Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Archive 11

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

message: Don't ask me what got into me, but I've been trying to improve the conspiracy-theory-run-amok that is our OPV AIDS hypothesis article. Anyone else feel like taking a look to see what they think so far? MastCell Talk 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPV/AIDS hypothesis 

message: Armenian Medical Network is a site with health content and health news. Some is of reasonable quality, but in essence it has the same problems as all other websites (wrongdiagnosis, emedtv, webmd) that we have been trying to root out. It also strikes me as odd that Armenia should need a website in English; could it be that having "health" in the URL is a nice way to get $$$bucks from Google ads? JFW | T@lk 10:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian Medical Network 

message: I added the entry on Dr. Todd Wider to the articles for delete bin if anyone would like to chime in. I have no idea who he is, but I'm trying to quash the flourishing industry of wikipedia as a new marketing avenue for people in my field of plastic surgery when they come to my attention. There's nothing notable about Dr. Wider in the context of Plastic Surgery. Dr. Wider's name can be found on google in context of some movie production credits, but the wiki biography criteria would suggest mere catalogs of such credits without any other sources outling his role or some notable contribution would make these not really noteworthy. Anyone else?
I also AFD Frans Noorman van der Dussen's bio page, who is another not particularly notable surgeon from europe. He's one of the transgender group's pet projects, but there is no way to justify his notability in my mind.
Droliver 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Result was merged to main article Diabetes mellitus type 1#Cure David Ruben  Talk  18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD added 

message: Prior to nominating the Anabolic steroid article for FA status, I wanted to post the article here to get some more input on the article. The article is in great shape and the flow and neutrality are also very good, however I am concerned that we might be missing some things. I wanted some knowledgeable people to look at the article and make some suggestions concerning what should be added. For instance any other positive effects or side effects related to steroid use that the article might have missed. Please don't make drastic changes to the article as we've tried really hard to carve it out, but I do want some suggestions posted on the talk page of the article so that we can discuss them prior to making said changes. Please be sure to provide reliable citations with all suggestions for additions to the article. Pubmed is best as it's easy to format and include in the article. Just post a new post on the talk page of the article and make suggestions on what the article might be missing and should be included. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anabolic steroid]] 

message: User:Naacats has been pushing his agenda that smoking is not as harmful as claimed, and than only minority of doctors subscribe to the pharmaceutical company driven campaign to outlaw smoking (thus promoting anti-smoking products), which governments and health organisations have succumbed to accepting. See debate at Talk:Smoking. Then look at developing article of Smokers Rights where amongst other points it is apparently an international effort (vs article's originally stated American effort) to restrict the rights of Americans. Could do with a few others confirming it ain't just "the consensus of a few politically motivated organizations" (response to anti-smoking being the view of most UK doctors, BMA & even the WHO).
:PS  I see on Talk:Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking#Severe_Bias he starts with "Sorry all you anti-smoking bigots. This article is pure speculation" and I note comments about this user's campaigning activities at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Peter Isotalo reported by User:Naacats_.28Result:_Page_Protected.29 David Ruben  Talk  09:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That account has a clear conflict of interest (see http://naacats.com), as well as being a single-purpose account dedicated to minimizing the harms of smoking. But we seem to have no shortage of pro-tobacco SPA's these days. MastCell Talk 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smoker's rights

