Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 17

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 17

Poikiloderma vasculare atrophicans

I added a couple photos of this condition. Would some of you be willing to help me beef this article up? ---kilbad (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 17

Poppers

I think the article should be tagged for this project. The lede seems POV in that these are largely untested and unregulated chemicals used recreationally and known to cause medical problems yet the article seems to glow about how harmless they are. Thoughts? -- Banjeboi 19:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The article has been a cesspit for awhile. I abandoned it a year or two ago after a proliferation of warring single-purpose accounts depressed me. It would probably be worthwhile to revisit it. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ONe of those SPA's was, IMHO, Hank Wilson who seems to have been a lone activist trying to collect and distribute the scientific studies he found. He died last year at some point. The others have every appearance of selling the stuff. -- Banjeboi 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The recreational drug pages along with sex topics are some of Wikipedias most visited. They are also the most heavily vandalized. Both fall under WP:MED! Are we not lucky? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hank Wilson passed away at the end of 2008, and I do remember hearing that he had held on to the causation of poppers with AIDS/KS long after that was abandoned. Here's a bibliography attributed to him. I don't see anything in the article covering poppers use and increased STD risk due to vasodilation, although there is material on tie to increased high-risk behavior and on use with Viagra. With respect to the pages popularity, I've been working under the assumption that flagged revisions would eventually wind their to way to a lot of med articles at some point for that reason. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just done a bit of a rewrite of the article to resolve poor sourcing and POV issues. Mastcell has also helped improve the article as well. Hopefully the major concerns with the article have been resolved now and fingers crossed the SPA's don't return. Optigan13 with regard to KS the most recent review seems to give weight to poppers being associated with kaposi's sarcoma but a more recent study found no association. It seems the literature is devided on the issue although the volume and quality of the research into poppers is seriously lacking.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Any reason the article uses that title rather than merging to the more formal alkyl nitrites? Smack is a dab page linked to Heroin, e.g. LeadSongDog come howl 21:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A merge may help ease the promotional SPA issues and get the focus on the chemical aspects. -- Banjeboi 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NAME I think that poppers is the right name for the article as it is most commonly known under this name by lay people. Poppers also gets more pubmed hits in the academic literature. A similar controversy has previously been discussed with regard to the heroin article and whether it should be renamed to diamorphine.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ecstasy disambiguates to MDMA and on pubmed, "amyl nitrite" gets four times the hits of "poppers". LeadSongDog come howl 06:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as the information is easily accessible - like ensuring poppers is prominently in the lede - I think it would be fine. -- Banjeboi 06:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry guys I must have gotten confused, amyl nitrite does indeed get more hits in pubmed. I would be happy if poppers is merged into amyl nitrite.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Juice Plus

This article has been held hostage by a very lengthy (since 2006) edit war mostly between two editors, TraceyR (believer) and Rhode Island Red (skeptic). This situation is untenable and the deadlock can probably only be broken with consistent input from more editors, especially nutrionists and other interested medical personnel. More eyes please. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Book-class

Alright I went ahead and implemented the book-class for the project. You currently have 4 medicine-related books, such as Book:Prostate. All books can be found in Category:Book-Class medicine articles. Headbomb {^????_???????? - WP Physics} 23:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. -- Carl (CBM · talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Curious..

..are there any lipid metabolism disorders that may present as a mild case of diabetes that is aggravated by lipid intake? Or any case of diabetes? --CopperKettle 16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we mean the same thing when we say "lipid metabolism disorder"? I think of a purely genetic problem (i.e., enzyme mutation). There are all kinds of much more common things that are "aggravated" by "lipid intake" in some people, e.g., pancreatitis, gall bladder problems, hepatitis... WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the rare species, so to speak. Enzyme mutations and such that sprang up as a strange form of diabetes, possibly with strange neurological side-effects, that vanish when lipid intake drops. --CopperKettle 04:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The matter is, I have this kind of strange diabetes for 10 years that stubbornly refuses to develop into a full-blown form and is marked as "MODY diabetes (?)" (sic, with a question mark) on my medical card. Personally endocrinologists say to me that they havent met the disease with such course as mine; some say "this is not diabetes". Sugar load test keeps telling it is diabetes, but with diet the glycated haemo stays normal. For 10 years. And it is aggravated by lipid intake, it seems to me. Excessive lipid\caloric intake leads to strange feelings (left hand numbness, dizzyness, dizziness while performing cognitive tasks) and.. dry mouth without the increase in blood sugar. Also I have keratoconus, and normal\high lipid\caloric intake seems to lead both to increased days of "sore throat" and "cloudy cornea" (that requires topical steroids), so I keep at unnaturally low levels of calories and lipids for years. --CopperKettle 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

See Maturity onset diabetes of the young. --Arcadian (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I know about it, but doubt that any type of it is so strange. I'll look once more though.. through each type more closely.. but still.--CopperKettle 05:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're far better off dealing with a professional who can look over your whole history than to let a bunch of strangers try to guide you. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you send me an email address via my user account will sent you a copy of the uptodate on "Classification of diabetes mellitus and genetic diabetic syndromes". Would be great to have someone interested in improving the diabetes pages on Wikipedia. They are still a bit of a mess. Did a bit of work on them but could use some more.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm planning to just now for a meeting with a specialist, WhatamI; was just curious. Thank you, Jmh, I'll contact you shortly. Best regards, --CopperKettle 06:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Images from 1902 paper

Can images from a 1902 derm paper be uploaded onto Wikipedia as far as copyright goes? See User_talk:Kilbad#The_nosology_of_parapsoriasis_PDF for more details regarding this question. ---kilbad (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me that there's a problem. The copyright in the US is likely to have expired at the end of 1997, and I've replied in more detail at your talk page. --RexxS (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

deletion nomination of Template:Abuse

Listing this here to get more eyes on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Concerns regarding this section of the TMJ syndrome article

Hey all, I decided to raise this concern here because the contributors to this WikiProject would probably have the most experience dealing with articles that inch too close to crossing the line between articles on medical topics and giving medical advice. I invite you to take a look at this section of the TMJ syndrome article and comment about what you think. To me, it seems like a "how-to" guide to treating a medical condition, which is basically giving medical advice, right? However, I'm a little too inexperienced in this area to be bold and just remove or rewrite the whole section, so I was hoping for ideas. The talk page of the article itself is pretty much dead, so I brought this issue here instead of there. I will, however, link to this discussion there, so interested contributors can make their way here. --Nick--^Contact/_Contribs 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Written the way it was and being uncited I don't think keeping and rewriting it was an option. In future in such circumstances I would encourage you to WP:BEBOLD. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Symphysis pubis dysfunction

The article contains some dubious and unsourced medical information as well as peacock terminology. More eyes please. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Policy regarding citation of disease synonyms

Are there policies out there regarding how disease synonyms are cited? I think when a disease synonym is included in an article, it should have it's own citation so someone can verify where it has come from. When there are multiple synonyms, I think they should each be associated with their own citation, even if they all come from the same source. The reason being that if someone comes along and adds an additional synonym, the sources of the previous ones are not confused. Any thoughts? ---kilbad (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand the impulse, but it makes the text less readable, which is highly undesirable. Additionally, alternate names are usually presented in the first sentence, and citations are gently deprecated for the entire lead section, particularly for non-controversial statements.

Inline citations are actually required for only a remarkably small set of facts:

• Direct quotations
• Contentious statements about living people
• Facts whose accuracy is disputable ("challenged or likely to be challenged")
• Statistics (defined broadly)
• Opinions that need to be attributed to a source

That's the whole list, and making it very slightly harder to vandalize the alternate names for a disease isn't on the list.

In my experience, it's usually quite easy to verify alternate names, and adding a source tag won't prevent anyone from incorrectly copying an existing source tag over to newly added names. I really don't think that you'd be gaining much with that practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I support Kilbad's proposal. On many articles, the primary arguments about article content derive from differing underlying assumptions about whether or not two different terms actually refer to the same condition. The best way to resolve these disputes is to provide unambiguous provenance for the assertion of equivalence. --Arcadian (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WAID. If something is problematic or disputed, ask for a citation; otherwise, it makes no sense to have to cite that synonyms for Tourette syndrome are Tourette's, TS and GTS, for example. Current policy already covers this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a slightly different suggestion. If there are alternate names that may be contentious, then that fact, in itself is interesting. Only in the cases where there disputable alternates, I'd recommend a short section immediately after the lead entitled Naming, or similar, which would be the best place to describe alternate names - and any contention - and cite the sources. The lead would then contain those alternates as part of its function of summarising the rest of the (cited) article. That would have the dual advantage of keeping the lead concise and free of cites, and drawing attention to the issue of alternate names. Although this is not prescribed in WP:MEDMOS, it's a common enough tactic elsewhere in wikipedia to make it worth consideration. --RexxS (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Names might also be reasonably discussed in a history section, and could be appropriately cited in that case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Zidovudine

Additional eyes are needed at Zidovudine, where a strongly opinionated editor with a block history on the article is stating that cancer is a side effect of AZT. The source is a California website. I don't feel that this satisfies our sourcing requirements for medicine, nor do I think it's appropriate to include a paragraph about the purported carcinogenicity of a substance partially responsible for the reduction in AIDS-related cancers. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree read through lexidrugs and they do not mention cancer as a side effect. Would need good primary research or a review to support something like this.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The influence of antiretroviral therapy in general (and NNRTIs in particular) on the incidence of cancer is a fascinating topic. While HAART leads to clear declines in most AIDS-defining malignancies, the data are much more conflicting and unclear with regard to non-AIDS-defining malignancies. The page on zidovudine is probably not the place to cover this, since no one uses zidovudine in isolation - probably more appropriate for the page on HAART. The editor in question, Eye.earth (talk · contribs), is a relentless promoter of AIDS denialism on various and sundry pages, from zidovudine through Paul Gann, and they're not above anything from misrepresenting refs to actual socking. The focus on zidovudine (as if it were still 1993) is typical AIDS-denialist stuff, but despite the unpromising provenance of these edits, it's something we should probably look into covering a bit more deeply. Several recent high-quality papers and reviews are available, which I will collect as time permits. MastCell ^Talk 00:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Uptodate makes mention of Dyslipidemia, Glucose intolerance/diabetes mellitus, Coronary artery disease, Lipodystrophy, Peripheral neuropathy, Lactic acidosis, Hepatic, renal, and bone marrow toxicity, Bone disorders as long term complications of treatment but does not comment on cancer.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This paper comes out and says they are not associated [1]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Although AZT and other NRTIs are much more specific for the viral polymerase, they do have some affinity for cellular polymerases. One could certainly envision a possible mechanism for carcinogenesis. However, NRTI-mediated increase in cancer incidence has not yet been established in humans. Until more research is done, I don't see a reason to include carcinogenicity speculation in the Zidovudine article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Addition of links to National Institutes of Health GeneReviews

Addition of links to National Institutes of Health GeneReviews. AN/I discussion of relevance to this project. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

Would some of you be willing to proofread the WP:DERM dermatology task force pages? I want to get more dermatologists involved, and would like the project pages looking as professional as possible. Regardless, thank you for all your help in the past! ---kilbad (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Article in French

I have a pdf article in French that I would like to use as a source for a dermatology-related article. Is there anyone that could help me translate it? ---kilbad (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Google is a good place to start.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be able to find a French-English translator through Wikipedia:Translation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I could help, if you want. Don't know much about dermatology, though! --Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I always use [2] for all my translation needs. It is not perfect obviously but it serves me well.Calaka (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tympanosclerosis

Anyone willing to review? Start, C or B? Just finished writing. Regards, ----Cyclonenim | Chat  21:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Jfdwolff (talk · contribs) :) Regards, ----Cyclonenim | Chat  22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox symptom

The emedicine tags do not seem to work in this infobox. Trying to set them up for limp and unable. Anyone know why? Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done eMedicine website structure got changed some time ago. {{Infobox Disease}} had correctly working code allowing for old style topic/number referencing and newer 'article'/number approaches (as well as search lists results), but {{Infobox Symptom}} was not coded correctly - now rectified David Ruben ^Talk 02:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New categories

There are a few dermatology-related categories under discussion at: Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Additional_sections_.7C_categories. As always, feedback is appreciated! ---kilbad (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Spinal disc herniation

A self-identified chiropractor (see the edit summary) keeps adding chiropractic and spinal decompression to the article. Spinal manipulation is usually considered a relative contraindication for this condition and spinal decompression machines are the subject of FDA confiscation and prosecution because of the claims made for them in connection with the treatment of this condition. I'm not sure what to do and would rather not get in an edit war with this person. More eyes on the situation please. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The anon is in Canada, where the US FDA's actions are pretty much irrelevant.

However, it sounds like this topic should be covered in the article, e.g., with a really stellar scientific source that directly says that spinal manipulation is relatively contraindicated (particularly in serious cases). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi gang! You're absolutely spot on, What'! I'm pretty sure Brangifer will be able to find such a reference, or more. I suggest that the anonymous Canadian Chiropractor should be invited to present the volumes of references that he or she promised in the edit summary s/he made. A particular treatment modality should not be added without references. I think it'd be better to tag Chiro Rx as {{dubious}} or at least unsourced and flag the information for removal from the article if suitable references are not provided. At the same time, valid reasons not to opt for a particular course of treatment, properly cited, should also be provided in the interests of having a balanced POV in the article. And by valid reasons, I echo What' in saying that just because the FDA does it is not valid in the global sense - that's just the decision of one committee in one country, after all. However, stating their reasons and the evidence behind them would be valid! Cheers, Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 00:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Me again, I've taken the liberty of tagging the chiro entry in the treatment section as dubious and needing citation. I've written to BR and "Anon Chiro IP Editor" to request some justification for the entry too. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 01:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a crack at improving that section. Take a look. More refs are always welcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see sources/quotes that say that a disc herniation is a relative contraindication for SMT, as a google search turns up only one source, which states the opposite - "Manipulation does not appear to be contraindicated for patients with bulging discs or herniation..." I have added some sources to the relevant article talk page to move things along. DigitalC (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of uncited content

This IP is removing uncited content [3] some of it correct just unreferenced. Not sure if I should revert? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If he's removing useful content, it's probably worth reverting and explaining to the IP that strict sourcing is only really required in BLPs. Whilst we always want sources, sometimes it's just not possible and uncited facts can just be given the "citation needed" tag. I assume the IP is doing so in good faith. Anyway, I'd revert the stuff that is likely to be true and unsourced (not patently false), explain, and then either tag the facts as citation needed, or find a source yourself. Regards, ----Cyclonenim | Chat  14:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a note for the anon and updated the docs at Template:Fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the IP editor reverts [4] your note... May be worth while watching to see if the advice was heeded or not. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 00:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:TALK permits editors to remove messages from their own talk pages; it is taken as evidence that the user has actually read the message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The diffs I reviewed showed that the editor was removing uncited content that has been tagged for a long period of time, and not fixed. If you want to revert the edit and provide a source for the information, that is fine. Reverting the removal of unsourced content goes against WP:V:

This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation

Both the fact tags and the removal of the content are example of challenges to the material. Remember that Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. It would be better if the IP editor would search for a source for the information, rather than just remove the challenged information, but then again, no editor has come forward with a source for quite awhile. DigitalC (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue is now also being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Policy_needs_clarification. DigitalC (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with image

I have a PDF with a fiqure from 1903 that I would like to use on wikipedia. I wanted to know if someone could help me extract the image from the PDF and clean the image up (removing any grain, etc)? Regardless, thank you all for the help in the past. ---kilbad (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can try for you, I've sent you an email. --RexxS (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A new ambitious user

User:Immunize (contribs) has been creating new unreferenced medical articles and has been making unreferenced additions to existing medical articles. I have been trying to get this user to cite sources, but he is reluctant to take my advice. Also, the user's grammar and punctuation need help. I simply cannot keep up with this user's edits and I also am nowhere near an expert in the topics in which he is contributing. Can someone take a look at this person's edits? Regards, PDCook (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes looks like he / she could be a very good contributor if he / she referenced what they wrote. Will look into it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the contributor's work comes from Emedicine. Is that a reliable source? It looks like the articles there are written by MDs or PhDs and sources are cited. PDCook (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is sort of reliable but is not a preferred reference source. But to reference the actual research / review or a more stable source such as a text book.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently emedicine is preferred over actual text books. ---kilbad (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not see were it says this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was being facetious. Sorry... ---kilbad (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I cited Emedicine in a few of Immunize's articles, as it is better than nothing. I found a couple of primary articles and reviews, but most were in journals my University did not have an online subscription to, so I figured it was better off left to someone who can read them deal with. Thanks, PDCook (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still cleaning up a lot of this user's issues. He doesn't really listen to my warnings very well. Can someone else please give him some advice? I fear this may end up on ANI if it doesn't get better. PDCook (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Serious copyright violations, see this comment. Many of this user's contributions may need to be deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies.However,I still do not understand how much a contribution has to be in your own words.If you respond,do it on your own talk page after posting a talkback template on my user.Thank you.Immunize (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Why have you not responded? Immunize (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Vertebral artery dissection

In spite of the fact that chiropractic high cervical neck manipulation has been strongly associated with VAD, strokes, and deaths, a recent addition on that subject was reverted. I have to agree that the German study isn't the best one because its language/translation is confusing and it includes numerous examples not performed by chiropractors. It does, quite correctly, show that the technique itself, not the practitioner, is problematic. It is only noted so often in connection with chiropractic because they perform most cervical neck manipulations.

