Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:32, 19 March 2016

• WT:MED

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

Request review of HIV posters in Commons

Currently there is a deletion review in Wikimedia Commons of 2600 educational posters from the 1980s-90s giving HIV/AIDS information. I am posting to request that anyone please go into Commons, browse through the posters, and if you see one that does not contain copyrighted art, then please make a post that it should not be deleted. The issue is lack of copyright. However, if a poster contains only text and geometric shapes, then it is considered to be in the public domain.

• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AIDS Poster from Wellcome Images (check needed)

Also, the organization which provided these images would recognize feedback and I would appreciate any positive comments about their attempt at

• Commons:Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AIDS Poster from Wellcome Images (check needed)

Previously I had shared this poster project as follows -

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_54#Amazing_multilingual_AIDS_advertisements
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Wellcome Library Editathon 2014

Here is a recap - Wellcome Trust is one of the largest medical nonprofit foundations in the world. They have a large archive including public health materials, and they have shared more than a million health media files in Wikimedia Commons at Commons:Category:Wellcome Collection. Among the files they have provided, they shared these 2600 historical HIV/AIDS educational posters. This was an unprecedented donation because the art came from 2000+ organizations and artists, and I think Wikimedia projects have never before had an organization claim to have managed so many relationships including copyright claims. In the end, Wellcome presumed too much. On reflection they have announced that in fact, they did not control the copyright to these HIV posters, and that they spoke incorrectly when they said that they did. Right now they are saying that their copyright agreement with the organizations is that the original copyright holders are demanding CC-By-NC-ND. At this point, my perspective is that everyone involved is confused about copyright. The big lesson that I take away from this is that the most respected librarians and archivists at the best funded archives in the world have a different understanding of copyright than an average Misplaced Pages contributor. It surprises me a little that many organizations are not conscious of the copyright of the content they hold. I encourage Wikipedians who try to negotiate with institutions to have clear discussions with staff about the meaning of copyright and what it means to share content on Misplaced Pages. I really appreciate the Wellcome Trust taking initiative to try to share good content with Wikimedia projects. They were the first to attempt an innovative sharing model. In the end, they realized that they tried to donate something that was not theirs to share. Because the HIV posters were never theirs, all of the posters that are not in the public domain will need to be deleted from Commons in the next week or so. The posters will remain on the Wellcome Trust website as CC-By-NC-ND.

The Wellcome Library participants in this are the best. I appreciate their enthusiasm, support, and willingness to try new things.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the claim that a work that contains "only text and geometric shapes" is not eligible for copyright. If that were true, then a great deal of modern art, including Piet Mondrian's most famous works, would not be copyrightable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

For reference, this is a logo which is not copyrightable due to lack of originality. According to the US Copyright Office anyway; it's not the equivalent to a court ruling but one can generally trust their decisions to stand.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office interprets that logo (which was submitted sans company name) as merely an irregular blue pentagon and the letter "W". The artist who drew a "W" to look like a crown (from the old logo) probably disagrees with their decision, and I would not be surprised if the W/crown had been submitted by itself, and labeled as artwork, that it would have been accepted.

What we don't see in that ruling is any assertion that all works containing only text and geometric shapes, regardless of arrangement, color, amount of text, originality, etc., are ineligible for copyright – and we never will, because such a rule would make it impossible to hold a copyright on a poem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• still taking opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Impact factor

Journal with an impact factor publishing content I wrote under someone elses names.

Impact factor of the journal is 1.7. More emphasis that we need to stick with reputable, pubmed indexed journals with a high impact factor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

unethical bastards. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Depending upon the field, 1.7 actually would be a high impact factor. Instead of setting out such a variable and imperfect standard, maybe we should stick with journals that have enough sense to use plagiarism detection software. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

How do we determined if they are using plagiarism detection software though? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Various people here have connections in that world; maybe we should try to encourage journals to publicly state that. After all, it's embarrassing to them to have to retract a paper over something that even a brand-new school teacher is likely to catch. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems a fake impact factor. fgnievinski (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right. I just searched Thomson Reuters citation reports, and there is no journal listed with the words "pharmaceutical" and "invention" in its title. — soupvector (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Bot now deploying "research" template in reference section

If you are not aware, Special:Contributions/Hazard-Bot. There does not seem to be consensus for this. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The bot is putting this on what articles all together? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be going project-by-project, and going though articles alphabetically - you can see this in its contribs here (i hope that is stable). it ran through a bunch of WP:MED articles starting with "a" - those are what what i saw. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This is, I believe, third time this pilot study has been discussed just on this page since the time the editors of WikiProject Medicine approved it (see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 74#Piloting TWL WP:Research help in Reference Sections) and since it was additionally approved at BOTREQ (see Misplaced Pages:Bot requests/Archive 68#Adding Template:Research help to batches of WP:WPMED and WP:MILHIST articles). I believe that you weren't editing that week, but there is evidence of an actual consensus to run this test. Have you read Misplaced Pages:Research help/Proposal yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. - good to know this just expands the pilot to 10,000 articles - 5K in WP:MED. I noted this because they did indeed escalate the rollout, now with the bot. I do know that this was discussed once before - I wasn't aware of the November posting - thanks for linking to that! Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Now the bot has been blocked, and the template has been nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 8#Template:Research help. Could we actually be more hostile to research and efforts to get readers to understand Misplaced Pages's limitations if we tried? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

closed no consensus--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Post for Wikimania

Hey All Opportunity is open to make a poster for Wikimania. User:BlueRasberry I think you did this last year yes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if we had these last year, but I made at least 3 in 2014. CFCF 💌 📧 18:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

