User talk:Bluerasberry/Archive 23

Are you aware of e-cigarette legal issues page?
Did you know there is a Legal status page? That the section has become a bloat and the claims should be on its page if anywhere. This isnt a case of adding to make a page, but to recreate the section that was broken out. AlbinoFerret 02:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see it now but did not see it then. After I saw it I deleted some content. I am still thinking of what to do. See you over there - thanks for keeping me informed.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  02:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret deleted the same text from the e-cigarette legal issues page. He just does not like what the MEDRS source says. If AlbinoFerret thought the text was relevant to that page he would of not deleted it from the other page. According to this diff AlbinoFerret thinks the recent review is unreliable for the claim but the review is clearly MEDRS compliant. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that your false accusations shouldnt be placed anywhere, let alone another users talk page. Secondly, a medical journal is not a reliable source for legal claims or opinions about people exercising their rights. If you want to discuss this more, do it on the articles talk page. AlbinoFerret  05:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not shown how a MEDRS compliant review is unreliable. Your opinion against using the review is irrelevant to whether the source is reliable for the claim. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is another WP:IDHT example from you. Content issues are to be discussed on the talk pages of those articles. AlbinoFerret  13:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for visiting. I move a lot slower than either of you. I am still thinking.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem BR, I am disabled and spend a lot of time at the computer. Take your time, while we dont agree on everything, you have shown a great willingness to work for the common good. AlbinoFerret  20:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Guideline/Policy on healthcare professionals and editing or not editing wikipedia
Thanks for the discussion and offer to help on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-12-03/Op-ed. I thought I would respond here if that is OK rather than filling up the comments section. I am a registered nurse in the UK regulated by the code of conduct of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) - however I think my questions relate to all registered healthcare professionals around the world.
 * Some years ago Kevin Clauson presented a paper to a conference I attended, highlighting omissions/weaknesses in drug information on wikipedia as the initial results of a funded study he had participated in - I asked him whether he (or one of the research team) corrected the errors - he said that wasn't part of the project. I then asked if he (as a registered pharmacist) was aware of the problem and didn't fix it would he be liable if a patient was subsequently harmed by the incorrect information - we both agreed to go away and investigate.
 * I wrote to the NMC and Royal College of Nursing asking for guidance - one didn't respond and the other gave a wishy washy answer about individual professional responsibility.
 * I think "the regulators" worldwide (in the UK this would include Health Professional Council & General medical Council) who have responsibilities to protect the public, should advise their registrants whether they could be liable (in law or to the regulatory body):
 * If they edit wikipedia (everyone is responsible for their edits)
 * If they see an error on wikipedia and do not edit it
 * If there is any case law by anyone "injured" by information on wikipedia

Healthcare professionals should have the skills to evaluate and analyse information from a variety of sources (and help patients to do the same) - this is what I try to teach my students - however many patients will independently see information on wikipedia which may be wrong (out off date, incomplete or just plain wrong), and may take action based on that information which may be harmful or not as good as it could be.

I would suggest WikiProject Medicine would be best placed to help both the regulators and wikipedia by drafting some guidance.

(I tend not to edit health related articles & focus on history, archaeology and historic buildings in my area which are unconnected with my employment, but do have 60,000 edits over 10 years & some familiarity with wp policies and practices.)&mdash; Rod talk 18:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me think about this. At least for now, there should be a place on Wikipedia which collects all available information on this issue so that anyone can see what has been said and note the absence of what has never been said. This should be done in WikiProject Medicine. Without knowing what exists and what expected things do not exist, it is difficult to even have a conversation, and I at least can set up that much.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cookie for AfD participation


