Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 61

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Wikidata descriptions are short (about half a sentence, and omit ’the’ or ‘a’ from the beginning) and contain the kind of information we'd put on a disambiguation page. You want something that is simple, direct, accurate, and neutral, because these will often get translated and will probably not be updated much. I just did a few, and it’s much easier than I thought it would be. There's no complicated structured data stuff; you just write down what the thing is and save the page. Here are the steps:

1. Go to Wikidata (click here for the main page: d:) Log in, if you want to.
2. Search for your favorite class of disease. Look at this sample.
3. See how some of them have a page title followed by a disambiguation-style description, and others just have a page title? Let’s add some missing descriptions.
4. Click something that is missing a description or that has a description that you want to improve. Look at the top of the page. You’ll see the name of the item (the page title), and immediately under it, either a short description (with an edit button) or a blank where there ought to be a short description (with a save button).
5. Edit or add a short description: "rare genetic disease”, “type of skin cancer”, “viral infection that can be prevented by vaccine”, or whatever.
6. Click the save button right next to the description field.
7. Optionally, fill in the “also known as” blanks, for all of those things that have multiple names.
8. Repeat hundreds or thousands of times.

These fields are used to direct editors to the right database records (so that articles about "cancer the crab" won't get improperly linked to "cancer the disease" in Wikidata), but they’re also used by other services to provide really basic information, e.g., to students in developing countries, who just need to know what ____ in their textbook is. Consequently, I think we should add this to the list of projects for the medical translation task force. It should be very easy work, especially if we keep the short descriptions simple.

I would really appreciate it if several of you would follow through my step-by-step directions and report back here about whether it worked and if you encountered any difficulties. If we can work out some good, simple directions, then we’ll post them some place useful. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. Including a ref might be a good idea. The NIH has great simple definitions of disease and could be used as refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right it was super easy to add. Not sure if a ref can be supplied? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You can add refs by clicking the add button in the gray-shaded area at the bottom of a particular statement/row entry. It looks like this: D:Q179452. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the reference there Seppi333. Also just looking very quickly through the linked list ovarian cancer and bladder cancer have very different descriptions, one of which is arguably wrong. There might be a tendency to do them too quickly, and if so they aren't going to be of much use. If the statements aren't referenced they're of no use for Wikipedia. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... just do a text search (ctrl-F in most browsers) for the term "reference" and you'll see it... there's 27 instances on that page. The actual reference(s) for each entry is/are hidden in a drop down menu next to "reference(s)". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, these are WP:DAB-type descriptions. We use this sort of unreferenced description on about 40,000 pages on wiki, plus about another 100,000 hatnotes. Sources aren't what makes something usable on wiki, especially when the information is obvious ("This is cancer-the-disease, not cancer-the-stars"). For many of these descriptions ("Kidney cancer is cancer of the kidneys"), if you need a source, you're probably doing it wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That's precisely where the problem lies. DABs are so often incorrect it almost frightens me. What does "of the kidneys" signify? A metastasis to the kidney? Because that isn't kidney cancer.

The links I gave say "bladder cancer – type of cancer originating from bladder tissue" and "ovarian cancer – type of cancer that affects the ovaries". The first one is correct, but the second one is so vague that it could easily be incorrectly interpreted. If we don't take care to make sure we're correct we're creating something entirely useless, and wasting our time – if even only a little of it. That's why I think we should reference these statements as well. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Mets to the kidneys would be "in" the kidneys, not "of" the kidneys.

Vagueness is not necessarily wrongness. When you only get half a sentence, and you need it to be understandable to a person with limited English or education (or to be useless, and therefore a waste of your time), then you may have to give up on providing all the details. If they need all the details, then they will have to click through to the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Kidney cancer is "cancer that developed from the kidneys" not in the kidneys. Yes it is subtle. Thus refs useful

Not being able to add refs is not the end of the world but unfortunate if it is the case. This sentence should be very similar to the first sentence of our article which should be reffed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely grasp how Wikidata is supposed to work, or perhaps this browser is making a mess of things, but

with some trial and error, I discovered by examining that https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P604 is the Wikidata property for the MedlinePlus ID, where one finds https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/$1.htm described as the "formatter URL" for that property. Combining that formatter URL with the value 000889 for the MedlinePlus ID statement under https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q172341 (Ovarian cancer), I constructed https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000889.htm which turns out to be the MedlinePlus url for Ovarian cancer. Now, that would be sufficient as a reference, but there doesn't seem to be a way to indicate that it is the one ref used for the description in English. I suppose it would be reasonable to flag that in the edit comment if all else fails, but it seems there should be a cleaner way. It appears that the error there originates with the use of the Disease ontology entry DOID2394 "ovarian cancer: A female reproductive organ cancer that is located_in the ovary". That entry cites but does not correctly reflect the NCI dictionary of cancer terms entry for Ovarian cancer, which is more elaborate and nuanced. I'd hate to think each entry will need this much exploration to fix. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Didn't know NCI had a dictionary, but that means it's public domain, so maybe we could just pull all their definitions?! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The NIH has lots of simple definitions. Some they are basing off of use after an appropriate review is done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I just add that almost every article on Wikipedia now has a link in the left-hand 'Tools' section called "Wikidata item'. Clicking that link takes you to the Wikidata entry corresponding to the article. For the curious, it's a quick way to check on whether Wikidata has got the correct info on your favourite articles. If it hasn't, then please correct it! You can't break anything because its a wiki and you quickly pick up on how the organisation of the data works. Wikidata has over 13,000,000 data items that anyone can edit and making sure that its medical content is accurate is going to need a lot of eyes. --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello once more, medical experts. This old AfC submission has plenty of references, but was never submitted for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Is this a notable topic, and if so are there changes that should be made before it's submitted?—Anne Delong (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

it seems to be promotional in nature, and that (if I am not mistaken) seems to be evidenced by the history section editor unfortunately, articles of this nature are detrimental to the bases of Wikipedia, because as opposed to giving information they are simply "self promoting" and have little interested in educating the reader beyond "go buy my product" (that's not to say it has no redeemable qualities it does), however I believe the pros are outweighed by the cons--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Accolades and Other Press" yup spam. Written by an account with the same name as the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made it disappear. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Some questions have come up about Cucurbita and studies used to discuss apparent health benefits in alternative medicine brought up at the fringe theories noticeboard [1]. The topic could use some input from other med folks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at actual article here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comments on Draft:SmartVest Airway Clearance System are welcomed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

of the 8 references it offers none that are secondary sources(within 5 years) per MEDRS, further it sounds somewhat promotional in nature, if im not mistaken--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear medical experts: I have removed the large section of original research from this draft article because it wasn't clear what Mr. Ebringer's role was, and I have added some book sources. On finding that this scientist is being heavily cited in books about alternative medicine, I am bringing the result here for a checkup by someone more medically knowledgeable. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• He seems notable to me based on the sources cited. Everymorning talk 12:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

yes the sources seem good (the first ref does not, it doesn't cite a page number)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the first source, since I couldn't read it to find a page number, and then accepted the article. Thanks for the help.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear medical experts: This old draft about a medical journal is about to be deleted. Is this a notable journal, and should the page be kept and improved instead?—Anne Delong (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

though im certain it is a good health-related journal, the information contained in it is little more than promotional.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see an impact factor or any selective databases when I looked at their website. Probably fails WP:NJOURNALS IMO. Everymorning talk 12:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

New journals rarely have established impact factors, so that by itself signifies little. The creator/editor logs in very infrequently, and has not edited since requesting the undeletion of that page. Their wikiemail is not enabled. It won't hurt much to leave it in draft space for a few months more in case they return. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay; I have postponed its deletion for six months. If the journal hasn't shown signs of notability by then the draft can be left to fade away.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

(sigh) Another one of these old drafts. Is this a notable topic? Are the references appropriate? To me it seems overly technical, but that could be fixed. Right now there's some coverage of this topic at Demethylase. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Can you link to the draft in question?

An article about KDM1A already exists at LSD1. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

right...on a side note the Demethylase references need updating (about 33 of 45 are beyond 5 years/MEDRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is better to have more up-to-date sources for any article, but this article is largely outside the scope of WP:MED and hence WP:MEDRS does not apply. Boghog (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I had linked the draft properly. Here it is: Draft:KDM1A. If the draft has useful content, I could either (1) add it to the LSD1 article and change the draft into a redirect, replacing the current redirect, or (2) if the draft has good information beyond that related to LSD1, I could replace the current redirect with an article. On the other hand, if the KDM1A isn't notable apart from LSD1, doing nothing will result in the draft being deleted shortly.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It does look like there is useful material in Draft:KDM1A that is not contained in LSD1. I will work on merging the useful material from the draft into the article. Just to reiterate, these types of gene/protein/enzyme articles are more within the scope of WP:MCB than WP:MED. Boghog (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I went ahead an merged in the useful material from the draft into the main space article. It would be OK to delete the draft. Boghog (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Boghog, for taking that on, even though the request was misplaced. Since you copied material from the draft, I didn't delete it, but moved it instead to LSD1 and redirected it to maintain the copyright attribution.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all,

Just dropping a line to let you know about a new course for which the instructor indicated they will be editing medical articles: Education Program:Miami University/Social Cognition (PSY 327) (Spring 2015). Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

sounds interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

hope you will understand me here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Excoriation_disorder#classification and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Impulse_control_disorder#excoriation_disorder and here for the classification: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en#/L98.1 "Other disorders of skin and subcutaneous tissue, not elsewhere classified" or here DSM-5 page 870 (i 'm french)Vatadoshu (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

so as opposed to the "classification" ICD, was there another issue?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa:

i say , since the DSM-5, excoriation disorder is classified as L98.1 ICD code . (before this DSM-5 it was classified F63 ICD code). i think it need to be change in the article.

please if you answer to me, write this model {{reply to|Username}}.

