User talk:Doc James/Archive 48

Mitragyna speciosa
Please view the talk page of the mitragyna speciosa article. It is explained why the "sourced content" is misinterpreted and inconsistent with the policy on medical sources. The source cites a case study and anecdotal evidence (which was removed the other day for other content showing benefits of Kratom for the same reason) but for some reason this inconsistency is allowed and continually reverted to without discussion. The sources says the mentions of convulsions and psychosis are "haphazardly reported" and then the article uses it as evidence for them. It is bad sourcing and misrepresenting the source. ThorPorre (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks let me look. The question is why are all these brand new accounts all of a sudden removing content without discussion on the talk page? Looks like you have made the content word for word the same as the source  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Prostate Massage
Hi James, in the article Prostate massage I've just removed a lot of "alternative medicine" and primary study stuff, but from the aggressive tone of the talk page Talk:Prostate massage (lots of personal attacks at the end of that page such as "idiot", "lies", "racist" etc), it's sure to be replaced soon. I wonder if you could keep an eye on it or make it editable by registered users only? Perhaps a clean-up of the talk page is warranted too. Thanks, Cusco-maya (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure will watch. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

 * Many thanks for the words of encouragement. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Change to Wolbachnia
Oh thanks, I didn't see it there in the research section. I've added one of the refs, as it's not a printed journal. peterl (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

MeSH code table
Hi! I was without internet the past week and just saw your message. You can ask at d:Wikidata:Bot_requests for a bot operator to generate such a table and keep it up to date. I'm not sure if we have a bot operator in the task force yet. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I asked Byrial if he could make the table. It is here: d:Wikidata:Medicine_task_force or d:User:Byrial/Mesh_ID. Total is 915 items now. But Ricardosamoa is going to gather the rest from the roughly 6000 articles that use infobox disease. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, many thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

CiteULike
CiteULike is about sharing sources of research information. You seem to to promoting ignorance, rather than helping provide more detailed information, or promoting your views regarding specific issues. This appears to be a recurring problem with some medical and support article editors and administrators who prefer to pursue their own and their own cultural interests dolfrog (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And you could always join citeUlike to create and develop your own research paper library, and sahre your favourite research papers with the various research paper sharing groups, which may help you improve some of the articles you seem so loathe to change. dolfrog (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to share your collections of selected journal articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I may be one of the contributors, but I am not the only contributor, and anyone who cares to join citeULike for free can contribute and add to any of the CiteULike group collections, so why not join CiteULike, create your own online research paer collection, and then contribute to the various special interest groups libraries of research papers. So back off, do some research regarding CiteULike, and stop talking nonsense dolfrog (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to create collections of papers. You are not free however to add them to Wikipedia without consensus. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Eventually you will understand these are not my personal collection. My personal collection are my PubMed Online collections which i do not add to articles but do sometimes add to article talk pages. You really do need to understand that CiteULike research paper sharing groups have multiple contributors, and you could be one if you so desired, and as such are not any single contributors opinion, or contributions. As in many groups some contribute more than others but thast does not mean that only their contributions are seen or heard. dolfrog (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes they are collections of papers generated by many people. Still not an appropriate link IMO but an interesting idea. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis edits
Thanks for responding so quickly, and for the perspective on my intellectualizing. It's nice to know someone finds your contribution helpful, you know. JamesEG (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Bot adding MEDRS box
I noted a bot adding the previously discussed box for lists of MEDRS to the talk page of a number of medical articles on my watchlist. I noted in this thread a suggested wording, and still think it would be better to not imply that all pubmed reviews are automatically MEDRS compliant, which is what I think the new box implies. Any way we can get the wording adjusted? Yobol (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure can be adjusted here . Have changed it to potentially useful sources to not imply they are absolute. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks! Yobol (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Schizophrenia - Support Orgs
Would you mind weighing in on the recent changes and comments re: organizations on the schizo talk page? Or could you refer me to other editors who can comment? Thanks. Rmlewinson (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure let me look. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinking common terms
I do not mean offence. I just need to ask you that from Schizophrenia why you have not cared to remove the wikilinks of common terms like thought or emotional but only symptoms, all of which occur in the article lead. Pardon my allegiance but I sense a gap in the logic. It is definitely not necessary to link common terms, but it does not require to be reverted either, neither does it affect the quality/presentation of the article.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 13:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thought and emotion pertain to the condition in question. Symptoms is a term we use in 1000s of articles and does not IMO pertain to the condition at hand. I do not think we should be linking to "symptoms" in all our articles. While ask for further input for us at WT:MED Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 14:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)  D ip ta ns hu Talk 14:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)  D ip ta ns hu Talk 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Meanwhile your entry on the WP:MED talk page has been adequately discussed and I get the essence. Thanks anyway.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 13:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

