at the article Talk page now! Zad68 18:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This sounds great, and it will save many of us hours of clicking.
However, like any tool, it will really only be great if people use it correctly. Primary sources are allowed in medical articles, if they are carefully chosen and sparingly used. For example, it's common for a ==History== section to link to the first formal description of a disease, even though that paper is often both decades old and a primary source. Some details of physiology might be better explained in and better supported by a top-quality primary paper than with a secondary source that mentions them in passing. WP:Secondary is not another way to spell good, and "primary" is not an alternative spelling for bad. Once you've got the list, you'll still have to think about whether this source is appropriate for the exact claim being made in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing point taken, I'm trusting that this will be used as a tool to assist and it won't be used in place of thinking and common sense! Zad68 20:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
For mechanisms of diseases usually textbooks are better than primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This script is awesome Zad68. Normally for an article that size, it would take me about eight hours just to check and flag the sources to know which are reviews, which are editorials, meta-analysis, etc, and by the time I'm done with that, I'm usually too sick and tired of the article (and sitting on my butt) to take the next step of seeing if the sources are used correctly.

In this instance, based on your list, it was much easier to flag the sources, and within an hour or two, work to see how the sources were used could get underway. As it turned out, a good number of the reviews were extremely dated, but provided useful information for the History section, and several of the primary sources used actually backed statements that could be made in History. This script saved a couple days' work, and a whole lot of frustration; the most important benefit is that one can get to work on the content faster, rather than wasting time with three tabs open to check and flag sources.

By the way, this article was written too long ago, so that what is there now mostly is a good history section; content needs to be built to be updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm beaming with pride, seriously... I'm delighted to produce something to help someone use their time more efficiently while... uh, well, wasting time on Wikipedia. Please let me know if I can add anything else to the script to make it more useful and I will have to follow up with Boghog! Zad68 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Substance dependence

I've been copyediting the substance dependence article since it's been in an awful state of disrepair; but, given the size of the page, I could probably use some help. It's both high importance and a level 4 vital article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another opinion

We have a new user who would like another opinion [30] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian just pointed out that the first supporting ref of the document in question is to the Wikipedia article on the subject :-) [31] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Cluster headache

Has been the subject of recruiting, and needs sustained attention to cleanup and maintenance. Rife with UNDUE and primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted, so I will try and stop it deteriorating, but I am not available to work on it right now. Also, what do people think of the lead image on headache? Lesion (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I've semiprotected it for six months as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the picture represents HAs well. Person is in a dark room. No concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, it is very hard to find images that convey pain and discomfort symptoms and even if the image might be a little staged its better than no image, or a head with lightning all around it. CFCF (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This is better now, but there are issues at Psilocybin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing for cluster headaches

Wondering if some admin would take it upon themselves to protect cluster headaches? We have long term canvassing going on here [32] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Psilocybin

Psilocybin has grown with the addition of non-MEDRS compliant sources, since its FAC (where I objected to primary sources). See talk where my removal of some of the primary sources was reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, despite Sandy's accusations to the contrary, essentially the same sources are in there as when Sandy herself passed the FAC. Discussion on source use invited on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I have extended my apologies to Sasata for several confusing factors that led me to remove text: besides having difficulty with list-defined references, more significantly, Vollenweider's status as a review was unclear. PMID 20717121 is in a review journal, but is in fact listed as an opinion piece. So ...

Following on the recruiting that occurred for cluster headaches, other issues were discovered in several articles. I'm starting this discussion so we can generate broader consensus about what to say about psychedelics as treatment (and more eyes on some of the articles).

  1. Cluster headache had a long, uncited essay. The article currently has one statement about psychedelics as treatment, cited to a 2011 review. Should we move it to a "research" section?
  2. Obsessive-compulsive disorder had text about psychedelics in treatment sourced to a primary study.
  3. Olney's lesions had text sourced to rat studies.
  4. Mydriasis had uncited text.
  5. There is text that I haven't checked closely yet at
    a. Placebo-controlled study in the recognition section,
    b. Psychedelic therapy (throughout), and
    c. Psilocybin mushroom In the Effects and As Medicine section
  6. Psilocybin has a medical research section. I promoted the FAC two years ago after a series of MEDRS questions, but it's not clear that any of the reviewers engaged MEDRS, so a closer look at the entire article would not be a bad idea.

