Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

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 14 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia: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

Cholesterol, statins, etc

For a little while I've been having a slow edit war with Eddievos (talk · contribs), mainly on Talk:Atorvastatin, about the way cholesterol and statins are represented on Wikipedia. There is a small but rather noisy movement, mainly on the internet, that seems to oppose either the lipid hypothesis or at least the benefits of pharmacological cholesterol lowering. They certainly got the ear of Business Week in 2008 when they did a large article that dropped a large number of names but didn't actually name the studies that they disputed;[1] it mainly seems to target the ASCOT study.

Now a small series of articles has cropped up (mevalonate inhibition and Cholesterol Depletion), seemingly being forks of the cholesterol/statin articles and using case reports and laboratory studies to discredit widespread cholesterol lowering. I've send both articles to AFD currently, but I was wondering if the audience could review both articles and determine if any of the content is worth salvaging. JFW | T@lk 06:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

More votes needed in these discussions, because at the moment they are likely to be closed for lack of consensus JFW | T@lk 20:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll find the complete list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Retinoblastoma

Retinoblastoma has a support group link farm. Delete it? --Una Smith (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean at Retinoblastoma#Support. I looked at #External links first, and completely missed the problem. Yes, that's horrible -- a table of a bunch of orgs, with websites and descriptions of how wonderful their services are -- and I've killed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a table. Far worse than a regular external links farm. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's back, and so is some advice. --Una Smith (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An RFC to comment on

On Talk:Multiple myeloma I'm having a somewhat circular argument with the webmaster of myelomaforums.com. The argument (as usual) revolves around the suitability of support forums in the external links section. I'm frankly quite tired of having to conduct these discussions all the time, but I continue to believe that forums, however well moderated, are not great resources from a Wikipedia perspective exactly because their moderation may not be optimal and the sites turn into hype-promoting, named-physician-bashing, alt-med-touting mostrosities. If we could have a clear line on this, perhaps we could simply stop having these discussions time and time again. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I identify with the circular argument problems on wiki, they are very frustrating. Believe me you have my sympathy JFW! I will add my comments.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I know you do. :) We need medals!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Few Administrative things

Hi Again.

I was scowering through some other WikiProjects to see if I wanted to join and I see they all had coordinators and leaders and ect. WPMED doesn't have any, and we really have no back bone organization. I'd sort of suggest that we make some sort of ranking system so our newcomers can ask appropriate people, instead of the user that hasn't editted since 1997. With that, I was thinking something along the lines of this... (low to high) Anoymous IP users> Wikipedia Users > WPMED Members > Task Force Coordinator(s) > WPMED Coordinator(s) Bad? Good? Not going to work? What do you think? I'd kind of like to see a little more backbone here. Renaissancee (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not just ask questions right here? It makes more sense for project-related questions to be in the project space instead of being directed to specific users' talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

True, you don't like copying 50 of the same messages either:P ? Still, your actions at the Task Force talk sort of concern me. After getting enough supports, a task force(can't remember which) just sat there till somebody came along (you) and decided that it can be a task force now. I'd like (mind you, this is me) for WPMED to have more organization so we can get our articles and intentions out even better. More administration = more success. For newcomers, I'm not really sure if all of them are just going to come out of the shadows and start asking questions. When you just start at Wikipedia, it's kind of a scary place in all with all the ivory towers and rules and structures. I was scared that if I put out an idea it would be immediately shunned upon by the community because it broke some important rule that I didn't know about at the time. Do you get my drift? Renaissancee (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree on more organization better functioning. I believe the project works well right now.--Garrondo (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fully opposed to any sort of structuring of rank here, it goes against the Wikipedia spirit. Even administrators aren't ranked higher than average users here, or even IP users for that matter, so it doesn't make much sense to assign coordinators. Also, the project works just fine at the moment, we all have equal responsibilities and no one is forced into looking after a certain area. If it ain't broke, don't fix it :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  09:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposed. Appointing coordinators equals more "ivory towers and rules and structures", not less. Also, administration has a cost in time and effort. So, no, let's not have "coordinators" here. Anyway, what it seems Renaissancee really wants is to help newbies over the hump from reading to contributing. The best way I know to do that is to be responsive in a positive way. I would like to see fewer replies that direct the newbie to the reference desk, and more that respond to the content issues in newbie's questions. So someone asks "I have these symptoms; do I have this disease?" Let's not shoot them down for seeking medical advice here; instead, treat it as an encyclopedia question, and make clearer or expand the articles about the symptoms and the disease. --Una Smith (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really have enough editors involved to warrant extra bureaucracy I feel. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, glad I could get your opinions. Renaissancee (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

10/90 gap

Does this fall under our scope? All it is is a stastistic from a report. To be honest, I think it should be deleted. Renaissancee (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Article nominated for AfD. Please put your two cents in. Renaissancee (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Medical encyclopedia

Can someone have a look over Medical encyclopedia ? I removed the images attached to the article, because per WP:IMAGES, they have little relation to the topic at hand. The creator of the article seems to have a difference of opinion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? Renaissancee (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O - third opinion on the usefulness of the images I removed. Preferably, leaving a comment on the talk page of the article. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lupus anticoagulant --- Antiphospholipid syndrome, different or the same?