Upjav has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upjav (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 August 2014‎

phase 111b trials
Hi i was wondering if anyone actually started a talk on phase 111 trials especially of Subcutaneous (SC) Toccilizumab (TCZ), as i'm considering taking part in trials in Ireland as i have RA... Regards jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.a.saunders (talk • contribs) 20:17, 17 November 2014‎
 * I am sorry, I know nothing about these drugs or any trials about them. Wikipedia typically does not cover health research to this level of detail and I expect there is no information here.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Signpost, MEDRS, and agriculture
Howdy, seeing your discussion connected to the Signpost issue and 's mention of agriculture pages being savaged under the banner ( :-) ) of WP:MEDRS hit a nerve with me. That is mostly because I try to defend some mentions of Traditional Chinese medicine against accusations that it is fringe, which I think is cultural hegemony and suppressing a source of important hypotheses on which science can build. I also thought there was misuse of WP:MEDRS in the removal of any mention of the Séralini affair or of Mesoamerican nephropathy from the Glyphosate page. I consider that page to be a hotbed of the worst of wikipedian behaviour, so I don't want to drag either of you in there, but for a general impression of how to proceed, could I ask your opinion on this rather old edit that is one of the clearer examples where a source has been removed in that way? (One that upsets me more than that is this edit.) Thanks, but please feel free not to respond because I think this is extremely difficult to deal with. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for recognizing the obligation associated with taking a position, as you did when you noted that I could be "dragged" into the discussion. Thanks also for reading the Signpost, and what I said.
 * I participate in WikiProject Medicine. I feel like most of my assessments align with community thought at that board, and I appreciate your coming here to comment. You can also comment at WikiProject Medicine and I think you would get a similar answer.
 * I am interested in the Séralini affair article but I tend to stay away from controversy. I might give support in the future if people only needed comments on sources. I am going to try to give you a good answer because you asked about some issues of interest to me. I could be wrong about this - I have not read into the existing discussions.
 * In this edit it is said "glyphosate has been shown to cause indirect harm to humans". This is definitely a claim about an agent's effect on human health, so that falls under MEDRS, and requires an appropriate MEDRS source. Here is the source cited, so let's consider if it is MEDRS:
 * Arguments for this being MEDRS
 * Authors say in conclusion "This paper presents an exhaustive review of the toxic effects of the herbicide, glyphosate"
 * An authoritative seeming health claim is made - "The pathologies to which glyphosate could plausibly contribute, through its known biosemiotic effects, include... (disease list)"
 * The paper seems sound
 * Arguments against this being MEDRS
 * Entropy (journal) is not a medical journal; presumably this journal is not intended for health practice or reviewed by doctors
 * Neither the article's title nor the abstract present this article as a review article; they are not speaking MEDRS slang which is typically seen, so they seem from a non-medical field
 * It is not immediately obvious to me that this paper is purporting expertise in medicine. It seems like it was written by chemists and physiologists. Those fields have authority in theoretical toxicity, but to actually make a human health claim is another issue. I have not read the entire paper but the health conclusions are not where or what I would expect to see in the intro or conclusion.
 * I have suspicions that this paper is drawing conclusions beyond what was reported in the papers reviewed, which is out of bounds for a MEDRS source
 * My intuition here is to expect a MEDRS source and to say that this is not a MEDRS source. This seems like a fair toxicology paper, but if it were cited, I think it would be best to match this paper with any medical journal review which says "We considered this toxicology paper, and feel that these negative effects can happen in practice to humans." My doubt mostly stems from the paper seeming to have no connection to a medical doctor in the authorship, journal review, or writing style. It is an odd paper in a controversial situation.
 * The other edit is easier to assess. The problem is not the sources, but the writing style and combination of multiple ideas. The content here roughly says "the chemical caused health problems, and as a way to protect the health of people, governments created laws to regulate its use". It would have been less controversial to say "A study noted health problems. In response to this and similar studies, governments created laws to regulate the use of the chemicals." The problem here is suggesting that if the chemicals are used in a certain way, then people's health will be harmed. The claim of "health harm" should not be made without a MEDRS source, and even if a MEDRS source exists to prove the harm, MEDRS sources are not usually going to talk about contemporary politics. It is better to separate the issues of health and politics when there is doubt, and just tie the politics to state motivations rather than fundamental facts.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your response. I really appreciate it, though I'm going to say that I don't understand, and I'll drop the matter, which might seem resentful or unfriendly. Really, it isn't meant that way, I'm amazed by the extent of your wikipedia efforts; it just seems to me that there is a huge difference in outlook between a non-medical biologist like myself and the MEDRS contingent. Like you, I would like to stay away from controversy. I should also stay away from editing in this area because I don't understand how that latter edit said "the chemical caused health problems". I thought it said "the government was concerned that it *might* be causing health problems and that it was therefore appropriate to take action to limit its use in order to possibly prevent harm to their citizens". Anyway, best wishes to you Bluerasberry. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. Do what makes you happy. Hypothetically, if one wanted to engage, here are options for how to get most of that to stick.
 * Remove this text "In late 2013, concerns over so-called Mesoamerican nephropathy, an epidemic among farm labourers" and the reference. The link between the chemicals, the disease, and the passing of legislation is not obvious. All of the remaining text about legislation is outside of MEDRS scope.
 * If that statement and reference is to be kept, there are a couple of options.
 * Find a legal source which cites that particular paper as the one used to back the legal changes. This is again outside the scope of MEDRS.
 * Find a MEDRS source which ties the chemical mentioned in the legislation to that disease, so as to verify from a medical perspective that the chemical caused the disease.
