Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 38

Need a library check

Hoping someone can look at the full text of this article for me: Urodynamic classification of patients with symptoms of overactive bladder. I'm trying to write up Overactive bladder and the abstract refers to a 1-4 classification scale. Can someone quickly check what that scale is, if it's OAB-specific, and the exact name of the scale (if reported) so I can do some better searches? 71.231.186.92 (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Try looking on google with the title of the paper you are after in quotation marks "Urodynamic classification of patients with symptoms of overactive bladder". You would be surprised how often the full text is freely available. Alternatively, this page is good to request specific papers if you can't get them yourself: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Lesion (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll check from work tomorrow if they can't. On the same topic, many of my sources are using "micturition" instead of "urination." My understanding is that the two are basically synonyms, but are there important differences I should acknowledge when writing an article that's inevitably going to discuss the subject? 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There may be a fine semantic distinction between the act of passing water [1] and the underlying reflex mechanisms [2]. Clearly, though, we want to be reader-friendly. 2p..... 86.130.63.47 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing editor on medical/psych pages?

Might just be my AFB tendencies, but I had a concerning experience with user 1210donna today. I have looked over the edit history, and the history of previous messages left by other editors for this user, and there seems to be a history of POV pushing across several articles. Main MO is removal of content which they disagree with, sometimes with misleading edit summaries, and addition of content which pushes a particular POV, sometimes unsourced, sometimes unreliably sourced. Today, they removed some content from burning mouth syndrome with an edit summary saying that the source did not support the content. I double checked the source for accuracy and then reverted the changes, only to see them removed again with a similarly bogus edit summary stating that it was an unsourced statement. Editor also doesn't appear to be aware of MEDRS, so I pointed that out User_talk:1210donna#Re_Burning_mouth_syndrome. Advice appreciated. Lesion (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Have watched the page in question. Agree that it was referenced before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That editor has over 260 edits and only 4 of them are to any Talk page, and the last use of a Talk page was over 5 years ago... that's a concern. Zad68 15:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Clean up on aisle stub

There are sixteen high importance stub articles remaining for the project:

A few are "overview" articles where we may have detailed individual articles but the overall topic article is not developed. These appear to be correctly labeled as "high" and are simply waiting to be done, but there's a question of whether an overview is really that necessary on some:

Gastrointestinal cancer

Language disorder

Nervous system disease

Infestation

Vision disorder

Medical advice

Patient education

Some of these are individual topics that are appropriately labeled high and are again awaiting work:

Respiratory arrest

Viral meningitis

Needle sharing

I've downgraded this to mid:

Pudendal anesthesia

These to low:

Papillary dermis

Insulin index (and upgraded to start class, there's not a whole lot to say anyway)

I'm looking for input on the following:

Spinal disease (proposed merge to dorsopathy, which is a mid importance and equally stubby article)

Intimate examination (proposed merge to well woman exam, which is a low importance but reasonable article)

Tuberculosis vaccines (Is this WP:MED or WP:PHARM? Do we even want this article?)

Thanks for any input. Also, just as a general question, are there any of these that strike someone as more important? I'm sometimes bored and looking to do something productive here - it keeps me away from the idiocy that happens on some of the high-profile pages on the project. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Intimate exams can occur in males and thus should be left more general IMO. Tuberculosis vaccines should be part of both projects. Important topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Infanticide

Hey guys, I really appreciate the work that you're doing for Wikipedia. Keep it up. On that note, I was wondering if you'd be able to continue that good work on an article for me. I'm doing an assignment on infanticide at school, and I noticed that the top of the article requests an expert in medicine to assist in improving the article. I'm not so interested in getting this article fixed for my assignment, but as a regular contributor to a wide variety of Wikipedia articles, it's of my interest that this article is improved. I would love it if an expert in medicine, or someone quite knowledgeable (and possibly even qualified, to some extent) in infanticide at least. Thanks a lot, --Rhain1999 (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a large social and cultural aspect to this issue. A medical expert is not necessarily needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

By-Laws of WPMEDF

We are hopefully just finishing up the bylaws for WikiProject Med Foundation. Welcome all here to come and review and comment. [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Good Luck, but do you have any women on your board? XOttawahitech (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Invited and wished User:WhatamIdoing would have joined us but she declined. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There might be others in Category:Wikipedian physicians.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of a number of other women who edit medical content. Board members need not be physicians. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Xenoestrogens and gender identity and sexual orientation

What information does Wikipedia have (or can it have) about xenoestrogens affecting human gender identity and human sexual orientation?
—Wavelength (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

without even having looked at the literature yet, my suspicion is that that sort of thing is quite speculative, no? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if it is speculative, it seems to me to be an important area for research.

• xenoestrogens turning men into women - 30 Bananas a Day!
• PRENATAL EXPOSURE TO DIETHYLSTILBESTROL (DES) IN MALES AND GENDER-RELATED DISORDERS: RESULTS FROM A 5-YEAR STUDY [sic]

—Wavelength (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

*The Diethylstilbestrol page benefits from the contributions of a dedicated expert, User:Docscott123.
(the 30bananasaday.com page needs no comment, imo)
86.130.63.47 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. From my Google search for DES Sons International Network, I found Diethylstilbestrol influence on DES Sons gender identity, radio interview and the statement "There is a possible connection between DES exposure and gender variance". Let us follow the precautionary principle.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

DES was dropped in the 1970s – better late [4] than never, I suppose...
I have yet to find recent MEDRS on the specific issue you mention. There is a paragraph that addresses it in the #DES sons section which, imo, is reliably reasoned. If I come across any more reliable sources on this I'll certainly try to update the page. 86.130.63.47 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be an "important area for research" but Wikipedia is not the apropriate venue for such research. The links you have provided are completely and utterly non-MEDRS. Please do not add them. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the (interesting) primary source loosely reporting a convenience sample of DES sons recruited on the internet most certainly fails MEDRS. However, the topic itself is both pertinent and biologically plausible—the etiological suspicion is strong. Fwiw, I'm not altogether surprised about the lack of MEDRS on this question given the methodological challenges involved in its study. It is much easier to conduct, say, a case-control (or cohort) study on risk of vaginal cancer than on somewhat taboo topics such as gender identity concerns. In brief, I feel the information currently provided on the page can broadly be considered encyclopedically appropriate. 86.130.63.47 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"pertinent and biologically plausible" is not enough. "etiological suspicion" is not enough. It's an encyclopedia, not a journal. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but some of our editors are academic researchers. Perhaps someone like User:James Cantor will know whether any decent research has been done or is being planned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Research about a cure for vitiligo

Minutes ago, I reverted an editor (a newly registered account) adding text about vitiligo based on a source that is not WP:MEDRS-compliant; it is about how vitiligo can be cured, and it was added here to the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article (which is somewhat a mess now anyway) and here to the Vitiligo article. Notice that in the first instance, the editor made the claim that vitiligo can be cured, while he or she used "may have shown" in the second instance. The editor may add the material back, or more editors might pop up to add that report. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Or wait, looking at these Wikipedia search results, is Dermatology Times an okay source to use...along the lines of sites such as WebMD and Mayo Clinic? Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I also replied to the editor on my talk page, pointing out that primary sources should generally be avoided. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Drug - Drug class merge policy

Hello all,

I'm doing a little census of articles marked for merge, and orphaned med articles that have been tagged for 1+ years. A lot of these are drug names which are not especially notable (or drugs with short stubs). Would like some clarification:

• Is there a policy to merge drugs with their classes?
• Any circumstance for deletion?
• In what circumstances should one simply redirect (rather than merge) into a drug class? (eg. articles with just a drug name and a list of possible dosages)?

Would value some input, LT90001 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to respond, I have spoken too soon. The respective style guide is here, in WikiProject Pharmacology, and this states to redirect to the drug class (specifically, the International Nonproprietary Name). LT90001 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Another proposed new template

I while ago I asked about template:Symptoms involving head and neck and why it was so weird, but didn't get any response. So I have taken the initiative and drafted a sample of what a new template for orofacial signs and symptoms could look like. I have not given a huge amount of thought to all the things that could go in, or how to organize it, but it is just to give an idea. Note that this template contains some entries from the above template, some from respiratory system, some from gastrointestinal system symptoms and signs etc, but also I believe contains some items unique to itself, and there is no-where else currently to put them. This is the main rationale for this template, and also to have a single template for signs and symptoms that an oral and maxillofacial surgeon/oral surgeon/oral physician would concern him/herself with. Comments appreciated. Lesion (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I really like your template, it's very clear. I would support its implementation. LT90001 (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree feel free to improve as you see fit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks both for feedback. I will continue to think about what could go into this and work with in a sandbox before making it into a real template. Suggestions/contributions welcome. Lesion (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

MCID

Recently I wrote an article on Minimal Clinically Important Difference. A subject not yet covered on Wiki. It got declined because of "inadequate supporting of reliable sources".

All the sources I used are published articles in various medical journals; abstract are freely available on Pubmed, some as well in full text, all are retrievable through a library. For the writing I acquired all articles and read them (as is common before using it as a reference, something that seemed to surpise the guys/girls at webchat).

Changing the sources to only fully publicly available literature is not an option, this would leave a lot of the statements unreferenced and would ruin the article.

Anyway, I need a reviewer to aprove this article; how do I get one?

Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Minimal_Clinically_Important_Difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teun Teunis (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You just got one. Have placed the article under review. Please give me a couple of hours. Ochiwar (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a million! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teun Teunis (talk • contribs) 17:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help. Good work. The lead section needs more attention as per MOS:LEAD to define the subject a bit more and in broader context. I see you are still working on it though. Remember to sign your posts:-) Ochiwar (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the title should use lower case. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Changed by Boghog. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this isn't WP:GA. AFC submissions should normally be approved if they're unlikely to get deleted. The quality of the introduction is really neither here nor there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Uploaded with Open Access Media Importer and needing category review at Commons

I know some of you are interested in organizing categories. It would be ideal if there were some level of coordination with Commons. commons:Category:Uploaded with Open Access Media Importer and needing category review is a bunch of basically orphaned cats there, and the main commons:Category:Health and commons:Category:Medicine cats always need some work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Dichotic listening and Dichotic listening tests

There are currently two article Dichotic listening and Dichotic listening tests which have very similar content and should refer to two different by highly related topics Dichotic listening and the tests used used during assessment, and may be there should only be a single article. These needs to be looked at by audiologists and relalted specialists who have an understanding of this complex area inter-related issues. dolfrog (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

More eyeballs at Klinefelter syndrome

An editor is attempting to recast Klinefelter syndrome as unknown etiology. Would some editors please look in.Novangelis (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Username is a problem as a promotional/role account, reported at AIV. Zad68 20:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Technical requests

I have started a page to document technical requests that would help our efforts at WPMED here. I invite others to contribute ideas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. Thanks for starting it. Biosthmors (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to have it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Tech, rather than m:WikiProject Med/Tech? Biosthmors (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ping User:Jmh649. Biosthmors (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We want all languages to get involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge notification

• Talk:Cheilitis#Proposed merge with Chapped lips

The above links to a discussion about whether to merge the page chapped lips with cheilitis. Lesion (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Now when one goes to google to search chapped lips, the first hit, nicely Wikipedia and "chapped lips" for now, redirects one to Wikipedia this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapped_lips#Cheilitis_simplex_.28chapped_lips.29 . The first sentences are: Sometimes the term "chilitis simplex" is used as a synonym for cheilitis generally,^[4] or more usually as a synonym of "chapped lips".^[6] However, exfoliative cheilitis (discussed later) is also sometimes stated to be the equivalent of chapped lips.^[7] Cheilitis simplex (also termed "common cheilitis"),^[8] is one of the most common types of cheilitis.^[6][9] I tend to think this is fairly horrible information for the regular reader who just wanted some info on chapped lips. And chapped lips is such a common name too. I'm afraid we're bombarding people with medical terms to our own detriment. User:WhatamIdoing is wise. What do you think? Also ping to User:Lesion. Lesion, thanks for being willing to do the merge. We don't have enough volunteers who do that task. I just want them to always improve Wikipedia. And the results here I'm afraid hurt us. Biosthmors (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to un-merge if that's the consensus. Suspect some work on the cheilitis simplex subsection would equally address this concern? Like moving some of the discussion about terminology away from the first part of the subsection? However, typing in the term "chapped lips" I feel should lead to a page called "cheilitis simplex" (or a subsection called "cheilitis simplex" of the parent cheilitis article, per MEDMOS naming conventions, we should not title it "chapped lips". Lesion (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The "lead" of the cheilitis simplex subsection now reads:

"Chapped lips (cheilitis simplex,[1] or "common cheilitis"),[2] is one of the most common types of cheilitis.[1][3] The symptoms are cracking, fissuring and [...] "

I think this is better than what we had before. Agree that was not a great way to start the section. Note that the referencing of WIkipedia's content on chapped lips improved a lot during this merge, the previous article was mostly unreferenced I recall. We still have some unreferenced content, but they sound so common sense I have just tagged them with cn assuming that at some point someone will fill in the citations for these statements. Also, the amount of content Wikipedia has on chapped lips has increased in this process. Furthermore, I think it is good that people are redirected to the subsection of the page cheilitis. Despite what most of the sources say, I feel that many of the conditions on that page might be described by patients as "chapped lips", and therefore they might be now redirected to a more complete discussion of the topic rather than a brief and mostly unreferenced discussion of a layterm with no MEDRS references ... Lesion (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. I've made some edits as well and I am much happier. Now I think people will stick around long enough to learn a bit (instead of immediately clicking back and thinking WTF was that). I think MEDMOS has to be balanced against WP:COMMONNAME. I hope we can get the section cleaned up even more. I don't quite like the look of those pink overlays that correspond with the citation neededs. Biosthmors (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, looks better after those edits. Also I replaced cn span with normal cn tags. The question is, when one source states that chapped lips is synonymous with exfoliative cheilitis, should we have chapped lips as its own page? There is still not a lot of content imo to warrant a stand alone article, but we do have about 4 pictures for such an article. Lesion (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for Medicine Contributor/Review

I'd like to request editor involvement in the AFD discussion for Monkenge P. Malafa. The page has also been sorted into Medicine Related Deletion Discussions. Involvement from the WikiProject Medicine community would be appreciated. Jcmeberhard (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

More a BLP issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Medicine - Skysmith (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Neuromuscular dentistry and TMD, again

After the page Neuromuscular dentistry was deleted in late June (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuromuscular dentistry) user:Clayton Chan, DDS has created 2 similarly scoped articles called Neuromuscular Dentistry and "Gneuromuscular Dentistry" in Aug 2013. Other users have also raised concerns about this user's attitude to self promotion, advertising and quality of referencing.

I have proposed both pages for deletion, comments appreciated. Lesion (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree and deleted both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Lesion (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Health effects of coffee

I've just tagged with with a {{Medref}}; it is mainly built on primary research. Experts may want to take a look (though I recommend at least one cup of coffee before doing so). The problems are also in the main article (Coffee) which references this, but if Health effects of coffee gets sorted-out that Coffee can be sync'd up to reflect it faithfully ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, we will take a look. LT90001 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The article on caffeine is really good and based mostly on secondary sources. I would suggest that maybe all the primary sources should be deleted and if nothing left simply redirect to caffeine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of potential MEDRS on coffee – shame they were ignored (for an instant fix perhaps?). 86.130.63.47 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes there does appear to be a fair number of secondary sources specifically about coffee. The article does need a serious rewrite. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes ... caffeine looks a good article, but Health effects of caffeine is another problematic one ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Pathology and IP editors

Drawing attention to a group of 3 IP editors on the page pathology. I'm fairly sure 2 are the same person since their edits focused at the same goal, and the 3rd only edited the talk page once for vandalism. The page is being extensively reworked

These changes have been reverted by 2 different editors, I wonder if they are against consensus or not? Appreciate more opinions about what is happening on that page, e.g. see the diff from 1 days ago compared to current [5] ... huge amounts of content being deleted.

