Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:01, 16 January 2014

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

• In all Medicine articles (not talks)
• In articles with Top-, High-importance
• In articles with Mid-importance
• In articles with Low-importance
• In pages with NA, ???=unknown importance
• In the 1000 most popular articles (source)

Not mainspace:

• In all non-articles
• In all templates
• In Medicine navigation templates

Medical cannabis

I've begun cleaning up primary sources, but the task there is larger than one editor can complete. Any help? I know there are reviews on some uses ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a good example of the problems I mention above ... there is no way I can get to everything in this article myself, it is citing primary sources galore, and because it looked well cited, people might take medical advice from it. Help!!! Or add a disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I can imagine this will be tricky (not having looked at it yet), and a good example of why elevating at least some of MEDRS to policy would be useful. WP:DISCLAIM would be cited against disclaimers. Alexbrn 02:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We allow {{current}} and {{recent death}}; would ya think medical misinfo is at least as important? Anyway, on Medical cannabis, I can strip the primary sources, but since I don't have full journal access, it's harder for me to re-add reviews. I Would Love Some Help in there-- it's massive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh sure, personally I think the quality of medical content on WP is a big (maybe one of its biggest) problems; I'm just anticipating the arguments you'll run into in what is likely to be a controversial editing area ... Alexbrn 02:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So, as SandyGeorgia has posted on my Talk page, further digging shows we have:

• Cannabis
• Medical cannabis
• Effects of cannabis
• Long-term effects of cannabis.

These, in their health information, constitute a gigantic festival of POV, built on poor medical sources and selective, spurious interpretations. Anybody getting their information from WP on this would think cannabis is not only harmless, but a wonder cure for many things from bipolar disorder to cancer. Alexbrn 09:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are occasionally attempts to add this sort of content to other articles. And I try my best to keep it well sourced. Agree that there appears to be a number of editors very favorable to its use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What are they smoking? Alexbrn 10:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Charming. I do not see a neutral point of view towards the article subject matter in some of the comments here, and that is unfortunate. At this point, 52% of Americans support medical cannabis, so to find editors who appear to also is hardly noteworthy. I question Alexbrn's ability to be neutral and, lacking NPOV, to use PUBMED appropriately. Sandy helped me to understand MEDRS and the use of PUBMED only last night. Yet with only one day of experience, I was able to find a wealth of information that conflicted with Alexbrn's take. I see from comments above what appears to be a lack of understanding or education about the topic, and a clear POV. This isn't going to help. I hope someone will review Alexbrn's edits to the cannabis articles, as well as research to see what was missed, or twisted. It took a good 45 minutes just to deal with this one (MS) section. I want help reviewing these edits, or please stop changing the articles and instead just tag them so as to not make things worse. petrarchan47tc 04:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you know what my clear POV is on this topic, because I certainly don't! If you can improve the article over what I've done that is great (and you seem to have found better sources for the MS stuff than I did, which is likewise great) - but that doesn't somehow validate prior poor sourcing or misrepresentation, of which there is a lot in this suite of articles. I'm not sure why you seem to bear some kind of grudge here; in the face of the serious and extensive problems these articles present it isn't helpful: editing resources need to be going into improving the content, not bickering. If you find something specifically wrong raise it in Talk or fix it, but please don't try and make this a venue for a continuation of an argument about Monsanto from several months ago. Alexbrn 05:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(Add:) Actually, though initially blithely accepting Petrarchan47's replacement content as better than mine, on closer inspection I'm not quite sure that the sourcing is the best:

• this has a principal author who is chairman of the German Association for Cannabinoid Medicines, and a co-author who serves on a working group of the International Association of Cannabinoid Medicine; follow-up correspondence has raised an eyebrow.
• this seems to be a rather polemical opinion piece by three gentlemen who are not best-credentialed (two Jesuits and a lawyer, it seems). And - is this not a pay-to-publish journal?
• this I can't say anything about since I cannot locate a full-text online and it seems it's in Spanish (which I don't speak). I am assuming Petrarchan47 has reviewed the full text.

So yes, further thoughts on this sourcing would be useful. It seems (in general, at least) Europe and US may have slightly diverging views. Alexbrn 09:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Petra, are you saying that a scientific, evidence-based approach to editing medical articles is "POV"? If so, perhaps you would take that discussion to the talk page of WP:MEDRS. I've responded to similar personalization of this issue on my talk page; I hope we will see no more of this. We can discuss which are the highest quality, and most recent reviews, without resorting to personalization. There are problems in Muller-Vahl's work, and a built-in bias. We all want accurate medical information presented to our readers: like Alexbrn, if you detect a POV in my editing, I'd like to know what it is, other than the POV that says we follow MEDRS. Also, I do speak fluent Spanish, and I have subscribed to that Revista, and no, Petra did not fully represent that source, so I'm not sure whether s/he speaks Spanish or accessed the full text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

To the above list we can add:

• Cannabis in pregnancy
• Cannabidiol

Alexbrn 10:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This is akin to the POV walled garden of articles found in the autism suite back in 2007; it took Eubulides about a year to clean it up. We've got duplicate, poorly sourced text all over the place, and it is of the worst kind-- that is, the kind that people might mistakenly use for (bad) medical advice, because it looks well sourced. We could use some attention on this entire suite of articles. Too much for one or two editors to deal with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Re: cannabis in pregnancy, once all primary sources are removed, is there enough left to warrant a stand alone article rather than a short section of the main cannabis article? Lesion (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No. I've come across some usable secondary material on this, but there won't be enough for a standalone article IMO. Looking at the cannabis "suite" as a whole, I'm beginning to think there is enough for two articles, "Cannabis" (history, botany, sociology, cultural, etc.) and "Cannabis and health" (or somesuch) about medical uses and consequences. But how to get from here to there? My first impulse is to remove some of the worst primary-based material across all the articles, and see what that leaves ... Alexbrn 15:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Bingo (Lesion). Dealing with the POV walled garden will be more expedient if the text is rationalized, duplication minimized. It's the same primary-sourced crap repeated across multiple articles. I will be busy for a few days, Alexbrn is hard at work on it, hope someone can help. There are secondary reviews available, but I don't have full journal access (only Cochrane). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now nuked the cannabis in pregnancy article, leaving two sentences. There were two reasonable sources, one of which was being misrepresented (now fixed). The remaining stub should probably be merged somewhere in the long run and expanded with material based on good sources (for those interested, I have preserved the removed article content on the article's Talk page). Alexbrn 11:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a merge proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And this hot-off-the-press article looks like it might be very pertinent. Unfortunately, Springer journals are about the one thing I don't have access to :-( Alexbrn 16:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be:

• Gordon AJ, Conley JW, Gordon JM (2013). "Medical consequences of marijuana use: a review of current literature". Curr Psychiatry Rep. 15 (12): 419. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0419-7. PMID 24234874. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

I will try to get hold of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure if these contain POV, but there is also cannabis and memory. There is a whole navigation template dedicated to this topic. Lesion (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yea Misplaced Pages! Here we have an entire POV suite of medical information, and articles upon which people most assuredly make daily decisions that affect their health. We've got a big cleanup task ahead on these. We dodged a bullet on autism, Andrew Wakefield and MMR vaccine controversy, because we had lots of good editors in there. We will need same here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• What's the best way to coordinate this effort? A sub-page somewhere or ... ? Alexbrn 11:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• See a sample at User:Eubulides/sandbox/autism. The autism walled garden was a much huger mess than we see in the cannabis articles, so I set up that sandbox which Eubulides eventually took over and moved to his space so we could prioritize our work. With a POV walled garden, a systematic approach is helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

In response to Alexbrn, one thing that I think a lot of wikiprojects and subjects would greatly benefit from would be some sort of "prospectus" of topics which are demonstrably significant enough for inclusion here, and sources which could be used to gather preliminary material. Basically, I'm thinking of pages like those in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, and some others which I am still developing along those lines. At least one such list, from the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, I'm still a day or two of active review of the sources themselves to adding here, because of the markedly different content and outline structures of the two editions. But if someone wanted to review reference works on cannibis or any other medical topic to see what gets more and less attention, or none at all, in them, that would probably help in developing the comprehensive nature of the content here on those topics a lot. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Where does work stand?

