Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:01, 28 April 2016

• WT:MED

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. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

Stuff's going to break in April

If you have written or use any user scripts (for example, if you have anything in User:Example/common.js, User:Example/vector.js, and User:Example/monobook.js), then you need to know about Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Breaking change: wikibits.

The main thing to do is to look for the word importScript. If it's there (and it's currently present in User:WhatamIdoing/common.js), then that bit is going to break soon. Don't forget to check your version of m:User:WhatamIdoing/global.js or scripts that you may have set up at other wikis.

There is some information about how to repair your userscripts in the VPT thread. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

will check, thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

For those who learn from examples, here's one I prepared earlier. For example, change:

• importScript('User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js');

to:

• mw.loader.load('/search/?title=User:PleaseStand/segregate-refs.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

That sort of change should work for javascripts (.js) loaded by importScript from other editors' userspace, and is likely to be the commonest alteration needed. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't we get a bot to do this in bulk, before the breaking change is deployed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That was suggested at the original discussion (now at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 145 #Breaking change: wikibits), but it didn't gain much traction. As I understand it, we actually have until November 2016 before importScript is removed completely, so perhaps it's worth asking at Bot Approvals if anybody intends offering to do the fixes? --RexxS (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

seems like a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, on a related note, if you try the ContentTranslation extension and you get a blank page (except for your name at the top, which shows that you're logged in), then it's probably due to a user script or gadget that expects all pages on wiki to contain "content". Let me know if you encounter it; I might be able to help you find people to fix it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Suicide bag

Not quite sure where to bring this up, but there are several articles on suicide methods that make me really uncomfortable and I think they're arguably illegal. Not sure if the best way to handle it was to view them as medical articles and keep an eye that they're not making biomedical claims without proper sourcing or if there's some other legal avenue to pursue. They're really good using a tone that sounds unbiased, like it's an objective discussion on the ethics of suicide, but they're really just pro-suicide sites and they're really dangerous. These people like to tag anything about suicide prevention as lacking NPOV or as demonstrating a "American" perspective. Reddit and other social media sites don't allow content or even links to websites that explicitly tell people how to comment suicide. Since they can't link to these articles, people will tell each other "Google suicide bag and read the[REDACTED] article." I would think if this content is illegal enough for reddit, it shouldn't be on wikipedia.

I think it could be argued that some of these are encouraging suicide. The suicide bag article is about exactly how to make your own suicide bag, including a diagram, with easily accessible items. The hardest thing to get would be helium or a propane-butane mixture and the rest are household items. Then look at what links there, literally any article about bags (purses, backpacks, etc.) links to suicide bag. Suicide methods is exactly what it sounds like and this is what links there: Teenage suicide in the United States, suicide prevention. Basically any article about suicide links to an article that tells you specifically how to kill yourself. Lots of them have a handy dandy suicide infoboxes that link to suicide methods. alt.suicide.holiday is an article on former usenet group that is clearly just a pro-suicide article.

This 2012 study showed that pro-suicide content on social media can increase the risk of completed suicide because it normalizes and glorifies the act and provides people with access to information about lethal methods. It specifically mentions methods using gas. This 2015 study discusses an increase in helium-related suicide deaths as a direct result of discussion about it in online forums. There have been stories in the news over the years about people who have been convicted for encouraging suicide on internet forums. Here's one from 2010 about a woman who was convicted for encouraging suicide online. What do other people think? PermStrump(talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

insofar as the article suicide bag it seems well referenced--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This might be a good topic to take to the WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Obviously Misplaced Pages is not censored in so far as the content is not illegal in the United States (i.e. libel and child pornography). The dividing line is not always clear though I would think in this case the line is the difference between is and ought. Sizeofint (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The article's subject itself is notable and therefore is worthy of an entry in Misplaced Pages. However I am concerned that Misplaced Pages and/or the editors of the article might be construed as assisting suicide, especially if a high-profile case is reported in the media (e.g. "Robin learnt suicide technique from Misplaced Pages"). This article requires a formal legal assessment. Axl ¤ 10:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about legal assessment. I reviewed it and I think it is stays on this side of WP:NOTHOWTO. I noticed that for a while it had a suicide hotline hatnote, like this. It was taken off pursuant to this RfC at the Suicide article. Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sizeofint, Did you mean the idea lab or the main village pump? I'm trying to put together a more cohesive argument so it does sound like I'm just trying to censor wikipedia. Jytdog, that's a good point about NOTHOWTO. Something definitely didn't feel encyclopedic about it to me, but I couldn't put my finger on it and I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't know if it's a coincidence or someone who read this thread, but for the past 2 days an IP editor has repeatedly removed the diagram from the Suicide bag article on the grounds that it's OR. It's a bit of a slow motion edit war. I think they each have 2 reverts now, but there have been a few hours in between each one. I wonder how long it will go on. I never would have considered arguing that an image was OR, but I think the IP has a good point. I'm not getting involved yet though, because I'd rather focus my energy on trying make a policy that specifically addresses this topic. If that fails, my back up will be NOTHOWTO for the majority of the text and OR for the image. Axl, that's also my concern (that it could be construed as assisting suicide) plus that it likely is assisting suicide based on the 2015 study that I linked above. PermStrump(talk) 18:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about gaining wider input from the community at the village pump. Sizeofint (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

