Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

I do not like reading

"Do we have a policy or a general feeling here, to retain unacceptable or unencyclopedic articles temporarily as a favor to students doing assignments? Personally I wouldn't feel "guilty" at all about deleting such an article if it deserved deletion, and in fact I kind of hate the whole idea of professors telling students to come here and post their homework in the middle of an international encyclopedia."

I have put in a request with wikipedia that our group will acquire the admin of the Colloid Cyst Stub seeing now this "Project medicine" is the work of a Students and their homework and not a medical organization.Timeholder (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What do you mean "group"? I'm not sure what you're saying, but from Talk:Colloid cyst I think you want to edit the article. Are you working here as part of an assignment for student editors? Anyone can edit Wikipedia but please follow WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS if you edit the page. Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody "owns" or controls any article. You don't need to ask for permission from an admin to improve that article. You just need to click here and make an improvement.

We (the other volunteers who want to improve medical articles) hope that you will use very high-quality sources, like medical school textbooks or literature reviews, to improve the article. We have some advice on how to write a good article and what to include in it. You may find that advice helpful.

Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just talked to this user in #wikipedia-en-help and I can answer some of your questions:

Timeholder is a survivor of the condition. The "group" refers to a group of 533 survivors of this condition. He (and the group) wants to edit the page, but apparently the edits have been reverted or they need to be approved (it's not under the "Pending Changes" pages, so the latter probably isn't true). He wants to rewrite the article from a 7 sentence stub to an article with more information, references, etc. Hope this helps, πr² (t • c) 06:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably referring to this: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The material was a copyright violation; which I have now removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've tried to explain that copying from other websites and close paraphrasing is not allowed, but I hope that the user will not be discouraged by this. πr² (t • c) 17:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few MEDRS available to work from, but the article definitely needs some love.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an attempt to force primary research into the article on cystic fibrosis. Comments appreciated Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisted. Commented at article talk and user talk. Hopefully they discuss and refrain from reverting again. Biosthmors (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this case aside) There is a tendency to downplay the usefulness of primary sources. Many primary sources begin with a background section, which is like a mini-review of the topic. Personally, I feel it is not a problem to ref the background section of a primary source. As long as the original research parts of the sources are not referenced too much... lesion (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those background sections tend not to be as neutral as a proper review article. They tend to be summaries of those parts of the background that support the research at hand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and for that reason they don't help support WP:WEIGHT much. Cystic fibrosis is a major genetic disease: there's no need to be using scraps for this topic. Colin°^Talk 08:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I think this is not all the time, a good quality background will summarize all the available literature, including those previous findings that counter the coming arguments. Also, as per WP:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes a section covering contemporary research should be included. I think WP:undue weight is overused...primary research should be mentioned in a "research section". To include the contemporary research is just as important as the history section. Human understanding of any medical topic is just a model that tends towards reality, as our understanding is refined, the model is adapted. I would like to see editors think rather than just undoing edits of (usually inexperienced) newcomers. Instead of putting them off at the start, can the primary source be mentioned briefly in a research section? lesion (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we included all primary research on a topic in a "Research section" that section would be thousands of kb long. This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for every single research study ever done. Important research and primary studies can obviously be included, if they are mentioned as important by secondary reviews. Yobol (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basic contemporary research can be mentioned in an article but with appropriate weight, and for that you need secondary sources. Wikipedian's have a tendency to search PubMed or read the Daily Mail and try to include all sorts of weird, wonderful and often dead-end basic research as though it has huge clinical significance and confidently state cancer is already cured by eating, or avoiding, grapefruit or whatever. For example, in my own pet subject, PMID 22509165 (online here) provides an up-to-date summary of the state of research in the ketogenic diet beyond epilepsy. But in contrast, the background section of a paper researching in rats the ketogenic diet for Alzheimer's disease might only include supportive studies that agree with the researcher's proposed mechanism-of-action. And we need to be careful who the audience of these research papers is: not the general public, but other researchers and grant awarding bodies. So they will have a tendency to big-up the importance of their petri dishes. And while the intended audience know fine well this is just puffery, our Wikipedia readers may not. Colin°^Talk 15:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue comes up frequently enough for us at WP:MED that I'll write an essay on it. As of now, I have the sentence "In 2012, two studies found a clinical benefit in taking aspirin to prevent recurrent VTE" in DVT#Research directions. I sympathize with lesion's point, but I feel like the burden of thinking/researching about the appropriateness of a primary source should be on the person who added it. We can help by having an essay to refer people to. Just saying "see WP:MEDRS" after (something I've done myself) may be perceived as too WP:BITEy. Biosthmors (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRIPdatabase.com is probably the best site to help people find secondary sources.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying only to include mention of contemporary research if secondary sources mention it, and not cite the primary research...and also only to cite the most significant/promising contemporary research in the article rather than every study on the topic.

