Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:22, 28 November 2012

Project Page
WPMED Newsletter and signup
Manual of style (medicine)
Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
List of participants
Popular pages
Assessment (Log)

How to help:
Article alerts and resources for editors
Articles for cleanup, deletion, and orphaned
Patrol recent changes and sort stubs
Requested articles

Categories:
Project
Articles by quality and importance

• WT:MED

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Need input to help build journal evaluation tool

Hello WP:MED members, I'd like your input on a project. I'm considering building a journal evaluation tool. The idea would be that you'd give it a PMID or a DOI or a name of a journal, and it would give you some basic information to help you evaluate where the journal or journal article would rank on the WP:MEDASSESS scale. Some of the outputs would be: Is the journal MEDLINE indexed? What is the journal's impact factor? Is the journal associated with a major medical organization? How much other publishing have the authors of an article done? The idea is to improve our articles by helping editors evaluate sources, and to help resolve "my journal article which says X is better than your journal article which says Y" disputes. The end product could be added to WP:CITETOOL and could live on the Toolserver alongside things like this. Any interest in providing this sort of input? Thanks... Zad68 13:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a neat idea, but I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, having a tool that did some of the basic spadework when checking up on a new source could be handy. On the other hand, I fear that such a tools' output (depending somewhat on how it was presented) might also be susceptible to abuse—article X got all the green checkmarks in the assessment tool, so we have to use it-type problems. In other words, there may be a temptation to substitute the tool's numbers for an actual understanding of the scientific literature and the place of a given work within it; feel free to read that as me being an elitist snob.

I guess the other question is, do we actually have much trouble evaluating a journal's overall quality or identifying whether or not a paper's authors have a significant research history? In my experience – others may differ, please comment! – our experienced editors generally have no difficulty quickly determining when a paper is an uncited, decade-old, primary study, in a crappy journal by authors who only publish fringe nonsense about how magic crystals cure cancer. From my experience, we tend to have longer, more active (and sometimes more acrimonious) discussions when a source does meet some (or many, or even all) of the MEDRS checkboxes. Sometimes a journal publishes something outside their usual experience or expertise. Sometimes a generally-competent and oft-published scientist starts pontificating on stuff they don't really understand (perhaps from within the warm and fuzzy cocoon of tenure) and it gets tagged in PubMed as a review article and pushes our 'ooh shiny secondary source' buttons. Sometimes the article was written by an editorial board member and the peer review was kind of squishy. Sometimes there's just a bad paper published in a good journal, for whatever reason. On the flip side, sometimes there are good papers in low-impact journals: young scientists, yeoman work on confirmation, etc. I'm wary that a journal/article evaluation tool might inadvertently frame or distort our current organic approach to evaluating sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with these considerations. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I was going to use this with a few tweaks (font and color changes) for my interface design. Zad68 16:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Too complex for some, but will no doubt be popular in certain, erm, spheres. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand who would use this or when. The information you named ought to be in an infobox for each journal, and once it is there, why should it be anywhere else? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly is the "infobox for each journal" that you're talking about? Link to an example? Maybe I'm missing some awesome resource that everyone else knows about. Zad68 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Bluerasberry meant that part of what you were thinking to do might be covered with a parameter in Template:Infobox journal. Biosthmors (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually think something like this would be helpful; while most of us regulars know how to do this, having this option available to the wider audience may make it easier to recruit people to help us out. I agree with TenOfAllTrades that this could be misused, but as long as the documentation clearly states that this is just a tool, and not a substitute for critical evaluation, I see more upside than downside. Yobol (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fecal incontinence article

This article needs some major attention from this project. A related article was recently merged into it and now there is a lot that needs sorting out, as is mentioned on the article's talk page. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Fecal incontinence ... putting up for WP:PR, in the understanding that this should happen before Good article nomination, is this correct? lesion (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is review page, ty for any advice. lesion (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Also no WP:GI task force rating for page...lesion (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Progressive myoclonus epilepsies

Some wisdom would be helpful with the naming of this article. See history and talk page. Per policy, guideline and the ILAE, this article topic should be plural. It is a group of diseases that form a syndrome. Please give your opinion at the talk page. Thanks. Colin° 21:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is everybody hibernating? -- Colin° 12:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I would like to help, but it appears out of my pay grade at first glance. Is it a pretty simple once one reads all the discussion? I just skimmed it. Biosthmors (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

New article: Dutch hypothesis

Hi folks, I'd appreciate some eyes at the Dutch hypothesis article that has been created recently. I'm clueless about medicine but, aside from the obvious grammatical and structural issues, I am concerned that if it is indeed a hypothesis (and, yes, I've read The_Structure of Scientific Revolutions and a bundle of other such books over the years) then perhaps the current depiction might possibly be one-sided. I know, in a vague sort of way, that the MED standards are necessarily quite high but the area that this project covers is really not one in which I have any expertise.

