Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 51

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 45 ← Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 → Archive 55

Apology

Having had some time to consider the events of the last week, I'd like to offer an apology to Doc James in the same forum in which I took something of a public shot at him. I believe I raised my concerns in an overly emotional and confrontational way, and did a lousy job of enunciating the real basis for my concerns regarding the "P" journal. I'm going to take some time off to reconsider whether and how I can be more effective here.

This note is not intended as a fishing expedition for expressions of any sort from the community, but simply as an acknowledgement that I mishandled my conflict with Doc, who has for the most part been very accomodating of my POV, which on some issues is very different from his own. I'd also like to apologize to the community for the histrionics. (Maybe an SSRI would help.....) Formerly 98 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 I view your work here as positive. Yes we have a slightly different position on the "P" source but generally I think we are in agreement around most things. Look forwards to seeing you back and working together in the future. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Can someone (briefly) catch me up here? What is it that happened? I'm not asking to open wounds here, I'm just wondering if I can help in any way and I'm wondering what is being debated with such intensity. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The two expert editors, signing at the top of this section, were briefly characterizing some aspects of Pharma and Medicine, namely the possibility of others gaming the processes of the encyclopedia, versus potential clinical value of some contribution, in only a few sentences. But they were thinking several steps ahead of what they actually wrote, and their ideals entangled. (My personal reading: it's all good.) OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not think we were commenting on gaming the processes of Wikipedia. We were discussing the different ways in which systematic reviews are produced and the issues with the various methods. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
My concern, which I completely failed to enunciate in a way that anyone could understand and respond to, is that Prescrire very clearly makes claims to be more reliable than other sources based on its policy of excluding from its processes not just those with conflicts of interest with respect to a specific topic, but anyone with any relationship with the pharmaceutical industry at all. It was my impression that Jmh49 was specifically endorsing this viewpoint, which was of considerable concern to me given his obvious and well-earned position of influence. As a member of this (pharma associated) group (and one who is somewhat proud of his career and personal accomplishments) I'd find it very helpful to have some clarification on this and whether this is Wikipedia Medicine's position going forward. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, it is also not my position that Prescrire is more reliable than other sources such as Cochrane reviews or USPSTF reviews. If we use Prescrire it is important to state that Prescrire is a French perspective. It is also of course just a single perspective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Beware of more quackery

Say no to quackery

In the past few months, supporters of quackery and mind-body therapies have succeeded in publishing a number of woo articles in various medical journals. Here are some brilliant examples:

1. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Transcendental experiences during meditation practice (December 2013)

2. Nature Reviews Neurology: Effects of meditation in patients with chronic pain (January 2014)

3. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Advances in Meditation Research: Neuroscience and Clinical Applications (January 2014)

4. JAMA: Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being (March 2014)

5. Frontiers in Psychology: Meditation as a Therapeutic Intervention for Adults at Risk for Alzheimer’s Disease (April 2014)

6. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience: Mindfulness and the aging brain: a proposed paradigm shift (June 2014)

7. British Journal of General Practice: Practical tips for using mindfulness in general practice (July 2014)

8. PLOS ONE - The Effects of Mind-Body Therapies on the Immune System: Meta-Analysis (July 2014)

It appears that every 2-3 weeks, another one of such articles are repeatedly thrown into medical literature, for whatever reason I do not know. Does any of them satisfy WP:MEDRS criteria? If not, more eyes may be needed at articles related to meditation or mind-body therapies. Also, now may be a good time to enforce broader and stricter pseudoscience sanctions on Wikipedia to prevent fringe POV editors from promoting fringe quackery. -A1candidate (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no good reason to label any of that as pseudoscience. There is of course a lot of pseudoscience associated with meditation, but there is nothing unscientific about the idea that behaviors such as focusing attention on one thing for a period of time can produce alterations in brain state that are worth studying and potentially beneficial. I'm not even stating a minority opinion here -- I believe the majority of neuroscientists view this the same way I do. Looie496 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I think WP:DNFT applies here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I gotta go with Looie496 on this. Without going into a deep critique or analysis of the papers listed by A1candidate, we know that patients who are generally relaxed and happy tend to do better than patients who are anxious and depressed, especially with regard to things like pain management. This is pretty basic Psych 101 stuff. Obviously anyone who offers a mechanistic explanation involving the movement of qi from the spleen to the colon is spouting mystical bullshit, but encouraging an internal locus of control can have tangible benefits. (Whether this makes meditation a particularly potent placebo or a genuine intervention is arguably a matter of semantics.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The paper in JAMA (the only one I checked) is a systematic review. A systematic review is not generally considered a "woo article", regardless of its subject, and quackery is when you reject the data, not when the data shows that something that you dislike works despite your dislike (or that something you do like doesn't work). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with WAID. A few of these are primary sources. The JAMA meta-analysis concludes "small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress.", "Stronger study designs are needed to determine the effects of meditation programs in improving the positive dimensions of mental health and stress-related behavior" and "We found no evidence that meditation programs were better than any active treatment (ie, drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies)." so not exactly an endorsement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

These are the first two sentences in their conclusion:

"Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress. Thus, clinicians should be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have in addressing psychological stress." (emphasis mine)

The words highlighted in italics certainly sound like an endorsement or even a guideline ("be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have"), although it's good to know that they have acknowledged some limitations in their study. What is more worrying is how JAMA has turned into a sellout advertising board for quackery as demonstrated by a recent commentary (2013):

"For some mind-body approaches, however, there is mounting evidence of usefulness and safety, particularly in relieving chronic pain. A few examples include acupuncture for osteoarthritis pain; tai chi for fibromyalgia pain; and massage, spinal manipulation, and yoga for chronic back pain.
Increasing comfort with this emerging evidence is reflected in practice guidelines from the American College of Physicians, the American Pain Society, and the Department of Defense."

And just a few months ago in March 2014, they endorsed "Acupuncture for Chronic Pain" with a highly dubious claim that "Acupuncture is associated with improved pain outcomes compared with sham-acupuncture", although every skeptic knows that there is ultimately no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture.

As User:QuackGuru recently observed, many of these articles, such as this fake meta-analysis pointed out by him, are in fact pseudo-systematic reviews funded by the quackery trade. In contrast to some forms of meditation, there is clear consensus that acupuncture is by every measure pseudoscientific. Why did you, Doc James, tell QuackGuru that you see "no problems with (using) it"?

Remember, we're only talking about JAMA so far. I think the problem is far worse at some other reputable journals -A1candidate (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:A1candidate maybe you should quote what QG actually state which was "A pseudo-systematic review funded by the trade?" And yes I do not see a problem with using it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
User:A1candidate - I'm more skeptical to overbearing claims such as yours: although every skeptic knows that there is ultimately no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture., than something from a systematic review. To me this sounds far more like you are disregarding evidence against your viewpoint. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm with CFCF here: woo is when you say that anything that you've decided is "alternative" can't work because you magically know that it doesn't work. Science is when you say that the evidence suggests that (in this case) meditation might have some value for some situations, so therefore you agree that it might not be completely worthless.
In this case, the possibility for benefit seems so highly plausible to me that it's odd there was ever any truly serious question about it: Meditation practices a core mental skill, described in our article on the subject as "training attention and awareness in order to bring mental processes under greater voluntary control", that a person with anxiety often needs to improve, namely being able to focus on whatever task is at hand instead of letting the mind wander off into whatever is worrying you. Acquiring the basic mental skills to focus on whatever you choose, rather than being incapacitated by uncontrolled worrying, does not sound like "woo" to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The OP was being sarcastic. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not being sarcastic when I say that a putative review which includes in its abstract the phrases "... the integration of transcendental experiences and the unfolding of higher states of consciousness ... This integrated state, called Cosmic Consciousness in the Vedic tradition ... Transcendental experiences may be the engine that fosters higher human development." is a woo paper, despite being published by NY Academy of Sciences. I accept that your mileage may vary, of course. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I meant the OP who started this section. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The OP presented a mixed bag of sources in a way that is difficult to discuss, imo, in a forum thread of this type. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
We can discuss these one by one but agree this list of some good and not so good sources is difficult to approach. It also depends on what text they are being used to support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

When a prestigious journal publishes a pseudoscientific article/review

I feel that what User:RexxS pointed out is a very important point: This paper deals with topics that appear to be pseudoscientific ("cosmic consciousness"), yet it is published by a well-established academic journal - The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences - which has a considerable impact factor. The question I want to ask is this:

Where do we draw the line to separate science from pseudoscience?

The same journal, in the same issue, also published a systematic review claiming to have found preliminary evidence that "meditation can offset age-related cognitive decline". Are we supposed to accept or reject this claim? How can we be sure that the editors of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences aren't deliberately publishing pseudoscientific reviews? -A1candidate (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This review states " Growing evidence suggests that cognitive training programs may have the potential to counteract this decline. On the basis of a growing body of research that shows that meditation has positive effects on cognition in younger and middle-aged adults, meditation may be able to offset normal age-related cognitive decline or even enhance cognitive function in older adults." followed by "Studies involved a wide variety of meditation techniques and reported preliminary positive effects on attention, memory, executive function, processing speed, and general cognition. However, most studies had a high risk of bias and small sample sizes."
This could be summarized as "Low quality evidence suggests a possible benefit from meditation with respect to age-related cognitive decline". This is hardly revolutionary. We know that learning a second language can be beneficial [1] as may mind games. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no bright line that separates science from pseudoscience. We are here to accurate report the positions of reliable sources not to determine "truth" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
...So unlike with homeopathy in the case of (various types of) meditation active therapeutic effects are biologically plausible. (At the same time, I do agree with RexxS that parts at least of that conference supplement are really rather wooey.) 109.156.204.159 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with A1candidate that this is a real matter for concern. How do we "know"?
If the answer is that we must re-examine the credibility of a journal (that was previously considered well-established and reliable) whenever it publishes something that seems woo to some editors, I think this sets us up to do a lot of original research, and makes the acceptability of a particular journal subject to the views/prejudices/interests of the currently active editors. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I am not seeing the issue. We just summarize high quality sources. If the are high quality sources that disagree with each other than we state that. No OR needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If a high quality source publishes something that "some" editors see as "woo", is it still a high quality source? Wanderer57 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If a high-quality source publishes something that knee surgeons disagree with, is it still a high-quality source? I think so—and whatever the game, whatever the rules, the rules are the same for both sides. If a journal is still, overall, a good source despite publishing something controversial about conventional medicine, then it's still a good source despite publishing something controversial about alternative medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if we generally accept the journal, what about the controversial article itself? I'm referring to this one on transcendental experiences during meditation, in particular. It may not be a systematic review, but it's still a secondary source published in a reputable scientific journal. -A1candidate (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Not list as a secondary source by pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The article in question is part of an apparently proceedings-based issue, and as such was likely subject to limited scientific peer-review scrutiny. I certainly wouldn't suggest refusing content from conference proceedings and journal supplements out of hand, regardless of circumstances, as that would mean discarding good, pertinent content that sometimes isn't so readily accessible, or even available, elsewhere. But in the spirit of MEDRS I feel this category of publication might be worth flagging in a nuanced way. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask about that, there are a number of sources, notably Annual Reviews which are not pubmed-indexed as Reviews. What do we do with them? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Not relevant to this case, completely different question. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate asked "Even if we generally accept the journal, what about the controversial article itself? I'm referring to this one on 'full transcendental experiences during meditation', in particular."
What about the article? If you mean "can it be used as a source?", I think the answer is "it depends on what statement from the article is being used and also the context for which it is being considered." Wanderer57 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Remember that there is wp:NODEADLINE. Waiting until other authors can respond to the paper is a reasonable alternative. Depending on the publication cycle and review speed of the journal, this may be several months. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Lung Cancer - Cancer Research UK initial review.

At the header link. This is a write-up of the notes made in an initial review by a CRUK specialist. The idea is to sort these points out in the article before sending the article for review by other outside specialists. Epidemiology & the missing research section were not covered - will be done with other people. Not all points made are written up. I'm hoping this gives the medical editing community enough to go on to start serious work on the article, but I realize it may not. This is the 3rd in a series - see also Talk:Esophageal_cancer#Initial_review_by_CRUK and Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Initial_review_by_CRUK. Lung cancer is already an FA, but there were some points. I hope Brain tumor will come in a week or so. Many thanks to those editors who have followed up on the earlier reviews. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Human body temperature

These IP edits seem not very convincing -- somebody qualified please check. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Have reverted. Introduced some errors. Unclear why the changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. It was confusing. --Hordaland (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The same IP is back with the same (or a very similar) version. For example vomiting is removed again and changed to pain. Text is again much shorter, nuances removed. There's nothing about this on the article talk page nor on the IP's talk page, tho there are recent comments on the IP's talk page. --Hordaland (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Study on Wikipedia's coverage of drug-safety

I'm not a regular here, but thought I'd make note of this if it hasn't been made already. Came across a recent study by Harvard researchers on Wikipedia's reliability and speed at updating drug safety information:

Yes am in discussion with the FDA regarding possibly collaborating. They are of course a big organization and move slow. On my end I am interested. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Ideally one for the Pharmacology project. Overall our response seems good, but with serious lapses at times - so just like WP in general. Isn't there an FDA online list that someone just needs to check at intervals, after we are sure we are up to date? Of course the FDA is not the whole of the story, and no doubt already far better covered than other regulators around the world. On a quick look I couldn't see anything to complain about in their method, which makes a change. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
What we need is someone interested in taking this on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
One can sign up for e-mail updates to FDA "Recalls and Safety Alerts" and "MedWatch Safety Alerts" here. I have just done so. If I get a relevant alert, I will at a minimum post a message on the pharmacology project talk page and in addition, update the Wikipedia drug page if I have time. Boghog (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
From the 2014 Safety Alerts for Human Medical Products, here is a relatively recent example of an FDA alert. Would this edit be an appropriate response? Boghog (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bog. If the FDA is interested in a more formal relationship do you want be to involved you? They say it will be a few weeks before they decide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. Yes, I would be willing to work with them to improve Wikipedia drug articles. Boghog (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd also be interested in collaborating if such an opportunity presents itself. I've been keeping the articles that I {{maintain}} up-to-date with the FDA's label revisions, safety reviews, and similar updates. That said, it'll obviously be difficult to standardize and maintain the articles that currently lack FDA citations to the FDA's current drug safety information. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Autism Research Institute

Current medical knowledge related to treatments advocated by ARI is being removed based on the assertion that sources discussing these treatments don't explicitly mention ARI. Explanation of and edits to adhere to MEDRS would be useful. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm already being accused of "whitewashing", which I suppose was inevitable. My editing track record stands on its own, if anyone is interested in perusing it. My edits to this article (diff) were an attempt to make it neutral, per WP:NPOV. To put it simply, the article said the Institute claims that chelation is a viable treatment for autism, followed by what I feel is commentary and original research in context, used to rebut the subject's positions on this and other issues (vaccines cause autism, etc) using citations that didn't even remotely address the subject, but rather its claims. To me, this is a complete lack of neutrality. If there is scientific evidence that chelation is bad, that's fine. That belongs in the chelation article. But turning an article about an organization into commentary about how wrong we think they are, using references that don't even mention them, is a gross violation of the neutrality principle we all must abide to around here, at all times. I note that there are already sources in the article that mention negative effects of chelation treatment and the Institute - those are still there and I have no interest in removing them. MrBill3's assertion that we must rebut the subject's view (be that an organization or an individual) strike me as fundamentally contrary to the letter and spirit of the NPOV policy. We have an obligation to show both sides of a story, yes, but not at the expense of impartiality. If a source speaks about the subject, it should be included in the article. If it does not, it should be omitted. I cannot believe that editors in the past came to an agreement to trample NPOV in certain cases (?) where we have a collective negative bias? Is that the case? Is that spelled out in WP:MEDRS or some RFC I'm not aware of? And if it is unacceptable to have an article that speaks about a given topic like chelation and we can't help but insert commentary making sure veryone knows that's really bad, is that not a violation of our no disclaimers guideline? Something's rather wrong here if that's the case. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Nevermind. I can see how this is just going to be a massive waste of time. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture again

I apologise for bringing this before you again, but I'm being tag-team reverted by two SPAs on Acupuncture.

In this edit, Middle 8 (an acupuncturist) removed the text:

  • "Example text"

with an edit summary claiming that the source doesn't support the statement. The source, Acupuncture: Does it alleviate pain and are there serious risks? A review of reviews, states:

  • "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham."

I restored the text, but have been reverted by Herbxue.