The article is merely a stub and needs development. This was the only mention of chiropractic, which is the most common cause of VAD in persons under 45 years of age, with a 500% increased risk of VAD among those who have visited a chiropractor within 1 week of the VBA. A California study found a 600% increased risk.

I have collected a number of sources in this somewhat sensationalistic blog entry. Rather than gettting bogged down in my rhetoric (except the short introduction, which should be read), look carefully at the sources and see if some of them can be used to develop the subject. More here:

• Edzard Ernst, Spinal manipulation: Its safety is uncertain CMAJ o January 8, 2002; 166 (1)

• Stephen Barrett, Chiropractic's Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes

More eyes needed. The stub needs to be developed, and cervical manipulation needs be mentioned as an important risk factor. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of that source as it was blatantly misleading the statistics reported in the article, and I have a problem with the reliability of a source that misrepresents its own facts in the abstract. Rather than reading Ernst from 2002, or such biased sources as Barrett, I would suggest reading the interdiscipinary studies performed by the World Health Organization Bone and Joint Decade Task Force (2000-2010):

• Risk of Vertebrobasilar Stroke and Chiropractic Care: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control and Case-Crossover Study "VBA stroke is a very rare event in the population. The increased risks of VBA stroke associated with chiropractic and PCP visits is likely due to patients with headache and neck pain from VBA dissection seeking care before their stroke. We found no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care compared to primary care."
• Clinical Practice Implications of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders (Long read.)
• Risk of Vertebrobasilar Stroke and Chiropractic Care: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control and Case-Crossover Study "At the ecological level, the increase in VBA stroke does not seem to be associated with an increase in the rate of chiropractic utilization."
• Bone and Joint Decade webpage, with link to executive summary

There is good, peer-reviewed science available on this, and no need to refer to blogs or articles that misrepresent their data. DigitalC (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see we share the concern about that one source. As to your other comment, obviously no blogs would be used. It's just a collection of sources that could be used, and Barrett's article also lists many reliable sources. Here are even more sources.

• Spinal manipulation research

Obviously the use of chiropractic sources will usually tend to emphasize only one side of the debate, or even whitewash the situation. For example, the two chiropractic sources mentioned above (Cassidy and Boyle), are often used to trump myriad other sources, which is a very biased method of protecting the profession and stopping investigation of this subject. Patient safety is ignored by this approach. The degree of denial is incredible. Every time this subject has been broached and attempted here at Wikipedia it is immediately attacked by chiropractors and their advocates. Deletionism is a favorite ploy. In this case you had a legitimate excuse, but when better sources are used, I'm wondering what your reaction will be.

There is a debate. Of that there is no doubt, and that debate can be documented using RS, and that should be included in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that describing the World Health Organization Bone and Joint Decade Task Force studies as "chiropractic sources" to be disenguously misleading. These were not "chiropractic sources", but rather interdisciplinary sources.

The multidisciplinary, international Task Force led by Prof Scott Haldeman from the University of California in Irvine and in L.A., involved more than 50 researchers based in 9 countries and represented 14 different clinical and scientific disciplines in 8 universities. The group assembled the best international research data on neck pain and related disorders - specifically more than 31,000 research citations with subsequent analysis of over 1,000 studies - making this monumental document one of the most extensive reports on the subject of neck pain ever developed, and offering the most current expert perspective on the evidence related to the treatment of neck pain.

.

It is true that Cassidy was originally trained as a chiropractor, but it is equally true that he also holds a Ph.D and a Dr. Med Sc. It is also true that he is a Professor of Epidemiology with the Department of Public Health Sciences in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. To simply cast off these sources because a chiropractor was involved is bad logic and bad science.

Boyle on the otherhand, is not a chiropractor. She has a M.Sc and a Ph.D. Other researchers involved include Pierre Cote, who has a chiropractic degree, but also a Ph.D. and is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. How about Yaohua He, who is an MD, Ph.D, or Frank Silver MD, FRCPC? You discount their involvement in this massive project when you descripe these articles as "chiropractic sources". DigitalC (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I only mentioned two names, not the World Health Organization Bone and Joint Decade Task Force, but you're right, Haldeman is also a chiropractor (second third generation IIRC) and uses his MD to give chiropractic good press. My point is that one can't blindly accept a source. The researchers also have their biases, and whenever chiropractors are involved, or, like Haldeman, lead the study, it will usually favor chiropractic.

BTW, some of the data in the Cassidy study doesn't back up his editorializing conclusions. His conclusions are unrelated to much of the other data which could easily explain away his conclusions. He has lots of statistics in there which he doesn't use to soften his conclusions.

The Cassidy data shows that in this population patients are 7-8 times more likely to have consulted a primary care MD than a chiropractor over the time intervals for any reason, as demonstrated by the fact that in the 3164 control cases (no VAD) 29.9% of cases had seen a doctor within the previous month while only 4% consulted chiropractors.

This doesn't seem to have been allowed for anywhere in his conclusions. These two factors (the other being that patients with actual VADs would normally preferentially consult an MD) could well explain why there appears to be an association of MD consultations with VAD. The strong associations shown in this and other studies of VAD and neck manipulation remains unaccounted for. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't comparing MDs and DCs, but rather primary care MDs (ie, not the emergency room). Patients with VADs complain of headaches and neck pain, and aren't necessarily likely to consult an emergency room with those symptoms, but would likely consult a chiropractor or their family doctor. However, if they have full-blown symptoms of a VAD, then they would consult an emergency room. Given that both Cassidy and Cote have Ph.D's in epidemiology, and Haldeman is a professor of epidemiology at UCLA, I'm sure that they understand the statistics better than you or I. As an interesting/trivial aside, Haldeman is a third generation chiropractor - his grandmother was the first chiropractor in Canada - might be worth a bio if there are good sources that discuss her. Again, Haldeman is also a medical doctor, so to state that he is biased towards one side or the other seems to be an adhominem attack - "he is a chiropractor and therefore the study will favor chiropractic" (paraphrased). DigitalC (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tweaked my comment to make sure that such a misunderstanding doesn't happen again. Writing "MD" was too vague. I didn't imply ER MDs at all, so nothing else needs changing.

Thanks for the info about Haldeman. 3rd generation! I wasn't too far off. That establishes his bias as more genetic than cognitive and professional. He simply can't do otherwise since he's actually in a familial relationship with the profession. ;-) My comment was based on the fact that nearly all his work involving chiropractic subjects tends to glorify it or subtly run interference for it with his MD colleagues. (He wouldn't get paid if he criticized the profession. He makes lots of money speaking for them and they'd stop hiring him. He'd essentially become "divorced" from his "family".) He's a favorite poster boy used by the profession when they want the added prestige of an "MD" title promoting their agenda. That's just what I've gleaned from my years of reading his publications, seminars and speeches. In this he's no different than chiropractors in France, who for many years had to become MDs to legally practice chiropractic. Once they graduated, they promptly ignored their scientific learnings and reverted back to chiropractic metaphysics and unethical practices, while being legally protected by their MD title.

It is very telling that he very rarely (if ever) speaks out clearly and loudly against the unscientific practices, fraud, abuse, and quackery which have been documented by chiropractic researchers to be more prevalent in their own profession than in other professions. (See here for refs.) Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm very willing to change my mind if you can show me refs where he does criticize his own profession/family. His status as an MD enables him to get acceptance for chiropractic POV where a DC would not get acceptance for saying exactly the same thing. That's what I've observed over the years.

I'm pretty certain that some of the MDs reading this can identify with the still common attitude in the medical profession, that an MD automatically has more credibility than a DC, IF one only looks at their credentials. There is still a lot of (justified) skepticism toward the chiropractic profession. Chiropractors are in much the same situation, as the old joke goes, that, just like women and blacks, they have to work twice as hard to get half the pay credibility. In some cases it's quite unfair to certain chiropractors, but there are historical reasons for those attitudes. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Toxicology Task Force / Need help adding health effects of household/industrial chemicals

Two questions:

1. What is the status of the Toxicology task force proposal? It seems that the conversation kind of died last November, but it looks like at least a few people were interested. What would we need to do to get that project started?
   • Nevermind, answered my own question -- I'm creating the project now. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
2. I am about to start going through the list of chemicals/health problems listed in CHE Toxicant and Disease Database, Scorecard.org: Chemical Profiles, and other such sources, and adding known health effects for each chemical to the WP article for that chemical. Anyone interested in helping me with this? Know of any other sources I might use? Thanks Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at an example from CHE, I appreciate the categorization by strength of evidence. However, they don't seem to include any information about absolute or relative risk, and that could be misleading to our readers. For example, something can have very strong evidence to support a link -- but perhaps only one in a thousand people are ever exposed to that level of some uncommon toxin, and only one in a hundred of small group of exposed people ever develop the disease as a result of the exposure... and perhaps it's a common disease, like hypertension. The result is that you could have a ~99.993% chance that any given case of high blood pressure is not caused by the "strong evidence" toxin. Simply saying "There is strong evidence that [name of rare thing] causes this disease" -- which is all this source says -- doesn't begin to communicate the importance of this fact to the reader.

Also, I don't think that a laundry list of every probably associated substance is going to help our readers; it might be worth limiting such lists to those with strong evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- as far as Wikipedia articles for certain pathologies, I was only going to include chemicals with strong evidence, and was only using the CHE database as a place to get ideas for chemicals to search for in the literature. On the other hand, as far as chemicals, I don't think it would hurt to have a "laundry list" of health effects, since that list will be much shorter than the list of chemicals suspected to cause a certain illness. Thanks for your comments. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a bunch of work on toxicology related articles in the past. Worked on the more common overdoses. This would be a good place to start. Will do more work on it eventually.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent -- looking forward to working with you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stupid questions perhaps

A couple of questions arose while reading on MELAS syndrome.

• Will eating dairy products increase lactate levels? (I'm sure it won't, just to be safe)
• How lactate levels could be manipulated by diet?

Cheers, --CopperKettle 16:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any references to suggest that dairy products can increase lactate level, even in MELAS. Neither could I find any evidence to show that diet has a significant effect on lactate level. The closest article I found was this one, where spoilt milk led to septic shock. The body has a fairly robust homeostatic mechanism to deal with excess lactic acid: lactate dehydrogenase. Lactic acidosis is traditionally caused by impaired oxygen utilization in tissues, either due to impaired oxygen delivery, or impaired uptake into the tissues/mitochondria. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Would someone who has more expertise than I please take a look at List of life-threatening diseases and the talk page discussion? Thanks. - ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This could include almost anything from an ingrown toenail to a myocardial infarction. I do not understand how this will be defined.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone might also want to take a look at List of causes of fever and List of causes of unexplained weight loss as well. PDCook (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh Yes without appropriate context these types of pages are not very useful. Infectious diseases would be good enough to summarize much of it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Midazolam

Midazolam is up for good article review. Quite an important benzodiazepine for hospital use and emergency control of seizures. Comments are welcome.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Will have a look as one of my favorite benzos.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirects and the WPMED banner

Should unique redirects for disease synonyms (like Mallorca acne --> Acne aestivalis) have a WPMED banner on the talk page, perhaps with a new "redirect" parameter, as there is already a "category" parameter (see Category talk:Cutaneous conditions for example). I think there may be utility in seeing unique redirects within the scope of a project or task force. If WPMED banners on unique redirect pages is not recommended, perhaps you could share your rational. ---kilbad (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Like most projects, we don't usually bother with such tags. Such tags don't seem to be tracked or useful to the WP:1.0 team -- or to us, since, unlike a stub-class article, there's not much 'improvement' that you can do for a redirect. In fact, I routinely remove them, because they are almost always leftovers from a merge, and thus contain invalid/outdated information from the pre-merge state.

If you decide that it's warranted in any given case, then the tag should be set to |class=Redirect |importance=NA ("NA" means "not an article"; if you don't set this, then the banner may assume it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful to create redirects banners for sourced synonyms that are used within a condition's article and are assigned to a designated category. For example this would differentiate redirects categorized per WP:DERM with a dermatology task force redirect template banner, excluding those created as common misnomers or redirects without the use of difficult to type characters such as ascents or en dashes. Calmer Waters 07:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can someone make the banner read "redirect" when the class is set to redirect? See Talk:Red_Hawk_(disambiguation) for an example. ---kilbad (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Red Hawk (disambiguation) isn't a redirect: it's a disambiguation page. Pages like that should normally be set to |class=Disambig |importance=NA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, can we still get class=Redirect to read "redirect" when the banner is viewed? ---kilbad (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's not showing up, then you could make the request at Template talk:WPMED or at the Meta banner that it relies on -- but what's the point? Basically nobody looks at the talk pages for redirects, and the few who do are highly unlikely to care whether it says "redirect" on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Added [5] -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC) +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I added the class to Template:Class mask/templatepage that transcludes onto the Template:WPMED/class page and then shows onto the banner if "redirect" is typed after class=. There appears to be 221 redirect article talk pages that are currently labeled with this box. I performed a test edit here Talk:Mallorca acne. These edits can be undone if it is decided to not proceed with this idea. Calmer Waters 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to undo your edit to /templatepage. The class mask template is all set up for Redirect-class, it was just a question of enabling it for your project, which has now been done at Template:WPMED/class. (The 221 you saw was probably the number of subcategories of Category:Redirect-Class articles which is not what you were looking for.) So you just need to create the category and you're done. -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MSGJ for both setting up the redirect and taking the time to respond to my inquiry. Calmer Waters 14:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I second the thanks. Also, now that we are going to be using banners on at-least derm synonym redirects, the following page should probably be updated so users can know how/when we are using the banner: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Assessment. Also, perhaps someone could create the redirect class categories? ---kilbad (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that page should be updated and agreed upon before starting what may be close to a thousand redirects banners on our project alone. Where would be the best place to take up discussion? Also, Clicking on this article will have the two categories we need ready (the current redlinked ones). All We need to do is document the main page of the catogry those pages as Kilbad has proposed and how they are best utilized; and as MSGJ said, the rest should fall in line. Calmer Waters 16:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

New Toxicology task force

Just wanted to announce the creation of a new Toxicology task force. I'm finishing up some of the last setup steps, and am just waiting for admin assistance to modify the {{WPMED}} template. After that, we'll need to create project banners, userbox templates, etc. and start tagging and assessing articles for the project. Looking forward to working with you ... Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes if you need access to a toxicology textbook I might be able to help out. The new Goldfranks comes in in June 2010 [6] have access to the 2006.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct name

