Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:46, 8 July 2014 editRexxS (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,075 edits →Acupuncture again: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:10, 26 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,846 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 172) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{skip to top and bottom}}
			{{skip to bottom}}
			{{VEFriendly}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~250K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	\|counter = 50		\|counter = 172
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|minthreadsleft=5		\|minthreadsleft=5
	\|algo = old(4d)		\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	{{MedTalkheader\|archivedays=4<!--should be equal to the # in "algo=old(#d)" from above-->}}		{{MedTalkheader\|archivedays=30<!--should be equal to the # in "algo=old(#d)" from above-->}}
			{{Press
	{{WPMED related changes\|popular=yes}}
			\|author = Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|title = Misplaced Pages war: Fierce row erupts over Israel’s deadly Nuseirat assault
	\|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive index
			\|date = June 14, 2024
	\|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive <#>
			\|org = ]
	\|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine/Archive <#>
			\|url = https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/14/wikipedia-war-fierce-row-erupts-over-israels-deadly-nuseirat-assault
	\|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive <#>
			\|lang = <!-- default is English -->
	\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=no
			\|quote = Misplaced Pages was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.
			\|archiveurl = <!-- URL of an archived copy of the page, if the original URL becomes unavailable. -->
			\|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink -->
			\|accessdate = June 14, 2024
	}}		}}

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	== Study on Misplaced Pages's coverage of drug-safety ==
			] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 01:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			:thank you for post--] (]) 12:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

			== PCORI (Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute) as MEDRS? ==
	I'm not a regular here, but thought I'd make note of this if it hasn't been made already. Came across a recent study by Harvard researchers on Misplaced Pages's reliability and speed at updating drug safety information:
	* in the ]
	* in the New England Journal of Medicine. '''~'']'']''' <small>] ]</small> 21:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
	::Yes am in discussion with the FDA regarding possibly collaborating. They are of course a big organization and move slow. On my end I am interested. Others thoughts? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Ideally one for the Pharmacology project. Overall our response seems good, but with serious lapses at times - so just like WP in general. Isn't there an FDA online list that someone just needs to check at intervals, after we are sure we are up to date? Of course the FDA is not the whole of the story, and no doubt already far better covered than other regulators around the world. On a quick look I couldn't see anything to complain about in their method, which makes a change. ] (]) 10:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::What we need is someone interested in taking this on. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::: One can sign up for e-mail updates to FDA "Recalls and Safety Alerts" and "MedWatch Safety Alerts" . I have just done so. If I get a relevant alert, I will at a minimum post a message on the pharmacology project talk page and in addition, update the Misplaced Pages drug page if I have time. ] (]) 09:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::: From the , here is a relatively recent of an FDA alert. Would this be an appropriate response? ] (]) 18:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Thanks Bog. If the FDA is interested in a more formal relationship do you want be to involved you? They say it will be a few weeks before they decide. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: Interesting. Yes, I would be willing to work with them to improve Misplaced Pages drug articles. ] (]) 05:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

			Is there a consensus that using PCORI is an acceptable ] source? There is a six-year that was . -] (]) 00:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	== Butter versus margarine ==

			:I place PCORI in the same category as CDC or NIH. But I have seen edit wars centered on whether or not an NIH medical dictionary was ], and the resolution was not(!), so I suppose these sources in whole or in part may not be ]. But if none of their work product is, one starts to get very close to the conclusion that nothing is ]. ] (]) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	Misplaced Pages can have information about the advantages of ] and the disadvantages of ].
			::One of the challenges with "MEDRS" is that there is the ideal (e.g., a peer-reviewed review article published in a highly reputable journal within the last five years) and then there is the good-enough (you don't need an "ideal" source to say that the common cold is caused by a virus). Even if PCORI isn't "ideal", it might be "good enough", depending on what's being said. ] (]) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	*—by ] (June 23, 2014)
			:::I agree. I think that it is depending on what is being shared from the source and if it is a medical claim or paraphrased background information that fills an important gap in an article.] (]) 22:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
	—] (]) 22:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
	::We need a proper source per ]. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

			== Sourcing milestone ==
	=== ] could use review and expansion ===

			Hello, all:
	The question of whether low-fat really is or is not such an important thing to focus on for weight loss does seem to be very much in the Zeitgeist at the moment -- for example ''The Times'' (London) ran a long cover-piece in its features section yesterday, "The full-fat diet — why it’s not as unhealthy as you think" (paywalled) reviewing the history of low-fat diet advice contrasted with some more recent research, and ''Time'' magazine ran a cover story ten days ago, "Ending the war on fat" (paywalled).

			We've been working this month on getting at least one source into unreferenced medicine-related articles. There are now ] on the list! A few years ago, that list was over 400 articles. Less than a year ago, it was over 200 articles. We have made really good progress this year. Please take a minute and see if you can add a source to at least one article.
	Our article ] is pretty limited at the moment, and reflects none of this discussion. Considering that this is a major lifestyle issue for so many people, it could use some review and expansion by qualified folks from appropriate sources. ] (]) 11:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
	::Yes there is lots of great sources on low-fat diet versus other type of diet. There is no significant difference between low fat and high fat. We sum it up here ]. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

			We are doing this now to support the ] and also because we think that sources are particularly important for anything medicine-related on Misplaced Pages. The backlog drive has officially resulted in about 7,000 of Misplaced Pages's unsourced articles getting a new source (i.e., with <code>#NOV24</code> in the edit summary), plus all the pages that got new references but which weren't tagged.
	== Jay W. Friedman and wisdom teeth ==

			Please join in and do your bit. We'd really appreciate it. ] (]) 18:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
	Misplaced Pages can have information about Dr. ] and his views on the prophylactic extraction of third molars.
	* <br>
	—] (]) 22:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
	:Thank you for the link. This is a non-systemic review article against the removal of asymptomatic, disease free wisdom teeth. The debate has been discussed in the articles, and careful equal weighting of each side of the argument has been given in the treatment controversy section. There is a Cochrane study on the subject that is included, with wording largely crafted by Hildabast. ] (]) 02:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
	::Friedman source could be used to support the cochrane review, it seems reliable. ] (]) 22:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

			== Requested move at ] ==
	::], which Misplaced Pages articles discuss the debate?
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
	::—] (]) 17:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
			:commented--] (]) 12:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::I think he's talking about ]. See also ] and ], articles which could potentially benefit from this source. ] (]) 17:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::Thank you. I could try editing those articles, but I prefer that it be done by members of this WikiProject.
	::::—] (]) 18:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::{{U\|Wavelength}} the controversy's discussed in the ] article. I'll post the article on the talk page. Thx. ] (]) 18:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

	== ~~external~~ ~~links~~ at ] ==		== valvular heart disease: treatment ==

			In the ] article in the section on treatment of Aortic valve disorder, it is said that treatment is normally surgical, with catheter treatment for special cases. I have just been told by a cardiologist that catheter treatment is now preferred for all patients. ] (]) 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hi folks, an editor at ] has been repeatedly restoring external links to what the editor acknowledges are anonymous Internet chat forums and advocacy websites, as well as one AAP website that does not mention phimosis. The anonymous Internet chat forums and advocacy websites are non-peer reviewed and give medical advice. The reason this editor gives for restoring the external links is that this particular editor finds the websites "helpful" or "useful"; I have pointed out repeatedly in ] discussion on the article Talk page that the links fail ], ] has also pointed to ]. Latest restore of the links by this editor is . More input would be appreciated. <code>]]</code>
			:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS ?--] (]) 02:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

			== "dissociates by quantum" / "the quantum of fatigue" ==
	== AfC submission - 03/06 ==

	]. ] (]) 13:05, 3 ~~July~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		If someone with the relevant expertise could look at ] in the ] article, that would be wonderful. ] (]) 14:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Fixed. ] (]) 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	==July 2014 WikiProject Medicine newsletter - ''The Pulse'' ]==
	] ]]]
	Hello. Before {{u\|LT910001}} quit Misplaced Pages, he founded a WikiProject newsletter and was executive editor, president, and chief officer of the publication for about two weeks. At the time of LT's departure I was serving as a copyedit intern for the operation. Even though the publication is without an editor, I put together an issue with help from some others. The paper is intend to be documentation of what WikiProject Medicine members do, and it is intended to help guests of WikiProject Medicine understand what happens here.