So far as I know, posters were last updated in 2014. It seems like all of them are at wm2014:Project Leaflets, and only a few were copied to Wikimedia Commons at Commons:Category:Wikimania 2014 leaflets. That page on the 2014 Wikimania wiki seems like the best documentation for how these were designed. Here are some issues with the 2014 poster design -

• It uses the meta:Wiki Project Med logo to advertise this page, the English Misplaced Pages WikiProject Medicine page. The two are not the same.
• It invites people to sign up for the Wikimedia Medicine mailing list maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation for the Wikimedia community. Actually, this mailing list is not so active, and most discussion happens either here in English Misplaced Pages or on meta at Wiki Project Med's page.
• It gives a mission statement. That may or may not be useful. It looks nice but the card could be designed with practical information.

I am not sure what is best. Reprinting the card as-is is a default option that works. I cannot commit to develop it further. Anyone else may. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

All good points. I do not have a problem with the WPMEDF logo being used. We want to make this as global as possible and all the language based wikiproject medicines are linked from the meta page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Have put together a draft here Please feel free to edit further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

BPA

• Bisphenol A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

So a friend phones up full of concern about BPA; I look on Misplaced Pages for The Facts but find our article is quite full of non-WP:MEDRS (where sourced at all) and has something of a slant, for example in using a letter to "however" secondary sources (however is a popular word in this piece), or asserting that "Exposure during pregnancy has effects on both mother and offspring later in life" (without source). I'll have a go at the worst of this but this article could use eyes. It gets ~1,750 daily views on average so it's an important one to get right. Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

the Obesity sub-section needs particular help w/ referencing ( good general reference)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

yes that article is a nightmare of primary sources driven by advocacy editing. i tried to fix it and gave up. its badness was noted here last spring and elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on it (slowly). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Writing Articles Like How-to Guides

That might be a misleading title. I don't want to do that, but I was reading the article on "abdominal examination" as I was adding a source, and it reads almost like a how-to on performing an abdominal exam.

Is that encyclopedic, does that have value, is that the goal of this project?

I'm just curious, because before I go in and try to change too many things, I'd like to have a better idea of the approach that's taken toward this sort of article.

Thanks, PiousCorn (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Go right in and try to improve it.

That kind of article can be pretty hard to write well, so a lot of people end up straying into "how to" territory. For example, they'll write "First, press here" instead of "A typical exam starts by pressing here". And most people don't actually know enough to write interesting encyclopedic things, such as "In Europe and the Americas, they usually start by pressing here, but in Asia, they usually start in this other spot".

If you can clean it up (even a little bit), that would be very helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that was kind of what I thought, I'll go and try and touch it up, I'll appreciate any follow-up that people can do to check on it. PiousCorn (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, one of the things Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT is a how-to guide (WP:NOTHOWTO), so improvements as suggested are needed. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Students...

So there is a class getting to work on neuro stuff. here is their activity feed. would be great to have eyes on these for a bit. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

will keep eye on(as many as possible)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Dotage

Dotage is currently a soft redirect to Wiktionary, which seems odd for a normal term describing a medical condition. Would it be better as a redirect to Dementia perhaps (I thought to redirect it to Senility, but that's a redirect to Dementia), or is there a better target, or is the current setup the best of all worlds (to make a Voltaire allusion) at the moment? Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The second definition at Wiktionary would give me pause: "Fondness or attentiveness, especially to an excessive degree", since this is at least as common as the senility usage in common day use. --Izno (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment requested

Your thoughts are requested at WP:Village pump (idea lab)#BLPCAT, mental illnesses, and learning disabilities. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Responded at the appropriate venue. See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and please consider commenting there as well. Not trying to hijack this thread, but they’re closely related and a few months ago Kudpung started a similar AFD for a list with a slightly different spelling of ADHD (note the hyphen-- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) that Doc James and others from this project participated in where the decision was to delete with “overwhelming consensus,” but the consensus building is not going as smoothly this time. Permstrump (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS required to support claim that something is placebo?

I thought this has might have been discussed by this project before and maybe there's a precedent someone could point me to... Does repeating a claim that something, like CAM, is a placebo require MEDRS? I know that in general FRINGE does not, but there's a debate about using the word placebo without MEDRS at Talk:Deepak Chopra#Treatment of controversy in lead. Permstrump (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

yes. any specific statement about health very much should be supported by an ideal source per MEDRS. we want high quality content, and that means well-supported. Following this consistently allows us to keep all kinds of low-quality content out - whether it is added by a shill for X or a "believer" in Y. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Something to consider: if you 'gold-plated MEDRS' sources don't address a point, then trying using the best you can realistically get. If "the best" is not a very good source, then the it's possible that a statement is WP:UNDUE or that a different description would better comply with NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If "the best" is not a very good source, then the it's possible that a statement is WP:UNDUE or that a different description would better comply with NPOV-- Good point, WhatamIdoing. I don't know when or who added it, but the source was definitely an odd choice. It's a literary magazine called The Antioch Review published by Antioch College, neither of which mean anything to me. The author is a medical doctor and professor at University of Louisville Medical School though, FWIW. I haven't looked for an alternate, so I honestly have no idea if that's the only or best source. A few editors thought there was basically a blanket rule that FRINGE never requires MEDRS and others thought the reference to placebo made it a different story. But I think the bottom line is, like you said, if it's DUE there should be a couple of options for sources to choose from, which would apply regardless of MEDRS. Permstrump (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition of CAM

The question misrepresents the situation. We're dealing with CAM, which by it's very nature is nothing better than placebo. A claim that CAM has effects other than placebo requires exceptionally high quality MEDRS sources per FRINGE. The reverse, that CAM as no effects beyond placebo, is exactly what it means to be CAM. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We are dealing with a BLP article and charges related to the medical competence of the subject of the article. This at the least requires that the source be verifiable and reliable for those charges and that the charges are repeated in multiple sources indicating mainstream acceptance. Suggestion that this is entirely a CAM situation, that all of CAM is placebo, is not correct and further suggests that we have the right to judge a entire and complex field in view of our own opinions, and that we can extend that position to a man's life whoever he may be. This is a BLP we must treat it as such exercising the kind judgement in editing that does not damage whatever our opinions might be.