A disclaimer is in order: the creator and I do have a bit of history on articles far, far removed from medicine. If the article is ok then that is just fine by me.- Sitush (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The topic itself is clearly notable: see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Pulmonary%20Disease%2C%20Chronic%20Obstructive%22%20AND%20dutch%20hypothesis%20AND%20Review. —MistyMorn (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I was not concerned about notability. It is just that I've glimpsed some controversy concerning the validity of it as a hypothesis but I'm out of my comfort zone and also do not particularly want to antagonise the article creator. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Until a scientific hypothesis is disproven it remains, well, just that... a hypothesis. In the present case, the Dutch hypothesis still appears to be a plausible candidate . —MistyMorn (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it enough for an own article? Unless it gets expanded quite a bit we don't want to have the information spread into another million of articles. Richiez (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, MistyMorn. I recall seeing brisk discussion in the NTvG about it, back in my younger years. I think the content should ideally be merged somewhere. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up and expand the stub a little, but unfortunately our edits overlapped. I've tried to integrate the changes you made, but I may well have missed/bungled something. Yes, I do agree that the content really would be better placed/merged in COPD or, ideally perhaps, in a subarticle dedicated to research into its etiology and pathogenesis. In the meantime, I feel there's nothing seriously amiss here, at least as far as the core information regarding this particular hypothesis is concerned, although the wider picture obviously needs to be filled in. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

This section: Talk:Psychoanalysis#To help update/revise Evaluation of effectiveness etc per WP:MEDRS needs attention from editors aware of WP:MEDRS norms for clinical efficacy. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although not obviously "medical" perhaps, psychoanalysis/psychodynamic psychotherapy is used to treat serious clinical conditions. One to watch, imo. —MistyMorn (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think also. What the authors MistyMorn and IRWolfie means is: Only three jounals are relevant in psychiatry, clinical psychology, psychotherapy and of course psychotherapy research. It would be glad if anyone can tell them the truth about scientiffic publishing. Thanks! --WSC 10:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I am not prepared to return to kindergaten . An instance of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, it would seem . —MistyMorn (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll note that WSC/Widescreen is currently blocked from the german wiki. It might be fruitful to look at the reasons behind the blocks: . IRWolfie- (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason is, that I called some admins nazis. Or better I said, that they act like in the 3. Reich. I think, they take it personally. :o) --WSC 19:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With the length of your block list, I think that you probably have called every administrator on WP-Germany a nazi! :-P--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not only nazi. I'm really creative to describe their behaviour. ;o) --WSC 06:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Godwin's law, as soon as you call the other side nazis, you lost the argument ...jokes =D lesion (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's just a matter of evidence. In fact I said: " Lastly you can found such methods in the 3. Reich" (Solche Methoden gab es zuletzt im 3. Reich.) ;o=) --WSC 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I genuinely believe that questions of clinical effectiveness, such as this one, need to be taken seriously on Misplaced Pages. I did try to help out. But when I read (in an ANI discussion which has already been closed) that I've thrown around accusations of incivility without cause, which often indicates a person is on the losing side of the argument--very irritating, such accusations I feel like saying thank goodness for the Dutch hypothesis! —MistyMorn (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying! Unfortunately I haven't been there to analyze the issues and help out. Biosthmors (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Sadly, I have to say it's not an experience I'd recommend. —MistyMorn (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and serious is only what MistyMorn produces. Others haven't a clue about the subject, sure! I'm still supprised about MistyMorns proposal, only to use "core journals" for the question of (clinical) effectiveness (whatever clinical means, in this case). He gave a list of journals where only three journals about psychiatry are mentioned. I wonder how to wirte about effecitvness when the most RCTs and meta analyses are beeing excluded, because published in non-core journals? Sorry, this is a simple trick to exclude findings MistyMorn don't like. Nothing else. Now he's wondering why his argumentation is being attacked and called up WP:CIVIL. I tell you what: Calm down and accept that your argumentation fails. Not least because the argumentation is nonsense but also because you try to exclude relevant sources in a special case. Have a look at the recent comments on talk:psychoanalysis. --WSC 09:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Germ theory of disease