Debate continues on Talk:Acupuncture #Another convenience break, but there's no common ground. I'd appreciate more eyes on this, please, as the local editors seem intent on diluting any content that doesn't present acupuncture in a positive light, even impeccably sourced text. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not true that I am whitewashing, only being accurate. Please read the whole paragraph that the statement comes from. The authors are clearly referring to one PRIMARY source. Why would they use past tense if they are drawing a general conclusion? Why is the statement not found in the abstract, or in the paragraph starting "In conclusion, …" in the body? Because it is not the conclusion of the 2011 systematic review of reviews, it is a reference to one study. Herbxue (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You can see what I'm up against? It's not true that the review authors are referring to one source - and it wouldn't even matter if they were. We prize secondary sources because the authors make judgements about what sources are important and here we have an editor trying to tell us we can't use the unambiguous conclusion I stated above because the previous two sentences in the review examined particular primary sources. This has to stop. --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
According to this previous comment by User:Herbxue the systematic review of systematic reviews is referring to a 2009 review. Now he claims it was a primary source. But that is totally irrelevant. We should not question reliable sources like this. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I did not say Ernst'11 is a primary, the statement in question refers to the finding of 1 primary source.Herbxue (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. It's how Ernst describes one trial, not the overall findings of his review of reviews. (tl;dr version of my long post below... but there you can read the relevant excerpt) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So, here is the deal. There's this thing called "context". Nothing against RexxS, but he's failing to grasp that in context, the quote "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham" is the review's description of one trial, not its overall conclusion about the literature. (doi for Ernst '11: [2].) This becomes obvious when Ernst begins by noting that "The majority of the early reviews [there were 17] arrived at negative conclusions [85], while the majority of the 57 recent reviews were positive. Yet there are many contradictions and doubts...." So, right off the bat you can see that this review-of-reviews finds more reviews than not that find efficacy for acupuncture. Still with me?

Now, Ernst does not believe these results will hold. He believes that the reviews that he has reviewed are all subject to bias, etc., because the trials that they review are not well-designed. He explains this by discussing two more recent (as of 2011), well-designed studies, and that is the context RexxS isn't grokking (emphasis mine):

Obvious enough? RexxS also confounds the issue by failing to grasp that "efficacy" is shorthand for "efficacy beyond placebo", i.e. a stronger response to true acu than sham acu (the latter being the control). I wish RexxS had taken the time to learn the basics of this topic areas before editing, and read more carefully (he had trouble with the same source earlier, re SAE's [4][5]). Instead he's ABF'd all around, disrupted the talk page, put those of us who are clueful in a WP:CHEESE situation, and devolved into personal attacks. Oh, and he hasn't been tag-team reverted. But whatever. Just another tricky day. The source says what it says. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That's just wishful thinking, Middle 8. Ernst et al have surveyed the literature concerning acupuncture and pain; they found two areas, LBP and osteoarthritis, where good quality reviews showed that acupuncture shows some effectiveness. They then write the paragraph quoted. That's the context and Middle 8 is willfully ignoring it. The paragraph above refers to the finding in the reviews and then goes on to contrast two high-quality RCTs that showed for LBP and osteoarthritis that "true" acupuncture was no more effective than "sham".
They then state an important conclusion for this review of reviews: "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham." We don't know how many reviews or studies were examined by Ernst et al to reach that conclusion, but that isn't our concern as Wikipedia editors. Middle 8 and Herbxue would have us believe that it was just the two primary sources that they looked at - but offer nothing more than their own analysis to justify that claim. Even so, no matter what sources led Ernst et al to reach that conclusion, it does not weaken it as it is a significant conclusion of a reliable secondary source; and it cannot be grounds for removing it from the article.
As for "efficacy" is shorthand for "efficacy beyond placebo", I've never heard such absolute rubbish presented in any debate. That is pure fabrication in a desperate effort to shore up an indefensible viewpoint. That's the quality of debate I'm struggling to make progress with.
Middle 8 is an acupuncturist with an obvious conflict of interest in the presentation of acupuncture in the most positive light. Herbxue is an SPA with over 100 of his 138 article edits to TCM or acupuncture. Is anyone here able to read that paper and explain to them that they need to respect secondary sources? I've tried and all I get is personal attacks from them. --RexxS (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggested "At least two recent high-quality randomized controlled trials found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham" with citation to Ernst (not the individual papers). Even that weakened version was rejected. It seems to me that reasons are actively being sought for removing the material. vzaak 02:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems like a good proposal – surely unobjectionable. And yes, the WP:ADVOCACY long in evidence around this article make it a depressing timesink. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 02:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Vzaak:, @Alexbrn: Please. Of course we discuss sham = true (a.k.a. lack of efficacy), and yes in the lede, but we do it properly, with good sec and tert sources. A little better than citing two RCT's from Ernst, I think. Try Colquhoun and Novella '13 [6], top of p. 1361 et passim. As for using WP's voice? Yes if sources are uncontested. But Novella and Colquhoun's "anti" editorial is countered by Wang et. al.'s "pro" [7], and we also have other good MEDRS finding contesting (pain, nausea), so no we don't use WP's voice for this -- not now. Hence my objection to Ernst '11 as it was cited: wrong source, wrong wording, right idea. My gawd, what a POV push -- he wants to cie stronger MEDRS than RCT's for sham = true! (cut to Alexbrn and Vzaak scratching their heads, trying to figure out where they're being conned, and finding illumination in the cryptic acronyms "AGF" and "NPA") --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 06:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@@Middle 8: – Editorials are not "stronger MEDRS" than findings validated in systematic review. A "cryptic acronym" you and some other editors of the page would do well to acquaint themselves with is "WP:COI". The issue is not good faith, the issue is that acupuncturist editors are blind to their bias, which is why COI-tainted editing is generally frowned on. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Colquhoun is a thorough and up-to-date bibliography of systematic reviews covering dozens of RCT's, but if you think those two RCT's from 2009-10 are exceptionally awesome, be my guest. Plus, it's not as if we exactly neglect efficacy in the lede; just those special words "sham" and "true" (which indicate the exact same thing) have been absent. Re COI, you know I took my own case to COI/N. Since then you've been IDHT-ing about the fact that global consensus on COI isn't the same as yours. Your continuing to bring it up is unproductive and tendentious, especially since you routinely do so in lieu of commenting on my edits. Which is the definition of NPA. If you continue like this, I will raise it as a discretionary sanctions issue. Another editor already got warned. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 09:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I did not raise your COI "in lieu" of anything - I directly addressed your claim about content - about what is higher in the MEDRS scheme. Systematic reviews are not beneath editorials, as you incorrectly wrote. I then responded to your self-confessed "snark" (you give yourself licence to make personal comments while complaining about any you receive). Identifying a COI is not however "an attack" – COI-tainted editing is an important issue here as it can damage the consensus-forming process. I am aware you have been to COI/N, and you were soundly told there that as someone who makes money from acupuncture, you did indeed have a COI. On your userpage, you choose to represent the thread as having "closed with no finding of COI", a summary which ... wants for candour. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a COI on WP, and that's been obvious for months per COI/N, in light of which your repeatedly "identifying" one is tendentious. Having a profession is not, ipso facto, an indication of COI, and that's the policy we follow, nowithstanding the opinions of editors who don't understand/like it. See the "COI?" link in my sig for more, and a rebuttal of your generalization about acu'ist editors. Commenting on the contributor gratuitously is out of line, and you've done so in the past [8][9], as well as above (re Colquhoun & Novella). (BTW, that editorial is a good place to find sec/tert sources, not a replacement for them.) There's no snark in my comments on these issues. The snark I refer to is at Talk:Acu, when I said sarcastically that it was a CPUSH to cite sec/tert sources[10] was CPUSH). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 18:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC) copy edited 00:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
"At least two recent high-quality randomized controlled trials found" would be speculation on our part. QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Er, what speculation? It's right there in the source: "These findings should be seen in the light of recent results from high-quality randomized controlled trials. Cherkin et al.[14] have shown that, for chronic low back pain, individualized acupuncture is not better in reducing symptoms than formula acupuncture or sham acupuncture...This view was further strengthened by a recent randomized controlled trial in patients with osteoarthritis...real acupuncture was no better than sham." vzaak 05:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
According to this comment an editor is confused by the wording.
The previous text is not the part that we are using to verify the claim. Let's start here: "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham....[89]" The [89] source at the end of the paragraph is this source (PMID 19174438). QuackGuru (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The chronic low back pain RCT is Cherkin et al.[14], A randomized trial comparing acupuncture, simulated acupuncture, and usual care for chronic low back pain. In the Ernst paper: "Cherkin et al.[14] have shown that, for chronic low back pain, individualized acupuncture is not better in reducing symptoms than formula acupuncture or sham acupuncture..."
  • The osteoarthritis RCT is Suarez-Almazor et al.[128], A randomized controlled trial of acupuncture for osteoarthritis of the knee: effects of patient-provider communication. In the Ernst paper: "This view was further strengthened by a recent randomized controlled trial in patients with osteoarthritis...real acupuncture was no better than sham." That last part, "real acupuncture was no better than sham", refers to [128]. Yes, that phrase comes after literal citation to [128], but it's clear from the context that it refers to [128], not [89]. Directly after "real acupuncture was no better than sham" it says, "Moreover, a communication style..." That is also referring to [128] -- see "effects of patient-provider communication" in the title of the RCT? That is what Ernst is talking about. And further, it wouldn't make sense for these phrases to be referencing [89] because those are not the conclusions of [89].
vzaak 15:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham." (For brevity the text in the lede should be shorter.)
  • "A systematic review of systematic reviews, after reviewing the results of high-quality randomized controlled trials, found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham." (For the body.) Based on your arguments we would add this to the article.
  • Sourced text was recently replaced with original research and SYN violations and sentences are now missing from the body and lede. This seems to happen too often on CAM articles. I think we should go back to the previous version to fix the problems. I still think we are only assuming what specific research Ernst was reviewing to come to that specific conclusion. We wouldn't cite the RCTs. We should only cite Ernst 2011. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

QG are you reading how others are seeing that text? Before you go back to your version please make sure you are taking into account what II, Anthony, Axl, and Vzaak are saying. It looks like there is some agreement that you cannot say the text in question is the conclusion of the Ernst paper.Herbxue (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you were trying to go back further than that, to before my revert of Rexxs. NW's text looks ok though.Herbxue (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
----
I think this addresses the current objections: "A systematic review of systematic reviews highlighted recent high-quality randomized controlled trials which found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham." I am throwing away my old suggestion and going with this one. vzaak 17:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess thats technically defensible (its accurate), but don't you think its a bit of a sneaky way to present results of a primary study? What I don't understand about this debate is that Ernst's ACTUAL conclusions are already quite damning of acupuncture, I don't understand why you guys are bending over backwards to present this one piece that is not a conclusion of the review?Herbxue (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Herbxue, it is the findings of a systematic review of systematic reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You keep repeating that, but you aren't taking into consideration the impartial people reading the source differently.Herbxue (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Vzaak, does this work for you? "A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham." (For brevity do you think the text in the lede should be shorter?)
"A 2011 systematic review of systematic reviews highlighted recent high-quality randomized controlled trials which found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham." (Text for the body). If you want to fix the problems with the OR and text missing from the article we can start here when this clarification is added. QuackGuru (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: I don't think any of the text as currently in the lead is improper original research or synthesis (but then again, I'm the author of the current version of the lead paragraph, though I haven't touched the article body). It explains to the reader more effectively what "sham acupuncture" really means, without (apparently, hadn't noticed this when writing) actually using the word "sham" (I have no objection to it) and why even sham procedures can treat patients in trials (sourced appropriately to MEDRS-preferred/compliant sources). NW (Talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the tags should not be removed without fixing the problems.[11] The sentence ending with "...it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently." is also missing from the article. I prefer balanced and neutral ledes. Any editor can check the current version with this version. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that we all prefer balanced and neutral leads. Also, we are all against poverty, war, and oppression, and in favor of motherhood and apple pie.
The problem is not our values. The dispute here is whether a statement that you personally believe to be "balanced and neutral" is accepted by everyone else as being "balanced and neutral". So far, your idea of "balanced and neutral" does not line up with most people's idea of "balanced and neutral".
Given the problems with this dispute, I'm inclined to say that only words in the actual, labeled "Conclusion" section of Ernst's review should be used to support any text in the article. That would help us produce an encyclopedic summary and eliminate these disputes about whether sentence X is a conclusion about the entire subject or is a description of just one study. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Stating that it is a description of just one study is original research. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
No, understanding that a statement in a paragraph that describes a single study is about that single study is actually something called "having good reading comprehension skills". But if you would stick to making statements that only appear in the actual conclusions of that paper, then it wouldn't matter that you and everyone else understand that paragraph differently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If you would read the paper, you'd realise it doesn't have a 'conclusions' section. It winds up with a 'discussion' section and that contains the conclusion "Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham." It's a statement of the authors' conclusions, written in the authors' voice, not a quote from an earlier study. It's pure original research, not reading comprehension, to analyse secondary sources by trying to guess what was in the authors' minds. We have to accept that authors of secondary sources do the analysis for us, otherwise we might as well throw away the concept of secondary sourcing and just have the free-for-all of Wikipedia editors reaching their own conclusions from analysing primary sources. --RexxS (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you read ref 128 that's cited in that paragraph? It's free at PubMed Central.
The relevant part of that paragraph says, "Let me tell you about ref 128, which had two interesting findings. The first was, and here I quote from its abstract, "No statistically significant differences were observed between TCA or sham acupuncture, but both groups had significant reductions in J-MAP and WOMAC pain compared to the waiting group". The second interesting finding was, and here I'll also quote from its abstract, "acupuncturists’ [communication] style had significant effects on pain reduction and satisfaction".
To claim that the middle sentence is not a description of the study explicitly named in the first is to say that, of the three sentences here, the first is about ref 128, the second is about all studies in general, and that the third is once again, without any warning, suddenly going back to ref 128. That's not a reasonable interpretation of the paragraph. Even if the second statement is actually a universal truth (which wouldn't necessarily surprise me), all three of those specific sentences happen to be about the same single primary study. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course I've read PMC3651275. Have you read the paper you thought had a conclusions section? Here's what it actually says:
  • Looking through the all the current reviews, we've found no decent evidence of acupuncture's effectiveness in treating pain, except for LBP and osteoarthritis. But those two don't count either because here are two RCTs for (1) LBP and (2) osteoarthritis. The authors of the LBP study say the benefits of acupuncture "resulted from nonspecific effects such as therapist conviction, patient enthusiasm, or receiving a treatment believed to be helpful" (and that's Ernst et al directly quoting Cherkin 2009). The same thing was found by Suarez-Almazor 2010 for osteoarthritis.
So the question you are left with is how did Ernst and his coauthors decide that those RCTs were worthy of inclusion among a "review of reviews"? The answer of course is that they were perfectly aware that sham acupuncture is as effective as real. Those RCTs were mentioned to directly address the two areas of LBP and osteoarthritis that appeared to show evidence of effectiveness in the reviews. The other conclusions are made by Ernst et al quite generally without citing anything until Madsen 2009 at the end of the paragraph. Neither you nor I can possibly know what evidence they had seen to reach their conclusion about real vs sham, but it would be an extraordinary coincidence if the two RCTs that related to LBP and osteoarthritis just happened to be the only ones that the authors had seen that described the equivalence of real and sham, don't you think? And that's why we don't do analysis of secondary sources - because one editor's interpretation can differ radically from another's. We never abandon the secondary source to quote the primaries it's based on for exactly that reason. We should respect secondary sources not make guesses about how the authors constructed their conclusions. --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about how the authors constructed their conclusions. I'm concerned with whether a single sentence in the middle of a paragraph that appears to be describing specific sources is either (a) a factual description of conclusions reached in that single source or (b) a broad conclusion drawn by Ernst et al. about the entire subject. You and QuackGuru have settled on (b); everyone else seems to have settled on (a).
Of course, if you really are right, then perhaps someone would email Ernst about the advantages of using the present tense to describe current facts, and the value of reserving the past tense for things that are over and done with. In that single past-tense-because-it-happened-several-years-ago study, real and sham acupuncture certainly were equally (in)effective. If Ernst meant to declare a general fact about efficacy, then the authors should have written that these things are equally (in)effective. Their choice of past tense in that sentence indicates that they are describing something that is over and finished.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to assume that real and sham acupuncture are actually equally (in)effective for pain. However, that particular sentence should not be used to make that claim, because that particular past-tense sentence is describing facts about a one-time event, not making pronouncements about Ernst et al's own conclusions on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Ernst is singularly cautious in stating only what the evidence supports. He would not extrapolate from the past-tense description of specific trial's findings to a present tense generalization, although it is obviously tempting to do so. Even if that generalization were correct, it would not be academically honest to make it. He doesn't lack access to expert advice on grammar, should he find difficulty in expressing something. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Can someone e-mail the Ernst 2011 paper to me please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have the paper. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Rexxs I don't think I attacked you, just assumed you didn't read it carefully. This is a legitimate content dispute and your attempt to discredit me is not helpful, and kinda inappropriate. Yes, please we need more people reading the paper. Herbxue (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, and please feel free to email me for a copy. Remember, it's a review of reviews. Those RCT's Ernst cites are part of a discussion of his findings about said reviews, not part of the findings themselves. Hence that passage above. RexxS's ad hominem & general drama is a confession of weakness (just click thru my sig line re alleged COI). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 00:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The PDF is online at researchgate.com (likely legal as it is past embargo, which per Elsevier's policy is generally 12-36 months for Elsevier these days and 12 months for Pain). Based on what I'm looking at, I don't see how one could realistically conclude that the statement is "overall" rather than specific to a couple particular trials (Cherkin et al and Suarez-Almazor et al). The preceding sentence shows that: "This view was further strengthened by a recent randomized controlled trial ... Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all ..."; for the overall conclusion, see the abstract which says "In conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain". If the sentence in question were an overall conclusion, it would be quite grammatically awkward given its past tense. We should assume good faith, although I also don't think it is real healthy to focus so much in a single topic area. II | (t - c) 00:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The statements under dispute are "A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham" and "The same review found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham," referenced to Ernst 2011. However this is not what Ernst says.
Ernst's comments about sham treatment seem to refer to two RCTs—Cherkin and Suarez-Almazor. Cherkin investigated chronic low back pain, while Suarez-Almazor investigated osteoarthritis of the knee.
However the paragraph goes on to state "Adequately controlling for nonspecific effects in future is likely to demonstrate that acupuncture has no or few specific effects on pain," referenced to Madsen. This seems to be the conclusion drawn by Ernst on the basis of the sources Cherkin, Suarez-Almazor and Madsen. This also fits with the statement in the abstract "In conclusion, numerous systematic reviews have generated little truly convincing evidence that acupuncture is effective in reducing pain." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, and we've had Ernst '11 prominently cited in the lede for a long time for exactly that conclusion. Lack of efficacy is synonymous with sham = true acu, so I don't see why the need for sham/true wording is a big deal. If it is, fine, but Ernst '11 isn't the right source. And no source justifies using WP's voice as long as the claim is contested by other good MEDRS's, which is the case here, cf. [12]. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 09:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't say Ernst found blah blah blah. It was the researchers whose work he mentioned who found it. If you have to mention those results - and I don't see the point, really - rather than, "A systematic review of systematic reviews found blah blah blah" and "The same review found blah blah blah,", just say, "Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) found that blah blah blah," and cite both trials (as well as Ernst's review lest anyone should object to the primary sources). I do this from time to time to clarify or emphasise a point made in the findings or conclusions of a review. (I wouldn't in this case.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is my attempted solution, with explanation here. vzaak 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Name for "place where infection spreads"