 * I am willing to engage further and comment on changes to the page. When sentences get longer and multiple sources are used to back multiple unrelated claims in a single edit, if anything is wrong with any part of the edit, then often the entire edit gets reverted. This might not be fair, but I hope at least that it is consistent and predictable.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am willing to engage further and comment on changes to the page. When sentences get longer and multiple sources are used to back multiple unrelated claims in a single edit, if anything is wrong with any part of the edit, then often the entire edit gets reverted. This might not be fair, but I hope at least that it is consistent and predictable.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  23:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again for this discussion, it has made me think very hard. Would you say that this conclusion is accurate? I now think that the following statements are true: scientists find WP:MEDRS irritating and incomprehensible; WP:MEDRS forbids the inclusion of medical hypotheses. It is necessary to remember that medicine is an art, and is heavily based on credentialism. Science, on the other hand, relies entirely on evidence, which can come from non-credentialed sources such as graduate students. Thus we cannot say in Wikipedia "It has been suggested that Mesoamerican nephropathy, an epidemic among farm labourers, may have increased in areas where glyphosate has been applied on certain types of soil ." because this is a statement about human health that requires a WP:MEDRS source, and no such source can be provided for an hypothesis. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Credentialism could be one way to explain the problem in medicine, but I think the people with the credentials would like to say that their credential is an indication that they follow defined practices. In medicine there is often no good evidence available, so without evidence there is no science, and yes in that common case medicine proceeds without science. One way to explain the problem in medicine is that there is unwarranted variation in standards of care even for very common medical practices and when no variation is intended. As examples, the United States, England, Scotland, and Canada have similar cultures, but their governments all publish different practice guidelines for medicine, and so physicians practicing in those countries do different things in very common situations even when all of them are trying to rely on the evidence. An example could be that if a patient were described on paper and multiple doctors were to make a recommendation, then there are cases where consistently all the doctors in a region would do something different from doctors in another region. It is presumed there is only one best practice, so this is a problem. The reason why non-medical papers on toxicology are suspect is because similarly, there is variation in what chemicals at what level are considered environmentally safe by different countries. Wikipedia tries to avoid making health claims about this when consensus is not established.
 * In medicine and due to MEDRS, Wikipedia has a bias for saying definitive statements like "Mesoamerican nephropathy, an epidemic among farm labourers, increased in areas where glyphosate has been applied on certain types of soil" and a bias against saying what you said, "It has been suggested " and "may have increased". The reason why Wikipedia does not report the "It has been suggested" papers is because for many issues, there are tens or hundreds of primary research papers, and as a matter of practicality, Wikipedia has no volunteer base which can summarize all of these lower-quality papers when it is still scrambling to cover first the best quality papers.
 * In the case of the paper you present, it says "CKDu in El Salvador may arise from proximity to agriculture to which agrochemicals are applied", which is a lot of qualification. The statement which I would expect from a MEDRS source is "CKDu (in any country) will arise from exposure to agrochemicals", rather than just establishing the correlation between the place and the work environment. It would be fine to say "The government of El Salvador and its health department say that Mesoamerican nephropathy is caused by glyphosate exposure", because that is not a medical claim and is outside the scope of MEDRS.
 * I only discuss MEDRS and do not depend on it. It is continually criticized, and that strange word "MEDRS" is the only term I have seen anywhere to describe the concept behind it. A lot of doctors from outside Wikipedia dislike the concept, so it is more of a Wikipedia thing than a medical community concept. If you want to talk more, share more here, or feel free to email me and we can talk by voice or video.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting, your suggestion that it might be okay to say "the government said this is true". I suppose that could be extended to saying "the government said this might be true". I think we all get caught up in outrage that it is so hard in the real world to proceed with preventative measures before the entire population has expired so that really definitive evidence has accumulated. It worries me, for example, that something similar to a MEDRS attitude may have been used to convince the two governments to withdraw their legislation, "there is no convincing evidence that this is the cause, therefore you must not act or we will sue you" (I don't really know what happened there). This may be particularly a problem with agriculture and other environment-altering activities, somewhat outside the realm of medical professionals, I think. As demonstrated above, my understanding of why there is such cause for outrage is inadequate. Thank you for the offer to email you, I don't see a need right now, but perhaps after another sleepless night thinking about this ... (and, of course, if you want to email me, please feel free). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, as you say, governments are subject to pressure, as are many other organizations which give position statements. That is an issue outside the scope of Wikipedia.
 * More relevant on Wikipedia, the bar is rather low to present position statements in articles when they exist. When governments take positions it usually follows consensus from other more risk-taking organizations, and the positions of smaller organizations can be put into Wikipedia. Suppose that one wanted to add statements like "community group / medical society / think tank / university / individual expert acting alone said this is true". Again, adding a statement like that is outside the scope of MEDRS. To put a statement like this in Wikipedia, one needs to find a third party source which has published "X says this is true", because the third-party publishing keeps the statement from being a self-published source and thereby inadmissible. The grey area beyond this is establishing that a statement is not WP:TRIVIA. Proof that a position is not trivia is showing good sourcing for the reporting of the entity taking the position, establishing the notability of whomever gave the position, and pairing the position with comparable positions anywhere in the spectrum of opinions. Thanks for talking with me and helping me sort my own thoughts. It is fun and a challenge to think this through.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  01:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is insight that I doubt that I ever would have reached by myself, and very interesting. Thanks again to you for discussing this with me and elsewhere. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  Ozzie10aaaa (talk)is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