While the credentials of the writer of this piece might be what we could consider reliable the publication is not, especially in a BLP where extra care must be taken.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC))

It is entirely a CAM situation. All of CAM is no better than placebo by definition. These aren't simply opinions, nor are they opinions that require balancing. Rather, they are viewpoints that get special prominence so we can create a respected encyclopedia when it comes to scientific thought. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never yet seen a definition of CAM that says "CAM is stuff that's no better than placebo" – not even from the most strident critics. For one thing, that definition of CAM would have to include things like arthroscopic knee surgery, which is "mainstream", and exclude chiropractors treating a subluxated elbow. It also wouldn't be possible for something to stop being CAM and start being mainstream, which is exactly what happened to the Lamaze technique.

Additionally, BLP covers every living human, including criminals and "SCAM artists". When the article has a living human's name at the top, you must respect BLP throughout the page. You can't declare any part of a biography of a living person to be exempt from the policy about biographies of living persons. If the information isn't about that person, then it shouldn't be on that page. If it is about that person, then it must comply with BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

ack, Ronz. While i hear you, you are going a step too far when you say "all CAM is placebo". It is just too broad a brush and too definitive a statement. I agree with everything else you wrote; the same is true to say "medical device X is safe and effective to treat Y" - we also get people like company reps who want to over-emphasize how good their products are; but we do have to be extra careful to raise source quality with CAM stuff because we run into so much diffuse advocacy and so often there is no known biological mechanism by which the intervention could work. yes. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying all CAM is a placebo. I'm saying by definition it's no better than placebo. That's the defining point between evidence-based medicine and everything else. If it is found to be better than placebo, it's no longer CAM. Maybe I'm wrong. If editors disagree, we can look at sources. This is a topic where expertise is required, and we should not be making decisions without the necessary expertise guiding us. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ronz: I'm on the same page, but WhatamIdoing still made a good in one of the first responses that if it's DUE, it should be available in other sources, so I decided to drop the MEDRS part of the debate for now. At one point I was hoping to squash it once and for all, but then I snapped out of it. That was silly of me. I found a couple of sources that say something similar even if they don't use the word placebo. I'll post on Talk:Deepak Chopra later today as soon as I have a chance. PermStrump(talk) 17:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Chopra, the article - PMID 12846118 - by Hans Baer (a medical anthropologist) which is already used in the article refers to Chopra as "a multi-millionaire thoroughly seduced by the placebo effect". That would seem pertinent to this discussion. Edit: Sorry this is in the Gamel piece the article cites, and not the Baer one. Alexbrn (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC); amended 03:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, do you have a source for this alleged definition, or are you just repeating your personal POV? I'd love to be able to edit the lead for arthroscopic knee surgery (Arthroscopy#Knee) to say that it's "alternative medicine" rather than conventional Western surgery, and I'm sure that there are people who would like to say that Cansema is "evidence-based medicine" according to your definition – because, you know, it does actually work "better than placebo" for superficial skin cancers ...just, unfortunately, at about one-tenth the rate of modern medicine, and with about ten times the side effects. You'd be better off wielding a kitchen knife than with herbal escharotics, but you're better off with Cansema than with a placebo. The reason that it's alternative is because there are options that are much, much, much better than placebo, not because it is no more effective than placebo. As for the knee surgery, you would probably be better off with a charismatic faith healer than with the surgery; both have been studied and neither are better than placebo – but the risks of sitting through a faith healing session are lower than the risks of anesthesia, infection, etc.

The precise antonym of "alternative" is "conventional". Words that contrast with "evidence-based" include "experimental", "unproven", and "disproven". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The words on the Alternative medicine side ("alternative", "complementary", "integrative", "holistic", etc) are all simply marketing to make it seem something other than quackery, snake oil, etc. Evidence-based medicine is not marketing. Read the articles. As I said, expertise is needed. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already read multiple sources, all of which have the advantage of not being skewed by the POV of Misplaced Pages editors who are out to right great wrongs (on both sides), and none of which claim that "stuff that works no better than placebo" is an adequate or even relevant definition of altmed. There's quite a lot of marketing behind arthroscopic knee surgery for osteoarthritis, which is (a) no better than placebo, (b) not altmed, and (c) not evidence-based medicine. There's also some marketing (far, far less than for knee surgery!) for Cansema, which is (a) better than placebo, (b) much, much worse than conventional treatment, (c) very much altmed. Evidence-based medicine is (unfortunately) heavily affected by marketing – because marketing determines what gets researched and what gets reported – although not necessarily as much as, say, direct-to-consumer advertisements of those knee surgeries.