• Germ theory of disease

The article is incredibly small. It needs expansion. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes we are a work in progress. Feel free to jump in an attempt it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Quantifying project needs through templates

I'd like to have a page for WP:MED that quantifies and segregates articles tagged as needed attention from various templates, similar to Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and http://www.wikihow.com/Special:CommunityDashboard. Is there any interest in collaboration or suggestions for what to include? Feel free to add to the list. Biosthmors (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean separate from Misplaced Pages:Pages_needing_attention/Medicine and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Cleanup_listing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I didn't know about those! Yeah I'd like to work on one that is digestible in one screen, and links out, as Category:Misplaced Pages backlog does. Biosthmors (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

These two pages could use some love. Would it be possible to turn them into what you imagine? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That might work nicely. Any suggestions from people familiar with the types of edits that would be required? Biosthmors (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Relatedly, is there a way to see what categories Requested Articles would fall under? If so, we could maintain a list of Medical articles needing creation. Or some other way to do the same... Ocaasi 16:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this page here Misplaced Pages:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Medicine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A listing of any Articles for Creation page that dealt with medicine would be nice, though I don't know if they get put into any category at the moment. Biosthmors (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to a request on my talk page by Biosthmors. The targets of red links are non-existent pages; I cannot easily determine to which wikiprojects unwritten articles might attach. The most useful report I can produce would be a summary of red links arising on pages associated with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine. I've posted one at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Red links. - TB (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Neuroscience class

A neuroscience class I am an ambassador for just posted a lot of their initial work. Their final draft is due in a week. Maybe that means some suggestions would be taken. See User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in wikifying and copyediting at least one of these articles, but would it be best to wait until the class is over? Sasata (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I say give it a go if you're willing. Immediate feedback should strengthen this kind of project. Biosthmors (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yikes – I hope they're not all like this. Will require some effort to bring this up to a respectable standard ... Sasata (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I know... my hopes are pinned onto guiding the next class effectively... If a wholescale revert seems best, go ahead and be bold... or stubify, perhaps? It's quite a burden for established volunteers to deal with messes, but I figure if I can help the class/professor learn things, then it might help Misplaced Pages for years to come. I think this professor has been assigning articles for several years now. Biosthmors (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh great. Misplaced Pages now says cerebral malaria is caused by a virus, that the lack of vaccine (to "cure" it) is due to an uncaring unaffected West. This is yet another example of a student picking a subject they know nothing about and expanding it beyond what a hyperlinked enyclopaedia should properly hold in one article, so it repeats (and wildly contradicts) related (parent/child) articles. The folk at WMF think there's no difference between the average newbie and a student. Show me a newbie, who doesn't even know the difference between a protozoan parasite and a virus, with the over-confidence to attempt write a 2000-word article on an advanced topic on the world most popular encyclopaedia. I think it would be best if the article was shrunk considerably to contain essentially the aspects of cerebral malaria that are distinctive. Colin° 09:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well well well. Facepalm. I understand your frustration! I fixed that. Biosthmors (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with culling with most of what's there; if the article doesn't improve much by the time the class is over, I'll replace the current contents with a shortened version that meets MEDMOS/MEDRS standards (luckily, I'm familiar with the sources, so it shouldn't be too strenuous). Sasata (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What also worries me is that if Biosthmors hadn't published this list, would anyone have spotted it? This article was expanded from a redirect. How many folk watchlist a redirect apart from the one editor who created it and probably left the project years ago. Same goes for the stub->GA stuff that students are asked to do. There is sometimes a reason why these subjects are stubs. Colin° 16:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Nutrition transition

