Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 80

Wikipedia entries on cardiovascular diseases lack accuracy, according to an article in BMJ Open

I just want to let you know about a recently published article in the journal BMJ Open that tried to "evaluate accuracy of content and readability level of English Wikipedia articles on cardiovascular diseases": "Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Wikipedia: are they reliable learning resources for medical students?". BMJ Open. 5: e008187. 2015. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008187. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help) --sentausa (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The four topics rated "poor": Acute pericarditis, Angina pectoris, Prosthetic heart valves, Pulmonic regurgitation. KateWishing (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The main problem highlighted under the "accuracy" component of the study is incompleteness. Falsehoods don't seem to be an issue.

"The highest score was 45 for the article on deep vein thrombosis while the lowest was 28 for the article on acute pericarditis. The 47 Wikipedia articles had a median score=33, IQR=6—the highest possible score was 50. Out of the 47 entries, 4 (8.5%) articles scored 40 or higher, described as Good as per our cut-off system, 39 (83%) articles scored 30 to 39, described as Moderate as per our cut-off system and 4 (8.5%) scored less than 30, described as Poor as per our cut-off system. We did not observe vandalism of the 47 entries during the conduction of the study."

(My bolding.) User:Biosthmors had shepherded Deep vein thrombosis through Wikipedia's internal peer review process twice in 2012 (the year before the study date). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• for the record..The search was conducted on the 6 of October 2013 by three evaluators independently, and entries identified were printed out on the same day[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have done a fair bit of work on the leads of many of these articles in the last year or two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Anthonyhcole for that attempted notification. (For whatever reason, I did not receive a notification from you that day. I'll ask why at Wikipedia talk:Notifications.) It was nice to see my most extensive medical contribution positively reviewed (however briefly) in a medical journal. I'm glad that it was picked as an article to review. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No Worries. You mentioned back then that you might put it through FA. It looks like it's a worthy candidate, Biosthmors. (Did that ping work?) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That one did, thanks. I don't plan on getting it up to FA at the moment. But that might change depending upon what opportunities it might open up. =) If deep vein thrombosis was brought up at FA level, were you thinking about an expert peer review by BMJ perhaps? That would be cool, but beyond that, I think it would be more exciting if we could get the article actually published in BMJ Open. I see that "All BMJ Open articles are licensed using either Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) or Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC) licence."[2] Does that mean there is a licensing incompatibility between Wikipedia and BMJ Open? This has been explained to me in the past, I'm sure. I see Wikipedia is CC BY-SA. If there is an incompatibility, then it still seems there is another possible way to get the article published under a new license: the main author(s) could re-license the content if necessary after demonstrating that they alone deserve to be recognized as authors (there is a tool that would be helpful, but I forgot its name). Anyhow, any ideas here Anthonyhcole? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So the share alike (SA)[3] portion would have to be dropped before an open access journal is likely to publish it, it appears. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that this publication might have caused a page view spike at the DVT article, from 1,000 (or under) to over 12,000 page views in one day. The article was published on Oct. 6, which corresponds with the spike, which was sustained over several days.[4] That's impressive to me if that was the cause. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we can't publish Wikipedia articles under BMJ Open's current license. Yes, if you bring DVT up to FA, I'll submit it to BMJ for review.

Just to be clear, BMJ are recruiting the best qualified reviewers they can lay their hands on for this project. That is, they're choosing from the same pool of reviewers they would use for any of their journals (including BMJ Open) but for us they're approaching only the best in that pool. They're taking the integrity of this review process very seriously. We expect that Reliable Wikipedia (or whatever we end up calling it) will quickly gain a deserved reputation for excellence and rock-solid reliability, second to none.

My point is, while it would definitely be cool to have the article published in BMJ Open (the journal that published the criticism), it'll be even cooler to have it published in Reliable Wikipedia. I know how absurd it sounds just now but this is easily achievable and where this is going: researchers will cite the reliable version of Deep vein thrombosis in peer-reviewed articles, professors will refer their students to it, and authors will cut and paste slabs of it into textbook chapters with attribution. And you'll add it to the top of your list of publications when applying for academic advancement or tenure. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the claim that researchers will cite the reliable any version of a Wikipedia article in many peer-reviewed articles. Don't most journals have a rule that requires only primary sources to be cited? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a rule, but the usual expectation is that you'll cite the original research rather than a secondary or tertiary source when you're referring to prior research. User:soupvector touches on this in his Wikiconference talk I linked to in the thread above this. I wouldn't expect an article in a peer-reviewed journal to cite reviewed versions of Wikipedia articles for anything but definitions, general principles, etc. As for my point about slabs of a Wikipedia appearing in textbooks - that will only happen if the publisher allows a part of the book to conform with our Creative Commons license - so it will be rare and will more likely be a quote. Really, I'm just trying to convey the nature of the paradigm shift we're trying to catalyse here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree - I also want this shift to occur, but that won't make it happen. There's a big gap in credibility, currently, between BMJ Open (already listed in MEDLINE and having an ISI Impact Factor of just over 2) and Reliable Wikipedia (or whatever name it gets, still "vaporware"). The former could be cited as a reliable source in a peer-reviewed journal and in one's academic CV to support promotion etc; the latter might someday serve those purposes, but not now or soon. Nonetheless, I am hopeful but I'm not sure what revenue will support the editorial staff (not talking about the volunteer peer reviewers - I'm talking about the salaried folks who do all the other stuff that make a journal function reliably). — soupvector (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm expecting Wikimedia to host the reviewed articles, and to help us volunteers (at least in the beginning) to transform the reviewed version into a nice, journal-like presentation. I'll ask for BMJ's help with that too. Once we have a system in place, copying a reviewed version from the article's history to the "journal space" should be a fairly streamlined process. I expect arranging for PubMed indexing and doi allocation will be fairly straightforward, too, after the first few times. If it becomes too onerous for a volunteer to keep on top of, I'm confident we'll get funding to employ someone. While BMJ is willing to do the other stuff - basically, attracting the highest quality reviewers to the job for free - I don't think there is any need for a lot of funding. They may tire of it, at which point we'll look elsewhere. Or they may invite their peers at other specialiist journals to shoulder some of the load. I'm looking forward to BMJ's thoughts once they and we get to know each other and how this all works a bit better.

Regarding the credibility of BMJ-reviewed versions of Wikipedia articles, they will be highly credible. The task will be to convey that fact to the public and academy. I'm assuming we'll do a good job of that. If we don't, all of this is pretty much a waste of time. Lila at the WMF realises that and so do Peter and Fiona at BMJ. None of us has time to waste. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is precedent for any web site becoming academically credible (citable for promotion or scholarly publication) by virtue of being peer reviewed by a credible journal. I'm not trying to discourage - just cautioning that a plan without precedent has unclear risk. — soupvector (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, this is a new thing; and we're being very slow and cautious in our approach. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Scientific American source/prevalence of domestic violence data at the Domestic violence article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included? A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

We have a 2015 review in a major medical journal here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hip fracture merge, anyone?

Hello. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Collaborative Study of Hip Fractures has closed with the decision to merge any appropriate content from Canadian Collaborative Study of Hip Fractures to Hip fracture. I don't have much medical knowledge, so is anyone who does have able to help identify whether there is any material in the article worth merging? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about a specific study. Not really suitable for merging.

I guess the bigger question is do we want this sort of article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the outcome of the AfD can be read to mean, no we don't want this article. I'm of the opinion that there isn't actually anything in the article that is worth merging, but perhaps others with a better understanding will suggest otherwise. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the article is about a study that is...in progress?...just funded? It doesn't appear to have produced any results, and the Wikipedia article doesn't give any dates. While I would argue that there is a place in Wikipedia for articles on major studies which receive significant coverage and produce significant results—this particular study doesn't seem to have (yet) cleared those hurdles. Since this study hasn't reported anything yet (AFAIK?), then there's not really anything to merge. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There are strong hints of undeclared COI edits in the history of that article. I've given the usual {{uw-coi}} notice, but have not gotten any response yet from the recipients. They have not edited since. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do not think deletion is unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

Being discussed here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Made a cautious incision in the article to remove the diseased text. Do we have procedure for wordectomy? --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Barrier cream Review

Editors with an interest in dermatology and the accuracy of medical information on Wikipedia are invited to participate in a discussion on the talk page for the article Barrier cream. There are serious issues with the article's accuracy. Liberties have been taken with the article to completely discount the use of barrier creams to treat pretty much anything, despite the proven efficacy of barrier creams to treat many dermatological conditions. I would greatly appreciate it if other dermatologists would weigh in on this.

Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Key is to use high quality sources. If you stick with those you will not have an issue convincing the community of editors here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be candid, you might. High-quality sources that contradict editors' personal beliefs can cause problems (says the editor who has spent too much time on mammogram recommendations...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Most people here are swayed by high quality sources. For mammograms we simply state the positions of the various high quality sources out their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Move request

On a medical FA here Talk:Poliomyelitis#Requested_move_23_October_2015 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Vaginal teeth

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Vagina dentata#Vaginal teeth. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Human skull - Featured Picture nomination

Ran this by Soupvector first, for an expert medical opinion.

WikiProject Medicine members may be interested in this one:

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human skull side simplified.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though I noted in my nomination statement already that Soupvector from WP:MED reviewed this particular image, there's a comment at the Featured Picture discussion page at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human skull side simplified that suggests it would be useful for additional medical experts to weigh in there as to its medical accuracy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: Second_opinion#Medicine (to supplement that already by Soupvector) would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Human skull side simplified. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on draft

Your comments on Draft:Duarte galactosemia are welcomed. Please use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree w/ all the points raised on the tag [7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's too bad, because half the points are factually wrong. The tag complains that there are no links, except that there are 18 (eighteen). The tag complains that there are no categories, except that there are two. It's missing a third, which is Category:Rare diseases. It does cite some primary sources in addition to the reviews that it relies most heavily upon, but these citations are not unreasonable, e.g., three citations to primary papers when it reports that there have been three studies performed on a particular sub-topic.

Primary sources are particularly valuable when trying to provide a complete description of rare diseases that get very little research attention. For this condition, there have only been two review articles published during the last five years. The paucity of sources is why MEDRS doesn't actually have a reviews-only rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

the tag was in its current state since [8] ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

About 18 hours before you posted your statement that you agreed with "all the points raised on the tag", an editor had added a bunch of wikilinks. The editor (who is new—only a dozen edits total so far) didn't remove the tag that said "This article has no links to other Wikipedia articles". (This is typical for new editors; they usually believe that tags need to be removed by someone who is "official".) That tag was obviously false at the point that you said that you agreed with it. The tag might have been reasonably accurate at the time that the page was tag bombed, but it was not accurate at the time that you posted here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

current issues on article [9] still need to be addressed (as it has improved from prior [10]).....i have done a few edits concerning MEDMOS primarily--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A question about the Lingual frenectomy article

I thought I'd ask here rather than on the article's talk page. The second sentence of that article was added here. As someone with no expertise in medicine it seems like an unfair summary of the procedure to link to one guy's anecdotal bad experience with it, which seems to come down to a general complication that could occur with any procedure that has anything to do with a knife being anywhere near nerves anywhere in your body.

I think the paragraph should probably just be removed, but as noted above I'm no doctor, and I don't play one on the Internet. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

have tagged sentence--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured Picture nomination - Avian flu vaccine development by reverse genetics

Ran this one, first, by WP:MED member Soupvector for medical accuracy, who said it was fine:

I've nominated Avian flu vaccine development by reverse genetics for Featured Picture.

Discussion is at: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Avian flu vaccine development by reverse genetics.

— Cirt (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Scarsdale diet

Some disagreement about what sourcing is good and/or how its use is due. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

commented on talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Pharmacologic Treatment of Strabismus

Your comments on Draft:Pharmacologic Treatment of Strabismus are welcomed. Please use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

several references seem dated per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Image on bipolar disease

Discussion here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Tetrachlorodecaoxide needs cleanup, sourcing, pruning

Tetrachlorodecaoxide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs some vigorous attention. Essentially, it's intravenous hypochlorite being touted as a treatment for everything from ulcers to cancer to allergies to HIV infection. (Contrast and compare Miracle Mineral Supplement.) Most of the Wikipedia article is based on company websites and a handful of old primary journal articles. Possibly the basic chemical properties of the compound can stay; everything else looks like wishful thinking and snake oil. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've just stripped out everything except the bare chemical description, because there aren't any good sources and there isn't any good content there. Probably it should be characterized as a 'chemical' (for Wikipedia purposes, with appropriate infoboxen) rather than a 'drug'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(Last new comment, I promise.)Looking at the talk page, I also am reminded that the structure shown is veeeeery dodgy. So even the basic chemical info – what little there is – is probably suspect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's valid to equate this with snake oil like MMS. There do seem to be some usable sources even if they are a bit long in the ear, such as PMID 15230635 and PMID 12054081. Looie496 (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The PubMed entry for the first source (15230635) appears to be the entire content of the 'article', which seems to be an unsigned blurb that appeared in Drugs in R&D in 2004. It contains marketing and patent info, plus several claims which would be remarkable if substantiated, but which I suspect represent poorly-controlled or uncontrolled trials.

The second source (12054081, from 2002) tells us that the compound is "being tested" for a laundry list of diseases—if it actually worked in any of them I would imagine that we would have heard something by now. At a minimum, I wouldn't want to use that source without locating reports of those clinical trials. The thing about these rather old sources is that we can look at them with the benefit of hindsight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The article actually has a talk page. --Leyo 14:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It does (and I referred to it in my comments above) but it doesn't get a lot of attention. I didn't anticipate having time today to spend on this article, but I was pleasantly surprised. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You may want to ask for additional opinions on WT:Chem. --Leyo 00:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Amyloidosis rare?

Amyloidosis

Hi, Any chance I could get some eyes on this question? Thanks! NickCT (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

While not the main issue here, we seem to have to do with an unattributed Wikipedia clone at http://www.thevisualmd.com/searchimg/?idu=1083609715&q=graph CFCF 💌 📧 21:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If they're not using the WMF's trademarks, then it's not Legal's problem. It's the individual editors' copyrights that are being infringed, not the WMF's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No one mentioned the WMF until you did, WhatamIdoing. It is both possible and likely that editors whose content has been ripped off without credit by VisualMD (which seems to have copy-pasted the ledes from a number of our medical articles) will have this page watchlisted and will want to be aware of the problem.

That said, while the WMF doesn't have standing to file suit for copyright infringement, there's nothing which prevents them from politely saying "Please stop ripping off our contributors' hard work. Here's how you give appropriate credit." Or from less politely saying "If you don't shape up, we'll make a point of drawing public attention to your habit of ripping off our contributors' hard work." An approach from a high-profile organization like Wiki(p/m)edia may have more impact than an irate email from a private individual Wikipedia editor.

Finally, it's useful for us to know that VisualMD pulls this kind of nonsense just so we know to avoid ever using them as a source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

patient.info

A new account has changed 50 external links from patient.co.uk/... to patient.info/... (example). The issue was raised at ELN. Does anyone know the background to patient.co.uk which now seems to redirect to patient.info? It smells like SEO spam but a couple of the links I looked at seemed ok. People here might want to have a quick look. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well they did change their page so we can't really object to the edits themselves. The fact that the account name includes SEO is disconcerting, but maybe not more so than that we can ask the user to identify themselves as a paid editor under the full disclosure policy. CFCF 💌 📧 23:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the site just changed their url. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am working on behalf of Patient.info, as part of their external SEO agency. After the bot request was submitted to change the linking URL from .co.uk to .info after the site migration we noticed that there were still a bunch of pages that were linking to .co.uk (https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org%20%22patient.co.uk%22). As the bot requested seemed to have been filled I just assumed they were missed and thought I would be ok to change them myself. I've never had to edit Wikipedia articles before so I apologise if I went about it the wrong way! Would you be able to complete the rest of the outstanding changes with another bot request? Thanks and apologies again! AdamSEOWorks (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

thank you for clearing this up [11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What are you referring to with that diff? CFCF 💌 📧 10:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

what the original poster (editor) placed up top?(please read the entire post ) thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

But why is that specific diff of interest? Am I missing any reason why you believe it adds to the conversation? CFCF 💌 📧 11:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AdamSEOWorks - Those edits are perfectly acceptable, what you will need to do is add to your user-page something akin to what is detailed here Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#How_to_disclose. That page also lists a little on what is acceptable and not acceptable paid contributing.

