The literature positions Wikipedia as a prominent health information resource in various contexts for the public, patients, students, and practitioners seeking health information online. Wikipedia’s health content is accessed frequently, and its pages regularly rank highly in Google search results. While Wikipedia itself is well into its second decade, the academic discourse around Wikipedia within the context of health is still young and the academic literature is limited when attempts are made to understand Wikipedia as a health information resource. Possibilities for future research will be discussed.
Wikimedia Foundation grant service paid the open access fee of about US$1500 so it has a CC-By-4.0 license.
Thank you so much for this wonderful recommendation Bluerasberry! This publication is the culmination about about 7 months labour and it is lovely to see it's finally broadly and publicly available. Please do have a read. Mcbrarian (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The following is one section all editors can take on board:
General assessments of quality.
General assessments of the quality of Wikipedia’s health information, those that do not take into consideration the impact of its quality on a specific population, comprise approximately 18% (n = 16) of the articles included in this review (S3 Appendix, Table 5). Despite claims that English Wikipedia’s health content is written in plain, accessible language, assessments of its quality, regardless of context, share a common finding: while Wikipedia does well to remain current [26,41,44], its medical content uses technical terms that result in readability levels too low to accommodate the very people it stands to benefit most. The readability of the easiest articles has been reported to be around ninth grade [25,30,40]. Some studies find that Wikipedia’s medical content requires at least a college reading level or is considered highly difficult [34,43]. Other studies simply report Wikipedia’s readability as higher than that of other health information sources such as WebMD, MedlinePlus, or MayoClinic [44,64].
I am surprised no one has spotted or mentioned the serious howlers in this paper (particularly considering we wouldn't accept such howlers in our medical content). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I've just submitted a project grant that will fund our library's efforts to get faculty and researchers on board with contributing their expertise to Wikipedia's medical content. If you're thinking what I'm thinking, which is, health professionals, particularly academic ones, don't have incentive. Well, DORA, which was recently signed by a major health research funder (CIHR), could change that, and I'll be teaching our faculty all about it. Mcbrarian (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Barring the odd grammar of the title, the article has some useful bulk analysis on change in total size, references and number of medical terms in en.wp. Sadly, there isn't much granular breakdown of different sections, trends or linking with the wider literature. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk03:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Video games came up twice recently in medicine so I wanted to share the situations here
Prices of drugs
We have a discussion live now (please comment) on including drug prices. The video game community has similar discussed including video game console prices. I invited that WikiProject to the drug price RfC.
Various sources are reporting that coronavirus affects video game sales. Previously journalists reported in many ways that a 2011 earthquake greatly affected video game culture.
Annual Reviews, an independent, nonprofit scholarly research publisher, seeks an enthusiastic Wikipedian-in-Residence (WIR).
The aim of this role is to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the sciences by citing expert articles from Annual Reviews’ journals. The WIR will engage with Wikipedia editors across life, biomedical, physical, and social science articles and WikiProjects to help ensure responsible and valuable expansion of content.
This is a temporary position for 10 hours/week, paid at $30/hour USD, and is anticipated to last for up to 1 year. This position can only be based remotely from the following states: CA, OR, OH, NV, NC, WA, WI, CO, MA, PA, NY, HI, or MT.
To avoid an edit war, a consensus is being sought at Talk:Rhinoplasty as to whether an article section entitled 'Ultrasonic_rhinoplasty' should be retained or deleted. I am out of my depth, medically, and the few commenters there are mostly new accounts who have edited nowhere else. Experienced "eyes on" would be most welcome. See discussion here. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The technical aspects don't seem difficult here. That article needs help from someone who knows what an encyclopedia article should sound like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
It could be good when a seconde User check and improve generaly this draft article "Draft:Anaplastic oligodendroglioma" like User:Ozzie10aaaa. Wname1 (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Insertion of Semantic Scholar url links via User:Citation bot
I have become aware of efforts to drive Wikipedia internet traffic towards the website Semantic Scholar via Citation bot, and I would like to raise the issue to make sure this topic receives more scrutiny and consideration. I have recently noticed multiple Semantic Scholar links in deep vein thrombosis, which I am rewriting and updating. I have just gone through and removed all Semantic Scholar links that either A. link free PDF versions while the publisher's website does not offer free access (examples: [1] [links to pdf at "View PDF"], [2] [links to pdf under "Alternate Sources"],
[3] [links to pdf at "View PDF"]) or B. simply (or mostly) just replicate metadata found at the doi or PubMed. One example of this is here, which happened to also display Table 1 and Table 2 of the article. Per Trappist the monk, "There was a recent discussion at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 19 § Semantic scholar 2 that spawned a current discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Request to add Semantic Scholar IDs to the citation template..."[4] My main concern and the potential harm I see in using this website relates to how PMC identifiers operate and because of this how we and our readership are conditioned to expect Wikipedia to operate. With a PMC id, the title of a journal article becomes a url link that takes one to a free version of the article without any copyright concerns. However, the preponderance of url links in the deep vein thrombosis article did neither of these desirable things. Biosthmors (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm concerned about copyvios when an article is there and no full text for readers when there isn't one. Whenever a url is provided for readers, I believe it should link to a freely accessible full-text version without any concerns for copyvios. (Urls, like PubMed Central IDs / PMCIDs, activate an external link onto the article's title.) Biosthmors (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
We don't have any concrete indication of any copyright issue for us presented by links to Semantic Scholar. The concerns on suitability and usability of the links, when they aren't direct links to the full text, are however valid. Nemo20:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Proposed change to title guideline. A permalink for it is here. It stems from this discussion at Talk:Sex reassignment surgery, where Google search results were used in a problematic way. As for the WP:OR part, while WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages, it's still obviously the case that the OR on talk pages should not be applied to articles or used to otherwise affect articles. So given this and the fact that the Sex reassignment surgery article was almost moved per flawed Google search results, is it best to remove "rather than conduct original research" from the title aspect of MOS:MED? If the footnote needs amending, we can obviously amend that.
I am writing WikiProject Medicine to ask participants here to support Wikimedia community proposals for project teams to receive grants from the Wikimedia Foundation. I am listing here the proposals that I identify as contributing to the development of medical content in Wikimedia projects.
To review the background, about twice a year the Wikimedia Foundation issues a call for proposals to award grants. All the grants are at meta:Grants:Start, and the below proposals are in a subclass described at meta:Grants:Project. Proposals happen in public with wiki-style community discussion. For a project to get funded it should have Wikipedia community support. Since these are medical projects, support from WikiProject Medicine is especially helpful. See all the projects in meta:Category:Project/Proposals/Proposed.
