Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors 2016 (all) has statistics for 2016, but there is nothing for 2017. Has this effort been abandoned? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: The user who ran the script to scrape the data is too busy to carry on doing the work. We can't get hold of the script, so I'm in the process of trying to re-write the whole thing from scratch. That will take some considerable time unless somebody comes up with a better idea. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per[1] sent email to analytics-owner@lists.wikimedia.org(no response yet/not sure it'll work)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Guy Macon I would love this data. I have sent off dozens of emails trying to get this done aswell. Simple very hard to find someone. User:Ladsgroup and User:West.andrew.g ran the numbers in the past but as mentioned are busy with other things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

at least we tried(and RexxS is trying)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Sorry about my late response - I've been super busy lately. It's unfortunate that we don't have the old scripts for this to modify and use for 2017. I would've taken this on if we had those. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can make a place where old scripts can be archived and maybe even make archiving a requirement for using a script? It seems strange that we keep every old article version yet keep losing important scripts and other tools. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[2]maybe?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*still ongoing(only en edits were solved, not across all languages)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.frontiersin.org/

What are peoples thoughts on these? They have been described as predatory here.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in some background that led to this question, I recommend seeing my talk page, wherein Doc James and I discussed this matter. It also includes my rationale for at least selectively using Frontiers journals as citations to articles so long as the article or study being cited is otherwise acceptable, as well as my stated concerns about considering Frontiers Media to be a predatory publisher. As I said in the aforementioned talk page discussion, I agree that there appear to be some problems with Frontiers journals, but I would nonetheless consider it a problematic publisher (like with Hindawi Publishing Corporation) rather a predatory one. This conclusion was primarily based on a review of sources mentioning or otherwise discussing the status of Frontiers journals as predatory, which I deemed mixed and overall inconclusive. Links to those sources can be found on my talk page, as well.

I would also like to note Archive 78 § On the use of Frontiers journals as sources, whose consensus seemed likewise inconclusive but which appears to accept selective usage so long as that which is being cited is otherwise acceptable. If necessary, I would also support including a ((better source)) template along with any such citation, though I personally do not think that should be necessary. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

at the very least questionable[3] and [4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it depends on the claim. Any exceptional claim (e.g. of treatment efficacy) which appears only in a Frontiers journal is a huge WP:REDFLAG, and as for the AIDS denialism &c. stuff they've run .... In general anything worth including that appears in a Frontiers journal will almost certainly be source-able to something more conspicuously reputable. Same goes for Hindawi journals, PLOS ONE, etc. Most of the times we see these sources being raised from WP:PROFRINGE editors banging an altmed drum. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely don't consider Frontiers journals to be predatory -- I have read dozens if not hundreds of useful articles in them. However, the fact that something is published in a Frontiers journal should not imply that it should be treated as a reliable source. They are better than things like Medical Hypotheses, but reliability is not their primary goal. Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should lean on the side of caution if as reported we shold error on the right side. They are by far not alone ...as there are thousands of other publishers we can use instead. Editors are expected to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia....thus simply avoid questionable sources if we want to look credible.--Moxy (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was just added based on Frontier journal: "In vitro and in vivo studies found that methadone significantly inhibited the growth of human lung cancer cells"[5]

An extraordinary claim IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and it's wacky articles like this that exemplify why Frontiers journals need to be treated with extreme caution. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think this Frontiers article is quite good, but the edit to the methadone article does not accurately reflect what it says. The Frontiers article notes that methadone has shown anti-tumor activity in preclinical studies, which is perfectly true; it also notes that these effects have not been tested at the clinical level. Looie496 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The specific subject of methadone as antineoplastic is reviewed in Int J Cancer at PMID 29516505. No need to use the primary source. More generally though, it's worth restating that no source is reliable (or unreliable) for all statements: one can cite an issue of Mad Magazine for a statement describing the cover of that particular issue. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears, at least to me, that the consensus (or lack thereof) on generally citing Frontiers journals has thus far remained the same as I described above. This discussion originated from my citation of two specific review articles, namely the following two: 1 and 2. Does anyone have any opinion on these two particular sources, especially as worthwhile additions to the Asperger syndrome, Autism, Autism spectrum, or other such article? I originally included it as another theory in Asperger syndrome § Mechanism and its reversion is what led to this. If any of you would like more context, I recommend reading the discussion on my talk page. Everything, including relevant diffs, is documented therein. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, both URLs you give caused my browser to raise a security alert - so I wouldn't include those links! Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does for me, too, specifically SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN. This is because the certificate is not valid for the journal.frontiersin.org subdomain, only the www.frontiersin.org subdomain and the subdomain-free frontiersin.org. I have no clue why the website's certificate does not include the journal subdomain, even though it's just used as a hop to the www subdomain anyway (adding a temporary exception demonstrates as much). My guess is that someone misconfigured the certificate and nobody ever bothered to fix it. Regardless, the landing pages for each are as follows: 1 and 2. I was trying to include the original articles, but forgot about the subdomain nonsense. My apologies for not linking them initially, Alexbrn; it has been a long day for me.