CFCF 💌 📧 10:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I should have responded when I first looked into this. Updating the links is fine. The only problem I see is that the links aren't being reviewed on a case by case basis against WP:EL as they are being updated, but I don't expect a new editor to do so. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of sourcing here

Pregabalin

Would appreciate others opinions Talk:Pregabalin#Really_poor_source Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

need more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like we need people who are good at finding sources, rather than people with opinions. AFAICT, the content is correct, and the only problem is that someone (probably someone used to academic publishing standards) cited a primary source rather than a review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Supporting "Pregabalin is fives times more potent than gabapentin with a proven potential for abuse and dependence" with a citation to a mouse study? Standards in academic publishing must be slipping! Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Much more than that was removed, as you know. Is the statement about bioavailability contested? How about the non-biomedical (and therefore non-MEDRS) question of why the drug is regulated in the U.S.? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Lets continue the discussion on the talk page to keep it from being split up. My other concern was that the prior working was rather promotional. We do need to use good refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There's certainly something ... odd going on with the editing at Pregabalin. Can't work it out. Alexbrn (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Cryotherapy

Good day to you all. I came here to ask you to take a look at the Cryotherapy article. I went to check it out a few days earlier after it was talked about on the news, but the article itself seems dubious. Much of it sounds like a sales pitch, looks a lot like pseudoscience, too few sources and they're inappropriate, etc. I was told I should come here with this, so here I am. I would like someone with knowledge of the topic to take a look at the article, determine if it's good, and if it isn't, identify what's wrong with it so it can be fixed. Then it can be decided whether the article can be corrected or if it needs to be rewritten entirely. Thanks in advance! Akesgeroth (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

beyond the NIH [12] definition it does have some issues, will look further over the weekend--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS? A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of WP:MEDRS guideline issue at AN/I

Please note that the following change to WP:MEDRS made in July [13] seems to have gone under the radar. While intended to be constructive it prompted some editors to avoid applying MEDRS on content that wasn't strictly biological, and resulted in a recent discussion at WT:MEDRS. The interpretation employed here was that epidemiology etc. did not fall under MEDRS. By restoring the original wording and clarifying according to the discussion in a constructive way a filing was made at WP:AN/I. This is of relevance to us because it would imply a substantially unwarranted weakening of MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 18:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be reverted. The edit has a corresponding comment [14] in Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/FAQ--Ronz (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz, for posting a link to the explanation.

What matters more than "a word" is having a good shared understanding of what we intend to cover. What I, at least, don't intend for MEDRS to cover is non-biological aspects of medicine, such as whether you can get a same-day appointment, how an urgent care center differs from a walk-in clinic, or whether prescribing lethal drugs to a terminally ill patient is good or evil. I also don't want any statement that could possibly be consider "health-related" to fall under MEDRS, because that would include looking both ways before crossing a street and not playing with matches. That'd be silly, but we do have editors who have tried this with similarly tangential items like sex toys and baby bottles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Kbruksch0213/sandbox

Dear medical experts: Here's another old draft. The reviewer suggested that content be moved to Prostate cancer. Is there anything in the draft that should be moved? If so, it would require someone with some medical knowledge to integrate the text, crediting Kbruksch0213 in the edit summary. I can add the merge templates, etc. later. Or, if there's nothing worth saving, should it just be deleted as stale under db-g13? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect some of it is worth integrating into the "management" section, but as you say, good knowledge of the subject would be needed. Looking at the history, the article doesn't seem to have had a really thorough ovhaul for some years, and it may be getting out of date. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

some of the references are quite good per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]], Ozzie10aaaa, the draft was deleted before I saw your replies. Since it's db-g13, I can retrieve it at any time of someone wants to merge some of the content.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

MVA-B

The article MVA-B needs serious attention. This was an HIV vaccine candidate that was really nothing too special, but due to a somewhat hyperbolic press release, combined with some language barrier issues, caused a flurry of unwarranted mainstream media coverage. The article is based on the initial mainstream media coverage. Because of the misinterpretation, a later press release was issued with caveats included, but it was too late, the media was already hailing it as something that would "make HIV like herpes", a claim that was intended to convey the overall target that a successful vaccine would aim for, not something they had accomplished. I do not currently have time to fix the article myself. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

the virology section should be expanded....IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Head injury

this very important article needs help, any assistance is appreciated--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links

What do people think of these [15]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

videos seem good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm in two minds. Our guidelines at WP:ELYES say we may include "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." Those videos certainly meet that criterion. However you only get to see the first three minutes before being asked to subscribe, and WP:ELNO states we should avoid including "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation." The Journal of Medical Insight describes itself as "a surgical video journal" and its funding model appears to rely on selling subscriptions. So I guess it comes down to whether we think the first three minutes of viewable content are worth the endorsement we give by providing links to a subscription-powered service. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I believe that allowing these external links would set a precedent encouraging other "video journals" to spam links onto our articles. We could always ask for another opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject External links, I guess. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• So far as I know, the Wikipedia community has never permitted links to external media which require payment to view except when the content in the link was the subject of the article. Since we have always refused to link text in this way, I see no reason to treat pay-to-watch video any differently. I say remove all such links. The ELNO rationale provided by Rexx advises removal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• I have no strong opinion on the merits of the videos themselves, but the "subscription" argument is a little strange. It's a peer-reviewed journal, albeit an unconventional one, on the same model and founded by the same person as the Journal of Visualized Experiments. We link to subscription-only journals all the time, and as references rather than mere supplementary links. Presumably some nontrivial fraction of readers who would click these links have access through an academic institution. I'm all for prioritizing open-access content, but rejecting useful links on grounds of subscription-only access would clear out a ton of academic literature, and I don't see the first three minutes of a video as so different from the abstract of a paper that we should systematically treat them differently. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Opabinia regalis: It is a little anomalous that we link to subscription sites when they are used as references, and don't link to subscription sites when they are used as external links; but that's the consensus of our policies/guidelines at WP:PAYWALL and WP:ELNO. I suppose that we take the cynical view that it's much harder to spam relevant text with a reference into article text than it is to spam a bare link into an external links section. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm sure you're right on the reasons :) But my point is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to use guidelines intended to address commercial spam as a way to analyze an academic resource. I notice we have at least a handful of JoVE videos in external links sections, and while it's not common practice to use individual papers as external links, it's not unheard-of either. And the distinction between listing a paper in a subscription journal in a section labeled 'external links' and one labeled 'further reading' or similar is trivial, yet I don't know of any objection to paywalled content in the latter case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
      • At this point, I think we have established an expectation among our long-time readers that if it's under ==External links==, it's always supposed to be free (and not dead).
        On a separate point, videos are often rejected because they tend to contain less content than the article (and therefore tend to be rejected under [[WP:ELNO#EL1). Obviously, it depends on the specific video, but it's a common problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Bare links are not equivalent to citing a paywalled academic journal, and more similar to bare linking to other paywalled sites. First, we cite peer-reviewed literature to lend support to article content - that does not seem to be the case here; instead, the JoMI content would tend to be illustrative but not authoritative with respect to WP content proper (it could be, but my sense is that would be exceptional rather than usual, e.g. some statement about a procedural technique that we cannot find supported in a text journal). Second, the JoMI content has much more of a "how to" flavor than we seem to encourage in WP. I think bare links to JoMI content should be discouraged. If it's the best citation for article content, then it could be referenced inline - but that's a somewhat different (and more conventional) use of a link to a paywalled journal than the external links Doc James asked about. — soupvector (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes with these being "teaser videos" I have removed them from Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help with a source

Does anyone have JSTOR access? I want to know what http://www.jstor.org/stable/27868101 says about male midwives in Southeast Asia for a section being discussed at Midwife (about the profession). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

YHM. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved to main space

This was just moved to main space Pharmacologic_Treatment_of_Strabismus. And IMO requires a near complete re write. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

coi [16]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure just requires a lot of work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction

The recently created article Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction appears to be a copy of Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction which was redirected to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. Is there consensus for a separate stand-alone article now? Or should it be deleted per WP:G4? Gnome de plume (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

REDIRECTED–problem solved. While it may in the future be enough for a stand-alone article the quality of that draft was abysmal, and it surprises me how it passed AfC. CFCF 💌 📧 23:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

AFC's purpose is to determine whether an article is likely to be deleted. It's not WP:GA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources were low enough quality that I didn't merge anything, so basically I would have called for deletion unless it was such a cumbersome process. CFCF 💌 📧 09:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC) 

agree sources poor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 02/11/15

See Draft:Cranial Ultrasound. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Transcranial Doppler?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yup looks like the same Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Transcranial Doppler (TCD), as its name implies, gives information about the rate of flow of blood in (large) cranial vessels. It does not yield reconstructed images of internal brain structures; TCD is often used in adults. Cranial ultrasound is a ultrasonography technique used to image the brain structures of infants, whose fontanelles provide ultrasound probe access to soft tissue paths on which accurate spatial reconstruction currently depends (so cranial ultrasound can render images of brain structures, in infants). These are distinct tests. That said, the proposed article may not be sufficiently distinct from existing content in WP. — soupvector (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Have been in discussions regarding

The creation of an open access point of care medical summary (like uptodate or dynamed but freely accessible). We are doing a survey here http://www.openlibmed.org/ if anyone is interested. Would likely be at least partly based on WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit review

