Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Break 1 — COI again

I think a few of you MED editors should have a look at this article and the talk page. I'm not that kind of doctor. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:And then for dessert maybe check out Perenium sunning (soon to be formally endorsed by the NIH as an alternative to vaccination)? Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::Not going to click on that, Bon courage (might be ticklish), but I think I know what you're talking about. I assume you're familiar with one of my (our) masterpieces--Vaginal steaming. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::Perineum sunning, which seems to have gotten un-redirected last week, sounds like a traditional treatment for diaper rash: take the diaper off the baby and put them outside on a pleasant, sunny day (long enough for the skin to dry, but not so long that they get sunburned). Alas, I couldn't find any reliable sources making the connection, so this idea will not appear in any article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Learn something new every day. Will try to have a look this week, though I suspect there's not much academic literature engaging with this. That's always the problem with these things: when everything on the topic is written by the boosters, what is there to summarize? Ajpolino (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

::I wonder if this wouldn't be better redirected to Bates method, which is the main origin of the sungazing idea as I understand it. Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think so. The "spiritual or religious practice" aspect doesn't fit into Bates' original ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't write about medical topics, but I was stubbing+ an article about an Uzbek candy I recently ate :) - Novvot, and surprisingly, I stumbled upon some sources discussing traditional medicine views of it. 2 out 3 sources used seem to meet MEDRS, I think, and I tried to make it clear it's traditional medicine, but maybe some c/e by a more experienced editor is needed, particularly as apparently traditional medicine in these regions seems this as a "healthy snack", but it is pretty much just a more natural version of rock candy/sugar, so "healthy" is, well... It is certainly not my intention to promote sugar as a healthy snack, but sources are sources. Anyway, feel free to check and c/e. Cited sources appear to be open access. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:It might just be me, but I'm suspicious of something called International Journal of Recently Scientific Researcher's Theory that leads to a file download! Bon courage (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::The idea of sweets as a digestive aid goes back to at least the Medieval era, and when undernutrition was a pervasive problem, sweets could serve a valuable health purpose for a sick person.

::@Headbomb, what do you think of https://uzresearchers.com/index.php/ijrs as a journal? It's not very polished, to be sure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Extremely dubious at best. Advertises fake impact factors (Cite Factor, SJ IF) and BS indices (DRJI). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a student pursuing the Edinburgh Award at the University of Edinburgh. I recently wrote an article on Vascularisation and would appreciate some feedback on how to enhance it. The page currently indicates that it resembles more of a personal reflection or essay.

Any feedback would be deeply appreciated!

Thank you! Biochemgenie (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Biochemgenie}} I'm not qualified to comment on the article but for general advice (such as what the essay tag means), please try WP:Teahouse. Originally, the page was a redirect to Angiogenesis. Please consider whether the two topics are significantly different and therefore two articles are required. A tag at the top of the page draws attention to Vasculogenesis and the same consideration is required regarding that article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::That page is the subject of a 3-page merge proposal being discussed at Talk:Vasculogenesis#Merge proposal. They key concern at the new page Vascularisation is that it is a personal reflection on the topic. This is primarily because the cited articles don't support the synthesis being made. Throughout, the page is primarily using primary sources for examples, but there are insufficient sources for the synthesis; suitable sources would be influential reviews or textbooks. Remember that Wikipedia is a review of reviews, not a place for primary publication. See WP:WPNOTRS. Klbrain (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi. Thanks for your efforts here. Great to have more more editors contributing! Biochemgenie. One suggestion that I have is to try to tackle the lead. I suggest that you review a few other similar articles to get a feel for how we communicate evidence and background information about medical topics. There is also a guide here for how to write a lead. I am not sure I have time to work more this week, but keep us posted and good luck! JenOttawa (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of commercially available insulins/archive1 is currently up for FLC and I highly recommend you take a look and see if you can provide feedback regardless, however I was wondering how strictly WP:MEDDATE should be enforced here? I brought up concerns that there is a lot of older studies being used, however the nominator mentioned {{tq|"They may be older, but they have all the same info as new sources. This is becuase insulin analogues do not change. Once they are released, people adjust to them, so they can never be modified."}} This all makes a lot of sense, however I am not super familiar with the details of WP:MEDRS and was wondering if anyone could provide some additional input here. Thanks in advance. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:How is this going at the moment?

:The conncern about potentially outdated sources isn't that the insulin product might change. The concern is that the scientific/medical understanding of the product might change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::@WhatamIdoing I did look at some of the sources and honestly couldn’t find more reliable recent sources. A lot of it was cases of medications being released, studies being released to inform people of the medications, and then not really being studied since aside from a couple brief mentions in diabetes literature. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 05:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Did you try putting the titles of the old sources into google scholar, then clicking on the "cited by" link to find more recent sources that cite the older information? Daphne Morrow (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I did for some but not all of the sources and didn't find much. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi folks, I’ve been a member for about a year and am curious how to become a reviewer for ProjectMed articles? As previously introduced when I was invited to join this WikiProject, I have 15+ years of work experience in medicine, including in basic science (wet and dry bench labs) and largely in clinical trials/research administration and operations. I’m a microbiologist by degree and training. Thanks!

Gobucks821 (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:@Gobucks821 This depends what you mean by "reviewer" there is WP:AFC where you can look over drafts, and WP:NPP where you can review new articles, but there is also :Category:Unassessed medicine articles where you can assess pages. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::I forgot the exact tag, but for instance a few articles have a header to the effect that “This is the latest accepted, reviewed version.” That’s what I’m referring to. How do we decide who dose that? Need to have a talk page comment at the article first? For how long? Thnx!

::Gobucks821 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Gobucks821, does Body mass index have the header that you're thinking of? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@WhatamIdoing Yes! This is exactly correct! Plz advise??