One HECK of a lot of progress has been made here in a few weeks on the POV primary-sourced walled garden at {{Cannabis}}, so maybe other editors would be less fearful to wade in now ... summary:

• Medical cannabis (cleaner now, needs some citations and expansion)
• Cannabis (cut medical cannabis to summary style, rest shold be reviewed
• Effects of cannabis (issues still)
• Long-term effects of cannabis (issues still)
• Cannabis dependence (cut the primary sources, cleaner now, ready for expansion, needs DSM5)
• Cannabidiol (haven't looked)
• Cannabis and memory (haven't looked, likely needs major work)
• Compassionate Investigational New Drug program (cleaned out BLP, not much there worth worrying about)
• Tetrahydrocannabinol (haven't looked)
• Cannabis (drug) (could be reviewed now that medical cannabis is cleaner)
  • Fifteen-year-old data readded when we have reviews from 2010 and 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Cannabis smoking (haven't looked)
• Cannabinoid receptor (haven't looked)
  • Garbage removed - still needs some newer and/or non-primary medical sources though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the scope of this article is wider than human cannabinoid receptors and hence fall more within the scope of WP:MCB than WP:MED. Boghog (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Synthetic cannabis (haven't looked)
• Gateway drug theory (haven't looked, likely needs major work)
  • Made a start, still needs more content revision + ref improvements though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I cleaned it out, found some reviews, it could be expanded now, but it's clean at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Medical cannabis in the United States (haven't looked, likely needs major work)
• Cannabis in the United States
• Cannabis in pregnancy (I think this is clean)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work here, Sandy; it is appreciated. As I'll have some free time to edit in the next few days (no diving this weekend), would you be able to suggest one or two of the above articles as a priority that I could try to help on? --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, RexxS! I've got to do some Christmas prep now, so I'd be most appreciative if you could continue the rebuilding and citing of Cannabis dependence (to really finish it, we need someone with a copy of DSM5; I found a treatment article that is freely available, but haven't yet incorporated all of it, and there's lots uncited where I removed old primary sources). Others that might need attention next are Effects of cannabis and Long-term effects of cannabis. I think most of the primary sources have been removed, but those articles haven't yet been rebuilt, in particular, ummmm ... none of the "negatives" have been included yet, because the NPOV work needed has been rough there. Gateway drug theory will probably be a chore-- I haven't even looked. Happy Holidays to all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Gateway drug theory is clean but could be expanded-- free full-text reviews found. Revisiting, RexxS, the biggest mess still is at Long-term effects of cannabis-- the hard work there hasn't even been started. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at Cannabis and memory, another primary-sourced original research mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Recruiting

At ANI, mention of an Australian group that has been a no-show:

And mentioned among other places, "...I have a biochemist friend who studies cannabinoids, and who has agreed to join us in working on these articles ... " and "I am also calling in some scientists/researchers in the field, and as your team also has a doctor, I don't see how this could be viewed as a problem, or as anything but a great benefit to our readers."

• And on MastCell's talk
• And on Petrarchan47's talk

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The biochemist is Shuunya, and he has agreed to help me with cannabinoid research. One other person agreed to help with research at some point. petrarchan47tc 04:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis and schizophrenia

In an attempt to demonstrate that I do, in fact, understand MEDRS, even after I have showed a lack of understanding over and over and over, I have put together an article regarding the potential link between cannabis use and schizophrenia. It is currently in my userspace here, and I would like it if highly-experienced editors *cough* SandyGeorgia *cough* could look at it before I send it to AFC and tell me how I can improve it. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Jinkinson, I have most certainly seen you demonstrating growing knowledge in how to use sources and secondary reviews, and at a quick glance, it looks like you did so in sandbox. But, I don't believe we need a stand-alone article in that realm, and if you create one, several you-know-whos are likely to come down on your head. Do you really want to create another content fork in a contentious area? We only need summarize the most recent reviews in the main articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And now to FA Schizophrenia

With no MEDRs sources: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We have brought a heap of MEDRS sources, and have essentially concluded that the science shows no causal link, from what I can tell. However, the article has not been updated. petrarchan47tc 04:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Some possible coatracking

At Brownie Mary - a GA; "medical" material snuck in to the "Legacy" section. Alexbrn 11:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Nabilone

Also has some problems. Alexbrn 08:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte's Web (cannabis)

A strain developed for medical use, full of medical claims related to epilepsy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As the creator of that article I can assure you that this has always been on my mind. I'm fully aware of WP:MEDRS and seek to follow it. If you will look at the talk page, you'll see this: "To comply with WP:MEDRS, no direct medical claims are made, only documentation that such claims are made." If I have inadvertently crossed the line somewhere, please point it out and I'll more than gladly fix it!

There is one piece of research on this strain, and it is definitely not MEDRS compliant. I was very reluctant to include it at all, and have only done it with a reference, and a hidden editorial note about its status. I included the ref strictly as documentation of terminology, NOT to back up any claims. I believe that is a justifiable way to use it. It is currently ref 9. Here is the actual text visible to editors:

• <ref name=Gedde_Maa>{{Citation |last=Gedde |first=Margaret |year=6 Dec. 2013 |title=Whole Cannabis Extract of High Concentration Cannabidiol May Calm Seizures in Highly Refractory Pediatric Epilepsies: CW Oil Retrospective Survey Abstract - American Epileptic Society 67th Annual Meeting, Dec. 6-10, 2013 |publisher= |publication-place= |page= |url=https://docs.com/YJM3 |accessdate=2014-01-01 }}<!--NOTE: As a small primary study, this does not pass our MEDRS requirements for making any medical claims. It is only used here to document terminology. --></ref>

I have also included the doubts and reservations of physicians, making it clear that more research is needed, and that not all agree.

As you can see, I've tried to be very careful. Any guidance would be welcomed. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I see undue emphasis on the CNN documentary and one case; see the old discussion from Colin at the ENI incident. Your version is much better put together (doh :) but similar issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I don't have time right now, but I'll look at it in a few hours and get back to you. Fortunately this isn't a BLP issue, so no harm done. Thanks for bringing this up. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Back again. I wasn't aware of that ENI thing, and didn't know this subject had ever been mentioned anywhere at Misplaced Pages. In fact I was rather surprised no one had written an article yet. Well, let's continue at the article's talk page. Sandy, I look forward to working with you again. We worked on the Andrew Wakefield article and you really put a lot of good work into it. I welcome your input and suggestions. I'm going to hat this so we don't end up with two different discussions. It can be reopened if necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

To make this easier, I'm going to copy this whole thread there, and we'll just pick up where we left off here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As much as I respect the work we did together at Andrew Wakefield on the MMR vaccine controversy, no, I'm not comfortable hatting this serious issue-- actually, the most serious yet that I've encountered in the cannabis suite. Yes, there are significant medical statements in this article, which reads almost as an advert or coatrack, promoting cannabis as an epilepsy cure based on a TV show, in the guise of being about one strain, while neglecting all secondary medical reviews on the topic. I recognize you set out to write an individual interest story, but a) that gives undue attention to one case about which we have no reliable medical sources, and b) the scope of the article is determined by Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines rather than a personal interest story one editor might want to write. Since this article is about a cannabis strain, yet goes into a lengthy description of one case documented on television of a child whose family claims her epilepsy was cured by cannabis, what we have here-- sadly, for me to say-- is something as bad as the media role in the MMR vaccine controversy, and borderline coatracky. Let's get it fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