message: I recently altered a section heading in Melatonin from "Dangerous Side Effects" to "Adverse effects", as I find the former inherently POV and unnecessarily sensationalistic. I was then reverted by , who had added the section last month (and added to it just before I changed the heading). I left him a message regarding NPOV and providing reasoning for my change. He responded "The potential injury done to the human body due to this supplement may be permanent and is thus much more severe than indicated by the term 'Adverse'." I wrote to him again, saying that this isn't the role of Wikipedia (it isn't). He then left me the following message:
Thanks for your response. I think that we have come to an important philosophical/ethical conundrum, which is medical in nature and may directly involve the health and safety of the general public. I was doing research several months ago. At that time, Wikipedia had such a gushy and positive article about melatonin (it appeared to be written by supplement suppliers), with no mention of the potential dangerous effects that can occur. I agree with you that most articles such as Income Taxes or Abe Lincoln should fall into the general guidelines you sent me. However, I think that if there are peer reviewed scientific studies that have found dangerous side effects, they need to be expressed as such.
I know you are an administrator, and I am wondering if you might talk to other administrators that have faced this medical/medication/supplement situation before. I personally think that if there is supporting evidence of harm or potential danger, then that information is not opinion or biased, but an absolute. And the scientifically validated information should be used as an expression of truth that can be used to benefit society, that is what the scientific method is all about.
I would like to state that I have no problem with the content of the "Dangerous Side Effects" section (even though I'm not crazy about the reliance on an animal study for the second subsection). The whole article is biased, and, in true Wikipedia fashion, differently so from section to section.
I'm a big fan of second and third opinions, so I'd like to hear others' take on this. I have left GodGnipael a note saying that NPOV is non-negotiable and all articles must follow it, but it's pretty hard to make that point (not "make that point", of course) when many articles, including   melatonin, seem to so irreparably evade neutrality. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, most supplement articles do read as if written by supplement marketers. It's a problem, particularly as people do actually make health decisions, sometimes, based in part on what they read here (despite the disclaimer). Ephedra was a good example of a totally irresponsible article (though it's been improved). But seesawing in the other direction isn't the answer, as you've mentioned. In theory, it should be relatively easy to neutrally describe reliable scientific research on melatonin, and possibly mention some of the more unverified claims associated with it. "Dangerous Side Effects" is alarmist, and "Adverse Effects" is much more in keeping with how pharmaceuticals are presented. MastCell Talk 04:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: GodGnipael is on a personal crusade to tell the world about the terrible effects of melatonin. It is going to take more than me and Fvasconcellos to deal with this. I would appreciate if project members could review the talk page and edit the article appropriately. Thanks, Colin°Talk 21:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User warned re engaging in revert war against consensus and need WP:AGF in dealing with other editors. Given it is not a licensed medication in US or UK and that some untested, unregulated & outlandish claims made for its use (internet etc), I think natural tendency would be for medical wikipedians to be cautious on use of the product and keen to ensure the article is moderated in any unbalanced claims for use or issues of (unlicensed/untested) safety - GodGnipael seems therefore to be warring against the wrong people ? David Ruben  Talk  00:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melatonin and POV 

message: All input here to gain consensus...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When are psychiatrists going to start editing Wikipedia to defend themselves? For heaven's sake, this is the umpteenth incident. Anyone remember E. Fuller Torrey, biological psychiatry, our trip to the ArbComm, etc etc. Could any of you try to capture a wild psychiatrist and make him/her edit Wikipedia? JFW | T@lk 07:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't think the atmosphere is particularly welcoming for psychiatrists... perhaps their forked tail makes it difficult to sit for the long period of time necessary to edit Wikipedia... or their hooves get tired... or perhaps they can use their evil powers to convince others to do their bidding while doped up on Zoloft. In all seriousness, it's a facet of a larger problem. We all recognize the POV-pushing single-purpose accounts, whether they be anti-psychiatry or whatever, but our mechanisms for dealing with them are inefficient. WP:CSN is useful in extreme cases (e.g. ). Mediation is only useful with good-faith contributors interested in building an encyclopedia. RfC's are slow and toothless. ArbCom is slow. Admins can block them, but it tends to lead to a lot of hand-wringing about why mediation, CSN, ArbCom, etc weren't used. The net effect, now that Wikipedia is prominent enough to attract agenda-driven warriors faster than it can deal with them, is highly problematic. MastCell Talk 05:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD on psychiatric abuse 

message: Today I have copyedited the living daylights out of idiopathic intracranial hypertension. The only part I haven't really touched is the "pathophysiology" section, probably because I couldn't get my head around it. I'm somewhat shocked by the paucity of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and similar studies in this area. Work to do for some keen neurosurgeons? Could y'all have a quick look and see if I've missed anything? JFW | T@lk 11:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IIH 