Hello. My name is Nehemiah Ankoor. I am a doing a project for my poverty, justice, and human capabilities class at Rice University regarding the global nutrition transition. As of now the page is seriously lacking organization and readability. It has been flagged for clean up since 2008 and I plan to do just that in addition to integrating new content. The page currently has a decent amount of information but it does not flow from each section to the next fluidly and there are many issues regarding the subject that are missing. In order to reorganize it, I plan to change the main sections to a brief overview, causes related to globalization, case studies, health outcomes, policy implications, references, and external links. Each main section will consist of several subsections that further break down the information. For example, under causes related to globalization I will list media and food promotion as a subsection. For the case studies section, I will not provide much information, but I hope that other authors will choose to expand upon it in the future considering the tremendous amount of research conducted concerning specific countries and the nutrition transition. Most of my information will come from Barry M. Popkin and Benjamin Cabellero, the most prominent authors/researchers in regards to nutrition transition, but I do have plenty of additional sources to help balance their comprehensive research and findings. I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions you can provide to help improve my project. Thank you. NehemiahAnkoor (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the article, so we know what you're talking about? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"Nutrition transition". Nehemiah, thank you for helping with this article. Please read WP:MEDRS and try to use secondary sources as references. Axl ¤ 20:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I see vague article titles like this, I can't help but think there are already existing articles (or better titled potential articles) in need of the planned content. Obesity, nutrition, healthy diet, history of human food come to mind as possibilities. Why should the article exist? (See Misplaced Pages:Merging#Reasons_for_merger, for example.) Nehemiah, could you please explain why this is a notable topic that deserves its own article without being merged into other existing articles? There's already so much here to do. I'd rather we not spread ourselves thin. Does your professor only give you credit on "new" articles? Is that your incentive structure? Thanks again for your message. Biosthmors (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a new article. It was created in March 2008. Axl ¤ 23:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It also gets about 40 page views a day, and I still wonder why it should exist. Wouldn't a merge/good history section written at human nutrition work? That page gets about 400 page views a day. Biosthmors (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the relevance of quoting the frequency of pageviews?

"Nutrition transition" contains a lot of text, but it desperately needs clean-up. Before a merge could be performed, first an editor would need to sift through the existing text to find the salvageable material.

"Human nutrition" is already quite a large article, and a major expansion of its "History" section is likely to place undue weight on this, as well as bloat the article—at which point a spinout article would be better. Axl ¤ 11:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in prioritizing articles with higher pageviews because work there has a greater impact. Here is an excellent presentation which gives one user's review of how frequently users expend effort on articles which are less read. A conclusion of this presentation is that developing popular articles is better for the readership than developing less-popular articles.

I have been developing a system to get new users interested in editing articles by using article pageviews as a motivating factor. I would like to get comments about this system from other Wikipedians interested in health topics, but I would like these comments by voice because I think it is best that I personally show the system while talking to someone. If anyone would be interested in having a chat with me, at least 15 minutes, then please message me. We could do this by Skype, Google Hangout, phone, or I can invite you to an in-browser web conference if you do not have Skype and do not want to install anything. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

3,5k google book hits strongly suggest this a notable and stand-alone topic. Unless anyone here is an expert on nutrition, the fact that one thinks it sounds similar to another concept is hardly a valid argument. (I am not American, and I think Washington, DC and Washington, state sound similar, let's merge them, and throw in George Washington into the mix, using this logic, how about that? :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

When I go and try and find a definition I get "The concern about this period is so great that the term the nutrition transition is synonymous, for many, with the shift from Pattern 3 to 4." While students writing about fuzzy academic concepts might be great for a classroom assignment, I think our readership would be best served with straightforward and factual health/nutrition information. I think both interests (assignment/readership ) can be met simultaneously. Biosthmors (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

" It also gets about 40 page views a day, and I still wonder why it should exist. "

— Biosthmors

To me, the second part of that sentence seems to be a non-sequitur. Biosthmors still hasn't explained the significance of "40 page views per day". I am asking Biosthmors for clarification.

In Biosthmors' second reply, he directed a series of accusatory, confrontational questions at NehemiahAnkoor, without even checking first to confirm his assumptions. This is "WP:BITE". Biosthmors has not apologized nor acknowledged any wrong-doing. Axl ¤ 22:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended anyone, I'm just trying to improve the encyclopedia, even if that requires asking tough questions. I think I've explained my position above. And Bluerasberry has expanded upon my logic. I edited a lot of student draft articles lately (and some I'm not sure should exist) related to the class I am an ambassador for, and perhaps my patience was a bit thin. Is this reply sufficient? Biosthmors (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the apology.

To return to the article itself, I believe that the topic is notable and worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages. In particular, BM Popkin's various publications are enough establish notability.