I came across Lupus anticoagulant and after a bit of looking around I noticed that it had the same ICD9, DiseasesDB and most importantly OMIM with Antiphospholipid syndrome. Can anyone with more knowledge take a look at the two articles, their external links and make a judgment on whether they are completelly differet, one is a subset of another, or the exact same? I am guessing they might be different but the OMIM indicates that they are the same confused me. If they are the exact same, then I would recomend a merger. Thank you.Calaka (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that I have also read the OMIM describing the difference between the two, but I repeat that I am no expert and have trouble actually understanding the difference between the two from that description. Calaka (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The antiphospholipid syndrome requires medical complications (miscarriage, arterial/venous thrombosis, etc) plus detection of antiphospholipid antibodies (which include lupus anticoagulant and anticardiolipin antibodies). Lupus anticoagulant is inferred from laboratory tests, but is not a syndrome and hence can be detected in the absence of any disease. Thus, they overlap incompletely. --Scray (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lupus anticoagulant is a laboratory finding, which may or may not be associated with the APS but may nonetheless be relevant in its own right. It would be better to keep the laboratory determination in the LAC article. JFW | T@lk 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonne-Milroy-Meige syndrome = Milroy disease... Another potential merger?

Similar to the above section I posted, would anyone like to recommend a merger between Nonne-Milroy-Meige syndrome and Milroy disease. The evidence of them being the same (in my opinion) is provided here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=153100 & here: http://www.whonamedit.com/synd.cfm/1326.html but I still didn't feel bold enough to do the merger myself (I am no doctor after all, so I figure an expert can do the confirmation first!). Thanks. Calaka (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge complete. Please restrict discussion to the appropriate Talk page. --Scray (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

While we are talking about mergers I found another potential pair that can probably be merged (I went ahead and added the merger tags on these two as I was more confident on them: Nager syndrome and Acrofacial dysostosis, Nager type. Any thoughts? Calaka (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but this proposal should be discussed on the appropriate Talk page. --Scray (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Pineal gland

Would someone who knows about ectoderm / endoderm please take a look at recent IP changes to Pineal gland? I can't tell if these are honest attempts to get something right, or not. Thank you, Hordaland (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Free photos

I found a CDC site that offers public domain photos of skin diseases. Does anyone else know of sites where I can get photos of skin diseases for use on wikipedia? ---kilbad (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked if there were any open source dermatology journals in BioMed Central and found BMC Dermatology, dunno if they have pretty pics. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kilbad, if we were able to determine the right paperwork and processes, would you be willing to ask certain patients if they would be willing to donate non-identifiable images of their skin to the Foundation through you, and would you be willing to caption the image in cases where the condition was unambiguous? I think that with sufficient support from the WPMED community, we might be able to get Mike Godwin's assistance on this issue. --Arcadian (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, particularly as I am about to by a new Nikon with lighting rig. However, if I take a non-identifiable photo of a patient's skin condition, can't I upload it without getting consent? ---kilbad (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This may depend on local laws and policies. At my institution, policy forbids taking any photograph without consent, and the consent must specify "publication and presentation" to use it in this way. Realize also that rules may change (and apply retroactively) so it's best to just get the consent (and of course, "non-identifiable" is a pretty subjective thing anyway). Patients have a right to know what you're doing, IMHO. --Scray (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Scray, could you put together a paragraph that captures the spirit (but not the language) of the policies of your institution? We could then get feedback from Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:OTRS, and Godwin (or a delegate of his.) --Arcadian (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

See also an overview of previous discussions and a general essay on this topic at Commons:Patient images. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's my list of US Gov image sites. Not all images on all sites are in the public domain.

Site	Licence
CDC Public Health Image Library	{{PD-USGov-HHS-CDC}}
CDC Photos of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases	{{PD-USGov-HHS-CDC}}
U.S. Government Photos and Graphics	{{PD-USGov}}
Library of Congress : Prints & Photographs Online Catalog	{{PD-US-LOC}}
Library of Congress : American Memory	{{PD-US-LOC}}
NCI Visuals Online	{{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}
NIH History of Medicine	{{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}
NIH Photo Galleries	{{PD-USGov-HHS-NIH}}

—G716 <^T·_C> 17:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Stub reorganization

I just wanted to let the community know that there is a move to reorganize disease article stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2009/June. ---kilbad (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Seckel syndrome & Virchow-Seckel syndrome merger.

Another merger suggestion. Please comment at Talk:Seckel_syndrome#Merge_Virchow-Seckel_syndrome_here. and if you think the merger is appropriate enough, be bold. Thank you. Calaka (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

This is nothing more than trivia and yet is listed as a GA under WP:MED Michael Jackson's health and appearance. I think it belong to another project if anything?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivia, and not notable under medicine. Shouldn't be under WPMED. Renaissancee (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another merger... Synovial chondromatosis and Synovial osteochondromatosis

Please see here: [[2]] for reasoning of possible merger. Any input would be greatly appreciated and if you are knowledgeable enough about these two terms as being the same, then by all means be bold. Thank you.Calaka (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete style page ?