In the example given I would simply say simply "the role of a ketogenic diet in the etiology of Alzheimers has been investigated." ...nothing wrong with that right, no POV, just factual really. You can usually find review papers of topics like this. lesion (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have managed to write about 20 good articles and never used a primary source. Primary sources are only needed if you wish to push fringe views or breaking research neither of which IMO we should be doing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find review articles, use those, not primary articles. Good review articles place the primary research in proper context to mainstream thought as well as how productive/useful that line of research is. Yobol (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@lesion, WP:MEDREV allows the careful use of primary sources if no secondary sources are available, and there is no blanket prohibition against them. I just think it takes some wise editorial judgement and a dedication to the article. If one is going to add primary sources, then one should also be ready to replace those references to secondary sources when they become available. Biosthmors (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I vaguely remember the last time someone said that, their suggested appropriate use of primary sources turned out to either have problems or was replaceable by secondary sources. There may be a good reason why no secondary sources mentioned the research: it turned out to be irrelevant or mistaken, and nobody wants to fill a review with all the non-notable dead ends. There is a tendency on Wikipedia to throw in everything to an article, when our readers would thank us for a bit more editorial control. Colin°^Talk 19:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, which is why I like WP:MEDREV. See my example above for DVT where I've cited a couple recent NEJM studies to support one sentence. I agree that editorial judgement is important, and I don't want to encourage people citing dead ends. But I also don't want to discourage them from improving the encyclopedia. Biosthmors (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the use of randomized controlled trials published in a high quality journal like NEJM in a research section would be a good example of what is a good example of appropriate use of a primary study; however, most of the time we get low quality retrospective observational studies/case studies/case reports/animal studies, published in low quality or non MEDLINE indexed journals that are used to rebut secondary sources. Good high quality primary studies that deserve to be mentioned are by far the exception, not the rule. Yobol (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that is if we are lucky. Much of the primary research stuff I see is from petre dishes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something that actually "summarize[s] all the available literature" on cystic fibrosis is going to be book-length, or at least a long chapter in a book. Half a dozen paragraphs of summary in a primary source can't do that, no matter how hard the authors try.

I generally agree that we want to avoid citing the primary literature whenever possible. I am not convinced that articles are improved by a long series of statements like "<My pet idea> is being researched in this disease". And when you consider major diseases, like breast cancer, you would indeed get a very long list of such statements, even if you restricted the list only to those things that had already seen multiple papers published on it. The best approach is to find someone else who has already written about the state of research ("Whither ____?" articles are not usually that hard to find) and use their summaries instead of whatever happened to catch our eyes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Tepi/lesion: "WP:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes" does not say that a section covering contemporary research should be included. It says "Include only if addressed by significant sources." This is not an endorsement for primary sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that should be revised to say "Include only if addressed by significant secondary sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as well... that's been my rule of thumb. First, no primary research. Second, no primary research. Third, if there must be primary research, it has to be referenced specifically by a secondary source, and only used in conjunction with and in the context of the use of that secondary source in the article. I think WP:MEDRS is probably overdue for an update. The way it is written isn't exactly how it is being applied/enforced by the WP:MED folks. WP:MEDRS should probably be updated to make its de facto "enforcement" official. Zad68 14:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes would support this change Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "primary research" is confusing. Note that WP:MEDRS is all about sources, not content. A discussion over what to cover in articles is more of a WP:MEDMOS thing, which already briefly discourages discussing individual studies in detail. In fact, one could write an essay on Wikipedia's over use of "A study .... found that ... However, another study .... found that..." non-encyclopaedic text. It comes from folk taking news and putting it into an encyclopaedia, or from too much reading PubMed abstracts and not enough reading reviews and books. There is a place to discuss studies in some articles: the history or the research sections are appropriate places. But we should try very hard not to discussing them in an indications section for example. Colin°^Talk 17:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that contradict WP:MEDREV and discourage people from citing the two recent trials published in NEJM highlighted above in DVT? Biosthmors (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that you have chosen to quote RCTs from the New England Journal of Medicine as evidence to support the use of primary sources. In my opinion, the NEJM is the highest quality medical journal. RCTs published in it are the best primary sources, often better than many secondary sources.

