Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

New stub category proposal

Request cardiology specialist to provide details regarding Shone's Syndrome / Complex in details Partha 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that on amputation-related articles that are stubs, the stub should read "This amputation-related article is a stub", et cetera, et cetera. Not only will this be more accurate, it will also be quite humorous :) Jtrainor 11:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there really enough articles to justify this? From the amputation article, I see perhaps a dozen articles that could use this stub template. As for the so-called humour — sigh. Let's say I don't share the same enthusiasm. :-) Axl 09:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

a little short on humor?? (lol) Alysonwonderland 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Transfer factor

Would someone competent in immunology please look at this article. It has a troublesome history. DGG (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Psychoactive drug

There is a discussion on Talk:Psychoactive_drug - a Venn diagram on Psychoactive_drug which some editors feel constitutes OR and is incorrect. Would be good to get some pharmacologists and or medicos in on it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Neurocardiology

I just finished doing a cleanup on neurocardiology. I am not an expert, but I suspect this topic is more alternative medicine than medicine in general. I just wanted to let your project know since it is qualified as a stub class in your project so it can be categorized properly. DLPanther 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine infobox

{{Osteopathic medicine}} I've created an infobox for the Osteopathic medicine articles, to help pull them together and ease navigation. I would appreciate any feedback on making this box as functional and well-formed as possible.

So many of the osteopathic articles are stubs, at best. Any expertise in related areas, OMM, osteopathic physicians, American Osteopathic Association, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I redid the layout a bit, to improve the look. Feedback? ^TU Hopping ^T 22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sacrococcygeal teratoma and coccygectomy

Hi can anyone tell me from what date coccygectomy became standard practise in the management of SCT? I know the Altmann typing of SCT began in 71/72 but when did total resection of the coccyx become regular protocol?Crinkles 23:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not read much of the early literature, but the current standard of surgical treatment (including coccygectomy) is described in its entirety in a 1964 review article. So it must predate that article. --Una Smith 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone give me details re coccygectomy in adults? --Una Smith 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko (film)

Hello. I was wondering if WikiProject Medicine would be interested in collaborating with the film project on Sicko (film). We really need as many experts as possible to keep this article honest and on topic. Please let me know if this is acceptable. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 10:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting additional info in Acidosis

Acidosis is long enough not to qualify as a stub, but I feel that we could still add quite a bit to the article on this basic medical concept. Thanks. -- 201.19.72.37 14:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Causes of autism

Eubulides, Colin, and Tim Vickers have substantially restored the de-featured autism article, and work has begun on Causes of autism and Heritability of autism‎. Additional help appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

ATLS Page

The ATLS stub contains information I consider to be inacurate, although I might be wrong.

It states that ATLS is for paramedics and other advanced practitioners, where I thought it was for MD/DOs only, although other paramedic-level practitioners can AUDIT the course (ie attend but not get certified).

It states that BTLS is for EMT-Bs (going along with the first point above), where it is in fact for all EMTs (basics, intermediates/specialists, and paramedics).

I'm new to Wikipedia (and love it, BTW!), so sorry if I'm not completely protocol-compliant. I am, however, a paramedic and RN and think I have the above correct.

Sprender 16:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --WS 17:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Aortitis

I just added the Aortitis article, anyone with information is encouraged to visit.  :) Navou ^banter 18:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

competent eyes requested for Toxicology template

I just create a template for toxicology and poisoning: {{toxicology}}. However, I am not exactly knowledgeable in the field, and would like someone competent to review for any obvious problems before I unleash it in articlespace. Circeus 00:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than make it a right-margin formatted template, I'd recommend using Template:Navbox generic, so that it can better co-exist with other templates, and won't interfere with infoboxes. --Arcadian 02:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Article series are much different from footers, in that they can afford to be significantly looser in their choice of articles, as well as having a broader scope overall. (compare {{Pollution}} and {{Global warming}}), or the proposed template to {{Poison}}. Circeus 02:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Stub class

The article Cephalometry is currently a stub. Anyone with a working knowledge, (and anyone else) nudged over there. By the way, from what I can tell, everyone is doing excellent work here. Navou ^banter 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed!

I'm looking for kind volunteers who could help me maintaining Portal:Medicine because I have no time to edit the articles because of the maintainance jobs. Thank you in advance! It'd be an easy task and I'd help a lot... NCurse _work 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "Autism" A-class?

Autism has gone through peer review, reached Good Article status, and is this week's selected article on the Medicine Portal. It is currently rated GA-Class in WikiProject Medicine. Can someone please check it and see whether it's A class? The plan is to nominate it as a featured article fairly soon, and other pairs of eyes before then would be appreciated. Thanks. Eubulides 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment on the main page here. I can't assess Autism because I've been semi-involved in the work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to fix or clarify WikiProject Medicine here, and then added a request for Autism's reassessment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or re-assessment. Eubulides 22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Autism is getting very little feedback at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychic surgery

Is this a page that we should consider looking over under the purview of WikiProject medicine? I'm asking because I'm not sure. On the one hand, psychic surgery is clearly not a medical procedure. On the other hand, however, an inquiring visitor may not know or understand this. Antelan ^talk 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hand Hygiene

I came across the article Hand Hygiene and it looks like it could really use the attention of someone knowledgable. Would anyone here be able to lend a hand? Thanks. Deli nk 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged it as magazine-like and in need of sources. Obviously this is not progress in improving the article, but it is progress in ensuring that readers, as well as editors, understand the article needs improvement. Antelan ^talk 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It should redirect to hand washing which is a much better article. Axl 17:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding med articles as Lists

Hey all. Noticed on the recent Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality log that by adding med articles as a "list" class removes them from the med project (even though the actual med tag is still there!) see Talk:List of subjects in Gray's Anatomy: Alphabetical: Z as an example and then note how on the log it says that it was 'removed'. Anyone with more wiki/tech skills able to fix this problem? Thanks...petze 14:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New one

Here is a new one... Lymphocytic Interstitial Pneumonia. Regards, Navou ^banter 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, what's your point? Axl 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did come by and improve the article... :) Regards, Navou ^banter 03:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy tagging

Just to get peoples attention... i added a comment on the anatomy wikiproject talk page regarding the ratting/tagging/ of anatomy type articles and if anyone happens to be intrested, you are all more than welcome to give ur opinions/comments/critisizm(sp?) about my opinion on anatomy classifying/rating... I figure I ask here as some people who might also be in the anatomy wikiproject, are also viewers of the medicine wikiproject but might not look at the anatomy wikiproject as often...Thanks for your time.petze 07:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons disease

Further contributions required at the discussion of Morgellons disease. Thanks. Axl 09:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Health risks proposed for deletion

Hello, this is slightly outside the scope of this WikiProject but any help would be appreciated. Category:Health risks has been proposed for deletion at WP:CFD, and the expertise of members of this project would be appreciated in the discussion of what the best action to take is. Thanks for any input, Kurieeto 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article on Kuru (disease) has been deleted

The original version was fair-use and not free. If you can help at all in rewriting the article, please do so. Thank you! --Hemlock Martinis 18:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing ref's

Would someone be able to add (or find) a reference for some of these articles (unless one has already been added recently):

• Canga's bead symptom

 Done Axl 19:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cardarelli's sign

 Done Axl 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Gait belt
• Galactokinase deficiency

 Done Axl 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Eye circles

 Done Axl 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Haemolacria
• Handbook on Drug and Alcohol Abuse
• Hearing test
• Karman cannula

 Done Axl 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ketostix

In my opinion, this should be merged into ketonuria. Axl 15:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Kleihauer-Betke test

 Done Antelan ^talk 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I was assessing them and noticed that they had no ref and thought it would be good (suggested from someone else ;) ) to post them here as someone from this wikiproject would be able to find refs for em easily... Thanks...petze 06:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsure about article

Hi Folks, I hope this is the right place to ask. Balano-preputial lamina is a (rather perplexing) stub that cites no sources. As far as I can tell, the phrase is used by a handful of lobbyist websites, but only two reliable sources even use the term (both, oddly, are journal letters written by a lawyer on behalf of the same lobbyist group), and neither define it. Nor have I had any luck in textbooks. I'm trying to work out if the term actually exists in a meaningful sense - has anyone come across a reference anywhere? Jakew 22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Creation of a Pregnancy Task Force

I've begun working on articles related to pregnancy and childbirth, and have found that this is a topic sorely in need of additional editors' help. I would like to propose creating a task force for pregnancy-related articles within WP:MED. I envision the scope as encompassing clinical and preclinical subjects (assuming I understand those terms correctly), as well as what I call "experiential" subjects (for example, see this article) -- that is, subjects that are not strictly medical but which are nevertheless related to pregnancy and/or childbirth.

I have never been involved in the creation of a WikiProject or task force, so would appreciate any bureaucratic or technical help that might be offered, as well. --Ginkgo100^talk 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States

I initially suspected this article to be a POV fork. I have since worked with its author to resolve some of those issues, but the article still strikes me as a pro-osteopathic medicine fluff piece more suitable to a trade journal than to an encyclopedia. Even now, the original author is adding in details about osteopaths' practice rights in foreign countries (i.e., explicitly out of the scope of the title of the article in the United States). Beyond the first couple of sections with pro-osteopathic pronouncements by the AMA & AMSA and the discussion of the 1960s turf wars between osteo and traditional medicine, the remainder of the material doesn't even seem to fit with the subject of the article. I would appreciate it if others would take a look at this article and suggest ways to proceed. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 17:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the table with the International practice rights would be better placed in the Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine article, which is not US specific. There's already an international section there. However, it is notable that traditionally allopathic organizations like the American Medical Student Association support the International Practice Rights of US-trained osteopathic physicians, something that was not true until very recently. AMSA recently adopted a policy requesting that governments recognize US allopathic and osteopathic physicians as equals.[1]

I do not want this article to be fluff. I have tried to make good citations and source every statement appropriately. I've appreciated User Antelan's close editing assistance, and I hope the article continues to improve. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 04:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My concern has largely been with the approach that has been taken with these articles. In the "Comparison of..." article, you say, "The two largest traditionally allopathic organizations, the American Medical Association and the American Medical Student Association, both support further integration and non-discrimination in residency programs." [2] You then cite a source that says that the AMA opposes differential FEES for osteo and allopathic medical students, which is totally distinct from the claim you made in the article. You also used this same source to make yet a different point in the "History of" article, which demonstrates that this was no accidental misuse of a source. It's frustrating for me to have to go through and fact check your edits. I don't mind helping you with incidental POV issues, but using the same source to back two different statements, neither of which were supported by the source, doesn't make me feel comfortable. Hence, I am asking for others interested in this topic to help me with the fact checking. Antelan ^talk 22:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. You raise a valid point. However, I hope you will AGF here. In fact, my claim is correct though poorly sourced. The source I cited is one piece of a much broader conversation within the AMA about osteopathic/allopathic discrimination. The "fees for medical students" was one outcome of an investigation. It's not always easy to cite a source that is readily available on the web for AMA in-house policy documents / discussion. I'm trying. They are published and publicly available, but not always on the web.

• [3]
• [4]
• AMA HOD report

The conversation expanded to discuss discrimination in general, and DO membership within the AMA. As indicated by "G-635.053 AMA Membership Strategy: Osteopathic Medicine", the AMA is now actively seeking DO membership. In "H-405.989 Physicians and Surgeons," the AMA demonstrates it advocates for equality between MDs&DOs in regards to the use of professional titles "physician" and "surgeon". ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking through those, I see where the medical student representatives at the AMA conference introduced resolutions saying what you're suggesting, but I don't see where those became enshrined, except for the equal fees part of the resolution. Antelan ^talk 23:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I working on finding more documents detailing which resolutions were approved, etc. The medical students were from AMSA, which was the main group are advocating for these new resolutions.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 23:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see the documents if you can find them. At present, based on the documents I've read, I do not believe the other changes were enacted. Antelan ^talk 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, perhaps we can reliably source that these resolutions were proposed by members the AMA, indicating that this discussion is an ongoing topic of debate. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you confident that an internal discussion within the AMA is notable enough to be discussed on an encyclopedia's pages? Are you certain that you are not focusing on minute details of an internal proposal written by a student subsection of a larger organization because it speaks to a particular agenda? I recognize that these questions sound accusatory, and I don't mean for them to come off like that, but I just think I need to call your attention to what I see as a trend. Antelan ^talk 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. That is an important question. My answer is, yes. I do think it is noteworthy. There are dozen of published articles that discuss this topic, and whole books based largely on similar discussions. I continue to appreciate your point of view, but I disagree that we should simply exclude relevant data because it is contentious or representative of a political process. What is this article about if not two agendas and their relationship? The AMA and the AOA are organizations that represent two collective agendas. I have made continuous efforts to be fair and balanced in my presentation. I have made a point of including sources critical of osteopathic medicine in numerous places. I look forward to continuing to work with you on a fair POV. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You say, "What is this article about if not two agendas and their relationship?" That has been my concern from the beginning. I know that you haven't simply censored critical views of osteopathy. In fact, you've manufactured controversy where none exist. Your edits would lead a reader to believe that fairly insignificant issues are of great importance (e.g., equal fees for osteo & allo med students, Harvard's CME on OMM). POV is not simply AMA vs AOA. It's what's important and what isn't. A neutral POV doesn't ignore controversy and conflict where it exists, but it also doesn't overemphasize minute events. Antelan ^talk 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Osteopathic medical schools: After more than a century of often bitterly contentious relationships between the osteopathic and allopathic medical professions, we now find ourselves living at a time when osteopathic and allopathic graduates are both sought after by many of the same residency programs; are in most instances both licensed by the same licensing boards; are both privileged by many of the same hospitals; and are found in appreciable numbers on the faculties of each other's medical schools."

— President, Association of American Medical Colleges, 2005

The history of this conflict is real. People have written articles on these topics, including the specific details that you mention - Harvard's CME course as well as Harvard's non-CME OMM course for medical students (New Physician, Jan 2007), the changing attitude of the AMA towards osteopathic physicians and graduates, the new rules about fees is just one small example that illustrates the point. In both these cases, I have articles to cite, but they are not on the web. So, in the interest of verifiability I haven't cited them and have tried to steer towards web based sources whenever possible, but that has proved a bit limiting. This conversation seems hypercritical.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll say again what I've said above: "A neutral POV doesn't ignore controversy and conflict where it exists, but it also doesn't overemphasize minute events." The conflict between osteo & allo is undisputedly real. The AMA president's statements on the matter? Relevant, important. The fact that Harvard has a CME on OMM? Tangentially relevant, trumped only by its thorough unimportance. Looking through the Jan 2007 New Physican, the DO article has Jay Bhatt on record saying that OMM can be used for asthma "without need for medications", which, in the context of the relevant Cochrane review ("Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of manual therapy for patients with asthma.") strikes me as non-evidence-based fluff. Also, please let me know which page number in the Jan 2007 New Physician you're referencing that has the article on Harvard's CME course and non-CME OMM course; I couldn't find it. I don't understand how it's preferable to put the Harvard CME information in the article without citing reference because it's not web-based. Antelan ^talk 05:22, 17 August 2007

I was inappropriately quoted by the author. OMM can be used in asthma (without medicines should not have been said). We will try to facilitate a printed correction (jbhattbhangra)

With all due respect, I disagree.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 10:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one article, which I hope you'll read to verify that I'm not simply making these controversies and trends up.[5] The article on the Harvard program is in the same issue, but it's not in the online version.