message: When going through :Category:Diseases I noticed large amounts of hopeless cruft, but inner bone pain was the best. It's amazing how these hoaxes can get perpetuated for months without being spotted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner bone pain. JFW | T@lk 20:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diseases 

message: User:Thumperward is trying to remove the shading from navigation boxes. I've encouraged him to discuss the issue with a broader community, but he doesn't seem inclined to do so, so I'd like to use this as an opportunity to see if the users here would like to keep the status quo (colors indicating context) or to go with an all-blue format. --Arcadian 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Navbox/doc specifically states that "It is not recommended that one modifies the default styles". There's no WikiProject guideline which establishes the colours User:Arcadian has picked, and they appear to be arbitrary. Rather than having this template look different for no reason, we should follow the example of template:medicine and use the default navbox colours like most well-behaved templates. Chris Cunningham 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing arbitrary about using yellow for the nervous system. And, your recent edits notwithstanding, there is no Wiki-wide consensus to use all-blue (for example, see Template:Seattle Mariners). And Template:Mental and behavioural disorders had its current shading before Navbox generic was converted to Navbox. Documentation added to a template carries no weight as a policy or guideline. If you want to go all-blue, you're going to have to generate a consensus from the community. --Arcadian 21:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to leave sports infoboxen out of these discussions because there's a clear argument for using uniform colours in them. But yes, there is a broad consensus to use the default colours, as indicated by (a) the move towards using the navbox template for all non-custom navigation and (b) the deprecation of the style attributes on said template. I'm aware this template had its shading prior to the edit; once upon a time there was no consistency at all on Wikipedia's navigation templates. As time has passed we've gone past the point where people needed to use lots of raw HTML to make articles look good, and now we're getting to a point where even standard wikicode can be bypassed in favour of pre-cooked templates. I would rather that, in the absence of a specific WikiProject guideline (such as the military project's standardisation on template:military navigation, which inherits from template:navbox), navboxen (and infoboxen) were as generic as possible for the sake of cross-wiki consistency. The decision to override here is unwarranted. Chris Cunningham 23:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thumperward/Chris Cunningham is at it again. Per the above, he conceded sports navboxes should have the colors -- therefore, the argument for removing colors because the parameters are deprecated is not a valid argument. The use of colors on the templates for the medical articles is up to the community of people who work on those articles, and many other communities reject blue-on-blue. Of course, if people from this community want the colors gone, or want to rethink our approach to these navigation boxes, that would be entirely appropriate. Is there any support from people here for removing these colors, and going all blue-on-blue? And if not, would anyone be interested in collaborating on defining and documenting standards for colors on medical articles?  --Arcadian 03:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there were a project-wide consensus to use a custom template (as the MilProject did with template:military navigation) this wouldn't be an issue (and I looked) - but there isn't. If and when this changes, I don't have a problem with the colours. But making Wikipedia more consistent is not being "at it again" in the way it's being implied. I still think ditching the colours is the right move for the time being. Chris Cunningham 10:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're the person desiring change, so you're the party that needs to get support for your ideas from this audience. Certain standards, like using yellow for the nervous system, tan for muscles, green for lymph, and red/blue for blood, have existed as a consensus in this community for over a century before the existence of Wikipedia, and exist in Wikipedia in many places other than in the Navboxes. Other colors has existed as infobox standards for several years -- drugs are blue, proteins are tan, disorders are gray, etc. (I was involved in the selection of gray for disorders back in June 2005, but I was not involved in the selection of blue or tan.) Going all blue-on-blue would make Wikipedia less consistent: both internally among EN medical articles, and when compared to external texts. (Unless you're proposing making all the infoboxes blue-on-blue as well. I hope you're not proposing that, but it would make your change proposal more consistent.) --Arcadian 13:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Infoboxes have documented rules and style guidelines. It's rather a straw man to suggest that to be consistent I'd have to recolour the whole of Wikipedia. And as for "this audience", nobody else has participated in the discussion, so I've got the weight of exactly half the participants on my side. Let's not go assuming invisible majorities for the current version here. Chris Cunningham 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Thumperward/nav formatting