Is there a name for a place where infection spreads because of sick people being in contact with uninfected people? Hospitals are places where people get hospital-acquired infections, college dorms are places where meningitis can spread, and I just started an article on childcare infection for disease spread in daycare centers where young children meet. Can a place be called a vector (epidemiology), if there is a causal relationship between going to a place with sick people and getting infected? Can entire rooms or buildings be fomites? Is there some word for a place with infection risk? I expect there is no appropriate word, but I thought I would ask. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think vector is the right word you are after. Suggest ask an epidemiologist or something. I think they might say something like center or focus to describe locations in relation to an epidemic, but probably not quite the same thing. How about just saying what you mean: "Area with high risk of infection". Not sure there is any specific jargon for this. 92.41.92.54 (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think focus of infection is probably the term you want. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Can also be used in the sense of focal infection theory I think. So at the organism level rather than the population level, "focus of infection" could mean a local infection spreading to other areas of the body. 94.196.232.188 (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
That article is exactly what I wanted. I just made an article called focus of infection in which I listed places, but perhaps that should be merged with the theory article. I suggested that on the talk page for the theory article, and might merge it after thinking for a while. Thanks for your help. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The phrase is used in both senses. I'm not sure about the claim that "Focal infection theory is the background concept that such places may exist." That may well be so etymologically (OR?) Or just an example of a term referring to different concepts according to the context? Anyway, I don't think merging would be appropriate. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
On looking again, I misread the concept about the theory. They are different ideas. There should be no thought of merging. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, it's a nice article you have started on a topic that was not covered before. 188.29.88.213 (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Help with an article?

I was wondering if anyone would be willing to help flesh out the article for Photomedicine. It's up for AfD and while I have no opinion on the legitimacy of this field, it does appear to be notable from what I can tell. Anyone interested in doing some cleanup? I'm piling sources into the article in the "further reading" section because I'm not sure where else to put them, but it would definitely be better if someone more familiar would come in and work on it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking for an updated international/intergovernmental source for drug safety info

Cross-posted in more detail at WT:PHARM - see the thread at WT:PHARM for more info.

Does anyone know of an international or non-governmental organization that publishes and updates comprehensive monographs on pharmaceuticals? I'm looking for monographs that are comparable in detail to the examples below and maintained like the FDA's publications.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

EU:
  • EMA (European Medicines Agency) has information on medicines (so no drugs without any treatment indication)
  • EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction) has information on drugs, 300 hits on amphetamine in the search, among other things this (2011) & this (2010)
WHO:
etc. etc. I would think both those had a lot more. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the links! I'll look through these when I get a chance. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A2 milk

The article on A2 milk has recently been rewritten to make health claims based on anecdotes and a few primary sources. Bhny (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Bhny, is there a brief explanation for why you blanked the entire set of changes, instead of just the parts involving non-MEDRS-compliant biomedical information? Statements like A small Queensland start-up company, A2 Dairy Marketers Pty Ltd, licensed to market A2 milk in Australia, was fined $15,000 in the Brisbane Magistrates Court in September 2004 after it pleaded guilty to six charges involving making misleading health claims are not covered by MEDRS.
For example, you blanked the entire ==Commercial production and sale== and ==Criticism and controversy== sections. I've restore all of the former and half the latter. The reason I did this is because a quick glance tells you that ==Commercial production== is not about science. Here are the keywords that stood out when I read that section: patented by... granted a license to... went into receivership... sold in 2005... weekly sales of... withdrawing the product from sale... recorded ₤1 million in sales... Chinese government introduced strict new import regulations... None of that is biomedical information; that's all business information. Any decent book, newspaper, or magazine article is sufficient to support those kinds of claims. Business information is not subject to MEDRS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:BRD. It is a normal procedure on wikipedia that if a bold edit is controversial, the edit is reverted and it is discussed on the talk page. That is what happened. Now material is being added back after discussion. This is just normal process. It was a huge controversial edit and revert and discussion were needed. Bhny (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I would wish to support Bhny in this, and indeed did the same thing myself, for the same reasons. I note Whatamidoings comments on the Talk page regarding paragraph by paragraph discussion, and though I have not as yet read the partial reverts (world cup final etc.) WAID has made to the article, I suspect they are entirely sensible. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Courtesy would dictate that I would alerted to this conversation. I am astonished by the actions of Bhny in reverting my edit in its entirety within 30 minutes on the basis of entirely false claims. His opening statement above, "The article on A2 milk has recently been rewritten to make health claims based on anecdotes and a few primary sources" is patently wrong. The article covers a wide area including the history that led to the creation and commercialisation of this product, which has now become a major supermarket item throughout Australia, and a brief background on A1/A2 milk and the variants between countries and herds. His edit summary claimed "much of this 'evidence' is from a single book, anecdotes or primary sources", yet the article also cites more than 40 separate news reports from Australia, New Zealand and the UK. His repeated claim that "There still seems to be no consensus that A2 milk is somehow better than A1"[13][14] implies that this is claimed in the article, or that it is necessary to prove it before the article is expanded. He dismisses Woodford's Devil in the Milk as "probably useless as a source", evidently without the faintest knowledge of what the book is. He labels my edit as "controversial": what is the controversy? There had been no discussion, yet he immediately decides it is "controversial".
As I explain at the A2 milk talk page, an article dealing with science matters is outside my usual area of activity in Wikipedia and I appreciate the pointers to WP:MEDRS. The appeal to BRD by Bhny and Roxy the dog patently ignores the opening lines at the BRD page: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary." The A2 milk article was clearly inadequate in breadth of content, poorly sourced and poorly structured, all of which were flagged with categories on the talk page. My edit—though it contains some material I now concede fail MEDRS—addressed many of those issues. I'd prefer collaboration and a bit of respect to this display of kneejerk editing. I have left a more detailed explanation of the content and aim of my edit at the talk page. BlackCab (TALK) 08:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been editing this page for a while and I knew your edit would be controversial (as it has proven to be!). I appreciate all the work you put into your edit and I think we are beginning to use parts of it. Sorry if BRD is a bit brutal. Bhny (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The phrase from WP:BRD quoted by Blackcab, "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement ... " is pertinent here. The bold edit introducing the new version was certainly over egging the a2 milk pudding, turning the article into an a2 milk marketers dream, and should not have been allowed to stand. Refinement was not an option, hence invoking BRD. I do admire the excellent writing skills on display however, and am aware of my own pitiful abilities in that area. I am sure that with discussion taking place on the Talk page, this matter will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
May I encourage you two to go read the actual Wikipedia:Editing policy, paying particular attention to the WP:PRESERVE section? This is a collaborative encyclopedia. Collaboration is not best served by blanking an enormous amount of apparently good material solely because it happened in the same editing session as some imperfect material.
One of the reasons that I'm recommending the editing policy is because you seem to have picked up the "popular" (i.e., "not accurate") understanding of the BRD essay. I assume that this is because people in the past have misrepresented it to you. So here's the real story, and it may help you (or anyone else reading this) in the future:
BRD is advice to and for bold editors. It's a description of what to do when your edit was reverted so that you can avoid an edit war. It is supposed to be used to prevent the brutality of an edit war. It is not an authorization to revert bold edits or a mechanism of forcing other people to discuss their material. It explicitly says that you cannot force any other person to follow this. It is explicitly not an authorization to revert material that, as in this case, could be immediately refined (e.g., by reverting only part of the changes) or reverting more than once. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm so disheartened. BRD is used incredibly regularly all over my watchlist, and works well. It worked in this case too. A tiny fraction of wikipedia has been improved by it. I went to the WAID talk page to discuss this and the next thing two hours had passed and I had forgotten my intention. I have read WP:PRESERVE again, twice, and the BRD essay. I had thought I was starting to get to grips with the basics here, but alas, the foundations are shifting again. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hang in there: you're doing better than most.
The problem with deciding whether BRD is "useful" is that you first have to decide what "useful" means. BRD—or, really, pretty much any set of WP:CRYPTIC letters—can be "useful" if your goal is to obstruct article development (I know that's not your goal, but we do encounter people like that occasionally, even here at WPMED). It is a very effective method of elevating process over product, especially since most people on the receiving end won't go read the page anyway. They'll be told "BRD, you have to discuss", and then they dutifully discuss, or give up.
But BRD's point (and yours, ultimately) is to be useful for improving article content. Under that definition, I'd say that BRD is successful among the tiny minority of bold editors who understand it and follow it. To the extent that it's used like a get-out-of-jail-free card for reverting rather than collaborating, it is IMO largely a failure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of BRD but in this case it worked fine and I think I was correct in doing it (though it was immediately reverted so in fact I did nothing to the article). This was an entire rewrite of the article shifting the POV completely. The parts to preserve are always in the history. Bhny (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
BRD "worked fine"? All Bhny achieved was to delete the entire edit and raise the issue of MEDRS. Beyond that (and his thoroughly misleading appeals at two noticeboards, without notifying me), nothing. His indication of that content guideline page was valuable, because I was previously unaware of it and I'm revisiting the science part of my edit as a consequence. I thank him for that. There was otherwise no other constructive discussion on his part, or an attempt by him to reinstate the majority of my edit that had nothing to do with MEDRS. He says "The parts to preserve are always in the history," but despite my lengthy posts at the talk page, explaining my motives and suggesting points for further discussion, there was no attempt to engage with me on what parts could safely be restored, or what specific areas remained problematic. In this case BRD was used to simply block rather than improve. Working in this part of Wikipedia is a learning curve for me too; hopefully as I gradually restore material to the A2 article there will be a greater level of collaboration and discussion. BlackCab (TALK) 23:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
How could I reinstate your edit since you had already done that by reverting me? You reverted my ONLY edit. Sorry, but this is my last comment on this subject. I have other things to do. Bhny (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Stop being so duplicitous. You reverted my edit and I reinstated it. Six hours later Roxy the dog undid my edit to take it back to the original, scanty version,[15] offering only sarcasm.[16] Despite your invitation to "discuss", and your reference to BRD[17] you actually showed no inclination to collaborate, despite the A2 article presumably being in your watchlist and the subject being of interest. We had the "B", we had a couple of "R"s ... just not much "D". It's the "D" that's the key to improving articles. And that, hopefully, is where I can leave all this as well. BlackCab (TALK) 03:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nootropic problems again

Two editors apparently disagree with my WP:MEDRS-related revisions to nootropic from May/June (original thread: this link). I've started a discussion in Talk:Nootropic#The recent content revision and WP:MEDRS in the event anyone would like to offer their 2¢ on the issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Have watched. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical cannabis -> Medical Marijuana

I disagree with this discussion, does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Seems very much to be coming from the cannabis community, and lacking input from other sources. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Not again! Note the move this linked discussion says it closed with was subsequently overturned. The arguments here still seem pertinent: "marijuana" is generally the name used for a single preparation of cannabis only, and/or a parochial US-centric term. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Cannabis is the more technical term and from my look at the literature appears to be more global in scope. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

PhRMA Edits

Hey, have you guys seen this? Might be worth keeping track of. Currently it stands at 0 edits, but it's only been going for 2 days.
[18]
-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That is cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notability of an academic journal

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Clinical Ethics Hello once more, medical experts. I came across this old abandoned AfC submission. Is this a notable journal? I would have no idea where to find reliable sources about this. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Most people don't know how to find sources about any academic journals. I think you usually need specialty publications available to research librarians. @DGG, Sasata, John Vandenberg, and Randykitty: any advice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Do we need an article about every single medical journal? I'm not sure how this is covered in notability guidance. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion about this now at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notability_of_academic_journals, but the guideline with tenuous consensus is at WP:NJournals.
My personal opinion away from Wikipedia guidelines is that I do not like journals being heavily cited but without a Wikipedia article. A problem is that practically all journals do not meet WP:GNG, so WikiProject Academic Journals developed their own notability guidelines which have always been problematic. All of these cases are really uncertain and I have no good ideas. If a journal seems minimally good and not a scam or vanity publisher then it almost always passes, but not on any particular merits. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It meets the basic requirement of being in a selective index (Scopus). It's published by a major publish, with a good reputation in the general area it covers. That's sufficient to make it probable that afd would accept it, though there's been a good deal of variability in fields outside the hard sciences (& I consider clinical ethics to be one of them). Such probable acceptance is the working criterion for accepting an afc. Borderline cases are better decided there, if anyone wants to challenge it--I've challenged a number of accepted afcs there myself. I've therefore accepted it,
On them ore general question raised by Bluerasberry, I fundamentally agree with him. WP needs to give information as a basis for evaluating the articles in WP, and I would regard such articles (even when the journals are not otherwise notable) as necessary auxiliary information to our practice of citations. Similar previous proposals have included any journal cited here, but I think Blue's wording is more reasonable and has a better chance of acceptance. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if that function (providing basic information about a journal when we can't really write anything more than simple facts like names, dates, ISSNs, etc.) could be better handled at Wikidata. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There is an active group at d:Wikidata:Periodicals task force, and Wikidata has a very comprehensive collection of academic journals, and the simple data is being added (including copying from Wikipedia). However this raw data isnt the reason to write Wikipedia articles about journals - such data is readily available on the Internet. Articles exist to highlight the important information, which we as encyclopedia writers who regularly review citations need to be aware of. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, DGG for dealing with this particular journal. I see that there is a WikiProject Journals, and an existing notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). —Anne Delong (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
To Blue Rasberry & Anne Delong: WP:NJournals is an essay, not a guideline. I have commented at the village pump. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Erythroplasia of Queyrat

I think it is a good idea to move this stub article entirely to wider topic erythroplasia. 188.30.205.179 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a true erythroplasia though is it? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw you had begun a merge, and I'm not sure the resulting text is entirely correct. Axl? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, while this image is of a neoplasia, could it be used to show erythroplasia/erythroplakia as well? File:ZungenCa2a.jpg -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Erythroplaisa = erythroplakia (French or Greek derivations I think, but I am 95% sure they are the synonyms in English dermatology)
Furthermore, According to some sources, "erythroplasia of Queyrat" also occurs in mouth, larynx, anus.
Imo, might be better to discuss all erythroplasias/erythroplakias on one page. 94.72.198.147 (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
And in answer to your Q about whether ZungenCa2a.jpg could be described as erythroplakia/erythroplasia, the answer is no if you are using the mainstream WHO definition (red patch which is a diagnosis of exclusion, but the red patch may show dysplasia or even be carcinoma in situ). Just to look at it, I would guess that the SCC has almost certainly invaded beyond the basement membrane since there is a tumor mass, and therefore the term carcinoma in situ is no longer appropriate. 188.30.200.29 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
(I'm not sure why CFCF pinged me.) "Erythroplasia of Queyrat" seems to have more than one definition. In its most generic meaning, it could indeed be considered the same as (unqualified) "erythroplakia". However EoQ more commonly refers specifically to erythroplakia on the glans.[citation needed]
I agree that it would be sensible to merge the content into the article "Erythroplakia".
Regarding ZungenCa2a.jpg, I agree with 188.30.200.29. The tumour is invasive and has progressed beyond erythroplakia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry Axl, I've mixed you up for a pathologist in my head, (don't know who I'm thinking of to be honest). Nonetheless, pinging you proved fruitful, thanks. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
CFCF-- to clarify, I had not begn merge. I was expanding erythroplakia first then discovered EoQ article and added some of the content there too. Axl-- agree that EoQ seems to most commonly refers to the lesion on the glans, however unable to find a source which explicitly states this. Weird literature on this topic. Even though erythroplasia is much more common on the glans than anywhere else, most sources do not use the term in relation to the glans. E.g. the first page of google book results: [19]. Strange no? 92.41.94.235 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't appreciate you tagging my comment with "citation needed". By all means make own your reply, but do not edit my statements. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I try to emphasize that a source for such a statement is required, although from the sources I have read I tend to agree, that EoQ mainly refers to a red lesion on the glans/vulva which is caused by atrophic mucosa and containing carcinoma in situ. 94.196.239.62 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I searched for PubMed-indexed papers that have "Queyrat" in the title. Here are the papers since 2000 with identifiable definitions.