I might as well note that in my original edit (which Doc James had moved to Talk:Asperger syndrome § Frontier journals), those bad subdomain links are only available (unavoidably) in the DOI parameter of the citations. The URLs I included were PDF copies from ResearchGate, namely 1 and 2. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So these sources are about the "Intense World Syndrome" which is the idea of a few researchers. The question is has this been picked up and discussed by decent secondary sources? If so, we can cite them; if not we ignore the topic as Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary publication summarizing "accepted knowledge" (which is generally found only at the secondary level or deeper). Alexbrn (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that might be a secondary source. It's not labeled as a review article, which is a particular type of secondary source, but it synthesizes previous work into a coherent whole. Putting together puzzle pieces is pretty much the definition of secondary. (Maybe you meant that this idea needed to be picked up by someone independent of the original authors?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what content the OP want to source, but if it's about the novel "hypothesis" of Intense World Syndrome so far as I can see these works are primary for that hypothesis. But yes coverage would need to be independent. Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Alexbrn, I specifically want to include this "intense world" theory because I believe it is a relevant and appropriate addition to Asperger syndrome § Mechanism. I was simply stating the theory in a brief paragraph as a significant hypothesis for the neurological mechanism(s) behind Asperger syndrome and the autism spectrum alongside the others. The theory has been mentioned, discussed, or otherwise cited by hundreds of papers, if Google Scholar is any estimate; and it has received significant media coverage from reliable sources (some of which are listed on my talk page). I therefore think a paragraph on the theory is due.

What specifically would constitute sufficient "independent coverage" of this theory (or these specific papers) in your opinion? For example, do you basically just mean a review article about this theory and whatever research may have occurred since its publication by those "independent of the original authors" (as WhatamIdoing stated)? Or do you mean it in some other way? I apologize if my inexperience is showing; although I have been editing Wikipedia for years, I am still new to adding and editing medical content. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the two articles, WhatamIdoing, they are indeed both labeled as review articles. I am talking about these two links specifically: 1 and 2. Am I misunderstanding something here? Are they not technically review articles? I agree that they are both secondary sources, though I understand Alexbrn's point that the "intense world" theory is primary to these papers and their authors. From what I can tell, if there is any basis for excluding these two particular sources, it appears to be on them not being secondary for the theory itself, despite otherwise satisfying WP:MEDRS. Perhaps that is what you meant? That they are not review articles for the theory itself, since the papers are the primary source for them? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usually – but not always, and it's not a requirement – journals submit metadata to PubMed about their articles, to identify things such as whether they're review articles. The PubMed records contain no such data for these papers. That's not proof that it's not a review article, but it does mean that the papers are excluded from search results (at PubMed) that are limited to review articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intense world syndrome

I'm looking into this idea, and I think it's probably WP:Notable. Here's some sources:

• "A prominent hypothesis about neurodevelopmental disorders in general and autism in particular is the intense world syndrome/theory of autism by Markram and Markram" [6]
• "Two theories for which there is limited support but which have attracted much media attention deserve mention. These are the intense world syndrome theory and the broken mirror theory." [7]
• "Perhaps autistics don't experience a socially numbed world but rather a socially intense world. In fact, Henry Markram, Tania Rinaldi, and Kamila Markram proposed such a theory in a 2007 article aptly titled,“The Intense World Syndrome—An Alternative Hypothesis for Autism."[8]
• Reportedly reviewed in "Sensory Symptoms in Autism: A Blooming, Buzzing Confusion?" (2013).
• and more: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], etc.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:National Rifle Association#RfC: Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?. An editor has requested comment on stating, in Wikipedia voice, that the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle firearms program for children is a "safety" program, contrary to WP:MEDRS. PeteW15 (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Review articles

• Dowd, MD; Sege, RD; Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention Executive, Committee.; American Academy of, Pediatrics. (November 2012). "Firearm-related injuries affecting the pediatric population". Pediatrics. 130 (5): e1416-23. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2481. PMID 23080412. Gun avoidance programs are designed to educate children as a way of reducing firearm injury (eg, Eddie Eagle, STAR); however, several evaluation studies have demonstrated that such programs do not prevent risk behaviors.((cite journal)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Jackman, Geoffrey A.; Farah, Mirna M.; Kellermann, Arthur L.; Simon, Harold K. (June 2001). "Seeing Is Believing: What Do Boys Do When They Find a Real Gun?". Pediatrics. 107 (6). American Academy of Pediatrics: 1247–1250. doi:10.1542/peds.107.6.1247. [although the Eddie Eagle program] has been promoted heavily, it never has been evaluated formally to prove that it works. If gun safety education gives parents a sense of complacency without fundamentally altering child behavior, then it might do more harm than good.

thanks for posting?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article about the (US) National Rifle Association should state that they sponsor safety programs or certify firearm instructors does not seem even remotely like biomedical information. Whether the safety programs produce safer behavior (their most famous likely doesn't) is not being discussed here. The statement being made is purely about organizational activities, not about whether those activities meet their stated goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That turns out to be not the case. When the NRA baldly claim that they run safety programmes without further qualification, it gives the reader the impression that those safety programmes actually have a significant effect on safety - for which there is no evidence. It's called 'spin'. The misapplication of the label "safety" is the problem there, not the factual accuracy of these programmes' existence. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure not getting shot in the head is a medical issue as such. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing (accidental and intentional) firearm injuries is a public health issue, but that's not really the point of the NRA article. The point of that article is pretty much "There's this org, which does lobbying and gives classes". The proposed sentence "The organization issues credentials and trains firearm instructors", OTOH, is unrelated to health.

RexxS, I think it's fair to mention the existence of their programs (especially remembering that the proposed list includes programs with no clear connection to safety). The fact is that these programs exist, and it's one of the two main things that the org does. There'd be nothing wrong with saying "They offer a bunch of classes, including a safety class that has been criticized as ineffective", but there is something wrong with omitting the fact that they offer classes altogether. Eddie Eagle (their independently notable, largely ineffective safety program) needs to be mentioned somewhere in that article, and right now, there's no connection from the NRA to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I like your wording! There certainly wouldn't be anything wrong with saying "They offer a bunch of classes, including a safety class that has been criticized as ineffective". Sadly, that alternative is not on the table as far as I can see. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of that discussion is that far too many editors have interpreted it as a Request For All-or-Nothing Votes, and what they needed was a Request for Help Finding a Compromise. (Feel free to dress up that idea in an encyclopedic tone and propose it as an alternative if you want to.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia voice in an article hat at Eddie Eagle says it is a "safety" program. Can someone familiar with WP:MEDRS please review this for compliance? 64.134.172.62 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Eagle is a safety program. The fact that it is a safety program does not mean that it is an effective program, but the fact that it is ineffective at improving safety does not magically transform it into some other kind of program. It shouldn't be surprising that it's a failure; most Behavior-based safety programs are failures, and almost all one-off information sessions with children are doomed. (Need proof? Find the nearest parent and ask them how many years they spent saying things like "Don't run around in busy parking lots".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics and the review article that the Eddie Eagle program is ineffective. My understanding of WP:MEDRS is that we may no more say in Wikipedia voice that Eddie Eagle is a "firearms safety program for children," then we could for example describe apricot seeds as a cancer cure. What is your understanding? Better would be "This article is about the NRA's firearm program for children." 50.233.97.130 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your metaphor fails: the primary purpose of apricot seeds is making more apricot trees, not treating disease.