Whether it is a suitable topic for students is perhaps best decided by educationalists. (I accept that Bluerasberry and Biosthmors may be educationalists.) If the topic is really so unsuitable, a gentle discussion with the student and/or teacher may be appropriate. Axl ¤ 23:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I also left conciliatory remarks at User talk:NehemiahAnkoor, where I think they will do the most good. Then I'm glad we have an article on it, and I'll be happy to see Nehemiah improve upon it. I guess I just needed to vent from seeing too many student mistakes in one day! Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all the feedback everyone. Biosthmors did bring up some excellent points and I was not at all offended by them even though I do believe the page should stand on its own. Because it is a very interdisciplinary topic, it would be very difficult to integrate into another page even if that were Malnutrition or Human nutrition. Although I do plan to link Nutrition transition within those pages as well as some others i.e. Obesity, in order to increase traffic to the nutrition transition page. Right now I am putting together my rough outline for the page since I have consolidated most of my research. I will post that within the next few days before I begin to go live with my edits. NehemiahAnkoor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice re "Kendra's Law"

Hi. I just wanted some advice in regard to the applicability of this Cochrane study on the efficacy of community treatment orders to the article on Kendra's Law. If it is suitable for inclusion would it be appropriate to create a section on efficacy which would include a basic summary of the main findings or should it be integrated into the section on "opposition". Any advice appreciated. Thanks FiachraByrne (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is legal stuff. We at WPMED value Cochrane very highly for medical content. A section on "evidence" may be useful.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

I just noticed a fantastic set of 4 pictures at lipoma taken from the open access journal Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury. It prompted me to make these edits to the project page. Please add other journals there, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There is loads of images out there in open access journals that we can use. The Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury actually has its own category on Commons, just like over 100 other BioMed Central journals and many other journals.

There are several ways to find your way to these materials on Commons - one is simply by journal or publisher categories on Commons, which are used for indexing. The other is by way of topic categories there, e.g. commons:Category:Lipoma. These latter ones are currently being reworked (mainly split into more specialized subcategories - e.g. commons:Category:GTP-binding proteins and subcategories thereof) in order to accommodate the multimedia files (9k so far) brought in by the Open Access Media Importer. Help with that would be much appreciated - for instance, most of the imported files (and some of the categories created along the way) still need category review, and interwiki links to and from Commons are often still missing. Of course, if an article contains multimedia files relevant for us, it is likely to have a few useful images, text bits or references too.

So I would suggest not to list individual journals here on the project's page, but to make systematic use of the infrastructure already there (or developing) on Commons, for which a link to commons:Category:Open access (publishing) would be sufficient. There is also WikiProject Open Access (which highlights an Open Access File of the Day every day) and WikiProject Academic Journals (which maintains articles on academic journals). -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great information. Thanks. Maybe I should copy/paste it into a new essay WP:Pictures for medical articles? Biosthmors (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We have a list of potential sources for images here Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources#Images. Feel free to add to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied and pasted the chart to the essay I created. I think a separate essay devoted to the topic makes the most sense. It is now at WP:MEDPIC or WP:PICMED. Biosthmors (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. We should leave a small overview within the first article though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for the edit. Biosthmors (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Medical student elective for 3/4th years at UCSF

There is ongoing discussion of setting up an elective for 3/4th year medical students at UCSF here . The hope is to launch this initiative in Jan 2013. I have agreed to spend a week in San Franscico in early Jan to give some talks and hands on editing sessions. We still do not know the number of people who will be interested. More details will occur on this page as time goes on. If people are in the area and wish to become involved would love to have you join. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't be in the area but it would be wonderful to be involved somehow. This also dovetails with the timeline for a project at my own school for first years, which we expect to properly announce soon. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What kind of on-the-ground help do you anticipate would be useful? How many meetings/talks are scheduled/might be possibly scheduled, etc.? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not completely sure. User User:Michaelturken is leading the on the ground stuff this being his medical school. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Community pharmacy

I'd like to "nominate" the Community pharmacy for attention. I don't think I can do a very good job with the topic but the article is such terrible quality that I'm tempted to nominate for deletion or stub it. Any help with the article would be great. --Aude (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

From a quick glance, I say stub it. If you're up to the task, I thank you in advance. Biosthmors (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it needs a lot of work, but I don't think that stubbing it will necessarily be the best choice, because there is a lot of good information and concepts there. If you go that route, please at least leave a diff of the stubbing on the talk page so that anyone trying to expand it can find the details later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Monthly statistics