Specific to the penis:-

  1. Ozturk
  2. Schmitz
  3. Fanning
  4. Feldmeyer
  5. Nasca
  6. Micali same authors as 5: Nasca
  7. Del Losada
  8. Lee
  9. Kaspari
  10. Davis-Daneshfar

General epithelia (possibly):-

  1. Fai
  2. Choi "mainly occurs on the glans penis"
  3. Zolis vulva
  4. Wieland "mainly occurs on the glans penis, the prepuce, or the urethral meatus of elderly males"

Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we use case reports? Or are you trying to demonstrate that the term EoQ is mainly used to describe a lesion on the glans? 94.196.232.85 (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

These papers demonstrate that the term is used mainly to describe disease on the penis. I am certainly not implying that these are WP:MEDRS-complaint sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • According to *Tobias Jeffrey S., Hochhauser, Daniel, Cancer and its Management, 2010 (6th edn), ISBN 1118713257, 9781118713259, p. 395, EoQ is now known as genital carcinoma in situ. See also p. 352 (where the revised edition doesn't seem to have caught the name change) on the penis. I'll copy this to the EoQ talk page at this point. Later additions should be copied there too. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Term is not completely historical, per pubmed hits above and many other recent textbooks, some are still using it. 188.30.206.175 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

John, it is interesting that chapter 18, p. 352, does not imply that EoQ is outdated terminology. (Textbooks of this size often have different authors for different chapters.) Are there any other sources that indicate that EoQ is outdated terminology? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Image

This image.
Erythroleukoplakia in left commissure and buccal mucosa. Biopsy showed mild epithelial dysplasia and presence of candida infection. A 2-3 week course of anti-fungal treatment may turn this type of lesion into a homogenous leukoplakia.

Regarding my attempt to find an image, this is from NIH and caption erythroleukoplakia, http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/oralhealth/topics/oralcancer/detectingoralcancer.htm (bottommost image). Maybe with an appropriate note that only the "red" portions are erythroplakia? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


There are some v nice pics found not just for this article but for some others I can think of too. Can we use these images or are they copyrghted? 188.30.206.175 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This information is not copyrighted. Print and make as many photocopies as you need.
Jylu 2013

PD as per publication from the NIH. As an IP-editor you won't be able to upload them, so I took the libery of uploading them to commons. Also note, any text on that page is also public domain and can be used with or without attribution (but as it is a valid source referencing the content will live up to WP:MEDRS). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Detecting Oral Cancer - Images
  • LABIAL MUCOSA: (Figures 3 and 4) With the patient's mouth partially open, visually examine the labial mucosa and sulcus of the maxillary vestibule and frenum and the mandibular vestibule. Observe the color, texture, and any swelling or other abnormalities of the vestibular mucosa and gingiva.
    LABIAL MUCOSA: (Figures 3 and 4) With the patient's mouth partially open, visually examine the labial mucosa and sulcus of the maxillary vestibule and frenum and the mandibular vestibule. Observe the color, texture, and any swelling or other abnormalities of the vestibular mucosa and gingiva.
  • FACE: (Figure 1) The extraoral assessment includes inspection of the face, head, and neck. The face, ears, and neck are observed, noting any asymmetry or changes on the skin such as crusts, fissuring, growths, and/or color change. The regional lymph node areas are bilaterally palpated to detect any enlarged nodes, and if detected, their mobility and consistency. A recommended order of examination includes the preauricular, submandibular, anterior cervical, posterior auricular, and posterior cervical regions.
    FACE: (Figure 1) The extraoral assessment includes inspection of the face, head, and neck. The face, ears, and neck are observed, noting any asymmetry or changes on the skin such as crusts, fissuring, growths, and/or color change. The regional lymph node areas are bilaterally palpated to detect any enlarged nodes, and if detected, their mobility and consistency. A recommended order of examination includes the preauricular, submandibular, anterior cervical, posterior auricular, and posterior cervical regions.
  • (Figure 10) Grasping the tip of the tongue with a piece of gauze will assist full protrusion and will aid examination of the more posterior aspects of the tongue's lateral borders
    (Figure 10) Grasping the tip of the tongue with a piece of gauze will assist full protrusion and will aid examination of the more posterior aspects of the tongue's lateral borders
  • (Figure 11) Then examine the ventral surface. Palpate the tongue to detect growths.
    (Figure 11) Then examine the ventral surface. Palpate the tongue to detect growths.
  • FLOOR: (Figure 12) With the tongue still elevated, inspect the floor of the mouth for changes in color, texture, swellings, or other surface abnormalities.
    FLOOR: (Figure 12) With the tongue still elevated, inspect the floor of the mouth for changes in color, texture, swellings, or other surface abnormalities.
  • PALATE: (Figures 13 and 14) With the mouth wide open and the patient's head tilted back, gently depress the base of the tongue with a mouth mirror. First inspect the hard and then the soft palate.
    PALATE: (Figures 13 and 14) With the mouth wide open and the patient's head tilted back, gently depress the base of the tongue with a mouth mirror. First inspect the hard and then the soft palate.
  • (Figure 14) Examine all soft palate and oropharyngeal tissues.
    (Figure 14) Examine all soft palate and oropharyngeal tissues.
  • (Figure 15) Bimanually palpate the floor of the mouth for any abnormalities. All mucosal or facial tissues that seem to be abnormal should be palpated.
    (Figure 15) Bimanually palpate the floor of the mouth for any abnormalities. All mucosal or facial tissues that seem to be abnormal should be palpated.
  • Homogenous leukoplakia in the floor of the mouth in a smoker. Biopsy showed hyperkeratosis.
    Homogenous leukoplakia in the floor of the mouth in a smoker. Biopsy showed hyperkeratosis.
  • Clinically, a leukoplakia on left buccal mucosa. However, the biopsy showed early squamous cell carcinoma. The lesion is suspicious because of the presence of nodules.
    Clinically, a leukoplakia on left buccal mucosa. However, the biopsy showed early squamous cell carcinoma. The lesion is suspicious because of the presence of nodules.
  • Nodular leukoplakia in right commissure. Biopsy showed severe epithelial dysplasia.
    Nodular leukoplakia in right commissure. Biopsy showed severe epithelial dysplasia.
  • Erythroleukoplakia in left commissure and buccal mucosa. Biopsy showed mild epithelial dysplasia and presence of candida infection. A 2-3 week course of anti-fungal treatment may turn this type of lesion into a homogenous leukoplakia.
    Erythroleukoplakia in left commissure and buccal mucosa. Biopsy showed mild epithelial dysplasia and presence of candida infection. A 2-3 week course of anti-fungal treatment may turn this type of lesion into a homogenous leukoplakia.
  • LIPS: (Figure 2) Begin examination by observing the lips with the patient's mouth both closed and open. Note the color, texture and any surface abnormalities of the upper and lower vermilion borders.
    LIPS: (Figure 2) Begin examination by observing the lips with the patient's mouth both closed and open. Note the color, texture and any surface abnormalities of the upper and lower vermilion borders.
  • LABIAL MUCOSA: (Figures 3 and 4) With the patient's mouth partially open, visually examine the labial mucosa and sulcus of the maxillary vestibule and frenum and the mandibular vestibule. Observe the color, texture, and any swelling or other abnormalities of the vestibular mucosa and gingiva.
    LABIAL MUCOSA: (Figures 3 and 4) With the patient's mouth partially open, visually examine the labial mucosa and sulcus of the maxillary vestibule and frenum and the mandibular vestibule. Observe the color, texture, and any swelling or other abnormalities of the vestibular mucosa and gingiva.
  • BUCCAL MUCOSA: (Figures 5 and 6) Retract the buccal mucosa. Examine first the right then the left buccal mucosa extending from the labial commissure and back to the anterior tonsillar pillar. Note any change in pigmentation, color, texture, mobility, and other abnormalities of the mucosa, making sure that the commissures are examined carefully and are not covered by the retractors during the retraction of the cheek.
    BUCCAL MUCOSA: (Figures 5 and 6) Retract the buccal mucosa. Examine first the right then the left buccal mucosa extending from the labial commissure and back to the anterior tonsillar pillar. Note any change in pigmentation, color, texture, mobility, and other abnormalities of the mucosa, making sure that the commissures are examined carefully and are not covered by the retractors during the retraction of the cheek.
  • BUCCAL MUCOSA: (Figures 5 and 6) Retract the buccal mucosa. Examine first the right then the left buccal mucosa extending from the labial commissure and back to the anterior tonsillar pillar. Note any change in pigmentation, color, texture, mobility, and other abnormalities of the mucosa, making sure that the commissures are examined carefully and are not covered by the retractors during the retraction of the cheek.
    BUCCAL MUCOSA: (Figures 5 and 6) Retract the buccal mucosa. Examine first the right then the left buccal mucosa extending from the labial commissure and back to the anterior tonsillar pillar. Note any change in pigmentation, color, texture, mobility, and other abnormalities of the mucosa, making sure that the commissures are examined carefully and are not covered by the retractors during the retraction of the cheek.
  • GINGIVA: (Figure 7) First, examine the buccal and labial aspects of the gingiva and alveolar ridges (processes) by starting with the right maxillary posterior gingiva and alveolar ridge and then move around the arch to the left posterior area. Drop to the left mandibular posterior gingiva and alveolar ridge and move around the arch to the right posterior area.
    GINGIVA: (Figure 7) First, examine the buccal and labial aspects of the gingiva and alveolar ridges (processes) by starting with the right maxillary posterior gingiva and alveolar ridge and then move around the arch to the left posterior area. Drop to the left mandibular posterior gingiva and alveolar ridge and move around the arch to the right posterior area.
  • TONGUE: (Figure 8) With the patient's tongue at rest, and mouth partially open, inspect the dorsum of the tongue for any swelling, ulceration, coating, or variation in size, color, or texture. Also note any change in the pattern of the papillae covering the surface of the tongue and examine the tip of the tongue. The patient should then protrude the tongue, and the examiner should note any abnormality of mobility or positioning.
    TONGUE: (Figure 8) With the patient's tongue at rest, and mouth partially open, inspect the dorsum of the tongue for any swelling, ulceration, coating, or variation in size, color, or texture. Also note any change in the pattern of the papillae covering the surface of the tongue and examine the tip of the tongue. The patient should then protrude the tongue, and the examiner should note any abnormality of mobility or positioning.
  • (Figure 9) With the aid of mouth mirrors, inspect the right and left lateral margins of the tongue.
    (Figure 9) With the aid of mouth mirrors, inspect the right and left lateral margins of the tongue.
Also note there are images here which we aren't using in the Leukoplakia article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Lovely. Thanks so much for uploading these and finding the other leukoplakia pic on another language wiki. 94.72.198.147 (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Different names on Wikidata

Looking up Defibrillation I was astounded to find there was no link in Swedish. After some searching I found the Swedish article sv:Defibrillator, which covers the same topic. The difference is that it is filed under the machine defibrillator, while the English article has the phenomena in its title. The articles have pretty much the same scope, but despite this they don't link to each other, and instead inhabit two separate entries on Wikidata. Is there any way to solve this?

Is this worth trying to find someone over on Wikidata to help out? -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirects? They have just quite recently decided to allow links to these. But Wikidata is throwing up all sorts of problems, which may start involving Wikipedia. Their attitude is not always helpful. See this current discussion. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Meeting up at Wikimania

If you will be in London in early August, and would like some sort of medical meetup, please let's have your views on what to do, and when, at meta:Wiki Project Med/Wikimania 2014 meetup. I would be very grateful if people could post this to other language equivalents. Of course this is for all medical editors not just members of the Wiki Project Med thorg or local projects. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Tante grazie! Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Prego. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking on organizing this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Brought this back in case anyone missed it. If you are in London feel free to join us. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Global number of HIV cases

UNAIDS has a report on the global number of HIV cases.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

We would need the actual source from UNAID. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I assume that it is this one [20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing "Editing Psychology Articles" handout for student editors

I posted here last week for feedback but looks like the thread's already been archived! I'm posting again because the revised draft is ready for review. I'd like any additional feedback by July 23, so we can get it off to the designer and get it printed before the start of the term. Thanks to those of you who've already commented. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Detailed Clinical Models

Hello again! Maybe someone should take a look at this old AfC submission before it's deleted as a stale draft. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think while the concept could most definitely use an article, but this isn't it. The article points to nl.wikipedia.org in its references, breaking WP:Circular. It's a shame it can't be kept to just salvage in the future when needed, but I don't think we can use it now, no. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Anne Delong. Post here anytime - this is a correct venue.
I agree with CFCF. The sources provided are not the sort Wikipedia expects when making a new article. The article's author has failed to engage with five people offering suggestions for improvement, and it has been six months since last contact. I tagged it for deletion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Restless legs syndrome

Can a project member look at 1RLSsage's edit here? This is their third attempt and I'm not convinced it's much better than the other two. --NeilN talk to me 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup agree and left comments on their talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing on PubMed about it. (The Journal of Parkinsonism and Restless Legs Syndrome is not indexed in PubMed.) Nor could I find a suitable reliable source with a general search. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

At the cannabis(drug) article is being discussed here Talk:Cannabis_(drug)#History_section and on my user page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Relapse

A relapse of a medical condition and resuming a drug misuse are two different things. I suggest creating a separate article about the relapse of medical conditions (maybe at Relapse (medical condition)?). Could someone experienced look into that? Thanks. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 07:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't substance abuse a medical condition too? 92.41.92.54 (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The current article is mainly about drug abuse, perhaps an article on relapse in general is needed? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 10:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Ideally yes, but like many generic topics it would not be an easy one to prepare. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec) You could do that, but most of the article seems well off-topic either way, being about addiction and addictive substances. It was mostly added over a short period by an editor who then vanished Special:Contributions/Lexie_Vaughn, and should probably be checked for copyvio, and if ok moved somewhere more suitable, if there is such a place. Or at least move it to a narrower title, & keep this for the general medical term, on which there is certainly more to be said. Wiki CRUK John/Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I think most people associate "relapse" as something a patient has done to themselves (such as drug abuse), while something like "recurrence" relates to the disease re-surfacing. For example, a cancer that came back "recurs," rather than "relapses." I'd suggest starting an article called Recurrence (medicine), as Recurrence already exists as a disambiguation page. --Scott Alter (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Per Dorland's:

Relapse is not specific to drug abuse, and recurrence is not specific to cancer etc. 188.29.89.155 (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that, in common speech, the difference is in your expectations: if you expect something to be an ongoing condition that occasionally reappears or gets worse (e.g., multiple sclerosis), then you talk about "relapse"; if you thought it was an event that had finished or disease that had been cured, then you talk about "recurrence" (e.g., recurrent miscarriage).
But it's not a strict rule, and there are factors like the terms preferred by experts early in the sub-field, which tend to be carried on for a long time afterwards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a grammar expert, but I have noticed a pattern to the use of recur vs. relapse. When these are used as verbs, the choice seems to depend on the actor (grammatical subject) in the sentence. Diseases, conditions, and events recur; people relapse. It seems less straightforward with the related nouns and adjectives. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 01:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I came across a relevant passage by Siddhartha Mukherjee here, halfway down page 1 - he uses both, re cancer, in a NYT article about his The Emperor of All Maladies. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Paper handout and online PDF for students in classes

Hello. We have an opportunity to design a classroom handout explaining health editing best practices. A draft is ready to go now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Education program handout, and pending community interest, perhaps we could send it to a designer to make a nice pdf for online viewing or printing on paper. I am not sure how we will arrange that but it seems doable if there is interest.