Note the page was previously protected due to persistent sock vandalism, which expired early July. I wonder if the recent activity is related? Lesion (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion taking place on talk. I do not know. This article should be a summary of different aspects with links to subpages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Only commentators so far are myself and the individual making the changes [6]. I was wondering what is the wider consensus? Basically the question is, do people want a pathology article that is (1) focused on pathology in medicine, or (2) a more general discussion of the term as it was before? Lesion (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Autism therapies up for GA

Just FYI to the project, Autism therapies has been nominated for GA and is looking for a reviewer. As much as I'd like to, I do not have time at the moment to take it on. I did take a quick look at the sourcing and it gave me concerns. The editor, Jinkinson, who nominated the article for GA, has not edited the article in the past year, which is unusual in a GA nomination. Zad68 03:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC) In addition, one of the sections has been tagged with {{advert}} for a year, and the nominator him/herself added a {{Copypaste}} tag to the article today... I'm puzzled. Zad68 03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination not really appropriate at this time as lot of work yet to do. The section on HBOT is packed full of primary sources when secondary sources are available. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe suggest a peer review to begin? Or even if the GA is unlikely to be successful, it is likely that the process will be a good editing experience to the editor in question, if they have been using primary sources etc. Lesion (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This got me in the GA mood, so I worked a bit more work on aphthous stomatitis and I've nominated it now. I have tried to keep the reference density at least one ref (hidden or not hidden) per sentence, and all sources meet MEDRS (including MEDDATE), apart from some sources in the history section, but I think RS rather than MEDRS applies there ... Lesion (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input... after a second look, I've determined it's too far from GA to pass at this time, so I have gone ahead and completed it as failed. Zad68 18:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Potential SELFCITE/CoI issue in neonatology/abortion articles

About half of Principina's edits to these articles have inserted refs to recent (2013) papers by Bellieni. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly some ref spam going on there, but it seems that the problematic things have been reverted. Looie496 (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Privacy and WikiMed

Proposed policy: pictures included without explicit statement that these have patient consent should be removed from Wikipedia and deleted from WikiCommons

A removal of a picture due to lack of patient consent here prompts me to ask, is there a policy for patient consent to pictures being included on Wikipedia? and, if there is no consent found, what is the appropriate action for editors? If there is no explicit patient consent, this is not only a possible violation of a person's privacy and/or a derogation of the responsibilities of whoever took the photo, but also ethico-legal consequences for Wikipedia.

I would like to raise this as pretty serious problem, as it should be noted that that this photo's use is in perpetuity, and may be included in whatsoever format and location an editor deems fit. One possible solution would be to have a vetting or tagging process for pictures included in WikiMedia commons.

The aforementioned jaundice photo is now used in 17 other articles.

Not too sure if I should be proposing this here or on a more central forum for discussion.

Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I uploaded the image in question and have consent from the person in question to release it under a CC BY SA license. In fact a fellow Wikipedia launched legal attacks again me regarding my uploading of this image among others. Had a lawyer for 8 months and we won the case as I had consent to up load the image in question from the patient in question and my college was happy. The patients have not complained.

Should we force people to send in consent forms to OTRS? No we should not. I am not giving out patients names to people at OTRS (they are not authorized to collect this info). And I am not going to start asking for consent to do so. The patients in question are more than welcome to raise concerns regarding the consent process. It is not up to Wikipedians to take this on. In fact the Wikipedian who launched the legal attacks had the nerve to insult the intelligence of my patient as she had agreed to release her image to us. Most patients use Wikipedia and realize that it is an important source of education information for both other patients and for physicians. Most people want to help others who have the same problems as themselves. Article about this was in the NYTs [7]

This proposal has been brought up many times. Does Wikipedia want images? Why do people keep trying to make things harder for uploaders / get rid of the images we already have? If someone has positioned a person and is taking a straight on photo is it NOT obvious the consent has been obtained? Does this person not look fully awake and competent? Do we always automatically assume that the uploader has lost their mind and wishes to end their career? What happened to WP:AGF? Maybe this should apply to assuming consent has been received for uploaded images? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The interesting phenomena that this exemplifies is just how visual people and especially males are (even though the person who launch the legal attack against me was female but that was more an attempt at revenge my position on the Rorschach issue). The most controversial discussion on Wikipedia have resolved around images; think Mohammad, Rorschach test, and pregnancy, among others. Debates around words never seem to be as fierce. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose -- In my eyes, this proposal is unnecessary encroachment of medicolegal bs where it is not wanted and not needed. We don't even tend to use the word "patient" in wikipedia articles. Why can't the people in these pictures just be people? I'm sure there are already policies in place about identifying individuals in images on Wikipedia, without having to label them as patients and make up a new policy. Lesion (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See also [8], which states "Normally it is sufficient that the uploader asserts that appropriate consent was given." Lesion (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I think as Wikipedia matures that this is a natural and fruitful discussion to have 'prophylactically'. If you click on the images in that WikiCommons link, there's a little tag that states the photos are taken with consent. I think that's a great move, as obviously consent is assumed, but it's nice to have it explicitly stated, and certainly will prevent problems like this revert in the future. In this light, what would be the thoughts from changing MEDMOS Images#Identifiable to:

Identifiable people: Although the Wikimedia Foundation does not require any special protection for people whose images are being used in medicine-related contexts, editors are encouraged to be especially cautious about associating living people with diseases. In general, identifiable images of people should be provided with the person's consent, and preferably this noted on the image's description. (Where this is not documented, WP:GOODFAITH should be assumed). In choosing images of identifiable people with a medical condition, prefer images of people who are strongly associated with the condition (e.g., Terry Fox for osteosarcoma) or are engaged in a public activity associated with that disease (e.g., AIDS patients at an ACT UP event) when such images are available.

(italics are to show the proposed changes, but not part of the changes themselves).

@DrJames I had a look at the pregnancy-related images discussion out of interest ... Yikes!

I agree this would be a good addition "Where this is not documented, WP:GOODFAITH should be assumed" The last thing we need is a new policy being put in place and the last 12 years of images being deleted as they do not measure up.

With respect to "In choosing images of identifiable people with a medical condition, prefer images of people who are strongly associated with the condition" No we should be choosing the image that best illustrates the condition in question. This is not a good image for osteosarcoma [9]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That last non-italicised part is actually already part of the existing policy. LT90001 (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Silly policies... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think for the protection of the subject of the photo and Wikipedia, consent should be a prerequisite for photos that identify the patient (ie show their face).[10] Written permission should be submitted to WP the same way that professional photographers are required to submit written permission for the use of their photos on WP. Using a photo on WP to assert that a person is an example of a medical condition is publishing medical information about that person[11] and we should exercise the same care and caution that doctor's and hospitals and insurance companies do in this regard. In such cases good faith should not be assumed but rather it should be clearly documented in writing and be a mandatory part of the photo acceptance process. There are legal and moral and BLP consequences here. A person posing for a photo only indicates they allowed the photo to be taken. It gives no indication of the person's understanding of how the photo is to be used and who will see it and for what purposes and under what circumstances. It certainly does not imply that the person has given permission for the photo to be published in perpetuity on the world wide web. Furthermore, I feel this issue should be discussed in a central forum, like Jimbo's page to get input from non-medical editors as it has significant repercussions for real people, not to mention legal and moral BLP issues for WP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

One problem I see is that these images come from multiple different countries, with heterogeneous policies on patient privacy as well as norms on use of images. That's about all I feel competent to say, since even though I know a bit about these issues in the US, I know little about them in other countries. I think that it might be possible to state a preference for the use of images in articles that are not individually identifiable, where they are otherwise equivalent, but what someone uploads to commons and tags etc is something commons should deal with themselves, imho. I think the good faith presumption is a good one. if we're particularly concerned about it we might have some kind of template for individually identifiable images, to allow someone to notify us that they are the subject, and (if they are unable to do so themselves) remove or replace it in the article. That's a bit of a reach, maybe, but if it reassures editors working on this content it might be worth the time/energy. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my point: we should of course assume the good faith intentions of the editor or person uploading the photo but..... that should not be a substitute for written permission from the person whose face and medical info are being exposed on the web.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with that is that everyone has a different idea of what "identifiable" and "medical information" is. The standard put forward by most academic groups these days is basically that if the photo was taken with a camera, rather than through a microscope, then you should assume that the person is "identifiable". According to them, File:Skin.agr.jpg is an identifiable person, and File:ArmAcneVulgaris.png is an identifiable person whose "medical information" is being exposed to the whole world. Would you want to make people do a bunch of extra paperwork just to post those images? How much paperwork do you think is appropriate? Would you want, for example, to have uploading a picture of someone with a medical condition to require more paperwork, less paperwork, or about the same paperwork than uploading an equally identifiable picture of the same person engaged in sexual intercourse? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Keith, currently you would have to alter the wording of policy to support this. I'm not sure that personal disclosure of consent is desirable or would offer any added protection against images being uploaded without the person's consent. Unless the disclosure of consent gives the individual's name, then anyone could complete it, rendering the process pointless because there is no evidence that the consent has indeed been given. Suspect that this would also discourage many people from agreeing to have their pictures uploaded if the anonymity is gone. Agree 100% with WAID. There really is no need for any special policy here. We already hold the simple and effective rule: only upload images which the individual involved has consented for. I honestly question how many pictures we have which have not been consented to, and why we want to add more of a barrier for people to upload medical images, often these are invaluable contributions imo. Lesion (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We have this template.[12] That should be sufficient. Now if we are going to assume bad faith and require that consent forms be sent in to functionaries how do we know that the uploader has not simple made up the consent forms and forged the signatures? Should we demand that they include the subjects drivers license, social security number and passport? But what if the drivers license is forged? Maybe we should also require that the forms be notarized and signed by two people with high standing in the community like with passports? But who is going to verify that they too are not imposters? Maybe what we need is a multi million dollar global verification system? We should require that people present in person in San Francisco with documents in hand to PROVE that they are who they say they are with notarized signed copies of all the documents in question. Also just to be sure the subject of the image and the uploader should both be their. To make this fair the movement should pick up the tab and pay for the subjects and photographers time.

Once we have this in place we should also apply it to editors. Allowing anonymous editing is a disaster. Look at the conflict of interest issues that have occurred on article like Transcendental Meditation because we allow anonymous editing (likely by at least some people associated with the subject in question). Our readers deserve to know that someone has verified not only the identify of the people who upload the images they look at and subject within said images but also the identify of the people who write the text they read. But wait a second this long term editor User:Will Beback was indefinitely banned for sending personal information regarding a Wikipedia editor to Wikimedia functionaries. Would not attempts to identify the uploaders of images and the subjects within them by Wikimedia functionaries also result in indefinite bans of all involved?

And if we raise the bar beyond that of Citezendium and ban everyone involved based on our draconian outing policy who is going to be left to contribute content? Maybe we should all simply give up and go back to our real jobs. Thankfully this is NOT how Wikipedia works because if it did Wikipedia would not exist. Additionally it is not how anywhere else in the world works either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

James, as I understand it that template is not mandatory. Neither does it provide any added protection against images being uploaded without consent. The only advantage that has already been stated above is that it would discourage other editors from questioning whether the image in question had been consented for. It would be just as easy to upload an image and put this template on the filepage, it adds no real extra layer of protection, so it should remain optional as it currently is. Lesion (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A bright new day to all! I agree that requiring written consent is a bit much; apart from anything else the cost burden to Wiki foundation processing these forms would probably be pretty onerous, not accessible to all editors, and I don't see why an electronic statement is any more or less truthful than a written form. I think we should assume good faith by the uploader.

Should this issue arise in the future, I think to prevent edit warring we could (if it looks that way) leave a message on the article's talk page with reference to the amended policy, and if needed leave a (single) message with the uploader of the image about how to include the consent tag... and leave it at that. There is indeed no onus on us to WikiPolice, but it certainly wouldn't hurt if the consent tag was included with the images. LT90001 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel it could be worth exploring the suggestion made above for a template to facilitate requests from photographed persons for removal of potentially identifiable images. If the photographer/uploader (e.g. James!) has kept a private note of the name of the consenting person photographed it might also be possible to spot/rebut any hoax claims. 86.130.63.47 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding: I think I agree with the rebuttals below. There may need to be an available route which is not hidden. 86.130.63.47 (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

How common is such an event to warrant a template? If someone wants to complain I'm sure they'll find a way. Advertising a pathway for challenges about the image on the file page may encourage hoax claims... Lesion (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a very clear method for individuals to deal with concerns about their medical images being used on Wikipedia. It does not involve Wikipedia. Why are we trying to take on a policing role when there are already lots of well funded organization doing this? Maybe it is time we start WikiPolice as we do need an organization to verify all contributors and store data on our readers indefinately. But has anyone heard of an organization called the government? From what I understand they are already taking care of the first bit but also in some countries the latter bits aswell. In fact I received a fairly large bill every year to cover the running of the government operated removal process. Now on a more serious note I welcome any patient bringing concerns to me if their was confusion around the consent that they signed or if they simply changed their mind. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality of consent obtained by publishers

One last comment. Someone mentioned consent standards of major publishers. Here is an example of a image published by Kaplan Publishing. Author of the book is from New York City. Source is described as Nishith Patel. They never got written consent (they never got any consent in fact). How to I know? Because I have the consent in a filing cabinet beside me. They never contacted me (yes I took the image and it was on Wikipedia long before this book was published). They did not even get the source of the image right. I am not saying we should be this negligent but we cannot expect a level of perfect way above anything that exists or has ever existed.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

One Q, above you seem to suggest that should someone in an image change their mind then the image would be withdrawn. I don't know the exact ins and outs of CC BY SA, but is it realistic to suggest that things published under this can be withdrawn? Example is, someone uses the image from wikipedia, giving correct attribution etc. Should the original source of the image (i.e. wikipedia) then withdraw the image, is there any onus on those who have reused the image in other publications from when it was available under CC BY SA, that they should also withdraw it? Lesion (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I would remove from Wikipedia. We of course cannot from other sites that use it. No other sites are really as popular as Wikipedia though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that images of peoples faces are being taken from WP and are now appearing on other websites is all the more reason to get it right the first time. We currently have a system in place whereby photographers who are not WP editors provide written consent via email for their photos to be published on WP. [13] Why can't this type of permission be a requirement for non-notable people whose faces have been photographed by private individuals and are associated with disease? There are likely only a few such photos uploaded per month so I don't see a heavy burden on the WP system which is already in place to receive and process such emails and I see a significant increase in the level of privacy protection for the individuals whose medical conditions are being publicized and for the legal protection of WP/WMF. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So if I upload a picture of a woman with red hair and green eyes, and add a caption that says, "Red hair + green eyes = melanoma risk!" that's (1) a face and (2) medical information. Would you want the woman in this headshot to have to send an e-mail message to OTRS to say "That's me, and I'm okay with releasing my so-called 'medical information' that any redheaded, green-eyed person has an elevated risk of melanoma"? Notice that the women pictured in commons:Category:Females having sex are not required to send in any special consent paperwork. (The photographer is required to maintain this paperwork, but we are not.) Does it seem appropriate to you that a headshot of a redheaded woman would require more paperwork than an obviously pornographic image of a woman? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The burden would lie with persons wishing to generate such images, and they simply won't both to upload anything if you make it more difficult. In so doing there would also not be any extra level of protection. Emails can be sent by anyone. The disadvantages not only outweigh the advantages, but there are no real advantages, so it's pointless imo. Lesion (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Major publishers do not just get little consent from the subject of images when they take the image from Wikipedia they get little consent regardless of were they get the image from. This suggestion would basically eliminate us using images from other CC BY publishers as well as the US government as our standards would be different than other open access and public domain licenses.