Vatadoshu (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

These are (some of the) the sources Google.Com uses for its medical quick infobox results.

• ScienceDirect
• Medscape
• Nature
• Mayo Clinic
• WebMD
• Lumiata
• VoxHealth

Government agencies

• National Institutes of Health (NIH)
• National Library of Medicine (NLM)
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
• National Cancer Institute (NCI)
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
• ClinicalTrials.gov

Google.co.uk does not provide this service.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

I could be wrong but we use ,(or have access) to those same sources (and there is always room for improvement)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessarily an improvement. I've laughed every time I've googled "Nicotine" and looked at their drugbox, I see:

"Drug class: Nicotinic receptor antagonist"

Note that nicotine is the prototypical agonist at the subclass of acetylcholine receptors which are named after where it binds: nicotinic receptors. It's an antagonist at exactly 2 of its receptors, while at the other 15 it acts as an agonist. I've repeatedly reported the error in their feedback tool and even provided a link to IUPHAR's nicotine entry, yet they just won't get their shit together. I've had the same problem with DrugBank, but that's a different issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes google is basic and some of the info is wrong. Check out Hep C. It is not actually secually transmitted really. And if it is at all it is very rare. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

if one looks closely, several google topics have problems--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I stumbled upon the Mixing of stimulants and depressants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article minutes ago via WP:STiki. Worth keeping? Flyer22 (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

the 1,2,4,5 references are beyond five years (MEDRS), the 3rd reference not a journal --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be content best discussed on the two relevant articles. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to notice or care when it disappears: special:diff/650775897/650776116. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, yeah, I was also asking about possible improvement of the article. I see that it has been deleted by GB fan at 8:35, 10 March 2015 per WP:G5: "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban." We didn't need the article. Like Matthew Ferguson 57 stated, this can be covered in the respective articles. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

well, the references needed work however I was unaware the article had come from a ban/block user--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah...I had initially WP:PROD'd the article, then marked it for WP:SPEEDY deletion once I noticed the creator was banned since I deleted all the content and he was the only contributor of article text. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be very good if someone from this project could have a look at this quite recently created article on a mysterious Sleeping illness in northern Kazakhstan. Right now it looks more like a news report then a encyclopaedic article. Thanks. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

the article in question cites 4 references of which none are review articles within 5 years (let alone journals to begin with), --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Are any of these FAs being maintained by a medical editor? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Nevermind, that was a stupid question.

@Garrondo: I'm going to be rewriting the subsections in Neurobiological effects of physical exercise#Implications in neurodegenerative disorders within the next few days - the section topics are your three FA's. It would be best to keep the text in the exercise article subsections and the disease articles harmonized, so I figured I should probably notify you about this in the event you'd like to update the articles once I'm done. I'm going to use at least 2 medical reviews from 2013-2015 to write each subsection (e.g., PMID 23962667 PMID 24367955 PMID 24473219 PMID 23492553 PMID 24132847). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Good news (AZ at least is long overdue). Please take care to preserve the Diberri/Boghog format for citation consistency (required for FAs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Garrondo has not edited since Sept 2013. I've been keeping a loose watch on the Parkinson's and Huntington's pages -- since I've signed on for the GA review of your article, in the process I'll give some thought to whether your material should be propagated. Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

ill look thru all 3 articles this weekend--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

A few of use keep an eye on them. Updating and simplification is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

To support medical claims here [2]. Further opinions requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I have been a Wikipedia editor for a while now. Recently I focus my efforts on adding images to the articles to help readers in understanding the concepts easier. Trust me, images help tremendously for readers to learn new subjects/concepts. Usually the articles I have edited are not related to medicines. Until recently after I visited the National Museum of Health and Medicine, I started touching some medical-related articles. To my surprise, the WP:MEDRS has a pretty high bar which I didn't realize. Thanks to seasoned editors (Doc James and Jytdog) to help me out to understand the guideline. So I consider myself to be a newbie here in the medical content arena.

As I mentioned, I work with images for articles. My experience outside of the medical content is that, in general, the inclusion of images lacks inline citations. While the text content of an article has great reliable sources as inline citations, but most of the time, no citations for images. I think this is a big verifiability loophole of Wikipedia. With no verifiability, readers/editors cannot be certain that the image in question is an actual depiction of the subject or concept. Similar question for image caption as well. We can see some examples even in the medical articles such as CT scan images of diagnoses without citations, etc. The image use policy is strong on copyright concerns but weak on verifiability.

I would like to also share my experience working with images. I think it is much easier to find reliable sources for concepts or textual descriptions. It is much harder to find references with visual descriptions. Most of the time I have to resort to use primary sources (which are allowed in article content per general RS) because non of secondary sources would include a picture or "visually" describe things in such a way that we can use as an inline citation for an image. My believe is that if there is no secondary source out there, primary sources that can convey visual description is better than not having any citation at all. To me, images without citations can easily become WP:OR.

Now, let get back to the medical content. With such high bar on references (e.g. a review article on a science/medical journal indexed by PubMed), as we know, those articles mostly contain text, some graphs and tabular information. It is harder to find images that can be used as a reference from such articles. Now we are back to a decision on what should be done. Either we stand by the same high-bar for image citations or we just allow images to be included without citation at all. The former is one extreme in which we could deprive readers ability to understand hard concepts (biomedical is hard to most people) because we cannot include images without high-quality references in the same standard as MEDRS. On the other extreme, we let the loophole exists and hope that the editors include images with correct depictions of the subjects/concepts without a way to verify them. If you ask me, I would think somewhere between the two extremes is the best approach.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this. Z22 (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks. We are aware of this. While one can paraphrase the ideas in a bit of text one cannot paraphrase a picture. Thus we are in the situation that one must often take the uploaders word. Pictures however do get reviewed by the many medical experts at WPMED for accuracy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested in what folks have to say about what is an appropriate way to source captions for a picture uploaded to WP. It seems to me that ~most~ any effort to relate something about of source A to some feature B in the image (or the whole image), will be WP:SYN. What is the acceptable way to source captions for self-generated images? Thanks! 19:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

as Doc James indicated Pictures however do get reviewed by the many medical experts at WPMED for accuracy, in regards to WP:SYN - "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article this seems to be the rule to follow--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Images should be sourced, particularly graphs and charts, because it's important that they receive the same treatment as the rest of the text. I've seen more than a few examples where the graphs are out of date, incorrect, or from an unreliable source. In terms of other images (eg symptoms, pathophysiological mechanisms etc) I guess attribution is key, done in the actual image data is best.

If you're referring to using images as references, well, that is a great idea and I think it's particularly relevant to anatomical articles, which I edit a fair bit. Often an image shows something obvious like A connecting to B, but it is too obvious for a book to state in the written text. I don't see a problem with using images as references, so long as we treat them the same as other references. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course the data within an image needs a ref. But many images do not have data within them Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested in what folks have to say about what is an appropriate way to source captions for a picture uploaded to WP - the information in the caption, which is meant to describe the image. It seems to me that the only way to avoid a mess of SYN is for the source for the caption to be the same source from which the image came. But what do you, do for say, a photograph taken by the editor? Or even, say, a medical image? On what authority is the caption written? Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This recent posting by the OP is interesting and I think OK, since the photo is of a mounted museum piece with the label of what it is, in the image. But this photo, which was the image, sourcing (please do note the sources on that page), and captioning that drew my attention to the OP as a potential paid editor (I've decided he/she is not, after discussions on their Talk page), is - to me - problematic. The OP used the same caption and sourcing in several articles, like this. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree the first photo is good the second less so. This gives little information [3] and while it might be suitable on one page about the device is not suitable on other pages IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you (or does anybody) have any insight into PAG or other discussions, about how to appropriately caption and source the second one? That is the question. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to start by examining the point of a caption. The guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. First of all, it is not to describe an image - that is the job of alt text. A caption should normally expand on the reason why the image is there in he first place, and that is to provide information visually instead of having to make a description in the text of the article. The best images will make their point self-evidently. Others may need some explanation to the reader: look at what happens when the image Doc James mentions above (File:EYE-SYNC eye-tracking analyzer.JPG) is used in an article: Eye tracking#Optical tracking - the caption needs four lines just to explain what you can't see in it! In medical articles an image might be used so that the lay reader can get some idea of the appearance of signs of a condition, or perhaps to show the position on or in the body where a condition has effect. Surely the caption should be saying something like "A rash caused by meningitis doesn't disappear under pressure." or "A very prominent wedge-shape area of airspace consolidation in the right lung is characteristic of bacterial pneumonia." so that it expands or explains the point that the image has been chosen to illustrate. Once the image and caption are understood to be a substitute for "a thousand words", it should remain only to see what the source would be for those thousand words. If you can't find one, then you might need to ask is the image contributing to the article, or is it just decoration? --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

precisely, any image should augment information, not confuse (by being a decoration)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Z22,

For the information you're after, you want to read the other page (guideline) about images. The WP:PERTINENCE section is the most important. In medical terms, the key point is that the image should look like the thing that you're trying to describe. A blob under a microscope need not be proven in an independent reliable publication to really, truly be whatever bacteria (etc.) you're trying to illustrate; it need only look like it. Editors figure out whether it looks like it by taking their common sense and best judgment to their favorite web search engines and seeing what other images are so described.

