Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 16

Illness among Jews
Possible merge? Opinions here please. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Need for WP:MEDRS/N noticeboard
I have started a thread and hope readers here will chime in there:

We need a parallel noticeboard to deal with medical sourcing: WP:MEDRS/N. Currently such matters end up at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, but that's unsatisfactory. We need a separate noticeboard which is watched by medical professionals who understand the complexities of medical matters and medical research, understand our RS policy, and understand the MEDRS guideline. What think ye?

Please discuss it there, not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As a point of fact, MEDRS does not recommend using WT:MEDRS as a noticeboard. It names this page (WT:MED) or the regular WP:RSN noticeboard as places to get help.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Theories of dyslexia
Could someone have a glance at activity at Theories of dyslexia? It seems to be going wildly uncompliant with WP:MEDRS, with editors working by collecting multiple primary sources to support statements. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

editors who are not registered and vandalise articles
Sorry i realise that this isnt quite the right place but can someone tell me why it is still allowed for non registered editors to edit Wiki articles. It looks to me like about 80% or more simply vandalize and it is nearly a full time job undoing their changes, and they are not always spotted as vandalism. --Penbat (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, this is the wrong place for this. My opinion: I reckon that about 90% of us started editing here by doing minor fixes of spelling, punctuation etc.  Of course there is too much vandalism, but how will we recruit new (good) editors if we make it difficult for people to make that first step? --Hordaland (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point but on the otherhand it is probably driving away experts, something that Wiki could do with many more of.--Penbat (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think experts tend to be driven way by tendentious editors rather than by anon vandalism. However, it does depress me when I see a major medical article in my watchlist that has been clearly vandalised for several hours and nobody has noticed or fixed it. There aren't anything like enough people watching medical articles. Colin°Talk 17:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should introduce flagged revisions for medical articles? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that or simply a ban on edits by unregistered editors. Maybe it could be used as a "selling point" to entice more experts to get involved. Actually banning unregistered users is less drastic than flagging and it could be easy to implement with "edit protection" or "edit semi-protection". Who decides on Edit protection and cant they apply it to all medical articles ? ? --Penbat (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Administrators decide when a page should be protected, and they (we) must follow the protection policy. Protection cannot be applied preemptively; this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, after all. Restriction of editing to autoconfirmed users only has been discussed time and again and has always been rejected. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Flagged revisions would actually allow unregistered users to edit more pages not less. This would allow us to unprotect the many locked pages. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, but that's only half the story. Unregistered users like to see their edits made in real time; they like to feel like they are editing the articles, rather than relying on 'trusted' users to review their edits. I certainly like to see my edits straight after I make them, I take satisfaction in that. I feel that flagged revisions on anything but BLPs is a mistake (that area is more controversion, and it requires certain sensitivities). Just my 2p. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:PEREN.
 * Certainly my own first edits were exactly what Hordaland describes above, and I seriously doubt that I would be here if registration had been required at that stage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto x2. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

See also WikiProject Vandalism studies for studies that have tried to determine who vandalizes wikipedia and the damage that they do. Remember (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * what am I supposed to do if i get a persistant vandal (registered or unregistered) ? --Penbat (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Report them here: WP:ANI WP:AIV. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks--Penbat (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It would still be a move forwards to replace all the currently protected page with flagged revisions. I think this is a better way to protect pages from vandalism. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What'd you mean? Protected pages can't really be vandalised anyway (semi's can't be edited by IPs and fully can't be edited by anyone but an admin), so removing protection will just create a backlog for reviewers to go through. Essentially, flagged revisions is no different to an IP going to the talk page and asking for someone to make the edit for them. But this is the wrong place for this discussion I suppose. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think i get more than my fair share of vandals in my sphere, working on mental health articles, which no doubt attract vandals with mental health issues themselves. It would be nice if they were all semi-protected. --Penbat (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Agree it is a difficult issue with no easy solution. Articles pertaining to sex also get a great deal of vandalism. The balance between protection of pages and allowing everyone to freely edit is a delicate one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Penbat (and anyone else working on 'complicated' articles), you should file WP:RFPP requests for these articles. Long-term IP vandalism + a recent spate (e.g., several in one day) is often sufficient to convince some (not all) admins on that board to provide long-term semi-protection to individual articles.
 * Free advice (worth what you've paid for it ;-):  I've had some success when I can make factual statements like "The only changes to this article in the last three weeks have been blatant vandalism by IPs and its reversion, including three rounds today" or "The last time an anon IP made a productive change was four weeks ago".  A single incident, or incidents that happened a couple of days ago, are never approved there.  Also, be careful not to describe poor editing (like POV pushing) as vandalism, because the admins there are usually pretty sensitive to the difference.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Grandiose delusions as Grandiosity
Any comments ? Talk:Grandiose_delusions --Penbat (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:PMCID - PubMed Central
As far as I could determine, there's an Italian version of this Template page,

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PMCID

but not English version. PubMed Central texts are publicly available, which is a great public service, so why no Template page? Is this some sort of an oversight? --Dyuku (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have PMCID, Cite pmc, and PMC IDs are fully integrated into Cite journal :) We regularly use PubMed Central as a source. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In regards to PMCID, should't there be an explanation how to use this template (similar to PMID)? --Dyuku (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? Template:PMCID/doc. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Trichotillomania
I reworked Trichotillomania to conform with WP:MEDRS, using two recent reviews whose full text is available online. My knowledge of trich is limited to what I've encountered in my Tourette syndrome reading; can others please comb the article now for my layperson errors, and to possibly reduce some of my direct quoting when I couldn't figure out how to re-word? The article also needs to be re-assessed; I don't think it's start class any more. With those two reviews available online, and considering the article was 700 words when I started, someone could also beef up the article a bit more and take it to DYK if interested. I left primary sources that were already present in the article, if they were also mentioned in the reviews. Thanks in advance ! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are there no images? :) Seriously, Sandy, you should take this to GAN. No, I really am serious... DYK unfortunately requires a fivefold expansion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid of images, and I don't do GA or DYK. The article could be expanded more if someone wants to take it to DYK (within five days, I think?), or anyone else is welcome to work it through GAN. Everything needed is in those two reviews. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, there's nothing to be afraid of; besides, pictures look pretty :) GAN is taking months anyway, probably not worth the trouble... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the image; now will you bake something yummy? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you like chocolate marble cake? I have some left on my kitchen counter—that and three varieties of panettone (the latter store-bought, of course). Now, back on topic—the ultimate proof: Sandy speaks, people listen. Tag-team copyediting, in 30 minutes. That's faster than an ambulance in most parts of the world... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like chocolate marble cake, but it's hard to pass up pannettone this time of year ! Thanks all for the help; that was one of those irritating messed-up articles that has been bugging me for a long time.  Wait 'til Colin gets in there and rips it up :)  And after you had to add images to TS-- you drug-schill-- you should know I'm afraid of images.  Give some pannettone to Eubulides so he'll add alt-text to TS for me:)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Body water
Hello all, the body water page has suffered some persistent vandalism to the numbers (and maybe good faith edits also). I can't see from the page history which is the 'good' state, and the reference for the page is not accessible. Could somebody with access to the correct numbers have a look at the page and fix it up? Thx. GyroMagician (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Metformin FA push

 * Cross posted from WT:PHARM

I am planning to get Metformin to Featured article level by the new year. If anyone would like to help make this a collaborative effort, I have compiled a section-by-section list of useful sources here. Further suggestions for improvement would also be greatly appreciated! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tyson's gland
Would someone look at this new article stub. Should it be merged into something else? Is the content correct? ---kilbad (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that Tyson's glands are indeed synonymous with preputial glands, so I've merged the two into the existing article preputial gland. The two articles conflicted about the function of the glands, and my lit search also finds scant but conflicting evidence about whether they are truly functional in human smegma production. I'll consult some Derm textbooks tomorrow. Meanwhile, I've reflected this conflict in the merged article. If anyone finds more conclusive evidence, please set it aright.
 * Incidentally, our urethral gland article said it was synonymous with preputial gland, but I deleted this because I find it very dubious. There's no citation, and we're talking about two different anatomical areas. - Draeco (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Non islet hypoglycemic cell tumor
I'm wondering if this article describes a real condition. If so, it seems in need of expert attention. It was started by an account that has been responsible for much middle-school-style vandalism. It has had enough occasional improvement from well meaning editors passing by to look plausible, but remains completely unsourced. --CliffC (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So – is this article a hoax or not? --CliffC (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had meant to reply to this a couple of days ago. The condition itself is not a hoax, see . However, I'm not entirely sure on the content of the article itself as I've had little time to study it, and at 3am I have no wish to do so just yet! Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 03:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gas exchange
Could someone take a quick peek at Gas exchange, especially the first paragraph? Most of that section looks pretty dubious, but i'm not sure what all needs deleted. Thanks.&mdash;eric 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had to use the stupid windoze maechine, I'm still waiting for firegfox to echo my typed text and in the meantime I unlocked debian machine from which I now talk- VM/disc light still stuck on windoze machine- 500meg of memory just to type text? wtf? Anyway, copying the prose that firefox duid echo,

" It looks like someone knew some related words and made a mess. The article is not sources. Im commenting here as I will try to use the tool I mentioned above ( which is java and scripts but I need to physically move it off of windoze machine arrrfffhhh ) to do a decent lit search and we can pick among the cites. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

hi
First of sorry for my bad english I'm very upset that u didn't write about DR Xhelal Xhibo 1937 - 2009 ( Albanian infectolog - born in Prizren-Kosovo )who confirmed that Ibrahim Hoti had variola vera and send the information to Belgrade medicine center... btw DR Xhelal Xhibo is known as one of most famous doctors in ex-Yugoslavia, after variola success he personally got rewarded by MR.Donald Ainslie Henderson. But because of the bad political rapport's between Kosovo and Serbia DR.Xhibo's name is tried to be dismissed by Serbian high personalities. I would be very pleased if u notice this text and if more info's are needed about DR Xhelal Xhibo please contact me.( i got quite few information which could help you ) My email add is Xgag@live.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.103.33 (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * wikipedia doesn't have any way to verify facts so you first need to get this published in a place that can do review of your claims or at least write down your story in a way that can be checked. Certainly it is possible, the US has historically escaped much of this but it is a problem everywhere. However, there are frivolous claims or a similar nature too. So, this isn't the place to first publish this work. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for book Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control
I put the article about the book Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control up for peer review. Input would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control/archive1. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Exanthem subitum OR Exanthema subitum
I have a source stating it is spelled exanthem subitum, and I haven't seen it spelled exanthemA before. Which spelling should the article be placed under? ---kilbad (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exanthem is English, and exanthema is Latin. Exanthema subitum (literally "sudden rash") is correct Latin. What does the ICD say? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ICD-10 says "B08.2 Exanthema subitum [sixth disease]" (link). I adjust this again on the article page. --Firefly&#39;s luciferase (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor continues to ignore MEDRS
We need something to change. Editor after editor continues to ignore MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone doesn't understand: This is QG's way of asking editors to come to Talk:Aspartame controversy and opine as to whether the claim that a safety review is "controversial" is the kind of claim that falls under the scope of MEDRS. (His position is that it does. My position is that it doesn't, but that the claim isn't supported for unrelated reasons. Another editor's position is that the claim is perfectly fine.) Hans Adler 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * An editor alleges we should not apply MEDRS to aspartame controversy. A letter is being misused to undermine a review. This is a real MEDRS violation. QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The irony is that QG engaged in reverting blindly to maintain a 'real' MEDRS violation, mistaking a letter for a review and clearly not reading what the source actually stated. Unomi (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But according to this comment Unomi believed it was not a MEDRS violation. Unomi seems to support the reference at the talk page but says something different here. QuackGuru (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and seemingly introducing the letter to the editor in the first place, wildly misrepresenting the source. To be fair though it was likely unintentional, as in he assumed what the contents would be based on its title.
 * I am fairly sure that most people reading what I said will appreciate the nuances of my statement, note that I at no point state that it is a MEDRS, but in fact clearly state that it is opinion, I also acknowledge that your claim of her having relevant expertise could have merit. Please note that I reworded the sentence so that it was directly attributed as her statement as well as changing the text to accurately reflect what the source you were so keen to keep in the article actually contained. Unomi (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have ignored the point. Is the letter a MEDRS violation? QuackGuru (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have ignored the point. The relative RS value depends on what it is used as an RS for, a letter to the editor is, I believe, a perfectly valid source for the authors opinion. Opinion should be stated as such and attributed in text. It was you who wanted to preserve wording which would render your misapprehension of the contents of the source as fact. I initially argued for the removal of the sentence since the letter was being abused to support an absurd statement of fact. When you then argued that the author was in fact an expert in the field I ventured to rewrite the sentence so that the information in the source could be reflected in the article. Do you acknowledge that this is a fair representation of what transpired? Unomi (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stick to MEDRS which is the point. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A letter is being used to undermine a review against MEDRS policy. Editors are ignoring MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru, you don't get to pick and choose which policies and guidelines you're going to follow. Everything in Wikipedia must comply with WP:Verifiability.  Nearly everything must comply with WP:Reliable sources.  Only some things need to comply with WP:MEDRS -- and those things are statements like "____ is true", not "Suzie said she disagreed with _____."  The link you give just above is an example of something in the second category, as it's being used to support the term controversial, which is not a scientific term.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In this edit Quackguru you used a letter to an editor to rename a section called controversy to safety and claim there was no controversy and stated in the edit summary that you were following MEDRS. To do so (using a letter to the editor, weak source) was a misuse of references and is bound to provoke drama on a highly emotive article. Regardless of what side of the fence one sits on, doing things like this is only going to provoke tensions. I am not saying letters to editor can never ever be used (though they should not be used if better sources exist), but I am saying using such a weak source to make major POV rewrites to controversial articles eg section title changes etc is poor editing form.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I replaced the letter to the editor with another reference. In the other article I tagged a letter. There is a discussion on the talk page that is going around in circles. QuackGuru (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The letter is a scientist saying that the review was misleading and misrepresented the findings of their study and was raising concerns about conflict of interests in the review, so that would fall under the MEDRS where it says this, "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim"
 * The primary source is directly claiming the review was mispresenting research and authors were funded by the manufacturers. For such criticisms it is not necessary to use a systematic review or meta-analysis or other secondary source per MEDRS.
 * I think that the issue here is a misinterpretation of MEDRS as to when and how primary sources are used.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In your defense though Quackguro, the letter which you are disputing is being misused by your oponents, they are using a reference to state the review is "controversial". The reference does not say it is controversial (which has a specific definition of notable public, political or scientific etc debate). Therefore the letter can not be used to say the review is controversial. It can only be used to say the review has been criticised for xyz reasons. The ref should not have been tagged for MEDRS but rather "failed verification" or original research etc.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There were two seperate issues. One of the issues was over the word controversial and the other issue was using references to write a new sentence that an editor claimed disagreed with the review. According to this comment, it was a minority opinion (small but rather vocal anti-aspartame). See WP:MEDRS: "The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field." QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking about this source (better link to source,), not the WebMD source. I am aware of WP:UNDUE, but the source I was commenting on was not "presenting a minority opinion", it was simply a scientist claiming that the review distorted her research unfairly and raising concerns that the review was funded by the manufacturers of the product. This is not a minority or fringe issue. I don't particularly want to get into a protracted discussion about this, I was just giving my views on a MEDRS issue to try and help resolve a content dispute.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The webMD ref is quite interesting, it says that the researchers were not aware of who funded the study and were free from pressure from the industry but also states that the researchers were assembled by a company which works for the manufacturer of aspartame and that some panel members are known to have connections to industry. It seems both sides on the talk page are arguing over bits of refs you each don't like. What is so difficult about summarising a reference (including bits one doesn't like as well as those they do like), sticking closely to what a ref says and giving it due weight and due prominance in the article? If lots of reviews and health bureaucracies eg MHRA and FDA etc endorse aspartame's safety then you have plenty of refs to bring balance and due weight with.-- Literature geek  |  T@1k?  22:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Neuro Emotional Technique
This article needs to be fixed. I have left a message on the talk page. An IP has done some whitewashing and uses primary sources to promote this pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just look up some reviews or meta-analysis studies on pubmed or such like and replace the primary sources or if that is not possible find and add other primary sources which bring a more accurate reflection of the peer reviewed literature on this subject would be my advice. Recent reviews can be used to replace primary sources.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are no reviews as far as I can see, just primary sources. Looie496 (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah well then all that can be done is work with the primary sources until better sources are available.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the problem fringe subjects often have in common. The fringe guidelines allow limited use of primary sources, but NPOV must be followed, MEDRS still applies to any scientific details, and promotion and advocacy must not be allowed. If there are any aspects that are pseudoscientific or unscientific, they should be labelled as such and the article placed in the appropriate categories. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a parallel discussion occurring here Fringe theories/Noticeboard, so maybe we should close this one and continue there. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that you tried to bring neutrality by stating that kinesiology is psuedoscientific so I think that the article is as balanced as you are going to get it unless you can find more sources. I have replied on the noticeboard as suggested.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