People often try to use policies to get rid of images they dislike for whatever reason. These changes would be further justification for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The difference in this situation to outside authors needing to sent in consent is that in the latter situation the outside author has already published it somewhere else before. Thus there is more evidence of a real life identity for the author (as most publishers require real identities for authorship). It is an issue of preventing copyright infringement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Vacuum bell

Would appreciate some extra eyes on this article; I am having some to-and-fro with an editor who I think wants to include some poorly-sourced claims about this device. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

GID diagnosis before pronoun revision

Editors are hereby invited to discuss gender identity disorder diagnosis as a prerequisite for pronoun reform. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Why exactly can't we require someone be diagnosed as transgender before a pronoun switch? (version of 22:13, 1 September 2013).
—Wavelength (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Review is here. The article is too long, almost 300kb. Author points out that consensus has been reached in previous discussions not to split article, which is fair enough, but IMO the article is too long, and without whinging too much, as well as (1) detracting from readability, this is (2) 3-6 times longer than the recommended length for an article (depending which guideline you use) and (3) very hard to review for GA status when the article is this long.

Would value some extra voices in the discussion, so as to not appear like I am shouting at the ocean. Apart from this, the article is choc-a-bloc full of content and well on its way to becoming a GA. LT90001 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes and lots of formatting issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

483 references? ... Lesion (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Editor appears resistant to feedback. It formats horribly on my screen with some images stretching over the edge. Much of it is in bullet point form... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Medicine. You have new messages at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Message added 13:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC) (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sb101 (talk|contribs) 13:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Long term attack on Physical medicine and rehabilitation is back again

An IP editor, who has a history stretching over years of POV editing on the page in an attempt to discredit the very existence of this medical speciality, is back at it again. Every time the page protection expires the IP returns with their same old tired unsourced attack edits. I believe stronger measures need to be taken to protect this page - either the IP needs to be permanently blocked or the article needs to be permanently protected - even a 6 month protection has not deterred the ip in the slightest. He/she seems to have an deep personal hatred of physiatry. Various attempts to engage the editor in rational discussion have proved fruitless. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Have watched. Will block as needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if WP:Pending changes might be appropriate here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked IP in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Cancer and nausea

Started a new article on Cancer and nausea‎. Still working on it, I expect to finish in the next few days. But its a complex topic with many aspects (some of which I may not have considered yet) and I would be grateful for input from interested editors. Ochiwar (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Have given the article some basic structure and content. I think its an important topic and would like to see a GA become of it. I think it now needs some fresh eyes to put it into shape. Ochiwar (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have left a comment regarding this nomination on the nomination's page. LT90001 (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry

I asked advise on FTN and was suggested posting here regarding the newly created article Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry, the closely connected, newly created bios Maria Luisa Figueira and Mario Di Fiorino, as well as edits made by the same four users in e.g. Davide Lazzeretti, Leonetto Amadei, Ganser syndrome, and Mind control. I reverted in Leonetto Amadei, [14] and left a note on the editor's page,[15] and subsequently tried to add info from the .it article Leonetto Amadei. (It appears that the Italian Leonette Amadei has had additions similar to the ones made to the English.) The English version has now had the same material re-added.[16] I restored an older version of Davide Lazzeretti.[17] Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Gulf war syndrome

There were three medical literature reviews erased from the gulf war syndrome article a year ago. Why? The MD who agreed to mediate the dispute in the talk page archives (@Jmh649:) never did. Why? The Institute of Medicine update linked in that article's last talk page section indicates that the disputed questions are still wide open. Amopherion (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reposted from Jimbo Wales' talk page archives. 192.81.0.147 (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Which three reviews were deleted? No discussion has really occurred on the talk page since Aug 2012. I would be happy to look at proposed changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That diff actually deleted at least five WP:MEDRS reviews, if I'm not mistaken, from Hindin (2005) to Shelleh (2012) along with Abu-Musa, Craft, and other more specialized critical reviews. How many do you count? 192.81.0.147 (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ovarian cyst#Functional cysts

Could someone please look over this section Ovarian cyst#Functional cysts as it has recently been edited by someone with rather poor English. See HERE. An IP editor and I have tried to clean it up so it makes sense but this is not my area of expertise. Regards 220 of ^Borg 05:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, we will have a look and make changes where necessary. LT90001 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you've done some major edits there, thanks LT90001. --220 of ^Borg 08:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

GA reviewer needed

User:LT910001 has kindly offered to be the main reviewer for the aphthous stomatitis GA nomination. The review is underway, and s/he has requested a 2nd opinion before closing the review.  Done Here is the review page: Talk:Aphthous stomatitis/GA1. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like they want someone else to do a second general look over the article. If you've never done this before, it's pretty easy. You just need to read the short list of criteria at WP:Good article criteria (see also this extra explanation if you want), then read the article, and leave a note at the page Lesion linked about whether you personally believe that it does or doesn't meet the criteria. If you've dealt with FAC, this is much simpler: only the things directly named on the GACR 'count', and anything else (including most of the Manual of Style) does not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done a thorough check-over and I think this article's ready for GA status. This would be my first review, and as I've previously collaborated with Lesion I'd like to make sure I'm not viewing this article through rose-coloured glasses. At this stage, in my opinion this article's an easy pass but I'd like another pair of eyes to agree or not just to be sure. LT90001 (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone has offered their services now, many thanks. Lesion (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Promotion to GA: The article has been marked as a GA. Congratulations to Lesion! LT90001 (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis & pneumothorax

Should cannabis be included in the list of causes of pneumothorax? Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

German Acupuncture Trials

Just noticed this article, which seems to contain a lot of biomedical pronouncements sourced heavily (exclusively?) to primary medical sources. I am concerned that by creating a article specifically about a medical trial, no matter how large, it becomes a WP:COATRACK for information about the results that differ from those found in more reliable sources; in this case the article gives a strong impression of acupuncture's effectiveness which is a bit out-of-WP:SYNC with out main Acupuncture article. (Cross-posting to WP:FTN.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Yes not good. Need to remove primary research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone want to improve an unsourced, two line stub?

I found the unsourced, two line stub "Immune-mediated disease" (via Psoriasis, via Battle of Midway) a few minutes ago, and figured that I'd mention it here. For people that are actually well versed in medicine (which I am not), getting it at least sourced and checked for accuracy shouldn't take more than five minutes. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 18:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it should be merged to immunology? Lesion (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Its only concievable purpose, in my mind, is to link hypersensitivity to autoimmune disease, and it doesn't even appear to link to former. I think it's fine to delete, myself, or redirect to hypersensitivity. Redirect inbound links as appropriate. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have prophylactically merged this with 'Immune disorder' (which although not perfect is the lead article for the immune disorders template). LT90001 (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Two edit requests

Could someone please add the external link and redirect at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diagnosis_of_HIV/AIDS#Bulk_procurement_of_tests Please? 192.81.0.147 (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? You appear to have asked that an external link be added to a redirect page. 64.134.230.24 (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done EJM86 (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Images from the Science Museum collection

Hi All

The Science Museum in London have released 50 images under an open license. I hope by showing reach they may agree to release much more (they have 1000s and 1000s). Here are the ones relating to medicine (there are quite a few), there's a full list here. If you would like any more information about any of the objects please let me know and I can ask the curators. --Mrjohncummings (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• 

  Skeletal arm showing diamond coated steel pins stabilising broken bones by connecting them to steel splints

• 

  Set of 16 prototype electrodes for applied potential tomography

• 

  Sample of penicillin mould presented by Alexander Fleming to Douglas Macleod, 1935

• 

  Sample of Edward Jenner's hair

• 

  Quadrant electrometer built by Pierre Curie

• 

  Nobel prize medal awarded to Alexander Fleming, 1945

• 

  Napoleon’s toothbrush

• 

  Molecular model of Penicillin by Dorothy Hodgkin

• 

  Medicine chest used by Captain Scott, 1910-1912

• 

  one of the original stethoscopes belonging to the French physician Rene Theophile Laennec (1781-1826)

• 

  Items belonging to Florence Nightingale, Nelson and Livingstone

• 

  Iron artificial arm, 1560-1600

• 

  Glass flask used by Marie Curie

• 

  Glass flask used by Louis Pasteur

• 

  Baby Blue - a prototype polymerase chain reaction machine

• 

  Computer and speech synthesiser housing, 1999. Speech synthesiser used by English theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking

• 

  Artificial nose, 17th-18th century

• 

  Artificial limbs for a thalidomide child, 1961-1965

• 

  Wax anatomical model of female human head showing internal structure of skull

• 

  Template from Crick and Watson’s DNA molecular model, 1953

• 

  Stainless steel and ultra high molecular weight polythene hip replacement

Wowowwowoow! Thanks. I added some to articles and will add more. Will some others join in? Also, I hate to spoil fun but what is the copyright status of these two?

• 
• 

Both of these works are dated 1945. Are these copyrightable media? If so, would they still be covered by copyright? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• The artificial nose maybe could go on syphilis#history? Lesion (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

  Someone should add it there. I was too busy first adding it to Tycho_Brahe#Tycho.27s_nose. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Put it in History_of_syphilis#Historical_treatments since there was already an image for the summary section in the main syphilis page. Lesion (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I just put it in History_of_rhinoplasty#18th_century. Hey, instead of adding all these pictures to various articles, perhaps we should just add this fake nose picture to every article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

=D Lesion (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't get File:Template from Crick and Watson’s DNA molecular model, 1953. (9660573227).jpg to display in Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. I suspect that the presence of the period after 1953 is the problem, although it displays in gallery mode. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it just server lag? Lesion (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you already fixed it. Lesion (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't do anything but it displays now. Perhaps it was just something slow on the server. If anyone else experiences this, please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Have added File:Iron artificial arm, 1560-1600. (9663806794).jpg to Prosthesis and Götz von Berlichingen and added File:Artificial limbs for a thalidomide child, 1961-1965. (9660575567).jpg to prosthesis. Ochiwar (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Great images! Thanks to the Science Museum for opening these up and the uploader for their efforts. LT90001 (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

On the general subject, these are great pictures, and we're better at processing small batches that are right in front of us instead of large batches elsewhere. So if they're really looking for uptake, I'd recommend 50 images posted here every few weeks instead of 1,000 posted at Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Consistency in naming sex chromosome aneuploidy articles

At the moment, we have, among others:

• XXYY syndrome
• 49, XXXXY syndrome
• 48, XXXX

In each article lead, they are characterized both by the total chromosome number and the word syndrome, although not necessarily together. (Note: I did not put Triple X syndrome on the list because I treated it as a name, not a count, but it should be fair game for discussion.) Is there any interest in standardizing article title format with regard to leading number or the use of the word "syndrome"?Novangelis (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

We should simply follow the ICD10. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not all of these have unique ICDD10 codes. While Triple X is listed as "Karyotype 47,XXX" (no space after the comma; Q97.0), both "48, XXXX" and 49, XXXXX fall under "Female with more than three X chromosomes" Q97.1. Similarly, there is "Klinefelter syndrome, male with more than two X chromosomes" Q98.1 which would encompass XXXY syndrome and "49, XXXXY syndrome", but not "XXYY syndrome". Would merging to those titles be the appropriate response (following an appropriate discussion period)? (The groupings make a fair amount of sense.)Novangelis (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ShuntCheck

Dear medical experts: This article has been sitting in the Afc for over two weeks. Would anyone like to review it? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Needs inline refs. Needs to be based on secondary sources. I am not sure if any exist though. Lots of work to do yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It already has 11 inline refs (just not in the usual format), and those aren't actually required for AFC anyway. It's unclear to me how many of those sources are WP:Independent sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned a discussion from our archives

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Public_relations_noticeboard.3F. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move notification

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Program for Appropriate Technology in Health#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Median lethal dose

There is an IP adding this poor source to the Median lethal dose article. He or she has already reverted me once. The article might need more eyes on it from this project. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that is not a serious edit... watchlisted, although the vandalism seems to have stopped for now. Lesion (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Lesion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Candidiasis

This is a top importance article which is not at B class or above, one of WPMED's specific goals.

Looks like there are a sackful of one-sentence stub pages that could do with merging into this parent article. Some were already tagged, I tagged some others. Arguably more might benefit from a merge too. Comments appreciated here: Talk:candidiasis

"Candida" is a huge industry in complimentary and alternative medicine. This topic is very much in the public's mind, as evidenced by the huge number of hits on this article. It would be nice to present a cohesive series of articles with accurate coverage for this topic, to balance against all the utter nonsense that one is assailed with when typing "candida" into google. Lesion (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with merging all of that. They are stubs that should be covered in one article. Per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles, unless necessary. Should I say "Merge" in each one of the merge proposals? Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I made all those individual proposals into one section now, thank you. Lesion (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I will get on to tagging and merging the stubs. LT90001 (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC). Woah, little bit slow there. How embarrassing. LT90001 (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Just took a look at the candidiasis page and it says it's rated as a mid-importance article. I happen to agree with LT that it's a very important article deserving of more attention, perhaps it should be reassessed? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This link on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (in "goals"): "All top-importance articles at B-class quality or above (78.2% complete) (with a priority on improving these 10 articles)" which links to a list of 10 article including candidiasis [18]. It is also ranked #270 most viewed article tagged under this wikiproject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages). I have therefore adjusted the importance accordingly. Lesion (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a top-importance article. To be a top-importance article, it needs to be as important a subject as Asthma, Cancer, and Influenza. I wouldn't object to high-importance, but I don't feel like it fits with the other articles listed at Category:Top-importance medicine articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Top / high importance ... happy to make high importance if that is the consensus. I think building the article is more of an issue than this distinction. I would note that if the importance is a prevalence based thing, or severity based, might this impact. Candidiasis of one sort or another is very common, but only rarely does it kill people. Lesion (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"High importance" looks reasonable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Latent inhibition

This happens to be our most-viewed article this month, receiving more page views than Sexual intercourse. in fact, this article received 801,395 views over the period of about a week in late June-July. Does anybody know why? Confused, LT90001 (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Confused ... or just inhibited? Lesion (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Usually this has to do with a misfiring bot some were off on the Internet. But yes happens a fair bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Coatrack?