			== Retinal tuft and VTS: draft articles ==
	Anyone who wants to read the current issue can do so at ]. In perhaps a week, a link to it will be mass-messaged to all people who are on the WikiProject Medicine subscriber list. Your perspective would be welcome in this publication now! Please write what you like and just put it in! I hope that it can continue to be a monthly thing. ]] 15:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

			Hi! I noticed that there are no articles on ] or ], common eye conditions that can lead to retinal detachments. I have never started an article before and decided to try it out. I would love some help expanding to the level where I can submit it. Suggestions super welcome.
	==Copy and pasting==
			I am also curious how much I should expand it before I submit it. Are stubs accepted? If so, can I submit now?
	We have a new editor ] who has been copy and pasting up a storm. Very similar to a previous editor called ]. Both editing extensively in the microbiology topic area. Have blocked this new editor. And dealt with most of the copy and past issues. :-( ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
			*]
	::Am in discussion with user in question. Trying to determine if they understand how Misplaced Pages works. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
			*]

			Thank you so much! ] (]) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Action T4 ==

			:While I encourage you to write more, both of the articles look acceptable for ]. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	The article ] recently got a section about and the euphemisms used by the Nazis to sweeten the truth. That section gave me an uneasy feeling. Now somebody else adds a that absolutely horrifies me.
			::Both of these articles are in the mainspace now. Thank you for your work! ] (]) 18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] Peer review ==
	Could somebody take a look and join the discussion at ]? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 19:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

			Hello everyone, in an attempt to get ] to FA status I have begun a ] on the topic which can be found at ]. Any input is welcomed! ]] <sup>(])</sup> 22:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	==]==
	This article makes tons of health claims with primary sources. Please jump in. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

			== New disease outbreak ==
	== Sourcing for ] ==
	This should be an article on the organization, not just a list. Could someone who knows the medical literature add a few more 3rd party sources, so we can turn this into an article on the organization? ] (]) 14:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
	::Organizations are typically of low importance to many of those within this project. Google books might be a good place for sources. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

			I've created ]. I hope this isn't premature, but it seemed to me like there was enough to start an article. The name will probably have to change as learn more. Input from others very welcome. ] (]) 11:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	== A statement on ] and Misplaced Pages editing ==
			: doubtful it's 'unknown'--] (]) 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Sorry, I missed there was already ]. Will merge. ] (]) 12:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks. It's not unusual to get a couple of people simultaneously starting articles on events. The ocean-near-California earthquake yesterday had half a dozen people starting articles that all got merged up. I treat it as proof that someone else also thought the subject was notable. ] (]) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

			==]==
	As Project Medicine has recently lost two valuable editors from an unfortunately small pool, I am heartened to see a '''considerate and polite''' discussion occurring on the talk page of the Alternative medicine article. It has helped me develop some thoughts on WP editing and attitudes towards alternative medicine topics. Some key points are: 1) There is a strong policy position in support of evidence based medicine and mainstream medicine. 2) I feel this is echoed and reinforced by the editorial position of many members of this project. 3) This means emerging support for alternative ideas face a staunch wall of resistance. 4) This also means ideas from the alternative community are subject to a higher level of scrutiny/opposition than those from the mainstream community.
			I recently created a draft for ], which has recently gotten a lot of press in the aftermath of the ]. There is currently an article for the book ], but I believe the practice is notable enough for its own article. I'd appreciate any help with sourcing. Thank you, ] (]) 20:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:--] (]) 13:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Requested move at ] ==
	An important point to consider is the amount of accepted mainstream medical practice that is not supported by evidence. I certainly understand the arguments based on plausibility and long term unmeasured success (and common sense). Still it is of interest to think, "What if every practice of 'modern medicine' was subjected to the level of scrutiny and the bar of evidence was raised to the level required on WP to make statements about alternative medicine?" and "What if every avenue of exploration endorsed by the mainstream was subjected to the level of hostility exhibited towards ideas from those who lack that endorsement?"
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

			==Images==
	At this point I will own my personal position. I consider Ernst, Barrett, Sampson and Hall heroes. I strongly object to quackery on deep ethical grounds. I have and will work hard to prevent WP from being a vehicle for the promotion for those who profit by the exploitation of those who suffer illness. That said some honesty regarding ''Bad Pharma'' and the fact that mainstream medicine is a profit driven industry that uses many unproven treatments is also in order.
			We at Wiki Project Med Foundation are supporting an illustrator. Do folks here have drawings they wish to see created? ] (] · ] · ]) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

			:]
	While I think WP's policies and guidelines are excellent and promote encyclopedic validity in the presentation of biomedical information, I also think there is room for improvement in our community. I propose we temper our participation with consideration that some alternative medicine advocates are sincere and some honesty in recognizing the high ground we hold is not as lofty as we might think. I propose we present our positions (''POV'' albeit with sound basis) with compassion, consideration and '''respect'''. I think we should balance our frustration (RTFM MEDRS etc) with an understanding of a potential underlying motive to benefit suffering human beings, likewise our outrage at support for "predators". I think some humility at the modesty of the measure of success (per some IOM and WHO reports) that ''modern western maintstream medicine'' has achieved is in order.
			:In 2015, an illustrator made this diagram for us. Perhaps this will spark an idea for someone. ] (]) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Looking for a Tuesday Challenge? ] - Giant Pelvis ==
	Again I own my POV that skepticism and a high bar of evidence is the way to make progress. I hope that in my drive towards that I conduct myself honestly, ethically and compassionately with respect for the dignity and worth of '''all''' who would improve the lot of humanity.

			Hi! I came across this article from the ]. It has some very very very outdated citations! I looked briefly on pubmed and also did some hand searching on google for anything anywhere near a MEDRS source. I am now out of time and figured I would post it here in case someone else wants to try this challenge! Perhaps there is a more common name for this condition of a distorted pelvis that is being missed? Not sure how they got the incidence quote etc. Happy editing!
	In conclusion I would like to remind everyone that editing WP should be a rewarding experience to all who seek to improve the encyclopedia. Two aspects of participation in WP I hold as ideals are fun and camaraderie. I hope the members of this project can help foster these ideals.

			]
	With a deep sense of loss for those editors driven away by feelings of alienation and a sincere hope that diversity of opinion can be encouraged and engaged, I offer the traditional closing,

			] (]) 13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	Best wishes and happy editing.
			:--] (]) 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks {{Ping\|Ozzie10aaaa}}. I found a book on amazon that was written from the Misplaced Pages article. Yikes! https://www.amazon.com.au/Pelvis-Justo-Major-Fernande-Antigone/dp/613793196X Not using this source- ha! ] (]) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::yes, that happens alot,Ozzie--] (]) 15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Merge proposed for Disorders of Sex Development and Sexual Anamolies ==
	- - ] (]) 14:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

			] for anyone interested. ] (]) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	:See ] (version of ).
	:—] (]) 14:58, 5 ~~July~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		:thanks for post--] (]) 13:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Introducing Let's Connect ==
	:See (September 2011). Under the heading "THE FLEXNER REPORT ― THE PATH NOT TAKEN", paragraph 2 contains this statement: "Patients were primarily viewed as serving the academic purposes of the professor."
	:—] (]) 15:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
	::Per "higher level of scrutiny/opposition than those from the mainstream community". I give all an equal level of scrutiny. Agree we are not about opposition just about writing an encyclopedia using the best available sources. Just because ] is performed by interventional radiologists does not mean that when they compare their treatment against sham control and find it to not better we at Misplaced Pages will give them a free pass. Or that we will allow them to highlight the comparison against a wait list control. Some for acupuncture. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
	::{{edit conflict}} Thanks, Mr Bill. I'm often frustrated by the effort that some people make to exclude acceptable sources because the primary author is a chiropractor or the journal is dedicated to evidence-based reviews of altmed—even when the source is saying that there's no evidence for the altmed treatment! It's especially bad to tell new people that they need to find a review article, and then when they do, tell them that their review article doesn't "count". If we could get some of that scrutiny turned towards common conventional practices (which are far more widely used), that would be helpful. It would also be helpful for people to remember that ] for getting ] about quackery in the encyclopedia, and that those "POV pushing quacks" are good-faith humans who are usually trying their best, just like the "POV pushing anti-altmed" editors are also good-faith humans who are usually trying their best. Even simple steps like being "too busy" with Real Editing™ to reply instantly can help calm down difficult discussions.
	::Also, I've been meaning to post one of my occasional reminders about wikilife, and this is probably as good (or bad) as time as any other: Everyone gets frustrated on occasion. Everyone, unfortunately, feels disrespected on occasion. Ask for help here. If that's not helpful (because sometimes we drop the ball), then take a break. Work on something else—on your real life, on completely unrelated articles, on another project. (] probably needs help with information about your hometown, and ] always needs attention.) But if you're tempted to post a resignation manifesto (which is pretty rare in our group), please read ] first, and sleep on it. ] (]) 18:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

			Hello everyone,
	== Acupuncture and pseudoscience ==

			I hope that you are in good spirits. My name is ] and I am a part of the ] - a team of movement contributors/organizers and liaisons for 7 regions : '''MENA \| South Asia \| East, South East Asia, Pacific \| Sub-Saharan Africa \| Central & Eastern Europe \| Northern & Western \| Latina America. '''
	At ], I'm engaged in a debate with another editor over the sentence "TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments." and whether it needs to be attributed (TCM=traditional Chinese medicine). We seem to have no likelihood of consensus, so I'd be grateful if any other editors would be willing to contribute their opinions on the issue. Thanks --] (]) 20:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