From this, to this; other opinions would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not looked at the history of the article, but in its current state, it makes few medical claims. Overall, it looks like a reasonable article, balanced and supported by references. Axl ¤ 20:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Axl I'm relieved to hear that, since I just went through and fixed the issues I noted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

On the whole some good work. I might quibble over some minor details, but that's all. I'll comment about anything else. It's good to tighten up an article. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I'm off for the day, but hope you're able to be comfortable with the kinds of adjustments I made, particularly more attribution of claims, and less quoting of people of dubious knowledge ... all yours now for fixing my fixing. By the way, some of the cannabis editors have a tendency to go off the charts when folks refer to "marijuana" rather than "cannabis", so you might be prepared for that, and consider which word you want to use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I like the attribution. "When in doubt, attribute", is a motto I've had here for a long time. I know there's a discussion about moving articles (retitling them), and there have been some very strong feelings, many times not based on any policy. For some reason it really gets people worked up. I have my own ideas about that, but I haven't really thought about that in the preparation of this article.

I can think of one term right now: "medical marijuana", which unfortunately redirects to "medical cannabis"...., is the most common term, including on the official Medical marijuana cards (correct term) people get, and in the law. There might be some exceptions, but they are the exception that proves the rule. Our article on Medical cannabis in the United States contains massive OR by using "cannabis" when it should use "marijuana" much of the time. (Cannabis is the genus name for the marijuana plant, so they are synonyms. One is the scientific name, and the other the most commonly used name for the plant (and the drug, when in the form of dried plant parts).) If you can think of other terminology issues, please mention them. If we can change any to avoid controversy, without violating any policies, we should probably do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about cannabis v. marijuana was had, and is being reviewed here; for now, it looks like cannabis has consensus, and I don't see your voice in that discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

CNN and NPR

The issue of Charlotte's Web (cannabis) was the topic on National Public Radio this morning, and there was a CNN report yesterday on a three-year-old child whose mother was investigated for refusing chemotherapy for her child's cancer after moving to Colorado to use the marijuana extract. I've removed a number of lesser quality sources from this article, and some claims that were dubiously sourced, and added this new information. I would appreciate more eyes to review the article agaiin, and to check this work, and to watch the article because of the recent high profile publicity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Overall the medical claims in the article are carefully qualified, but I can't help but feel uneasy about the testimonial power of one or two phrases such as "Her parents and physicians said the results of her first dose were astounding" (my italics) - my general preference is not to include such "testimonial" statements in medical articles unless there is some secondary RS commentary on them specifically, because they are so heavy with implication (which is why many altmed promotions are purely based on testimonials). Alexbrn 15:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the "astounding" wording (sensationalist); each time I look at the article, I find something. Which is why more eyes would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"When in doubt, attribute" is a motto I have followed here for many years. We always have to tread a fine line, and for quackbusters and opposers of so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM) (like all three of us here), it's an uncomfortable one, but our job as wikipedians requires that we document the sum total of human knowledge, as revealed in RS. That means that NPOV requires that opposing POV must be included in articles, and even nonsense is stated plainly.

We must keep in mind the difference between documenting that claims have been made (even if false), and actually making the claims in Misplaced Pages's voice. All our alternative medicine and fringe articles must do this. It's called NPOV.

An article about this subject, or any other notable topic which includes possibly dubious POV and behavior, must document what that POV is, and what that behavior is. That's where we have to (sometimes are required to, and policy specifically allows it) use primary sources from the perpetrators. We then need to frame, qualify, and attribute it appropriately, without violating OR, SYNTH, and NPOV, but going so far as to fail to paint the picture found in RS by not including it at all is censorship and violates NPOV, and that's very unwikipedian. So, while I share your concerns, we need to be careful not to go too far and allow our "quackbuster hat" to dominate over our "wikipedian hat". -- Brangifer (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If (not sure) you are arguing that we have to retain words like "astounding" from biased observers, I'm arguing that "astounding" can be left out as sensationalist, tabloidish, and unencyclopedic. Particularly as related to unreviewed medical claims. I hope we're moving closer to a move neutral and objective piece than the first version which said in Misplaced Pages's voice that Charlotte Figi "experienced an immediate and remarkable reduction of her epileptic seizures after her first dose of medical marijuana", and included numerous claims about the marijuana extract that came from the manufacturers only. Misplaced Pages is not a publicity agent, and again, when medical claims are made (they were and are), they should be based on quality secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

TBH, this is an editing area where I feel uncertain - and I have certainly been guilty in the past of writing "skeptical" articles which are full of criticism, yet neglect to spell out what the-thing-being-criticized is. It's tricky - and at the moment I'm inclined to quite a hard-line approach. So if some person makes an amateur statement about something biomedical ("I took the pills and my tumours shrank") my general reaction is "so what?". If that biomedical claim (for that is what it is) has not been subjected to expert review then why should Misplaced Pages include it. Even if the claim becomes popular news it is still, in essence, a biomedical claim being carried by sources which are not RS for the knowledge it purports to convey. Alexbrn 16:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Cluster headache

Has been the subject of recruiting, and needs sustained attention to cleanup and maintenance. Rife with UNDUE and primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted, so I will try and stop it deteriorating, but I am not available to work on it right now. Also, what do people think of the lead image on headache? Lesion (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've semiprotected it for six months as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the picture represents HAs well. Person is in a dark room. No concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it is very hard to find images that convey pain and discomfort symptoms and even if the image might be a little staged its better than no image, or a head with lightning all around it. CFCF (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This is better now, but there are issues at Psilocybin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing for cluster headaches

Wondering if some admin would take it upon themselves to protect cluster headaches? We have long term canvassing going on here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Psilocybin

Psilocybin has grown with the addition of non-MEDRS compliant sources, since its FAC (where I objected to primary sources). See talk where my removal of some of the primary sources was reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, despite Sandy's accusations to the contrary, essentially the same sources are in there as when Sandy herself passed the FAC. Discussion on source use invited on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have extended my apologies to Sasata for several confusing factors that led me to remove text: besides having difficulty with list-defined references, more significantly, Vollenweider's status as a review was unclear. PMID 20717121 is in a review journal, but is in fact listed as an opinion piece. So ...

Following on the recruiting that occurred for cluster headaches, other issues were discovered in several articles. I'm starting this discussion so we can generate broader consensus about what to say about psychedelics as treatment (and more eyes on some of the articles).

1. Cluster headache had a long, uncited essay. The article currently has one statement about psychedelics as treatment, cited to a 2011 review. Should we move it to a "research" section?
2. Obsessive-compulsive disorder had text about psychedelics in treatment sourced to a primary study.
3. Olney's lesions had text sourced to rat studies.
4. Mydriasis had uncited text.
5. There is text that I haven't checked closely yet at

   a. Placebo-controlled study in the recognition section,

   b. Psychedelic therapy (throughout), and

   c. Psilocybin mushroom In the Effects and As Medicine section

6. Psilocybin has a medical research section. I promoted the FAC two years ago after a series of MEDRS questions, but it's not clear that any of the reviewers engaged MEDRS, so a closer look at the entire article would not be a bad idea.

