Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:33, 30 October 2015

• 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 entries on cardiovascular diseases lack accuracy, according to an article in BMJ Open

I just want to let you know about a recently published article in the journal BMJ Open that tried to "evaluate accuracy of content and readability level of English Misplaced Pages articles on cardiovascular diseases": "Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Misplaced Pages: are they reliable learning resources for medical students?". BMJ Open. 5: e008187. 2015. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008187. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) --sentausa (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The four topics rated "poor": Acute pericarditis, Angina pectoris, Prosthetic heart valves, Pulmonic regurgitation. KateWishing (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The main problem highlighted under the "accuracy" component of the study is incompleteness. Falsehoods don't seem to be an issue.

"The highest score was 45 for the article on deep vein thrombosis while the lowest was 28 for the article on acute pericarditis. The 47 Misplaced Pages articles had a median score=33, IQR=6—the highest possible score was 50. Out of the 47 entries, 4 (8.5%) articles scored 40 or higher, described as Good as per our cut-off system, 39 (83%) articles scored 30 to 39, described as Moderate as per our cut-off system and 4 (8.5%) scored less than 30, described as Poor as per our cut-off system. We did not observe vandalism of the 47 entries during the conduction of the study."

(My bolding.) User:Biosthmors had shepherded Deep vein thrombosis through Misplaced Pages's internal peer review process twice in 2012 (the year before the study date). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• for the record..The search was conducted on the 6 of October 2013 by three evaluators independently, and entries identified were printed out on the same day--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have done a fair bit of work on the leads of many of these articles in the last year or two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Anthonyhcole for that attempted notification. (For whatever reason, I did not receive a notification from you that day. I'll ask why at Misplaced Pages talk:Notifications.) It was nice to see my most extensive medical contribution positively reviewed (however briefly) in a medical journal. I'm glad that it was picked as an article to review. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No Worries. You mentioned back then that you might put it through FA. It looks like it's a worthy candidate, Biosthmors. (Did that ping work?) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That one did, thanks. I don't plan on getting it up to FA at the moment. But that might change depending upon what opportunities it might open up. =) If deep vein thrombosis was brought up at FA level, were you thinking about an expert peer review by BMJ perhaps? That would be cool, but beyond that, I think it would be more exciting if we could get the article actually published in BMJ Open. I see that "All BMJ Open articles are licensed using either Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) or Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC) licence." Does that mean there is a licensing incompatibility between Misplaced Pages and BMJ Open? This has been explained to me in the past, I'm sure. I see Misplaced Pages is CC BY-SA. If there is an incompatibility, then it still seems there is another possible way to get the article published under a new license: the main author(s) could re-license the content if necessary after demonstrating that they alone deserve to be recognized as authors (there is a tool that would be helpful, but I forgot its name). Anyhow, any ideas here Anthonyhcole? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So the share alike (SA) portion would have to be dropped before an open access journal is likely to publish it, it appears. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that this publication might have caused a page view spike at the DVT article, from 1,000 (or under) to over 12,000 page views in one day. The article was published on Oct. 6, which corresponds with the spike, which was sustained over several days. That's impressive to me if that was the cause. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we can't publish Misplaced Pages articles under BMJ Open's current license. Yes, if you bring DVT up to FA, I'll submit it to BMJ for review.

Just to be clear, BMJ are recruiting the best qualified reviewers they can lay their hands on for this project. That is, they're choosing from the same pool of reviewers they would use for any of their journals (including BMJ Open) but for us they're approaching only the best in that pool. They're taking the integrity of this review process very seriously. We expect that Reliable Misplaced Pages (or whatever we end up calling it) will quickly gain a deserved reputation for excellence and rock-solid reliability, second to none.

