Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 10 June 2015

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Women's Health and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Scope

Thank you for starting this project! One of the first things to do is to define a scope as precisely as possible.

Here are the original categories listed at the project proposal:

• Category:Obstetrics
• Category:Human pregnancy
• Category:Fertility medicine
• Category:Gynaecology
• Category:Breast cancer
• Category:Menstrual cycle
• Category:Birth control
• Category:Abortion
• Category:Menopause

In addition, many of the other subcategories of Category:Women's health are probably within the scope of this project:

Several questions arise over the scope. Does this project cover:

• Legal topics related to women's health?
• People associated with women's health?
• Organizations related to women's health?
• Female anatomy?

Once the categories are nailed down and a template is created, a bot request can be made to add talk page banners to articles. gobonobo 01:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes, yes, and yes regarding the inclusion of legal topics, people, and organizations. Other opinions? Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree about including those. Sarah (SV) 02:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We should be careful about categories like Menstrual cycle though, as it includes things not really related to women's health, like Maya moon goddess and Whitten effect. Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that all those should be included and that we need to be careful about including topics related to those in the list. I do have one question/clarification about the scope: are we focusing on cis-women's health issues or including trans-women's health issues as well? Sometimes they intersect, but sometimes they don't, and I think it would be better to clarify this part of the scope early on. Ca2james (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I should have finished thinking before I posted.... I see the Brassieres category is included in the list but I don't quite see how that is a health issue. If brassieres stay in I think Corset might belong as well (especially from an historical perspective, since the corsets women used to wear rearranged organs and restricted breathing). Also, is there a category or article on how drugs and some diseases affect women differently? Heart disease, for example, tends to present differently in women than men, and until recently drugs were predominantly tested on men. Also, why are some American activist categories stricken but the corresponding Canadian ones are still in (such as pro-life and pro-choice activists)?

Also, I'd expect to see a parent cat for the female reproductive system that includes articles on the uterus, vagina, and clitoris. There are a lot of cats about disorders of various female organs but I think the basic info articles need to be included, too. Oh, and does Women's Health include mental health, for example depression, anxiety, etc? If I remember rightly, there are studies out there that indicate that women have a higher rate of some of these things. I think that's it for now. Sorry about the multiple posts. Ca2james (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources

In case anyone here would like to comment, I've opened a discussion about the above at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources, with a view to adding something to the guideline. Sarah (SV) 21:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Categories

There are so many other cancers besides breast cancer that have a major impact on women. Just think about it-for every different kind of organ that a woman possesses and a man does not, there is a cancer affiliated with that organ AND its tissues. Since we have the chance to organize the categories right from the start is there a better way or category name that would cover all the cancers specific to women?

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The most accurate word defining cancers specific to the reproductive organs, which in my gyne book includes breasts is: "gynecologic oncology", but what a mouthful...there must be something better.

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Gynecologic oncology has an article and is the most correct term for cancers that affect cis women. Keilana| 03:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if that category exists yet, but I believe it is warranted and will connect all the articles having to do with the cancers that are specific to women. (Although, of course men DO get breast cancer but of course it is pretty rare and we don't have to give it undue weight, equal-time or much coverage except as a mention. Now that I think about it, there probably needs to be an article just about men's breast cancer...it certainly is notable.) Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There exists one on male breast cancer, included in the Breast Cancer category, so that's covered. There also exists a category for gynecological cancers. Ca2james (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I looked for the category gynecological cancers and couldn't find it. There is a template for neoplasms of the female reproductive system, hmm. I'll start id-ing these cancers first with the Project template and then maybe later creating a category.

  Bfpage |leave a message  18:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessing articles

I am planning a long string of article assessments and project template placements on articles that I think should be part of the project. Please feel free to double check my editing history to see if there is a problem with any of my assessments. To make it easier for someone from this project to review my assessment, I will leave info in the edit summary so that you won't have to go to the talk page of the article to determine how I assessed it, you will be able to tell how I assessed it by a quick read of the my edit summaries. If there is any disagreement whatsoever, please feel to go to the article talk page and change my assessment, I will take no offense. You don't even have to explain why you changed the assessment. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)