A more apt comparison would be to something like the US FAA's old Air Transportation Oversight System safety program. ATOS didn't work. It was still a safety program. It did not stop being a safety program even though everyone concluded (eventually) that it was ineffective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like most of us WAID is subject to a cognitive bias in favour of the mature complex organism. Dawkins argued convincingly that the tree is just an elaborate means for the reproduction of the seed, or at a more basic level, the reproduction of its constituent genes. However, the idea that the NRA is anything other than an elaborate sales organization rings false to most of the world. Even if Eddie had been effective as a user training program, its objective was still to sell more firearms to hit more targets. For those whose only interaction with firearms is in the role of potential targets, that does not seem like any kind of safety program.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 25337402 copies material word-for-word from this 2006 diff by User:Stevenfruitsmaak. Does anyone feel like getting in touch with the journal and/or updating that article, which has barely been touched since then? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'm reminded of the hilarity with "glucojasinogen". ;) I can't believe nobody has made a bot to search all of PubMed abstracts, or at least new ones, vs. all of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is this journal Journal of Thoracic Disease based out of China. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone did something better than that: They wrote a bunch of missing encyclopedia articles, posted half on Wikipedia (and kept the others offline, as a control group), waited a while, and then checked a huge database to see how many had been plagiarized.

I believe that the conclusion on their side was that plagiarism of Wikipedia articles was a serious problem in low-ranking journals (perhaps the lowest quartile as measured by WP:Impact factor; I believe that journals with a significant number of non-Western/non-native English-speaking authors was a particular risk), and the conclusion on our side was that newbies creating short articles on complex scientific subjects is an unreasonable burden on existing editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will send them a serious letter... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PS: WhatamIdoing thank you for clarifying that my early work as a med student qualifies as "newbies creating short articles on complex scientific subjects is an unreasonable burden on existing editors." :-) LOL !!

On a side note I had to search >30min before finding some guidance on Wikipedia on how to deal with these kind of matters. James, what if we took an initiative to ask for corrections and/or retractions of all scholarly papers which contain medical backward copyvio? That would certainly discourage future "fake" OA journals to continue this practice... Do we know anyone who can make a bot for that? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The community has changed since 2005. Back when you were a newbie, everyone thought it was awesome that anyone who actually knew anything would help out. Now, I guess we think we're too good for grad students to try their best at expanding.  :-/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

still a problem though--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just cleaned up the browser bookmarks folder where I had saved bad links to medicine-related topics. Four problems remain (search for "disam" on these pages):

• Cadmium fluoride  Done
• Acid erosion  Done
• Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection  Done
• Lobular carcinoma in situ (this could be a circular link; if it is, the link should just be removed)  Done

Thanks in advance if you can solve any of these problems. If you do solve one of them, mark it as ((done)). Narky Blert (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All are done, mostly by others. — soupvector (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't think we should let you have all the fun this time... ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Project members might want to look at this. It seems not good from a WP:MEDRS point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not good from any point of view. Natureium (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have redirected to pulpitis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear medical experts:

Re Gaslighting

A paragraph about self-help to combat the psychological effects of "gaslighting" has been added to the above article. I'm not sure that it's appropriate. Can someone take a look?—Anne Delong (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citations in the paragraph added fail WP:MEDRS. The medical literature does discuss gaslighting. However, I am struggling to find anything that meets MEDRS that is suitable as a replacement here. It would seem worth citing Gass & Nichols (Contemp Fam Ther (1988) 10: 3. doi:10.1007/BF00922429) as a key early paper, but it doesn't help much in terms of treatment. There's a recent, non-systematic, kind-of review by Davendralingam (2018, doi:10.1177/0141076818763326) that may be of some use. Bondegezou (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the passages, not because they fail WP:MEDRS, but because they were either very poorly sourced according to WP:RS or just simply unsourced. Medium is not an acceptable source, neither is lonerwolf.com — and that is for any statement. Dbaechle, Anne Delong — I have no problem with the message conveyed, but you need to use better sources. Aslo, be careful when saying things about psychological health, you then need to adhere to MEDRS. Carl Fredrik ^talk 05:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bondegezou and Carl Fredrik. I was worried about the sourcing, but since the information seemed to have been added in good faith, I wanted to check with more knowledgeable editors.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medium.com actually would be an acceptable source if the author meets WP:SPS standards. It is certainly no worse than Facebook posts or Twitter links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in the presence of other better sources I think we should prefer them. I do not feel Medium is acceptable in this case, especially as it straddles invoking MEDRS — where SPS is even less acceptable, nigh on forbidden. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Krauss, A (4 April 2018). "Why all randomised controlled trials produce biased results". Annals of medicine: 1–11. doi:10.1080/07853890.2018.1453233. PMID 29616838.