My point is, while it would definitely be cool to have the article published in BMJ Open (the journal that published the criticism), it'll be even cooler to have it published in Reliable Misplaced Pages. I know how absurd it sounds just now but this is easily achievable and where this is going: researchers will cite the reliable version of Deep vein thrombosis in peer-reviewed articles, professors will refer their students to it, and authors will cut and paste slabs of it into textbook chapters with attribution. And you'll add it to the top of your list of publications when applying for academic advancement or tenure. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the claim that researchers will cite the reliable any version of a Misplaced Pages article in many peer-reviewed articles. Don't most journals have a rule that requires only primary sources to be cited? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a rule, but the usual expectation is that you'll cite the original research rather than a secondary or tertiary source when you're referring to prior research. User:soupvector touches on this in his Wikiconference talk I linked to in the thread above this. I wouldn't expect an article in a peer-reviewed journal to cite reviewed versions of Misplaced Pages articles for anything but definitions, general principles, etc. As for my point about slabs of a Misplaced Pages appearing in textbooks - that will only happen if the publisher allows a part of the book to conform with our Creative Commons license - so it will be rare and will more likely be a quote. Really, I'm just trying to convey the nature of the paradigm shift we're trying to catalyse here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree - I also want this shift to occur, but that won't make it happen. There's a big gap in credibility, currently, between BMJ Open (already listed in MEDLINE and having an ISI Impact Factor of just over 2) and Reliable Misplaced Pages (or whatever name it gets, still "vaporware"). The former could be cited as a reliable source in a peer-reviewed journal and in one's academic CV to support promotion etc; the latter might someday serve those purposes, but not now or soon. Nonetheless, I am hopeful but I'm not sure what revenue will support the editorial staff (not talking about the volunteer peer reviewers - I'm talking about the salaried folks who do all the other stuff that make a journal function reliably). — soupvector (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm expecting Wikimedia to host the reviewed articles, and to help us volunteers (at least in the beginning) to transform the reviewed version into a nice, journal-like presentation. I'll ask for BMJ's help with that too. Once we have a system in place, copying a reviewed version from the article's history to the "journal space" should be a fairly streamlined process. I expect arranging for PubMed indexing and doi allocation will be fairly straightforward, too, after the first few times. If it becomes too onerous for a volunteer to keep on top of, I'm confident we'll get funding to employ someone. While BMJ is willing to do the other stuff - basically, attracting the highest quality reviewers to the job for free - I don't think there is any need for a lot of funding. They may tire of it, at which point we'll look elsewhere. Or they may invite their peers at other specialiist journals to shoulder some of the load. I'm looking forward to BMJ's thoughts once they and we get to know each other and how this all works a bit better.

Regarding the credibility of BMJ-reviewed versions of Misplaced Pages articles, they will be highly credible. The task will be to convey that fact to the public and academy. I'm assuming we'll do a good job of that. If we don't, all of this is pretty much a waste of time. Lila at the WMF realises that and so do Peter and Fiona at BMJ. None of us has time to waste. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is precedent for any web site becoming academically credible (citable for promotion or scholarly publication) by virtue of being peer reviewed by a credible journal. I'm not trying to discourage - just cautioning that a plan without precedent has unclear risk. — soupvector (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, this is a new thing; and we're being very slow and cautious in our approach. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this draft any good?

Please take a look at User:Tkim543/sandbox and evaluate it for acceptability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

should be merged with Intrapleural_pressure...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Huh, that seems wrong. CFCF 💌 📧 06:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• please need further opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This draft is now at Draft:Dynamic compression of the airways, it definitely needs more opinions/advice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've found thousands of "dynamic compression" mentions in the medical literature. I think we're past the stage of whether this is notable or not. It just needs a bit of a clean-up and some more references, as DocJames stated. I might take on this tast tomorrow. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Sramdin/sandbox

tDear medical experts: This draft appears to be an expansion of the Vascular nerves article. The user didn't take the advice to move the text to that article. Would that be appropriate? Are the references good? If so, I can move the material and attribute it back to the proper user in the edit summary. If it needs selective merging and/or rewrite, though, someone who know the subject will have to do it.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

reference #1 should be more recent (#2 and 3 aren't consistent with MEDRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, are you saying it is inappropriate and should be left to be deleted under db-g13?—Anne Delong (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• ill try to look for a better #1 reference (the problem with moving it to vascular nerves is that article needs reference too)....I think we need more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Immune system needs some love

It was promoted to an FA around 8 years ago with no review since then. A minor issue is that it's missing coverage of Tregs and T helpers in hypersensitivity/autoimmunity. A bigger issue is that it completely avoids any mention of a distinction between the immune systems of the CNS and periphery... e.g., it doesn't mention anything about periphery-brain barriers, local CNS mast cells, glial cells, or (as far as I can tell) any autoimmune/infectious/inflammatory disorders of the CNS.

