No edit summary |
|||
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
==[[Paraproteinemia]]== |
==[[Paraproteinemia]]== |
||
above article could use some help(edits), thank you--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 15:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC) |
above article could use some help(edits), thank you--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 15:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
== A website called chronoleaks that seems not to be about ineffective methods of waterproofing timepieces == |
|||
[[User:Jesuslord4ever]] is a newly registered account whose [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jesuslord4ever contributions] thus far all seem to be adding links to www.chronoleaks.com to various medical articles, always in references to replace URLs that have previously been marked as dead. This looks rather questionable to me, please could someone take a look. [[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]] ([[User talk:MPS1992|talk]]) 22:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:20, 18 June 2017
Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!
We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.
- Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
- Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
- Put new text under old text. .
- Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (
~~~~
). - Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
- Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list
List of archives | |
---|---|
|
3 awful articles
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Cutaneous_T-cell_lymphoma_-_very_high_mag.jpg/100px-Cutaneous_T-cell_lymphoma_-_very_high_mag.jpg)
- Cutaneous T cell lymphoma (somewhat surprisingly bad)
- Neural engineering (unsurprisingly bad, futurist hype)
- Neurocybernetics (unsurprisingly bad, futurist hype)
So much work to do! Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. CTCL definitely needs a tremendous amount of work. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- Amyloid beta too. Loaded with primary source bloat. It was, surprisingly, classed as Low-importance; I bumped that up.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- [1] will look CTCL--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Pattern.org External Link on Rare Cancer Indications
Hi WikiProject Medicine,
My name is Adam; I'm a software engineer with the small team at the non-profit Rare Cancer Research Foundation (RCRF). I'm very new to Wikipedia and was referred here by the venerable Doc James after I added nine external links to rare cancer pages. The links have been removed pending this discussion.
RCRF polled rare cancer researchers back in January 2017 about their biggest barriers to research. 67% of respondents cited lack of models as their top impediment. Based on available human cancer model data from Cellosaurus, 80% of rare cancer models have less than five models to study—40% have zero models.
We built Pattern.org to enable rare cancer patients, who are already having removal procedures or biopsies, to directly donate their tumor tissue to researchers through an online consent process. Due to low incidence rates and wide geographical distribution of these rarer cancers, patients likely don't receive care in a location where they have the expertise to make maximum use of their tumor tissues. After consent, we work with the patient's oncologists, surgeons, and pathologists to get their fresh tumor tissue to the Broad Institute for model creation. We're onboarding more core lab facilities in the U.S. soon.
I added external links to the indications we cover, with the following (example indication) text: "Pattern.org enables chordoma patients to donate their tumor tissue to research." The link takes users to a specific page for their indication.
We'd like to open a conversation here about the merit of including this link to enable patient-supported direct-to-research tissue donation. Our reasons for inclusion are:
- WP:ELNO #4: Our link is not mainly for promotion. We are providing a resource for patients to actively manage what is done with their tissue. We primarily promote ourselves by creating partnerships with indication foundations who refer patients to us because they are in the best position act as patient navigators, especially immediately post-diagnosis. Those partner foundations are often included in the external links themselves, because they provide patient resources. Let me be clear: we find their external links important as well...we are not making a "other stuff exists" argument.
- WP:ELNO #5: We do not sell anything and our site does not contain advertising. We are a non-profit. All of the successful models and PHI donated by patients through the website in question are made openly available to cancer researchers. Our motivation is purely the advancement of rare cancer research.
- In future iterations, we would like to add sections to rare cancer indications which includes summaries of patient treatment/research/learning opportunities. Pattern.org and other research opportunities would be present there. With our limited small-team bandwidth, the external links were the highest quality content we could currently provide in this round of additions.
Thanks for any consideration and discussion. We’d love to help maintain some of these pages in the future and believe in the spirit of open collaboration. Adamjaffeback (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC) for RCRF
- per[2] I would tend to agree w/ Doc James[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Adamjaffeback, I appreciate your honesty, and wish we could help with such a worthwhile cause, but doing so contradicts the purpose of Wikipedia.
- What you're asking is for Wikipedia to allow links to your site to drive business to it. Being a non-profit isn't relevant, nor whether or not anything is being sold. These aren't just ELNO problems, but WP:NOT problems, especially WP:SOAP.