Because something is subjective, doesn't mean it is not noteworthy. Any article on religion or philosophy of any kind will be filled with reports of subjective statements. Who are you to decide what is important? Jay Bhatt was the President of the largest medical student organization in the world. For that reason alone, his opinion on the topic is noteworthy, even though it may be utterly biased in your opinion. Evidence-based medicine is one approach, but it is not the only approach. (In fact there are large physician groups that have historically opposed E-B, another noteworthy topic.) There is no Wikipedia value that suggests only evidence-based medicine is noteworthy.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the hardcopy of the Jan 2007 New Physician, and I am still eagerly awaiting the page number of the Harvard article that you are referring to. With regards to "evidence" - Wikipedia is an evidence-based encyclopedia; if a claim is unverifiable, it doesn't get published here. We could verify that Dr. Bhatt made such-and-such claim, but if the contents of that claim itself are not verifiable, you'll have a very hard time getting them inserted as fact into articles. Antelan ^talk 16:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem labeling any item you are concerned about as a "claims" rather than "facts" - if you feel this strongly that these are controversial claims. I do have an issue with simply deleting information because you feel it's a claim and not a fact. Source it properly, label the author, be fair in the presentation, and be done with it.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the Harvard reference. Antelan ^talk 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 04:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What does "OK" mean in response to that? Antelan ^talk 05:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK = acknowledged. I am communicating to you that I received your message, which I'm assuming was intended for me. (?) ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 07:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lung cancer

I am working on lung cancer with the intention of submitting it for "featured article" status soon. I can vouch for the factual accuracy of the content. I have checked every reference (most of which I inserted). However I require more assistance to improve the quality of the prose, i.e. to make it compelling. This is especially important in the lead section. I am grateful for your assistance. Axl 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers (talk · contribs) might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, "malignant" in this context means "cancerous", not "progressively worsening". Axl 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The parenthetical gives a fair description of the meaning of malignant in line with that of both the WP article on "malignant" and definitions from medical dictionaries [6]. Cancer is already intrinsic to "lung cancer" so that doesn't need to be restated. I agree that by definition, malignancies are cancerous, but redirecting "malignant" to the broad article on cancer doesn't make that much sense. It is more likely that the reader wonders what the word "malignant" means. Other opinions? Antelan ^talk 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We're having a discussion on the article talk page about finding a better intro sentence[7]. Please join in. Antelan ^talk 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The term malignant deserves its own disambiguation page - when used in reference to 'cancer' or neoplastic tissue, yes, malignant does of course refer to a malignant neoplasm. A disambiguation page would solve this issue. Also, the word 'tumour' needs to be explained further. A 'tumour' is simply a mass of tissue, not necessarily a cancerous/neoplastic one. Russthomas15 02:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

AS

Now that autism has been restored to status, I'm hoping a (third) featured article review of Asperger syndrome can be avoided. I've put some work into cleaning up references and restoring a summarizing lead (as in the featured version); it's come along enough that the cleanup tag could be removed), but the article still needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anybody home? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act featured article nomination

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act recently achieved Good Article status. I've nominated it for featured article status - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 22:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Scope banner

Is there any template for using when placing an article under the scope of this WikiProject? I couldn't find one Jennylen 20:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Like {{WPMED|class=stub}}? I'm not sure if that's what you're asking. Antelan ^talk 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly, are there without the stub categorization or with other comments? Where? Thanks Jennylen 21:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you could do {{WPMED}}, but that still leaves you with ??? for quality and importance assessment, which may be just fine anyway as someone can come by later and fill them out. If you're looking for something else, I'll dig around and see what I can find. Antelan ^talk 21:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that will do. If anyway later you find one which allows to insert some view as "revise your sources" or "expand your sources" or something like that, could be great, otherwise I can also combine with the existing in common use. If you come across something, you can drop it at my talk page, thanks, you are very kind Jennylen 21:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Template for medically-related articles that need references

In the spirit of the TrueOrigins {{histref}} template, I've created a Medicine {{Medref}} template for medically-related articles that are missing sources or verification. Please let me know if you think this is helpful; if it can be improved; or if it should be deleted. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Great! Jenny^Len 22:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I've tweaked layout (images were vertically aligned vs more compact horizontal layout of images in histref) - see this. Also I've wikilinked on WP:Verify and this project's explaination of medical reliable sources (WP:MEDRS) - see this. David Ruben ^Talk 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Your changes look great. Antelan ^talk 22:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Based on your final changes do you think that can be created also the other? the one that says :{{histref|give ideas here.}} (give a look at WP:TORIG) That is good when you also want to pinpoint an specific section or so. Jenny^Len 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you already can. :{{medref|give ideas here.}} works as you'd expect from the TORIG template. Antelan ^talk 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I get it, sorry, it is a call of course, thanks Jenny^Len 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychic Surgery, again

Since my last post got no response awhile back, I'll give it ago again: psychic surgery - is it something we're concerned about? "... it is performed by psychic doctors or psychic surgeons" This strikes me as phrasing that makes the procedure sound medical. I tried to note that these are not medical professionals, but I was rebuffed with this edit summary: Insert this back if you have a source that say no "psychic" surgeons have medical degrees If Wikiproject:Medicine is OK with this article as it stands, I'll go ahead and unwatch it, but I'd like to see what you all think. Antelan ^talk 07:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is self-referential: people who claim to perform "psychic surgery" call themselves "psychic surgeons". By using this title, these people attempt to legitimize their activities. Axl 09:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "psychic" (related with non physical nature) contradicts the definitions of "surgeon" and "doctor" (both of which relate with physical practice or "physicians"), articles may not have contradictions of course, there is a flag for that somewhere calling the attention that the article contains contradictory definitions Jenny^Len 10:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I substituted "doctors" and "surgeons" for "healers" The accepted term in scientific circles is "Psychic Healers" by consensus. Jenny^Len 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You've been really active on that page; I'll jump in over there and see if I can help out, too. Antelan ^talk 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for cooperation

Hello, I am a member of the WikiProject Council. I wanted to know if you may consider placing the banner {{Inter-Project Cooperation}} on your project's page? You may include there projects you cooperate with on a routinely basis. By doing this you may be contributing to inter-project cooperation and understanding. Thank you Daoken 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably WP:PHARM (aka WP:DRUG), WP:VIRUS, for a start. Does WP:CLINMED need mentioning as a daughter project of this one ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I managed to add the coop bannershell and two of the projects but couldn't find the banners of WP:VIRUS Jenny^Len 12:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I also created a coopbanner following the {{Inter-Project Cooperation Banner Information}} for WikiProject Medicine because didn't exist, is {{here}}, I think it works Jenny^Len 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that looks good. Nice work! Antelan ^talk 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Banners templates

I wonder if it could be added some section in the project's page where members can find all the templates when they need them ? I don't know how to do it but I could like new members have access to those resources Jenny^Len 13:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that would be very helpful, even for those of us who aren't beginners; I'm hoping someone with more experience in this project can maybe help with that? Antelan ^talk 13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I could create an own section for that, just tell me what you would like to see there! This: Category:Medical infobox templates? NCurse _work 09:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That will be excellent. What about starting with {{WPMED}}, {{Medref}}, {WikiProject Medicine CoopBanner}} explaining for what is each ? Jenny^Len 09:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, give me some feedback on this section. This is the first version. Should we describe how and when to use the templates or it's enough? Should we include infoboxes in a similar form, or just list them. It'll definitely be useful for beginners and experienced users as well. NCurse _work 08:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Who knows Ivan O. Godfroid ?

It's a Belgian psychiatrist. We are arguing currently in the French wiki if we should maintain him in the wiki.

The problem is that someone said that he was well known, and said that he was truly known in the english-speaking world like in Atlanta, Houston or Miami.

And I think that, this person is one of his friend or relative. So I wonder if people, here (in the english wiki) know him and can bring argument that his work as a psychiatrist is notorious and secondary sources have been produced from his work.

There is a strong suspection of fake. But we have no doubt that he is a psychiatrist and has made some publications. Most of the primary sources are not reliable because he has his own publishing house 'Socrates Promarex' and we can't find secondary sources about his work. And primary source seems to be Wikipedia.

Pppswing 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A search on PubMed[8] on "Godfroid I" gives 18 hits. None of the titles strikes me as in themselves opening new insights to radically change psychiatry (several just debating points), and publication years of just between 1995 & 2000 suggests nolonger active in research & publishing (or at least in PubMed abstracted biomedical journals). Of course may or may not be notable as a psychiatrist in other ways (eg as a leading member of psychiatric organisation, as a well known TV-doc or presenter etc), but not something that I as a GP would be aware of.David Ruben ^Talk 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

List of medical schools in the United Kingdom at FLC

I've nominated List of medical schools in the United Kingdom for featured list status here. Feel free to comment. CloudNine 11:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

allowing unconverted metric units in scientific articles

I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Necrotizing fasciitis could use a review

The article Necrotizing fasciitis could use a review by medical professionals for accuracy and professionalism. See also comments at Talk:Necrotizing_fasciitis. Thanks. -- 201.19.11.75 02:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Water fluoridation RfC

I would appreciate any input this project may have regarding the reliability of sources recently added to the water fluoridation article. The specific questions are found here: Talk:Water fluoridation#RfC. Thanks. · jersyko talk 13:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with medical terms

Hi! I was hoping someone at this WikiProject could help me with this question: What is the formal medical term for getting the wind knocked out of you? The article doesn't say. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Searching the web, it appears to me that "temporary paralysis of the diaphragm" (already in the article) is the formal medical term. --Una Smith 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you recommend moving the article to Temporary paralysis of the diaphragm, then? Or do you think there's a better term out there? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I would leave the article as it is. But I would add a redirect. I will do it. By the way, it looks like some existing redirects need to be cleaned up. "Winded" has nothing to do with temporary paralysis of the diaphragm. Could you do that, Remember the dot? --Una Smith 02:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The major difficulty here is that getting the wind knocked out of you does not relate to any specific medical condition at all, and therefore there is NO specific medical term for it. Yes, I do hold a qualification. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Giardia lamblia and Giardiasis

I think these two articles should be merged. How would we go about that? Thanks. --Afromcbenny 07:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend against the merge -- we usually distinguish between the disease and the pathogen. That said, if you'd like to pursue a merge, the process is described at Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Proposing_a_merger. --Arcadian 20:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

These articles should be separate. However much of the information in Giardia lamblia would be more appropriate in Giardiasis. Axl 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with Vaccine controversy

This article needs serious review for NPOV and WP:V. Vaccine controversy is quickly becoming a soapbox against vaccination. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Red blood cell indices

I was just looking over MCV, MCH, and MCHC and was thinking about merging these three into one article called Red blood cell indices as they are all related stubs. I don't think there is much potential for expansion for these articles, and I doubt anyone would object to the merge. Whether or not these should be merged, there definitely should be an article specifically for the red blood cell indices. As I see it, there are 3 options: a disambiguation page for the 3 articles, an overview page with {{main}} links to the 3 articles, or a merged page. I prefer a merge, but wanted others' opinions on the matter before I took action. I haven't put merge tags on the pages, as I'm sure not many people are watching those pages, and those who are probably are watching this page too. --Scott Alter 06:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that they are better as three separate pages (the current situation). Your second option is appropriate. Axl 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Surgery article

The Surgery article seems to be woefully inadequate in describing even the fundamentals of modern surgery. Is anybody working on expanding this article? H Padleckas 09:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

After practically two months, nobody had made any improvements of substance to the Surgery article to address my above-mentioned concern. Therefore, I substantially expanded the Surgery article myself to describe fundamental aspects of modern surgery. I would like to request a peer review to ensure the Surgery article is technically sound. If anybody wants to review Surgery and make any [beneficial] edits, please go ahead.
H Padleckas 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I have improved a lot this article in the last month and I´m thinking of nominating it for good article. I have asked for a scientific peer review; but I would appreciate any comments on how to improve it both in contents and style. The discussion page for the peer review is: Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Therapies for multiple sclerosis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrondo (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

New WP:RxCOTW

WikiProject Pharmacology is in the organizing phase of starting a Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week, in an effort to improve the many drug and pharmacology-related articles on wikipedia. If you're interested in helping, please visit WP:RxCOTW! Dr. Cash 20:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for WikiProject_ONCOLOGY

I am trying to gauge what the interest would be for a WP:ONCOLOGY category. This would be under the broader auspices of WP:MED, along the lines of WP:RENAL and WP:Rads. It would address standards of care and best practices in surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with maintaining and editing cancer related articles.

If this is something you are interested in, please sign underneath the relevant section at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Oncology

Djma12 ^(talk) 23:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hay Fever could use professional attention

Hay Fever could a review by professionals. In particular, the section "Medication" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_fever#Medication makes various un-cited recommendations for treatment. -- 201.19.15.178 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GPnotebook (Article for Deletion)

Be advised that there is an AfD for GPnotebook, which is "an online encyclopaedia of medicine that provides an immediate reference resource for clinicians worldwide". This a potentially worthy article, but lacking sufficient independent evidence of notability to satisfy WP:ORG. I have recomended that the article be redirected to Diagnosis, but you may wish to express an alternative opinion here. --Gavin Collins 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• The result was keep (no consensus). --Gavin Collins 18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Caesarjbsquitti

User:Caesarjbsquitti, an editor with an strong interest in a variety of unorthodox ideas and medical theories, has made a number of apparently questionable edits to various articles about mental illness. Could someone please review these?

It might also be instructive, as part of this process, to read their user page to get a better idea of the full breadth and depth of their interests: according to this, they are, for example, also the "Wrighter, [sic] researcher who discovered a negative side to truth, anti-truths, and wrighter of (The Jesus Christ Code. The LIGHT: The Rainbow of Truth. to be released 2007 © ) expanding the definition of 'truth' , 'half-truth' and 'lie' together with a new philosophy "Thinking In Color©", "The third side of the coin" and the 'wave theory of truth'." (emphasis theirs) -- Karada 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lung cancer featured article candidate

I am nominating Lung cancer for featured article status. Please leave your comments here. Thanks. Axl 17:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis good article candidate

I have nominated the article as a good article candidate. I would be thankful to anybody who who helped in the good article review (See: Wikipedia:Good article candidates If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page. --Garrondo 13:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested articles

I have a few article requests:

• spatial QRS axis (cardiology) and mean spatial QRS axis (one should redirect to the other)
• spatial QRS-T angle (electrocardiogram interpretation)
• spatial T axis (cardiology) and mean spatial T axis (one should redirect to the other)

For detailed information about this topic, see: Isabella Kardys, Jan Kors, Irene van der Meer, Albert Hofman, Deirdre van der Kuip and Jacqueline Witteman, "Spatial QRS-T Angle Predicts Cardiac Death in a General Population," in European Heart J. (2003) 24:1357-1364. (Note that if I had understood the science of ECG interpretation, I would have written the Wikipædia articles myself – so please write the articles in language that is intelligible to laypeople.) 68.49.208.76 05:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of health topics

On Talk:List of health topics: Si-So, W.marsh has asked for those pages to be moved out of the main namespace space. Is this project able/willing to take the pages, or should I move it under WP:MISSING ? John Vandenberg 07:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This list looks more like an index and is incomplete. Now that we have category system in place probably there is not much need for it. I would move to missing list.--Countincr ^{( t@lk )} 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sick building syndrome

Sick building syndrome was an article I found while working on multiple chemical sensitivity and Clinical ecology. It currently requires a substantial amount of work, as its only citation is to an air-filtration company. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Windber Research Institute

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Windber Research Institute is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Feingold diet

Food Additives and Hyperactivity, Again! mentions the Feingold diet article. Please look into the concerns raised in that news article. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oncology navigation templates

I have created a new category, Oncology navigation templates, and populated it with the relevant templates I could find. I think it is time to create navigation templates for tumors by location, rather than try to put all the necessary cross-referencing into each and every tumor page. Please help! You don't have to know all about tumors; the tumor pages themselves provid an outline for the navigation templates. --Una Smith 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Advanced Trauma Life Support

I've noticed that this topic is very inadequate, and have started to update it.--File Éireann 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

sole (foot)

The article sole (foot) has been tagged as part of this wikiproject, as well as part of anatomy - shouldn't it be only under anatomy? There's nothing medical in the article, as it is, it's simply about the body part. Kuronue | Talk 01:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured article categories

If an article such as homeopathy or chiropractic (samples only) were to become featured, what category would it go in at WP:FA? Right now, we have Biology and medicine; would they go there, or would another category be needed? If so, what would it be called? And would these kinds of articles be subject to WP:MEDMOS ? How do we define "Medicine" articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they would go under medicine (certainly better choice than Biology which would seem to me to be a more umbrella term for all animal/plant topics). Whilst these might be viewed as perhaps more strictly as "Health" topics, as these alternative medicine topics perhaps could be seen as distinct from being accepted as conventional medicine, that seems a little harsh and needlessly exclusive and snobish. Given this project is named "medicine" rather than the mouthful of "human health and wellbeing", and that medicine is defined as " is the science and 'art' of maintaining and/or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of patients", then yes these alternative and complimentary approaches (which often have blurred boundaries with conventional medicine) should be classified as Medical under FA listings.

I also feel they should follow WP:MEDMOS, which is after all a sensible article structure for describing the nature and classification of conditions (even if an alternative system of classification as occurs in many alternatives of holistic medicine or Traditional Chinese Medicine). MEDMOS issues of reliable sources is based on WP:RS, WP:Cite, WP:Verify etc; so reporting from reliable sources of peer reviewed journals seems appropriate to expect.

[An aside note] for these approaches 2 levels of citation support is needed: 1) uncontroversially whether the approach and its application for a particular condition is used and therefore in itself notable 2) whether or not it actual works (which requires to follow WP:RS to WP:V) which must adhering to WP:NPOV of course.

I see no conflict with alternative/complimentary health topics following a good clear article structure, but clearly a herbal product article will not follow precisely the same structure as a conventional drug (Template:Drugbox for a start would seem inappropriate in its parameters). Should some guidelines be set up to cover these variations in types-of-medicine articles ? David Ruben ^Talk 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: this has arisen out of a dispute over the placement of Parapsychology in the Wikipedia:Featured articles page. IMO, both of Sandy's examples would go under Medicine. There's a healer-patient relationship, regardless of whether one believes in the theory behind it. I do think it is time to take the knife to the "Biology, medicine and psychology" category. I know there's overlap, but there is no clean way of splitting everything. Someone just needs to make a few arbitrary decisions. Blue whales and Tourette syndrome. You wouldn't find them together in the library. Colin°^Talk 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we should wait for parapsychology to shake out before attacking that, or if it's better to shake it all up at once. At least following the discussion on the talk page of WP:FA would be good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's no rush. It's been suggested at least twice already. The last time was only 10 days ago. Splitting is inevitable as FA numbers grow. Is there not some formal classification system we can borrow, to save internal arguments? Colin°^Talk 22:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question; maybe we should ask a librarian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorical index vs Dewey Decimal vs Library of Congress? Colin°^Talk 23:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports car knee syndrome

Would someone please comment on this discussion. It appears to hinge on one reference in NEJM that has been added recently. Does that reference make this topic notable and hence kept? --Bduke 23:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No PubMed hits, clearly not notable (ie name not accepted and used in other WP:MEDRS), AfD closed with consensus of delete David Ruben ^Talk 00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cure_for_diabetes_mellitus_type_1

Needs discussing. David Ruben ^Talk 00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

The veganism article is a low-importance medicine article, currently listed as a GA. The GA review made this suggestion:

I think the regular editors ought to approach Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to discuss how Veganism fits within the scope of this technical project. The aim of discussions would be to identify articles on the topic of nutrition which can support this article. Some of the more technical information that, I feel, is misplaced in this article could migrate to those articles, leaving summaries in place here. Once the relationship of Veganism with more technical articles on nutrition has been established, part of the scope check for new material would entail surveying these supporting articles.