I believe that it is important as Misplaced Pages editors to be very precise. When something is known to be no better than placebo, we should say exactly that. We should not say "it's altmed" to mean "no more effective than placebo", and we should certainly not delude ourselves into thinking that conventional medical treatments are better than placebo – or even that "better than placebo" means "better than the other options". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

See Bland, J (2008). "Does complementary and alternative medicine represent only placebo therapies?" (PDF). Alternative therapies in health and medicine. 14 (2): 16–8. PMID 18383985. .BlueStove (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I'm afraid I don't see any relevant arguments in your comments. My concerns are on the nature of CAM, evidence-based medicine, the relationship between the two, and how our policies and guidelines are relevant to them. You appear to be arguing a false equivalence of some sort: that because evidence-based medicine includes some treatments of poor effectiveness that this somehow reflects on something relevant somehow. It's not clear what point you're trying to make in all of it.

I am trying to be precise in my wording, without going into irrelevant detail. CAM is by definition no better than placebo.

Re Bland 2008: What's the point of the in-world editorial, other than pointing out how CAM practitioners promote their viewpoint? --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Ronz: Citation needed. Seriously. There are some excellent definitions of altmed available in reliable sources, and I've never yet seen one that says "CAM is whatever's no better than placebo". I've seen quite a few skeptics say that CAM is a socially constructed category that ought to be ignored by scientists (i.e., "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work "), but I've never yet seen one that says if it's "no better than placebo" is a complete, or even accurate, definition of CAM.

So here's the challenge: Quit simply repeating your personal POV as if it were The Truth™, and start providing reliable sources. Can you produce even one proper reliable source (not an opinion piece or a website) that defines CAM as "anything that's no better than placebo", with no further qualifiers? Can you find any expert who would seriously accept black salve as "modern, evidence-based medicine", and reject knee arthroscopy as "alternative"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're asserting a false balance, not making yourself any clearer, and straying from the topic. Is this intentional?

You appear to be familiar with the pov, "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works". Good enough for me. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That POV means that the socially constructed distinction should be ignored. It does not mean that 100% of treatments that are usually labeled as "alternative medicine" work no better than placebo. It also doesn't mean that 100% of treatments that are labeled as "not alternative" do work better than placebo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll note I repeatedly pointed out a false balance in my previous comments. "It also doesn't mean that 100% of treatments that are labeled as "not alternative" do work better than placebo." I'm not arguing this and it's irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant if you say that "no better than placebo" is the definition of altmed. If that were actually the definition, then knee arthroscopy would be pure altmed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The claim is "His treatments rely on the placebo effect." There is no reviews for treatments Deepak Chopra uses that mention him. I don't think MEDRS covers BLP issues about claims referring to people. QuackGuru (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh? You appear to just be repeating the initial concerns. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears both sides of the above discussion seem to have fallen for the idea that better-than-placebo is good enough. If that was the case, willow bark could be the gold standard analgesic. We have to instead ask what works best: to identify the most efficacious option that is safe to use, with sufficiently trivial side-effects. It doesn't help that the FDA still plays along with patent "evergreening": new variants on old drugs should have to be shown as significantly better than the old ones (at least for some indications) in order to gain a new drug approval, not just better than placebo. It's far too low a bar to set. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

^ This. "Better than placebo" is not the same thing as "best" or "conventional" or any number of other desirable things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Another irrelevant comparison.

@LeadSongDog: "Better than placebo" demonstrates that it's worth scientific investigation. (Perhaps you're pointing out that CAM would simply sit with willow bark and not bother to investigate what is effective about it?) Yes, there's the whole safety issue that I'm ignoring. Probably better had I said "Better than placebo, or safe", but the focus here is on placebo effects. Meanwhile, I think editors have moved on from the relevant dispute. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No, "better than placebo" does not demonstrate that it's worth scientific investigation, including for black salve and willow root, which (a) have already been investigated, (b) proven to work better than placebo, and (c) proven to be much less effective than conventional treatment.

The problem I have is that you keep saying that the "altmed == no better than placebo by definition", which is simply not true. There is no such definition. It's true that altmed treatments are frequently no better than placebo, but that category also includes a non-trivial number of treatments that are "better than placebo but worse than (excellent) conventional care" and even a few that are "better than placebo and about as good as our current (largely ineffective) conventional care". If you'd stop repeating this canard about the definition being that they're no better than placebo, then I'd be satisfied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Everything is going to break

Just a note for those who don't follow the tech stuff: Ops will be upgrading the servers in about two weeks (tentatively, Tuesday, 22 March). One result is that you will not be able to edit pages for 15 to 30 minutes. You will still be able to read, but not save pages. This will affect all the wikis and some non-wiki services, such as Tool Labs. I have two requests:

• If you happen to be online then and see an error message that "This wiki is in read-only mode", then just try again in half an hour. Ops believes that you'll be able to save your changes then (but do please copy them to a doc or something just in case).
• If you are active at other wikis, then please share the news with your friends. The more editors who know about this, the less worried people will be.

If you want reminders about this, then you probably want to subscribe to m:Tech/News. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WAID thanks for the info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: There will be a five-minute test of read-only mode in about 14 hours, at 07:00 UTC (3:00 a.m. for US East Coast).

The purpose of this test is literally to put all the wikis into read-only mode, wait five minutes, resume normal operations, and make sure that this step alone (without all of the complicated server switching) doesn't break something horribly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment requested

Your thoughts are requested at WP:Village pump (idea lab)#BLPCAT, mental illnesses, and learning disabilities. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hah Izno beat you to it, see 2 comments up. Permstrump (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: Lol, whoops! Well, thank you, Izno! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Did you coincidentally word it the exact same way? --Izno (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: Hah! Didn't even notice that. I used the wording from WT:DISABILITY which liked used the wording from here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 12:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Editing Hepatitis Article Prevention section - Comments requested

Hello,

I'm working on the Hepatitis Article as a part of the Wiki elective at UCSF. Please leave edits, comments or suggestions to help me continue to improve my contribution.