.

Thank you
Thank you for your kind words on my Talk Page and I hope you and your hamster have some happy holidays! :) Cowicide (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holiday's
I hope you have a great time with family and friends and a happy new year. AlbinoFerret 20:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyhus Communications
I saw a familiar name (you) on the Talk page of this article from back in 2011. Thought I would let you know I sent it to AfD. CorporateM (Talk) 13:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio detection
First, thanks for your review on Macadamia nuts controversy DYK!

While reading your review comment, I wanted to tell you that there is a dedicated tool to detect copyvio, by searching all the phrases in the article into Yahoo. (I wonder why not google, but anyway...) Maybe you can use it in the future! &mdash; Revi 16:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Another year...
Hi BR. No frills - just a quiet ‘’all the best’’ to you for 2015 and I hope you’ll continue to be around on  Wikipedia for a long  time to  come. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Zidovudine
Nice find, hope you will elaborate. Nice hamster BTW, does he edit? Formerly 98 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been intending to elaborate for a few years now... I still do ethics review for HIV research and I have always wanted to find time to develop the history of the clinical trials especially from a community perspective. The hamster's only trick is coming back as a different hamster every few years.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'm old enough to have lost a lot of friends who thought the coolest thing to do after graduating from college in Florida in 1982 would be to move to SF. Back then the obits in the alumni rag never mentioned cause of death. A very sad time. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Feedback on student training?
Hi Lane! Eryk from the Wiki Education Foundation here. I've writing to see if you've got a moment to look at the extra medicine module we've added to the student training on Wikipedia. It isn't live yet, but in Module 3, we'd add a link to this.

From there, students who might encounter medical pages will get additional training in evaluating and using those resources, whereas non-medicine-editing students will get more general advice. You can see the medical training as it stands now by clicking the top blue bar.

If you have a moment (before Thursday?), would you have a look at this, and make any suggestions for what else you'd like to see? We'll be posting it to the Education Noticeboard soon thereafter, but hoped you'd give us a quick gut-check for the utility of what we've got so far. I'm sincerely thankful for this and all your past help.