Specifically, not only does text need to comply with MEDRS, but after considering the sources, is it undue to mention psilocybin treatment in individual conditions, and are we overusing the Vollenweider opinion piece? Considering the number of broad overviews available (not all listed here) for cluster headache and OCD, we have for each condition a very small study reported briefly in one or two reviews.

Sources

Collapsed table of sources used
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
PMID
Author and date
Type 		Journal Title Excerpts Questions/concerns
PMID 16801660
Sewell 2006
Primary study 		Neurology Response of cluster headache to psilocybin and LSD
Cited by 74 		The authors "located—through cluster headache support groups and an Internet-based survey—several hundred people with cluster headache who reported use of psilocybin-containing mushrooms or LSD specifically to treat their disorder". They interviewed 53 patients with a structured questionnaire.

Limitations: "First, it is subject to recall bias, because it relies primarily on participants' retrospective reports." "A second consideration is the possibility of selection bias, in that individuals with a good outcome may have been more likely to participate. Recruitment over the Internet also selects for younger, more educated, and more motivated subjects, likely leading to increased reported efficacy. Third, participants were not blind to their treatment, raising the possibility of a placebo response."

Discussion: "Our observations must be regarded as preliminary, in that they are unblinded, uncontrolled, and subject to additional limitations as described above. Therefore, our findings almost certainly overestimate the response of cluster headache to psilocybin and LSD and should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of the use of illegal substances for the self-treatment of cluster headache. However, given the high reported efficacy for this notoriously refractory condition, it is difficult to dismiss this series of cases as entirely artifactual. Further research is warranted."

The one primary study upon which the secondary reviews are based.
PMID 16539864
Husid 2006
Review 		Current Pain and Headache Reports
Impact factor 1.7 		Cluster headache: a case-based review of diagnostic and treatment approaches A comprehensive overview that doesn't mention psilocybin.
PMID 20352587
Halker 2010
Review 		Seminars in neurology
Impact factor 1.5 		Cluster headache: diagnosis and treatment A comprehensive overview of diagnosis and treatment of cluster headache that makes no mention of psychedelics or psilocybin.
PMID 21352222
Sun-Edelstein 2011
Review 		Headache
Impact factor, 2.9 		Alternative headache treatments: nutraceuticals, behavioral and physical treatments Literature review. "Although controversial, the evidence for the use of recreational drugs such as marijuana, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and psilocybin is worth mentioning for the insight it provides regarding the pathophysiology of migraine and cluster headache. Further research on the effects of these substances may result in a greater understanding of the mechanisms of these headache disorders." It describes the Sewell study, summarizes the results (same as for Sewell), and says: "These results are interesting not only because they describe the effective use of illicit drugs in cluster headache, but also because no other medication has been reported to terminate a cluster period. Furthermore, the drugs were effective at subhallucinogenic doses and effective treatment required very few doses of either drug. LSD reportedly terminated cluster periods after only 1 dose, and psilocybin rarely required more than 3 doses. The study was unblinded, uncontrolled and limited by recall and selection bias. However, further research on the effects of LSD and psilocybin on cluster headaches may be warranted, given the efficacy described in this report." This review is focused specifically on alternative headache treatments, while no broad overview of cluster headaches seems to mention psychedelics, and this one mentions psilocybin as "controversial" but useful for what the response says about pathophysiology. As this seems to be the only secondary mention of psilocybin for cluster headache, is mention of psilocybin as a treatment (rather than research) for cluster headache UNDUE?
PMID 23278122
McGeeney 2013
Review 		Headache
Impact factor, 2.9 		Cannabinoids and hallucinogens for headache. It reviews a lot of history (but current reviews explain the methodological issues that plagued the older studies), and concludes: "There is no literature support for this regimen." It mentions the Sewell 2006 survey, adding nothing of substance in the way of review: "In 2006, Sewell and colleagues published a survey of 53 cluster headache patients who used psilocybin or LSD to treat their condition.[82] Ten of 20 chronic cluster subjects who used psilocybin reported a complete cessation of attacks. Two chronic cluster subjects used LSD at sub-hallucinogenic doses, and both had cessation of attacks." More of a history article.
PMID 9924841
Delgado Moreno 1998
Review 		Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
Impact factor .7 		Hallucinogens, serotonin and obsessive-compulsive disorder
Cited by 44 		Describes two single-case reports of psilocybin for OCD, and says, "Psilocybin, LSD and mescaline are extremely potent agonists at 5-HT2A and 5-HT2c receptors."
PMID 17196053
Moreno 2005
Primary study 		The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of psilocybin in 9 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder
Cited by 61 		There were "nine subjects with DSM-IV-defined OCD and no other current major psychiatric disorder" and that varying dosages were used "randomly and in double-blind fashion" ... "Improvement generally lasted past the 24-hour timepoint." Modified blind, study limitations, small phase I study administered in a supportive, clinical environment, escalating doses if earlier dosage tolerated. Decrease in symptoms may be an artifact of mindset and setting ... researchers should carefully consider the subject's mindset prior to exposure.
PMID 20623923
Kellner 2010
Review 		Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience Drug treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder One sentence about psilocybin in the entire article: "Marked decreases of symptoms were observed shortly after single-dose exposures to the psychedelic drug psilocybin in patients with OCD", given in a paragraph that starts with: "For several other drugs preliminary interesting findings mostly from short-term open studies or case reports exist." A broad OCD overview gives psilocybin one sentence, as a "preliminary finding". There is no review of those findings.
PMID 20717121
Vollenweider 2010
Review 		Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Impact factor 31.7 		The neurobiology of psychedelic drugs: implications for the treatment of mood disorders On the OCD study, it gives the same overview information given by the primary study and the Kellner review, but adds that the results "rais[e] intriguing questions regarding the mechanisms that underlie this protracted effect. ... Further research ... could contribute not only to a mechanistic explanation of the potentially beneficial effects of psychedelics but also to the development of novel treatments for OCD ... further studies are warranted". It seems to indicate there was no attempt to determine if the effects were enduring beyond the 24-hour period, but the text is confusing on that aspect.