Hello all. Now that I have become an infrequent editor (with two little kids at home!) I don't have much time to get into edit disputes. Would someone look at the recent edit history on the List of cutaneous conditions? Aside from my mess of edits trying to figure out how to subscript the number 4 (sorry), there have been a number of IP edits back and fourth re some wording (the changes of which look ok to me) and capitalization (the changes of which are incomplete) (see in particular this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_cutaneous_conditions&type=revision&diff=687845988&oldid=687769462 ). My particular concern is that if all the capitalization of disease synonym names is to be lowercase, then either all of them should be changed or they should be left alone only until someone has the time to change them all (not just some of them). Thoughts? --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you back again, even if it is only an infrequent visit. The de-capitalisation done by 66.61.83.123 look right to me. Wikipedia prefers to keep the use of capitals to a minimum (MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms.") Even in sentence fragments, such as a bulleted list, we conventionally capitalise the first word and nothing more (other than proper nouns and acronyms). For example, the IP 66.61.83.123 changed Acne cosmetica (Cosmetic acne) to Acne cosmetica (cosmetic acne), but left Acne aestivalis (Mallorca acne) as it was capitalised because 'Mallorca' is a proper noun. I've scanned through the current version of the list and I can't see any capitalisation that isn't the first word of the sentence, a proper noun or an acronym (assuming things like IgG₄ are regarded as equivalent to acronyms). It looks to me that 66.61.83.123 did a good job of sorting out the issue in line with MOS guidance. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there someone who would be willing to finish the job then? --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a complete pass through the list. A fresh pair of eyes might spot any that I've missed. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

End-of-year summary video

Work on the second annual retrospective video is underway. Some of you might be interested in leaving some suggestions about what happened or what images might be interesting. There's more information (and a link to last year's) at User:VGrigas (WMF)/Edit2015. Everyone's welcome.

Information about non-English projects is always wanted, and often hard to get, so if you're involved in translation efforts or wok on other projects, then please make a particular effort to tell Victor about something cool that happened elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• great idea, added suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Discovery and Development of Selective progesterone receptor modulators

Your comments on Draft:Discovery and Development of Selective progesterone receptor modulators are welcomed. Please use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN [17] 3 SPA Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account, at least ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Being an SPA is not against policy. They could be students working on an assignment for example. I have posted to a few of their talk pages asking what's going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks NeilN--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Just for some history, there are quite a few of these "Discovery and development of..." articles that have been created (see here for a list). My recollection is that there is a university course that has created a few of these every year for the past several years. Their content tends to be well researched and high quality, but may need some housekeeping and wikification. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Pretty impressive work actually. Some of the articles created by the same course in previous years can be found here and here. This particular article should probably be merged into Selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPeRMS ;-) Boghog (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are two others just created today: Discovery and development of steroidal aromatase inhibitors and Discovery and development of memantine and related compounds. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

More Eyes Needed at Salsalate

Salsalate

Discussion on talk page [18] regarding user (possible WP:SPA using different user names) attempting to push in a primary mouse study that was well-publicized [19], [20], [21], and [22]. Thanks everyone TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• commented (and will keep eye on)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

dopamine

...is at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dopamine/archive1). More medical eyes would be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Great work on improving that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Mortality rates, by cohort

The Washington Post is reporting that middle-aged American whites are dying at an unexpected rate, compared to other cohorts, starting in 1999 and forward. I was surprised that Mortality rates, by cohort, are not in the encyclopedia yet. Am I looking in the right place? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Ancheta Wis generally we don't use newspaper reporting for medical content, and avoid primary studies, although the underlying study looks like it should have some weight. The group is described as "white men and women ages 45-54 with less than a college education". I'm not exactly sure where that fact might fit into an article. Zad68 03:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Coincidentally I was actually looking for cohort death rate information about European males in the 1930s for a discussion on Commons. There is so much data that I am not sure how you would construct an article or list. Sizeofint (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess a lot of it could go in Baby boomers. The CDC ran a Special Feature on Adults Aged 55–64 in 2014 [23], which Time summed up for the lay-man here [24]. It paints a grim picture. CFCF 💌 📧 08:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you're looking for a cohort life table. I don't believe that Wikipedia has one. Doing it per age/per country/per race/per sex is a lot of data; the content might be better suited for a database than for a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Could Wikidata host it? This type of data/information would surely be of interest to WP:WikiProject Demographics as well as (most) country projects. Perhaps a collaboration with WikiProject Demographics could get this onto Wikidata - if it is able to host and organize it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Dodger67 A few years ago at m:Grants:IdeaLab/Global Economic Map Mcnabber091 made a proposal to move lots of economic data into Wikidata so that it could be presented back out as economic reports at the country level. That seemed to me to be among the easiest sorts of Wikidata projects, but nothing like that has happened yet.

Perhaps you saw the "Poof it works" announcement. I cannot see the future but that blog post seems to me to mark something monumental in human history - the connection of databases to a publication that the public actually reads. Their data is for genes and proteins, so still a little removed, but the infrastructure is in place.

I would love to see anyone move health demographic data into Wikipedia. In New York there are several groups concerned with mapping who wish to import and publish their data in Wikipedia somehow. All of the groups are quite able. They are all waiting on some of us at Wikimedia New York City to draft some ideas for them to do. They seem to have money and staff to invest, and this is from the nonprofit sector or at most the for-profit sector contributing to nonprofit open source projects. If anyone here is interested in outlining what should happen and how to get mortality rates in Wikipedia (especially perhaps related to geography) then I think the groups here and others like them are looking for a path into Wikipedia and Wikidata. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

is there a global equivalent to MMWR that might be drawn upon?LeadSongDog come howl! 06:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of "go big or go home" - what we really need is for the WMF to set up a fully fledged GIS alongside Wikidata, Wikipedia, etc. I know nothing about how Wikidata works, the only contact I've ever had with it is on a very few occasions I struggled to add an interlanguage link to an article. Aiui the purpose of Wikidata is to be a repository of discrete definable data items which can be "served" to the other WMF projects. Adding a GIS just makes complete sense to me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Dodger67 Can you please look at this with me? Wikipedia:Outline of maps for Wikipedia - I just made it because you and other people have been asking. I still am not convinced that there are not outlines somewhere, but I looked long enough without seeing one that I thought to make this one. What you want might already be in development. I would appreciate any comment you have on the talk page there, because it would be helpful to me just to know what on that page seems new to you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're interested in map work, then you might want to look at what User:Yurik is doing with mw:Extension:Kartographer (and a few other things). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

[25] interesting --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

http://www.div12.org/

Is being added to a bunch of articles by a bunch of accounts. Not a particularly good source in that it does not contain anything are articles do not already. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example [26] [27] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith, sockpuppets of a paid editor? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Those two both relate to Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/Developmental Psychopathology--PSYC 500 (Fall 2015), which I suspect the rest will. The Origami one (1st lk) is the course student ambassador/wiki-expert, & probably the one to complain to. Looking at his OCD edit above, the main linked page is short, but the further "div12" ones for types of treatment linked to below quite long & I daresay useful. On that page, personally I'd keep that, & remove the useless and out of date DMOZ link. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Think I concur with Johnbod. The American Society of Clinical Psychology seems like a scholarly and reasonable external link to have on OCD. Seems to meet external link guideline criteria 3. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not a collection of external links. DMOZ at least is. Maybe they should be directed to contribute their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

OCD now has 4 links, which doesn't seem excessive. DMOZ was a collection of external links when people last seriously maintained it, about 10 years ago. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need our own inhouse sets of external links outside the article space? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

best not to have excessive ext/ links--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Needed in Article Hailey–Hailey disease

HHD R Axilla

I believe greater clarification needs to be made in the article regarding the use of the terms familial benign chronic pemphigus and familial benign pemphigus. Pemphigus is an autoimmune disorder that occurs when the body's own immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissue, but Hailey-Hailey disease is not an autoimmune disorder and there are no autoantibodies. There has been a lot of confusion about this over the years in medical literature and at least some clarification should be included in the article. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

comment on talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving discussion to Article talk page. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice that the same point had been answered by WhatamIdoing in 2007 on the article talk page? --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't actually notice the post till later, but it was more about the removal of someone else's unencyclopedic edit than about the need for clarification. In any event, I did clarify the problem in what I feel (hope) is authoritative and encyclopedic. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to take this time to welcome you Dr. James Schultz to the project, and I agree the previous discussion was similar, but not entirely applicable. I think a clarification is due, but it doesn't need to be very lengthy. CFCF 💌 📧 08:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• continued on talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Request upload of image

User:Sizeofint, can you upload this image of the various types of later-generation e-cigarettes. The proposal is to add it to Construction. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru, it looks like that image is a stock photo copyrighted by a company. I don't think we can use it. Sizeofint (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. QuackGuru (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru - this is free, just use the flickr2commons bot. [28] [29] CFCF 💌 📧 06:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I added another image to Construction recently. QuackGuru (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Lacunae: Housebound and bedridden

Surely there should be articles on these conditions of isolation, and not just one link going to a horror film (!), and the other being a redirect to pressure ulcer.--Pharos (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Pharos in regards to Bedridden -> Pressure ulcer, it could be expanded to include conditions of isolation, are there specific references you may have had in mind?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean, what medical, psychological, and social conditions lead to being bedridden or housebound? I'm not familiar with the medical literature on this, but surely there must be something. Pressure ulcers are just one effect of being bedridden.--Pharos (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

posted/article talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, Pharos. I suggest WP:BOLDly starting something, and sending it to WP:DYK. The couple of people at WP:WikiProject Disability might be interested, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes bedridden just means one is unable to get out of bed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My usual Wikipedia talk

I give Wikipedia talks.