			=== Why are we outreaching to you? ===
	: For context, there was previous consensus to include the text in question, but only with in-text attribution. Multiple editors rejected presenting the text as fact (without attribution) because 1. It came from an editorial, and was an off-hand dismissive remark in that editorial rather than the thesis statement of a paper focused on answering a question like "what is TCM?" and 2. TCM does not present itself as a science, but rather a 2000 year old traditional medicine, rendering the pejorative label "pseudoscience" inaccurate. Now, recognizing that the opinion that TCM is a pseudoscience is a notable and popular one, I and others agreed to compromise and include the text as long as there is in-text attribution ("An editorial in Nature characterized TCM as pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism…" I support sticking with the previously agreed upon consensus version.] (]) 06:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
			Wikimedia has 18 projects, and 17 that are solely run by the community, other than the Wikimedia Foundation. We want to hear from sister projects that some of us in the movement are not too familiar with and would like to know more about. We always want to hear from Misplaced Pages, but we also want to meet and hear from the community members in other sister projects too. We would like to hear your story and learn about the work you and your community do. You can review our past learning clinics ].
	:: When I make a neutral request for other editors to look at a debate, I don't expect to have you arrive to deliver a mendacious one-sided presentation of your biased view of the discussion. But if you insist on re-opening the debate here, I'll oblige. The fact is that there was no previous consensus to attribute the text. That is simply untrue.
	:: Editors don't get to change policy at a whim, and ] is clear about attribution:
	::* '''Avoid stating facts as opinions.''' Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of ]. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
	:: But you think it shouldn't apply to articles where you edit - which is effectively two as over 100 of your 138 edits to articles are on acupuncture or TCM. You simply want to attribute any statement you disagree with in an attempt to weaken its conclusion and cast acupuncture/TCM in a more favourable light. We don't make amateur analysis of reliable sources - that's the job of secondary sources, not Misplaced Pages editors. The rest is just your opinion with its obvious bias and carries no weight at all.
	:: This is the sort of problem we find ourselves dealing with every day from SPAs on alt med topics, so if any WPMED editors can find a few minutes to make an neutral judgement on the issue at ], we could at least lay this one to rest. --] (]) 12:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::On the other hand, the statement that traditional medicine is "pseudoscience" (rather than, e.g., not modern science at all) is neither uncontested nor uncontroversial, so your quotation from the policy doesn't apply. ] (]) 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::: Well, the "Uncontested and uncontroversial" actually means uncontested and uncontroversial in reliable sources, not uncontested and uncontroversial by Misplaced Pages editors, so I think it might be reasonable to expect to see these dissenting reliable sources, don't you? If they exist, let's summarise and attribute the opinions as we always do; but in their absence, surely we should be asserting the sourced statement as simple fact. --] (]) 15:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

			We want to invite community members who are:
	== Apology ==

			* Part of an organized group, official or not
	Having had some time to consider the events of the last week, I'd like to offer an apology to Doc James in the same forum in which I took something of a public shot at him. I believe I raised my concerns in an overly emotional and confrontational way, and did a lousy job of enunciating the real basis for my concerns regarding the "P" journal. I'm going to take some time off to reconsider whether and how I can be more effective here.
			* A formally recognized affiliate or not
			* An individual who will bring their knowledge back to their community
			* An individual who wants to train others in their community on the learnings they received from the learning clinics.

			'''To participate as a sharer and become a member of the Let’s Connect community you can sign up through this .'''
	This note is not intended as a fishing expedition for expressions of any sort from the community, but simply as an acknowledgement that I mishandled my conflict with Doc, who has for the most part been very accomodating of my POV, which on some issues is very different from his own. I'd also like to apologize to the community for the histrionics. (Maybe an SSRI would help.....) ] (]) 21:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
	::Formerly 98 I view your work here as positive. Yes we have a slightly different position on the "P" source but generally I think we are in agreement around most things. Look forwards to seeing you back and working together in the future. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Can someone (briefly) catch me up here? What is it that happened? I'm not asking to open wounds here, I'm just wondering if I can help in any way and I'm wondering what is being debated with such intensity. ] (]) 05:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::The two expert editors, signing at the top of this section, were briefly characterizing some aspects of Pharma and Medicine, namely the possibility of others gaming the processes of the encyclopedia, versus potential clinical value of some contribution, in only a few sentences. But they were thinking several steps ahead of what they actually wrote, and their ideals entangled. (My personal reading: it's all good.) OK? --] ] ] 14:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Ok. ] (]) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I do not think we were commenting on gaming the processes of Misplaced Pages. We were discussing the different ways in which systematic reviews are produced and the issues with the various methods. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::My concern, which I completely failed to enunciate in a way that anyone could understand and respond to, is that Prescrire very clearly makes claims to be more reliable than other sources based on its policy of excluding from its processes not just those with conflicts of interest with respect to a specific topic, but anyone with any relationship with the pharmaceutical industry at all. It was my impression that Jmh49 was specifically endorsing this viewpoint, which was of considerable concern to me given his obvious and well-earned position of influence. As a member of this (pharma associated) group (and one who is somewhat proud of his career and personal accomplishments) I'd find it very helpful to have some clarification on this and whether this is Misplaced Pages Medicine's position going forward. ] (]) 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

			Once you have registered, if you are interested, you can get to know the team via google meets or zoom to brainstorm an idea for a potential learning clinic about this project or just say hello and meet the team. Please email us at Letsconnectteam@wikimedia.org. We look forward to hearing from you :)
	== Beware of more quackery ==
	]]]
	In the past few months, supporters of ] and mind-body therapies have succeeded in publishing a number of ''woo'' articles in various medical journals. Here are some brilliant examples:

			Many thanks and warm regards,
	1. '']'': (December 2013)

			Let’s Connect Working Group Member
	2. '']'': (January 2014)

			] ]
	3. ''Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences'': (January 2014)
			] (]) 09:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

			==Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions==
	4. '']'': (March 2014)
			Requesting input on this topic ] at WikiProject Pharmacology. Thanks. – ] (], ]) 10:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:commented--] (]) 13:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] and comparable genes with inhibitors in clinical trials ==
	5. '']'': (April 2014)

			I started this discussion at ], and it was suggested that I inquire here. Basically, Misplaced Pages has tens of thousands of articles on individual human genes, many bot-made and maintained with very little human attention. ] caught my eye because a happened to read about clinical trials underway for inhibitors thought to be cancer-preventative. As noted in the other discussion, Misplaced Pages coverage of gene-directed trial therapies ranges from something like ] (which currently contains no information on investigative efforts), to ] (which is reasonably well-covered in this respect). ] ] 20:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	6. '']'': (June 2014)
			:--] (]) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: Thank you - I will get around to adding some specifics. Cheers! ] ] 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Drowning ==
	7. '']'': (July 2014)

			The WHO has released their first-ever . It has national statistics, risk factors, evidence-based prevention recommendations, and more.
	8. '']'' - (July 2014)

			], ], ], ] ], would this interest any of you? ] (]) 22:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	It appears that every 2-3 weeks, another one of such articles are repeatedly thrown into medical literature, for whatever reason I do not know. Does any of them satisfy ] criteria? If not, more eyes may be needed at articles related to ] or mind-body therapies. Also, now may be a good time to enforce broader ''and'' stricter ''']''' on Misplaced Pages to prevent fringe POV editors from promoting fringe quackery. -] (]) 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

			:Thanks, I will take a look. · · · ] ]: 02:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	:There's no good reason to label any of that as pseudoscience. There is of course a lot of pseudoscience associated with meditation, but there is nothing unscientific about the idea that behaviors such as focusing attention on one thing for a period of time can produce alterations in brain state that are worth studying and potentially beneficial. I'm not even stating a minority opinion here -- I believe the majority of neuroscientists view this the same way I do. ] (]) 18:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
	::I think ] applies here. ] <sup>]\|]\|]</sup> 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

			== Do The Lancet's Personal View articles meet the standards for a secondary source? ==
	:(ec) I gotta go with Looie496 on this. Without going into a deep critique or analysis of the papers listed by A1candidate, we ''know'' that patients who are generally relaxed and happy tend to do better than patients who are anxious and depressed, especially with regard to things like pain management. This is pretty basic Psych 101 stuff. Obviously anyone who offers a mechanistic explanation involving the movement of ''qi'' from the spleen to the colon is spouting mystical bullshit, but encouraging an internal ] can have tangible benefits. (Whether this makes meditation a particularly potent placebo or a genuine intervention is arguably a matter of semantics.) ](]) 19:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
	::The paper in JAMA (the only one I checked) is a systematic review. A ] is not generally considered a "woo article", regardless of its subject, and quackery is when you reject the data, not when the data shows that something that you dislike works despite your dislike (or that something you do like doesn't work). ] (]) 23:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Agree with WAID. A few of these are primary sources. The JAMA meta-analysis concludes "small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress.", "Stronger study designs are needed to determine the effects of meditation programs in improving the positive dimensions of mental health and stress-related behavior" and "We found no evidence that meditation programs were better than any active treatment (ie, drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies)." so not exactly an endorsement. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}These are the first two sentences in their conclusion:
	:"Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress. Thus, clinicians should ''be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have'' in addressing psychological stress." (emphasis mine)

			Hi WikiProject Medicine,
	The words highlighted in italics certainly sound like an endorsement or even a guideline ("''be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have''"), although it's good to know that they have acknowledged some limitations in their study. What is more worrying is how JAMA has turned into a sellout advertising board for ] as demonstrated by a :

			The Lancet has a kind of article called a 'Personal View' that is peer reviewed. It has a lot of the formalities of a review article -- description of search strategy and selection criteria, extensive citations for claims, etc. Does this count as a review, and if not, does it still count as a suitable secondary source for biomedical information? ] (]) 11:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	:"For some mind-body approaches, however, there is mounting evidence of usefulness and safety, particularly in relieving chronic pain. A few examples include ] for ] pain; ] for ] pain; and ], ], and ] for chronic back pain.