Within the 'Health/Risk Calculation' there is something of a thematic inbalance, in that the 'Precautions' have more editorial space than "Benefits". Is it true that the precautions of a vegan diet outweigh benefits, or it that editors concerned with health threats are writing at a greater level of detail. In the spirit of the previous recommendation, would it make sense to have editors of the WikiProject Medicine review the section to establish if this information is better presented elsewhere.

Any efforts to review and consolidate material, place it in more appropriate articles, find new sources, etc, would be greatly appreciated. Kellen^T 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oleander

A person is attempting to include, under the title of 'Ethnomedical Uses' claims that oleander extract, called "oleander soup" can be used to treat cancer, hepatitis-C, psoriasis, HIV and other conditions. I'm not sufficiently qualified to evaluate these claims professionally - can anyone help, please? WLD^talk|edits 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets

Came across this article recently, which seems to have been largely created by User:Mcorazao as an annotated list of some papers related to Low-carbohydrate diets. As an outsider to what I'm sure is a heated debate, IMO it feels like this stuff should be spread among the History and References sections of the Lcd article. But I figured I'd take the coward's way out - tag it to this Project and point it out to you guys to debate :-) No doubt that WP:EFFORT might be considered a factor, but I'm instinctively wary of article names that are that long..... FlagSteward 18:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Smoking POV

There's a dispute going on over at talk:smoking where the user Nacaats is fiercly disputing the neutrality of the article by claiming that it misrepresents the health hazards of smoking in favor of the opinions of anti-smoking lobbyists. The sources cited are being challenged through fact-tagging, insertion of much vaguer wording and references to FORCES International Liberty News Network.

Though I haven't studied this issue in excuciating detail, my impression is that there is a widely held consensus about the general health hazards of inhaling the smoke of incompletely combusted substances in the medical community. Could someone who knows the issue better try to help resolve this conflict? Right now, the article is protected due to edit warring.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lung cancer FAC

Lung cancer has been languishing at FAC for weeks, with little input from medical folk. I guess Raul should go ahead and promote it as is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD debate on Psychiatric abuse starting

Hi folks, I found this article to be a loose collection of topics, some of which require some leap of logic to assail against the profession as a whole. While each in of themselves is worthy of a (hopefully) balanced article, I believe tying them all together is not appropriate for WP on the basis of WP:NOT. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

hiiiiiiii

hello wikipedians! this is sairamnanda.i am a 2nd year medical student.i joined wiki to get my doubts clarified and get knowledge regarding the medical subjects..i am a new comer to wiki..so any pls suggest how to post doubts regarding a article..how to discuss a point... thanx a lot... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairamnanda (talk • contribs) 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Go to the relevant article, then click the link marked "Discussion" at the top of the page and add a section discussing your issue. Kellen^T 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Paracetamol

Since there's a little bit of crossover in the topics between WP:PHARM and WP:MED, I thought I'd let y'all know that Paracetamol has recently been selected as the third Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week. It's currently already a featured article, but was promoted back in 2004, so it's probably well past due for a little refresher and improvement (else it goes to WP:FAR). If anyone wants to help out, please feel free.

Last week's collaboration was muscle relaxant, and was improved considerably. It currently awaits review for Good Article status.

Cheers! Dr. Cash 02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Muscle contraction

There's a disagreement at Talk:Muscle_contraction#Eccentric_redux, is anyone available and knowledgeable enough to put in a comment on the accuracy of the section and other changes? WLU 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fallon, Nevada

It has been mentioned that the content of the Cancer Cluster section of this article seems to rely entirely on one source. In fact, a recent article in a local newspaper here writes

"Arsenic in the water, tungsten in the air, polonium in wells, underground atomic testing to the east - all have been reported by the media. The entry for "Fallon, Nevada" on Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia, mentions the leukemia cluster. It's no wonder some outsiders unfortunately perceive our community as unhealthy."

If you have access to any further information regarding this subject which might be relevant to this article regarding this subject, such as perhaps contrary opinions and/or further research, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 15:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This has received substantial press coverage in larger newspapers (Reno Gazette Journal) over the years. I will see if I can find something useful. Antelan ^talk 05:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Psychatric abuse

There is a deletion review of the deleted article Psychatric abuse at:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse

cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Plagarism in Article: Tremor

A great deal of information in the article "Tremor" was apparently taken from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tremor/tremor.htm -- The National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

This source is never cited.

137.155.128.127 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fox

Thanks for pointing this out. I've updated the article. The NINDS text is in the public domain, so copying is allowed (and even encouraged) but it was rude not to attribute it. Colin°^Talk 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

If anyone has a lot of free time (he he) can you help out at Talk:Homeopathy? Thanks. ScienceApologist 16:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical institutions

Are articles like Hospital, or other medical institutions under the scope of this WikiProject? Because the article Private hospital seems inadequate. kawaputra^torque 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Arterial blood gas sampling

Could someone please look at this article? It's been written by a single author, who's clearly an expert in the subject but a newbie on Wikipedia. The article needs all kinds of style work. Thanks for looking into it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As it is, needs deleting - wikipedia is not a how to guide nor instructional manual/textbook. Only a very little needs to be incorporated into Arterial blood gas, the rest moved to Wikibooks or better still Wikiversity, pointers placed at Talk:Arterial blood gas#Merge proposal. David Ruben ^Talk 04:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I've added project template to 2000+ articles by creating list from category pages and need help in assessing them. Instructions are detailed in asseessment page. Unassessed articles can be found here(quality) and here(priority). Bot generated assessment logs are available but there is a backlog of 3-4 days. Project template now has script for auto-stubbing (for bot and semibot operation). My guess is there are 10,000+ medicine related articles yet to be assessed and I am trying to find and tag them. --Countincr ^{( t@lk )} 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's wonderful! Thank you! Let me know if you have any kind of question. NCurse _work 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an awful lot of unassessed articles. I wonder if there's an easier way for me to assign importance without editing every individual talk page.... Axl 16:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a few pages tagged by the bot which looks at the stub categories and changes the unassessed-quality parameter to stub-quality. It also adds a parameter that indicates non-human assessment. It's not perfect, but then neither am I. I doubt that it would be possible to do the same thing for importance. WhatamIdoing 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot generated stub class rating is possible because if there is a stub tag in the articles it will automatically put them into stub category which bot can detect. Unfortunately I could not come out with any clever idea for importance scale. However outrigg's plugin is a time saver and is highly recommended for assessment (I have left some instruction for setup here). It allows user to make assessment without going to talk page or typing anything--Countincr ^{( t@lk )} 18:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've used Outriggr's script to assess about 330 articles in the last 24 hours. It's okay, and if you're interested in chipping away at the unassessed article lists, it's a little quicker than the other approaches I've tried.

The primary downside is mental: if you define a default importance, and you run across something that's borderline, then you're more likely to settle on your default than to change it. I'm working from this list at the moment, and am currently selecting articles which are very likely to match my default importance. I figure that I can change the default importance rating later and go back to the others at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to Veterinary Medicine

In trying to clear some of these unassessed pages, I've run across a few that I'm not sure should be WPMED at all. Molera is the most recent one. It's a bit of anatomy on a dog. Does WPMED include everything that also belongs to 'WikiProject Veterinary medicine'? Or should we kill the WPMED tag on this one? WhatamIdoing 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd project assessment levels

Would someone (or several someones) at this project take a look at the article assessments on Talk:Glossary of alternative medicine and Talk:Race please? It's not clear to me why these are top-level importance when things like Public health and Nurse and Poverty and Health care and Surgery aren't. WhatamIdoing 05:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of 'food fortification' and 'supplements'

I just wanted to say that I definitely don't think these two articles should be merged. The issue of food fortification is independent of supplements as one is a public health policy while the other is a personal lifestyle choice! Emma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.143.33 (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I have nominated the article for featured article after working on it after it become a GA. anybody thinks the article is good enough please vote for it. Any comments for improvement will also be welcomed.Garrondo 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Neurorehabilitation

Hello. I have come across an article about Neurorehabilitation while patrolling new pages for COI creations (this article appears to to have been created by the Guttmann Institute in Barcelona who specialise in neurorehabilitation). I have no idea whether this is a credible article or not. Would you have a look at it please. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 11:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy

I thing that an organized anatomy section is essential. I will be adding to this, hopefully some type of sub page can be created to quickly find all related info... Lou.kirk 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Allopathic into Allopathic Medicine

I suggest that allopathic be merged or redirected into allopathic medicine. A discussion is [here]. Antelan ^talk 05:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lipodissolve

Mess of COI edits by involved parties (see WP:COI/N#Lipodissolve): needs some regular medical contributors. Gordonofcartoon 15:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help with re-write. I work with a doctor that has performed injection lypolisis for several years. I am sure that makes me a little biased - but I am also very familiar with research and FDA issues. Would be nice to see the wiki operate w/o the CIO editors. Good amount of background in the discussion pages as well.Chrraymond 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, although I know WP:AGF is supposed to apply, the article has been such a battleground that I'm not confident of the neutrality of anyone who has turned up solely to edit that article. Gordonofcartoon 04:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Induced abortion and infertility

At Infertility (in this section) and Abortion (see footnote), a user claims that there is an established causal effect between induced abortions and subsequent infertility, risk of miscarriage, and sterility. I have found three references which state that there is not a causal link between abortion and infertility. I would appreciate it if interested parties with appropriate backgrounds would weigh in on this issue. Please visit Talk:Infertility#Abortion and infertility to join in the discussion. Thank you. Photouploaded 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Photouploaded's presentation of the facts is biased. I added the following to Infertility: "Abortion". Photouploaded then deleted my edits. The statement is not my "claim." It is supported by solid refs that I found, [9] and [10], as well as a ref that Photouploaded found in an attempt to refute the information. Becuase of his ref, I changed "Abortion" to "Abortion performed via Dilation and evacuation.” Photouploaded also put a “Disputed” tag on the section.

I did not add the link at Abortion. It has been there for a long time.

Please do see the Talk. Thanks!LCP 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CME on Wikiversity

Check out this interactive clinical case with referenced case discussion I just created on Wikiversity. This is part of the Wikiversity School of Medicine. Everyone is invited to improve this learning module, of course.

• A 31-year-old pregnant woman with unstable transverse lie

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. --Bduke 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT DISCUSSION

On WT:CLINMED we are discussing the need for this WikiProject to be merged with WP:CLINMED. I strongly encourage everyone to participate in this discussion, as we are simultaneously discussing other important issues, like WP:MCOTW and so on. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Link for discussion is WT:CLINMED#Need for a director/merge WP:MEDICINE? David Ruben ^Talk 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its a excellent idea to merge...Probably to merge the CLINMED into this project but thats just my opinion. I believe this will be for the better of the projects if they merge. Cheers.Calaka (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Gestational Hypertension

I was wondering if someone with more knowledge of the subject could take a look at the gestational hypertension article. I am a student nurse and the facilities in our health authority have phased out the terms pre-eclampsia and eclampsia and the definition of PIH or GH being used includes proteinuria. I am told this is based on EB research. 198.166.58.153 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC) katie

Black band disease

Is Black band disease really appropriate for WPMED? It's a disease that strikes coral in the ocean. If you have an opinion, please either rate the article on its talk page, or delete the WPMED template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the WPMED template, because I am biased against coral. Antelan ^talk 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Medical education

Please see Talk:Medical education for a question on use of case study. The question arises from a convergence in Law and Medicine education 100 years ago, and involves training in diagnosis.Rgdboer (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

New stub category proposal

Request cardiology specialist to provide details regarding Shone's Syndrome / Complex in details Partha 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that on amputation-related articles that are stubs, the stub should read "This amputation-related article is a stub", et cetera, et cetera. Not only will this be more accurate, it will also be quite humorous :) Jtrainor 11:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there really enough articles to justify this? From the amputation article, I see perhaps a dozen articles that could use this stub template. As for the so-called humour — sigh. Let's say I don't share the same enthusiasm. :-) Axl 09:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

a little short on humor?? (lol) Alysonwonderland 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Transfer factor

Would someone competent in immunology please look at this article. It has a troublesome history. DGG (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Psychoactive drug

There is a discussion on Talk:Psychoactive_drug - a Venn diagram on Psychoactive_drug which some editors feel constitutes OR and is incorrect. Would be good to get some pharmacologists and or medicos in on it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Neurocardiology

I just finished doing a cleanup on neurocardiology. I am not an expert, but I suspect this topic is more alternative medicine than medicine in general. I just wanted to let your project know since it is qualified as a stub class in your project so it can be categorized properly. DLPanther 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine infobox

{{Osteopathic medicine}} I've created an infobox for the Osteopathic medicine articles, to help pull them together and ease navigation. I would appreciate any feedback on making this box as functional and well-formed as possible.

So many of the osteopathic articles are stubs, at best. Any expertise in related areas, OMM, osteopathic physicians, American Osteopathic Association, etc. would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I redid the layout a bit, to improve the look. Feedback? ^TU Hopping ^T 22:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sacrococcygeal teratoma and coccygectomy

Hi can anyone tell me from what date coccygectomy became standard practise in the management of SCT? I know the Altmann typing of SCT began in 71/72 but when did total resection of the coccyx become regular protocol?Crinkles 23:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not read much of the early literature, but the current standard of surgical treatment (including coccygectomy) is described in its entirety in a 1964 review article. So it must predate that article. --Una Smith 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone give me details re coccygectomy in adults? --Una Smith 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sicko (film)

Hello. I was wondering if WikiProject Medicine would be interested in collaborating with the film project on Sicko (film). We really need as many experts as possible to keep this article honest and on topic. Please let me know if this is acceptable. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 10:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting additional info in Acidosis

Acidosis is long enough not to qualify as a stub, but I feel that we could still add quite a bit to the article on this basic medical concept. Thanks. -- 201.19.72.37 14:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Causes of autism

Eubulides, Colin, and Tim Vickers have substantially restored the de-featured autism article, and work has begun on Causes of autism and Heritability of autism‎. Additional help appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

ATLS Page

The ATLS stub contains information I consider to be inacurate, although I might be wrong.

It states that ATLS is for paramedics and other advanced practitioners, where I thought it was for MD/DOs only, although other paramedic-level practitioners can AUDIT the course (ie attend but not get certified).

It states that BTLS is for EMT-Bs (going along with the first point above), where it is in fact for all EMTs (basics, intermediates/specialists, and paramedics).

I'm new to Wikipedia (and love it, BTW!), so sorry if I'm not completely protocol-compliant. I am, however, a paramedic and RN and think I have the above correct.

Sprender 16:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --WS 17:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Aortitis

I just added the Aortitis article, anyone with information is encouraged to visit.  :) Navou ^banter 18:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

competent eyes requested for Toxicology template

I just create a template for toxicology and poisoning: {{toxicology}}. However, I am not exactly knowledgeable in the field, and would like someone competent to review for any obvious problems before I unleash it in articlespace. Circeus 00:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than make it a right-margin formatted template, I'd recommend using Template:Navbox generic, so that it can better co-exist with other templates, and won't interfere with infoboxes. --Arcadian 02:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Article series are much different from footers, in that they can afford to be significantly looser in their choice of articles, as well as having a broader scope overall. (compare {{Pollution}} and {{Global warming}}), or the proposed template to {{Poison}}. Circeus 02:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Stub class

The article Cephalometry is currently a stub. Anyone with a working knowledge, (and anyone else) nudged over there. By the way, from what I can tell, everyone is doing excellent work here. Navou ^banter 03:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed!

I'm looking for kind volunteers who could help me maintaining Portal:Medicine because I have no time to edit the articles because of the maintainance jobs. Thank you in advance! It'd be an easy task and I'd help a lot... NCurse _work 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "Autism" A-class?