An editor, claiming to be a published author on the subject, has twice replaced most of the content of Menstrual psychosis with their own take on the condition. I'm sorry to discourage possible experts once again, but I have serious concerns about this editor's contributions, which read more like a lecture presentation for an advocacy group than an encyclopedia article. I've restored the prior content and outlined my concerns at Talk:Menstrual psychosis, but I suspect that we are going to need more eyes on the issue. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Wname1, PMID1122488 suggests that the answer is approximately 1975. To be more precise, you'd probably have to decide exactly what it means for it to "be used" (e.g., does experimental use count as "use"?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Chagas disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
173,490 pageviews in February, daily average this month of 10,000+ views, 1800+ Watchers... Article will need a major re-write to keep its WP:FA status, references are outdated (+ some refs have gone dead), prose needs serious attention, etc.. Before this FAR the previous FAR was over 13 years ago, see 2007. Present FAR is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive4. Shearonink (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. My point in posting here was I thought people who are involved with WikiProject Medicine, who have expertise and interest in medicine might want to know about the article's present state, might want to weigh in on the FAR, etc. Shearonink (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing: Mylan stopped producing it last year, that is the problem. And they all say they have it, -just to return 2-3 days later, saying they dont. (Just try any of those pharmacies listing it, if they actually have it -my guess is no. IF they have it, please give me the address so I can pass it on to my pharmacy!) 129.177.96.36 (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Articles that need some help!
Hi Wikipedians, for my undergrad Technical and Professional editing course we are working on editing two Wikipedia articles that could use some help. I'm working on Basic life support and 2009 flu pandemic in Australia , which both have some pretty big issues. We're encouraged to seek help from experienced Wiki editors so if anyone has any tips or would like to collab on transforming these pages, let me know! Astrokassie (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Welcome, Astrokassie. Has anyone talked to you about how to find good sources? On Talk:Basic life support, towards the top, there's a box that starts "Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content...". That will give you some links to some sources. Generally, we think that the best sources are review articles (summaries of multiple research studies, not the papers directly about an individual experiment) and textbooks (which may be especially helpful for the BLS article). This is a good place to ask questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Adding evidence of the effects of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages
Some may remember a collaboration I was involved in with the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, where tables were added to a number of articles summarising evidence of treatment effectiveness. The study (RCT) has now been published with a CC-BY 4.0 licence in BMJ Open: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/2/e033655.long
Only one outcome was significant, but the exercise was worthwhile and hopefully will lead to more collaborations between WMMED and academic groups. --RexxS (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to look up our article on the 1957 flu pandemic to check my old memories of its impact and spread, but could find only short mentions at Influenza pandemic#Asian Flu (1957–1958) and Influenza A virus subtype H2N2#Asian flu. The information there is outdated - the CDC estimates the number of US deaths at 116,000[1] and a review paper estimates that 25% of the US population became infected.[2] I did find the information I was looking for at the CDC (page 14 of the pdf has a nice set of maps showing the spread), but it would be nice if someone who had access to the medical literature would write an article on the subject. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
^Henderson, D. A.; Courtney, Brooke; Inglesby, Thomas V.; Toner, Eric; Nuzzo, Jennifer B. (2009). "Public Health and Medical Responses to the 1957-58 Influenza Pandemic". Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science. 7 (3): 265–273. doi:10.1089/bsp.2009.0729. ISSN1538-7135. PMID19656012.
HotArticlesBot report for 4 March 2020
User:HotArticlesBot report for WikiProject Medicine on 4 March 2020
Imagine that a non-Wikipedia editor were looking at this graph. Could I ask that anyone here volunteer to comment and interpret this for a general audience? I intend to bring this to The Signpost and I would like to showcase comments about this from WikiProject Medicine. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk)15:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
1)number of edits to an article in a 7 day period,2) furthermore 'red' indicates that it is the highest level of editing going on(believe other colors used are yellow and orange).3) Finally all the articles being edited at an unbelievable rate are due to the current coronavirus outbreak or related (applaud Whispyhistory, Doc James and all editors at this time, a superior effort from all)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
European Resuscitation Council vs Resuscitation Council (UK) ?
Hi everyone. I'm working on the Basic life support page and I'm confused about the difference between the European Resuscitation Council and the Resuscitation Council (UK). Are they different certifying bodies? Google isn't really helping me find the answer. Astrokassie (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The Resuscitation Council (UK) is a charity set up in the UK in 1983 to "promote high-quality, scientific, resuscitation guidelines that are applicable to everybody, and to contribute to saving life through education, training, research and collaboration."
Certification is usually awarded by the relevant national resuscitation council, but the idea is that someone certified in any European country will have been trained to the same agreed standards set by the ERC. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, though really Sandy deserves an order of magnitude bigger billing for this one. And this is also a fine example of an article with several high-quality daughter articles that cover aspects of the topic in greater detail. -- Colin°Talk21:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
When I wrote Georges Gilles de la Tourette back in 2006, whonamedit.com seemed like a decent source. In updating content before and during the Tourette syndrome TFA, I found enough problems with whonamedit.com that I am concerned about how widely it is used in medical content, and what we can do about it.
The entry on Georges not only has basic typos, but it says he died on 26 May, when he actually died on 22 May (with published obituaries on 24 May), and then to add insult to injury, later the same article states that he died in June. It says he was shot in the head, when he was shot in the neck. The misinformation I added to Georges' bio more than ten years ago, from this source, has now spread across other language Wikipedias.
For further evidence of how bad this site is, have a look at the entry on Tourette syndrome. (While I frequently nitpick misinformation about TS, that is pretty much the worst I have ever seen.)
While it may be appropriate to use this site strictly as a source of eponymous names, it is not possible to tell how many of the thousand articles listed above use it for more than that, and it is not a reliable source for medical information. Factchecking is abysmal; it has demonstrably wrong information. It appears to be a one-person hobby site.
Can Headbomb add it to his script, and is anyone up for checking through articles above to see how often this source is misused? I think anything beyond "this condition was named after that person" is suspect. Is it possible for some tech-knowledgeable person to find a way to target and label every use of the two whonamedit templates so that they will be flagged in every article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
That's Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, not BMJ, btw. Still part of the BMJ Group though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm here to improve the quality of health-related information on Wikipedia. I would be contributing to the Cochrane-Wikipedia project Dellyjacobs (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
It appears there is a lot to learn. Honestly, navigating through the pages is quite difficult for me. It took me some time to even know how to navigate to this page to respond to your reply. I really hope I can do this. I am still going through the videos and articles that provides instructions for new editorsDellyjacobs (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Not sure I agree that they should be merged. There are plenty of men who get battered and abused by personality disordered or alcoholic female partners and also men who get battered and abused by their male partners. You cannot merge battered men article into a battered women article, it makes no sense. So oppose. Instead there should be a see also link, perhaps above the lead in the battered women article, in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?12:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
In my view, there is a medical/psychological syndrome, Battered person syndrome (which applies to both men and women), and the title of a legal defence or argument, Battered woman syndrome. They really are two quite distinct items, even though the latter relies on the existence of the former. I can see no good that could come from attempting to merge them, as I expect their audiences to be very distinct. Each article has a perfectly informative hatnote directing the reader to the other article if required. --RexxS (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Literaturegeek and RexxS, I'm very familiar with the domestic violence literature, but I looked again to specifically compare "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome." And the literature shows that they are not distinguished. In fact, they are treated as synonyms, with "battered woman syndrome" being the far more common term. This is seen by Born2cyclecomparing different terminology at Talk:Battered person syndrome to find the WP:Common name. The References section of the Battered person syndrome article is overwhelming about women, using the terminology "battered woman syndrome." The vast majority of content on the matter is about domestic violence and the legal defense. That the ICD9 code 995.81 cited in the Battered person syndrome article states "Battered: person syndrome NEC, man, spouse, woman" is the exception, not the rule. The "battered husband syndrome" terminology is out there, but it is attributed to one author -- Suzanne Steinmetz, who coined it in 1977 to refer to men who were abused by their wives in ways similar to women, even claiming that there are as many men abused by their wives as there are women abused by their husbands -- and is a significantly disputed topic. For example, this 2000 "Gun Women: Firearms and Feminism in Contemporary America" source, from NYU Press, states, "Proponents of what was for a time referred to as 'battered husband syndrome' in the press failed, however, to take into account two pieces of information that author Gelles considered essential: that women are seriously injured at a rate seven times that of men, and that women are killed by their partners twice as often as men. True, Gelles and Straus concluded that 'you are more likely to be physically assaulted, beaten, and killed in your own home at the hands of a loved one than any place else, or by anyone else in our society.' However, the likelihood would still be considerably less if you are male and an adult." This 2014 "It Could Happen to Anyone" source, from Sage Publications, states, "'Some researchers and societal agents have implied gender equality in intimate partner violence and have even gone so far as to suggest battered husband syndrome. Although there are clearly some aggressive and violent female partners, research has clearly contradicted the assumption that there are large numbers of battered male partners." Sociology, psychology and political sources address the term/concept of "battered husband syndrome." And it's easy to see from looking for sources on the topic that the term is barely used, except for when noting who coined it and the debate that ensued regarding it.