This article appears to be a cotract of asperger syndrome, Asperger syndrome and neuroscience. It appears to contains an exact copy of the DSM 4 criteria which we are not to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Asperger's is such a large topic that it is reasonable for it to be split across multiple articles. But it shouldn't be handled as a WP:COATRACK (excuse to "hang up" unrelated and WP:UNDUE information in the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes and we have Causes of autism and Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome that the above article content would fit better into. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at Articles for creation

Please review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ShuntCheck for notability, sourcing, etc. In terms of structure it is an acceptable article but I'm not sure if it isn't perhaps a bit too advertorial in tone and I'm not at all sure if it is a notable subject in terms of this project's criteria. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Are there any secondary sources? I just deleted a bunch of primary ones. The device is mentioned in zero book on google books and there is one primary source on pubmed [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Distal#Redirect

Some of you might be interested in weighing in on the Distal#Redirect matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nexvax2

Just came across Nexvax2, "a potential vaccine for celiac disease created by ImmusanT". An unsourced mention was added in the FA coeliac disease a year ago, and promptly removed per WP:CRYSTAL. Per the manufacturer, "a second Phase Ib trial is now enrolling in the United States". This feels way premature, yes? Maralia (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither source for that page meets MEDRS imo... suggest if a reliable source can be found to place this content in celiac disease#research directions... Lesion (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If it was removed from the celiac page before, and still there are no MEDRS sources, we probably should delete this? Lesion (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Non pubmed indexed source

This addition of this source appears to be not pubmed indexed [20]. Wondering what peoples thoughts on it are? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Has a DOI (10.1016/j.osfp.2013.03.003) here. Am thinking the easy access to publishing in purportedly peer-reviewed online journals (not that this is necessarily one of those) could present a bit of a problem in the future. LT90001 (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is a peer-reviewed journal. There's nothing wrong with journal articles from Elsevier, is there? I realize PubMed indexed articles are probably preferred, but we're not operating under a PubMed or nothing paradigm, right? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Arent there already enough marginal peer-reviewed journals that are pubmed indexed? (and would it be too much to ask to not use proxied links?) I think this one looks fine for now, though Elsevier is absolutely no indication of quality. They'll print anything by anyone whose check doesnt bounce.

For a marginal source, though, this one is referenced entirely too many times. surely there's a better one? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding PubMed indexing, there is certainly no requirement for that. None of my textbooks are listed in PubMed, yet there is no dispute that they are reliable sources. Regarding the use of this particular reference, I was initially surprised to see that a paper from "Osteopathic Family Physician" is being used for the article "Acne vulgaris". After some reading around, I now realise that the nature of osteopathic medicine in the US is quite different from the UK. (I am British.)

The website declares "The American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians (ACOFP) is a professional association of osteopathic family physicians, residents, and medical students dedicated to treating the patient, not just the symptoms." I believe that the journal is a reliable source per WP:MEDRS recommendations.

I am intrigued to see that UseTheCommandLine characterizes the paper as a "marginal source". I would like to know his basis for this claim. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I was being kneejerk hesitant, because I wondered why it hasn't been indexed by pubmed, which already includes a fair number of osteopathic-targeted journals. And then I looked again a minute ago and saw "Vol. 5" which i guess might explain things to some degree. I do feel more comfortable editorially seeing things in pubmed, and it indicates to me that there has been some external independent review of the journal and its output. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

offtopic

Separately, the use of proxied links (indicating employment or enrollment), and this editor's (TylerDurden8823) edits to Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine make me start to wonder about conflict of interest issues. I would appreciate some clarification there, myself. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Conflict of interest how? I'm not involved in the paper. I'm happy to remove it if that will remove the suspicion. I used the paper because it's a brand new review article and my understanding is that current secondary sources are what we strive to use. Much of the information in the article was unverified and I verified it using such a source. I fail to see the problem. I'm still waiting for a direct answer regarding whether non-Pubmed indexed sources are considered okay for use on Wikipedia . If you look up my editing history in the past, you'll see that I have an extensive history of using Pubmed-indexed papers as well. Not just "marginal" sources, whatever that means. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I realize it's a separate issue, but that second comment was referring to your edits to Touro University California and the related COM page. (I looked at enough of your edits to be comfortable with the sourcing, at least for now and with the above caveats, I'm not suggesting it's linkspam or anything of the sort.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Okay, well that was not clear to me from your previous statement since we were on the subject of the acne vulgaris article. As for my edits in Touro University California, if you can show me anything I put on there that is false or out of proportion, I'm all ears. I've worked with other editors on it, it has not been a unilateral effort on my part. I have had other editors assess it for neutrality, balance, verifiability, etc. While true that I have not subjected the article to additional scrutiny after some additional changes, the newer edits were not really major ones, mostly updates. Certain editors had raised concerns that I had relied too heavily on primary sources (from TUC) and I did my best with the available information at the time to slowly phase out those sources and replace them with more objective, secondary sources. Lastly, if you have a concern with my editing, I much prefer to talk about such issues on my talk page rather than here. I only ask that in the future you bring up such a discussion there instead of here. I am happy to go over the TUC page with you if you wish. Before I got to it, it was hardly an article at all. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)note to other readers: this topic has been taken to our talk pages so i'm dropping it from this conversation. sorry for any confusion. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this paper in question it still raises concerns. The refs it uses are not particularly good. Another non pub med index review being used here Talk:Influenza#Natural_compound. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• As a side note, WP:Medrs prefers secondary sources over tertiary sources such as text books.--Taylornate (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find where exactly in the guideline this is stated. As I read it, textbooks are described as reliable, acceptable sources? I am interested in this because I use textbooks just as much as pubmed sources. Also would note that textbook does not necessarily equate to a tertiary source, e.g. if they are based on primary sources as well as secondary then they can't be called a purely tertiary source. Some more specialized textbooks (e.g. surgical specialties) reference more primary sources than secondary. Lesion (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw it near the top of the page, where tertiary source is defined (and apparently I misinterpreted it). But, you're right--there is a section specifically on books that says medical text books can be excellent secondary sources.--Taylornate (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarification. I'm sure others will want to comment on the use of textbooks in articles. Lesion (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I use a lot of recent major textbooks aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Good textbooks are incredibly important sources, especially for anatomy, physiology, and other basic-science material. You're never going to find a systematic review on what the name of a ligament is.

A recent medical school-type textbook is usually a secondary source. A textbook aimed at 12 year olds is usually tertiary. However, the most important thing is that your source be strong enough to support your claim. If your claim is very lightweight (e.g., "There are several types of blood cells"), then even a book intended for children may be perfectly adequate.

On the more philosophical end, there are two competing styles of sourcing. One says that you should use the most serious scholarly source for everything, because it makes Wikipedia look respectable. The other says that you should try to use a variety of source styles, so that every reader will be able to find something in the refs section that he (or she) can understand, if the reader is looking for more information. I happen to be in the second camp, but not everyone is, and it's possible that the Right Answer™ depends on the type of article. My style probably makes more sense in an article like Human body, and the other style might make more sense in an article that will be of little interest to anyone except specialists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. I'd say most medical school-type textbooks are still tertiary sources, because they're aggregating the results of secondary sources plus some experiential knowledge and selected primary sources. I think textbooks is a difficult issue, because you're in essence citing a source the majority of viewers will probably not have access to, and being a tertiary source it may not be as responsive to change as a secondary source. That said, some of the clearest and most comprehensive information is provided in them, they are not as piecemeal as journal articles, and can examine issues in some depth rather than selectively focus or ignore topics of interest or controversy.

Non-index entries is a tricky one. I can't provide specific evidence but I have edited quite a few articles without PMID, including those with PMC, historical articles, or those with DOI only. I think that we can't out-source WP:MEDRS to pubmed. As is mentioned above, issues with non-cited articles should relate to their content or references rather than the fact they are not on pubmed. LT90001 (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Google books shows large amounts of many textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed the archive

From 10 to 7 days. So this will go a little more quickly to the archives if we keep it like this. With 38 threads on this page, it just seems unweildy. Biosthmors (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with the change... we should be proud we have such an active project! According to this we're the fourth most active content-area Wikiproject (not including AFC, AFD, etc.). Zad68 01:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Good idea. LT90001 (talk) 05:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Snowball support. JFW | T@lk 20:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Alopecia/Baldness

There seems to be consensus to merge the article baldness into alopecia (discussion here). I have created a new section for discussion.

I would like to do the following:

• Redirect baldness to androgenic alopecia, the state that commonly referred to as 'baldness'
• Move most content from baldness to alopecia
• Leave a note on androgenic alopecia saying 'the term baldness redirects here. For other causes of hair loss, see alopecia. For other uses of 'bald', see bald (disambiguation).'

I think this would represent the optimum solution, as compared with the current state. Comments? Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Autofill PMID

All the autofill PMID templates are broken today. This is the tool on Wikipedia that I use the most. This includes the one in the edit box (which has been down for weeks) and now diberri [21]. Anyway know of any other workarounds? Or how we can convince the WMF to take this on? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Bugs have been happening to me regularly since the launch of VE, although not sure if these events are truly related. Sometimes the cite templates drop down menu doesn't drop down when clicked, sometimes no cite journal pop up window appears when cite journal is selected from the drop down menu, and sometimes the PMID autofill doesn't work. I suspect the first 2 are true bugs whereas the last is probably a connectivity issue rather than a software issue. The only work around I'm aware of is to save your edit as it is, and then re-open the edit tab and try again. Lesion (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We have this but I cannot get it to work either [22] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it will help you figure out what is wrong, but PMID autofill just seemed to work OK for me. Lesion (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

And also, that citation template generator appeared to generate ref code from a PIMD for me. Suggest work around <ref>{{Cite pmid|PMID}}</ref>. I understand that this is later filled out by a bot. Lesion (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not from my experience. Bot must be asleep / broken. Does anyone know how to turn it on? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This one has started working again [23] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I had the same problem with PMID autofill the last couple of days. I changed browser from Google chrome to mozilla and now its working again. Could it be a browser related issue? Ochiwar (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am using google chrome. Not inclined to switch over to firefox though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I've heard a lot of complaints about the toolserver not working reliably, especially during busy times, so anything that seems to be broken could just be a temporary problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Works with firefox. We definitely need more resources going to these tools. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add another regular bug I encounter since VE which I forgot to mention: when clicking on the "named references" button does not bring up the "insert a named reference" pop up window. Lesion (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Which button is this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it is a button which only appears depending upon how your preferences are set up? In my editing window, in the "cite" tab, this button appears to the right of the "templates" drop down menu. Lesion (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Anatomy article reclass report

Hello all, as part of a greater effort to clean up Wikiproject:med administratively, I have reclassed most Anatomy-related articles to WikiProject Anatomy. In total about 730 reclassifications were made. Although WP:Anatomy is not a very active project, at the current time anatomy-based articles are not covered under our scope. If this project were to be merged at a later date, it would be prescient to merge to an Anatomy taskforce to continue the grouping of these articles. As a reminder, WPMED policies on sources in para-medical articles still apply, even if these articles are not under the scope of WPMED. I've preserved any articles with pathology sections of significant length, articles covered under task forces, and articles that related to anatomical pathology (eg. renal artery stenosis).

For this process I used wikitools here and searched by keyword.

The final count of this reclassification effort is:

• search keyword initial count -> final count.
• artery 244 -> done (count = 54)
  • check (circulation) done
• vein 159-> done (count = 21)
• venous 53 -> done (count = 39)
• nerve 233 -> done (count = 93) *Note, this is continuing. Articles here were also placed under the scope of WP:Neurosscience.
• plexus 46 -> done (count = 17)
• muscle 147 -> done (count = 38)
  • check (flexor, extensor) done
  • check (anterior, posterior) done
  • check (superficial, deep) done
  • check (superior, inferior) done
  • check (ventral, dorsal) done
• bone 83 -> done (count = 53)
• ligament 96 -> done (count = 12)
• tendon 8 -> no change (count = 8)
• "lymph, duct" skipped (too many lymphomas to sift through)

Every search result under B class I also had a look and reclassified stub->start->C->B as appropriate.

If there are any other large reclassification projects needed, I would be happy to have a look. Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Great job, well done. I understand that the MOS for anatomy articles recommends a pathology section in all articles. If one such article doesn't have a pathology section, just indicates they need to grow at some point in the future. Maybe whether there is a pathology section or not, the more relevant tag is WPANAT? Agree re. "anatomic pathology" type articles should have both tags. Lesion (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There are still a few more, this link will give a list of articles tagged with both projects, of which most probably belong to only one. --WS (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

1500?!! Oh dear. LT90001 (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Down to <1300 already now. --WS (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope (Universities and Medical Schools)

These surely must fall under the purvue of WP:Universities. Not included as in/out on our WPMED scope guidelines. Agree/disagree? If consensus will change guidelines to reflect this. LT90001 (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Regular med schools are generally within scope. AltMed programs (including chiropractic) are generally out. Offhand, I don't remember seeing enough nursing programs or other mainstream allied health training programs to say how we would handle them. I suspect that most of them aren't independent articles anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am happen to hand these over to WP:Universities and remove them from our scope. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If medical education is within our scope (which it should be), dedicated articles on medical schools probably should be in our scope, too. Nursing schools can be under WP:NURSE and Alt Med under WP:ALTMED. Other allied-health schools perhaps under WP:HEALTH. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be consensus on this issue. What's scaring me more is that there are currently 9.1 million trained physicians on this planet (here), of which I reckon about 1/10-1/20 will have some received some sort of award or commendation or was involved in research or a clinic or something or other that someone thinks will warrant a Wiki article (16,500+ at the current category count, thankfully < 1600 on WikiProject Med's books). What to do then is the trick. LT90001 (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

OK in seriousness, articles about hospitals go to WP:HOSPITALS, as you say nurses to WP:NURSE, pharmaceuticals to WP:PHARM and so on. As there is an active WP:Universities, in my opinion it makes sense to move these articles to a more appropriate location.LT90001 (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

These aren't content categories. The goal is not the least possible overlap. The question is, do individual members want to keep informed about these articles? If yes, then they're in scope. If no, then they're not.

The last time I remember talking about drugs, people did want to get article alerts if someone prodded an article about a drug, or sent one to FAR, or whatever, without having to check separate lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is easy enough to set up a page with article alerts from related projects, either as a subpage of your userpage with exactly the topics your interested in, or as a subpage of this project with all related projects (can do that if anybody is interested). Surely the goal is not to have the least possible overlap, but I think it is worthwhile to keep the scope of each project narrow and specific. --WS (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It is my experience (via WP:COUNCIL) that "narrow" is a death prescription for WikiProjects. The most successful and active WikiProjects have broadly defined scopes and friendly, experienced editors.

Setting up separate pages is the problem. Most people want to look at one page to see everything that they're interested in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• In response to the point raised by Scott, I would caution that there needs to be actual editors to populate such wikiprojects and task forces, otherwise said project/task force won't get anything done. I would like to see the opinions of the other task force, do they agree to start handling these articles? Not sure we should untag a load of articles if no-one else will keep an eye on them (so to speak), and I know that is not a great reason to keep them under the scope of WPMED. Lesion (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything said, except parts of Lesion's comment directly above. As WAID said, it's up to the members of each project to decide what they cover. It seems to me that members of this WP are generally interested mostly in things directly related to the practice of medicine, and not the other related topics. So WPMED's lack of interest in things like nursing, altmed, allied health, hospitals, etc, is why they were removed from WPMED. Generally, as a more specific project was created, there was a conscious decision (usually with discussion) to re-define the scope of WPMED. The presence of the new project (or reactivation of an old project) had been what sparked discussions of what topics WPMED included, and whether or not the WPMED members desired to cover such topics. Articles were then removed from WPMED not strictly because of the new project's presence, rather, the lack of interest from WPMED (in addition to a better project with interested editors).