Specifically, not only does text need to comply with MEDRS, but after considering the sources, is it undue to mention psilocybin treatment in individual conditions, and are we overusing the Vollenweider opinion piece? Considering the number of broad overviews available (not all listed here) for cluster headache and OCD, we have for each condition a very small study reported briefly in one or two reviews.

Sources

Patent

Something about a patent obtained by Sewell (of the cluster headache) study: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Trypophobia

Trypophobia lacks any WP:MEDRS compliant sources, and has already been deleted once for this reason. There are no reviews on the subject, yet the article seems to be used by various sources to claim the reality of the phenomenon. Almost only tertiary sources in the article, and one primary. Should this be deleted? CFCF (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

PMID 23982244 from October 2013 says this common phobia is "hitherto unreported in the scientific literature". Alexbrn 09:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't normally watch here, but was pinged. I just saw this, and was relieved to realize that it isn't Tryptophobia. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This is sort of a special case. It is obviously medical-related, but its notability arises from the level of media coverage -- there are dozens of articles in media sources that would easily meet RS for non-medical topics. My inclination is to apply IAR here. (I recently wrote a short news piece about this for a magazine, so I'm pretty familiar with the topic.) Looie496 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine)

We may need a guideline dealing with COI as it pertains to medicine. I have seen a fair number of experts who are here to promote themselves or there business more than write a balanced encyclopedia.

This would include using references written by yourself. Mentioning yourself in articles. Adding images with your clinic or your own name listed within the image.

Issues around the pharmaceutical industry / device manufacturers may be harder to articulate. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for that redlink, I meant the essay WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine). Although this is not a guideline, not sure if you were aware of it when posting this. Lesion (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And as always my response when someone proposes a new guideline is "please god no". Just find a suitable existing guideline to mention it in... in this case it can probably be tacked on to WP:COI or MEDMOS or even MEDRS without yet another guideline... If there is one thing wikipedia does not need is more. Lesion (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree! Please no additional guidelines. LT910001 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wherever it might end up, this issue takes about 75% of my editing time. It is a miserable time-sink. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There any guidelines/essays on gray areas and ethical considerations w.r.t. article content? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC) - Added - The context for this question: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive1#GrayArea (In plain terms, it's a question of whether or not to plainly disclose a mechanism to maximize absorption/bioavailability of an addictive drug) 23:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I do at some point recall SandyGeorgia proposing a policy to deal with information added to med articles in a 'quick remove' sense, such as if uncited information is added, as apparently is used by WP:BIO (I apologise if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly, Sandy). If such a policy were to be formed, it could incorporate a sensible removal policy of: (1) unsourced content; (2) primary sources on articles. Part (2) would cover the majority of COI sources anyway, I believe. --LT910001 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with LT910001 that we need no further pages with extra guidance. Decisions to remove unverifiable information require case-by-case editorial decisions on verifiability. I generally agree that information medical that cannot be sourced to a MEDRS-compliant source is often best removed (although it requires a modicum of effort to determine that something is not sourceable). For BLPs the trigger is lower because of the risk of defamation. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see this problem as specific to medicine. The wp:COI problem affects virtually all areas of WP, always running up against wp:AGF and wp:OUTING. I doubt that a new guideline would go far. Our best tools are wp:SECONDARY (to constrain the use of POV sources), wp:NOTMYSPACE (to deter self-promotion) and of course simple education for the well-intentioned but overenthusiastic newbies. Essays can help with educating the latter group. Once in a while, as at ALCAT test, we see the law of unintended consequences bites the culprits. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:LT910001, I think you're referring to the oft-expressed notion that we might elevate MEDRS to a BLP-like policy, enabling us to more easily remove unsourced or poorly sourced content. I don't see that as the same as COI? Jfdwolff, it is easier for the docs among us-- and particularly those who have journal access-- to easily remove poorly sourced content. It is harder for those of us who aren't docs or don't have journal access-- it can take us (me :) a very long time to determine if content should be removed, which is why I often can only go through and flag primary sources, and let the docs decide if the content should be removed. If we had a policy to allow the removal of poorly sourced content, it would make my work easier and faster, but I don't see the relation to COI ... I think we already have that covered, except that often COI editors are trying to add primary sources (this has been the theme of most of my editing for the last two weeks, as we seem to have been hit with a lot of editors pushing their pet theories into articles). I don't think we need a new guideline page for medical COI: we just need more admins to enforce it! In one BLP I've been working on this week, it took the non-medical admins a bit longer than the docs to see the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to make a provision in WP:MEDRS that content obviously based on primary sources should be considered for removal. JFW | T@lk 00:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As a caveat to this, from the anatomical perspective, if editors were to consider MEDRS as applying to Anatomy, most of Anatomy is based on a chain of whispers emerging from primary sources. I may be thinking three steps ahead here, as this is not an issue we face at the moment. --LT910001 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. Problem for a lay-person is that, if I know the topic semi-well (hypothyroidism, say), I can see what is likely incorrect and should be removed, vs. what is poorly sourced but could be sourced to a secondary review if I had journal access. If I don't know the topic, I can't be of much help. It is painstaking work for a layperson with limited journal access, and I often feel I am of little help. I don't know what the solution is, but in those cases where we have intransigent POV-pushers (eg a BLP I worked on this week, and for six years), a policy allowing us to remove poorly sourced content (which I knew to be poorly sourced) would have saved me a lot of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep SandyGeorgia, I feel that the vast majority of COI editing is editing which relies on sources which are not reliable or are primary, so a stronger MEDRS grounding may have a significant impact on our ability to manage COI and student-based editing. Additionally, I feel an elevated MEDRS would be able to be used with a clarity and ease that would not be found in a new COI-policy.--LT910001 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A combination of google books and the free reviews provided on pubmed can go a long way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's worth reminding people that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request‎ can be very helpful in winkling out these sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Animal studies - a general query

Looking at Pterostilbene, which has some specific problems, I was troubled by uncertainty over a general issue: to what extent can an article which is not (fully) about human health cite animal studies?

In this article which is ostensibly about a chemical, for example, are the animal studies secondary sources or (through a MEDRS lens) primary sources? And what about when, as often happens, the language and titles start shading into implications about human health? (e.g. "the ability to fight off and reverse cognitive decline")?

My inclination is to remove content that make claims of medicinal potential based on animal studies, when it is only supported by in vivo or in vitro experiments. But - would that be overly-draconian?

Alexbrn 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Any statement that makes a claim or implication about an effect on human health needs WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. This article has lots of problems, especially the entire section on Cognitive decline Reversal. The article's use of a popular press article from 1999 discussing results from rat studies as if they might be relevant to human health is wholly unacceptable. Zad68 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What about a statement like: "pterostilbene has been shown to lower blood glucose levels in rats by as much as 56 percent, while simultaneously raising insulin and hemoglobin levels to near normal levels.". Is that an informative neutral statement purely about an animal experiment (which may be of interests to chemists and pharmaceutical researchers), or an undue mention of a non-notable study that can't help but imply something? Alexbrn 15:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Was the primary study cited done for the purpose of advancing veterinary science? Zad68 15:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful, but might it be defended as encyclopedic to gather together animal experimentation results for a chemical so as to give a full account of what is known of that chemical? This is a general worry I have - so another example article is Medicinal mushrooms: much of the article is gathering together medicinal "properties", "associations" and "potential applications" of mushrooms. Is doing that a fair summary of research activities, or an implication-heavy mass of undue content? Alexbrn 15:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of what you are trying to imply. Animal research is an essential part of preclinical, toxicological and biomedical research in general. As such, if there is a relevant literature on effects of substances on animals, I expect it to be in the article. WP:UNDUE is on a case-by-case basis, and is about article balance. --cyclopia 15:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, doubtful, so that's the point really. I don't have access to full primary study PMID 16616938 but the MeSH terms includes "Rats, Wistar" which is a strain of albino laboratory rats developed by the Wistar Institute and testing is only ever done on these kinds of rats for the intended purpose of benefitting human health. Therefore this use of this sort of source fails WP:MEDRS badly and needs to come out of the article. Zad68 15:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait, why? So far it is clear it is about animals it makes perfect sense to include such stuff. If there is an explicit implication of the kind "Compound X could treat cancer in humans, given the promising results on animals..." this is WP:SYNTH and as such disallowed. But so far we report the studies as they are, there is nothing bad about that. --cyclopia 16:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If it is discussed in a secondary source may be notable. If it is a primary source would be very hesitant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