hello
About Wernicke. It was just an accident.
 * Okay thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wernicke
Some American doctors expressed satisfaction by as are the references. I do not think that the change that you propose would be useful. There pioneers like Harper remain references. But a change of approach about references seems appropriate in Medical Wikipedia: only PMID and numbers. Instantly would be achieved more information with less lines written. Cheers, Luis
 * Not sure what you mean? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Doc !!!!
It is unacceptable to have removed some of the common causes of Wernicke's encephalopathy: Excessive vomiting, Prolonged parenteral nutrition, anorexia, malabsorption of nutrients, gastric syphilis, thyrotoxicosis and renal dialysis. This is well documented in the references. I would appreciate more prudence and research on what they are modifying. The article has been reviewed and accepted by other American physicians. I can only accept my limitations in handling the language and the rules of Wikipedia. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Luis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis cerni (talk • contribs) 16:16, July 9, 2013‎
 * Discussion of this matter should happen on the article's talk page, not here. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, my ... it is difficult to know where to begin to address the issues in that article. User:Luis cerni, please sign your talk posts by adding four tildes ( ~ ) after them, and please address articles issues on article talk.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As posted on your talk page you need to use secondary sources. I have removed a number of case studies which are primary sources because a single case does NOT support something as a cause. But the talk page is where we want to communicate. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Something else
I see you've edited on beriberi. They are usually multi deficiency situations as Wernicke, and should be clarified. Under the name of beriberi more classifications. I send materials to help you improve that page. Thiamine deficiency may also result in other manifestations such as dry beriberi (neuropathy), wet beri-beri (neuropathy with high-output congestive heart failure), gastrointestinal beriberi (abdominal pain, vomiting and lactic acidosis). -African (Nigerian) seasonal ataxia and gastrointestinal beriberi (Adamolekun and Ndububa 1994; Nishimune, Watanabe et al. 2000; Donnino 2004) -Dysphagia and classic symptoms. PMID 12003921*
 * I haven't really edited it. Just formatted per WP:MEDMOS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sunuwash edits to Nasal Irrigation
You are editing a subsection that makes reference to solutions used. The entire category is conjecture because there is no "medical" solutions used. Nasal irrigation is not medicine, not medically prescribed and not administered by a doctor and is therefore not medicine. Nasal irrigation as a methodology has been studied and their are some good references in the article itself. Research has shown that antibiotics are quickly becoming ineffective in the use of sinus infections. Most doctors in ENT practice today recommend that their patients perform daily nasal irrigation which is not a medical procedure but akin to washing your hands. If you read the article and eliminate all references that are not medical and properly referenced you would edit the entire entry to a short article that wouldn't do anyone any good because they wouldn't understand what it is, how to do it and what to use. To eliminate my information with the research we have performed and the patents which we have applied for in a non-medical application is absurd. The FDA classifies nasal sinus irrigation solutions as cosmetics. Please look at the paragraph I edited below and see how you would eliminate the entire subheading following your response to my posting. You can't irrigate without having a solution. Sunuwash (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"While nasal irrigation can be carried out using ordinary tap water, this is not safe and additionally can be uncomfortable because it irritates the mucous membranes. Therefore an isotonic or hypertonic salt water solution is normally used, i.e. water with enough salt to match the tonicity of the body cells and blood. For the same reason, lukewarm water is preferred over cold water, which in addition to irritating nasal membranes can also exaggerate the gag reflex during irrigation. Use of distilled, sterile or previously boiled and cooled water over ordinary tap water is advised. Tap water safe for drinking is not necessarily safe for nasal irrigation due to risk of rare but fatal brain infection. A small amount of baking soda is sometimes employed as a buffering agent to adjust the pH of the irrigating solution to that of the body. NO REFERENCES WHATSOEVER.  All common knowledge but no science in this