Have a discussion on what should be the correct name for an article. Should it be Dizzy (medicine) or Dizziness?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Dizziness, because it's a noun, and without the (medicine) qualifier, unless there's some entirely non-medical use that (1) needs to have a separate article AND (2) is a more important concept than the medical/physical one. Parentheses/pre-disambiguation titles are only chosen when multiple articles with a legitimate claim to the main word exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Dizziness, I agree - Draeco (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained moves

Recently, all articles regarding the 2009 flu pandemic by continent was moved by Immunize. I don't know if consensus needs it to be moved, but I reverted it before when TouLouse made the same thing. This day, Immunize moved all articles. A closing admin on 2009 flu pandemic in Europe's requested moved (moving back from 2009-2010 name to its 2009 original name) noted that the disease came up by 2009, so there is nothing worthy to call it "2009-2010". Any opinion? (Should somebody voted these to be back in their original names?) Thanks.--JL 09 ^_q?c 14:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has been warned that such bold moves without consensus is not wise. PDCook (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Symptom checker

While trying to find the appropriate categories by symptom (for example:category:difficulty breathing, or category:confusion, or category:pain), I found some web sites which provide symptom checkers. Is a kind editor willing to work on such an article? I would be happy to help out, but this is not my field, and I do not feel good about working solo outside my comfort zone. Thank you, --Ancheta Wis (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The risk is in making any such list meaninglessly vague. Hence malaise is such a common symptom as not to be discriminatory. One mighjt expect WP article therefore to list just the top few causes of perhaps "anaemia, thyroid disorder, untreated diabetes, and many other acute and chronic illness, as well as a psychological symptom of depression and anxiety". However the current article malaise includes conjunctivitis and mouth ulcers which clearly are trivial inclusions in the list, indeed I dispute that malaise is a core feature of eithr of these. The second problem is that WP is not aimed at patients or as a self-diagnosis guide, so setting up comprehensive list of symptom categories such as shoulder pain, shoulder swelling, elbow pain, elbow swelling, wrist pain, wrist swelling, muscle stiffness, muscle ache, muscle swelling etc etc needs to be restrained by what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. David Ruben ^Talk 10:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the symptom checkers which have impressed me are computer programs with audio and a virtual physician (ie, video of a ER clinician) who asks the user questions: age, gender, what is the complaint, ... . The user answers them from the keyboard or mouse click. The virtual physician asks the next consequential question, the user answers back & forth until the top few candidate diseases are displayed; the virtual physician usually ends up with See your doctor right away, or in the next 2 weeks etc. Perhaps an article which possibly lists the current symptom checkers on the web could be a real service for readers. For example, comparing the URLs after a search yields some surprising differences in ease of use. Some of them can only be used by a computer literate person, some can only be used by a healthy person who is trying to help a sick person, some require medical knowledge to use, some are xxx etc. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no - not our role to suggest where to get help. Furthermore, however good a website may be, only applicable to its own country (minor illness management, access routes to medical care, even urgent but not life-threatening health access, let alone choice of self medication or prescribed medication vary globally). But first hurdle would be reliable independant 3rd party sources to confirm that such approaches are accurate & safe (sensitivity & specificity) to use (vs Promo of the companies themselves), or are easy to use (vs our personal reseach) ? David Ruben ^Talk 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining why this idea is unsuitable for the encyclopedia. I'm glad I didn't charge ahead into unknown (for me) territory. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Davidruben. Perhaps you are already aware of Wikipedia's disclaimer? Wikipedia is not suitable to host such a symptom checker. However the article "Symptom checker" might be worthy of inclusion if it is notable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd point out that we already have articles on some other medical expert systems such as Mycin, CADUCEUS (expert system) and Internist-I going back several decades. All of those articles could benefit from a serious cleanup effort. LeadSongDog come howl 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose the inclusion of such links, except possibly in an article specifically about symptom checkers. In such an article, I would also oppose links to symptom checkers with video content or other high-bandwidth "decoration" as being unfriendly to our many readers with slow internet connections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This page [7] gives exhaustive lists of possible diseases associated with symptoms. For example 500 - 600 for SOB. It is low bandwidth. Long lists however are rarely encyclopedic without context being discussed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look. It's a hypochondriac's dream. [I must remember to consider monkeypox epizoonosis in the differential during clinic this morning.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a link like this in the signs and symptoms infobox.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Maps

Lokal Profil has updated a bunch of maps based on a newer data set (2004 rather than 2002) [8]. Have added some but help to update the rest would be appreciated.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Renaissancee (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as you can see there are about 50. I have added some of the 2004 ones already. Will need to change the scales aswell as they differ from 02 to 04.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Continued addition of EL despite advice not too

This user [9] continues to add EL to a blog [10] despite being asked not too. Extra eyes would be helpful.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User Doc James has been and is the source of many conflicts with many users when it comes to editing. As far as I understand, Wikipedia is opened to any contribution, as long as relevant and verifiable. He has the tendency to believe he has the power to decide alone what is suitable and what is not. A non-spamming, relevant link shouldn't be removed without previously discussion, indeed Wikipidia is not Doc Jamespedia, I am myself a doctor but have the humility not to pretend to detain the ultimate truth. Greetings. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.41.189 (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

99.146.41.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) warned per WP:NPA

Sindu5673 (talk · contribs) level-2 warning per WP:SPAM

Thanks to WAID for cleaning up. While we're looking at external links, does anybody else think that these also fall a long way short of meeting WP:EL? --RexxS (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Doc James has a long history of valuable contribution to Wikipedia, and I for one think he acted rightly here. Others users have also reverted these ELs. If you want to continue criticism, Sindu5673, I suggest we do it at your talk page. - Draeco (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry in this rubrique "what links to consider" I really don't see in what the ones i submited are considered spam. Anyways, Wikipedia has been critizised for it's value, now I realize why, it's ruled by a small number of people that decide what is authority.... --Preceding unsigned comment added by Seixal5673 (talk o contribs) 06:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia is governed by consensus. The consensus has always been that it's an encyclopedia, not a host for you to place free advertising. If you can't understand WP:ELNO: "Links mainly intended to promote a website. See external link spamming." then ask someone to help explain it to you. --RexxS (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Another IP

Another IP is adding further links [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If this isn't an isolated issue, then WP:ELN might be able to help with a discussion, and WP:WPSPAM might be able to help with blacklist considerations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Aerotoxic syndrome

This article could use a look over. It appears to be your typical long term malingering article- while real medical viewpoints are included noting that there is no evidence it exists, they naturally aren't the focus of the article. Several puff pieces also exist on organizations promoting (compensation for) the supposed syndrome. Nevard (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dental caries GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Dental caries for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article and help it maintain its GA status. Please comment there to help resolve the raised issues. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk o contrib) 03:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this should be removed from WP:MED and just left to dentistry?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly "more" WP:DENT than WP:MED, but I don't know whether WPMED project members would work on an article like that. In the absence of an indication, I'd probably leave the tag... but I don't think it'd rate very high on our priority scale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perception

Dear all,

I've been trying to help folks who were trying to articulate the latest knowledge on Perception article, but my suggestions did not help much. On top of that, some little egos managed to erode even that little clarity we had.

I have decided, therefore, to simply rewrite the article on the basis of currently available knowledge in the following disciplines: cognitive and developmental psychology, medicine (especially genetics), philosophy and complex (adaptive) systems theory with emphasised references to non-monotonic logics. I am contemplating few other disciplines, but these will suffice for the beginning.

I have drafted the lead into the article and the draft can be found on the related discussion page. I am calling now for comments and contributions backed by the latest science and the latest contemporary philosophical thought. My only condition is clarity and brevity wherever possible. If you find other possible references, they will be welcomed too.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have at least one responder. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Midazolam

...is a Good Article nominee..if anyone wants to review it. if it isn't picked up soon but I am trying to do a few older ones first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Viral pharyngitis

Viral pharyngitis looks rather neglected, especially for such a common condition. Is there perhaps a merge target that we've overlooked, or does it just need some volunteers to give it some loving attention? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Let merge it into pharyngitis. Will split off when it is large enough.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WPMED template

Why are some task forces in bold, and others not? Can we un-bold all of them? ---kilbad (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since all but two are in bold type, it might make more sense to bold all of them. This kind of request should probably go on the template's own talk page; a couple of editors who know how to deal with it seem to watch the template page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

{{WPMED}} uses {{WPBannerMeta}}. Originally in {{WPBannerMeta}}, task force names were not in bold. Then, a change was made (here), which defaulted the task force names to be bolded. However, the 2 WPMED task forces that are not bolded use their own custom text, rather than the default in {{WPBannerMeta}} (although the custom text is identical to the default - "This article is supported by..."). The reason these task forces require custom settings is that they do not use the default settings for importance - they take the importance from WPMED if no task force importance is specified. When {{WPBannerMeta}} was changed, no one noticed and {{WPMED}} was never changed. I will go ahead and bold these 2 task forces. If you want them all to be not bold, I'd recommend bringing it up at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. --Scott Alter 03:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the styling! ---kilbad (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Brainstorming again

I want to make an article to complement the list of cutaneous conditions, perhaps something that will combine the content of skin disease and skin lesion, with an overall goal to provide a fuller discussion on cutaneous conditions as a whole. What would you name such an article? I was thinking simply "cutaneous conditions." What do you think? ---kilbad (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How about Skin conditions? It appears that it current redirects to the above list.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would also address some conditions of the skin appendages and mucous membranes as well. ---kilbad (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdated term

We've got some confusion about Reticuloendotheliosis. Here we say that it's a (any) lymphoma of the reticuloendothelial system; then it's redirected to a specific neoplastic disease, Leukemic reticuloendotheliosis (ignoring other uses, such as non-lipid reticuloendotheliosis, which is an older name for Histiocytosis); finally, it has been redirected to a fungal infection of the lungs (possibly a corruption of "reticuloendothelial cytomycosis").

The original citation is to MeSH, where it has recently been replaced by "Lymphatic Diseases". There also seems to be a Reticuloendotheliosis virus, which causes neoplastic disease in birds.

I've always seen this term used in the context of neoplastic disease; does anyone else know of other uses? Should we make this a disambiguation page, or revert to the neoplastic disease (which appears to be the most widespread use of this uncommon term). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this issue. I was responsible for the most recent redirect change based on the term being denoted as synonymous with "histoplasmosis," in a text some of us are using called "Dermatology" by Bolognia. I can share the login information with any of you via email if you would like to examine the text for yourself. With all that being said, given your comments above, perhaps we should change it back to a disambigutation page? ---kilbad (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame

This section in the Sugar substitute article is troubling in its use of speculative and dubious research by Olney, who is a well-known enemy of aspartame and friend of Betty Martini, the major promoter of the aspartame hoax (see the Aspartame controversy article). Some expert eyes are needed to analyze that paragraph with an eye to using MEDRS sources and for balance. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What is going on here? Does someone think that our standard is, "When in doubt, cite press releases?"

I'm off wiki now, but I hope that someone will be able to help with this particular paragraph:

Since the FDA approved aspartame for consumption, some researchers have suggested that a rise in brain tumor rates in the United States may be at least partially related to the increasing availability and consumption of aspartame.[9] Some research, often supported by companies producing artificial sweeteners, has failed to find any link between aspartame and cancer or other health problems.[10] Recent research showed a clear link between this substance and cancer; leading some experts to call for the FDA to pull aspartame from the market.[11][12] This research has led the Center for Science in the Public Interest to classify aspartame as a substance to be avoided in its Chemical Cuisine Directory.[13] However, the EFSA's press release about the study,[14] published on 5 May 2006, concluded that the increased incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame, the kidney tumors found at high doses of aspartame were not relevant to humans, and that based on all available scientific evidence to date, there was no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake levels for aspartame.[15]

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone with converter or good computer speed to label hematopoiesis image?

This is the case: A. Rad made this brilliant hematopoiesis image a couple of years ago in a vector software, but it could only be exported to raster format, so we couldn't have a vector version. Still, Spacebirdy successfully uploaded an Icelandic vector version of it, but hasn't got time to upload the original English vector version. It is fully editable in Inkscape, but it is so large that it slows down my computer (with AMD Athlon 2.6 GHz dual-core processor & Vista) too much to conveniently label it. So, is there anybody with either a "vector png" to svg converter or a faster computer (or a faster svg-editor) that can label this one? Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I also have a slow computer, but I thought I could simply edit this 4.3 MB file with an ordinary text editor. But I couldn't locate the text anywhere in the file. It looks as if all letters are being drawn. That also explains why it is so big. I guess it's best to start with the original English file. Hans Adler 09:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be able to load the unlabelled svg into Inkscape and add labels to it without problem. I'll use the same labels as the "English raster with labels". Have I missed something, or should this give the result you want? --RexxS (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded, but with problems. File:Hematopoiesis (human) diagram en.svg does not display the notes, and several of the cells render badly. Just checked - cells are also badly rendered on File:Hematopoiesis (human) diagram.svg, which I worked from. It all displays perfectly in Inkscape, so there's obviously some incompatibility with the Wikimedia svg handling. I can export perfect png's at any size from Inkscape - a full sized png is only one-tenth the size of the svg, so maybe that's the best option until I can figure out how to make the svg compatible. As an aside, the Icelandic version actually has the label text converted to shapes, so you can't edit those easily. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

To answer my own question: Wikipedia:SVG Help says that Inkscape needs the following to be modified before upload:

• Lines with arrow heads (the arrows need to be converted)
• Text
• Compound objects created with the binary path tools (union, intersect etc)

which pretty much covers everything in the diagram we've been working on. It's really dispiriting to find that the mediawiki software is incompatible with the most common free vector graphic tools (Inkscape and Open Office). Until the software can handle SVGs that anyone can edit without huge effort, I'll recommend the retention of PNGs (although the auto-rendering serves a small-filesize, palletted PNG in to a large-filesize, 32-bit colour version - but that's another story). Anyone with Inkscape can download the SVG I uploaded and export an appropriately sized PNG. --RexxS (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done! Too bad it isn't rendered perfectly in MediaWiki, but as long as png-versions can be made, then it seems acceptable for now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific proof that vaccines work

This section on the talk page of the Vaccination article was started by an apparent doubter of the efficacy of vaccinations. The editor had been placing tags without any discussion, so I removed the tag with the request that they discuss, and now they have created the section and the matter needs discussion. The request is polite and reasonable. It is odd that the article doesn't provide this proof. To medical personnel this is as fundamental a matter of common knowledge as the fact that the Earth is round, but we can't therefore leave proofs out of that article! Even doubters deserve some education in basic medical facts. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I's suggest smallpox or polio as case studies. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chair of the MRC, gave the Harveian Oration on this topic recently. It touches on the evidence base of vaccination pretty thoroughly. JFW | T@lk 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Edit: PMID 20095303 - the Lancet is also publishing this, PMID 20035989

Trypanosoma antiquus & Triatoma dominicana

I have just created and made live articles on the extinct species Trypanosoma antiquus and its vector Triatoma dominicana, described in 2005 from specimens in dominican amber. These species are the oldest example of this vector pairing described to date. I would appreciate if the articles could be assesed, wordsmithed, and proofed. Thanks. --Kevmin (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Adding verifiable content"

A number of editors have been adding content to articles such as constipation and thyroid, using edit summaries with claims like "adding verifiable content". Of course the content added is not properly sourced, and I would advise all WikiProject members to scrutinise these edits when encountered. JFW | T@lk 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks this page had fallen of my watch list.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This might not be directly related but I noticed a curious edit using a 1920's source about sinusitus being connected to psychosis. See this diff and this talk page section Talk:Sinusitis#Sinusitis_and_Personality_Disorders_-_Mental_Illness. My initial instincts were to revert but then I thought it might be true because urinary tract infections can cause psychosis and confusion in the elderly or otherwise cognitively compromised individuals. Someone who is knowledgable in this area, i.e. a medical doctor may want to review these claims.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Struck comments, the source on the talk page citing psychosis was from the 1920's, the source given in the article is to a medical university and appears to be recent, so nevermind. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

