Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 5

message: Request cardiology specialist to provide details regarding Shone's Syndrome / Complex in details Partha 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there really enough articles to justify this? From the amputation article, I see perhaps a dozen articles that could use this stub template. As for the so-called humour — sigh. Let's say I don't share the same enthusiasm. :-) Axl 09:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  a little short on humor??  (lol)  Alysonwonderland 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub category proposal 

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

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

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

message: I've created an infobox for the Osteopathic medicine articles, to help pull them together and ease navigation.  I would appreciate any feedback on making this box as functional and well-formed as possible.  
:So many of the osteopathic articles are stubs, at best.  Any expertise in related areas, OMM, osteopathic physicians, American Osteopathic Association, etc. would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks. Touro OsteopathicFreak T  23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osteopathic medicine infobox 

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

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

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

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

message: The ATLS stub contains information I consider to be inacurate, although I might be wrong.
It states that ATLS is for paramedics and other advanced practitioners, where I thought it was for MD/DOs only, although other paramedic-level practitioners can AUDIT the course (ie attend but not get certified).
It states that BTLS is for EMT-Bs (going along with the first point above), where it is in fact for all EMTs (basics, intermediates/specialists, and paramedics).
I'm new to Wikipedia (and love it, BTW!), so sorry if I'm not completely protocol-compliant.  I am, however, a paramedic and RN and think I have the above correct.
Sprender 16:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --WS 17:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATLS Page 

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

message: I just create a template for toxicology and poisoning: . However, I am not exactly knowledgeable in the field, and would like someone competent to review for any obvious problems before I unleash it in articlespace. Circeus 00:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than make it a right-margin formatted template, I'd recommend using Template:Navbox generic, so that it can better co-exist with other templates, and won't interfere with infoboxes. --Arcadian 02:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article series are much different from footers, in that they can afford to be significantly looser in their choice of articles, as well as having a broader scope overall. (compare  and ), or the proposed template to . Circeus 02:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  competent eyes requested for Toxicology template 

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

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

message: Autism has gone through peer review, reached Good Article status, and is this week's selected article on the Medicine Portal. It is currently rated GA-Class in WikiProject Medicine. Can someone please check it and see whether it's A class? The plan is to nominate it as a featured article fairly soon, and other pairs of eyes before then would be appreciated. Thanks. Eubulides 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment on the main page here.  I can't assess Autism because I've been semi-involved in the work on it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to fix or clarify WikiProject Medicine here, and then added a request for Autism's reassessment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or re-assessment. Eubulides 22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Autism" A-class? 

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

message: I came across the article Hand Hygiene and it looks like it could really use the attention of someone knowledgable.  Would anyone here be able to lend a hand?  Thanks.  Deli nk 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tagged it as magazine-like and in need of sources. Obviously this is not progress in improving the article, but it is progress in ensuring that readers, as well as editors, understand the article needs improvement. Antelan talk 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Here is a new one... Lymphocytic Interstitial Pneumonia.  Regards, Navou  banter  22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, what's your point? Axl 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you did come by and improve the article... :) Regards, Navou  banter  03:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New one 

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

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

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

message: The original version was fair-use and not free. If you can help at all in rewriting the article, please do so. Thank you! --Hemlock Martinis 18:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article on [[Kuru (disease)]] has been deleted 

message: Would someone be able to add (or find) a reference for some of these articles (unless one has already been added recently):
*Canga's bead symptom
:  Axl 19:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Axl 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Axl 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Axl 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Axl 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Antelan talk 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing ref's 

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

message: I've begun working on articles related to pregnancy and childbirth, and have found that this is a topic sorely in need of additional editors' help. I would like to propose creating a task force for pregnancy-related articles within WP:MED. I envision the scope as encompassing clinical and preclinical subjects (assuming I understand those terms correctly), as well as what I call "experiential" subjects (for example, see this article) -- that is, subjects that are not strictly medical but which are nevertheless related to pregnancy and/or childbirth.
I have never been involved in the creation of a WikiProject or task force, so would appreciate any bureaucratic or technical help that might be offered, as well. --Ginkgo100talk 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of a Pregnancy Task Force 

message: I am working on lung cancer with the intention of submitting it for "featured article" status soon. I can vouch for the factual accuracy of the content. I have checked every reference (most of which I inserted). However I require more assistance to improve the quality of the prose, i.e. to make it compelling. This is especially important in the lead section. I am grateful for your assistance. Axl 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: might be helpful.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Antelan, "malignant" in this context means "cancerous", not "progressively worsening". Axl 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The parenthetical gives a fair description of the meaning of malignant in line with that of both the WP article on "malignant" and definitions from medical dictionaries . Cancer is already intrinsic to "lung cancer" so that doesn't need to be restated. I agree that by definition, malignancies are cancerous, but redirecting "malignant" to the broad article on cancer doesn't make that much sense. It is more likely that the reader wonders what the word "malignant" means. Other opinions? Antelan talk 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Now that autism has been restored to status, I'm hoping a (third) featured article review of Asperger syndrome can be avoided.  I've put some work into cleaning up references and restoring a summarizing lead (as in the featured version); it's come along enough that the cleanup tag could be removed), but the article still needs attention.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody home?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AS 

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

message: Is there any template for using when placing an article under the scope of this WikiProject? I couldn't find one Jennylen 20:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like ? I'm not sure if that's what you're asking. Antelan talk 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Exactly, are there without the stub categorization or with other comments? Where? Thanks Jennylen 21:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you could do , but that still leaves you with ??? for quality and importance assessment, which may be just fine anyway as someone can come by later and fill them out. If you're looking for something else, I'll dig around and see what I can find. Antelan talk 21:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that will do. If anyway later you find one which allows to insert some view as "revise your sources" or "expand your sources" or something like that, could be great, otherwise I can also combine with the existing in common use. If you come across something, you can drop it at my talk page, thanks, you are very kind Jennylen 21:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope banner 

message: In the spirit of the TrueOrigins  template, I've created a Medicine  template for medically-related articles that are missing sources or verification. Please let me know if you think this is helpful; if it can be improved; or if it should be deleted. Thanks, Antelan talk 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. I've tweaked layout (images were vertically aligned vs more compact horizontal layout of images in histref) - see this. Also  I've wikilinked on WP:Verify and this project's explaination of medical reliable sources (WP:MEDRS) - see this. David Ruben  Talk  22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Your changes look great. Antelan talk 22:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect! Based on your final changes do you think that can be created also the other? the one that says : (give a look at WP:TORIG) That is good when you also want to pinpoint an specific section or so. JennyLen 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you already can. : works as you'd expect from the TORIG template. Antelan talk 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I get it, sorry, it is a call of course, thanks JennyLen 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for medically-related articles that need references 