Thanks! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Josh Robbins
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

TAFI Dishwashing liquid
Hi! Happy New Year! How are you? I was wondering if you could help me use some of the references I've scouted out in talk:dishwashing liquid. Regardless, thanks a lot!  Bananasoldier ''' (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Passing the buck
Hi Bluerasberry I have received a request for assistance with a draft at AFC which I recently reviewed. As it is a medical topic which requires MEDRS I do not really feel competent to help - the draft also has POV and ADVERT problems. From what the editor says it's likely that solid sources do exist but he seems to have trouble citing them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I managed this.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS - quick question
Is the Los Angeles Times a proper secondary source for medical claims, when it summarizes a medical journal?


 * "In 2009, Avram and colleagues published an article in Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery describing results of the CoolSculpting system. Using before-and-after ultrasound imaging of 10 patients, the researchers found that the treatment reduced the thickness of fat in the 'love handles' by more than 20% after four months. Mild side effects, including bruising and numbness, generally went away after about a week."

I'm finding a few cases like this as I work on a draft.

CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a proper source for medical claims. In the case of newspapers, instead consider citing the original journal article for the claim. In this case, the original journal article is going to be a primary source because even though I have not seen it, I expect that it is a limited test of the product rather than a general review of this kind of treatment.
 * This article could be cited as a source for other aspects of the product, like saying how it is intended to be used or for sourcing quotations.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Bangor, Maine
Hi again Lane,

What do you think of List of people from Bangor, Maine? It appears one editor is set on the idea that only people with Wiki articles can be listed; he's deleted all others and added hidden comments in the edit screen warning against such additions. He writes it establishes notability, while it really doesn't, RSs do. This looks like some sort of potential ANI discussion.-- ɱ  (talk  ·  vbm)  20:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The same odd comments appear at List of people from Portland, Maine. It goes against the red-linking objective, ignores the fact that Wikipedia articles have never and will never establish a person's notability, and is requiring users to obey a rule that isn't on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Some people...-- ɱ  (talk  ·  vbm)  21:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lane, what do you think about this?-- ɱ  (talk  ·  vbm)  21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please excuse my delay in responding. I try, but I get distracted and regret that I often delay to think for too long.
 * First, I recognize the problem you see. There is value in adding redlinks to people who are not in Wikipedia but could be, and even to people who will never meet notability requirements. However, I sympathize with people who try to bring order to these kinds of pages, because they tend to fill up with listings which cannot be evaluated for their suitability for inclusion. I am fairly sure that there are no guidelines for lists of this sort anywhere. Perhaps you saw that this has been discussed without resolution since at least 2006, when it came up in Articles for deletion/List of people from San Francisco.
 * In the past, I myself have taken the position that only people with Wikipedia articles should be included. In particular I sometimes fork off lists of alumni from university pages and into their own list article, as with List of Banaras Hindu University people. In the case of non-English names, seeing a red-linked name which does not transliterate in a standard way to English and about which there are probably no English sources has bothered me, because I could not imagine that many people would actually make an article for such a person after seeing the red link. At the same time, everyone is proud of their university, and many universities have these alumni lists, so I wish to avoid deleting them entirely. Ultimately I started arguing that having a standing Wikipedia article is the easiest solution, and a lot of people support this idea.
 * I never felt this is best though. I started to avoid the issue when I started learning about Wikidata. With Wikidata, I think that lists of people in every form will be automatically generated and managed, and that humans will mostly be hands-off in maintaining these articles except to the extent that humans will be able to manipulate Wikidata. I think that soon, within five years, Wikidata will be able to make lists on demand for any intersection of categories, like "Artists" and "Portland, Maine" would generate a list for those biographies.
 * If you have not done so already, check Wikidata a bit, and perhaps see this markup in Reasonator of the biography for Bach. In my opinion that presentation of a biography is evidence that automatic generation of biographical summaries is coming soon, and my expectation is that when it does many "lists of people" on every Wikipedia will be deprecated and instantly replaced in 100+ languages with machine-generated lists which are comprehensive, have full sourcing, and are free of any careless oversights. Believing that this reform will be soon enough, I do not feel too strongly about arguing any position about codifying standards for maintaining lists like these, especially when I see good arguments for opposing sides in this issue.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I commented on this.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)