List of cutaneous abnormalities

I just found this article is some search results. Would any object if I redirected this to the list of cutaneous conditions? ---kilbad (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• No objection - the list is much more comprehensive (and maintained). -- MarcoTolo (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to a redirect to list of cutaneous conditions. Although the list of cutaneous conditions is more comprehensive, it does not cover systemic diseases with cutaneous manifestations, while the list of causes of cutaneous abnormalities does cover such diseases. Regards. Immunize (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think List of cutaneous abnormalities should be redirected/merged. There is a potential content fork here. PDCook (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with PDCook here, this could turn out as a content fork. I see no good reason why the material from cutaneous abnormalities can't be merged into the list of cutaneous conditions. Regards, ----Cyclonenim | Chat  15:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree, this should be carefully merged with the more comprehensive and professionally complied list. To have two lists is content-forking. Graham Colm (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I could defer to an administrator to redirect the list over? ---kilbad (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that at this point the article should be redirected to list of cutaneous conditions. Immunize, if you are wishing to make a list as you propose, It would be better served with a title reflecting systemic diseases. Conditions and abnormalities are too similar of terms, and as Pdcook has pointed out, there would be the potential of forking the content and possibly making the material confusing and dissimulated for the reader. List of cutaneous abnormalities could be moved to your sandbox to give ample time to focus the introduction/header along with a more concise title. Calmer Waters 22:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• It seems that there is rough consensus to redirect the list over, so I will go ahead and do that. Perhaps some of you can watch the redirect and list? ---kilbad (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Safety of the blood supply: XMRV

Chronic fatigue syndrome websites have been abuzz following the October 2009 report in Science suggesting xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) as the potential cause of CFS. Recently, this buzz has included statements that the US Department of Health and Human Services is planning to screen the blood supply for XMRV (with the implication that the US government agrees that some form of disease causation has been established). However, causation has not yet been established, the association of the virus (with prostate cancer and with CFS) remains uncertain and the US government has made no statements on the matter. An editor at the XMRV page has proposed a paragraph on blood safety based upon statements made by a CFS advocacy group and by a doctor in a court transcript. I have opposed this addition as premature (until a government agency makes a statement, preferably reported in the media) and as not satisfying MEDRS. What's the best way to proceed? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The study has not been replicated, and there is very little evidence that this virus is indeed blood-transmissible. I this the less we go along with this the better, until the time that there is some scientific consensus on the matter. JFW | T@lk 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree that WP is not a soapbox for extrapolation from a correlative study to regulatory impact. -- Scray (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification, the proposed material is about prostate cancer and CFS. It does not presuppose a disease causation, studies have now "associated" XMRV with prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, the committee will investigate the blood safety threat from XMRV.[12] The doctor stateing this is Jerry A. Holmberg, PhD, Senior Advisor for Blood Policy, Executive Secretary of the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability, U.S. HHS, at a meeting by the HHS Advisory Comittee on Blood Safety And Availability, published by the U.S. HHS, and transcribed by a court reporter.[13](pgs 22-23)

The CFIDS Association of America's statement adds more detail and presents no conflicting or controversial material. The CFIDS Association's scientific director is participating in the working group assigned to the investigation.[14] Ward20 (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is a transcribed statement (read: personal opinion) by an advisor to an advisory committee. No amount of related speculation by advocacy groups or special-interest soapboxing on Wikipedia will make this into a reliable source for our XMRV article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am confused by this last statement. Did you actually check the RS before making this statement? Dr Holmberg is an officer of the HHS and the senior technical advisor for blood policy within the OPHS making this statement on behalf of "his boss, the Assistant Secretary for Health and he is designated as the Blood Safety Officer" and after some more preamble he continued "I have a statement for you. This statement has been coordinated throughout the entire HHS public health services. Many hours last night -- I have emails on this flying throughout the night, and the majority of us have just got back from the American Association of blood banks meeting in New Orleans where this was a discussion point throughout the meeting. " He then reads the reference [15]. Not quite the transcribe statement: The PDF is a scan of the written statement which Holmberg read out. -- TerryE (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt:

• Keepalmandcarryon: "a doctor"
• The actual facts:Dr Holmberg, the senior technical advisor for blood policy within the OPHS HHS on behalf of the Assistant Secretary for Health, designated Blood Safety Officer within the HHS
• Keepalmandcarryon:"in a court transcript"
• The actual facts:reading a prepared statement that had been reviewed within the OPHS and presented to CFSAC, the committee constituted by the Secretary of Health to advise on CFS policy.

(plus typo edits to the above) -- TerryE (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It is well understood that a source's reliablity is not generic but relative to the statement made. If I read the above correctly, Holmberg's statement on behalf of the group is at best a primary source on the advice the HHC gave to HHS. It would help if you could tell us what is the statement in the source that you seek to use, and how you would use it in the article. User:LeadSongDog come howl 03:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) In the verbal preamble which is recorded on the video at the HHS site he does state that "This statement has been coordinated throughout the entire HHS public health services." [My transcription] and the nature of the audience committee, indicates that this was a veted announcement. I was suggesting something like (see [16]):

The DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability has begun an investigation into potential impacts of the findings reported in this paper.

As to HHC vs HHS -- sorry, it was a typo it should have read HHS: he is speaking on behalf of the HHS; that's my point -- I am a Brit and I get confused by your acronyms the way that you do with ours: DWP, NHS, NICE, etc. :) TerryE (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No source is "reliable" for any possible use; no matter how reliable this statement, for example, is about the name of the speaker, it would be worthless for supporting a claim about, say, Chinese astrology. You've really got to tell us what you want to say here. That Holmberg issued a press release? Fine. That XMRV causes CFS? Not fine. Something in between? Well, tell us what the "something" is, and we'll see whether it meets both WP:RS and WP:DUE and WP:MEDRS's dislike for science by press release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I gave you my suggested text 2 paras above: "The DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability has begun an investigation into potential impacts of the findings reported in this paper." as I was asked to do. This is the shorter form. The longer alternative included a preamble Dr Holmberg of the Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability issued a statement ... though the cited reference would explain all this. I am not sure why you want me to repeat it a second time. -- TerryE (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading Holmberg's words on pages 22-23 of that transcript I don't see very direct support for that statement. He did mention the (then) recent paper in Science on October 9 which identified that XMRV had been found in individuals with CFS. He made that mention in the context of a broader discussion of blood surveillance technology. In that context, he then went on to explain that "the department" (HHS) was "looking at" standardizing the researchers' tests and at applying them to blood repositories as a way to investigate prevalence of XMRV in repository blood. None of that explanation rises beyond a primary statement, even from a very credible individual. You might justify saying something like "The U.S. DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability was reported in November 2009 to be planning to investigate just how prevalent XMRV might be in repository blood." User:LeadSongDog come howl 07:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Originally this discussion was started for the proposed wording and sources below: [17]

"Dr. Jerry Holmberg of the DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability stated at the CFSAC meeting on 30 Oct 2009 that, because studies have now associated XMRV with prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, the committee will investigate the blood safety threat from XMRV.[18][19] A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Blood XMRV Scientific Research Working Group has been formed according to the Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Association of America, and included in the planned investigations are validation studies for XMRV testing, evaluation of the incidence of XMRV in the populace and blood supply (including subgroups), XMRV transmission studies, and human disease associations. [20]" I don't have objections to condense to approximately the wording LeadSongDog proposed. I believe there are enough RS's to justify a NPOV mention in the article. Ward20 (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Yes, we need to reach an agreed consensus on how to reflect an accurate and appropriate length summary of the multiple RS along this sort of discussion. But this a somewhat different discussion from the original editors position of exclusion on the grounds that the statement given by "some doctor in a court transcript", when in reality Dr Holmberg is an officer of the HHS who was reading out a prepared statement on the OPHS behalf. -- 12:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we continue this discussion on the XMRV talkpage? JFW | T@lk 12:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What to do with condition subtypes/variants in the list of cutaneous conditions

For any cutaneous condition, there may be (though certainly not always) different subtypes or variants. Take lichen planus for example, which has many subtypes and variants, or squamous cell carcinoma, which also has multiple subtypes, like mucosal squamous cell carcinoma.

Therefore, for the most complicated cases, you might have something like:

Condition name (Conditions synonym(s))

Condition subtype (Condition subtype synonym(s))

Condition variant (Condition variant synonym(s))

Currently, I have been trying to list the main condition name as well as the specific subtypes/variants, hence squamous cell carcinoma and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma both being in the list of cutaneous conditions.

However, here are some questions I wanted to get the community's opinion on. Right now, subtypes/variants are simply listed in alphabetical order, independent of the main condition. For example, mucosal squamous cell carcinoma is not listed under squamous cell carcinoma. However, should it be? Should we be indenting subtypes/variants under the main condition? What are the pros and cons of that?

Also, going with that, should the various subtypes/variants have their own stub, or be redirected to the main condition article? In general, I have been making stubs, though there are times when simply a redirect exists, as with mucosal squamous cell carcinoma. What do you think is best?

Thanks in advance for your comments! ---kilbad (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• My inclination is to merge subtypes and variants, especially if the separated articles would contain relatively little unique information, or would be stubs. It's often quite useful for the reader to be able to compare and contrast closely related conditions. If the articles grow significantly, they can always be split later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, and what are your thoughts about how the different condition variants/subtypes should be listed in the list? ---kilbad (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I may have misunderstood, but it seems to make sense to me that subtypes should be listed alphabetically under the main condition, i.e.

Condition name

Condition subtype A

Condition subtype B

• Whereas, variants should be listed separately and alphabetically in the list. Just my opinion. Regards, ----Cyclonenim | Chat  14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it really matters. There are advantages and disadvantages to both structures. I'd pick whichever appeals most to you, and not worry about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

One more thought: When you create redirects for non-synonyms that could, plausibly, have a good article someday, then adding the {{R with possibilities}} template might be helpful and appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

drug article guideline

I've started to develop a comprehensive template or guideline for drug articles over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Guideline. The idea here is to follow WP:MEDMOS, but provide something a little bit more in depth to so someone has something a bit better to create an article about a drug. Comments on this are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Guideline. WTF? (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Help moving two articles

Would someone consider moving the two articles:

• Small-plaque parapsoriasis to Small plaque parapsoriasis
• Large-plaque parapsoriasis to Large plaque parapsoriasis

Most of the sources I have do not use the dash. ---kilbad (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --RexxS (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"added verifiable content"

User continue to add content tagged with "added verifiable content". [21] Most of it is wrong. Is there any way to search these comments to look for more similar edits? It appears that the person adding this creates a new account each time.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say it's "wrong"; but most of it is unverifiable because of the poor sources used. To search edit summaries, your best bet is to ask the question of someone who has toolserver access who could probably run that sort of query for you. There's actually a page for requesting database reports and you could ask there. If you just want to ask if it's feasible, I'd normally recommend dropping a line to MZMcBride (talk · contribs), but he's been inactive since the RfArb, so maybe Killiondude (talk · contribs) would be able to say. --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it the same article, or same couple of articles? If so, we could try WP:RFPP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for article creation: Testicular implant

I just no article for testicular implants. Is there someone who has knowledge of this area, or feels like doing some basic research? It seems to me that this is a fairly important topic to have an article on. I'll get around to it later, if nobody else does, once I've wrapped up some other projects I'm currently working on. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What is a testicular implant?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I should have googled before asking. :) I found out what it is.[22] Yes an article on this would be a good addition. Hopefully you will be able to find a volunteer from this project to help you develop the article. As you can see surgery is not my strong point and I am not a doctor either. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is discussed in passing here Testicular disease and is more formally known as a prosthesis.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Article naming of Spectrum disorder to Spectrum (psychiatry)

Can others please have a look at Talk:Spectrum (psychiatry), which was recently moved from Spectrum disorder, to determine if the article is well named? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks a better name than 'disorder', although I wonder if 'Psychiatric spectrum' might be best - to fit in with 'audio spectrum','optical spectrum' and be descriptive? Lee?V (talk o contribs) 22:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The DSM 5 is in progress. They might be a useful source [23] .Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

US health data

Here is nearly 600 pages of health data and graphs from the CDC [24] Could be used to illustrate a number of pages.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's public domain right? As well as all CDC publications? Renaissancee (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is in the public domain so we can use whatever we want all we need to do is attribute it to the US government. A few parts are not but they specify for those.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Vitamin C

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Vitamin C/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Would some of you help me outline?

I want to start developing the cutaneous conditions article, which is currently a real mess. With that being said, I wanted to know if some of you would help me outline the structure of the article. My overall goal is to provide a fuller discussion on cutaneous conditions as a whole, and to merge in all the smaller articles on the different skin lesions (macule, bulla, etc) and a lot of the other terms in the Category:Dermatologic terminology and Category:Dermatologic signs. I am not asking anyone to write the actual article (unless you want to!), but simply to help me develop a good working article structure for a future FA. Anyone willing to help me outline? ---kilbad (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So I actually found the content outline to Rook's Textbook of dermatology (see [25]) and have used/modified it to start a working outline for the cutaneous conditions article at Talk:Cutaneous_conditions#Working_outline. I intentionally tried to create an outline that does not mirror the list of cutaneous conditions structure because I think providing a different way to organize the information could be helpful. With that being said, how does the outline look to you. What changes do you think should be made, etc. Thanks again for your feedback! ---kilbad (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR for Action potential

I have nominated Action potential for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Pyrrhus16 18:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Differential diagnosis in the disease box?

Should we link to a site that gives an exhaustive differential in the disease box / symptom box? DiagnosisPro looks like a good candidate?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what encyclopedic value we'd be providing here. An unranked list of the 175 (only?) known causes of neutropenia (where, BTW, a series of merge discussions would benefit from more eyes) doesn't tell the generalist/reader much more than "well, it could be caused by lots of things," which is pretty much what the article says.

I don't feel strongly about this, but my initial inclination is 'against'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the artile Testicle pain we list 6 causes well this site lists another 30 [26]. They by the way do link to us at the bottom of their page and we are listed first.

I do not think we should list all possible causes on Wikipedia of either the differential of a symptom of a disease. I was proposing this as we are starting to get pages such as List of causes of abdominal pain, etc. I was hoping that this would replace having these on wiki lists.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that differential diagnosis is important information and it would be useful to link to a site such as this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if any further comments? Will apply in a limited fashion to see what others think. I am hoping that this will allow the removal of the long differential diagnosis lists that are appearing in some article. These long list look bad and without proper context add little IMO. Verifiability is also hard to maintain.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth starting a discussion on Template talk:Infobox disease.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ISBN: 978-1-84076-066-8

Could someone generate a properly formated inline citation for this book? I am having problems with diberri's tool. ---kilbad (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. You just need to add in the page numbers.

{{Cite book | last1 = S. Chan | first1 = Lawrence | title = Blistering Skin Diseases | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X0QzPwAACAAJ | date = 30 March 2009 | publisher = Manson Publishing Ltd |edition= 1 | isbn = 978-1-84076-066-8 | pages = }}

Regards.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! ---kilbad (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it's sometimes difficult for Chinese names, but all the vendors I looked at indicated |last=Chan |first=Lawrence S - could easily be wrong, of course. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

See also these pubmed hits, which in the XML view gives

<Affiliation>University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. larrycha@uic.edu</Affiliation> <AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"> <Author ValidYN="Y"> <LastName>Chan</LastName> <ForeName>Lawrence S</ForeName> <Initials>LS</Initials> </Author> </AuthorList>

User:LeadSongDog come howl 05:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted; you are both right, it is actually a bug in the citation generator, I had not noticed it before.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wall of Recognized Content

Our WP:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts page said:

• 30 Dec 2009 - WikiProjects and Portals who want to have automatically-updated "Walls of Recognized Content" (see WikiProject Physics' WoRC) can go here and follow instructions. For details, contact JLaTondre.