Somebody thought it was Very Important at Replication crisis, see diffs.

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

rather different[15]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case anybody is curious the ten most-ever-cited clinical trial papers discussed in that paper (in chronological order) are the following:

-- Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those diffs might contain about three times as many paragraphs as is warranted, but it's probably reasonable to consider it reliable for some of the claims made, e.g., "This one paper suggested this as a problem, and that as a potential mitigation effort". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a fascinating paper, and I'll have to read it properly, but it does say "This study assesses the 10 most cited RCTs worldwide and shows that trials inevitably produce bias." which seems a stretch. You'd have to look at significantly more RCTs to come to this conclusion, even though it is quite notable. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the examples given in the article suggest that it's formally impossible to remove all bias, in which case the findings aren't particularly interesting. — soupvector (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals.Bermicourt (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I Running a bot for add ((WikiProject Medicine)) to redirects based on what articles that in Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles for example. Are there any notes? Or problems?. The bot made 20 edits for trial in this task Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JarBot 3.--جار الله (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

they[16] seem fine but you need more opinions from other editors..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a new page patroller, I don't think I've ever seen a new redirect page created with a WikiProject tagged on it. The only redirect tags I see are on pages that were once filled with content but moved to another page at some later time (rather than submit an AfD, for instance). Then the old page gets the tag for historical purposes (and it shows we've been there before). Tagging every single redirect just for the heck of it will add tens of thousands of pages to this project's article count, and I don't really see the positive of doing so. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wikiproject tags seem to be only added to redirects that used to be pages. I don't see the value in adding them to thousands of redirects. Natureium (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Personally I remove them from the old name when a page is moved. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not familiar with this practice. The Wikipedia category system is for human browsing, and I cannot think of a reason why a human would want to have easy access to a list of redirects. If such a list existed, then it should be in its own category of redirects and not mixed with Wikipedia articles, because it would add a lot of text which most readers should not see. I do not know what guidelines exist for discussing categories for redirects. What is your motivation for doing this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • جار الله, please stop. This WikiProject doesn't normally tag redirects (with the occasional exception for redirects that might be targets for edit warring or deletion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Per here[17] we have more than 4000 redirects that are tagged by WPMED. Not sure what is wrong with tagging them? Not completely sure what the use of tagging them is either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see anything wrong with tagging. For the Academic Journals project, we tag redirects. The advantage is that if one if, say, taken to RfD, then the Article Alert Bot will alert the project. Makes tracking things easier. We still have many untagged redirects, perhaps Jarbot 3 could next tackle WP:WikiProject Academic Journals? --Randykitty (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Randykitty: Q: Would it not be simpler and more reliable if Article Alert Bot looked for project tags on the target of the redirect rather than the redirect itself? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We usually have tags on pages if it was tagged before the article was moved. The other reason is if there's been a controversy about a particular one. It's pointless to tag most most redirects (how many different hyphens and dashes are there?), and tagging everything makes it harder to find the few redirects that we care about (or even to use the stats table at WP:MEDA to see how many real articles we're watching, because redirects get tallied there exactly like a real article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the above article has recently come out of the Articles for Creation process; it could use some expert attention as it might be an advert for a particular device. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

editor Special:Contributions/Alexandermproctor edits are of 1. Paul K. Hansma who in turn had a hand in 2. (OsteoProbe)>>Bone Score...COI?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in the idea that (some) readers want "more video", then you might want to look at mw:User Interaction Consultation for some related ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WAID :) I looked and saw only a brief mention of video there. Is there a more specific link? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. My current thinking is that readers probably don't want (just) "more video"; they want "more multimedia and interactive features", of which video is simply one small example and possibly not the most important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