Should probably do a WP:FARC... Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

will look (only the subsection on "cellular barriers" gives a token nod to CNS?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest avoiding FARC unless you really feel that the article ought to be demoted. FARC tends to focus on issues that don't have much to do with article quality, such as whether the book references all have page numbers. If important information is missing, it's usually best to add it without bringing FAR into play. (I know hardly anything about the immune system, but I think another problem is that the article incorrectly states that only vertebrates show adaptive immunity -- we now know that many prokaryotes have a type of adaptive immunity mediated by the CRISPR/Cas mechanism.) Anyway, it might be best to continue discussion at Talk:Immune system. Looie496 (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it not possible to run a review of an FA without FAR, like we did on Lung cancer with CRUK? Ping Johnbod? CFCF 💌 📧 12:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That is certainly possible, if someone is ready to do it - the main author here, User:DO11.10, has only done 5 edits since 2011, so probably can't be that person, unfortunately - they were a researcher in the field. At lung cancer (also a 2007 FAC promotion) it was User:Axl, who had with others been keeping a close eye on the article in the meantime, and very kindly mounted a full update. In fact it was already a good deal larger than when first made FA. The stats for immune system show much less action over the years since promotion, though I haven't done a proper analysis. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

run a review of an FA without FAR , is probably best idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My usual Misplaced Pages talk

I give Misplaced Pages talks.

Today I presented at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. See the video, if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry it was very good, thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Informative presentation, with excellent selection of content for that audience. Congratulations and thanks. --Zefr (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't get the link to work. The sound cuts out after ~5 seconds. :( TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 Here is an updated link - Health information lives here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft that needs help

Draft:Woodruff's plexus may be a notable topic, but it is currently on the incoherent side. Could anyone here help? Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Woodruff plexus is mentioned in Nosebleed?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and Faith healing RFC

Need editors to check WP:AN#Reverted non-admin closure of RFC on Talk:Faith healing, a recent RFC that has been disputed because of the closure that has clearly ignored the reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not surprised that it was contested; Raymond has been advocating for the opposite conclusion since he created his account 14 edits ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Delusionary parasitosis

Working on Louse, I've found that Delusionary parasitosis redirects to Entomophobia (an article much in need of attention). Delusionary parasitosis isn't actually mentioned there, and from a little reading on the Web, it doesn't seem to be a synonym. Is the redirect appropriate, and would anyone care to lend a hand, perhaps setting up a decent stub? (Of course, any help with juicy facts on Louse would also be appreciated.)Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Would Morgellons be a more appropriate redirect? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: The correct target of the redirect would be Delusional parasitosis. (Looks like Chiswick Chap found it already.) "Morgellons" is a made-up label which some people apply to certain types of delusional parasitosis in the mistaken belief that they actually do have a parasitic infection. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TenOfAllTrades. I realize that morgellons is not a real physical disease - but since it relates to delusions about parasites I thought it might make a decent redirection in the absence of a more appropriate article. I'm happy to hear that an exact match has been found.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both, the hint helped me in the right direction, and I've sorted out some redirects too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

New article

Dear medical experts: I just move this draft to mainspace after quite a bit of editing: Suzanne Levine. Please someone check it over for medical accuracy. Also, there are a couple of claims to top this and best that - should these be removed? Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Anne Delong for all the clean-up. I can't see any medical claims in the article, and as Levine is not a medical doctor, that's not too surprising. As for the claims attributed to Health Magazine and Consumers' Research Council of America, I've added a {{citation needed}} to give someone who may be interested (I'm not) a chance to find the sources that verify the claims. My advice is that if sources don't emerge soon, the best thing to do is to cut that sentence and drop it onto the article talk page to give a lead to DrSuzanneLevine or anyone else in the future who may wish to re-instate it after finding sources. --RexxS (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, RexxS. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

...and Ozzie10aaaa.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

COI edit request

Editor with COI asking for some help with Nintedanib. Please see WT:PHARM#Requesting an Assessment of Nintedanib Article. Sizeofint (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Modified citrus pectin as a cancer treatment

A flurry of edits here, with an editor say some doctors recommend it. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

will keep eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Corrected the wishy-washy statement in the lead about "limited" evidence of efficacy, since there's no evidence for efficacy in humans. Also bumped the red herring about GRAS status from the lede down into the toxicity section. That takes the edge off the worst of it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hip fracture merge, anyone?

Hello. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Canadian Collaborative Study of Hip Fractures has closed with the decision to merge any appropriate content from Canadian Collaborative Study of Hip Fractures to Hip fracture. I don't have much medical knowledge, so is anyone who does have able to help identify whether there is any material in the article worth merging? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about a specific study. Not really suitable for merging.