On the original question: A source that's all about animals can be a secondary source. A source that's all about humans can be a primary source. The subject matter doesn't determine the status. PubMed lists five recent reviews on this subject. The first in the list is PMID 22475317, and it's a review that happens to talk about animals studies. That's fine: it's still a secondary source. It's important to make sure that the material isn't misrepresented, but you can summarize what the review says about the animals studies that have been conducted. There are some things that can't be talked about any other way, like LD50s and chemicals that haven't finished human testing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't like animal studies supporting any text that might suggest an identical effect in humans without a clear disclaimer. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sentence case in article title

There is a discussion about whether a syndrome is an acronym, and therefore should not use the sentence case in the title. Comment appreciated: Talk:Olfactory_Reference_Syndrome#Requested_move_08_January_2014. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Lesion (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not done yet-- I tried to move, but an admin needs to delete the old for the move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to clarify admin still needed, but consensus achieved. Lesion (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

correct (in the future, just ask an admin here to do this). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok now it's done, ty. Lesion (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Resource request

Does anyone have access to these 2 reviews?

• Begum M, McKenna PJ. Olfactory reference syndrome: a systematic review of the world literature. Psychol Med. 2011 Mar;41(3):453-61. PubMed entry: , paywalled at Cambridge Journals:
• Bizamcer AN, Dubin WR, Hayburn B. Olfactory reference syndrome. Psychosomatics. 2008 Jan-Feb;49(1):77-81. PubMed entry: , Paywalled at Elsevier/science direct(?):

Cross-posted on resource request page. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (again!),  Done Lesion (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I find out if a journal is pubmed indexed?

This source seems useful:

Phillips KA, Castle DJ (2007). "How to help patients with olfactory reference syndrome" (PDF). Current psychiatry. 6 (3).

But I could not find it on pubmed. What are peoples' thoughts about the suitability of this source and does anyone know of a way to find if any given journal is listed on MEDLINE? Lesion (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Pubmed indexing is a sort of sign of quality. For very rare topics such as this one I would not have an issue with your source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, in it goes. There are hundreds of case reports, and this condition is supposed to be significantly more common in Japan, but just only 4 dedicated secondary/tertiary sources we can use (1 in Spanish). This adds a 5th. I just can't find out if the journal is peer reviewed. Interestingly, there are only 4 articles from this journal listed on PubMed, all available via PMC

It is peer reviewed . Lesion (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tepi the way you can check if a journal is MEDLINE-indexed is to look at the NLM Catalog record for it. For this particular journal Current Psychiatry the NLM Catalog record is here and unfortunately the journal is explicitly listed as not MEDLINE-indexed. MEDLINE indexing is a relatively low bar and there are LOTS of psychology journals that are MEDLINE-indexed and so I'd be concerned about the quality of that source. I'd dig deep into the author's credentials and affiliations before using. You have to ask yourself why the author couldn't get the article published in a more established MEDLINE indexed journal? Zad68 19:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is interesting, because the journal seems legit. From their website: "Current Psychiatry is a peer-reviewed journal for 40,000 U.S. psychiatrists in community and hospital practice, psychiatry residents, and advance-practice psychiatric nurses with prescribing authority." I wonder why it is not on PubMed... Regarding the article itself, it has a "tacked on" case report, so maybe it is inappropriate to call this a secondary source. First author is a prof of psychiatry, both have disclosed links to pharmaceutical companies. Lesion (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why it isn't, Tepi, but it would certainly make me treat the source from a "guilty until proven innocent" frame of mind. Are there really absolutely no other better articles available that cover treatment? Just use your best judgment, of course. And I don't see any issue at all with review having a "tacked on" case report actually, I've seen a number of perfectly well-qualified WP:MEDRS articles written that way, especially when the articles are written by/for practicing ER docs or clinicians. The case report gives a framework that drives the organization of the article, just a style thing. Zad68 20:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Including this source, there are 5 dedicated, MEDRS compliant sources, 2 of which are described as systematic reviews, so yes I would say there better sources for treatment. I will use those for the treatment section then instead of this source. Thanks for advice, Lesion (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Lesion, let me know if you need help with a Spanish-language source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Google translate seems OK so far, but I may very well take you up on this offer later. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge notification

The one line derm stub Bromidrosiphobia has been proposed for merging into Olfactory reference syndrome, comments appreciated here , many thanks, Lesion (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I found a reliable source which states they are synonyms, merged.  Done Lesion (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Circumcision and HIV

Following the recent drama around this topic, I stumbled into this - which needs attention. Alexbrn 12:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It would take me a full day to go through 104 sources and flag reviews and primary sources; I'm wondering if Boghog has any magic tricks up his sleeve to get a bot to do this work (or at least a first pass, since PubMed doesn't always record them accurately). I will attempt to look at it after I finish the work pending at Schizophrenia and psilocybin et al, where I still haven't gotten back to Sasata. Considering the amount of work pending, I can't promise to get to this anytime soon; the hard, time-consuming work is first checking sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn this article is a super opportunity for improvement. There are TONS of sources available. I do not want to drive the development of this article but will support. SandyGeorgia I wrote a script that pulls the refs and tags them with the PubMed article type, I will run that for the article and post the results on the article Talk page. However I feel that the best thing to do would be to simply throw out the entire article and start over. Zad68 15:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You did ?!?!? Why am I just hearing about this-- I spent hours flagging primary sources at synesthesia. Can others use your script, or do we have to contact you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes... it's not really super-clever but it does the job. It is actually a piece of a bigger script that I wrote to assist me in reviewing the sourcing for medical article GA candidates. I've run it ad-hoc for a few things Doc needed. I had intended to put it up on the toolserver (I got an account and everything) but am not familiar enough with that to get it done, and then I lost momentum. I can still run it ad-hoc on request but the definitely sucks to make everyone dependent on me. Zad68 15:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk to Boghog about getting it implemented somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

He can help with that? That'd be great! Zad68 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes! a script! I was thinking along the same lines but (AIUI) even if one gets the CrossRef record for an article, there's no article classification data (i.e. whether it's a research article, a review, or whatever) in there. However, one can I suppose pull in the classification data from PubMed if it's got a PMID - is that what you do? Otherwise I have to confess I was thinking a delete and re-start might be easier -- does this article need to say much more than the corresponding section does at Circumcision ? Alexbrn 15:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have run my script and posted my results at the article Talk page, hope it's useful. Yes my script pulls the article type from PubMed. I think there's enough out there to fill out a real article on this topic, possibly even enough to support a GA. The main article should provide a brief overview and use the {{Main}} template to point to this article. Probably the main article could use an update on this, actually. Zad68 16:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding--I'm going to look into getting my script to pull the year and also whether it's MEDLINE indexed... Zad68 16:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done adding MEDLINE status and year of publication to script, output at the article Talk page now! Zad68 18:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This sounds great, and it will save many of us hours of clicking.