Trawling around some links found Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions, I believe this is now covered in MOS in further detail, suggest delteing it? L∴V 14:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge/redirect with WP:MEDMOS JFW | T@lk 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

√ resolved; jmh649 has redirected the page.L∴V 10:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Deep penetrating light therapy

Anyone want to have a look at the Deep penetrating light therapy stub? It was a mess before, so I trimmed out the massive source dump. Now it's kinda naked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Better naked then trashy. Renaissancee (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009 WPMED Member Sweep

Hey guys, I just finished a member sweep, and I'd like to tell you some interesting facts. For borderline any members that have not edited Wikipedia since 1 January 2009 were removed from the active members list and put into the inactive. At the begging of the sweep, we had a total of 254 members listed. After reviewing all of members contributions, 72 of those 254 were illegible for the inactive members' list. Roughly 28.3% of our members where inactive. A fifth. I'd like to suggest that we do yearly regular member sweeps, as this one I did was very brief and quick. All I did was check their contributions and if I saw a 2008, 2007, and I did see a few 2006's, I removed them. Renaissancee (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So how many active WP:MED member does that make it?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We currently have 182 "active" members that have posted before 1 January 2009. Renaissancee (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There may be more of us than is listed - I just checked and am not listed myself, I see the list isn't automated and I originally signed manually to medgen, but I feel we should have a better celebration of past collaborators a wiki monument of a kind - ideas on a postcard please? L∴V 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am listed in the Category:WikiProject Medicine members though.. L∴V 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reason your listed there is because you have one or multiple of WPMED's user templates on your userpage. Renaissancee (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that before we can decide how to manage the list, we need to understand why it even exists. A means of contacting contributors? Roll call of fame? A way for new editors to signal their interest? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I post here with low-moderate frequency, but I'm not signed up anywhere, nor do I have a userbox. Don't know what that means. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

HFPEF

Currently, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction does not have its own article. It is covered as a paragraph on 'diastolic heart failure' under the main heart failure article. Would anyone object if I created a new HFPEF article to separate it out from HF with reduced EF? Antelan 22:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think that enough information about the specific condition exists to perhaps someday be a good article, then feel free. If it's more likely to end up as a little stub, then I wouldn't split them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Papillary eccrine adenoma

Would someone mind reviewing the addition of a CSD G3 tag to this recent stub I created? ---kilbad (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed. Well, thanks anyway! ---kilbad (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Strengthen_COMMONNAME

Hey everbody (puts fingers in teeth and whistles loudly), there's a debate here about common names policy strengthening vs those of individual wikiprojects. Are the two compatible, and how? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal rejected, i.e. Common name is just a basic default with wikiprojects bringing special knowledge of best naming practice to their fields (a poor summation of a good debate) David Ruben ^Talk 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Diagnosis

Anybody have a good source for Medical diagnosis? It seems like it would be useful to describe subtypes, such as those based on "how" (e.g., clinical vs lab diagnosis), "who" (e.g., nursing diagnosis) and "when" (prenatal diagnosis) the diagnosis is made. Anyone else have any favorite ways to divide up this rather large territory? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A good diagnostic approach involves all of these - such a separation seems contrary to proper diagnosis. --Scray (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would rather approach it from the other end: differential diagnosis, first approximation, etc. There are academic papers and probably a book or two on the theory behind diagnosis, which is distinct from details of application (who is the patient and what kinds of information are useful). --Una Smith (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles on medical abbreviations

Should there be individual articles on medical abbreviations? We currently have EOMI and PERRLA. I don't think these are necessary, and I'd like to delete them/redirect them to List of medical abbreviations. There are also articles on some Medical mnemonics, which could be left as-is. --Scott Alter 23:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Abbreviations should at most be listed, and redirected to the relevant page when appropriate. No need for dedicated pages like these. --Scray (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article on alt med

Here is an interesting article on alt med. 2.5 billion spent with lots of negative results. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_he_me/us_med_unproven_remedies_research_3 --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting...this is something that further supports that alternative medicine acts as a placebo. Renaissancee (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how on-topic this is...there are lots of interesting articles out there. For comparison, while the NCCAM spent $2.5 billion in ten years, as of $2004 the NIH spent about $27 billion per year. Working on the generous foundation of NIH basic research, I read in Investor's Business Daily the other day that the pharmaceutical industry manages to get 8% of cancer drugs to market, and 20% of regular drugs to market. I'm not sure what sort of relationship that figure has with the fact that somewhere around 75% of drugs are me-too drugs, which nevertheless are marketed heavily enough to bring in plenty of cash. The pharma industry spends a ton on R&D, although it's hard to know for sure how much is really R&D vrs marketing and legal expenses, since at least as of 2001 Public Citizen said the books weren't really open [3]. Anyway, I agree that the NCCAM is misguided in many ways, but it's certainly too soon for an end. The neverending homeopathy trials certainly need to end, although considering how many of them there are and where they are published, I suspect many of those were funded by the NIH. II | (t - c) 08:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as a point of fact, NCCAM is the NIH -- or one of them. There are currently 27 separate agencies that make up the National Institutes of Health. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

True, I noticed that I'd worded that badly at the end - homeopathy is one of those misguided pursuits. However, in 2005 there were at least 110 trials on homeopathy (PMID 16125589). I somehow doubt that the NCCAM did all those in 7 years. Maybe the OAM did a fair bit of the rest. II | (t - c) 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if by OAM you mean the federal agency, then the answer is no. OAM = NCCAM, just in different year. The organization was renamed and reorganized in 1998. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Inter/intracellar signal transduction

Does anyone have any good techniques/suggestions/etc for outlining signal transduction outside or inside a cell without using cartoons/diagrams (i.e. some type of all-text approach)? ---kilbad (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you going for? What's the subject matter? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Flu