The meta:Wiki Education Foundation is a nonprofit organization independent of the Wikimedia Foundation which promotes increased involvement of professors and students in Wikipedia. They especially target universities, and they only can work with schools in the United States and Canada. For those who do not know, general announcements by this organization are made at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard, which is a general noticeboard for any kind of collaboration between schools and Wikipedia anywhere in the world for any purpose, and not just relating to that separate nonprofit organization.

LiAnna (Wiki Ed) was formerly employed by the Wikimedia Foundation to do educational outreach in all kinds of contexts. She is now employed by the Wiki Education Foundation and not the Wikimedia Foundation, and she is promoting education collaborations with them.

At User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed)/Psychology handout, LiAnna was seeking comment on a draft of a one-page handout to be distributed in classes which edit psychology articles. When the text for this draft is developed, it will be sent to a designer for attractive placement into a document, then distributed as a PDF and printed on paper. LiAnna would like comments on this paper right now.

When I saw this paper, I thought it would be useful for WikiProject Medicine since so far as I know, this WikiProject has collaborated with more classes than any other WikiProject, and since this WikiProject so frequently encounters student editors in medicine. In reading the paper, I felt that it had nothing to do with psychology at all, but was a general primer to editing health articles, and I imagined a fork of the paper which could be given to students in health classes just as the psychology handout will be distributed in those classes.

I am posting to ask that any interested members of this WikiProject look over this fork I made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Education program handout. I propose that we develop this, then if we ever see a class editing health content, we make this available along with our existing video perhaps in a welcome template like Template:WPMED welcome.

It would be nice if the Wiki Education Foundation could arrange for the same nice design work on a version of this handout for medicine as they are arranging for psychology, but this is not confirmed and I have not asked Lianna directly if this is possible. In any case, they have already designed this draft and they are going to make it look nice for psychology, so whatever they do, perhaps even if they cannot design it for us we can arrange something for medicine. Perhaps they also would like to copy any revisions we do to this one for they psychology handout.

Thanks everyone - please comment and revise the medicine handout if you like the idea. It seems like an asset which is almost ready to go live, in my opinion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Cancer screening

The article Cancer screening could use a little work. Some statements not in sources, some needing refs and some updating needed. See talk page (and tags) for details. Some of the other articles on screening probably also need a look over. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Plenty needs doing - see Talk:Cervical screening and Talk:Cervical cancer for example. As always, the best way to see it gets done is to do it. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if I'll get a chance to work on these articles anytime soon, but your point is well made.
Wiki CRUK John has pointed out this article suffers from extreme US centrism. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about Wiki coverage of Sicca syndrome

What is Sicca syndrome? It seems to me that every source I look at defines it slightly differently.

Wiki is currently mentioning Sicca syndrome in one line on Sjögren syndrome, but this is different from how it is defined on dry mouth article. It says that Sicca syndrome is specifically not autoimmune, thereby distinguishing it from SS. Should Wiki have a dedicated article on Sicca syndrome? 188.30.201.171 (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Pubmed doesn't give very many hits on Sicca syndrome - 7 reviews [21]. The topmost one might be the most relevant in clearing out what differences are [22]. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I blew the dust off my ancient copy of An Aid to the MRCP Short Cases (second edition, 1999). From page 221, primary Sjögren's syndrome (30%) does not have associated connective tissue disease. This is also known as sicca syndrome. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
But Axl, my point is the definition, where one is given, seems to be different in many sources. We have some which are contradicting your supplied source and saying that Sicca Syndrome is dryness not caused by autoimmunity. What is the verdict? Suggest short dedicated article explaining the varied definitions and linking to the relevant articles? Happy to do this work. 94.197.42.135 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I recommend that you draw up a list of reliable sources on the talk page of Sjögren's syndrome. From that list you should be able to determine the more commonly used definition and act accordingly. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

external links at Phimosis

Hi folks, an editor at Phimosis has been repeatedly restoring external links to what the editor acknowledges are anonymous Internet chat forums and advocacy websites, as well as one AAP website that does not mention phimosis. The anonymous Internet chat forums and advocacy websites are non-peer reviewed and give medical advice. The reason this editor gives for restoring the external links is that this particular editor finds the websites "helpful" or "useful"; I have pointed out repeatedly in this discussion on the article Talk page that the links fail WP:ELNO, Doc James has also pointed to WP:ELNO. Latest restore of the links by this editor is here. More input would be appreciated. Zad68 12:41, 3 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Proposed category deletion

Note that Wikiprojects rarely get notified of these: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_13#Category:Articles_lacking_medical_references_or_verification. WCJ/Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Craniosacral therapy

More eyes needed...we have an IP editor attempting to blank sections and remove a considerable amount of sourced information without explanation and continues to revert. I do not wish to engage the editor in an edit war, so I am requesting other editors' assistance. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You can request for an admin to protect the page for a month or so, the IP will soon lose interest. 94.196.107.143 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Protected 1 month. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift response. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Best practices for naming "controversy" articles?

There was an article called dental amalgam controversy. Its content is mostly about the fringe view that Amalgam (dentistry) in dental fillings causes a range of personal health problems. I was cleaning up the article and among other things, renamed it to dental amalgam toxicity, since the article was about the purported toxicity of the material and had, in my opinion, little information about debate or controversy despite presenting conflicting perspectives. A user suggested that my name change was not ideal because this person felt that it promoted the fringe view, while also saying that the original name was not good.

Does anyone know of a precedent in having names for articles on fringe concepts in medicine? Should these be called "controversy" articles, or is there another name? I proposed other names at Talk:Dental_amalgam_toxicity#Name_change_to_.22Dental_amalgam_toxicity.22. I am not sure what is best. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Without looking at this case in particular, I think for fringe topics the word "controversy" is not good, as it plays into the WP:GEVAL fallacy of implying that there are just "contrary voices" in play, rather than a (discredited) fringe and a (sensible) mainstream view. In non-medical topics the solution is often to cast the title in a way which makes plain the nature of the fringe views - for example Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Of course then there is a constant assault by fringe-pushers wanting to remove "conspiracy theory" from the title, but such is Wikipedia. Is the dental amalgam things a "conspiracy theory", a "popular misconception", a "myth" ... ? What do RS's say? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me talk this through.
There might be two unrelated issues with amalgam danger. It kind of surprises me, but some sources from the WHO and others say that dental amalgam in the mouths of the deceased is the majority source of environmental mercury pollution. I think there is no dispute that bodies with mercury in the teeth need special care and reform of funerary practices, and right now, that content is mixed with general concerns about amalgam. If the article is called "dental amalgam controversy" or "dental amalgam toxicity", then this environmental problem which is unrelated to WikiProject Medicine work seems appropriate to include. With a different title about the health issue only, perhaps this content could be forked away and the issues separated.
For the idea that amalgam causes illness, it seems to be all of the things you said, "conspiracy theory", a "popular misconception", a "myth", and something which is repeated by some prominent health professionals who are not reliable sources. So far as I can tell, all health organizations that take a position say that the research finds no danger in the practice, but I have not examined all the sources and the article will eventually need to be cleaned more.
I hope that we do not need to resolve the truth right now just because no one has stepped up to parse the sources. I did want to sort the title... I am not sure right now what reliable sources say. I should think more. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I prefer controversy, especially when there's an actual controversy with ongoing debate. It is far from accurate to say that the only legitimate controversy around amalgam is environmental. In addition to the patient health concern, there's informed consent debates and occupational exposure. On the patient issue, there is the 2010 FDA scientific advisory panel meeting, which was widely reported in the media as critical of the FDA's interpretation of safety (as was the 2006 scientific advisory panel). Unlike the 2006 panel, the 2010 one did not vote but the summary of the meeting concluded that the "Panel noted a likely susceptible subpopulation that is prone to adverse health effects after receiving amalgams, but noted also that this population could not be easily pre-identified at this time". This is similar to the 2009 FDA white paper which also noted that there seem to be polymorphisms with greater risk. Also, if I recall correctly, for reasons that I'm not sure are yet elucidated, boys (or at least some) excrete less mercury through their urine and it is unclear what that means. Anyway, I haven't looked into this in a while and it is possible things have changed. I'm heading out camping so I won't be around for follow-up, but that's my two cents. II | (t - c) 01:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Bluerasberry's comments above, to clearly demarcate the fringe alternative medicine quackery related to amalgam toxicity (i.e. the purported medical condition which results from the presence of amalgam fillings in the mouth) and the environmental concerns about amalgam disposal and cremation, etc. which is probably more mainstream and science based. Maybe even on 2 separate articles. 92.41.89.154 (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Either of your two suggestions here sound okay to me, but it depends a bit on what the actual subject of the article is. "Environmental concerns" isn't so good for "making me sick", and "toxicity claims" might not be so great if it's mostly about mercury emissions from crematoriums. "Controversy" might works best if there was a time-bounded "event" around it and the issues were (at one time) considered reasonable or possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry:: There has been a lengthy precedence for "controversy" titles (see Thiomersal controversy, MMR vaccine controversy, Vaccine controversies, Water fluoridation controversy, Aspartame controversy, off the top of my head). I do feel "controversy" is a more neutral than "toxicity" if the goal of the page is to discuss the controversial claims about the toxicity. Yobol (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Editorials and WP:MEDRS

What is the state of editorials and MEDRS? I recently read some editorials from Nature Neuroscience. Is this considered acceptable by Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations as they are written by the journal itself. I'm not for a blank slate on all journal editorials, but I personally accept Nature as a "reputable major medical and scientific body", am I right in that reading of MEDRS? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The language at MEDRS seems generally permissive of most kinds of sources in reputable journals, but with a clear hierarchy. Sounds to me like they are fair game as long as they do not contradict available systematic reviews.Herbxue (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The use of editorials and other opinion pieces is regulated by WP:RSOPINION, which says that they may be reliable for statements of opinion (This author or publication believes the sky is green) but not for statements of fact (The sky is green)—or, if I may guess about what's likely to be more relevant, that X is pseudoscience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Research editorials do have some opinion, and the also have clear analysis/synthesis of available medical research (valuable MEDRES compliant material). An intelligent reader can tell the difference. - Technophant (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
MEDRS discourages the use of "expert opinion". It names it as the lowest possible form of evidence, and later says, "Journal articles come in many types, including...editorials and op-ed pieces, advocacy pieces, speculation, book reviews, letters to the editor and other forms of commentary or correspondence, biographies, and eulogies. It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible."
Whether it is "MEDRS-compliant" depends primarily on how you use it. It is possible to use an editorial piece in compliance with MEDRS and RSOPINION. Generally speaking, that requires WP:INTEXT attribution along the lines of "A 2010 editorial in _____ journal said that '(brief quotation or paraphrasing here)'". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think MEDRS should be revised to elevate so call opinion. Articles labeled as editorial can be used to validate research article if the editorial specifically names the research and affirms the conclusions. This would be an example of source being more reliable than the source being discussed. MEDRS is far from perfect. - Technophant (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with much of WAID has said above. MEDRS specifically deprecates expert opinion; they should be used only sparingly, in-text attributed when used and probably not to contradict higher quality sourcing unless that opinion is of particular contextual importance (see WP:WEIGHT). I should also note that editorials in journals are not covered by the "Medical and scientific organizations" section, which I think applies to official position statements by these societies. Editorials are explicitly the opinion of the editor/author in question, and not a position statement by the publisher. For example, the journal Science is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; editorials published in Science are solely opinion pieces by authors, and are not the same as position statements by the AAAS, which are covered by the "Medical ans scientific organizations" section of MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ellyn Satter

Dear medical experts: This old AfC submission was declined because of lack of independent sources. Later an other editor created Ellyn Satter, but it doesn't have any independent sources either. I found book reviews, but they are mostly on blogs or personal websites. I'm not sure where to look, though. Is this a notable nutritionist? If not, there's little point in trying to merge the pages. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong:: Thank you for the link. Since I have a Wisconsin connection, I will do what I can. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ancheta Wis. I have postponed deletion of the draft for six months. If you move any content from the draft to mainspace, be sure to mention the draft's creator, Cldanaher, in your edit summary. If you can't find any reliable sources, the mainspace article may need to be sent to AfD; let's hope not. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A draft at AFC has problems

Could/should Draft:Renal dialysis diet be rehabilitated or is euthanasia the best option? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Real enough subject, very poor article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Poppy tea

Someone with experience on writing on opiates really needs to give a good look at the train wreck of anecdotes and unsourced waffle that is Poppy tea. To my mind, this kind of "folk remedy" article is where the biggest risk (both to readers, and to Wikipedia) lies—all it takes is one kid to die or suffer serious psychological trauma after taking diluted unprocessed opium as a cure for diarrhoea ("Well, Wikipedia says it's a traditional cure so it should be all right") and there's some nasty explaining to do. I suspect that because it doesn't fall neatly into either pharmacology or psychiatry, this one has a tendency to slip through the net when it comes to fact-checking. – iridescent 2 12:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a ref [23]. Trimmed some Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC regarding neutrality and MEDRS on "fringe" alt-med topics

The RFC found Talk:Myofascial meridians#rfc_E441AA7 was started out of frustration due to a number of editor using a very strict, legalistic view of WP:MEDRS by removing all primary sources that don't conform to their POV. There's also a lot of bias in the result of this practice. I'm essentially treated as a vandal, with even non-controversial edits being reverted. The debate has been taken up in multiple talk pages. The opinion of experienced medical editors is requested. - Technophant (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm really disturbed in the trend here. My edits are being reverted and being called "fringe". There's a major issue with the interpretation and application of WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.
This debate also extends to acupuncture, referred itch, and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Issues with alt med not being able to maintain NPOV. - Technophant (talk) 15:27, 20 July}} 2014 (UTC)
You write that the "debate has been taken up in multiple talk pages." Well, you only have yourself to thank for that situation because you have spammed it all over the place, and now here. You need to stick to one discussion and not seek support elsewhere by canvassing editors and writing on more and more boards and talk pages. If you can't work things out with the editors on a talk page, then give up, because your fringe POV pushing agenda is pretty obvious, violates many policies, and has been exposed. Unless you change your POV and way of editing, you're not going to get more support. On the contrary. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If the same group of editors keep responding, I don't see what's wrong with OP seeking more diverse responses and opinions. -A1candidate (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If policies are explained again and again by multiple editors and Technophant still doesn't get it, then we're dealing with a case of incompetence, POV pushing, and seeking to right great wrongs, all of which mean he is not good for Wikipedia. Your support for him places you in the same category and under the same spotlight and magnifying glass. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Forum shop, time sink, tendentious, IDHT aaaarghhh! - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

FDA drug safety updates

For anyone interested, a heads up alert is provided at the link above. Boghog (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Boghog This is an important issue and I wish that I could keep up. I confirm that I am interested but I am unable to go through FDA alerts and update Wikipedia articles in response to them. It would be nice if the FDA recognized that as many people seek information here as in many of the other dissemination channels which they used, and talked with us about developing Wikipedia's health content just as they would talk with any other health organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Candida alternative medicine quackery not covered well on Wikipedia

I feel strongly that the small amount of discussion WP appears to have about the alternative medicine claims surrounding candida is not sufficient to provide high quality reliable information to the public. The candida industry is huge, and their lies go well beyond "candida hypersensitivity syndrome". There is widespread belief among sections of the public that a systemic candida overgrowth is possible, and special diets, antifungals, fasting, "detox", supplements and other things are required It is my understanding that a genuine infection with candida in the gut is very serious, leaving the patient fighting for their life in intensive care. Maybe there is some WP article on this topic that I have missed, but feel we need more content. 92.40.84.196 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. That's far too little coverage of a huge area of quackery. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to use some of these sources [24] to build content about so called "candida overgrowth"? I'm finding it difficult to find anything on pubmed or in google books. 92.40.84.196 (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
There are some decent sources on pubmed, for example [25]:

Candida organisms commonly colonize the human gastrointestinal tract as a component of the resident microbiota. Their presence is generally benign. Recent studies, however, show that high level Candidacolonization is associated with several diseases of the gastrointestinal tract.