This cuts in both directions: if it looks like the thing, then you can use it, even if it turns out that it's not actually the thing in question, but if it doesn't look like the thing, then you can't use it, even if you've got a stack of top-quality sources swearing that it really is that thing.

We don't have images for the purpose of proving that bacteria exist. We have them to show readers what the bacteria look like, in ways that can't be done through words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

My 2¢: all diagrams need to be referenced on the image page and its caption needs to be referenced if it says anything that isn't stated and cited in the article text. The only non-diagram image in which I've encountered a WP:V issue is File:Amphetamine Freebase.png; I decided to just use that in amphetamine because I doubt anyone can tell a vial of clear water apart from a vial of pure free base amphetamine in a picture, so it probably doesn't matter anyway. If an image is questionable as to whether it depicts its topic and you can't contact the uploader, then just don't use it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Assuming an image is of sufficient quality, one notable benefit to citing your images is that you sometimes receive emails from professors or other authors requesting permission for or providing notice of reuse of your image (e.g., I've learned that File:ΔFosB.svg is being used for a college-level psychology & behavioral neuroscience textbook). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There have been a lot of headlines recently about what is supposed to be the world's first successful penis transplant, which was performed last December in South Africa. For whatever reason, it is only just being reported on now. [4] [5] The weird thing is that there were media reports about "the world's first penis transplant" back in 2006 as well, in China. [6] The difference was that that penis was later rejected. [7] So should we describe the new South African transplant as the first successful one, or not? Everymorning talk 19:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont see why not, if it was successful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've added the section "History" to the Phalloplasty#History article, can someone take a look at that, and consider expanding the section, and including it in the penis transplantation article as a pre-cursor technology? Thanks. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This article was not previously listed under WP:MED, which I feel is inappropriate. Appears to have been promoted to GA status without reference to MEDRS and MEDMOS, but most of refs seem ok. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Ping Seppi333 if interested. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

the #20 reference is not a review article within 5 years, otherwise looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll go through and copyedit it sometimes soon; I agree it needs some work. Based upon what I remember from the sources I've used, it's associated far more with oral intake of impure illicit methamphetamine (e.g., caustic impurities include lye and lithium battery acid, depending upon how it's synthesized) than the meth's adverse effects. Dextromethamphetamine (recreational isomer) actually has weaker peripheral effects than both amphetamine isomers (although levomethamphetamine has stronger peripheral effects than both), though moderately stronger CNS effects. I gather that would make bruxism (CNS-mediated effect) worse but involve less xerostomia (I'm assuming this is related to the peripherally-mediated drying effect of substituted amphetamines mucous membranes).
It needs copyediting to reflect this, though I need to go back through the sources I used to write methamphetamine first. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree a medical topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

[8]

Am trying to clarify the definitions of low, moderate, and high Wikipedia use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe they gave their conclusion early on Wikipedia is an open web-based encyclopaedia and is therefore more responsive to changes in knowledge than conventional encyclopaedias. Without a doubt, Wikipedia is one of the most dominant online reference sources, gaining in presence, quality, and content [3] - also for retrieving health information [10,12,13]. Not only the lay public but health professionals, researchers, and medical students depend on it as a resource for medical information if im not mistaken they did seem to indicate a much higher percentage of male use (except in "low" use)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The options for use in their survey were "1-5x/week", "Daily", and "1-5x/month", and "Never" - I'd guess the first three are high, moderate, and low use respectively. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That no one picked "never" I find hard to believe. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Too bad the paper doesn't mention specific articles with the errors or false information they discuss... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

yes it would have been better if they were more specific--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Potentially false. Any given student merely thought it was false, no other details or evidence that there were indeed errors, and in which articles, as you already point out. They provide the questionnaire which were used, and these data were not collected. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If I haven't overlooked it, the authors failed to indicate or to ask whether a specific language version of Wikipedia was considered. Since the students were asked at universities in Germany, Austria and Norway, they might (primarily) use the German, Norwegian or English Wikipedia. --Leyo 17:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

that is yet another good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the deletion of CoD categories. Please share your opinions, either here or at the discussion page. Personally, I find these categories being of major importance from a medical perspective, as well as being defining to the individual. Any thoughts? — Gaute ^{chat - email - sign} 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe CoD categories are very important, as the posting editor has indicated not just from a medical perspective but for various other reasons--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Researchers have found that e-cigarettes produce negligible levels of toxins.

• Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes—BMJ
• Comparison of select analytes in aerosol from e-cigarettes with smoke from conventional cigarettes and with ambient air—Science Direct

—Wavelength (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

not completely,Small but measurable quantities of 5 of the 55 HPHCs tested were found in three of the e-cigarette aerosol samples at 50–900 times lower levels than measurable in the cigarette smoke samples,(2nd ref) were found, the first reference dictates similar result--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

that source (PMID 23467656) is a WP:PRIMARY source and the 2nd source is just popular media, hyping it. Per WP:MEDREV we don't react til that is discussed in secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(I guess you haven't seen the one below?), I will have to second that,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a new publication. We have lots of secondary sources on this topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• These studies are bound to be cited by secondary sources later anyway, especially with one of them appearing in the BMJ. Thanks for bringing them to our attention. -A1candidate 00:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone now if a better image exists? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking for an image of Cushing syndrome. Unable to find one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia app (at least Android, maybe iPhone) has a feature that will let readers tweet an image and a chosen sentence out of articles. Here's an example: https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman/status/567871219044782080

I know that some of you are active on Twitter as a way of sharing medicine-related information, so if this appeals to you, then you might want to get the app and try it out. (Also: high quality, high-resolution lead images!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

this is great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

[9] this came out not too long ago, I deem it a good read, this individual was both a fighter and a victim (BTW it was also placed at Ebola virus epidemic in west africa talk)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Can some MEDRS regulars comment at Talk:Burzynski_Clinic#A_few_words_of_clarification. There's some edits to hide or downplay information about studies where all of the patients died. Second Quantization (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there any medical claims based on primary sources? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

am watching the article and have made some revisions; more to come. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Maintained has been nominated for deletion here. In checking to see where it was used, I noticed a lot of biomedical articles on the list, so I'm posting this link here for broader input. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi All

I've just uploaded three hundred or so images from the UK Department for International Development to Commons here, many are related to medicine and there are a large amount of images specific to Ebola treatment. It would be really helpful if you could help categorise and use them in articles. I'm hoping wide usage on Wikipedia articles can encourage them to make more images available. Here are a few examples:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

the Ebola virus epidemic in west Africa article, might very well benefit from your images, thank you very much--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa

Really happy to hear they will be useful, I've now added around 700 more to the same category that were previously uploaded by another user. If anyone could help with categorisation that would be super.

Thanks again

Mrjohncummings (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you I can help with some categorization and may use more images now that more are available.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I did a little categorization and inserted a few into articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The study is Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics. The good news is that it's open access, the bad news is its conclusion: "...most articles had knowledge deficiencies, were not accurate, and were not suitable for medical students as learning resources." Everymorning talk 17:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

so while there saying its not suitable, their also saying Two methods were used in calculating readability. Table 2 shows the readability scores (mean ± SD) of each article calculated by Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Readability Coleman-Liau index. For the first method, the readability was in the range of 9.4 ± 1.8–22.6 ± 10.7, whereas the second method recorded a range of 10.0 ± 2.6–19.6 ± 8.3. A strong correlation was found between the scores calculated by the two methods (r2 = 0.744, P < 0.001). The scores obtained from the two methods indicate that Wikipedia articles were geared to a college level rather than to the public,.. so therefore its college level reading, but not suitable for students(that seems to be in conflict as a statement)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Students are able to read it" is not the same thing as "students should be reading it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

my response to that, would be consistent with the 5 points Blue Rasberry and Doc James cited--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, and rather better informed as to how WP works than most research. But their 2 mentions of "administrators" (who they think rate articles) are wrong. The belief that WP comes "at the top" of search results, referred to casually & cited to several papers, is surely outdated for google at least - it certainly is for cancer articles. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1. The study assumes that Wikipedia should be judged as a whole. They compare the quality of very developed highly trafficked articles with stub articles on minor topics and getting no traffic. The presumption is that readers cannot discriminate between developed and undeveloped Wikipedia articles, and that they read hypertext as they would text on paper. In my opinion, most people could check Alveolar lung disease (archive) and determine that they should click through to other articles for more information.
2. They made no reasonable attempt to list drawbacks on their research methods.
3. Part of their criticism of the articles is, just like for 10+ years, "Although the number of editors/authors involved in the 40 articles looks impressive, there was no information available about these authors and their experience. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit and make changes to articles; thus, the authors are not necessarily doctors or respiratory physicians or academics specialized in an area related to the respiratory system", and that statement is part of the research insight from which they drew conclusions
4. "There were deficiencies in the use of educationally useful images/illustrations and tables to explain information given indepth" Whatever else Wikipedia is doing I expected that there would be broad agreement that the media collection in Commons is impressive. If this is not the case then I think this part of the deficiency is being corrected as time passes more quickly than other problems.
5. " Details of treatment and evidence-based information available from major clinical trials, guidelines/position statements released from major societies/associations, such as the American Association for Respiratory Care, American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, British Thoracic Society, and Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, were not mentioned." They are seeking data from primary research and looking for brand name endorsement, which does not always happen on Wikipedia.