I've been seeing notices that the flu does not fall under WikiProject Medicine, I find that very strange. The tags have been replaced with WP:VIRUS tags, but the articles don't talk about the virus, only the disease it causes, and WP:VIRUS is a Tree-of-life related WikiProject... I also saw a notice saying that bacteria do not fall under WPMED... so that cuts off a whole lot of disease, if all bateriological and viral diseases do not fall under WPMED, and drugs fall under WP:PHARMA... is all you cover surgery, malnutrition, and autoimmune disease? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The flu is listed under WP:MED. Not sure what the concern is?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Renaissancee says that the H1N1 flu articles don't come under WPMED, they fall under WPVIRUS... but WPVIRUS seems to not be focused on disease, just the virus particles. So, the H1N1 flu outbreak articles, documenting disease cases have been removed from WPMED and placed under WPVIRUS by Renaissancee. Further s/he left a scope explanation about this project at User_talk:70.29.208.129#WPMED_Scope saying that WPMED does not cover viruses or bacteria (in relation to the flu disease articles). Seeing as s/he removed the banner from the flu articles, it indicates that this project does not support viral disease or bacteriological disease. The reasoning is illustrated by several talk page explanations such as the one found at Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak in North America. — 70.29.210.174 (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of the virus is not part of WP:MED but the discussion of the disease caused by the virus is. Therefore IMO these pages falls under WP:MED.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So I should re-add the banners, per this discussion? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We've recently been refining the rules here, so here's a summary of the current state:

• YES: disease, transmission, public health actions, outbreaks. Note that in the grand scheme of medicine, an outbreak or other historical event is always |importance=Low -- even if it's big news at the time of the outbreak -- unless, like Black Death#Causes_of_the_bubonic_infection, it contains substantial information about the disease, or it permanently changed the field of medicine.
• NO: articles solely about the virus itself, articles solely about non-medical events (e.g., government actions or media coverage) that happen in the context of a medical situation.

The standards are in bit of a state of flux, so I suggest waiting a day or two and seeing whether anyone has any other opinions before making any changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sorry about that. Scope and stuff is getting more and more complicated, so I'm bound to screw up sometime. Looks like this was one of them. Yes, you should probably readd the banners. Renaissancee (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatry task force

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces#Psychiatry lists five editors that are interested in a task force dedicated to psychiatry. I think this is enough, but none of you seem to be watching the task force page, and if we set up this task force, then I want to make sure that you'll actually show up. So: anyone still interested? Are we ready to launch? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't such a task force be joint with WP:WikiProject Psychology? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WPMED has no objections -- it's really just a matter of them putting a link to the task force page on their main project page -- but the psych folks often try to keep psychology and psychiatry separate, so I don't know if they'll be interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link or diffs showing the desire to keep material separate as I have not come across it up till now. I would be interested in seeing this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I could provide comments in other contexts from individuals (e.g., Mattisse) that give me this impression, but I'm not sure that this would be representative of the entire membership. I just don't expect unanimous support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Would support this task force, but would also be happy continuing here at the main project as well.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. I guess the question is, what benefits are there from a task force? The biggest potential one is trying to get some more large/core articles to FAC as these can be a challenge and potential burnout if things go awry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Calf page moves

Recently I discovered Calf is mostly about baby cattle, and there was no Wikipedia article about the human calf. I wrote Calf (of leg) and began disambiguating links to Calf. I also proposed to move the article about baby cattle to Calf (cattle) and to move Calf (disambiguation) to Calf, so that future links to Calf will continue to be disambiguated.

Some of the arguments against moving these pages are absurd. For example, the leg part isn't really a "calf" and for god's sake, it's utterly ridiculous to create separate articles on the leg part and the muscle. Argh. Please help. --Una Smith (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is the discussion actually happening? I see long conversations at Talk:Calf, but the move discussion also appears at Talk:Calf (disambiguation). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be at Talk:Calf. In a related matter about medical-related calf articles, we currently have Calf (of leg), Calf muscle, and Triceps surae. I recommend that we merge "calf muscle" in to "triceps surae" and move "calf (of leg)" to "calf (anatomy)." "Calf (anatomy)" would contain a link to "triceps surae." --Scott Alter 23:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Primarily Talk:Calf#Requested move. I have no objection to moving Calf (of leg) to Calf (anatomy). I am not pushing to move it to Calf, although I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would favor that; when there is dispute about what is the primary topic, I prefer to put the disambiguation page at the page name in dispute. --Una Smith (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Calf (of leg) has been moved to Calf (anatomy). Discussion re moving Calf (disambiguation) to Calf, displacing the article now at Calf, is continuing. I appreciate the help of Scott Alter and Doc James. --Una Smith (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Examining other anatomy articles, I see the convention favors Calf (anatomy). As that page name is already occupied (by a redirect), an admin will have to move it. I will hold off on disambiguating the rest of the links to Calf and Calf muscle until the move proposals are resolved. Links to Calf muscle need to be disambiguated because many of them actually intend the calf, not the calf muscle. This is a big mess resulting from the absence of a page on a minor but basic topic of human anatomy. A stub would have been better. --Una Smith (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Calf (anatomy) promoting systematic bias? Shouldn't it be calf (human) or calf (human anatomy) ? The anatomy of non-human subjects can contain a part called "calf" can it not? 70.29.212.226 (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But this is true of most of the anatomy articles on Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, we should attempt to avoid systematic bias. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it is okay to merge Calf muscle to Triceps surae? Both articles are on the same topic. "Calf muscle" is somewhat ambiguous, as it actually relates to several muscles. We seem to favor titles using the full scientific name of muscles (eg Quadriceps femoris muscle, Biceps brachii muscle, Triceps brachii muscle), so I think this merge is appropriate. --Scott Alter 01:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, merge and make Calf muscle a redirect. --Una Smith (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Expert med attention needed! Cowchock syndrome, Cystic hygroma & Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome

After going through the mess of trying to work out what is what, I managed to work out that Cowchock Syndrome AND Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome (also known as Cystic hygroma) are NOT the same thing. Can someone please take a look at these and merge Cowchock Wapner Kutz into Cystic hygroma (since the former has a number of incorrect statements in my opinion due to the mistaken belief that Cowchock syndrome = Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome). There is no indication of the OMIM of Cowchock syndrome to have a Wapner or Kurtz anywhere [4]. Furthermore these two links (they are government pages so I assume they can be trusted) show clearly the distinction between the above: [5] and [6]. I will redirect Cowchock to the more correct Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (as it is a subtype or X linked type 4). Thank you.Calaka (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise Cowchock Wapner Kurtz syndrome is a subset of Cystic hygroma but the rarity of it would only require the term to be mentioned in the Cystic hygroma article and not have its own (in my oppinion): [7]

I decided to be bold and do it all myself. If I am incorrect in any way though please feel free to correct anything I do. Calaka (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neospora

It looks like Neospora caninum and Neospora need to be merged. --Una Smith (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neospora is the genus, whilst Neospora caninum is one of two species. As such both articles should exist, although perhaps overlap of informaion in the genus article that should be devolved downwards? David Ruben ^Talk 00:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that today Arcadian has added a second species. For small genera with little published about each species, it is not unusual to put the species in sections within the genus article. In any case, Neospora caninum and Neospora are written as though the genus were monotypic, and have excessive overlap, so if not a merge then some heavy pruning is in order. --Una Smith (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

neurosergeon in 100 years from now.....

hello, i'm AQ. i am have lot of interest to be neurosergeon in future. i would love to share a little about something that we as the reality of this field. as all of we know, this job is the most challenging field in the medical choices. but after all i'm thinking, i'm afraid this field could be treated in the future because of many of the young lad today have shown very less interest to involve in this field.even if they do, mostly they only have interest about the salary. this is only my opinion.i am talk based on my observation.tq.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.79.104 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that neurosurgery is a challenging discipline to study and perform, but I wouldn't be so sure it's the most challenging in all of medicine. Many surgical specialities require require equal levels of precision: paediatric surgery, ophthalmic surgery, etc. All forms of medicine are challenging in some way or another. Secondly, do you actually have a question? Lastly, if you do have a question, it's probably best to discuss it here. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  10:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hippocampus at FAC

In case anyone missed it, this is at FAC - might be good to see if anything left out comprehensivenesswise and see what else needs to be done (or help out). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Antihypertensive article

I suggest that we rename this article to Treatment of hypertension, Antihypertensive drugs, or Pharmacologic treatment of hypertension, what do you think?? MaenK.A._Talk 13:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with "Antihypertensive drugs", but I'd object to renaming the article to "Treatment of hypertension". The antihypertensives are an internationally recognized class (per ATC code C02). It should be self-evident to future editors what belongs on that page and what doesn't. But if we renamed the article to "Treatment of hypertension", then the subject of the article becomes fuzzy, and the proper location for information for non-pharmaceutical approaches will become unclear. Information at higher levels of abstraction would be better at Hypertension#Treatment. --Arcadian (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree one would be a pharmaceutical classification and the other would be a disease approach.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a specific case of something which should be covered in MEDMOS. Can we take the discussion to WT:MEDMOS and couch it in more general terms? (geven the way that search box type-ahead works, I'd like to see "Hypertension", "Hypertension drugs", "Hypertension therapies", but consistency of approach counts.LeadSongDog come howl 18:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done , I renamed the article into Antihypertensive drugs MaenK.A._Talk 09:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions

There has been discussion about using flagged revisions for BLPs. Wondering if this is something we should consider for this project? Here is comments from Jimbo [[8]] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Which articles do you expect to protect in such a manner? 70.29.212.226 (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could use some fresh voices at Talk:Rorschach test

We could use some fresh voices in the long-running dispute over whether to display, how many to display, and where to place, the Rorschach test inkblot image(s). The most recent debate, at Talk:Rorschach test#All 10 images is over whether to include a gallery with all the images. –xeno^talk 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

SIDS Clarification Requested

On the SIDS page "Infant being overweight" is called a prenatal risk factor and "Low birth weight" is called a post-natal risk factor. I think they should be classified similarly, and if so, should they both be put under prenatal or post-natal?Sidsmaven (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Polyclinic

Are there any other names for Polyclinic? It seems like the kind of concept that would have a different name in different countries, and we don't really need multiple articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a European term founded in England. But I don't know, it doesn't say anything about any other areas, so... Renaissancee (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The term has existed well before 2004 in Holland ("polikliniek" is the equivalent of a clinic) and probably in Germany ("Poliklinikum") too. There are some factual issues with that article. JFW | T@lk 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty similar to private acute care clinics in the states. ChillyMD (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Private practice "Before & After" shots

What is going on? Why are private practices posting before and after shots to encyclopedia articles? What are the terms and conditions regarding this type of "contribution"? The pages that I have come across have become significantly less reputable due to these types of images being posted (and a *lot* less aesthetically pleasing). A list of the articles that I have found include: abdominoplasty, liposuction, rhinoplasty, and rhytidectomy, but the list is realistically longer than that. I am an avid medical photographer and have been given a great opportunity to take photos during actual surgeries, also having been given full legal rights from both the patients and surgeon to my images, and the rights to contribute my work to the Wikimedia projects and global community in general.