However, like any tool, it will really only be great if people use it correctly. Primary sources are allowed in medical articles, if they are carefully chosen and sparingly used. For example, it's common for a ==History== section to link to the first formal description of a disease, even though that paper is often both decades old and a primary source. Some details of physiology might be better explained in and better supported by a top-quality primary paper than with a secondary source that mentions them in passing. WP:Secondary is not another way to spell good, and "primary" is not an alternative spelling for bad. Once you've got the list, you'll still have to think about whether this source is appropriate for the exact claim being made in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing point taken, I'm trusting that this will be used as a tool to assist and it won't be used in place of thinking and common sense! Zad68 20:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

For mechanisms of diseases usually textbooks are better than primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This script is awesome Zad68. Normally for an article that size, it would take me about eight hours just to check and flag the sources to know which are reviews, which are editorials, meta-analysis, etc, and by the time I'm done with that, I'm usually too sick and tired of the article (and sitting on my butt) to take the next step of seeing if the sources are used correctly.

In this instance, based on your list, it was much easier to flag the sources, and within an hour or two, work to see how the sources were used could get underway. As it turned out, a good number of the reviews were extremely dated, but provided useful information for the History section, and several of the primary sources used actually backed statements that could be made in History. This script saved a couple days' work, and a whole lot of frustration; the most important benefit is that one can get to work on the content faster, rather than wasting time with three tabs open to check and flag sources.

By the way, this article was written too long ago, so that what is there now mostly is a good history section; content needs to be built to be updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm beaming with pride, seriously... I'm delighted to produce something to help someone use their time more efficiently while... uh, well, wasting time on Misplaced Pages. Please let me know if I can add anything else to the script to make it more useful and I will have to follow up with Boghog! Zad68 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Slate.com review of a couple of pages

FYI: Not sure if anyone has seen this yet - slate.com has done a somewhat tongue-in-cheek review of the penis and vagina pages. Deeper in they've got someone talking about gender bias within the pages. Ian Furst (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Your link has an extra pipe. This link should work. Axl ¤ 13:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Already mentioned here at the Vagina article and here at WP:Anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, Ian, with regard to the topic of the penis, that Slate article is more so focused on the Human penis article rather than the Penis article. Flyer22 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Naomi Wolf, author of the recent book Vagina: "I've never seen a labia like that." Back to anatomy school for you, Ms Wolf. (The singular is labium.) Axl ¤ 13:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Wolf can hook up with WMUK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)

Another one in need of attention - would be good to run a reference-sniffing tool over this article ... Alexbrn 15:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Meditation and hypertension

A user would like further opinions here Talk:Hypertension#Alternative_Approaches_to_Lowering_Blood_Pressure_-_A_Scientific_Statement_From_the_AHA_Part_Deux Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

James Heilman now has a Misplaced Pages page

I have decided that Jmh649, i.e. James Heilman, MD, meets Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines, and have therefore decided to create an article about him. This article can be viewed here. I am curious what he and other members of this Wikiproject think about whether this article should exist should be deleted or not. Jinkinson talk to me 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Gah. Doubt I meet notability requirements. I am from Saskatchewan yes. But not Moose Jaw Saskatchewan even though I did live there for a number of years. It is "East Kootenay". And I am not "the leading clinician-Wikipedian behind WikiProject Medicine". That honor would go to User:Jfdwolff. I could maybe be called a "leading clinician-Wikipedian". One among a number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

May somebody someday do something nice for you, Jinkinson. I'm not editing that article per COI, but will you please read WP:MOSDATE#Precise language and banish the words curently and recently from your Misplaced Pages writing, and also, WP:EMDASHes are not spaced. And, see WP:PUNC on spacing for logical quotation. Strange quotes; what do you mean by "think about whether this article should exist"? It does exist. WP:POINT comes to mind, in the event you are suggesting it shouldn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that James is pleased that he will now endure similar WP:BLP nightmares (vandalism, etc.) that other Wikipedians with Misplaced Pages articles existing about them have endured, but it is an honor to have a Wikipedian create a Misplaced Pages article about you because they think you are notable enough for it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I abstain from any comment on this individual article, suggest seek wider opinion from editors outside this project re notability. In response to Flyer22's comment above, whether a person (any person) is happy to have their own Misplaced Pages article or not does not feature in determining the notability for such an article.

Unrelated to this specific article, I would again raise concerns that user:Jinkinson considers the main article space a suitable place to create bio articles which may or may not be notable. I would recommend detailed review of notability guidelines for biography articles, which seem to be a favorite, so that there is more confidence about whether a person is notable or not. It is also worth pointing out that AfD is chronically swamped with bio articles and they get deleted by the bucketful. Lesion (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lesion, with regard to notability, I of course know that; I didn't state or imply that "whether a person (any person) is happy to have their own Misplaced Pages article or not in determining the notability for such an article." Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just making clear as that might have been the message that some readers took. Lesion (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As helpful as Doc is to Misplaced Pages, the sourcing provided so far doesn't show the BLP rises above WP:BLP1E and WP:ACADEMIC is not met either. I don't see sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sourcing to pass WP:GNG. The standard thing to do is to see if sourcing is provided that meets one of the standard Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, and WP:AFD if not. Zad68 18:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh, tricky. Not many Wikipedians have their own articles (although I've just noticed this:  Essjay controversy). At the moment I think it is very difficult to formulate what the threshhold would be for a Wikipedian to become notable. If User:Koavf is not notable (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Justin Knapp) then what hope is there for those with a less lofty edit count? JFW | T@lk 19:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd only known James as his screen name (Doc James) and the guy that did a lot of editing on medical articles. His "note-worthiness" was news to me, so here's my impression based on reading the article then Googling him. It may seem to be splitting hairs but James is (publically) known for 1) being a prolific clinician-wikipedian, 2) using Misplaced Pages as a teaching tool for medical students and 3) the Rorschach controversy. Just because each event is tied to Misplaced Pages, shouldn't mean that all are lumped together as one event. It seems different, to me, than the Justin Knapp article which was created (and deleted) based on wide coverage of one event. I don't think it will lead to an onslaught of Wikipedians looking to create their own pages as most prefer to work under pseudonyms and even fewer make an effort to be newsworthy outside of the Misplaced Pages community. My argument would be that the article stands based on the number and variety of independent sources. As an aside (as I don't think this should be used in the consideration of keeping this article but I'd be lying if I said I didn't think about it), the article is a nice thing to do for someone who's done a lot for the community and creates an encyclopedic reference for other clinicians (or student clinicians) who might be looking for real-world examples of how they can contribute.Ian Furst (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(Here's a nice example of the way errors creep in as multiple editors write and re-arrange content: "Heilman gained notoriety as a champion for the improvement of Misplaced Pages's health-related content". What a scoundrel! Adrian J. Hunter 12:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC))

LOL, that's not how he gained notoriety. Axl ¤ 13:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well considering all Misplaced Pages's medical content is doing nothing but harming our readers, this could indeed be worth of notoriety ;-p Lesion (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like lots of other editors (QuackGuru, Koavf, and Ocaasi, to name a few) have been working on this page considerably in the last 48 hours or so. Zad68, are you now convinced that Doc James/Jmh649/Dr. Heilman/whatever we're supposed to call him is notable? Jinkinson talk to me 20:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: QuackGuru has nominated the article for deletion. Anyone reading this, feel free to vote there. Jinkinson talk to me 23:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Substance dependence

I've been copyediting the substance dependence article since it's been in an awful state of disrepair; but, given the size of the page, I could probably use some help. It's both high importance and a level 4 vital article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another opinion

We have a new user who would like another opinion Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian just pointed out that the first supporting ref of the document in question is to the Misplaced Pages article on the subject :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata 2014

Just a quick update for all those that are interested in Wikidata. Reasonator, a tool developed by Magnus Manske, has become quite good at displaying the basic information about certain medical topics. The big advantage is that we can translate little bits of information and create dynamic content in every single language. See for example the page for huntingtons disease:

• English: http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q190564&lang=en
• German: http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q190564&lang=de
• Russian: http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q190564&lang=ru
• Russian: http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q190564&lang=ko
• Kiswahili: http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q190564&lang=sw

The last one doesn't work well because the properties and items haven't been translated into that language yet. But hopefully we can accomplish that in the coming year for the most important medical subjects. If you would like to participate or just take a look, you can visit us at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine. --Tobias1984 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This is brilliant and a highly accessible way to support translators in bringing huge amounts of data to people who speak any language. If this information could be presented within the Misplaced Pages articles people are already visiting then the work of a single translator would have a huge amount of impact.