- Since it hasn't been brought up: You shouldn't be adding or restoring the links to any article, given your conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- You might like to request that an article be written about the Rare Cancer Research Foundation by posting a red link and a bibliography of independent sources about the RCRF at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Medicine#Associations. Iff it meets the applicable notability guidelines (WP:GNG being the main one), someone who is not affiliated with the RCRF may turn the red link into an article at some point in the future. I think this would be considered appropriate. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- The links are not suitable as external links, even on a generous reading of our external links policy. As this is an encyclopedia, we are solely concerned with providing readers with information that has been reported in reliable sources about the subject of the article. This means that if the information pointed to by the proposed external links were to be reported by independent third parties (scholarly journals, mainstream press, etc.), then a case could be made for writing about that information in the relevant articles, using both the third party and pattern.org as sources. Unfortunately, I can't find any independent coverage on Google, news, books, or Google Scholar. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia isn't more of a help to such worthy causes, but its mission does not include raising the profile of such causes, sorry. --RexxS (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for all of your feedback. While we're (RCRF) clearly disappointed with the outcome, we understand how the group reached consensus. Our next steps will be to gather citations and request articles for RCRF and Pattern.org, per @122.108.141.214's suggestion. We look forward to working together with this group in the future to make contributions to rare cancer pages as part of our mission to increase the amount of high quality information to patients. In the meantime, if any of you docs are interested in learning more about RCRF or our project at Pattern.org, don't hesitate to reach out. AdamTWildcat (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- Further to the comment by RexxS above, the press piece at http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/sd-me-rare-cancers-20170118-story.html might be helpful, but it is never a good idea to base a WP article on a single source, particularly one of modest reliability, such as that. If you can identify a few other independently published sources it will be much more likely that someone can create a survivable article. It might be that an article focused on the research methods is more productive than one on the foundation. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
AfD Notice
An articles for deletion discussion that may interest some project members can be found here. Page in question is Chronic cellular dehydration. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- What a strange old article. Thank you for posting the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Serotonin-2D-skeletal.svg/130px-Serotonin-2D-skeletal.svg.png)
Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction was redirected to Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor#Sexual_dysfunction as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. In the last couple of days, the article has been recreated twice. Since I don't see anywhere that there is a consensus to reverse the AFD decision, I have restored the redirect. I just wanted to let members of this project know, in case I'm missing something, or to give editors the opportunity to discuss whether the article should be recreated or not. Deli nk (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- Do you think it's worth asking for page protection? The first was a logged-out editor, and the second editor won't be autoconfirmed for another two days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
- there could be discussion whether the article should be recreated[4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Protected for a month. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- Can anyone give an opinion? JenOttawa (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- @JenOttawa: Yes, but please also explain why you are supporting or opposing with your vote. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 22:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:Citation overkill RfC 2
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should we keep the Other views and solutions section which allows contrary views?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- This was boldly closed less than one day after it opened, on the grounds that nobody had expressed interest in doing this, and Quack is known to oppose it. There is a link below to another RFC, which Quack started about three hours after this one was closed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
new article, needs review... Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- could probably use less of[5](company)...and more[6]reviews...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:Citation overkill RfC 3
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should we expand the Other views and solutions section to allow more contrary views?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. QuackGuru (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
If there is no mirror essay called "Wikipedia:Citation underkill" then the alternative is to add a few contrary views to the existing essay. The purpose of the RfC is to get ideas on how to best proceed. QuackGuru (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Or start your own essay, which would have the advantage of letting you spend as much space on it as you want, with just as many arguments for fact-tagging and then citing the number of fingers on the human hand as you can muster. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay. QuackGuru (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis
- Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Appears to be a disease that doesn't exist; but our article is leaning more to present it more as a mere "controversy" with the sources on one side leaning heavily on Jerry E Bouquot, the inventor of the condition and the person who built a business around it. More expert eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- [7]just 1 recent review(older than 5 years)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think it seems to have been settled since then that this was a scam.[8] Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Pointless template?
Am I alone in failing to see the point of Template:Medicinal herbs used as laxatives? A problem with all templates of this kind is that they don't (and can't) include sourcing. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Peter coxhead, It is a navbox. It is not intended or expected to include sourcing. The articles linked by the navbox contain the information and the sourcing. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- But why have a navbox in this case? I'm particularly unhappy with the word "medicinal" in the title. The clear implication is that the use as laxatives is supported in each and every case by WP:MEDRS compliant sources, whereas in reality a description of a folk or traditional medical use is more usual. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, the template enshrines a POV problem, and should be deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Would simply removing the word "medicinal" from the title solve the problem? As a navbox it does not need to prove anything nor comply with any RS rule. The only criterion for the existence of a navbox is whether it is useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would have thought that the template is fairly useful, but agree that the word "medicinal" is inappropriate, given the requirements of MEDRS. It's only in use on 8 pages (for some reason it's not transcluded on Senna). I'll just eliminate the word "medicinal" and see if that solves the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- I think our biases are showing here. "Medicinal" doesn't mean either "regulated drug" or "substance that is actually effective for treating a condition". If you go look at the word medicinal in a dictionary, I'm pretty sure you'll find that the definition includes stuff that's "used as" a treatment, without requiring that it actually work. Or even without requiring that the person "using it" actually be sick. The focus is on something that's intended to improve things. Think "laughter is the best medicine" rather than "the FDA has approved this drug as safe and effective for a specific condition".
