Edit with VisualEditor

This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford (June 14, 2024). "Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel's deadly Nuseirat assault". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved June 14, 2024. Wikipedia was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.

I was just working on an article about a state supreme court justice who died of complications from mandibular cancer, also known as cancer of the lower jaw, and was shocked to find that there is a rather prominent form of cancer for which we have no article. I know nothing about the topic, but perhaps someone who does have knowledge of this might write about it. BD2412 T 22:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.J.ThomThom, are you still looking for articles your students could create?

I see that Jaw cancer redirects to Oral cancer. Cancer of the jaw is a red link. I'm not sure if these are treated exactly the same, but I'd assume that mandibular cancer is a subtype of oral cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Yes things kick off for us in the new semester starting in January so you will be hearing more from me. I will take note of this. Thank you G.J.ThomThom (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And please do pass on other cases like this if they emerge G.J.ThomThom (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@G.J.ThomThom, maybe also add Salt-sensitve hypertension to your list. We have a section at Salt and cardiovascular disease#Sodium sensitivity, but it cites sources from the previous century. It was in the news a while ago, with evidence of a connection to West African ancestry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have added it to the list. G.J.ThomThom (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, cancer of the mandible would not be classified as a type of oral cancer or even head and neck cancer. Oral cancer generally refers to squamous cell carcinoma (a soft tissue cancer arising in the epithelial layer). As for cancer arising in the hard tissue of the jaw, I don't know exactly how they would be classified... maybe redirect to Bone tumor is best for now.

As the current article for oral cancer states: "Other cancers can occur in the mouth (such as bone cancer, lymphoma, or metastatic cancers from distant sites) but are also considered separately from oral cancers."

Also I don't know if there is a need for a dedicated article for each bone in terms of cancer. That is because I guess each article would be quite similar when it comes to the list of possible cancers which may originate or spread to that bone. The mandible is however possibly an exception because of the existence of that group of cancers related to the tissues which form the teeth (see Odontogenic tumor). Moribundum (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick note: as far as I am aware, cancer originating in the hard tissues of the jaw is significantly less prominent compared to squamous cell carcinoma of the soft tissues. I don't think it is the case that the encyclopedia is missing some very important category of cancer here. Moribundum (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created {{DSM copyright}}. It's a message for talk pages, to warn editors that they can't copy the full criteria out of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for copyright reasons.

We've known about this problem for years, but there are always new editors joining, and occasionally someone will replace a description with the copyrighted text of the DSM entry. Even though they're really just trying to help, the fact is that the copyright holder could actually sue them (and would win). I'd like to give these editors the information they need to do the right thing.

To save time and fingers, I'd like to ask someone at Wikipedia:Bot requests or Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to spam this warning onto the talk pages of all the conditions listed in List of mental disorders. (Anyone can add it manually to other pages, and if there's an item in that list that doesn't have a DSM entry, then it could be manually removed as irrelevant and unnecessary in that case.) Does anyone support or oppose this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support IntentionallyDense 07:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support asking a bot to place message on talk pages (I've actually had to argue this recently here on this talk page!!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support placing message and bot publishing it to talk pages. Daphne Morrow (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I support it sir wholehearted. However, there could literally be thousands of pages, where one could unintentionally add a DSM category. Being a newbie, I was wondering, about the possibility of having a Bot, which could automatically warn an editor, that he was adding something that was copyrighted. This would be far simpler than somebody keeping on removing unwanted entries. Of course, I am not sure, if such a bot exists, or could even be created. Kindly advise. Neotaruntius (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, we can't give real-time warnings, and since not all books are digitized, it'll never be perfect. But we do have a system that runs after you've added some text, to check for probable copyvios. Because the copyvio systems are really matching to "matches this website" – and some websites aren't copyrighted – it requires manual review after that, but we think we're catching at least most of it that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing:Thanks sir for your valuable comments. Yes, "real-time warnings" are what I meant. A system checking for "copyright violations" [copyvios] also sounds good enough. I did find a page for copyvio template [I did not know it earlier]. Thanks very much. Neotaruntius (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: the book is copyrighted material. I support the tag and bot(s). Gobucks821 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The nice folks at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks have added the template to the talk pages on ~200 articles about mental health. From here, expect two things:

• To need to add it yourself, manually, to other articles. Generally speaking, if the DSM has diagnostic criteria for the article's subject, then this template belongs on the article's talk page.
• For editors to slowly notice this. WP:Nobody reads the directions, especially not right away, so spreading the word will take some time. But over time, we should see fewer potential copyvios being added, and more of them being quickly removed. Remember: If you have to revert someone adding the DSM diagnostic criteria (or anything else that's copyrighted), the link for how to report this is in the template. (The admins WP:REVDEL the copyvio edit so nobody will accidentally restore it later.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A recent addition was made to the article. The addition doubled the text length of the article and focuses on negative aspects of the organization's lobbying (sources appear sound). It would be good to get people who are familiar with articles about professional medical organizations to look at the addition to make sure it adheres to NPOV. Springee (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the information from 2004, that the ASA “spent the second-largest sum of money on lobbying of all professional physician associations in the United States.” is true for the long term, then I would expect lobbying to take up a greater portion of their page than other pages about professional medical organisations.

I’m concerned about the focus on recent contentious lobbying however. Sounds like the ASA been lobbying for decades with a lot of money, and if so, this section should reflect whatever those other efforts were. Daphne Morrow (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In the 2000s, the ASA lobbied to force anesthesiologists to be in the hospital room whenever an anesthesia drug was administered to patients during colonoscopies " is unreferenced. NYT article does not mention it. T g7 (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NYT article does not mention propofol either. T g7 (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic that is outside my normal area of knowledge but the new material, made the article shift from what seemed like kind of a high level, boiler plate description to something that looked like an attack article trying to pass as encyclopedic. Like I said, some level of content may make sense but not 50% of the article. I will note that a recent search for articles that mentioned the organization didn't say anything about these controversies. This suggests the material is getting too much weight. Still, I think getting more eyes on the topic would be best. Springee (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is lack of context, as the Tampa Bay Times article points out that the Nurse Anesthetist society spent a lot of money lobbying in opposition to the ASA. And the NYT article points out that the *third* highest spender in lobbying was the nurse anesthetist society. And there is no attention paid to the ASA's contention that their lobbying effort is to ensure patient safety. In my opinion, it reads more like an advocacy piece than an encyclopedic piece. That being said, there are some good points here- for example, pointing out the role of money and lobbying in health care in the US is very important. I think the battle between the nurse anesthetists and the anesthesiologists is noteworthy but it would need more context. T g7 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the part about the anomalous billing does not represent fully what is stated in the references. T g7 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, one of the sources states "the authors have stressed that their findings should not be interpreted to indicate fraud because fraud involves intent, which could not be determined." So in my opinion, this is somewhat misrepresentating the reference. T g7 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just reverted my edit to this. Could others please take a look? Thank you. T g7 (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I WhoIs’d the IP that reverted you, it says it belongs the the ASA? The geolocate goes quite close to their headquarters. COI editor? Daphne Morrow (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The colostrum article seems to be NPOV and promotional. I am going to look at it. Would appreciate others as well. T g7 (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an informal RM at Talk:HMPV outbreak in Northeast Asia (2024–present)#Proposal to Update Article Title. I suggest that people from this wikiproject add some arguments for or against the proposal to rename the article, or with specific proposals for a new name. Boud (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. The article needs more care and attention. People are misunderstanding what is happening and the article mostly relies on non-WP:MERDS-compliant sourcing. I've just removed a bunch of content and done some re-arranging. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all. Just fyi, I received a random Rfc notification due to my signup for the Feedback request service. You can find the Rfc discussion on TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine monoamine release here. (This is just a notification and not an endorsement; in particular, I have not checked it for WP:RFCBEFORE compliance.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Contra TAAR1 agonism as the mediator of amphetamine actions is the more pointful discussion. At a glance, it looks like three editors there know (more or less) what they're talking about, and that they're basically fighting over whether the "old" theory or someone's (a researcher's, not a WIkipedian's) "new" theory should be the dominant one in Wikipedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, HMPV outbreak in East Asia (2024–present) is a new article with a lot of misunderstanding among editors and insufficient attention to WP:MEDRS.