On cluster headaches, it has one sentence about Sewell 2006: "Another recent study reported that psilocybin and LSD aborted attacks, terminated the cluster period or extended the remission period in people suffering from cluster headaches."

The bulk of the paper then, after this summary, is about receptors and mechanisms involved, and why further studies may lead to better insight.

Not listed as a review in PubMed, although in a Review journal, the article is an opinion piece, mentioning past findings and moving on to "[t]hese findings raise the possibility that research into psychedelics might identify novel therapeutic mechanisms and approaches that are based on glutamate-driven neuroplasticity." It talks about the "use of psychedelics as research tools for unraveling the neuronal basis of psychotic disorders".

Patent

Something about a patent obtained by Sewell (of the cluster headache) study: [33] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Has Pericoronitis actually improved, or is this just a case of WP:OWN?

To give background, I wrote ~95% of this article (by no means was it "perfect" however). This was then criticized as possessing bloated language on the talkpage before a recent series of red edits have reduced the length of the article. It may be merely conflicting ideas of style, and specifically regarding how much detail our articles should go into. I feel content has been lost. Seeking neutral opinions regarding these changes. I do not wish to revert myself as I suspect my unease regarding these edits may just be a case of OWN. Comments appreciated. Lesion (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

James Heilman now has a Wikipedia page

I have decided that Jmh649, i.e. James Heilman, MD, meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and have therefore decided to create an article about him. This article can be viewed here. I am curious what he and other members of this Wikiproject think about whether this article should exist should be deleted or not. Jinkinson talk to me 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Gah. Doubt I meet notability requirements. I am from Saskatchewan yes. But not Moose Jaw Saskatchewan even though I did live there for a number of years. It is "East Kootenay". And I am not "the leading clinician-Wikipedian behind WikiProject Medicine". That honor would go to User:Jfdwolff. I could maybe be called a "leading clinician-Wikipedian". One among a number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
May somebody someday do something nice for you, Jinkinson. I'm not editing that article per COI, but will you please read WP:MOSDATE#Precise language and banish the words curently and recently from your Wikipedia writing, and also, WP:EMDASHes are not spaced. And, see WP:PUNC on spacing for logical quotation. Strange quotes; what do you mean by "think about whether this article should exist"? It does exist. WP:POINT comes to mind, in the event you are suggesting it shouldn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that James is pleased that he will now endure similar WP:BLP nightmares (vandalism, etc.) that other Wikipedians with Wikipedia articles existing about them have endured, but it is an honor to have a Wikipedian create a Wikipedia article about you because they think you are notable enough for it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I abstain from any comment on this individual article, suggest seek wider opinion from editors outside this project re notability. In response to Flyer22's comment above, whether a person (any person) is happy to have their own Wikipedia article or not does not feature in determining the notability for such an article.
Unrelated to this specific article, I would again raise concerns that user:Jinkinson considers the main article space a suitable place to create bio articles which may or may not be notable. I would recommend detailed review of notability guidelines for biography articles, which seem to be a favorite, so that there is more confidence about whether a person is notable or not. It is also worth pointing out that AfD is chronically swamped with bio articles and they get deleted by the bucketful. Lesion (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Lesion, with regard to notability, I of course know that; I didn't state or imply that "whether a person (any person) is happy to have their own Wikipedia article or not [features] in determining the notability for such an article." Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, just making clear as that might have been the message that some readers took. Lesion (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As helpful as Doc is to Wikipedia, the sourcing provided so far doesn't show the BLP rises above WP:BLP1E and WP:ACADEMIC is not met either. I don't see sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sourcing to pass WP:GNG. The standard thing to do is to see if sourcing is provided that meets one of the standard Wikipedia notability guidelines, and WP:AFD if not. Zad68 18:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, tricky. Not many Wikipedians have their own articles (although I've just noticed this:  Essjay controversy). At the moment I think it is very difficult to formulate what the threshhold would be for a Wikipedian to become notable. If User:Koavf is not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp) then what hope is there for those with a less lofty edit count? JFW | T@lk 19:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd only known James as his screen name (Doc James) and the guy that did a lot of editing on medical articles. His "note-worthiness" was news to me, so here's my impression based on reading the article then Googling him. It may seem to be splitting hairs but James is (publically) known for 1) being a prolific clinician-wikipedian, 2) using Wikipedia as a teaching tool for medical students and 3) the Rorschach controversy. Just because each event is tied to Wikipedia, shouldn't mean that all are lumped together as one event. It seems different, to me, than the Justin Knapp article which was created (and deleted) based on wide coverage of one event. I don't think it will lead to an onslaught of Wikipedians looking to create their own pages as most prefer to work under pseudonyms and even fewer make an effort to be newsworthy outside of the Wikipedia community. My argument would be that the article stands based on the number and variety of independent sources. As an aside (as I don't think this should be used in the consideration of keeping this article but I'd be lying if I said I didn't think about it), the article is a nice thing to do for someone who's done a lot for the community and creates an encyclopedic reference for other clinicians (or student clinicians) who might be looking for real-world examples of how they can contribute.Ian Furst (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(Here's a nice example of the way errors creep in as multiple editors write and re-arrange content: "Heilman gained notoriety as a champion for the improvement of Wikipedia's health-related content". What a scoundrel! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC))

LOL, that's not how he gained notoriety. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Well considering all Wikipedia's medical content is doing nothing but harming our readers, this could indeed be worth of notoriety ;-p Lesion (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks like lots of other editors (QuackGuru, Koavf, and Ocaasi, to name a few) have been working on this page considerably in the last 48 hours or so. Zad68, are you now convinced that Doc James/Jmh649/Dr. Heilman/whatever we're supposed to call him is notable? Jinkinson talk to me 20:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: QuackGuru has nominated the article for deletion. Anyone reading this, feel free to vote there. Jinkinson talk to me 23:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Intercostal nerve block

See

If someone has time to rewrite it to remove extensive copyvio, grand; if not, I will stub it down. Fair warning; it is almost entirely either cut-and-paste or very close paraphrasing, and rewriting will take some time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That was a long article that you reduced to one sentence. Was it really all copyright violation from all the references used? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Everything that I checked, and I checked a lot (and also from some of his/her other articles, same thing) ... if you look at that editor's other work, you'll see that ESL is a significant issue, and as far as I can tell, s/he wrote none of it, and there was a good deal of outright cut-and-paste. It all has to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with tagging pages as copyvios, but I think you are supposed to include the url of the website you believe it to be copied-and-pasted from in the template, Sandy, and it seems you didn't do that with this article. Was this an error, or am I missing something? Jinkinson talk to me 22:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
See the talk page and the edit summary and the CCI page I gave above; you can't very well tag a copyvio as coming from one page when it comes from multiple websites and quite a few books, too-- the whole thing is a copyvio. Methinks if folks would read the links I gave, including my discussion with the author of the article at the CCI page and about his other work, we could get a quicker answer as to whether anyone is willing or able to rewrite the thing, or if I should go ahead and stub it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Caries