Thank you! Aliciadcadams (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

for prevention section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Homotaurine‎

More eyes would be useful on this article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Plasma"

The usage and primary topic of "plasma" is under discussion, see talk:plasma (physics) -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Some kind of vogue in nootropics

I have been seeing a kind of spurt i bad editing going on articles about drugs that are considered nootropics, about their availability on the internet, and how to use them to enhance cognition, including how shall i say, scientific-dilettante "information" on which receptors they are acting on etc. This seems to be undergoing an uptick.

here is a list of such drugs, in a typical sort of forum. here is a reddit thread. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes have waded into that aswell. People are very positive about the possibility. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fasoracetam. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Our medical app

We have recently added anatomy topics to the medical app. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

looks great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Further comments here

Talk:Ibuprofen#Heart_problems appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Zika fever/Zika virus

Blog post published here about our work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has become the default website for knowledge... During a crisis like this, people want to know the latest progress and setbacks as fast as they happen,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Requesting comments and advice on self-disorder article

I have started the self-disorder article and am looking for comments and advice on what I've done and what else we can do with this article. There is a thread on the article's talk page. Thank you. --Beneficii (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, does anyone have access to this meta-analysis dealing with disturbances of minimal self? --Beneficii (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

request submitted--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Beneficii have article --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Beneficii (and anyone else who's made 500+ edits and doesn't have an expensive research library available through work or school), please look into Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Library/Databases#Medical. We might be able to get free access to some good sources for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Glycidamide

This new article, about a carcinogenic metabolite of acrylamide, could use a few eyes -- it relies almost entirely on primary sources and as a consequence has some balance issues. Looie496 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment on medical diagnosis of TV character

There is a request for comment about whether a popular TV character should be diagnosed with a "psychosomatic" condition based on a source that is not reliable for medical diagnosis. See Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Request for comment. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

May need reviewing. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 Strategy/Draft WMF Strategy

I encourage folks to have a look at the draft strategy and comment there, is you haven't. I've started tuning into WMF stuff more and this is a window for community input on how WMF is going to expend resources over the next year. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Safety_of_Nicotine

If you like, please comment. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Throat lozenge

Earlier we worked on merging brand name instances of drugs into the article on the generic version, unless there was something NOTABLE about the brand per se. I just came across Throat lozenge which has a bunch of brands linked to it each of which has its own article, such as this one Strepsils which is a big nothing and should be deleted in my view. Thoughts on doing the same kind of thing here that we did with drugs? Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Merged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. If you want to expand the ==History== section, then there should be some material and sources at Candy that discusses the historical overlap between the pharmacists and the candymakers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic Biophysics

A very promotional article: Chiropractic Biophysics. More eyes needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

A massive bit of it was a copyright violation which I have cleaned up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There do not appear to be secondary sources in journal articles on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Chiropractic_Biophysics--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

IBD

Further opinions regarding recent reverted edits on details of diagnosis in Inflammatory Bowel Disease#Diagnosis, the cited references and details would be appreciated. Thanks! Jrfw51 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

commented article/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Replied. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Inflammatory bowel disease#recent reverts/post wikiproject Med

• more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity doctor

am wondering if an article or category on this kind of person would be interesting or useful. was working via COIN on Travis Lane Stork‎ today. An ER doc just like our own doc james. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

maybe as category--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Legitimus might be interested in such an article. See User:Legitimus/Media Personality "Doctors" and their real credentials. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What's going on with SUDs?

Right now there are at least 4 separate articles on essentially the same topic: Substance abuse, Substance dependence, Substance-related disorder and Substance use disorder. All of them have old banners that link to closed merge proposals, but I can't tell what went down and why none of the merges ever happened. The discussions are hard to follow, because they don't really correspond with the proposed merges either. For example, in June 2015, there was a merge proposed between the articles called Substance-related disorder and Substance dependence , but the conversation is all over the place. It starts off strong. Then derails into someone suggesting a merger of 6 articles (the 4 I mentioned above plus Substance intoxication and Substance abuse prevention) to someone suggesting a merge with the article on general Dependence, which triggered vehement opposition. Somehow the conclusion (of the proposed merge between Substance-related disorder and Substance dependence) was to merge Substance-related disorder with Substance abuse prevention and Substance intoxication, and to leave Substance dependence as a stand-alone article. IMHO that was a less than ideal outcome, but none of those merges ever happened anyway. And then at some point, the lead to Substance-related disorder was made to be identical to the lead of Substance abuse (including the bolded words), even though the original proposal was for it to be merged with Substance dependence.

There was also a proposed merge between Substance abuse and Substance use disorder and the conversation goes like this:

IP editor1: "It would be foolish to group these together, as substance abuse is usually, though not limited to, factors other than mental illness. This is a subtopic for substance abuse purely relate to mental illness, so the grouping would be, in my view, abhorrent and completely incorrect." Wuh??

Doc James: Concise and logical argument for merging in less than 3 sentences

IP editor2: ":I strongly disagree too against merge with Substance abuse article... anyhow is a broad situation, so there are more relate; while for example a simple one time substance abuse (although important, and endangering health and even life, so even so encyclopaedic topic) may be not a broad situation as a substance use disorder. More simply; how you can surely say that every substance abuse is a substance use disorder as set and delimited in DSM?" The end. No more comments. No merge.