::::Gobucks821 (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Gobucks821, that page is one of the few under Wikipedia:Pending changes. That system is usually set to allow IPs and new editors to make an edit, but their new edit isn't shown to ordinary readers until a more experienced editor (a "pending changes reviewer") either makes an edit, or clicks a button to approve the newbie's edit. It's mostly used to reduce the risk of vandalism being seen by readers.

:::::There is more information at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, including the criteria for becoming a PC reviewer.

:::::If you want to know how many articles are under PC protection, see Special:ValidationStatistics (answer: less than 4,000; there are almost 7 million articles). If you want to know which pages are under PC protection, see Special:StablePages or :Category:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages. If you want to know which edits need reviewing, see Special:PendingChanges (currently: one article). If you want to know which WPMED articles are protected this way, then I'm not sure how to generate that list directly, but [https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?sparql=&ns%5B1%5D=1&interface_language=en&project=wikipedia&language=en&edits%5Bbots%5D=both&larger=&links_to_all=&maxlinks=&output_compatability=catscan&after=&edits%5Bflagged%5D=both&min_sitelink_count=&wikidata_label_language=&rxp_filter=&wikidata_item=no&show_redirects=both&search_query=&categories=Wikipedia+pending+changes+protected+pages%7C0%0D%0AMedicine&manual_list_wiki=&output_limit=&cb_labels_yes_l=1&wikidata_prop_item_use=&templates_no=&page_image=any&cb_labels_no_l=1&search_wiki=&search_max_results=500&depth=5&outlinks_yes=&links_to_no=&manual_list=&templates_any=&wpiu=any&min_redlink_count=1&negcats=&search_filter=&since_rev0=&sortby=ns_title&ores_prob_from=&ns%5B0%5D=1&referrer_url=&cb_labels_any_l=1&doit= this Petscan query] might give you some ideas (with lots of false positives). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@WhatamIdoing Thanks much! So could you please further clarify how I can be a PC reviewer/approve acceptable newb changes? Thnx!

::::::Gobucks821 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You need to meet the WP:PCCRITERIA. If you believe that you meet the criteria, then you can request the user right at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. If you read that page (and maybe look at some of the recent responses via the page history), then you should get a good idea of what they're looking for (e.g., someone who is actively checking Special:RecentChanges and reverting bad edits). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Morning Folks!! Where is the wikiproject page that contains the list of afc candidates, articles that need split/merged and so on. I had it last night but not seem to have lost. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 08:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Found it. scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts, if anyone else is looking for the page/a new project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{article|Szondi test}}

{{user|Tatiana Zhdanova}} has gone about it wholly the wrong way, but challenges the medical accuracy of the {{On AFD|Szondi test}} article for being based upon the source that it is for the claim of the mainstream medical view on this test.

See Special:Permalink/1281674312 for some proposed content.

I think that it is a very good idea if other editors help review this subject, to save us a whole load of entirely predictable wrangling down the line if Tatiana Zhdanova obeys the very unwise instructions some people are thoughtlessly giving at AFD to just plough right in and edit the article xyrself.

Let's try to make what the procedures say to do actually work for someone, and take the suggested edit and the claimed problem with the article and have other editors review it.

What does the high quality medical literature in fact say about this subject?

Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:one of the better comments I noticed was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Szondi_test&diff=prev&oldid=1281906721]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Uncle G, I don't think the modern literature says much about this. A Dictionary of Psychology ([https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/acref/9780199657681.001.0001/acref-9780199657681-e-8232?rskey=FE63VM&result=1 TWL link]) has a short description. Diversification and Professionalization in Psychology: The Formation of Modern Psychology Volume 2 has [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Diversification_and_Professionalization/wATmEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22which+would+be+a+picture+choice+regarding+the%22&pg=PT2&printsec=frontcover a section] "The extension of instinct theory into fate analysis:  Lipót Szondi" that's a couple of pages long; it treats it as primarily historical.

::[https://books.google.com/books?id=jQOJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&dq=%22Handbook+of+Psychological+Assessment%22+%22szondi%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_5fyw9LWMAxUeJTQIHYeuJnYQ6AF6BAgEEAM This book] namechecks it in a list of tests similar to the Rorschach test. Chapter 2 of this book says it has "faded from use", but [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Diversification_and_Professionalization/wATmEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22szondi%22+%22test%22+%22psychology%22&pg=PT2&printsec=frontcover this one] suggests that this might not be true in Hungary. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_SAGE_Encyclopedia_of_Abnormal_and_Cl/RX5ZDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22szondi%22+%22test%22+%22psychology%22&pg=PT6289&printsec=frontcover This book] contains just one sentence about it, saying it's popular in Hungary.

::NB: Beware Wikipedia mirrors from the publisher "EDTECH" if you're searching for books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if these are stupid questions

:* {{cite journal |last1=Sundaram |first1=S |last2=Bridgman |first2=SA |last3=Lim |first3=J |last4=Lasserson |first4=TJ |title=Surgery for obstructive sleep apnoea. |journal=The Cochrane database of systematic reviews |date=19 October 2005 |issue=4 |pages=CD001004 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD001004.pub2 |pmid=16235277}}

1. Should we use a Cochrane review if it is old (20 years)?
2. What is the difference between a Cochrane review and a Cochrane protocol? [https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012770.pub2/information#versionTable]
3. Why has the above review not been updated in many years?