I've already run into two editing disputes: about the infobox at Talk:HMPV_outbreak_in_East_Asia_(2024–present)#Infobox and about the use of non-MEDRS sources at Talk:HMPV_outbreak_in_East_Asia_(2024–present)#Cases_in_the_West. You may or may not agree with my positions, of course! But more input would be welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The name of category Category:Syndromes of unknown causes seems grammatically wrong. Shouldn't it be either

• Syndromes of unknown cause

or

• Syndromes with unknown causes

For comparison, see Category:Ailments of unknown cause and Category:Syndromes by cause etc

Noleander (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the wording is odd. For consistency I think "Syndromes of unknown cause" would make the most sense. IntentionallyDense 18:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although some syndromes will have multiple causes. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is the place to talk about getting it renamed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some more input over at Talk:Mpox#formerly_vs_also Moxy🍁 00:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks, I've started a discussion on turning Chief cell into a disambiguation page over at Talk:Chief cell. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Best, Toadspike [Talk] 15:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone with more knowledge of the spleen than me please improve the caption of File:Spleen hyaloserositis - low mag.jpg on Spleen#Pulp? Currently it says the while pulp is "blue", which is supremely unhelpful. Nothing in the image looks blue to me (nor should it, with H&E) – my guess is the white pulp is the lighter (white) areas interspersed in the red pulp. Toadspike [Talk] 18:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this and thought that the "blue" might be the darker (purple-ish) areas. Nephron wrote that caption in 2010, but he's not on wiki much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hematoxylin does stain nuclei blue/purple, and the white pulp (a name ascribed to appearance of spleen freshly cut - wherein the open splenic sinusoids are red with RBCs, and the relatively bloodless lymphoid aggregates appear white) appears relatively blue compared with surrounding red pulp. I have edited the caption to say "blue nuclei in lighter background" (to describe the white pulp). — soupvector (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently going a GAN review for the page which is how I got involved with this conversation. Seeing as the nominator has also expressed intents to take this article to FAC I think additional opinions could be helpful here.

I'd appreciate any opinions over at Talk:Parkinson's disease#Are the first illustrations helpful?.

To summarize the issue, there are questions of wether or not the lead image for Parkinson's disease is an appropriate visual for the disease. IntentionallyDense 03:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Could someone who knows the rules on medicine related articles please check Ayurveda (or at least the lead)? I see the article lead describes it as a 'therapy' which implies it has medical benefit.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of Ayurveda does not contain the word therapy. Did you link the wrong article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're referring to the part of the lead that says "Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia. Therapies include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils." Daphne Morrow (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that part, I though lead was the section before the first heading, maybe I'm wrong... John Cummings (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right; it's just that when it wasn't in the first sentence, I used ⌘F to search, and searching for therapy doesn't find therapies on the page.

People sometimes use the word modalities in such cases. It's short for treatment modalities. More generally, I question whether calling something therapy really implies medical benefit (rather than medical intent), and whether these have no medical benefit. Yoga has the medical benefit of physical exercise; ayurvedic diets tend to be plant-forward, which has medical benefits; laxatives and enemas are medical treatments; meditation is a mainstream medical recommendation for people with ADHD, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks for your reply, I guess my association is that if something is theraputic then it has efficacy, which is very much is confict with the first paragraphy which says "The theory and practice of ayurveda is pseudoscientific and toxic metals such as lead are used as ingredients in many ayurvedic medicines". John Cummings (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I just removed a couple of questionable seeming self-published sources from Humic substance. There are a bunch of health claims and similar claims there which don't seem to be reliably sourced. I don't feel like enough of an expert to critically evaluate the claims made there and don't have the time to devote to this to become knowledgeable enough about it. Can someone here with more familiarity with such topics take a look, maybe adding some sources or removing claims which seem dodgy? Thanks! –jacobolus (t) 02:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They were originally "badly sourced". I've moved the whole mess to the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific observer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wow, this I think is a new one. On Talk:Mpox and elsewhere, this brand new editor is saying repeatedly [1][2][3] that I should not interefere...because [I am] biased toward [my] interest in vaccines and antibody therapeutics and that the viruses [I] studied (Zika, Ebola, and Hantaviruses) are not related to poxviridae.

Funny enough, I did actually use modified Ankara-strain Vaccinia during my PhD, and did a lot of small-molecule article reviews and similar relevant experiments. lol. But let alone that this is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand of whether or not my input is warranted, and whether this user is following the WP:PAGs...