Many pharmacies stock pre-manufactured sachets of pharmaceutical grade salt and baking soda designed to be used with the volume of water their corresponding device uses. Sometimes manufactured solutions such as a lactated Ringer's solution is used.[citation needed]NO CITE HERE, TRUE BUT NO RESEARCH IN THESE STATEMENTS. It is also simple to make a salt-baking soda mixture.[32] LINK TO A SITE WHICH IS NOT A VALID RESOURCE. Optional additives include xylitol which is claimed to draw water into the sinus regions and helps displace bacteria.[33] WRONG, RESEARCH IS ON LUNG TRANSPLANTS Xylitol is commonly used to prevent acute otitis media in Europe and dental caries in the United States,[34] but research into xylitol use in the sinus cavities is lacking. Another nasal irrigation additive is aloe extract, which helps to prevent nasal dryness.[citation needed] NO CITING, NO RESEARCH. Sodium citrate and citric acid help not only to balance the pH, but also to improve the sense of smell.[citation needed]" NO CITING, NO RESEARCH.
 * When it is used for medical conditions than it is a medical use. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Birth control
FYI, I noticed you posted to the talk page of Cupco. That user has been permanently banned as a sock puppet (Sockpuppet_investigations/Dualus). He is likely still around using another account somewhere as he creates new accounts regularly to avoid the bans. Morphh  (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

sunscreen
you wrote ''sure but the evidence supports that it (FDA) does now (support sunscreen use), removed old FDA ref. '' Do you have a ref please?
 * There are a bunch in the article.


 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm too mean to spend the money to look at the comments on the Queensland study, but it appears to have attracted at least five which would normally be adverse (unless you know better) The best the Burnett et al paper can come up with is " (sunscreen) has not been demonstrated to adversely affect the health of humans"

They don't amount to the FDA having changed its mind, or really being in a position where it will inevitably do so.

The text before my edit was I felt more or less a direction to readers "use sunscreen to avoid cancer", and I added the alternative for balance. Perhaps it would go better alongside No medical association recommends not using sunblock.[citation needed]﻿
 * Why not use the statement from the FDA in 2012 "The new labeling will also tell consumers on the back of the product that sunscreens labeled as both “Broad Spectrum” and “SPF 15” (or higher) not only protect against sunburn, but, if used as directed with other sun protection measures, can reduce the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging." ? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

== My edit to omega 3 fatty acids being linked to prostate cancer. You indicate I should not refer to "primary" but to secondary sources. I cited an abstract published by the National Cancer Institute, as well as a press release from the study author. ==

My edit to omega 3 fatty acids being linked to prostate cancer. You reverted it. You indicate I should not refer to "primary" but to "secondary sources". I cited an abstract published by the National Cancer Institute in their online Journal, as well as a press release from the study's author.

The existing article cites to an article in JAMA for a diametrically opposed conclusion. Clearly JAMA's earlier "review" is not the whole story here. I was citing an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. How is that not a high quality source? What do you mean by the distinction between primary and secondary sources? Rather than reverting, could you simply have cleaned it up? I was not citing a news article on the subject, I was citing the primary source of the information. The abstract is one page, so there is no need for specific page references in it. What needs to be added?

I took a look at the definition of secondary and primary sourcing. In this context, the study I am citing is based upon two earlier studies. Those earlier studies would be considered primary sources and the study I am citing, which relies on the earlier studies in part and then comfirms them is both a primary and a secondary source. Therefore I contend it is a reliable secondary source. Moreover, the JAMA study referred to in the earlier reverted version could easily be considered both a primary and a secondary source because it reaches its own conclusion and analyzes earlier studies.

I believe that my edit is important and should not be reverted.

Please respond.

Thanks.

PS: Should I cite something like this instead:  Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (2013, July 10). Link between omega-3 fatty acids and increased prostate cancer risk confirmed. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 11, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2013/07/130710183637.htm ? Moe (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay the definition of secondary source is here. This includes review articles and major textbooks. We specifically state that we do not use primary sources refute secondary sources at WP:MEDRS. Hope that helps. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Come celebrate IdeaLab’s (re)Launch!
 We’ve redesigned the Grants:IdeaLab to make awesome collaborators and shiny new ideas easier to find. You’re invited to the (re)Launch party!