			:Oh I forgot to add. 'Personal View' articles come up when you search The Lancet for review articles only, so clearly The Lancet's editors consider them as part of the Review category. But does WikiProject Medicine? ] (]) 11:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Increasing comfort with this emerging evidence is reflected in practice guidelines from the American College of Physicians, the American Pain Society, and the Department of Defense."
			::Should be fine for non-contentious knowledge and non-novel claims. Novel personal views may be due and should probably be attributed. Any examples in mind? ] (]) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thank you for this.
			:::I was asking in general but here is an example:
			:::Hashimoto’s disease has a widely discussed issue with persistent symptoms in about 10-15% of patients despite euthyroid status. There’s a number of commonly discussed hypotheses for why this might be. An article like this https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(22)00004-3/abstract
			:::discusses one of the more common hypotheses, that some patients lack peripheral tissue conversion of t4 into t3. I feel something like this makes for a suitable source in context? ] (]) 13:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think that an article like this would be sufficient for paraphrasing a background section of an article, if a higher quality review/textbook etc is not available. In my own editing I would not share the hypotheses of a mechanism responsible for persisting symptoms from a commentary article without higher quality supporting MEDRS sources.] (]) 13:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thank you Jen, that makes perfect sense. ] (]) 13:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Requested move at ] ==
	And just a few months ago in March 2014, they endorsed "" with a '''highly dubious claim''' that "Acupuncture is associated with improved pain outcomes compared with sham-acupuncture", although every skeptic knows that there is ultimately no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture.
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			:The proposal is to move the page ] → ]. ] (]) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	As ] recently , many of these articles, such as this pointed out by him, are in fact pseudo-systematic reviews funded by the quackery trade. In contrast to some forms of meditation, there is clear consensus that acupuncture is by ''every measure '''pseudoscientific'''''. Why did you, Doc James, that you see "no problems with (using) it"?

			== PANDAS ==
	Remember, we're only talking about JAMA so far. I think the problem is far worse at some other reputable journals -] (]) 07:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
			There are a lot of new SPAs at ]; more eyes needed. ] (]) 09:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::] maybe you should quote what QG actually state which was "A pseudo-systematic review funded by the trade?" And yes I do not see a problem with using it. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::] - I'm more skeptical to overbearing claims such as yours: ''although every skeptic knows that there is ultimately no difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture.'', than something from a systematic review. To me this sounds far more like you are disregarding evidence against your viewpoint. -- ] ] (]) 10:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::I'm with CFCF here: woo is when you say that anything that you've decided is "alternative" can't work because you magically know that it doesn't work. Science is when you say that the evidence suggests that (in this case) meditation might have some value for some situations, so therefore you agree that it might not be completely worthless.
	::::In this case, the possibility for benefit seems so highly plausible to me that it's odd there was ever any truly serious question about it: Meditation practices a core mental skill, described in our article on the subject as "training attention and awareness in order to bring mental processes under greater voluntary control", that a person with anxiety often needs to improve, namely being able to focus on whatever task is at hand instead of letting the mind wander off into whatever is worrying you. Acquiring the basic mental skills to focus on whatever you choose, rather than being incapacitated by uncontrolled worrying, does not sound like "woo" to me. ] (]) 15:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::The OP was being sarcastic. ] <sup>]\|]\|]</sup> 15:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: I'm not being sarcastic when I say that a putative review which includes in its abstract the phrases "{{tq\|... the integration of transcendental experiences and the unfolding of higher states of consciousness ... This integrated state, called Cosmic Consciousness in the Vedic tradition ... Transcendental experiences may be the engine that fosters higher human development.}}" is a woo paper, despite being published by NY Academy of Sciences. I accept that your mileage may vary, of course. --] (]) 16:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I meant the OP who started this section. ] <sup>]\|]\|]</sup> 16:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::The OP presented a mixed bag of sources in a way that is difficult to discuss, imo, in a forum thread of this type. ] (]) 17:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::We can discuss these one by one but agree this list of some good and not so good sources is difficult to approach. It also depends on what text they are being used to support. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

			:Could some people please put this article on their ]? In the last month, only nine registered editors with this on their watchlists have checked this article. ] (]) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	=== When a prestigious journal publishes a pseudoscientific article/review ===
			:I added it to my watchlist. Is the article itself getting vandalized? If so it might need page protection. ]] <sup>(])</sup> 21:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	, you know that ''something'' just isn't right]]
			::No, it's getting well-intentioned efforts from people who believe the article has the wrong POV. They may not be 100% wrong, so we need good editors here. ] (]) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Correct; and it is a difficult topic complicated by multiple factors. The topic has long been plagued by canvassing that occurs at popular tic-related message boards and online support groups for parents -- a phenomenon mentioned in multiple sources -- so editors who understand policy and guideline as well as medicine have been lacking to keep up with that. Some dated sections need rewriting (not so much for changed content, but to update the citations used that usually say same), but motivation wanes when much educating about policies and guidelines has to be done along the way, along with answering a lot of misinformation or overinterpretation of sources. Summary: more eyes needed, still and always. ] (]) 13:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Here is a lay article that provides an overview of the territory:
			:::* https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/when-infection-sparks-obsession-pandas-and-pans
			:::] (]) 14:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			A good deal of the talk discussion at PANDAS is now about PANS, which was AFD'd 12 years ago (]). Is it time now to create that article? When PANS first came up, it was just another in a string of hypotheses (PANDAS, PITANDs, PANS, CANS); now it seems to be the prevailing one. I'm unsure of the technicalities of overriding that AFD, or even if that's the best course of action; if someone clues me in on how to proceed here, I could stub up the new PANS article. {{u\|Ajpolino}}? ] (]) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	I feel that what ] pointed out is a very important point: deals with topics that appear to be pseudoscientific ("cosmic consciousness"), yet it is published by a well-established academic journal - The '']'' - which has a considerable impact factor. The question I want to ask is this:

			:I think that would be reasonable, but step one is going to be finding some good sources. ] (]) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	::''Where do we draw the line to separate science from pseudoscience?''
			::Secondary reviews since the 2012 AFD, at least:
			::# {{PMID\|39334578}} 2024
			::# {{PMID\|34197525}} 2021
			::# {{PMID\|33041996}} 2020
			::# {{PMID\|32206586}} 2020
			::# {{PMID\|31111754}} 2019
			::# {{PMID\|30996598}} 2019
			::# {{PMID\|29309797}} 2018
			::... at least. So if someone advises on the process for overwriting an AFD'd article, I can separate out the relevant content. ] (]) 02:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::At this point, I think that just boldly replacing the redirect with a decent article would be fine. It might be convenient to draft it in your sandbox, so you can replace it in a single edit. ] (]) 06:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I could do that as soon as I get a free moment; I just wanted to be sure a bold replacement over a previous AFD wouldn't be problematic. I should be able to get to that later today, unless someone tells me doing so is unwise. ] (]) 15:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::We could take it to ] if you'd like to avoid any possible risk of a {{tl\|db-repost}} complaint. (I could take it there for you, if you'd like.) ] (]) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I am drowning IRL ... maybe we could wait 'til after Christmas? I'm not sure anyone would object to the article being recreated, as I was the only one opining in the past! Whatever you think, I'm just SO out of time ... ] (]) 23:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::]. In the meantime, here's a virtual life preserver: 🛟 ] (]) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I don't think we need a second article. A google shows most coverage is on PANS/PANDAS together. If PANDAS is a subset of PANS then what is needed perhaps is to move the existing PANDAS article to PANS and cover PANDAS within that. That allows us to use sources talking about "PANS/PANDAS" together but also sources covering just one where appropriate. -- ]°] 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I can't think of any reason to oppose that; would like to see more feedback, though. ] (]) 12:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			Re {{tq\|Is the article itself getting vandalized?}}, another question is whether the talk page is being used appropriately or disruptively? ] (]) 22:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	The same journal, in the same issue, also published a claiming to have found preliminary evidence that "meditation can offset age-related cognitive decline". Are we supposed to accept or reject this claim? How can we be sure that the editors of the '']'' aren't deliberately publishing pseudoscientific reviews? -] (]) 19:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
			If someone has an or two eyes on that - new account promotes findings of a review regarding associations of IQ and fluoridation (what is missing: decrease in IQ points). This review is flawed - ] - as it solely relies on the flawed papers from the past. --] (]) 18:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::This review states " Growing evidence suggests that cognitive training programs may have the potential to counteract this decline. On the basis of a growing body of research that shows that meditation has positive effects on cognition in younger and middle-aged adults, meditation may be able to offset normal age-related cognitive decline or even enhance cognitive function in older adults." followed by "Studies involved a wide variety of meditation techniques and reported preliminary positive effects on attention, memory, executive function, processing speed, and general cognition. However, most studies had a high risk of bias and small sample sizes."
	::This could be summarized as "Low quality evidence suggests a possible benefit from meditation with respect to age-related cognitive decline". This is hardly revolutionary. We know that learning a second language can be beneficial as may mind games. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::There is no bright line that separates science from pseudoscience. We are here to accurate report the positions of reliable sources not to determine "truth" ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::: ...So unlike with homeopathy in the case of (various types of) meditation active therapeutic effects are biologically plausible. (At the same time, I do agree with {{U\|RexxS}} that parts at least of that conference ] are really rather wooey.) ] (]) 20:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:I agree with A1candidate that this is a real matter for concern. How do we "know"?
	:If the answer is that we must re-examine the credibility of a journal (that was previously considered well-established and reliable) whenever it publishes something that seems <i>woo</i> to some editors, I think this sets us up to do a lot of original research, and makes the acceptability of a particular journal subject to the views/prejudices/interests of the currently active editors. ] (]) 20:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Sorry I am not seeing the issue. We just summarize high quality sources. If the are high quality sources that disagree with each other than we state that. No OR needed. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