we have disclaimers all over the place; i see the concern about bad press but the disclaimers are WMF and as I understand it they are solid. And Permastrump what i wrote was I think we are OK per WP:NOTHOWTO. There are a few places it could be tweaked but generally it is good. There aren't actually instructions there. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been talking to medical doctors, researchers, and major suicide awareness charities about this article, and some others, for the past two years, with full in-person meetings every few months. Their view is that not only is Misplaced Pages classed as a "pro-suicide" website in terms of the information it provides, but that the occasional spikes in attention that come to these articles are probably reflected in real-life suicide attempts. They are particularly concerned about the diagram: their research indicates that the existence of the diagram does cause suicides and attempts at suicides that would otherwise not happen. We've been a bit stuck on how to move forward with this on Misplaced Pages, though - a big discussion about it could work both ways. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 14:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell us what standards they use to decide whether an information source is "pro-suicide"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how many people are researching this so I kind of wonder if I'm about to quote any of the people Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has been talking to, but here's how Collings and Niederkrotenthaler (2012), and Kemp et al. (2011) define prosuicide websites... Sites that:

• have detailed suicide instructions or descriptions of suicide methods
• advocate suicide or describe suicide methods in detail
• are permissive or encouraging of suicidal behaviors
• promote or enable suicide by describing suicide methods.

Both papers put prosuicides sites in direct contrast with "suicide prevention, and suicide support" sites that offer resources, psychological, social, or practical support to reduce suicidal behaviors. Collings and Niederkrotenthaler said, "many websites life-promoting characteristics (such as the opportunity to contact a support service) and potentially suicide-promoting characteristics (such as detailed descriptions of suicide methods) have been found to be closely intertwined" This is definitely true on reddit where they like to call themselves "pro-choice" and claim to be places for "discussion about the moral, ethical, and religious implications about the right to choose the time of your own death." But they all contain links that tell you ways to kill yourself. They are NOT "pro-choice" or "suicide neutral" as they claim. Same with the Misplaced Pages article that sounds "NPOV." It's really just a prosuicide site that normalizes, glamorizes and encourages suicide attempts in individuals who are already high-risk. This is all supported by the studies I've linked, especially Gunnell et al. (2015). PermStrump(talk) 06:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump I hear and understand your passion on this, but it seems that you want WP to take a moral stance. Have a look at Abortion. Is that a "pro-abortion" article because it doesn't have hotline information for counseling? (real question for you). I could see someone arguing that.

I also want to note that we have a whole article on Suicide methods and a Template:Suicide_sidebar. There has been some of this kind of discussion at both talk pages over the years (!) as well as Talk:Suicide and they get shot down each time. Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, this isn't a moral stance, if I'm honest. The article on abortion does not tell people how to perform an abortion (especially not with at-home methods) - instead it talks about the procedure from a medical/scientific standpoint. Secondly, I would argue that our general goal - "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" - means that we shouldn't be promoting suicide methods in the way we currently are. Moral issues aside, (and this may seem quite cold, but) if vulnerable people use the information on our site to end their lives unnecessarily, then we're not adding the the world's knowledge - we're working to reduce it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 14:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, to answer your question: I don't know the specifics, but two key points came through: first, that Misplaced Pages articles are often a "how-to" guide rather than a sensible, neutral analysis, and secondly that the vast majority of people who are looking for suicide methods online turn to Misplaced Pages as a source.