message: Since my last post got no response awhile back, I'll give it ago again: psychic surgery - is it something we're concerned about? "... it is performed by psychic doctors or psychic surgeons" This strikes me as phrasing that makes the procedure sound medical. I tried to note that these are not medical professionals, but I was rebuffed with this edit summary: Insert this back if you have a source that say no "psychic" surgeons have medical degrees If Wikiproject:Medicine is OK with this article as it stands, I'll go ahead and unwatch it, but I'd like to see what you all think. Antelan talk 07:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is self-referential: people who claim to perform "psychic surgery" call themselves "psychic surgeons". By using this title, these people attempt to legitimize their activities. Axl 09:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The definition of "psychic" (related with non physical nature) contradicts the definitions of "surgeon" and "doctor" (both of which relate with physical practice or "physicians"), articles may not have contradictions of course, there is a flag for that somewhere calling the attention that the article contains contradictory definitions JennyLen 10:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I substituted "doctors" and "surgeons" for "healers" The accepted term in scientific circles is "Psychic Healers" by consensus. JennyLen 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot. You've been really active on that page; I'll jump in over there and see if I can help out, too. Antelan talk 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychic Surgery, again 

message: Hello, I am a member of the WikiProject Council. I wanted to know if you may consider placing the banner  on your project's page? You may include there projects  you cooperate with on a routinely basis. By doing this you may be contributing to inter-project cooperation and understanding. Thank you Daoken 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably WP:PHARM (aka WP:DRUG), WP:VIRUS, for a start. Does WP:CLINMED need mentioning as a daughter project of this one ? David Ruben  Talk  01:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I managed to add the coop bannershell and two of the projects but couldn't find the banners of WP:VIRUS JennyLen 12:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also created a coopbanner following the  for WikiProject Medicine because didn't exist, is , I think it works JennyLen 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, that looks good. Nice work! Antelan talk 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for cooperation 

message: I wonder if it could be added some section in the project's page where members can find all the templates when they need them ? I don't know how to do it but I could like new members have access to those resources JennyLen 13:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that would be very helpful, even for those of us who aren't beginners; I'm hoping someone with more experience in this project can maybe help with that? Antelan talk 13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could create an own section for that, just tell me what you would like to see there! This: Category:Medical infobox templates? NCurse  work 09:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That will be excellent. What about starting with ,   ,  {WikiProject Medicine CoopBanner}} explaining for what is each ? JennyLen 09:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banners templates 

message: It's a Belgian psychiatrist. We are arguing currently in the French wiki if we should maintain him in the wiki. 
The problem is that someone said that he was well known, and said that he was truly known in the english-speaking world like in Atlanta, Houston or Miami.
And I think that, this person is one of his friend or relative. So I wonder if people, here (in the english wiki) know him and can bring argument that his work as a psychiatrist is notorious and secondary sources have been produced from his work. 
There is a strong suspection of fake. But we have no doubt that he is a psychiatrist and has made some publications. 
Most of the primary sources are not reliable because he has his own publishing house 'Socrates Promarex' and we can't find secondary 
sources about his work. And primary source seems to be Wikipedia.
Pppswing 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A search on PubMed on "Godfroid I" gives 18 hits. None of the titles strikes me as in themselves opening new insights to radically change psychiatry (several just debating points), and publication years of just between 1995 & 2000 suggests nolonger active in research & publishing (or at least in PubMed abstracted biomedical journals). Of course may or may not be notable as a psychiatrist in other ways (eg as a leading member of psychiatric organisation, as a well known TV-doc or presenter etc), but not something that I as a GP would be aware of.David Ruben  Talk  17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who knows [[Ivan O. Godfroid]] ? 

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

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

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

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

message: Hi! I was hoping someone at this WikiProject could help me with this question: What is the formal medical term for getting the wind knocked out of you? The article doesn't say. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you recommend moving the article to Temporary paralysis of the diaphragm, then? Or do you think there's a better term out there? —Remember the dot (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I would leave the article as it is.  But I would add a redirect.  I will do it.  By the way, it looks like some existing redirects need to be cleaned up.  "Winded" has nothing to do with temporary paralysis of the diaphragm.  Could you do that, Remember the dot? --Una Smith 02:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The major difficulty here is that getting the wind knocked out of you does not relate to any specific medical condition at all, and therefore there is NO specific medical term for it. Yes, I do hold a qualification. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with medical terms 

message: I think these two articles should be merged.  How would we go about that?  Thanks. --Afromcbenny 07:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend against the merge -- we usually distinguish between the disease and the pathogen. That said, if you'd like to pursue a merge, the process is described at Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Proposing_a_merger. --Arcadian 20:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I was just looking over MCV, MCH, and MCHC and was thinking about merging these three into one article called Red blood cell indices as they are all related stubs.  I don't think there is much potential for expansion for these articles, and I doubt anyone would object to the merge.  Whether or not these should be merged, there definitely should be an article specifically for the red blood cell indices.  As I see it, there are 3 options: a disambiguation page for the 3 articles, an overview page with  links to the 3 articles, or a merged page.  I prefer a merge, but wanted others' opinions on the matter before I took action.  I haven't put merge tags on the pages, as I'm sure not many people are watching those pages, and those who are probably are watching this page too.  --Scott Alter 06:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they are better as three separate pages (the current situation). Your second option is appropriate. Axl 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red blood cell indices 

message: The Surgery article seems to be woefully inadequate in describing even the fundamentals of modern surgery.  Is anybody working on expanding this article?  H Padleckas 09:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After practically two months, nobody had made any improvements of substance to the Surgery article to address my above-mentioned concern.  Therefore, I substantially expanded the Surgery article myself to describe fundamental aspects of modern surgery.  I would like to request a peer review to ensure the Surgery article is technically sound.  If anybody wants to review Surgery and make any [beneficial] edits, please go ahead.  H Padleckas 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Surgery]] article 

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

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

message: I am trying to gauge what the interest would be for a WP:ONCOLOGY category.  This would be under the broader auspices of WP:MED, along the lines of WP:RENAL and WP:Rads. It would address standards of care and best practices in surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with maintaining and editing cancer related articles. 
If this is something you are interested in, please sign underneath the relevant section at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Oncology
Djma12 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for WikiProject_ONCOLOGY 

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

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

message: User:Caesarjbsquitti, an editor with an strong interest in a variety of unorthodox ideas and medical theories, has made a number of apparently questionable edits to various articles about mental illness. Could someone please review these? 
It might also be instructive, as part of this process, to read their user page to get a better idea of the full breadth and depth of their interests: according to this, they are, for example, also the "Wrighter, [sic] researcher who discovered a negative side to truth, anti-truths, and wrighter of (The Jesus Christ Code. The LIGHT: The Rainbow of Truth. to be released 2007 © ) expanding the definition of 'truth' , 'half-truth' and 'lie' together with a new philosophy "Thinking In Color©", "The third side of the coin" and the 'wave theory of truth'." (emphasis theirs) -- Karada 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Caesarjbsquitti]] 

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

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

message: On Talk:List of health topics: Si-So, W.marsh has asked for those pages to be moved out of the main namespace space.  Is this project able/willing to take the pages, or should I move it under WP:MISSING ? John Vandenberg 07:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This list looks more like an index and is incomplete. Now that we have category system in place probably there is not much need for it. I would move to missing list.--Countincr ( t@lk ) 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of health topics 