  It is not up to WPMED, or any other project, to make sure that articles removed from its scope are covered by another project. None of the health-related projects mentioned in this thread are particularly active. But if their articles were still part of WPMED, nothing different would be done. Keeping articles within the scope of a project does not make the topic interesting to a project's members. Yes, it is nice to be able to track articles, which is why I personally would not remove the WPMED banner without replacing it with another one. Typically, we don't just go on de-tagging sprees, rather we say that another project is interested in a topic, and WPMED isn't anymore - so the banner can be changed from one project to another. The best examples probably being WP:ANATOMY and WP:HOSPITAL, even though these are both relatively inactive. In both cases, WPMED decided those topics aren't within the scope of this project, so the articles were relegated to the other projects, which have similar tracking systems in place. And I'd imagine that the members of WPMED, WP:Anatomy, and WP:Hospitals all have great overlap. It's almost easier to keep track of issues from those 2 projects because they are not as active. Things can easily get lost in WPMED.

  Early on, before these other projects existed, WPMED just accepted anything vaguely health-related - whether or not there was interest in these topics. WPMED became a project that included any health-related topics that no one was interested in. Now that these other projects exist (theoretically with active members interested in those topics), if WPMED is not interested, then articles should not be in WPMED's scope. If WPMED were still interested in a topic and another group is as well, it would be okay to keep both banners. This project (or any other) should not worry about if there is another project to cover an article or topic. WPMED should cover topics of interest to its members, and topics that are not of interest should be removed. If another project exists that covers an article, than great. If a project does not exist to cover a topic, WPMED does not have to include an article in its scope just because there is no other active project to do so.

  • Getting back to the purpose of this discussion, while I'm sure WP:Universities should (would, and maybe already does) cover medical schools, are the members of this project also interested? I'd guess that most members of this project are interested in medical education, including medical schools. If medical schools are removed from this project, but there are interested members, they would now also have to follow a huge project with thousands of "uninteresting" articles, and only a few hundred (if that) "interesting" articles. The medical school articles get lost among a huge WP:Universities project. (Contrast this to a WPMED member interested in hospitals, who also follows WP:HOSPITAL. Here, there is no other "uninteresting" content.) Regarding physician articles in the scope, I think there have been previous discussions about this project not being interested (unless they made a profound change to the practice of medicine), and they have been relegated to the Science and Academia Work Group of WP:BIO. Drugs have always been part of WP:PHARM, and usually part of WPMED, but seem to go back and forth every once in a while. --Scott Alter (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

    There are several of us at this board that have done work with the WP:Wikipedia Education Program and if that ever became well-established in any school then I think that eventually students would take this on for their own school. That is probably the most likely way to recruit the time and labor to develop medical school articles. I am interested in the articles being developed but it really needs to be done on a large scale as part of a new recruitment effort, and not take time from people who are on this board already doing health-related things. I do think lots of people here might support other people doing university-page development, though. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Paget's disease of the breast

I think the article Paget's disease of the breast is in need of expert content editing. There are statements in different sections that contradict each other. See the talk page at Conflicting information.--Gciriani (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Expired health and beauty products

Wikipedia can have these articles (with sortable wikitables) for expired health and beauty products, including prescription and non-prescription drugs, soaps and shampoos, and nutritional supplements.

• List of data for expired health and beauty products

Columns: "Product", "Shelf lifespan", "Toxins produced after expiry"

• List of collection agencies for recycling expired health and beauty products

Columns: "Agency", "Postal address", "Telephone number", "Website"

—Wavelength (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? bobrayner (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The articles would be useful to readers.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I do like the idea of List of data for expired health and beauty products! That would be useful. --Hordaland (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of the first one, too. I'd also like to see a definition of what "expired" means: 80% active? (Typical for drugs.) It's probably still fine, but we didn't want to pay for a longer test? It's likely to be contaminated? It could be anything. Not everything produces toxins after expiry. (The lead would also need a paragraph about storage conditions.)

Does anyone know of any sources for this? I don't. I suppose you could track down some individual products, but a couple of secondary sources would be much easier to work with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Some definitions are available at "Shelf life"

and Taking Expired Medications: What's the Harm by Annette Gbemudu PharmD on RxList.com

and Best Before and Expiry Dates for Food and Drugs - Badgut

and What Is a Medication Expiration Date - Do Prescriptions Expire

and Expiration date definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Dutasteride Article

My name is Maitri Shah, PharmD, and I work for GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals (GSK) as a Medical Information Scientist. My intent is to provide information to the editors of Wikipedia for their use in dutasteride related articles to help ensure that healthcare professionals receive accurate and balanced scientific information. I understand the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Principle and my edits will be restricted to the “Talk” pages in the “Discussion” area for dutasteride related articles. I will never directly edit any GlaxoSmithKline related article; instead I hope to enlist the help of fellow Wikipedians to assess my proposals for improved content.

I have proposed some edits and additional language in the Contraindications section of the dutasteride article. You can find this on the dutasteride "Talk" Page. Looking forward to your response. Thank you. Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I have addressed Maitri's concerns.[24] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The proposed edits to dutasteride bring up an issue that's been raised before, but which is quite a bit different from the previous discussion about GW 501516: what to do about off-label prescribing?

The article on Dutasteride has in its lead para one of its off-label uses. I have no doubt that this is the case, but i wonder if we should be even implicitly promoting off-label use. Especially since, in this case specifically, GSK has been such a bad actor in terms of off-label promotion. I feel like we really should have some kind of explicit policy about the inclusion of off-label uses in articles. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is WP:MEDRS not good enough in this case?--Taylornate (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's reported in WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, and is relevant, I think we should report it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That's nice to say, but off-label uses have limited primary data to suggest their use, to say nothing of secondary sources. If there were sufficient primary data, arguably the drug/therapeutic would be approved for that indication.

Where there are secondary WP:MEDRS compliant sources, the weight issues are complicated, since there are not, as far as i can tell, good public data on off-label prescribing patterns.

Further, i get a bit of the heebie-jeebies when you say that all one needs to do is get a review article published in a MEDRS journal in order to, concievably, get your drug advert on the sidebar of a google search for that drug. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 07:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If the secondary MEDRS source says x can be used for y, then the article can say x can be used for y. If the source doesn't have data on prescribing patterns, then prescribing patterns don't go into the article. I don't understand what is complicated about this. As for your heebie-jeebies, that sounds like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Taylornate (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If the source is not strong/trustworthy enough for us to be confident about its off-label prescribing claims then we shouldn't be using it. But if a drug is widely used off-label and we have a strong source it would be derelict of us not to report it (and make clear to the reader what "off-label" means with respect to evidence). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a duty to the reader not to implicitly promote drugs for unapproved indications. To that end, i think off-label uses should stay out of the lead para entirely -- that's the one that gets quoted in google search results, generally. I would further say that where adequate MEDRS exist, they should be limited to a section entitled "off-label uses" which should be ideally in the basement bathroom, behind a sign that says "beware of leopard." I kid, but only slightly. I fear for what will happen to medical content if we do not take a strong stance against implicit promotion of drugs and devices on WP. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

this article seems relevant. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 08:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me there. Uses not supported by good evidence should not appear in the lede. I'd like us to say something along the lines of "X is a pharmaceutical drug in the class Y. It is approved in the USA, UK, Sweden and other countries for the treatment of A, and in Italy, Australia, Togo and other countries for the treatment of A, B and C." And if there are any verified doubts of any kind regarding the evidence supporting its effectiveness in approved or off-label uses (as in the case of many psychiatric drugs' approved use, and Gabapentin's off-label use), I'd like the next sentence to mention those, e.g., "There are, however, concerns regarding the quality of the trials conducted for a number of conditions" or similar. Pharmaceutical sleight of hand should be front and centre here, I think. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not something is "off label" is a United States government thing. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. This is not true "If there were sufficient primary data, arguably the drug/therapeutic would be approved for that indication." The FDA gives approval for uses for which there is little / poor evidence and some uses have good evidence to support them but the manufacturer has not "applied" for the approval as their is no money in it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally whether or not a medication is commonly used for X means nothing about if it works or not. Typically how commonly something is used either on or off label should go at the end of the article in the section on society and culture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with dividing out articles into "off-label use" and "FDA indicated" and remove this divide whenever I see it. We should organize our "Medical uses" section by the condition in question. And maybe an "other" section for less written about uses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree however that we need to be skeptical. A good example is Drotrecogin alfa. It was FDA approved in 2001 but an Apr 13th 2011 Cochrane review found that it increase mortality rather than decreased it. I updated our article on sepsis Apr 24th,2011 [25] and our one on APC Aug 2011. [26] The FDA / manufacturer did not remove its recommendation / sale until Oct 25, 2011. Uptodate did not change their position until this time either. We beat them both by 6 months by using the best available literature. I would not be the least surprised if the FDA is reading what we write and basing some of their decisions on us (certainly at least some policy makers are). I have already had a run in with another company around this issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Several responses:

• Even though it's true that WP is a global encyclopedia, and "off-label" refers frequently to FDA approval, my impression is that a good number of other countries with less regulatory infrastructure of their own simply incorporate FDA approval into their own systems. And as noted in that paper, the EMA also has prohibitions on off-label marketing.
• Even though the FDA does sometimes make approvals based on crappy evidence, it is a baseline, in the same way that "peer-reviewed journal" is something of a baseline for MEDRS. It is also, as above, a baseline that is relevant globally.

I can see most of your points. Because it seems like pharma-and-device-company-proposed-edits are going to only increase in prominence though, I am eager for some brighter lines, e.g. in MEDMOS. Simply saying that we should report what the evidence is seems both difficult for less experienced editors to assess, and relatively easy for these companies to massage via publications, which they already do for drug promotion purposes. Certainly, credit where credit is due for your work on Drotrecogin alfa but how many other adverts-masquerading-as-articles like eculizumab exist? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree. Not an easy issue. In the article you mention a great deal of primary research needs removing based on current policies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)

My search at Pubmed finds more than 900 reviews about off-label prescribing. There are twelve specifically about dutasteride and alopecia, the off-label use that allegedly is not discussed by any secondary sources. I think the article should mention this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope that I did not imply that there were no secondary sources on the topic. All I said is that we were not using them. I am of the opinion that if there are secondary sources that are of high quality than it is not unreasonable for us to discuss the issues using them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Joint Task Force with WikiProject Disability

Please see Talk:Mental retardation#Proposal where the creation of a Task Force shared between this Project and WikiProject Disability is proposed as a venue for discussing issues of interest to both projects. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have responded on the page. LT90001 (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiversity school of medicine

Wikiversity school of medicine seems to have sparked into life: [27]

Posting here in case any wikipedia editors are interested in this kind of thing. I personally don't understand why there isn't more interest in Wikiversity. It potentially might even meet the needs of many editors I see wanting to add mnemonics and how-to content on medical pages. Wikiversity actively wants this kind of content, or so I understand. See for example the differences between the encyclopedia page on oral ulceration and the beginnings of the Wikiversity page on oral ulceration. They compliment each other. Lesion (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"I personally don't understand why there is more interest in Wikiversity." Did you mean "isn't more interest"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, typo thanks. Lesion (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review for female genital mutilation

Review is here Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/GA1

This is taking an inordinate amount of time and I am not willing to go point-for-point with the nominator, yet I feel the article relies heavily on primary sources, is quite ambiguous when paraphasing sources, and I feel has an undercurrent of bias and non-neutrality that I find it hard to point my finger at specifically. The majority of my proposed changes are meeting obstructive opposition and, although the reasoning for each point might be valid, without these changes I think the NPOV problems are more pronounced. I don't think this article should be passed without further changes. The counterarguments have been made in the review, but at the current stage I am unwilling to continue review.

I would value if somebody else would take over this review. LT90001 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• As an afterthought, I'd value some input here (or on my talk page) about how to deal with a difficult review and any feedback about what I might have done better. LT90001 (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes controversial topics can result in difficult reviews. If you do not feel comfortable passing it, the best thing to do is fail the review and allow the person working on it to renominate latter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Another option is to formally seek a second opinion. This can be done at WP:GAN. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I cross-posted the request to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Other_opinions_sought_for_GA_review_of_female_genital_mutilation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane Library citations

Hey folks!

59 full Cochrane Library licenses were just today given out to editors. Could someone drop by the program citation examples page and make sure it's up to snuff:

• Link: Wikipedia:Cochrane/Citations
• Example source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003590.pub4/abstract

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a number of autofilling reference tools. I have added these to the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Media consulting company says Wikipedia sought for health information

Online Health Research Eclipsing Patient-Doctor Conversations Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Lane. It is strange why the NIH (pubmedhealth / medlineplus is not listed)? I wonder why their results are so different from my here [28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence - Royal Society

The Royal Society is seeking a part time Wikipedian in Residence. See their announcement. I think they would prefer someone in London. I talked with one of the people at the London Society who is creating the position, and depending on the interests of the hired candidate health outreach could be part of this position. Wikimedia UK already has a solid history of doing outreach to health organizations so this is something which could develop.

If anyone on this board can refer people to apply, then please do. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

When we are in London next year for Wikimania, it would be fun to do a tour of this place.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mental retardation

Category:Mental retardation, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Intellectual disability. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Insulin glargine

IP continues to try to refute secondary sources with their own personal experience. Further eyes requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Continues to add unreffed content. Have reported to 3RR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder, again

The DID page has a new inexperienced editor making exactly the same arguments that were made last year (see here, it's a different account but the same issues), once again explicitly supporting only the traumagenic hypothesis and claiming the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation's position is the only reliable, expert position that should be cited. And that's despite articles like this one trickling out rather regularly. See here on the DID talk page.

Any support from the WT:MED would be greatly appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Amphetamine article content split

moot text

I've proposed a content split on the amphetamine page with a talk page section here. I'd appreciate comments on the merits of my proposal from the members of this wikiproject. Seppi333 (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC) I'm just going to make the split at the 24 hour mark (after initial proposal) if this split isn't interesting/contentious to merit a single favorable, unfavorable, or impartial comment in that timeframe. >.> Seppi333 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at the split I've made with amphetamine and Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture and give me some feedback on my edits, particularly in relation to MOS and (for the new page) lead content - assuming you don't go ahead and edit it yourself. :) It's not only my first split, but also my first new article.

Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine, thank you. Summary style is good ... and it works well to merge these two sections together rather than have 2 separate small articles. The topics are v close and maybe overlap anyway. Only comment is the title of the page, should it not be "History, society and culture of Amphetamine" instead of "Amphetamine: History, society and culture" ? Lesion (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideally also would have a short summary section on the parent article which links to the page:

Amphetamine (article itself)

Heading 1

content

...

Heading 5

content

History, society and culture

Main article: Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture

Short summary paragraph or 2

I removed the h1 markup from the article-title because it screws up talkpage formatting. DMacks (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll make a note to do that once I've finished merging the methamphetamine content with the material already on the new page. As for the article title, it's been suggested on the article talk page that the current name is too long, which is sentiment I completely agree with. That said, I like your proposed title without a colon more than the current one.