Thoughts? Moribundum (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Per WP:MEDDATE {{tq|Cochrane Library reviews and NICE guidelines are generally of high quality and are periodically re-examined even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window.}} 20 years old may be pushing it a bit but the reason why these are accepted outside of the usual 5 year window is because of the quality of the source. If you have ever read a Cochrane review they are like mind numbingly long and thorough. I'm sure you can look into more about the process on their page but typically a lot of research and hours go into making these publications, hence why they are considered so valuable. It may be helpful to also find some newer studies backing up the claims from the 2005 source. As for the protocol vs review, protocol is the plan they use to approach the reviews they conduct, according to their website [https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews]. The reason they are not as frequently updated varies from funding, to man hours, to lack of advancements in the field. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, so in this case it seems the protocol was withdrawn twice (2017 and 2021) for the reason "The protocol was withdrawn because the review was not completed." Moribundum (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't suggest using a 20-year-old source for this type of content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::These are great points. A Cochrane protocol is not a secondary source (as ID mentioned above), while peer reviewed, it is only sharing the research question, inclusion criteria, and data analysis plan that the authors intend to follow when performing the systematic review. WP:MEDDATE has some useful tips for dates on all sources. JenOttawa (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion about how to describe "drugs and alcohol" at Talk:Recreational drug use#Re: "Drugs and alcohol". Your input is welcome. --Magnolia677 (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:The main question here is about whether "alcohol and other drugs" is a desirable/acceptable synonym for "drugs and alcohol". A few more quick !votes might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I never saw these until recently but seeing them more and more now. Are they generally suitable sources in terms of MEDRS? Moribundum (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Nice to see you again {{u|Moribundum}}. Scoping reviews, in my experience tend to be similiar to systematic reviews, in the sense that they review a ton of publications. I’m not sure if there is a distinct difference between the two. I think it depends on the pub itself more so than the terminology they use. I’m going to ping {{u|colin}} and {{u|WhatamIdoing}} here because they both heavily contributed to MEDRS and have a wealth of knowledge in the area. Kind of separate to you question, but I to have seen an increase in this term and I do think it would be beneficial to add the term to the MEDRS page, however that’s not something I’m comfortable with but Colin and WAID may be. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hi! Great question. In my opinion, a scoping review published in a peer reviewed medical journal would be acceptable under MEDRS, but its use depends on what is being shared in the Wikipedia article. In my own editing, I would think that they are generally suitable for summarizing background information on a topic or providing a paraphrased overview of a treatment, similar to a review article or a text book source. However, evidence from a scoping review may not be strong enough to support claims about the efficacy of a treatment (as an example) unless there are no stronger sources available. If possible, it is best to look for higher-quality MEDRS sources, such as systematic reviews with meta analysis or clinical guidelines. I would love to hear what others think! JenOttawa (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:::This is also how I've treated them. They tend to be great for simple definitions and history sections but otherwise I just find that a textbook, systematic review, or clinical guidelines are much better for other sections of the article. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks ppl for advice. Re MEDRS there is actually already a scoping review used as a reference on that guideline, but the guideline does not mention scoping reviews itself. Moribundum (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ah, yes. This discussion was up on the MEDRS talk page a short while ago. I had half-committed to updating the guideline, but have not gotten to it. I think one could see a scoping review somewhere half between a narrative review and a systematic review - but often in a field where there is a scarcity of literature, and with a broader question than that of a scoping review. So in that sense they are MEDRS-compliant tertiary sources, but less strict than systematic reviews. One more source type that the guideline doesn’t discuss is the umbrella review - which is a systematic review of systematic reviews. I intend at some point to get to writing something on this for the guideline. CFCF (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::(Since I was pinged above: My plan of record is for CFCF to write that. ;-) ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:Mapping reviews are another type. I have not noticed one cited here recently, but becoming more [https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02178-5#:~:text=Mapping%20reviews%20are%20also%20a,question%20of%20interest%20%5B18%5D. common] and are a useful tool.JenOttawa (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Just noting that there is some editing behaviours where someone is blanking a section and then undoing their edit. This was flagged by another editor as well on the individuals talk page.

• Rheumatoid arthritis: +2,879,-2,879
• Osteoarthritis: +1,582,-1,582
• Huntington's disease: +671, −671
• Alzheimer's disease +1,369, −1,369, +1,413, −1,413, +1,413, −1,413
• Parkinson's disease +21,352, −21,352

JenOttawa (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhollySV#March_2025]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. Looks like this account has been blocked. JenOttawa (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Strange form of vandalism Moribundum (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It was not vandalism. Whoever wrote these was making informed high quality edits. Perhaps they were worried about some sort of conflict of interest and reverted their edits out of abundance of caution. Jaredroach (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::OK maybe not vandalism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WhollySV]

:::::The few examples I checked seemed to be unreferenced addition of facts to infoboxes. Then 1 min later reverts the whole edit, marking both edits as minor. Then on to a new page.

:::::Perhaps it was some student making notes as they read the article. Very strange. Moribundum (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I just posted on the talk page of lung cancer. It would be great to get some other sets of eyes on a new section an editor added on diet. Specially claims about red meat. I do not know what else is published on this topic, but I think it would be worthwhile looking for some higher quality sources to ensure that we are sharing consensus based and evidence based information.

Talk:Lung cancer#Lung Cancer and Diet

JenOttawa (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for helping! JenOttawa (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

More of similar happening at prostate cancer-- both featured articles. {{u|Haley275}} could you please weigh in here and be sure you understand WP:MEDRS and WP:DUE, and have a look at WP:WIAFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Haley275&diff=prev&oldid=1283297132 ongoing copyright issues], so all edits should now be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Saw this in an article. Should we remove confidence intervals? Moribundum (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{tq|Reviews have found psoriatic arthritis incidence globally of 0.11%, with incidence in the USA of 0.06–0.25% and in Europe of 0.19% (95% CI 0.16–0.32).{{Cite web|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Global+prevalence+of+spondyloarthritis:+a+systematic+review+and+meta-regression+analysis&author=C+Stolwijk&author=M+van+Onna&author=A+Boonen&author=A.+van+Tubergen&publication_year=2016&journal=Arthritis+Care+Res&volume=68&pages=1320-31#d=gs_qabs&t=1733361606996&u=#p=QBSPr4m23SsJ|title=Google Scholar|website=scholar.google.com}}}} Moribundum (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:Probably difficult to give an answer that is applicable in general. My intuition is that confidence intervals are more likely to be helpful/relevant when it comes to effect sizes than when it comes to prevalence figures, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, but what percentage of readers will understand this term? Moribundum (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:Other than in an article quite focused on confidence intervals themselves, I think any use of the term would generally amount to a failure of encyclopedic writing for the general reader, Bon courage (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} I'm going to go ahead and disagree here. I think this type of information is unlikely to confuse, and more likely to decrease the risk of inaccurately picking statistics and treating them as perfect. You might not need to specify that it is a confidence interval, but you can quite easily specify "(likely between 0.16–0.32). CFCF (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with CFCF. In particular, if the CI is very large, then it's better to say "between 1 and 99" than to say "50". If you want to emphasize the range for some sensible reason, then you can write something like "estimated to be between 0.16% and .0.32%" and leave out the "0.19%".