I was going to start a rework of the caries page, only to discover that, technically, it refer to destruction of not only teeth but also bone. I've never heard of osteomyelitis or other bone destroying diseases referred to as caries, only teeth (dental caries). Question; should I turn this into a disambiguation page? Treat the entire thing as dental caries and put in a sentence about the fact it can refer to other bone destroying diseases? Right now the opening paragraph deals with bone or teeth but the text below deals largely with dental caries. Thoughts are appreciated. Thanks. Ian Furst (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced "caries" referring to pathoses of hard tissues other than the dental tissues is still in regular, modern use. Suggest that caries redirect to dental caries, and in the latter history section this might be mentioned. Lesion (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is a historic source which uses the term "bone" caries [34], and another [35] (relating it to neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis, a controversial topic which potential implications on persistent idopathic facial pain/atypical facial pain). Also, here is a online popular dictionary defintion of caries: "a progressive destruction of bone or tooth; especially : tooth decay" [36]. Lesion (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
maybe this page was created based on an old dictionary definition rather than reliable sources. I've checked Robbin's Path, several Int Med & Gen Sx textbooks (incl one a colleague left around from 1977) and I can't find any reference to caries except in teeth. Editors (esp path/radio/ortho and those outside North America); have you ever heard of caries referring to lytic bone lesions? Ian Furst (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe that Lesion's suggestion at 03:28 is a good one that will line up with what our readers expect.
Is there another word for "bone caries"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree - sounds like there's little evidence it's used beyond teeth - lesion, do you know how to create the redirect? Do I just delete the contents and build the redirect? Ian Furst (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Ian: No need to create any page, it already exists. Yes I think just write over the previous content + if you feel any of the content on caries is suitable to be merged to dental caries.
Other option is make caries into a short article which 1. links to dental caries and 2. mentions that caries may also refer to bone destruction in a historic context.
WAID: This is the most recent source I found that uses the term "bone caries" (also "vertebral caries"): Hotokezaka, H (1998 May). "Internalization of Mycobacterium bovis Bacillus Calmette-Guérin into osteoblast-like MC3T3-E1 cells and bone resorptive responses of the cells against the infection". Scandinavian Journal of Immunology. 47 (5): 453–8. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3083.1998.00318.x. PMID 9627129. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), may have just been inexpertly translated. Most occurrences of the term are historic: [37] + the sources already posted above. Here is a an altmed source which utilizes some historic literature, referring to "caries of the cranium, ribs, spine, and of the bones of the limbs" and claiming that tooth decay is not related to bacteria [38]. So as to the exact modern equivalent of the term, I would guess some sources are referring to avascular necrosis (osteonecrosis) ... based on "the term for decay or ulcerous inflammation of bone." and the neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis source earlier, but in all honesty I think this term was mostly used in a time when distinct hard tissue pathoses were poorly distinguished from each other, so "bone caries" could also mean osteomeyelitis, or any destructive process, i.e. a descriptive term like "ulceration" and not a precise entity. The current article talks about "carries sicca of the cranial vault" (lit. "dry decay/rot"?), related to syphilis. Historic sources for this can also be found [39],[40]. Lesion (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

On a related subject, since it's been so long since I've seen anyone interested in dental health: The lead to Disease says "The most common disease in the world is gum disease affecting 3 out of 4 people." I don't really doubt the claim (much; it kind of depends on whether you mean prevalence or incidence, and that level of detail isn't appropriate for the lead of this very basic article).

The source, however, is really pathetic. If you can find a better one, please let me know (or boldly fix it yourself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy with redirect. Not sure how others feel. Lesion (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer review notification

I have requested a peer review on olfactory reference syndrome, located here [41]

(Cross-posted on WT:PSYCH) Kind regards, Lesion (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Cluebot getting much closer to sentience...