would agree, but at least videos would be a first step--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:GBA_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_13_April_2018 Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What relevance does that dab page have to this WikiProject? Are you attempting to votestack? —Xezbeth (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a little different--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xezbeth: Didn't you read the dab page? Or did you miss Glucocerebrosidase, GBA2, GBA3? A cause of Gaucher's disease and an association with Parkinson's disease would indicate that WPMED is likely to have some interest. --RexxS (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources reliable to include information on Ayurveda#History, that "The origins of Ayurveda have been traced to around 6,000 BCE"? I am copying the most convincing texts from the discussion held on Talk:Ayurveda.

• "Ayurveda.... can be traced back about 8000 years",[18] by John Walton, Jeremiah A. Barondess, Stephen Lock, published by Oxford University Press. The authors if the chapter are Jagjit Singh Chopra and Sudesh Prabhakar, two prominent neurologists.
• Alternative Therapies For Epilepsy, "Ayurveda originated as traditional medical system in India nearly 8,000 years ago", it says. Written by Steven V. Pacia, Orrin Devinsky (Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry professor) and Steven Schachter (neurology professor) and published by Demos Medical Publishing. In the next page (28) it gives the details on Ayurveda as medical practice and also the scientific overview. On page 29, there is a conclusion about all these medicines provided, which seems to be mainstream.
• "Ayurveda evolved in India some 8000 years ago and is often quoted as the oldest medical system in the world", from Complementary Therapies for Pain Management: An Evidence-based Approach, written by a specialist, researcher of complementary and alternative medicine, Edzard Ernst, published by Elsevier Health Sciences. A journal[19] from Edzard Ernst has been already used in this article for scientific statements for a long time and Ernst dominates the article on Alternative medicine (31 mentions) as a critical and expert source and have been used as a source on other CAM articles (Acupuncture, Traditional Chinese medicine, Homeopathy).

JzG agreed with first source to be fine, but made no comments on other two.

What do people think? I was going to post this on WP:RSN but that board is stale, and not really everyone there is familiar with medical subjects. My Lord (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• anyone editing that article should be aware of ..WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES[20]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the first and third are solid, mostly because they are more focused on that topic in the first place. The second source is not ostensibly about Ayurdeva and therefore the author of that probably isn't an expert in the dating and probably got it elsewhere (perhaps one of the other references here!) I see nothing wrong with including them, be sure to double check with other editors on its talk page though. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of featured medical articles somewhere? I clicked on the link under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine#Metrics (tools.wmflabs.org) but it timed out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[21]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ozzie. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole: the list of FAs can be found at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Health and medicine.

A problem though: the medical FAs are not being maintained and many of them would not survive WP:FAR. A particularly bad example right now is Alzheimer's disease, which I promoted TEN years ago. Both of the original FA writers are gone, and the article is in very bad shape. Just comparing the Table of Contents from the 2008 promoted version to the current Table of Contents gives you an idea of how much unreviewed text the article has taken on, and the field has certainly changed in 10 years.

Same can be said for any of the medical FAs where the original authors have moved on.

When I started working up dementia with Lewy bodies, I was surprised to find that not only was there no article on Parkinson's disease dementia, but it sure isn't linked at Parkinson's disease. But AD is in bad shape, and should either be rewritten or defeatured.