What the heck? Should I bother trying again? PermStrump(talk) 07:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... those articles need a lot of attention. I was considering merging some of those a while back, but I never really got around to it because of the amount of work involved. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to work on it (with help ideally), but I don't know the best way to go about it. If it were up to me, these would the articles:

• Substance-related disorder - an umbrella article with a brief explanation of the following types of disorders with links to the main articles:
• Substance use disorder (merger of Substance abuse and Substance dependence with the current Substance use disorder article)
• Alcohol use disorder (is already merged with Alcohol dependence, but IMHO the title should be switched to Alcohol use disorder instead of dependence. Also, Alcohol abuse should be redirected there instead of to Substance abuse.)
• Cannabis abuse+Cannabis dependence>Cannabis use disorder (same as alcohol)
• Benzodiazepine abuse+Benzodiazepine dependence>Benzodiazepine use disorder, Amphetamine Abuse+Amphetamine dependence>Amphetamine use disorder etc., etc. (same as alcohol and cannabis)
• Opioid addiction and dependence at least already gets redirects from Opioid abuse, Opioid dependence, Opiate dependency and Opioid use disorder. Not sure how I feel about the official title though vs "use disorder." It would be cool to keep it all consistent.
• Substance intoxication and could probably be fully covered in a section of Substance-related disorder and probably doesn't need its own article
• Substance abuse prevention - not sure, maybe should stay separate or merge with Drug treatment
• Drug treatment should be renamed Substance abuse treatment since it also includes alcohol.

I know that's wishful thinking, but just throwing it out there. BTW I'm running late for a conference on substance use disorders... shoot. (Seriously) PermStrump(talk) 12:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Am supportive of merging very closely related articles. Would go with "X user disorder" for most of these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, these articles need significant clean-up. Is the proposed terminology standard? Sizeofint (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sizeofint, yes, that's the official terminology in the DSM-5. Technically, if you were making a formal diagnosis, you'd rate the severity -- mild/moderate/severe (e.g. alcohol use disorder, moderate) based on the # of symptoms and/or qualify it with: intoxication, withdrawal, -induced disorder (e.g. alcohol-induced anxiety disorder). But "substance use disorder"/" use disorder" is the standard catchall term at least in the US. I'm pretty sure that's how it's worded in research articles I've read that were published in Europe, but maybe someone else can weigh in on that. It looks like the ICD-10 still lists "abuse" and "dependence," and WHO refers to "psychoactive substance use disorders," which consists of abuse, dependence, intoxication, withdrawal, etc. I'm almost positive though that in the majority of the world, practitioners and researchers refer to it as " use disorder" now, even if the publications haven't caught up yet. We'd been using that terminology for a while before the DSM 5th edition came out in 2013. I think that's usually how it happens (like, we completely stopped saying "mentally retarded" out loud a long time before they finally took it out the DSM in 2013). I'm less sure about how common it is to say "psychoactive substance use disorder" vs "substance use disorder" outside of the US though. If "psychoactive..." is more common internationally, I'm cool with that. Colloquially, I think people have different connotations for different words even within the same country, and half the time they're talking nonsense (like when people argue there's a difference between addiction and dependency... addiction was never a clinical word, so I have no idea what they think the difference is). My point is... it makes the most sense to go with the medical terminology IMHO. (Sorry if that was more than you ever wanted to know.)

Doc James, where do you think makes sense to start? Like, should I start by posting new proposals to merge/redirect/rename articles or does it makes sense to start by cleaning up the articles that seem like they'd be keepers and defer worrying about getting consensus to merge after that? Also, is there ever a way when articles are so messy and redundant like this that there can be an executive decision made about which ones to keep/merge without getting consensus? :) PermStrump(talk) 02:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have moved the opioid one to opioid use disorder. The only one that should IMO stay with its common name is alcoholism.

I have also adjusted the cannabis one. The benzo one requires merging and than moving to benzo misuse disorder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Substance dependence needs to be split apart to separate the diagnostic concept (which would be merged) from the neuropsychological concept (which would need to be moved to a new name, e.g., something like "drug dependence" or "stimulus dependence") if you intend to go ahead with a merge of that article and substance abuse into SUD. The current dependence article currently covers both concepts, but doesn't really do a good job differentiating between the two in the text. Other than that, I don't really see any issues with this proposal. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Doc James: Sweet, thanks! Here's something weird though... when I type cannabis abuse into the search bar, it correctly redirects me to cannabis use disorder, but when I start to type in "cannabis use..." the only prompt I get is for cannabis use disorders," which redirects to plain old cannabis. Seppi333: What do you mean by "stimulus dependence"? My only guess is that it might be what the DSM refers to as, "non-substance related disorders." Gambling is the only one recognized in the DSM, which I'm sure that has and deserves its own article. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about though, like video games, gambling, shopping, etc? PermStrump(talk) 03:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