:Also: Consider applying some rounding, e.g., "about 0.2%" or, even better, "about one in 500 people". Or re-write the whole sentence into plain English: "Worldwide, PA is estimated to affect about one in 1,000 people, with the rate in Europe being about double that." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with this. I strongly believe we should include confidence intervals but explain them in plain language as the likely range. I've seen a lot of misinformation that reports the result without the confidence interval. Daphne Morrow (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

I have been working on this article for a while and put it up for peer review to try and help it get to FA status: Wikipedia:Peer review/1993 Four Corners hantavirus outbreak/archive1 The subject is related to medicine and hantavirus pulmonary syndrome was in the news recently, so I figure some of you might be interested in reviewing the article. Velayinosu (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

The FA Metabolism has a couple CN tags that should be fixed up and in doing so I ran into a bit of a tricky situation which I've explained at Talk:Metabolism#Opinions needed, does source support articles claims?. Basically we have some text in the article that I am unsure if sources support. I have outlined why I think sources do support this but would appreciate some feedback on the topic. Thanks in advance! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for flagging. Interesting discussion on the talk page.JenOttawa (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Done. Jaredroach (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

In order to prevent further edit warring, I've opened a discussion at Talk:Red-eye effect#Image to determine which image should be used to showcase the effect in the lede. Thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I've just created Wikipedia:How to add sources to Wikidata. The instruction page is 90% screenshots. Basically, you click a couple of times and paste in a PMID or DOI number (or ISBN, or URL, or even the name of a notable book, but I figure that most of us will be citing journal articles, so PMIDs and DOIs are more relevant). It really is very easy.

If you find yourself over at Wikidata, please feel free to add sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to add a pronunciation key to an article? I think it would be beneficial for Dysesthesia laurap414 (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Laurap414, you can use the international {{tl|IPAc-en}} and/or the mostly American {{tl|respell}} systems to add this. It might look something like {{IPAc-en|d|ɪ|s|ə|s|θ|iː|z|i|ə}} or {{respell|diss|ess|THEE|zhee|ə}}. You can check dictionaries to find official pronunciations, and then {{tl|cite dictionary}} like a normal ref.

:This information is often added with the |pronounce= parameter in the infobox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|reason=Please centralize the discussion at Talk:Tucker Carlson#Proposed addition to COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines section. We don't need a WP:TALKFORK. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)}}

Hi editors,

I’m requesting help from an extended-confirmed user to add a line under the “COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines” section of the Tucker Carlson article. The proposed content is sourced, relevant, and directly tied to Carlson’s public commentary on pandemic policy.

In February 2022, Carlson interviewed neurologist and addiction medicine specialist Dr. Russell Surasky on Fox News. The interview addressed New York school mask mandates for children with medical exemptions, particularly one involving a nonverbal autistic child. Dr. Surasky criticized the policy as harmful and unethical.

{{fake heading|Suggested edit:|level=3}}

“In February 2022, Carlson interviewed neurologist Dr. Russell Surasky, who criticized New York’s COVID-19 school mask mandates, arguing that forcing medically exempt children with autism to wear masks amounted to medical overreach.”

{{fake heading|Citation:|level=3}}

{{cite web |last=Steinhauser |first=Gertie |title=Neurologist rips ‘medical tyranny’ after NY school forces medically exempt autistic child to wear mask |url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/neurologist-rips-medical-tyranny-after-ny-school-forces-medically-exempt-autistic-child-to-wear-mask |website=Fox News |date=February 10, 2022}}

Thank you for your consideration! 8.25.157.160 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:how would such an edit improve the article in question?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• Just to note mentions of "Dr. Russell Surasky" seem to have been spammed into multiple articles by a couple of IPs. I've removed all of them. Bon courage (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vaginal introital laxity#Requested move 29 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 13:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I am confused by the description of the nutrient content of products, which is in many articles

FDA source says following "5% DV or less of a nutrient per serving is considered low. 20% DV or more of a nutrient per serving is considered high."

https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-facts-label/daily-value-nutrition-and-supplement-facts-labels#:~:text=Use%20%25DV%20to%20determine%20if,per%20serving%20is%20considered%20high.

But what is serving? As I understand it, this is not 100 g, the data for which is given in our articles. Because, for example, milk, apple, banana, etc. are often consumed in portions greater than 100 g, and dried fruits or nuts in portions less. However, in our articles, an assessment is often given "low", "moderate" or "rich" based on 100 g. Is this correct? Perhaps we should just list percentages, leaving readers to determine how good a given source is based on their usual serving sizes?

For example Apple is described as "there is low content of micronutrients, with the Daily Values of all falling below 10% BTW, FDA lists low content as 5% or below. And 100 g of apple has 5% of vitamin C and 4% of potassium. If my usual serving per day is 200 g weight apple (which is medium size) - it will be 10% of vitamin C, and 8% of potassium. So is it better to leave current wording, or change somehow?

Zemleroika11 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:So... I think you want serving size as in "medium apple", because parsley can be "high" in certain nutrients if you eat 100 g, but that isn't material since people usually eat 5 g of it.