Autism has gone through peer review, reached Good Article status, and is this week's selected article on the Medicine Portal. It is currently rated GA-Class in WikiProject Medicine. Can someone please check it and see whether it's A class? The plan is to nominate it as a featured article fairly soon, and other pairs of eyes before then would be appreciated. Thanks. Eubulides 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment on the main page here. I can't assess Autism because I've been semi-involved in the work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to fix or clarify WikiProject Medicine here, and then added a request for Autism's reassessment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or re-assessment. Eubulides 22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Autism is getting very little feedback at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychic surgery

Is this a page that we should consider looking over under the purview of WikiProject medicine? I'm asking because I'm not sure. On the one hand, psychic surgery is clearly not a medical procedure. On the other hand, however, an inquiring visitor may not know or understand this. Antelan ^talk 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hand Hygiene

I came across the article Hand Hygiene and it looks like it could really use the attention of someone knowledgable. Would anyone here be able to lend a hand? Thanks. Deli nk 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged it as magazine-like and in need of sources. Obviously this is not progress in improving the article, but it is progress in ensuring that readers, as well as editors, understand the article needs improvement. Antelan ^talk 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It should redirect to hand washing which is a much better article. Axl 17:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding med articles as Lists

Hey all. Noticed on the recent Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality log that by adding med articles as a "list" class removes them from the med project (even though the actual med tag is still there!) see Talk:List of subjects in Gray's Anatomy: Alphabetical: Z as an example and then note how on the log it says that it was 'removed'. Anyone with more wiki/tech skills able to fix this problem? Thanks...petze 14:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New one

Here is a new one... Lymphocytic Interstitial Pneumonia. Regards, Navou ^banter 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, what's your point? Axl 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did come by and improve the article... :) Regards, Navou ^banter 03:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy tagging

Just to get peoples attention... i added a comment on the anatomy wikiproject talk page regarding the ratting/tagging/ of anatomy type articles and if anyone happens to be intrested, you are all more than welcome to give ur opinions/comments/critisizm(sp?) about my opinion on anatomy classifying/rating... I figure I ask here as some people who might also be in the anatomy wikiproject, are also viewers of the medicine wikiproject but might not look at the anatomy wikiproject as often...Thanks for your time.petze 07:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons disease

Further contributions required at the discussion of Morgellons disease. Thanks. Axl 09:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Health risks proposed for deletion

Hello, this is slightly outside the scope of this WikiProject but any help would be appreciated. Category:Health risks has been proposed for deletion at WP:CFD, and the expertise of members of this project would be appreciated in the discussion of what the best action to take is. Thanks for any input, Kurieeto 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article on Kuru (disease) has been deleted

The original version was fair-use and not free. If you can help at all in rewriting the article, please do so. Thank you! --Hemlock Martinis 18:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing ref's

Would someone be able to add (or find) a reference for some of these articles (unless one has already been added recently):

• Canga's bead symptom

 Done Axl 19:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cardarelli's sign

 Done Axl 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Gait belt
• Galactokinase deficiency

 Done Axl 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Eye circles

 Done Axl 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Haemolacria
• Handbook on Drug and Alcohol Abuse
• Hearing test
• Karman cannula

 Done Axl 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ketostix

In my opinion, this should be merged into ketonuria. Axl 15:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Kleihauer-Betke test

 Done Antelan ^talk 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I was assessing them and noticed that they had no ref and thought it would be good (suggested from someone else ;) ) to post them here as someone from this wikiproject would be able to find refs for em easily... Thanks...petze 06:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsure about article

Hi Folks, I hope this is the right place to ask. Balano-preputial lamina is a (rather perplexing) stub that cites no sources. As far as I can tell, the phrase is used by a handful of lobbyist websites, but only two reliable sources even use the term (both, oddly, are journal letters written by a lawyer on behalf of the same lobbyist group), and neither define it. Nor have I had any luck in textbooks. I'm trying to work out if the term actually exists in a meaningful sense - has anyone come across a reference anywhere? Jakew 22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Creation of a Pregnancy Task Force

I've begun working on articles related to pregnancy and childbirth, and have found that this is a topic sorely in need of additional editors' help. I would like to propose creating a task force for pregnancy-related articles within WP:MED. I envision the scope as encompassing clinical and preclinical subjects (assuming I understand those terms correctly), as well as what I call "experiential" subjects (for example, see this article) -- that is, subjects that are not strictly medical but which are nevertheless related to pregnancy and/or childbirth.

I have never been involved in the creation of a WikiProject or task force, so would appreciate any bureaucratic or technical help that might be offered, as well. --Ginkgo100^talk 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States

I initially suspected this article to be a POV fork. I have since worked with its author to resolve some of those issues, but the article still strikes me as a pro-osteopathic medicine fluff piece more suitable to a trade journal than to an encyclopedia. Even now, the original author is adding in details about osteopaths' practice rights in foreign countries (i.e., explicitly out of the scope of the title of the article in the United States). Beyond the first couple of sections with pro-osteopathic pronouncements by the AMA & AMSA and the discussion of the 1960s turf wars between osteo and traditional medicine, the remainder of the material doesn't even seem to fit with the subject of the article. I would appreciate it if others would take a look at this article and suggest ways to proceed. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 17:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the table with the International practice rights would be better placed in the Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine article, which is not US specific. There's already an international section there. However, it is notable that traditionally allopathic organizations like the American Medical Student Association support the International Practice Rights of US-trained osteopathic physicians, something that was not true until very recently. AMSA recently adopted a policy requesting that governments recognize US allopathic and osteopathic physicians as equals.[11]

I do not want this article to be fluff. I have tried to make good citations and source every statement appropriately. I've appreciated User Antelan's close editing assistance, and I hope the article continues to improve. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 04:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My concern has largely been with the approach that has been taken with these articles. In the "Comparison of..." article, you say, "The two largest traditionally allopathic organizations, the American Medical Association and the American Medical Student Association, both support further integration and non-discrimination in residency programs." [12] You then cite a source that says that the AMA opposes differential FEES for osteo and allopathic medical students, which is totally distinct from the claim you made in the article. You also used this same source to make yet a different point in the "History of" article, which demonstrates that this was no accidental misuse of a source. It's frustrating for me to have to go through and fact check your edits. I don't mind helping you with incidental POV issues, but using the same source to back two different statements, neither of which were supported by the source, doesn't make me feel comfortable. Hence, I am asking for others interested in this topic to help me with the fact checking. Antelan ^talk 22:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. You raise a valid point. However, I hope you will AGF here. In fact, my claim is correct though poorly sourced. The source I cited is one piece of a much broader conversation within the AMA about osteopathic/allopathic discrimination. The "fees for medical students" was one outcome of an investigation. It's not always easy to cite a source that is readily available on the web for AMA in-house policy documents / discussion. I'm trying. They are published and publicly available, but not always on the web.

• [13]
• [14]
• AMA HOD report

The conversation expanded to discuss discrimination in general, and DO membership within the AMA. As indicated by "G-635.053 AMA Membership Strategy: Osteopathic Medicine", the AMA is now actively seeking DO membership. In "H-405.989 Physicians and Surgeons," the AMA demonstrates it advocates for equality between MDs&DOs in regards to the use of professional titles "physician" and "surgeon". ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking through those, I see where the medical student representatives at the AMA conference introduced resolutions saying what you're suggesting, but I don't see where those became enshrined, except for the equal fees part of the resolution. Antelan ^talk 23:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I working on finding more documents detailing which resolutions were approved, etc. The medical students were from AMSA, which was the main group are advocating for these new resolutions.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 23:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see the documents if you can find them. At present, based on the documents I've read, I do not believe the other changes were enacted. Antelan ^talk 00:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, perhaps we can reliably source that these resolutions were proposed by members the AMA, indicating that this discussion is an ongoing topic of debate. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you confident that an internal discussion within the AMA is notable enough to be discussed on an encyclopedia's pages? Are you certain that you are not focusing on minute details of an internal proposal written by a student subsection of a larger organization because it speaks to a particular agenda? I recognize that these questions sound accusatory, and I don't mean for them to come off like that, but I just think I need to call your attention to what I see as a trend. Antelan ^talk 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. That is an important question. My answer is, yes. I do think it is noteworthy. There are dozen of published articles that discuss this topic, and whole books based largely on similar discussions. I continue to appreciate your point of view, but I disagree that we should simply exclude relevant data because it is contentious or representative of a political process. What is this article about if not two agendas and their relationship? The AMA and the AOA are organizations that represent two collective agendas. I have made continuous efforts to be fair and balanced in my presentation. I have made a point of including sources critical of osteopathic medicine in numerous places. I look forward to continuing to work with you on a fair POV. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You say, "What is this article about if not two agendas and their relationship?" That has been my concern from the beginning. I know that you haven't simply censored critical views of osteopathy. In fact, you've manufactured controversy where none exist. Your edits would lead a reader to believe that fairly insignificant issues are of great importance (e.g., equal fees for osteo & allo med students, Harvard's CME on OMM). POV is not simply AMA vs AOA. It's what's important and what isn't. A neutral POV doesn't ignore controversy and conflict where it exists, but it also doesn't overemphasize minute events. Antelan ^talk 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Osteopathic medical schools: After more than a century of often bitterly contentious relationships between the osteopathic and allopathic medical professions, we now find ourselves living at a time when osteopathic and allopathic graduates are both sought after by many of the same residency programs; are in most instances both licensed by the same licensing boards; are both privileged by many of the same hospitals; and are found in appreciable numbers on the faculties of each other's medical schools."

— President, Association of American Medical Colleges, 2005

The history of this conflict is real. People have written articles on these topics, including the specific details that you mention - Harvard's CME course as well as Harvard's non-CME OMM course for medical students (New Physician, Jan 2007), the changing attitude of the AMA towards osteopathic physicians and graduates, the new rules about fees is just one small example that illustrates the point. In both these cases, I have articles to cite, but they are not on the web. So, in the interest of verifiability I haven't cited them and have tried to steer towards web based sources whenever possible, but that has proved a bit limiting. This conversation seems hypercritical.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 04:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll say again what I've said above: "A neutral POV doesn't ignore controversy and conflict where it exists, but it also doesn't overemphasize minute events." The conflict between osteo & allo is undisputedly real. The AMA president's statements on the matter? Relevant, important. The fact that Harvard has a CME on OMM? Tangentially relevant, trumped only by its thorough unimportance. Looking through the Jan 2007 New Physican, the DO article has Jay Bhatt on record saying that OMM can be used for asthma "without need for medications", which, in the context of the relevant Cochrane review ("Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of manual therapy for patients with asthma.") strikes me as non-evidence-based fluff. Also, please let me know which page number in the Jan 2007 New Physician you're referencing that has the article on Harvard's CME course and non-CME OMM course; I couldn't find it. I don't understand how it's preferable to put the Harvard CME information in the article without citing reference because it's not web-based. Antelan ^talk 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 10:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's one article, which I hope you'll read to verify that I'm not simply making these controversies and trends up.[15] The article on the Harvard program is in the same issue, but it's not in the online version.

Because something is subjective, doesn't mean it is not noteworthy. Any article on religion or philosophy of any kind will be filled with reports of subjective statements. Who are you to decide what is important? Jay Bhatt was the President of the largest medical student organization in the world. For that reason alone, his opinion on the topic is noteworthy, even though it may be utterly biased in your opinion. Evidence-based medicine is one approach, but it is not the only approach. (In fact there are large physician groups that have historically opposed E-B, another noteworthy topic.) There is no Wikipedia value that suggests only evidence-based medicine is noteworthy.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have the hardcopy of the Jan 2007 New Physician, and I am still eagerly awaiting the page number of the Harvard article that you are referring to. With regards to "evidence" - Wikipedia is an evidence-based encyclopedia; if a claim is unverifiable, it doesn't get published here. We could verify that Dr. Bhatt made such-and-such claim, but if the contents of that claim itself are not verifiable, you'll have a very hard time getting them inserted as fact into articles. Antelan ^talk 16:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem labeling any item you are concerned about as a "claims" rather than "facts" - if you feel this strongly that these are controversial claims. I do have an issue with simply deleting information because you feel it's a claim and not a fact. Source it properly, label the author, be fair in the presentation, and be done with it.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the Harvard reference. Antelan ^talk 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 04:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What does "OK" mean in response to that? Antelan ^talk 05:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK = acknowledged. I am communicating to you that I received your message, which I'm assuming was intended for me. (?) ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 07:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lung cancer

I am working on lung cancer with the intention of submitting it for "featured article" status soon. I can vouch for the factual accuracy of the content. I have checked every reference (most of which I inserted). However I require more assistance to improve the quality of the prose, i.e. to make it compelling. This is especially important in the lead section. I am grateful for your assistance. Axl 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers (talk · contribs) might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, "malignant" in this context means "cancerous", not "progressively worsening". Axl 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The parenthetical gives a fair description of the meaning of malignant in line with that of both the WP article on "malignant" and definitions from medical dictionaries [16]. Cancer is already intrinsic to "lung cancer" so that doesn't need to be restated. I agree that by definition, malignancies are cancerous, but redirecting "malignant" to the broad article on cancer doesn't make that much sense. It is more likely that the reader wonders what the word "malignant" means. Other opinions? Antelan ^talk 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We're having a discussion on the article talk page about finding a better intro sentence[17]. Please join in. Antelan ^talk 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The term malignant deserves its own disambiguation page - when used in reference to 'cancer' or neoplastic tissue, yes, malignant does of course refer to a malignant neoplasm. A disambiguation page would solve this issue. Also, the word 'tumour' needs to be explained further. A 'tumour' is simply a mass of tissue, not necessarily a cancerous/neoplastic one. Russthomas15 02:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

AS

Now that autism has been restored to status, I'm hoping a (third) featured article review of Asperger syndrome can be avoided. I've put some work into cleaning up references and restoring a summarizing lead (as in the featured version); it's come along enough that the cleanup tag could be removed), but the article still needs attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anybody home? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act featured article nomination

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act recently achieved Good Article status. I've nominated it for featured article status - please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. Comments would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 22:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Scope banner

Is there any template for using when placing an article under the scope of this WikiProject? I couldn't find one Jennylen 20:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Like {{WPMED|class=stub}}? I'm not sure if that's what you're asking. Antelan ^talk 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly, are there without the stub categorization or with other comments? Where? Thanks Jennylen 21:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you could do {{WPMED}}, but that still leaves you with ??? for quality and importance assessment, which may be just fine anyway as someone can come by later and fill them out. If you're looking for something else, I'll dig around and see what I can find. Antelan ^talk 21:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that will do. If anyway later you find one which allows to insert some view as "revise your sources" or "expand your sources" or something like that, could be great, otherwise I can also combine with the existing in common use. If you come across something, you can drop it at my talk page, thanks, you are very kind Jennylen 21:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Template for medically-related articles that need references

In the spirit of the TrueOrigins {{histref}} template, I've created a Medicine {{Medref}} template for medically-related articles that are missing sources or verification. Please let me know if you think this is helpful; if it can be improved; or if it should be deleted. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Great! Jenny^Len 22:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I've tweaked layout (images were vertically aligned vs more compact horizontal layout of images in histref) - see this. Also I've wikilinked on WP:Verify and this project's explaination of medical reliable sources (WP:MEDRS) - see this. David Ruben ^Talk 22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Your changes look great. Antelan ^talk 22:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! Based on your final changes do you think that can be created also the other? the one that says :{{histref|give ideas here.}} (give a look at WP:TORIG) That is good when you also want to pinpoint an specific section or so. Jenny^Len 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you already can. :{{medref|give ideas here.}} works as you'd expect from the TORIG template. Antelan ^talk 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I get it, sorry, it is a call of course, thanks Jenny^Len 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychic Surgery, again

Since my last post got no response awhile back, I'll give it ago again: psychic surgery - is it something we're concerned about? "... it is performed by psychic doctors or psychic surgeons" This strikes me as phrasing that makes the procedure sound medical. I tried to note that these are not medical professionals, but I was rebuffed with this edit summary: Insert this back if you have a source that say no "psychic" surgeons have medical degrees If Wikiproject:Medicine is OK with this article as it stands, I'll go ahead and unwatch it, but I'd like to see what you all think. Antelan ^talk 07:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is self-referential: people who claim to perform "psychic surgery" call themselves "psychic surgeons". By using this title, these people attempt to legitimize their activities. Axl 09:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "psychic" (related with non physical nature) contradicts the definitions of "surgeon" and "doctor" (both of which relate with physical practice or "physicians"), articles may not have contradictions of course, there is a flag for that somewhere calling the attention that the article contains contradictory definitions Jenny^Len 10:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I substituted "doctors" and "surgeons" for "healers" The accepted term in scientific circles is "Psychic Healers" by consensus. Jenny^Len 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You've been really active on that page; I'll jump in over there and see if I can help out, too. Antelan ^talk 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for cooperation

Hello, I am a member of the WikiProject Council. I wanted to know if you may consider placing the banner {{Inter-Project Cooperation}} on your project's page? You may include there projects you cooperate with on a routinely basis. By doing this you may be contributing to inter-project cooperation and understanding. Thank you Daoken 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably WP:PHARM (aka WP:DRUG), WP:VIRUS, for a start. Does WP:CLINMED need mentioning as a daughter project of this one ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I managed to add the coop bannershell and two of the projects but couldn't find the banners of WP:VIRUS Jenny^Len 12:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I also created a coopbanner following the {{Inter-Project Cooperation Banner Information}} for WikiProject Medicine because didn't exist, is {{here}}, I think it works Jenny^Len 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that looks good. Nice work! Antelan ^talk 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Banners templates

I wonder if it could be added some section in the project's page where members can find all the templates when they need them ? I don't know how to do it but I could like new members have access to those resources Jenny^Len 13:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that would be very helpful, even for those of us who aren't beginners; I'm hoping someone with more experience in this project can maybe help with that? Antelan ^talk 13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I could create an own section for that, just tell me what you would like to see there! This: Category:Medical infobox templates? NCurse _work 09:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That will be excellent. What about starting with {{WPMED}}, {{Medref}}, {WikiProject Medicine CoopBanner}} explaining for what is each ? Jenny^Len 09:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, give me some feedback on this section. This is the first version. Should we describe how and when to use the templates or it's enough? Should we include infoboxes in a similar form, or just list them. It'll definitely be useful for beginners and experienced users as well. NCurse _work 08:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Who knows Ivan O. Godfroid ?