The main issue is that they are proceeding to add claims about the use of certain off-label drugs and small molecule inhibitors to different poxviridae-adjacent and other related articles (Mycophenolic acid, Mpox, Vaccinia), using only primary sources and WebMD/the FDA page for "off-label drugs". Despite the local (and global consensus) that such primary sources and irrelevant WebMD/etc are not suitable for such claims. They are also starting (and hugely expanding) a few articles with mainly primary sources Zelenirstat, IMP-1088, N-myristoyltransferase inhibitors. In and of itself, it's not an issue to be adding primary articles (which, I suspect, this user may have authored) to wikipedia. The issue is that this user is not understanding the meaning of a proper secondary source.

They also went and found a source I personally authored and removed it from the relevant article (Zika virus).

Could definitely use some outside eyes (and patience) on this one. Thanks. — Shibbolethink 20:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor just pointed out [4] on Talk:Mpox that in the 6 days since one of these journal articles was published (Witwit et al in Viruses - "Repurposing Drugs for Synergistic Combination Therapies to Counteract Monkeypox Virus Tecovirimat Resistance") one person or several people (including ([5] some Chula Vista, California and Scripps Research Institute IP addresses (192.26.252.1)) plus the above username, altogether this/these user(s) have added it as a citation to 12 different wiki articles. See Altmetric.

Overall, I'd say there's a pretty good case to be made based on the evidence that this user may be an author on the article. I've tried to caution them accordingly... — Shibbolethink 21:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously you can just ignore any assertions that you shouldn't "interfere" by engaging in ordinary editing activities. Having looked through a few edits, I hope that we are able to keep this new editor and upgrade their knowledge of what Wikipedia needs. Perhaps Wikipedia:10SIMPLERULES – Oops, that got boldly blanked and redirected away a couple of weeks ago. (The discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia#Merge and is now at Wikipedia talk:Trifecta#Collecting short-rule essays, if anyone's interested.) So perhaps you'd like to point the new editor at s:Ten Simple Rules For Editing Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't it also rather early for an article for his new article on the very early-stage Zelenirstat? One wonders about COI. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps a little bit early? Traditionally, we have encouraged the creation of articles about experimental drugs at Phase 2b, and I assume that the "escalation phase" mentioned is Phase 2a (dose-finding tests). It's also normal at this stage for the articles to say as much about the business side as anything else, and this doesn't mention the company's name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note that Medical prescription, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot 00:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

I've just removed substantial copyvio from Ligamentous laxity, and took the opportunity to remove some unsourced material at the same time. It's now a stub and much in need of expert medical attention (which I'm not qualified to provide). Thanks in advance, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pedanius Dioscorides#Requested move 20 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs a severe cull to be MEDRS compliant. SmartSE (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started hacking away at it, but it needs more. On the one hand, someone has put a lot of work into assembling a comprehensive list of prior research. On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia. Editors should not be writing review articles here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I jumped in and tried to help by re-organizing the medical claims using as many MED:MOS subheadings as I could with the content already shared. Hope what I did helps a little. Feel free to change it back and keep improving in different ways if you disagree! JenOttawa (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agencies subject to the Department of Health & Human Services directive include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this will affect the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is horrifying. Perhaps I am over reacting, but this seems like a first step in the Politicization of science within the health field. Boghog (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First? Paint me a cynic, but that bridge has long been crossed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. Not the first example in the lastest presidential campaign. Trying to give the new administration the benefit of the doubt which based previous history is unjustified. Boghog (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report was not published this week. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I've just realised it says at the top to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor. I'm Daphne, I'm working on becoming an experienced editor in science and medical topics. I'm currently working towards getting Hashimoto's Thyroiditis up to an appropriate level to submit for good article review, which I intend to do once I've drawn a diagram comparing healthy and hashimotos histological features. I would appreciate any tips if you have them. Daphne Morrow (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Daphne! Thank you for introducing yourself. Your contributions to thyroid hormone articles are appreciated, and your significant expansion of Hashimoto's Thyroiditis is impressive. I will share my comments on Talk:Hashimoto's thyroiditis. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is great to have you here Daphne Morrow! JenOttawa (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, you are kindly invited to participate in the RfC here. --Julius Senegal (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made some edits today to Dermatomyositis, but it still needs some work. The citations I added have a lot more information in them and can be used to update much more of the page. I mainly focused on updating the Causes section. If anyone's interested in helping bring a high-impact page up to date with recent research and consensus (it wasn't even described as an autoimmune disease before my revision) this is the page for ya. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted (diff) several edits by a new IP editor at Effects of human sexual promiscuity, which is (mercifully) an orphan. Too many problems to enumerate, but lets start with whether we should have a page about this topic, and whether the medical primary sources added recently (now reverted) were chiefly to give it an air of scientific respectability, or what exactly is going on there. (I think IP's inclusion of the Heritage Foundation as a source gives some insight on that, maybe not the full story.) Maybe the best tack is just to leave it alone and hope it stays an orphan? Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or merge it to Promiscuity? There are obvious health effects (e.g., greater risk of exposure to STIs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources seem to treat these as distinct investigations based on the length of the instrument, but the terms also seem to be somewhat interchangeable in other sources, and the choice of term seems somewhat arbitrary. On wiki the latter 2 are already dealt with on the same page. Maybe we should merge the former too. Thoughts? Moribundum (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that one of these terms is in more common use than the others Moribundum (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this page. It (previously a GA) was rewritten in full by a single person several months ago, and the current version has severe problems. Most of the page is reliant on only two citations, and spot checks of these citations fail. Major discussions of the topic, such as the medication that was generally considered first-line until recently, are completely missing.