Just a little light relief... I'm amazed that cluebot can work out that this edit to Oppositional defiant disorder is vandalism in the complete absence of naughty words, problem words, deletion of content, etc. I'm guessing it assessed the IP as having edit-warred elsewhere (on a related topic, but cluebot presumably wasn't to know that).

Now, what other tendencies should we train cluebot to recognise... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think,
  • to flag changes to a sentence which already ended in a reference without any additional reference, made by ips.
  • lack of edit summary
  • insertion of empty wikimark up <ref></ref>
Difficult, because a lot of vandals try to disguise or keep very low key like changing a decimal point. Lesion (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
My guess is that it was triggered by the addition of a very short paragraph containing quotation marks.
For further light relief, here is an old diff of Cluebot dutifully delivering a vandalism warning to another bot, politely requesting that it restrict experimental edits to the sandbox. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, the offending bot has been blocked. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Kind of puzzled

I recently came upon Prenatal methamphetamine exposure which seems to duplicate a lot of methamphetamine.

I'm not entirely sure whether it's worth keeping it as a separate article or merging it into methamphetamine#neurotoxicity (or a similar section) as ~1–2 paragraphs (roughly 1/10th to 1/5th of the article's text). I.e. I'd discard a lot of the text on the page. Any opinions/advice? I sort of need to do something (per WP:SUMMARY) since I GA-nominated meth 2 weeks ago. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata 2014

Just a quick update for all those that are interested in Wikidata. Reasonator, a tool developed by Magnus Manske, has become quite good at displaying the basic information about certain medical topics. The big advantage is that we can translate little bits of information and create dynamic content in every single language. See for example the page for huntingtons disease:

The last one doesn't work well because the properties and items haven't been translated into that language yet. But hopefully we can accomplish that in the coming year for the most important medical subjects. If you would like to participate or just take a look, you can visit us at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine. --Tobias1984 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is brilliant and a highly accessible way to support translators in bringing huge amounts of data to people who speak any language. If this information could be presented within the Wikipedia articles people are already visiting then the work of a single translator would have a huge amount of impact.
I wish the best for this worthy project and to the extent I can I will support it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that the intent for smaller Wikis is, that they will have these pages as place-holders until somebody writes an article. In the future the intent is that the user will be prompted if the infobox should be added from wikidata and what information should be displayed. That will free up a lot of time so that people can use on writing and translating articles, instead of getting frustrated with the infobox template.
Tranlating has become very efficient. Sometimes one translation adds information to hundreds of other items. See for example: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-terminator/?list&lang=en&mode=t1000 - And thank you @Bluerasberry: for supporting the collaboration. Hopefully these small steps will lead us to something great. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Cite Journal" template in the Wikipedia editing toolbar not working

I posted about this just now on the Village Pump - Technical, and I wonder if you guys can help as well:

This is frustrating -- the "Cite Journal" template in the editing toolbar (at least the one I see) is not working properly all of a sudden (I don't know how long this has been going on, since I don't think I've used in a month or so). If one clicks "Cite Journal", the "Cite Book" template pops up instead! It is missing all of the critical ingredients of the "Cite Journal" template, like PMID number, DOI number, and so forth. I tried to make some manual adjustments after I filled in the fields in the "Cite Book" template that in now the only one available, but it's still not working correctly. Even odder is the fact that though the edit toolbar clearly titles the template "Cite Book" (instead of the "Cite Journal" requested), when one clicks "add citation", the resulting citation text reads <ref>{{cite journal}}</ref>, even though it's clearly not and doesn't have the normal journal fields.

Anyway, this is really really frustrating for those of us citing medically related articles, and so forth. BTW, I've checked this on Chrome and on IE, and it's the same glitch on both.