Come visit  and create a  profile, share or join an  idea , and  tell us what you think  about the updates!

Hope to see you there! Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment in my Talk should be placed in Talk in Cancer
Take your comments only to the subject Talk. I have started a discussion in Cancer Talk. Thank You.32cllou (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Publication
I am going to be without internet (on holiday) since Friday for 2 weeks, so it may be wiser to wait until I am back. On the other hand I am not completely comfortable with the pathophisiology section, although I am not sure if I will be capable of improving it (I have not been able yet to take a look at your edits today). --Garrondo (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We can wait no, worries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources for medical articles template
I think the template is great, and it is probably one of the best ways of encouraging wise editing (to the point I would add similar templates to mainspace instead of all the tagging of low quality...).

I have nevertheless noticed that in the case of Huntington's disease it makes a strange thing saying potentially useful sources of information about Huntington%26%2339%3Bs+disease . I suppose it will not be the only case. Maybe you can solve it.

Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * On second thought I move this text to WP:med, since I have just seen there is some discussion there on the issue.--Garrondo (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and fixed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
That was a quick response. :-)

I'll let you know as soon as I get a chance to review them. You may also want to take a peek at User:Djdubay/MedNav/Project. I believe the navigation template system we have is really a key part of our page's usability. Unfortunately, only English speakers get to use them. The barriers to moving them to other languages is pretty steep, which is why no one's done it before, but I believe if we can get the support and cooperation of WP:MED, we can eliminate some of those barriers and get it done. Once we've done it in one language, it will be significantly easier to do it in more. Your thoughts are most welcome.

Djdubay (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be great for translation if templates were more universal. This would make cross language collaboration much easier. Let me look. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay one should be able to do the translating of the navboxes automatically using Wikidata inter language links. For each article mentioned in the navbox simply find the French page via the inter language link and insert it. Will of course need consensus from the French Wikipedia community.


 * Actually, there's much more to it than that. You're describing a manual process for hundreds of templates and thousands of articles.  Certainly, the interlanguage links are helpful, but there really is no simple way doing it.  And as things stand now, it's even more difficult due to the inconsistencies.  So, would you support this project as I described?  Any suggestions or comments?  I plan on going public with this is a few days in WP:Med, but I'd love to hear if you have any ideas that may help gain acceptance.  I will certainly float this on fr:Projet:Médecine and get consensus there, if I can get it here, first.