After adding some images to the abdominoplasty article, I was contacted by a Dr. Otto J. Placik from Arlington Heights, IL, USA regarding the article and that he was "there first" and would appreciate it if I would leave his work alone (I had edited one of his photo captions in the liposuction article to remove the phrase "PLEASE CLICK ON PHOTO FOR MORE INFORMATION")--with the subtle hint that my contributions are not welcome. He then proceeded to remove an extremely valuable and descriptive image of this surgery (which I re-added late last night after deciding to disregard his requests). How do I contact an administrator, or what is the Wikimedia/Wikipedia policy on this type of behavior? Dr. Otto Placik has also been "contributing" using multiple accounts, including Emilymiller123, Sarahjjohnson123, and the "anonymous" 75.63.221.230 IP address in an effort to ghost his marketing and self-promotion.

I'm not at all opposed to anyone from the medical community being involved in contributing to this great work. But seriously, what defines "crossing the line", and what can be done to keep people like Dr. Otto J. Placik from controlling and degrading the quality of this collaborative project? I'm new here, so I really don't know where to turn for help or advice on this matter. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paravis (talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that some of this appears to be little more than advertising. Links to his personal pages must be removed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarahjjohnson123LeadSongDog come howl 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, advertising should be removed w/o hesitation. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a new low in the misuse of Wikipedia for advertising purposes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• As a plastic surgeon and wiki contributor, it gets under my skin when people try to use wikipedia as part of a marketing campaign. Periodically I try to cull some of the vanity bio pieces and listed a few today. PLEASE help remove these types of entries in the AFD section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Zbar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Steinbrech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_K._Herman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gentile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Charles_Edwards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrick_E._Antell

Thanks! Rob Droliver (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

About a year ago, there was a great deal of spam centered around a couple of now blacklisted physician directories -- cosmeticsurgery.com and plasticsurgery.com, along with a number fake blogs and websites, such as ienhance.com. I believe plasticsurgery.org was also blacklisted due to editing abuse (ignoring other editors, sockpuppeting, overzealous adding/readding of links), which I didn't agree with since it's the association website and probably useful as an external link when identified. I'm less clear about cosmeticsurgery.org, which is another association. Flowanda | Talk 21:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unwinding needed

It looks like User:Deathstyler2 has done a cut-and-paste move of Environmental factor to Environmental disease. Aside from the minor problem that these terms aren't actually identical, it screws up the edit history. Does anyone want to figure out how to unwind these pages?

Fair warning: Based on a quick trip through the editor's contributions, I can't guarantee that this will necessarily be a simple, one-time fix. Among other things, the editor redirected Cardiovascular disease to this stub. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

MMR vaccine

Can some physicians please put eyes on recent edits at MMR vaccine controversy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like his sources are accurate; as for their location or deserving their own section I'm not sure how it affects the balance and npov of the article. The part from the AMA about parents changing vaccine habbits, in particular is worth inclusion (somewhere in the article) as it is a growing public health concern both in the US and the UK. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it really relevant to the subject to compare public conerns (even if those concerns are unfounded) about vaccines to "holocaust denial" and anti-science conspiracies theories though? I think Sandy's reverts/deletions were good.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Struck out my comments, I see that you were just referring to public stats and not the other paragraph. Apologies Fuzbaby.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the other paragraph is harsh, and if the person wanted to include it could just say its a form of denailism; I don't think that would really add anything to the article though, and the link to the denailism wikipage at the end seems out of place. I think the AMA survey paragraph is relevant, though perhaps better moved to the section on disease outbreaks. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps stats were worth keeping, dunno Sandy's reasoning. How about raising it on the article talk page or with Sandy on her talk page? :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not on my talk (eeeeek) ... I'm only able to keep up with my FAC duties these days, really busy ... that's why I brought this here, for others to work out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok no probs Sandy. I am not opposed to the stats being included, they are recent and should be interesting to the reader. The other paragraph clearly did need deleting. :) Why not just add the stats and ref back in Fuzbaby and if anyone challenges it you can take it to the article talk page. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Done! Fuzbaby (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The AMA poll isn't directly relevant to MMR vaccine controversy, as it doesn't mention MMR vaccine. It is a US poll, and the main US concerns about vaccines are not about MMR. (MMR concerns are more of a UK thing.) It might be suited for Vaccine controversy, I suppose, but it'd be much better to cite a review on the topic instead of that popular-press piece (see WP:MEDRS for why). Eubulides (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion polls aren't really a scientific statement and are unlikely to appear in a review article in my opinion. Improved sourcing might not be possible. Agree that it the stats are not directly relevant to MMR.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that sort of information isn't going to be on pubmed. However, I can't find the primary source from the AMAs website (even with member access) and I dislike using a secondary source. It is of growing concern in the US though (California) though not as bad as in the UK. Fuzbaby (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, because it is an encyclopedia (a tertiary source) has a clearly stated preference for using secondary sources. Information about public opinion might well turn up in journal articles, since the public's beliefs about a medical intervention have a significant impact on public health. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think in the case of the primary source being a publication of a professional organization that fits under the accepted use; more specifically though I meant I didn't like the current secondary source (press article). Fuzbaby (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

CMP Medica links

A question about one of this publisher's website came up on the wiki spam project talk page a few days ago that's probably more suitable listed here. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#cancernetwork.com. The company produces a number of publications, newsletters, websites, conferences, etc., which seems to include custom publications, advertorials and supplements. There appear to be several editors adding content sourced to their publications, as well as external links. There are definitely COI issues that need to be addressed, but the edits, suitability of the links and determination of its publications as RS would probably best be discussed here. Flowanda | Talk 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome

It would be appreciated if a few people who have knowledge of CFS-related fields would have a look at the various articles that relate to chronic fatigue syndrome. The biggest article of concern is the main article itself, however, many related articles could also use some review, such as: Clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome, Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome, Daniel Peterson (physician), David Sheffield Bell, Leonard A. Jason, Malcolm Hooper, Medically unexplained physical symptoms, and Pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome.