It's a Belgian psychiatrist. We are arguing currently in the French wiki if we should maintain him in the wiki.

The problem is that someone said that he was well known, and said that he was truly known in the english-speaking world like in Atlanta, Houston or Miami.

And I think that, this person is one of his friend or relative. So I wonder if people, here (in the english wiki) know him and can bring argument that his work as a psychiatrist is notorious and secondary sources have been produced from his work.

There is a strong suspection of fake. But we have no doubt that he is a psychiatrist and has made some publications. Most of the primary sources are not reliable because he has his own publishing house 'Socrates Promarex' and we can't find secondary sources about his work. And primary source seems to be Wikipedia.

Pppswing 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A search on PubMed[18] on "Godfroid I" gives 18 hits. None of the titles strikes me as in themselves opening new insights to radically change psychiatry (several just debating points), and publication years of just between 1995 & 2000 suggests nolonger active in research & publishing (or at least in PubMed abstracted biomedical journals). Of course may or may not be notable as a psychiatrist in other ways (eg as a leading member of psychiatric organisation, as a well known TV-doc or presenter etc), but not something that I as a GP would be aware of.David Ruben ^Talk 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

List of medical schools in the United Kingdom at FLC

I've nominated List of medical schools in the United Kingdom for featured list status here. Feel free to comment. CloudNine 11:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

allowing unconverted metric units in scientific articles

I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Necrotizing fasciitis could use a review

The article Necrotizing fasciitis could use a review by medical professionals for accuracy and professionalism. See also comments at Talk:Necrotizing_fasciitis. Thanks. -- 201.19.11.75 02:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Water fluoridation RfC

I would appreciate any input this project may have regarding the reliability of sources recently added to the water fluoridation article. The specific questions are found here: Talk:Water fluoridation#RfC. Thanks. · jersyko talk 13:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with medical terms

Hi! I was hoping someone at this WikiProject could help me with this question: What is the formal medical term for getting the wind knocked out of you? The article doesn't say. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Searching the web, it appears to me that "temporary paralysis of the diaphragm" (already in the article) is the formal medical term. --Una Smith 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you recommend moving the article to Temporary paralysis of the diaphragm, then? Or do you think there's a better term out there? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I would leave the article as it is. But I would add a redirect. I will do it. By the way, it looks like some existing redirects need to be cleaned up. "Winded" has nothing to do with temporary paralysis of the diaphragm. Could you do that, Remember the dot? --Una Smith 02:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The major difficulty here is that getting the wind knocked out of you does not relate to any specific medical condition at all, and therefore there is NO specific medical term for it. Yes, I do hold a qualification. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Giardia lamblia and Giardiasis

I think these two articles should be merged. How would we go about that? Thanks. --Afromcbenny 07:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend against the merge -- we usually distinguish between the disease and the pathogen. That said, if you'd like to pursue a merge, the process is described at Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Proposing_a_merger. --Arcadian 20:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

These articles should be separate. However much of the information in Giardia lamblia would be more appropriate in Giardiasis. Axl 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with Vaccine controversy

This article needs serious review for NPOV and WP:V. Vaccine controversy is quickly becoming a soapbox against vaccination. Djma12 ^(talk) 23:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Red blood cell indices

I was just looking over MCV, MCH, and MCHC and was thinking about merging these three into one article called Red blood cell indices as they are all related stubs. I don't think there is much potential for expansion for these articles, and I doubt anyone would object to the merge. Whether or not these should be merged, there definitely should be an article specifically for the red blood cell indices. As I see it, there are 3 options: a disambiguation page for the 3 articles, an overview page with {{main}} links to the 3 articles, or a merged page. I prefer a merge, but wanted others' opinions on the matter before I took action. I haven't put merge tags on the pages, as I'm sure not many people are watching those pages, and those who are probably are watching this page too. --Scott Alter 06:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that they are better as three separate pages (the current situation). Your second option is appropriate. Axl 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Surgery article

The Surgery article seems to be woefully inadequate in describing even the fundamentals of modern surgery. Is anybody working on expanding this article? H Padleckas 09:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

After practically two months, nobody had made any improvements of substance to the Surgery article to address my above-mentioned concern. Therefore, I substantially expanded the Surgery article myself to describe fundamental aspects of modern surgery. I would like to request a peer review to ensure the Surgery article is technically sound. If anybody wants to review Surgery and make any [beneficial] edits, please go ahead.
H Padleckas 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I have improved a lot this article in the last month and I´m thinking of nominating it for good article. I have asked for a scientific peer review; but I would appreciate any comments on how to improve it both in contents and style. The discussion page for the peer review is: Wikipedia:Scientific peer review/Therapies for multiple sclerosis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrondo (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

New WP:RxCOTW

WikiProject Pharmacology is in the organizing phase of starting a Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week, in an effort to improve the many drug and pharmacology-related articles on wikipedia. If you're interested in helping, please visit WP:RxCOTW! Dr. Cash 20:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for WikiProject_ONCOLOGY

I am trying to gauge what the interest would be for a WP:ONCOLOGY category. This would be under the broader auspices of WP:MED, along the lines of WP:RENAL and WP:Rads. It would address standards of care and best practices in surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with maintaining and editing cancer related articles.

If this is something you are interested in, please sign underneath the relevant section at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Oncology

Djma12 ^(talk) 23:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hay Fever could use professional attention

Hay Fever could a review by professionals. In particular, the section "Medication" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_fever#Medication makes various un-cited recommendations for treatment. -- 201.19.15.178 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GPnotebook (Article for Deletion)

Be advised that there is an AfD for GPnotebook, which is "an online encyclopaedia of medicine that provides an immediate reference resource for clinicians worldwide". This a potentially worthy article, but lacking sufficient independent evidence of notability to satisfy WP:ORG. I have recomended that the article be redirected to Diagnosis, but you may wish to express an alternative opinion here. --Gavin Collins 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• The result was keep (no consensus). --Gavin Collins 18:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Caesarjbsquitti

User:Caesarjbsquitti, an editor with an strong interest in a variety of unorthodox ideas and medical theories, has made a number of apparently questionable edits to various articles about mental illness. Could someone please review these?

It might also be instructive, as part of this process, to read their user page to get a better idea of the full breadth and depth of their interests: according to this, they are, for example, also the "Wrighter, [sic] researcher who discovered a negative side to truth, anti-truths, and wrighter of (The Jesus Christ Code. The LIGHT: The Rainbow of Truth. to be released 2007 © ) expanding the definition of 'truth' , 'half-truth' and 'lie' together with a new philosophy "Thinking In Color©", "The third side of the coin" and the 'wave theory of truth'." (emphasis theirs) -- Karada 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lung cancer featured article candidate

I am nominating Lung cancer for featured article status. Please leave your comments here. Thanks. Axl 17:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis good article candidate

I have nominated the article as a good article candidate. I would be thankful to anybody who who helped in the good article review (See: Wikipedia:Good article candidates If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page. --Garrondo 13:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested articles

I have a few article requests:

• spatial QRS axis (cardiology) and mean spatial QRS axis (one should redirect to the other)
• spatial QRS-T angle (electrocardiogram interpretation)
• spatial T axis (cardiology) and mean spatial T axis (one should redirect to the other)

For detailed information about this topic, see: Isabella Kardys, Jan Kors, Irene van der Meer, Albert Hofman, Deirdre van der Kuip and Jacqueline Witteman, "Spatial QRS-T Angle Predicts Cardiac Death in a General Population," in European Heart J. (2003) 24:1357-1364. (Note that if I had understood the science of ECG interpretation, I would have written the Wikipædia articles myself – so please write the articles in language that is intelligible to laypeople.) 68.49.208.76 05:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of health topics

On Talk:List of health topics: Si-So, W.marsh has asked for those pages to be moved out of the main namespace space. Is this project able/willing to take the pages, or should I move it under WP:MISSING ? John Vandenberg 07:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This list looks more like an index and is incomplete. Now that we have category system in place probably there is not much need for it. I would move to missing list.--Countincr ^{( t@lk )} 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sick building syndrome

Sick building syndrome was an article I found while working on multiple chemical sensitivity and Clinical ecology. It currently requires a substantial amount of work, as its only citation is to an air-filtration company. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Windber Research Institute

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Windber Research Institute is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 17:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Feingold diet

Food Additives and Hyperactivity, Again! mentions the Feingold diet article. Please look into the concerns raised in that news article. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oncology navigation templates

I have created a new category, Oncology navigation templates, and populated it with the relevant templates I could find. I think it is time to create navigation templates for tumors by location, rather than try to put all the necessary cross-referencing into each and every tumor page. Please help! You don't have to know all about tumors; the tumor pages themselves provid an outline for the navigation templates. --Una Smith 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Advanced Trauma Life Support

I've noticed that this topic is very inadequate, and have started to update it.--File Éireann 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

sole (foot)

The article sole (foot) has been tagged as part of this wikiproject, as well as part of anatomy - shouldn't it be only under anatomy? There's nothing medical in the article, as it is, it's simply about the body part. Kuronue | Talk 01:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured article categories

If an article such as homeopathy or chiropractic (samples only) were to become featured, what category would it go in at WP:FA? Right now, we have Biology and medicine; would they go there, or would another category be needed? If so, what would it be called? And would these kinds of articles be subject to WP:MEDMOS ? How do we define "Medicine" articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they would go under medicine (certainly better choice than Biology which would seem to me to be a more umbrella term for all animal/plant topics). Whilst these might be viewed as perhaps more strictly as "Health" topics, as these alternative medicine topics perhaps could be seen as distinct from being accepted as conventional medicine, that seems a little harsh and needlessly exclusive and snobish. Given this project is named "medicine" rather than the mouthful of "human health and wellbeing", and that medicine is defined as " is the science and 'art' of maintaining and/or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of patients", then yes these alternative and complimentary approaches (which often have blurred boundaries with conventional medicine) should be classified as Medical under FA listings.

I also feel they should follow WP:MEDMOS, which is after all a sensible article structure for describing the nature and classification of conditions (even if an alternative system of classification as occurs in many alternatives of holistic medicine or Traditional Chinese Medicine). MEDMOS issues of reliable sources is based on WP:RS, WP:Cite, WP:Verify etc; so reporting from reliable sources of peer reviewed journals seems appropriate to expect.

[An aside note] for these approaches 2 levels of citation support is needed: 1) uncontroversially whether the approach and its application for a particular condition is used and therefore in itself notable 2) whether or not it actual works (which requires to follow WP:RS to WP:V) which must adhering to WP:NPOV of course.

I see no conflict with alternative/complimentary health topics following a good clear article structure, but clearly a herbal product article will not follow precisely the same structure as a conventional drug (Template:Drugbox for a start would seem inappropriate in its parameters). Should some guidelines be set up to cover these variations in types-of-medicine articles ? David Ruben ^Talk 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: this has arisen out of a dispute over the placement of Parapsychology in the Wikipedia:Featured articles page. IMO, both of Sandy's examples would go under Medicine. There's a healer-patient relationship, regardless of whether one believes in the theory behind it. I do think it is time to take the knife to the "Biology, medicine and psychology" category. I know there's overlap, but there is no clean way of splitting everything. Someone just needs to make a few arbitrary decisions. Blue whales and Tourette syndrome. You wouldn't find them together in the library. Colin°^Talk 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we should wait for parapsychology to shake out before attacking that, or if it's better to shake it all up at once. At least following the discussion on the talk page of WP:FA would be good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's no rush. It's been suggested at least twice already. The last time was only 10 days ago. Splitting is inevitable as FA numbers grow. Is there not some formal classification system we can borrow, to save internal arguments? Colin°^Talk 22:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question; maybe we should ask a librarian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorical index vs Dewey Decimal vs Library of Congress? Colin°^Talk 23:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports car knee syndrome

Would someone please comment on this discussion. It appears to hinge on one reference in NEJM that has been added recently. Does that reference make this topic notable and hence kept? --Bduke 23:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No PubMed hits, clearly not notable (ie name not accepted and used in other WP:MEDRS), AfD closed with consensus of delete David Ruben ^Talk 00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cure_for_diabetes_mellitus_type_1

Needs discussing. David Ruben ^Talk 00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

The veganism article is a low-importance medicine article, currently listed as a GA. The GA review made this suggestion:

I think the regular editors ought to approach Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to discuss how Veganism fits within the scope of this technical project. The aim of discussions would be to identify articles on the topic of nutrition which can support this article. Some of the more technical information that, I feel, is misplaced in this article could migrate to those articles, leaving summaries in place here. Once the relationship of Veganism with more technical articles on nutrition has been established, part of the scope check for new material would entail surveying these supporting articles.

Within the 'Health/Risk Calculation' there is something of a thematic inbalance, in that the 'Precautions' have more editorial space than "Benefits". Is it true that the precautions of a vegan diet outweigh benefits, or it that editors concerned with health threats are writing at a greater level of detail. In the spirit of the previous recommendation, would it make sense to have editors of the WikiProject Medicine review the section to establish if this information is better presented elsewhere.

Any efforts to review and consolidate material, place it in more appropriate articles, find new sources, etc, would be greatly appreciated. Kellen^T 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oleander

A person is attempting to include, under the title of 'Ethnomedical Uses' claims that oleander extract, called "oleander soup" can be used to treat cancer, hepatitis-C, psoriasis, HIV and other conditions. I'm not sufficiently qualified to evaluate these claims professionally - can anyone help, please? WLD^talk|edits 12:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets

Came across this article recently, which seems to have been largely created by User:Mcorazao as an annotated list of some papers related to Low-carbohydrate diets. As an outsider to what I'm sure is a heated debate, IMO it feels like this stuff should be spread among the History and References sections of the Lcd article. But I figured I'd take the coward's way out - tag it to this Project and point it out to you guys to debate :-) No doubt that WP:EFFORT might be considered a factor, but I'm instinctively wary of article names that are that long..... FlagSteward 18:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Smoking POV

There's a dispute going on over at talk:smoking where the user Nacaats is fiercly disputing the neutrality of the article by claiming that it misrepresents the health hazards of smoking in favor of the opinions of anti-smoking lobbyists. The sources cited are being challenged through fact-tagging, insertion of much vaguer wording and references to FORCES International Liberty News Network.

Though I haven't studied this issue in excuciating detail, my impression is that there is a widely held consensus about the general health hazards of inhaling the smoke of incompletely combusted substances in the medical community. Could someone who knows the issue better try to help resolve this conflict? Right now, the article is protected due to edit warring.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lung cancer FAC

Lung cancer has been languishing at FAC for weeks, with little input from medical folk. I guess Raul should go ahead and promote it as is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD debate on Psychiatric abuse starting

Hi folks, I found this article to be a loose collection of topics, some of which require some leap of logic to assail against the profession as a whole. While each in of themselves is worthy of a (hopefully) balanced article, I believe tying them all together is not appropriate for WP on the basis of WP:NOT. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

hiiiiiiii

hello wikipedians! this is sairamnanda.i am a 2nd year medical student.i joined wiki to get my doubts clarified and get knowledge regarding the medical subjects..i am a new comer to wiki..so any pls suggest how to post doubts regarding a article..how to discuss a point... thanx a lot... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairamnanda (talk • contribs) 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Go to the relevant article, then click the link marked "Discussion" at the top of the page and add a section discussing your issue. Kellen^T 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Paracetamol

Since there's a little bit of crossover in the topics between WP:PHARM and WP:MED, I thought I'd let y'all know that Paracetamol has recently been selected as the third Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week. It's currently already a featured article, but was promoted back in 2004, so it's probably well past due for a little refresher and improvement (else it goes to WP:FAR). If anyone wants to help out, please feel free.

Last week's collaboration was muscle relaxant, and was improved considerably. It currently awaits review for Good Article status.

Cheers! Dr. Cash 02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Muscle contraction

There's a disagreement at Talk:Muscle_contraction#Eccentric_redux, is anyone available and knowledgeable enough to put in a comment on the accuracy of the section and other changes? WLU 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fallon, Nevada

It has been mentioned that the content of the Cancer Cluster section of this article seems to rely entirely on one source. In fact, a recent article in a local newspaper here writes

"Arsenic in the water, tungsten in the air, polonium in wells, underground atomic testing to the east - all have been reported by the media. The entry for "Fallon, Nevada" on Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia, mentions the leukemia cluster. It's no wonder some outsiders unfortunately perceive our community as unhealthy."