I appreciate the study and this like all other research contributes to driving improvement of Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It is another poor piece of research which unfortunately shows that the researchers do not know how to operate a Wiki and that peer review is no guarantee of high quality:

1. The primary issue with this paper is that there was no blinding and no comparator. What they did was take Wikipedia articles and ask medical students to rate how reliable they thought they were while applying some "statistical veneer" to the efforts in the hopes of getting it published / making it seem more true. eMedicine was deemed to be correct rather than considered as a comparator.
2. Per "no information available about these authors and their experience" All they had to do was look at the talk page of these articles or the edit history and they would see mine and User:Jfdwolff name a lot which if they clicked on it would give our credentials
3. Per "deficiencies in the use of educationally useful image" Yup please contribute some images under an open license. We are all volunteers and this is a work in progress.
4. Per "guidelines/position statements... were not mentioned" Ah completely false. At least 6 of the articles extensively summarize guidelines and positions statements. Makes me doubt if they actually read the articles in question.
5. The one positive thing about this paper is the academic world is taking us very seriously. They are now asking is Wikipedia as good as Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. While the answer is "no" this paper does not provide any support for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• just asking... so nothing for us to learn from this, however flawed is is? Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It does not appear to mention what "errors" Wikipedia has. If there was a list of the "errors" we could review them and fix them if actually issues. The comment that medical students want more information on pathophysiology is false. Medical students want more clinically relevant info :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We can learn a lot from these types of studies. Some of what we learn will help us improve articles, e.g., we learn that many articles have limited images. Well, a whole lot have been uploaded to Commons in the last 6 months or so, so maybe we need to form an expedition and go find them. Some of what we learn will not help us improve articles, e.g., that they think that the clean-up tags on pages are added by administrators. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• So, who's going to write a response pointing out the inaccuracies and methodological flaws? A solid, collaboratively-written letter might have a decent chance of appearing in a later print issue. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
  credit› 11:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• What the authors of this study expected was a type of encyclopedia similar to Scholarpedia - Free, peer-reviewed, and authored by notable medical experts. If one were to compare Wikipedia's article on Cardiac arrhythmia and Scholarpedia's corresponding article, one would find that:

1. Scholarpedia's (SP) lede section is more concise than that of Wikipedia (WP)

SP: "Cardiac arrhythmia is the condition in which the heart's normal rhythm is disrupted" (short and concise)

WP: "Cardiac arrhythmia (also known as irregular heartbeat) is any of a group of conditions in which the electrical activity of the heart is irregular, faster, or slower than normal" (Too long, didnt read)

2. SP's images are of much higher quality than WP's

SP: Most images are dynamic, containing animation and/or links to external 3D applet. All figures are appropriately linked to the main text

WP: Two still images, not very useful and randomly placed in the article. None of the images are linked to the main text.

3. SP appears more reliable than WP

SP: The page is co-authored by 3 medical experts, with names and affiliations clearly displayed at the beginning. All subsequent edits are made by approved contributors and prominently displayed in the article.

WP: The sections on "Diagnostic approach" and "Management" are supproted by 0 refs. Article history shows a persistent and hidden pattern of edit-warring between established editors and anonymous IP addresses.

We could learn from our mistakes and improve the way we present our articles, or we could simply ignore the criticisms and dismiss them as inaccurate and/or methodologically flawed. Based on what I've experienced working on this project and judging from some of the comments above, I honestly don't think anything will change in the near future. -A1candidate 13:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes we publish stuff that is a work in progress. They don't. I did not say that Wikipedia is as good as Harrisons. In fact I said it wasn't. Scholarpedia's license is CC BY SA NC so not compatible with use.

The issue with this paper is it does not mention specific fixable problems of which there are lots. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

All of medicine is work in progress. Wikipedia is not just worse than Harrison's, it is (imo) worse than UpToDate, Medscape, WP:DynaMed, and many other competitors. The main issue is the lack of peer review. The specific fixable problems are too many to be considered and out of the article's scope. -A1candidate 19:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you have to back up that opinion, and if that is your view, why are you here? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate your statements cannot be considered logical because there is nothing to base it on-your opinion- nothing else. having said that, if you feel there are points where we as a project can improve then that would be constructive (not the other way around), the reason why this particular study falls into question have been cited above if you differ from those opinions then lets work with each other--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate is entitled to his/her opinion, just like you are entitled to yours. Any person who is "here to write medical textbooks" is in the wrong place anyway.

It's possible that my opinion on these "Is an encyclopedia a graduate-level textbook?" articles might involve the need for authors of these articles to spend a couple of minutes looking up the words encyclopedia and textbook in a dictionary. (Next month, we should all expect to learn that a newspaper is not a textbook, either.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The Scholarpedia article is a fascinating contrast, and no doubt an excellent effort in terms of what it is trying to do, but it treats the subject as though it was astronomy (another of Scholarpedia's very few subject areas) and hardly has any information as to how the condition might be treated. You can complain about WP's "sections on "Diagnostic approach" and "Management"" but at least we actually try to cover these rather important topics [PS - slightly unfair; there is a little info on treatment in the last few sections]. Scholarpedia seems to be in effect a collection of academic articles on a small range of specialized topic, very well done and with absolutely no concessions to audiences without advanced technical understanding. That's not an encyclopedia. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• The author of this study, Samy Azer, seems to have published another study about the reliability of Wikipedia last year. That one also concluded that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information for medical students," but was focused on gastroenterology and hepatology articles. [10] Everymorning talk 16:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • While we do have readership. These papers are not going to stop medical students from using Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I think we can look forward to a series of these separate papers on pulmonary content, GI content, and so on, according to the principle of minimum publishable units. :P MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Is anyone interested in writing a rebuttal to this paper for the signpost? They have requested one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As Wikipedia's resident pulmonologist, I have a vested interest in many of those articles. I am in the process of assessing and commenting on the paper. (As an aside, I am amused to see Hasty's paper referenced alongside Heilman's paper.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

im certain you will speak for all of us--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Valoem (talk · contribs) is requesting to move this back to mainspace, so opinions are sought over at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. I'd argue that this has medical/psychological implications, though others' views may vary.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I voted, and it seems an important topic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Physicians know that recently vaccinated individuals can infect other individuals (both vaccinated and unvaccinated).

• Public Health Officials Know: Recently Vaccinated Individuals Spread Disease—CNBC (Tuesday, March 3, 2015) (23 references)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

the media often will say one thing and then another, that is why any discussion is best based on something more substantial than the news--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Are all the 23 references (below the article) not substantial?

—Wavelength (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

first of all, that is a press release from a fairly crackpot foundation Weston A. Price Foundation - not a news report from CNBC. so, misrepresented. It is not reliable for much of anything except what that foundation thinks. secondly, the headline and section header is hilariously alarmist and gives succor to anti-vaccine nutjobs (nice job, spokeslady, saying the measles outbreak could have been started by a vaccinated kid. sure ~maybe~ but if parents got their kids vaccinated, we wouldn't have outbreaks like we have had. see herd effect.) yes, per the many refs, the medical community already knows that people who have been vaccinated with live vaccines can spread virus (that is why they are warned to be careful) and secondly, that vaccinized people can harbor virus. the key thing is that the vaccinated people (mostly, as nothing is perfect) don't get sick, and neither do other people who are vaccinated. oh, and their point that healthy people fight off disease better - also not a big revelation. blech. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is sort of true but need a proper ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have very strong opinions about vaccinations, except they're only useful if you're under the age of 10, a pandemic is approaching, or if you're travelling to some exotic places. -A1candidate 00:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Or maybe after a bat bite as it keeps you from dying a horrible death from rabies (I have had bats that have bitten people test positive). Or maybe during a hepatitis A outbreak. Or maybe if you work with people who have hepatitis B. Or to keep you from dying of tetanus.
  • Agree they are slightly less needed now in the developed world because they have worked so incredibly well (smallpox was once the leading cause of death in the United States and a few shots often work for the rest of peoples lives like with polio).
  • Now that we so rarely see people dying from vaccine preventable diseases in the developed world much of the population takes them and herd immunity for granted. Hopefully humanity is not so stupid that the developed world needs to become like the developing world again before we re realize the benefits of vaccines. Hopefully intelligence will allow us to learn from other peoples misfortune and the past. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