I overlooked it at the time. Do we have this? Do we want to have this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is not to difficult I think it would be fine.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It didn't look difficult, so I've made Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Recognized content based on the WP Physics layout. It can be tweaked or deleted if it's not useful. I don't know how often the bot runs to generate/update the page's content. --RexxS (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The bot ran and generated the content. I'm impressed. Any other comments? --RexxS (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hennekam syndrome

Would someone review the dash type used with the synonyms for the above syndrome?? I am not sure, but should an em dash be used? ---kilbad (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS categories

FYI, several HIV/AIDS categories have come up for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 23. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The renaming is an effort to remove the / (the character used by the software for subpages) from the cat names, if that can be done sensibly. The initial proposal is to change, e.g., "HIV/AIDS by country" to "HIV and AIDS by country". Another editor suggested shortening it to "HIV by country", and there's a question about whether HIV/AIDS really means "HIV and AIDS" or if it means "HIV or AIDS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Meningococcemia

I see that currently meningococcemia redirects to Meningococcal disease. However, I feel that it would be more appropriate to redirect meningococcemia to Meningoccal septicaemia, as meningococcemia refers to meningococcal bacteremia. I was about to do it myself, but thought it would be better to get consensus for the change here first, as it would be a major change. Immunize (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Should like a good idea. Remember WP:BOLD :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Immunize (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of merge proposals folks might want to disucss

• Bone pain in children into Bone pain (discuss)

 Done PDCook (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Malignant brain tumor into Brain tumor (discuss)

PDCook (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree merge both.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Support both proposed mergers. ---kilbad (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I also support both. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's probably better to avoid splitting these discussions across multiple pages; please consider commenting directly at the linked merge proposals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I still do not completely understand mergers. Although I am aware that the histories of both pages are combined, it has often seemed to me that very little of the smaller article remains. Immunize (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Pyogenic granuloma 1.jpg

Do you think this images has a chance to become a featured photo? I have never tried for a featured photo nomination? ---kilbad (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I think this image is better than the one in "Fitzpatrick's Color Atlas & Synopsis of Clinical Dermatology" (see [27]), so I have nominated it at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyogenic granuloma 1.jpg. Perhaps some of you could share your thoughts regarding this image at that review? ---kilbad (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you might have some troubles due to the haziness in the background. Not sure if it could be cropped better?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine

Have cleaned up / organized the requested article page. Have added a lead giving instruction on how this page should be used. Any comments / improvement proposals for the instructions?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Along those lines, does anyone know about an article that I expected to easily find at the redlink, Aspirin therapy? We have a few paragraphs in other articles, e.g., Aspirin#Prevention_of_heart_attacks_and_strokes, but I can't find a regular article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Would this not be Aspirin#Therapeutic_uses?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it seems to be the name specifically for the 'daily baby aspirin prevents heart attacks' idea, not any therapeutic use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a therapeutic usage. This PMID 16490462 discusses it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm trying to find out whether there's an extant article on THE aspirin therapy, not on ALL aspirin therapies.

Does anyone know if we have a completely separate article that addresses solely the use of aspirin to prevent ischemic cardiovascular artery disease? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. I guess if the section on the aspirin page becomes to big it could be broken of as a page on Therapeutic uses of aspirin or some such name.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed new section "Alternative medicine as mainstream"

Please comment and help create a consensus version at Talk:Alternative_medicine#RfC:_Proposed_new_section_.22Alternative_medicine_as_mainstream.22. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

AllergoOncology

Can someone who may have some knowledge in the area please take a look at AllergoOncology something about it strikes me as being very shady and fringe like. I could be totally wrong though. Ridernyc (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it does seem to be a fringe theory. I myself have not heard of it, so I cannot completely discredit the article, but it is unreferenced, and unless some reliable references are added soon I may nominate it for deletion. Immunize (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the user who created it, Ejense32, made only 1 edit-creating the page in question, which makes me question the articles accuracy even more. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A scholar search pulls up a review article Jensen-Jarolim E, Achatz G, Turner MC; et al. (2008). "AllergoOncology: the role of IgE-mediated allergy in cancer". Allergy. 63 (10): 1255-66. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2008.01768.x. PMID 18671772.  CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link) CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)

It unfortunately looks plagiarized [28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion for that reason. Immunize (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reworded the one line so it is no longer plagiarism. Would someone remove the tag?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A single source is really not sufficient for notability. It doesn't even sound like they've done any human testing yet. This should probably be merged into a larger article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's probably right, although New International Field Of Research Established - Allergooncology, which was added as an external link on 11 May 2008,[29] shows it's received some external coverage, which helps with WP:Notability. Anyway, I've undone Doc J's edit as I think the previous version was more informative. That version is not a copyvio, since both Definition of Verrucous carcinoma and What is Immune mediated inflammatory diseases are dated later than the wording in Wikipedia. Those sites contain unattributed plagiarism of the Wikipedia article. I've declined the speedy. --RexxS (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Rexx. We need to persecute people who plagiarism Wikipedia without attribution grr. :-) Will I agree it notability is questionable and agree it should be merged, maybe into Oncology? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've created a section at Talk:Oncology#AllergoOncology merge discussion for discussion of the proposed merge. --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Context of NSF statement about belief in ghosts

Announcing an RfC at Talk:Ghost#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts. The questions being discussed are:

1. Whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs".

2. Whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject.

See you there! -- Brangifer (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Revise some recent edits?

Hey guys. I was looking at the Nuss procedure article and noticed many changes since my last edit, not backed up with any references for the most part. I'm still behind in school and can't comb through it anytime soon. If someone can get to it before me, would you please check [30] and remove the non-referenced text. If not, I should be able to get at it next month. Thanks, 174.102.83.126 (talk) (§hep (logged out) 01:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Stem cell

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The article appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Prion

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Prion/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Google health

Is Google health an reliable source? I am just wondering as I have cited google health in a number of my lists, and in the event that google health is not reliable, I may have to change the sources of some of my additions. Immunize (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I would not consider Google Health a reliable source for the purposes of this project. It is not peer-reviewed as far as I know, and does not represent the views of any official body. -- Scray (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

From the Google Health FAQ:

4. Is Google Health a new way to search for health information?

Not really. Google Health is mostly about helping you collect, store, manage, and share your medical records and health information. There is a search box at the top of every page in Google Health, and if you enter a search query there, you go to the Google.com search results page that you are used to. There is also useful health information built into Google Health, but Google Health is not a new health-specific search engine.

Sounds like Google Health does not consider itself a definitive source of health information. -- Scray (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Creating a category redirect

I am redirecting Category:Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue to Category:Infection-related cutaneous conditions, but I want to do so such that the Category:Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue is not itself categorized. Restated, when I look at the Category:Infection-related cutaneous conditions, I do not want want "Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue" listed. Any ideas? ---kilbad (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want to do this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

linking dermpedia

This user 70.19.167.177 (talk · contribs) is linking dermpedia [31] to a lot of pages. It is a similar site to Wikipedia. Anyway to roll all of them back?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Manually, dear James, manually. JFW | T@lk 08:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability of a medical professional

I PRODed the Scott Rasgon (chief of nephrology at Kaiser Permanente in Los Angeles) article some time ago. It was dePRODed, rewritten somewhat, and two of Dr. Rasgon's papers were added (he is 1st author on a paper cited 50 or so times, and 5th author on a paper cited 150 or so times). However, I can't find any reliable sources that would generally satisfy WP:BIO. Do folks think he passes WP:ACADEMIC with his papers? I'm more familiar with applying ACADEMIC to professors rather than practicing physicians. Thanks, PDCook (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Becoming very difficult. We've had the "professor test", but I can name numerous professors (especially in the USA, where large numbers of clinicians hold assistant professorships) who have no claim to fame while people relatively low in the hierarchy may have made significant contributions in some way or another. In the case of Dr Rasgon, the article does not indicate why he would stand out from any other clinician in this position, and I have taken the liberty of putting the article up for AFD. JFW | T@lk 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. PDCook (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

MRI contrast agent

Has not found by myself, dunno where else to ask: are there any contraindications for undergoing MRI\CT with contrast for a person suspected of having a mitochondrial disorder? Say, MELAS - is it O.K. to have MELAS and go to a MRI scan with contrast agent, wouldnt it cause any complications?--CopperKettle 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Lexi drugs does not mention anything for gadolinium only "Seizure disorder: Use with caution in patients with a history of seizure disorder; may lower seizure threshold. Injectable anticonvulsant agents should be readily available. Sickle cell anemia: In in vitro studies, deoxygenated sickle erythrocytes align perpendicular to a magnetic field; the enhancement of magnetic moment by contrast agents may potentiate this alignment possibly resulting in vaso-occlusive complications in vivo. Use in patients with sickle cell anemia or other hemoglobinopathies has not been studied." --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of answering what sounds like a request for medical advice, I will say that those of us who sometimes investigate these disorders in children do not consider a possible diagnosis of a mitochondrial disorder a contraindication to an MRI. Because so many of them initially present with vague and nonspecific developmental and/or neuromuscular complaints, I suspect the majority of people with these disorders have had MRIs. alteripse (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Alteripse and James! --CopperKettle 14:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Postpartum depression

I have placed a request for expert attention to the above article, and am alerting the associated Wikiprojects for Psychology and Medicine. A reader has raised a serious concern about the article and I think it would be very useful to have someone with expertise in the area improve its quality. Any help much appreciated.

I also think the article's current B-class rating by this project is questionable. There are whole sections totally without references, which I don't believe satisifies this B-class criterion: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited." I also removed some stupid, week-old vandalism from the article - it could use more eyes. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I deleted some content sourced to animal studies which appeared to not even be about post partum depression but rather infanticide and child abandonment or neglect in animals, such as ducks. It was a violation of, WP:NOR, WP:SYN and WP:MEDRS. It was probably a newbie editor with not much experience in building an encyclopedia who added this content. Still needs more work done. I have also downgraded the article to a C class article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much Literaturegeek - good to see somebody tackling this so quickly. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Stretch Reflex section

In the article, it says that Function of this reflex is to maintain a constant length. But in Improvement in Linearity and Regulation of Stiffness That Results from Actions of Stretch Reflex, Nichols and Houk, 1976 Journal of Neurophysiology, they shows that the purpose of stretch reflex is not to maintain constant length but instead constant stiffness. --Ml2000id (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have anything newer? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Move request: {{PMCID}} -> {{PMC}}

See Template talk:PMCID for details. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Image request

There's a request for a simple image at Talk:Xiphoid_process#Picture. The page has mostly close-up images, and some readers clicking through from another page seem uncertain about what general part of the body this small bone is in. A human chest with an arrow has been suggested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Its done, Here is the PNG file, and An SVG version, feel free to add them to the article, and If you have any suggestions I ll Be happy to help MaenK.A._Talk 22:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientific review needed

Hi, Hope you are all doing fine, I want somebody to review this diagram that I created relating to cystic fibrosis and check of I did any mistakes, so I can correct them, thank you all MaenK.A._Talk 13:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice. I've made some suggestions on the Talk page for the image. -- Scray (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I ve made the changes you recommended  Done MaenK.A._Talk 15:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Any other suggestions ?? MaenK.A._Talk 15:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the rest of this discussion is here MaenK.A._Talk 14:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You should move your talk to commons:File talk:Cystic fibrosis manifestations.png, at the moment it is placed at File_talk:Cystic_fibrosis_manifistations.png on en.wikipedia, thats the wrong project and, after I followed a request to rename the file, the wrong filename. --Martin H. (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I just moved the Talk page to the right name on the en.WP project. Not sure how to move between projects - will try. -- Scray (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shall I copy past it?? then delete the original page??, By the way thank you both for the help MaenK.A._Talk 17:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. That would certainly lose the page History, and might cause other trouble - I just don't know (even after reading help on Moves both on en.wikipedia and the Help at Commons). If you copy/paste, it would be best to redirect the en.wikipedia Talk page to the one on Commons, otherwise it's possible (likely) that parallel discussions will occur on different projects. My hope is that someone more experienced than I will comment. -- Scray (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

One way to get help would be to use the RMassist template described here. If they can't do it, they'll probably tell you how. I'll let you take the lead, but if you prefer I do it I'm happy to do so. -- Scray (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and please do it MaenK.A._Talk 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy to - request made here. -- Scray (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you  DoneMaenK.A._Talk 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

Just noticed that the above page was recently recreated. Seems like someone from WP:MED should probably take a look. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is notable enough for an article of its own. I am wondering why it is not merged into Long-term_effects_of_cannabis?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with LG it should be merged.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Addition of __@Home references to articles

I would like to make sure that what I'm doing represents community consensus, because I've already reverted a couple of times on a couple of pages. Currently, an editor at 75.85.14.10x is adding references to a grid project to Dengue fever [32] [33], Muscular dystrophy [34], and proposing same at Talk:AIDS [35] [36]. While these grid projects are laudable, the additions are not encyclopedic. I've tried to make it clear that I mean no disrespect to the grid project but rather have to respect the fact that WP is not a place to promote any cause. If others disagree with my actions, I'm listening. If you agree, then I'd appreciate it if others would weigh in so this doesn't come off as my own personal vendetta. My hope is there might even be a guideline specifically related to these grid projects, because this comes up from time to time. -- Scray (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done my best at Talk:AIDS to point the IP editor to the World Community Grid article, and to explain how we use sources in medical-related articles. I agree with your assessment and will keep the other two articles on my watchlist for a while. --RexxS (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Significant on its own page but not on pages pertaining to diseases.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Craniosacral therapy

The article regarding the pseudoscientific practice of craniosacral therapy needs attention. Take this one example:

• Cranial textbooks propose that motion of the skull is possible during flexion and extension because the sutures are mobile. The sphenobasilar synchondrosis (SBS) - the junction between the base of the sphenoid and the occiput- is thought to fuse by the mid- to late twenties, but still retain limited mobility . An alternative theory to SBS Motion taught in craniosacral training suggests that sutures are "lines of folding", like pre-folded marks on cardboard, rather than necessarily being fully open.