New article request
Will someone add an article on Lipschütz ulcer (also known as "Ulcus vulvae acutum")? Thanks in advance for your help! ---kilbad (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Too short for DYK, though :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks amazing! Thank you! ---kilbad (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I found more in German sources, but my German is not enough and I have a beef with Google Translate... Perhaps one of our German-speaking editors could help. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Trade names
Which and how many trade names should be mentioned in articles about drugs, and where should they go? In the lead, as recommended by WP:LEAD? In a section about available forms, as provided for in WP:MEDMOS? Should the current wording of WP:MEDMOS be altered or amended? Discussion here. All input welcome. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am of the strong opinion that trade names should be in the lead. If there are lots of trade names, then they should be restricted to english speaking countries only. Search engines give high weight to the first 1 or 2 sentences as well as words which are bolded. Many internet users search using the brand name rather than the generic/chemical name, so relegating common trade names further down the article means we are significantly reducing wikipedia traffic and in my eyes harming the encyclopedia.


 * Medmos actually advises us to place them in the lead. Medmos says "The lead should highlight the name of the drug as per normal guidelines. The BAN or USAN variant may also be mentioned, with the word in bold. The initial brand name and manufacturer follows, in parentheses." Available forms is just like IV, sublingual, oral, dose sizes eg mg strength of tablets etc.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading the article talk page I see that the MEDMOS guideline states "initial brand name", implying that we restrict it to a single brand name, seems to be a bit restrictive to me, I recommend opening a discussion on MEDMOS.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All trade names should also be represented by page names of redirects to the article. The redirects can be placed in categories, in which case they should also use the tag , like this:  #REDIRECT Generic name  . --Una Smith (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have R from trade name for this purpose. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd add my 2p over at the Metformin discussion page. But just to correct the above: MEDMOS mandates only the initial (patent) trade name and search engines do not work as described. Colin°Talk 17:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, initial trade name is mandated, ok, so adding additional trade names are optional, if I understand correctly? Thank you for clarifying. Should MEDMOS be expanded to clarify this and give some sensible guidance? I disagree about search engines, look up search engine optimisation and how search engine algorithms determine relevance to search terms users enter into say google eg page tite, H1, H2 etc Tags, article title, page name, keywords, weight of first couple of sentences, bold, italics, words in http links, linkage from other quality sites/page rank etc.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree we should discuss this at MEDMOS. Please, let's not create a manual of style on the basis of supposed ideas on how Google works. It is more complex than that and we are here to build an encyclopaedia. Let's leave Google to worry about how best to index our content, not the other way round. Colin°Talk 17:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but my reasoning for inclusion of trade names (which I don't think you disagree with) is not just about search engines. Many lay readers will recognise a brand name but not a generic name, eg they will recognise losec, prozac, haldol rather than omeprazole, fluoxetine, haloperidol unless they are prescribed generic. A discussion on MEDMOS should be worthwhile. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of trade names, would someone lend a hand ASAP merging Lipiodol and Ethiodized oil into Poppyseed oil? Poppyseed oil is due to appear soon on the Main Page, in the DYK section, and I may need to step out soon. --Una Smith (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have merged liodol into ethiodized oil as a found a review saying that they are the same thing. Do you want a merge and redirect, or just some of the content brought over?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. More on Talk:Ethiodized oil.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please make your case at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Colin°Talk 17:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I shall start a topic there Colin.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Feedback on translation required
Hello all, I made a request for this image to be translated from German, feedback on my translation is requested. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Thank you very much in advance, best regards,  Captain n00dle \ Talk 19:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

FA reviews
Cerebellum has enormous amounts of uncited text, and Multiple sclerosis needs to be cited to secondary reviews to conform with WP:MEDRS. Cystic fibrosis is getting no attention at WP:FAR, and Tooth enamel could use some attention to MOS and uncited text. Schizophrenia also needs attention to over-reliance on primary sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Prose quality is also a huge concern with Multiple sclerosis. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take a new look to the references of the multiple sclerosis article, altough I almost fully rewrote it using secondary sources something like a year ago. However prose quality is not my best, so if anybody is able to help it would be great. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tea for treatment of brain disorders?
I am unsure if the source added in this diff is represented and/or summarized properly. Something just doesn't seem right about this situation: OR, SYNTH, primary source, etc.? More eyes needed. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely inappropriate. This was a very preliminary study showing that a combination of epigallocatechin gallate and another molecule act synergistically to eradicate and inhibit the formation of yeast prions. I don't quite think this means that cup of Earl Grey can cure Alzheimer's and CJD. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Question about article title/location
With regard to the condition balanitis plasmacellularis (see the actual stub for all the synonyms), my understanding from looking at Bolognia and Andrew's is that it can affect the glans penis or the vulva. Bolognia discusses the condition under the header "Zoon's Balanitis/Vulvitis." Therefore, I wanted to know if the article should be moved to another title that includes both the words "balanitis" and "vulvitis", and, if so, what the title should be? If someone has a preference to the article title, and wants to move it, I would be fine with that. ---kilbad (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears the female counterpart was described as "vulvitis plasmacellularis" in addition to the eponym, so I'd keep the article where it is. A double title would be inappropriate IMHO, especially if the condition is controversial. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of move
Would someone review the following move of text: ? I think the text should probably fall under Wolf–Hirschhorn syndrome, not Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome. ---kilbad (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It was also not moved correctly. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help... and sorry to be bothering you all with dashes all the time! ---kilbad (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Remember: if it's a compound name of a single person, use a hyphen; if it's two or more unrelated surnames, en dashes it is. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Independent eyes, please
(Originally at WT:MEDRS, moved here per WhatamIdoing's suggestion)LeadSongDog come howl 21:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Would someone independent please have a look at [this edit]? Prior discussion on the article's talk page pertains. Thank you,LeadSongDog come howl 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ... and also at Medicinal mushrooms. I've refrained from making any comments due to potential COI, but it would be appreciated if someone else might be able to comment on the sources and conclusions in this article. Sasata (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to move your requests to WT:MED or WP:RSN. This page is for efforts to improve the guideline itself.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doing so now.LeadSongDog come howl 21:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Grand Prize for Medicine"
One of the founders of the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine states in his CV that he received the "Grand Prize for Medicine". Does anybody here have any idea what this could be? I've come up entirely blank. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably from the World Anti-Aging Academy of Medicine (strange how the two sites use almost identical language and photos). I have no idea how credible this organization is, but I'm guessing it's not too reliable.  SDY (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. They're run by the same people. link. However, they don't mention this prize on their website. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Name also aligns with awards from INPEX, the "Invention and New Product Exposition". Link to 2008 winners: . Various other sites indicate that Goldman's award was from 1994, but I can't find that year's winners online. (I arrived at this via a clue from someone else's online bio: "In 1995, he won the Grand Prize for Medicine from INPEX for his invention of the first effective computer-operated equipment for  perfusing organs with cryoprotective agents.") Maralia (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * AH! That would fit the "humanitarian award" as well. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're quite right link these are INPX awards. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Does this deserve a Wikipedia page? Would help people realize that this important sounding prize is for not medicine but alternative medicine? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Its just a general trade show, not really notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it seems important to mention it in any given bio, it could be explained there. But IMO an unimportant award is probably not going to be WP:DUE.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A blocked user
This used continues to promote the link between lack of testosterone and well everything. Special:Contributions/158.194.65.44 His other account has been blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the other account? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure this is User:Testosterone vs diabetes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd be right about that, compare diff and diff. IP blocked for a month. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is another of his IPs however it is already blocked Special:Contributions/158.194.199.13. I have reverted many of the edits but there are a few I may have missed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If another appears, you might want to file a report at WP:SPI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

MRN / PF# needs an article
I know this is NOT a forum for asking questions... so I'm phrasing my question slying in to an article request.

Medical record number (MRN)... OK, we also hear 1/2 of the physicians calling it "PF#." But who can tell me what PF stands for??? I can't find it on google search, acronym search... I'm running out of resources. I think MRN is worthy of an article anyway. Thanks 163.40.12.37 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Patient file, perhaps?
 * The querent posted from the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center IP range, so if the answer is country-specific, it will probably need a US person to answer it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This site says personal file  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Patient file sounds like the best answer to me. still need to make that article. add to to-do list

Insulin potentiation therapy
This fringe practice article has some issues. I have removed a bit of advertising, but there are likely problems with many of the sources used. More eyes needed. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Shaken baby syndrome
This article needs some watching. A user has been adding lots of material, as well as references in the external links section, and I suspect a POV push in favor of the fringe POV of the extremist Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, IOW that SBS is caused by vacinations, and not by crimes. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be motivated by a partisan view (namely defense of those accused of SBS) but not solely a fringe medical belief. I see no additions to suggest a link with vaccination, only a brief preexisting statement in the Vitamin C deficiency section. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can, and should, cover appropriately sourced controversy about shaken baby syndrome. We should definitely not be using the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a source, in my opinion, given its track record of poor fact-checking, uncorrected errors, and its status as a fringe political instrument. I suppose it could be cited as an example of what a certain fringe of the American far right believes, but I don't think it should be cited as a source of medical fact (or even notable medical opinion). MastCell Talk 04:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and today I learned that Medical Hypotheses and Medical Hypotheses and Research are not the same journal! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just added a hatnote to distinguish it. Though MHR looks to be, if anything, even more fringe. LeadSongDog come howl 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Up for deletion
Articles_for_deletion/Alternative_perception_spectrum is up for deletion. My first time doing an Afd, usually I do PROD, so hopefully I did it right. Would welcome comments. The author seems a well intentioned newcomer with a POV that the schizophrenia label is stigmatising, see article talk page.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  11:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormones again
I am again having to deal with the bioidentical hormone replacement therapy page. There is a clear convergence of the sources on an unambiguous dismissal of BHRT as something of merit, yet still this idea is being pushed onto the page. This has been brought up at the NPOVN with no change in the behaviour of the other parties. The page needs sustained attention from more than just me, despite having the clear and explicit backing of many sources, I am being accused of POV-pushing because I refuse to allow bioidenticals to be portrayed as better than conventionals. There is no need for original research and a lot of very good sources that are freely available (most that are not I have PDF copies of). Please, if anyone can take some time to delve into the sources, it will very, very quickly become clear that POV-pushing is a significant problem. There are many brief and recent summaries available as well as position statements from the FDA, Mayo Clinic, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, The Endocrine Society and the North American Menopause Society that all converge. A recent edit summarized the position of the International Menopause Society as "The International Menopause Society, however, states that progesterone may be associated with no increased risk, or a lower risk of breast cancer than progestins" when the source itself (found here) states "There are no medical or scientific reasons to recommend unregistered ‘bioidentical hormones’." This is cherry-picking to the Nth degree, and has occurred repeatedly. Primary sources are used to promote the idea that bioidentical hormones are better than those used conventionally, despite the clear majority of sources being blatantly critical.

If anyone can take even an hour or so to review the sources, it would greatly help the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol articles
I think that the sociologist professor, User:David Justin from the alcohol industry who runs this website is might be back. He was banned for sockpuppeteering and disruptive COI POV editing. I have not had dealings with him but other editors did and he had the various alcohol articles reading as some of the worst NPOV violations that I have ever seen using primary sources on wikipedia and they sat like that for years! He is armed with a mass of papers so I would request some editors here could add the alcohol articles to their watch list, alcoholism, long-term effects of alcohol and alcohol and cancer.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are the old SPI investigations.Suspected_sock_puppets/David_Justin, Suspected_sock_puppets/David_Justin_(2nd) and Suspected_sock_puppets/David_Justin_(3rd) There were other sockpuppets.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  04:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What are the suspected socks and where are they editing now? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at this page, here are an army of old socks. The professor is a campaigner/advocate for reducing the legal age of alcohol and promotes its benefits and minimises its risks. If you look at this diff, the editor is doing this on the talk page and citing the personal website of the sociology professor. He also deleted text from the article. This editor has been suspected of using upwards of 30 sockpuppets, so I am going by WP:DUCK. I have alerted another editor to this conversation who is more familar with this editor. He has been suspected of using sockpuppets on and off but there have been no recent sockpuppet investigations eg in the last 6 - 12 months or so from what I can tell.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there any particular reason you didn't go to WP:SPI, put the original account's name in the box, and "use this button"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes because wikipedia ip logs only go back 3 months so checkuser is not possible. My request here is just to get some additional editors to watch list the article and I gave background information of the problem.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL: This looks like fun but I'll stay out. Personally I'm rather positive on alcohol and caffiene but not tobacco smoke. Not sure about nicotine, haven't given it much thought. Anyway, perhaps this story could be highlighted somewhere as it is a common problem, see MastCells comments on RS re climate change, cherry picking isolated papers is often done without conscious intent, not just a wikipedia but have you ever written a proposal? LOL. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't blame you Nerdseeksblonde (by the way I hear blondes hang out on alcohol articles, only joking LOL). I am not down on alcohol either, per se, I am down on destructive/harmful use. As you probably know there is evidence on beneficial effects of alcohol in low and moderate levels and many people have pleasant memories of drinking times with their friends in pubs and clubs. Ah yea I know about the climate change battle field, it is way too controversial of a subject; I think I shall be avoiding climate change articles LOL. I just hope the alcohol articles don't become a drama magnet again, they had been calm for quite a while. Hopefully a consensus can be worked out in sourcing and wording. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR Anabolic steroid
nominated Anabolic steroid 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Colorpuncture
I am new to Wiki editing - and am already completely frustrated. Every edit I have made has been reverted immediately by two other editors reverting more than three times a day and now I have been accused of violating the three times a day rule. I have stepped only briefly into the discussion but have found that largely one-sided as well.