According to WP:MEDASSESS, we aren't supposed to consider the quality of a paper before using it as a reference; we can only consider the type of paper. For example, an RCT published in the NEJM has the same weight as an RCT published in Homeopathy: the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. (I have argued with WhatamIdoing about this matter before, regarding secondary sources.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the publication isn't mentioned as something that should be ignored: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." The reputation of the journal itself doesn't seem to fall into this list of exclusions. Things like sample size might, but the publication itself isn't really about the type of study, is it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that the general quality/reputation of a journal is helpful when deciding its suitability as a source? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry WAID, but "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions" is just terribly confusing grammar. While I can parse past the triple negative, I shouldn't have to. When you then add "doesn't seem to fall into this list of exclusions" it just gets more confusing. How about "A high quality study in a reputable journal may be acceptable even if you have personal objections to its content, inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions" instead?LeadSongDog come howl! 23:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review has been requested and reviews will be appreciated for the article Globalization. Meclee (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this relate to medicine? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the article is relevant to WikiProject Medicine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one section, Globalization#Health. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has the topic of a WikiMedicine Logo been discussed? As part of the WikiProject Medicine at UCSF I'd love to include a logo that communicates Wikipedia and Medicine at one time. I imagine there are rules guiding modification of the Wikipedia logo, but I can't find any on here. Would it be ok for me to use something like this to advertise our upcoming events on the UCSF website? Michaelturken (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The globe and stylised text are copyright the Wikimedia Foundation, and I doubt you'll find it easy to gain permission to make derivatives in the way you want. An overview of the rules you're looking for can be found at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy - have a read and see what you think. It may be still be worth approaching the Foundation to see what they suggest though. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I am associated with Wikimedia Canada and am at UCSF partly as a representative from Wikimedia Canada I have authority to use the Wikipedia logo within limits. Agree we need to develop something. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been talking with a designer for a while. If anyone else is designing a logo then I would like to be aware of it. I have no proposals just now. See here - the Wikimedia Foundation has asked that people do not use their logo. Their statement leaves me with a lot of questions, but what I would like to see is that chapters have their own base logo which is free for anyone to use and then individual chapters can make variations of that. To affect this there would need to be a lot more people in the conversation. Right now, there is no free logo for community use. I am not sure if the WMF really wants the community to fork off and brand something new, but definitely the community needs to be able to use some kind of logo. Also that link says not to use the term "Wikimedia". I am not sure what that means. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the chapters are "Wikimedia and then the country". I will speak to people at the WMF when I am there in January to clarify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. 199.188.195.145 (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think combining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rod_of_Asclepius2.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_wordmark.svg so that the P of Wikipedia is incorporated into the image would work for this purpose. I'll see if I can get that done for us. Biosthmors (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure. I want clarification on the concept of logos for community use. I just posted about this in the same place, here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC

At Talk:Scheuermann's_disease#Wonderin_what_I_should_do.... a new user (and someone who has been diagnosed) was asking about optimal diagnosis/treatment. Biosthmors (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, gently make sure he's aware of WP:Medical disclaimer. Second, point out that Scheuermann's disease is a only a wp:Stub-class article (well, maybe it should be Start-class) that won't be a lot of help to him. While he is of course welcome to work on improving the article as he learns more about the subject, consider cautioning him about possible NPOV and COI, and then watchlisting both the article and his talkpage. Pubmed shows 21 reviews on the subject in the past five years, it should be quite feasible to improve the article. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put Talk:Global burden of disease as a "Top" importance article, as it seems to be concept we implicitly use to judge whether or not articles are Top importance and the most empirical way (the study) used to estimate this. Public health is listed as Top importance. Shouldn't Global health be, to be consistent? Biosthmors (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Global burden of disease to mid importance because this article is about one of the most important research projects in qualifying the global burden of disease, and not the concept of "global burden of disease" itself. That concept is in, as you suggest, Global health, and I did just change that project from high to top importance. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They way I see it is that top importance articles should be of interest to most people in most walks of life. Ie do you know anyone with it. Research concepts should be mid to low.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are as of today officially incorporated in NY state. Our official name is "Wiki Med Foundation, Inc." Congratulations to all involved :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, thank you for your work! Biosthmors (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent news! Congratulations & please keep us posted :-) Ildiko Santana (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may wish to use Google Alerts to find notable external references for a Wikipedia article on this topic.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am hoping to get some additional eyes on my recent edits to this article, as I continue to work through the medical uses section. As I mention on the talk page, a bleary-eyed deletion of the entire "hypothesized uses" section might have been a bit too bold and not consistent with the consensus process, so I would appreciate additional comment there or reversion as necessary.