well said--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This ref sums it up 99% or greater decline in deaths due to diseases prevented by vaccines recommended before 1980 were shown for diphtheria, mumps, pertussis, and tetanus. Nothing in medicine even comes close. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ensuring routine access to pertussis, influenza, pneumococcal, and zoster vaccines can reduce vaccine-preventable disease morbidity and mortality among adults, and may decrease disease transmission to other vulnerable populations... very informative article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've heard that chlorinated water has saved more lives, but it's been around longer and is more widespread, so it might depend upon how you count. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if you include smallpox. But likely splitting hairs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe it comes down to prevention, irrespective of source (vaccine , (Cl
₂), etc)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This user is continueing to add primary sources from the 1980s [11] Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

perhaps a warning for improper referencing, should he/she continue without regard for rules after warning, a temporary block--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Still continueing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I reiterated MEDRS on his/her (talk), with a link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

just want to note that methadone is a mess and needs a good work over - it is bloated, has some inaccuracies, and sources are old. i've had this on my to-do list for a while and keep not getting to it. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

this is an important opioid/analgesic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please help review Draft:Self-adaptive wound dressing (2) - is it a notable topic yet? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

the text seems fine, (Overview, Technology, Effectiveness)...the references might depend too heavily on "Lipincott"...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? I don't see any "Lipincott" references at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

right..if you notice references 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 say Lipincott e-Conference center.com (on the upper left hand-side[12] as the source...I think its notable as an article (text)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes the publisher! I was looking at authors. Those sources are conference papers from an annual conference "series", is that a problem for acceptability of the article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

good question...I think you may want to get a second opinion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

We need secondary sources that are at least pubmed indexed. Are any of the refs of that article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A consensus opinion about this draft would be appreciated, thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete We need proper sources. None were provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought we might want to make friends with these people http://alsuntangled.com/

they are volunteer doctors who take on common questions about ALS (people tweet questions or post on their website) and they write review articles answering them, and then publish them. See: http://alsuntangled.com/completed.html Nice right? like us some. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I like there evidence based reviews. They could likely use summarizes on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

looks good,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

While creating a disambig page for double penis, I found that we currently have articles on both bifid penis and diphallia. Are these two names for the same condition, or two distinct conditions? If the former, they should be merged: if the latter, can someone please clarify the exact difference between the two conditions in both articles? Also, should the normal condition of bifid penis in some other species be split out from the article about the abnormal condition in humans, into its own article? -- The Anome (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

apparently diphallia is a much more complicated congenital disorder, which springs a number of co-existing problems in the individual in question ( renal, vertebral, hindgut, anorectal). While bifid is relegated to the area in question, and no further than that (congenitically speaking).... in regards to the last question its not clear, what the exact question is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed the cause of death in many articles about people is stated to be cardiac arrest; often featured prominently in the article's infobox. However, cardiac arrest is the mechanism of death and not its cause. Should this technical point be corrected, or should we just let sleeping dogs lie and leave the colloquialisms in place? And if we wish to correct this, then how? Some problems I see are 1) discrepancies between what coroners from different nations are allowed to use to describe "cause of death", for instance some countries allow "old age" whereas others do not, 2) the unreliability of news sources to correctly use terms like "mechanism" vs. "manner" vs. "cause" of death, and 3) the lack of access to official coroner reports to find the actual cause of death to replace the current info in articles. Thoughts? TypingAway (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

the #1 and #3 points you raise are difficult to get around due to, as you say "nation" in question (which also involves the corresponding coroners office).In regards to the media, this wikiproject uses review article, so I would think they are a non-factor--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

We typically do rely on the media for the cause of somebody's death -- medical review articles are rarely available. Anyway, I don't think we have any realistic choice here, in cases where no autopsy was performed. I would definitely be opposed to changing "cause of death" to "mechanism of death" in those infoboxes, if anybody has any such idea. Looie496 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

question #2 (from the poster) reads mechanism vs manner vs cause correct usage, when a primary or secondary source is made available we in fact do use journals (or WHO, CDC) as has been the case with the ebola outbreak in west Africa and evacuated cases[13]. Now then, that in fact "cardiac arrest" as a cause of death may take longer (or in some cases maybe never) as opposed to a virus, bacteria, head injury, is a different story, we are suppose to follow Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

For medical content here. Wondering if others have opinions [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

commented there. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

seems important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is currently doing a good strong cleanup of that article, which has been subject to lots of school projects and crufty edits and has long been in need of love... hooray for Sandy!Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

looks great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

After working all morning, I have not made even a tiny dent in all the work that is needed there. There are still tons of primary sources, and worse-- based on the reviews that I've read and added to the "Further reading" section, the article is still woefully inaccurate and outdated, and days, weeks, months of work will be needed to render anything useful. There are many good, full-text reviews available, but it will take a sustained effort to incorporate them and get all the crap replaced by good text. Ugh, what a dreadful, dreadful article. If anyone is interested, pick one of the recent reviews and have at it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

very interesting topic (I commented on page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Kauffman–White classification states it is a classification system only for Salmonella, but Proteus (bacterium) mentions it as a method to classify it as well. Anyone knowledgeable? Also the KW classification article could use some love, currently it has citations to the German Wikipedia. Possibly a little fringe, but I'm putting it out here before I have a stab axing the uncited content. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

the 8 proteus (bacterium) references are somewhat dated if im not mistaken, as per definition of Kaufman/white-[15] seems to define it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Concerning edits occurring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Heading of marketing of MST Services is paying someone to write that article. I trimmed issues priously but more likely needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

very much, COI--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#17:05:56.2C 22 March 2015 review of submission by MedResearchSF where the author of Draft:Bioelectronic Medicine needs help beyond the capabilities of (most) regular AFC reviewers. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

the article cites 27 references...none are reviews that fall within a 5 year range, (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa Thanks for replying, but posting here isn't really useful, you're just preaching to the choir. Please respond directly at the AFC help page where the draft author can find it easily. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

no problem... done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Quality Of Sources. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Backstory is at Talk:Virgin cleansing myth#Blood Libel And Racism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

seems to be an interesting article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

In its current state, I recommend not believing anything in that article unless you've personally checked the source to see that it is reliable (relative to the type of statement being made) and that the source actually verifies the statement. Flyer has noted a couple of sources that might be useful for expanding parts of the article. I've noted some others on the talk page, mostly about the fact that this idea started several centuries before AIDS was defined, and that it didn't start in Africa. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

ill check the sources--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

if you look at references 1-14, none are review articles within 5 years (some aren't even journals), the only one that approximates is ref #10 (though not clear if review or primary),--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Which doesn't matter, because there is almost no biomedical information in the article beyond "raping children doesn't cure HIV infection", which is WP:BLUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Prevalence section is also subject to WP:MEDRS in part, but WhatamIdoing is clearly correct that not much of the article is subject to WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Just passing on a thing. We just had our very first request through the CRUK information nurse helpline to edit a Wikipedia page. It was from a survivor of a very rare leukaemia, who felt that the current page on the topic was unnecessarily negative and 'filled him with doom and gloom' (he's survived for 14 years - somewhat of an outlier given the overall statistics for the disease in general!). He didn't feel he was qualified to edit the page himself, hence the request to us. If anyone felt like having a look at the page with this in mind, that would be great - I'm not aware of any current refs that would substantially change its content but perhaps the tone could be a little less brutal in places to bear the newly-diagnosed in mind. Cheers, HenryScow (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Plasma cell leukemia (for it is he) is pretty short, with no refs later than 2009, 2 cn tags & a 2010 refs needed tag. Plasma cell leukemia: consensus statement on diagnostic requirements, response criteria and treatment recommendations by the International Myeloma Working Group is probably the place to start, and there are other papers. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ill take a look at it over the weekend--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Excellent link - thank you! It appears that the current article's tone about prognosis pretty accurately reflects the relevant section of that working group report (e.g. from that abstract: "The clinical course is aggressive with short remissions and survival duration.") though the precise numbers could be updated. Exceptional good outcomes should not skew our article's content unless secondary sources express similar optimisim. -- Scray (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that article is properly presented with 2 references to give an opinion(even if more references were not to change the overall tone of the subject matter)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If the information wouldn't change, then just one reliable source is sufficient. Encyclopedia articles aren't curated collections of sources, so the number of sources itself isn't a good measure of quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

your correct, however there should be a standard while "x" numbers of references may be too much, 2 is a little short, will look at MEDRS to see if it has information to this respect--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The article Cloves syndrome has been nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloves syndrome. Is there a notability guideline for diseases? Everymorning talk 23:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

that's a shame there seem to be two good review articles on it [16] and [17] (maybe more)...there is this Wikipedia:Notability--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Template talk:Suicide response#Requested move 19 March 2015. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

interesting subject (every opinion counts)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

as you may have heard by now the UK became the first country to legalize this practice [18] , should the article section on "ethics", add a subsection dealing with its possible legalization in other countries? why or why not?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

argh. see In_vitro_fertilisation#Cytoplasmic_transfer Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