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Would someone please comment on this discussion. It appears to hinge on one reference in NEJM that has been added recently. Does that reference make this topic notable and hence kept? --Bduke 23:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No PubMed hits, clearly not notable (ie name not accepted and used in other WP:MEDRS), AfD closed with consensus of delete David Ruben  Talk  00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports car knee syndrome]] 

message: Needs discussing. David Ruben  Talk  00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cure_for_diabetes_mellitus_type_1]] 

message: The veganism article is a low-importance medicine article, currently listed as a GA. The GA review made this suggestion:
:I think the regular editors ought to approach Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to discuss how Veganism fits within the scope of this technical project. The aim of discussions would be to identify articles on the topic of nutrition which can support this article. Some of the more technical information that, I feel, is misplaced in this article could migrate to those articles, leaving summaries in place here. Once the relationship of Veganism with more technical articles on nutrition has been established, part of the scope check for new material would entail surveying these supporting articles.
:Within the 'Health/Risk Calculation' there is something of a thematic inbalance, in that the 'Precautions' have more editorial space than "Benefits". Is it true that the precautions of a vegan diet outweigh benefits, or it that editors concerned with health threats are writing at a greater level of detail. In the spirit of the previous recommendation, would it make sense to have editors of the WikiProject Medicine review the section to establish if this information is better presented elsewhere. 
Any efforts to review and consolidate material, place it in more appropriate articles, find new sources, etc, would be greatly appreciated. KellenT 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Veganism]] 

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

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

message: There's a dispute going on over at talk:smoking where the user Nacaats is fiercly disputing the neutrality of the article by claiming that it misrepresents the health hazards of smoking in favor of the opinions of anti-smoking lobbyists. The sources cited are being challenged through fact-tagging, insertion of much vaguer wording and references to FORCES International Liberty News Network.
Though I haven't studied this issue in excuciating detail, my impression is that there is a widely held consensus about the general health hazards of inhaling the smoke of incompletely combusted substances in the medical community. Could someone who knows the issue better try to help resolve this conflict? Right now, the article is protected due to edit warring.
Peter Isotalo 08:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking POV 

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

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

message: hello wikipedians!
this is sairamnanda.i am a 2nd year medical student.i joined wiki to get my doubts clarified and get knowledge regarding the medical subjects..i am a new comer to wiki..so any pls suggest how to post doubts regarding a article..how to discuss a point...
thanx a lot...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairamnanda (talk • contribs) 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the relevant article, then click the link marked "Discussion" at the top of the page and add a section discussing your issue. KellenT 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hiiiiiiii 

message: Since there's a little bit of crossover in the topics between WP:PHARM and WP:MED, I thought I'd let y'all know that Paracetamol has recently been selected as the third Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week. It's currently already a featured article, but was promoted back in 2004, so it's probably well past due for a little refresher and improvement (else it goes to WP:FAR). If anyone wants to help out, please feel free.
Last week's collaboration was muscle relaxant, and was improved considerably. It currently awaits review for Good Article status.
Cheers! Dr. Cash 02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paracetamol]] 

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

message: It has been mentioned that the content of the Cancer Cluster section of this article seems to rely entirely on one source. In fact, a recent article in a local newspaper here writes "Arsenic in the water, tungsten in the air, polonium in wells, underground atomic testing to the east - all have been reported by the media. The entry for "Fallon, Nevada" on Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia, mentions the leukemia cluster. It's no wonder some outsiders unfortunately perceive our community as unhealthy."
If you have access to any further information regarding this subject which might be relevant to this article regarding this subject, such as perhaps contrary opinions and/or further research, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 15:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has received substantial press coverage in larger newspapers (Reno Gazette Journal) over the years. I will see if I can find something useful. Antelan talk 05:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fallon, Nevada]] 

message: There is a deletion review of the deleted article Psychatric abuse at:
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse
cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Review of [[Psychatric abuse]] 

message: A great deal of information in the article "Tremor" was apparently taken from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tremor/tremor.htm -- The National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
This source is never cited.
137.155.128.127 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. I've updated the article. The NINDS text is in the public domain, so copying is allowed (and even encouraged) but it was rude not to attribute it. Colin°Talk 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagarism in Article: Tremor 

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

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

message: Could someone please look at this article?  It's been written by a single author, who's clearly an expert in the subject but a newbie on Wikipedia.  The article needs all kinds of style work.  Thanks for looking into it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is, needs deleting - wikipedia is not a how to guide nor instructional manual/textbook. Only a very little needs to be incorporated into Arterial blood gas, the rest moved to Wikibooks or better still Wikiversity, pointers placed at Talk:Arterial blood gas#Merge proposal. David Ruben  Talk  04:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arterial blood gas sampling]] 

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

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

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

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 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Therapies for multiple sclerosis]] 

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

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

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

message: Mess of COI edits by involved parties (see WP:COI/N#Lipodissolve): needs some regular medical contributors. Gordonofcartoon 15:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know if I can help with re-write.  I work with a doctor that has performed injection lypolisis for several years.  I am sure that makes me a little biased - but I am also very familiar with research and FDA issues.  Would be nice to see the wiki operate w/o the CIO editors.  Good amount of background in the discussion pages as well.Chrraymond 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, although I know WP:AGF is supposed to apply, the article has been such a battleground that I'm not confident of the neutrality of anyone who has turned up solely to edit that article. Gordonofcartoon 04:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lipodissolve]] 

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) 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CME on Wikiversity 

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

message: On WT:CLINMED we are discussing the need for this WikiProject to be merged with WP:CLINMED. I strongly encourage everyone to participate in this discussion, as we are simultaneously discussing other important issues, like WP:MCOTW and so on. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link for discussion is WT:CLINMED#Need for a director/merge WP:MEDICINE? David Ruben  Talk  22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a excellent idea to merge...Probably to merge the CLINMED into this project but thats just my opinion. I believe this will be for the better of the projects if they merge. Cheers.Calaka (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT DISCUSSION 

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

message: Is Black band disease really appropriate for WPMED?  It's a disease that strikes coral in the ocean.  If you have an opinion, please either rate the article on its talk page, or delete the WPMED template.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the WPMED template, because I am biased against coral. Antelan talk 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black band disease 

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

message: Request cardiology specialist to provide details regarding Shone's Syndrome / Complex in details Partha 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there really enough articles to justify this? From the amputation article, I see perhaps a dozen articles that could use this stub template. As for the so-called humour — sigh. Let's say I don't share the same enthusiasm. :-) Axl 09:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  a little short on humor??  (lol)  Alysonwonderland 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stub category proposal 

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

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

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

message: I've created an infobox for the Osteopathic medicine articles, to help pull them together and ease navigation.  I would appreciate any feedback on making this box as functional and well-formed as possible.  
:So many of the osteopathic articles are stubs, at best.  Any expertise in related areas, OMM, osteopathic physicians, American Osteopathic Association, etc. would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks. Touro OsteopathicFreak T  23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osteopathic medicine infobox 

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

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

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

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

message: The ATLS stub contains information I consider to be inacurate, although I might be wrong.
It states that ATLS is for paramedics and other advanced practitioners, where I thought it was for MD/DOs only, although other paramedic-level practitioners can AUDIT the course (ie attend but not get certified).
It states that BTLS is for EMT-Bs (going along with the first point above), where it is in fact for all EMTs (basics, intermediates/specialists, and paramedics).
I'm new to Wikipedia (and love it, BTW!), so sorry if I'm not completely protocol-compliant.  I am, however, a paramedic and RN and think I have the above correct.
Sprender 16:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --WS 17:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATLS Page 