So there this some truth to it, but I see what you mean with dubious industry claims. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this for years; some of the claims can be entertaining if you forget that some people really believe this. Last I heard, the "industry" was saying that eating bread that contains dead yeast would somehow put live yeast in your gut.
My overall impression was to wonder (as I do for gluten-free diets) how many of them are benefiting from eating less high-carbohydrate food and more vegetables and protein rather than from the ostensible goal of the anti-candida diet programs. I suppose that psychological benefits are also possible: restrictive diets and personally chosen "treatments" provide a sense of control over your fate. (And if your goal is to feel better, and being a true believer makes you feel better, then should people even care that your improved experience is due to psychological or placebo effects?)
Anyway, yes, like Hypoglycemia, there's a mainstream condition under that name and an "altmed condition" piggybacking on the legitimacy of the recognized one. Writing a good article there will be complicated, and maintaining it will be even harder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


OK Candidiasis is protected so I cannot edit. I will start writing something and put it on the talk page. Please anyone feel free to dive in too. 188.31.213.169 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Really exhausted

The Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is usually one of the few methods of "dispute resolution" on Wikipedia that actually worked. However now it is appearing not to.

User:Technophant added a bunch of primary sources and a 1900s German alt med text that was recently translated to English which introduces a new "body system" to the standard 11 (the collagenous matrix and ground substance) [26]. They were reverted multiple times by a couple of editors. They re-added content four times making a technical total of 5 reverts in 20 hours. No block [27]

I am sure it will just take some time to straighten out Myofascial meridians and at least the page is protected now. Still contains the text "Continuing education courses in Anatomy Trains are taught regularly.[28]" Glad to see Wikipedia is helping out the "fearless" leader on his birthday. (per text at the bottom of the above link ref) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Fighting on the wrong side of losing battle is frequently exhausting. Perhaps you take a wp:wikibreak and take some time to think about what your reasons are for being an editor. - Technophant (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Techno. Your comments have helped me refocus on why I am an editor :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Second 3RR on a different article filed. If someone has the energy I think ANI is probably appropriate, topic ban or... I'm tired too. What about discretionary sanctions? Note also removal of warnings, extensive forum shopping, IDHT and clear POV pushing... - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately we all can get some rest from the constant disruption. Technophant is now indefinitely topic banned from all Alternative medicine subjects. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frambesia Tropica in the Americas

Dear medical experts: This old AfC submission was declined with the suggestion that the information be added to the Yaws article. Now it's about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is there anything that should be moved before that happens? —Anne Delong (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Prof Hasty rides again

yahoo.com health. Jake O's comment doesn't make all the points it could. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is exactly why we should never use popular press as a reference for medical content. It is simply wrong again and again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I posted a comment there but they deleted it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Could use some feedback on improvements

Signaling cascade in the nucleus accumbens that results in psychostimulant addiction
The image above contains clickable links
Insert witty caption here.

I'm still undecided on whether or not to use this image outside ΔFosB, but does anyone have any feedback - cosmetic or otherwise, for improving this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would personally chose a slightly different typesetting, as I've personally found it hard to get text to look uniform in SVGs. Apart from that, some of the arrows do not point to the receptor-ligand binding site. For example the arrow showing (glutamate) binding to AMPAR is pointing far below what looks like the binding site. Could you upload a .png file just to compare so that it isn't down to using non-universal typefaces. Take a quick look at commons:Commons:SVG_guidelines, it might explain some issues. -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Concerning the ligand binding sites on the AMPAR and NMDAR complexes, please note that both of these complexes are ligand gated ion channels. The central "binding site" depicted in the graphic actually represents the ion conduction pore (as shown in the case of NMDAR). The ligand binding sites are on the periphery of the complex (see for example File:Activated_NMDAR.PNG). (Note: the depiction of AMPAR should be changed to look more NMDAR in the graphic.) While position of the arrows may not look quite right, they do point to were the ligand binding sites are approximately located. Boghog (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
That is of course true, (maybe I should stop checking Wikipedia one last time 11 pm, and just wait till the morning). Apart from that I still think it might to a lay-reader be slightly unclear where/that they bind, and creating a small indentation to represent the allosteric site would help. As for 7TM receptors, there must be some illustration on Wikipedia we could reuse. The hard work of creating a clear and concise image has been done, if we simply fix the rest this might be ready for featured image. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@CFCF: I agree with you that the diagram could be made clearer. As I have stated elsewhere, use of "anatomically correct" figures would be more revealing ;-) Boghog (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I made a variety of changes today - including an optional "Colorcode" parameter that transcludes (4 nested templates...) an annotation containing a reference containing a legend which shows up in the ref tooltip in articles (e.g., see ΔFosB where I've placed the image as a test). Let me know what you think now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I like those changes, it makes the image much clearer. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Once sorted out I would think it useful for more general articles where we lack a graphic of comparable complexity. Wiki CRUK john/Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
NMDAR, AMPAR, and CAv1.2 were the only structures I tried to actually model in a way that reflects their function. DRD1-DRD5 are simply geometric shapes that were intended to show similarity in function; I have no desire to try to create the squiggly mess of what a 7TM receptor is supposed to look like, so I went with geometric shapes. Since I wasn't trying to show AMPAR's function (move Na+ ions inside - not directly related to cascade) in the graphic, I simply chose to make it look like NMDAR to reflect their similarity as LGICs, without showing the ion channel. In any event, the point of the graphic is just to show the signal transduction that induces addiction to stimulants, but I went to far more trouble than the citations I referenced to draw a half-decent diagram.[29][30].
About the text though, I'm aware of that page since I read it a while back. I agree SVG text is a pain in the ass to make look right, but I've learned to deal with it. As long as it renders as I intended (easily checked beforehand with this tool), I'm ok with using svg text. I'll upload one with no text some time in the future though. The font in the image is sans, but if anything looks different, it's because I italicized the text for emphasis. I'll see if serif or something looks better when I next revise it. There are unintended italics on DNA and dendrite that I'll remove as well; I forgot to remove those last night when I cut out a bunch of text. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^
      Ion channel
      G proteins & linked receptors
      (Text color) Transcription factors

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Handbook of Practice Management

Dear medical experts: Another old AfC submission. Is this a notable medical publication? If so, maybe someone here knows where to find sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

PhRMA Edits History

A history of edits of Wikipedia from IPs of companies registered as part of PhRMA. I couldn't find anything all too controversial, but there were a number of edits on medical conditions as well as on pharmaceuticals (mostly minor fixes). Keep in mind this list has only been run from 2002-2010, so if there is anything more recent it isn't there.
(The list for 2010-2014 edits is under way.)

Also the raw data is available in CSV form, if anyone wants to parse articles under the WP:MED or WP:PHARMA banner. -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

2010-2014

The page has now been updated and follows up till 2014. There are a number of more controversial edits on pharmaceuticals etc. here, much of which at the very least is not WP:MEDRS complaint.

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Exhausted

Have come across another two users who have mostly simply copied and pasted from sources. I am tired of spending my days dealing with this rather than writing content. That User:Truebreath was able to make more than 3,500 edits over more than a year before being picked up [31] is sad. Many excellent edits were lost in the removal. The other user was User:Janbaekelandt and the two may be related.

We need a solution to prevent this and we need it now. We need foundation support. We need the foundation to take this seriously. User:Eloquence, User:Frank_Schulenburg and User:Jimbo Wales can the foundation support WP:Turnitin? User:Ladsgroup I am willing to hire you for this work if you want to take it on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just offered $5000 CAD for a working solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Doc, Please take care not to harm yourself, for the sake of the encyclopedia. We need you. Regards, --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks no concerns of harm. Just see a serious problem that has been festering and needs to be fixed. Not sure if it is also a huge issue in other topic areas but I assume that this is likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Is everyone aware of the Individual Engagement Grants? They actually do pay money for solutions to technical needs (not for content creation, of course, since that's what the volunteers do). —Anne Delong (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes aware of them. They are not available to everyone. My offer is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that "you" can get the IEG and use the money to pay whatever contractors you need to. User:Ocaasi will probably know more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
To clarify: Yes, the user James wants to hire in this case could indeed be paid as an independent contractor from a grantee's IEG funds (even if the user was ineligible to receive WMF funds as a direct grantee himself). In that sense, like bounties, grant-funding can be made available "for everyone." But money doesn't seem like the real blocker here :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you posted the details of the offer somewhere, James? -- Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)
Not yet. You interested Anthony? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree you might well get an IEG as managing rather than doing the process. In fact you should certainly be part of any application, as a very well-respected figure. It isn't quick though. Per here the next round timetable is:
Proposals accepted: 1-30 September
Committee members finalized: 15 September
Community comment requested: 1–20 October
Committee review: 21 October – 3 November
Grantees announced: 5 December 2014
Grants disbursed: December 2014 – January 2015
Midpoint reports: April
Final reports: JulyWiki CRUK John (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup so if someone wants my funding they can start right away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I got a good, quick result here, at WP:VPT. I've been told about engagement grants but chose to go direct because of the suffocating time delay. I'm going direct for some illustrations I'm commissioning too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation is planning to support the development of a plagiarism checker tool. I pinged Sage Ross (as our product manager), so he's aware of this and can provide more information. @Doc James: hope you're feeling better. Best --Frank Schulenburg (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, et al: The current timeline for Wiki Education Foundation is that we'll start exploring the plagiarism-checking problem in detail in the last months of 2014 and/or the first months of 2015. I'm currently in the middle of a request for proposals to find a development company for Wiki Education Foundation's first round of development, which includes a "feasibility study" for a plagiarism checking system. Basically, the idea is to do enough work on it to figure out just how big of a project it's going to be. By next month, I'll start working with developers, and I'm happy to coordinate efforts with anyone else working on plagiarism. The system we'd like to build (as a start) would be focused on just checking the edits made by student editors from our courses, but it will hopefully be a good starting point for scaling up to all of Wikipedia.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure. We should talk so that we can co-ordinate. Were you planning on using the Turnitin API? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Doc James: Yes, since all that work establishing a relationship has already been done, I've been assuming that Turnitin's iThenticate API will be the most sensible thing to explore first. Let's try again to find a time to talk.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for slow response I was traveling. @Sbouterse (WMF): I wish you would tell us this sooner. @Jmh649: I think the best thing right now is to make a precise plan on how we want to work on fighting plagiarism and copyright violation, we have lots of options ahead of us right now (IEG or Wiki Education project, etc.) and manging these resources is the most important thing. Thank you for your work here :)Ladsgroupبحث 10:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Indicating exactly which bits of the text are supported by a citation.

User:Makyen has recently made this template ("Ref supports2") for article segments supported by more than one source, where each source supports different parts of the segment.

Example (hover your mouse pointer under the footnote marker):

At any given time, about half of all patients with malignant cancer are experiencing pain, and more than a third of those (and two thirds of all patients with advanced cancer) experience pain of such intensity that it adversely affects their sleep, mood, social relations and activities of daily living.[1] [2] [3] 

References

  1. ^ "Example 1".
  2. ^ Example 2
  3. ^ Example 3

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

To some extent, this functionality can be obtained from the |quote parameter in citation templates, which I wish was used more often. That's more visible to readers, and is also visible in printed versions. I presume {{Ref supports2}} is more aimed toward editors than readers? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Adrian J. Hunter, it's aimed at both. Both should be able to easily find what text is supported by a citation, and what isn't. Often, an editor will add something to the middle of a sourced paragraph that isn't supported by the existing citations. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting! I like where this is going.
I have worked on a different system related to tying specific words/phrases in the lead to the exact section where the content (with the references which back up those words/phrases) from which it is derived can be found. You can see it in my essay: WP:How to create and manage a good lead section#Lead section references
Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that it is not compatible across languages of Wikipedia and therefore messes up translation efforts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you elaborate please James? Do you mean it would somehow break the translations or simply that this feature wouldn't appear in the translations because the other language Wikipedias don't use this template, or something else? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The quote= does the same thing and yes other languages do not have this template thus refs will not work in other languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
James, the quote parameter doesn't do the same thing. Where a source supports multiple assertions throughout an article, adding all the text supported by that source to the citation's "quote" parameter could be very bulky, confusing and unhelpful. Could you please explain the exact nature of the problem with this template? Is it that the template markup would have to be manually removed from the article before it's translated? Is that the problem? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Anthonyhcole: I've encountered that problem on amphetamine a few times. I think it'd be best to make a "supports" parameter in existing cite journal/web/book templates. The template example above looks like it's just an abbr template wrapped around a reference (I haven't looked at the template code)... that might screw with accessibility. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Try using it on Swahili Wikipedia. Having to remove this template from hundreds of refs would be a pain. When it comes to markup we need a KISS philosophy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, James. If you intend banning from en.Wikipedia any markup that is not universally useable across all MediaWiki sites, in order to make the translation process simpler, I'd have to oppose you on that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
My position is that it is bad enough as it is now. Do not approve of efforts to make it worse. Really we need a set of universally accepted templates that work on all projects. maybe another WP:IEG idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've asked User:Makyen if it's possible to create a tool that automatically strips the wrap-around template out of articles. In fact, it should be feasible to create a tool that recognises markup that's not universally readable across Wikipedias, and automatically removes it from an article or replaces it with something that is universally readable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Seppi333, if that template impairs accessibility, it shouldn't be used. Does it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

See the top of Template:Abbr. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see at Wikipedia:Accessibility#Text: "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other 'hover' text. Abbreviations are exempt from these requirements, so the template may be used to indicate the long form of a word." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Anthony's guideline that hover text is not suitable. Wikipedia may already be more read on phones and tablets than on PCs with a mouse. I don't support using non-standard templates (don't like templates at all, for that matter) for references because each is a barrier to new editors learning to write/maintain text. James, please stop citing translation as a reason en:wp should not adopt new things or use certain markup. I have in the past shown how trivial it is to add/fix templates on other wikis and even if markup needs changed (to some lowest common denominator) that is a trivial exercise for software tools. You are like a person saying nobody should go swimming because he hasn't got a pair of swimming trunks. You see a problem but not the correct solution. -- Colin°Talk 09:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm a screen reader user, and I would have no idea that that template even existed unless I was editing the wikitext. In other words, I wouldn't be able to use its functionality. Graham87 10:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Graham. I presume this is a critical accessibility issue - that unless a way can be found to provide this information (what text, exactly, is supported by a given citation) to all readers, including users of screen readers, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Have I got that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Anthonyhcole: Yes, exactly. Graham87 01:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Anthonyhcole and Jmh649: It is certainly possible to create a tool which strips out the {{Ref supports2}} templates. It is unclear to me from the above conversation at what point this should be done. {{Ref supports2}} was specifically designed to be an addition to <ref>...</ref> tags such that the <ref>...</ref> tags were not changed, allowing them to be directly copied if the {{Ref supports2}} functionality was not desired. It is not clear to me what tools are being used for such translations, or where such stripping should occur. I would think it would be easier to migrate the {{Ref supports2}} and {{abbr}} templates to whichever wiki is the target for translation. Even if all that is done is to create a blank {{Ref supports2}} template on such a wiki which completely drops the functionality, creating a blank {{Ref supports2}} template that just parrots back the <ref>...</ref> tags would be much easier than trying to make sure that the template was always stripped out of the wiki-text when translating. While this would make it such that there is no tooltip on that wiki showing the supported text, it would result in no error being shown (i.e. the {{Ref supports2}}) template would have no effect on the page).
@Seppi333: Yes, {{Ref supports2}} invokes {{abbr}} as that template already has support built in for the <abbr>...</abbr> tag (tooltip functionality) across multiple browsers. If a tooltip is to be used, it is better, if possible, to keep all the browser specific code in one location rather than directly duplicate it within the {{Ref supports2}} template.
If desirable, {{Ref supports2}} can probably be modified such that the supported text shows up within the reference footnote. However, that would require changing the semantics of what is used such that the <ref>...</ref> tags do not appear within the wiki-text. Doing so will break other referencing tools as the <ref>...</ref> tags within the wiki-text are what most tools require to recognize a reference. I considered this to be unacceptable as an implementation. The other possibility would be to duplicate the text within the <ref>...</ref> tags. Doing so would result in the supported text being in the wiki-text in three different places.
Ultimately, how this functionality is implemented depends on what is desired. So far, there have been three different implementations produced: {{Ref supports}}, {{Ref supports2}}, and {{Ref supports3}}. All of them were intended to be able to be used with all references (i.e. references which either do or do not use cite/citation templates). Currently, {{Ref supports}} is not visible to IP users except as text within the reference. {{Ref supports2}} and {{Ref supports3}} are visible to all users but have no method of displaying the supported text within the reference (doing so would break other tools).
  1. Highlights the supported text when the reference marker is hovered. All supported text anywhere on the page is highlighted when any marker for a particular reference is hovered.
  2. For references used multiple times on the page, all supported text is specified within the initial definition of the reference.
  3. Supported text is (optionally) displayed in the reference. This can be changed to being the default functionality. Changing this to showing the supported text within the reference appears to solve the accessibility concern/issue.
  4. Designed specifically such that the functionality could be moved into a parameter within the cite and citation templates with very little work.
  5. Is, currently, a template that is placed within the <ref>...</ref> tags.
  6. Further development was expected to significantly reduce the amount of duplicated text that has to be added to the wiki-text to represent the supported text. This was expected to be done by enabling the use of wildcards within the text specified as supported. Development of that functionality is paused as Anthonyhcole wanted a solution which functions now for all viewers of the page.
  7. Is fully compatible with mw:Reference Tooltips and Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups.
  8. The primary drawback to this version is that it, currently, requires enabling a user script, User:Makyen/RefSupports.js, in order to have the supported text highlighted on the page. Displaying the supported text within the reference does not require the use of a user script, just the highlighting of the supported text on the page. If supported text is displayed in the reference, then it will also be displayed in a tooltip-like pop-up if the mw:Reference Tooltips gadget is enabled.
    If sufficiently used, and a consensus for this functionality shown on a wider basis, it could be migrated into a gadget, a gadget that is enabled by default, or as core functionality.
  9. Longer example (see reference 28 for example of highlighting text in multiple uses of a reference).
  10. Example (A. In this example, the supported text is displayed within the reference for 1 and 3, but not 2.):