			:Thanks for the note.
	::::If a high quality source publishes something that "some" editors see as <i>"woo"</i>, is it still a high quality source? ] (]) 03:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
	:~~::::If~~ a ~~high-quality~~ ~~source~~ ~~publishes~~ ], is it ~~still~~ a ~~high~~-~~quality~~ ~~source?~~ I ~~think~~ ~~so—and~~ ~~whatever~~ ~~the~~ ~~game~~, ~~whatever~~ ~~the~~ ~~rules,~~ the ~~rules~~ ~~are~~ the ~~same~~ for ~~both~~ ~~sides.~~ If a ~~journal~~ is ~~still,~~ ~~overall~~, a ~~good source~~ ~~despite~~ ~~publishing~~ something ~~controversial~~ ~~about~~ ~~conventional~~ ~~medicine~~, then it's ~~still~~ a ~~good~~ ~~source~~ ~~despite~~ ~~publishing~~ ~~something~~ ~~controversial~~ ~~about~~ ~~alternative~~ ~~medicine~~. ] (]) 06:26, 8 ~~July~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		:This is a political 'thing' in the US at the moment, so having a decent article will be the best way to prevent well-intentioned but imperfect attempts to improve it. In particular, I think that the claims that have been in the news for the last year should be directly mentioned and addressed. Usually, if we put in something that says "____ was claimed, but this is wrong because..." then that will work, but if we remove it, then people assume that it's accidentally missing, and that we would consider if helpful for someone to add "____ is true!" to the article. ] (]) 21:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: That ist true, but the SPA is now even removing all criticism at all. I didn't delete it just moved it.
	::::::Even if we generally accept the journal, what about the controversial article itself? I'm referring to this one on , in particular. It may not be a systematic review, but it's still a secondary source published in a reputable scientific journal. -] (]) 08:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
			:: that is why this is highly flawed and needs attention by more members here. The SPA is just reverting in a nonconstructive way.--] (]) 22:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@], I see you were editing that page recently. @] semi'd the page indefinitely years ago. What do you think about raising that to ]? Or tagging it as part of ], since that's what's driving the edit wars? ] (]) 00:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Better sooner than later.
			:: You see that also on the discussion page. --] (]) 17:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Review AI-generated articles ==
	==]==
	{{rfc\|style\|rfcid=3D3121C}}
	Is changing text from
	*"200 children without autism." to "200 ] children"
	*"normal individuals" to "] individuals"
	*"matched controls" to "matched neurotypicals"
	*They are also changing ASD to autism.
	We have unfortunately lost the person who has written much of our autism content. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:If you know a more appropriate alternative to "allistic", please add it, because "without autism" doesn't make any sense and we have already determined consensus on person-first language.
	:"Normal" is not a diagnosis and is frankly presumptuous. There is no reliable source to say those individuals were normal. Neurotypical is an accurate medical term whose inclusion makes the article more informative. Replacing "controls" with "neurotypicals" similarly clarifies who we are talking about. If there's a strong reason to keep the word control, call them neurotypical controls to differentiate from a possible control group of more autistic people.
	:A person on the autism spectrum is autistic. That's why it's called the ''autism'' spectrum. "Person with ASD" should be replaced with "autistic person", as per the consensus determined on ]. ] (]) 06:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::Lets gets other opinions on these word changes.
	::ASD includes both autism and ] thus changing it to just autism is not exactly correct. Yes the DSM 5 have merged these diagnosis into autism spectrum disorder but that is still not simply autism.
	::There was weak support for changing "person with autism" to "autistic person" and I am fine with that. However that was not the only thing you have been changing in your edits thus the reverts. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::: In this context, by "autism" you mean "classic autism". ASD, classic autism, and Asperger Syndrome are all forms of autism. The fact that old references use outdated terminology is not a good reason to prevent Misplaced Pages from updating. Misplaced Pages has its own style guide and does not latch onto references like a chameleon. If I see something wrong while working on a different issue, I'm inclined to correct both of them. If you have a problem with only one part of an edit, you can change that part, or revert and reintroduce the "good" changes. Just reverting is disruptive. At the very least you could provide an explanation of which parts were problematic, I'll check my notifications and put the "good" parts back.] (]) 07:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:Can you direct me to the Misplaced Pages guideline page that mentions "private language"? Given that articles on Deaf culture use "hearing person", "allistic" is not unprecedented. ] (]) 07:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::Have changed the article on ]. Hearing person is poor English but at least a person can figure it out. Allistic gah.
	::If you are planning on more controversial changes best to get consensus before hand. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::That response did not answer the question. Is there a guideline page explaining "private language" or did you just make the controversial change from "hearing person" to "person with normal hearing" without getting consensus first? ] (]) 07:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	Use of the term 'neurotypicals' without wikilinking it is very hard to justify as it's against ] and in the context of an experimental design 'control' is a much better description of their role. The ] example should use the same terminology as Wakefield does, because it's talking about a person's beliefs and the further we take it from their terminology the more OR it is. The ] changes just look wrong --- I still have no idea what the "ability to demonstrate" change is about. ] (]) 07:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:I believe you are referring to an example in which the word neurotypical was wikilinked earlier in the article. I figured there was no need to link it twice. "Ability to demonstrate comprehension" is a more accurate description as comprehension itself is immeasurable except through self-reporting; this applies in more contexts than just autism. Do we really need to have disputes and consensus over every minute change in wording? If that's the case, we should set up a lock an all articles so that all edits need administrator approval. ] (]) 07:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	Added RFC tag because an interest in "other opinions" was expressed. ] (]) 07:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:My opinion is that the ] dicussion, which didn't mention other pages and was closed with a "a relatively weak consensus" is no basis to change a the language in a large number of articles. ] (]) 08:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::: Muffinator has also brought this to ANI ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::::] is at the very least the ''most popular'' article about autism. More importantly, consensus is consensus. If you have an issue with the discussion being deemed a consensus, take it up with the user who closed the discussion. ] (]) 08:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	*Re: '''RFC''': Could it be clarified what '''exactly''' opinions are being sought for? The four items at the top of the discussion, or more/other than that? In terms of "allism/allistic", that is clearly inappropriate -- it's a confusing, very obscure neologism with no widespread official acceptance at all; it wasn't even "added" to WP or Wiktionary till a few days ago, and even then without a single source. The neurotypical vs. normal debate has more basis in definitive usage, but even then, Stuartyeates' recommendation that WP use the terminology of the cited articles makes a good degree of sense; I don't personally see any real basis for confusion what "normal" or "control" means here. "Autism" is not the same as ASD, that much should be clear to anybody -- one is a spectrum, the other is a specific (autism is always classic autism unless otherwise noted). ] (]) 08:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::That was what I was wishing people to weight in on. Thanks. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::Strongly agree with Softlavender, and even if it wasn't for those strong arguments there is no consensus for such a broad change. -- ] ] (]) 10:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:"Allistic" is clearly a ] without clear definition or wide linguistic acceptance in the English language. It would be inappropriate to insert the word into wide use on Misplaced Pages without significant discussion and broad community consensus. ] (]) 10:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

			Hi there! While reviewing at AfC, I recently came across several AI-generated medical articles, some of which are still in draftspace and some of which have been accepted and moved to mainspace. These articles do not immediately come across as AI-generated, but when run through , they have high AI-generation scores.
	Having written extensively on ASD:
			* ]
	# "allistic" is an inappropriate term and should not be used
			* ]
	# "neurotypical" is the most correct term in lieu of "normal" (because normal cannot be defined)
			* ]
	# "ASD" is more correct than "autism", unless you're talking the rare cases of full-bore, far end of the spectrum Autistic
			* ]
	# "matched controls" is a scientific term, and must be kept for scientific consistency
			* ]
	So in short, the changes are mostly wrong, but one might just be right <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
			* ]
	:* <small>Or simply "<s>matched</s> controls" (the ] is an aspect of the study design). ] (]) 13:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)</small>
			I would really appreciate it someone over here could help go through the articles to ensure accuracy. Thank you! ] (]) 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	::''Allistic'' is POV jargon. ''Neurotypical'' is unhelpful to people who are unfamiliar with the subject. ''Non-autistic'' or ''people without an autism diagnosis'' (because not all allegedly neurotypical people actually are neurotypical) is a better choice.
	::One other reason for avoiding ''neurotypical'' is that it's based on a false dichotomy: a person can have neurological problems that are not ASD-related. A person with schizophrenia or multiple sclerosis is, as a matter of physical facts, neurologically atypical, even if that person has no significant ASD-related symptoms at all. ] (]) 15:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::: Support for 'non-autistic'. --] (]) 16:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Agreed, 'non-autistic' seems like the correct phrasing, which neither places value judgments nor assumes. ] (]) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	If you are going to use a word like "neurotypical" on wikipedia, you will need to define it at the first instance in the article using brackets. Since that definition will probably use the word "normal" it seems a bit pedantic to me, but I am unfamiliar with the topic. If hte literature uses the term then support. ] (]) 17:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::We should be using plain English as much as possible. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::I agree with Doc James on this one. ] (]) 19:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