I guess the bigger question is do we want this sort of article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the outcome of the AfD can be read to mean, no we don't want this article. I'm of the opinion that there isn't actually anything in the article that is worth merging, but perhaps others with a better understanding will suggest otherwise. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the article is about a study that is...in progress?...just funded? It doesn't appear to have produced any results, and the Misplaced Pages article doesn't give any dates. While I would argue that there is a place in Misplaced Pages for articles on major studies which receive significant coverage and produce significant results—this particular study doesn't seem to have (yet) cleared those hurdles. Since this study hasn't reported anything yet (AFAIK?), then there's not really anything to merge. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There are strong hints of undeclared COI edits in the history of that article. I've given the usual {{uw-coi}} notice, but have not gotten any response yet from the recipients. They have not edited since. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do not think deletion is unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Hearing aid application

Hello medical experts. Here's an old draft that has some references. Is this a notable medical topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

First ref is not in English Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

True, it's in Russian, and appears to be an article by Azarov JS, Vashkevich MI, Peter AA, and Kozlov SV of the BSUIR Minsk, Centre of Otolaryngology Minsk, about a proposed implementation of digital hearing aids using an iPhone. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The class of apps got an article in the Wall Street Journal, so it's probably notable. It needs some good copyediting, but there's no significant chance that it would get deleted at AFD. (Also, using your smartphone and headset to compensate for hearing loss, without spending thousands of dollars on hearing aids, is kind of a cool idea.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

International Society for Laboratory Hematology

Hello again, med people - here's another article on a medical topic. I have de-fluffed it and added some references, but again being ignorant of the topic may have misapplied them. Please check my work and make whatever changes seem appropriate.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Barrier cream Review

Editors with an interest in dermatology and the accuracy of medical information on Misplaced Pages are invited to participate in a discussion on the talk page for the article Barrier cream. There are serious issues with the article's accuracy. Liberties have been taken with the article to completely discount the use of barrier creams to treat pretty much anything, despite the proven efficacy of barrier creams to treat many dermatological conditions. I would greatly appreciate it if other dermatologists would weigh in on this.

Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Key is to use high quality sources. If you stick with those you will not have an issue convincing the community of editors here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be candid, you might. High-quality sources that contradict editors' personal beliefs can cause problems (says the editor who has spent too much time on mammogram recommendations...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Most people here are swayed by high quality sources. For mammograms we simply state the positions of the various high quality sources out their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Dispute at the Dissociative identity disorder article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Dissociative identity disorder#DSM-5 and 2015 Review article on DID and KateWishing & Flyer22's refusal to let me add that info to the DID page. A WP:Permalink for it is here. There is more than one discussion about this currently at that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Use of primary sources

Being discussed here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Made a cautious incision in the article to remove the diseased text. Do we have procedure for wordectomy? --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Scientific American source/prevalence of domestic violence data at the Domestic violence article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included? A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

We have a 2015 review in a major medical journal here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of sourcing here

Would appreciate others opinions Talk:Pregabalin#Really_poor_source Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

need more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like we need people who are good at finding sources, rather than people with opinions. AFAICT, the content is correct, and the only problem is that someone (probably someone used to academic publishing standards) cited a primary source rather than a review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Supporting "Pregabalin is fives times more potent than gabapentin with a proven potential for abuse and dependence" with a citation to a mouse study? Standards in academic publishing must be slipping! Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Much more than that was removed, as you know. Is the statement about bioavailability contested? How about the non-biomedical (and therefore non-MEDRS) question of why the drug is regulated in the U.S.? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Lets continue the discussion on the talk page to keep it from being split up. My other concern was that the prior working was rather promotional. We do need to use good refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There's certainly something ... odd going on with the editing at Pregabalin. Can't work it out. Alexbrn (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Move request

On a medical FA here Talk:Poliomyelitis#Requested_move_23_October_2015 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on draft

Your comments on Draft:Duarte galactosemia are welcomed. Please use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor 12:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree w/ all the points raised on the tag --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's too bad, because half the points are factually wrong. The tag complains that there are no links, except that there are 18 (eighteen). The tag complains that there are no categories, except that there are two. It's missing a third, which is Category:Rare diseases. It does cite some primary sources in addition to the reviews that it relies most heavily upon, but these citations are not unreasonable, e.g., three citations to primary papers when it reports that there have been three studies performed on a particular sub-topic.