This uses a dubious source admittedly "Self-published online, September 2005. http://www.hummingbird-one.co.uk/pdf/sbs_simplified.pdf"

I think the whole article needs to be checked for violations of MEDRS. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is alt med. Describing what they think is okay. We just need to also describe what the rest of the world thinks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it has to use RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Terri Schiavo case

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Terri Schiavo case/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Paleolithic Diet deserves more attention

I find the Healthy diet article to be extremely biased in that it only lists recommendations from the World Health Organization and nothing else. I tried to add a section about the Paleolithic diet but my edits were reverted by a vandal. Evolutionary medicine is credible and should be given more attention than it currently is. Instead of citing special interest lobbyist-funded beauracratic government agencies we should cite other sources too.Mac520 (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Sources: http://www.paleonu.com/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/

The "vandal" by the way would be me. The section it was added to was Healthy_diet#Dietary_recommendations. The " special interest lobbyist-funded beauracratic government agencies" I assume you are referring to is the World Health Organization? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Would someone be so kind as to comment on this as this user continues to persist in adding this content.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, as this user continues to persist in removing this content.Mac520 (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS in Africa

I'd like to work on this article, because it's important and seems relatively abandoned. However, I don't have a lot of experience with heavy content editing, so I'm a little overwhelmed. Could someone either look it over and give me a hand or give me suggestions on where to start? Thanks, Annalise (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is best to start with a recent review article of the topic. Pubmed can be used to help find one. And if you ask here we can sometimes get you the complete copy of said article if you do not have access.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hemorheologic-Hemodynamic Theory in Atherosclerosis looks like spam

Please review this version 'cause I'm editing and damned tempted to simply remove the section in question. Unless I'm missing or using the wrong search term, the results in google scholar are less than promising, pointing to publication mainly by a single scholar (Sloop), with one in the luminary vessel of Medical Hypotheses. Regular google doesn't do much better with wikipedia being the first link to show up. Google books is even worse with zero hits. The section itself looks like a lot of primary sources that are synthesized to produce a significant section of original research. Does this theory carry any currency in the medical community, or is it a fringe theory with no mainstream acceptance? I'm very tempted to simply excise the whole section citing WP:SOAP. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed down some but I'm still tempted to remove the whole section outright. Posted a notice on Talk:Atherosclerosis#Hemorheologic-Hemodynamic Theory, I would suggest centralizing discussion there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside eyes: Talk:Medical Hypotheses

I would appreciate any outside input at Talk:Medical Hypotheses. I have some concerns about edits which one user is repeatedly reinserting. In particular, I believe that the article makes fundamentally erroneous statements about the causes of sudden infant death syndrome. I'd prefer not to get into a two-person back-and-forth, and I may be off-base, so any outside input would be helpful. MastCell ^Talk 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not "repeatedly reinserted" anything. I made one large edit which added some balance to what was at best a flawed article and, while MastCell stated that he objected to one sentence I had put in, he had reverted my entire edit including an entire section saying that it was an "apologia" as the edit description. I reverted his revert and simultaneously revised the statement he objected to, which is not essential to the edit and if he objected to it, all he had to do was take it out. I'm not sure why he didn't do so rather than go to multiple pages on Wikipedia making misleading claims about my edit.--Gloriamarie (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Gloria, your changes to that article today (e.g., [37][38][39]) certainly exceed my own definition of "one edit", large or otherwise, but please don't be insulted by editors' requests for help, especially since MastCell explicitly said that his initial view might not be correct.

You seem to be making progress on the talk page, and are identifying some of the errors in your original work. Please try taking baby steps over the next few days to put the best information back in the article, with plenty of time for other people to double-check things. If you're persistent, you'll get it done in the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, WhatamIdoing, thanks for the encouragement. The first edit you link to was just pretty basic and was not what MastCell was talking about when he said I was "repeatedly reinserting" information and the second two were the "one large edit" I was referring to in my original comment, between which MastCell reverted it. It could be accurately stated that I reinserted information, but not that I "repeatedly reinserted." I'm also puzzled why no one who objected to the sentence just didn't take it out rather than reverting the entire edit (I took the sentence out myself) since my edit on the whole improved the entry a great deal. This is the oddest situation I've ever encountered in all my Wikipedia editing. There was only the one honestly made error, and I corrected a few errors by omission (i.e., what occurred with Medical Hypotheses between its founding and 2009?) in my edit. Cheers, Gloria --Gloriamarie (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some constructive progress being made currently at Talk:Medical Hypotheses, so I'd like to thank everyone who was willing to provide their input, and apologize for any undue stress I've caused. MastCell ^Talk 04:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible new categories / sections

I proposed a few new list sections/categories at Talk:List_of_cutaneous_conditions#Additional_sections_.2F_categories. Perhaps I could get some feedback there? ---kilbad (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Zoophilic

Zoophilic (not to be confused with zoophilia) has a transwiki tag. Should the stub be kept? Is there more to say? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it redundant to Zoophily? There may be a second meaning regarding fungi or other parasites that feed on animals. But really it doesn't seem like something that couldn't be handled with a DAB page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on nouns, not adjectives. Zoophilic has been transwikied to Wiktionary as wikt:zoophilic, and I've turned Zoophilic into a redirect to Zoophily. --RexxS (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Liver cancer

I noticed that the Liver cancer article appears to have information on both Benign and Malignant Hepatic tumors, which I feel is incorrect, as the inclusion of the word "cancer" into the articles title suggests that only malignant hepatic tumors should be discussed in the article. I feel the text on benign hepatic tumors should be removed from that article. However, we need to discuss the benign liver tumors (such as the Hemangiomas, nodular regeneritive hyperplasia, and hepatic adenomas) somewhere on Wikipedia, I suggest the creation of a new article on benign liver tumors. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that is the distinction that the NIH makes. [40] But why do we not just move the page to liver tumors? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So you agreee the text on benign liver tumors should be removed? Immunize (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea definitely that should be removed, and there is this redirect Liver tumor, which redirect to liver cancer, which is a misconception too, I believe that the style of liver cancer article should be moved to liver tumor, or liver tumors, and by that I mean we should consider creating an article that talks about benign and malignant liver cancer, which should link to the liver cancer article as the malignant variant of liver tumors, what do you think?? MaenK.A._Talk 15:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section on benign liver tumors on the article in question, but the problem remains that we need some article to cover these benign hepatic tumors. Looking at the histroy of the redirect Liver tumor, it appears that Jmh649 (talk · contribs) redirected the page to liver cancer on February 17, 2010. What should the next step for this article be? Immunize (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind and think we should redirect the pack back to liver tumor and replace the content on benign lesions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have restored the page Liver tumor and redirected the page Liver cancer to Liver tumor. However, there was more content in the Liver cancer page than there is currently on the Liver tumor page. Immunize (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I see that another user has already resotored the lost content on the page Liver cancer and added it into the page Liver tumor, and has added the information on benign lesions back into the Liver tumor article. Immunize (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done my best to untangle the two pages, so that Liver cancer now discusses just the cancer, and Liver tumor gives an overview of both benign and malignant tumors. The cancer article has a See also link to the tumor article, and the the Malignant section of the tumor article has a {{main}} template pointing to the cancer article. Would someone look over the results to see if I've made any errors, please? --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the word "primary" in at least some sections of the article, as it implies that the article deals with liver metastasis, which it does not. I hope for improving this article to Good-article or possibly even featured article status. Immunize (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, will help you with that MaenK.A._Talk 16:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have redirected liver tumors to liver tumor, but I think we should move liver tumor to liver tumors, and reverse the redirect, what do you think?? MaenK.A._Talk 16:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Liver tumor should be moved to liver tumors. Immunize (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. WP:SINGULAR states "Use the singular form: Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages)." You can make the case that liver tumours constitute a class of tumours, but its primary use is the object, "a liver tumour", which exists in the singular and should be the article title. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Support for renaming article Liver tumors withdrawn. Immunize (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't knew that, i withdraw that suggestion, and thank you for making that clear MaenK.A._Talk 22:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

-induced or -related

I added an ionizing radiation-related section. Then I switched "-related" to "-induced." Which do you prefer? Also, any additional feedback is, as always, greatly appreciated. ---kilbad (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe -Induced is better, as these lesions are directly induced, and not only related MaenK.A._Talk 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Announcement of RfC at Talk:NPOV regarding use of Category:Pseudoscience wikilinks

Please weigh in there. This is just an announcement. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you help me create four disease stubs?

I have created a new section on eosinophilic skin conditions and wanted to know if someone would create stubs for the four redlinks in the section? ---kilbad (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Creating a new stub is easy. See arthropod assault, which I just made for you. You can do the other 3 in about 5 minutes each. Step 1: Go the arthropod assault. Click EDIT. Block copy the entire text. Step 2: Go to your next red link and click on it. Paste in the text from arth assault. Step 3: Now you have a format template for a new stub. Just change the relevant text. Step 4: Just add content, and Presto, a new article. alteripse (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Pruritic papular eruption of HIV disease  Done MaenK.A._Talk 08:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone help with the remaining two redlinks? ---kilbad (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave you a fish and showed you how to fish. You still just want us to hand you two more fish? alteripse (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I just like working with other editors on derm-related content; hence my request for help with those redlinks. I don't like to go it alone... that's all. With regard to fishing, I think I mastered my rod a long time ago... lol. ---kilbad (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What can I say then? You got the limit of my derm knowledge. T thought you were a newby and didnt know how to make a stub by clicking on the red link. You just wanted company! alteripse (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Kilbad, do you happen to have the ICD codes for these conditions? I'm willing to set up {{Infobox disease}} if you did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I listed those conditions from a textbook, so I do not have the ICD codes for them. Can someone else help us by providing those codes? Also, on a related note, is ICD-10 Chapter XII: Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue an unabridged listing of cutaneous condition ICD-10 codes, or are some of the cutaneous condition codes not included? (I did not create that list, so I am not sure) ---kilbad (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

When I created ICD-10 Chapter XII: Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue (and the corresponding articles for the other chapters), I did not include all the subcodes. However, for the level of detail in the articles you are creating, you'll probably need the ICD-10 extensions from The International League of Dermatological Societies. Their codes are available here, and an example of how to integrate this into {{Infobox disease}} is available at Traction alopecia. --Arcadian (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone turn all all these codes into a wikipedia list, or integrate it into ICD-10 Chapter XII: Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue? ---kilbad (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The four new stubs are Arthropod assault, Eosinophilic vasculitis, Itchy red bump disease, and Pruritic papular eruption of HIV disease. The ILDS website doesn't seem to know what any of these are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what the codes would be, but Rich has helped us out by importing the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/ILDS-ICD. ---kilbad (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Need to know if all T's crossed, I's dotted

Another editor has been granted permission to use dermatology photos from a couple other sites (see my talk page for details). I want to know if we are cleared to start importing all those photos from those sites. Again, see the bottom of my talk page for details. ---kilbad (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment For the dermnet.com I have the permission in my e-mail, and I can forward it to anyone, the owner gave us free license under common creative attribution share alike 3.0 to the whole site MaenK.A._Talk 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, How can I share the permission with you ?? MaenK.A._Talk 11:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. ---kilbad (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

BODE score

Can someone discuss the BODE score in the prognosis section of COPD, or as an independent article please. Ron --Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnielsen7222 (talk o contribs) 17:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Stub requested

Could someone create a stub on Eczematid-like purpura of Doucas and Kapetanakis? Thanks in advance! ---kilbad (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Knock yourself out. alteripse (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mirtazapine

Anyone have any views on how to sort this section out?Mirtazapine#Indications I am tempted to do mass deleting but I don't know enough about the drug to know what are notable off-label uses and what is improper use of primary sources. It has been sitting in this state for months, maybe a year or more.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree - I've cut out all the speculative research list of conditions, to leave just those claimed to be of off label additional indications. Likewise trimmed brand list to just items where there is representation in high English speacking populations. (Ecuado names not relevant in English wikipedia), info overload in this article is not encylopaedic (wikipedia is not an international pharmacopoeia). David Ruben ^Talk 01:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Its looking much better, could still use more refining using review articles but I suppose 90 percent of articles on here are in the same boat. Thanks David.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

merging of Category:Medical research and Category:Clinical research

Just came across Category:Medical research and Category:Clinical research, I know that these terms were merged for this project in the days before time, was wondering if these cats should be merged too - or am I missing a distinction between them ? Lee?V (talk o contribs) 14:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Pedantically, clinical research should be a (large) subset of medical research, but I'm not sure how strongly the distinction is made now. I suppose that, considering the interest drug companies are showing in traditional medicine, you might consider as an example that research done on alternative plant remedies is "medical", but not "clinical" research. Perhaps on balance there's no harm in leaving Category:Clinical research as a subcategory of Category:Medical research. Categories are there for ease of navigation and I can't see much value in trying merge those two. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah - didn't see clinical was a subcat of medical - I was looking at Category:Health research where they are included separately. Lee?V (talk o contribs) 14:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to move 'Allopathic medicine' to 'Evidence-based medicine'

For info, there is a request to move (change the name of) Allopathic medicine. See Talk:Allopathic medicine#Requested move. --Red King (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn this RtM. --Red King (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Inability to sign up as a member of Wikiproject medicine

I attempted to add my Username to the list of participants of Wikiproject medicine, but despite my edit, which added my username to the list, I failed to be displayed on the list. Any help would be appreciated. Immunize (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You did not format it properly; look at how all of the other additions are formated and just copy what other users did. The "|-" which you added your username after is a section break in the table, which is why it is not showing.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to fix the format recently, including changing the position of the "-", but it is still not displaying. Immunize (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just copy what other people have done and create your own section, exactly as other people have done and it will work. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed it for you. Remember (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

>23000 pictures to import

Hi All I ve been granted a permission from the owner of this site dermnet.com Dr.Thomas Habif to use any image on his site under the common creative attribution share alike 3.0 license, so we need Ideas how to import theses picture, or whom to consult for ideas on importing such a big amount of pictures, thank you all MaenK.A._Talk 07:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this [41]. It seems like a similar type of donation and maybe the people that worked on the Robert Lavinsky donation can help you organize this donation. Remember (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is great, though wouldn't you be uploading them to Commons rather than English Wikipedia? Try Durova (talk · contribs), who is heavily involved in images and would be a good person to ask.

I have a concern about the images with black bands across the persons eyes. This is no longer considered an adequate method of ensuring privacy and many of these images are clearly identifiable. What degree of consent has been obtained? Wikipedia is not a medical publication. I don't think that such images are appropriate for an encyclopaedia for general readers (both because black squares for eyes produces a shocking photo and because the black squares were clearly added for a reason, and that reason is privacy even if it is ineffective).

Colin°^Talk 11:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the concerns regarding consent. Blacking out the eye in my opinion makes for a poor image. When a medical practitioner comes out with a camera however consent is usually either obtained in writing or verbally. So I assume consent was given. Just check with the person who is donating the images.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See these guidelines on Clinical Photography Consent. Note that they regard all images as identifiable, not just those of the face, etc. The maximum consent level is "for the images to be used in a medical publication". This is not a medical publication, and images appearing here or on Commons could be reproduced anywhere, including for example, a site making fun of people or those that find extreme illness to be a form of entertainment. Colin°^Talk 12:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this concern regarding all patient images on Wikipedia or these in particular??, I agree with Doc James, since any physician will take permission before taking any picture, and we can confirm that with Dr.Thomas Habif, who so a well know author of many books as you can see here. And we can add the personality rights tag to those pictures which can restrict the use of the images, for example check this image MaenK.A._Talk 12:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, responding to Colin's request for input. Congratulations on negotiating this generous donation! Please work out any details regarding permissions/screening. When you're ready for upload let me know; I'll put you in touch with the people who do bot uploading. Best regards, Durova⁴¹² 20:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and we ll let you know MaenK.A._Talk 20:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very excited at the prospect of adding many of these images to Wikipedia, and I think they will be a valuable addition for our general readers. However, I do have a few follow-up questions/comments. First, with regard to permissions, I would still like to see a correspondence from someone from dermnet.com, Dr. Habif or whoever, expressly stating that we can use any/all the photos under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. I have e-mailed support@dermnet.com twice, and have yet to hear back myself on the issue. Maybe someone else can try contacting them as well? Also, perhaps someone at OTRS should be activity involved with this donation to make sure we are doing everything appropriately/legally. Second, with regard to patient consent, what it our actual Wikipedia policy/consensus on this matter? This issue has never been clear to me. Does a patient's "consent to be photographed" have to be indicated somewhere on the Wikipedia/Commons file page? If so, is there a specific form we should be using with he patient? What does/will this mean for photos in which that information is not provided? Finally, dovetailing off that, what is our Wikipedia policy/consensus regarding identifiable aspects of medical images? Many of us have uploaded images from different sources (ourselves, the CDC, etc), all with different degrees of identifiableness (examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Sometimes we use a censoring black box, sometimes we do not. Sometimes we include the face, other times we do not. I suggest, if there is no clear consensus on this latter issue, perhaps (once we get proper permission) we could still copy all the photos over to Wikipedia, and then edit/delete photos over time as consensus develops? Alright, just a few thoughts. ---kilbad (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've posted to the Commons OTRS noticeboard regarding this discussion. Durova⁴¹² 15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The specific issues of permission are being discussed below. Colin°^Talk 16:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Radiopaedia