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages#Monthly statistics if you have any ideas, comments, tips, etc. or if you'd like to work on this. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In October of 2012 we had our highest viewership yet coming in at 231 million pageviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Beryllium poisoning

An article that you have been involved in editing, Beryllium poisoning , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Scray (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion

An IP is wanting a second opinion regarding this edit here The ref does not state that these are "common". And the ref is popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Genetics and Endometriosis

At http://en.wikipedia.org/Endometriosis#Genetics it is written that "There is an about 10-fold increased incidence in women with an affected first-degree relative." I look at the reference written there, and I did not find the '10 FOLD' claim anywhere there, or somewhere else. Can you please let me (and the readers) know where this '10 fold' come from? - I found references saying there is higher risk, but no source put it as "10 FOLD". Can you please give me a reference or otherwise, fix that sentence. Thanks, Ronen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crxsmh (talk • contribs) 16:57, 25 November 2012

Great question. I'll make my comments to the talk page over there, but thanks for asking here! -- Scray (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history

WikiProject Military history has a nice project page and I think we would benefit to model our project page off of theirs. That's a goal of mine. Is anyone else aware of good WikiProject pages that could be used as models? Biosthmors (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the better WikiProjects around. I would have no objection. JFW | T@lk 23:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I like keeping the page fairly easy to edit. When lots of templates are used this can become difficult.

But agree that making it more professional looking could also have benefits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

it's a nice page. The progress bars towards goals are good. A picture at the top of the WP:MED page would also be good.lesion (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in helping reform the page but I would want to talk about this first. In addition to sorting the work I would also like to increase this project's ability to help individuals collaborate with each other, and I was thinking that some of the structure used for meetup or chapter organization could help with this. There are some resources for this which we could consider.

• The Misplaced Pages:United States Education Program is in the middle of a major reform. The idea is to encourage every university to have a "Misplaced Pages club" to encourage classes to participate in Misplaced Pages editing. This is relevant because every club will need a Misplaced Pages project page to host and coordinate volunteers. A template to create project pages will need to be developed, and the style of those project pages will likely be based on a review of many project pages. Some useful insight should come of this and we could probably collaborate to our mutual goals.
• There are problems in organizing collaboration pages in general. Wikimedia DC and Wikimedia NYC are not so organized, and WikiProject Medicine will soon face the issue of being complimented somehow by meta:Wiki Medicine. Wikimedia UK is a brilliant presentation. I would like for WikiProject Medicine to be able to efficiently sort and support anyone who wants to contribute.
• I am not sure who are the players in trying to organize WikiProject business. Going to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council seems like a good step. User:Another Believer has spent more time than anyone I know sorting standards for page structure and categorization of projects, meetups, and social organization.

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The most important thing of course is having an active community of editors who support each others efforts. has a similar page to WM UK. Wiki Medicine will eventually have something similar. WM MED will be much more project oriented rather than content oriented. Both sides will hopefully work closely together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

AfD -- epineurial repair

This one is from the class I'm an ambassador to: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Epineurial repair. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

problems at psychiatry articles

We currently have a tendentious editor with a strongly anti-psychiatry point of view causing trouble at psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, bipolar disorder, etc. In my experience the most effective way of dealing with things like this is to get more editors involved -- please take a look at the articles if you can. (The issue has also been raised at WP:NPOVN, but in my experience this is a better place.) Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

watched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The general questions brought here are