:To solve this problem, you might look for European sources instead of US ones, as I understand that the per-100-grams approach is more common in Europe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::Well, I want to clarify what wording is correct in wikipeia. Here is per 100 gram approach in food items nutrients tables. I propose to use only percents of dv, describing nutrient content in text, not 'rich' or 'low', as these terms are applied to servings by FDA source , where terms 'rich' and 'low' are defined in percents, and there is no clear understanding of what serving is in every case. Zemleroika11 (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Could it be resolved with more specificity? For example: "A medium apple is a moderately good source of Vitamin C because it contains 10% of the US RDA". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Maybe this is the solution) Zemleroika11 (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It might be useful to have some WPMED folks join these two RFCs:

• Talk:Euthanasia in the United States#RFC: What do we do about this page? – mostly about conflation of Euthanasia and Assisted suicide in the article
• Talk:Suicide methods#RfC: Link to Wikipedia's crisis resources in hatnotes – whether to add a hatnote to m:Mental health resources at the top of the article

The latter was not included in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, so it will be missed by anyone watching that page. Both are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts (the only two open RFCs for WPMED articles at the moment). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I need help finding sources for the following on the page Metabolism: :File:Catabolism schematic.svg, :File:Insulin glucose metabolism ZP.svg, and {{tq|Modern biochemical research has been greatly aided by the development of new techniques such as chromatography, X-ray diffraction, NMR spectroscopy, radioisotopic labelling, electron microscopy and molecular dynamics simulations. These techniques have allowed the discovery and detailed analysis of the many molecules and metabolic pathways in cells.}}

I have detailed this more at Talk:Metabolism#Sources_needed. Any feedback or help is appreciated! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Could use the attention from folks experienced with evaluating/summarizing sources according to WP:MEDRS, and how to present minority opinions on medical topics. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I've recently nominated Heartburn heartburn as a featured article candidate. I'd be super grateful if anyone was able to give the article a look and provide some feedback at the nomination page: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heartburn/archive1.

Thanks in advance, IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 14:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I just created a brief article for Royalty Pharma, the subject of this article in The New York Times: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/business/dealbook/drug-prices-private-equity.html The Private Equity Firm That Quietly Profits on Top-Selling Drugs]. Any help with detailing their many drug deals would be appreciated. Best, Thriley (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Thriley, please consider cross-posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology and maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, fellow editors! I was recently scrolling on medical-related Chinese Wikipedia pages, and I saw a useful template with source code {{medical}} on top of every page.The related template page is this: https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/template:medical. It basically provides a warning that Wikipedia medical pages should only be used for reference and that one has to consult professionals for medical advice, while linking to the page Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. I think this would be beneficial in case somebody vandalizes an important medical page and another person happens to be reading it, or simply when a well-intended editor make mistakes. Regarding the high number of medical cases involving people trusting unreliable sources (see WP:NGR), I believe this can prevent many of such accidents. Pygos (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:This has been discussed many many times, and the consensus on the English Wikipedia is that the general content disclaimer that you found is sufficient. There are argument for and against, and you are in your right to prefer this. However, just given the history of the discussion, and the unyielding consensus against it - I don't think we should rehash it again. I have no strong feelings either way, but would very much like to save people's time. Perhaps someone else would be able to point to the relevant policies or discussions. CFCF (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reply! Where can I find archived discussions? Pygos (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer is the biggest. You'll want to read the talk page as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks. Pygos (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Articles, such as saturated fat, should distinguish between correlation and causation. I think this is a common point of confusion. Benjamin (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:It does though, doesn't it? I mean for instance it says "A 2021 review found that diets high in saturated fat were associated with higher mortality from all causes, as well as from cardiovascular disease". CFCF (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I mean it should be more clear about what exactly that means, and when it's correlation, causation, and uncertain. Benjamin (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It's tricky because the confusion is a common one not just among the lay public. Sometimes I try juggling the order of things to make it look less like a causation, but if anybody knows a good way to write about associations while avoiding the danger of being misread, I'm all ears! Bon courage (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Could you say they think it's causal, or they think there's a common cause, or they have no idea at all? Benjamin (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Quite often the research literature won't say anything, simply describing precisely as the article does that there is an association. Speculating on causation when you don't have the data is not seen as good practice - whereas when you actually have likely evidence of cause, it's more likely to be spelled out. CFCF (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Use of the word "relationship" is an option. Sometimes two concepts have a relationship, but are not correlated. And they may or may not have a causal relationship. I don't think we want to have much discussion of epistemology in specific medical articles. Discussions of epistemology can go on relevant pages, such as Causality. If we are not certain about the level of evidence or how to describe that evidence in an encyclopedic manner, we can discuss that on Talk pages. I grant the nuances of this issue. In medical contexts, a lot of the tension comes from two rather different definitions of causality that are common: (1) A cause of a disease is most strictly defined as a specific factor without which the disease would not occur (e.g., Rothman, 1976). This definition works well for diseases with simple linear chains of causation and can even be adapted if there are multiple distinct possible causes converging on a single path. (2) A more pragmatic definition of cause is any factor that brings about change for better or worse in a health condition (Smith & Susser, 2002; Kaufman & Poole, 2000). If we feel that in a particular specific subject article that we need to clarify which definition of "cause" we mean, we should find encyclopedic text to do that in a succinct manner. Jaredroach (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Would you oppose further clarification being added to saturated fat? Benjamin (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::But, what would you clarify by saying? You get very close to WP:UNDUE if you every time there is an association state "this is uncertain". No, the presence of the association is not uncertain, but what it means can be difficult to interpret. I believe readers are more likely to get it wrong if we repeatedly make statements that weakens what the presence of association means. CFCF (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::: This is a common theme on many Wikipedia nutritional articles dealing with epidemiological studies and risk factors. These are observational studies that show associations between food intakes and health outcomes; nobody is claiming that a single study or review is showing a causal effect. To make a judgement about causality, epidemiologists will have to look at the totality of evidence (100s of different studies and types of evidence). Causality in epidemiological research is established through the Bradford Hill criteria and this is usually done by an independent review team through a health or medical organization and is eventually put into clinical guideline practice. For this to happen they will look at many different systematic reviews and types of evidence. It is how we know that smoking is casual in lung cancer. On the saturated fat article, we cite various systematic reviews that show associations. I believe it is unnecessary to mention causality here, or on most of these types of articles. We already mention "association" on the saturated fat article in the section "association with diseases". Veg Historian (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Disclaimer: I am making this statement about the history of the article, and not about anyone editing it recently, and definitely not about Benjamin individually.