interesting, several points to think about 1. with mitochondrial DNA (effect)...2.the baby's genes has elements of three parents--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that an Ethics section is appropriate for this subject. Legalization status in general should have a paragraph, but any long list of countries should be a separate article. Whether to put these sections in Cytoplasmic transfer, Three-parent baby, or merge the two articles is a more difficult question. Mamyles (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Article has already been deleted once, at the creator's request (after it was redirected IIRC). It's now back, and is a weird grab-bag of topics that made me think 'someone's posting their term paper as an article'. Creator's userpage suggests exactly that, except the account's being shared by five people. Could use some guidance from someone who's had experience with student editing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Student editing is rather beside the point - per WP:ROLE policy, shared accounts aren't permitted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes. But these people are students who don't seem to have gotten much direction before starting their project, doing no harm beyond writing an article that's not that great, but above average by the standards of medical articles written by students. They should get their own accounts, read WP:MEDRS, write their articles in a sandbox, get linked up with the education program, etc. etc. Engagement with the educational angle would be much more effective than a block and an impersonal lecture about an unintuitive rule. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree if they are students then perhaps it would be best to engage them, (accounts, read MEDRS) than to block--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Zinc after all does play a rather useful role in the brain, although zinc is a dark horse. Student editing in itself shouldn't be discouraged. They shouldn't be forced to link up with any education program or do any other red tape bureaucratic work that regular users don't need to do. --IO Device (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Deleted all the primary sources one. Gave advice and now they have added them all again. Anyone else interested? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirected it Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Been restored. Would be useful for others to weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I userfied it and left them a note, which I suppose I should have done in the first place. Hopefully whoever is giving these assignments will clue in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Ayurveda that is relevant to this project. The question is essentially, should WP present the information from sources that the modern practice of ayurveda is pseudoscience. Input there from knowledgeable editors with experience in articles on medical topics would be useful. Please note the editing restrictions on the article itself and on those on talk page discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

this is an interesting topic, (however, be aware of the editing restrictions on the article and talk page).thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

i don't see any RfC there. Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

me neither(I wonder why...)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry not technically an RfC see this section for a discussion with a defined question. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

be aware of the editing restrictions on the article and talk page thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I recently submitted an article on bioelectronic medicine that was rejected. It was suggested that someone on this talk page could assist me through the process of improving it in order to get it approved. The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bioelectronic_Medicine I've already removed the 'offending' reference noted by the first reviewer as well as made some other changes that I thought would both tighten the article and improve accuracy - but beyond that, I'm pretty stuck. Any advice/guidance/suggestions/specific editorial help is greatly appreciated. With despair and humility, MedResearchSF (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

reference 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,13,15,17,18,19,21,22,23,24,25,26 are not MEDRS compliant (references 2, 10,12,14,16 may however in many cases its because only the abstract/or summary was available)...furthermore reference #20 (irrespective of primary/secondary) is curious as to its correlation with "endotoxemia" but may be the only good reference I see...I believe you should get a second opinion.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Other metabolic pathology has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

interesting template (give your opinion)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI for psychiatry editors: I've been finding dead links to American Journal of Psychiatry and Psychiatric Services articles and broken DOIs for Psychiatric Services articles. Looks like American Psychiatric Publishing recently migrated their online publications from Silverchair to Atypon without providing redirects. Other resources at psychiatryonline.org may have broken links, too. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Shelley V. Adams I was looking here, [19] but I don't see it marked as so ?(this may help Wikipedia:Link_rot)...for DOI maybe this [20] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've recently brought the Herd immunity article from start-class to B, and believe it could be GA. I'd like to know what could further be done to improve the article. Comments can be made here or on the article's talk page. ComfyKem (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the work bringing it up to B! Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

the article looks good however there are "19 references" that lie outside the 5 year/review of MEDRS you may want to look for newer refs...IMO... [21] [22] these two reviews deal with herd immunity, these books [23] [24] [25] deal with herd immunity as well, you might find them useful...I hope this helps. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The usage and primary topic of Inoculator is under discussion, see talk:Inoculator -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

important discussion (give opinion)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[26] very recent article I deem this a good read, enjoy.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A good read indeed. I hope someone in the lay media picks this up and rewrites it from the paradigm of patients, as a message to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children -- that their decision has effects far beyond their own families, and its consequences are more complicated than simply leaving their children unprotected from preventable diseases. Not that it would have any measurable effect on a group whose beliefs are immune to facts; but possibly worth the effort. I might do it myself. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

When I read "social distancing", I thought of the many news stories like these, rather than laws saying that unvaccinated kids can be excluded from school during an outbreak. (Kind of common sense, no? If there is measles at school, and your kids can't have the measles vaccine, then why on Earth would you want to send them to school?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The sugar industry has influenced the scientific agenda of the National Caries Program in the United States.

• Sugar Industry Influence on the Scientific Agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: A Historical Analysis of Internal Documents—PLOS Medicine (March 10, 2015)

—Wavelength (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup not really surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

there more interested in "profit", than what the facts are--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That reminds me: In my ongoing delusion that I'm going to keep working on Candy and associated articles, I've looked for a really solid source that says candy causes dental caries... and I've come up empty-handed. We all know it (right?), but it appears that no reviews actually cover this basic point. If someone else has better luck, please fix the article or let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the literature usually revolves around sugar-containing foods, rather than using the word "candy", per se. See this AAP guideline, for example, though this webpage from the AAP mentions "candy" in particular. This review also seems to mention "candy" by name. Yobol (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Dental caries in preschool children (as per above review) shows sugar industry starts early--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

try delivering better oral health; an evidence based toolkit for prevention [27]. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

good link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Vaginal tightening article is extremely poor. And, today, AbuseResearcher (talk · contribs), who is clearly not a new Wikipedia editor, created the Vaginal laxity article and made a bunch of vagina-related redirects. The Vaginal laxity article does not use the ideal medical sources named at WP:MEDRS. I ask: What should be done with these two articles? We don't need both, and we have the Pelvic floor, Female genital prolapse and Vaginal weightlifting articles. Note that, looking at its sources, I also have concerns about the Vaginal weightlifting article; I addressed that article at this WikiProject last year (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 49#Vaginal weightlifting article), but got no replies.

I will alert WP:Anatomy to this discussion to keep the discussion centralized (WP:TALKCENT). Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

keep the former, nominate the latter for deletion, (on the first article im certain with help it can go from "poor" to good)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There's also significant overlap between the vaginal laxity article and vaginal tightening article; a partial or complete merge might be in order. A lot of physicians don't ask their patients about vaginal laxity not only because of time constraints, but also because they haven't known of good treatment options; that goes to show how much connection there is between the two topics of problem and cure. By the way, vaginal laxity is not only a medical topic but also one that has attracted the attention of feminists and other social and cultural commentators. AbuseResearcher (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how your Vaginal laxity article is needed. As mentioned above, it uses poor sources for medical information, and is covered in one or more of the aforementioned articles with different names. It can be expanded on in the Vaginal tightening article if that article is kept. Right now, the Vaginal tightening article reads like a personal website. I'm not a fan of unnecessary WP:Content forking. I will almost always choose consolidation unless a WP:Spinout article is truly needed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What is your specific proposal? Basically "address these concerns in a reasonable timeframe or it'll be converted into a redirect and/or nominated for deletion"? I would consider the overlap between the vaginal laxity and vaginal tightening article to look something like this, while the relationship between an article A and B, in which B is a fork of A, would look more like this. AbuseResearcher (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I am 100% in favour of merge. I do not believe there can possibly be enough reliable material on either of these two subjects to justify independent articles. It is better if such content can be kept in a central place so interested readers don't have 5+ articles they have to pass by to engage with a topic. That is my 2c. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedic parts of the Vaginal tightening article could be merged into the Kegel exercise article once the vaginal tightening content is appropriately sourced. Parts of the Vaginal laxity article would also fit there; other parts of it would fit better in the Pelvic floor and/or Female genital prolapse articles. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I see that Stuartyeates took away the main unencyclopedic part of the Vaginal tightening article. Thanks, Stuartyeates. Flyer22 (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We also have the Human vaginal size article, but, at Talk:Human vaginal size in 2013, I suggested that the article be merged with the Vagina article. Given the support for the merge at that talk page, I would have merged the content by now if it weren't for the poor sources used at the Human vaginal size article. Then again, there are not a lot of good sources on that topic. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree Stuartyeates improved the article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: AbuseResearcher is a WP:Sockpuppet of a WP:Banned editor, and the AbuseResearcher account is now indefinitely blocked; see here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• thank you for the update--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mouse models of breast cancer metastasis (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Is this a viable topic for an article even? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is a viable topic, as with any model-organism, be it dictyostelium, mouse ,etc...even more in this case where you have a model-organism that has already been altered for research, hence-Breast Cancer metastatic mouse models (BTW while there are many non MEDRS, the #8 ref however is a fine review)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I also believe it is a viable topic. Just to be clear, it is outside the scope of WP:MED so WP:MEDRS does not apply, but within the scope of WP:MCB where WP:SCIRS applies. Boghog (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A new editor who seems to know something about a complicated subject area! Quick, let's grab him/her. Is there anyone from MCB reading this? You might be able to recruit a new partner.