If there are academic sources using the term "battered person syndrome" to refer to men as victims, that bit can have a section in the Battered woman syndrome article. I'm really not seeing that we should have these two articles instead of one to cover the topic. Like SlimVirgin, I do view the Battered person syndrome article as a WP:POV fork. I might start an RfC on this matter. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Neither I nor RexxS were suggesting that male partners are battered with the frequency of female partners. I know that the literature will indeed focus on mostly on women for the just described reason. Perhaps a better solution would be to call the article ‘battered male syndrome’, if such a title is used in the literature, and therefor content pertaining to battered men gets added there? We have an article on male rape (even though, I assume, the vast majority of the literature refers to women being raped rather than men), and I suspect, as a non-expert, male rape occurs far less common than men getting battered by male and female partners, so it is strange we don’t have an article on this topic.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?04:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that you or RexxS were suggesting that male partners are battered with the frequency of female partners. I'm just relaying what the literature shows. If we are talking about the term "battered", it is seriously used to refer to women who are victims of male-on-female intimate partner violence. Like we state in the lead of the Intimate partner violence article, "the most extreme form of such violence may be termed battering, intimate terrorism, coercive controlling violence, or simply coercive control, in which one person is violent and controlling; this is generally perpetrated by men against women, and is the most likely of the types to require medical services and the use of a women's shelter."[1][2][3] That stated, the term "battered" is an older term with regard to domestic violence/intimate partner violence and medical/academic sources have largely moved away from it. It has barely been used seriously with regard to men as victims. We have a Domestic violence against men article. So any content about "battered husband syndrome" (the term/concept) can go there. In fact, the article already mentions the term/concept of "battered husband syndrome." Because the term should redirect there rather than to the Battered woman syndrome article, I will redirect it there now. It is easy enough to mention in the Battered woman syndrome article that the term "battered person syndrome" may at times be used for gender neutrality. That is, if there are reliable sources stating that. But the literature does not support us having both an article called "Battered woman syndrome" and "Battered person syndrome." And, per what I stated in this section, we shouldn't have one called "Battered husband syndrome" either. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, we don't need to and shouldn't have an article titled "Battered husband syndrome" simply because the Battered woman syndrome article exists. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I understand where you are coming from, I now agree with you. Clearly I am not well familiar with the literature on this subject matter and not being aware that we already have the article Domestic violence against men confused my judgement further. I now withdraw my opposition to this merge suggestion supported by yourself and Doc James.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?12:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, if using the term "battered" (to similarly mean what it means with regard to battered women), male rape is more prevalent than a man being battered. If speaking of domestic violence against men in general, such as reciprocal violence, then that's different. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
The literature on the legal defence and argument called "Battered woman syndrome" is sufficient to produce at least 20 references in that article, which deals with the legal issues, and not the medical condition. The legal issue is notable in its own right. I can see no reason whatsoever why the contents of that article should be merged into the article about the medical condition, especially without input from the three WikiProjects who claim the article to be in their scope (note that WikiProject Med does not). My objection to the merge remains. --RexxS (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that when the same (single) situation has both legal and medical aspects, we should deal with them in the same article (assuming article size isn't the main issue). Consider Suicide: would you separate the legal and medical content? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, when it comes to the term "battered person syndrome", I'm not seeing that term used for any medical condition besides the ICD9 code 995.81 listing. Terminology-wise, "battered child syndrome" has more medical consideration, although from very old sources. And again, the literature shows that "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome" are not distinguished. They are treated as synonyms, with "battered person syndrome" almost always referring to women. And on top of that, I'm barely seeing sources using the term "battered person syndrome." As seen at Talk:Battered person syndrome, searching for that term usually brings up the term "battered woman syndrome." To repeat, the vast majority of content on the matter is about domestic violence (which is obviously a medical topic in addition to the other fields related to it) and the legal defense. Not some medical diagnosis. That the ICD9 code 995.81 cited in the Battered person syndrome article states "Battered: person syndrome NEC, man, spouse, woman" is the exception, not the rule. The references in the Battered person syndrome article overwhelmingly use the term "battered woman syndrome." It is very clear to me that the Battered person syndrome article was created to give validity to the notion of "battered husband syndrome", which is already covered in the Domestic violence against men article, and to unmarried men in intimate relationships reportedly being battered. We only need one article in this case. The Battered woman syndrome article should cover both legal and medical aspects, as is clear by this 1990 "Battered woman syndrome: a critical review." source, which states "BWS is recognized as important in providing legal defense to victims and as basis for diagnosis and treatment." This 1995 "Battered woman syndrome: a conceptual analysis of its status vis-à-vis DSM IV mental disorders." source states, "Literature on battered woman syndrome is examined with a view to validating the use of the word 'syndrome'. It is concluded that there is now sufficient information to justify its serious consideration as a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, as that diagnosis is defined in DSM IV: and that this has significance for the legal defence of battered women who react aggressively towards their abusers." This 1998 "Battered woman syndrome." source notes that both medical and legal aspects of the concept are discussed. This 2006 "Battered woman syndrome: empirical findings." source states that "'The construct of Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) has been conceptualized as a subcategory of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)." So should we have one article called "Battered woman syndrome (legal defense)" and another called "Battered woman syndrome (diagnosis)"? No. If anyone wonders why I'm citing these old sources for "battered woman syndrome", they can look on PubMed for why. Not a lot of sources using this term with regard to a medical issue, except for the medical issue of domestic violence/intimate partner violence. And even use of the term in general shows that it's primarily situated in years past. The term "battered person syndrome" can be mentioned in the article as an alternative term that is used for gender neutrality...if an academic source is located stating that. It can also be mentioned in the article because of the ICD9 code 995.81 listing.