If you have access to any further information regarding this subject which might be relevant to this article regarding this subject, such as perhaps contrary opinions and/or further research, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 15:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This has received substantial press coverage in larger newspapers (Reno Gazette Journal) over the years. I will see if I can find something useful. Antelan ^talk 05:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Psychatric abuse

There is a deletion review of the deleted article Psychatric abuse at:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse

cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Plagarism in Article: Tremor

A great deal of information in the article "Tremor" was apparently taken from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tremor/tremor.htm -- The National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

This source is never cited.

137.155.128.127 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fox

Thanks for pointing this out. I've updated the article. The NINDS text is in the public domain, so copying is allowed (and even encouraged) but it was rude not to attribute it. Colin°^Talk 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

If anyone has a lot of free time (he he) can you help out at Talk:Homeopathy? Thanks. ScienceApologist 16:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical institutions

Are articles like Hospital, or other medical institutions under the scope of this WikiProject? Because the article Private hospital seems inadequate. kawaputra^torque 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Arterial blood gas sampling

Could someone please look at this article? It's been written by a single author, who's clearly an expert in the subject but a newbie on Wikipedia. The article needs all kinds of style work. Thanks for looking into it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As it is, needs deleting - wikipedia is not a how to guide nor instructional manual/textbook. Only a very little needs to be incorporated into Arterial blood gas, the rest moved to Wikibooks or better still Wikiversity, pointers placed at Talk:Arterial blood gas#Merge proposal. David Ruben ^Talk 04:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I've added project template to 2000+ articles by creating list from category pages and need help in assessing them. Instructions are detailed in asseessment page. Unassessed articles can be found here(quality) and here(priority). Bot generated assessment logs are available but there is a backlog of 3-4 days. Project template now has script for auto-stubbing (for bot and semibot operation). My guess is there are 10,000+ medicine related articles yet to be assessed and I am trying to find and tag them. --Countincr ^{( t@lk )} 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's wonderful! Thank you! Let me know if you have any kind of question. NCurse _work 18:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an awful lot of unassessed articles. I wonder if there's an easier way for me to assign importance without editing every individual talk page.... Axl 16:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a few pages tagged by the bot which looks at the stub categories and changes the unassessed-quality parameter to stub-quality. It also adds a parameter that indicates non-human assessment. It's not perfect, but then neither am I. I doubt that it would be possible to do the same thing for importance. WhatamIdoing 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot generated stub class rating is possible because if there is a stub tag in the articles it will automatically put them into stub category which bot can detect. Unfortunately I could not come out with any clever idea for importance scale. However outrigg's plugin is a time saver and is highly recommended for assessment (I have left some instruction for setup here). It allows user to make assessment without going to talk page or typing anything--Countincr ^{( t@lk )} 18:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've used Outriggr's script to assess about 330 articles in the last 24 hours. It's okay, and if you're interested in chipping away at the unassessed article lists, it's a little quicker than the other approaches I've tried.

The primary downside is mental: if you define a default importance, and you run across something that's borderline, then you're more likely to settle on your default than to change it. I'm working from this list at the moment, and am currently selecting articles which are very likely to match my default importance. I figure that I can change the default importance rating later and go back to the others at that time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to Veterinary Medicine

In trying to clear some of these unassessed pages, I've run across a few that I'm not sure should be WPMED at all. Molera is the most recent one. It's a bit of anatomy on a dog. Does WPMED include everything that also belongs to 'WikiProject Veterinary medicine'? Or should we kill the WPMED tag on this one? WhatamIdoing 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd project assessment levels

Would someone (or several someones) at this project take a look at the article assessments on Talk:Glossary of alternative medicine and Talk:Race please? It's not clear to me why these are top-level importance when things like Public health and Nurse and Poverty and Health care and Surgery aren't. WhatamIdoing 05:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of 'food fortification' and 'supplements'

I just wanted to say that I definitely don't think these two articles should be merged. The issue of food fortification is independent of supplements as one is a public health policy while the other is a personal lifestyle choice! Emma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.143.33 (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I have nominated the article for featured article after working on it after it become a GA. anybody thinks the article is good enough please vote for it. Any comments for improvement will also be welcomed.Garrondo 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Neurorehabilitation

Hello. I have come across an article about Neurorehabilitation while patrolling new pages for COI creations (this article appears to to have been created by the Guttmann Institute in Barcelona who specialise in neurorehabilitation). I have no idea whether this is a credible article or not. Would you have a look at it please. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 11:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy

I thing that an organized anatomy section is essential. I will be adding to this, hopefully some type of sub page can be created to quickly find all related info... Lou.kirk 18:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Allopathic into Allopathic Medicine

I suggest that allopathic be merged or redirected into allopathic medicine. A discussion is [here]. Antelan ^talk 05:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lipodissolve

Mess of COI edits by involved parties (see WP:COI/N#Lipodissolve): needs some regular medical contributors. Gordonofcartoon 15:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help with re-write. I work with a doctor that has performed injection lypolisis for several years. I am sure that makes me a little biased - but I am also very familiar with research and FDA issues. Would be nice to see the wiki operate w/o the CIO editors. Good amount of background in the discussion pages as well.Chrraymond 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, although I know WP:AGF is supposed to apply, the article has been such a battleground that I'm not confident of the neutrality of anyone who has turned up solely to edit that article. Gordonofcartoon 04:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Induced abortion and infertility

At Infertility (in this section) and Abortion (see footnote), a user claims that there is an established causal effect between induced abortions and subsequent infertility, risk of miscarriage, and sterility. I have found three references which state that there is not a causal link between abortion and infertility. I would appreciate it if interested parties with appropriate backgrounds would weigh in on this issue. Please visit Talk:Infertility#Abortion and infertility to join in the discussion. Thank you. Photouploaded 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Photouploaded's presentation of the facts is biased. I added the following to Infertility: "Abortion". Photouploaded then deleted my edits. The statement is not my "claim." It is supported by solid refs that I found, [19] and [20], as well as a ref that Photouploaded found in an attempt to refute the information. Becuase of his ref, I changed "Abortion" to "Abortion performed via Dilation and evacuation.” Photouploaded also put a “Disputed” tag on the section.

I did not add the link at Abortion. It has been there for a long time.

Please do see the Talk. Thanks!LCP 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CME on Wikiversity

Check out this interactive clinical case with referenced case discussion I just created on Wikiversity. This is part of the Wikiversity School of Medicine. Everyone is invited to improve this learning module, of course.

• A 31-year-old pregnant woman with unstable transverse lie

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. --Bduke 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT DISCUSSION

On WT:CLINMED we are discussing the need for this WikiProject to be merged with WP:CLINMED. I strongly encourage everyone to participate in this discussion, as we are simultaneously discussing other important issues, like WP:MCOTW and so on. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Link for discussion is WT:CLINMED#Need for a director/merge WP:MEDICINE? David Ruben ^Talk 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its a excellent idea to merge...Probably to merge the CLINMED into this project but thats just my opinion. I believe this will be for the better of the projects if they merge. Cheers.Calaka (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Gestational Hypertension

I was wondering if someone with more knowledge of the subject could take a look at the gestational hypertension article. I am a student nurse and the facilities in our health authority have phased out the terms pre-eclampsia and eclampsia and the definition of PIH or GH being used includes proteinuria. I am told this is based on EB research. 198.166.58.153 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC) katie

Black band disease

Is Black band disease really appropriate for WPMED? It's a disease that strikes coral in the ocean. If you have an opinion, please either rate the article on its talk page, or delete the WPMED template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the WPMED template, because I am biased against coral. Antelan ^talk 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Medical education

Please see Talk:Medical education for a question on use of case study. The question arises from a convergence in Law and Medicine education 100 years ago, and involves training in diagnosis.Rgdboer (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing effects of Pink Disease in adults

– — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Can anyone identify research that shows ongoing effects of Pink Disease (Acrodynia) where origina; exposure was severe. I am aware of the research of Dr Linda Jones on the effect of mercury poisoning in dental workers after 30 (?) years time lapse but there seems to be nothing showing the same effects on children.Williamjireh (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking about late effects (in adulthood) of severe mercury poisoning in children? Have you searched PubMed? --Una Smith (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have a relative who had severe Pink Disease as a child. I believe, from research I have been able to do, that some of the emotional/mental things she experiences now are reflective of the impact of mercury poisoning, such as are described as neurotoxicity, but want to know if there has been any difinitive research which suggest this is possible. I have looked at PubMed but can't find anything.Williamjireh (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This topic belongs on Talk:Mercury poisoning. I will copy it there. --Una Smith (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it is more suitable for the WP:RD, as it does not relate directly to the article in question. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to Mercury poisoning, particularly since Pink disease redirects there. --Una Smith (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant that talkpages of medical topics are not for reference. They are in place to discuss the article. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Williamjireh has questions of an encyclopedic nature that apparently are not answered (yet) on Wikipedia. And maybe Williamjireh has found information that would be a good addition to Mercury poisoning. --Una Smith (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance Featured Article Nomination

The article Ambulance, in the scope of WikiProject Medicine has been nominated for Featured Article status. If you have interest in this topic, please comment at the featured article page here. Regards, Owain.davies (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Core Contest

Hi all,

User:Danny has launched another contest to improve core articles called Wikipedia:The Core Contest: the authors of the 5 most improved articles in two weeks (Nov 25 - Dec 9) will win $100 each. I'd love to collaborate with some of you die hards out there to get a medical article in the top 5. Some medical articles on the list which desperately need improving, and look to me as perfect candidates for us to jump on, are:

• Alcoholism
• Biopsy
• Birth control
• Blood
• Blood test
• Blood pressure
• Brain tumor
• Breast cancer
• Chemotherapy
• Chickenpox
• Colon (anatomy)
• Colorectal cancer
• Common cold
• Dementia
• Diabetes mellitus
• Diagnosis
• Diphtheria
• Dysentery
• Encephalitis
• Endoscopy
• Gonorrhea
• Hand, foot and mouth disease
• Heart
• Heart disease
• Herpes simplex
• Hypertension
• Hypoxia (medical)
• Infectious disease
• Inflammation
• Integumentary system

...

Well I only got to the letter I, but there are good candidates here. Anybody up for it? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Blood is on MCOTW at the moment. Looking good.

Anyone want to help with Stroke? JFW | T@lk 07:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

merging Blood sugar and Blood glucose monitoring

I found these two articles while trying to unravel a disambig on schizophrenia - surely this is a no-brainer for a merge but I thought listing it here was prudent.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree a risk of overlap, one is a physiological parameter and the other is specifically a disease monitoring proceedure (could be called "diabetes control by the close monitoring of blood sugar levels" except that is not what it is known by), similarly blood pressure discusses what that is and its normal physiological control, whilst hypertension discusses monitoring of abnormal blood pressure. David Ruben ^Talk 02:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose invoking 'WP ain't paper' applies here in this case. Anyway, I'll go with consensus.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge. One is a function of the other. Can't have monitoring without blood sugar. I think article length would be the only reason to maintain two articles. "Blood glucose monitoring" should be about the technical aspects (fingerprick, electronic device). All content related to the management of diabetes belongs in diabetes management, because it stems directly from the concept of glycaemic control. JFW | T@lk 06:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge. Blood glucose monitoring is fairly long, and noteworthy of itself. Axl (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge. The natural scope of Blood sugar goes beyond medicine to include aspects of biology and chemistry. Avoid overlap between blood sugar and blood glucose monitoring. --Una Smith (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• A more important overlap is between blood sugar and glycemia; I suggest merging them. --Una Smith (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Glycemia"? Is that even a real word? Axl (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...sort of - but only really in glycaemic index and hyper- and hypo-; agree with merging these two. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes merge these two. Glycaemia as would be spelt in BrE is real (hence hyperglycaemia, hypoglycaemia, glycaemic control)David Ruben ^Talk 10:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Glycemic" I accept; it's an adjective. However "glycemia" would appear to mean "the presence of glucose in the blood". This is a pointless term. Axl (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Glycemia seems to be medical shorthand for abnormal blood glucose, similar to the shorthand use of hydramnios for abnormal amniotic fluid which unfortunately leaves the reader guessing "does this refer to polyhydramnios or to oligohydramnios?!" Back to blood sugar and related pages. I suspect a general search may be needed to find additional pages that may need to be merged or edited to remove significant overlap. In my experience, when there is one bad pair like blood sugar and glycemia, there are other pages too.
--Una Smith (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Image labeling

Hello, I would like to request that someone please add a description to Image:Cn3nucleus.png, explaining what kind of section this is (coronal?), and roughly where in the head those structures are. The picture is used in several articles on brain anatomy. Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at mesencephalon, and imagine a section taken through the "7" in the second photograph. It's a near duplicate of Image:Midbrainsuperiorcolliculus.png. --Arcadian (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is transverse plane and oriented "facing down", but some captions on other illustrations of the same view are inconsistent re plane and none mention orientation. --Una Smith (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I added the "facing down" part to the image description. AxelBoldt (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I wrote I think; brain anatomy is not my thing, so to be sure of this I (or someone!) would have to look it up. Don't guess on an article page; if you guess wrong, that embarasses Wikipedia.
--Una Smith (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

External links query

Sanjpatel1 (talk · contribs) (who runs http://www.asktheneurologist.com) has offered a link for consideration on Talk:Frontal release sign. The page contains a video of the palmomental reflex, which he unfortunately cannot upload directly to Wikipedia. I was wondering what people's views were vis a vis WP:EL. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

MCOTW and open tasks

After rather intensive discussion on WT:CLINMED, I can only conclude that MCOTW in its present form needs an overhaul. Rather than having articles run for 1 or 2 weeks, there are calls for a more informal but equally collaborative process. Some feel that articles should be collaborated on for 4 weeks. Others feel that articles can be "worked on" simultaneously as long as one or two enthusiastic editors take the lead (as is commonly the case anyway). JFW | T@lk 23:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following:

• MCOTW becomes the "article collaboration" page.

  Yes.--Una Smith (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  Great! NCurse _work 12:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Any user can nominate an article, outline the problems, and propose changes.

  Change "user" to "editor" (clarify). --Una Smith (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "editor"? Someone who is already involved with the WikiProject, or with the article in question? JFW | T@lk 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  By "editor" I mean anyone who cares to edit Wikipedia. KISS --Una Smith (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  Fine; that was the arrangement on MCOTW as well. I thought "user" already implied that. JFW | T@lk 06:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  It becomes easier to track the changes like that. NCurse _work 12:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  Change "nominate" to "request". Just ask for help. KISS. --Una Smith (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  On MCOTW we worked with nominations. I see no reason to change this. In effect it means the same anyway. JFW | T@lk 06:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Either the nominating editor or any other editor can register as either "responsible editor" or "collaborating editor". This is an indication that this editor feels (s)he is able to either take charge of the improvements or offer help of some sort.

  No. This will derail energy into discussing/arguing about who is qualified. --Una Smith (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  This proposal merely follows from observations made on WT:CLINMED. Do you have an alternative? JFW | T@lk 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  Yes. In my experience, adding bureaucracy never increases participation. Let's have a place where editors can request help. Let's not designate "responsible" editors or anything of the kind. --Una Smith (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  Requesting help on simple matters can be done on this talkpage effectively. For collaboration some members of CLINMED have long felt that unless one editor takes the lead, collaborations do often not achieve the desired result. I wish you could address those views; I think the very slight increase in "bureaucracy" is easily matched by an increase in actual collaborative work. JFW | T@lk 06:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  No! We would need a "section chief editor" who would be responsible for the whole collaboration. NCurse _work 12:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  Isn't that the same thing? What I think we need is one or two editors per article who commit themselves to monitoring the progress on a collaboration. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  Why monitor anything? --Una Smith (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nominated articles are reviewed after 2 weeks by the nominating editor. If the needed changes have been made, the article can be removed. Alternatively, the objectives can be updated. If there is no action on an article at all, it will be removed after 3 weeks.

  Suggestion. Simply archive the older requests as the list gets long, without making any judgements. --Una Smith (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  Bad idea. We removed similar guidelines from the MCOTW to avoid these additional tasks. We won't have as many nominations as you think. It will work without these reviews. NCurse _work 12:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  Some collaborations need more time than others. What I suggest is that the "overseeing editors" review the need for intensive collaboration after a set period of time. If no such review takes place, we need to be able to mark a collaboration as inactive. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  People will collaborate or not, as they like. I see no need for "overseeing editors". --Una Smith (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Main aims of collaboration are: (1) Important topics possibly ready for GA or FA status, or (2) topics that are broken and need sourcing/NPOV.
• Myself and probably NCurse (talk · contribs) (or other volunteers...) will monitor the collaboration page, but apart from removal after inactivity our role is supervisory rather than executive.

  Suggestion. Rather than supervisory, consider your role to be clerical. --Una Smith (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  Removal of old collaborations is the main clerical task. I think the supervisory role is definitely needed, and may consist of asking editors to get involved in certain articles if needed. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  I've already been following the pages of collaboration and I'm the co-ordinator of the project. This role is not supervisory but has something to do with the mop and the bucket... NCurse _work 12:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  Exactly. --Una Smith (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Present nominations on WP:MCOTW will be grandfathered. The box on the project page, presently called "list of open tasks", is absorbed into the new system.