I suspect you will find the same if you look closely at schizophrenia, autism, Asperger syndrome, and both of the multiple sclerosis articles. I have my doubts about Chagas disease, Dengue fever and Huntington's disease as well, but don't see anything obviously wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Update, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you Sandy. I just noticed the WMF (I presume) is paying Google to promote Wikipedia as "the fact-checked online encyclopedia" [22]. I'm looking for a group of articles to submit to independent experts for fact-checking, just to test how well fact-checked Wikipedia is, and thought all of our featured disease articles (as they stand today) might be an appropriate sample. Maybe those plus the same number of randomly-selected disease GAs, Bs and Cs. Not sure. Still thinking about the best approach. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do they specify what they mean by "fact-checked"? There is a whole spectrum of fact-checking quality, and just using the term without qualification does not convey much information and could reasonably be described as "hype" and "click-bait". Some of the facts are checked some of the time would be more accurate. Even in FA reviews I doubt anyone checks every statement, except sometimes maybe the nominator. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a typical Google ad at the top of the search results page, Peter. There's a screenshot here. Hard to read on mobile. It says: "Explore the fact-checked online encyclopedia. Over 40 million articles. 295 languages. Edited by volunteers." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So basically clickbait. As such it is quite possible that Google did it for no reason other than encouraging people to use their search engine, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every one of our medical GAs is in serious trouble (GA has little meaning, one person review), but I think your best shot at fact checking to show the problem just now is the Alzheimer's article. I do wish there were some focus on keeping at least the FAs accurate, or submitting them to FAR, but not the case ... I found a number of deficiencies at attention deficit hyperactivity disorder last month, and that was based on only a quick scan of what I knew (tics). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The GAs are listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Medicine, but unlike the FA list, there is no person in charge of making sure that list is accurate, so I don't know what meaning that list has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answered that question myself: ADHD says it is a Good article, but it is not listed at the Good article page, so ... GA has no oversight, and is only one person's review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted to GA at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&diff=prev&oldid=568864931

Latest review at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/GA1 · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... since I helped develop the original ((Article history)) template and implement its rollout on every FA at the time we developed it (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches), I do know how to check for that data :) Point being, the GA list is not accurate, because ADHD is not listed at WP:GA. I don't participate in GA, so do not know if the bot was supposed to add it, if the reviewer was supposed to add it, if it was added and later deleted, etc ... don't much care, other than pointing out that Anthony can't rely on the GA list as he can the FA list. (For that matter, the last time I audited the FA list was several years ago, and I am not sure if the current delegates audit it as I did.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that would be the case, but as it took me a bit of effort to find them I posted here for those like me who don't know the system inside out. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pbsouthwood, you should always be able to find the link to the event (FAC, FAR, GA, DYK, etc) in the Article milestones, and you can find the article version that goes with that event by clicking on the date next to the event. Assuming the various bots are keeping up with their chores :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the WMF is actually paying Google for that - in fact I think they sensibly avoid any "fact-checked" claim, which they certainly should. Does anyone know differently? Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says it's an ad, John, and that usually means someone has paid for it. But you may be right that WMF didn't pay for it. Maybe a benevolent third party did. Maybe Google gave it to them. (WMF's ED Katherine Maher and Chief Revenue Officer Lisa Gruwell are both telling the big companies that use us to "give back in some way."[23]) Whatever. It's a claim that's likely to mislead and imo shouldn't be made. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the small print. There is a little icon specifying [Ad] and wikipedia.org, not WMF, Wikipedia. Interesting. Who would be able to or be authorised to advertise in Wikipedia's name? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting it. Two things. First, when I google Wikipedia, I don't get that (has it been removed already)? Second, which icon or small print tells me it's an ad? I don't see that in the image ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I'm in Australia and the ad is probably geographically restricted. The green text begins with a square with rounded corners enclosing "ad". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same thinking here. Of more concern ... what do we have to do to get that to stop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised it at wikimedia-l and on Jimbo's talk page. The first two commenters on wikimedia-l seem unconcerned. No one's opined on Jimbo talk. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Par for the course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: and @Anthonyhcole: we have to go through the FAR process for articles that clearly fail criteria - start with the worst one, notify, wait two weeks and if not sufficient response list away. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I try to avoid FARing (or involving myself in FARs) of articles I promoted. And a much better outcome would be for folks here to bring those articles back to standard :( I don't know if this page is accurate, but it appears that they get HUGE amounts of hits, and it would seem that the Medicine Project would want to prioritize maintenance on high-profile medical FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Advances in Aging Research
2. Advances in Alzheimer's Disease
3. Advances in Anthropology
4. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology
5. Advances in Entomology
6. Advances in Enzyme Research
7. Advances in Microbiology
8. Advances in Molecular Imaging
9. Advances in Nanoparticles
10. Advances in Parkinson's Disease
11. Agricultural Sciences (SCIRP journal)
12. American Journal of Molecular Biology
13. CellBio
14. Clinical Practice
15. Computational Molecular Bioscience
16. Food and Nutrition Sciences
17. Food and Nutrition Sciences (SCIRP journal)
18. Frontiers in Bioscience
19. Health (SCIRP journal)
20. Imaging in Medicine
21. International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology
22. International Journal of Organic Chemistry
23. Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science
24. Journal of Biomaterials and Nanobiotechnology
25. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering
26. Journal of Biosciences and Medicines
27. Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications
28. Journal of Modern Physics
29. Journal of Quantum Information Science
30. Journal of Tuberculosis Research
31. Materials Sciences and Applications
32. Microscopy Research
33. Natural Science (journal)
34. Natural science journal
35. Neuropsychiatry (journal)
36. Open Journal of Anesthesiology
37. Open Journal of Ecology
38. Open Journal of Fluid Dynamics
39. Psychology (journal)
40. World Journal of Gastroenterology
41. Category:Allied Academies academic journals
42. Category:Pulsus Group academic journals