Initially, I attempted to address only one instance, the problem with the article immediately stating via a quote: "There is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians.[2]" This is one man's (Felix Mann's) biased opinion and does not reflect current research in this area (published in 1996) as articulated in detail in the wiki article on Acupuncture. This item has been discussed previously in regards to this article and others have requested change here. I changed that area to remove the biased reference and refer readers to the full discussion of acupuncture on Wiki - which was immediately reverted.

It appears that these editors insist on slanting this article to their own bias and refuse to allow any other information to be provided by others included already discussed and added info on acupuncture in the wiki on that topic. Other edits that I made were to change "belief" to "theory" which of course something is a "theory" rather than a "belief" if it can be researched and I added other references (which I may need to do a better job of sourcing - please excuse that as newbie status). However, these other editors do appear to desire to give a negative slant to the subject of Colorpuncture rather than allowing for a multi-perspective and unbiased presentation of the current information on this topic.

As a newbie, I do not know how to approach this when it seems I am being stonewalled by these editors in adding anything to the article. What are their qualifications to be deciding here what is posted and what is not? Though I made various other edits - some quite minor - none remain.—Quantummech (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not checked the article history or reverts but what stays and what gets reverted is not an issue of who is best qualified but it is determined by best quality peer reviewed sources and guidelines such as WP:DUE, WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, NPOV and editorial consensus.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion at Talk:Colorpuncture. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a fringe theory to me. Any evidence to support it?  See WP:RS for what qualifies as evidence. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comments on talk page, it can't be a fringe POV about the topic itself. Sure, if topic was "medicine" it would be fringe but if topic is "astrology" then a reliable source about astrology needn't come up on pubmed. Astrology is a notable topic and sources exist that are reliable about the topic even if they don't do too well about predicting the future. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article is making medical claims than it need to be supported by medical evidence. Anatomical or histological are part of medical science. I do not understand what difficulty you are having. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, the claims just need to be re-worded. Of course, the source needs to be reliable for the claims made. But, if the claim is "colorpuncturists believe foo" then it doesn't have to be proven by a controlled test or declared true by the FDA. Further, a prominent colorpuncturists could back up this claim. You need to cover the topic without finding an artificial community in which the topic would be considered "fringe" if you want to document that state of thought of some more relevant community. The 5 pubmed sources suggest some limited notice within the scientific community, even if all rebutaals. There is likely some (large and notable) pro-colopuncturist community somewhere with reliable sources about itself ( I guess any colorpucntuists cited in the pubmed articles for refutation would be good candidates for beling reliable and notable colorpuncurists). Personally, I am quite pro-testability and pro-truth ( which you would presume to mean pro-science and against pseudo science). However, the point here is to document what notable groups think or thought as reflected in sources thought to be reliable about the topic. This does serve an set of objectives- things about repeating mistakes or facilitating anecdote mining etc- if you are worried about polluting wikipedia with ideas you don't like or think are a distraction to the reader. Generally I've found a short qualification is helpful that avoid definitional debates over glib terms like "science". For example, "drug X has been shown in clinical trials to work[]" but this does run into a problem unless you can find a source that says " no controlled tests have been done to show foo works" etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Additions of primary research
User:Infinitesimus has added a bunch of primary research. What do others think of these additions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have left a friendly message (also available as a boilerplate at User:Jfdwolff/MEDRS), but I agree that his edits need some revision, particularly some of his additions at AIDS. JFW | T@lk  12:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "misdiagnosis"
Could someone take a look at Talk:Ann Dunham. In short, in 1994, Ann Dunham was diagnosed with indigestion when she was living in Indonesia. A year later, she was in the U.S. where she was diagnosed with uterine cancer. Some sources on the subject claim she was misdiagnosed in Indonesia. Forgetting about the contradictory sources for the moment, which term is best to use? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Misdiagnosis" is a term I would not normally apply unless there is clear evidence that most other doctors would have made the correct diagnosis in the same situation. This requires a reliable source, usually one generated by an official enquiry panel of some sort. Alternatively, if someone believes they have been misdiagnosed then it should be phrased "[...] believes that her symptoms were not taken seriously in the initial stages, and that this led to a misdiagnosis".
 * Doctors all know very well that internal malignancy is sometimes very hard to diagnose. Recent studies show that the diagnosis of ovarian cancer, for instance, is often preceded by several months of fairly nonspecific complaints. Diagnosis can be hard. JFW | T@lk  15:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Trichotillomania
A new editor is trying to add a link to his own website, I have reverted him twice, and being mindful of WP:3R, I would like someone's opinion or action on this please. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 19:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted twice aswell. Definitely an inappropriate link. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And Colin has left a very helpful message on his talkpage. If he continues I might have to block him for a couple of hours, but I don't like doing this to a newcomer. Graham Colm Talk 20:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PubMed indicates the use of hypnotherapy for trichotillomania has been discussed: there are possibly seven review papers that may be appropriate. Rather than further reverts or blocks, it would be great if someone here, who has access to the journals, could help. The newbie is only adding a single sentence so it shouldn't be that hard to verify the text or to alter it to be more accurate. Colin°Talk 20:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I have already blocked him for three hours. I feel bad now. Graham Colm Talk 20:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to see WP:MED regulars tag teaming like this. Graham, excuse me but how about you unblock the editor now and apologize for being a tad hasty?  If you hurry, you may repair most of the damage before the editor discovers the block.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Graham in the removal of this reference. The addition of material of a contentious nature referenced to ones personal website website is not appropriate.  Tags were placed on the editors page to inform them that this reference was not appropriate by at least two of use.  This editor replaced the ref to his own web page 5 times. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than fight about it, I'd rather fix it. I have provided two good sources.  --Una Smith (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Una, please have a look at WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE; your very old sources don't seem to hold up to newer reviews. Please provide quotes and cites from the old reviews on talk that show what these old sources are relying on, since newer sources don't even mention hypnosis.  The gig here is not to search for something on PubMed to justify dubious text, but to base our articles on recent reviews and current thinking.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The wording in the two sources provided was not as encouraging as that we had in the article so I adjusted it. From this paper "Hypnosis may improve or resolve numerous dermatoses. Examples include acne excoriée, alopecia areata, atopic dermatitis, congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma, dyshidrotic dermatitis, erythromelalgia, furuncles, glossodynia, herpes simplex, hyperhidrosis, ichthyosis vulgaris, lichen planus, neurodermatitis, nummular dermatitis, postherpetic neuralgia, pruritus, psoriasis, rosacea, trichotillomania, urticaria, verruca vulgaris, and vitiligo. Hypnosis can also reduce the anxiety and pain associated with dermatologic procedures" Any way we should move this discussion back to the talk page :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict with colm below] Referencing his own website is inappropriate without consensus of other editors and also it was an unreliable source so the removal of the source was justified. I think that Una is more concerned about a newcomer being chased away.


 * Off topic, I use a welcome tool and I think that everyone should consider installing it. I use it to welcome people who are editing medical articles on my watch list. It is worth "installing", you can welcome lots of newcomers with a click of a button.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  20:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the tool.Friendly-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) Una, you are not excused, asking for advice is not tag teaming, it is the sensible thing to do. My concern was the repeated attempts to add a link to a personal and commercial website. I blocked him, politely, for three hours for WP:3R, which is policy. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 20:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the edits to the article, where 3R+3R is greater than 3R. Also, not liking the source is not a good reason to delete the entire contribution.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And I'm sorry to see Una adding dubious text to an article based on very old reviews, when hypnosis is not even mentioned in newer reviews. This is WP:UNDUE; what an unnecessary confusion.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do realize that we do not want to drive new editors away. There is a serious lack of dedicated editors to Wikipedia medicine article.  A couple of user tried to bring this gentleman around.  And hopefully he will take the time to read wiki policy.  Nothing wrong with a heated discussion though. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my experience, editors who come to Wiki to cite their own sites rarely turn around. Of bigger concern is experienced editors who don't understand Wiki policies or guidelines like WP:UNDUE or WP:MEDRS; we don't help a new editor by incorrectly adding the text s/he wanted to add with an old source.  Our goal is not to go to PubMed and justify any text added, rather to write current articles based on current reviews.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your point Sandy but it is important to be welcoming. Wikipedia has gotten a lot of flack lately for the perceived unfriendliness of old time Wikipedians.  The rules are complicated I have been banned for a technical misunderstanding. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but Una's acqueiscence to adding substandard text is not a good example for a newcomer, and has complicated the matter. I was out all afternoon and came along to find this a done deal; GrahamColm's actions were correct, Una's concern me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch. --Una Smith (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved, but I'm struck by the negativism being expressed toward Una, an outstanding WP editor (based on my gnomish observations on WPMED). It seems to me that she acted in good faith; if you think a mistake was made then just edit as you see fit, and don't bite.  There are no "done deal"s, and the fact that an editor was away from 'their' page for a few hours is of no consequence.  -- Scray (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could pay more attention to recurring issues at WT:MED and on other WikiProjects as well; your statement about "their" pages looks like a good case of failing to AGF. Whose page?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) IMO removing and addition of links to ones own web page is appropriate. As this seems to be that users interest it is up to that user to fix the addition as encouraged on his user page. Some others would find refs to support a users addition and they should be commended for this. I see nothing wrong with any of the above user actions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dash issues
Could someone look at this edit: ... are the spaces around the dash required? I thought they were. ---kilbad (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, the edit is correct, no spaces, see WP:Endash. Graham Colm Talk 23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That section is under debate and the current wording is only a few days old. If you want the whole gory details, see WT:Manual of Style. --RexxS (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Anaphylaxis
I have been working on the anaphylaxis page but have little interest in pathophysiology. Anyone wish to take a look? It is a disaster Anaphylaxis Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I did some work on it last June in response to some justified complaints about impenetrable jargon, but I didn't get very far, and I think it might be better to scrap it and start over. I recall being happy with the sources in the subsection on pseudoanaphylaxis, and Janeway's (ref 14) is good, but I won't particularly recommend the others.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Common cold
Wondering if I could request an opinion on a user repeated addition of non encyclopedic wording Talk:Common_cold. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added my comments. The (new) editor in question wants to describe details of a study to make it seem more important.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it widely cited of test a widely conjectured thing? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Say again? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, some medic did a statistical analysis on a 15-year old survey and found a correlation between low serum levels of vitamin D and reported incidence of common cold. It got hyped in the "news" as "the largest and most nationally representative study ..." confusing an old National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey with an analysis of some of the data in it. It just needs putting into proportion, as Doc James has been trying to. --RexxS (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Poikiloderma vasculare atrophicans
Would someone help me beef this stub up a bit? ---kilbad (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also have the article: ; if anyone wants me to e-mail it to them. It gives some history behind the term poikiloderma vasculare atrophicans, and the source gives a great discussion that can help people understand why derm terminology can be so confusing, and why there are so many disease synonyms.  Just let me know if you want it...  it's a good read. ---kilbad (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and I will try to get a picture of this condition in my clinic next week. ---kilbad (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See the talk page, I dumped all the pubmed hits for perspecitve. I posted a link to my tool for doing this earlier here but it was probably arvhived. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_15#pubmed_cits_to_wiki_conversion_tool.2C_temporary_test Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As promised:

Maybe someone could add these to the article... perhaps get it in as a DYK? I would love to collaborate on this one. ---kilbad (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy regarding æ
Is there a policy for use of "ae" over "e"? For example, I have seen nevus also spelled naevus, or pleural naevi. Are there are any policies about this type of spelling? ---kilbad (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's WP:ENGVAR ("ae" is the British spelling, "e" is the American spelling), which suggests that the two forms should coexist on Wikipedia, but not in the same article. Physchim62 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So I would like to add a footer to the list of cutaneous conditions stating something to the extent that the list uses American english so that people know that the naevus spelling exists. What do you all think about that idea?  If you think it is a good idea, how would you word the footer?  Thanks again for your feedback everyone. ---14:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you use a footer, you are going to have an awful lot of links to it… It might be best to state it in a header. I'll try to think of a diplomatic wording! There's also a problem with "oe" – American "edema" is spelt "oedema" in the UK. Physchim62 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I would just add the footnote once, at the first instance of the word nevus or edema. Yeah, please give me some suggestions on the wording of a potential footer note. ---kilbad (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Bleeding. Both Hemorrhage and Haemorrhage are redirects to it; there are hatnotes and the spellings are mentioned in the first sentence! You may not want quite so much detail in Nevus but the redirects are already present and the alternative spellings are already included in the lead, so the article is fine. As for the List of cutaneous conditions, there are so many occurrences of 'nevus' that a footnote would be messy. Perhaps something along the lines of a final paragraph in the lead stating: This list uses US spelling throughout, for example "nevus" is used instead of the alternative "naevus". --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we use "US spelling" --> "American english"? Also, I will use a footnote, but only link to it once, at the first occurrence of the work nevus, not at every instance... so it should not be too messy.  Does anyone else have thoughts about this? Thanks again RexxS, Physchim62, and others! ---kilbad (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I'm British, I'm always a bit wary about assuming American=US, since Canada, Bermuda, Jamaica etc. are undoubtedly part of America, but are not (yet) part of the USA, nor do they necessarily share spelling with what I called "US spelling". Nevertheless, if Wikipedia prefers "American english", who am I to suggest otherwise ? More importantly, I'd worry about a single linked footnote, since this is a long list, and readers may jump to a particular section, thus missing the note. You may wish to consider adding your footnote to the first occurrence where it is needed in each level two section. That would probably be manageable and not too messy in the footnote, but use your own discretion before you take my advice! --RexxS (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We definitely have our own English up north. Some software installations even gives use the option of installing it..  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How does this footer look? ---kilbad (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks fine to me (although I've never used a ligature in my life, and prefer the digraph). --RexxS (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I appreciate everyone's feedback, and if anyone else has any comments regarding the wording, please let me know. ---kilbad (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

MS
Would appreciate some comments on CCSVI at Talk:Multiple_sclerosis It was recently in the media and now the general public is here pushing it. The medical post had an interested article on the subject which was a lot more balanced than may things that are currently being added. I tried to balance it but was reverted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nameing
A discussion is taking place on weather we should name the topic self harm or self injury Talk:Self-injury. Self harm is the term used in the ICD10. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus seems to be for this move. Is an admin available who would be able to carry this out?  Thanks  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Testosterone and diabetes
The promotion of this associated continues. sigh. Talk:Anti-diabetic_drug Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) `

Circumstantiality treatment?
This is far from my area of expertise, but I stumbled on this article after someone linked it to a template on derailment (thought disorder)&mdash;an article I created a while back so I'd have something to link in WP:PN. Regarding circumstantiality: it seems a little odd to list a treatment for a symptom, and that from a book on epilepsy, which isn't given as cause in the wiki article. When I wrote the derailment article, I didn't find any source recommending a treatment for the symptom per se, only for underlying causes like schizophrenia, so giving one for circumstantiality appears a little odd. Someone here might know better though. Pcap ping  03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely has me baffled too...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit history of that article is also a little odd. The treatment source was initially added without a page number by User:AishwaryaJain, and then a page number was added by User:Buddy23Lee. Pcap ping  22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The page number appears wrong. The book is on google books. It looks like circumstantiality is a feature of temporal lobe epilepsy, and the treatment in that case is indeed the one mentioned in the wiki article. But probably not so in general. Pcap  ping  23:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bolognia push update
Thank you all for your help on the Bolognia push. We have made a lot of progress, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the community. ---kilbad (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

bradydysrhythmia merge with bradycardia?
I started an article, bradydysrhythmia, that I would hope would go into greater detail of bradycardias associated with an arrhythmia including sinus bradycardia, sinoatrial block, atrial standstill and atrioventricular heart block and the disorders of impulse conduction causing them. I want to inquire if this should be a stand alone article or should some how be merged with bradycardia. I was thinking that bradycardia should be limited to sinus bradycardia. Any thought concerning this are appreciated. Kindly Calmer   Waters  20:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I had never heard the term bradydysrhythmia (or if I did I forgot about it!). I'd use the term bradycardia for all the above. Arbitrarily restricting the bradycardia age to sinus would not align with medical usage (but it's a long time since I did any cardiology..) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems the two terms refer more or less to the same condition. The Bradycardia article is not large and I'm sure would be much improved by merging in your content and expanding the different classifications (if you are able to). The Bradydysrhythmia article could then be redirected to Bradycardia. If at some point, consensus that a specific difference existed between the two terms, and Bradycardia was too large to accommodate both, it would not be too difficult to split out a sub-article then. I'd recommend merging them for now. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above two I would recommend improving the bradycardia page and than breaking off pieces as subpages as those sections get too long dealing with into sinoatrial block, atrial standstill and atrioventricular heart block, etc. In common usage bradycardia includes all of these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you to all. I will go ahead to work the material into bradycardia and redirect. Then expand within that article the different arrhythmias associated with the condition along with the pathophysiology dealing with the impulse conduction. Thanks again  Calmer   Waters  20:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never seen or heard the word "bradydysrhythmia", although I have heard "bradyarrhythmia" in the context of classifying arrhythmias according to rate. Both "bradydysrhythmia" and "bradyarrhythmia" should redirect to bradycardia. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  18:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

the Dendreon effect and "see also" links
Someone added a link to a pink sheet company to DNDN page,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dendreon&action=historysubmit&diff=333137247&oldid=332453724

While I have been following DNDN for a while and some related companies, I never heard of these guys before and after the recent trial results, there was a lot of chatter about DNDN lifting all stocks that were simiilar in name only. Cel-Sci was mentioned several times. In any case, I have nothing against comprehensive links almost creating an industry directory, but someone needs to check these for reasonableness. There will be a temptation to use Wikipedia to pump penny stocks. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The contributor seems pretty interested in Avax Technologies, but that article is a decent start and we should be grateful for useful contributions. Since both Dendreon and Avax are working in the field of producing cancer vaccines by combining proteins, I would think that a See also link both ways would be appropriate. They might be worth watchlisting to guard against any potential COI. --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Translation project
User:Proteins and I are in contact with a technology company that wishes to use some software it has developed that is a kind of graphic interface for translators to increase the amount of health-related information in developing-world language Wikipedias. Since this is quite a large company, this project might eventually cover many languages, but we are thinking about starting off small at around five (eg transferring content from the English to the Swahili Wikipedia is one leading option). The real work will be in developing a community of translators and bilingual experts in each destination language, and the company is willing to help with this as well, but at our end we will need to provide a list of articles on "essential health information", internationalize these as much as possible, and polish them a bit. This proposal is still in its initial stage, but could people who would be interested in participating sign up here. Thank you Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:Top-importance medicine articles (74 pages) and perhaps Category:High-importance medicine articles (875 p) might be a reasonable starting point for the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, my thoughts exactly. Although it might need some adjustment, with things like allergies and the common cold being less important in Africa and sleeping sickness and river blindness more important. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Image for breast cancer page
We are currently having a discussion of what image to use / not use ( pink ribbon vs patho specimen, vs nothing / something else ). Comments or ideas appreciated. Thanks Talk:Breast cancer Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

commercial but probably free diagrams ( essentially ad supported bio )
I was looking for ( any ) diagrams for reference and this came up on google, ( I can't get anything that works reliably right now, debian iceweasel keeps oepnening this and can only extract link from stupid google target....... crp) http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sigmaaldrich.com%2Fetc%2Fmedialib%2Fdocs%2FSigma%2FGeneral_Information%2Fangiorenin.pdf

specifically in regards to this and more generally what have people found here about commercial diagrams or artwork? Nature illustrations are great but not free and I've had very good luck with commercial products- people who make antibodies are happy to publish CD name tables etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth reviewing WP:OI when engaged in this sort of thing. You may find fig 1 at this article helpful too. LeadSongDog come howl 21:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I hate artwork and it can be error prone. There is no assurance that commercial stuff is well reviewing, only that it doesn't insult the sponsor's products. However, it likely gets some general merit review - truth in advertising and customer relations etc ( these generally aren't ignorant customers). Also, some of these companies with broad product lines may have entire collections rather than finding isolated images in various articles. I guess it may be worth contacting a company or two and see if they would release. I have nothing pro-sigma aldrich indeed I was annoyed it was so hard to get innocuous stuff shipped to a residence ( it turned out to be easier to order from a company that sells food ingredients LOL). I had a discussion on "data books" for integrated circuits on EAR earlier, same idea. I've also got all kinds of free pathway charts from Roche ( IIRC ).Again, getting a release or similar arrangement amounts to ad support and does create possible conflicts ( say you want to trash someone's assay ) so I'm not saying it is a utopia, just may be helpful. 76.20.240.240 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A Below-Acceptable Quality Article
If it even satisfies the criteria for being a Wikipedia article, which I doubt, I feel that the article for Spine-tingling is subpar and unacceptable quality for something that should be on this site. 71.130.124.128 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Acronyms... what to do
I have been working on the list of cutaneous conditions, and, after reviewing the list and available literature, have found that certain conditions are generally referred to by their acronym, rather than the full name (for example, SAPHO syndrome, PAPA syndrome, IBIDS syndrome). Restated, if you went looking for one of these conditions in an index, you would find them under the acronym, not their full name. As a result, I have used those acronyms in the list. However, there are many other conditions that are also occasionally referred to by an acronym, but which seem to be more commonly referred to by the full condition name (at least in the sources I am using; for example, Corneodermatosseous syndrome (aka CDO syndrome)).

Thus far, my approach has been to avoid listing acronyms when possible, but my question today is does anyone have any suggestions on guidelines regarding when an acronym should be included in the list? I would like to come up with some type of consensus and then make a footnote.

Thanks again for all your help! ---kilbad (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The usual rule of thumb is to follow the sources: if they're acronym-only (or nearly so), then so are we.  CHILD syndrome is our usual example of one that everyone uses the acronym.  It's good to spell out the meaning of the acronym in the lead, but the page name can be the acronym when our sources use it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e.c): I have wondered the same thing. Maybe using Google Books and Google Scholar for how often the acronym is used in comparison to the conditions name or vernacular to judge when nessessary to add to list. Then draw a line ...say like 20% (1/5). Some use this guideline when deciding whether the vernacular has entered common usage in reference to naming or moving articles using the scientific name or not. This could be applied to the syn for the list. Just a thought.  Calmer   Waters  19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the 'what's the index' standard that Kilbad mentions. A lot of articles use abbreviations of various sorts in text ("CLL" rather than spelling out "chronic lymphocytic leukemia" every single time), so simply counting up which name gets typed most isn't very reliable (certainly nothing that could be automated).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I could put a footnote in the list mentioning our approach to acronyms? If you think this would be ok, how would you word such a footnote? ---kilbad (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, unless something is so acronymised that a general article would refer to it by the acronym (with or without parenthetical explanation) use the full name. Even then they should be expanded (parenthetically) in the list.  Of course the category can have both entries.  Rich Farmbrough, 22:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Generally go with the sources but if you have common synonyms, I would list all and be liberal on redir pages ( with likely need to disambig acronyms). I'm not really sure what the option is. If you want to make all the wiki page names conform to a convention, I guess you could do that but in the list I would have all common synonyms linking to the disease page. I guess you don't need to worry too much about making a list that dpulicates a paper index- with google a user can probably find an acronym in your list ( with some context) even if you list doesn't make it a key on which it is ordered ( goog won't care much about alphabetical index on your page but searching on ambiguous acronyms is always difficult without context- presumably a user would type "skin" or something into google and that would probably be fine as long as you have the "SEO" terms on your page LOL). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the footnote goes I would suggest making a template that other projects can use: Something like -

I see no reason to provide a link to a category, people have search. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Conditions are listed under their most common name in general medical use. Where this is an acronym the full name is provided in parentheses.


 * I agree go with whats in the title of pub med sources ( reviews ). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, overall I agree with the above approaches for deciding what name to use for an article title and in the list, but can be pin down the wording of the footnote bit more?  Perhaps something more concrete?  The statement "most common name in general medical use" seems to ambiguous to me... but perhaps I am alone in that interpretation?  I think the reader should be given a short, simple, clear rational for why an acronym is or is not used.  Plus, it helps me as an editor know when I should be using an acronym or not.---kilbad (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, I think you have done excellent work on the list and I don't see much that I'd suggest changing. Generally, I dislike acronyms in article titles (should be redirects), but I can see that some conditions work best with acronyms, like BIDS syndrome. Article titles should conform to WP:NAME, which puts a lot of emphasis on what sources use, with the obvious exemption for medical articles from the requirement of WP:COMMONNAME. There's an article worth reading at WP:Search engine test on how to avoid mistakes when using search engines to decide.
 * Secondly, when using an acronym in the list, I'd recommend giving an expansion where possible. For example, AEC syndrome is expanded; but I'd add a parenthetical description to BIDS syndrome: "brittle hair, intellectual impairment, decreased fertility, and short stature" in the same way. It helps anyone searching the page for a particular symptom.
 * Thirdly, as a possible modification to Rich's suggestion, how about Conditions are listed under their most common name in medical literature. Where this is an acronym the full name is provided in parentheses.?
 * Finally, don't worry too much about getting the perfect article title for each condition. Titles are decided in the end by consensus. If someone disagrees with your choice, it can be debated on the article talk – that's our normal process. --RexxS (talk) 02:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we simplify the statement to only address acronyms in the list? If we started with "Acronyms for condition names are listed when..."' how would you finish the statement? ---kilbad (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Would that be as useful? We are always likely to provide both acronyms and full names whenever they exist, so that someone can find either when searching, but I don't think we need a note to that effect. I thought the point of the footnote was to alert readers that a condition will be indexed in the list by either full name or acronym, depending on which has preponderance in the sources? --RexxS (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, how does this look?? Please adjust the wording as needed. ---kilbad (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Somers' New Target: Conventional Cancer Treatment
This AP article covers many subjects relevant to articles about alternative medicine:


 * Somers' New Target: Conventional Cancer Treatment

Brangifer (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a WP:RS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that her book is a RS (except for her own unreliable opinions!). No, the article itself (a RS, even if not a MEDRS) contains several interesting comments. Put your glasses on and read it. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh damn and blast, this is going to affect the disease-free survival of a number of her readers. JFW | T@lk  20:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No doubt about it. The negative effects of celebrities publishing non-EBM POV (mentioned in the article) is a real problem. Just look at Jenny_McCarthy. BTW, the lead in her article needs to mention that paragraph. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't appear to be a vanity book so it isn't self-published and Oprah is certainly part of mainstream media who has apparently reviewed or at least noticed her "work." I'm not really sure what to make of this but it is good to consider. What article(s) would you suggest sourcing from this? It could be a very "mainstram" source on alternative medicine just as you could have a mainstream astrology site. Alternative doesn't mean bad- stuff happens with "proven" approaches and they are often proven to have various severe limitations. Anecdotes themselves may be wrong but early theories on biochemical cause-and-effect are often backwards too. So, if your concern is truth rather than verification I'm not sure what to do. If you want to adopt a POV and encourage readers to take the mainstream approach, this does seem to be taking sides. The one doctor did point out that many people follow celebs and athletes, I'm not sure how you really seek to use wikipedia to influence these people any more than you would use it to win souls for Christ. Getting people to appeal to data rather than credentials is a big problem. So, what does any of this have to do with wikipedia? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comments above. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess if you'd followed biotech stocks for any length of time you'd understand my tolerance and confusion. Even with Dendreon, the company was pushing cartoon videos instead of serious MOA science. Many press releases, generally authored by management with MD or PhD degrees don't exude scientific sceptisicm beyond what keeps them out of jail. The Jenny story sounds like a mother with " my kids was normal until you did something" case report. I am very big on detailed case reports, I'm still waiting for Fred Barron's case report after he used political influence to get a drug ( Tysabri ) withheld from common folk,  and sometimes unbiased observers who don't know conventional wisdom can be good ways to break paradigms. So, certainly I think everyone recognizes the need for critical analytica thought but selling garbage pays the bills and defends the ego. FWIW. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That's quite a leap of logic, NSB. Most conventional chemotherapy is off-patent (cisplatin, vinca, fluorouracil) and cancer chemotherapy is one field where toxicity is studied in a quite detailed fashion. In fact, other drug developers could learn something from the way cancer trials grade their toxicity. When it comes to cancer, there is no need for conventional wisdom. Rather, there is a need for access to new targeted therapy (see the fracas about trastuzumab in the UK). JFW | T@lk  23:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Most cancer is difficult to treat which is why we have these books. Providing false hope.  This is the last thing most people need. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)