Comments

Please let me know your considerations here. After the somewhat disappointing experiences on meningitis and allergy I'm convinced that the system I've outlined above will make for better medicine articles. JFW | T@lk 23:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably better to have more than one article to focus on, as only a percentages of editors would be interested or specialised in any one given topic. Much of the above seems to replace or duplicate what normally is discussed on an articles talk page. I was just thinking how disappointing the MCOTW was too. Snowman (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Collaborations will definitely be simultaneous. The presence of an article on the "collaboration list" simply means that an article has been flagged for collaborative work. The sky is the limit, although in practice we should try to limit the number of active collaborations to 5-6, if at all possible. JFW | T@lk 01:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether it will help. It seems to me that working on multiple articles increases the odds that any given person will know something about one of them, but will probably decrease the attention that any given article will get. I'm certainly willing to go along with whatever you want to try, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a compromise we need to make. It is obvious that concentrated effort on one particular article is not presently working. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

One model to consider following is Wiktionary's requests for verification page. I really like the bottom-up, unsupervised, collective approach. In fact, we could use a similar approach here, to flag medical articles that, for example, need references to medical literature (as opposed to websites). --Una Smith (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You are completely right. What I am proposing is closer to a noticeboard of articles where input is needed. This might be FA/GA status, but could equally be NPOV, sourcing, cleanup, restructuring or removal of tedious jargon. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's make a list of the kinds of contributions (tasks) we might want to request:

• contribs) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

1. wikify: inline links in text, See also, External links, categories, templates, interwiki links
2. verify facts
3. find sources
4. find images
5. resolve disputes, address all issues on talk page
6. fix writing (hard): NPOV, tone, style; structure of sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles
7. fix writing (easy): spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting
8. revert vandalism

• (unsigned because this should be a collective list)

We might request a lot more. In the past, MCOTW produced featured articles. JFW | T@lk 06:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused. Are you suggesting that a cyclic (weekly/monthly) article improvement drive should be scrapped in favour of a noticeboard that is regularly updated, with "spent" collaborations removed by the nominator?
• The idea of someone "responsible" seems to be disliked by two people above. It is not meant to increase bureaucracy or cause disputes over who is in charge (could be two people). It comes from analysis of what actually happens when an article is collaboratively improved and who author's FA/GA articles. This person shouldn't be regarded as superior to any other editor. As the word "responsible" suggests, they should help identify what needs done and guide, if requested, volunteer editors towards areas they can help with. Also, and very importantly I think, they should individually thank the collaborators for their input. Colin°^Talk 10:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input, Colin. (See the problem?) --Una Smith (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was indeed suggesting that the cyclic improvement drive was not going to work, because topics are rather specialised. Rather, we will have a number of articles simultaneously marked for improvement. As Una Smith and myself have indicated, articles can be nominated for various reasons, from GA/FA status to sources/NPOV.

My original suggestion was that nominators should monitor progress on articles they have nominated, and Berci & myself would only remove articles if the nominator does not do that. The nominator is not necessarily the same person as the "responsible editor" I was thinking about.

EXAMPLE: I am not good at psychopharmacology, but I can tell a rubbish psychopharmacology from a good one. I would therefore be able to nominate the article for improvement. Suddenly and miraculously, professor Tricyclic from Brno University (with no drug company links) would agree to take charge of the improvement. Several other editors, e.g. someone with an interest in anticonvulsants and a paediatrician, also register their interest. Some good edits take place; after a while, I review the progress and agree with Prof Tricyclic that some more work is needed. One week later, the article has been improved, and a consensus decision is made between nominator and editor to remove the psychopharmacology article.

I know that in this model some things sound less ideal than others, but on the whole I think it is a format that is most likely to achieve results. Needless to say, it is down to the numbers in some aspects. JFW | T@lk 12:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In the past, MCOTW produced featured articles. Please recall goal, objective, strategy, tactic, task. GA or FA article quality is a goal, or perhaps an objective toward some other, larger goal. MCOTW (a tactic) was intended to recruit editors (a strategy) to do work (tasks), but we all agree the MCOTW tactic does not work well. (I tried it myself, I did not like the result, and I want nothing more to do with it.) There are many possible tactics. I suggest we adopt a new tactic that focuses attention on identifying what tasks are really needed at a given time. It is helpful to focus on tasks because some (many) editors specialize in certain tasks. Information about an article's importance and current quality would be useful statements to make when requesting help with specific tasks. --Una Smith (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with a "list of open tasks" is that it doesn't encourage anyone to actually take a lead. What I've been trying to put forward is a system where more complex tasks are coordinated by a named editor. I'm still not sure why you think this is bad (apart from instruction creep), but given the paucity of responses from other editors my proposal is likely to fail.

A simpler solution is to broaden the scope of MCOTW (more in line with your suggestions) as a noticeboard for pending tasks on medical articles. But we need a way to monitor progress on articles, otherwise the noticeboard is likely to get overloaded with requests that don't get handled by anyone. I'll wait (again) for other editors to offer their comments. JFW | T@lk 07:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, were you all aware that WPMED already has a List of open tasks? I'm willing to hear arguments about deleting MCOTW entirely and only using the list of open tasks, but I see absolutely no value in have two separate lists of open tasks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought List of open tasks was intended for editors (those named in the table) to claim certain articles, to discourage others from editing them. That's why the editor's name comes first. Know what I mean? If the intent of the page is to request help, then the page name should be "Requests for editorial help" or something like that. --Una Smith (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My final point above concerns the merge of MCOTW and open tasks, and the fact that present open tasks should be grandfathered into the new system. As I was trying to explain, lists of open tasks alone do not achieve enough because there is no guarantee that anyone will actually focus on that task. JFW | T@lk 23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WPMED tagging: categories?

I have been working my way through the several thousand WPMED-tagged articles that Countincr found a while ago. Today I noticed that User:Doczilla has recently tagged a bunch of categories as being part of the WPMED project. See this list for a handful of examples.

Do you all want categories to be tagged with the WPMED template? My current thought is that the WPMED template belongs only on articles, but I'm open to comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I too have been tagging template and category pages for WPMED. Those pages are part of our infrastructure. --Una Smith (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty common to have a cat or template class for a WikiProject, common enough that when I simply marked them as class= (which would have pointed each out as belonging to WikiProject Medicine's long list of unclassed articles, etc.), someone else chastised me for not calling each of them class=cat in the first place. Jeepers. Anyway, AutoWikiBrowser tells me that there are, as of this writing, 2,663 articles identified as Unassessed-Class medicine articles, and that's obviously not all of them. For one thing, you have a lot of unassessed categories that haven't even been identified as unassessed. Doczilla (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We can tag importance=NA; is NA defined also for class? --Una Smith (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We should decide now how to classify pages, and which need importances. For classifications, I think that we should use specifics ("list," "cat," "template," etc), rather than the generic "NA." For importances, categories and templates could automatically be classified as "NA," and ignore the importance parameter given. Lists probably should be given an importance. Also, NA importance could mean either "non-article" or "not-applicable." It does not mean no importance. There are a few articles that have an importance of NA, which is inappropriate. --Scott Alter 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting this template on categories looks a little weird to me because the template actually says, "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine."

On the broader question, what do you think the major point behind the tag is? Is it primarily a stamp of ownership (in which case, including categories may be sensible)? Is it a way of making all the medicine-related articles easy for a reader to find and browse? Is it a way to prioritize articles for improving (in which case, including categories may be irrelevant)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think tagging pages is done for all of the reasons you just stated. Tagging categories would let a potential editor know that WikiProject Medicine is involved in the maintenance of the category, and not to make big changes without consulting us here. Tagging articles lets us categorize them so we know what needs to be worked on. The wording on the template can be changed from "article" to "page" if you think it is appropriate, or it could conditionally display "page" if the page either has a non-article classification or is not in the main namespace. --Scott Alter 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Tagging categories would let a potential editor know that WikiProject Medicine is involved in the maintenance of the category, and not to make big changes without consulting us here." Please don't even think that thought! I tag pages to make it just a little easier for me and others to find them again. I certainly do not expect (nor want!) to be consulted before another editor does work. Please do nothing to discourage or inhibit editors who want to make big changes.
--Una Smith (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, NA is available for class.[21]:

• "NA (for pages, such as portals or project pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class medicine articles). This means "non-article", NOT non-applicable."

List, dab, and template are already activated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What about activating cat? Technically NA can apply, but cat is better for organizational purposes and consistent with many other WikiProjects. Doczilla (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add the cat class to {{WPMED}} and the assessment page. But first, do you think the importance of categories should be automatically set to NA by the template (and ignore any importance specified on the category talk pages)? This would be my suggestion. --Scott Alter 17:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Una Smith (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Category-Class has been added to {{WPMED}} and is now included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. I also went through Category:NA-Class medicine articles and sorted them appropriately. --Scott Alter 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done. Doczilla (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotavirus

Hello everybody. I've done a lot of work on this article and it has now been awarded GA. Does it have any FA potential? I would appreciate any feedback. Best wishes. GrahamColm^Talk 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Colin and I have helped out here, it's a beautiful article (from my layperson perspective), and Graham has come very far as a new editor; medical input would be greatly appreciated to bring this article over the FA hump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Most articles have FA potential, but this article is much closer than most to reaching FA. I will help get it there. --Una Smith 17:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We need a paediatrician to get a good opinion on this, although I will also have a look. Perhaps a quick email to Alteripse (talk · contribs) will help. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I have very little to improve on rotavirus. It is brilliant! JFW | T@lk 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal should contain clear links to specialities/ subspecialties

Stop me if this has bee discussed before, but I feel that there should be clear links on the portal to all the medical specialities, I think that would be a nice way to organize the information. So then after clicking on Urology for example, one may have several urology topics to choose from. I suppose eventually each specialty could have it's won portal/ front page. Is this a good way to think about it?

Expo512 (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My sense is that most encyclopedia readers don't access information by specialty. Also, access by specialty is provided via the category pages. Expo512, what do you have in mind to improve on this? --Una Smith 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Project page redesign

With the merge of the medicine, preclinical medicine and clinical medicine wikiprojects, this might be a good moment to redesign the project page to be more useful. I created a mockup based on the WP:MCB project page which can be found here. Tell me what you think about it. Also feel free to make any changes to it to improve it. --WS (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Drug abuse mess

There is a mess in articles concerning drug abuse. For instance, there is an article on Addiction, one on Drug addiction, one on Substance abuse and one on Drug abuse, all saying much the same thing. We need to integrate them in order not to confuse readers where they differ from each other.

First, we need to define from what definitions of drug abuse to make the layout of the articles. For instance, some definitions include Physical dependence in Drug addiction and some do not, and it's important to define what standpoint Wikipedia has in order to organize the articles. The other standpoints can still be presented within the articles.

The following definitions of drug abuse are given:

• Drug addiction#Medical definitions
• Substance abuse#Definitions
• Addiction#Terminology and usage
• Drug_abuse#Medical_definitions

There might be more of them, so please fill them in if you find any.

An outline

Personally, I prefer the layout presented e.g. in Drug addiction (the 2001 definitions), differing the following terms (and articles):

• addiction
• physical dependence
• tolerance
• pseudoaddiction

The article Addiction presents some other aspects than Drug addiction, and should just contain a large summary of Drug addiction and a link to Drug addiction. On the other hand, Substance abuse and Drug abuse really don't contribute with anything more than terminology, and should also be merged. All these terminology and definitions can then be merged into one section in Drug addiction (probably needing a separate article forked from it). Pseudoaddiction, although by definition distinct, might also be a section in Drug addiction, since there isn't much about that subject yet.

Thus, the layout is following:

• Addiction
  • drug addiction/Drug abuse/Substance abuse
    • alcoholism etc.
• physical dependence/Drug dependence
• drug tolerance
• pseudoaddiction

I further suggest a Template is created with the definitions and differences, and then placed in each article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Support reclassification of articles according to a widely agreed standard.

The drug abuse articles also do a good job of whitewashing abuse as "recreational use". Obviously, if something is banned by law it becomes abuse. If something legal has possible health risks, it may be recreational use, but if something has definite health risks I think the term "abuse" should be used just the same. JFW | T@lk 10:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The original outline that I proposed was based on the Handbook of the Medical Consequences of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (new 2008 edition is on its way.) You can view it here. Drug abuse was not supposed to focus on addiction or substance abuse in particular, but rather pharmacology, toxicology, and neuropsychological effects. Substance abuse was supposed to discuss management and treatment. Unfortunately, a persistent troll (and a few new ones on substance abuse) caused quite a fuss, and I left the article(s) with little accomplished. Both the articles on drug abuse and substance abuse focus on issues other than addiction and should not be merged. —Viriditas | Talk 12:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

These pages do need some reorganization to reduce duplicated content and ensure full coverage of the topics(s). However, Wikipedia is not the place in which to take a stand; that would be POV. A navigation template is a good idea. I see illegal use and abusive use as two different topics, and IMO the fact that they can co-occur is not a valid reason to conflate the two topics. —Una Smith (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested that illegal and "abusive use" were identical. But both are best described as "abuse" rather than the nonsensical term "recreational use". If you have a better word for either of them, please advise. JFW | T@lk 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The layout of that handbook is a good one, but the articles might not contain what the corresponding chapters described. Yet, it's a guide. With that Substance abuse article, it might just need to be renamed "Management of drug abuse", if that's what it's supposed to contain. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Handbook of Psychotrophic Drugs (13th Revised Edition) had some reallly good information, but I don't have the book on hand. I'm going to try and take another look when I have a chance. Also, I recommend taking a look at how the print edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica treats the subject. I'm not understanding why there is a problem with the terms "drug abuse" and "substance abuse", which continue to appear in current use on PubMed. The problem as I see it, is that "drug abuse" and "substance abuse" continue to be used interchangeably, with politically correct authors trying to use "substance misuse", etc. Frankly, the entire literature on the subject is one big laughing joke and I'm pretty close to giving up on this and letting people do what they like. —Viriditas | Talk 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Outline, version 2

All in all Drug abuse seems to be the highest article, not in importance in any way, but as the article to fork other articles from. Then future contributors know where to attach further information regarding drug abuse, not really fitting into more specialized subjects.

Regarding Recreational drug use vs. Drug abuse, all standpoints are probably sufficiently explained in all those definitions. Yet, it's a good idea to have a separate section e.g. "Recreational use vs abuse" in the article, with link to Recreational drug use.

It's much the same thing with illegal drug use vs. drug abuse. I think the article politics of drug abuse serves that purpose. To make the distinction even more clear, a section e.g. consitent with the recreational one, e.g. " Illegal use vs. drug abuse " may be created.

So, with this in mind, a proper outline would be:

• Addiction
  • Drug addiction
  • (problem gamling etc.)

• Drug abuse
  • Drug abuse-related definitions (facilitating linking from the other articles as well)
    • Recreational use vs. drug abuse
    • Illegal use vs. drug abuse
  • Drug addiction
    • pseudoaddiction
  • physical dependence
  • drug tolerance
  • Substance abuse renamed to Management and treatment of Drug abuse
  • alcoholism etc.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a need to rename "substance abuse" as that is the name the DSM IV uses. See similar articles like alcohol dependence. —Viriditas | Talk 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is a term often used, and well worth describing in Definitions. Yet, I think it is too similar to Drug abuse to be an own artice. The only reasonable alternative I see is thus to have Drug abuse renamed and filled with Management and treatment of Drug abuse, and Substance abuse taking its place. Mikael Häggström 05:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The substance abuse definition is the one used by the American Psychiatric Association in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition [22] as the article makes clear. The individual substance abuse definitions (Alcohol abuse, etc.) are a subset. The drug abuse definitions are altogether different, as are the effects of drug abuse on the body, which do not concern the psychological topic. The section on "Approaches to managing drug abuse" is supposed to be a summary of substance abuse and related articles. —Viriditas | Talk 07:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My dream of haveing the drug abuse-related articles organized well enough to avail readers an overview of them fades away with every definition I hear. Nevertheless, I made a navigation template to Drug abuse, Substance abuse and Drug addiction, which might suffice for now. The section on "Approaches to managing drug abuse" might well be, if supplied with corresponding info from the other articles, big enough to in addition be forked of as an own article, leaving a summary. Then, all other articles may also contain a link and a summary to that article, just as I think would be best with all those definitions-sections as well. I think it would be the best, because even if drug addiction specifically is treated differently as drug abuse in general, an approach including them all is the best management. Mikael Häggström 16:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Another solution is to turn drug abuse into a dab page. —Viriditas | Talk 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Aase-Smith

To anyone who knows anything about Aase-Smith: Would you please look at this stub? It's the bit about "red blood cells (anemia), which help fight infection" that has me doubting the accuracy of the text. WhatamIdoing 03:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing, but I can look things up. Aase-Smith is a redirect to Aase-Smith syndrome, which needs to be merged with (or disentangled from) Aase syndrome and perhaps also Diamond Blackfan anemia. On PubMed, searching for "Aase syndrome" gets several hundred hits to Diamond Blackfan anemia, while searching for "Aase-Smith syndrome" gets several hundred other hits, many with "Aase-Smith syndrome" in the title. --Una Smith 05:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

attnetion, article mutilated after removal of copyvio

Dysentery

Adding a sig here so the bot can date and remove this section. --Una Smith 14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Heart disease on AID

The current Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive article is Yash Raj Shrestha (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 30 Nov 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF).
Last week's collaboration was: World War I.
CAST YOUR VOTE for next week's article

Adding sig date stamp so bot can remove. --Una Smith 15:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion via WP:PROD

• Brain dish 11 August

Adding a sig here so the bot can date and remove this section. --Una Smith 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Asperger syndrome has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

For the record, Asperger syndrome passed its third FA review in September 2007. --Una Smith 15:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Frontal Bone

Why does the Borders section of the article on the Frontal Bone talk about the squama temporalis? It just doesn't seem right.