Jytdog: Re: the abortion article, is there notable documentation in peer reviewed sources that say Misplaced Pages.specifically. is contributing to a public health issue by facilitating people to follow through with abortions that are illegal in their jurisdiction by normalizing, glamorizing, promoting, and providing access to the means for performing self-abortions at home (normalizing them by discussing them at length without balance from opposing viewpoints and linking to list articles and websites about regular people who have had abortions with a focus on how quick and painless their abortions were; glamorizing them by listing all of the celebrities who had abortions and the exact methods they used; promoting them by inserting pro-abortion infoboxes in every article someone on the fence might visit, and links at the bottom of completely unrelated articles to articles detailing abortion methods; and providing the means by detailing all of the information someone would need (including illustrated diagrams) to perform a "quick and painless" self-abortion at home without a medical provider using easy to access household items)? Because if that were the case, then yeah, I'd say we should definitely rethink what we're doing with our abortion articles. Because that's exactly what the suicide articles do and that's exactly what scholars have directly connected to spikes in actual suicides that correspond with spikes in page views of[REDACTED] articles on that method following major news reports on noteworthy people committing suicide. Gunnell et al. (2015) use Robin Williams's suicide as a very disturbing example. He did not actually use asphyxiation, but for 1 hour the suicide bag article said he did and the visits to that page increased astronomically, as did suicides completed by asphyxiation with gas. Look at Suicide_bag - what links there, literally any article about bags (purses, backpacks, etc.) links to suicide bag. PermStrump(talk) 15:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That was a navigation template at work, I've changed it pending discussion. Certainly wp:NOTHOWTO, but the topic is clearly notable. It is also very current event driven. The Canadian parliament is (unwillingly) grappling with medically assisted suicide issues at present, as no doubt are others. The hard part will be finding NPOV sources without legitimizing self help approaches. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't spent much time thinking about medically assisted suicide, but I do sometimes wonder why even a few people bother with it. In comparison to the unregulated "homemade" methods – which are often so simple that even a brief explanation is "detailing all the information someone would need" – it seems like a lot of work for no benefit, except maybe the emotional comfort of having your decision "approved" by some medical or government authority (think "certified proof for my loved ones that I'm not mentally ill").

I'm not sure that every single article about suicide should have a "right to respond" section. If an article is about a particular method, then it makes sense for the information to be restricted to that particular method. For example, in the suicide bag article, editors could reasonably include information about, say, the ethics of this choice vs others (e.g., it's probably more ethical than jumping off a bridge and thereby triggering a search and rescue mission that could endanger emergency response workers). But I don't see room in an article like that for something on the ethics of committing suicide at all; it's off-topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of the sources I've linked above talk specifically about the suicide bag and ethics of suicide, so it wouldn't be off topic. I have it on my to-do list. I'm not really concerned about medically assisted suicide for people with terminal illnesses. The problem is that that's not who these prosuicide sites are usually aimed at/who they hurt. PermStrump(talk) 10:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, this issue again. Suicide bags exist. They have for decades. As an encyclopedia, WP covers them. The article describes them, what they look like, their history, what people have said about them, etc. There are no step by step instructions (such instructions are readily available elsewhere etc etc). As for the panic about increasing numbers of people using this method, it should also be noted that total numbers of suicides have not risen (indeed, suicide rates are stable or falling in most countries)

The fact that a slightly increasing percentage of suicides (the numbers are tiny) are choosing this method (for euthanasia as well as suicide) is to be expected, since it is painless, non-toxic, aesthetically acceptable and easily obtained (until recently), compared, for instance, to carbon monoxide poisoning, hanging and other brutal and distressing methods (some of which are also extremely dangerous to bystanders and medical response personnel, e.g. CO poisoning). Those who would bury the suicide bag article probably have good motives (nobody wants to see depressed youngsters making this error), and are not on a religiously-motivated campaign, but the outcome, if we suppress it, is unlikely to be good. People who are absolutely determined to kill themselves will find a way, and that way will generally be much more distressing and dangerous for all concerned. In addition, helium canisters these days are "cut" with 20% oxygen (due to a global shortage of helium) , so the method does not work for many who try it. To make it effective, you have to get argon or nitrogen, and these are simply NOT casually available. Buying these gasses is not something most people are equipped to do. Ratel (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

From :

Without balloon helium tanks, potential suicides have to order very large canisters from gas suppliers. They are heavy, come delivered by a truck, and are expensive. This whole topic is becoming moot ... Ratel (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Diluting 99.x% helium with 20% air will give a hypoxic mixture (roughly 4% oxygen), which should be quite effective at asphyxiating a human at normal atmospheric pressure. However, I was under the impression that balloon helium has 20% oxygen added, specifically to avoid accidents with people breathing it from balloons to produce squeaky voice effects. Maybe this varies between countries. • • • Peter (Southwood) : 09:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

We need better health images — an IEG project!