With the addition of the methamphetamine content, the title would need to reflect both compounds. So, I was thinking something more colloquial and general, such as "History and culture of Speed" or "Speed (history and culture)" if parenthetically disambiguated. As an article on culture, the slang term intuitively seems ok, but I don't know if that's too informal for wikipedia's naming policy or ambiguous as an article title. The question of what to name that page probably deserves its own discussion thread on Talk: Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture though, so I'm going to hold off until the meth merge is complete before creating that thread.Seppi333 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Large revert

I just made a large revert at American Academy of Pediatrics if anyone wants to take a look. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) ^{please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply} 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have placed a CoI notice on the talk page of the editor who made the initial removal of that content (Nstewartaap). the "aap" at the end of the name, and the editing-only-at-the-AAP-article behavior is kind of a tipoff. I know some folks like Bluerasberry have lighter touches with this so I would suggest they approach this editor. I'll give it a few days before going to WP:COI/N, if indeed that is necessary. Hopefully we can convince them to help with some other article content rather than policing their own article. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A short note at WP:COI/N would be appropriate and I encourage everyone to do this when they such such cases - even if the cases seem resolved - because if there is a central record anywhere, then that is it. I especially would like the record of health organizations which try to engage Wikipedia to be more public. I wrote the person at User_talk:Nstewartaap#Would_you_like_a_tour.3F and offered to show them around Wikipedia. These people publish a journal and host a medical conference, and I would love to state their reaction when they recognize how many people are consuming Wikipedia content in their field of expertise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Methamphetamine content split/merge with Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture

I've made another, more complicated proposal to split or copy and merge the socio-cultural and historical components of the methamphetamine article to the recently split content from Amphetamine, which is now at Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture. The talk page discussion is at Talk:Methamphetamine#Split sections.

I need feedback on my tentative plan for which sections to move and which sections to copy to that article, which will also need to be renamed. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hangover

The article hangover is viewed by about 1200 people a day with surges on week ends and holidays (page statistics) and was in bad shape. I have done some editing on the article in the past days mainly removing unsourced material, updating content and references and adding images. I am still unsatisfied with the general structure of the article. In particular the section on Potentially beneficial remedies is still full of primary studies and I am not comfortable with the title of that section. A brief review and copy edit of the article for accuracy, flow, consistency and suggestions on how to improve structure per MEDMOS would be appreciated if anyone can find the time. Ochiwar (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Trimmed a bunch of primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Much better. Glad to see them go. Thanks. Ochiwar (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I just thanked a good WPMED editor for cleaning up citations (a tedious, and too often thankless, task), and it reminded me that one of the great things about this group is that some of the people here are very good about going out of their way to say thanks for the positive things that we do, and that I haven't been doing very much of it recently.

So for our new people (you are fantastic!) and for those of us who have forgotten to keep up our efforts at positive reinforcement, I wanted to post a little "primer" on the couple of easy ways to do that:

• Just leave a personal note on the editor's talk page. It doesn't have to be anything fancy. Start a new section. Say thanks.
• Use Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks to highlight a single edit that you appreciate. This is perfect for small reminders that people appreciate your edits. Click "thanks" (right next to "undo" on the page history), and then click the button to confirm that you meant to thank the person. Their notifications button will light up with something much better than notification of another edit war. If you do a lot of recent changes patrolling, please consider making this a habit for all good edits.
• Go to the editor's user talk page and use Wikipedia:WikiLove to give anything from popular barnstars to a bowl of strawberries. Add a sentence or two about what the editor did right, preview and post.
• Award other Wikipedia:Barnstars (WPMED has a couple), or make your own.
• Whenever you see promising new editors working on medicine-related articles, add {{subst:MedWelcome}} to their user talk pages. We want to keep the good people working on articles here, and getting them connected to this great group is one way to do that.

If you have other ideas about how to show appreciation to each other, please post them. (Thanks!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I try to give out 2 Wikilove messages a day but perhaps I have not been mindful to always do this. I will be in the future. For anyone who has not tried it, go to a user talk page and click the heart at the top menu. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

On this note, I would like to thank the community for the support I have received whilst doing the review for Female Genital Mutilation, including from the nominees. This was a very frustrating review as midway through my internet was capped. On thanking, I have often tried to thank editors of articles, as well as leave articles occasionally on editors' talk pages to recognise their contributions, as I believe not only does a community thrive when this sort of positive feedback is made, but you also attract editors who are more communal and receptive to change. LT90001 (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Moving all the HIV/AIDS articles to HIV-AIDS titles?

See Special:Contributions/Coreyemotela, ping to Coreyemotela. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 09:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ga, more than 250 moved articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Any_technical_way_to_revert_hundreds_of_page_moves.3F to see if there's any sort of quick fix. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 11:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen HIV/AIDS used in publications. Don't remember seeing this written with a hyphen ... Presumably there is some rationale behind these moves? Is/was there a discussion somewhere? Or is this the discussion? Lesion (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is the "oh crap" discussion. Someone mentioned at User talk:Coreyemotela it's flat out wrong to do this, but I can't explain why / is used. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 13:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Using the "/" is problematic. With the article titled "HIV/AIDS", it means that there is a main article at "HIV" and a sub article of that article at "/AIDS". There may be a technical reason why articles should not be named in this way; I am not sure. It seems like interlanguage links have always worked but there is the problem that for most languages people call the disease AIDS instead of using HIV/AIDS as either a compound term or interchangeably. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NC-SLASH says that slashes are OK in article space as the subpages feature is disabled in the mainspace, but can cause a problem on talk pages, but this can be fixed with a redirect. - X201 (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• User:TechBear, what say ye? Why is the hyphen incorrect? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 14:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A slash is used to separate two terms that have an interchangeable relationship, and a hyphen is used to join two words with separate meanings. Since HIV was established as the causative agent for AIDS, AIDS has been redefined as being symptomatic HIV disease. That gives the two terms an interchangeable relationship, so a slash is the correct form. Aside from which HIV/AIDS is the form used by the US Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes for Health, the World Health Organization, the United Nations... pretty much every organization and agency that can be considered a reliable source. A quick check on Google will show that this is the overwhelming usage. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

So I guess the question is who will clean it up? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Done! What a lovely 33 or so minutes. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for the explanation User:TechBear. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Biosthmors. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

People uploading their own images

There is discussion on commons of disallowing people to upload their own X-rays.[29] From my understanding X rays are technically not copyrightabe and even if they were we have no idea who would own the copyright. IMO we should not have requirements greater than those of other major publishers. This is also bizarre as I have had people request that I recommend that the patient themselves upload the image so that we can verify consent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I tagged the image with the template for xrays and told people to bring their discussion to Commons:Commons:Patient images. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

some are still arguing for deletion, please note that this could result in the removal of ALL X-ray, CT, US, and MRI images from commons, I guess the question is should we be moving them to WP proper?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be very useful if we got input from editors here who have experience writing papers or other professional works which include x-rays, CT-scans and such. Did the publisher require you to get copyright clearance from your radiology department or similar? Have you used such images from a 3-rd party and did you need to get copyright sorted? Please respond on the Commons discussion above. Colin°^Talk 19:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thinking of merging these

• Lingual papilla
  • circumvallate papilla
  • fungiform papilla
  • filiform papilla
  • foliate papilla

Rationale:

• they utilize similar range of images
• they're all stubs
• we can talk about general concepts like depapillation, papillitis on the parent page and it would make more sense in this context. Lesion (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable. I have marked the pages for merge and suggest all further discussion takes place on the talk page for Lingual papilla (here). LT90001 (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

More images nominated for deletion

• image:Fluoroscopy image juxtaposed with correlating OCT image.jpg
• image:FMRS of lactate.png

Additionally, the FMRS image has other images in its upload history -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

These are medical imaging pictures, but the problem here is that the licensing templates are improper. For those of you who may be following, there is also a philosophical debate about medical imaging happening, but that seems to be unrelated to the nomination here. I am not really sure what to do with these - they need their licenses check and associated with an uploader. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Appropriate Use Criteria

Dear medical people: Here's a proposed article in the Afc that may need specialized attention. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... the author seems to be from the American College of Cardiology. I will write them and see if they want Wikipedia training. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this submission. I didn't know what to make of it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Grant proposal to WMF from health editor

Idea Lab Space Cat

User:Netha Hussain some time ago made a proposal in the Wikimedia Foundation's new Idea Lab that a project be funded to create a lot more graphics for health articles. The proposal is on meta at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Medi-Graphics. The emphasis is on graphics either without text and which can be used in many languages or with text. For articles with text, this user would like to collect many health diagrams and organize a lot of translation and image processing at once.

If anyone has not seen the new community funding scheme, this project is one for medicine and may be of interest to people on this board. I am sure that criticism and proposals for refinement would be very welcome for this project, and if anyone has ideas of their own then please propose them separately in the Idea Lab. Some of you may know that the WP:Cochrane subscriptions just given out are being managed by user:Ocaasi, who previously applied for support from this program. I have high hopes for increased access to Cochrane papers, I wish the best for Netha's submission, and I hope others keep medicine projects well-remembered among the people who review project submission ideas. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Flagging tape.png

Triage tape image:Flagging tape.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I was confused about why this happened so I asked User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#CSD_for_some_image. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

YThe nominator said on his userpage that the tagging was a mistake so I removed it. Wikipedia will keep this image of triage tape. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Not done someone else added the deletion template again -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. Now there is a different tag on the image. This image was from 2007 and at the time users were not so guided in noting the source of the image. This uploader never said to whom the picture belonged, so without that declaration it seems likely that the picture should be deleted. The uploader seems not to be active on Wikipedia these days. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding radiological images

Some people feel that all radiological images from Wikipedia should be deleted based on a combination of copyright and patient consent concerns. Some images have already been deleted. Have started drafting a RfC here [30] in an effort to stop this. Comments appreciated. There is discussion at wikimedia-l aswell [31] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a Wikimedia Commons account. I tried editing the page anonymously but I received this response: "This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Friendly lot. Maybe we should move all medical images over to Wikipedia for safe keeping. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emu Flu (E1M1) URGENT

Dear doctors: It is important that I find out if the above submission is a hoax (There is a video game with this name) so that I can delete it right away. What do you think? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's just at AFC, what's the urgency? The submitter has to provide reliable sourcing to establish its notability, or it gets rejected, right? Zad68 14:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I declined the submission due to lack of sources. Adding: The article claims it is being investigated by the CDC, but the CDC website has no hits for "E1M1". Might be an intentional hoax, might be a gullible editor, not sure. Going to give them a chance to provide some sort of sourcing. Zad68 14:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The urgency is that mirror wikis are now picking up information from user pages and Afc submissions, and Google is indexing the mirrors, which could lead to people being frightened. But maybe I am worried over nothing. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see that particular item showing up in any Google search. There is probably no harm in just going ahead and tagging it with {{db-hoax}}, I'd give it a better than 50/50 chance of it getting deleted, so why not just go ahead and tag it? Zad68 15:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've done that. If the admin agrees, that's three people who couldn't find any truth in it. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anne for taking this on. IMO it is up to the person submitting content to provide reliable sources. If no reliable sources provided just delete. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody should say a word for the policy WP:PRESERVE here? The best response to unsourced or poorly sourced, but plausible and relevant, material is for you to see whether you can find a review article. Not all of our new editors realize that we prefer review articles to original papers, especially among academic authors, where the rules are exactly the opposite, "Just delete! You didn't use a review article and you didn't say Mother, may I?" drives away potentially good editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(Caution: pedantic response ahead)

It is almost certainly a hoax. the H and N in e.g. "H1N1" refer to specific proteins in the flu virus that modulate infectivity (hemagglutinin and neuraminidase). From our article on Influenza A virus:

The Influenza A virus genome is contained on eight single (non-paired) RNA strands that can code for up to 14 proteins (HA, NA, NP, M1, M2, M42, NS1, NEP, PA, PA-X, PB1, PB1-F2, PB1-N40, and PB2).

this jibes with what I remember from virology taken in the last few years, but without actually consulting a reference work

There is no E protein there. This E1M1 thing is someone making things up. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 01:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't help but think they would have been more convincing if they had chosen a less suspect sounding animal? Lesion (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a hoax. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

File:OCT image with stent visualization.png

File:OCT image with stent visualization.png has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

BKN 599

File:BKN 599 Assignment 4 fMRI.tif and File:BKN 599 Assignment TMS.tif has been nominated for deletion. This is related to File:BKN 599 Assignment 4.tif and the sandboxed article User:Bokkyu Kim/sandbox -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

NSAID

An interesting systematic review has found naproxen to be the safest of the NSAIDs. When we mention an NSAID as an example maybe we should be mentioning this one. Coxib and traditional NSAID Trialists' (CNT), Collaboration (2013 Aug 31). "Vascular and upper gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials". Lancet. 382 (9894): 769–79. PMID 23726390. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a little unencyclopedic? If listing one example of a NSAID, shouldn't we give the most commonly used one? Lesion (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Or the most effective, i.e., ibuprofen for fever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Which one is the most common? I assume ibuprofen? And do we have a ref that states ibuprofen is most effective for fevers? It is more effective than acetaminophine but this is not an NSAID. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that ibuprofen is any more effective in fever reduction overall than the other proprionic acid derivative NSAIDs (there may be some differences based on usual over the counter dose, etc). Also, acetaminophen/paracetamol can be considered an NSAID, and is listed as such on our NSAID page (selective COX-2 inhibitor), though I'll admit this is a controversial semantic issue. -- Scray (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes our NSAID article states "Acetaminophen is not considered an NSAID because it has little anti-inflammatory activity" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

James, can you give an example in an article where you think we should mention naproxen? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Often I would write "NSAIDS (such as ibuprofen) are useful for pain" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

LASIK -- Undue weight?