 * Follow the stocks for a while and you'll see what I mean. The fact remains that the well characterized therapies have significant limitations and clinical trials continue to surprise ad commercial product candidates are often hyped beyond what data would prudently suggest. Sure eventually they should figure it out with analysis but in the mean time patients want a cure and docs have to eat and may only have products of limited value- so what does any rational person do? It would be great if you could get more people to appeal to research literature in these cases but the mentality is not prominent in any of the relevant communities. If they were following religions instead of celebrities or distraught parents you'd consider them aberrant weak willed people but these folks are quite prominent, mainstream, and normal. So, what do you do with the articles? Put in the mainstream/Oprah view which doesn't help anyone or make it easier to solve problems or get rational thought from folks? I dunno but I guess it is relevant to wik if we agree that ignorance is not the solution.  Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to the original comment I strongly suggest we stick with the medical literature as per WP:RS. We have to little in many articles as it is. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly doubt that any scientific inference can be made from stock market trends, other than that hype is still very much a driving factor with regards to scientific progress in the public discourse.
 * I like to think that Wikipedia's popularity and our hard work on medical articles will make it easier for people to understand science and access its results, rather than be fed rubbish by celebrities. JFW | T@lk  23:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing builds false hopes and unrealistic expectations like a "passionate layperson" who happens to be a celebrity with a personal agenda. Unfortunately, many people don't seem to realise that if these people who push all this claptrap were intelligent enough to really understand the issues they are dealing with and the implications that their POV pushing has upon the unsuspecting public, they'd probably have real jobs, rather than being paid to play pretend, or play sport. I guess its intellectual Darwinism, but its really sad from a humanitarian point of view that people fall for it and end up disappointed. I've got plenty of stories of people who've shortened their lives by shunning appropriate and scientifically validated medical care in favour of therapies that, at best, should be considered complementary rather than althernative. But what really makes my blood boil is when people let their ill-informed decisions affect children, like witholding vaccinations. I'd really like to not see this rubbish supported in WP. Matto paedia  Have a yarn 00:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fist, the original question was about RS of a given source for a given topic. To reiterate, this may fit the criteria for being an RS about a mainstream view of an alternative topic- I'm not sure you can call Oprah fringe. In terms of more generally what to present, these logical fallacies keep recurring, probably existing since time began. Certainly denial and censorship have been tried and not proven effective. However, it is just a matter of time before critical thought encounters a funding agency. That "Agency" can be a govt official or a financial market, doesn't matter but hype and hope gets you money as does playing to the audience. This is where celebs excel and why they attract more support than people like Watson. Few people even tolerate ideas they don't like much less pay people to promote or even consider and disprove them. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This was summed up in Fiddler on the Roof "and it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong when you're rich they think you really know" It may be usable.  It all depends on what point it is trying to support.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, in any case, based on source prominence, you'd have to say Oprah is more mainstream than jrnl of clinical oncology unless you confine your interest to that specialized community called oncologists.  So, before we get back to "the way things should be" if we go with prominence then everyone seems to agree that it is likely that anything endorsed by an actress or former football player is likely to be quite prominent among mainstream thinking ( unless you only consider specialized communities ). Presumably Oprah can be fooled but she probably checked the facts that her production company considers important- these may have nothing to do with progression free survival as much as what her peers in hollywood think. I doubt if she consulted Watson for expert opinion (LOL). So, I dont' see any reason to mention this source in most scientific articles but it could reasonably get into alt medicine- I don't expect to write articles on this but if the alternative approach is notable it could be included in wikipedia and surely there must be sources that accurately represent the views of the practitioners and this could be one of those. However, even with technical results, it can help to mention in passing ( "the active site of the foo enzyme also binds ginseng making it appear to relieve some symptoms possibly contributing to folklore " etc ). So, regardless of what we think about merit there is a vocal group of people who believe this stuff to some degree or at least have noted it. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * More prominent but not more encyclopedic. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto. And I really think there's a problem of nomenclature here.  People seem to want to call any therapeutic modality outside of western medicine an alternative therapy, the implication being that its used in exclusion of scientifically valid therapeutic measures.  I think that's really dangerous, given most of these things have no scientific merit to them (notable exceptions exist in some settings, such as glucosamine in osteoarthritis of the knee and acupuncture for certain conditions, just off the top of my head).  It would be more helpful to people generally, if we called them complementary therapies, since, even if there's no scientific proof a therapy works, often they don't cause any harm (primum non nocere), and there's often a valid placebo effect and they can have a place for use in conjunction with therapies that have proven benefit.  Yes, it's a prominent piece of information, and the article itself notes that Ms. Winfrey was publicly chastised for appearing to support unproven therapy in place of proven treatments, but I don't think that just putting the information out there is encyclopaedic, because its an unbalanced view and, frankly, socially irresponsible, in my opinion. Matto paedia  Have a yarn  01:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What celebrities say might be notable on their personal pages but not on medical pages. I agree with Matt we should use the term "complementary" as it is a bit better than alternative.  It is still not perfect as we have one science and calls that complementary med should have to conform to complementary science not actual science is bogus.  This is an arguements presented just not here but one I have seen elsewere.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's get back on focus here. It looks like my original comment left too much ambiguity, which led to lots of speculation and banter. I assumed that most participants here would be mainstream medical personnel, where critical thinking and scientific skepticism were the normal filters used to vet information and sources. I hope I am right. Apparently some editors here don't know my POV, and I don't even understand much of the banter here, much of which seems to have little relation to my original comment. I guess I've plopped down into the conversational culture of this page, unfamiliar with the local jargon, which is perfectly fine. There is no need to get paranoid and think I'm some flaky altie who is trying to sneak some woo woo nonsense under the scientific radar. This would hardly be the place to do that!

The source discusses public expressions of woo woo and has some comments from a mainstream POV that can be useful. (Keep in mind that the MEDRS policy is only relevant for the specific nitty gritty medical details in articles with such details. The rest of the content in those articles is governed by our ordinary RS rules, since we do more than only list research studies. We do use other types of information and sources in those articles.)

Here are the parts I found interesting and possibly useful:


 * The American Cancer Society is concerned.


 * ''"I am very afraid that people are going to listen to her message and follow what she says and be harmed by it," says Dr. Otis Brawley, the organization's chief medical officer. "We use current treatments because they've been proven to prolong life. They've gone through a logical, scientific method of evaluation. I don't know if Suzanne Somers even knows there IS a logical, scientific method."'


 * More broadly, Brawley is concerned that in the United States, celebrities or sports stars feel they can use their fame to dispense medical advice. "There's a tendency to oversimplify medical messages," he says. "Well, oversimplification can kill."

and also...


 * Yet Winfrey's tacit support of Somers gave her some of the worst press of her career. "Crazy Talk," Newsweek headlined an article on the talk show host earlier this year. Another headline, on Salon.com: "Oprah's Bad Medicine."


 * Winfrey responded in a statement that her viewers know that "the medical information presented on the show is just that — information — not an endorsement or prescription." But many doctors feel Winfrey has more of a responsibility to her viewers.


 * "Oprah, how could you? That's all I can say," says Dr. Nanette Santoro, a hormone specialist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

Those original articles from Newsweek and Salon.com, as well as the original statement from Santoro, might be useful in the Oprah and Somers articles if used to describe how their uncritical support of alt med is considered dangerous and irresponsible, as documented by these RS. As medical people who desire to make sure readers aren't misinformed by the flakes who come here to promote the messages from Oprah, Somers, McCarthy, et al, we should remember to read such articles, not reject them, and do so with your scientific skepticism glasses firmly in place. Then glean what's good and reliable and leave out the rest. Just because a source is counted as a RS here doesn't mean all the content is truly "reliable". Use your crap detectors, in contrast to some who don't use them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, this unfortunate phenomenon (celebrities who promote nonsense) deserves its own section in the alternative medicine article. There the MEDRS and FRINGE rules will allow a royal debunking/spanking. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. I was entirely concerned about your motivations, and my initial approach to your userpage was TLDR.  So, I read it, and your talkpage, and some subpages.  I think I get where you're coming from and I believe you're sensible.  And since it seems you have the stamina for dealing with all those unscrupulous charlatans who are largely out to fleece the unsuspecting public, and who don't seem to care what damage they cause along the way,  you should go right ahead and use those citations, which, are really reflective of my position on the matter. Cheers! <font color='Indigo'>Matto <font color='DodgerBlue'>paedia <font color='Olive'> Have a yarn  06:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't exist to right great wrongs. If the public wants to adopt the undereducated views of actresses rather than professionals, then it's not our problem.  Wikipedia just needs to accurately record what is known, without trying to get "fix" the celebrity culture.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In a certain sense you're right, but it's not a case of "either/or". Our job is to document the sum total of human knowledge, events, facts, opinions, and even reactions to those opinions, doing it all using RS. When we can use those RS to put things in perspective and document these aspects of reality, our work is also doing more than just listing facts. It's also providing information that can serve a good purpose. There is nothing wrong with that. When we document the celebrity culture, we also need to document the reactions of scientists to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess it helps when writing specific articles to be heavy on (reliable) data rather than quoting credentials and opinions or using adjectives. The same people who get mad at Oprah also get mad at Watson for expressing an opinion within his field of expertise due to what they want to believe, not data- is Watson not a reliable source on genetics given his credentials? So, I guess if I was writing an article, I'd try to be as explicit as possible and not dismiss out of hand various anecdotes but put them into a greater context. There is a in fact a lot of peer reviewed literature on diet-based therapies and many proven drugs were originally investigated due to folk lore ( as were poisonous ones). So, first it is important to see the wishful thinking within "scientific" articles too. Anti-oxidants are still a favorite to review retrospectively. The latest one being examined may be this "alkaline diet" notion you see on some non-mainstream sites. There is passing research literature that oral baking soda helps with kidney related acidosis and reduces cancer severity. So, for the good of wiki readers and your own research skills, I'd remember to distinguish between unproven and disproven. Valid observations outside lab and clinic have been good sources of ideas over the years and it probably isn't original research to combine citations to popular beliefs along with scientific assessments- what did the Somers book specifically endorse and what related science is there? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really care about the Somers book as I wouldn't consider it a reliable source for facts or opinions on medical or scientific matters. Somers and her book aren't really the subjects of this thread, just the reliable comments in the article and the fact that they point to other, even more reliable, sources of information. It's highly likely that her book will get mention in her article, and it might be worth checking that article to make sure those mentions are modified by MEDRS sources that debunk her nonsensical and dangerous opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, again, I'm not suggesting any prominent viewpoints be ignored due to perceived lack of merit nor credentials or adjectives be eliminated ( " Dr. Marcus Welby says this wieght lost product is the best he has ever seen for Capricorns") just that they are put into the context of any related observations or data supporting or qualifying them where it does involve obvious original research. Professional opinions are often stated with excessive confidence for public consumption, especially when money is involved. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also just remembered a recent article in Nature discussing an issue with amino acid balance in the diet. I always laughed at some of those claims from some health food places but there may ( or may not) be something to these. Science was done before formal labs and degree programs existed. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of outdenting your last two comments. Should they have their own heading/subheading? I'm not sure they are directly relevant to the topic of this thread, though they might be in a tangential manner. They do contain some interesting points. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess the idea is what can be done with Somer's pub and related commentary from various sources. I'm trying to avoid creating a formal science religion that tries to attribute undue merit to certain classes of sources and uses those beliefs to skew the perceived reliability of some sources. Everyone has good intentions, but good scholarship may be the best for the encyclopedia reader regardless of who happens to like it. For example, look at some historical refs on controversies that are being resolved today- go to pubmed and look a papers on anti-oxidants over the decades. Before going on a campaign to inflict truth on a reader or hop on a science bandwagon, I think if you honestly assess the quality of data anyone has you will be content trying to just document what is known. It is hard to find more truths without knowing what current data does and does not say. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that BR has been saying the same thing, NSB, and he wants to use the parts of the article that demonstrate the concerns of the scientific community towards Somers and her ilk. A recurrent theme in this thread is our challenge to document the sum of human knowledge.  Well, the sum of human knowledge includes the things we know are right (through RS), the things we know are wrong (through RS), the things we don't know are right or wrong (through lack of RS), and the things we know we don't know.  The only things we can't document are the things we don't know we don't know.  The good thing about that is that it means Wikipedia will never be complete and we nerds will always have a hobby, but the challenge is, and will always be, presenting the information in a balanced fashion, and with due consideration to social responsibility.  Nobody's saying let's write an article about how wonderful Somers' ideas are, are they? And nobody's saying let's burn her at the stake, either.  It seems like we're all saying yeah, these are pretty dodgy ideas, based on current evidence, and our considered opinion is that this type of medical soapboxing by so-called celebrities is a dangerous thing.  We know these ideas are out there, but let's not overly emphasise them or lend credence to them until there's some evidence that they have any merit.  Are we done yet? <font color='Indigo'>Matto <font color='DodgerBlue'>paedia <font color='Olive'> Have a yarn  20:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the only thing at issue is the "social responsibility" term as this is often antagonistic to intellectual pursuits and is better than "God is on my side" for zealotry and paving the road to Haydes. Wiki philosophy generally tries to avoid this as moralizing, soapboxing and POV infliction and personally I think that is a good for the reader. Ideas that are too dangerous to explore have historically been a big problem. If you have faith in the scientific method, zealous pursuit of that is socially responsible even when data comes from unlikely sources or doesn't lead to conclusions you happen to like. I just sense a bit of "white coat fanaticism" and want to make clear that this may not be wiki-like or good for the reader. And no one ever answered by question about Watson's opinion being considered to be reliable in the field of genetics and behavior. Where did all the people go who support credentials as a means of establishing reliability? In any case, the general problem seems to be "playing to the audience" as opposed to being led by data. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing new. We are bombarded daily with lies, half-truths and wacko stuff and truths by all sorts of people, bureaucracies and institutions including the alternative healthcare industry, drug companies, governmentments, politicians, business and media. The only thing that we need to concern ourselves with are, WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and edit wikipedia articles. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMONSENSE can also be useful policies for content disputes. We as wikipedians cannot help it if people chose to believe or promote garbage. I think that this conversation has went way off track and is best continued on someone's talk pages. I just realised that I sounded like I was in a bad mood, I am not, but I am too lazy to reword this post. :P-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for voicing your concerns NSB, and I'd like to allay those concerns, if I can. When I talk about being socially responsible, all I mean is that I don't want to encourage people to do things that might cause them harm.  I know I can't protect people from themselves, but I can choose what opinions or beliefs I support.  So, I choose not to support the opinions of non-medically qualified people on medical treatment, whilst those opinions have no scientific merit to them.  I think that the lack of evidence supporting these claims needs to be pointed out to the public, because I also believe that one should warn people that an idea or action may be dangerous or have undesired consequences.  Its got nothing to do with zealotry, going to hell, or white coat fanaticism.  I just think as an individual, one should watch out for people.  Its a basic Christian tenet that people should be nice to each other, and I believe this is a recurrent theme in most spiritual ideologies. Its a part of the foundational principles of Wikipedia.  Its also a fundamental tenet of tort law that we owe a duty of care to each other, and should not, by act or omission, cause harm to another person.  That's all I'm trying to do. If I saw someone smoking whilst fuelling their car, I'd tell them it wasn't a good idea! This is the same.  This is caring about people, generally, and has nothing to do with being a doctor. Perhaps its POV infliction, but when it come to people's health and well being, I really can't be morally neutral, because doing so would mean I wouldn't care if a person lived or died as a result of their actions (or mine), and that is inconsistent with my set of values as a person, independent of my education or qualifications.  My values don't change depending on who I'm talking to or what I'm talking about, so I'm not playing to an audience, I'm just acting in a manner consistent with my beliefs, and being guided by what I know to be scientifically valid.  If someone comes along and shows me the sound research that a particular dietary regime, or herbal therapy, or mineral salt, or whatever actually has some efficacy in the treatment of any condition, then I'll happily support it.  I know that western medicine is not infallible, and doesn't have all the answers, and I don't pretend it does.  But what it does have is an evidentiary basis. That's the data, and that's what I support. Cheers! <font color='Indigo'>Matto <font color='DodgerBlue'>paedia <font color='Olive'> Have a yarn  23:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here, here. JFW | T@lk  23:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Me two! ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts LOL,. you one liner guyws... )


 * That's fine, I guess the issue is trying to protect people from information because you are sure it is wrong or you know that any rational person would choose chemo because the FDA has approved it.I'm not suggesting hyping anything- quack or proven. Actual decision making in the presence of tradeoffs such as side effects is not something that an encyclopedia should attempt to do. I guess if we all try to put the data and facts first, wording and context can be worked out. You ought to go to pubmed and find literaure related to some fringe notions using scientific terms under which they may be discussed. Sometimes there is evidence but the communities are not able to talk to each other. In the absence of compelling data, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss anecdotes but I would be clear that that is just what they are. Science stated with too much confidence does tend to intimidate and lead to unwise actions. At a minimum, some reader may be curious how these ideas get onto national TV and generate revenue for advertisements and book sales and how they eventually work out. Notable and prominent ideas are often wrong, even in hard core sciences. Again, I would just encourage some retrospective reviews of the scientific literature on previously controversial topics for some perspective- read it as if you only knew what was known at the time it was written and what you would feel cmopelled to do to save people from disaster and determine if that action would have created a real benefit for anyone knowing what we know today. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not such a problem as you may think. Here, we don't place faith in credentials, qualifications or our own view of what is right. If X's opinion in field Y is to be given credence, we don't have to make that judgement: we just need to find the reviews and the places where X's work has been cited to demonstrate that it has credence. So the answer to Watson's reliability is to find who has cited or reviewed his work. It's a reasonably tough hurdle, but works well in practice, and certainly should be used to debunk the low-quality spin-laden sensationalism that has a tendency to creep into articles in this area. --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, NSB, for your thoughts. I'm still concerned you're not really getting where I'm coming from here, and I hope this helps (sorry, its getting lengthy...)
 * I'm not about trying to protect people from information  because I'm sure it is wrong or because I know that any rational person would choose chemo because the FDA has approved it.
 * I'm trying to help inform people that some information has no sound evidentiary basis in the form of methodologically sound research, and that this is an important factor to consider when making a personal health care decision.
 * I'm not sure that Ms Somers' claims (or any untested hypotheses, for that matter) are wrong, I'm just not sure they're right, because there's no good evidence to suggest either.
 * I don't believe that any rational person would choose chemo, because the FDA approved it, or for any other reason. I know of plenty of rational people who have made valid and well-reasoned choices not to have chemo.