message: Please offer your opinions on Talk:Obesity#Interview. JFW | T@lk 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obesity 

message: Today's Signpost covers the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. This WikiProject has a Stress Hotline where editors can express worries about coverage of their area of interest in articles. I tend to report difficult edit wars on medical subjects on this talkpage, but they interfere somewhat with discussions on other subjects. I was thinking of setting up a separate page where contributors can call for assistance without disrupting other discussions. JFW | T@lk 16:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, JFW, but what about this page: Template:RFCsci list? NCurse  work 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could call it "Code SPA"... MastCell Talk 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crash call? 

message: A while ago I expressed my surprise that there was no article on this fascinating cerebrovascular disease. I recently encountered this condition again, and was wondering who was available to work on this. When my exam is over (next week) I might tackle it. JFW | T@lk 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to help out after my exams as well.  should be useful. --David Iberri (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert, but I've created a stub at Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. --Arcadian 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis

message: Despite being the current Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week, the paracetamol article hasn't seen much activity. Would any of our WikiDocs like to help out? Promoted way back in 2004, this was one of our first medical FAs, and has slipped considerably since—surely we should help bring it back into shape? The main concern is a lack of referencing. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm boycotting until it's moved to acetaminophen. MastCell Talk 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, never mind some 6.325 billion people would say "acetawhataphen?" :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I'm reminded every day on Wikipedia, we are all employed by Big Pharma and the psychiatry lobby to suppress The TruthTM. So why not move the whole thing to Tylenol and wait for the checks from Ortho-McNeil to start rolling in? In all seriousness - I'll try to help out. It's a high-profile article and a good place to focus our energies. MastCell Talk 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paracetamol]] 

message: Please comment at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyvio_or_no_copyvio. --Arcadian 22:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICD-10 

message: There is a vote to fork myalgic encephalomyelitis from chronic fatigue syndrome. The vote is on Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis#Vote. JFW | T@lk 20:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forking [[chronic fatigue syndrome]] 

message: More pro-Ravnskov editing on lipid hypothesis. I can feel my small dense LDL climbing already. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, whatever you do, don't take a statin. According to what I read on Wikipedia, those things are poison! MastCell Talk 04:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lipid hypothesis 

message: There seem to be some political shenanigans at postperfusion syndrome (where a claim by the National Enquirer that cognitive deficits from bypass surgery in 1988 somehow explain U.S. Vicepresident Dick Cheney's behavior in 2007, and caused permanent mental defects in President Bill Clinton,  is being reinserted). (For those not familiar with it, let's just stipulate that the National Enquirer is a tabloid rag which is more authoritative on the subject of Anna Nicole Smith's love life and alien space invader conspiracies than on current coronary surgical practice.) I wonder if those with expertise on the subject could have a look at the article and make sure that what's there now is medically sound, and that I've removed the politically motivated tripe and trivia. - Nunh-huh 10:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion on the article's talk page. Dlodge 22:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postperfusion syndrome 

message: This article has evolved to being, to my mind, a significant article. It would be useful if any cardiologists of CLINMED were to review it for accuracy and completeness, particularly in the clinically related sections.Geoffrey Wickham 01:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article [[Artificial pacemaker]]

message: I have nominated the article for featured article after working on it after it become a GA. anybody thinks the article is good enough please vote for it. Any comments for improvement will also be welcomed.Garrondo 14:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has still had no input whatsoever from medical projects. Anyone? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit outside my area of expertise, so I would need to set aside a largish block of (non-existent) free time to look at it. I do like the gigantic picture of ganja C. sativa next to the "Alternative treatments" section, though... MastCell Talk 22:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Therapies for multiple sclerosis]]

message: Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging. A further outgrowth of the recurrent CFS/ME debate that now spans quite a large group of articles. JFW | T@lk 07:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion... 