As for WikiProjects, since the Battered person syndrome article is presenting itself as a medical article and is tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles, of course it makes sense to discuss the matter here. That an article hasn't been tagged with the WP:Med tag obviously doesn't make it any less within WP:Med's scope. That talk page is also tagged with WP:WikiProject Psychology, and psychology significantly intersects with WP:Med. But WP:WikiProject Psychology is inactive and should be tagged as such; so I don't bother to post there anymore. Out of the two projects, I come right to WP:Med about psychology topics. As for the talk page being tagged with WP:Women, and Talk:Battered woman syndrome being tagged with WP:WikiProject Feminism, WP:WikiProject Law and WP:WikiProject Women's History, sure, I can contact them to weigh in. I will do that now. Per WP:TALKCENT, I will point them here, to one place, as to keep the discussion centralized. And it might still be a good idea to start an RfC on this after that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Flyer22, please observe WP:LISTGAP. There's no good reason to make life even more unpleasant for anybody using a screen reader to read this page.
There is absolutely no need to repeat your arguments time and again. I wasn't convinced by them the first time I read them, and I'm even less likely to change my mind the second time I have to read them.
The present title, "Battered person syndrome" is used in ICD9 to encompass the syndrome relating to any person. Being gender-neutral and independent of age and marital status, It's as good a title as any other for the medical condition. If you want to change it to something different, start a WP:RM.
If "the literature shows that "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome" are not distinguished", then either title should be as good for the medical condition. Anyone searching for "battered woman syndrome" as a medical condition is just one click away from the current article on the medical condition.
If (as you assert) we only need one article to cover the medical conditions Battered person syndrome, "battered husband syndrome", "battered child syndrome", "battered partner syndrome", Domestic violence against men, and "reportedly battered unmarried men in intimate relationships", then go ahead and request merging those topics.
You assert "The Battered woman syndrome article should cover both legal and medical aspects" and I disagree strongly. They are very distinct topics and there is absolutely no reason to try to merge an obviously legal topic with an obviously medical topic. Have you actually read the article about the legal defence, Battered woman syndrome? It is 1510 words, readable prose size, with 23 references (compare that to the medical article, which is 753 words with 15 references - half the size). Ninety-nine percent of the legal article does not belong in a medical article. It would be totally UNDUE. Your sources, PMID12349358, PMID8668013, PMID10696359, and PMID17189503 discuss both the medical issues and legal issues, and make a point of distinguishing between them, so is suitable for use in both articles. But just because two different articles may have some sources in common, it doesn't mean we should merge them. Do you believe that all 23 sources used in the legal article should be in your proposed merged article?
I'm glad you agree that the Battered person syndrome article is a medical topic, and I naturally agree it makes sense to discuss the matter here. However, you fail to see that the Battered woman syndrome article is a legal topic, and is properly within the scope of WikiProject Law, WikiProject History and WikiProject Feminism. You will see that Talk:Battered woman syndrome is not tagged for WikiProject Medicine, nor for WikiProject Psychology, no matter how much you think it ought to be. We should not be discussing merging articles outside of our scope (especially when clearly in other wikiprojects' scopes) here, at least not without the courtesy of inviting the interested wikiprojects to participate. --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of WP:LISTGAP, but I do not always remember to follow it. Like many others, I often don't remember to follow it.
You stated, "There is absolutely no need to repeat your arguments time and again. I wasn't convinced by them the first time I read them, and I'm even less likely to change my mind the second time I have to read them." This isn't just about you; it's also about others reading, or who will read, this section. And I didn't just argue the same thing. This time I provided sources quite clearly showing that "battered woman syndrome" is used to address both legal and medical aspects. The matters are commonly discussed together. There is no valid reason whatsoever to have one article called "Battered woman syndrome (legal defense)" and another called "Battered woman syndrome (diagnosis)", or similar. And, per what I stated above, there is absolutely no valid reason to have a Battered person syndrome article. Like WP:POVFORK states, "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Here we have a term -- "battered woman syndrome" -- that is used to refer to both the legal defense and medical aspects. We only need one article for the topic of battered woman syndrome, which just so happens to be about both medical and legal aspects. Both aspects are usually covered in sources because the term refers to both aspects and those two aspects go hand in hand when the legal defense is applied.
Per what I argued above, the "gender-neutral and independent of age and marital status" argument does not hold up. As for a WP:Move request, we are dealing with two articles. This discussion is about merging, not moving the article.
You stated, "then either title should be as good for the medical condition." We should go with the common name, and that is "battered woman syndrome." The term "battered person syndrome" hardly exists in the literature.
You stated that I assert "we only need one article to cover the medical conditions Battered person syndrome, 'battered husband syndrome', 'battered child syndrome', 'battered partner syndrome', Domestic violence against men, and 'reportedly battered unmarried men in intimate relationships', then go ahead and request merging those topics." No, I didn't. I asserted that we only need one article to cover Battered woman syndrome. I've already addressed the near non-existence of anything called "battered person syndrome." I already addressed that "battered husband syndrome" is a disputed social/political topic mainly attributed to one researcher, whose research on that has been significantly criticized. And I addressed that "battered child syndrome" is something mainly covered in very old sources. Although the term "battered child syndrome" is still occasionally used today, the term "child abuse" is used far more often for the things traditionally covered under the "battered child syndrome" title. This is similar to the terms "wife abuse," "wife beating," and "wife battering" having been phased out for the terms "domestic violence" and "intimate partner violence" instead.
You stated that you "disagree strongly" that the Battered woman syndrome article should cover both legal and medical aspects. You assert that "they are very distinct topics and there is absolutely no reason to try to merge an obviously legal topic with an obviously medical topic." I disagree with that. The literature simply does not show that. I don't need to read the poor Wikipedia article about the legal defense. Like I stated above, I am thoroughly familiar with the domestic violence literature, and that includes the topic of battered woman syndrome. I've edited domestic violence articles for years.
I don't agree that the Battered person syndrome article is a medical topic; I agree that it presents itself as a medial topic. The medical topic is "battered woman syndrome." That term refers to both legal and medical aspects. As for your assertion that I "fail to see that the Battered woman syndrome article is a legal topic, and is properly within the scope of WikiProject Law, WikiProject History and WikiProject Feminism." No, I don't. If I didn't consider that domestic violence relates to fields other than to just the medical field, I would not have stated "the vast majority of content on the matter is about domestic violence (which is obviously a medical topic in addition to the other fields related to it)" above. I was very clear above about why I brought the matter to this WikiProject. And per WP:TALKCENT, the matter should be discussed in one place. That one place can be at one WikiProject, with other WikiProjects alerted. And I alerted those others per your previous comment. I never stated or implied that Talk:Battered woman syndrome should be tagged with WP:WikiProject Medicine and WP:WikiProject Psychology. With regard to those two WikiProjects, I focused on the tags placed on Talk:Battered person syndrome.
Repeating your arguments multiple times won't impress any of the other readers either.