When I say "stimulus dependence", I'm not referring to a diagnostic model. "Dependence" is not a diagnostic label, but "substance dependence" is. The neuropsychological concept of dependence is defined in the glossary in substance dependence, whereas the diagnostic concept of a "substance dependence" (as of the DSM-IV) is defined at the end of the lead in that article. If it helps to clarify the difference, both addiction and dependence (i.e., psychological dependence and physical dependence) refer to actual diseases; "substance dependence" and "substance use disorder" refer to diagnostic models that group both addiction and dependence together under one diagnosis. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that "stimulus" dependence and "psychological" dependence are synonymous? I'm having a really hard time following what you're saying and I don't see what you're talking about in the article or the glossary. There are no hits if I do ctrl F "stimulus dependence" in the article Substance dependence. That phrase isn't in the glossary. There are references to stimuli, but it doesn't help me understand what you're terming "stimulus dependence." Can you please explain like I'm 5? PermStrump(talk) 05:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that we use an article titled "stimulus dependence" to cover "dependence", i.e., an article that covers both physical and psychological dependence. The ideal title would just be "dependence", but there's no consensus to move the disambiguation page to cover the concept there. The only reason I suggested the term "stimulus dependence" is that dependence is a disambiguation page and withdrawal syndromes aren't unique to drugs. It's not the only suitable title in which to cover the topic; e.g., dependence (medicine) would be another candidate IMO.

To make it easier on you, just let me know when you merge the substance dependence article into the SUD article and I'll create the page that I have in mind using some of the existing content from the substance dependence article (only the first 3 sections are relevant). Some of the redirects to the substance dependence article will need to be adjusted as well, but I can handle that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Doc James: Sorry to bug you again, and actually anyone can feel free to respond, but as far as merging benzo articles goes... Is the first step proposing a merge and letting people discuss it or is it cleaning up the articles? Would it help garner consensus if I made a draft in a separate userspace of what I think a merge should look like or would that be a waste of time until there's consensus? PermStrump(talk) 13:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's probably not necessary to create a draft. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay I have moved Benzodiazepine misuse to Benzodiazepine misuse disorder. Organized the article per WP:MEDMOS and proposed a merge from Benzodiazepine dependence Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Gah. This article is more or less using primary sources from 30 years ago and petree dish studies to say flumazenil is okay for benzodiazepine dependence.. Am cleaning up the worst of it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean to move it to Benzodiazepine use disorder, as opposed to misuse? When do we get to nuke articles and start fresh? How bad does it have it be? I'm totally willing to rewrite the worst of them from scratch (one at a time). I keep getting overwhelmed every time I open one to try to clean it up, so then I try another substance thinking I'll work on some easy ones first and save the worst ones for last, but they're really all atrocious. They all have some kind of POV pushing, either a drug company or super pro-drug people who don't want anyone to say anything bad about any drug. I had in mind all day yesterday to go back to the cannabis use disorder article to edit out the part of the lead that said something like, "Research has never conclusively shown that it's possible to have a physical dependence to cannabis." But when I got there, I couldn't find it anymore. I assumed Doc James took it out b/c I saw he'd made some recent edits. Thank you to whoever it was. :) PermStrump(talk) 00:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I did and fixed. I typically go through them section by section, cleaning out primary sources and adding new content based on reviews keeping the little bit that was good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

One section at a time often works. Also, if you check the history and see that nobody's edited for a month or three, then there's probably nobody sitting on the article and waiting to repel boarders.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruthenium anti-cancer drugs and MEDRS

The article Ruthenium anti-cancer drugs has multiple sections making biomedical claims for efficacy against cancer, as well as stating modes of action, that are unsupported by secondary sources. I've left a note on the talk page that WP:MEDRS applies in these cases and proposed deleting those sections in the absence of good-quality secondary sources. I've also left a note at WP PHARM, but any further thoughts would be welcome before I take an axe to the article.

I've also excised most of a section from Ruthenium diamine complexes for the same reasons. --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

from --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Asking readers directly for input on articles

One metric NIOSH uses to measure impact is the number of page views, including page views to Misplaced Pages articles. This tells us about the volume of traffic, but nothing about who is reading it, or where they are from, or what motivated them to look up the article (curiosity, affected worker, employer trying to improve workplace safety, etc). While we are good at getting feedback from editors, we don't have mechanisms that are as reliable for getting feedback from readers, and I would like to report more "impact" information to NIOSH. Has there been any thought in embedding optional reader surveys in very select groups of articles? I understand there was the article feedback tool many years ago, but it applied to too many articles (instead of a very select subset) and collected open-ended feedback rather than more useful, structured information. I ask this project because I imagine you all would have had a similar idea. If something like I am proposing has been tried I would like to hear more about it. If it hasn't, but you think it is a good idea, let me know and I can begin thinking about implementation. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There was the feedback tool. I was sad when it was disabled completely as I wanted to use it for this purpose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the link Misplaced Pages:Article feedback Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider Misplaced Pages:Batea, a research project designed to collect information from readers and editors of Misplaced Pages articles. Anyone who reads or edits Misplaced Pages using Google Chrome is invited to participate. The research especially is interested in how health science students engage with Misplaced Pages, but collects data about a range of Misplaced Pages interactions. The data set produced from this research will be open and in the end, could be used to give insights that would answer the questions you are asking. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Something like phab:T89970 might be useful for that. Unfortunately, it's vaporware.

Have you talked to anyone in the Analytics team? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Good ledes — for translation!

I would like to present the idea of good-lede articles to you. This is a simpler step towards getting content translated into many different languages. As of the last year we've refocused much of the Translation Task Force work towards translating shorter summary articles. This has allowed us to grow the number of articles and the number of languages we reach immensely.

As of now all articles pass by our own Dr. James Heilman prior to translation as a part of quality-control. But the way we've chosen which articles are prepared is not entirely transparent — so I've devised a set of criteria similar to the Good Article Criteria which can help even more people to help 'write for translation.