I wish the best for this worthy project and to the extent I can I will support it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the intent for smaller Wikis is, that they will have these pages as place-holders until somebody writes an article. In the future the intent is that the user will be prompted if the infobox should be added from wikidata and what information should be displayed. That will free up a lot of time so that people can use on writing and translating articles, instead of getting frustrated with the infobox template.
Tranlating has become very efficient. Sometimes one translation adds information to hundreds of other items. See for example: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-terminator/?list&lang=en&mode=t1000 - And thank you @Bluerasberry: for supporting the collaboration. Hopefully these small steps will lead us to something great. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

AIDS denialist active

31.185.137.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Adrian J. Hunter 11:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I love that he tried to defend those changes as "correcting negative bias". If only bias could be fixed by throwing more contradictory bias towards it... Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  09:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Has Pericoronitis actually improved, or is this just a case of WP:OWN?

• diff

To give background, I wrote ~95% of this article (by no means was it "perfect" however). This was then criticized as possessing bloated language on the talkpage before a recent series of red edits have reduced the length of the article. It may be merely conflicting ideas of style, and specifically regarding how much detail our articles should go into. I feel content has been lost. Seeking neutral opinions regarding these changes. I do not wish to revert myself as I suspect my unease regarding these edits may just be a case of OWN. Comments appreciated. Lesion (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

3RR over primary source being added to herpes simplex, herpes labialis, herpes genitalis

A (?well meaning) editor is repeatedly adding a primary source to the above articles (, , ). Tried to explain on user talkpage, obviously failed. I think I have made 3 reverts already. Comments appreciated. Lesion (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not see a 3RR warning on the user's talk, which is a prerequisite for admin action-- added that, but now off for a few hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ty for that. Don't think admin action needed, just better understanding of MEDRS. User has emailed me twice saying the source is fine with reasoning that there are already primary sources on the articles and that primary sources are clearly allowed if no 2o available. Replied to emails on user talkpage. Lesion (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of those articles, I have encountered two editors adding bad or otherwise poor sources to the Herpes genitalis article; for example, here with Willpolydna, and I see that Willpolydna is the editor that Lesion has been encountering at the herpes articles. As for the other editor I've encountered, I didn't revert Ohnohedinnit again because I didn't feel like getting into a WP:Edit war with a newbie (that type of edit war is almost always the most frustrating because the newbie will almost always continue reverting) and it appeared that Jmh649 (Doc James) was watching that article. When I saw that Doc James didn't revert Ohnohedinnit, I left it alone. Ohnohedinnit also has a WP:BLP issue, as seen here on his talk page. We are not supposed to state that someone "has become bisexual while in prison" unless that person identifies as bisexual. And people don't just become bisexual, no more than they suddenly become heterosexual, gay or lesbian...unless speaking of those matters in sexual identity or behavioral (as distinct from sexual orientation) terms only. By that, I mean that the person's sexual orientation is already developed; whether they finally express it (physically or otherwise) or take up behavior that contradicts it does not change that.

By the way, above I linked Willpolydna and Ohnohedinnit's talk pages for their usernames because they don't yet have user pages. Flyer22 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Flyer22. I do not want to get WP:INVOLVED in the content but someone should review this article history at Herpes genitalis. Zad68 02:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, here and here so far. That article still needs some sourcing cleanup, though; for example, it used this source, which I removed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Have taken a look and agree with Lesion. Have reverted and posted further instructions on the users page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Willpolydna has clearly been edit-warring at the listed articles, and has received proper notices about sourcing requirements and our rules against edit-warring. Looking at the state of the articles, this looks stale at the moment, but if the editor starts back up again ping me and I will block. Zad68 02:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Caries

I was going to start a rework of the caries page, only to discover that, technically, it refer to destruction of not only teeth but also bone. I've never heard of osteomyelitis or other bone destroying diseases referred to as caries, only teeth (dental caries). Question; should I turn this into a disambiguation page? Treat the entire thing as dental caries and put in a sentence about the fact it can refer to other bone destroying diseases? Right now the opening paragraph deals with bone or teeth but the text below deals largely with dental caries. Thoughts are appreciated. Thanks. Ian Furst (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced "caries" referring to pathoses of hard tissues other than the dental tissues is still in regular, modern use. Suggest that caries redirect to dental caries, and in the latter history section this might be mentioned. Lesion (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a historic source which uses the term "bone" caries , and another (relating it to neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis, a controversial topic which potential implications on persistent idopathic facial pain/atypical facial pain). Also, here is a online popular dictionary defintion of caries: "a progressive destruction of bone or tooth; especially : tooth decay" . Lesion (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

maybe this page was created based on an old dictionary definition rather than reliable sources. I've checked Robbin's Path, several Int Med & Gen Sx textbooks (incl one a colleague left around from 1977) and I can't find any reference to caries except in teeth. Editors (esp path/radio/ortho and those outside North America); have you ever heard of caries referring to lytic bone lesions? Ian Furst (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Lesion's suggestion at 03:28 is a good one that will line up with what our readers expect.

Is there another word for "bone caries"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree - sounds like there's little evidence it's used beyond teeth - lesion, do you know how to create the redirect? Do I just delete the contents and build the redirect? Ian Furst (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian: No need to create any page, it already exists. Yes I think just write over the previous content + if you feel any of the content on caries is suitable to be merged to dental caries.

Other option is make caries into a short article which 1. links to dental caries and 2. mentions that caries may also refer to bone destruction in a historic context.

WAID: This is the most recent source I found that uses the term "bone caries" (also "vertebral caries"): Hotokezaka, H (1998 May). "Internalization of Mycobacterium bovis Bacillus Calmette-Guérin into osteoblast-like MC3T3-E1 cells and bone resorptive responses of the cells against the infection". Scandinavian journal of immunology. 47 (5): 453–8. PMID 9627129. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), may have just been inexpertly translated. Most occurrences of the term are historic: + the sources already posted above. Here is a an altmed source which utilizes some historic literature, referring to "caries of the cranium, ribs, spine, and of the bones of the limbs" and claiming that tooth decay is not related to bacteria . So as to the exact modern equivalent of the term, I would guess some sources are referring to avascular necrosis (osteonecrosis) ... based on "the term for decay or ulcerous inflammation of bone." and the neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis source earlier, but in all honesty I think this term was mostly used in a time when distinct hard tissue pathoses were poorly distinguished from each other, so "bone caries" could also mean osteomeyelitis, or any destructive process, i.e. a descriptive term like "ulceration" and not a precise entity. The current article talks about "carries sicca of the cranial vault" (lit. "dry decay/rot"?), related to syphilis. Historic sources for this can also be found ,. Lesion (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

On a related subject, since it's been so long since I've seen anyone interested in dental health: The lead to Disease says "The most common disease in the world is gum disease affecting 3 out of 4 people." I don't really doubt the claim (much; it kind of depends on whether you mean prevalence or incidence, and that level of detail isn't appropriate for the lead of this very basic article).