Today I presented at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. See the video, if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry it was very good, thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Informative presentation, with excellent selection of content for that audience. Congratulations and thanks. --Zefr (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't get the link to work. The sound cuts out after ~5 seconds. :( TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 Here is an updated link - Health information lives here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

this link is better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to change, develop, or complement Template:Infobox drug

Please see Template_talk:Infobox_drug#Proposal_to_explore_through_2016_-_consumer_information_in_the_infobox. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Pheromones material at the Sexual orientation article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexual orientation#PNAS/pheromones material. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Gout diets

Dear medical experts: Once more, a draft on a medical topic is about to be deleted. Is this a notable topic? Should the draft be improved (to make sure there is no medical advice being given for example) or should the whole thing be deleted as a stale draft?—Anne Delong (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Would need an extensive rewrite. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc James. I can't do it, so unless someone wants to take it on it will disappear shortly.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Our article on gout provides a good evidence based review of diets so this article is not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - it's gone now.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech stuff

This might be a bit "meta", but there's a survey at mw:Community Tech/Community Wishlist Survey description about what kinds of software or editing tools we want. It's supposed to run for two weeks in the "collect ideas" phase and then again in a separate "pick the best" phase. If there's anything on your tech (or semi-tech) wishlist, this is your chance to request it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• thank you WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Horner's syndrome - opinions on graphic?

As I mentioned in August of this year, there were some problems with our diagram re: Horner's syndrome.

I took the issue to Commons, where it's been addressed by someone who's very good with .SVGs, but not totally clear on medical terminology. Could someone deal with his request for an opinion on his image? (I would have raised this issue earlier, but I was in the midst of changing residences.) DS (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• so per the original August of this year, apparently I answered (as did Axl).....Axl's response [30] on Sept. 28 seems to have covered any questions about new image (how it should look diagram-wise)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, but note that Goren's most recent question is from November 3. If you can confirm to him that he got the diagram right, that would be really helpful. (I'm just acting as an intermediary here; my knowledge is broad but very shallow.) DS (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Need to merge these 2 articles?

• Oral galvanism
• Galvanic pain

The first is an older article and the content and sources need attention. It seems not to represent the mainstream medical opinion. Strictly speaking the second article focuses mainly on pain, but the 2 seem to cover the same entity here. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the things I love about Wikipedia is that I can learn something new every day. For those who haven't heard of this and haven't clicked yet, it sounds to me sort of like the kind of problem that happens when plumbers connect different kinds of metal together, only it's dentists and tooth fillings.  :-)

I favor a merge, but I'm a mergist, so you should take my opinion with a grain of salt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This was a big alternative medicine topic during the 1980's. As far as I'm aware it was never proven and pretty much considered pseudoscience. Merge and purge. CFCF 💌 📧 08:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC) 

Galvanic pain is real although rare (see sources), but the claims of other symptoms seem fringe. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I took a second look and am inclined to disagree. All the sources are either old, low quality or otherwise questionable. Maybe it would be better to just delete?

Jaypee Bros. is a scam publisher, and the only modern citation that is relevant is PMID 24522020 , and it isn't too good either. CFCF 💌 📧 15:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

most current sources of oral galvanism seem poor. should be able to find better sources. I think it is notable. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Jaypee Brothers a reliable publisher?

CFCF, on a side note, I've sometimes used textbooks from these publishers, they seem OK sources. Not sure what is meant by "scam publisher", but should perhaps cover this on their encyclopedia article (Jaypee Brothers) and mention it on MEDRS? I did note that their textbooks are more likely to be able to preview on google books, and therefore are more readily available as sources. Regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware (I recall checking a couple of months ago, I can find the source if you want) they aren't a scam publisher per say, but a purveyor of self-published books. That doesn't say it's all crap, but it doesn't hold to WP:RS. We should probably add this to MEDRS, as they only publish medical content. Also a quick search gives a number of articles that use their books as a source, we'll probably have to clean that up. CFCF 💌 📧 11:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. If someone uses a publisher to publish a textbook, then it is not self published, by definition... I have to say my experience of using these textbooks is positive. They do not ring any alarm bells as sources, and appear to have similar content to contemporary texts. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this outfit, but I can explain the general case: If the publisher pays for everything, then it's traditional publishing. If the author pays the "publisher", then it's a vanity press, and therefore self-publishing.

Ultimately, what matters is whether the author is the sole person making the decision to have the book distributed to the public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. So the question is whether Jaypee accepts any book for a fee. How can we find this out?

As sources, I see no glaring problem with these textbooks (e.g. see this article: Cementicle - where 2 of their textbooks are linked on google books ... it can be seen that they contain similar info to books published by Elsevier Health Sciences). Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear from their website. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a Jaypee Brother publication that was plagarised from us. But than again I also found part of an Oxford University Press book that did the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ran a quick search online and found no reference to Jaypee being scam or vanity press. Would be good to see the source CFCF you mentioned earlier. If these sources should not be used then we should take them out of articles. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hot articles

I asked user:Kaldari if the hot articles bot could be enabled for the medicine project (lists the most edited articles over the last few days, see it in action at WP:ANATOMY. Even though the number of articles is larger than the stated maximum, he is willing to give it a try, however the article categorisation needs a change with an additional category containing all medicine articles:

@Wouterstomp: I would be willing to try it, but in order for it to work there has to be a category that includes all of your project's articles directly (rather than in subcategories). (I know that's a weird requirement, but it's the only way that the query can run efficiently.) You can do this by creating an new category like Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles and adding "MAIN_CAT = All WikiProject Medicine articles" to {{WikiProject Medicine}}. You could also make your existing Category:WikiProject Medicine articles the MAIN_CAT, although that might be awkward since all the articles are already included in subcategories there. I would recommend discussing this with other members of your project first. Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there any preference for one of these two options? --WS (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No preference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Give it a try" is less than wonderful for an approach that requires editing every single article in WPMED. Can we give some thought to whether there is a less intrusive way of getting into this? Looie496 (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Looie496: You don't have to edit the articles, just the template, i.e. it's only a single edit. Kaldari (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

All our medical articles have WP:MED templates on the talk pages. We could have a bot make the changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't need a bot. I've added |MAIN_CAT=All WikiProject Medicine articles to {{WikiProject Medicine}} and created Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles. Is that ready to go now, Kaldari? --RexxS (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's all you need. I'll go ahead and set up the subscription and see how long it takes to run. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wouterstomp, RexxS, Doc James, and Looie496: The subscription has been created and the chart generated: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Hot articles. Please add it into your WikiProject portal as you see fit. There is a category size hard-limit that is set for the script, which I've raised from 20,000 to 50,000 on an experimental basis. The script execution time grows exponentially with category size, so it has to have some limit in place. Hopefully, 50,000 will accommodate WikiProject Medicine for the next couple years at least :) Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Kaldari. I'm hoping we won't take on that many new articles in the near future. Reminds me of the doctor talking to his patient, "I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is we're naming a disease after you ..." --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Kaldari, had been looking for something like this for a few years already. Also interesting results. Is it possible to increase the number of results to 20 or so because of the size of the wikiproject and the number of semi-related stuff that turns up in the results? --WS (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wouterstomp: Hmm, it's possible, but a longer list would be harder to integrate into your portal page. An alternative would be setting a shorter time-window since you're such a large project. Right now your time window is set to 7 days, which means that short bursts of editing activity are not likely to show up on the list. You may want to consider setting it to 5 days or 3 days even. That will make your list more dynamic. If you do want to switch to 20 article instead, I can look into doing that. Do you have any ideas on how your going to integrate the chart into your portal? Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I have added it under the collaboration header (more because there was some space there than for other reasons). I agree that a long list would be hard to integrate on the project page. Perhaps you could generate two lists, one with 10 results and a larger one with 20-50 results (depending how many still have a meaningful number of edits, >5 or so); then we could have the short list on the project page and add a link there to the longer list. --WS (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wouterstomp: That's a pretty cool idea. It will require a bit of modification to the script, but it should be doable. I can't say when I'll be able to implement it, since things are pretty hectic at the moment, but I'll put it on my to-do list. Kaldari (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! We will wait and see. ––WS (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• very useful addition to the project (to know what articles are active)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016 in Italy

I have been asked what and from whom people want to hear talk at Wikimania? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also please indicate if you plan to attend. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Med topics you want to hear about?