I've done a whole lot of work with images, from adding Sobotta's atlas of Anatomy to Misplaced Pages, working with X-rays, and contacting different organizations about errata concerning their images and uploading their works. I've also previously taken part in two rounds of IEGs for the Medical Translation Project. I want to tie these two together, focusing on getting images and videos out to a wider audience — both in English and in other Languages. Please take a look at the IEG I've drafted, all the details aren't finalized — but the focus is getting more image through collaborations guides on how to produce acquire images for Misplaced Pages!

If you feel this is worthwhile feel free to endorse or comment on the proposal — all your ideas are appreciated, and as the project isn't set in stone I will also respond to and criticism about what I plan on doing and what I plan on improving. Check it out here

Note: The page may see some substantial updating in the coming days

Best, CFCF 💌 📧 21:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

More "heat maps" would be great. We have a new tool for making these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Gunnmap is a free tool that can create heat-maps based off country data (all under a compatible license). There are also a number of other projects, and getting these to work within collaborations would be really useful, yes. Are those the tools you are referring to? CFCF 💌 📧 08:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

great idea, (heat-maps look good)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Strimvelis

just created this. pls feel free to review and fix. thanks. Am really unsure what that article should be called; i don't think there is an INN for it. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we get this into WP:DYK? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

article looks good,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Gluten and ADHD

A few weeks ago some names I recognize from here were engaging on Talk:ADHD#Gluten and ADHD. I don't see consensus, but the edits still stand and the talkpage seems to have slowed down to only me and BallenaBlanca. I think we could use some outside input in this new thread. PermStrump(talk) 13:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not exact, Doc James is talking , reviewing and editing, and he has made the latest edition: Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It was exact when I said it and his user page said he was on vacation. PermStrump(talk) 16:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

--BallenaBlanca (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been rather busy so I wasn't able to discuss things after my edit was reverted. I finally went over the new talk page comments, and my impression is that Permstrump's approach is exactly what we need in this article (and they've done a fantastic job going through the research), and BallenaBlanca is just being disruptive (WP:DISRUPT, especially WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) at this point. Looking at the current revision of the article, I'm amazed that anyone could have ever thought that it was a good idea to say "However, untreated celiac disease often present with mild or absent gastrointestinal complaint and could predispose to ADHD-like symptoms. These may be improved with a gluten-free diet."... This is straying into dangerous territory. For one, you're flat-out recommending a gluten-free diet, something that your source does NOT support. What should be recommended is screening for celiac disease, with the disclaimer that gluten-free diets should not be tried first, and that screening should only be done if certain physical symptoms indicative of celiac disease are present. And honestly, I don't even think that much belongs in the article. There are a HUGE number of conditions that can mimic ADHD, and CD is WAYYYY down on that list. Ideally, just the sentence summarizing the review should be kept. Garzfoth (talk) 04:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Garzfoth When you have more time, look closely and you will see that we are dialoguing, and that I have into account the concerns of other users and trying to find the balance I will also consider the concerns you are exposing here. Let's continue talking on the ADHD talk page. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

yes there does seem to be dialogue (at reviews)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Conservative care is a redlink

The term-of-art conservative care appears a lot in our articles, but we don't have an article Conservative care, which would be very useful to provide a definition and context about what is meant when that term is used. Anybody up for that? Zad68 01:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

agree, plenty of sources as examples--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Could also be called conservative treatment. But good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