• 1. - Whether deleting any medical claim not supported by a source is POV and tendentious, or required per MEDRS.
• 2. - Whether "minority" can be asserted re a position regarding a medical practice, without sourcing.
• 3. - Whether being a (supposedly) "minority" view on a medical practice implies that WP:UNDUE trumps WP:MOS (lede) - "include significant controversies".
• 4. - Whether publication of a controversy in multiple major mainstream peer reviwed medicsl journals, specifically on topic to the article topic, establishes "signigicance", no matter whether a minority view or not. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1. I deleted unsourced medical claims, and they were immediately put back in, again without sources, violating MEDRS. Deletion per MEDRS is not POV, especially since when I first put citation needed tags up, then Looie496 took them down as "pointy".
• 2. The second lede paragraph of the DSM article at WP states "It has also attracted controversy and criticism. Some critics argue that the DSM represents an unscientific system…”.
• 3. There is corresponding controversy specific to article topics psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and bipolar disorder.
• 4. Per MOS (lede) - "summarize the most important points — including any prominent controversies". I applied MOS (lede) with solid MEDRS and RS sources, International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and New York Law School.
• 5. My edits were deleted with edit summary claims unsupported by any RS - "far too strong" as simply too strong, and sources disputing whether psychiatry is a science are in the minority"and "These edits blatantly push an anti-psychiatry POV". ParkSehJik (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Misplaced Pages articles are not communicating information found in WP:MEDRS? Please keep it short, because WP:TLDR. Biosthmors (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1. Biothmors, this reversion of my deletions added back implicit and explicit medical claims without any sources, violating both MEDRS and RS.
• 2. This series of reversions of my edits supported by MEDRS and RS, had edit summaries unsupported by any RS - "far too strong" as simply too strong, and sources disputing whether psychiatry is a science are in the minority"and "These edits blatantly push an anti-psychiatry POV" ParkSehJik (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Checking the links above, you seriously put "dubious" tags on statements like psychiatry is medicine? Um, yes, we have a POV problem here and a WP:TEND issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there is a lot of stuff here. I am having trouble determining what needs being addressed. If you want to discuss content issues can you summary one issue with refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

First, Park, read WP:TALK and refrain from excessive markup in your posts. Second, article comments do not belong on this page; confine them to article talk and keep them off of this page. Finally, I suggest someone move these comments to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

But which article? Agree one should just post here to ask for further eyes. Than discussion should occur somewhere else. We all here agree more or less to WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the problem (which article)-- Park is all over the map, with similar issues. So cap off the whole discussion above as an inappropriate use of this page and let the original poster use article talk pages appropriately to address individual items and create a new post here to address the overall. Perhaps he is able to do that without hollering, using excess markup, relying on appropriate uses of sources, and by accurately reading policy and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Now shortened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Better; thank you for adjusting so quickly. Regarding your points 3 and 5, see WP:LEAD and WP:CRITICISM. There was notable criticism of DSM-3, we don't require Criticism sections in articles, and also see WP:UNDUE as it explains how we would determine what controversy should be added to aricles. Also see WP:MEDMOS on how we organize medical articles; controversy would be incorporated in the correct section. The rest of your points are still article specific and belong on article talk, not here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted at Talk before editing. I got no response. I asked for sources for the edit summary claims of "minority", and of UNDUE since minority. I got no response. There is certainly significant controversy, as the sources I provided are peer reviewed then edited mainstream sources, different from those cited in DSM, critical specifically of the article topics I was editing at, but related to the DSM controversy. I put up citation needed tags on unsourced medical claims. Looie496 took them off as "pointy". I then deleted the unsourced material entirely, and it was immediately put back in withuot sources, violating MEDRS. . There was not RS cited to support WP:UNDUE trumping MOS (lede) "significant controversies". I put up construction tags to hold the edits while I tried to improve the articles and the construction tags were removed within hours.

The general question brought here seems to be whether it is POV to apply MEDRS to delete all med claims without sources, and whether being a (supposedly) "minority" view on a medical topic makes WP:MOS (lede) - "include significant controversies" trumped by WP:UNDUE. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you to read WP:TALK, avoid excessive markup, and stop hollering. Bolding removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia - Thanks, I have now read WP:TALK and applied it. ParkSehJik (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And, based on the links above, you are misrepresenting. Putting "dubious" tags on psychiatry as medicine is pointy and we don't need citations for common knowledge. Now, I will no longer be responding here-- take your items to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that putting dubious tags on psychiatry as "medicine" is pointy. That is the very essence of what is argued in the deleted sources. Part of psychatry is medicine. Psychiatry is not all medicine, according to the WP definition of medicine as being all suported by scientific method, according to my deleted mainstream MEDRS sources, and per recent discussion at Alternative medicine re the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Flight from Science and Reason conference. There is a significant question as to whether certain psychiatric catgories describe are correlated with "disease" at all, or worse, are entirely imaginary, like demonic possession. For example, "penis envy" was used in 20th Century forensic psychiatry to involuntarily inter people and sieze their assets , and what is practiced at Guantanamo does not "heal". That is the significant controversy cited by the sources I added. If someone has a source calling ALL psychiatry medicine, then put it in the article. If someone has a source challenging certain practices in psychiatry as not being related to "disease", or not being science based, i.e., not medicine, then this is not being pointy. What is your source? ParkSehJik (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

what the hell are you talking about may I ask? lesion (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