Primary sources are particularly valuable when trying to provide a complete description of rare diseases that get very little research attention. For this condition, there have only been two review articles published during the last five years. The paucity of sources is why MEDRS doesn't actually have a reviews-only rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

the tag was in its current state since  ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

About 18 hours before you posted your statement that you agreed with "all the points raised on the tag", an editor had added a bunch of wikilinks. The editor (who is new—only a dozen edits total so far) didn't remove the tag that said "This article has no links to other Misplaced Pages articles". (This is typical for new editors; they usually believe that tags need to be removed by someone who is "official".) That tag was obviously false at the point that you said that you agreed with it. The tag might have been reasonably accurate at the time that the page was tag bombed, but it was not accurate at the time that you posted here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

current issues on article still need to be addressed (as it has improved from prior )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Human skull - Featured Picture nomination

Ran this by Soupvector first, for an expert medical opinion.

WikiProject Medicine members may be interested in this one:

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Human skull side simplified.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though I noted in my nomination statement already that Soupvector from WP:MED reviewed this particular image, there's a comment at the Featured Picture discussion page at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Human skull side simplified that suggests it would be useful for additional medical experts to weigh in there as to its medical accuracy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: Second_opinion#Medicine (to supplement that already by Soupvector) would be appreciated, at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Human skull side simplified. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hot articles

I asked user:Kaldari if the hot articles bot could be enabled for the medicine project (lists the most edited articles over the last few days, see it in action at WP:ANATOMY. Even though the number of articles is larger than the stated maximum, he is willing to give it a try, however the article categorisation needs a change with an additional category containing all medicine articles:

@Wouterstomp: I would be willing to try it, but in order for it to work there has to be a category that includes all of your project's articles directly (rather than in subcategories). (I know that's a weird requirement, but it's the only way that the query can run efficiently.) You can do this by creating an new category like Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles and adding "MAIN_CAT = All WikiProject Medicine articles" to {{WikiProject Medicine}}. You could also make your existing Category:WikiProject Medicine articles the MAIN_CAT, although that might be awkward since all the articles are already included in subcategories there. I would recommend discussing this with other members of your project first. Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there any preference for one of these two options? --WS (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No preference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Give it a try" is less than wonderful for an approach that requires editing every single article in WPMED. Can we give some thought to whether there is a less intrusive way of getting into this? Looie496 (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Looie496: You don't have to edit the articles, just the template, i.e. it's only a single edit. Kaldari (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

All our medical articles have WP:MED templates on the talk pages. We could have a bot make the changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't need a bot. I've added |MAIN_CAT=All WikiProject Medicine articles to {{WikiProject Medicine}} and created Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles. Is that ready to go now, Kaldari? --RexxS (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that's all you need. I'll go ahead and set up the subscription and see how long it takes to run. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wouterstomp, RexxS, Doc James, and Looie496: The subscription has been created and the chart generated: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Hot articles. Please add it into your WikiProject portal as you see fit. There is a category size hard-limit that is set for the script, which I've raised from 20,000 to 50,000 on an experimental basis. The script execution time grows exponentially with category size, so it has to have some limit in place. Hopefully, 50,000 will accommodate WikiProject Medicine for the next couple years at least :) Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Kaldari. I'm hoping we won't take on that many new articles in the near future. Reminds me of the doctor talking to his patient, "I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is we're naming a disease after you ..." --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Kaldari, had been looking for something like this for a few years already. Also interesting results. Is it possible to increase the number of results to 20 or so because of the size of the wikiproject and the number of semi-related stuff that turns up in the results? --WS (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wouterstomp: Hmm, it's possible, but a longer list would be harder to integrate into your portal page. An alternative would be setting a shorter time-window since you're such a large project. Right now your time window is set to 7 days, which means that short bursts of editing activity are not likely to show up on the list. You may want to consider setting it to 5 days or 3 days even. That will make your list more dynamic. If you do want to switch to 20 article instead, I can look into doing that. Do you have any ideas on how your going to integrate the chart into your portal? Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I have added it under the collaboration header (more because there was some space there than for other reasons). I agree that a long list would be hard to integrate on the project page. Perhaps you could generate two lists, one with 10 results and a larger one with 20-50 results (depending how many still have a meaningful number of edits, >5 or so); then we could have the short list on the project page and add a link there to the longer list. --WS (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wouterstomp: That's a pretty cool idea. It will require a bit of modification to the script, but it should be doable. I can't say when I'll be able to implement it, since things are pretty hectic at the moment, but I'll put it on my to-do list. Kaldari (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A question about the Lingual frenectomy article

I thought I'd ask here rather than on the article's talk page. The second sentence of that article was added here. As someone with no expertise in medicine it seems like an unfair summary of the procedure to link to one guy's anecdotal bad experience with it, which seems to come down to a general complication that could occur with any procedure that has anything to do with a knife being anywhere near nerves anywhere in your body.