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

message: I just create a template for toxicology and poisoning: . However, I am not exactly knowledgeable in the field, and would like someone competent to review for any obvious problems before I unleash it in articlespace. Circeus 00:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than make it a right-margin formatted template, I'd recommend using Template:Navbox generic, so that it can better co-exist with other templates, and won't interfere with infoboxes. --Arcadian 02:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article series are much different from footers, in that they can afford to be significantly looser in their choice of articles, as well as having a broader scope overall. (compare  and ), or the proposed template to . Circeus 02:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  competent eyes requested for Toxicology template 

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

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

message: Autism has gone through peer review, reached Good Article status, and is this week's selected article on the Medicine Portal. It is currently rated GA-Class in WikiProject Medicine. Can someone please check it and see whether it's A class? The plan is to nominate it as a featured article fairly soon, and other pairs of eyes before then would be appreciated. Thanks. Eubulides 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment on the main page here.  I can't assess Autism because I've been semi-involved in the work on it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to fix or clarify WikiProject Medicine here, and then added a request for Autism's reassessment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or re-assessment. Eubulides 22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Autism" A-class? 

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

message: I came across the article Hand Hygiene and it looks like it could really use the attention of someone knowledgable.  Would anyone here be able to lend a hand?  Thanks.  Deli nk 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tagged it as magazine-like and in need of sources. Obviously this is not progress in improving the article, but it is progress in ensuring that readers, as well as editors, understand the article needs improvement. Antelan talk 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Here is a new one... Lymphocytic Interstitial Pneumonia.  Regards, Navou  banter  22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, what's your point? Axl 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you did come by and improve the article... :) Regards, Navou  banter  03:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New one 

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

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

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

message: The original version was fair-use and not free. If you can help at all in rewriting the article, please do so. Thank you! --Hemlock Martinis 18:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article on [[Kuru (disease)]] has been deleted 

message: Would someone be able to add (or find) a reference for some of these articles (unless one has already been added recently):
*Canga's bead symptom
:  Axl 19:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Axl 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Axl 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Axl 21:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Axl 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Antelan talk 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing ref's 

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

message: I've begun working on articles related to pregnancy and childbirth, and have found that this is a topic sorely in need of additional editors' help. I would like to propose creating a task force for pregnancy-related articles within WP:MED. I envision the scope as encompassing clinical and preclinical subjects (assuming I understand those terms correctly), as well as what I call "experiential" subjects (for example, see this article) -- that is, subjects that are not strictly medical but which are nevertheless related to pregnancy and/or childbirth.
I have never been involved in the creation of a WikiProject or task force, so would appreciate any bureaucratic or technical help that might be offered, as well. --Ginkgo100talk 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of a Pregnancy Task Force 

message: I am working on lung cancer with the intention of submitting it for "featured article" status soon. I can vouch for the factual accuracy of the content. I have checked every reference (most of which I inserted). However I require more assistance to improve the quality of the prose, i.e. to make it compelling. This is especially important in the lead section. I am grateful for your assistance. Axl 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: might be helpful.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Antelan, "malignant" in this context means "cancerous", not "progressively worsening". Axl 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The parenthetical gives a fair description of the meaning of malignant in line with that of both the WP article on "malignant" and definitions from medical dictionaries . Cancer is already intrinsic to "lung cancer" so that doesn't need to be restated. I agree that by definition, malignancies are cancerous, but redirecting "malignant" to the broad article on cancer doesn't make that much sense. It is more likely that the reader wonders what the word "malignant" means. Other opinions? Antelan talk 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Now that autism has been restored to status, I'm hoping a (third) featured article review of Asperger syndrome can be avoided.  I've put some work into cleaning up references and restoring a summarizing lead (as in the featured version); it's come along enough that the cleanup tag could be removed), but the article still needs attention.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody home?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AS 

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

message: Is there any template for using when placing an article under the scope of this WikiProject? I couldn't find one Jennylen 20:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like ? I'm not sure if that's what you're asking. Antelan talk 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Exactly, are there without the stub categorization or with other comments? Where? Thanks Jennylen 21:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you could do , but that still leaves you with ??? for quality and importance assessment, which may be just fine anyway as someone can come by later and fill them out. If you're looking for something else, I'll dig around and see what I can find. Antelan talk 21:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that will do. If anyway later you find one which allows to insert some view as "revise your sources" or "expand your sources" or something like that, could be great, otherwise I can also combine with the existing in common use. If you come across something, you can drop it at my talk page, thanks, you are very kind Jennylen 21:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope banner 

message: In the spirit of the TrueOrigins  template, I've created a Medicine  template for medically-related articles that are missing sources or verification. Please let me know if you think this is helpful; if it can be improved; or if it should be deleted. Thanks, Antelan talk 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. I've tweaked layout (images were vertically aligned vs more compact horizontal layout of images in histref) - see this. Also  I've wikilinked on WP:Verify and this project's explaination of medical reliable sources (WP:MEDRS) - see this. David Ruben  Talk  22:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Your changes look great. Antelan talk 22:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect! Based on your final changes do you think that can be created also the other? the one that says : (give a look at WP:TORIG) That is good when you also want to pinpoint an specific section or so. JennyLen 23:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you already can. : works as you'd expect from the TORIG template. Antelan talk 23:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I get it, sorry, it is a call of course, thanks JennyLen 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for medically-related articles that need references 

message: Since my last post got no response awhile back, I'll give it ago again: psychic surgery - is it something we're concerned about? "... it is performed by psychic doctors or psychic surgeons" This strikes me as phrasing that makes the procedure sound medical. I tried to note that these are not medical professionals, but I was rebuffed with this edit summary: Insert this back if you have a source that say no "psychic" surgeons have medical degrees If Wikiproject:Medicine is OK with this article as it stands, I'll go ahead and unwatch it, but I'd like to see what you all think. Antelan talk 07:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is self-referential: people who claim to perform "psychic surgery" call themselves "psychic surgeons". By using this title, these people attempt to legitimize their activities. Axl 09:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The definition of "psychic" (related with non physical nature) contradicts the definitions of "surgeon" and "doctor" (both of which relate with physical practice or "physicians"), articles may not have contradictions of course, there is a flag for that somewhere calling the attention that the article contains contradictory definitions JennyLen 10:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I substituted "doctors" and "surgeons" for "healers" The accepted term in scientific circles is "Psychic Healers" by consensus. JennyLen 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot. You've been really active on that page; I'll jump in over there and see if I can help out, too. Antelan talk 15:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychic Surgery, again 

message: Hello, I am a member of the WikiProject Council. I wanted to know if you may consider placing the banner  on your project's page? You may include there projects  you cooperate with on a routinely basis. By doing this you may be contributing to inter-project cooperation and understanding. Thank you Daoken 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably WP:PHARM (aka WP:DRUG), WP:VIRUS, for a start. Does WP:CLINMED need mentioning as a daughter project of this one ? David Ruben  Talk  01:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I managed to add the coop bannershell and two of the projects but couldn't find the banners of WP:VIRUS JennyLen 12:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also created a coopbanner following the  for WikiProject Medicine because didn't exist, is , I think it works JennyLen 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, that looks good. Nice work! Antelan talk 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for cooperation 