ParkSheJik, psychiatry is a combination of medicine and psychology from a medical perspective. Diagnosing and treating mental illness, requires a lot of skill as much as psychiatric scientific knowledge. I don't think there is any debate that psychiatry is a mixture of science and skill, such as the skill of psychoanalysis and the ability to consider differential diagnoses etc. Even medical doctors don't practice pure medicine and a lot of their work will require aspects of psychoanalysis, gut instinct etc when assessing and diagnosing patients. I don't really see what your position is or where you are coming from clearly? Are you coming from the anti-psychiatry angle that because psychiatry is not a pure science that psychiatry is not legitimate?--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the motivations of an editor are less important than how they edit. I suggest that we focus on the latter. I have urged ParkSehJik to slow down and listen to advice from experienced editors. A lot of WPMED content (particularly Psychiatry content) is poorly sourced, but in many cases excellent sources exist and simply need to be cited ("excellent" being defined as clearly representing consensus - scientific or otherwise). -- Scray (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I made a post on the NPOV noticeboard about this user and his/her edits:

• Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_dispute_at_Psychiatry_and_Forensic_Psychiatry

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that this user's edits are still up on forensic psychiatry. Most of these issues don't even relate to forensic psychiatry at all.

There is controversy regarding the motives and scientific validity of forensic psychiatry findings of mental disorders. Forensic psychiatrists are frequently called “whores”. In psychiatry, “politics and economics has replaced quality science”. Unlike evidence based medicine or even traditional medicine, psychiatry may use the term “disease” or "disorder" without a systemic etiology indicated, i.e. even without any observable and measurable abnormalities in anatomy, chemistry, and physiology hypothesized as causative for mental categories declared by psychiatrists to be diseases or disorders. Psychiatry may apply the term “disease” politically, for the mere belief that a cluster of symptoms must be a disease because the symptoms are very uncommon, to justify crude its own specialty treatments such as lobotomies, to justify involuntary commitments, and for financial profit to justify the sale of psychotropic drugs.

...Really? Whores? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, have a look at the abstract (in PubMed) of the reference embedded in your quotation here: In 35 opinions, professionals were termed or compared with "hired guns"; five cases described testifying experts using the word "whore," and five cases used some variation on "prostitute." As has been suggested above, discussions like this below on the article's talk page, but I don't think the editor should be attacked for using text found in an abstract on PubMed. In direct response to your question: "yes, really". -- Scray (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ “The pejorative phrase ‘defendant’s whore’ or ‘prosecutor’s whore’ is frequently used describing experts who would ‘say anything wants him to say.’” , 'They’re An Illusion to Me Now': Forensic Ethics, Sanism and Pretextuality, Michael L. Perlin, New York Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series 07/08 # 27,
2. "Courtroom Whores" ?--or Why Do Attorneys Call Us? Findings from a Survey on Attorneys' Use of Mental Health Experts, Douglas Mossman & Marshall Kapp, 26 J. American Academy of Academic Psychiatry and the Law, 27 (1998)
3. “The ‘hired gun phenomenon’ is a recurrent topic in forensic psychiatric shop talk…”, "Hired Guns," "Whores," and "Prostitutes": Case Law References to Clinicians of Ill Repute, D. Mossman, Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 1999;27(3):414-25,
4. ^ ”While an operational definition for the term disease is lacking in traditional medicine, consensus indicates that it infers observable and measurable abnormalities in anatomy, chemistry, and physiology as causative for an observed cluster of symptoms. However, the term disease in psychiatry and psychology has a very different historical usage. It has been used when no systemic etiology has been indicated, it has been used politically for addictions, it has been used for the mere belief that a cluster of symptoms must be a disease because the symptoms are bizarre, and it has been used to justify crude medically based treatments, such as electroshock, lobotomies, involuntary commitments, and the sale of powerful drugs. With the advent of new medical machines, such as CAT scans, PET scans, and MRI's, a large volume of poorly conducted and questionable research has been pouring fourth to find diseases as a justification to promote psychotropic drugs. Politics and economics has replaced quality science.”, Toward an Operational Definition of Disease in Psychiatry and Psychology: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment, David B. Stein, Steve Baldwin, Medicine, Pharmacy and Medical Law and Ethics, International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine, Volume 13, Number 1, 2000