I know nothing about this topic, but 2 bio articles about opponents for this technique are currently at AfD. To me, both those bio articles read like coatracks for what I would call "anti-LASIK" content. When visiting the LASIK page itself, it appears to be about 50% discussions of controversy, negative side effects, complications, etc etc. I wonder whether this is truly a balanced presentation of what sounds like a very widely used technique? Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, yes "The patient advocate group, 'USAeyes' list the following as some of the more frequently reported complications of LASIK" is a big red flag to me! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BioCision

Hello again! This Afc submission has been waiting 20 days for a review. I'm not sure it this is the correct project to ask about it. If not, can you suggest another? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMPANY Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes post anything health related here. I just reviewed this submission. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. 1,922 more to go... —Anne Delong (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Pictures for the history section

This dictionary of hieroglyphs contains hieroglyphs for many diseases and may make great pictures for our history sections. It is PD. [32] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

UCSF medical elective

4th year medical students from the UCSF college of medicine will be beginning an official elective of four weeks duration revolving around editing Wikipedia soon. As far as I am aware this is the first time a medical school has engaged officially in contributing to Wikipedia and offered an elective with academic credit. Does anyone know of any previous official involvement with medical schools? The school is working on a press release and wish to make this statement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! I was wondering about this. What's the assignment going to be? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Only previous that I find by quick check is by User:Ruudse, who supervised "Erasmus MC Minor Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery" in fall-2011 and again in fall-2012. DMacks (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Given that this will be thread #34, I think

I've reduced the archive time down to 5 days from 7. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As a note, I would advise against decreasing this any further, as some Wikipedians might not visit this page that often, but might still participate in discussions. LT90001 (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Institute for Creation Science reference dispute at Recurrent laryngeal nerve

I saw that there was a dispute and a potential edit war brewing here based on a post at WP:RSN. The article could use more eyes, I think. I have already posted a response at RSN, a notification at WP:AN3, and started a talk page discussion, FWIW. Additional attention at any of these points would be welcome. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC

Alopecia, invitation to clean up

Any interested editors are invited to help clean up these two articles:

• Alopecia
• Androgenic alopecia

This is subsequent from my merge from baldness to alopecia (moving some sections to androgenic alopecia). The annual readership of these three articles combined is over 1.2 million, so any edits would not go to waste. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I did make that edit. I think things we should keep at the top of our minds mind are WP:Notjournal and WP:Lead. Lead says "the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style". Right now we have the term areata, which is undefined. I have no idea what it means. So I imagine if we don't break things down a bit for your average reader (the lead is short as it is, so we can expand it with accessible language as well) they might just abandon Wikipedia to find a more plain language website. Right now we have baldness redirecting to alopecia. I have WP:Commonname concerns. Why not have this at baldness with alopecia a redirect to it? I'm just fearful we're just going to drive your average reader off of Wikipedia and onto another website that is more accessible if we don't keep these things in mind. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Great! It's good to have another editor, if you are so inclined please run your eyes down the article and do some more thorough cleaning, I've mainly transposed and arranged the content. I have mentioned the issue about common name on the talk page. The problem is that 'baldness' is quite ambiguous, and taken to mean both alopecia and androgenic alopecia, so the 'baldness' article ends up being a mishmash of content about both conditions. In this case, I think that the disambiguating properties of 'alopecia' are essential to making the scope of the article clearer. An example of the clutter this can generate is about treatment for androgenic alopecia, which is currently reduplicated in part in alopecia, androgenic alopecia, management of baldness, management of androgenic alopecia, and experimental treatment of androgenic alopecia. LT90001 (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the common name, why couldn't we have Baldness is a result of hair loss (alopecia), including male-pattern baldness as a first sentence at baldness? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't resolve the issue about the ambiguity of baldness being hair loss or male-pattern baldness, discussed above. LT90001 (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't perceive the issue you do. Could you elaborate? Also, I suppose chemotherapy induced baldness (or whatever-the-genetic-disorder-is baldness) also would be discussed at a baldness article? Baldness is the thing. Alopecia is a process that can lead towards being bald. I see alopecia as either being distinct from or the redirect to baldness. The article still says Extreme forms of alopecia areata are alopecia totalis. How is a normal person supposed to read that if someone came from google after searching for baldness? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that's not a good idea. I just can't help but think we might be merging too much. Wikipedia has quality issues, but I'm not sure this is the way to stimulate progress. Could you start propsing merges at WT:MED first? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hold your horses! This merge has been proposed on the pages since July 2012. I reopened a merge discussion on all three pages from a week ago, and posted here as well, so there has been ample time to discuss if you had wished to contribute. With the exception of short orphaned stubs, I always propose merges and wait a week before merging (more if the article is longer or has a higher view count); if you wish to check for proposed merges there is a list here, or if you are particularly worried you could actively monitor my contributions. I do not however remember committee approval being mentioned as part of the volunteering process. LT90001 (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There are over over 4 million articles on Wikipedia and around 3000 highly-active users, volunteers with probably a lot of ideas in our heads already about what we'd like to do. The talk page system doesn't work well. That's why WP:Flow is in the pipeline. Please propose "med" merges here. (Personally, I'd probably ignore using the other process; there probably isn't enough community involvement to make it work well, given that those merges affect a specific area of interest.) Just my 2 cents. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And let's start from the bottom up. How much content would be left at experimental treatment of androgenic alopecia if only WP:MEDRS were used? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my point. These article need medical attention and one reason they have not been receiving it is because variants of the same information are duplicated in so many places. LT90001 (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Lots of articles need help. This is Wikipedia. I'd say the reason they haven't gotten the attention they deserve is because we don't have the volunteer labor. Yes we sometimes need to merge and split articles, but if our final result will only confuse the public, we haven't helped, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this since it was first posted, and at this point all I can offer is to share my confusion. So: baldness is the result of hair loss. Alopecia is the medicalese for hair loss. There is presumably some other medical term for the state of having already lost the hair; perhaps glabrousness' is used, although I think that's usually for things that never had hair to begin with. Androgenic alopecia is medicalese for losing hair because you're male. Normally (I'm a dyed-in-the-wool mergeist) I'd be happy to merge 'result' and 'cause' articles.

But in this case, I have two concerns. One is that we may be inappropriately preferring medicalese over the common name for something that is not commonly a medical condition, but which has some social significance. The other is that it seems like this type of merge has a significant probability of adding to the already substantial "Wikipedia is for men" problem by focusing on male-pattern baldness. What you write depends (or ought to) on the audience. Good editors would write very different articles about this subject if they imagine that the audience consisted primarily of people caring for pediatric cancer patients vs. slightly vain men vs. pet owners trying to figure out why their pets have bald spots. Keeping separate articles might help us provide better tailored information for each audience. It would probably not help us do that today, but WP:There is no deadline, and it might help us ultimately do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point you raise and I actually think using medicalese over 'baldness' helps solve this problem, as 'baldness' is used preferentially to refer to men rather than women. What is commonly referred to as 'baldness' is referred to in androgenic alopecia, which also makes reference to women. I think it is fair enough for a larger section of alopecia to refer to androgenic alopecia, as this is probably the most common cause of hair loss in society. This would be the case with or without the merge. There is however no reason for it to be written in a male-orientated way. If you're referring to the current article, I do agree that this is the case at the moment. LT90001 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Have moved the article to "hairloss" as this is the common name for the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, a good idea. LT90001 (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, while you're at it, would you mind moving management of baldness to management of hair loss? LT90001 (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

News from Cochrane

Both Jake and I are currently at the Cochrane Colloquium in Quebec and they has been exceedingly welcoming and are very excited to work with us. We have been teaching them how to edit Wikipedia. Please welcome them and help guide them in how to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

_{Who is Jake? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)}

Good point. =) This would be User:Ocaasi. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And if anyone else wants to do outreach for WikiProject Medicine, then feel free. =) We should probably have a how-to page on the English Wikipedia in Wikipedia space, if we don't already. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am happy to share all my presentations and people are free to adapt and reuse them as they see fit. They are under a CC-BY-SA license. We are looking at maybe a talk in Wales next Aug if others are interested in joining me. Very tentative at this point.

If someone was in the DC area I am sure the NIH would love to have regular edit-a-thons for both Wikipedians and NIH staff. Additionally if there are people in Oxford the Cochrane collaboration would likely love to host regular edit-a-thons too. There would also be support for this at UCSF expecially with the medical students starting in Nov. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, I'm not sure if we can request edits, but there seem to be quite a few messed up articles of high importance and/or readability that could really do with some attention; these articles are often about more general topics and would be good articles for students to edit. The Wikicup methodology for competitions seems quite good, where points are awarded by article importance and class upgrades. LT90001 (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The plan is to have students work primarily to improve a single article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Referencing problem at Doula

The Doula article discusses the type of person solely in relation to childbirth whereas a reference used frequently and throughout the article relates to helping critically ill older patients with delirium. The post made at Talk:Doula#source number one is a SERIOUS issue. seems fully justified to me. I am posting this at the Nursing and Medicine WikiProjects since both claim involvement. Thincat (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Although the article title appears to be about something completely different, the paper does contain a few paragraphs at the end about the use of Doulas in the Obstetric Setting. Assume most of the content has been sourced from that part rather than the rest of the article. Lesion (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Filipino genetics

This discussion at WikiProject Philippines would probably benefit from some people who know a thing or three about population genetics. It's about trying to document ethnicity in the Philippines. Apparently, the government census doesn't ask people how they identify, so people are trying to use sources of varying quality to make pretty seriously divergent claims. One claim/source in particular is being discussed there. I'm sure they would appreciate comments over there from anyone here who understands the (free at PubMed Central) paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Translation Task Force priorities for GA, individual GA priorities?

Translation task force assessment statistics WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 3 5 8 GA 24 16 40 B 2 149 2 153 C 2 72 1 2 1 78 Start 8 1 9 Stub 1 1 Category 1 1 Project 1 2 3 Assessed 32 250 3 3 3 2 293 Total 32 250 3 3 3 2 293 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 902 Ω = 3.12 worklist • log • category

I just finished a good article review of low back pain and I see I see we have 8 C-class articles that are rated top-importance within the Translation Task Force. Is there a GA target in the C- or B-class rankings anyone is currently shooting for so we can add to WP:MEDGA2013? I'm confident malaria will be making it up to GA this year. Maybe I could help out if someone already has a target Wikipedia:Gan#Biology_and_medicine looks quiet at the moment. (Meanwhile I did make that edit to a Javanese article because I noticed the picture was gigantic.) Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been tinkering with candidiasis, but got distracted and mostly worked on oral candidiasis instead. It's currently C class, and GA would be good. I initially changed the importance to top per this comment in WPMED#Goals:

#All top-importance articles at B-class quality or above (78.2% complete) (with a priority on improving these 10 articles)

...but following 2 comments that top importance was inappropriate, I downgraded it to high importance, so I guess this would no longer meet what you are asking for. Lesion (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I'm interested in anything people are working on really! But I'm especially interested in things that also either get a lot of hits WP:MED500 or are socioeconomically devastating (schistosomiasis is described that way in our article). Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I care about the malaria article and wish to make time to work on it before the end of the year. If others start then I would join there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I hope to have it back at GAN in a couple of weeks, after I address some loose ends from Biosthmors' record-breakingly thorough GA review last year, and review recent literature. Perhaps you'd be interested in reviewing it? Sasata (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month?

• Perhaps Malaria should be the official WP:MCOTW. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Umm... I vote for November or December. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there's enough momentum to behind malaria at the moment to make me think of proposing a collaboration of the month elsehwere (but please feel free to make comments on the talk page in regards to its hopefully soon good article status). =) What do others think about making a goal of working on a specific backlog to knock down or out? I notice that there are only 38 articles tagged[33] as being in {{WPMED}} with spam/cleanup issues. The first two pages I looked at just needed some bold removals. I'll list them here and can people strike them out when they're addressed? Feel free to also leave notes below each. =) How about I boldly declare this to be the "collaboration of the month" for September? Best! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The 38 spam cleanup articles

• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • wp:stubifyed. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• American Medical Association
• Boroline
• Bugchasing
• Centre for Research in Nursing and Midwifery Education, University of Surrey
• Cherokee Inspired Comfort Award
• Children's Heart Foundation
• David Healy (psychiatrist)
• DICOM
• Dietmar Wittmann
• Effects of cannabis
• Essential tremor
• Foot drop
• Gerontology
• Health care reform in the United States
• Health economics
• Health in Brazil
• Henrietta Lacks
• HPV vaccine
• Hybrid cardiac surgery
• ICT4Autism
  • Should be WP:PRODed? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree, not notable. Article's creator also had a possible COI. Lesion (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Infusion set
• Long-term effects of cannabis
• Low-density lipoprotein
• Medical Library Association
• Neuroepidemiology
• Nurse practitioner
• Orthopedic surgery
• Patient safety organization
• Peripheral neuropathy
  • Spam tag appeared to relate only to EL section. Rm ELs  Done. Lesion (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Physician assistant
• Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
• Project MKUltra
  • Should this be tagged with WPMED? Lesion (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's currently categorized as medical research. Based on that, then I say yes. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Royal Society of Medicine
• Serdev suture
  • Marked as questionable notability. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Sharsheret (organization)
• Tomography
• Wound healing

What is this list? Why these 38? Lesion (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The link is above. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realize this was a continuation section. Lesion (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox disease also known as tag

It would be very useful if the infobox disease had a section where alternate disease names could be placed; these tend to clutter up the articles and I think the infobox is a suitable place for this information to be recorded. Thoughts? LT90001 (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a very long discussion about infoboxes not too long ago. No consensus for change was achieved, however I do not think anyone specifically suggested placing synonyms in the infobox. I think a few synonyms don't distract from the lead flow too much, but in some examples (e.g. This) it does get a bit clumsy looking. Lesion (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO when they become excessive, only the main ones should be kept in the lead and the rest should be moved to the section on society and culture. Same with brand names for meds. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I support creating a field for obscure synonyms of disease names, but I do also think that the most important names should continue to be part of the opening line (if only for the hearing impaired who are likely to hear the article read back to them and might miss out on this information). JFW | T@lk 15:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you really mean hearing impaired, or visually? --Hordaland (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Visually, of course. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I like JFW's suggestion. The problem with putting them in ==Society and culture== is that the section is rare in underdeveloped articles, and it's not really a social or cultural issue anyway. ==History== would make more sense for completely outdated names and for eponyms ("First described by Alice Expert in 1934, which is why it was originally called Expert Disease"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Would be good to have this info in wikidata as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for expert to look over article on Seasickness

The article makes some dubious claims and is poorly cited. Also it might be more suitably merged with motion sickness, but I would prefer to leave that recommendation to someone who has a better medical background. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Francis Weld Peabody

We had a 1-time poster who made a draft of this article two years ago, never edited since. The draft has been in limbo, and since this guy is apparently quite famous in the history of Harvard Med, and of typhoid research, we certainly should have an article about him. The article just needs a little cleanup and a few more footnotes, and there are plentiful mentions of him on GoogleBooks. Could some med person here take a shot at it just for a little, then hit "Resubmit" to so we can get it published? Thanks for any help, MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I prevented it from speedy deletion as an abandoned draft, but all I did was save it so it could get the necessary editing. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The original complaint was lack of references so I found and listed six references. That should establish notability based on references. The article still needs cleanup. I resubmitted it for review but it is still a messy article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that notability is established but the article needs more integration of sources into content to migrate from AfC to mainspace. I added three citations from one source. If anyone else added one citation from another source then that probably would constitute minimal needed effort. If anyone would contribute more than that then this article is worth it and the sources are there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

First ever CC-By informed consent document?

Hello. I am a big fan of clinical research. For years I have wanted access to an informed consent document, which is the paper that a participant in a clinical trial would sign to indicate their consent to participate in a trial.

There is very little coverage of clinical research on Wikipedia. I wish this were not so, because the pharmaceutical industry interfaces with the community through clinical research and I would like to help people be more empowered to understand what research means if they wish to do so.

I managed to find a CC-By informed consent document and research protocol document for a larger-than-average study by Eli Lilly and Company. I uploaded those to Commons, ported the ICD to Wikisource, and made a Wikipedia article to feature them and collect all the research literature about this study. What I made is at PARAMOUNT trial.

Something potentially controversial about this is that I cited ClinicalTrials.gov for some of the information. ClinicalTrials.gov is a United States government website and project for tracking clinical research which will be used to back the introduction and use of drugs in the United States. The site was made in response to consumer safety needs to get certain pieces of information to consumers and to raise accountability of researchers to give more information to the communities in which they conduct their research. It is controversial that I cite this because the information there is self-published and verified only by the pharma company, however it is on this government website because the information is attested and it is the information specifically requested by the government. I feel that since the author is compelled to report this information in a way not of their choosing that this site is not actually a self-publication. Thoughts on this? Most but not all of the information contained therein should be replicated in other papers, but some significant information for consumers - like the international listing of study sites - would be difficult to find from any other source.

I would like to replicate what I have done here with other clinical research in the future. This particular article is not so remarkable, except that it is one of just a few such articles covering clinical trials on Wikipedia and because as I said I think this might be the only trial in the world by a major industry player which has a freely-licensed protocol and ICD. I would appreciate any comments here or on that article's talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting idea, though it will need vigilance to avoid becoming a playground for commercially motivated editors. I've suggested a couple of recent review sources on the article's talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Great work; I agree that important trials often do not get the attention they deserve (one reason might be they are so many and the literature changes so quickly). You've obviously thought through the guidelines on primary sources and original research so I won't go any further there. I've uploaded the image to the informed consent article. I don't see this issue you raise as controversial; many things are self-reported to the government and an audit conducted if necessary; if at some level companies were not trusted to self-report, it would be necessary to go straight to the source for every instance of consent. As with many of our discussions about informed consent, some degree of trust is necessary to keep the wheels oiled in WP, WP:Commons and life in general. LT90001 (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My gut instinct is that the information on ClinicalTrials.gov can be trusted for uncontroversial background information and details that might be difficult to gather otherwise (lists of study centers, dates of trial start and milestones, etc.), but that we should generally shy away from using it to report results or interpretation. It probably goes without saying that we shouldn't be mentioning studies for which no peer-reviewed publications yet exist, or which haven't received suitably extensive secondary coverage. That is, we don't want to be writing articles where ClinicalTrials.gov is the only source, but I see no problem with it being a source.