The article received GA status quite some time ago (under less strict MEDRS standards, from what I've gathered), and I'm wondering whether it should be reassessed (either now or once I've worked through the remainder of the medical uses section)? Any thoughts on whether this would be a good candidate for a FA?

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to have as an FA, but in its current state, would not be a good candidate for FAC. I see quite a few primary sources used; none should be needed for an article with this much literature. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a GA. Please feel free to cut poorly referenced content aggressively. I have fixed a number of WP:MEDMOS issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is heavy handed to simply delete sections, instead look for suitable supporting secondary sources... lesion (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff just simply needs deleting per WP:DUE as many times there simply are not secondary sources. Would nominate it for GA review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A category renaming discussion is in progress at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 22#Category:Medical terms (version of 00:30, 23 December 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Five categories are being discussed. In all cases, the sole proposed change is from "terms" to "terminology". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can this, I wonder, count as a reliable medical source? Happy Christmas anyway! —86.162.64.42 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No but their is no reliable source stating that cheese causes migraines. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Then pass the port. Cheers! —86.162.64.42 (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Everyone! Christmas 2012: Research - Why Rudolph’s nose is red: observational study (BMJ 2012;345:e8311) Ildiko Santana (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone else like to commit to getting a (consistent) top-500 page view article, or several, up to GA status for 2013 (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages for a list)? And to commit to doing as many good article reviews as nominations, say "Yes". Happy Holidays! Biosthmors (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Malaria as a co-nominator and pulmonary embolism. Yes. Biosthmors (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• if I finish the GA I'm working on currently then yes... lesion (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I too think malaria would be a good target. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Misunderstood. Yes excellent idea. I will be working on a bunch this year. On asthma now Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I could go for recertifying Aspirin as GA, esp since you suggested it would not meet those standards as currently written. I'll choose a higher-need target, at some point. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Pain. It's time I got back to work. (I'll have a go at reviewing, but it's pretty new to me.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Circumcision's GA review will be underway in the next week or I'll <fill in something appropriate>. Zad68 21:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mouth ulcer was in the above popular pages list, rated B class. I took out all the primary sources and fleshed it out a bit. It's maybe ready for GAN soon. lesion (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a user adding a number of very good dissections. Some are unhappy with the captions and do not like dissections and thus are removing them. Others thoughts [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the dissection photos stay. A better caption is almost always needed, but I would personally happily add some to the pictures if this means that they will not be removed.JakobSteenberg (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jakob. The issue is that the team has limited English abilities and thus they need help on the caption side of thing. If you were willing to assist this would be excellent. They have uploaded many thousands of images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will write some. But what would the smartest way? Should I write them in Commons and copy/paste them into the articles where the pictures are used? JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that sounds good. Improve the captions on commons and than add these improvements to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an editor removing well sourced text here [3]. Comments appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant text of the article currently reads, "The Roman Catholic Church officially only accepts natural family planning in certain cases, although large numbers of Catholics in developed countries accept and use modern methods of birth control" and there hasn't been editing there in two days. Does that seem satisfactory? Zad68 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes more or less satisfied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, just wanted to see if there was still a need before going through the effort of starting a RSN or RFC. Zad68 15:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

So in chatting with a couple other wikipedians the other day we came up with an idea that seems like it might be kind of neat -- put together lists of the medical terms used in medical TV shows (ER, Gray's Anatomy, House, Scrubs, et al) so that there are convenient links to the medical vocabulary for each episode. I notice that the page List of ER episodes has about 12k hits in the last month. This might be used as a potential point of entry for newer editors, though there are clear concerns about WP:N. Thoughts? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as I check more current series, the list of grey's anatomy episodes has 300k hits in the last month. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See User:West.andrew.g/Popular_pages for the list of most popular pages. The article for the United States television show Grey's Anatomy ranks between 200-300 by pageviews among Wikipedia's 4 million articles, putting it within the top 0.1% of Wikipedia articles by popularity. This television show is a medical drama which in every episode introduces medical conditions. Perhaps people watching the show are hearing the names of medical conditions and searching for them on Wikipedia. They are certainly searching for more information about the show.