 * By the way do you contribute much on French Wikipedia? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm actually quite new there as an editor. I've been reading there for a while, as I have been here in English.  I can read and speak French just fine, though I don't have quite the experience writing it as I'd like.  That's why I see myself in the role of reviewer, coordinator and integrator, rather than translator.  The French language has much more inflection than English.  In English, a good girl and a good boy doesn't require any changes other than the noun.  In French, its une bonne fille et un bon garçon.  When spoken, the final consonant is usually not pronounced, unless followed by a vowel.  As a result, much of the inflection is lost when spoken, but is always important when written.  French is actually much easier to read than English, because English has so many strange rules ... take "I know I am a cow.", for example.  Same letters, OW, different sounds, and oh, ignore the K.  French is much more consistent, and there are the diacritics (accents) that help you out.  So, take that all together and you can see why writing French is harder than reading or speaking it.  Mais j'écris assez bien pour passer.  (I write well enough to get by.)
 * Djdubay (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes fairly fluent in French. Just do not write or translate into it :-) We have translators at Translators Without Borders. Who we are missing is someone to integrate the translations, fix the errors in wiki markup and make sure the French community is supportive of the process :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you know exactly what I mean about French being harder to write. :-)  The fact that you're not asking us to translate is exactly why I thought I should join here.  I can manage the conversation with the French community, make recommendations and certainly manage the integration / Wikification, no problem.  Again, that's why I signed up.  I think with my level of skills where they are, we may be a very good match.  BTW, did you see my other comments above re:MedNav?  I'm wrapping up the process of collecting links to the templates and sorting them in my user project space.  I think I'll do a bit more research on the interlanguage links before I go public.  Again, any thoughts / ideas are very welcome.  I think this project will be very complementary with yours.  I know the templates were key to sparking my interest, and I think they would have a good impact on foreign language sites, encouraging them to start contributing missing articles on their own.  There is no way we can translate all our articles, but we can help build a critical mass that would spark the foreign communities to continue what we've started.  I also think this is an excellent cause to support.  Getting health information to third world countries is key to helping them develop and improve their situation.  French is certainly a good language to include, as the former French empire consists mostly of third-world countries, where French remains if not the official language, then certainly the primary language of education.  Haiti certainly comes to mind as one of the most desperate countries.  So I think this effort could have some real impact out there, even if indirectly.  I'll be reviewing all 25 articles over the next week or two.  I plan on including even the ones previously marked "don't translate" to see if perhaps certain sections could be done rather than the article as a whole.  I'd like to take advantage of the translators while we have 'em, and to get the most bang out of our buck in the process.  I look forward to working with you on this very worthwhile effort.
 * Djdubay (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds excellent. With respect to the nav template I think the use of Wikidata interlanguage links could automate their translation. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the use of the interlanguage links will be of great assistance in the process, but they cannot be used in an automated manner. Some human intervention will always be needed.  You must understand that there isn't always a one-to-one between words or even ideas between languages and cultures.  For a small example, take a look at hair.  We use the word in a general sense for all similar structures on the body.  The French, however, don't have a single word that embraces all hair.  fr:Poil describes what we would call body hair.  The hair of your head, however, is fr:Cheveu.  There is no single concept that embraces all of what we include under "hair".  The interlanguage link on hair goes to fr:Pilosité humaine, a rather awkward article that attempts to link the two, but the real discussion is found in the two separate articles poil and cheveu.  If you take a look, you'll notice that poil and cheveu don't have interlanguage links back over to English.  This is just one example, with one language.  There are certainly cases where the reverse is true, two English articles for separate concepts that translate into a single article.  Also, keep in mind that you not only need to translate words and grammar, you're also bridging cultures, which can have very different ideas about things.  There is a culture, for example, where the cutting of a person's hair is a form of rape.  I'm sure their article on hair would look rather different than ours, and they may well use multiple words to describe different aspects of the hair in accordance to their culture that we might not understand.  While fellow Indo-European languages may have a close correspondence with each other, non Indo-Eurpoean languages, such as Swahili or Japanese will have much less correspondence, and face greater translation problems.  When you get into psychology (two of your 25 articles are Schizophrenia and Suicide) you get into even larger differences.  The Japanese certainly have very different ideas about suicide and may not appreciate our western ideas on the subject.  Then again, they may have different words for different aspects of our idea of suicide, which they may be in agreement with us, but a human needs to know how to split the article and how to present it differently.  A single interlanguage link from our "suicide" to their culture will not suffice.  So whatever approach we take, I want to make sure we do not bring our cultural bias into the mix.  There needs to be a one-to-many approach.  Certainly, much, if not most, of our work will only need one-to-one correspondence, but we cannot force a one-to-one simply because of our cultural and linguistic bias.  We need to recognize that sometimes, a one-to-many relationship will exist, and we must find a means to accommodate it.  Unfortunately, the interlanguage links do not.
 * Djdubay (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes only meant this as a starting point. One cannot build an encyclopedia automatically. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, certainly as a starting point, but not as an end all by itself. I took another look at my write-up, and I guess I hadn't made myself clear that I would see if there was a way I we could use scripts to use the interlanguage links to help build draft templates, but we couldn't rely on them for the final product.  Another problem that came to mind was red links ... many links in English will not have a foreign article, but we should include the term anyway as a red link.  Of course those terms can only be translated manually.  This will give the foreign language a roadmap to expand their article base from.  Something we did not have when we started all this.  Sorry about the long reply, I guess I've been seeing the weaknesses of the interlanguage links and took you too literally, and wanted to make my point.  But at least you see that I do take this all quite seriously, and that to be successful, we need to be sure we respect the people and cultures we're working with.  The French, both in France and Quebec, are quite sensitive about outside influences, and preserving their culture against an onslaught (as they see it) of English interference.  So certainly, I want to be careful about how I present these projects to them.  We want to stress that we would like to help them make their site better, and not just tell them how to do things or just dump the articles in there.  I see the integration process not just as downloading and wikifying the articles, but involving the community with the article as a starting point, a draft, and encouraging them to make it their article.  How this is done will greatly impact how the projects are accepted by them.  If we do it right, they will start looking forward to the next contribution, rather than seeing it as another assault on their culture by "les anglais".  I think it's essential that a lead integrator have that sensitivity.  As "un Acadien", I'm one of them, and know where they're coming from.  BTW, do you know if your project made any announcements on the French site, yet?  Are they aware the project even exists?  If not, that's fine, but if so, I definitely need to research what was said and what the reaction was before I start drafting anything.  Thanks again!  I'm quite excited about this and certainly look forward to working with you!
 * Djdubay (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Was mentioned here more than a year ago  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks for the link.  So, just a brief mention, in English nonetheless.  Looks like there was no response, at least publicly, and I can see why.  No problem.  So, I think the first thing to focus on is reviewing the 25 articles, and determining just how much work we have and how much (or how little) impact we may have on the French site.  Based on that, I'll have a sense of what kind of announcement we need to make and how to best do it to get the kind of reaction we want.  Sounds like a plan, Doc.  Let me get started on the research and review, and I'll let you know what I find out.  Give me about a week or two, and we'll take it from there.  Thanks for the opportunity to be of service.
 * Djdubay (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