Hi, I have contacted Dr.Frank Gaillard who is the CEO of the Radiopaedia site, and asked him to give me permission to upload images from radiopedia, he accepted that, and volunteered to upload them him self, but the I found his talk page on commons and found this, then I asked him if we could upload images under this license, he accepted this offer but had some requests that should be done whenever we upload a picture from his site:

• First of all this permission is only valid for cases and images uploaded by Dr.Frank Gaillard, which are currently 1552 case and can be found here
• Second request was that whenever we upload an image we should inform Dr.Frank Gaillard by e-mail about that picture
• Third request was that we should add the categories Category:Radiopaedia and Category:Frank_Gaillard to the uploaded images
• Fourth, images uploaded should be tagged with this license
• And finally each image should state in its description tag the URL of the original case and image from Radiopaedia, and as an example Dr.frank told me that images should look like this file

So we need a list for images uploaded by Dr.Frank to radiopedia that we need here at wikipedia, so that we inform him, and then upload those images, any one wants to help with that?? here is the full listing of cases uploaded by Dr.Frank MaenK.A._Talk 17:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the first uploaded file, I first informed Dr.Frank about the upload, then did the upload and sent him a link to the uploaded image at commons by e-mail MaenK.A._Talk 17:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you should discuss these issues with the image and legal experts at Commons. You are talking about enough images that it is worth their legal bods to have a look. Colin°^Talk 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What issues?? we Already got the permission and that permission was already reviewed and confirmed as you can see in the OTRS information in the license tag here MaenK.A._Talk 20:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there's the requests that he makes: are they reasonable? Probably but I don't really know Commons rules. I'm more concerned about the photos than the radiographic images. Although the copyright issue might be straightforward, the ethical/legal issues surrounding the subjects and their identification and publication on Wikipedia is less so. You're talking thousands of images. That's class-action territory if it goes pear-shaped. IMO, if I'd signed one of those consent forms I linked above, that consented to "Medical publication" usage, I'd be fuming if my pic appeared on the home page of Wikipedia in front of 8 million people and then copied to every leaching website in the world. I'd be taking legal advice. Colin°^Talk 21:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First his requests are reasonable, and we do them by routine, except for notifying him about the uploaded images, and I ll volunteer to do that whenever any images are uploaded, and about the other concerns, the Radiopaedia site does not contain any patient images, they are all CTs, MRIs, X-rays, and Ultrasounds. So I believe there is no reason to have any concerns about patient's privacy since no images have name labels. MaenK.A._Talk 11:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories on disambiguation pages

Regard this edit, if the disambiguation page is referring to multiple conditions that could all be considered part of the same category, could we not keep the Category:Palmoplantar keratodermas? I am not an expert on dab pages. ---kilbad (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found no rule prohibiting such cats, and I would have thought the link appropriate in this case (since 100% of the [two] items listed fall into the cat). Have you considered asking User:Boleyn? She seems to do a lot of disambiguation-related editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Diets and Rheumatoid arthritis?

Concerned editors might want to take a look at this discussion before it gets completely out of hand. Specifically, it's a debate about whether the article on rheumatoid arthritis should mention links between diets and RA, and which sources are necessary and/or sufficient for drawing such a connection. Gabbe (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's all a heap of WP:SYNTH, small studies and disproven theories. JFW | T@lk 14:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Discography stub

I did not find any articles on medical discography so I started one at User:Stillwaterising/Discogram. I'm unsure of how to title it. Should it be a general article on all discography like discogram or specific like lumbar provocative discography or maybe discography (medical)? Any help would be appreciated. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Old merge proposals

I've been looking at WPMED's enormous cleanup listing. We've got some three-year-old merge proposals on the list. Would everyone please look over these, and try to do your bit?

For example, I'm sure that someone here will know whether those two anatomy articles are the same thing. If they're different, then getting them off our list just involves removing the tags from the articles (and, if you want, from the list here and/or at the cleanup listing). I just merged a pair of stubs; it took less than ten minutes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

2007

Jan to March 2008

Some additional eyes at Amygdalin

Could use some WP:3O (see Talk:Amygdalin). DMacks (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Herpes simplex

Hi, this user did this edit to the article, the edit is referenced, but am wondering if we can relay on these references?? thank you MaenK.A._Talk 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If the therapy is being made available on the NHS it must have an evidence base, so it shouldn't be too hard to find better quality references, i.e. recent peer reviewed sources. News sources should generally be avoided for making medical claims, better to go with peer reviewed sources, I would suggest replacing the sources and re-editing according to the references if needed, per WP:MEDRS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Are these terms synonymous?

Are tuberculid and tuberculide synonymous? Same with syphilid and syphilide... If so, what is the origin of the extra "e"? ---kilbad (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the e is the french nominative form, the non-e perhaps the anglicized latinate. Both are 19th century terms not in use now. alteripse (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the extra "e" is being used in some of the dermatology-related ICD codes. Is there an article you can direct me to regarding this "e" and the french nominative form? ---kilbad (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Les syphilides des muqueuses revetant ordinairment l'aspect connu sous le nom de plaques muqueuses." from page 22 in Le Premier Livre de Medecine, by Bougle and Cavasse: Paris, 1897. I suspect syphilid and tuberculid are formed analogously to the nominative form of invalid. They may be anglicized french rather than anglicized Latin as I think about it. I had no idea these were current terms in dermatology. alteripse (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. Would you be willing to research the issue a little more, and perhaps help me word a footnote that I can add to the list of cutaneous conditions at the first instance in the list when I spell one of these terms in which I omit the "e"? Something similar to the current American-British footnote. ---kilbad (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

With the "e" appears to be the French form per this, this, this, [42] and this. This and this suggest Tuberculid/tuberculide as alternative forms in English too.--Slp1 (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I ask this for my own education, but it seems that "syphilide" originated in French literature. Therefore, for sake of the argument, let's say that originally it was a French term. However, eventually it was "imported" into English derm literature. So my question is this: after a word is "imported" from another language, at what point is a word considered "English" terminology? ---kilbad (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say as soon as it is used without a qualifier/translation/explanation in an English text. It's would be the same for any word that gets acquired by the English language, which is great vacuum cleaner of other people's words, sucking them in without fear. --Slp1 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a great way of looking at the issue. I added this footnote after sources repeated mentioned that those were not English terms, but rather specified them to be from another language, despite their use in English medical literature. ---kilbad (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The ultimate source for such stuff would be OED. However, wikitionary can be informative, can be linked to, even if care must be taken when citing. Rich Farmbrough, 15:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC).

I'm not an authority, but my guess, from having seen numerous forms of French words wrt to their English counterparts, is that it has much to do with helping pronunciation - the French language has stricter rules and fewer exceptions on how words are spelt dictate their pronunciation. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

See also spam

Somebody spammed the List of circulatory system conditions to a bunch of articles back in January. I've removed it from a couple of dozen articles on hematological malignancies, but I think someone else needs to figure out which of these anemias are really 'circulatory' and which are not really cardiovascular diseases. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

question about ECG interpretation

I have a question about how to determine the axis of a 12-lead ECG. In brief, I would like to know the correct method (if there is one) for determining which lead is most isoelectric (or equiphasic). [If this is a disputed topic, then please elaborate on all points of view expressed by reliable sources; if there is only one correct method, then please cite to the sources (preferably at least one textbook and at least one online).] Thanks. Bwrs (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Patient images: consent issues

The above very-welcome opportunities raise the issue of consent by the subject of the photo to appear on Wikipedia. It is one thing for the copyright owner to willingly donate images to Wikipedia or to Commons, but permission is still required from any identifiable subject. Have a look at our Model release article and the Patient images essay on Commons (see also the talk page: I feel this essay is inadequate and will probably comment over there). Look also at [43], [44], [45], [46] which are just a few of the Google results for "clinical photography consent]. Here's some findings:

• "In accordance with guidelines for the Welsh Assembly Government and the General Medical Council, the notion of whether a patient can be identified has been dispensed with. All patients should be considered as identifiable from any of their photographs." This appears to be the position of all medical journals. This includes pictures of someone's infected toe
• Typical hospital consent forms in the UK have levels of consent that range from ones own medical records to "medical publication". They do not extend to publishing on Commons, which is effectively a "do what you like with it" permission.
• Blanking out a patient's eyes is ineffective as a privacy measure and went out with the dark ages.
• The legal liability lies with the publisher, not the photographer (though the photographer is usually the one that gets the form signed, because that's convenient). I'm not clear whether the publisher is the uploader or Wikipedia itself or both.

I think, especially given the volume of images involved, we should take legal advice from Wikipedia's legal team. Colin°^Talk 12:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed Mike Godwin. Colin°^Talk 13:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a model release, just like what we do for pornographic images. Just send the permission to OTRS and that takes care of everything. (Plus, in all seriousness, how can you identify someone if it is just a picture of their toe?) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 14:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the "toe" is an extreme example but I've literally repeated what the BMJ says. I guess they find that deciding what is "identifiable" or not is very hard and if they don't have the resources to do it then we certainly don't -- so we're left with a "assume any patient photo is identifiable" safety position. Colin°^Talk 15:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

See [47] for an earlier discussion at MEDMOS. Unfortunately, it appears to contain more opinion than fact. Colin°^Talk 15:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Colin, thank you for taking a lead on these issues. I look forward to hearing what Mike says. Thanks again. ---kilbad (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

IANAL but it seems to me if the subject can not be reasonably identified from the photo and the owner releases it to a free license, there should be no problem. Besides look at all the pics of identifiable living people on Commons, just but the "Personality rights" tag on the photo if they are identifiable. -- Rlevse o Talk o 15:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would imaging that we all agree that the medicine project should have a page somewhere discussing the use of medical photography. Perhaps we could create a page analogous to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles), but for images? We could then continue this discussion there, keeping all the related threads together? Just an idea... ---kilbad (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree on that, by creating such a page, we will stop wasting time, every time we try to upload patient images, Please Check this page to make these conversations more organized MaenK.A._Talk 16:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that patient images where the patient is reasonably identifiable and would require a model release. I wouldn't worry about it, though:

• If the patient is not reasonably identifiable.
• If the image is before some date (I'd suggest 1900).
• Possibly if the image is already published (e.g. in a medical book, magazine, etc.)

Jmabel | Talk 16:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage folk to read the above linked sources and add any more they find, rather than just guess. Even if we don't take the "assume everything is identifiable" approach, I would say all images that include even part of someone's face should be regarded as identifiable and we accept the widespread view that black boxes over the eyes do not help. But further, I don't think the permission to appear in a medical publication is sufficient for Commons. Medical pictures are different from everyday pictures. They say something negative about the person, which is akin to WP:BLP issues. Colin°^Talk 16:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

An alternative to black boxing is to selectively blur identifiable features. It takes less than two minutes on any reasonably powerful image editing program. GIMP can do it and GIMP is free. The only challenging part is that images would need to be reviewed and edited one by one.

So how does this solution sound? Form two teams of editors: one to review and one to edit. Divide up the review tasks so that reviewers don't duplicate each other. Designate a separate group of editors to do the privacy edits. I'll train the second group (if you know how to crop a family portrait you can learn this easily).

Designate a space for reviewers to indicate which images need editing, for image editors to indicate when the editing is done, and for editors to note when a group of images is fully reviewed and ready for batch upload. (This setup would be organized like the copyright infringement reviews). Edited images would be uploaded manually. Sounds workable? Durova⁴¹² 17:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think This is a great idea, and a doable one too, we should start working on that MaenK.A._Talk 17:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The sheer variety of images mean that on some categories, we could simply not upload any images remotely identifiable and make do with other body parts. We don't need at 1000 images of eczema, for example. The biggest difficulty will be for images that are necessarily of the face. How would you handle Acne Scar, Eczema Face, Tuberous sclerosis face, Tuberous sclerosis face2, Neurofibromatosis face? This image Neurofibromatosis (Not safe for work) doesn't include much of the face but might be recognisable to someone familiar with the brown patch under her arm. Colin°^Talk 17:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec, to madhero88) Thanks. To get this started, download and user manual links for GIMP are here.[48][49] Anyone who wants coaching on doing these edits in GIMP or Photoshop is welcome to contact me via email. The best platform for collaborative image editing is Skype: it supports both text and voice chats and handles file transfers well. So editors can communicate in real time and trade screen shots. Let's set up a medicine project subpage for reviewers to start getting organized. Durova⁴¹² 18:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Colin, I am downloading one of the images you linked to work on as a demonstration. Durova⁴¹² 18:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be great, I ve just downloaded GIMP, and I am ready to work :-) MaenK.A._Talk 18:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Madhero88, please email me for my Skype ID. I'll add you to contacts and we'll get started. Colin, here's a quick set of edits on four of the five images you linked.[50] It may be fair to set up the review system so that we bypass potentially sensitive images in situations where nonsensitive substitutes exist. Otherwise we could increase the size of black boxing, plus implement selective blurs and crops to minimize identifiability. Sounds fair? Durova⁴¹² 18:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In all the stuff I've read today, simply making the black boxes bigger wasn't suggested. In all those pictures you've edited, if I knew the person, I'd recognise them. Let's say that's your English teacher who has a distinctive brown mark on her face. Now you've learned that she has an incurable genetic disease that causes other, perhaps personal, problems. Her employer might worry that her illness could get worse, leading to time off or insurance issues. On another angle, I find the last of the tuberous sclerosis images I linked (which you haven't edited yet) to be simply shocking. The pimples on the face are the least of the problems with that picture. I experimented with white boxes rather than black and it was much improved. But basicaly, such blanked pictures are poor aesthetically and IMO not appropriate for an encyclopeadia for general readers. I appreciate that's getting into personal opinion territory, but I don't see anyone putting one of them on the MainPage any time soon? Wrt the picture editing project, I think we should wait for advice on where the "identifiable" threshold is set. Colin°^Talk 19:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Colin, your points are well taken. Further advice is not likely to be forthcoming (the featured picture program had a rather difficult discussion on a candidacy of a childbirth a while back). The best way forward is to identify which images are potentially problematic and deal with them one by one until we reach consensus. If we at least segregate those from the others, we can move forward with the majority/uncontroversial images. Durova⁴¹² 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I ve already sent you an e-mail, Great work on those images, and I believe that will do the job MaenK.A._Talk 18:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied via email. In about another hour I'll need to head out, so we can either pick this up today or perhaps tomorrow. Durova⁴¹² 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) So it looks like we're dealing with 1552 images by Frank Gaillard? Those come on 17 pages and each image has a unique ID number. If no one objects let's start a subpage for review. Durova⁴¹² 19:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Radiopaedia review. Durova⁴¹² 19:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, are we all familiar with WP:Image use policy#Privacy_rights? It names medical facilities as an example of a private place (thus model releases are required), and suggests several options for addressing concerns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Added links to that and the Commons guideline at the review page. Durova⁴¹² 19:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we need be really clear, that uploading of medical images involves 2 issues:

1. The trivial one (for now) is of copyright and our right to upload/transfer images. Of course normal rules over copyright and permissions to release under free licence apply just as for any WP Commons image, and if we have permission of Radiopedia or DermNet copyright holders to upload, then fine.
2. The tough issue here is of patient confidentially. Confidentiality is not gained by attempts at anonymity with black bars across eyes, or a decision that an image is not identifiable for being say just an X-ray film (if BMJ and leading medical journals take this opinion then we should be wary of making our own decisions that radiographs or photos not showing faces must be OK). Past discussions include Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)/Archive 3#Images, and User:Una Smith kindly did a literature search to be found at commons:User talk:Davidruben. Per commons:Commons:Patient images, what counts is the model's consent... so if likes of DermNet/Radiopedia can confirm that images obtained were with patient consent for 'any' redistribution (vs. not just use in the one source or for medical education alone -and Wikipedia is not the closed doors of medical education), then this requirement seems met... I would though for such a large upload, suggest seeking clarification of Wiki Foundation legal advice - so Colin, please let us know when you hear back from Mike Godwin :-) David Ruben ^Talk 20:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks David. So if we do get the level of consent we require (any purpose) then we don't need to bother with fiddling with the pictures other than for our own needs (e.g. better composition). Colin°^Talk 20:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually commons:Commons:Patient images is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and medical images have been promoted to featured picture without explicit patient consent. Perhaps the best solution is to wait for Mike Godwin's response before proceeding. Durova⁴¹² 20:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Any news from Mr. Mike Godwin ?? MaenK.A._Talk 20:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll let you know. I'm sure he's a busy man and it has been the weekend. It may help if you him an email too, giving some idea of the scale of the donation and therefore the importance to Wikipedia of getting hold of such valuable pictures but also of getting it right legally and ethically. Point him at this Wiki page. Colin°^Talk 22:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Any thing yet?? how long should we wait?? Should we consult someone else?? :-) MaenK.A._Talk 10:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues with Patient images: (1) legal issues, and (2) ethical issues.