• ebola virus treatment progress--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
• Metrics, whatever anyone has to share on anything relating to medicine and Wikipedia. I will be there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Who you want to hear give an overview of our work?

Doc James...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

New article within scope of project

Recompression chamber

Hyperbaric treatment schedules now in main space. Not yet finished, by any means, but comment and recommendations welcome. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ozzie, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you, the article has very good refs--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing in anosognosia article

Yesterday I reverted an IP edit to anosognosia on the grounds that it was sourced to a set of Quora answers, which are not reliable sources per WP:RS, much less WP:MEDRS. The IP has reverted the material back in. Since I don't like to engage in one-on-one edit wars, I wonder if others could take a look. (Anosognosia, for those not versed in neurology, means lack of awareness of impairment -- it is sometimes seen in people with psychiatric conditions or who have suffered certain types of strokes.) Looie496 (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Looie496 I reverted and keeping an eye (as you are correct in WP: RS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That article is quite old in re MEDDATE. There are lots of recent review sources available per PubMed, though most are not free full text. It could definitely use some love. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. But the issue for these particular edits is not just sourcing. Looie496 (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP user does seem to have an agenda, and has edited the wording again.[31] Because the last sentence was an attributable quote I've reverted, and done an intext attribution.[32] Although I didn't realise this at first.[33] (Because of that mistake, I've not done anything to the other changes made.) Little pob (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, your attribution wasn't supported by the cited source, so I've paraphrased instead of quoting. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"treatment" section needs ref(s)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:djd/projects/Human Anatomy/Status

An editor created a bunch of pages around the User:djd/projects/Human Anatomy/Status area back in June 2013 that were related to some "Human Anatomy project" they seem to have come up with. I've listed the whole lot for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Djd/projects/Human Anatomy/Status but if someone thinks some of these could be useful, WP:MEDICINE should take them. It looks like some person's personal views on how medicine articles related to breasts should be worded with references to Gray's and other reference guides. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

[34] might be worth saving (need more opinions)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I need a paper

I'm too impatient to wait any longer on WP:RX for this paper: can anyone send me PMID 26162812? I know someone here has to have access to that.

I'd really appreciate it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Mail me. CFCF 💌 📧 23:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Seppi333 FYI Wikipedia:Elsevier ScienceDirect. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: Sent!

@Matthew Ferguson 57: Thanks for the link. :) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede of MEDRS - Biomedical and health?

Currently there is an RfC about whether the lede of MEDRS should include the terms "biomedical and health" or just "biomedical". Please weigh in. CFCF 💌 📧 23:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? -link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ozzie10aaaa, I don't know how I slipped up there. Probably tired. CFCF 💌 📧 00:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: What does Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) cover?

There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

May I just point out this is the 3rd or 4th notification about this matter on this talk page in the last several days. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

May I also point out that change does not change the sourcing policy, and that health has always been the subject of MEDRS, but "biomedical" was recently challenged to not include health. Health was also present in the guideline a multitude of times, up until August this year when an entrepreneurial editor removed it (see these diffs among others - [35] & [36]). CFCF 💌 📧 21:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It's so much more complicated than "health has always been the subject of MEDRS" and falsely implying that any editors want "health" content to be sourced to pathetic websites. I'm saying that we need a good shared understanding of what the guideline covers, including understanding that "health" has been and can reasonably be understood to mean something much broader than "biomedicine", including purely social issues. So far, nobody's complained that the guideline's wrong to include the word health two dozen times (which it still does, despite your assertions that it's been removed).

The dispute that led to this particular discussion was about whether or not to use a source that counted the number of times that humans hit each other. Is getting mad and physically hitting people primarily "health" or "biomedical" content? This is actually a harder question than it might sound like, and it's emblematic of the problem with the conflicting POVs about the guideline's scope. Law enforcement will tell you that assault is a legal issue—and they're not wrong. Epidemiologists will tell you that it's a public health issue—and they're not wrong. Pacifists will tell you that it's a moral issue—and they're not wrong, either. But "has some health aspects" doesn't necessarily mean "MEDRS should be used to exclude all POVs except the ones that have appeared in (specifically) medical journals during the last five years".

This is a hard question. We need everyone to think about complex, multidisciplinary issues, what MEDRS's scope is, how to comply with the WP:NPOV requirement that significant non-medical POVs be included, even if those non-medical POVs aren't represented in review articles in medical journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with you on this, but what remains is that a claim can fall under several professional categories, and there is no LAWRS, SOCIOLOGYRS etc., so MEDRs is the only one that currently applies beyond WP:RS. I'm fine with expanding MEDRS to be more clear on what is included, but the current environment on the talk page is not conducitve, because we are being questioned if MEDRS should exist at all or that it should cover anything beyond solely treatment. What we need is to in some way merge WP:BIOMEDICAL into MEDRS so that we can avoid these discussions with editors who want to use fringe sources on anything that isn't strictly treatment related. It would be more constructive if we had more suggestions from medical editors instead of clamping down over minor concerns when there is an immidiate issue with users pushing poor content. CFCF 💌 📧 15:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

How to reply? Maybe this will work:

To everyone else: The page is full of fun things like rainbows and dancing bears, and we would have consensus immediately if only you would spend a few minutes sharing your insights. Please join in. If you can't stand the wall o' text and drama, then share your insights on my talk page or CFCF's talk page. We really need to know your thinking, and especially your practical examples and edge cases.

To CFCF: Yup, this is a bad time to have that conversation. Also, BIOMEDICAL is not sufficiently developed to even consider incorporating it. WP:MEDFAQ is in the same state: lots of thinking left to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• comments encouraged also at original link [37]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentences needing improvement

I ran an experimental script against the articles in WikiProject Medicine to generate a list of lead sentences needing improvement. It looks like most of the sentences it flagged were ones that included long lists of alternative names for conditions. I have no idea if WikiProject Medicine encourages or discourages that in lead sentences. Regardless, I though the output might be of interest to the editors here, so feel free to make use of it, or offer feedback for improving it if you have ideas. It's not an official project, just a little 20% time experiment. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, the lead sentence for Anesthesia makes my head hurt :) Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

[38] this is useful information, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should re-write your script to ignore anything inside parentheses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge Farmer's lung and Hypersensitivity pneumonitis

Chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis

Should we merge Farmer's lung with Hypersensitivity pneumonitis? Farmers lung is a pretty small subsection of Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (also known as allergic alveolitis). I was planning on doing some work on the topic, but grateful for any insight before I get going. I don't think Farmer's lung will be expanded significantly, and maybe it's better to have it as a subsection. What do you think Axl? CFCF 💌 📧 15:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Farmers Lung might be better off merged--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it's borderline. Given that the "Farmer's lung" article is currently short (just one paragraph), it is reasonable to merge it into "Hypersensitivity pneumonitis". If the content specific to farmer's lung is significantly expanded in the future, it could be spun back out. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Could it wait a little while? NIOSH has some really good stuff on farmer's lung iirc, and I may have some good stuff to add this week and next. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be worth expanding rather than merging. There is a bit relating to occupational exposure specifically that could warrant its own article (even if shorter than the hypersensitivity pneumonitis) in addition to farmer's lung being noteworthy in general. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• [39][40] more references (whether or not the article is merged)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Opinions please!

I believe I may have an incomplete understanding regarding the use of MEDRS sources. I have read the MEDRS guidelines many, many times and thought I knew how to apply them. At this time I think I may be mistaken in my use of sources. For the purposes of the post to the talk page, I will use a fictitious edit and semi-fictitious sources. The semi fictitious sources will be actual sources without the details of date, title or url. I would really like to get a lot of responses and if there happens to be some kind of consensus, maybe a change to MEDRS might be helpful.

• fictitious edit added to an article on vaccinations "...boys ages 10-14 should be vaccinated against (imaginary disease..." WHO reference, CDC reference, 4 systematic review references, a medical, adolescent medicine textbook. In each of the references, the sources use the word 'should'. If another editor revises this edit to "...boys ages 10-14 can be vaccinated against (imaginary disease)..." does this edit change the meaning of the statement? Thank you for any responses. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not a MEDRS issue. The relevant policy is that Wikipedia gives information, not instructions. You can say, "According to X, boys should ...", but you should avoid using the word "should" in the voice of Wikipedia. As WP:NOTHOWTO says, "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." Looie496 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of the sources use "should", but apart from the WHO all seem American. Views like this should always be attributed in the text to one or two leading organizations or sources. To see why, look at the range of ages for which cervical screening is recommended in different countries. So "According to WHO recommendations, boys should ....". Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

When the recommendation is widespread, or at least widespread in developed countries, then WP:INTEXT attribution might inadvertently make it sound like the recommendation only comes from the one or two organizations that are named. Instead, in that situation, I'd say "This vaccine is recommended for boys aged 10 to 14 in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe", or whatever is appropriate. If you look up recommendations on cancer screening, you can probably find at least one example of every situation, from dueling guidelines to different countries with different rules to universal agreement (against certain screening options, at least). The way those are written might be a useful model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I doubt that. Most just cover the US and maybe the UK - as cervical screening did (with specifics) until just now, when I added Canada & Australia. Needless to say, they all have different ages. But one can of course speak of countries. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that wording is also acceptable although a bit "weasely". The point is not to give the impression that Wikipedia is making the recommendation. Looie496 (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• If many / all sources that make recommendations make this recommendation than one can say "It is recommended that X" This only needs to be adjusted if someone notable makes a recommendation that is contradictory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Blausen

User:BruceBlaus has again donated a bunch of high quality images to commons under an open license. They are in this format [41]. I have changed the link to a reference as seen here

Some are however being removed by a User:MarnetteD and User:Sundayclose as seen here. And some such as User:Theroadislong who are stating that the user is spamming Wikipedia. We need to develop a consensus around how these images are presented. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

DocJames, I'll take responsibility here. MarnetteD was simply reverting an IP troll who went on a rampage reverting all of my edits. MarnetteD was never involved with the images prior to that. I understand your point about the images, but MarnetteD has no responsibility. However, I do consider Blausen adding promotional links to his website as spam, either as inline external links or as an unnecessary citation, and several editors have removed the links. Giving free images to Wikipedia does not entitle Blausen to spam his website. Further discussion User talk:Sundayclose#Blausen images. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I will be going through and restoring all images that have been deleted. The link to Blaus's website is and should remain within the image file. I would like to emphasis that getting high quality images under an open license is EXCEEDINGLY hard. I would like to express my thanks publicly to Blaus for the efforts they have taken to engage with our community of volunteers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

images are very good,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I think many of the images are excellent, a substantial and welcome addition to WP, and should be retained in articles where appropriate. I also think the source should routinely be linked from Commons. I see no sound basis for linking from the caption to Blausen's web site. If that external content follows the guidance in WP:EL then the link could go in the external links section. — soupvector (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the situation is this: Somebody adds an excellent image, with an WP:External link to a relevant video. At least one editor has responded to this by removing the excellent image and the external link, on the grounds that that misplacing the external link is "spam".

IMO the best solution would be to move the external link to the ==External links== section, or just to remove it. I don't see any reason to remove a good image merely because the caption needs to be re-written. It appears that this is the position that has been reached in other discussions on this point. Is there anyone who disagrees? Is there anyone here willing to speak up in favor of blanking good images just because the edit also added an external link to the caption? If not, then I think we're done with the "discussion" part of this, and all that's left is for someone else to check these 23 articles so that we can WP:PRESERVE the good images and correct any misplaced WP:External links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to keeping the images and as far as I know Doc James and I have restored all of them, so there's little if any support for removing the images. I also don't oppose adding a link to the video in "External links" with a simple description such as "Animation of ...", if it is consistent with WP:EL. Sundayclose (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Good, then you have already done nearly all of the work. IMO it's more appropriate to place the link under ==External links== than as a ref, since the video provides further information rather than verifying the contents of the image and its caption. Video links should always be marked as such, so that anyone with limited internet access and/or who dislikes videos can avoid them. (It's good enough to just type "(video)" in plain text after the link.)

And just in case it comes up, if the inclusion of an external link is disputed for any reason whatsoever, then it gets removed from the article unless and until such a time as there is a consensus to include it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Medical image being proposed for deletion

[42] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Omnadren

Dear medical experts: Here's yet another old draft about a medical topic. There seems to be a lot of information on the internet about this product, but I am not able to evaluate it. Is this a notable topic?—Anne Delong (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

in terms of Anabolic steroids it could be merged into said article,( however first reference is an animal study)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Further eyes

We have someone trying to remove the most recent meta analysis about a new device here Stretta procedure. Further eyes / opinions appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The current version, which you have edited, seems to have the correct balance with a recent meta-analysis performed using Cochrane standards in a good quality journal [PMID 25459556]. This follows WP:MEDRS standards whereas many of the other citations in Mechanism of Action are primary sources and should not be given much weight. Jrfw51 (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes we have a paid editor who is trying to change things. Maybe page protection would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have read the discussion on your talk page. I am an academic gastroenterologist and I support page protection for Stretta procedure. Jrfw51 (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jrfw51 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

New tool for getting reader feedback

We have a new tool for getting reader feedback here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

very useful[43]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Do Wikipedia guidelines support mentioning DocGraph or Batea (Chrome extension) or both, in one article or more?

—Wavelength (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how we review the feedback provided based on the given link. Does anyone familiar with this know? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Once their is data we will figure out how to get it to people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Epigenetic theories of homosexuality article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Epigenetic theories of homosexuality#What about Epigenetic theories of heterosexuality ?. It concerns the lack of a heterosexual comparison, what to title the article, and the fact that better sources should be used for the biomedical information (unless there is a WP:MEDDATE aspect preventing better sources). See this comment I made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Been there, done that. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Piloting TWL WP:Research help in Reference Sections

Hi WikiProject Medicine,

At The Wikipedia Library, we have been thinking a lot about how readers and editors use Wikipedia in research processes. One thing we know: there is a growing consensus in the libraries and educational communities that Wikipedia has a place as a starting point for research. In response to this, we developed a portal at WP:Research help, to communicate a more consistent and community-informed discussion of how to use Wikipedia in research.

I am posting here, because we would like to link to this portal in article reference sections. We believe that the portal will help Wikipedia readers better understand how our community works, and in turn, how to contribute by adding research to articles -- and we think the readers who have research questions will be most effectively communicated to through reference sections. Moreover, we hope that this page will help less experienced editors realize a) how important research is for Wikipedia and b) how many community-supported tools there are to support that research, including the Wikipedia Library’s programs. For a more thorough discussion of our motivations and plan, we have outlined a project proposal at Wikipedia:Research help/Proposal.

Given the importance of medical articles to readers, and their desire to find a way to engage with medical research, we thought this would be an ideal set of articles to pilot a link to this research portal in reference section. See the demo below for a sense of how this could look. We’d greatly appreciate your thoughts and input on this idea, including feedback on the demo below and the Research page proper. Below, I have create sections to discuss the questions: Would you want WikiProject Medicine articles to participate in this pilot?

Cheers, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Demo

This is the main demo we’re favouring, but there are other options outlined at Wikipedia:Research_help/Demo. We would welcome feedback, tweaks or additional demos. Currently, we hope to use templates to add the formatted links, though eventually we will likely test popups or other ways to create entry points.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean pellentesque, nulla a tempus aliquam, enim nulla posuere purus, id ullamcorper dolor eros et diam. Suspendisse id volutpat orci, at gravida dui. Donec porta felis quis leo tincidunt, porttitor vulputate quam fermentum. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas.

References

---

Using Wikipedia for research

What do we plan to do with the pilot?

We plan to collect the following information during the pilot:

• Feedback from Wikipedia editors on the design
• Pageview data for targeted redirects to WP:Research Help
• Pageviews for subpages like Wikipedia:Research help/Librarians and Teachers
• Pageview data for other resources linked on the page, including:
  • WP:Reference desk
  • Help:Navigation
  • Wikipedia:Find your library
  • Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia
• Feedback collected in the Google Survey linked on the RH page

A successful pilot will include positive feedback from the editor community, constructive feedback and demonstrated interest/need in the Google form, and increased pageviews on community resources and tools that are linked on the Research Help portal. Subsequent the pilot, we will go through the steps described here.