:::There are disputes at or related to Saturated fat every couple of years. These disputes always involve someone who personally believes that saturated fat is correlative but not causative. For example: they may agree that pepperoni pizza is not a healthful food, but they believe that's primarily due to the ~35 grams of refined carbohydrates and not the ~5 grams of saturated fat in each serving. In this model, you can eat saturated fat, as long as you don't overeat in general and don't eat refined carbohydrates (butter, but not butter cake; lard but not lard-based pie crust; shortening, but not french fries, etc.).

:::On the other side of the dispute is always someone who believes that the current nutritional recommendations are reasonably fair, or at least, believes that's what the more authoritative reliable sources say, and that sticking to those sources is Wikipedia's job.

:::The first person's goal is to minimize the chance that any reader would actually leave the article believing that restricting saturated fat has any health benefit at all. The second person's goal is usually to accurately represent the more authoritative reliable sources, which have not (last I checked) exonerated saturated fat and do not consider it to be merely correlative and of no actual health importance to anyone.

:::My advice for the pro-sat-fat side is: Please wait a decade and try again. We expect Wikipedia to be out of date, especially in nutritional "science" subjects. Maybe a decade from now, the more authoritative reliable sources will finally be based on decent research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::You might be interested in this brilliant overview paper that came out recently [https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(23)05354-6/fulltext] that would definitely improve our Wikipedia articles on this topic. The paper gives a solid overview on the whole dietary fat (including saturated fat) debate; documents the up-to-date evidence, explains what the scientific consensus is in very clear language and describes what the current Dietary guidelines are supporting. The overall conclusion, "The dietary recommendations for fat intake are now well established. In fact, we believe that there is a low probability that they will fundamentally change in the future, considering the robustness of the totality of the evidence". It is very unlikely that the "pro-sat-fat" side (low-carb community) are ever going to gain a scientific consensus (acceptance) for their views, even a decade. There is too much evidence on this topic going the other way. Veg Historian (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I expect that you (and that excellent source) are correct about the outcome. I do hope that the evidence base will improve over time, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The problem is that many people these days are listening to social media gurus for their health advice and these online gurus promote conspiracy theories that all epidemiology is a scam ruined by confounders. What they do not tell you is that epidemiologists are not stupid and do their best to adjust for confounding variables. These same pro saturated fat influencers do not dispute the epidemiological evidence for smoking and lung cancer which is hypocritical. It is unrealistic to ever expect a long-term controlled trial done on saturated fat consumption and CVD mortality. Most trials on this topic are 6 months or a year at the most. Only a handful of longer trials have been done (some of those were cited in the famous Hooper meta-analysis). But it is unrealistic to expect a long-term controlled trial on this. Coronary artery disease (CAD) develops gradually over many years. A 6 month trial is unlikely to give significant results. I am not aware that any current long-term trials are being conducted on this. We are never going to have 15, 20 or 25 year old controlled trials but that is what the the pro-sat fat crowd demand.

::::::When we look at the long-term epidemiological studies with follow-up they all show that saturated fat increases CVD risk and mortality. It is remarkably consistent. For example, here is a recent study with 45 years of follow-up from Norway that found that saturated fat intake is strongly associated with increased CVD mortality [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/saturated-fatty-acids-and-total-and-cvd-mortality-in-norway-a-prospective-cohort-study-with-up-to-45-years-of-followup/4905CE5BBC5A004CB0658B56A71C9441]. The epidemiological evidence is consistent in this topic area but the pro-sat-fat crowd will never accept it. Veg Historian (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, it's very difficult to produce high-quality evidence in this area. Even if you have a 20-year-long randomized controlled trial, you're really testing "Does telling people to ____ help?", because you can almost never control what people eat for that many years, and when you can (e.g., institutionalized people, cloistered religious people), the people aren't representative of the general population. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Forgive me if I've misunderstood something, but couldn't you do a long term mendelian randomization study? Daphne Morrow (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Daphne Morrow, nearly all mendelian randomization data is derived from epidemiology research (observational data). So yes there is long-term data here but it is not from controlled clinical trials. Here is a mendelian randomization study published this year (2025) which found saturated fat intake increased Alzheimer's disease risk [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39391920/] Veg Historian (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I'm just wondering if some MRs on the topic of sat fat and mortality would solve the issues raised in this thread?

::::::::::- MRs are causal, so that would theoretically satisfy Benjamin. (and should satisfy pro-sat-fat crowd, if they were willing to accept causal evidence)

::::::::::- A bunch of MRs could satisfy bradford hill, which would theoretically satisfy epidemiologists.