message: AS passed FAR a month ago and has been extremely stable since then, yet one editor continues to say the article should be tagged POV.  Review welcome.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Asperger syndrome]] 

message: Two editors have previously disagreed about usefulness of external links added by the other to Prostatitis. Recent additional external link was for geocites webpage of images of pelvic floor muscles (I'm not quite sure of relevance to article topic) but then removed because that external link recommended the http://www.chronicprostatitis.com link. 
Various issues of usefulness of the images and appropriateness of the geocites, link and I have tried to set these out at Talk:Prostatitis#External_link_to_geocities.2Fmyoneuropathy_pelvic_floor_pictures. I would appreciate if a few other editors could add there twopence (~ $0.02) of opinion so a consensus can occur, and so preempt edit warring between just 2 editors, thanks :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidruben (talk • contribs) 01:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prostatitis

message: I have done some work on cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after it was kindly started off by Arcadian and Davidruben. There are some good papers out there (especially the EFNS guideline) which helped a lot. Could everyone have a look and advise whether I've left something out? Are there any notable cases that anyone is aware of? JFW | T@lk 17:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis 

message: I just moved DTPA to pentetic acid (after a minor history merge; pentetic acid is the INN), but the content seemed a clear copy-and-paste. A quick Google search found this CDC factsheet; the info was added back in April. The inappropriate tone and need for a rewrite notwithstanding, my immediate concern is whether or not this is a copyvio. I've always believed CDC content to be in the public domain, but I may be wrong (does happen every now and then ;). Does anyone know more? Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert, but I too understand anything authored and published by the CDC on their website is indeed in public domain, but they may include pictures and items from other sources that retain that source's copyright. However in such cases, an approproate copyright notic should be present. David Ruben  Talk  00:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Products of the U.S. federal government, including the CDC's online material, are generally public domain. But I'm not a lawyer, so take that for what it's worth. There may be a more general disclaimer on the Website, but I haven't checked yet. MastCell Talk 05:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Usually you can find some copyright statement buried on the side, but I can't find a specific one for that site. When I had some doubt about a NINDS factsheet, I emailed them. I got a nice reply encouraging me to use the text, but asking for attribution (not essential, but polite). If the ref for the text makes it explicit that some words have been lifted, with permission, then that might discourage future editors from removing it as a copyvio. Colin°Talk 07:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, thanks guys—I've added a small explanatory note in the vein of . The content still needs some serious formatting and rewording. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CDC copyright? 

message: There has been long-standing concern about the "massive walled garden of autism POV forks" on Wikipedia, including but not limited to uncited and essay-like articles, use of non-reliable sources, POV, questionable notability of some articles, and vanispamcruftisement.  What has changed recently is that two core articles—autism and Asperger syndrome—have been solidly restored to featured status, mostly thanks to , who is now trudging his way through the second-level (daughter) articles prescribed by WP:MEDMOS.  There is hope that the walled garden can become an organized set of reliable articles.  Frustrated by my own hit-and-miss efforts to help clean up some of the mess, I was encouraged by Jfdwolff and Mastcell to put together a list and mini-assessment of the autism-related articles so that further cleanup efforts can be focused on the most important needs.  
The list and assessment is at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/autism (please use the associated talk page there to suggest changes/improvements to the table).  I sort of followed the assessment scheme used by WP 1.0, but I deviated from their B-class, Start and Stub to reflect core articles needed for WP:MEDMOS coverage and how much attention the articles need to make them "not dangerously wrong or misleading" (or of little encyclopedic value). 
I suggested the following priorities to Eubulides:
# Clear box V; those article should be at least brought to B-class standard.
# Clear box R; ditto.
# Clear box Q; ditto.  (That is, bring all of the core articles as defined by WP:MEDMOS section needs to at least a B-standard.)
# Box X is the worst of the worst in terms of essays, POV, uncited, non-reliable sources, questionable notability, and articles that need to be merged elsewhere.  They aren't the most important articles, but cleaning them up will help contain the amount of ongoing maintenance needed.  For example, autism community and autistic culture (and others) should probably be merged to Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. Adults on the autistic spectrum should be merged to List of people on the autistic spectrum.  Another example:  do we really need autistic art and autistic artists, neither well cited (there does seem to be some real journal mention of autistic art, but I don't have access to the journal)?
Eubulides indicated: 
:My top priority right now, when I find the time, is Autism therapies. About 2/3 of it needs to be rewritten; a good, recent, and free review is Myers et al. 2007 () which is currently listed under "Further reading" but which I haven't yet had time to read carefully. 2nd priority for me is Thiomersal controversy; that one is not too far from being half-decent, actually. I am probably not the best to tackle Autism rights movement or Controversies in autism, as I lack the patience. So for me, Autism (incidence) and Heritability of autism would be 3rd and 4th priorities.
So, that is his plan for working through the top articles; as a first priority, help on clearing those and the other articles in boxes Q, R and V to a B-standard or better would be much appreciated.  Box X, while not reflecting top articles in terms of importance, is an area in great need of cleanup.  Any help appreciated, but a coordinated effort may be more effective.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've invested about five hours into cleaning up autism rights movement to a marginal/minimal level.  At least it's readable now, but a large chunk of it may still need to be deleted.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism assessment and project 