The source, however, is really pathetic. If you can find a better one, please let me know (or boldly fix it yourself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy with redirect. Not sure how others feel. Lesion (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer review notification

I have requested a peer review on olfactory reference syndrome, located here

(Cross-posted on WT:PSYCH) Kind regards, Lesion (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Intercostal nerve block

See

• Template:Did you know nominations/Intercostal nerve block
• Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2014 January 13

If someone has time to rewrite it to remove extensive copyvio, grand; if not, I will stub it down. Fair warning; it is almost entirely either cut-and-paste or very close paraphrasing, and rewriting will take some time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That was a long article that you reduced to one sentence. Was it really all copyright violation from all the references used? Axl ¤ 22:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything that I checked, and I checked a lot (and also from some of his/her other articles, same thing) ... if you look at that editor's other work, you'll see that ESL is a significant issue, and as far as I can tell, s/he wrote none of it, and there was a good deal of outright cut-and-paste. It all has to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with tagging pages as copyvios, but I think you are supposed to include the url of the website you believe it to be copied-and-pasted from in the template, Sandy, and it seems you didn't do that with this article. Was this an error, or am I missing something? Jinkinson talk to me 22:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

See the talk page and the edit summary and the CCI page I gave above; you can't very well tag a copyvio as coming from one page when it comes from multiple websites and quite a few books, too-- the whole thing is a copyvio. Methinks if folks would read the links I gave, including my discussion with the author of the article at the CCI page and about his other work, we could get a quicker answer as to whether anyone is willing or able to rewrite the thing, or if I should go ahead and stub it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"Cite Journal" template in the Misplaced Pages editing toolbar not working

I posted about this just now on the Village Pump - Technical, and I wonder if you guys can help as well:

This is frustrating -- the "Cite Journal" template in the editing toolbar (at least the one I see) is not working properly all of a sudden (I don't know how long this has been going on, since I don't think I've used in a month or so). If one clicks "Cite Journal", the "Cite Book" template pops up instead! It is missing all of the critical ingredients of the "Cite Journal" template, like PMID number, DOI number, and so forth. I tried to make some manual adjustments after I filled in the fields in the "Cite Book" template that in now the only one available, but it's still not working correctly. Even odder is the fact that though the edit toolbar clearly titles the template "Cite Book" (instead of the "Cite Journal" requested), when one clicks "add citation", the resulting citation text reads <ref>{{cite journal}}</ref>, even though it's clearly not and doesn't have the normal journal fields.

Anyway, this is really really frustrating for those of us citing medically related articles, and so forth. BTW, I've checked this on Chrome and on IE, and it's the same glitch on both.

Can someone please restore the "Cite Journal" template to its former correct state, complete with the proper name, and the PMID number field, DOI number field, and so forth? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer your specific question, but for PubMed-indexed references, I now use the PMID template. Axl ¤ 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It is working again. This breaks from time to time. I use this as a backup . I do not like the cite PMID templates. We have had some people switch the cite journal to the cite pmid tags which is a pain. The cite pmid tags do not work in many other languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc James -- it's not working, it's still the same. It's still the Book citation, and it's still missing DOI and PMID listings. I imagine you are using a different editing toolbar. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to get the other one to work? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The totally blank one you posted? Too complicated for me. I want the normal one to be fixed, as there's no reason for the wrong template to come up on the editing bar. Hoping someone here has some influence and can get it fixed. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Just put the PMID (or ISBN or anything else) in one of the blank boxes, and click "Generate". It should automatically figure it all out for you. If you don't like that one (and it will stop working in a few months), then try Diberri's.

I believe that the cite gadget in the editing toolbar is a gadget written by a volunteer. Support for such gadgets is limited to the time and interest that the volunteer has. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

along the same lines, is there a problem using {{cite isbn|}} template when moving to other languages? Ian Furst (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes same problem. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a FAC review on a mid-importance WP:MED article

Since I'd prefer to avoid a potential wait of 6–9 weeks for my FA-nom to close, I'd really appreciate it if a few people from WP:MED would provide their input on the amphetamine FAC page. Any/all constructive feedback or criticism is welcome!
(Cross-posted on WT:PHARM) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This FA nom hasn't received any feedback for over a week. I'd really appreciate some input from anyone at this point. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

These things move slow. Number of edits and editors are down over the holidays. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I am currently peer reviewing an article and FAC reviewing another. I shall try to get to "Amphetamine" after that. Axl ¤ 17:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I look forward to reading your feedback. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much longer this nomination will be open, but if anyone else is interested in providing feedback/taking a position on the amphetamine FAC, more input is always appreciated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft at AfC needs medical expert help.

This draft about a probably notable medical topic needs a lot of help to get it into shape. The content looks comprehensive (to my in-expert eye) but in terms of style, formatting, referencing and other "technicalities" it is a very rough draft. Rather than the draft being submitted to AfC numerous times and thus having problems pointed out for fixing one at a time, I believe it would be far better for the writer to be given fairly comprehensive assistance by someone familiar with the specific standards and requirements of medical articles. Going through AfC will require a large number of submit/decline/fix/repeat-cycles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work. I responded to the basic issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, massive work ahead. And there's the concern about due weight relative to self-citing by the main author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. I have declined the AfC submission and requested that the author does not resubmit it to AfC before you folks are satisfied that it is acceptable - in which case one of you could just as well accept it into mainspace anyway. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cluebot getting much closer to sentience...

Just a little light relief... I'm amazed that cluebot can work out that this edit to Oppositional defiant disorder is vandalism in the complete absence of naughty words, problem words, deletion of content, etc. I'm guessing it assessed the IP as having edit-warred elsewhere (on a related topic, but cluebot presumably wasn't to know that).

Now, what other tendencies should we train cluebot to recognise... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think,

• to flag changes to a sentence which already ended in a reference without any additional reference, made by ips.
• lack of edit summary
• insertion of empty wikimark up <ref></ref>

Difficult, because a lot of vandals try to disguise or keep very low key like changing a decimal point. Lesion (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that it was triggered by the addition of a very short paragraph containing quotation marks.

For further light relief, here is an old diff of Cluebot dutifully delivering a vandalism warning to another bot, politely requesting that it restrict experimental edits to the sandbox. Adrian J. Hunter 01:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Vasectomy article

Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:Vasectomy#Ideological issues. But either way, that article as a whole needs a lot of work. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Library seeks renewal (please comment)

The Misplaced Pages Library has grown from a collection of donations to paywalled sources into a broad open research portal for our community. New partnerships have been formed, new pilot programs started, new connections made with our library experts and likeminded institutions. We have tried to bring people together in a new sense of purpose and community about the importance of facilitating research in an open and collaborative way. Here's what we've done so far:

• Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of those references between 400-600%
• Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
• New pilot projects: Started the Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Misplaced Pages researchers
• Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
• Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
• Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

We've proposed a 6 month renewal request to continue and deepen this work and would appreciate your comments, concerns, thoughts, questions, or endorsements.

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi 12:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

6 month full-time position - Cancer Research UK Wikipedian in residence

• Third Sector news item
• Oliver Childs's CRUK science blog
• CRUK job ad

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted Anthony, I didn't know that the advert had gone out. I've been impressed with the CRUK science comms team and would encourage anyone who might be interested to apply. JFW | T@lk 17:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)