I think the paragraph should probably just be removed, but as noted above I'm no doctor, and I don't play one on the Internet. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

have tagged sentence--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Vaginal teeth

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Vagina dentata#Vaginal teeth. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured Picture nomination - Avian flu vaccine development by reverse genetics

Ran this one, first, by WP:MED member Soupvector for medical accuracy, who said it was fine:

I've nominated Avian flu vaccine development by reverse genetics for Featured Picture.

Discussion is at: Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Avian flu vaccine development by reverse genetics.

— Cirt (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Scarsdale diet

Some disagreement about what sourcing is good and/or how its use is due. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

commented on talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Need to merge these 2 articles?

• Oral galvanism
• Galvanic pain

The first is an older article and the content and sources need attention. It seems not to represent the mainstream medical opinion. Strictly speaking the second article focuses mainly on pain, but the 2 seem to cover the same entity here. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the things I love about Misplaced Pages is that I can learn something new every day. For those who haven't heard of this and haven't clicked yet, it sounds to me sort of like the kind of problem that happens when plumbers connect different kinds of metal together, only it's dentists and tooth fillings.  :-)

I favor a merge, but I'm a mergist, so you should take my opinion with a grain of salt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This was a big alternative medicine topic during the 1980's. As far as I'm aware it was never proven and pretty much considered pseudoscience. Merge and purge. CFCF 💌 📧 08:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC) 

Galvanic pain is real although rare (see sources), but the claims of other symptoms seem fringe. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I took a second look and am inclined to disagree. All the sources are either old, low quality or otherwise questionable. Maybe it would be better to just delete?

Jaypee Bros. is a scam publisher, and the only modern citation that is relevant is PMID 24522020 , and it isn't too good either. CFCF 💌 📧 15:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

most current sources of oral galvanism seem poor. should be able to find better sources. I think it is notable. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, on a side note, I've sometimes used textbooks from these publishers, they seem OK sources. Not sure what is meant by "scam publisher", but should perhaps cover this on their encyclopedia article (Jaypee Brothers) and mention it on MEDRS? I did note that their textbooks are more likely to be able to preview on google books, and therefore are more readily available as sources. Regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction

The recently created article Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction appears to be a copy of Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction which was redirected to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. Is there consensus for a separate stand-alone article now? Or should it be deleted per WP:G4? Gnome de plume (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

REDIRECTED–problem solved. While it may in the future be enough for a stand-alone article the quality of that draft was abysmal, and it surprises me how it passed AfC. CFCF 💌 📧 23:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

AFC's purpose is to determine whether an article is likely to be deleted. It's not WP:GA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources were low enough quality that I didn't merge anything, so basically I would have called for deletion unless it was such a cumbersome process. CFCF 💌 📧 09:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC) 

Image on bipolar disease

Discussion here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Pharmacologic Treatment of Strabismus

Your comments on Draft:Pharmacologic Treatment of Strabismus are welcomed. Please use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor 07:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

several references seem dated per Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Tetrachlorodecaoxide needs cleanup, sourcing, pruning

Tetrachlorodecaoxide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs some vigorous attention. Essentially, it's intravenous hypochlorite being touted as a treatment for everything from ulcers to cancer to allergies to HIV infection. (Contrast and compare Miracle Mineral Supplement.) Most of the Misplaced Pages article is based on company websites and a handful of old primary journal articles. Possibly the basic chemical properties of the compound can stay; everything else looks like wishful thinking and snake oil. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I've just stripped out everything except the bare chemical description, because there aren't any good sources and there isn't any good content there. Probably it should be characterized as a 'chemical' (for Misplaced Pages purposes, with appropriate infoboxen) rather than a 'drug'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(Last new comment, I promise.)Looking at the talk page, I also am reminded that the structure shown is veeeeery dodgy. So even the basic chemical info – what little there is – is probably suspect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's valid to equate this with snake oil like MMS. There do seem to be some usable sources even if they are a bit long in the ear, such as PMID 15230635 and PMID 12054081. Looie496 (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The PubMed entry for the first source (15230635) appears to be the entire content of the 'article', which seems to be an unsigned blurb that appeared in Drugs in R&D in 2004. It contains marketing and patent info, plus several claims which would be remarkable if substantiated, but which I suspect represent poorly-controlled or uncontrolled trials.