This is a major medical topic with well over 100,000 page views per month, so I think speed should be a priority here. I personally think a reversion to the article revision before the destructive editing began, if possible, would be best. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff. The previous version was significantly out of date (e.g., sources from 20+ years ago). There's also been a Wikipedia:Peer review/Crohn's disease/archive2 of the new content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Could we have someone come join the RFD for Immune complex deposition? I'm wondering what the best target might be and am not sufficiently confident in my ability to sort through medical texts to see how the best target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would any editors like to clarify if statements relating Biological sex and Intelligence should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, in-line with what is currently expected at Talk:Intelligence quotient?

I would like to remove current primary sources and other non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sources from Sex and intelligence (at least when they are being used to back claims about sex and intelligence), while another users believes it would be more neutral to for us to consider the body of literature as a whole ourselves, including primary research articles, and to summarize them here on Wikipedia. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a primary source hasn't been considered interesting or important enough to get picked up by any secondary source, then the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is best achieved by omitting it. There are occasional exceptions (e.g., a study too recent to be reported), but as a general rule, neutrality is achieved by having reliable sources do the part about "considering the body of literature as a whole". It might be better to look for a graduate-level textbook chapter instead of trying to pick a review article.

With a brief glance over there, it looks like editors need to correct WP:MEDSAY violations as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Also, I hadn't seen WP:MEDSAY, that is good to know for this article as well as going forward. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• per https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/major-tuberculosis-outbreak-hits-kansas-city-area-2025-01-29/ we may need an artilce on this(as its one of the largest outbreaks ever)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For those not familiar with the geography, the Kansas City metropolitan area straddles the dividing line between Kansas and Missouri. The outbreak "in Kansas" is associated with a significant outbreak in Missouri as well, but it's mostly within one place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ASD#Requested move 30 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look at File:227 over 93 hypertension.jpg just added to the infobox of Hypertensive crisis. It seems OK for a copyright standpoint and the uploader also seems to mean well. Is it, though, the best image for the infobox from an encyclopedic standpoint. That's an assessment that probably should be made by user more familiar with medical related articles and the standards associated with them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello please see Talk:Fecal_incontinence#Kumar_2017_review to give opinion Moribundum (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For TLDR editors, my general feeling is that because research on anal sex and fecal incontinence remains limited, mention of this should be kept relatively brief on the article. In contrast, Moribundum has proposed a rather large body of text with detailed explanations of individual studies. I'm not opposed to including what they wrote, but I also think it verges into WP:TEXTBOOK. Other editor input on the discussion would be appreciated. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Users should be directed to the conversation immediately above the discussion provided by Moribundum: Talk:Fecal incontinence#Anal sex section Zenomonoz (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment is just supposed to be a link and a neutral statement. I was actually mainly wanting opinions regarding how the Kumar source should be used, but sure give opinion about the section as a whole if you want. I responded re length of section on that talk page in the interests of not splitting discussion. Moribundum (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in infographics about MEDRS or other sourcing requirements, you might be able to give useful advice at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I have posted a draft alternative format for the diagram there. Daphne Morrow (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]