At any given time, about half of all patients with malignant cancer are experiencing pain, and more than a third of those (and two thirds of all patients with advanced cancer) experience pain of such intensity that it adversely affects their sleep, mood, social relations and activities of daily living.[1][2][3]
References

  1. ^ "test 1".  Supports:"At any given time, about half of all patients with malignant cancer are experiencing pain"
  2. ^ test 2.  
  3. ^ test 3.  Supports:"At any given time,", "two thirds of all patients with advanced cancer) experience pain of such intensity that it adversely affects their sleep, mood, social relations and activities of daily living"
  1. Supported text is displayed in a tooltip popup when the mouse is hovered over the reference number. For compatibility with mw:Reference Tooltips and Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups the mouse can be hovered below the reference marker.
  2. For references used multiple times on the page, the supported text for that specific use of the reference is specified at that specific invocation of the reference.
  3. The availability of the tooltip is indicated in most browsers by a line below the reference marker.
  4. Works for all viewers of the page without the need for enabling a user script or gadget.
  5. A accessibility concern was brought up in that the supported text is only indicated within the tooltip. However, the method used is a normal and standard part of the HTML specification which 3rd party accessibility tools should properly handle (i.e. it is a basic part of the HTML specification which if not handled by such tools then those tools should be considered deficient.) It is not something that is only indicated through a visual-only change of the page (e.g. highlighting the text).
  6. Requires the supported wiki-text to be duplicated within the {{Ref supports2}} template. However, the text is free-form and duplication could be reduced by using "..." within the specification of the supported text.
  7. Is a template that is placed around the <ref>...</ref> tags.
  8. Is not compatible with migration into cite/citation templates.
  9. Example:

At any given time, about half of all patients with malignant cancer are experiencing pain, and more than a third of those (and two thirds of all patients with advanced cancer) experience pain of such intensity that it adversely affects their sleep, mood, social relations and activities of daily living.[1] [2] [3] 
References

  1. ^ "test 1".
  2. ^ test 2
  3. ^ test 3
  1. Supported text is highlighted if an "s" below the reference is clicked. This also causes the page to jump to the supported text.
  2. Within the wiki-text, indicating supported text is done by both surrounding it by a {{Supported by ref}} template within the text on the page (and naming it) and by a {{Ref supports2}} template surrounding the <ref>...</ref> tags with the name given to the supported text. My impression is that this is more complex within the wiki-text than the other two implementations. However, it does not require the supported text to be duplicated at all. It is unclear to me if this method of indicating the supported text is better than having to duplicate the text, or if it is more more difficult for editors to maintain.
  3. Given the recent change in vector text sizes, any size selected for the "s" is a compromise for visibility on different skins.
  4. For references used multiple times on the page, the supported text for that specific use of the reference is specified at the point in the wiki-text where the reference is used and in the wiki-text (i.e. specifying the supported text is distributed throughout the wiki-text of the page).
  5. Works for all viewers of the page without the need for enabling a user script or gadget.
  6. Has a significant accessibility issue in that the supported text is only indicated by highlighing the text when the "s" for that supported text segment is clicked.
  7. Is templates which are placed around the <ref>...</ref> tags and around the supported text.
  8. Is not compatible with migration into cite/citation templates.
  9. Example:

At any given time, about half of all patients with malignant cancer are experiencing pain, and more than a third of those (and two thirds of all patients with advanced cancer) experience pain of such intensity that it adversely affects their sleep, mood, social relations and activities of daily living.[1]
s[2]
sss [3]
ss 
References

  1. ^ "test 1".
  2. ^ test 2
  3. ^ test 3


If indicating the text supported by a reference is functionality that is desired on a wider basis, then we should discuss how it is desired to be shown (i.e. exactly what functionality is desired). There are also various significant issues to be considered as to accessibility; if it is desired to have the functionality available to all users now; is it permissible to break current tools; or even if this is functionality that should be available on a wider basis. These are only some of the issues which should be considered.
If what is desired, is something to indicate the supported text now to all users without breaking current tools (i.e. leaving the <ref>...</ref> tags on the page), then what is available now is {{Ref supports2}} or {{Ref supports3}}. At least {{Ref supports3}} has the drawback of significant accessibility issues (only indication of supported text is visual).
The reality is that at a minimum, without significant wide consensus to deploy the functionality to show the supported text when a reference is hovered, there will be drawbacks and some users will not get to see it. {{Ref supports2}} is what is available now which shows the supported text when a reference is hovered to the widest group of people.
If what is desired is to indicate the text that is supported to every single user then the only way to do that is to have it show up as plain text in the reference text within the references section. In which case, {{Ref supports}} could be used and we can change the default functionality to be that the supported text is always shown within the reference. Showing the supported text when hovered would then be relegated to the very small percentage of people which have either enabled the user script or are using the mw:Reference Tooltips gadget. Having such shown to everyone would require that one of those two scripts become a default enabled gadget pushed to all users (including IP users). — Makyen (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC); better description of near-blank {{Ref supports2}} for translated wikis 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Specifically regarding translation: It would be possible to copy Template:Ref supports2/just ref to the "Template:Ref supports2" page on any wiki which is the target of a translation. — Makyen (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
From where I sit, this is too many bells and whistles. I guess if it is available and other folks want to use it that is great. As for me, I have no desire to spend time documenting things to this level. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony. If you are using the same ref with different quotes supporting different text just create multiple separate references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. That would definitely overcome the accessibility problem. Mmm. I might try combining the two in Cancer pain on passages where what supports what is ambiguous (if I can be bothered going back to the textbooks to see what supports what). If you ever want to put it on the translation list - which would be awesome - let me know and I'll supply you with a simple-English, simple-code version. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Weird Medical claims at Miso

Article has a nutrition section that implies that eating miso can treat radiation exposure. Also implies that salt consumption isn't likely to cause problems with hypertension. Could somebody familiar with MEDRS have a look at those claims? Geogene (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed poor sources making health claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intraneural Perineurioma

Hello again... another old draft that will soon be deleted unless someone takes an interest in it! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a notable topic. (However there is currently no "Perineurioma" article.) The draft requires clean-up. Here is a suitable reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure we currently need a separate Perineurioma page. When I wanted to do something for Pacinian neuroma (another rare benign tumor of nerve tissue), James, I think, directed me to Neuroma. On that occasion I tried to do a little clean-up, but as I remarked on the talk page the article is almost inevitably a bit of a rag bag due to the somewhat random (historically-based) designation of the word "neuroma"—an appellative that doesn't really correspond to any well-defined class of lesions. I guess Intraneural perineurioma (aka, I think perhaps incorrectly, intraneural perineuroma) might conceivably also fit in to the miscellaneous list there, which is obviously incomplete. 109.157.86.177 (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I`ve added further usable refs, not all meddate suitable. One goes back to 1995, though for a rare neoplasm that is perhaps less of an issue. Still need someone to carve out some text. The Apr 2007 source is particularly useful. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks as though you have this well in hand. Thanks, all. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice on tackling MEDRS stranglehold

"you have to break the power not only of the MEDRS-guys but in fact of the Big Money medical and pharmaceutical industry that monopolizes health ... drive them nuts"

Please join the debate at User talk:The Banner/Archives/2014/July#Advice on tackling MEDRS stranglehold you speak of. Thank you! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

We need to get people to follow MEDRS, not weaken it. Big Money? Have not seen this as much of an issue within Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the complimentary and alternative medicine industries? Are they not even less ethical about making their money considering their buisnesses either definitely don't work or are not proven to work? 94.196.237.205 (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is partly why we have MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
if I write on your project's talk page please reply on The Banner's :P --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind the Npov is a core policy, a mandate while Medrs is merely a guideline. - Technophant (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is the application of WP:V, another core policy, to reliable sourcing for medical subjects. There is no daylight between WP:MEDRS and WP:V. Further, WP:NPOV applies to viewpoints "published by reliable sources on a topic". Consequently you have to go through WP:MEDRS first before you can get to the selection of reliable sources you can use to determine compliance with WP:NPOV. You can't play the "merely a guideline" game here. Zad68 03:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
And Technophant, you should keep in mind that you are topic banned from "all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Accupuncture, broadly construed". [32] Given the topic of this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if your posting here was seen as a breach of that ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Question: What prevents us from just making MEDRS a policy? RS is a policy, and if MEDRS is appended to it, it also becomes policy. Let's stop pussyfooting around and get it done! Seriously, the editors whose discussion on another page started this thread are a worrisome lot. There is a direct recommendation there to create disruption about this topic. We don't need that type of thinking disrupting things. If we nail this down as a policy, then that same nail can be used to nail those who want to violate it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources is a guideline; WP:Verifiability is a policy. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Some people are going to try not to follow MEDRS no matter what we call it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Flyer22, you're right. My bad.
@Doc James, that's true, but it's best to remove every excuse.
What should be done about the rebellion here? Would a warning be appropriate? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm..invoking WP:BATTLEGROUND..or Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point could be invoked I guess. Badgering people to exhaust them is not a route to take. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If people are happy to publically state they will be editing specifically against a guideline, then some more topic bans might just save everyone a lot of time. 94.72.198.147 (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Blocks, bans, and topic bans are all designed to "prevent" damage. Actual damage need not have occurred. When the intention to create disruption has been declared, that's good enough for a topic ban, at the least, as "prevention". -- Brangifer (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
A tiny, grumpy minority griping on their own user talk pages about how they don't like our reliable sourcing guidelines doesn't rise to the level of disruption, nor should it be considered conclusive evidence that they absolutely will engage in disruptive editing in the future. I suspect that most will kvetch and moan for a bit, then get bored and find something else to do—provided they don't get the attention they're seeking.
Wait for them to violate MEDRS (or engage in other disruptive behavior), warn them appropriately, and then seek a topic ban or other sanction if they persist. (Declarations of an intent to violate MEDRS are useful evidence when such proceedings take place, as they represent clear evidence that an editor is aware of Wikipedia's sourcing standards.) Going for a proactive ban before we see disruptive editing on articles or policies (or their talk pages) is just picking a fight that a) we probably don't need to start; and b) will lead to an overblown backlash from noticeboard lurkers who like to shout "thoughtcrime!" TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

OP is trolling really, posting this here just to a get a reaction. 94.72.198.147 (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact Demiurge1000 is creating the fuss. My opinion was asked on my own talkpage, and I gave it raw and uncensored. That Demiurge1000 is upset about my opinion, is entirely his problem. By giving a shout here, he makes it far bigger than it should be. But the sheer fact that it created a kind of panic and talks about Blocks, bans, and topic bans are all designed to "prevent" damage makes clear how unstable the footing is of MEDRS. I did not intent any widespread debate and think that the present response from here is just funny. The Banner talk 15:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You may think that people are panicking, but don't flatter yourself. I can assure you that you are incredibly boring to listen to, and I am sure many other experienced editors are thinking the same. People whining about MEDRS stopping them from putting their cherry picked POV pushing sources to make baseless health claims is nothing new. Happens constantly. 188.30.206.169 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A bizarre "proposal" at Talk:Ketamine

Please see Talk:Ketamine#Sponsoring a truly evidence-based page on ketamine and respond accordingly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK review