I have copied this query to Talk:Frontal bone. --Una Smith 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and Wiki sister projects

I hope everyone will please read through this entire discussion as it relates to the use of Wiki sister projects to further a conflict of interest. I suggest we need to be much more vigilant about links to Wiki sister projects; perhaps it was only me, but it has never occurred to me before that they needed to be checked according to the same criterion we'd use for any other external link. It's also worth noting that Slp1 was all alone on this issue until I happened to bring this article to FAR, at which point the issues came to the light of day before a broader audience. (And will someone please review Ambulance at FAC?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Medical speciality, Medical specialist, Physician specialty codes and Surgical specialties

The following discussion is from Template talk:Medicine:

Why not merge the Physician specialties and Medical specialties? They include the same list - just that Physician specialties links to their codes. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to be merging these articles, I recommend merging all of the articles listed on the left side of the template. There is a lot of duplicated content between Physician specialties, Medical specialty, Surgical specialties, and Medical specialist. I recommend creating one big table of the specialties, with each row containing the specialty, surgical or medical, specialty code, annual salary, parent specialty (if sub-specialty), and a brief description of the field. You might want to place {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} tags on the pages and move this discussion to one of these 4 articles' talk pages. --Scott Alter 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thus, Medical speciality, Medical specialist, Physician specialty codes and Surgical specialties probably need to be merged. However, I think Surgical specialties may remain as a subarticle to that entity. Physician specialty codes may also be, because it has it in alphabetical order - something which probably will be lost, because I think several tables are needed, to avail headers to distinguish major groups, as in Table of muscles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple tables can be avoided by using sortable tables (see List of medical schools in the United States for an example). The default sorting would be on the specialty name, and the specialty codes could be alphabetized by clicking in the column heading. The reason I would want a column solely for "medical" or "surgical" would be so that the specialties could be displayed in order, first sorted by medical or surgical, and secondarily by specialty name (similar to the degree column in List of medical schools in the United States). If your only reason to separate medical and surgical is for ease of browsing, a sortable table should take care of your concern. --Scott Alter 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the content of Physician specialty codes even encyclopedic? I have my doubts... JFW | T@lk 22:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a sortable table would do it well. Then we don't need that Physician specialty codes as a separate article, but just use the codes in this new table. I'll try this method. Anybody may fine-tune it later. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Again, feel free to fine-tune it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Health effects of tobacco smoking article

This article is an absolute disgrace. It includes as "health effects" really only "health benefits" of tobacco smoking. As a doctor I am particularly apalled that this is the case. This article either needs urgent review or to be merged into another article which is less biased. I've started adding in some brief information about health RISKS, though I'm having problems with working out how to cite articles to put citations in there at the moment. I think I do need some help fixing that article up... help! Snipergirl (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Use this link [23] for PubMed numbers. --GrahamColm^Talk 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done Snipergirl. Don't hesitate to tag the page {{POV}} if you can't fix it on your own. I have renamed the page tobacco and health, which is a more inclusive title that would allow the page to cover more controversial issues such as the health risks of Snus. Be aware that passive smoking contains much relevant material, and that you may want to summarise its conclusions in a separate paragraph with the {{main}} at the top to avoid duplication.

We will obviously help out as much as possible, but I believe MastCell (talk · contribs) has recently spent a lot of time trying to knock passive smoking into shape. JFW | T@lk 15:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dudes! Will start doing too :) Snipergirl (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Ischaemic Heart Disease Article

It looks like the original writers of this article did quite a valiant effort while they could. I have completely rewritten the article with some structural changes with some help from the coronary heart disease article. It does also need some more padding out but it's a start. Snipergirl (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the articles should be merged. The vast majority of IHD is due to CHD/CAD, and we already have a great duplicity of articles on the subject. Acute coronary syndrome and myocardial infarction stand on their own (but the former needs more sources). JFW | T@lk 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Drug article debate

It seems there is a current debate (in the archived version of this talk page) about which articles should be joined. Some of the articles in question are not solely related to drug abuse and many of them do not fall within the topic of drug abuse at all.

In particular, drug dependence, drug tolerance etc are biological processes that have litle to do with drug abuse. Patients routinely become physiologically dependent on and tolerant to drug effects without abusing them. This is especially relevant in cases where the drug in question has no psychological addiction potential whatsoever, and there are many cases where this is true. One would never refer to a patient who has become tolerant to antibiotics as a drug abuser, or an addict, nor is that patient dependent on the drug, IE if one discontinues the antibiotic course there is not likely to be a set of withdrawal symptoms. One would also not refer to a patient who is dependent on anti-depressants as an addict even if discontinuation of the drug would cause withdrawal symptoms.

In addition, one can become tolerant to drugs like morphine or valium without abusing them, cancer patients routinely become tolerant and physiologically dependent on opiates despite the fact that they are using them for legitimate purposes, but one would never refer to a cancer patient as a drug addict simply because of tolerance or physical dependence on the medication. These specific conditions are entirely separate and lumping them together is incorrect.

To clarify my position, it would be highly improper to pull all these topics under the drug abuse subject simply because they are related in some way, and they have more to differentiate them than they have in common. Mrsteveman1 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about a category or a template or something else? Sorry, not quite following. I wasn't around for the beginning of the convo, so please fill me in if it's not too much hassle. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 22:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Mrsteveman1. The concepts of tolerance, dependence, withdrawal and abuse are distinct (though related)and IMHO wikipedia should reflect this. Sanjpatel1 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My thinking is (i hoped the examples would clarify this), that all these things, dependence, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, may be related to drug abuse in that abusing drugs can lead to those problems, but they are and always will be medical problems completely distinct from the intent of the user. People abuse drugs all the time without ever seeing any of these problems, and people see these problems without having ever abused drugs. Therefor they are for the most part, separate issues with much greater relevance to other situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsteveman1 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Phillip

Hi,my name is Shirley Free,and my son Phillip Thompson has cystinosis.He was diagnosed with Fanconi Syndrome a littel over a year old.This may he turned 6 years old,and in june an eye Dr. found out it was cystinosis.I was terrified.He is currently on the Cystagon (for 4 months now)and goes to Arkansas Children'Hospital tomorrow to see if the treatment is working.I also have an 18 month old daughter,Tori, who will be tested tomorrow to see if she has cystinosis.I guess I just wanted to tell someone so they know they are not alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.123.144 (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shirley, I'm sorry to hear about Phillip and hope everything will be well. Please note that you've left the above message on a Wikipedia page where contributors work together on medical articles. It is unlikely to directly reach anyone who is going through the same situation as you. Have you been in touch with the Cystinosis Foundation? JFW | T@lk 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Shingles

Herpes zoster is on WP:FAC. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herpes zoster and help Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) in getting this featured. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

• General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
• Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Scabies treatment

The treatment section of the Scabies pages has been flagged for its potential bias and 'how-to,' but I'm not entirely clear why (I have a guess, 'tho, and have been working to improve it.) Any suggestions?Rick lightburn (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Henoch-Schönlein purpura

There have been to changes to the symptoms list for this condition by anonymous users recently. Are these changes correct? (change upper/lower GI and 73% blistering) Rmhermen (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has a lot of contributors; probably some are watching it. So, why not read Wikipedia:Verifiability, then tag the article as needed to call attention to the changes you are concerned about? --Una Smith (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added some refs, but it could still use further verification. --Arcadian (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

When an anonymous user adds hard numerical data ("a recent study shows that 29% are associated with vitamin B2 (riboflavin) deficiency") that cannot easily be traced I usually remove it with an edit summary explaining that WP:V applies.

I have started expanding the HSP article. Any help is appreciated. JFW | T@lk 13:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Eponymous diseases

Category:Eponymous diseases was deleted based on this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11#Eponymous_medical_terms, anyone else thinks that's not consensus? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Four editors expressed keep opinions and four expressed delete opinions (five if you include Radiant). It appears Radiant was unimpressed with the keep arguments (which have to be based on policy, not just opinion). He also took into account the three completely unanimous deletion discussions below that one (which also involved multiple categories each). There appears to be consensus that Wikipedia should not have eponym categories, and the medical contributors failed to convince that their categories are a special case. BTW: there remain List of eponymous diseases and List of eponymous medical signs. Personally, I don't have strong opinions either way. Colin°^Talk 20:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Colin, could you direct us to the consensus on the deletion of all eponym categories? I think that having categories for this would have been mighty useful - all the sciences are replete with eponyms (Coriolis effect, Planck constant, Hayflick limit, Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test) and a category would have been rather suitable to link these together sensibly. In medicine, eponyms are of such significance that they may indicate a death sentence (Lou Gehrig's disease, Klatskin tumor) or lifelong disability (Parkinson's disease) or unpredictable tummy trouble (Crohn's disease). JFW | T@lk 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much consensus there, but I admit I didn't weigh in on the discussion because I'm ambivalent about how the category is named. I have a problem with Tourette syndrome being categorized as an eponymous disease, rather than an eponymous condition, so I wasn't sure what to do when that XfD came up. If we reinstate it with a broader or more precise name, I'm on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer JFW, the other categories for deletion were Eponymous buildings (Buildings and structures named after people; Airports named after people; Skyscrapers named after people; Trump buildings), Eponymous cities (Eponymous cities; Cities named for Lenin; Cities named for Stalin) and Eponyms (Eponymous foods; Eponymous minerals; Eponymous theories). Many of the comments made in those discussions could apply equally well for medical eponyms (and indeed, many of the medical eponym comments said nothing medical). The overriding impression was that being an eponym wasn't a distinguishing characteristic worth of a category.

I'm trying to remain neutral as to whether it was the correct decision; I'm just describing my interpretation of the events. Colin°^Talk 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Colin. I note that only the medical eponyms attracted "keep" votes, as opposed to the other eponyms. I'm with Steven that there may be grounds for stating that there was not the degree of consensus there that one would have expected. I'm of the opinion that medical eponyms do not constitute "overcategorisation", and I would support overturn in a deletion review. JFW | T@lk 08:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitochondrion

Mitochondrion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is on WP:FAC - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mitochondrion. While this is technically an MCB article, it contains a section on mitochondrial disease that could - as well as the relevant subarticle - benefit from some medical help. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Loin pain hematuria syndrome

I created a little article about loin pain hematuria syndrome. Check it out if you have a few moments. Nephron  T|C 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stealth-adapted virus

Needs attention: intro and much of article presumes accepted existence, adn cites only partisan unreliable sources. 86.145.94.23 (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Neoplasia and Tumor

User:Emmanuelm shortened Neoplasia and Tumor on the grounds that the Cancer article is much more exciting, so people should really just go to that article instead. I've reverted the edits to Neoplasia, primarily because I was (and am) irritated by the consensus-free style on display, but also because it seems really undesirable to "soft-redirect" a woman with benign uterine fibroids (to name one common non-cancerous neoplasm) to the cancer article. I don't normally keep track of Tumor and don't want to intrude if its usual shepherds agree with the changes. Would someone else (or several someone elses) please take a look at both of these articles and make rational decisions about them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Tumor is a mess and User:Emmanuelm did clean up some problems, but also created some new problems. Rather than just fix the new problems, a patch, I suppose the page may as well get worked over. But first, this may be a good time to discuss the accumulating content overlaps between Cancer and many related pages, not just Neoplasia and Tumor. --Una Smith (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing & Una Smith, I understand your concern. In fact, in Dec 2005, I was the one arguing your point in the talk page of Cancer. Jellytussle and others convinced me that Cancer is the place to be. Remember that Wikipedia is written for patients, not doctors. I find that WP tends to grow in a completely disorganized fashion and, therefore, tends to become a maze where non-experts get lost.

Please reconsider or, at the very least, move this discussion in the Cancer talk page. You'll be surprised to see how active it is. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted in the Neoplasia and Tumor talk pages)

Andropause

Can we get an MD or two to look at the Andropause article? It is a complete mess and needs to be totally re-written. As one unsigned visitor noted, the article looks as if it was written by a barely literate self-help guru. It may also need to be tagged as controversial. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We'll need to start with the question whether the concept exists or not. I suspect the majority of endocrinologists will give you a bored shrug if you bother them with that question. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup; it could use more. --Arcadian (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD needs some knowledgeable help

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint fasciitis needs some help from someone who knows something about the subject. The question at hand is whether this is a synonym for Necrotizing fasciitis or not. Thanks for any enlightenment! --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The author was probably referring to septic arthritis. There is no fascia in joints. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Squamous cell carcinoma

Resolved

Please see my comment at Talk:Squamous cell carcinoma. Could someone have a look at the point I'm making regarding the number of cases. Thanks. 81.109.216.245 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User JFW has dealt with it. Thanks. 81.109.216.245 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Late effect equals sequela equals complication?

Some medical billing manuals define "late effect" as a residual effect or sequela of an acute condition. But in the medical research literature "late effect" refers to a condition that occurs (or presents) after (sometimes long after) the causative condition has resolved. In clinical medicine, is "late effect" just a synonym for sequela? And how do these terms relate to complication (medicine)? All these pages need improvement. (Also, improvement now would be helpful in resolving some difficulties with Herpes zoster.) Please take a look at them. --Una Smith (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "sequelae" is a container term for every medical problem that arises as a result of another problem. The difference between "late effect" and "complication" is the timeframe. I'm not at all sure where the cutoff lies between the one and the other. Intuitively, I would say that a "complication" arises during the illness or its treatment, while a "late effect" by its very wording is after the illness or its treatment. But I have heard "complication" used in this context just the same. JFW | T@lk 14:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. JFW, thanks for your edits to late effect; I changed lactate from a redirect to a disambiguation page. Re your comment here, are you are thinking a complication occurs during a condition, a sequela begins during a condition and continues afterward, and a late effect begins afterward (perhaps long afterward)? Do you know any sources (textbooks, etc) that address this? --Una Smith (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a good definition of these terms, and I suspect there is no formal definition. My above reaction was purely an intuitive one. Complications may develop after a condition has resolved. JFW | T@lk 00:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lens (anatomy)

The section on Ciliary muscle movements in the Lens article seems to contain information that conflicts with other (more referenced) articles. Specifically, the Lens article says that ciliary muscles contract to make lens flat, whereas ciliary muscle and Accommodation both say that the ciliary muscle contraction results in lens becoming more spherical due to the relaxation of zonular fibers.

Can someone verify one or the other, or provide an explanation? Quartertone (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Periosteal reaction needs attention

Periosteal reaction is currently listed as an article which needs to be Wikified. [24] Could you folks from WikiProject Medicine please take a look at it? Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does, it looks like it was written for a textbook. I had a quick look at it, but I'm inadequate to the task I think. Help! WLU (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I did some wikification. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave up in despair :) WLU (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Da Costa's syndrome

Is anyone watching Da Costa's syndrome these days? I did some formatting and sourcing work when I ran across it today, and I'd like to have someone else look at the 'History' section, and then at the personal webpage listed at the very end (particularly the bit that starts "Why I wrote this theory"). I'm highly suspicious of a WP:OR violation, but parts of the history are probably accurate -- although I'm not sure that they're worth saving. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The condition is largely historical (see PMID 3314950 which is an excellent review) and could be described as "irritable heart syndrome" or somesuch. Unfortunately Posturewriter (talk · contribs) has a history of publishing original research (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The posture theory) and has a habit of citing his own work (see Banfield MA) and his website. The new additions need to be examined in the light of this. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just ran into this via changing the synonymous Soldier's heart stub to a disambiguation page. At a glance, it does seem the section on results from the South Australian Institute For Fitness Research and Training study seems disproportionately long. I also notice some fairly inaccurate edit summaries from Posturewriter (talk · contribs) - for instance adding 738 words is not "m (minor edits and layout)". Could this be a situation to invoke WP:COI?

And whatever the source, I don't think detailed case study data - the three stages of NCD were 1161, 940 & 591 respectively, and for healthy women was 834, and the stages of NCD were 854, 621 & 420 kgm/min etc etc - is encyclopedic. It's meant to be an article for general readership, not an academic literature survey.

I've posted a note to User talk:Posturewriter about the COI issuse of expounding his own theory within the Da Costa's syndrome article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong medication

What a title! And typically for us, we don't have Wrong operation. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have boldly redirected this impossibly named page to adverse drug reaction, where this content belongs. JFW | T@lk 16:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

X-ray request

Given that we have no Wikipedia radiologist, I was rather impressed with the hard work that Glitzy_queen00 (talk · contribs) has been putting into the radiology content on Wikipedia, including copious image uploads and useful content. Sadly, this user has now departed, has not registered an email address, and has not responded to a message I left on their talkpage on 8 December.

Does anyone know contributors who could help out with our radiology pages? Today I found myself improving CT pulmonary angiogram, and would love some peer review. JFW | T@lk 16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10