As you correctly point out, making a decision about any course of action involves a cost-benefit analysis. This is especially true for health care. Any medical or surgical treatment, including non-treatment, has risks and benefits, and these certainly vary in importance between individuals. I absolutely, 100% agree with you that decision-making of this nature is not, and should never be, a function of this or any encyclopaedia. I have not suggested that wikipedia should tell people what to think. I am suggesting that wikipedia should provide information to help people to make their own decisions, including informing people of purported treatments that lack evidence of any efficacy. That way, people can make their own choices, and knowing that they might be choosing an unproven treatment modality will enable them to do so, if that's what they want, knowing that the results are anecdotal at best. This prevents people raising false hopes or unrealistic expectations about the course or outcome of their illness, and empowers people because they have quality information upon which to form their opinions and base their decisions. That's what wikipedia should be about!

A retrospectoscope is a fine and powerful tool, but has limited use going forward. I've been around long enough to understand the fallibility of science. I remember well the mass hysteria in '99 that came with the Y2K bug and the turn of the century, that we'd all be plunged into darkness and the world would come to a grinding halt. It didn't. I used to prescribe rofecoxib frequently to my arthritic patients because it gave excellent pain control and functional improvement most of the time. I thank God none of my patients died from it, and of course would never recommend it to anyone now.

I have looked into pubmed, medline, cochrane etc for evidence supporting non-mainstream therapies for patients, friends and family because, as I said, I will support anything that has evidence behind it. Sadly, most of the research I have looked at consists of methodologically poor studies that are often financially supported by, or conducted by someone who's paid by the company promoting the product. There are some effective non-medical therapies I've found that have the evidence to support them (which I mentioned earlier in this thread), but unfortunately, they're in the minority. Once upon a time, I thought glucosamine and fish oil supplements were as effective as tapwater for anything. I used to tell people as much, but I also believed they weren't harmful, so never actively discouraged people from using them. Then I found evidence they were effective and I began recomending them. Once upon a time I thought TNF blockers were really nifty immunomodifiers until I saw a few people die from disseminated sepsis after being on them. I've seen plenty of changes in treatment of ischaemic heart disease, thromboprophylaxis, even the way we perform CPR based on evidence. All I can do is go with what we know we know. I can't do anything about what we know we don't know, much less what we don't know we don't know. Kind regards, <font color='Indigo'>Matto <font color='DodgerBlue'>paedia <font color='Olive'> Have a yarn 01:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that all sounds good. Again, I'm not suggesting there is proven merit to anything in the Somer's book, I certainly haven't read it and have encountered make believe advice before. I guess the point would be to first recognize that prominent views in some communitites can exist due to celeb endorsement or other reasons and within recognized scientific communities data is usually inconclusive or not compelling- there is a reason for post marketing surveillance and continued research funding. I myself hvae been pushing the increased predictive value of theory as the literature base improves but just based on merit I personally think it would be unwise reject anecdotal reports out of hand. There still seems to be a lot of desire inflicted onto source selection in some cases with "reliability" determined by reputation I guess that will happen but often reputation is achieved by agreeing historically with what the wikipedian may want to believe("I know that can't be right, it must be unreliable") . Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That last isn't really fair. There are somewhat more objective criteria for "reliability" here. Scholarly, reputable, peer-reviewed literature and statements from expert bodies are preferred not because they accord with the beliefs of specific editors, but because they should form the basis of any serious, respectable reference work. It would be incredibly foolish to dismiss anecdotal data out of hand, since most advances start out as anecdotal data. The point is that anecdotal data are a reasonable basis to prompt more detailed investigations of the observed phenomenon. Anecdotal data are not a sufficient basis to recommend a treatment across the board. The problem with a lot of alternative medicine is that it follows the latter paradigm, and jumps straight from anecdotal data to definitive claims. MastCell Talk 18:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also be disproportionate to include anecdotes when we've got good data. For example, one of my friends declined chemotherapy after a mastectomy for breast cancer about ten years ago.  She's healthy (she had a 70% chance of being cured by surgery alone), but 20% of women in her situation would have died as a result of that decision, and they wouldn't have died if they had accepted chemotherapy.  (The remaining 10% would have died from breast cancer even with chemotherapy.)  The fact that she guessed right doesn't mean that we should re-write Chemotherapy or Breast cancer treatment to highlight her experience.  On a disease of this size, we shouldn't even mention individual experiences -- not my friend's individual experience, not some actress's individual experience, not anyone's individual experience.
 * If, instead of breast cancer, the question involves an extremely rare disease -- say, Hairy cell leukemia-Variant with unmutated IGHV (the annual incidence, worldwide, for this combination is on the order of 50 cases) -- then a case report might be the only information that exists, and would be acceptable. (Actually, UM-HCL-V may be too rare for Wikipedia to mention at all:  the IGHV status is not usually checked in HCL, so I'm not certain that even a case report has been published.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the most militant among us ( probably LOL) doesn't even like trials since these are empirical brute force stats things. We are after causality and enough detail so every little detail can be attributed to a specific cause and a spcific action taken based on the full knowledge of the "system"( a diseased patient). I don't think anyone is questioning the value of well controlled trials. Peer reviewed case reports are often quite notable and instructive in cases where existing knowledge and therapies are imperfect (duh). A trained observer who spends all his time with several patients may note things of clinical and eventually biochemical relevance that no one in the lab thought would impress a funding agency. A large body of anecdotes and stories may or may not have much merit,but in this case they are noted and prominent in a large grouop of people- they can be mentioned, that doesn't mean they need be hyped of surrounded with positive adjectives. While I speculated that celebs gain acceptance because they play to the audience, not always the data, it is not impossible for observations to be made outside of a laboratory. Referring to a person as an actress or nobel prize winner doesn't automatically make their claims fit any body of data. Please see my comments above about various theories I had dismissed as baseless actually have some possible validity, ignorance doesn't prove anything(duh), maybe some of these work I dunno and neither does anyone else right now. I think we have a decent consensus, at least in generalities. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm arriving a little late to this thread. However I seem to have missed Brangifer's point. Why is Brangifer posting a link to that news article here? [And before you ask me, yes I have read the news article.] Axl  ¤  [Talk]  18:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was left wondering why it spurred a lengthy off-topic reaction from multiple editors but no harm done I guess, it was an interesting read.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although having said that I have the same question as you Axl, scratching my head, what is exactly "the topic" of this conversation in relation to WT:WPMED?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea. Although I thought it was an interesting conversation, so that probably has some intrinsic value of its own. MastCell Talk 20:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Gulf War syndrome
Please review this disputed edit which removed several peer reviewed secondary sources, a dispute tag, almost all mention of birth defects, all mention of immunotoxicity, the entire "Diagnosis" section, and was a 3RR violation from a likely banned user as well. I hope you will please look in particular at the second paragraph in the Epidemiology section removed prior to the table. I have asked on WP:3O but I think this needs at least a little medical training for editors not otherwise familiar with the details. Thank you. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. You are, of course, no relation to the banned user . Wait, of course you are. That said, the article could probably benefit from more eyes... MastCell Talk 19:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Whether whether one or both of us are banned shouldn't make any difference.  I'm asking you to judge the text on its merits, not authorship.  Even if I was banned, WP:CLEANSTART, WP:CCC, and WP:IAR are all clear that quality should be preferred over any questions about content authorship.  I have placed a copy of the Epidemiology deletions which I think are particularly harmful to suppress in Talk:Gulf War syndrome. Thanks again. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Cute. Tell me when you get to the part of WP:CLEANSTART that says: "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. That is, you should not turn up on a page you edited, as User:A, to continue the same editing pattern, but this time as User:B&mdash;particularly while denying any connection to User:A, or if the edits or subject matter are contentious." MastCell Talk 03:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to be cute, I am trying to improve the encyclopedia. There has been no attempt at deception, and look at the diff.  Which editor cares about content quality?  Do you care more about content quality or enforcing a ban which was issued back when the only person claiming to be an M.D. editing depleted uranium was denying the genotoxicity of the metal?  Consensus has changed about D.U., not just on Wikipedia, but in Brussels where investment in D.U. weapons was banned last year, and on the floor of the U.N. similarly.  Why should authorship count more than the content itself?  If that were the case we would sign article pages. 99.34.79.151 (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like some articles need semi-protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ginkgo biloba
This section needs serious revision to bring it up to snuff per MEDRS. It mentions research that is dubious, and a new study needs to be included which debunks its use. It is reported on here:


 * Ginkgo suffers another blow


 * Tests that measured attention, memory, langauge and other thinking abilities found no difference in the rate of decline in these abilities between the two groups over the next six years on average, the researchers report in the Journal of the American Medical Association.


 * The study is the largest of its kind, and is consistent with the results of earlier, smaller studies.

Of course the JAMA article should be used, but this secondary source justifies using the primary one:


 * Snitz, et al. Ginkgo biloba for Preventing Cognitive Decline in Older Adults JAMA, Vol. 302 No. 24, December 23/30, 2009

Brangifer (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point of primary vs secondary sources in this case. Just because a primary study is reported in a newspaper, neither it nor the newspaper report is elevated in reliability (only in notability - which is not an issue here). The sort of secondary sources we are looking for is when that JAMA article is included in a review or is cited in other works. Nevertheless, there is no reason not to make use of this primary source as it is, with due weight. We must not pretend that just because a primary source has been the subject of a newspaper article, it carries more weight than other primaries. --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the issue seems to be original research. If the source is reliable it would seem to be part of the evidence supporting an existing issue. It isn't like you read this and made a new conclusion or hypothesis, presumably it would just be a matter of adding a new citation. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're both right. I see that others have now made use of it to improve the article, which is what this is all about. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

coffee
Hi all, we're making a concerted group effort to get coffee to Featured status - one thing we eed to do is ensure that statements in the health section (and health notes in the lead) are referenced by Review Articles (had a quick look on PMID and there are quite a few). Anyone is more than welcome to comment away. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can use my tool to get a good cross section of articles on pubmed. There are about 7000 that mention coffee but you can maybe find specific areas you want to check- there are only 11 or so that mention coffee and cns. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration and portal templates updated
Just a quick note that the templates for the collaboration and portal templates have been bundled into WPMED, the updated documentation there explains them. I've replaced the calls to the various templates so those have been marked as deprecated. The updated documentation at WPMED explains it all. Thanks to Martin User:MSGJ for doing the actual coding. Sorry this took so long (I initially brought this up in July). -Optigan13 (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on this. I've run across a couple over the last few months that don't work so well in the new scheme -- articles that are, for example, on the "Medicine" portal, but really belong on a "VetMed" or "Pharmacology" portal.  Knockout mice, for example, are certainly used for some human medical research, but they aren't really within the diseases-and-treatments scope of this project any more than the Individually Ventilated Cages that they're commonly housed in are "medical devices".
 * The official scope of this group has changed over time, so former MCOTW or portal listings don't always match the current focus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For the collaborations, should we remove the WPMED template, keep the previous collab template, or something else? Is there any value in keeping the previous collab template if they are no longer in our scope? For the portals I would think simply removing them would work, since all of the current portal content is just in rotation or not, as opposed to when they had to be updated on a regular basis. All of the ones that I added the WPMED template to for bundling the collab and portal should show up in the next 1.0 log update. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what to do. The scope is a somewhat mushy thing, and, after all, it might change the other way in a few years.  Also, we do sometimes accept articles that are really unimportant relative to the main focus simply because there's no relevant project (a fair bit of basic physiology, for example, which physicians need to know, but which isn't itself really 'medicine').  MCOTW is not just WPMED, either.  In some cases, it might make more sense to move the articles to another portal, but... I don't know.  IMO, there's no ideal solution; IMO it's also not an incredibly important problem.  Nobody will die, or even be inconvenienced, if we get the answer wrong.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cansema
Can someone take a look at the sourcing in Cansema.I started templating the citations after finding it in Category:WikiProject Medicine, it had copied the footer from the project page. It's using a lengthy block quote in the intro sourced to a page from the "New Zealand Dermatological Society" and none of the journal links are used in-line at the moment. -Optigan13 (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Lyme disease
A new, single-edit user, has introduced primary research (of a brand new antibiotic tried on mice, not humans) in a manner that I find questionable. More eyes on this edit please. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My tool