we do have Watchful waiting Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

not to mention the somehow british-humoured Waiting in healthcare Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Is "conservative care" also a synonym with "usual care"? Zad68 12:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The American College of Physicians has a term called "high value care" which means doing things backed by evidence-based medicine and avoiding unnecessary health care or what they call "low value care". There are not really terms for "good treatment" or "bad treatment" or "treatment benefits" or "treatment drawbacks". At Talk:Iatrogenesis#Merge_of_Iatrogenesis_and_medical_error I came to realize how complicated this is. I would like to find a good source which lists all the abstract concepts of health care and health care outcomes which are considered good and bad. I thought that a survey organization somewhere might have tried to define these concepts but have been unable to identify anything. I work with a project called Choosing Wisely which provides examples of what is and is not conservative, but still, I am not aware of any solidly established definition of "conservative care". Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Conservative treatment" + "conservative care" show hundreds of thousands of Gscholar hits... there has to be something somewhere that defines what is meant by that. Might end up as a Wiktionary link instead of an article here.... Zad68 14:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry a good source that may help you is here: . --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, "conservative" care is the opposite of "aggressive" care. It generally emphasizes non-invasive or less-invasive treatments. For example, for back pain, conservative care would be NSAIDs and exercise; aggressive care would be surgery.

Therapy#Levels of care might be an appropriate place to start. Since it's part of a continuum, it will be simplest to discuss it in contrast with the related concepts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is the understanding I have of the term. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

If someone finds a source with a definition and starts a talk somewhere then I will join. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've created an article Conservative management as a brief stub. Definitely something notable that we should have here. I think it's a notable enough concept to have its own article rather than be discussed as a "level" of care. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone else busted for plagiarizing Misplaced Pages

See here. Hattip to User:TeeVeeed who posted at the relevant Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

,retracted!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunate they could not figure it out. PLOS is open access. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sadly PLOS can't use material from Misplaced Pages, ironically because they use a less restrictive licence (CC-BY) than we do (CC-BY-SA). I did some work with them when they set up a wiki and I ran into lots of problems when I couldn't import templates, etc. from here. At some point WPMED editors may want to consider retrospectively licensing all of our Misplaced Pages contributions under the least restrictive licence that's in common use, with the aim of making our medical content as freely available as possible. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

PLOS Medicine has indicated that they may be willing to go with CC BY SA on specific articles. But yes that is indeed one of the barriers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Purest advertisement you will find in Misplaced Pages

I speedied it so hurry on over! Easypod Autoinjector. Just wow. Jytdog (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

OMG--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's also a nice ad for MOS:TMRULES. All the sentences starting with "easypod" in lower case are jarring. Adrian J. Hunter 13:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

yes it is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Why delete it rather than fillet it?

This is novel, notable and interesting. Is it also unusual? Such "packaged injectors" are clearly a significant development in home medication, the synthesis of an established treatment and some novel technology to produce a more patient-friendly means of self treatment. Is Easypod a leader in this? If not, we should have an overall article on the group of such available products. If it is, then Easypod stands as a notable article alone.

I would agree the "Purest advertisement you will find" claim, but that's fixable by editing, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I appreciate your take on this.

Jytdog, I am relatively new to the Misplaced Pages editing community and have been trying hard to follow the rules for posting, including disclosure of the fact that I am working on behalf of a client. That said, this entry has been vetted, edited and approved as a C-Class entry. So, I'm disappointed that you decided to "speedy" it with such delight and no debate based on the merit of the content itself? What exactly do you mean by "Purest" advertisement you will find? That seems to me to be the kind of subjective assessment that Misplaced Pages seeks to avoid.

Is it unreasonable to ask that this entry be reinstated and that a request for deletion (or changes) be applied that can be reviewed by others? Andy's response alone would indicate that this entry doesn't meet the requirements for Speedy Deletion under G11 as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Medscrib (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I replied at your Talk page, Medscrib. If you can't figure out what I mean, you can reply there and I'll help you ask for a refund from the admin. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages health talk on a local NPR affiliate

Yesterday this radio talk was presented through an NPR affiliate.

• Rasberry, Lane (17 April 2016). "Wikipedian offer insights into online medical information" (Interview). Interviewed by Linda Cohen. Retrieved 18 April 2016. {{cite interview}}: Unknown parameter |call-sign= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |city= ignored (|location= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help)

Listen if you like. If anyone wishes, share the link. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well done! Bluerasberry--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome

Hi folks, there's an RFC at Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome#Should_the_wiki_article_cover_the_fact_that_one_limited_study_found_a_beneficial_effect_from_fan_use.3F, opinions and comments welcome. Zad68 21:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Server migration today

Ops is doing some planned maintenance, starting about eight and a half hours from now (14:00 UTC). There's more information on Meta. Expect maybe half an hour in which you need to do something other than edit.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We're live again. Welcome back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• so happy--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We were locked out for 46 minutes, and then there was a glitch that broke Special:RecentChanges for about another 20 minutes. Other than that, and a couple of things that bother devs more than us, it seems to have gone pretty well. If you've found problems, then please let me know or post at WP:VPT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

User requests comment on medical categories at WP:Philosophy

In Vitro Infidelium requests comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Medical_Controversies_.E2.80.93_principles_for_category_inclusion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

commented at--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Icon for plagiarism

At 22:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC), an icon was added to the article "Dengue fever", indicting that the article had been "published in the peer-reviewed journal Open Medicine". Also, the article is categorized in Category:Misplaced Pages articles published in peer-reviewed literature.