WikiProject Grey's Anatomy is organized enough to have made List of Grey's Anatomy episodes a featured list and created many articles about the show. It might be a good idea to reach out to this group and encourage them to have Wikipedia articles on show episodes link to the Wikipedia articles describing the medical conditions the shows are depicting, if this is not already happening uniformly. Pop culture entertainment media could be a way to make more people aware that we welcome people at all levels of expertise to participate in the development of articles on medicine, and perhaps also members of this WikiProject should be aware of major pop culture depictions of medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as people do not appear and start adding unreferenced trivia to our medical articles... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm TRLIJC19, the coordinator of WikiProject Grey's Anatomy. I've developed 20 good articles, 2 featured articles, and 2 featured lists for the project, and when I mention a medical condition, I usually wikilink it unless it's something silly like a common cold. There are times, however, when I don't know how to describe a medical condition or what to link it to. Perhaps if a situation like this comes up, I could post on the talk page of WikiProject Medicine and get some help from a member of your project. As for meta:Wiki Med, I'm not really interested, but I know a few members of our project are heavily interested in medicine, so maybe one of them will see the post on the project talk page and chime in here. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your contributions! Feel free to post here if you need to know how to describe a medical condition or where to wikilink. Someone here should help! Biosthmors (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

would be good to include a few words on these pages to highlight any inaccuracies/controversies portrayed...e.g. when Dr House prescribes some cigarettes for a patient complaining of irritable bowel syndrome. I never really watched the other shows mentioned, so they might aim to be more realistic. lesion (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This book [4] extensively plagiarizes from our article on asthma, they simply remove the references. The author is Erika M Szabo. Sold on Amazon here [5]. It was self published so I guess what ever.
• Part of our article on obesity has been published in the introduction of this research paper http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin2039.pdf
• Sweet and my first masters thesis http://opus.haw-hamburg.de/volltexte/2012/1615/pdf/lsab12_28.pdf I wonder if I should write them to request my certificate :-)
• And another journal article http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/513 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my understanding of the copyright here is that attribution must be given. Outside of the legal arguments and instinctive reaction to someone plagiarizing your hard work, perhaps we could take this as indicator of the article quality? Also, you could look on this kind of thing as being the desired result of what is trying to be achieved, high quality information in the public domain for people to access and use as they wish. lesion (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the Public domain is entirely different than the CC-BY-SA license wikipedia content carries, and i would caution against conflating the two. i also dont think that simply because someone is willing to plagiarize easily-accessible content this means that they are competent to evaluate the quality of the material thus plagiarized. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do take this, partly, as recognition of just how good our content is. It is good enough to get a masters degree at Hamburg University of Applied Sciences in Public Health. If they gave us proper attribution there would be no concern. We do not ask much, just this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed on the topic of whether or not to split the Vulva article so that there is an article titled Human vulva to specifically cover the human vulva.

As the vulva can be subject to medical issues, some WP:MED editors also work on anatomy articles, and WP:ANATOMY is severely lacking in activity, I decided to post a note about this here (in addition to at WP:ANATOMY) for wider views. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have commented and brought this discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Other_animals Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have case study (which says it's also case report) as well as case report? Sumbuddy missed something; who can fix it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case study article is (almost) purely medical. This is quite a focused article and I'd favour keeping it that way - perhaps it would benefit from a new title such as case study in medicine? There's already such an article for psychology (case study in psychology). The case report article, although broader in scope, is mostly about its use in social sciences. Perhaps it should be similarly retitled (care study in the social sciences)? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The (social sciences) case study article has little or nothing to do with a clinical case report. "Case report" is the common name as is good as it stands. —81.151.194.238 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]