message: Check out this interactive clinical case with referenced case discussion I just created on Wikiversity. This is part of the Wikiversity School of Medicine. Everyone is invited to improve this learning module, of course.
*A 31-year-old pregnant woman with unstable transverse lie
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CME on Wikiversity 

message: JFW puts on trade unionist flat cap, climbs on soapbox holding a megaphone
Guys 'n' gals, if we are ever going to make our present medical content truly encyclopedic, we need to invest more time in WP:MCOTW. Every time I revert vandalism/spam on allergy, and am forced to look at the article, I come out in hives. I nominated it, and I am the first to admit that I didn't exactly jump forward in editing it when it became MCOTW, but neither did anyone else. There's so much rubbish being written about allergies that we really need to improve that article stat. Are there any people with a particular interest in immunology who could help us with the technical details? I'm eager to do some work on food allergies, but not on my own. Any volunteers? Please?
The new article is blood, which was promoted on the 8th by . Since then, it has only received a couple of edits. Do we need to move towards a monthly collaboration?
The audience throws several bedpans (unused and used), and JFW takes refuge. JFW | T@lk 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allergy 

message: Does the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'? is a summary of one journal article.  I'm not sure what to do with it (prod, AfD, redirect to Theory of Mind or redirect to autism)?  Copyright and notability issues; does a journal paper attain notability just because it's published?  Should we have an article on everything in PubMed ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AFD, with salvage of the relevant content to autism and Theory of Mind articles. This is not something that PROD will solve. Alternatively, simply move the content and boldly redirect it (but be prepared for AFD if the original creator objects). JFW | T@lk 10:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, JFW; on my list.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD, prod, or redirect?

message: I've been expanding primary immunodeficiency, using a consensus document. I've tried my best to locate all the relevant articles on these weird and wonderful conditions, but a few more eyeballs would be useful. It is quite amazing that generally Wikipedia does seem to have articles on most immunology-related subjects, but under somewhat unpredictable names. The molecular and cell biology WikiProject has got it down to a fine art with their protein boxes, which pervade all the relevant pages. But of course our own  has been doing the same for clinical medicine content, and some editors have been creating short articles on the most unlikely conditions. JFW | T@lk 18:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my favorite unlikely conditions, so far, are pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism and Jumping Frenchmen of Maine. --Arcadian 23:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary immunodeficiency 

message: I've recently effectively totally deleted the contents of Evans syndrome(this) and Prosper Ménière(this) (he of Menieres disease) as being gross copyvios. I've partly reconstructed Evans syndrome using primary sources located at PubMed (but it now needs rounding off and using perhaps the eMedicine article as a template, something I deliberately decided to avoid initially in order to get the initial sources included - current progress since copyvio removal here). Whereas Prosper Ménière is down to a single paragraph, having removed the copy of Whonamedit entry. Could people have a look at improving these two articles please. David Ruben  Talk  04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvios on Evans syndrome and Prosper Ménière