I propose that there be an icon for articles that have been plagiarized from Misplaced Pages, and a corresponding category, possibly Category:Misplaced Pages articles plagiarized in external literature.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

These go on the talk page using Template:Backwardscopy typically. There are lots of these articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I see that Pages that link to "Template:Backwardscopy" can function as a category. Perhaps there is a decision not to make this information prominent for non-editing readers.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not all backwards copies are plagiarism. If you want to make a category for it (which is not a bad idea, even though you've got a good workaround here), then a less judgment-passing cat title would be preferable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference between "backwards copies" and "plagiarism"? What would be a more appropriate category title?

—Wavelength (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A backwards copy that provides attribution to the original source is not plagiarism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I thank you for your replies. I have not decided not to pursue this any further, but other editors may with to do so.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment on draft

Your comments on Draft:Young stroke are welcomed. Please use either Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script by enabling Preferences → Gadgets → Editing → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|Your comment here. ~~~~}} directly in the draft. Thank you. Sam Sailor 20:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Have commented on the talk page of the draft in question User:Sam Sailor. Article needs a lot of work before it is ready for mainspace. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Cooking in aluminium foil causes leaching?

Aluminium_foil#Cooking might need some help, as there has been a recent publication from a peer-reviewed journal linking the use of foil in cooking to large amounts of aluminium in the finished product - according to the author, "above the permissible limit set by the World Health Organisation". Thank you. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks to be a primary source in a low quality OS journal so I'm doubting if it is suitable for medical statements. Better quality reviews that exist appear inconclusive so it might take some effort to dig up enough information to write something that was acceptable/justifiable from the best quality secondary sources. It seems to me that this could unnecessarily be fearmongering without a clear consensus in the science so would not support the inclusion of this phrase without considerable effort looking into the detail of the reviews. JMWt (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the OP had already added content citing the primary source. I've removed it. "Leaching of aluminium from cookwares -- a review" doesn't examine aluminium foil, only cookware. Trip database has no secondary sources relevant to aluminium/aluminum foil, and PubMed returns no reviews with "aluminium foil" or "aluminum foil" in the title. I can't find anything to say on the matter. --RexxS (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, @JMWt: and @RexxS:. Will have to have a think regarding Aluminium#Health_concerns - there seems to be a lot of text on cookware attributed to one source that isn't in that source: Slanina, P.; French, W; Ekström, LG; Lööf, L; Slorach, S; Cedergren, A (1986). "Dietary citric acid enhances absorption of aluminum in antacids". Clinical Chemistry (American Association for Clinical Chemistry) 32 (3): 539–541. PMID 3948402. Perhaps the 1997 study could be used to bolster the cookware claim. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Both of those sources are from the previous century. If possible, it's usually better to cite papers or books that were published during the last five or ten years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That's why I brought it up - there was a recent publication about aluminium foil going on about the WHO guidelines and so I wanted to know what the situation was. The segment in the aluminium article about health concerns doesn't seem to be adequately sourced, even by the standards of 'the stuff in the article comes from the source just after it'. I was hoping to attract some specialist attention. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Science from 20 to 30 years ago doesn't stop being science. However, in a field where there's plenty of research, it can often be superseded by newer work. The difference here is that there's doesn't seem to be enough research to trigger even one recent review that I can find on the health implications of using aluminium foil when cooking. That's usually a sign that whatever research is being done isn't producing any new reliable results. --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Have update this section here . The aluminium hypothesis is around 50 years old and is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Doc James:. I think Aluminium#Health_concerns needs looking at too, because it doesn't seem like some of the text in the article is supported by the source next to it. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Effects of pornography

In light of the governor and congress of Utah declaring pornography a danger to public health I took a look at what our articles have to say on the matter. Pornography#Effects, Effects of pornography, and Pornography addiction have quite a few primary sources. It might be worth giving these articles some attention. Effects of pornography could probably be merged back into Pornography. Sizeofint (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• merging those two articles might be best...IMO (as for the addiction article there are several sources )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Pictures of myself on beaches" guy back