Personally, I'd have picked a slightly larger topic, like Mouse models in cancer research or Mouse models in breast cancer, but this is a fine place to start, and there are so many mouse models for breast cancer that there will be no trouble filling the page. (As a general rule of thumb, any model mammal that's been around for a few years is going to meet notability requirements). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• My personal view is that primary sources are not a problem for narrowly focused articles on research topics. Reviews are of course better if they are available. Looie496 (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• there are a number of review article [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Mullenix, PJ; Denbesten, PK; Schunior, A; Kernan, WJ (1994). "Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats". Neurotoxicology and teratology. 17 (2): 169–77. PMID 7760776.

The source appears to be a dated study. For now I tagged the source. QuackGuru (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

yes it is dated perhaps this [33] ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

i took that out here. Fails WP:MEDRS by date and overemphasis on animal studies. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion about Rathfelder (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_30#Category:Hospitals_by_city where it is indicated many health and medicine categories have been blanked and/or emptied. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

more opinions needed!..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to see any evidence that users of Wikipedia make use of categories in any way. Their only function, as far as I can see, is to cause trouble for editors. They are best ignored. (It's different on Commons, where categories are an essential search tool.) Looie496 (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Not fluent enough in English to drive the process, I posted here; please have a look. Regards --BonifaceFR (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

BonifaceFR AF4/FMR2 family member 2 is a protein that in humans is encoded by the AFF2 gene.[1] Mutations in AFF2 are implicated in cases of breast cancer.[2] the problem with this statement is that it is being sustained with a primary source, you would prefer a review per MEDRS, having said that the article in and of itself is and could be more informative. Merge? Maybe, it would depend the chart given on the right hand side is interesting, more reviews would be needed and expansion of the article itself. This is a source you might use [34] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi WikiMed,

Just announcing a new course working on medical topics: Education Program:DePaul University/Introduction to Psychology (Spring 2015). It's an intro class. A small intro class, but as we know from past experiences, introductory psych classes can prove challenging. So we requested some additional support from our partners at APS, who were quickly able to connect this course to a psychologist with experience teaching with Wikipedia. Details are being worked out, but that seems worth mentioning. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

this is another great way, Wikipedia advances knowledge--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I see all of the usual course design flaws, and narry a mention of WP:MEDRS-- perhaps it is there somewhere and I missed it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: What other usual course design flaws? If there are design flaws there, they will indeed be usual since that's a largely unmodified version of the Assignment Design Wizard output.

There's a section in the header linking to MEDRS and the editing medical articles brochure. It's also part of student training and they're mailed printed handouts. It may be a good idea to include it in the timeline somewhere, too, though. I have some ideas for what that might look like (having students use them along with the article evaluation exercise), but checking to see how difficult that would be to implement (we can make changes to the output, but I don't know what's involved in making certain blocks of text variable with the "will you work on medical articles" question. Will have to get back to you on that (i.e. it may be a mid-term rather than short-term thing). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought the course description is very good ...COURSE DESCRIPTION This course covers basic research, methodology and the application of theories related to human behavior. We will discuss a general introduction to the field of psychology, its history and topics related to biological psychology and neuroscience, consciousness, sensation and perception, motivation and work, stress, psychological disorders and psychotherapy. The course content will be delivered through lectures, group discussions and activities , the MEDRS link is there while , of course nothing is perfect im certain that any "flaws" can be worked out ,( though there are no obvious ones to me), im certain the students will have a great time learning--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS- Splashy press around splashy PRIMARY sources on costs of endocrine disruptors.

This content was introduced today to the Endocrine disruptor article:

A study published in 2015 estimates the health costs of EDC in the European Union to be approximately €157 billion per year.^[1][2]

References

1. ^ http://www.eu-koordination.de/umweltnews/news/chemie/3071-edc-eu-kommissar-verteidigt-folgenabschaetzung
2. ^ Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union, doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4324

I removed this with edit note: "this is essentially a press release on publication of a WP:PRIMARY source. fails MEDRS", and Gandydancer restored it with edit note, "This source seems OK to me". I have not re-reverted.

Issues:

• First the source is in German.
• second, it is an announcement in the EU parliament by a member of the Green party there. This is just political posturing, noting that a scientific paper has been published that is good for that politician's POV. With the German and the political nature of this, it is a bad source.
• third there has been a shitload of popular media reports on these studies in English. like this, so if we were going to generate content from this, there are far better sources.
• if you do some work, you will see that there are 4 WP:PRIMARY sources that were published at the same time by the same group, with one summarizing the other three:
  • (summary) Trasande L et al. Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144324. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742516
  • Legler J et al. Obesity, Diabetes, and Associated Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144326. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742518
  • Hauser R, et al. Male Reproductive Disorders, Diseases, and Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144324. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742517
  • Bellanger M et al. Neurobehavioral Deficits, Diseases and Associated Costs of Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144323. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742515
• These 4 papers are WP:PRIMARY sources, and per other science-based content in WP, we wait to see how these papers are treated by WP:SECONDARY sources. We don't do science by press release in WP. We don't do it when Big Pharma hypes clinical trial results published in a primary source, and we don't it here either.

In my view this content is health related, since the authors had to make judgements about what diseases/conditions ED chemicals cause, and then just did the math from there.

• The questions
  • does MEDRS apply here?
  • What if anything should we say now, before secondary sources come out?

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

the article , of course, indicates it is within the scope of this wikiproject, therefore subject to all you have enumerated above (you have acted with logic and objectivity), having said that one should always try to find a "common ground" as I am certain can be done here, while satisfying all guidelines--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

oz, while all content should be sourced to 2ndary sources per WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, and RS, only some content in health-related articles is specfically subject to MEDRS's call for secondary sources. Content about the cost of a drug, for example, doesn't need reviews or statements by major bodies under MEDRS (it should anyway per OR/VERIFY/RS, but not per MEDRS per se). The reason I think this content is subject to MEDRS's secondary sources guidance, is that the authors had to make judgements about what diseases/conditions are caused by EDs in order to calculate costs - to me that is very much about health and is highly controversial. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your judgement--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree MEDRS applies, and even if there wasn't a biomedical aspect here, I'd want to see better sourcing ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is ok. €157 billion is an economic cost. I don't think you can invoke MEDRS for removing a monetary figure in dollars (or euros). -A1candidate 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

you ignored what i wrote above. the estimate is based on making a determine of what conditions/decisions are allegedly caused by alleged ED compounds (2 health claims about health). Once a decisions are made about those, it is just math. The papers discuss both alleging steps and make decisions about them. This is completely unlike doing something like reporting sales of an actual drug, or determining the cost to treat someone who has, say, Alzheimers. There are two controversial and very biomedical steps before that, which are the heart of these papers. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The monetary figure doesn't exist in isolation, though. It represents the authors' projections of the increased incidence of certain medical conditions as the result of exposure to EDCs, multiplied by the economic cost associated with those conditions. I agree that the average or expected economic cost associated with a particular medical condition is plausibly not a medical claim and not subject to the strict requirements of MEDRS (though it's a slippery-enough quantity to define and estimate and interpret that very robust sourcing standards should still apply).

But—forecasting a specific change in incidence of a range of medical conditions as a consequence of environmental exposures to certain chemical compounds? That's getting into medical-claim territory and within the scope of MEDRS. And since the dollar- (or euro-)cost estimate is clearly derived from and dependent on that medical assertion, we can't pretend that it's purely an economic statement not subject to MEDRS. I am strongly inclined to agree with Jytdog's interpretation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Per PMID 21054169, the danger posed by EDCs is a scientific fact. EDC advocates will no doubt disagree, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. -A1candidate 16:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

over stating what the source says and how it applies to this situation, per usual. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

While PubMed has not as yet classified PMID 25742516 as a review, it would effectively appear to be a review:

For each exposure-outcome association, the process in each group began with the presentation of epidemiological and toxicological reviews of the literature ... Expert panelists were then asked to provide their opinions about the strength of the epidemiological and toxicological evidence for the exposure-outcome relationship and the nature of that relationship.

— Trasande et al., The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism doi:10.1210/jc.2014-4324

In other words, an expert panel reviewed the available reviews and used a weight-of-evidence approach to assign a probability of causation. So why isn't this considered a secondary source? Boghog (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it would appear that the underlying medical claims (EDCs cause illnesses) in this source are tertiary (review of reviews, MEDRS compliant) while the economic claims (these illnesses cost ... ) are primary (outside the scope of MEDRS). Boghog (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

+1. That's not just some study by some random people (“the Steering Committee convened expert panels for each of the domains composed of four to eight scientific expert”). MEDRS does not apply here. However, I would not oppose removing the first reference and to rephrase the text. For instance, the whole range of the Monte Carlo analysis (€3.3–244 billion annually) may be given. --Leyo 20:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Economics is not a medical claim and therefore does not need a medical source. Cost effectiveness is a different matter as it is a medical claim. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE - dearchived this, as this arose in a discussion about content at the Endocrine disruptor article, and Leyo rightfully asked for action. I should have been following this more closely, and apologize for not doing so. I do not see a clear consensus above. Can we get more voices, please? I realize that this is a complex issue, but the topline impact statement is very strong (that is a lot of money!) and I want to be sure we are comfortable with the sourcing and content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I know you asked for more voices, but I think the issue is not at all complex and consensus above (which Leyo supported) is very clear. The underlying medical claims in this source are secondary/tertiary. The economic claims are primary and outside of the scope of MEDRS. Agreed? Boghog (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time Boghog! So I thought your analysis of the Trasande source was interesting. Doc James seems to support that, as does Leyo. Ozz and TenofAllTrades agreed with me, I believe. So consensus is not clear to me.