The second source (12054081, from 2002) tells us that the compound is "being tested" for a laundry list of diseases—if it actually worked in any of them I would imagine that we would have heard something by now. At a minimum, I wouldn't want to use that source without locating reports of those clinical trials. The thing about these rather old sources is that we can look at them with the benefit of hindsight. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The article actually has a talk page. --Leyo 14:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It does (and I referred to it in my comments above) but it doesn't get a lot of attention. I didn't anticipate having time today to spend on this article, but I was pleasantly surprised. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You may want to ask for additional opinions on WT:Chem. --Leyo 00:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Amyloidosis rare?

Hi, Any chance I could get some eyes on this question? Thanks! NickCT (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

While not the main issue here, we seem to have to do with an unattributed Misplaced Pages clone at http://www.thevisualmd.com/searchimg/?idu=1083609715&q=graph CFCF 💌 📧 21:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If they're not using the WMF's trademarks, then it's not Legal's problem. It's the individual editors' copyrights that are being infringed, not the WMF's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No one mentioned the WMF until you did, WhatamIdoing. It is both possible and likely that editors whose content has been ripped off without credit by VisualMD (which seems to have copy-pasted the ledes from a number of our medical articles) will have this page watchlisted and will want to be aware of the problem.

That said, while the WMF doesn't have standing to file suit for copyright infringement, there's nothing which prevents them from politely saying "Please stop ripping off our contributors' hard work. Here's how you give appropriate credit." Or from less politely saying "If you don't shape up, we'll make a point of drawing public attention to your habit of ripping off our contributors' hard work." An approach from a high-profile organization like Wiki(p/m)edia may have more impact than an irate email from a private individual Misplaced Pages editor.

Finally, it's useful for us to know that VisualMD pulls this kind of nonsense just so we know to avoid ever using them as a source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

patient.info

A new account has changed 50 external links from patient.co.uk/... to patient.info/... (example). The issue was raised at ELN. Does anyone know the background to patient.co.uk which now seems to redirect to patient.info? It smells like SEO spam but a couple of the links I looked at seemed ok. People here might want to have a quick look. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well they did change their page so we can't really object to the edits themselves. The fact that the account name includes SEO is disconcerting, but maybe not more so than that we can ask the user to identify themselves as a paid editor under the full disclosure policy. CFCF 💌 📧 23:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the site just changed their url. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am working on behalf of Patient.info, as part of their external SEO agency. After the bot request was submitted to change the linking URL from .co.uk to .info after the site migration we noticed that there were still a bunch of pages that were linking to .co.uk (https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org%20%22patient.co.uk%22). As the bot requested seemed to have been filled I just assumed they were missed and thought I would be ok to change them myself. I've never had to edit Misplaced Pages articles before so I apologise if I went about it the wrong way! Would you be able to complete the rest of the outstanding changes with another bot request? Thanks and apologies again! AdamSEOWorks (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

thank you for clearing this up --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What are you referring to with that diff? CFCF 💌 📧 10:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

what the original poster (editor) placed up top?(please read the entire post ) thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

But why is that specific diff of interest? Am I missing any reason why you believe it adds to the conversation? CFCF 💌 📧 11:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AdamSEOWorks - Those edits are perfectly acceptable, what you will need to do is add to your user-page something akin to what is detailed here Misplaced Pages:Paid-contribution_disclosure#How_to_disclose. That page also lists a little on what is acceptable and not acceptable paid contributing.

CFCF 💌 📧 10:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I should have responded when I first looked into this. Updating the links is fine. The only problem I see is that the links aren't being reviewed on a case by case basis against WP:EL as they are being updated, but I don't expect a new editor to do so. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

http://www.div12.org/

Is being added to a bunch of articles by a bunch of accounts. Not a particularly good source in that it does not contain anything are articles do not already. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith, sockpuppets of a paid editor? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Those two both relate to Misplaced Pages:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/Developmental Psychopathology--PSYC 500 (Fall 2015), which I suspect the rest will. The Origami one (1st lk) is the course student ambassador/wiki-expert, & probably the one to complain to. Looking at his OCD edit above, the main linked page is short, but the further "div12" ones for types of treatment linked to below quite long & I daresay useful. On that page, personally I'd keep that, & remove the useless and out of date DMOZ link. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Think I concur with Johnbod. The American Society of Clinical Psychology seems like a scholarly and reasonable external link to have on OCD. Seems to meet external link guideline criteria 3. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not a collection of external links. DMOZ at least is. Maybe they should be directed to contribute their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Kbruksch0213/sandbox