I know that you provided sources quite clearly showing that "battered woman syndrome" is used to address both legal and medical aspects, but I refuted that with just because two articles have some sources in common, it doesn't mean we should merge them. WP:MERGEREASON states four reasons to merge. None of those apply to the two separate topics of a medical condition and a legal defence. It also states Merging should be avoided if ... The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles [or] The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short. WP:N tells us that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Anyone who reads it can see that the article on the legal defence Battered woman syndrome meets WP:GNG and is a sufficiently different topic from the article on the medical condition Battered person syndrome for the advice on not merging to hold.
You state "I don't agree that the Battered person syndrome article is a medical topic. You spent considerable time explaining how it's tagged for WP:Psych and medical sources. Why have you changed your mind now? Anybody reading the article can see it's a medical topic.
Because "battered woman syndrome" could refer to either a medical topic or a legal topic, but "battered person syndrome" applies to the medical topic (according to ICD9), and never to the legal topic, natural disambiguation gives a good reason for retaining the current titles.
You also make the mistake of claiming that "We should go with the common name". No we shouldn't. WP:NCMED requires that The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name. ICD9 recognises "battered person syndrome".
You state "The literature simply does not show that. I don't need to read the poor Wikipedia article about the legal defense." A shameful admission. The article on the legal defence dwarfs the medical article in both size and referencing. It is an entirely different topic, and you've now made clear your disdain for the efforts of other editors on that important subject.
We'll see how the numbers turn out when we ask the editors who contributed to the legal article which has been around since 2006. I seriously doubt that many of them will be impressed by your attempts to remove that article. --RexxS (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Repeating arguments? And yet you keep repeating, and in ways that indicate that you aren't as familiar with the domestic violence literature as you perhaps would like to be. For example, "battered child syndrome" is adequately covered by the Child abuse article. Just like we do not need, and should not have, a Battered person syndrome article (a topic category which has almost no information on it under that name), we do not need, and should not have, a Battered child syndrome article. We do not need a Battered person syndrome article to cover battered child syndrome or the disputed topic of "battered husband syndrome."
You claim "two separate topics of a medical condition and a legal defence." No, they are not two separate topics. They are the same topic -- a topic that happens to refer to two aspects. We have many articles on topics that have different aspects (including different, or slightly different, definitions), but they are the same topic. This is why WhatamIdoing stated above, "It seems to me that when the same (single) situation has both legal and medical aspects, we should deal with them in the same article (assuming article size isn't the main issue)."
You stated, "Anyone who reads it can see that the article on the legal defence Battered woman syndrome meets WP:GNG and is a sufficiently different topic from the article on the medical condition Battered person syndrome for the advice on not merging to hold." And yet there are people in this discussion who disagree with you. Also, per WP:No page (an aspect of WP:Notability), not every topic needs its own Wikipedia article.
You stated, "You spent considerable time explaining how it's tagged for WP:Psych and medical sources. Why have you changed your mind now? Anybody reading the article can see it's a medical topic." What? Changed my mind? No. My point is that your support for the Battered person syndrome article is flawed because it is a topic category which has almost no information on it under that name; I've already stated that "the literature shows that 'battered woman syndrome' and 'battered person syndrome' are not distinguished. They are treated as synonyms, with 'battered person syndrome' almost always referring to women. And on top of that, I'm barely seeing sources using the term 'battered person syndrome.' As seen at Talk:Battered person syndrome, searching for that term usually brings up the term 'battered woman syndrome.' " I stated that "The medical topic is 'battered woman syndrome.' That term refers to both legal and medical aspects."
You stated, "but 'battered person syndrome' applies to the medical topic (according to ICD9), and never to the legal topic, natural disambiguation gives a good reason for retaining the current titles." Sources do not support retaining this split at all. The very "Battered person syndrome" article you are supporting is overwhelmingly referenced to sources using the term "battered woman syndrome." Strip it down to sources using the term "battered person syndrome", and what are we left with? That is easy to see. If you don't want me to repeat, then I don't see why you should continue to act as though sources cover something called "battered person syndrome." They don't. Not really. Furthermore, there is no need to retain an article title simply because it's covered in the ICD-9, which has been superseded by the ICD-10 and soon-to-be ICD-11.
You stated that I "also make the mistake of claiming that 'We should go with the common name'. No we shouldn't." Yes, we should. I am aware of WP:NCMED; I've cited it times before. This is not a case like heart attack. In this case, we have a common name that is also the scientific or recognised medical name (per the sources I listed above, and other sources), and a name that is barely used at all (which is why you can only point to the ICD-9, and barely anything else, for it).
You stated, "A shameful admission. The article on the legal defence dwarfs the medical article in both size and referencing." Not a shameful admission whatsoever. I didn't need to read it, but I did. My point was that I don't need to read a poor Wikipedia article on the topic to be familiar with it.
You stated, "and you've now made clear your disdain for the efforts of other editors on that important subject." What? No. You've unnecessarily made this personal. But I've seen how you debate before. I have supported your arguments times before, but not in this case. And I have always respected you. This is not about disrespecting editors or their hard work. If articles are poor, they are poor. And both of those articles are indeed poor. The Battered person syndrome article even has a WP:OR tag on it. This latest discussion has soured my view of you. But that stated, WhatamIdoing, SlimVirgin and I have been in heated exchanges times before, and we always come back to being on good terms and interacting well enough. So I hope the same for my interaction with you.
I'm not going to sit here and continue to endlessly debate you on this. I seriously doubt that many editors will support retaining a clear content fork. I've made no such attempt "to remove that article." This is about merging a "Battered person syndrome" article that is full of references that use the term "battered woman syndrome", and it's calling itself "Battered person syndrome." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
tl;dr - I've said all I need to. I have no problem in helping draw together the multiple strands of the topics that you see as the medical topic "Battered woman syndrome". But a legal article is not a WP:POVFORK of a medical article, and I'll continue to oppose your attempts at trying to cram together two obviously different topics into a single Frankenstein-article. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. You are more interested in trying to be right than listening. Got it. I've started an RfC on this matter with sources showing that what you are arguing is not supported by the literature (in addition to not being supported by any policy or guideline). For example, "battered person syndrome" is also used to refer to the legal defense, not just to a medical condition. And that legal defense? The same as "battered woman syndrome" because they are overwhelmingly treated as synonyms. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello medical experts! I toned down and expanded this article about an endocrinologist, and added some newspaper references. Since I'm not familiar with this topic, can someone with medical knowledge please check it out to make sure I haven't introduced any incorrect information? Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at it, Ozzie10aaaa; you should have seen it before! I don't think the image is that bad, although a picture of him teaching or in his lab would be more interesting. I added some non-controversial career details to make the Awards section less overweighted. There's a discussion on the talk page about which articles should be in the "Selected publications" section; perhaps you or someone else with medical knowledge here would like to weigh in, and make changes if appropriate.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Death-grip syndrome
I've had a look at the death-grip syndrome article, and I'm quite concerned at the state of the it. For an article about a "syndrome", there is a remarkable lack of WP:MEDRS; at least one of the cites does not appear to support the statement it is attached to, there are a bunch of hard-to-check cites from books, and in general the whole article has a feeling of WP:SYNTHESIS. I think at the very least, it needs a thorough inspection by medically knowledgable editors, if not a rewrite. -- The Anome (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I recently blanked and redirected Medical use of MDMA and now I see it's part of a student effort on various, mostly medical, topics.[11] I see Cannabidiol as a treatment for anxiety has recently appeared as a result of this too. I'm not sure how this is meant to work but aren't student editors made aware of WP:MEDRS when then embark on medical topics? Anyway, more eyes probably needed ... Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Given the unfortunate but real possibility that some of our medical editors might be getting very busy dealing with the coronavirus in real life, does anyone want to suggest regular wiki tasks that they're currently doing, but might need others to take over if crisis hits? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Draft review request: Tropical ataxic neuropathy
I've created a draft article at Draft:Tropical ataxic neuropathy. The sources cited are not brilliant, though I may well have missed some good sources. There's a BMJ review — from 1968. There's some 21st-century reviews; while Pubmed categorizes them as reviews, and they do review past work extensively, they also present their own new data. And finally, different studies contradict one another. There just does not seem to be much known about TAN(s), whatever it is (or they are). Who said that science was the practice of carefully documenting your ignorance?