message: Poliomyelitis and Therapies for multiple sclerosis have been promoted to featured article. Rotavirus is now on peer review, so everybody's input is welcome. --WS (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles and peer review 

message: FYI - I have posted elsewhere about the possibility of a dedicated Wikipedia scientific journal proxy: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#A question. Comments welcome there or on the Village Pump. JFW | T@lk 13:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreaming about journals by proxy 

message: This article is currently a cross between a marketer's how-to guide and the usual POV-pushing. But I think we can do better. There is a ton of good-quality peer-reviewed sourcing on pharma marketing techniques and their impact. No Free Lunch has a clear stance on the issue, but their website hosts an excellent collection of this material here. I'm thinking about trying to sort through all of these potential sources and fundamentally rewrite the article into something source-based and encyclopedic, but I sense it will be a daunting solo task. Is there any interest in collaborating on the topic? MastCell Talk 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally, I'd be glad to help on something like this (Vioxx death in the family).  In this case, I'm going to abstain, because someone unfairly and inaccurately (that's an understatement) accused me off-Wiki of being a big pharm rep, while canvassing for my Wiki edits to be reverted.  Sorry I can't help on that one.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to hear about your family member, and also sorry that you won't be adding your always-excellent input at the article. Unfortunately, we've got no shortage of editors who view anything but undiluted pharmanoia as the work of drug-company stooges, but if that becomes a problem again please let me know. MastCell Talk 23:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the kindness, MastCell.  Seems my offense was to add a free use pharm image to an article which had no images.  Oh, and according to the same sources, I also have Tourette's, 'ya know :-)  Could be worse I guess; I could be dumb as a post and mean as a caged skunk :/  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear!Hear! I remember SandyGeorgia  hinting that article Bupropion is "advertisement for smoking cessation or for GlaxoSmithKline." Paul gene (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't hint at anything (or at least, I didn't intend to); what I said was "Wikipedia has to take care not to be an advertisement for smoking cessation or for GlaxoSmithKline.  It doesn't appear that  has been factored into the article at all.  Causality and comorbidy of smoking with psychiatric disorders have to be sorted out relative to claims that the medication aids in smoking cessation. Whether the bupropion is actually treating underlying psychiatric disorders (ADHD, dpression) that lead to increased smoking, and reduces smoking indirectly via treating other underlying disorders, has not been addressed here. ... etc."  Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bupropion  I was glad to see that addressed, along with the mention of tic exacerbation.  Anyway, I guess the message board liars would argue I work for a competitor, rather than recognizing this is a very common argument in Tourette's medication issues.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not hinting at anything and I am not intending to. I believe that SandyGeorgia is a good human being and an great asset to WP. She has to take care not to be dumb as a post and mean as a caged skunk :/. I am glad to see that addressed above whatever the board liars would argue. Paul gene (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Funny, I've hardly ever had to battle drug pushing for Tourette's on Wiki, and I just had my first.  That was how it started with others.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps if we were "drug-company stooges", and carried drug adverts on our user pages, we could get enough sponsorship to fund JFW's journals request (above). :-)  Colin°Talk 13:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should choose a pharma company and get all articles on their drugs featured ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this is starting to frighten me, because an unrestricted grant to provide journal access is exactly the sort of thing a drug company would be willing to sponsor, in my experience (assuming those of us with prescribing powers turn out to be "high writers" when they background us). We probably ought to let it go. Here is an all-too-typical irony, though: while I'm not aware of any instances where a pharmaceutical company has tried to buff their drug write-ups on Wikipedia, I am aware of at least one case where a person who, in real life, works as a product developer and consultant to dietary-supplement marketers edited very aggressively on Wikipedia for a time, specifically adding favorable information on the effectiveness of supplements and at one point putting forward a proposal to alter Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing in a way that would downplay the scientific literature and put it on an even footing with non-peer-reviewed and more "supplement-friendly" sources. MastCell Talk 17:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the whole thing has been very troubling to me for much too long.  When lies are told on well populated message boards, advocating that my neutral and reliably sourced edits be overturned based on lies about my profession, interests, alleged diagnoses, and motivations—and calling into question all my edits as well as those of another featured medical article writer—I don't know how we keep Wiki honest and reliable.  I am now reluctant to edit any drug article, lest it re-ignite the POV-pushing internet advocates.  There are a lot more POV-pushing anons out there than there are of "us" in here.  In the Tourette internet realm, I have had some *very* nasty encounters with aggressive internet marketing of dubious medications (mecamylamine, inversine and even the way strattera was marketed come to mind). And I really couldn't care less if someone claims I have Tourette's or anything else because of my editing history (I suppose I also have schizophrenia because I worked on that FAR?), but I really *hate* being called a drug company shill.  For one thing, I don't have any polyester in my closet, and I'd never sit and wait hours to see a physician. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What Merck? The article aprotinin only mentions Bayer.Paul gene (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. It is obviously Bayer. But the premise is the same: drug company had data but didn't act on it. JFW | T@lk 06:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That will involve radical change of professional culture and rethinking at individual as well as at institution level; issues ranging form  accepting there won't be any free lunch to when appointing someone as professor, looking at what he/she can do academically rather than how much grant he/she can attract for researches (which is an incentive to be cosy with drug companies).--Countincr ( t@lk ) 22:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem of drug trials is very easy to fix—the government should run them. Paul gene (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be joking. Which government? Funded by whom? "International drug trials unit monitored by the WHO?" That would be fascinating. JFW | T@lk 06:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  US government still funds some clinical trials, you know. There used to be much more funding for that before Reagan. And who cares about WHO, there are only three entities that matter for drug research: US, EU and Japan. Paul gene (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The existence of Wikipedia will eventually reduce the cost of trials by multiple orders of magnitude. A flowering is near. Be patient. --Arcadian (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any interest in [[pharmaceutical marketing]]? 