message: I wonder if it could be added some section in the project's page where members can find all the templates when they need them ? I don't know how to do it but I could like new members have access to those resources JennyLen 13:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that would be very helpful, even for those of us who aren't beginners; I'm hoping someone with more experience in this project can maybe help with that? Antelan talk 13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could create an own section for that, just tell me what you would like to see there! This: Category:Medical infobox templates? NCurse  work 09:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That will be excellent. What about starting with ,   ,  {WikiProject Medicine CoopBanner}} explaining for what is each ? JennyLen 09:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banners templates 

message: It's a Belgian psychiatrist. We are arguing currently in the French wiki if we should maintain him in the wiki. 
The problem is that someone said that he was well known, and said that he was truly known in the english-speaking world like in Atlanta, Houston or Miami.
And I think that, this person is one of his friend or relative. So I wonder if people, here (in the english wiki) know him and can bring argument that his work as a psychiatrist is notorious and secondary sources have been produced from his work. 
There is a strong suspection of fake. But we have no doubt that he is a psychiatrist and has made some publications. 
Most of the primary sources are not reliable because he has his own publishing house 'Socrates Promarex' and we can't find secondary 
sources about his work. And primary source seems to be Wikipedia.
Pppswing 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A search on PubMed on "Godfroid I" gives 18 hits. None of the titles strikes me as in themselves opening new insights to radically change psychiatry (several just debating points), and publication years of just between 1995 & 2000 suggests nolonger active in research & publishing (or at least in PubMed abstracted biomedical journals). Of course may or may not be notable as a psychiatrist in other ways (eg as a leading member of psychiatric organisation, as a well known TV-doc or presenter etc), but not something that I as a GP would be aware of.David Ruben  Talk  17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who knows [[Ivan O. Godfroid]] ? 

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

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

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

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

message: Hi! I was hoping someone at this WikiProject could help me with this question: What is the formal medical term for getting the wind knocked out of you? The article doesn't say. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you recommend moving the article to Temporary paralysis of the diaphragm, then? Or do you think there's a better term out there? —Remember the dot (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I would leave the article as it is.  But I would add a redirect.  I will do it.  By the way, it looks like some existing redirects need to be cleaned up.  "Winded" has nothing to do with temporary paralysis of the diaphragm.  Could you do that, Remember the dot? --Una Smith 02:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The major difficulty here is that getting the wind knocked out of you does not relate to any specific medical condition at all, and therefore there is NO specific medical term for it. Yes, I do hold a qualification. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with medical terms 

message: I think these two articles should be merged.  How would we go about that?  Thanks. --Afromcbenny 07:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend against the merge -- we usually distinguish between the disease and the pathogen. That said, if you'd like to pursue a merge, the process is described at Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Proposing_a_merger. --Arcadian 20:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I was just looking over MCV, MCH, and MCHC and was thinking about merging these three into one article called Red blood cell indices as they are all related stubs.  I don't think there is much potential for expansion for these articles, and I doubt anyone would object to the merge.  Whether or not these should be merged, there definitely should be an article specifically for the red blood cell indices.  As I see it, there are 3 options: a disambiguation page for the 3 articles, an overview page with  links to the 3 articles, or a merged page.  I prefer a merge, but wanted others' opinions on the matter before I took action.  I haven't put merge tags on the pages, as I'm sure not many people are watching those pages, and those who are probably are watching this page too.  --Scott Alter 06:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they are better as three separate pages (the current situation). Your second option is appropriate. Axl 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red blood cell indices 

message: The Surgery article seems to be woefully inadequate in describing even the fundamentals of modern surgery.  Is anybody working on expanding this article?  H Padleckas 09:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After practically two months, nobody had made any improvements of substance to the Surgery article to address my above-mentioned concern.  Therefore, I substantially expanded the Surgery article myself to describe fundamental aspects of modern surgery.  I would like to request a peer review to ensure the Surgery article is technically sound.  If anybody wants to review Surgery and make any [beneficial] edits, please go ahead.  H Padleckas 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Surgery]] article 

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

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

message: I am trying to gauge what the interest would be for a WP:ONCOLOGY category.  This would be under the broader auspices of WP:MED, along the lines of WP:RENAL and WP:Rads. It would address standards of care and best practices in surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with maintaining and editing cancer related articles. 
If this is something you are interested in, please sign underneath the relevant section at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Oncology
Djma12 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for WikiProject_ONCOLOGY 

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

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

message: User:Caesarjbsquitti, an editor with an strong interest in a variety of unorthodox ideas and medical theories, has made a number of apparently questionable edits to various articles about mental illness. Could someone please review these? 
It might also be instructive, as part of this process, to read their user page to get a better idea of the full breadth and depth of their interests: according to this, they are, for example, also the "Wrighter, [sic] researcher who discovered a negative side to truth, anti-truths, and wrighter of (The Jesus Christ Code. The LIGHT: The Rainbow of Truth. to be released 2007 © ) expanding the definition of 'truth' , 'half-truth' and 'lie' together with a new philosophy "Thinking In Color©", "The third side of the coin" and the 'wave theory of truth'." (emphasis theirs) -- Karada 16:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Caesarjbsquitti]] 

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

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

message: On Talk:List of health topics: Si-So, W.marsh has asked for those pages to be moved out of the main namespace space.  Is this project able/willing to take the pages, or should I move it under WP:MISSING ? John Vandenberg 07:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This list looks more like an index and is incomplete. Now that we have category system in place probably there is not much need for it. I would move to missing list.--Countincr ( t@lk ) 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of health topics 

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Would someone please comment on this discussion. It appears to hinge on one reference in NEJM that has been added recently. Does that reference make this topic notable and hence kept? --Bduke 23:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No PubMed hits, clearly not notable (ie name not accepted and used in other WP:MEDRS), AfD closed with consensus of delete David Ruben  Talk  00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports car knee syndrome]] 

message: Needs discussing. David Ruben  Talk  00:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cure_for_diabetes_mellitus_type_1]] 

message: The veganism article is a low-importance medicine article, currently listed as a GA. The GA review made this suggestion:
:I think the regular editors ought to approach Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to discuss how Veganism fits within the scope of this technical project. The aim of discussions would be to identify articles on the topic of nutrition which can support this article. Some of the more technical information that, I feel, is misplaced in this article could migrate to those articles, leaving summaries in place here. Once the relationship of Veganism with more technical articles on nutrition has been established, part of the scope check for new material would entail surveying these supporting articles.
:Within the 'Health/Risk Calculation' there is something of a thematic inbalance, in that the 'Precautions' have more editorial space than "Benefits". Is it true that the precautions of a vegan diet outweigh benefits, or it that editors concerned with health threats are writing at a greater level of detail. In the spirit of the previous recommendation, would it make sense to have editors of the WikiProject Medicine review the section to establish if this information is better presented elsewhere. 
Any efforts to review and consolidate material, place it in more appropriate articles, find new sources, etc, would be greatly appreciated. KellenT 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Veganism]] 

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

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

message: There's a dispute going on over at talk:smoking where the user Nacaats is fiercly disputing the neutrality of the article by claiming that it misrepresents the health hazards of smoking in favor of the opinions of anti-smoking lobbyists. The sources cited are being challenged through fact-tagging, insertion of much vaguer wording and references to FORCES International Liberty News Network.
Though I haven't studied this issue in excuciating detail, my impression is that there is a widely held consensus about the general health hazards of inhaling the smoke of incompletely combusted substances in the medical community. Could someone who knows the issue better try to help resolve this conflict? Right now, the article is protected due to edit warring.
Peter Isotalo 08:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking POV 

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

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

message: hello wikipedians!
this is sairamnanda.i am a 2nd year medical student.i joined wiki to get my doubts clarified and get knowledge regarding the medical subjects..i am a new comer to wiki..so any pls suggest how to post doubts regarding a article..how to discuss a point...
thanx a lot...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairamnanda (talk • contribs) 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the relevant article, then click the link marked "Discussion" at the top of the page and add a section discussing your issue. KellenT 08:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hiiiiiiii 

message: Since there's a little bit of crossover in the topics between WP:PHARM and WP:MED, I thought I'd let y'all know that Paracetamol has recently been selected as the third Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week. It's currently already a featured article, but was promoted back in 2004, so it's probably well past due for a little refresher and improvement (else it goes to WP:FAR). If anyone wants to help out, please feel free.
Last week's collaboration was muscle relaxant, and was improved considerably. It currently awaits review for Good Article status.
Cheers! Dr. Cash 02:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paracetamol]] 

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

message: It has been mentioned that the content of the Cancer Cluster section of this article seems to rely entirely on one source. In fact, a recent article in a local newspaper here writes "Arsenic in the water, tungsten in the air, polonium in wells, underground atomic testing to the east - all have been reported by the media. The entry for "Fallon, Nevada" on Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia, mentions the leukemia cluster. It's no wonder some outsiders unfortunately perceive our community as unhealthy."
If you have access to any further information regarding this subject which might be relevant to this article regarding this subject, such as perhaps contrary opinions and/or further research, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 15:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has received substantial press coverage in larger newspapers (Reno Gazette Journal) over the years. I will see if I can find something useful. Antelan talk 05:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fallon, Nevada]] 

message: There is a deletion review of the deleted article Psychatric abuse at:
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse
cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Review of [[Psychatric abuse]] 

message: A great deal of information in the article "Tremor" was apparently taken from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tremor/tremor.htm -- The National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
This source is never cited.
137.155.128.127 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. I've updated the article. The NINDS text is in the public domain, so copying is allowed (and even encouraged) but it was rude not to attribute it. Colin°Talk 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagarism in Article: Tremor 

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

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

message: Could someone please look at this article?  It's been written by a single author, who's clearly an expert in the subject but a newbie on Wikipedia.  The article needs all kinds of style work.  Thanks for looking into it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is, needs deleting - wikipedia is not a how to guide nor instructional manual/textbook. Only a very little needs to be incorporated into Arterial blood gas, the rest moved to Wikibooks or better still Wikiversity, pointers placed at Talk:Arterial blood gas#Merge proposal. David Ruben  Talk  04:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arterial blood gas sampling]] 

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

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

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

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 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Therapies for multiple sclerosis]] 

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

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

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

message: Mess of COI edits by involved parties (see WP:COI/N#Lipodissolve): needs some regular medical contributors. Gordonofcartoon 15:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know if I can help with re-write.  I work with a doctor that has performed injection lypolisis for several years.  I am sure that makes me a little biased - but I am also very familiar with research and FDA issues.  Would be nice to see the wiki operate w/o the CIO editors.  Good amount of background in the discussion pages as well.Chrraymond 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, although I know WP:AGF is supposed to apply, the article has been such a battleground that I'm not confident of the neutrality of anyone who has turned up solely to edit that article. Gordonofcartoon 04:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lipodissolve]] 

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) 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CME on Wikiversity 

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

message: On WT:CLINMED we are discussing the need for this WikiProject to be merged with WP:CLINMED. I strongly encourage everyone to participate in this discussion, as we are simultaneously discussing other important issues, like WP:MCOTW and so on. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Link for discussion is WT:CLINMED#Need for a director/merge WP:MEDICINE? David Ruben  Talk  22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a excellent idea to merge...Probably to merge the CLINMED into this project but thats just my opinion. I believe this will be for the better of the projects if they merge. Cheers.Calaka (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT DISCUSSION 

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

message: Is Black band disease really appropriate for WPMED?  It's a disease that strikes coral in the ocean.  If you have an opinion, please either rate the article on its talk page, or delete the WPMED template.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the WPMED template, because I am biased against coral. Antelan talk 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black band disease 

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

message: – — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Can anyone identify research that shows ongoing effects of Pink Disease (Acrodynia) where origina; exposure was severe.  I am aware of the research of Dr Linda Jones on the effect of mercury poisoning in dental workers after 30 (?) years time lapse but there seems to be nothing showing the same effects on children.Williamjireh (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This topic belongs on Talk:Mercury poisoning.  I will copy it there. --Una Smith (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, it is more suitable for the WP:RD, as it does not relate directly to the article in question. JFW | T@lk 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is relevant to Mercury poisoning, particularly since Pink disease redirects there. --Una Smith (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I meant that talkpages of medical topics are not for reference. They are in place to discuss the article. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Williamjireh has questions of an encyclopedic nature that apparently are not answered (yet) on Wikipedia. And maybe Williamjireh has found information that would be a good addition to Mercury poisoning. --Una Smith (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing effects of Pink Disease in adults 

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

message: I found these two articles while trying to unravel a disambig on schizophrenia - surely this is a no-brainer for a merge but I thought listing it here was prudent.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I agree a risk of overlap, one is a physiological parameter and the other is specifically a disease monitoring proceedure (could be called "diabetes control by the close monitoring of blood sugar levels" except that is not what it is known by), similarly blood pressure discusses what that is and its normal physiological control, whilst hypertension discusses monitoring of abnormal blood pressure. David Ruben  Talk  02:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I suppose invoking 'WP ain't paper' applies here in this case. Anyway, I'll go with consensus.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: "Glycemia"? Is that even a real word? Axl (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm...sort of - but only really in glycaemic index and hyper- and hypo-; agree with merging these two. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Glycemic" I accept; it's an adjective. However "glycemia" would appear to mean "the presence of glucose in the blood". This is a pointless term. Axl (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glycemia seems to be medical shorthand for abnormal blood glucose, similar to the shorthand use of hydramnios for abnormal amniotic fluid which unfortunately leaves the reader guessing "does this refer to polyhydramnios or to oligohydramnios?!"  Back to blood sugar and related pages.  I suspect a general search may be needed to find additional pages that may need to be merged or edited to remove significant overlap.  In my experience, when there is one bad pair like blood sugar and glycemia, there are other pages too.--Una Smith (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging [[Blood sugar]] and [[Blood glucose monitoring]] 