Dear medical experts: Here's another old draft. The reviewer suggested that content be moved to Prostate cancer. Is there anything in the draft that should be moved? If so, it would require someone with some medical knowledge to integrate the text, crediting Kbruksch0213 in the edit summary. I can add the merge templates, etc. later. Or, if there's nothing worth saving, should it just be deleted as stale under db-g13? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect some of it is worth integrating into the "management" section, but as you say, good knowledge of the subject would be needed. Looking at the history, the article doesn't seem to have had a really thorough ovhaul for some years, and it may be getting out of date. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

some of the references are quite good per Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit review

Hello all. Now that I have become an infrequent editor (with two little kids at home!) I don't have much time to get into edit disputes. Would someone look at the recent edit history on the List of cutaneous conditions? Aside from my mess of edits trying to figure out how to subscript the number 4 (sorry), there have been a number of IP edits back and fourth re some wording (the changes of which look ok to me) and capitalization (the changes of which are incomplete) (see in particular this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_cutaneous_conditions&type=revision&diff=687845988&oldid=687769462 ). My particular concern is that if all the capitalization of disease synonym names is to be lowercase, then either all of them should be changed or they should be left alone only until someone has the time to change them all (not just some of them). Thoughts? --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you back again, even if it is only an infrequent visit. The de-capitalisation done by 66.61.83.123 look right to me. Misplaced Pages prefers to keep the use of capitals to a minimum (MOS:CAPS: "Misplaced Pages avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms.") Even in sentence fragments, such as a bulleted list, we conventionally capitalise the first word and nothing more (other than proper nouns and acronyms). For example, the IP 66.61.83.123 changed Acne cosmetica (Cosmetic acne) to Acne cosmetica (cosmetic acne), but left Acne aestivalis (Mallorca acne) as it was capitalised because 'Mallorca' is a proper noun. I've scanned through the current version of the list and I can't see any capitalisation that isn't the first word of the sentence, a proper noun or an acronym (assuming things like IgG₄ are regarded as equivalent to acronyms). It looks to me that 66.61.83.123 did a good job of sorting out the issue in line with MOS guidance. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there someone who would be willing to finish the job then? --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a complete pass through the list. A fresh pair of eyes might spot any that I've missed. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Cryotherapy

Good day to you all. I came here to ask you to take a look at the Cryotherapy article. I went to check it out a few days earlier after it was talked about on the news, but the article itself seems dubious. Much of it sounds like a sales pitch, looks a lot like pseudoscience, too few sources and they're inappropriate, etc. I was told I should come here with this, so here I am. I would like someone with knowledge of the topic to take a look at the article, determine if it's good, and if it isn't, identify what's wrong with it so it can be fixed. Then it can be decided whether the article can be corrected or if it needs to be rewritten entirely. Thanks in advance! Akesgeroth (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

beyond the NIH definition it does have some issues, will look further over the weekend--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of WP:MEDRS guideline issue at AN/I

Please note that the following change to WP:MEDRS made in July seems to have gone under the radar. While intended to be constructive it prompted some editors to avoid applying MEDRS on content that wasn't strictly biological, and resulted in a recent discussion at WT:MEDRS. The interpretation employed here was that epidemiology etc. did not fall under MEDRS. By restoring the original wording and clarifying according to the discussion in a constructive way a filing was made at WP:AN/I. This is of relevance to us because it would imply a substantially unwarranted weakening of MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 18:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be reverted. The edit has a corresponding comment in Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/FAQ--Ronz (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification Needed in Article Hailey–Hailey disease

I believe greater clarification needs to be made in the article regarding the use of the terms familial benign chronic pemphigus and familial benign pemphigus. Pemphigus is an autoimmune disorder that occurs when the body's own immune system mistakenly attacks healthy tissue, but Hailey-Hailey disease is not an autoimmune disorder and there are no autoantibodies. There has been a lot of confusion about this over the years in medical literature and at least some clarification should be included in the article. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

comment on talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving discussion to Article talk page. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice that the same point had been answered by WhatamIdoing in 2007 on the article talk page? --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't actually notice the post till later, but it was more about the removal of someone else's unencyclopedic edit than about the need for clarification. In any event, I did clarify the problem in what I feel (hope) is authoritative and encyclopedic. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS? A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)