• File:Mooddisorder.jpg
• File:20160416- DSC5229.jpg

Look at File:20160416-_DSC5229.jpg... who was this guy that we had a while ago who was trying to place as many pictures of himself on beaches in as many articles he could? He's back, at Mood disorder. Zad68 18:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

See documentation on meta for past discussions about this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Then Catuccij1 should be blocked, either for 1) copyright infringement, as they claim to have uploaded the photo as an original work, or 2) sockpuppetry. Zad68 18:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Opened Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Specialtoyoutoyou. I understand stock-like images can be useful but the contributor needs to do it 'above-board' and without trying to do it against consensus when others feel the images aren't an improvement. Zad68 18:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are you thinking socking? There's no rule against creating a new account when you haven't edited for months – or, for that matter, no rule against just losing your password, which happens all the time (and the old account has no e-mail address, so no method for recovering the password). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully they will come and comment here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing actually I'm finding out this morning that this guy wasn't just annoying, he's actually site-banned from Misplaced Pages. Whatever AGF might have been available for him is long since burned up, by his own actions. Zad68 12:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And look at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rasputinfa/Archive. Zad68 12:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the old history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Possible undisclosed paid editing

Could someone please check these edits to Isavuconazole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are compliant with WP:MEDRS? I'm concerned that the editor might be an undisclosed paid editor based on their other contributions and the addition of ® makes this more likely. I could be wrong, but would prefer if someone could check. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

left message w/ editor..(blocked)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks for taking a look. My suspicions were correct and they were evading a previous block so I have reverted back to the previous version per WP:BLOCKEVASION. SmartSE (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes the amount of paid promotional editing is getting concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Medical nutrition

Your comments on Draft:Medical nutrition are welcomed.

• Gert Folkerts; Johan Garssen (8 July 2014). Pharma-Nutrition: An Overview. Springer. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-3-319-06151-1. says that

Medical nutrition is perhaps the most confusing category, subject to different interpretations between, as well as within, geographical regions. Terms include medical nutrition, clinical nutrition, medical foods, enteral ...

We already have Medical nutrition therapy in main space.

Please use either Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script by enabling Preferences → Gadgets → Editing → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{Afc comment|Your comment here. ~~~~}} directly in the draft. Thank you. --Sam Sailor  20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• the Medical_nutrition_therapy (as you pointed out) already exists...an option would be to simply add additional information(or sections) to the existing article, as opposed to creating a new article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with User:Ozzie10aaaa Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

"Disturbed"

The usage and primary topic of Disturbed is under discussion, see talk:Disturbed (band) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Fat burner?

A running news story has led me to wonder whether there might be a suitable redirect for "fat burners" ( ugh... ) 81.129.188.21 (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This would be a bunch of substances I imagine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirected Fat burner and Fat burners to Weight loss#Techniques for now (this page's section is best-suited as a redirect because it mentions dietary supplements). Garzfoth (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems sensible (I'll post on the talk page). From PMID 21951331 , they seem to be a rather heterogeous group of substances, with little evidence of efficacy in humans. 81.129.188.21 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There might be some utility to PMID 26602570 or to PMID 24967272, though they use different language ;-) LeadSongDog come howl! 21:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

870k views for Pfeiffer syndrome

I generate the weekly reports at User:West.andrew.g/Popular_medical_pages and usually they aren't very remarkable.

I thought I'd call out the 870k views that Pfeiffer syndrome got last week, due to the fact that Prince's son died of it. I was one of the visitor's myself, but I gotta say, the number is all the more impressive given how far into Prince's page that the wikilink occurs (although external sources might also be significant contributors).