This is clearly a topic that should be covered in Wikipedia, but I have refrained from mainspacing it, and I'd be reassured by reviews. I would also be very happy if people more knowledgeable than me would make any improvements they think good. HLHJ (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: My first 3 nominations. All 3 are rare diseases with less than 50 patients each, so I've done my best to make them as big and comprehensive as they possibly can be. SUM1 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a long list of articles in the Wikipedia:Good article nominations process. Some of these have existing reviewers and could use a nudge or a helping hand; others need a reviewer. If you are interested in starting a review but are holding back because you think you'll do it wrong, then please WP:Be bold. Step #1 is well within your ability: just read the article. You don't even need to click the "start review" button until you've done that. Several of us here have done GA reviews before and can walk you through the whole thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
We need another name for that. The "questionable" sources this script highlights in health-related articles aren't WP:QUESTIONABLE sources. "Journals that need individual investigation", maybe? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Just a note to encourage folks to review a GA nomination if you've got the time. Nominators tend to improve these pages in a burst of activity while they have sources handy. When nominations languish for six months in the GA nomination feed before they get reviewed, nominators have often moved on to other projects, are busier in real life, or have left the project altogether. Responding to the review is then more painful and less productive than it would've been had the review been timely. The end result is that we waste more editor time, and get less article improvement. Reviewing a nomination is a bit of a time investment, so make sure you've got the time to undertake a thorough review before you sign-up (but don't worry about the one-week deadline on the GA instructions page, and if things get busy and you can't carry-on the review, just post at WT:GAN and someone can take over for you). Instructions are at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. If you have any questions, ask at WT:GAN. Thanks all. Ajpolino (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19, any data on baseline medication?
There is a number of commonly used medications that might in theory affect infection risk or the risk of severe disease.. I tried to find data regarding baseline medication (unrelated to COVID-19 treatment efforts) but could not find anything. Did anyone have more luck? Richiez (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Alcoholics Anonymous is in the news[13][14] because Cochrane decided there is evidence that it helps (some) people (with alcohol but not drug problems). I'd expect to see some editing at those articles.
Also, it's been declared cost-effective because it's "free", but it is only free if you ignore the enormous amount of volunteer labor involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
AA is free to the prospective participant, which I think is the point. From a labor economics perspective perhaps it's not "free", but I'm not sure that's relevant in this context. (I might be missing something, so please educate me if I am!) - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the only context they care about in this case is that the healthcare system (or justice system) doesn't get a bill for the service. The costs I know about include participants' time (e.g., lost work hours), local leaders' time, the individual mentors' time, obtaining a space for meetings, and the work of the central organizations (e.g., to train leaders).
This matters if you're trying to set up an organization (that "free" service may cost you a fortune), and it may cause over-prescription (because the judge can order you to AA without worrying about the budget, but ordering people into medical therapy is going to result in people whining about the budget at the next meeting).
The medical literature produces this result all the time. The only cost of a surgery is the bill, not the days of pain and debility; breastfeeding is free, because the mother's time is worthless and we forgot about the 500 extra calories' food she needs to eat each day; the cost of incontinence doesn't include the enormous pile of unrecycleable materials in the garbage bin. The problem isn't us. We know what can happen when you put millions of hours of volunteer labor into something. The problem is the bias in most of our sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
In 1812 there seems to have been a significant plague outbreak in the Ottoman Empire, which seems to have begun in Constantinople and traveled to other parts of the empire including Egypt, and later also spread outside of the empire's borders.
It seems to have had a massive impact, but it is barely covered on Wikipedia. There's an article about Caragea's plague which hit Wallachia (then an Ottoman vassal) in 1813–14, and I am currently in the process of writing an article on the 1813–14 Malta plague epidemic. Both seem to have derived from the 1812 Constantinople outbreak (it arrived in Malta via Egypt).
I think it would be useful if there would be an article covering the entire outbreak - would any members of this WikiProject be willing to help out? A source about the outbreak in Odessa can be found here.
Given the amount of deaths (I found a source which mentioned a death toll of 320,955 but I'm not sure if that's for Constantinople only or the whole empire), would it be classified as an epidemic or as a pandemic? Xwejnusgozo (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
From my point of view (no formal medical training but years of experience in emergency management) they're not synonyms. An outbreak of bubonic plague or smallpox wouldn't be "emerging", but would certainly be "high consequence", while e.g. a new strain of herpes would undoubtedly be emerging, but if it wasn't fatal or debilitating wouldn't be high consequence. ‑ Iridescent11:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Wait and see what people with specific experience in epidemiology have to say, as there may be formal definitions of 'emerging' and 'consequence' here of which I'm not aware. ‑ Iridescent20:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The ongoing log of their events is at WP:Touro. This school has been a great sport for Wikipedia editing now in their 4th year. Also, they are doing physical therapy content, which otherwise is an unrepresented perspective in Wikipedia's medical articles. I just did a workshop with them today, virtually of course because of COVID-19. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk)18:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
This is WP:Recentism. It's incredible how there are hundreds of articles about the ongoing pandemic, while List of epidemics mentions epidemics which literally killed millions but which do not even have a single article on Wikipedia (and who knows how many epidemics are not even mentioned in this list!). Coverage of these would improve drastically if only a fraction of the effort being made in writing articles about COVID-19 is put into articles about historic epidemics. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Quick note: If you're interested in this subject, then you might want to look at the country-by-country articles. Readers want information about their own area, especially at the very start of an outbreak (when fewer other sources are available). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Corona-related TFA
A suggestion: would it be possible to have a Corona-related WP:MED article as WP:TFA very soon? A possible candidate is Virus (found in this list). It was TFA in 2009. Of course, having such a TFA would make extreme relevance. Hurdles to take: 1. Argue for a second TFA listing of this article (which is not prohibited a priory anyway); talk here. 2. Propose to jump que into March 2020, or at least April. 3. Check & improve for possible quality degrading. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
First, the place to make that request is not the link above, rather
Second, TFAs are re-run regularly now, but they are also scheduled out a month in advance, so you would be asking for a change in an already scheduled TFA. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2020.