I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's usual standards and practices – if any – regarding clinical trials, but as a specific comment on PARAMOUNT trial I am not sure that we need quite so much detail on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Those bullet lists are almost as long as the rest of the article; we could probably get away with a summary (perhaps whatever is used in the Materials and Methods section of the published papers?) and leave a footnote for the full criteria. As an incidental benefit, this might alleviate some concern over the volume of material drawn from ClinicalTrials.gov. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, articles on clinical trials are complicated. You should handle them more or less like a small sub-organization, which means that you don't want an article at all unless there are some fairly extensive sources that are 100% independent of the trial. This means, for example, that sources recruiting for participants or articles written by the investigators don't count at all in the notability determination. Your sources must also actually be about the trial, which means that sources reporting the results don't count.

We avoid articles about uncompleted trials unless they are (1) huge and (2) lengthy. And in almost all cases—except for the truly world-changing trials—we have a bias towards merge them with a more significant subject, like the org that's running it, the lead author's bio, or the disease that's involved, because this provides better context and reduces the promotional problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Plastic surgeon advocacy

Mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-25/In the media. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if any complaint about Placik's behavior could be made against his professional registration? Deliberately misinforming the public for personal gain in such a popular medium as Wikipedia is very serious imo. Lesion (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That kind of question and consideration and organizing ourselves with potential letters to write organizations is a function I could see us doing at a potential new noticeboard titled "Media and public relations" or something like that. I proposed it recently at WP:VPI. Ping User:Ocaasi. I think it would build the community and build the brand, despite the risks of airing community dirt. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have time to raise this when the issue was at ANI, but I am as concerned about Placik's images as his writing. Has anyone tackled those? I don't do Commons, images, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There is current discussion at the Labiaplasty talk page about the use of his images, both for and against: Talk:Labiaplasty#Before after image. In addition to some support for his images there, Jmh649 (Doc James) has supported using some of them elsewhere; for example, see the end of this message that was on Placik's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Some are not appropriate but other IMO are fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons is really messed up

An X-ray was deleted as the uploader was "a medical STUDENT and he cannot own these radiographs." and "don't trust another wiki". [34] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Two things to point out. Firstly, that deletion discussion is from five years ago. Secondly, most copyright discussions (both here and on Commons) work more like CSDs than AFDs -- an admin, experienced with copyright work, comes to a decision based on his own investigation, though potentially aided by the input of others. Thus, one cannot say if MichaelMaggs took the statements you cite into account. All we have is his explanatory statement that "Radswiki lists no source", so it should be that which one would need to rebut to have the five-year-old decision overturned. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 12:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty is they are inventing copyright law by trying to use far fetched deductive reasoning. And than deleting images based on their new inventions. Some commons admins are taking huge steps away from what is done in publishing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

James, as you know, the issue of copyright status of x-rays is unclear. There is no legal precedent that I am aware of in any country. The Wikimedia lawyers need to tackle this issue. I know that you have tried to draw the matter to their and the community's attention. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There however is real life precedent and it is that they are not really copyrightable. We are far from the first people to publish X-rays. I have checked with a few journals and authors who back this up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I know that journals regularly publish x-rays without specifically seeking copyright status. Do those journals then claim copyright of the x-rays? If so, on what basis could they claim this? Or are they in the public domain? In which case, could we upload all published x-rays to Wikimedia Commons with a free licence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I recommend that editors consult User:Moonriddengirl for advice regarding copyrights.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have invited Media copyright questions editors to comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly not a lawyer, but I see no reason whatsoever that an X-ray would be any less subject to copyright than any other photograph. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

X-rays are explicitly stated not be subject to copyright in some countries. In others there is no explicit statement and the situation is less clear. Lesion (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a case on Commons where a UK patient uploaded CAT scan images of himself. These were deleted. I tried to argue they were not photographs at all but non-creative computer output but the uploader claimed copyright and this was rejected. Thincat (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That discussion is a sad indication of the misunderstanding of Commons editors, including the closing administrator. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been asking academics how thing work in the real world. Have spoken with an important person at the NIH (in an none official capacity), a widely published radiologist from Sweden, the founder of a radiology image wiki, and others. They all agree that diagnostic X-rays are not like pictures. That they are unsure if the images are copyrightable. But if they are they are definitely NOT owned by the X-ray tech. And those that have published X-rays have not asked for official permission from anyone before doing so. They do not see why a patient would be unable to publish their own images.

Now we at Wikipedia/Commons can say that everyone else in the world is currently "breaking the law" however I think we need to be very carefully if we are to make this position explicit. Could make us look foolish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Commons policy is very clear: all images have to be in the public domain in both the source country and in the United States. If an image isn't properly sourced, then the source country may be unknown. If the source country is unknown, then this seems to favour deletion per Commons:COM:PRP as the source country might be a country in which the image is copyrightable. One of the mentioned images was unsourced, and the other one was from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has a very low threshold of originality, which is why we don't allow British signatures on Commons until 70 years after the death of the signatory (see Commons:COM:SIG#United Kingdom) or simple text logos (File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg was deleted after we found out that a British court decided that the logo was copyrighted in the United Kingdom). A medical X-ray image is almost certainly copyrightable in the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Legal advice from the Foundation suggests that Xrays are photographs and thus copyrighted though who owns the copyright varies country to country. Irregardless, they aren't free. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Stefan2, only your last sentence is of relevance to this discussion. And that statement is pure speculation.

Masem, that page does not suggest that x-rays are photographs. Of note, it states "We could not find any case law directly addressing the issue of the copyrightability of x-ray images." In the absence of such guidance, the author (Pholm) draws an analogy between x-rays and photographs. Pholm's last statement is "Depending on the circumstances, a radiology technician, radiologist, consulting physician, physician group, hospital, or some combination thereof, may hold any copyright that exists." Yet in the absence of case law, it is impossible to know who owns the copyright. If it is impossible to know who owns the copyright, in what sense does copyright exist? Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have posted a RfC on WP:LAW, a more legal insight into this matter might help the discussion. LT90001 (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Like most pages I have seen on Wikilegal, it is worthless. It gives the illusion of containing useful and learned advice, but is actually pure speculation by an intern, and only considers US law. It is merely the opinion of one person with no stake in the matter and no experience of the subject. I fear the longer this discussion goes on, the more random speculation with accumulate. This is an example of where crowd-sourcing fails -- too many know-nothings with opinions -- and of where the dogmatism on Commons conflicts with pragmatism in the real world. WMF should state a position they are willing to defend in court (as they have done with photographs of PD art) or else require Commons delete all radiology images without OTRS evidence from institution where the image was obtained. Perhaps the denuding of Commons of such a huge collection of encyclopaedic photographs (leaving behind a collection of erect penises) will help the WMF focus on how their education project has gone off the rails. The doubt helps nobody. I don't think there is any realistic chance of an uploader or reuser being sued here (unless someone is stupid enough to scrape an x-ray from a journal), but the ongoing doubt causes people to waste their time uploading images (sometimes with verbal "permission") only for some Commons admin to get all hot headed and delete it. -- Colin°^Talk 08:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear from the page itself to what extent it represents the official and legal stance of Wikimedia Commons/Meta-wiki. I am not active in those projects so I am unfamiliar with their processes. I assumed good faith when Masem described it as "Legal advice from the Foundation". The author, Peter Holm, is a legal intern working for Wikimedia Foundation. It is certainly plausible that this is the official stance.

I don't think that it's helpful to characterize editors as "know-nothings". It is an ad hominem argument and could be construed as a personal attack. These editors are not stupid, and they are acting in good faith with the aim of improving Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps "misguided" would be more accurate.

It is interesting that you mention medical journals. According to Stefan2 and Masem's interpretation, every medical journal and medical textbook publisher is infringing copyright. Although exactly whose copyright they are infringing is impossible to know. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the disclaimer at the top. Masem is wrong to call it "legal advice from WMF". It is no more authoritative than a blog post. WMF have no official stance other than to state that issues of copyright are entirely the responsibility of the uploader/community.

There's an endemic problem on the Internet (and we all fall into the trap) of voicing an strong opinion on a subject you really know nothing about. As they say "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Combine this with a position of power and you have a sorry mess. A five minute internet search and suddenly someone is acting like they are an expert in Swedish copyright law. I don't really understand why someone should wake up one morning and decided to delete a featured picture that has been on Commons for five years and is used on many articles in many Wikipedias. Commons could benefit from more admins saying "Honestly, I don't know the legal situation here, and perhaps nobody does. So I'm going to do something else where I know my actions are correct and helpful.". Pragmatically, that would help Commons because it would respect the actual situation where it is ultimately the uploader's responsibility and nobody else. Pragmatism would help here because if the whole world acts like radiology images aren't copyright, then the speculation of lawyers is just unhelpful and hinders Commons mission to provide educational content. That would leave admins time to spend deleting content where they know the copyright situation or content with other legal and ethical problems. The admins aren't "misguided"; they are ignorant and should recognise their limitations. That people don't like this pointed out to them, is understandable.

The medical publishers claim the copyright for themselves. Which is of course ridiculous and unethical. Colin°^Talk 11:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for pointing out the disclaimer at the top of the page. It states "This page is not legal advice or a representation of the viewpoints of the Wikimedia Foundation." Masem is indeed wrong to describe the page as "Legal advice from the Foundation". The page is no more than Peter Holm's opinion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Erm. It should be emphasized that there is a significant difference between "there isn't any case law on this point right now" and "this particular right does not exist". The former simply means that no one has brought this particular question to trial and followed it all the way through to a judge's ruling—at least, not as far as the WMF's legal intern could discover in putting together a blog post. I suspect that if we started scanning radiographs from radiology textbooks and uploading them to Commons, some useful case law would very quickly accrue.

The issue probably hasn't come up in a significant case-law sort of way because the people who write the textbooks are generally the same radiologists (or the friends and colleagues of the radiologists) who collected the images. Hospitals which employ the radiologists want their employees and contractors to publish papers and textbooks because it is good for everyone's reputation. In the case of a textbook or journal article, there's nobody who would plausibly have standing to claim copyright who wouldn't have given permission to use the images before publication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it seems that unless the radiologist is self-employed, they don't have any claim to the image at all. The copyright, should there be any, belongs to the employer. What we are trying to establish, with various enquiries, is whether anyone actually does ask for permission or give permission. So far the answer seems to be no. In other words, the journals and textbooks are claiming copyright for themselves for images where they don't have copyright. It would indeed be foolish to start scanning from radiology books, though one suspects the publishers may have more to lose from any court case than a wikipedian. What unfortunately seems to be the situation is that a gentlemen's agreement won't satisfy the admins at Commons. -- Colin

" In the case of a textbook or journal article, there's nobody who would plausibly have standing to claim copyright who wouldn't have given permission to use the images before publication. "

— TenOfAllTrades

So if they think that the copyright owner would have given permission, it's okay to use the copyrighted image? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, Axl, but TenOfAllTrades's quote isn't correct. And giving "permission to use" one thing and quite separate from transferring ownership of copyright. My impression is that journals are claiming copyright on images they have no right to. The copyright (should it exist) would remain with the NHS Trust (say) that employed the radiographer who did the scan. From talking to one journal and to authors, it appears the journal's official line is that they expect the authors to get necessary permissions, but don't check themselves, and the authors in turn are unaware they need to get permission and have never done so nor had any problems (provided the patient isn't identified). Colin°^Talk 09:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right that I should have written more clearly—it wasn't my intent to suggest that the combination of permissions and (often) hospital policies encouraging and allowing physicians to publish medical images constituted a formal grant or transfer of copyright, or indeed that they even mention copyright. The physicians who write papers for medical journals generally have to sign off on a statement that they hold the appropriate copyrights and/or have obtained the required permissions, but as far as journal publishers are concerned there isn't any follow-up; they take those signed (but probably dubious) author statements at their word. My point was that even if the journals had worried about the issue, they get by on a combination of we've-always-done-it-this-way and nobody's-going-to-sue-so-it-doesn't-matter—reasoning which we, on Wikipedia, cannot find acceptable.

While I'm hesitant to further muddy the waters, it is also worth bearing in mind that in some jurisdictions many physicians are independent contractors rather than employees—even for physicians who nominally work at or in clinics or hospitals. While I doubt very much that the reason for such arrangements had anything at all to do with intellectual property concerns, it does have significant intellectual property ramifications. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes most physicians are independent contractors. Does not really mean much as they are still not taking the images but are publishing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are any circumstances where a physician would own copyright, unless working in some Third World practice where he'd have to do his own x-rays, or in episode of House, where the physicians appears to do everything. A self-employed radiographer would own copyright, unless his contract said differently. Given that it is typically physicians who publish the papers, the most they will have is "permission to publish", not "permission to give Elsevier the copyright to my work". Colin°^Talk 14:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The copyright laws are very different in different countries. In some countries such as the United States, the copyright to a work for hire belongs to the employer. On the other hand, in other countries such as Sweden, the copyright belongs to the employee, unless you create computer software (see § 40 a in the copyright law). Many countries use the laws of the source country to determine the copyright holder of a work for hire. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No-one is ever going to sue about any of these images. There is no cause to delete them. Stop pretending that your "contributions" are in anyway helpful. Lesion (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I just spoke with a radiologist and another very well published research from Sweden. They laughed at the idea that the tech owns the image. They state that if anyone does it is the hospital. And that all can use the images without needing permission. One is checking with legal at his hospital as he manages a health region there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it strange that some commons admins wish to push this issue. They are more or less pushing to have all radiological images deleted even though we have obtained the equivalent permission as publishers. They are exposing themselves and Wikipedia to no risk by leaving things as they are, while publishers might be exposed to some risk by continuing on as they have been. We really have better things to do than trying to create case law. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons has a "precautionary principle" which doesn't let them get away with "everyone does this so it must be ok" or "nobody will mind" sort of attitude. I think this is good for cases where lots of people really are breaking a law and depriving artists of their earnings (like for illegal movies and music downloads). But with these images we seem to have a situation where copyright shouldn't be sticking its nose in -- there are no artists making a living from selling these pictures -- but does simply because the technology is similar to photography and an image is produced that looks a bit like a photograph. And this situation will not be resolved because it isn't in anyone's interest to spend money fixing a problem they don't have in practice. What should Commons do in that case? Do we need some kind of "You really have better things to do with your time" kind of policy? Where technically deletable images are not deleted because it really is in nobody's interest to be anal about it. I'd support that along with some kind of template on the images to say that issues of ownership and copyright surrounding radiology images are unclear and untested and that professional practice has historically allowed physicians and patients to do what they like with images. We have the odd situation that user-uploaded images are investigated but not ones from open access journals -- yet it doesn't appear the latter are any better. Colin°^Talk 14:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC is open regarding this question at Commons [35] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)