See Category:Potential predatory journals.

I think a List of journals accused of being a predatory open access publisher will be a good article. Before it goes live we can create a draft. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad idea. 1/ Will be an enormous list. Beall had over 1000 entries on his list. 2/ Near impossible to maintain. 3/ Magnet for edit warring between supporters and opponents of these journals. Note: Most of the entries in the above list (which is copied from Category:Potential predatory journalswere placed in that cat by me, before giving up). --Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like a challenge. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This would be a huge undertaking. I have no strong feeling for or against, but if you need help I'm in. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to start a draft. I don't know all the sources to cite. If someone else creates it then I will pitch in. Someone who is familiar with the topic can provide sources here. QuackGuru (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I think we need very clear inclusion criteria, one of which should ideally be a secondary source that claims a publication is predatory. I think there is a lot to be said for maintaining such a list, if Quackguru is game. (Conflict of interest: I get spammed on an almost daily basis by predatory publishers wanting me to "submit my research" to them. All because my email address is on Pubmed.) JFW | T@lk 18:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know very little about this topic. I will wait for sources and wait for others to start the draft. We don't need a source that claims a publication *is* predatory. There could be a source that claims a publication maybe a predatory or potentially or other similar words. In other words, we can follow each source accurately and include supported weasel words such as *possible* predatory. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Starting with Beall's list as a reference seems reasonable. Just make sure every item is referenced. One could group them alphabetically. We have larger lists than this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a bad idea. It refers to Beall's list which has been challenged and withdrawn. This list will be out-dated, inaccurate and hedged with weaselly words like "accused", "potential". Yes, those of us who are in academia get invitations all the time to publish in "new" journals and would not aim for this or usually dream of citing them in WP reviews. But occasionally a relevant source may end up in one of them. For instance, World Journal of Gastroenterology has had mistakes along the way but now has an adequate review process and a reasonable impact factor in the top half of Gastro journals. Maybe we should just list journals with citation indices < 1 (or 2 or 20) as Potential low impact journals.Jrfw51 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Including supported weasel words will make it accurate. We can also include a list of journals with a zero impact factor in a separate section. The impact factor for World Journal of Gastroenterology has increased. I'm not sure if this should be included in the list for a new article. QuackGuru (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• For transparency, Jytdog has removed a comment that strongly opposes this idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed a comment that is or is very close to a BLP violation. That they oppose or support is not the issue. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• fwiw i oppose this approach to the issue. i think list articles are generally a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources below. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for draft

Would folks please comment at Talk:Finasteride#Bad_Source? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

commented[24]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ozzie. We do need more voices there. This article is a consistent pain in the butt. Men and their penises, argh. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the feedback and contribution to the article but please keep your judgments to yourself and stick to building an encyclopedia. This is a serious topic that addresses public health concerns.2604:2000:E0CF:5100:1834:939A:68B4:17FE (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Stay serious. Always. Outback the koala (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://osmihelp.org may be interesting to some of the regulars here (e.g., as a potential partner for some projects). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

good source, thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]