But third, and most importantly, before advancing this proposal, it would be wise to consult Graham Beards who is our virus expert and was additionally a WP:FAC delegate. He could state which virus article is in best shape.
My personal opinion is that if Graham Beards says one of the virus articles is in good shape, TFA should run it. I have long argued that, when they went to scheduling so far in advance, TFA lost the ability to feature relevant topics on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanx. Yes, these are the questions/answers I listed. Including the notion that IMO there is a strong argument to jump que into March, moving an other scheduled TFA. Exceptionally, of course, it would show good acting by our Wikipedia community. -DePiep (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Additional argument: I have been gathering data on March 2020 TFAs, and apparently our readers appreciate medical topics. But, since TFA already ran a medical topic in March, it might be early to request another one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Sure it would be a second MED article in short time. To this, I can say: why not WP:IAR, or better: just relax this one rule? It would show wiki knows what is relevant.
I could get behind both of Graham Beards' suggestions (Introduction to viruses or Social history of viruses), but think we should hear from the @TFA coordinators as to whether they would be willing to entertain the proposal to juggle out another March TFA, before bringing this forward as a formal proposal at WT:TFA. I have long hoped that, for circumstances such as these, we would be more flexible with TFA scheduling. I would hope we could schedule one of these in March, and another in April. (Perhaps, first the Introduction article, with Social history scheduled in April, to allow time to add COVID.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see it as a big issue. March is @Wehwalt:'s responsiblity, but I think his laptop died and he's having some issues getting a lot of time. If he doesn't reply by tomorrow, I'll try to reschedule something. (I've been a bit busy with a hubby who broke his wrist at work on Friday - which entailed me having to drive 12 hours to pick him up ... it was a case of me being up 24 hours before getting home. I'm still recovering!) --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm back. My view of it is that DePiep, as Sandy suggested, should start a discussion at WT:TFA and allow for community discussion. It may SNOW, or it may not, in either case, the virus will still be here, and I think some TFA participants might be ticked off if I acted based on a discussion they would have no way of knowing was going on. And I would suggest some updating where possible to cover current events, otherwise what's the point? It's got to be worth doing for me to upset the calendar so late.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
re Wehwalt: yes, going to talk:TFA is was my point. I was just testing the waters here (which delivered better articles per Graham Beards). It's just: I did not want to open an uninformed, DOA talk over there. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Need help in promoting the Leptospirosis article to FA status
This article is in the process of being nominated for FA. However, there are many of Style (MOS)] issues that need to be rectified. Any help is very much appreciated. Thank you! Cerevisae (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Cerevisae talk page messages go at the bottom of the page. Also, the article is not in the process of being nominated; it has been nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leptospirosis/archive2. As I suggested at this second FAC, the best time to involve WPMED is before a FAC nomination. Attempting to fix an ill-prepared nom during a FAC is an uphill battle, and asking for help during a FAC could also be construed as canvassing for support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Over the past few days, I have put most of the coronavirus-related pages on my Watchlist and I find many of them are being edited throughout the day, usually changing totals of people diagnosed with no accompanying change in sources. I have spot-checked a few but if we could get a few more eyes on them, actually any of the pages in Category:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, that would be helpful. I think inflating the number of those afflicted with this virus is not helpful for readers who might be consulting these articles, looking for information about this health crisis. Thanks! LizRead!Talk!00:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree it is really problematical to have figures inserted without sourcing. My advice would be to simply revert them with the edit summary "revert unsourced". There's no rush to keep tallies, and Wikipedia is not a news outlet. It's better to have a slightly older, sourced statement that an unsourced speculative one, especially when it comes to medical content. --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Liz, I've had partial success in similar situations by adding editorial comments within the article. For best results, put them within the figure. Thus
93
becomes
9<!-- PLEASE do not change this number without updating the reference. BNO is not a reliable source. -->3.
You might find the editnotice feature useful for displaying a note/warning for editors. We have done this in WikiProject Motorcycling with some success – it's not perfect, of course. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi as a matter of urgency we need to populate the wiki medicine related to COVID 19 so it’s the goto page for reliable info.There is so much misinformation . This will save lives . SabziK (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Is it OR to state that novel Coronavirus can be transmitted by common communion cup?
I was just catching up on my news feed outside of editing and I just want to say a big thank you to everyone at WikiProject Medicine for all the hard work you all do both here at Wikipedia and in RL! I honestly didn't realize the extent of what this WikiProject did for the articles it supports until I read the Wired article and I'm very appreciative of this WikiProject especially during these trying times. If there is ever anything I can do or something I need to know to improve upon to support your project while working in other areas like WP:NPR just let me know. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?07:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Many new editors in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic
While it certainly isn't positive for anyone, the coronavirus pandemic has brought in many quite active new editors. I have created the following text for use on new editors pages. Feel free to use it!
but in general I think now is the time for wiki medicine to plan and make video for lots of things, and to do online events. I have sort of done a lot but in some way I think it is timely to make plans for outreach through video at scale. COVID-19 is one path, disaster management is the big picture as is massive global shift to online collaboration. Not sure how to connect, but when you talk of welcoming people with this template, I am thinking of more organization to onboard. Blue Rasberry (talk)16:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
One way to encourage WPMED participation is to ... actually allow new editors to edit.[16] Obviously, WPMED covers many topics that need to be semi-protected, like vagina, penis, sexual intercourse and other fuckity-fuck-fuckcoprolalia-related topics. But the trend here seems to have been to push an article to the GA or FA level, and then semi-protect it. I recently noticed an FA that was ten years outdated, not being maintained by WPMED, and yet was semi-protected so that IPs were discouraged from editing or improving it. A good step towards encouraging new editors would be a review of all of our semi-protected articles, as to whether protection is necessary, or just protecting someone's idea of good content, even when that content is considerably outdated and incomplete. (I did a small review weeks ago, and am not convinced by the level of protection found among WPMED articles; when I questioned one many weeks ago, the protection was removed, and the article is faring just fine). IF we want more editors-- particularly during this time when so many people are trapped at home-- perhaps we should start letting them edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be some quack HuffPo writer which boats to have been recognized as one of "America's Top Doctors" (a listing by Castle Connolly[17]). Extra eyes are needed there, I think. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}21:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Creating New Page COVID-19_Drug_Repurposing_Research and updating Drug Repurposing Page
SARS-CoV scanning electron microscope image
Hello, I've created a draft for COVID-19 Drug Repurposing Research as it is:
A specific and very important research direction of great public interest.
Would enable the Wiki community to understand what medicine pages may soon have a lot of traffic / need editing attention.
Potentially a place to track high-level COVID-19 related updates (such as legal) for research concerning repurposed medicine.
Can someone help me make the draft better? Then potentially get it reviewed? I've done my best as a graduate student to link very credible sources, but at some point things need more than my (tired) eyes.
I'm also currently trying to update the Drug Repurposing page since it seems quite bare.
I've posted in the WikiProject COVID-19 as well, but I figured editors here could guide me to other medical articles that are similar to my draft or the Drug Repurposing Page. Thanks so much.