We're currently focusing which articles to translate on a number of important topics:

• Emergency medicine
• Preventable cancers
• WHO's list of Neglected Diseases
• WHO's list of Essential Medicines

A full list of summaries we've prepared so far can be found here!

Check out the guide at: Misplaced Pages:Good lede (keep in mind, it's still only a draft)
Comments and constructive criticism is more than welcome – here or on the talk page! :)

Thanks, CFCF 💌 📧 15:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Good_lede looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

On the use of Frontiers journals as sources

Gongwool (talk · contribs) appears to be on a mission to remove from all articles citations of articles from "predatory open access publishers". That might or might not be a good thing, but in the process he is removing citations to articles in Frontiers journals; see Frontiers Media. In my view that is wrong -- I have read dozens of high-quality review articles in Frontiers journals. The question I would like to open for discussion is (a) is it possible for Frontiers citations to meet WP:RS; (b) is is possible for citations of review papers in Frontiers journals to meet WP:MEDRS? Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

As Frontiers Media states, they're listed in the Jeffrey Beall list of predatory journals but there seems to be a significant group who disagree with the designation and others who agree .

It seems to me that the proper course of action is to be cautious about claims from Frontier journals (but then, it makes sense to be cautious about any claim made anywhere). As far as WP:MEDRS is concerned, AFAIU it, the emphasis is on reviews - and I don't know whether Frontier journals publish that kind of paper. If they did, I think I'd be very cautious about using it in isolation, given the various complaints about it. JMWt (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The publisher isn't the only thing that matters. Albert Einstein's publications on physics would be acceptable no matter who published them.

User:Gongwool is replacing these citations with {{fact}}, which is probably better than leaving the material completely uncited. Adding {{better source}} after the citation (and leaving the citation present) is another approach that might work better for some purposes, especially if the source might be generally acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Looie496 Could you provide an example of a citation which was removed but which you think might be worth keeping? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure: diff. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I like JMWt's idea of leaving Frontiers citations in place with the {{better source}} tag. Some of the stuff on Beall's list is just irrefutable trash, but this one sounds like it could be an exception, at least on a case by case basis (I haven't looked into it). But as long as Frontiers isn't being used to support a contentious statement or an idea that's expressed equally as well in a stronger source, I could see rare, hypothetical scenarios where removing those references could be detrimental to some articles (e.g. if the Frontiers piece pulled together several widely accepted concepts that otherwise couldn't be expressed without OR). PermStrump(talk) 01:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This is more or less the only review on the topic. What to do than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless you have a specific concern about that particular review article, then I'd recommend keeping it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not used as far as I am aware. I have suggested using it instead of primary sources though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, well that's at least a review which might suggest a more considered overview of the topic than a primary source. I think I'd be inclined to cite a book chapter, where it exists rather than the article Looie496 suggests above. I don't really know what to do about this instance; it seems to be a review, but I don't know how much confidence one can or should have in a publication which has been flagged as having issues. I think one has to ask questions about why academics would choose to publish in this kind of journal. JMWt (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In general I suppose one would look to see how exceptional the claim being made is. If it is truly exceptional - say a claim of treatment efficacy that is not backed-up by any other reasonable secondary sources - then alarm bells should ring. Alexbrn (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That's something to consider for any source. It depends upon context (one does not really expect multiple studies on the treatment efficacy for a rare disease or co-morbidities of uncommon ones), but information present in only one source is not necessarily WP:DUE even if it's in a highly respected publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

What WAID said. "It depends on the context" is the only right answer to this question and anyone running around blanket-removing or even blanket-tagging should stop. This is the kind of conversation that makes me think there was a wrong turn taken in trying to provide general guidance that centers on the perceived quality of the source rather than the type of information the source is being used for. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I generally avoid Frontiers journals. They often put out guest-edited issues, and those issues are often full of woo for pet theories and misrepresent what is actually seen by the field as "accepted knowledge". These issues often have crazy big woo (they fail WP:INDY). So if a Frontiers review is the only source on something, I look to see if it is from a guest-edited issue and read it carefully first to try to decide how even-handed it appears to be. if it appears to be woo-full I just don't bring it to Misplaced Pages at all. Even if it seems OK I use it gingerly. But generally I don't even click to read the abstract for reviews from Frontiers when looking for sources on pubmed, and just skip right over them. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC) (missed some nuance; added it Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC))

The Committee on Publication Ethics have no problems with Frontiers and Beall's list has been plenty criticised. Plenty of Frontiers journals are well-respected, AFAIK. COI declaration: I'm currently co-editing a Frontiers special issue. Bondegezou (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

:) i hope you bring in people with a real diversity of opinion on the topic! Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment requested regarding ProMED-mail as source

Your thoughts are requested at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#04:03:47.2C 18 March 2016 review of submission by Jtamad regarding the use of ProMED-mail as a source in Draft:2016 yellow fever outbreak in Angola. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I see refs to WHO and the CDC aswell. Pro-MED-mail is from the "International Society for Infectious Diseases" which is a reputable organization. So I would like say fine.

User:333-blue the outbreak is commented on by the CDC and WHO . That makes it notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Two articles on the same topic

Veterinary chiropractic and Animal chiropractic are the same topic. After an editor was reverted at Veterinary chiropractic the editor created Animal chiropractic. Animal chiropractic appears to be a POV Fork. QuackGuru (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree and redirected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Human growth and development

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Adolescence#Template:Human growth and development. A WP:Permalink for it is here. It concerns whether or not we should whether keep Template:Human growth and development and Template:Human development, or either one at the top of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)