::::::::::- MRs would improve the evidence base and create higher quality, long-term evidence despite the lack of RCTs, theoretically making whatamidoing happy. Daphne Morrow (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I wish we could cite these, but per our WP:MEDRS policy they are unlikely to qualify because they are primary sources and we must cite secondary sources. Sometimes systematic reviews also contain a mendelian randomization but I have only seen a few like that. In a nutshell, I do not think with can cite single mendelian randomization studies per our guidelines sadly. Veg Historian (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Oh I understand that we require secondary sources. Mostly I’m just hypothesising a solution to this thread. I second whatamIdoing. I hope the evidence base improves over time, specifically, I hope that systematic reviews/ metaanalyses of MRs become available on this and other epidemiological topics. Daphne Morrow (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I agree with what you are saying. Unfortunately the pro-sat-fat crowd are never going to be convinced by the evidence no matter what. They just want any excuse to eat a high-fat low-carb diet and feel good about their dietary habits. The only people who question the saturated fat guidelines are from the carnivore diet or low-carb/paleo diet community. Literally nobody else disputes the evidence because it is convincing. The opposition to the evidence-based guidelines on saturated fat is driven by low-carb ideology not real scientific skepticism. Off-site I have debated this topic for over 15 years. I have never seen the pro-sat fat crowd offer any evidence. Not a single study has ever been published showing high or higher saturated fat intake reduces disease risk. Not one study. Yet literally 1000s show that polyunsaturated fats lower risk (BTW I just noticed our polyunsaturated fat seriously needs updating with modern research). Veg Historian (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Now I wonder if that holds true for dark chocolate, since a good proportion of its saturated fat is stearic acid, which doesn't increase "bad" cholesterol. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I agree the pro-sat-fat crowd will never be convinced. However I disagree that they are the only ones who are interested in this issue. There are plenty of evidence-based people who feel epidemiology would benefit from stronger causal evidence. Daphne Morrow (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::WhatamIdoing, you are correct, stearic acid doesn't tend to raise certain lipids, it is the only long-chain saturated fatty acid doesn't increase CVD risk. There are also some short chain saturated fatty acids in certain dairy products that do not raise CVD risk and recent studies have reported to be neutral or even beneficial. There certainly is a debate in this area about different chain lengths of saturated fat, I do not deny that. The issue is palmitic acid and myristic acid that definitely do raise risk and they are the main saturated fatty acids. There is a strong consensus that high or higher (total) saturated fat intake definitely does increase chronic disease risk and it is unlikely the consensus is going to change on that because the evidence is so strong. The problem is that many saturated fat foods contain large amounts of palmitic acid. It is a complex subject to study if we strip it down and start looking at individual saturated fatty acids and their chain lengths. I think this is where the future research needs to be focusing on. Veg Historian (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::If you’ve got MEDRS sources on that wohld you consider adding it to the sat fat article? Daphne Morrow (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Yes the article needs updating, I will have a look around for sourcing on this over the next week. Veg Historian (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Much appreciated! Daphne Morrow (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest{{cn}}—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. Given how important high-quality medical articles are to people's life, especially now that the US government is scrubbing vital health information from their websites, I was hoping I could tempt people here to join.

The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. Winners are those who provide "best additive encyclopedic value", judged by the amount of improvement and 'coreness' of articles. Signups are open now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Happy Friday! I noted an edit today in the article and just posted a comment on the talk page of Neuropathic pain. Does anyone have a few minutes to provide feedback on the edit? Not urgent, just looking for someone who has time to look for strong secondary sources (if there are some). Thank you!!JenOttawa (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Already found a source that may help! https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9966617/ JenOttawa (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::It looks like there are [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Neuropathic+pain+and+COVID-19&filter=pubt.booksdocs&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=other.medline&size=200 a number of sources available], but a lot of them are about Zoster reactivation and therefore Postherpetic neuralgia. I don't know whether that's what you're looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for contributing WhatamIdoing. I am not looking for anything specific, more just flagging as it was added without a reference or mention in the main article (let alone a high quality secondary source). User ID made some suggestions and also reviewed my source (which may not be strong enough). If anyone else as time to jump on and help review ID's ideas on the talk page that would be amazing. I will be mostly away from Wikipedia this week, need to get some other work done :) Have a terrific Monday! JenOttawa (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Abortion_survivors CFCF (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

The Problematic social media use article is exceptionally poor, and has been for some time, largely because it has been the subject of repeated student editing projects that have resulted in people adding material just for the sake of writing. The writing style reflects this, with a lot of school-essay style padding.

The article desperately needs tightening up, refactoring and copyediting; I think it could easily be reduced to half the length without losing anything of value.

Would anyone here be willing to take a look at it? — The Anome (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I tried to help with the lead. Most of the article needs a re-write to remove the primary sources. I did not have time to do this part, but tried to set up a better framework for the lead. If people better at writing leads than me (many of you) can help polish that would be amazing.JenOttawa (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed this class project and added some comments to the talk page of Postoperative nausea and vomiting. Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/SUNY Upstate Medical University/Pathophysiology of Disease (Fall 2024)

If anyone has time let's try to encourage the new student editors. Would be great to see some article improved using their talents (and some MEDRS/MEDMOS guidance from experienced editors on here). JenOttawa (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation#Requested move 10 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 16:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

150px

Dear all

I’m very happy to let you know we are running a competition at Wikiproject Climate Change to encourage people to help improve visual information about climate change including the impact of human health. The competition is open until the 17th of May for all language versions of Wikipedia. The top three point scorers will each win a signed copy of The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg.

Please let me know if you have any questions

Thanks :)

John Cummings (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

There's a COI edit request that's been languishing at Talk:Steven Grinspoon for lack of an editor who is familiar with MEDRS. I'd appreciate if someone here could take a look. Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dementia_with_Lewy_bodies&oldid=1286416156 discussion on talk]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the text for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pulmonary_hypertension&diff=prev&oldid=1286108031 this edit] may have been generated by/using ChatGPT. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

If you are interested in infoboxes, please see :Category:Medicine articles needing infoboxes We have 700 articles with requests for infoboxes. Infoboxes are popular with readers.