1. For the legal issues, we should ask Mike Godwin for a final verdict: who owns the images, who's legally responsible for publishing them?
2. For the ethical issues, I think each uploader should follow their own ethical code (but it's obvious that we shouldn't allow identifiable images taken without the patient's consent).

I too can make guesses but like Collin points out, we need (legal) facts rather than opinions. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

About the assumption that all images are identifiable:

This, IMO, is driven by a principle of least astonishment rather than a real risk to privacy. Imagine the patient with an unusual skin disease, resulting in a small spot on his arm or leg. The derm says, "Wow, I haven't seen one of these in my entire career," and takes a picture. The patient happens to notice, some time later, that the doc has published a paper on the rare disease.

Given the patient's personal knowledge, including (importantly) his personal knowledge that the physician was unlikely to have another source for the image, he could logically conclude that the image shows his leg. However, nobody else could possibly look at a little spot from an apparently random paper and say, "Hey, I'll bet that this bit of skin is my neighbor's/co-worker's/friend's."

IMO the image I show here is unidentifiable, and it should not require a model release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright holder permissions

So, we have an e-mail from Dr. Habif, stating the following:

  To permissions-commons@wikimedia.org    I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [   http://www.dermnet.com/    ].  I agree to publish that work under the free license [   Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0   ].  I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.  I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.  I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.  I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.      March 11 2010, Thomas Habif, MD  

Therefore, my question: does this suffice for copyright holder permission to use all images on dermnet? If so, can we get a general OTRS ticket number to use with all these images? ---kilbad (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think its enough, We have a license made in the form of the standard OTRS form, what do we need more?? MaenK.A._Talk 10:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We still have the outstanding issues of patient consent, the degree to which Wikipedia considers an image to be "identifiable", and who exactly the "publisher" is. It might help if Thomas Habif gave us a copy of the consent form he's (presumably) used for his own publication of the images. From what I've read, publication of identifiable patient images without consent could leave the publisher liable to criminal prosecution in addition to any civil damages the patient pursues. As such, I don't think this is a job for the Medicine WikiProject and am disappointed that I've not yet heard back from WPs legal bod. Colin°^Talk 10:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast replay. I believe that DR.Thomas Habif have consents but we cant ask him for written consents for 23000 images. But I am sure he have consents for publishing those images, since he is a well known publisher and he surly knows everything about consents, and he wont give us license to use these pictures if he didn't had consents. And I ve told him that those pictures will be attributed to him as an author, and will state that his website is the source. So if there was any legal concerns I believe he would not had accepted to release those images. I am disappointed too that its ve been 5 days now since you contacted Mr. godwin. Also for Dr.frank gillard, I ve made it clear previously that he will be attributed as the author on each image. So I think that those authors wont allow us to use their images if they didn't own them, and if they didn't have consents, since they know the legal consequences to that MaenK.A._Talk 12:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors trying to keep a table which plays down HIV transmission risks

Please comment. See: Talk:HIV#HIV_Risk_Table Phoenix of9 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For "plays down," read "accurately reports the sources' own numbers" for per-act HIV transmission risks, which seem to surprise people by being pretty low. One editor may believe that publishing scarier numbers, or at least hiding the accurate ones, might be a good public health move.

I need to be away from Wikipedia for a while, and I'm sure that other eyes would be appreciated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WTF? Are you saying that a 1992 study is more valid than a 2010 study? Can you even read? Phoenix of9 05:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Queep calm and do not insult other editors.--Garrondo (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong template at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_Mullerian_duct_syndrome ?

Shouldn't the template at the end of the page [51]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_Mullerian_duct_syndrome] be

MALE Congenital malformations and deformations of sex organs

instead of

Female Congenital malformations and deformations of sex organs

or maybe both? "Female" tissue in a "male" person would be a male Congenital malformations and deformations of sex organs in my opinion. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.59.37 (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right, Thank you for bringing this to our attention :-) MaenK.A._Talk 16:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I replaced that with the appropriate template, thank you again  Done MaenK.A._Talk 16:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Review

I was hoping one or more of would be so kind as to take a look at the new article on Combined Small Cell Lung Carcinoma. I know it still needs some work and cleanup, which I hope to get around to in the next week or so. I would also try to address any suggestions you ladies and gentlemen might have during this period of time. Thank you all in advance.

Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 03:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC) --Preceding unsigned comment added by Uploadvirus (talk o contribs)

New Invitation templates

Hi, I created two other alternatives to this template, those are here and here, any suggestions?? or approval to use a new one?? MaenK.A._Talk 16:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How about adding something about referencing and the diberri tool? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be great, Feel free to edit my sub-page and add whatever you think appropriate MaenK.A._Talk 18:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we add the talk about referencing and diberri tool to the welcoming message, and that would be more appropriate, what do you think?? I ll work on this MaenK.A._Talk 19:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Will work on it when I have time.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Shall I modify the welcoming template to look something like the welcome template of the cardiology task force?? By the way I designed the current welcome templates for both the project and cardiology task force. so what do you think shall I go for it??

Take a look at this, I added links to referencing and the diberri tool MaenK.A._Talk 11:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Shall I apply this change ?? any other suggestions ?? MaenK.A._Talk 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the old template and updated the associated documentation, on posting would look like this Done MaenK.A._Talk 11:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I need help to construct the to do list of Wikiproject medicine here, this list will appear in our new welcome template MaenK.A._Talk 11:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want to do that?

We have attempted things like this in the past, but it's generally been unsuccessful, with problems in both maintaining the list and in getting editors to consider doing the tasks on the list.

As an alternative, you might consider a link to our automatically generated task list, which is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Cleanup_listing. It's some 250KB long (and was updated just a couple of days ago, for anyone who's interested in a fresh copy). If you want to focus on top-importance articles, try this filtered list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Alcoholism up for good article status

I have nominated alcoholism for good article status, anyone who would like to give the article a once over and fix any remaining issues or pass comments or suggestions would be appreciated. A few references need to be put into inline citations which I will hopefully be able to do tomorrow while the article is waiting in the queue, unless someone does it before me. ;-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I went through and fixed some things that popped out at me, but there were a few other things I noticed.

• In Effects of long term alcohol misuse, the sentence "Approximately 18 percent of alcoholics commit suicide" really surprised me. It seemed to pop right out of the middle of nowhere, and there was no further discussion of it. Maybe a little bit more context would be good?
• I found the sentence "The age at which licit drugs of abuse such as alcohol can be purchased as well as banning or restricting advertising of alcohol has been recommended." in the Prevention section, and I'm not really sure what it's supposed to say.
• I think the section on Risk factors might be giving undue weight to the age of onset of alcohol use. A few paragraphs are spent on that, when all of the others are just glazed over.
• The way that percentages are written throughout the article should probably be standardized. I saw "1 in 4," "25%," "25 percent," "twenty-five per cent," and a few other variations while I was reading the article.

Best of luck at GA. Annalise (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the indepth review. :) Good suggestions, I am a bit too tired tonight to work on it but hopefully tomorrow I will get around to addressing those issues in the article. Believe it or not the article a while back was sourced to 25 percent commit suicide but it was disputed so I did more research and found secondary sources claiming 10 percent and others claiming 18 percent or 25 percent, so I chose the middle one, 18 percent. The suicide rate is quite high in sedative-hypnotic abusers, similar to the rates seen in schizophrenia and major depression. I am not sure what context you are looking for? Perhaps, why there is a high suicide rate, eg alcohol abuse both causing mental illness and worsening underlying conditions, social isolation, family loss, job loss etc or the different views on the level of suicide in alcoholics is the context you are thinking of? I agree that there is undue weight to age of onset of use and that there needs to be standardisation in the article and shall fix the poorly worded sentence.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's brilliant! I encountered the alcohol health articles a while ago and got frustrated at that they seemed to be biased pro-alcohol.. I guess there's a lot of money and time in that industry to sway facts towards less negative - but to set the record straight by coming at it from the bottom up is a good idea! I have made a few suggestions ( by applying them ) and will see if I can fit some more time in amongst other stuff. My other thoughts are to stick as closely to our MOS as per other diseases as possible ought to help, ( I wonder if there is an ICD code for example?) Have worn my eyes out for today too! --Lee?V (talk o contribs) 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Lee, yea they used to be terribly biased; the guy who did it, a sociologist who works for the alcohol industry, was banned indefinitely for sockpuppeteering and seems to have moved on. The long-term effects of alcohol article was the worst, but is in much better shape now; it is frustratinging to see facts being distorted to harmful misinformation. Thanks for your helpful edits and suggestions. I found an ICD9 code but I am not entirely sure that it is correct, needs someone to check it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Should health-related articles be held to a higher standard, like Biographies of living persons?

Forgive me if this has already been canvassed here (and Wales' talk page may not be the most appropriate forum) but may I draw your attention to this suggestion? Anthony (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC) To be clear: I have no interest in the above discussion re HIV infection rates. On the face of it, this question about higher standards, if it hasn't already been dealt with, deserves consideration on its own merits. Anthony (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Medically-related articles already benefit from WP:MEDRS and WP:MOSMED. I've commented on how we can raise standards at Jimbo's talk page, but I disagree that standards can be raised by fiat. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Having worked on medical articles at FAC and FAR, I feel they are generally analysed more rigorously than non-medical articles I have worked on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Casliber in the fact that editors are already aware of the problems (and this page plays an essential role). So the question isn't should medical articles be held to a higher standard than articles about #random-subject - they already are and many editors (with more qualifications in the subject than I have) are working to keep it that way. Physchim62 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion: no. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll c&p this part:

Ah-huh. Incorrect information about risks of HIV transmission (when researchers sound alarm about HIV complacency [52]) is comparable to large animals and carpentry. Very smart comparison there...

RexxS, we can ignore 3RR in BLP articles if there is an inaccuracy. Maybe we can have the same thing for health related articles. 'Phoenix of9 19:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My responses here are the same as I made on Jimbo's page:

• We should be striving to raise the standard of all Wikipedia articles, and medically-related articles are no exception. Raising a standard requires effort from many contributors and we are fortunate that BLP attracts sufficient input to allow us to set extra criteria for the content. To try to prioritise improvements from the point of view of consequences of misuse of information is to look at it from the wrong end. Volunteer contributors will each make their own decisions about where they contribute, and the only way to raise the standard of articles is to get people interested in them. In fact, medically-related articles already benefit from the remarkably active WikiProject Medicine ... I would also remind you of the very high standard of sourcing required for medical articles, as outlined in WP:MEDRS, and the additional criteria for content and style as documented at WP:MOSMED. That these exist is already proof of the willingness of Wikipedians to strive to improve our coverage of medicine.
• All of us would be better off if we stick to 1RR - if something is wrong with an article, BLP or medical, you can find lots of other people at the WikiProjects who are willing to help you combat obvious vandalism and libel. WP:AIV and WP:BLP/N can deal with more contentious cases. There's really no need to get anywhere near 3R other than when combating a persistent vandal, and WP:RBI is the best solution for that. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I had in mind the outright banning of primary sources from medical articles. I cannot imagine a circumstance when it would be okay for an article to present evidence supported only by primary sources. And if they were banned this type of time-wasting would be avoided, and there would be no opening for synthesis. Anthony (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The existing guidelines on OR are pretty clear. WP:MEDRS and WP:MOSMED are good too. I'm against banning any type of verified reliable source based on any arbitrary criteria like primary/secondary. Most articles that present research have an introduction and discussion section that are essentially secondary source information. Maybe Anthony could give some examples of what kind of source is unacceptable?

On the other hand, BLP has a policy of removing contentious unsourced information that I think should also be used for medical articles due to liability purposes. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

Using primary sources is appropriate in some cases. Primary sources can provide details (what's interesting to our readers is not always what's interesting to a professional audience), show diversity of opinions on disputed points, and provide useful examples. We may not have much choice in some cases: For rare conditions, the overwhelming majority of high-quality sources may be primary sources. There are thousands of rare diseases, which means (eventually) thousands of articles about rare diseases. Our readers are not best served by banning as much as 90% of what's been published about exceedingly rare diseases like ODDD (243 cases reported, worldwide, ever).

Also, while inappropriate recentism is deplorable, the academic press is slow. New information that's getting an enormous amount of media attention shouldn't be suppressed for a year while we wait for someone to write a proper a review paper. We're usually better off citing peer-reviewed medical sources, even if they're primary sources, than relying on newspaper articles about them, even if the newspaper article is a secondary source.

There are, in short, good reasons to use primary sources -- with due care, and in strict moderation -- and our articles would frequently be worse if we issued a one-size-fits-all blanket ban on primary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Standards will not be raised by taking any kind of decision here, standards will only be as high as our work. There are thousands of poorly written med articles, and the solution is not to say that they should be better; but to improve them.--Garrondo (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Stillwaterising, that the introductions in some primary research papers provide useful independent summaries of a field, and have no problem seeing them used in an article, but the paper's results, and the author's interpretation of them should wait for an independent review. As for examples of sources I find unacceptable, pick anything that's not a peer-reviewed independent summary, a systematic review or a recent university-level textbook. I don't trust myself, let alone you, to cherry pick primary research. (No reflection on you, by the way. I have no idea who you are, but that's the point.) And I like the idea of erasing all poorly sourced assertions in medical articles. But it looks like I'm alone here, so I bow to the wisdom of the majority. Anthony (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that we all agree that articles should ideally be based primarily on secondary sources of exactly the kind you name, and that secondary sources should be relied upon whenever possible (which, for common conditions like hypertension, is "always"). It's just that primary sources have their place, too (e.g., filling in a minor detail). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Where Do I Find Free Access to Publications?

Does anybody know how to get free access to research articles through ScienceDirect or other services? The only two things I can think of are either to find a terminal in a university library with an online subscription or ask with them directly to give out a complimentary subscription as a Wikipedia editor. Any thoughts? - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I use Pubmed. I prefer to search for free full-text articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My university, in Western Australia, offers "community membership" which allows access to all it's subscribed journals, for a not-very-big fee. Anthony (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Anthony, do you have a link? Free sources are preferred of course, however I can't count the number of times this week I've ran into an article I really needed that had a hefty price tag. I can't in conscious use an abstract as a source without reading the whole paper. Nor can I afford to pay more than $30-$50/month for a subscription. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the biggest libraries in North America is in your hometown. Why don't you call them and ask what kind of resources are available to the general public? The phone number for the Life Sciences library seems to be (512) 495-4630. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have the same problem, but I use Pubmed too. If we make requests here can you provide us with full text articles?? MaenK.A._Talk 21:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's only available to people who live in the neighbourhood. But maybe your locals university does the same. Anthony (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you What, I called them up. I seems like I can register for guest access to all resources. Webpage here. I guess I can take a small number of requests for articles from other editors. They said that some can be printed, others have a limit on the numbers of pages that can be printed and most can be emailed from the library. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia