Talk:Perioral dermatitis

message: I have presented a simple description of this disease. 04:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concur. Both those pictures should be removed, as they are very  misleading.  Contact dermatitis from lip-licking, though in a peri-oral distribution, is a distinct clinical entity from perioral dermatitis (which this article has NO images for).  Lip-licking dermatitis has homogenous erythema in a "tongue" distribution around the mouth, and touches the vermillion border of the lips; it resolves quickly when the person stops licking their lips and/or uses a simple barrier like vasoline. This is well depicted in the two images on the article.  Perioral dermatitis (as a named clinical term) is a papular disorder of unknown cause, with flesh colored or erythematous papules, micronodules, and rare pustules, histologically indistinguishable from rosacea, which is chronic, waxing and waning, and notoriously difficult to treat.  In the former, perioral describes distribution (an exam finding); in the latter, perioral is specifically part of the name of the disorder. - a pediatrician  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.74.162.114 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: This article was categorized based on scheme outlined at WP:DERM. Calmer Waters 11:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article categorization 

message: 1 sentence stub, should be discussed on the main perioral dermatitis page... Lesion (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have completed this merge. LT90001 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with Granulomatous perioral dermatitis 

message: Help me here ... while of course a secondary source is ideal -- no question about that -- please point me to the guideline that mandates deletion of reference to a study in a reliable, third-party, published secondary source? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO we should be using secondary sources. The content added was not really supported by the primary source attached to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring for a moment personal preferences -- is there a guideline that mandates such deletion? --Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What language in it, specifically, mandates deletion of reference to a study in a reliable, third-party, published secondary source? (Understanding that secondary sources are preferable). Epeefleche (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

text: *But the guideline --though it is concerned with the use of primary sources where it may contradict other primary sources -- goes on to say "The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors." All of these requirement were satisfied.  Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah not really as the primary source was attached to content it did not support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I am trying to figure out which ref supports "Balsam of Peru" as a cause? 
#This ref doesn't 
#This text is from 1971 
#This ref does not support either  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Epeefleche has highlighted that Wikipedia's content on allergic reactions of the mouth, lips, etc. is very poor. Any editors interested in building such content are therefore very welcome, however standards need to upheld. I have not checked the sources or what content they were being used to support in detail, so I am not going to comment on this incident, but it is a requirement that the source corresponds to the content which is cited to it. 188.29.95.225 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref that supports changes

message: "It is not uncommon". If it was more common, this Wikipedia article would be longer & would be in more languages.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1071128-overview#a6
Epidemiology, United States. The incidence of perioral dermatitis (POD) is estimated to be 0.5-1% in industrialized countries, independent of geographic factors.
91.155.24.127 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure looks good. Remember to paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is not uncommon". That is false.