- In particular, the term medicinal herb differentiates a plant eaten because of a perceived medical issue from culinary herb, which is a plant (sometimes the same plant) eaten because of its pleasing flavor and texture. There's nothing inherently wrong with using the standard terminology for this. Without specifying the medicinal intent, one could reasonably add all of the leafy greens to this list of "herbal laxatives". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, my bias is showing. The term medicinal means "(of a substance or plant) having healing properties" – if you don't believe me, do a Google search for "medicinal herb" and let me know if that's not the first thing you get. If you don't like Google, try the Oxford English Dictionary (for the same result). If it doesn't have healing properties, it's not medicinal, period. If people are eating leafy greens for their laxative properties, then I can't for the life of me see why they shouldn't be in the template that is designed to aid navigation between similar articles – in this case, herbs that are used as laxatives. Go ahead, add them. What would be the problem with that? --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- I would have thought that the template is fairly useful, but agree that the word "medicinal" is inappropriate, given the requirements of MEDRS. It's only in use on 8 pages (for some reason it's not transcluded on Senna). I'll just eliminate the word "medicinal" and see if that solves the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Would simply removing the word "medicinal" from the title solve the problem? As a navbox it does not need to prove anything nor comply with any RS rule. The only criterion for the existence of a navbox is whether it is useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Agree, the template enshrines a POV problem, and should be deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- But why have a navbox in this case? I'm particularly unhappy with the word "medicinal" in the title. The clear implication is that the use as laxatives is supported in each and every case by WP:MEDRS compliant sources, whereas in reality a description of a folk or traditional medical use is more usual. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with WAID – medicinal has come to indicate use in "medicine", i.e. medicine that is known to work. This is the standard definition of the word — and does not cover all definitions, such as those in traditional medicine. However, when we create navigation templates I'd like to think we should stick to standard terminology. Carl Fredrik talk 09:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- "Herbs used as laxatives" avoids the issue of whether they are medicinal and by what definition. It would appear to be legitimate option for the name that cannot reasonably be construed to conflict with MEDMOS, while not losing any utility. The only question left would be whether they actually work as laxatives. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- "Herbs used as laxatives" is a bigger list than "medicinal herbs used as laxatives". All leafy greens (and stems) are technically herbs (by at least some definitions), but they're not all medicinal herbs.
- As for definitions, I see 1) "tending or used to cure disease or relieve pain" and 2) "salutary"; "(of a substance or plant) having healing properties"; "Medicinal substances are used to cure illnesses".
- I think that you ought to also consider the example uses: "Medicinal herbs", "I keep a bottle of brandy purely for medicinal purposes", and "It is said that the spring water has medicinal properties". This doesn't give me any reason to think that this word has much relationship evidence-based medicine or efficacy.
- To check this theory, I went to https://books.google.com and searched for "medicinal" (in quotes). Only 10% of the first 50 books listed were mainstream science (and all of them were about medicinal chemistry). The other 90% were about the alt med field of medicinal plants.
- I don't think that this word gets used much among non-professionals in modern English, and when it does, the only use I actually remember hearing is someone describing Pine-Sol cleaner as having a medicinal smell.
- Based on this, I wonder how CFCF has concluded that "medicinal has come to indicate use in "medicine", i.e. medicine that is known to work" (never mind here that some mainstream drugs don't actually work). It seems to me that "medicinal" is an increasingly archaic word that has very little to do with anything modern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Nucleolus organizer region-associated proteins in breast malignancy
The section on Nucleolus organizer region#Associated proteins in breast malignancy seems a bit suspect to me, since the references are mostly on the detection technique, not the actual findings. A G-scholar search mostly turns up papers from the '80s and '90s. Does anyone happen to know if this a well established concept in medicine? Is it specific to breast cancer? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of that section was added by student editor Mia.Whary, and is blatant plagiarism. I have removed it, and am going to sift through the rest of the article. BTW, there are 3150 articles in a medline search of NOR, and I'm depressed that this crappy article is the best wp MCB and Genetics has done. sigh. I bet Mia got a good grade too....JeanOhm (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- It may be worthwhile to contact the instructor as grades can be changed even after graduation. Plagiarism is often taken seriously. Sizeofint (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just realized this was a high school assignment, not a college assignment. I'm not sure what might happen in this case.