Can someone please restore the "Cite Journal" template to its former correct state, complete with the proper name, and the PMID number field, DOI number field, and so forth? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer your specific question, but for PubMed-indexed references, I now use the PMID template. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It is working again. This breaks from time to time. I use this as a backup [42]. I do not like the cite PMID templates. We have had some people switch the cite journal to the cite pmid tags which is a pain. The cite pmid tags do not work in many other languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Doc James -- it's not working, it's still the same. It's still the Book citation, and it's still missing DOI and PMID listings. I imagine you are using a different editing toolbar. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you able to get the other one to work? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The totally blank one you posted? Too complicated for me. I want the normal one to be fixed, as there's no reason for the wrong template to come up on the editing bar. Hoping someone here has some influence and can get it fixed. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Just put the PMID (or ISBN or anything else) in one of the blank boxes, and click "Generate". It should automatically figure it all out for you. If you don't like that one (and it will stop working in a few months), then try Diberri's.
I believe that the cite gadget in the editing toolbar is a gadget written by a volunteer. Support for such gadgets is limited to the time and interest that the volunteer has. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
along the same lines, is there a problem using {{cite isbn|}} template when moving to other languages? Ian Furst (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes same problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Animal studies - a general query

Looking at Pterostilbene, which has some specific problems, I was troubled by uncertainty over a general issue: to what extent can an article which is not (fully) about human health cite animal studies?

In this article which is ostensibly about a chemical, for example, are the animal studies secondary sources or (through a MEDRS lens) primary sources? And what about when, as often happens, the language and titles start shading into implications about human health? (e.g. "the ability to fight off and reverse cognitive decline")?

My inclination is to remove content that make claims of medicinal potential based on animal studies, when it is only supported by in vivo or in vitro experiments. But - would that be overly-draconian?

Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Any statement that makes a claim or implication about an effect on human health needs WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. This article has lots of problems, especially the entire section on Cognitive decline Reversal. The article's use of a popular press article from 1999 discussing results from rat studies as if they might be relevant to human health is wholly unacceptable. Zad68 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
What about a statement like: "pterostilbene has been shown to lower blood glucose levels in rats by as much as 56 percent, while simultaneously raising insulin and hemoglobin levels to near normal levels.[10]". Is that an informative neutral statement purely about an animal experiment (which may be of interests to chemists and pharmaceutical researchers), or an undue mention of a non-notable study that can't help but imply something? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Was the primary study cited done for the purpose of advancing veterinary science? Zad68 15:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Doubtful, but might it be defended as encyclopedic to gather together animal experimentation results for a chemical so as to give a full account of what is known of that chemical? This is a general worry I have - so another example article is Medicinal mushrooms: much of the article is gathering together medicinal "properties", "associations" and "potential applications" of mushrooms. Is doing that a fair summary of research activities, or an implication-heavy mass of undue content? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure of what you are trying to imply. Animal research is an essential part of preclinical, toxicological and biomedical research in general. As such, if there is a relevant literature on effects of substances on animals, I expect it to be in the article. WP:UNDUE is on a case-by-case basis, and is about article balance. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, doubtful, so that's the point really. I don't have access to full primary study PMID 16616938 but the MeSH terms includes "Rats, Wistar" which is a strain of albino laboratory rats developed by the Wistar Institute and testing is only ever done on these kinds of rats for the intended purpose of benefitting human health. Therefore this use of this sort of source fails WP:MEDRS badly and needs to come out of the article. Zad68 15:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Wait, why? So far it is clear it is about animals it makes perfect sense to include such stuff. If there is an explicit implication of the kind "Compound X could treat cancer in humans, given the promising results on animals..." this is WP:SYNTH and as such disallowed. But so far we report the studies as they are, there is nothing bad about that. --cyclopiaspeak! 16:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If it is discussed in a secondary source may be notable. If it is a primary source would be very hesitant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

On the original question: A source that's all about animals can be a secondary source. A source that's all about humans can be a primary source. The subject matter doesn't determine the status. PubMed lists five recent reviews on this subject. The first in the list is PMID 22475317, and it's a review that happens to talk about animals studies. That's fine: it's still a secondary source. It's important to make sure that the material isn't misrepresented, but you can summarize what the review says about the animals studies that have been conducted. There are some things that can't be talked about any other way, like LD50s and chemicals that haven't finished human testing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't like animal studies supporting any text that might suggest an identical effect in humans without a clear disclaimer. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Vasectomy article

Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:Vasectomy#Ideological issues. But either way, that article as a whole needs a lot of work. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library seeks renewal (please comment)

The Wikipedia Library has grown from a collection of donations to paywalled sources into a broad open research portal for our community. New partnerships have been formed, new pilot programs started, new connections made with our library experts and likeminded institutions. We have tried to bring people together in a new sense of purpose and community about the importance of facilitating research in an open and collaborative way. Here's what we've done so far:

  • Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of those references between 400-600%
  • Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
  • New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
  • Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
  • Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
  • Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

We've proposed a 6 month renewal request to continue and deepen this work and would appreciate your comments, concerns, thoughts, questions, or endorsements.