			:@], I looked at ]. It was created in multiple edits over the space of several hours. All the refs are real. (I know nothing about the subject matter.) Do you have any reason except for the tool to believe that this is LLM content?
	::::Writing as a layman, ie., an editor without any medical credentials, the first three of the four changes mentioned above (from "children without autism." to "allistic children", from "normal individuals" to "neurotypical individuals", and from "matched controls" to "matched neurotypicals") confuse the sentences they appear in. If it is important for precision of language to distinguish (eg) between "normal" and "neurotypical", an extra sentence or two should be added to make the distinction. ] (]) 20:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
			:I am suspicious of "detector" tools, because they ] declare content that I wrote to be generated by an LLM. ] (]) 22:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Hi, ]! I ran it through . That particular article shows a 99.8% AI-generation score. ] (]) 03:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], I ran some of through the same tool, and it said human: 0.983, ai: 0.017, and mixed: 0.0. Try putting in the tool and see what you get. ] (]) 05:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::]: Interesting... I'll have to bring this up to the individual who created the tool. I initially ran the edit before mine through the tool, and it told me 90-100% AI-generated. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Although the tool may be wrong, I do find it telling that when I ask ChatGPT to write a Misplaced Pages article about Bile acid synthesis disorders, it basically writes the exact article currently published.
			:::::Chat's lead reads, "Bile acid synthesis disorders (BASDs) are a group of rare, inherited metabolic conditions caused by defects in the enzymes involved in the production of bile acids. Bile acids are essential for the digestion and absorption of fats and fat-soluble vitamins, as well as for the regulation of cholesterol levels. BASDs can lead to a variety of symptoms, including liver dysfunction, malabsorption, and developmental delays."
			:::::Aside from a few slight wording adjustments, this is exactly what is written in the article. The classification section is the same way. The other sections have similar starts. Chat's sections are just about a sentence each, so it's quite possible each section was started and then asked something along the lines of "Could you expand on that"? When I asked GPT to expand on classification, it started adding similar information as to what is in the article. ] (]) 01:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I wonder if it is (now) adapting the Misplaced Pages article, or if it would have given you the same results before the Misplaced Pages article was created. ] (]) 01:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== No CSD for badly referenced medical articles/gibberish? ==
	*Has any organization which advocates for the autism community every published a manual of style for journalists? Has any such manual of style been identified or sought? {{u\|Muffinator}}, do you know anything about this? Can you recommend any organization which might have published guidance on this that we could copy instead of developing it ourselves? ]] 14:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
	:*The Autistic Self Advocacy Network and the Autism Women's Network are prominent advocacy groups which advocate for Autistic-first language. ] (]) 14:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

			So, ] has sadly been created by one of my students (sorry). But it also made me suprised - I was going to CSD it but I could not see an applicable criterion? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 11:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	===X with autism or autistic X?===
	There's a discussion at ] about whether to use "child with autism", "autistic child" or both. The former appears in PubMed about 25 times as often as the latter. --] (] · ] · ]) 13:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

			:One person's "badly referenced medical content" is another person's ]. I think you did a reasonable thing by moving it to the Draft: namespace. ] (]) 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Read the Medical Translation Newsletter ==
			::This is not the sort of thing that I would think would have a CSD criterion at all. ] ] 19:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I agree. It's not concrete and indisputable enough. ] (]) 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Clean up of Thyroid hormone articles ==
	<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #0000FF; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em">
	<div style = "color: #F4C430; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">

			Hi Wikiproject Medicine, seeking a little bit of preliminary input here.
	] ''''']'''''
	</div>
	<div style = "font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px">
	]
	<div style = "line-height: 1.2">
	Issue 1, June/July 2014<br>
	by ], ]
	</div>
	'']''
	{{clear}}</div></div>
	Hey, this is the new ''']''', a part of an ] supporting our ].<br>    Pop over and give it a read, or drop some comments.-- ] ] (]) 09:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

			I'm looking at how WP presents information around Thyroxine, Levothyroxine, Levothyroxine Sodium; and Tri-iodothyronine, Liothyronine and Liothyronine Sodium. Thinking a bit about the best way to present the info, because I know how interchangably some of these terms get used even in literature (eg liothyronine used to refer to endogenous tri-iodothyronine, or levothyroxine sodium being commonly referred to as levothyroxine), even though they technically refer to different things.
	== Barnstar ==

			At the moment:
	]

			For T3, there's a page for Liothyronine the drug, and one for Tri-iodothyronine the hormone.
	I have just discovered that the WikiProject Medicine barnstar has been changed from the ] to the ]. Can we have the Rod of Asclepius back please? ] <font color="#3CB371">¤</font> <small></font>]]</small> 11:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:By pure coincidence I was the one who changed it, and I've reverted it. Looking for a Rod of Asclepius svg alternative, the old image is a bit fuzzy. <small> P.S. Thanks for the barnstart :) </small> -- ] ] (]) 12:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	::I also do realize it is incorrect, even though it is widely used in association with medicine. -- ] ] (]) 12:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::Lol, adopting the ] might act as a calling card to critics here ;) ] (]) 13:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
	:::: CFCF, thank you for changing the image back. ] <font color="#3CB371">¤</font> <small></font>]]</small> 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

			For T4, there's one page called Levothyroxine which is for the drug, and another page called Thyroid Hormones for Thyroxine the hormone (but this page covers both T4 and T3).
	== Help reviewing “Editing psychology articles” handout for student editors? ==

			For consistency, I'm trying to decide if it would be of benefit to:
	(Apologies for the cross-post.) Introducing myself for those of you I haven’t interacted with before — I’m LiAnna Davis, and I’m in charge of communications for the Wiki Education Foundation, the nonprofit that runs the Misplaced Pages Education Program in the United States and Canada. One of my goals this year is to create a series of discipline-specific support materials for students and instructors participating in our program. Given the challenges some psychology students have had in the past, I’m starting with psychology, and I need some help. I’ve created a ] explaining more about what I’m trying to do, and then added an outline of the preliminary content I’d like to include.

			A) propose a merger of Tri-iodothyronine into Thyroid Hormones (with the result being three pages -- one for thyroid hormones, one for liothyronine the drug, one for levothyroxine the drug)
	Since psychology is not my specialty, I would really like to get feedback from experienced content contributors in psychology to make sure I’m providing accurate advice to students. I’m looking for several people who’ve contributed content to psychology articles to ] and offer feedback — please help if you can! I need all comments by Monday, July 14. Please leave comments ] rather than here so they’re all in the same place. Thanks! --] (]) 22:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

			B) propose that Thyroxine the hormone gets its own article and the Levothyroxine page becomes more exclusively about the drug (with the result being five pages, one overview of thyroid hormones, one for thyroxine the hormone, one for levothyroxine the drug, one for tri-iodothyronine the hormone, one for liothyronine the drug).
	== Crick after DNA ==

			Thoughts? ] (]) 00:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	After Crick's success in understanding the secret of life (see his autobiography '']''), he naturally turned to the next open problem: ], which he worked on for the rest of his life. His collaborator, ], completed their last paper together {{cite journal\|year=2005\|author1-link=Francis Crick\|author2-link=Christof Koch \|title= What is the Function of the Claustrum?\| first1=Francis\|last1=Crick\|first2=Christof\|last2=Koch\|doi=10.1098/rstb.2005.1661}} Now, 10 years later, Mohamad Z. Koubeissi MD, et al. (2014), ''Journal of Epilepsy and Behavior'', while seeking to cure a woman's epilepsy, have learned that electrical stimulation of the ] reversibly turns off her consciousness, while leaving her wakefulness intact. Turning off the electrical stimulation returned her consciousness. Crick and Koch point out that the claustrum enjoys reciprocal connections to the rest of the brain, including ], in the ].

			== Need help on adding content to WikiProject Medicine ==
	From the viewpoint of scientific method, the Crick & Koch 2005 paper contains a cautiously worded hypothesis, while Koubeissi, et al. 2014 constitute a ], because the Koubeissi experiment describes a reversible method, while Crick & Koch describe a theory which will likely prove fertile for decades, just as the DNA story has proven. The length of the fertile period exemplifies the Lakatos criterion for the 'strength of a scientific programme'.

			Hello all. I specialize in the field of medicine and wanted to add content to wiki project medicine. However, I am very new to Misplaced Pages editing. Some hours back, I created a page on Wiki project ]]. But I can't figure out what to do now. Nor can I see my name in participants' full list. Can someone tell me If by mistake I created a wrong page? Or may be suggest me how I can actively participate, if this is the right page. Kindly help. Thanks. ] (]) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	My question for the MED project is: although Crick & Koch 2005 is labelled a 'review', and therefore a secondary source, does it qualify as MEDRS? What is needed for the concepts which are implicit in Koubeissi , et al. 2014 to qualify? --] ] ] 09:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
	:Crick's hypothesis noteworthy enough to be covered, though the hypothesis itself is primary material so is best approached through secondary sources. The current ] article is not in the best shape. ] <sup>]\|]\|]</sup> 10:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
	::The cautious observation I refer to (p.6 of the 10 page pdf) is "There are remarkably few microelectrode investigations of claustral receptive-field properties and almost none in awake animals." -- Crick and Koch 2005, which Koubeissi 2014 has kindly supplied. --] ] ] 10:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

	*In my view, the Crick & Koch paper meets MEDRS, but the views in it are admittedly speculative, so if they are referred to in Misplaced Pages, it should always be with wording such as "Francis Crick and Christof Koch proposed that ...". In other words, it should be made clear that these are the views of specific people rather than mainstream ideas. As a source of background information about the claustrum the paper can definitely be used, although in a few respects it is already out of date. A better source for background info is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3983483/. The Koubeissi paper is absolutely a primary source. My personal opinion is that their findings are not nearly as important as some people make them out to be, and in any case they were obtained from a single human subject and certainly need to be replicated. ] (]) 13:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

	::Note: I've commented more extensively on this on my personal web site, see if you are interested. ] (]) 15:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

	== Acupuncture again ==

	I apologise for bringing this before you again, but I'm being tag-team reverted by two SPAs on ].