Polling

Would you support WikiProject Medicine articles being part of a 2-3 month pilot, where each reference section will have a template linking to WP:Research Help?

Support

• support seems like a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support I like the idea, and I support both adding this very unobtrusive link to some or all of our articles. What we've previously seen is that it may be best to try these things on a handful of articles for a week or so before rolling it onto all of them. CFCF 💌 📧 14:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  @CFCF: That's a good point: staged additions with an edit summary that points to this discussion, and the talk for feedback. I planned on making a template, that we ask a volunteer to add in small batches via AWB or a bot before the {{reflist}}. The template, will allow us to test different versions of the link after the initial Alpha, without having to change each page. Let me know if you would be interested in being that volunteer, or if we should ping someone in particular, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support. --User:Anthonyhcole 15:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Lovely idea, especially if we implement Looie496's tip to ensure that we have some measurable outcomes from this initiative. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support It makes sense to me to do this project using medical articles (preferably rolled out in stages) because people reading medical articles are more likely to benefit from the research help pages. --Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support great idea. --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral I don't think this is going to work, because the link is in an unintuitive place, and I'm not keen on anything that adds clutter to our already over-cluttered pages, but I don't object to giving it a try. If you're going to, though, I suggest linking to Research help via a redirect, so you can parse out the fraction of page views that result from this pathway (by looking at page views for the redirect). Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Looie496: Thats a really good idea: I hadn't considered using redirects - adding that to the tracking. In part we are suggesting the reference section because it catches people at a point of need. The ideal situation that came out of our brainstorming, would be a popup whenever someone hovers over a footnote or the reference section with a mouse, but we don't have a tech budget yet (this is a proof of concept, to justify more time/people). We are hoping a link in the reference section catches the eye of the most high impact audience: librarians, teachers, academics, professional researchers, all people highly attuned to our reference sections because of the professional discourse and who will likely share that page, or its story, with others. We hope the sampling that comes from the Google Form survey and the information about click throughs on the expert links on the right, helps us affirm that hypothesis. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Hi all, it would be great if we had a few more opinions here, to confirm the consensus/direction of the conversation. I realize there are a lot of other things going on in the talk, but extra input would be greatly appreciated, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• @CFCF, Looie496, and Jfdwolff: Template for different redirects available at Template:Research help, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• How about a shorter name like "Research help" or "Help with Research"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Doc James: Are you suggesting for the link in the template itself? We want the link to be meaningfully informative. I think maybe "Need help with Research?" might be more communicative. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sadads, did you spam notices about this to the Village Pumps or anything like that? There was an objection last year (with a script that displayed the editors'/authors' names on the page) that was framed as being a procedural complaint about a LOCALCONSENSUS by a WikiProject. It would be desirable to have attention from non-participants, especially since WPMED doesn't OWN the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: We were aware of that experience. We are operating under the assumption that this is not going to have many strong objections: every person we have shown this to has had no show-stopping objections (mostly positive tweaks, etc), we plan to do this a temporary pilot to see if there is evidence of its usefulness, and it will be a template that can be "noincluded" at a moments notice. We have strong/overwhelming local consensi for two pilots (one with an even stronger support at WPMILHIST), there is a survey linked on the page for feedback, and we are planning on staged additions of the links (testing on 100-500, expanding to several thousand, and then to whole topics), with a clear discussion link in the edit summary--i.e. there will be multiple points for objection/discussion and its a pilot, so will be open for deeper discussion/revising the idea as the process happens. Does that sounds like a reasonable strategy? We had hoped to do a larger RFC/ping of pumps when we have better evidence that the page is useful. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Health system article

At Health system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there is edit warring going on with 2601:647:4601:4634:A8EE:29FE:5863:6FC3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and others. More eyes from this project on that matter would be helpful, whether it's support of the IP's edits or disagreement with them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to go through these edits quite thoroughly, they have been doing very similar unconstructive blanking and adding unsourced content to a large number of articles. I see Drbogdan has done some reverts as well, and Flyer22 Reborn you mentioned some related IPs? Could you elaborate as I've only seen 2601:647:4601:4634:A8EE:29FE:5863:6FC3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) so far. CFCF 💌 📧 00:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits on:

• Universal health coverage by country
• Health care in the United States
• Health care reform in the United States
• Single-payer health care
• Health systems by country
• Socialized medicine

2602:306:B80A:C260:6160:DDEC:3788:1CBD (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is related. CFCF 💌 📧 00:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Health_care_in_the_United_States#Biased_parts aimed at undermining facts that portrait the US in a negative light. Haven't looked at the sources, but the user is indiscriminately deleting sourced content that is negative towards the American health care system. CFCF 💌 📧 00:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mention any related IPs in this case, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if this IP is related to the "International comparisons" discussion at Talk:Health system. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yupp, misread you, but those IPs are definately related. CFCF 💌 📧 20:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

probably--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

CDC / NIH / NCI / PAHO

Hey All. Had a great last 5 days of meeting with the above organizations. They are all interested in working with us :-) The CDC/NIOSH has of course hired James Hare and Emily as their Wikipedians in Residence. One division of NIH is going to start to regularly edit again lead by User:Hildabast. NCI has two staff that are looking at collaborating as part of a Wikipedia group. PAHO is also interested in working with us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

great opportunity[44]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Pan American Health Organization and National Cancer Institute are the less familiar of these. Also Daniel Mietchen works for National Center for Biotechnology Information. His interest is mostly in opening data, as in Big Data to Knowledge, and has a secret agenda of promoting the development of the NIH Public Access Policy to encourage more open access. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This was a lovely meeting and I'm so excited to expand our collaborations with public health and research organizations! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the NIH, User:Doc_James! It made a difference - lots in the works. (Blog post coming soon!) Hildabast (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge?

Facet joint arthrosis and facet syndrome? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC).

Agree that this would be reasonable. — soupvector (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I haz Science pdf?

Resolved

Is there anybody with access to Science who would be willing to email me a pdf of this article which has just appeared online? My email address is weskaggs(AT)gmail.com. Thanks if you can. Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• requested [45]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • A person who wishes not to be named has kindly emailed me a copy, thanks very much. Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

noted[46]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyhow, thanks for filing the request. Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rhonda_Patrick

Thought someone here might be interested in this AfD discussion Rhonda_Patrick relating to a question of notability of a medic. This is purely for information, I am not canvassing support for my favoured outcome. JMWt (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate

The majority of the text in the new article Calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate has been copied directly or altered slightly from the published prescribing information. (http://enstilar.com/pdf/enstilar-pi.pdf) This isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article, but I wanted to ask here what should be done. I think the topic is notable, as an approved drug combination, but is there is anything salvageable in the current text of the article? If not, should it just be stubbed? Also, I don't know if this constitutes a copyright violation or not. Finally, the pages appears to be the work of a marketing agency, so there is an apparent COI as well. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• (your asking several valid questions at once) ...however, at the root of any article are the references, there are only two and I would use better references (per MEDRS[47]) where applicable .........[48][49]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• The subject is legitimate. The problem was that all the information was only about a single formulation/brand (Enstilar). There are several other approved formulations/brands. By my count, there are at least 6 high quality reviews that cover this fixed combination medication. I have edited the article to make it less brand/formulation specific and included better sources. Boghog (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Boghog and Anypodetos, for the great work cleaning up the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Allowing popular press in MEDRS

Currently discussion is ongoing about allowing popular press through MEDRS at: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press & Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#This_Is_Why_You_Have_No_Business_Challenging_Scientific_Experts. This needs more input as changes to the guideline are being made without apparent consensus. [50][51][52][53] CFCF 💌 📧 21:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sexuality after spinal cord injury at Peer Review

I've requested Peer Review for Sexuality after spinal cord injury in hopes of getting it ready for an eventual FAC. If anyone can spare the time I'd love to get any feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sexuality after spinal cord injury/archive1.

Thank you! delldot ∇. 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

False credential claims.

Seeking some info and advice from WPMED regarding some fishy business - at Talk:Doctor_of_Medicine#Advertising_and_license_verification. Also, see the section above that one re fishy sources. --Elvey^(t•c) 08:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:Public health

Template:Public health needs some TLC and general improvement. Please help. Bazj (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Aortopulmonary stuff

Are Aortopulmonary septal defect and Aortopulmonary window the same thing? (Don't rely too strongly on the current article contents; I started editing it before I got confused by the sources, and it might be all wrong.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Not the same. The former is a defect in the anatomical septum between roots of the pulmonary artery and the aorta; the latter is a radiographic space observed between the arch of the aorta and the pulmonary artery (when we're reading chest radiographs, we call it the "AP window", and worry about enlarged lymph nodes - among other things - when it's obscured). — soupvector (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)