autism pathophysiology discussion of autoimmunity seems outdated
Hi,

I'm new, but was reading the autism article. The following paragraph seems outdated, with the most recent reference being 2009 in a field that has progressed rapidly.

"Interactions between the immune system and the nervous system begin early during the embryonic stage of life, and successful neurodevelopment depends on a balanced immune response. Aberrant immune activity during critical periods of neurodevelopment is possibly part of the mechanism of some forms of ASD.[71] Although some abnormalities in the immune system have been found in specific subgroups of autistic individuals, it is not known whether these abnormalities are relevant to or secondary to autism's disease processes.[72] As autoantibodies are found in conditions other than ASD, and are not always present in ASD,[73] the relationship between immune disturbances and autism remains unclear and controversial.[65]"

In particular, researchers at UC Davis, including J Van de Water and DG Amaral (both of whose older works are cited) have moved forward in their studies of maternal antibodies, identifying the proteins in developing brain that these maternal antibodies target, and showing that injection of these human IgGs into pregnant macaques results in autistic perturbations that manifest later in the offspring exposed during the 1st and second trimesters of pregnancy. The estimates of what proportion of autism MAR- (maternal autoantibody related) autism may account for range from 12 to 23%, depending on which of these papers you read. Precise mechanisms remain to be elucidated, as does a fuller understanding of the timing of blood-brain barrier development. Nevertheless, in my opinion as a biologist (not a neurobiologist or psychologist) these findings warrant an update to the quoted paragraph. Greenleaf53 (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure do not edit that page really. What you do need to do is stick to secondary source. And than propose changes on the talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for your response. So the policy is to go by reviews, allowing real experts to evaluate the primary literature. Fair enough. Greenleaf53 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wernicke
OK Doc, corrections made.
 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Raptorj
No it is not. In fact the link I removed from this wiki just now is what I classify as spam. Its two redirects to some random spammy page with no information on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler
 * While it is definitely not a reliable source and has no place on a medical article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Some would say the same thing about wikipedia. But its all about a matter of opinion now isnt it? And it does have a place on a medical article because it was about treating said topic of discussion. Which was then backed up again with another citation, this time by an Australian hospital stating many of the same things. I think you just not to particular of herbal remedies,considering your medical background, I can understand why. Factual, well documented proof is what you require, is it not? Not thous which-doctor herbs? Anyways Im done, have fun with your poop page.
 * Wikipedia is not an appropriate reference either. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Mail sent
--Franciaio (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Page view data
Hi,

regarding your note on the Polish Wikiproject Medicine, I think that Catscan could produce rough and approximate data about number of medical articles in the Polish language. There are two categories to scan pl:Kategoria:Nauki medyczne that is broader and encompasses also a number of basic medical sciences (anatomy, microbiology, histology, etc.) and pl:Kategoria:Medycyna that should collate articles strictly on medical topics but no guarantees. As for page view data I suppose there's stats.grok.se but perhaps our technically-able people could produce data in another way ?

Regards, Kpjas (talk) 08:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not sure how to get numbers / a list out of there. Once we do it could be run through stats.grok.se Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)