	In {{diff2\|616081786\|this edit}}, Middle 8 (an acupuncturist) removed the text:
	* "{{tq\|A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain real acupuncture was no better than sham.<ref name="Ernst 2011"/>}}"
	with an edit summary claiming that the source doesn't support the statement. The source, , states:
	* "{{tq\|Real and sham acupuncture were both more effective in reducing pain than no acupuncture at all, but real acupuncture was no better than sham.}}"
	I restored the text, but have been reverted by Herbxue.

	Debate continues on ], but there's no common ground. I'd appreciate more eyes on this, please, as the local editors seem intent on diluting any content that doesn't present acupuncture in a positive light, even impeccably sourced text. --] (]) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:10, 26 December 2024

Edit with VisualEditor

Shortcut

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 30 days are automatically archived.
Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives
Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1
Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford (June 14, 2024). "Misplaced Pages war: Fierce row erupts over Israel's deadly Nuseirat assault". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved June 14, 2024. Misplaced Pages was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.

Good article reassessment for Martha Hughes Cannon

Martha Hughes Cannon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

PCORI (Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute) as MEDRS?

Is there a consensus that using PCORI is an acceptable WP:MEDRS source? There is a six-year old discussion about using PCORI that was pointed out to me. -Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I place PCORI in the same category as CDC or NIH. But I have seen edit wars centered on whether or not an NIH medical dictionary was WP:MEDRS, and the resolution was not(!), so I suppose these sources in whole or in part may not be WP:MEDRS. But if none of their work product is, one starts to get very close to the conclusion that nothing is WP:MEDRS. Jaredroach (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the challenges with "MEDRS" is that there is the ideal (e.g., a peer-reviewed review article published in a highly reputable journal within the last five years) and then there is the good-enough (you don't need an "ideal" source to say that the common cold is caused by a virus). Even if PCORI isn't "ideal", it might be "good enough", depending on what's being said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think that it is depending on what is being shared from the source and if it is a medical claim or paraphrased background information that fills an important gap in an article.JenOttawa (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing milestone

Hello, all:

We've been working this month on getting at least one source into unreferenced medicine-related articles. There are now less than 100 unsourced articles on the list! A few years ago, that list was over 400 articles. Less than a year ago, it was over 200 articles. We have made really good progress this year. Please take a minute and see if you can add a source to at least one article.

We are doing this now to support the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2024 and also because we think that sources are particularly important for anything medicine-related on Misplaced Pages. The backlog drive has officially resulted in about 7,000 of Misplaced Pages's unsourced articles getting a new source (i.e., with #NOV24 in the edit summary), plus all the pages that got new references but which weren't tagged.

Please join in and do your bit. We'd really appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Spinal disc herniation#Requested move 13 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Spinal disc herniation#Requested move 13 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

valvular heart disease: treatment

In the valvular heart disease article in the section on treatment of Aortic valve disorder, it is said that treatment is normally surgical, with catheter treatment for special cases. I have just been told by a cardiologist that catheter treatment is now preferred for all patients. 38.55.71.51 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"dissociates by quantum" / "the quantum of fatigue"

If someone with the relevant expertise could look at this baffling language in the Fatigue article, that would be wonderful. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Jaredroach (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Retinal tuft and VTS: draft articles

Hi! I noticed that there are no articles on Retinal tuft or Vitreomacular traction syndrome, common eye conditions that can lead to retinal detachments. I have never started an article before and decided to try it out. I would love some help expanding to the level where I can submit it. Suggestions super welcome. I am also curious how much I should expand it before I submit it. Are stubs accepted? If so, can I submit now?

Thank you so much! JenOttawa (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

While I encourage you to write more, both of the articles look acceptable for WP:AFC. IntentionallyDense 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Both of these articles are in the mainspace now. Thank you for your work! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Neurocysticercosis Peer review

Hello everyone, in an attempt to get Neurocysticercosis to FA status I have begun a WP:Peer review on the topic which can be found at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1. Any input is welcomed! IntentionallyDense 22:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

New disease outbreak

I've created 2024 unknown Democratic Republic of Congo disease outbreak. I hope this isn't premature, but it seemed to me like there was enough to start an article. The name will probably have to change as learn more. Input from others very welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

lab results pending doubtful it's 'unknown'--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed there was already 2024 Kwango province disease outbreak. Will merge. Bondegezou (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not unusual to get a couple of people simultaneously starting articles on events. The ocean-near-California earthquake yesterday had half a dozen people starting articles that all got merged up. I treat it as proof that someone else also thought the subject was notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Delay, Deny, Defend (practice)

I recently created a draft for Delay, Deny, Defend (practice), which has recently gotten a lot of press in the aftermath of the Killing of Brian Thompson. There is currently an article for the book Delay, Deny, Defend, but I believe the practice is notable enough for its own article. I'd appreciate any help with sourcing. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

it needs more text and sources...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Assisted suicide#Requested move 30 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Assisted suicide#Requested move 30 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Images

We at Wiki Project Med Foundation are supporting an illustrator. Do folks here have drawings they wish to see created? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

In 2015, an illustrator made this diagram for us. Perhaps this will spark an idea for someone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking for a Tuesday Challenge? Pelvis_justo_major - Giant Pelvis

Hi! I came across this article from the list of uncited articles. It has some very very very outdated citations! I looked briefly on pubmed and also did some hand searching on google for anything anywhere near a MEDRS source. I am now out of time and figured I would post it here in case someone else wants to try this challenge! Perhaps there is a more common name for this condition of a distorted pelvis that is being missed? Not sure how they got the incidence quote etc. Happy editing!

Pelvis justo major

JenOttawa (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

this is the only thing I found--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Ozzie10aaaa:. I found a book on amazon that was written from the Misplaced Pages article. Yikes! https://www.amazon.com.au/Pelvis-Justo-Major-Fernande-Antigone/dp/613793196X Not using this source- ha! JenOttawa (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

yes, that happens alot,Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposed for Disorders of Sex Development and Sexual Anamolies

Here's the discussion for anyone interested. Urchincrawler (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Introducing Let's Connect

Hello everyone,

I hope that you are in good spirits. My name is Serine Ben Brahim and I am a part of the Let’s Connect working group - a team of movement contributors/organizers and liaisons for 7 regions : MENA | South Asia | East, South East Asia, Pacific | Sub-Saharan Africa | Central & Eastern Europe | Northern & Western | Latina America.

Why are we outreaching to you?

Wikimedia has 18 projects, and 17 that are solely run by the community, other than the Wikimedia Foundation. We want to hear from sister projects that some of us in the movement are not too familiar with and would like to know more about. We always want to hear from Misplaced Pages, but we also want to meet and hear from the community members in other sister projects too. We would like to hear your story and learn about the work you and your community do. You can review our past learning clinics here.

We want to invite community members who are:

Part of an organized group, official or not
A formally recognized affiliate or not
An individual who will bring their knowledge back to their community
An individual who wants to train others in their community on the learnings they received from the learning clinics.

To participate as a sharer and become a member of the Let’s Connect community you can sign up through this registration form.

Once you have registered, if you are interested, you can get to know the team via google meets or zoom to brainstorm an idea for a potential learning clinic about this project or just say hello and meet the team. Please email us at Letsconnectteam@wikimedia.org. We look forward to hearing from you :)

Many thanks and warm regards,

Let’s Connect Working Group Member

Serine Ben Brahim Serine Ben Brahim (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions

Requesting input on this topic here at WikiProject Pharmacology. Thanks. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 10:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

TNIK and comparable genes with inhibitors in clinical trials

I started this discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology, and it was suggested that I inquire here. Basically, Misplaced Pages has tens of thousands of articles on individual human genes, many bot-made and maintained with very little human attention. TNIK caught my eye because a happened to read about clinical trials underway for inhibitors thought to be cancer-preventative. As noted in the other discussion, Misplaced Pages coverage of gene-directed trial therapies ranges from something like USP1 (which currently contains no information on investigative efforts), to CD47 (which is reasonably well-covered in this respect). BD2412 T 20:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

added some recent papers, general research--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - I will get around to adding some specifics. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Drowning

The WHO has released their first-ever Global Report on Drowning Prevention. It has national statistics, risk factors, evidence-based prevention recommendations, and more.

Pbsouthwood, Belbury, Ex nihil, Scriptir EMsmile, would this interest any of you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look. · · · Peter Southwood : 02:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Do The Lancet's Personal View articles meet the standards for a secondary source?