In particular, neutral point of view presentation is a concern. There have been accusations of the articles taking pro-biological viewpoints, and reversions against consensus to counteract the perceived bias. I think someone (or probably several someones) with a more hands-off approach would be appreciated at this point.

Thanks everyone! --Rob (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked in depth yet, but why does CFS need its own main page, and a seperate description and pathophysiology pages? Much more complex medical pages manage to contain everything in one article. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Most complex medical conditions don't have five or six major definitions, either. I can't say I'm surprised by the POV concerns at these articles; it would be more surprising if someone said that there wasn't a dispute there! WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As to why there are so many pages, I can only speculate, as I've only really gotten involved in those articles fairly recently. But my speculation is that it's due to the number of disputes that have arisen over the years since the article was created, as well as the fact that a lot of the medical information is speculative at this point. By creating separate pages, it tends to confine disputes to smaller areas which can be focussed on appropriately. But like I say, I'm just guessing that that was the motive for their creation...you'd have to trace back in their history and look at appropriate discussion around the time to be certain (a project in and of itself). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's really simple. Those who know anything about CFS are already editing these articles, and everyone else has been thoroughly put off by the attitude of a few contributors (the most difficult one of which has now been banned). This is POV tiger country.

I agree with Fuzbaby that the article probably shouldn't have been forked, and I disagree with Robinhood70 that forking can be helpful in containing POV disputes; instead, the dispute just spreads to more articles.

With regards to the little biographies of Jason, Bell, Peterson and Hooper, I don't actually see a problem there. In fact, they are pretty mild in the sense that I know several of these men to be highly opinionated with regards to the "psychiatric school" and deny them legitimacy. JFW | T@lk 09:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'll agree it may have been read that way, I wasn't saying that the forking was necessarily helpful, just that that might have been the thought at their creation. Personally, I think the amount of related pages for CFS is getting ridiculous as well, but given the ongoing issues on the main page, as well as its already fairly large size (currently 62k, IIRC), I'm extremely hesitant to try to re-integrate anything.

And apart from a few minor issues that are being worked on, I don't see major issues with the bios either, but I do believe they would be well-served by third-party editors to judge whether the content is unbiased, if it's notable, etc.

I most certainly agree that this is POV tiger country, but if you really look at the talk page, I think it's obvious that most of us can work together. There are more NPOV editors on this article than it may appear, however those who are strongly in support of a particular POV often make those who oppose the more problematic additions look like they're supporting the other POV. In fact, a look at recent contributions will show that several of those who have been accused of POV bias have been adding/editing information both for and against a psychological basis. --Rob (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support a merger of clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome, controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome, and pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome into chronic fatigue syndrome. Would anyone else support this? ---kilbad (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, though due to my recent involvement on the article and perception of bias, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to contribute significantly (beyond smoothing out minor editing glitches and the like). --Rob (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe combining is not a good idea. Last year the article was very long and was spilt accordingly (see the articles about midyear 2008). There are many conflicting study results due to the different ME/CFS definitions used. Also there are many avenues of research due to the lack of understanding of the systemic nature of the illness. Much verifiable material in the article has been removed in the last year and the result has been fighting over various POVs instead of proper documentation of the incredible complex and divergent viewpoints within the patient and medical community concerning the illness. Presently there is a lot of bald assertion of opinion in opposition to policy. It takes more wording to properly attribute opinions subject to dispute. If the material in the chronic fatigue syndrome article was properly documented and attributed, it would be much larger and IMO there would be less POV issues. Ward20 (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with ward, merging would make the article too big.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

With regards to merging, I think most of the content could be removed from the subarticles if editors agreed to adhere to WP:MEDRS, which sets specific limits on the type of articles we use as references. JFW | T@lk 04:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly schizophrenia and Major depressive disorder have a few subpages, but I do think there is some potential for rationalization here. Need to think about it a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe as a start, it would be useful for someone to go through and flag all the non-MEDRS references so that they can be improved or removed? I know I've seen a lot of citations from older sources (early 1990's) and citations from newspapers, which by MEDRS, are generally undesirable. Of course at the same time, we also need to present significant-minority viewpoints as well, which may necessitate referencing non-MEDRS (or "weak MEDRS") sources in some cases. --Rob (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

It appears that the entire article on Schizoid Personality Disorder was lifted word-for-word from http;//www.schizoid.eu , which claims copyright over the information.

I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia's rules for correcting this, but I have also notified them so this can be worked out.

J. Kulacz 24.117.91.92 (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It appears that the copying has actually gone the other way around. (Wikipedia allows websites to copy any articles they want, so long as they place a note about the GFDL license on the page (which this one has done in very small type at the bottom of the page).

For future reference, though, you'll want to know where Template:Copyvio is. It has instructions and links to other similar templates (like one for new articles, and one if you're not entirely sure that it's a copyvio.

Thanks again for paying attention to these issues, and happy editing! WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Zona orbicularis" in English?