For example, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Association_for_Geriatric_Psychiatry&diff=prev&oldid=1286433627 added an infobox] just now, based on what was in the article, what the org's website said, and a quick check at GuideStar (to confirm non-profit status, because I wasn't sure whether the org and its charitable foundation were both nonprofits, or if it was just the latter).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 20#Virostatic about the redirects Virostatic (current target Virus) and Virostatics (current target Antiviral drug) would benefit from the input of editors with relevant subject matter knowledge. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

What are the policies on Cancer in X articles? Cancer in the United States redirects to a general page while Cancer in Ghana is its own page. I was looking into making a Cancer in Iowa page (after I do research to check if it is viable) but if Cancer in the United States is not even independent, I am not sure if Cancer in Iowa would be. ✶Quxyz✶ 01:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:I doubt it would be notable just on first glance. Some times where an article may be appropriate is if there is certain environmental or location dependant factors relevant to cancer in that area. For example a lot of jobs that are more common in developing countries that don’t have as strict of working standards may expose workers to cancer causing substances which in my opinion may make an article on that country notable. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::I just saw that cancer rates in Iowa were inceasing and thought it could possibly be something. I haven't done much research into it though. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Why don't you start with a section in Iowa? United States#Health suggests that it belongs under ==Demographics==. You could add a couple of sentences about the general subject (e.g., graying population, lots of rural hospitals, average life expectancy – I'd start off with whatever seems sensible and isn't too difficult to find) and then write a paragraph about cancer. By the time you get a decent section assembled, you should have a good idea about whether you want to expand it further (Health in Iowa, perhaps modeled after Health in the United States) or to stop there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for your insights, I will look into it soon. ✶Quxyz✶ 13:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Good advice there. Cancer rates are generally increasing in all developed countries, mainly due to an ageing population. With some exceptions, such as Skin cancer in Australia (too much time on the beach), I don't really approve of "local" cancer articles, especially if they are just a list of stats, with no context - like Cancer in Ghana pretty much is. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I will probably go down the route of Health in Iowa as then I can talk about cancer along with other diseases and some notable facilites like in Iowa City. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I have made Draft:Health in Iowa. I should work on it for the next few days. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Looks like this is a much more versatile topic and I think you'll have much better luck building a solid article one this. There is also the "healthcare in X" articles which may or may not fit what you're looking for. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox drug § Edit request 8 April 2025, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is about removing the WARNING indicator (and its source) from the infoboxes of drugs that have a boxed warning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if any of you have any contact with the students who are told to edit WP as part of their course. Here is a nice job with good chances of not being reverted: writing a new section History of Functional neurological symptom disorder. The old section is rather bad. See: Talk:Functional_neurological_symptom_disorder#History_rewrite. Lova Falk (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Lova Falk This would be a great article for a student to make some high impact edits on. If you're wanting to reach out directly, I usually browse the recent talkpage edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Discussions#top] and look for recent student editing projects. Currently there seems to be one on professional writing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Wisconsin-Whitewater/Foundations_of_Professional_Writing_and_Editing_(Spring_2025)], psychology [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Kennesaw_State_University_-_Department_of_Psychological_Scie/4499.w04_(Spring)] but if you check the recent changes log [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked?hidebots=1&hidecategorization=1&hideWikibase=1&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Medicine%2FLists_of_pages%2FTalk&limit=500&days=30&urlversion=2] you could probably find more. Cheers! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs), I have contacted an instructor, and if they don't take the job, I now know where to find other instructors. I had never even heard of Related changes! Lova Falk (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I check the related changes daily, it's a great way to find conversations to participate in! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::What's your favorite link for Special:RecentChangesLinked? Maybe someone else would like to join you, or to build their own version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for providing a good source. That will be very helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

== Anti-cholesterol food fad text and citation at Oat ==

An IP editor (see User talk:2601:642:4F84:1590:9D68:3412:E33:7827) has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oat&diff=1286817690&oldid=1286660480 just made a series of edits] to Oat about the food fad for oat bran in the 1980s concerning the belief that oats lowered cholesterol. I reverted their first attempt, adding a note "do not add individual primary research studies, see WP:MEDRS", but this was ignored with their later series of edits and their edit comment {{tq|I didn't make a health claim. I noted a study's historical significance as the basis of a fad.}} There is some truth in their claim, but the edits have inserted {{tq|a 1986 study}}, a piece of primary medical research, {{tq|{{cite journal|last1=Van Horn|first1=Linda|last2=Liu|first2=Kiang |last3=Parker|first3=Donna |last4=Emidy|first4=Linda |last5=Liao|first5=You-lian|last6=Pan|first6=Wen Harn|last7=Giumetti |first7=Dante |last8=Hewitt |first8=John |last9=Stamler |first9=Jeremiah|title=Serum lipid response to oat product intake with a fat-modified diet |date=June 1986|journal=Journal of the American Dietetic Association|volume=86 |number=6|pages=759–764|ref=none}} }}. I would be grateful for the opinion of editors familiar with WP:MEDRS on whether the inserted material is compliant with policy, and whether any changes need to be made to the article text. Effectively this is a question on whether a primary research article can be cited for a purpose that is not to make a medical claim (at least directly), even though we all agree that it wouldn't be OK for a straight medical claim; the case is made slightly stranger by the fact that the article already cites systematic review articles which (as it happens) support the medical claim that the food fad text is not trying to make. Note that the new text spans both the "Health effects" and the "As food" sections of the article, with a "(described below)" textual cross-reference between the two (not my idea of a great structure, but that's what we have at this instant). Thank you for your time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:The oat-fad episode is noteworthy. If anything, it deserves more text and more citations in the Oat article than are currently there. So I would not consider deleting any of the existing text, but rather would encourage editors to add to it — including context and references; keep what is there and add more. In WP:MEDPRI, there is plenty of scope for including primary sources. Particularly if they are historically important. Such as the 1953 Nature paper "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" by Watson and Crick, even though pretty much all the claims in that paper can be better found in more recent review articles. Jaredroach (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you very much for the advice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Does anyone know how to initiate a name change request as per a talk page? The article Reduction (orthopedic surgery) has been suggested to be changed to away from ortho because not all reductions are done in orthopedic surgery. Ideas for next steps would be great! JenOttawa (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Moved! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::On the procedural question:

::# Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and turn on Twinkle (first section, about the tenth item).

::# Reload the article's page. See new 'TW' menu in the corner.

::# Choose 'XFD' from the TW menu. Choose 'Requested moves' from the drop-down menu. Fill in the form and click the button.

::WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks so much to both of you. WAID- Will bookmark this for next time. Have a great rest of your days.JenOttawa (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)