Hi WikiProject Medicine,

The Lancet has a kind of article called a 'Personal View' that is peer reviewed. It has a lot of the formalities of a review article -- description of search strategy and selection criteria, extensive citations for claims, etc. Does this count as a review, and if not, does it still count as a suitable secondary source for biomedical information? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to add. 'Personal View' articles come up when you search The Lancet for review articles only, so clearly The Lancet's editors consider them as part of the Review category. But does WikiProject Medicine? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Should be fine for non-contentious knowledge and non-novel claims. Novel personal views may be due and should probably be attributed. Any examples in mind? Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this.

I was asking in general but here is an example:

Hashimoto’s disease has a widely discussed issue with persistent symptoms in about 10-15% of patients despite euthyroid status. There’s a number of commonly discussed hypotheses for why this might be. An article like this https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(22)00004-3/abstract

discusses one of the more common hypotheses, that some patients lack peripheral tissue conversion of t4 into t3. I feel something like this makes for a suitable source in context? Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that an article like this would be sufficient for paraphrasing a background section of an article, if a higher quality review/textbook etc is not available. In my own editing I would not share the hypotheses of a mechanism responsible for persisting symptoms from a commentary article without higher quality supporting MEDRS sources.JenOttawa (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Jen, that makes perfect sense. Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#Requested move 14 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#Requested move 14 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The proposal is to move the page Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 → COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

PANDAS

There are a lot of new SPAs at Talk:PANDAS; more eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Could some people please put this article on their Watchlists? In the last month, only nine registered editors with this on their watchlists have checked this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist. Is the article itself getting vandalized? If so it might need page protection. IntentionallyDense 21:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it's getting well-intentioned efforts from people who believe the article has the wrong POV. They may not be 100% wrong, so we need good editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct; and it is a difficult topic complicated by multiple factors. The topic has long been plagued by canvassing that occurs at popular tic-related message boards and online support groups for parents -- a phenomenon mentioned in multiple sources -- so editors who understand policy and guideline as well as medicine have been lacking to keep up with that. Some dated sections need rewriting (not so much for changed content, but to update the citations used that usually say same), but motivation wanes when much educating about policies and guidelines has to be done along the way, along with answering a lot of misinformation or overinterpretation of sources. Summary: more eyes needed, still and always. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is a lay article that provides an overview of the territory:

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/when-infection-sparks-obsession-pandas-and-pans

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A good deal of the talk discussion at PANDAS is now about PANS, which was AFD'd 12 years ago (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome). Is it time now to create that article? When PANS first came up, it was just another in a string of hypotheses (PANDAS, PITANDs, PANS, CANS); now it seems to be the prevailing one. I'm unsure of the technicalities of overriding that AFD, or even if that's the best course of action; if someone clues me in on how to proceed here, I could stub up the new PANS article. Ajpolino? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be reasonable, but step one is going to be finding some good sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Secondary reviews since the 2012 AFD, at least:

... at least. So if someone advises on the process for overwriting an AFD'd article, I can separate out the relevant content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I think that just boldly replacing the redirect with a decent article would be fine. It might be convenient to draft it in your sandbox, so you can replace it in a single edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I could do that as soon as I get a free moment; I just wanted to be sure a bold replacement over a previous AFD wouldn't be problematic. I should be able to get to that later today, unless someone tells me doing so is unwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

We could take it to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review if you'd like to avoid any possible risk of a {{db-repost}} complaint. (I could take it there for you, if you'd like.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I am drowning IRL ... maybe we could wait 'til after Christmas? I'm not sure anyone would object to the article being recreated, as I was the only one opining in the past! Whatever you think, I'm just SO out of time ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:There's no deadline. In the meantime, here's a virtual life preserver: 🛟 WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we need a second article. A google shows most coverage is on PANS/PANDAS together. If PANDAS is a subset of PANS then what is needed perhaps is to move the existing PANDAS article to PANS and cover PANDAS within that. That allows us to use sources talking about "PANS/PANDAS" together but also sources covering just one where appropriate. -- Colin° 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason to oppose that; would like to see more feedback, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Re Is the article itself getting vandalized?, another question is whether the talk page is being used appropriately or disruptively? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Water fluoridation

If someone has an or two eyes on that - new account promotes findings of a review regarding associations of IQ and fluoridation (what is missing: decrease in IQ points). This review is flawed - Garbage in, garbage out - as it solely relies on the flawed papers from the past. --Julius Senegal (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.

This is a political 'thing' in the US at the moment, so having a decent article will be the best way to prevent well-intentioned but imperfect attempts to improve it. In particular, I think that the claims that have been in the news for the last year should be directly mentioned and addressed. Usually, if we put in something that says "____ was claimed, but this is wrong because..." then that will work, but if we remove it, then people assume that it's accidentally missing, and that we would consider if helpful for someone to add "____ is true!" to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That ist true, but the SPA is now even removing all criticism at all. I didn't delete it just moved it.

that is why this is highly flawed and needs attention by more members here. The SPA is just reverting in a nonconstructive way.--Julius Senegal (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@The Anome, I see you were editing that page recently. @Doc James semi'd the page indefinitely years ago. What do you think about raising that to WP:EXTCONFIRMED? Or tagging it as part of WP:AP2, since that's what's driving the edit wars? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Better sooner than later.

You see that also on the discussion page. --Julius Senegal (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Review AI-generated articles

Hi there! While reviewing at AfC, I recently came across several AI-generated medical articles, some of which are still in draftspace and some of which have been accepted and moved to mainspace. These articles do not immediately come across as AI-generated, but when run through Misplaced Pages GPTzero, they have high AI-generation scores.

I would really appreciate it someone over here could help go through the articles to ensure accuracy. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade, I looked at Bile acid synthesis disorders. It was created in multiple edits over the space of several hours. All the refs are real. (I know nothing about the subject matter.) Do you have any reason except for the tool to believe that this is LLM content?

I am suspicious of "detector" tools, because they sometimes declare content that I wrote to be generated by an LLM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, WhatamIdoing! I ran it through Misplaced Pages GPTzero. That particular article shows a 99.8% AI-generation score. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade, I ran some of the early revisions through the same tool, and it said human: 0.983, ai: 0.017, and mixed: 0.0. Try putting the version just before your own edits in the tool and see what you get. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: Interesting... I'll have to bring this up to the individual who created the tool. I initially ran the edit before mine through the tool, and it told me 90-100% AI-generated. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Although the tool may be wrong, I do find it telling that when I ask ChatGPT to write a Misplaced Pages article about Bile acid synthesis disorders, it basically writes the exact article currently published.

Chat's lead reads, "Bile acid synthesis disorders (BASDs) are a group of rare, inherited metabolic conditions caused by defects in the enzymes involved in the production of bile acids. Bile acids are essential for the digestion and absorption of fats and fat-soluble vitamins, as well as for the regulation of cholesterol levels. BASDs can lead to a variety of symptoms, including liver dysfunction, malabsorption, and developmental delays."

Aside from a few slight wording adjustments, this is exactly what is written in the article. The classification section is the same way. The other sections have similar starts. Chat's sections are just about a sentence each, so it's quite possible each section was started and then asked something along the lines of "Could you expand on that"? When I asked GPT to expand on classification, it started adding similar information as to what is in the article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if it is (now) adapting the Misplaced Pages article, or if it would have given you the same results before the Misplaced Pages article was created. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

No CSD for badly referenced medical articles/gibberish?

So, Yangqi acupoint has sadly been created by one of my students (sorry). But it also made me suprised - I was going to CSD it but I could not see an applicable criterion? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 11:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

One person's "badly referenced medical content" is another person's WP:TRUTH. I think you did a reasonable thing by moving it to the Draft: namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not the sort of thing that I would think would have a CSD criterion at all. BD2412 T 19:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's not concrete and indisputable enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Clean up of Thyroid hormone articles

Hi Wikiproject Medicine, seeking a little bit of preliminary input here.

I'm looking at how WP presents information around Thyroxine, Levothyroxine, Levothyroxine Sodium; and Tri-iodothyronine, Liothyronine and Liothyronine Sodium. Thinking a bit about the best way to present the info, because I know how interchangably some of these terms get used even in literature (eg liothyronine used to refer to endogenous tri-iodothyronine, or levothyroxine sodium being commonly referred to as levothyroxine), even though they technically refer to different things.

At the moment:

For T3, there's a page for Liothyronine the drug, and one for Tri-iodothyronine the hormone.

For T4, there's one page called Levothyroxine which is for the drug, and another page called Thyroid Hormones for Thyroxine the hormone (but this page covers both T4 and T3).

For consistency, I'm trying to decide if it would be of benefit to:

A) propose a merger of Tri-iodothyronine into Thyroid Hormones (with the result being three pages -- one for thyroid hormones, one for liothyronine the drug, one for levothyroxine the drug)

B) propose that Thyroxine the hormone gets its own article and the Levothyroxine page becomes more exclusively about the drug (with the result being five pages, one overview of thyroid hormones, one for thyroxine the hormone, one for levothyroxine the drug, one for tri-iodothyronine the hormone, one for liothyronine the drug).

Thoughts? Daphne Morrow (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Need help on adding content to WikiProject Medicine

Hello all. I specialize in the field of medicine and wanted to add content to wiki project medicine. However, I am very new to Misplaced Pages editing. Some hours back, I created a page on Wiki project . But I can't figure out what to do now. Nor can I see my name in participants' full list. Can someone tell me If by mistake I created a wrong page? Or may be suggest me how I can actively participate, if this is the right page. Kindly help. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press