The MEDRS issue where I am struggling here, is with the 'toxicology part of this, which in my view is very much a MEDRS thing. And in my view, the conclusions they are coming to about prevalence of diseases/conditions attributable to EDs is very much primary. It is indeed number crunching to go from those prevalences, to the economic costs.

Here is the event that suite of papers arose from (from Transande)

"During a 2-day workshop in April 2014, five expert panels identified conditions where the evidence is strongest for causation and developed ranges for fractions of disease burden that can be attributed to EDCs. Although accompanying manuscripts describe in greater detail the bases for their estimates of disease attribution and probability of causation, we present here an overview of the methods they applied as well as approaches applied to estimate disease burden and costs attributable to EDCs in the EU based upon those data inputs."

You see what I mean? They are dealing with probabilities, and these groups developed ranges for disease burden. This source is indeed WP:PRIMARY for that research, which never existed. This is not just reviewing the literature or even doing meta-analysis. It is drawing new conclusions about ED influence on prevelance of diseases and conditions. The ED hypothesis in general remains controversial, especially in its application to human toxicology. Here is some more, describing where they went:

Expert panels achieved consensus for probable (20%) EDC causation for IQ loss and associated intellectual disability, autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, childhood obesity, adult obesity, adult diabetes, cryptorchidism, male infertility, and mortality associated with reduced T. Accounting for probability of causation and using the midpoint of each range for probability of causation, Monte Carlo simulations produced a median cost of €157 billion (1.23% of EU gross domestic product) annually across 1000 simulations. Notably, using the lowest end of the probability range for each relationship in the Monte Carlo simulations produced a median range of €119 billion that differed modestly from base case probability inputs.

So do folks see what I am struggling with here? I am interested to hear. Maybe i am out to lunch. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

additional note: see here, for support of my contention that this paper is PRIMARY for the estimations of EDs on prevalences. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

not to use your own words...oz, while all content should be sourced to 2ndary sources per WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, and RS, only some content in health-related articles is specfically subject to MEDRS's call for secondary sources. Content about the cost of a drug, for example, doesn't need reviews or statements by major bodies under MEDRS (it should anyway per OR/VERIFY/RS, but not per MEDRS per se). The reason I think this content is subject to MEDRS's secondary sources guidance, is that the authors had to make judgements about what diseases/conditions are caused by EDs in order to calculate costs - to me that is very much about health and is highly controversial. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC) ...but I still believe your judgement is correct, you rightfully say you feel in this matter the authors made judgements and that is why you are looking for clarity, your right...I agree with you (again)...and I think others should give opinions as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's all about phrasing the right way, i.e. not as a fact but as a study outcome/estimate. Then, I don't see a problem. The range of the Monte Carlo analysis (€3.3–244 billion annually) is quite large, i.e. it is very likely that the true (but unknown) value is within this range. --Leyo 08:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for talking Leyo. My issue here is that the underlying estimate of prevalence due to EDs (uopn which the monte carlo simulations depend) is research published here as a PRIMARY source, and we have no idea if other experts in the field find that estimate reasonable, or wacky. We have no idea. This is why we steer clear of PRIMARY sources in project medicine.... does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The statement discussed here is not purely medical but also/rather economical. --Leyo 11:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I totally hear you on that. i do! what i am trying to say is that the economics are based on a medical/health judgement. that had to happen before the economics could be estimated. do you hear me on that? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JytDog ....There is a catalogue of criteria for endocrine disruptors (EDC) within the European Union yet. On Monday, health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis had to justify this delay before the European Parliament. The Commission would have to suggest already on 13 December 2013 the catalogue of criteria for the hormonally active chemicals. So far it works but on the impact assessment of EDC. Deputies criticise the postponement and emphasize the health and economic need for fast regulation. Andriukaitis emphasized the importance of assessment at the plenary session, to take into account all scientific information. The first phase of the research was completed, a consultation is finished. In the next step, an informational site published and initiated a second round of research. A new study by international researchers has once again put the health costs of EDC: close 157 billion euros per year. 155.8 billion more than a study of Scandinavian EU Member States commissioned end of 2014 revealed (EU news by the 25.11.2014) are. Investigated injuries were such restrictions of IQ and mental retardation with prenatal exposure to specific neurotoxic. These cause the highest costs. Meanwhile, Sweden has launched an initiative to accuse the European Commission before the European Court of Justice because it is not complied with their legal obligations to the regulation of EDC. The Council has joined in the initiative last month (EU-news from the 27.02.2015[35]...is no good and therefore we need to work towards a MEDRS source per the reasons outlined above.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

So to be sure I understand correctly, the group that did the study used their own decisions regarding what information they found to be acceptable to base their figures on rather than the Wikipedia quidelines on what's acceptable, so we now refuse to mention their study in Wikipedia because it does not meet our guidelines on sourcing? Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not is being said here. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw a long thread and had a few minutes to kill, so I decided to read this. What Boghog said. I don't get the issue here. I think trying to shove this analysis into the somewhat wikipedia-idiosyncratic "source hierarchy" is a distraction and the best way to handle it in the article is to simply describe it as the result of one study, with a brief summary of their methods as appropriate for the desired level of detail. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

the problem is that, the authors had to make judgements about what diseases/conditions are caused by EDs and therefore, what do we cite as a reliable source?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.

If there are no competing/confirming/disagreeing studies, I'd give it a single, brief mention with "One study said" language, under ==Society and culture== (not in the lead). I would use the range (€3.3–244 billion per year) rather than the median, and I'd explain to non-economists what the main costs are (e.g., probably lost productivity and years of healthy life lost rather than direct medical expenses). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatamidoing the cite is this [36] , now the point is Jytdog says it needs a secondary source due to the judgements the authors have made in regards to the economic costs, and I agree (BTW its all above explained more than once)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Opabinia regalis and WhatamIdoing. Ozzie10aaaa, I don't think that we need to cite this website, but rather doi:10.1210/jc.2014-4324. --Leyo 23:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC) BTW: See also Talk:Endocrine disruptor#Important scientific debate missing.

Me too. There was also a Guardian article on March 6th. The largest element of the estimated costs is the economic cost of people less intelligent because they were exposed as children (!), so this is indeed the end result of a long string of assumptions. "“The shocking thing is that the major component of that cost is related to the loss of brain function in the next generation,” one of the report’s authors, Professor Philippe Grandjean of Harvard University, told the Guardian." Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis how lovely to see you here. If you haven't, (you too WAID), I would urge you to read the Trasande paper - the layers of assumptions here are something. And they say: "The approach we have taken will potentially transform decision-making in environmental health by providing a new model for evaluating environmental health risks and permitting a complete assessment of the potential costs of failing to prevent chronic disease through the use of safer alternatives to EDCs." (emphasis added) (p8, near top of right column). This is not your run of the mill paper. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that. However, economic effects for commercial products are important and encyclopedic. Iff this source is the only information that we have about an important aspect of the subject, then we should include it. The summary should be brief, use WP:INTEXT attribution to identify it as coming from a single publication, be suitably hedged, and not be trumpted in the lead, but it shouldn't be omitted entirely. That is, we should follow what MEDRS says: "If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning (for instance, publication of a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results), they should be described as being from a single study" and replaced when something better comes along.

I'm open to several approaches to "suitably hedging". For example, if you worry about including a number that won't mean anything to most people, then it might make more sense to say that this one paper estimated that the cost of EDC exposure might be approximately double the costs associated with lead and mercury exposure.

I'm also open to someone finding a better source, or even a second similar source, so that we can compare and contrast the conclusions. The only option that doesn't work for me is "completely omit economic information because we're questioning the methods used in a peer-reviewed paper". Doing a detailed peer-review of the source isn't our job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I read (skimmed) the paper. I think it is a lot of sensationalistic publicity-bait BS an interesting and unconventional approach to a challenging problem. But I agree with WhatamIdoing. Just briefly summarize the results with appropriate hedges to emphasize it's just one study. If there's a source out there constructively criticizing the methods, nothing wrong with including that too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks everybody who commented here. i appreciate the time and attention, and am hearing you. i'd be open to something along the lines of what WAID and Opabina suggest, perhaps contextualized by this. Leyo are you OK with that? If so, I will not oppose. Jytdog (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  I agree on mentioning other opinions such as Richard Sharpe's together with the study results. In this context, please note that Richard Sharpe is involved in the debate as a signee of Dietrich et al. --Leyo 12:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

interesting... so not the most disinterested "expert", hm? in any case, i'll look to you to add it back. thanks for being patient and working through this with me. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your last but one sentence correctly. Will you draft the text? --Leyo 19:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

i was asking you if you want to add it back; it appears you would like me to! will do that this evening. either way, we'll work it over til we (and everybody else) is satisfied enough. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, guys, I'm invoking m:Cunningham's Law. There's the wrong answer: Endocrine disruptor#Economic effects. Go fix it. I need to go read up on the bug that kept my doi from turning into a magic citation via mw:Citoid. I thought the patch was supposed to arrive here three hours ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)