As with the other reviews listed below and previously advised here, I asked a CRUK specialist to do an initial review of Brain tumor, the idea being to sort out basic points out in the article before sending the article for review by other outside specialists. I was hoping this would give the medical editing community enough to go on to start serious work on the article. The reviewer here was the same as for lung cancer (an FA), and she was struck by the much poorer quality and randomness of this in comparison. We agreed that sizeable parts of the article should just be cut, or at the least entirely rewritten. In contrast to User:Axl & lung cancer, the article doesn't seem to have a "primary carer" beyond the indefatigable monitoring of JMH & JDW. In these circumstances, I won't write up the notes here. If anyone wants to help upgrade the article, please let me know, & I can communicate as is most convenient. I think much of it will have to be redone from scratch. The other reviews are at Talk:Lung_cancer#CRUK_review, Talk:Esophageal_cancer#Initial_review_by_CRUK and Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Initial_review_by_CRUK. Thanks again to everyone who has helped, but there is plenty more to be done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of other readers: the article in question is "Brain tumor". Unfortunately we only have a modest number of dedicated editors, with a huge number of articles in our purview. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, yes. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the things we learned from the Google Foundation project a few years ago is that a few reviewers can easily overwhelm our volunteers. When you're working in a single specialty (e.g., cancer), then the rate at which reviews can be absorbed and processed by volunteers might be as low as one a week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally I am of the opinion that reviews are not that useful. Yes much of our content sucks but the reason that it sucks is not that we the core editing community do not realize that it sucks it is that the core community is a couple of dozen volunteers taking care of more than 27,000 articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Well actually rather less than one a week I think. At the moment I am doing more on Pancreatic, so there will probably be at least a week before anything changes on Brain, if anyone does want to take it on. But Brain was the last of the reviews planned for now, and the first arrived nearly a month ago. In response to a specific request by an editor who has been expanding it, I have added Endometrial cancer (a rather quicker review I think) which is being done now. Otherwise there will probably be no further articles reviewed for at least a month, possibly longer, unless somebody specifically asks for something to be looked at, which I encourage them to do. But there will be further reviews of these 4 articles by outside specialists - no timetable yet. I will also be improving all these articles myself, but I am letting the community have first crack at them. They will then appear at Peer Review and as GA or FA nominations (not Lung, which is FA already). I am very aware of the ratio of active editors and work-to-be-done. Another aspect of my CRUK work is to try to increase the number of active editors (I am off to Imperial College this afternoon) but I expect most of us know the difficulties in that at the moment (pending WMF actually publicizing/advertising the need for more editors rather than denying it, and also the arrival of good, working, online training). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel a thoughtful and graduated reviewing approach like this can be genuinely useful if it helps focus collaboration among us volunteers without stressing anyone out (per WAID's observation). Given the scale of the challenge we face with only limited numbers of volunteers here I think finding good ways to develop interactions with Cancer Research UK and other organizations with broadly similar aims in such a way as to allow judiciously targeted input could be beneficial for Wikipedia's medical content in the long term. Continuing and developing the sort of thoughtful collaborations that John's been fostering should be a priority imo. 109.157.86.177 (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I guess when I say "personally" I mean that they are not useful for me. I of course understand that they may be useful for others and thus am happy to see them continue in a gradual fashion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I sympathise with Doc James' position. Reviews are only useful if there is someone who will actively respond. (This was one of the problems with Article Feedback.) Peer review, GAN and FAC are successful because the reviews are solicited by editors who are improving the articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
True. And the active implementation of changes recommended at GAN/FAC can take days and sometimes weeks. Axl is completely right that a review is only ever really useful if an editor is prepared to go through the recommendations and make the prerequisite edits.
I'm doing yet another outreach activity tonight, but my cynical view is that the most effective Wikipedians don't get taught but develop themselves. JFW | T@lk 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Favor contributions over reviews In 2012 someone at the American College of Physicians asked me to help them design a program in which they could encourage professors and students at all medical schools in the US to write reviews of Wikipedia articles. It seemed like a good idea to me, and I proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_27#Project_proposal_-_Health_Article_Review_Project. After talking with others and making every proposal variant I could imagine, I became convinced that getting reviews would not be very useful because even in our best articles, like lung cancer which is a featured article and which you already had reviewed by Cancer Research UK, it is easy for anyone of almost any skill level to propose many ways that an article can be improved. Asking for reviews is fine, and people giving reviews is nice, but if someone gives a review, I feel that they should know that we Wikipedians have found no way to make use of them and that we would much rather request that people add a single sentence and citation anywhere they saw fit to add one. I have never seen a good outcome result from anyone who flies into Wikipedia, makes requests or proposals, then leaves without engaging and having a conversation or exchange with the community. Even with a conversation, there is little progress unless the reviewer actually participates in Wikipedia. Most review schemes imagine that utility can come from this, but I have never seen one work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, for me "personally" this series of mini-reviews has provided a stimulus to get involved in making a some collaborative contributions, alongside others here, that I doubt I would otherwise have done (and I'm not altogether sure that in all cases others would have either). And I see John has already been implementing some of the reviewers' writing suggestions himself. At least this process would seem to me to supplement the "Collaboration of the month". Ok, so I may have encountered at least one minor, unintended discouragement along the way. Knowing that an "Epidemiology" section was going to be done by an expert dissuaded me from continuing in an area where, with hindsight, I could probably usefully have just gone on regardless. But hey, that's probably just me. 109.157.86.177 (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Where is Anthony Cole when you need him? Probably at Wikipediocracy. My main comments are interposed above, in case people missed them. I agree reviews are generally less desirable than edits, and especially where students are concerned, but where real experts are concerned the choice in the vast majority of cases is reviews or nothing. My experience has actually been different from Blue R's above. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I must say I was unaware of the previous Google and WP:HARP medical review efforts, which I've bween reading up on. Without too much poking around page histories I could find Talk:Cerebral arteriovenous malformation, where a Google review presumably prompted User:Garrondo to sort out the review points 18 days later. No doubt he could have done this at any point by himself, but it seems the review led to the improvement (perhaps at the cost of whatever else Garrondo would have been doing). Perhaps it is too easy to write-off such efforts as failures. In any case the CRUK reviewing (unless specially requested, as at Endometrial cancer) will be concentrated on a much smaller number of articles, and will in most or all cases be presented/mediated by me, rather than posted directly, unless the reviewer wants to take that route. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Wiki CRUK John Without bring more editors to the project, the best outcome from getting more reviews is squeezing more volunteer time out of a community which is already giving everything that it can. Any donation is acceptable, just like when rich people donate dirty laundry to charity shops the poor accept the donations and try to clean the things to make them usable to present to their clients. It is really nice when donors give useful things to those who need them, especially when it seems trivial enough like using the washing machine before donating clothes, but for some reason in charity relationships donors tend to expect a lot of response and business capacity from people who already do not have many resources. Beggars cannot choose what kinds of donations they get, but sometimes if the laundry is dirty and the volunteers have no capacity to clean it then they smile when they take the donation then put it in the trash. There are a lot of nonprofit organizations that have a policy of accepting any donation, just because it hurts donors' feelings if what they offer is rejected and because if donors give low-value things continually over time then maybe someday they will come around and donate what is really needed. Do what you will, but please also consider finding at least one person in your organization who is willing to listen to what this community actually requests. If they understand the situation and still give reviews, then in the long term if they come to see what we do with the reviews they will not resent us for accepting them without appreciating them as they intended.
Or I could be wrong about this. I certainly hope for the best, and if you find a way to make this work, then please talk with me because I could bring in more reviews also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, if I didn't know you to be a kind sort of person that you are I think I would have found some of your last comment rather galling. As it is, I feel you're coming close to devaluing the gf work of several volunteers here (mine for one). 31.48.175.145 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC) previously 109.157.86.177
I do not know who you are, IP, so I cannot comment on your work. "GF work"? What is this? I am not sure how to respond. I could restate what I said by saying that the least useful contribution that it is difficult to make use of someone's order that volunteers ought to do more work that everyone agrees ought to be done. Reviews become more useful as they become more conversational, and review submissions from people who do not want to actually talk with us are difficult to use. Outsiders who submit work orders for article development are fairly easy to find. I am not sure who you are, but if you found this conversation, you engage more deeply than by reading an article, telling people to improve it, then leaving forever. Personal relationships matter even in semi-anonymous exchanges. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you need to know to respect my gf work (as distinct, for example, from tireless POV pushing)? :/ If you just glanced at the history of the previous ip address I posted you'd see I've been working on some of the pages under review. Fwiw, I'm someone who's spent his working life responding to reviewers: so it's probably not so strange thatI see differently from you on such matters (and perhaps also that I found your charity shop analogies annoying). Personally, I'd much rather respond to the sort of mini-reviews we've been receiving from outside than to the stuff here that led to LT leaving. 31.48.175.145 (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC) (previously 109.157.86.177)
I struck out my above text because I have been told that it is not interpreted in the way that I wish it would be. My point was that lots of people have suggestions for what we ought to do here. In any given month, about 30-40 people participate on this board and in the last year, we had about 120 regular contributors to health content. Whenever anyone gives a review and help managing our labor pool without actually joining the community they do so on the premise that there are more people here than just a small group. We are not equipped to process complicated donations or take work orders. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, and there are also people in the community (if not today) who do request reviews. We are daily turning editors away, both existing editors perhaps without much medical background, and newcomers, often with a medical background, and apart from existing editors, well-executed reviews may well give some of these ways to get used to the project's norms. I have linked to explanations of the varying aspects of my CRUK role before, but here it is again, including editing training, which was done here before with reasonable success. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Everything you are doing, including collecting reviews, is wholly positive and beneficial. I have always thought so and never doubted it. If I were talking about anything, it was only in the efficiency in use of a good thing. You are doing everything wonderfully and no one should ask more of you because you already are working miracles. I need no further explanation of your work because I am convinced that it is good and I hope you achieve everything you imagine. Keep me posted if you find a case in which someone wants to do reviews, then they start editing articles. So far as I know that is a case study no one has yet described. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
User:BSW-RMH of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project was brought in as a reviewer and, with our encouragement, started editing some of the articles s/he reviewed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This is the biggest success story I have seen from these sorts of projects. The person stayed with us three months and made about 600 edits before leaving four years ago. By any standard this was a desirable outcome and almost no other outreach effort in any part of Wikipedia results in collaborations like this. I wish there could be more but this is a lot and I will remember it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
In another area entirely User:AgTigress is a (retired) expert who came in contact with WP in an editathon, providing expertise rather than editing. Subsequently she began to join in the talk page discussion, and then look at other articles. She has never been actually trained to edit, but picked it up very well, though somewhat held back by perfectionism, which experts are prone to. When adding content she sometimes does so in huge chunks, so her basic stats rather underestimate her contributions. As her talk page comments show, she has engaged with the community but not found this altogether a delight. She returns now and then, and I hope will resume significant additions in the future. Wiki CRUK John/Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

About free radicals in the brain

An IP edit w/o editsummary changes the meaning of a sentence, and I don't know whether to leave it or revert it. Someone please take a look. Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like a gf edit in keeping with the topic of the section (the previous version wouldn't seem to make much sense anyway). 31.48.175.145 (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The edit is a correction of the previously inaccurate statement. Sleep deprivation is not a result of the build up of free radicals in the brain. Sleep deprivation is a result of inadequate sleep. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. --Hordaland (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Deadlink

I just found and labeled a deadlink. Should perhaps be corrected in some other way than just labeling. Diff --Hordaland (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle the specific link you pointed to, there is probably a working tool that can be substituted, perhaps someone in the project knows of it and can fix the link (articles by importance, Top: combined with articles by class, C)see below
For references, see WP:DEADREF and WP:LINKROT. I almost always check The Wayback Machine at the internet archive (archive.org) when I encounter a deadlink and see if a quick repair can be done. The preferred format is to add the "archiveurl" and "archivedate" parameters to the reference template. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Here it is,
I don't know if changing the link to this is appropriate for a page about 2013 but this link will give you Medical articles of Top-Class with a C-Class rating. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Saffron

Saffron#Use is accumulating medical "facts". If anyone has time, it could do with a review. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Took an axe to some primary sources, wasn't so sure about some of the books either, especially the one from 1995. Seems odd nothing newer has come along in 19 years, making me feel it isn't notable. Thanks for posting here. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Primary research continues to be published. At a rapid glance of some reviews I can see some recent potential MEDRS that might be worth considering (eg [33] [34]) for more nuanced statements. 31.48.175.145 (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

GcMAF

Purported cure for cancer. See above. -- The Anome (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like User:ChemNerd and the logged-out editor 31.48 have recently had a go at presenting the facts more directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Oxford Hip Score

Well, there's Oxford knee score, so is this a notable topic, or should this old AfC submission be left to disappear? And where is Oxford toe score? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This is one of several tools that can be used to assess hip function and symptoms in humans [35]. You might doggedly expect to find information on this topic on the Hip score page... Not arf! ;-) 31.48.175.145 (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Woof, woof. This seems an ok topic, with decent refs in place, but not conventionally formatted. Should not take a template wiz long to sort out. And the dogs should be disarmed (ha- disamed I meant) I think. This is also an example of unhelpful/somewhat inaccurate rejections by AFC reviewers. Needless to say the account has not edited since. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Imo, it would be much more helpful to readers to have a parent page on Hip score (Medicine). But as someone would have to get up on their hind legs to create that, I guess I'm barking up the wrong topic tree there... 31.48.175.145 (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, now that 31.48.175.145 has edited it, it will not be deleted for six months, so there is time to sort this out and either fix the page or move the content to another appropriate spot. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

SSRI

Could use input from the wider community. Discussion is occurring regarding how to summarize a meta-analysis here [36] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MetATT

Hmmm... I think this is a medical article.... should it be kept or deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is more of a statistics software package for analyzing metabolomics (a field of study in molecular biology) experiments and data. I only see 9 hits in GScholar for "metatt" metabolomics with only a primary paper and a few mentions in other papers. It doesn't seem enough for notability. --Mark viking (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark viking. I will let it lie. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a competitor written up in the "Statistical methods" section at metabolomics. Maybe merge a para there? 10:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

References in body or in reflist

References can be placed inline in an article or placed in the reflist as named references, like so:

{{reflist|refs=

<ref name= "Doe2014">{{cite journal |author= Doe |year= 2014 |title= Example ref |journal= No Such Journal}}</ref>

<ref name= "Doe2014b">{{cite journal |author= Doe |year= 2014 |title= Second example ref |journal= Not A Journal}}</ref>

}}

I prefer the reflist method. Both inline and list references can be used simultaneously in the same article. A complication of the reflist method is if a reference is removed from the article, it must be remarked out on the reflist.

Seeking comment or guidance. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to add more aspects to the discussion, here is what I wrote on QG's talk page. I would add that there are no more problems with removing a reference in either system, IF the references has been used more than once. A search of the page will find them.
There are MoS statements which say that either style is allowed, but the one who created the article usually has some right to decide which style they will use. If they were to object, their wishes should probably be respected, but with old articles there may not be any special preference anymore. Just be careful.
I have always used the most common method, which is having the references spread around within the text, but it is messy and makes editing harder. So, when I created the Charlotte's Web (cannabis) article, I decided to try the "list-defined references" style. If you click on the References link there, you'll see this note:
  • This article uses "list-defined references", per WP:LDR.
  • To ease editing and avoid confusion and duplication of sources, the references below are in alphabetical order by ref name.
  • While other citation templates are not forbidden, this basic template has been used for most references:
  • <ref name= >{{Citation |last= |first= |date= |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>
That means the article only has the short "name" references in the text, which makes for a cleaner editing experience. When anyone adds references, I move the ref to the bottom and use that citation template, unless another citation template has been used and is working fine. I have also tried to follow the advice from my essay: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I much prefer the refs inline than at the end. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
See WP:CITEVAR for "the rules" about changing citation formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I justify my work on references with the imposing uniformity mentioned in CITEVAR and the Common Sense exception and boldly edit. I think changing from inline to reflist (or vice versa) is too great a change for that justification so I won't make that change. I do extensive work on references, often boldly, I encourage anyone finding my editing problematic on a particular article to notify me on my talk page. My intention is to provide uniform, useful and accurate references not to impose my preferences or hinder the work of others. Often my formatting of references is a first step in verification. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Frankly I don't understand the opening comment here - there are several ways of doing references. What I dislike about typical WP medical referencing is that encourages people to reference a whole article, chapter or even book (Doc James' WCH2014 edits, very useful though they are, would be better if page numbers were used rather than chapter sections of several pages) or if the exact references are used the text disappears in the editing view in a sea of citation template text. Referencing whole works (in practice probably meaning their abstracts) is sometimes appropriate, but more often not. I'm very dubious about imposing styles against WP:CITEVAR. It isn't something I'd do boldly except in articles that are clearly neglected; you should ask on the talk page first, as CITEVAR says. I recently experimented with the WP:SFN style at Resection margin as I expanded it; this has the advantage that several different pages from the same work can be referenced very neatly (where the pages are available of course, which they may not be in online publications). Wiki CRUK John/Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The opening comment is based on an article where another editor moved references out of the reflist into the body and I reverted that change. I thought having some discussion here might be useful as I do lots of ref formatting and value input here. I will endeavor to bring the subject up on the talk page of articles first.
I agree that more precise citations would be useful. Might I suggest using the rp template. I also agree that all too often it is the abstract being cited not the article (which is not really appropriate). Best of luck getting a significant number of editors to actually read an entire article and cite the page the fact comes from. When I do verification I will make a stab at adding the rp template to individual facts. I also like the sfn template but see that more for referencing larger works but I can see how it would be useful for journal articles also. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Reverting to the status quo is fine. Personally in a case where someone wants to expand an article significantly, and prefers a different style from the current one, I'd be receptive to that if the proposed style works ok, as most of them do. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
With respect to the World Cancer Report, each chapter is only a few pages long. E-books often no longer give page numbers thus I often just reference the chapter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I very much prefer refs in a reflist at the end but would capitulate and put them inline if absolutely required for technical reasons, such as preparing the article for export to a language that does not support {{reflist}}.

Thanks for the input everyone. I guess we have CITEVAR and common sense. As I have said I do a good bit of reference work any objections to my actions can certainly be brought right to my talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nagalase

Nagalase previously linked to the Alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase article, which contained substantial amounts of uncited material, and what appeared to be a three-paragraph copyvio from an abstract. Given the recent controversy regarding nagalase research (for example, this article retraction, and the large amount of non-WP:RS interest out there on the subject and also GcMAF (see, for example, material on forums such as this), we should be very careful about ensuring all statements on this subject are both adequately cited, and that a retraction search has been performed on the cited papers. I'd greatly appreciate it if medically knowledgable editors could improve the article to WP:MEDRS standards, and/or add both articles and the currently deleted redirect to their watchlists. -- The Anome (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree this is problematic, especially given the relative lack of RS on the subject. The Gc-MAF page now carries a mention of misleading use of the so-called test. By no means a complete answer to the issue, I know. 31.48.175.145 (talk) 13:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hack-a-thon before Wikimania

Is anyone going to be in London for the Hack-a-thon (6–7 August, before Wikimania proper)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, sadly not. Are you coming to London, WAID? JFW | T@lk 20:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I could be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I will be there and will be attending anything related to translations as well as anything else medicine-related. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I might drop in on the 6th in the pm. The afternoon of the 7th is the Pre-Conference: Medical Wikipedians thing at CRUK. They are only 15-20 mins apart by bus. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm staying home, but Aaron Halfaker (EpochFail) has put a project on the idea list for us: m:Research:Ideas/Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality. He's got some code that tries to compare an article to the assessment standards. The idea here is to produce a list of articles that are rated as stubs, but have probably expanded since their last review. It would be much more efficient for us to re-assess only the ones that are likely to be out of date than to re-assess all 9,000 of our stubs. I'm hoping that someone will try this out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Wednesday the 6th I am not at the hackathon. Thursday the 6th I will spend the morning with Aaron in the group talking about research and statistics of Wikipedia, then that afternoon by 3:30 I am joining John's thing at Cancer Research UK. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_51"