message: *A more important overlap is between blood sugar and glycemia;  I suggest merging them. --Una Smith (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Glycemia"? Is that even a real word? Axl (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm...sort of - but only really in glycaemic index and hyper- and hypo-; agree with merging these two. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  "Glycemic" I accept; it's an adjective. However "glycemia" would appear to mean "the presence of glucose in the blood". This is a pointless term. Axl (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glycemia seems to be medical shorthand for abnormal blood glucose, similar to the shorthand use of hydramnios for abnormal amniotic fluid which unfortunately leaves the reader guessing "does this refer to polyhydramnios or to oligohydramnios?!"  Back to blood sugar and related pages.  I suspect a general search may be needed to find additional pages that may need to be merged or edited to remove significant overlap.  In my experience, when there is one bad pair like blood sugar and glycemia, there are other pages too.--Una Smith (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Hello, I would like to request that someone please add a description to :Image:Cn3nucleus.png, explaining what kind of section this is (coronal?), and roughly where in the head those structures are. The picture is used in several articles on brain anatomy. Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at mesencephalon, and imagine a section taken through the "7" in the second photograph. It's a near duplicate of Image:Midbrainsuperiorcolliculus.png. --Arcadian (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is transverse plane and oriented "facing down", but some captions on other illustrations of the same view are inconsistent re plane and none mention orientation.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I added the "facing down" part to the image description. AxelBoldt (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I wrote I think;  brain anatomy is not my thing, so to be sure of this I (or someone!) would have to look it up.  Don't guess on an article page;  if you guess wrong, that embarasses Wikipedia.--Una Smith (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image labeling 

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

message: Hello everybody. I've done a lot of work on this article and it has now been awarded GA. Does it have any FA potential? I would appreciate any feedback. Best wishes. GrahamColmTalk 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Colin and I have helped out here, it's a beautiful article (from my layperson perspective), and Graham has come very far as a new editor; medical input would be greatly appreciated to bring this article over the FA hump.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Stop me if this has bee discussed before, but I feel that there should be clear links on the portal to all the medical specialities, I think that would be a nice way to organize the information. So then after clicking on Urology for example, one may have several urology topics to choose from. I suppose eventually  each specialty could have it's won portal/ front page. Is this a good way to think about it?
Expo512 (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal should contain clear links to specialities/ subspecialties 

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

message: All in all Drug abuse seems to be the highest article, not in importance in any way, but as the article to fork other articles from. Then future contributors know where to attach further information regarding drug abuse, not really fitting into more specialized subjects.
Regarding Recreational drug use vs. Drug abuse, all standpoints are probably sufficiently explained in all those definitions. Yet, it's a good idea to have a separate section e.g. "Recreational use vs abuse" in the article, with link to Recreational drug use.
It's much the same thing with illegal drug use vs. drug abuse. I think the article politics of drug abuse serves that purpose. To make the distinction even more clear, a section e.g. consitent with the recreational one, e.g. " Illegal use vs. drug abuse " may be created.
So, with this in mind, a proper outline would be:
*Addiction
**Drug addiction
** (problem gamling etc.)
*Drug abuse
**Drug abuse-related definitions (facilitating linking from the other articles as well)
***Recreational use vs. drug abuse
***Illegal use vs. drug abuse
**Drug addiction
***pseudoaddiction
**physical dependence
**drug tolerance
**Substance abuse renamed to Management and treatment of Drug abuse
**alcoholism etc. 
Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a need to rename "substance abuse" as that is the name the DSM IV uses.  See similar articles like alcohol dependence. —Viriditas | Talk 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure it is a term often used, and well worth describing in Definitions. Yet, I think it is too similar to Drug abuse to be an own artice. The only reasonable alternative I see is thus to have Drug abuse renamed and filled with Management and treatment of Drug abuse, and Substance abuse taking its place. Mikael Häggström 05:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The substance abuse definition is the one used by the American Psychiatric Association in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition  as the article makes clear.  The individual substance abuse definitions (Alcohol abuse, etc.) are a subset.  The drug abuse definitions are altogether different, as are the effects of drug abuse on the body, which do not concern the psychological topic.   The section on "Approaches to managing drug abuse" is supposed to be a summary of substance abuse and related articles. —Viriditas | Talk 07:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My dream of haveing the drug abuse-related articles organized well enough to avail readers an overview of them fades away with every definition I hear. Nevertheless, I made a navigation template to Drug abuse, Substance abuse and Drug addiction, which might suffice for now. The section on "Approaches to managing drug abuse" might well be, if supplied with corresponding info from the other articles, big enough to in addition be forked of as an own article, leaving a summary. Then, all other articles may also contain a link and a summary to that article, just as I think would be best with all those definitions-sections as well. I think it would be the best, because even if drug addiction specifically is treated differently as drug abuse in general, an approach including them all is the best management. Mikael Häggström 16:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another solution is to turn drug abuse into a dab page. —Viriditas | Talk 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline, version 2

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

message: Dysentery
Adding a sig here so the bot can date and remove this section. --Una Smith 14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  attnetion, article mutilated after removal of copyvio 

message: The current Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive article is . Last week's collaboration was: .CAST YOUR VOTE for next week's article
Adding sig date stamp so bot can remove.  --Una Smith 15:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart disease on AID 

message: * Brain dish 11 August
Adding a sig here so the bot can date and remove this section. --Una Smith 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for deletion via [[WP:PROD]] 

message: Asperger syndrome has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
For the record, Asperger syndrome passed its third FA review in September 2007. --Una Smith 15:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR 

message: Why does the Borders section of the article on the Frontal Bone talk about the squama temporalis?  It just doesn't seem right.
I have copied this query to Talk:Frontal bone. --Una Smith 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frontal Bone 

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

message: The following discussion is from Template talk:Medicine:
Why not merge the Physician specialties and Medical specialties? They include the same list - just that Physician specialties links to their codes. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus, Medical speciality, Medical specialist, Physician specialty codes and Surgical specialties probably need to be merged. However, I think Surgical specialties may remain as a subarticle to that entity. Physician specialty codes may also be, because it has it in alphabetical order - something which probably will be lost, because I think several tables are needed, to avail headers to distinguish major groups, as in Table of muscles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple tables can be avoided by using sortable tables (see List of medical schools in the United States for an example).  The default sorting would be on the specialty name, and the specialty codes could be alphabetized by clicking in the column heading.  The reason I would want a column solely for "medical" or "surgical" would be so that the specialties could be displayed in order, first sorted by medical or surgical, and secondarily by specialty name (similar to the degree column in List of medical schools in the United States).  If your only reason to separate medical and surgical is for ease of browsing, a sortable table should take care of your concern.  --Scott Alter 18:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, a sortable table would do it well. Then we don't need that Physician specialty codes as a separate article, but just use the codes in this new table. I'll try this method. Anybody may fine-tune it later. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Again, feel free to fine-tune it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of Medical speciality, Medical specialist, Physician specialty codes and Surgical specialties 

message: This article is an absolute disgrace. It includes as "health effects" really only "health benefits" of tobacco smoking. As a doctor I am particularly apalled that this is the case. This article either needs urgent review or to be merged into another article which is less biased.
I've started adding in some brief information about health RISKS, though I'm having problems with working out how to cite articles to put citations in there at the moment.
I think I do need some help fixing that article up... help! Snipergirl (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use this link  for PubMed numbers. --GrahamColmTalk 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Health effects of tobacco smoking]] article 