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 12:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

3RR over primary source being added to herpes simplex, herpes labialis, herpes genitalis

A (?well meaning) editor is repeatedly adding a primary source to the above articles ([43], [44], [45]). Tried to explain on user talkpage, obviously failed. I think I have made 3 reverts already. Comments appreciated. Lesion (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not see a 3RR warning on the user's talk, which is a prerequisite for admin action-- added that, but now off for a few hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Ty for that. Don't think admin action needed, just better understanding of MEDRS. User has emailed me twice saying the source is fine with reasoning that there are already primary sources on the articles and that primary sources are clearly allowed if no 2o available. Replied to emails on user talkpage. Lesion (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of those articles, I have encountered two editors adding bad or otherwise poor sources to the Herpes genitalis article; for example, here with Willpolydna, and I see that Willpolydna is the editor that Lesion has been encountering at the herpes articles. As for the other editor I've encountered, I didn't revert Ohnohedinnit again because I didn't feel like getting into a WP:Edit war with a newbie (that type of edit war is almost always the most frustrating because the newbie will almost always continue reverting) and it appeared that Jmh649 (Doc James) was watching that article. When I saw that Doc James didn't revert Ohnohedinnit, I left it alone. Ohnohedinnit also has a WP:BLP issue, as seen here on his talk page. We are not supposed to state that someone "has become bisexual while in prison" unless that person identifies as bisexual. And people don't just become bisexual, no more than they suddenly become heterosexual, gay or lesbian...unless speaking of those matters in sexual identity or behavioral (as distinct from sexual orientation) terms only. By that, I mean that the person's sexual orientation is already developed; whether they finally express it (physically or otherwise) or take up behavior that contradicts it does not change that.
By the way, above I linked Willpolydna and Ohnohedinnit's talk pages for their usernames because they don't yet have user pages. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice Flyer22. I do not want to get WP:INVOLVED in the content but someone should review this article history at Herpes genitalis. Zad68 02:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Done, here and here so far. That article still needs some sourcing cleanup, though; for example, it used this source, which I removed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Also note: The bisexual matter has been taken care of; turns out that one of the sources supports Ohnohedinnit's wording on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Have taken a look and agree with Lesion. Have reverted and posted further instructions on the users page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Willpolydna has clearly been edit-warring at the listed articles, and has received proper notices about sourcing requirements and our rules against edit-warring. Looking at the state of the articles, this looks stale at the moment, but if the editor starts back up again ping me and I will block. Zad68 02:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Celibacy syndrome

Err, there seem to be a bunch of these - have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celibacy syndrome‎ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

6 month full-time position - Cancer Research UK Wikipedian in residence

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted Anthony, I didn't know that the advert had gone out. I've been impressed with the CRUK science comms team and would encourage anyone who might be interested to apply. JFW | T@lk 17:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent to see this moving forwards :-) Hopefully one or two of our long term local medical Wikipedians can work with CRUK to keep things on track and share our perspective / requirements with them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Darn - if only I didn't have other commitments: this sounds like A Good Thing ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Cadet article: Blood pressure drop across major arteries to capillaries

Hello, there is a cadet article at Blood pressure drop across major arteries to capillaries, that seems to cover a fair bit of information that would be useful for the general article Blood pressure. However, I think it both needs someone who understands body systems, to fairly merge the articles. I put a suggested merge tag on the page, but neither appears to be actively monitored, Sadads (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You have not commented at Talk:Blood pressure. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

ADHD PR

I'm just posting a notice that I've opened a peer-review on ADHD for FA. Any/all feedback is welcome/appreciated. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d Xu, Shifen; et al. (2013). "Adverse Events of Acupuncture: A Systematic Review of Case Reports". Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2013: 581203. doi:10.1155/2013/581203. PMC 3616356. PMID 23573135. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_43"