West.andrew.g (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

seems to be getting coverage--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Inflammation

this article needs an editor(s) to look over the primary sources being used, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Redlink in Template:Orthopedic examination

I am no medicus and am therefore not knowable enough to edit medical related pages. But I was wondering is the Patella tap the same thing as the tap for the Patellar reflex? the Patella tap is mentioned in Template:Orthopedic examination, If they are the same can a more medical knowledgable editor, redirect or replace Patella tap so that redlink can disappear or if they are not the same thing add Patellar reflex to the template. WillemienH (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Knee examination#Palpation ( useful)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor either, but I might be able to help. The Template:Orthopedic examination has Patella tap in the section linking to Knee examination. The section of the article that Ozzie supplied links to Patellar tap (note the difference) in the context of knee effusion - what we would call "water-on-the knee". This is unrelated to patellar reflex which is a neurological test, not an orthopedic one. The patella tap is quite well described in e.g. http://patient.info/doctor/knee-assessment:

extend the knee and empty the suprapatellar pouch by applying pressure from the palm of your hand above the knee. This will push fluid underneath the patella, lifting it. Maintain this pressure. Next, press down on the patella with the fingers of the other hand and the patella will be felt to move down and touch ('tap') the underlying bone if an effusion is present.

So there should be no problem in writing at least a stub for Patellar tap (which most Google hits seem to use). In the meantime, I'll change the link in Knee examination #Palpation from Effusion to Knee effusion as the former really isn't relevant; and I'll change the redlink in Template:Orthopedic examination to Patellar with an 'r' to fit the sources I found.. --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've created Patellar tap as a stub using that single source. I'd appreciate it if somebody with real medical expertise would check it when they have a spare moment. Maybe there's a better source out there than the Patient.info website. I've also created Patella tap as a plausible redirect. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Translational glycobiology

Hello everyone! I recently came across the article translational glycobiology while patrolling newly created pages. At the time I encountered it, the only content contained therein was a reiteration of the title and a WP:CSD#A3 tag for the lack of content. Out of curiosity, I did some Googling and found a few papers on the subject, so I decided to try to save the page. Thus far I've been the only contributor to the article. However, it is not my area of expertise, so I submitted the article for peer review in an effort to receive feedback for how to further improve it. Shortly thereafter, I was invited by Bluerasberry to comment here. I would be very appreciative to any users willing to take a moment to look over and critique the article. You have my thanks in advance! ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 21:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

article looks good(in terms of references #7 needs to be Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine))--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

To editor Ozzie10aaaa: Okay! Thank you for the feedback! I've just removed it. Reference #7 was the author's presentation corresponding to the content of the paper cited for reference #6. I initially included it because it explained the very same more readily in lay terms. ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 15:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you for a very good article --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you know about the "laysummary" (and related) parameters in Template:Cite journal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

To editor WhatamIdoing: No, I did not! Per your comment, I just filled in those parameters so that they would link to the PDF contained in the previously removed reference. Thank you for the tip! ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 17:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

New malaria drug (for us anyway), and broader question

I stumbled over this today: Arterolane which was pretty stubby. I started poking and lo, it was approved in India in 2012 and in a bunch of african countries in 2014, and we had nothing on that. I am going to expand it more, but here is the question.

The actual product is arterolane/piperaquine. So should I leave Arterolane stubby and create Arterolane/piperaquine and expand there, or just create the combination article and redirect it to the main molecule and expand that? Folks have created lots of (what i think are dumb) articles like Dihydroartemisinin/piperaquine as you can see in this template: Template:Chromalveolate_antiparasitics (if you look at Dihydroartemisinin you can see that all the action is there, and the combo article is just bleh/obvious). Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is good practice to go with the INN. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So you mean we should delete the articles on the combination products? INN doesn't name them separately per Drug_nomenclature#Combination_drug_products. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You should follow the model used for Septra. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Dental students edit

This article about dental students editing Misplaced Pages overall looks promising, but there might be a few newby-related problems with their project. May I ask you folks, who know more than I do about dentistry, to keep an eye on it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Laser-assisted new attachment procedure--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
• Overall, our dentistry articles have been in such poor condition that they are unlikely to make things worse. Even adding a primary source to the literature (a common "mistake") is likely to be an improvement. I think we have just one very active editor working in that area, and the tide of information and touts is strong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Cervical spine disorder

This article has lots of problems. More eyes needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Watchlisted... there's a connected contributor editor Jytdog and I encountered, their edits related to back pain and treatment have been concerning. Related AFD at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Detensor_Method. Zad68 12:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Urgency

I've just raised an issue at Talk:Meningitis#Urgency that on second thought may have wider implications. In discussing diseases where the urgency of intervention is a factor, it seems to me that information should find its way into the lede. When we do not convey such urgency, lay readers may spend critical time on reading, or even engage in ineffective DIY interventions when they should be getting professional help. Views? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute over assertion that the penis and vagina are homologous

Comments are needed on the following matter: Talk:Human penis#The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)