message: It looks like the original writers of this article did quite a valiant effort while they could.
I have completely rewritten the article with some structural changes with some help from the coronary heart disease article.
It does also need some more padding out but it's a start. Snipergirl (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the articles should be merged. The vast majority of IHD is due to CHD/CAD, and we already have a great duplicity of articles on the subject. Acute coronary syndrome and myocardial infarction stand on their own (but the former needs more sources). JFW | T@lk 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ischaemic Heart Disease Article 

message: It seems there is a current debate (in the archived version of this talk page) about which articles should be joined. Some of the articles in question are not solely related to drug abuse and many of them do not fall within the topic of drug abuse at all. 
In particular, drug dependence, drug tolerance etc are biological processes that have litle to do with drug abuse. Patients routinely become physiologically dependent on and tolerant to drug effects without abusing them. This is especially relevant in cases where the drug in question has no psychological addiction potential whatsoever, and there are many cases where this is true. One would never refer to a patient who has become tolerant to antibiotics as a drug abuser, or an addict, nor is that patient dependent on the drug, IE if one discontinues the antibiotic course there is not likely to be a set of withdrawal symptoms. One would also not refer to a patient who is dependent on anti-depressants as an addict even if discontinuation of the drug would cause withdrawal symptoms.
In addition, one can become tolerant to drugs like morphine or valium without abusing them, cancer patients routinely become tolerant and physiologically dependent on opiates despite the fact that they are using them for legitimate purposes, but one would never refer to a cancer patient as a drug addict simply because of tolerance or physical dependence on the medication. These specific conditions are entirely separate and lumping them together is incorrect. 
To clarify my position, it would be highly improper to pull all these topics under the drug abuse subject simply because they are related in some way, and they have more to differentiate them than they have in common. Mrsteveman1 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about a category or a template or something else? Sorry, not quite following. I wasn't around for the beginning of the convo, so please fill me in if it's not too much hassle. Thanks, Antelan talk 22:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would agree with Mrsteveman1. The concepts of tolerance, dependence, withdrawal and abuse are distinct (though related)and IMHO wikipedia should reflect this. Sanjpatel1 (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Hi,my name is Shirley Free,and my son Phillip Thompson has cystinosis.He was diagnosed with Fanconi Syndrome a littel over a year old.This may he turned 6 years old,and in june an eye Dr. found out it was cystinosis.I was terrified.He is currently on the Cystagon (for 4 months now)and goes to Arkansas Children'Hospital tomorrow to see if the treatment is working.I also have an 18 month old daughter,Tori, who will be tested tomorrow to see if she has cystinosis.I guess I just wanted to tell someone so they know they are not alone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.123.144 (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Shirley, I'm sorry to hear about Phillip and hope everything will be well. Please note that you've left the above message on a Wikipedia page where contributors work together on medical articles. It is unlikely to directly reach anyone who is going through the same situation as you. Have you been in touch with the Cystinosis Foundation? JFW | T@lk 22:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phillip 

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

message: Dear Wikimedians,
This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).
The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests
If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.
The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.
* General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
* Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations
thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[m:GIP|Greenspun illustration project]]: requests now open 

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

message: There have been to changes to the symptoms list for this condition by anonymous users recently. Are these changes correct? (change upper/lower GI and 73% blistering) Rmhermen (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a lot of contributors;  probably some are watching it.  So, why not read Wikipedia:Verifiability, then tag the article as needed to call attention to the changes you are concerned about? --Una Smith (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some refs, but it could still use further verification. --Arcadian (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Henoch-Schönlein purpura]] 

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

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

message: Needs attention: intro and much of article presumes accepted existence, adn cites only partisan unreliable sources. 86.145.94.23 (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stealth-adapted virus]] 

message: Can we get an MD or two to look at the Andropause article?  It is a complete mess and needs to be totally re-written. As one unsigned visitor noted, the article looks as if it was written by a barely literate self-help guru. It may also need to be tagged as controversial. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll need to start with the question whether the concept exists or not. I suspect the majority of endocrinologists will give you a bored shrug if you bother them with that question. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some cleanup; it could use more. --Arcadian (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Andropause]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint fasciitis needs some help from someone who knows something about the subject. The question at hand is whether this is a synonym for Necrotizing fasciitis or not. Thanks for any enlightenment! --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The author was probably referring to septic arthritis. There is no fascia in joints. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD needs some knowledgeable help 

message: Please see my comment at Talk:Squamous cell carcinoma. Could someone have a look at the point I'm making regarding the number of cases. Thanks. 81.109.216.245 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User JFW has dealt with it. Thanks. 81.109.216.245 (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squamous cell carcinoma 

message: Some medical billing manuals define "late effect" as a residual effect or sequela of an acute condition.  But in the medical research literature "late effect" refers to a condition that occurs (or presents) after (sometimes long after) the causative condition has resolved.  In clinical medicine, is "late effect" just a synonym for sequela?  And how do these terms relate to complication (medicine)?  All these pages need improvement.  (Also, improvement now would be helpful in resolving some difficulties with Herpes zoster.)  Please take a look at them. --Una Smith (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "sequelae" is a container term for every medical problem that arises as a result of another problem. The difference between "late effect" and "complication" is the timeframe. I'm not at all sure where the cutoff lies between the one and the other. Intuitively, I would say that a "complication" arises during the illness or its treatment, while a "late effect" by its very wording is after the illness or its treatment. But I have heard "complication" used in this context just the same. JFW | T@lk 14:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  JFW, thanks for your edits to late effect;  I changed lactate from a redirect to a disambiguation page.  Re your comment here, are you are thinking a complication occurs during a condition, a sequela begins during a condition and continues afterward, and a late effect begins afterward (perhaps long afterward)?  Do you know any sources (textbooks, etc) that address this? --Una Smith (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The section on Ciliary muscle movements in the Lens article seems to contain information that conflicts with other (more referenced) articles. Specifically, the Lens article says that ciliary muscles contract to make lens flat, whereas ciliary muscle and Accommodation both say that the ciliary muscle contraction results in lens becoming more spherical due to the relaxation of zonular fibers.
Can someone verify one or the other, or provide an explanation? Quartertone (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lens (anatomy) 

message: Periosteal reaction is currently listed as an article which needs to be Wikified.  Could you folks from WikiProject Medicine please take a look at it? Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it does, it looks like it was written for a textbook.  I had a quick look at it, but I'm inadequate to the task I think.  Help! WLU (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some wikification. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave up in despair :) WLU (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Periosteal reaction]] needs attention 

message: What a title! And typically for us, we don't have Wrong operation. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have boldly redirected this impossibly named page to adverse drug reaction, where this content belongs. JFW | T@lk 16:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wrong medication]] 

message: Given that we have no Wikipedia radiologist, I was rather impressed with the hard work that  has been putting into the radiology content on Wikipedia, including copious image uploads and useful content. Sadly, this user has now departed, has not registered an email address, and has not responded to a message I left on their talkpage on 8 December.
Does anyone know contributors who could help out with our radiology pages? Today I found myself improving CT pulmonary angiogram, and would love some peer review. JFW | T@lk 16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-ray request