message: I have posted a proposal on WT:MED with regards to the future of MCOTW. Comments are invited there: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#MCOTW and open tasks. I've also started merging information from WP:CLINMED into the WP:MED WikiProject page. JFW | T@lk 23:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm back in action. Let me know please if you need any kind of help. NCurse  work 12:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Be patient, Jacob! :) Dozens of editors won't be involved in that discussion, you know well. We're going to find a consensus soon.  NCurse  work 09:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MCOTW 

message: If we are going to merge the project pages, this might be a good moment to redesign the project page to be more useful. I created a mockup based on the WP:MCB project page which can be found here. Tell me what you think about it. Also feel free to make any changes to it to improve it. --WS (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant idea. Please also copy your message to WT:MED. Shame you're getting rid of those nice colourful icons though :-) JFW | T@lk 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, but I'm wondering why you lost the announcements, which is important for knowing what's at FAC, FAR, PR, etc. ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not intentional, this design was just something I put together quickly. These things (and more) can be easily added back in. I will post a message on WT:MED too. --WS 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project page redesign

message: There has been some recent contention on post-abortion syndrome, revolving around how to present the medical literature and expert opinion on this disputed entity as well as appropriate sourcing and framing. If anyone feels intrepid, I'd like to invite outside opinions. The issue is detailed on the article talk page and article history. MastCell Talk 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a brave person, MastCell. I'd personally only enter this territory with an armed guard, fire-proof underwear and several large bottles of magnesium hydroxide. JFW | T@lk 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just so you know, this sort of thing is afoot. MastCell Talk 15:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Post-abortion syndrome]] 

message: Previously the templates to Professional Template:MerckManual and Home Template:MerckHome editions of the online Merck Manuals were not clearly self identified and one had invalid url coding. Having throughly confused myself in the process (real mess moving rather than opting to more cautiously copy&paste between the two), I think I've got this to work. Orginal 3 required parameters for Section No, Chapter No & Topic letter remain the same, but now additional options of subpages can also be accessed and/or alternative text shown. Details now provided by templates' shared documentation. If you spot anywhere where I've created a URL hell, please let me know :-) David Ruben  Talk  03:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merck Manuals external link templates