 * I would post this on talk page but I'm trying to get my tool ( cited above) more widely used. I get 11 hits on pubmed and it didn't obviously come up as a mesh synonym for bc.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Which tool is this? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it the one described here? --RexxS (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I actually use a local version, that one runs through 2 servers and a bunch of scripts. I have one bash script that runs locally to query pubmed and a second local java program to reformat the pubmed eutils hits. IIRC, that was the first time I generated java classes using a DTD- worked quite well as the generated code is quite uniform letting you do a lot. I think though I may regenerate or edit it for a different style. But, in any case, the online tool gets the 50 most recent pubmed hits on your serach terms ( just change the query string in the sample url). I could move it or make a web form if anyone would use it but as far as wiki things, I'm more interested in a mobile app for getting sms alerts on watched pages and on-phone note taking or authoring ( say you get stuck some where and want to do some research but don't have a laptop, just your phone. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Its a neat idea, but is getting mixed up over url, pmc & doi parameter use. The "url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7081668" type definitions would be better as just "url= |pmid=7081668" as the url parameter is used to link to full copies an article, rather than just to abstracts. Also "pmc" parameter takes just the a PubMed Central article numbers, and not duplicate doi values, as seems to be occurring in some of examples above. David Ruben Talk 02:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, I'll try to accumulate a list of issues and fix when I can. I think I am just using whatever eutils returns in xml format to put into the wiki field that sems to make sense, but I do know I explicitly made a url from the pmid so that there was always an explccit link to abstract ( didn't know wiki made links for me ). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ( bump) I was just looking at log hits and it seems no one is actually using this, just hitting the links. You can change the url query string for whatever you want to llok up and you should get the most recent 50 pubmed citations ( if more than tah, you probably don't really want all of them and need to refine a bit). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
Can someone confirm that Naegeli–Franceschetti–Jadassohn syndrome is spelled correctly? I have a source that uses "Fransceschetti." Thanks in advance! ---kilbad (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Naegeli–Franceschetti–Jadassohn" is correct. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  17:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The existing spelling certainly matches this paper and this ORD page -- which, BTW, suggests the shorter "Naegeli syndrome" as a title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is the guy you want (Adolphe Franceschetti): http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/1391.html --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PMID Full Articles
My partner and I have been working on the article Hypertrichosis, it is currently a nominee for GA but there are missing pieces of information that we need in order to bring this article to GA. I was wondering if someone would be able to access PMID articles, , and , My email address is timhallstr@gmail.com VanceMiller, who is also working on this article, can be reached through vancemiller@gmail.com.--TimHAllstr (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's any help for anybody searching:
 * Female adolescent hair disorders - = doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2009.03.007 (I can't find a free full text).
 * Causes and management of hypertrichosis - (I can't find a free full text).
 * Hypertrichose (in German) - = doi:10.1007/s00105-008-1489-z (I can't find a free full text).
 * If nobody here can help, you can always try making a request at WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. There are also some editors there who are amenable to direct contact (particularly for the German article). Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Apostrophe s ...
Is there a consensus or guideline on how to name/list disease articles in which the name of the condition may or may not contain an " 's "? For example, should the article be found at Darier's disease or Darier disease? Thanks in advance for your response. ---kilbad (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The rule is that there is no rule.
 * One proposed (but not widely accepted) system is that you use the possessive if the condition is named after a patient, but not if it is named after someone else. Thus ALS would be "Lou Gehrig's disease", but Trisomy 21 would be "Down syndrome".
 * In general, we follow the sources, and, failing that, we use whatever the first significant Wikipedia author used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Been much debated in past. In essence whilst there was a suggestion to drop the "'s", this has not been universally accepted, and certainly older publications will have used "'s". It depends also what is currently in greatest usage and to some extent is whatever the article starts with (akin to AmE vs BrE). We currently have Parkinson's disease but Down syndrome (but while modern papers on topic may have dropped the "'s", most patients and doctors here in UK would I think still include it - eg UK support Group is http://www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/ and 2008 Times article ).
 * As List of eponymous diseases notes "Medical journals, dictionaries and style guides remain divided on this issue." which is probably the only thing anyone can agree upon. Past discussion links include:
 * Talk:List of eponymous diseases - spanning 2005-2009
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 6 - February 2008
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 10 - December 2008
 * For example you give, the ICD9/10 links fail really to give name (preferring Darier–White disease), the US based MESH, OMIM and eMedicine use Darier Disease, likewise the see-also section's DermNet NZ link does not include an "'s". That said, the article currently uses "'s", and I'm not sure worth switching over (a redirect is easy) per WP:POINT. David Ruben Talk 05:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mononucleosis
Mononucleosis is on the current list of disambiguation pages with the most incoming links. But it is a hybrid dab page / article. Should it be a dab page, or should it be an article? --Una Smith (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see mononucleosis redirect to the EBV article, with a "Mononucleosis redirects here. For the form caused by the cytomegalovirus, see CMV infectious mononucleosis.", merely because EBV is the first thing that comes to mind when I hear mononucleosis. Others may feel differently, however. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |<font style="color:#5a3596"> Chat 10:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Research studies on alternative medicine
This article concerns a groups of medical techniques promoted by the Transcendental Meditation movement and it includes Maharishi Ayurveda, pulse diagnosis, sound and light therapies, Feng Shui-like architectural guidelines, etc. Scores of studies conducted by members and associates of the movement showing the efficacy of these treatments have been published in peer-reviewed journals. However few of those studies have been included in reviews or meta-analyses. Many of the studies are over ten years old and very few were conducted under randomized conditions. In some cases they what may be regarded as exceptional claims, such as that the direction one's front door faces has a major impact on health. There is currently an argument on the article talk page over the applicability of WP:MEDRS to the cited studies. If anyone can offer helpful advice, either here or on the article talk page that'd be appreciated. The current threads there are Talk:Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health and Talk:Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health.  Will Beback   talk    00:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Offhand, this sounds like probably post hoc analysis. When discussing DNDN earlier clinical trials this came up a lot. If you set a limit, say p=.05, to say that the treatment is not doing nothing, you will have some successes by chance. If you do enough trials or measure enough things, something will work. This is why I said earlier that the most militant scientists want causal, not statistical arguments since presumably each cause can be tested more easily. So, assuming it really doesn't work, this is the objection I'd be looking for in rleiable critical analyses. There may be others, or maybe it is considered to silly for anyone to refute. But, if you want to make a merit argument that would be the approach: pre-specified endpoints being routinely hit. Pre-specificed is not sacred, but it makes it harder to cherry pick results. I think there are classic examples of sub group analyses showing drug effects based on astrological sign. AFAIK none of these was reproducible but that doesn't matter with statistics. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helps. So far as I can tell, every single study has had positive results, which seems like another indication that the studies were intended to achieve a certain result.   Will Beback    talk    03:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One key issue that's in dispute is whether studies published in peer-reviewed journals are primary or secondary sources.   Will Beback    talk    07:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Move requested
Would someone consider moving Cherry hemangioma to Cherry angioma (or to any of the other diease synonyms: De Morgan spot, Senile angioma). I think the term angioma should be used, not hemangioma. Perhaps the term cherry hemangioma should not even have an article/redirect? ---kilbad (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved. I don't see harm from a redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 00:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Not moved, better speak to user:Arcadian who did the reverse move in the first place. Rich Farmbrough, 00:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Both terms are used (see eMedicine, which uses "Cherry hemangioma"), and hemangioma (tumor of blood vessels) is more precise than angioma (tumor of vessels, which also includes lymphangioma, or tumor of lymph vessels). (Tumors are not necessarily neoplastic: see the med.utah.edu link at Talk:Tumor) --Arcadian (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But which term is more commonly used? If you look at the actual sources cited by e-medicine, all use angioma, not hemangioma (except when referring to a cavernous hemangioma (a separate condition)).  Additionally, bolognia, fitzpatrick, Andrews, medline plus, DiseasesDB, and Rooks all use angioma.  Searching pubmed with "cherry angioma" gives 10 results, while "cherry hemangioma," gives 4. All that to say, would you consider having th article under cherry angioma, with a redirect from cherry hemangioma? ---kilbad (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, someone asked for my input here but I don't have anything meaningful to say :) I would just resort to same approaches, seeing which terms are more common and trying to determine if they are in fact exact synonyms etc. Do you want the references from pubmed in wiki format? My online tool should work given the small number, just change the query string to the urlencoded version of your search terms. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus
Help requested at XMRV if anyone is interested. XMRV is a recently-discovered retrovirus reported in October to have ties to chronic fatigue syndrome. A new study disputes this tie, setting off an internet battle that's unfortunately reached Wikipedia. I've tried to put my foot down re: talk page guidelines and sourcing requirements, but I'm under no illusions as to my effectiveness and stamina, and help would be greatly appreciated. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Forbes blasts chelation therapy
Forbes magazine has posted an excellent article about the misuse of chelation therapy to treat coronary artery disease and autism:


 * Heavy Metals Inc.: Doctors pushing chelation are a creative, resilient bunch. Forbes.com, posted December 31, 2009. Whelan D.

Quotes:


 * "Chelation is the unproven cure-all that will never die."


 * "The American College of Medical Toxicology last summer put out a stern warning about the challenge tests that doctors use to justify chelation on people like Stemp. They test a patient's urine for metals, give a chelating agent, then test the urine again to see if it has more metal. Since everyone has some level of mercury in his blood, it's easy to show what looks like a dramatic problem. "Chelating agents have been found to mobilize metals in healthy individuals," said the statement. The test "has no demonstrated benefit."


 * "But chelating arteries has never been shown to work in trials. In 1989 the Food & Drug Administration included chelation on its list of Top Ten Health Frauds. A 2002 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association compared heart patients who'd been given twice-a-week chelation infusions with those who'd been given a placebo...."


 * "A 2008 article in the Medscape Journal of Medicine called the heart trial "unethical, dangerous, pointless and wasteful."

There are other interesting quotes and references to the literature (which can be found and cited). This article would be a good source to use in the article, but this happens to be one area of alternative medicine where a specialist is needed. There are plenty of MDs here, and it would be appreciated if someone took a look at this. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding senile keratosis
Does the term senile keratosis refer to actinic keratosis or seborrheic keratosis? ---kilbad (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Senile keratosis is not a term that I'm particularly aware of. According to Weedon's Skin Pathology (3rd Ed), Seb K may also be known as senile wart, amongst other things, so this could be a candidate.  I call actinic keratosis solar keratosis, and these do appear most often on the sun -exposed skin of older people, but they can also occur in younger solarium users.  The two are obviously quite different and if I was going to use the term senile keratosis, I'd be more likely to apply it to a benign condition than a premalignant one.  Cheers, <font color='Indigo'>Matto <font color='DodgerBlue'>paedia <font color='Olive'> Have a yarn  04:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am changing the redirect, based on your feedback and Bolognia, to senile keratosis --> actinic keratosis. ---kilbad (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Book:Prostate
I've just created this book, but I'm not prostate expert. So if someone could quickly check if I haven't forgotten something, that would be great. Thanks. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Brainstorming
I would like to have a list of dermatologists after which a cutaneous condition has been named. Restated, if a condition has been named after someone, that person is included in the list. I think this would be a nice reference for people. Do you think this would be ok? If so, what would you name the list? ---kilbad (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer a question you didn't ask, "how would you generate this list?" I would attempt to use some pubmed scripts to look at derma abstracts and find uncommon words, pref capitalized terms not starting sentences. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I will get most of them from the list of cutaneous conditions which is probably six months from being near comprehensive for cutaneous condition names/synonyms. But what should the list be titled? ---kilbad (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * List of eponymous cutaneous conditions, or List of skin-related medical conditions named for a person if you want it to be intelligible to students and English-language learners. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking of something like WhoNamedIt.com Eponyms in category: Skin - dermatology? You know, when it has been done already, and better than one could possibly imagine achieving here, it seems a bit pointless to repeat the exercise. More useful IMO would be to write short encyclopaedic articles about these physicians than to just list them.

Category:Telehealth
I discovered a new category, Category:Telehealth, and was unsure whether it is a good idea ... so I listed it at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 10. Your contributions to the discussion would be welcome. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis
Started Anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, help is welcomed. Cheers, -- C opper K ettle  18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on that - it looks good (and as recently described entity, there may not be much more to add for now). MastCell Talk 18:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * here are the citations for 20 most recent pubmed hits that mention nmda and encephalitis,

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Surgical retractors
Would you be willing to have external links to 27 articles on the design and action of surgical retractors with photographs and descriptions of 20 different retractors? eg http://www.wikisurgery.com/index.php?title=Retractors_11_Tissue_holding-_Littlewood These are on our website at Wikisurgery.com. We have established external links to Wikipedia in the past and have had great interest from wikipedia users. I hope I have not transgressed any rules with this approach. Michael Harpur Edwards (talk)Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking here: we encourage making an approach as you have. My first thought was no, because of our policy on external links, section  Links normally to be avoided: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Having taken a good look at the site, I would ask the question "Could the material be incorporated into Wikipedia?". The answer is unclear to me, since the text on the WikiSurgery site is apparently "available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License", but the page on copyrights is empty. In addition, there is no copyright information for the images, although TinEye doesn't find them elsewhere. On the other hand, I can see value in the Wikisurgery site, so I would be tempted to agree with making links from our articles, as long as we can be sure we're not linking to a website containing copyright violations. Until we can verify the copyright terms of the text and images on WikiSurgery, I'd suggest we should wait before adding these as external links. --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine any single article benefiting from 27 separate links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your comprehansive replies. I wrote all the text and made all the images. I hold the copyright for all of them and all the other text and images on the basic surgical skills program on wikisurgery. Will that be enough or would you prefer more formal evidence? About the 27 articles, a single link to the introductory article (http://www.wikisurgery.com/index.php?title=Retractors_04_Introduction) would lead the wikipedia user to all the others.Michael Harpur Edwards (talk)Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am no copyright expert, but I don't understand how you could "hold" the copyright to all of that content given this statement (and no apparent exceptions for the content in question) that it's under the GNU FDL. Based on the that copyleft provision, portions of wikisurgery could be copied to wikipedia as long as there is attribution, couldn't they?  That might lead to more legible content on WP than a bunch of links.  -- Scray (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason that Michael Harpur Edwards can claim to hold the copyrights at present is that he appears to be the only contributor (so far) on WikiSurgery, as a quick look at a few page histories shows (assuming that 'Michael edwards' and 'M h edwards' are synonymous). I doubt that content imported from there would pass WP:SPS, so if we felt that the images were useful, then an external link would really be the best solution. I'm leaning toward accepting MHE's word that we would not linking to copyvios, and recommending that we encourage inserting the external link(s). --RexxS (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * May I take it from your discussions that you would be happy for me to insert an external link from Wikisurgery to the Wikipedia article on Retractors (Medical)? Please look at this article Retractor (medical) to check the link is OK with you? Michael Harpur Edwards (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not everyone is going to agree 100% of the time, but the test is always "Does it improve the article?". In my very humble opinion, your external link improves that article. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this beforehand. --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Magnet therapy
It appears that a fast acting SPA is totally rewriting the article using primary research and slurring the distinction between unproven alternative medicine usage and proven mainstream usage. See the thread here:


 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard

Brangifer (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't remember if this topic was regarding DC fields ( IIRC the bone things were static currents, not sure about magnet stuff), but here is an interesting result,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20061638 of course cancer and stimulation are not mutually exclusive. In the absence of good causal arguments, you will get all kinds of confusing results because you can't control all the ( unknown ) variables and have to hope they just cancel out in larger placebo controlled trials. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Cephalalgia free online until 31st March 2010
Cephalalgia, the journal of the International Headache Society, has moved to SAGE Publications and the entire archive from 1981 - today is free full text online until 31st March 2010. http://cep.sagepub.com/ --Friedrich K. (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Warburg's Tincture
Hi. I recently created and originated an article on Wikipedia about Warburg's Tincture. I'm writing here to enquire if the article should added to the Medicine WikiProject? I feel Warburg's Tincture is important in the history of medicine.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is directly related to medicine, if you feel the same way, be bold and add the WP:MED banner on the discussion page without consulting anyone. Chances are, you will be correct. If you are not, it will be corrected with no strike against you. <font color="#960018">Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also made a few changes to the formatting; you might like to look them over and copy the style. Also, WP:MEDMOS might interest you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded and improved this article a lot more now. Please can the article quality rating be reviewed. Thanks--Roland Sparkes (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please can people advise how the article Warburg's Tincture can be improved? I don't know that I can improve it any more. I don't come form a medical or science background. Thanks--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Colitis-X
Colitis-X is a new article nominated for DYK, written by an editor who does not usually write medical articles. I have given it a twice over but it needs more. One important issue remaining is that some of the sources are case reports. Are there no review articles? --Una Smith (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ouch. I have been warned to clear out or I will be blocked.   --Una Smith (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that this is turning into a personalized dispute. The reactions on your talk page are intriguing:  one editor wants to talk sense about the misuse of sources, and another wants to talk about past problems.
 * However, the condition appears to be a horses-only veterinary issue, so you might want to post at WT:WikiProject Veterinary medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Red yeast rice and 'statin' drugs
An editor has been doing quite a bit of work on revamping the red yeast rice article. I don't know enough about this subject to do much about it, but would like to see more eyes on the situation. It is especially the editor's COI that concerns me. He uses some red flag terminology (implying scientific evidence for alternative medicine, which would make it mainstream and no longer "alternative"). Here are some links to read:




 * Membership comment at Wikiproject Alternative medicine:


 * "Evidence-based science in support of complementary and alternative medicine, with focus on dietary supplements and functional foods. PhD in nutritional biochemistry; 25 years working in industry; currently a science consultant to companies wanting to make health claims for their products."