I'm looking at WP:MED? (where we list what kinds of articles we want to support, and what we don't), and I'm wondering whether that list is still accurate. Do we want to support:
As a group, we get to decide what we want to work on. We haven't had a discussion about what should/shouldn't be brought to us for a long time. My impression is that people aren't very interested in biographies or businesses. If we don't want to support those articles, it's okay. We should just make that decision and adjust our documentation and templates accordingly.
While the Dentistry project has not been very active, there is nevertheless a lot of continuing edits to Dentistry articles. Furthermore the field of Dentistry has a high degree of overlap with Medicine, therefore I think there is a strong argument that the Medicine WikiProject should support Dentistry. Boghog (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Mixed support. I am in favor of setting standards for appropriate and in-scope discussions on this talk page to maximize new user engagement. I agree, we are here for development of medical content and not directly biographies. I think this WikiProject should get news of any kind of medical themed programs in this space, including for biographies or schools, but our best response to requests for non-medicine support is having a plan to refer people elsewhere.
I think that the future of managing all this is in D:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine. I contribute to the meta:WikiCite project and Scholia which both seek to generate profiles of people, medical schools, and hospitals. This has lots of applications, but the one which I think English Wikipedia WikiProject Medicine should watch is the significant media criticism Wikipedia gets for claims of discrimination against women in creating biographies. We should keep our stake in such controversies by being aware and having conversations here, even if we do not actually organize the editing. Here are some examples of automated profiles. I think that eventually we will have something like this for every person, school, and hospital. Wikipedia Infoboxes are part of this also.
WPMED should support all of the above; we don't restrict posts to projects on topics that are within our knowledge base. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are fewer and fewer long term editors which are the life blood of Wiki Projects. One solution to re-establish project critical mass is to merge closely related projects. A recent example was to merge a variety of molecular biology projects (see Merger discussion Wikiproject:BIOL) which I think succeeded. In a similar spirit, I think it may make sense to merge WP:DENTISTRY into WP:MED. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, if you're interested in cells, could you please have a look at the proposal here ? Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Huntington's disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. buidhe22:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I just want to point out that when the first sentence of an article includes the word "interdisciplinary", then using some non-MEDRS sources is entirely appropriate. Medical journals and medical textbooks are not the only possible sources of good information, especially when the subject is, according to its own definition, not entirely medical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I made or improved wikidata queries of endocrinologists.
They are dicoverers of named syndromes. In Wikidata, there are many queries about their academic articles. Please link these queries about their academic articles to these authors. --Sharouser (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sharouser: Thanks for showcasing Wikidata. Right now there is not much overlap in participation between English Wikipedia WikiProject Medicine and d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine. If anyone wants to engage in Wikidata I am down to join.
What you are discussing is "author disambiguation" and there are tools for that.
If you resolve this one then the example is less powerful, but look at
I am happy to talk this through but probably Wikidata is the better place. There is no documentation for this to read. Someone has to tell you. Blue Rasberry (talk)17:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
New feature - pageviews - now can include redirects
Wikipedia is important for sharing health information because lots of people read Wikipedia. Everyone here please remember that, because people who are not Wikipedia editors do not know this!
At meta:traffic reporting there is documentation about how Wikipedia can measure pageviews. meta:Pageviews Analysis is the tool which is available through the "history" tab of any page. A shortcoming of this tool is that previously, it could not count redirects. "Pageviews" has several variations for running variations of the one-article report. Previously, "redirect views" was a tool for counting redirected views, but there has always been a demand for people to search for one article and simply get a total.
Now we can get easy reports of total traffic to a given Wikipedia article including redirects. Thanks user:MusikAnimal (WMF) for adding this feature.
In the context of COVID-19 people are going to have all the usual criticism of Wikipedia, saying in various ways that Wikipedia does not matter. If you hear this, the response is that we have the data to demonstrate that Wikipedia is a low cost way to deliver information to large numbers of people who need it. All the other communication options rely on global-scale investment in commercial communications or the extraordinary cost of negotiations to get special access to unique communication channels. Wikipedia also has the advantage of transparency when various governments around the world are right now behaving badly and themselves promoting misinformation.
Advocates of high quality source material have a great ally in Wikipedia and we have the evidence to show that our content reaches a large part of the informatio-seeking public. Blue Rasberry (talk)23:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Glad to hear this feature is well-received! Re ...the actual number of people arriving at this article: I should clarify the definition of a pageview. This is basically each request to the page, not the number of people. In most cases editors are going to trigger at least 2 pageviews -- once on the first view, and again after saving. 36 million is still a lot, though! :) — MusikAnimaltalk02:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon, regardless of whether it's notable (=gets a separate article), that content belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. If you don't think it deserves its own separate article, could you please see about merging it to a larger subject? Good content shouldn't be left rotting in the draft space, where readers can't benefit from it. (Of course, at this stage, User:Dwilus could just WP:MOVE the page to the mainspace without bothering WP:AFC anyway, and then anyone who thought it wasn't notable would have to prove it at WP:AFD.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing - Hmmm. If the content ought to be in article space, then the least complicated way that an editor can do that is to move it to draft space, either by accepting it or just by moving it, and the script performs some useful services. In that case, a discussion about whether to merge into another article can take place afterwards. The argument that it belongs in article space somewhere is an argument for acceptance, and wasn't previous taken into account. I think that I will resubmit it and accept it shortly. This is a consideration for reviewers to take into account. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Piotrus, the reason you're having difficulty with editing it is because it's not a plain old table, which would work well in the visual editor. Instead, it's a stack of {{LCHB}} templates wrapped inside a wikitext table. I think the "easy" way to add information to that table-template hybrid will be to ask User:Bungle (who wrote the template) to do it for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Non-wikipedian epidemiologist/virologist input for COVID19 articles
Hi, A question came up within WikiJournals about if/how we might assist with the COVID articles on Wikipedia. Some possible points:
Could invite external peer reviews of core COVID articles (would be of a specific oldid but would likely be relatively rapid - would that be useful?)
Could invite external authors to contribute articles on corona-related topics that are still stub/start (any topic ideas)?
Could invite external contributors to help out on the core covid articles (but they'd need significant MEDMOS guidance)
We've previously experimented with 'partner articles' that go into more detail than appropriate on a WP page (similar to Gene wiki reviews, example) would one be useful for any covid-related topics?
thank you Thomas,I believe this would be helpful(however as you know more opinions are needed from other medical editors) thank you as always--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
We just had the WikiJournals meeting regarding this and people seemed keen to be able to assist with the parts we have experience in (academia-wikipedia interactions). I'll put the minutes on-wiki at this link the next 48 hours. An additional idea that was raised was hosting translations of journal articles (and getting those translations checked for accuracy) since such items wouldn't necessarily have a logical hoe on Wikipedia itself. Is the translations taskforce of WP:MED still very active? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk02:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have moved a medical editing cheat sheet that a few from this group collaborated on to the help section (linked in the title of this section). If anyone has any more ideas, wants to help improve this, or wants to share this, that would be great. JenOttawa (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