I just redirected Annular ligament of femur to Zona orbicularis (expanded the unassessed article and name-dropped a few alternative names). However, I'm not a native English-speaker, so I'm wondering what you people actually call this ligament. --Addingrefs ( talk | contribs ) 17:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Gay Bowel Syndrome"

Thoughts about how to handle this recently created article? The term itself is quite dated, to say the least. In an ideal world, our article on proctitis would already cover the relevant material. I'm not really supportive of a standalone article with this title, especially since the references are so sparse and date largely from the 1970s. In fact, the McGraw-Hill Manual of Colorectal Surgery has this to say:

Coined in the pre-HIV era, the term "gay bowel syndrome" comprised a rather unselective potpourri of unusual anorectal and GI symptoms experienced by homosexual males... with better understanding of the underlying causes, this term is outdated: the derogatory terminology should be abandoned and more specific entities and terms recognized and used. [9]

My thoughts exactly. Anyone else? MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

While I'm still familiarizing myself with all of Wiki's guidlines, my thought is that for an article with an inherently stereotypical name which doesn't describe a distinct medical condition, it should probably just be {{prod}}'ed, or whatever is appropriate here on Wiki. --Rob (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion imo Fuzbaby (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO this should be treated as a hoax article: either sent to AfD or overhauled completely to make it about the descriptor, not the thing described. If there are enough references, perhaps it can be turned into something along the lines of "Gay bowel syndrome is an outdated umbrella term coined in the 1970s and used to describe a number of unrelated conditions of the lower gastrointestinal tract when diagnosed in homosexual men." Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to treat it like a hoax (which is always vandalism). I think that several possible options exist:

• stubbed to a modern definition (most recent article is PMID 9328857)
• merged to LGBT issues in medicine
• merged to Men who have sex with men
• merged to Homosexuality#Health
• perhaps redirected to Proctitis

The quickest way to find what appears to be a complete of the elderly papers using this term is at Conservapedia's very extensive article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply this is a hoax (it certainly isn't). I was simply saying that the approach described here is applicable; I'm sorry if it came across differently. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How did I guess that Conservapedia would have a substantially larger article on this subject than we do? In fact, it's longer and more detailed than their article on HIV (the first footnote of which, incidentally, goes to duesberg.com, but I digress). I would support redirecting this to proctitis, though perhaps stubbing it would be a better option in the short term since our proctitis article is not particularly well-developed. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I too would support redirecting it to proctitis, though I'd have no objections to stubbing it. --Rob (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

... and done. What do you think? MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not see this discussion so I did not participate, I think it goes against wikipedia policies to delete sourced text and 'stub' an article, whether you like the term or not, it is widely referenced in the medical literature see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Gay+Bowel+Syndrome%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search, also most of the sources for the article were published in the 1990s or 2000s not the 1970s Thisglad (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're seeing 1990's and 2000's...in the first page that comes up in the link you provided, only one reference is dated after the 80's. Or am I misunderstanding something? --Rob (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does not go against Wikipedia policy to bring an article in line with respected, expert thought on a topic - in fact, Wikipedia policy requires that we do so. It is utter sophistry to claim that the term is current because "sources were published in the 1990s and 2000s" - I'm sure you realize that those modern sources are, for the most part, explicitly calling out the term as obsolete, right? MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I misread the original point and am revising what I said a moment ago (struckout): In the first page of the link you provided, only one reference is dated after the 80's. Having found a couple dated after that does not make it "widely referenced in the medical literature". --Rob (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is the wikipedia policy that says you can 'stub' an article by deleting sourced text? http://books.google.com/books?id=k_9sjs-n0nIC&pg=PA296 was published in 1997 and includes an entire chapter on the syndrome, that doesn't mean the term is not outdated according to many, but it does not give you the right to delete text just because you dislike the topic, I don't have a problem with the fact you want to criticise the use of the term, but I don't have a valid reason for deleting the list of pathogens or methods of transmission which describe the syndrome in detail, that is bordering on vandalism, also for the record I agree that the term is offensive but I believe it is better to describe it in detail rather than 'stub' it Thisglad (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Short catheter

Last year, when my duodenum became perforated, a short catheter was inserted into my urethra while I was in the emergency room. It was unlike any in the Wikipedia article on catheters. It had a cylindrically-shaped bulb on the end which was lubricated and inserted only about ten centimeters into the urethra. It was referred to as a Foley catheter, but evidently was something else. What could it have been? It was probably inserted for the operation I soon underwent, but was left in for about a week, at least. Unfree (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70110-0

Review of animal bite-associated infections in next week's Lancet Infectious Diseases; does anyone have access to the full text? It could be used to improve a number of articles, and I don't feel like imposing on the nice folks over at WP:REX :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Television Movies

Guys, is there a sub-team that could make comments on some of the television and movies articles that center around medicine? I notice some have your project banner and I think several more could use it, but would like to make sure that they get tagged for the appropriate sub-team? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Like medical fiction ? (so that it would cover novels as well?) 70.29.212.226 (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate sub-team is "not part of this project at all." Please remove the banners from TV shows, movies, and other fiction when you find them. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Paper blindness: prod as hoax

Paper Blindness has been prod'd as a potential hoax by a new editor. The condition it describes doesn't sound entirely unreasonable, and it's possible that it's a made-up name for a real condition. It's also possible that it's a garden-variety hoax. If you're curious, please take a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol. "Other treatments involve the use of eyedrops and hallucinogens to increase the eye's moisture and relax the patient, respectively." I wonder if that is FDA approved. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The condition isn't unreasonable at all; in fact, we have an article on it at Asthenopia :) Unfortunately, the rest is completely unverifiable. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)