Note that I'm not implying any wrongdoing or bad faith on the part of this editor, just concerns that the article might be skewed in a way that promotes alternative medicine in an improper manner. Please take a look at the formatting, content, and especially references in light of WP:MEDRS, WP:Fringe and WP:Weight. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the 20 most recent pubmed cites that mention both terms, I'd put it on talk page but trying to get people to use my tool for this. You can copy or move these to talk page and discuss each for inclusion or balance of prominence etc.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nerd I think that if you added a basic GUI to it and perhaps also some options eg restricting searches to a range of years and so forth it could become quite a popular tool. I have added it to my userpage though for when it comes in handy.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Weight loss
..needs a few eyes. It has accumulated vandalcruft and spam. Now semi-protected for a while.LeadSongDog <font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl 05:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes agree this is a poor quality page. Not sure how to fit it in with the rest of the obesity topic.  The management section of obesity is well done IMO :-) but I might have a COI.  Maybe redirect intentional weight loss to the management section of obesity and change the name of the page to unintentional weight loss?  This would reduce duplication of content.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Surgery task force
I proposed the surgery task force here. I thought that I might bring it up here to stir up some interest. Surgery is a vast branch of medicine that requires comprehensive coverage on Wikipedia. If interested, add your self to the list here. Thanks. <font color="#960018">Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reviews
I am currently doing two GA reviews in which editors have requested further opinions. Wondering if someone could take a look at Self-harm and Good Samaritan law and give us your opinions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

HNPCC/Lynch syndrome
The HNPCC talk page has a move dicussion on it that seems to have gone dead. I was thinking about doing some histology work on the article and found this long discussion about the relative merits of calling the page Lynch Syndrome, versus HNPCC. I found this article,, which is a recent review and recommends that there is supprt for calling the condition LS in favour of HNPCC. Is anyone still interested in this move discussion? <font color='Indigo'>Matto <font color='DodgerBlue'>paedia <font color='Olive'> Have a yarn 01:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dysentery
I've decided to try to improve this article to at least a B or possibly GA. I think the main things that need improving are: history section, including past epidemics as well as cases in developing countries today; separate pathophysiology section - no real information about transmission now either; prevention, including vaccination (and possibly problems with supply in developing world); more sources needed; more distinction required between amoebic and bacillary; and an image, possibly one of the bacterium.

The reason I came here is because I know almost nothing about the disease, and everything I put in will be purely from what papers etc I can find. I don't think it's worth starting a PR on this now, so if anyone has any other suggestions, please make them known. I might not be able to do much next week though (so don't think I've forgotten if not much happens). Jhbuk (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Article structure for pages pertaining to symptoms
We currently do not have a recommended structure for articles pertaining to symptoms. I am trying to address this and would appreciate input. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Expert help needed
Hi, please could someone comment at the following discussion Talk:Self-harm. We are in need of expert comment on the use of DALY's to produce a worldmap on the self-harm page. The main concern being that the lay person will not understand the map. Many thanks, Jdrewitt (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

red hot chili pepprs, alt/compl/herbal labels
I guess this is why I hesitate to dismiss or trivialize herbal or folk lore stuff until better evidence is in. http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v29/n2/abs/onc2009335a.html "Capsaicin (trans-8-methyl-N-vanillyl-6-nonenamide) is an ingredient of chili peppers with inhibitory effects against cancer cells of different origin." I think there can be a tendency here to put science into box somewhere but careful observation anywhere can be important. Personally, it wouldn't surprise me if you may be able to take peppers, garlic, and citric acid and make therapaeutic food ( if you can get ph up was per the "alkaline diet" folks). Citric acid would be interesting as that is a case where ( possible, if recent conjecture is right ) that folk lore about fruit juice could turn out to be right but in fact everyone was distracted by the anti-oxidants ( ascorbic acid). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You need a prescription for this stuff in Canada. I prescribe a cream of it frequently.  Would not call it folk lore as it use is based on randomized trials and is an integral part of medicine.  ASA comes from the willow tree but a cardiologist is not the same as a naturalpath.
 * The research you provide appears to be done by physicians / medical researchers which makes it medicine. Also it has in no way reached clinical utility. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm big on MOA and background myself but in terms of describing what is thought to work, there seems to be a tendency to ignore anything that doesn't come along with credentials. OF course, we need well controlled test and MOA but that doesn't mean that anecdotes would mislead the reader about state of human understanding or what may really work. If you were a PhD looking for leads, sometimes talking to a Shaman can be helpful for ideas even if his thoughts don't prove to be right or systematic. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stuff like this might belong under a section on research but no were else in the article. And definitely not in a treatment / management section. What is MOA by the way?  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Red Hot Chili Peppers, out of scope, see WP:WP MUSIC. MOA is mode of action. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki is not a how-to self medicate publication, there is no treatment recommendation section. But, if you are describing what is thought in various communities and feel like you want to inflict good intentions on the article to save the reader, I'm just suggesting that you calm down a bit. In terms of merit, when the jury is out all you know is that it is out. If you try to leave stuff out, it is unlikely that will help people who only know about things from Suzanne Summers and Oprah. Do you want people listening to Oprah or do you at least want to present all views, including research literature, and put them into a complete context? Imagine someone coming here and finding, "gee, wikipedia didn't even know that oprah covered this in great detail." Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, not really: I don't generally want early research work represented in disease articles.  WP:CRYSTAL stuff is generally not WP:DUE, even if Oprah talked about it.  I also don't want religious views on what we'll find on the Moon to be added to Moon, or common views about women's driving skills to be added to auto accident, or popular superstitions about walking underneath ladders to be added to Ladder.  If, on the other hand, you can get me a good source about what is on the Moon, or a good study about how gender differences affect accident rates, or how often ladder-related accidents happen, then I'm all for it.  That's encyclopedic information; what inexpert or uneducated people believe is not.
 * Our general rule of thumb is that if you don't have actual human trials, then it's not worth mentioning, and if it's a future regulated therapeutic, we'd rather wait until it's in Phase III trials, not merely first-in-human tests. (Note, please that this rule of thumb is biased against pharmaceutical companies.)  There might be exceptions (e.g., an article about "Research on ____" might take a more expansive approach), but I'm quite satisfied with our general rule of thumb.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of material would depend on the topic but ignoring research or Oprah on many diseases would limit the scope of the article to an arbitrarily chosen community and not reflect what is generally known or thought. It is not crysal balling to say that " a lot of work is being done on various natually occuring products" or undue weight to mention that "many popular folk rememdies have been promoted" etc. An isolated research article may or may not merit inclusion in a given topic but I think your examples above are pushing the weight issue a bit. However, popular stories about ladder superstitions can have a place somewehere. What example of an article do you have that only mentions US FDA approved products in regards to a disease? I'm not even sure how you could possible write an article like this where there is both ongoing research and a history of folk rememdies. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is well referenced ( ie nature ) adding it to a section on research may be important. What people do use a natural products may fit under the section on society and culture if appropriately worded.  Added to a section on treatment is not appropriate.  What sources is required depends on were it is going.  Beliefs on stars is trivia and may belong on their own pages but not a on medical page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, NSB, I did not say anything about "US FDA approved products". In fact, I explicitly named standards that are (1) independent of government approval and (2) always happen before government approval and (3) can be applied just as well to a natural product as to a regulated therapeutic.  Perhaps you are not very familiar with the drug approval process?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally negative results can be hard to dig up, depending on who sponsored the trial, and there have been attempts to make negative clinical trials better known but within this communityy of scientists, there is different treatment of data yoy like and don't like. The clinical trials you mention themselves are usually govt approved trials or did you mean trials suzanne somers did? Generally there is more weight on trials leading to approval unless someone benefits from advertising a given failure. My original point in posting this link is to calm down the militant folks who want to protect people from information. If nothing else, anecdotes and folk lore can eventuall be tested and making a reader aware of prominent folk lore can help him get a better idea of what may motivate things he find in research etc. I'm just suggesting there is no down side to the goal of the encyuclopedia, except I guess you could call some of this clutter or trivia. Observations of the resarch community tend to be better controlled and accurate and can be intergrated into more systmatic understanding (MOA) but are just as much anecdotal as folk lore in some cases. If you take something literally approaching a militant attitude, you still want to know your enemy and if you have faith that science will prevail, ultimately you can insert " as was shown to be danergous this folk lore is now discredited reminding people to listen to doctors "( Obviously you wouldn't reallyu editorialize like this but presumably you would convey that message to reader ) etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

G-spot amplification
Someone here may want to look at that procedure, particularly if you have access to. The wiki article looks a bit advertorial. Currently at AfD. Pcap ping  11:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything I need to know in life, I learned on Wiki. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I cleaned it up, if others want to have a look or try to expand if you have access to the sources listed. I hope I get a barnstar-- or something-- for now being the editor with the highest edit count on this topic.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help :-0 Pcap ping  09:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with ketogenic diet on Main Page tomorrow (17th Jan)
I'd appreciate folk here adding this to their watch page and helping out with vandalism, etc. I'm going to be asleep for the initial hours of the 17th! Thanks. Colin°Talk 17:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the FA. The first 90 minutes were pretty quiet... I hope that the rest of the day goes as well.  A new editor has asked a question on the talk page that will be easier for someone that is familiar with the named sources to answer.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Colin will get to it (and the other pleasantries on the talk page) as soon as he wakes up. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Violent patient
I am intending on start a page on this topic to deal with the medical approach to violence and agitation. Wondering what term I should us for the title? Here is a paper on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would Violence (medicine) be better and redirect the above? I think so. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably, since MEDMOS says something about "patient" vs. "individual" terminology. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Violence (medicine)" makes me think Physical trauma, e.g., how to treat survivors of violent crimes, which is not what you're aiming for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How about Managing violence in a medical environment? A little wordy but gets the point across...  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would work for me. If we drop the "Managing", the article would more obviously apply to other aspects (such as causes).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we drop "managing", we're right back to Violence (medicine). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Violence in a medical environment is a little different from Violence (medicine) and I agree is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nice.org.uk/CG25 - this is the English/Welsh guideline for acute violence in the medical context. Hope you find it useful. JFW | T@lk  11:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Article needs help
This article, Brittle asthma, has multiple issues I cannot find. Please leave me a talkback or reply on my page.--<font color="#008000">Microsoft 1000 <font color="#000080" face="High Tower Text">Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace!  20:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend condensing it to one or two lines and adding it to the main asthma page than putting in a redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger
As far as I am aware sexual assault and rape are the same thing yet we have two large pages on them. Having a merge discussion here Talk:Rape Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental_Meditation
Can some project members review the use of medical sources in this article ? The basic issue is outlined at this FTN dissussion, and particularly this subthread. Abecedare (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all the primary research and replace it with the one 2007 review. Add the conclusions of this review to the lead.  That should correct things. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Partial cross posting Fringe Theories Notice Board:


 * I would remind editors here that the core policy, WP:VERIFIABLE and guideline, WP:RS favour peer reviewed studies, and these are peer reviewed studies. Second, the studies are not being used to support a claim but are examples of research on a particular topic which is the topic of the article. No editor opinion trumps a policy, and especially a core policy nor does a guideline like the fringe theories guideline supercede a core policy. Finally, I would assume that in advising deletion of all of the studies editors here will have read the studies or at least looked at the abstracts.(olive (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC))


 * As has already been explained to you many times Little Olive Oil, the vast majority of these cites are non-compliant with WP:FRINGE. You've been asked several times to please review this section. Peer review, per this WP policy, is not the same as acceptance.


 * Also "Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds."


 * "Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality (see WP:REDFLAG)."


 * This is just some brief examples, but hopefully this clarifies this for you, so you don't have to keep going to different noticeboards and getting the same answer!--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, and this is critical per WP:MEDRS, that contrary to Littleolive oil's statement above, WP:RS favours peer reviewed sources and it most certainly does not favour peer reviewed studies. We have a policy that favours secondary sources over primary and we have WP:MEDRS that favours literature reviews over primary research. This affects both content and the weight given to the findings. Colin°Talk 16:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, wikipedia has no astrology entry? I guess at issue is the subjective term "exceptional." While I understand and probably agree largely with it, this suggests you are free to distort prominence based on perceived merit. But, of course, it depends on what claim you are making. Adding an adjective like "high-quality" would seem to just add more wiggle room for inflicting POV based on merit as editor is now free to subjectively assume quality relates to merit bias. It seems the prominence should provide credible rebuttals if indeed the prominence is high enough to merit inclusion and merit is as bad as wikipedian believes. Rather than making more types of reliable sources, it would seem to back off of wikijudge as much as possible, not expand it. Almost everytime someone argues against inclusion to protect the reader, it is possible to shorten the questionable text to fit into an overall article that just required more work to find reliable rebuttals. The uncited primary source criteria come up in many cases and just reflect general issues with notability and chery picking and don't require new policies to let merit judgements into the articles. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To avoid multiple parallel conversations, may I suggest that further comments be posted at the FTN thread or on the individual articles' talkpages. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nerdseeksblonde it all depends on what you are trying to support. If you are trying to claim health benefits you need good research as in this case.  If you are describing a social or political group the medical manual of style does not apply. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify, a core policy, WP:VERIFIABLE "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals"(olive (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
 * And another core policy, WP:NOR, says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. .. Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." These policies work together.   Will Beback    talk    22:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And you're not citing the journals; you're citing individual papers in these (not very well respected) journals. You might as well say that "newspapers" are approved by WP:V, and therefore Elvis is still alive, because The National Enquirer said so.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)