Still, it may be worth informing the teacher to obviate this happening in the future.The teacher, User:Tbohrer74, does not appear active at all. Sizeofint (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)- @Sizeofint: Yeah, I thought about contacting Bohrer, but decided not to rub his nose in it. What I am still considering is searching wp for talk page messages like Mia's indicating that other editors are working on assignments for him. If found, then check their edits for plagiarism. Call me overly suspicious, but I wouldn't be shocked to find more. The thing that is stopping me is that there is so many other things to edit on my radar. BTW, I finished my revisions of the Nucleolus organizer region if you want to check it. JeanOhm (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sizeofint: Well, good old Travis' students that I've looked at (yes, I guess I'm a masochist) aren't doing wp any favors. The principal of his school is Mrs. Courtney Long E-mail: clong@waynesville.k12.mo.us. I can't find his e-mail, but his presumed relative, Chrystal, has the email Cbohrer@waynesville.k12.mo.us, so I assume his is tbohrer@waynesville.k12.mo.us. @Countrygirl1228: blatantly plagiarised from https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Hemoglobin%20variants into Hemoglobin variants in 2013, and the thefts are still there, uncited. I'm not going to email them, because I don't have an anonymous e-mail account. I looked at a couple other of his student's edits, and they were very suspicious, but they have been removed by others. sigh. JeanOhm (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- It looks good, although this topic is far outside my area of expertise so I may not be the best person to ask. Given this Wikipedia assignment has not been repeated since 2013, contacting the teacher is probably not worthwhile. Sizeofint (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sizeofint: Well, good old Travis' students that I've looked at (yes, I guess I'm a masochist) aren't doing wp any favors. The principal of his school is Mrs. Courtney Long E-mail: clong@waynesville.k12.mo.us. I can't find his e-mail, but his presumed relative, Chrystal, has the email Cbohrer@waynesville.k12.mo.us, so I assume his is tbohrer@waynesville.k12.mo.us. @Countrygirl1228: blatantly plagiarised from https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Hemoglobin%20variants into Hemoglobin variants in 2013, and the thefts are still there, uncited. I'm not going to email them, because I don't have an anonymous e-mail account. I looked at a couple other of his student's edits, and they were very suspicious, but they have been removed by others. sigh. JeanOhm (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sizeofint: Yeah, I thought about contacting Bohrer, but decided not to rub his nose in it. What I am still considering is searching wp for talk page messages like Mia's indicating that other editors are working on assignments for him. If found, then check their edits for plagiarism. Call me overly suspicious, but I wouldn't be shocked to find more. The thing that is stopping me is that there is so many other things to edit on my radar. BTW, I finished my revisions of the Nucleolus organizer region if you want to check it. JeanOhm (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just realized this was a high school assignment, not a college assignment. I'm not sure what might happen in this case.
- It may be worthwhile to contact the instructor as grades can be changed even after graduation. Plagiarism is often taken seriously. Sizeofint (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Discussion of interest
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Citation underkill. QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Although this is at Miscellany for "deletion", it appears that nobody has ever suggested deleting Quack's new essay, so it's a little weird that Quack nominated it for deletion himself (and then opposed his own nomination).
- The original question (see Wikipedia talk:Citation underkill) seems to be whether it should be improved to differentiate between the minimum requirements of actual policy vs Quack's strong personal preference that absolutely every fact get an inline citation, or if it should be moved to Quack's userspace and left promoting his person view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- You proposed that I start a new essay, but now you are suggesting userification? QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- No. I said that I "would go along with that" option. I do not object to that option; I have not expressed any recommendation (beyond recommending that you stop nominating your own essays for deletion if you don't want them deleted). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- You would go along with that option which included userification (without providing a specific reason). It was best to nominate my own essay for deletion in order to prevent it from being deleted. I have experience in these matters. I was not about to allow another editor write "Move to userspace" along with other nonsense without letting others read my comment before they vote. I gained the advantage by nominating it first. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- No. I said that I "would go along with that" option. I do not object to that option; I have not expressed any recommendation (beyond recommending that you stop nominating your own essays for deletion if you don't want them deleted). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- You proposed that I start a new essay, but now you are suggesting userification? QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
above article could use some help(edits), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
A website called chronoleaks that seems not to be about ineffective methods of waterproofing timepieces
User:Jesuslord4ever is a newly registered account whose contributions thus far all seem to be adding links to www.chronoleaks.com to various medical articles, always in references to replace URLs that have previously been marked as dead. This looks rather questionable to me, please could someone take a look. MPS1992 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)