Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Template:WPMED Navigation

Please check out my proposed design, and please add your comments whether you support applying it or not here or on my talk page Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is too wide (have to scroll back and forth to see it). Won't work as well on narrow screens (small laptops, large fonts for accessability). How does it rate on accessability tests - suspect won't work well with screen readers. Reduces contrast (less accessible).

Familiar navigation tools (table of contents, ability to jump to section you want) missing. Doesn't follow usual look/layout of other wikiprojects (makes it harder to use). Zodon (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Too wide. Requires left-right scrolling and awkward to read. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support but only because my screen is big enough so I don't have to scroll, and it looks nice. If I had to scroll, I'd hate it too. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, sorry. The style is pseudo two column, and unbalanced, which means it has a lot of blank space. Also, I work with a lot of projects and I find project pages much easier to navigate if their style (and skin?) is the Wikipedia standard, not custom. Imagine if every Wikipedia article could have its own style. Gaak. Let's leave style development for user pages. --Una Smith (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like the format in many ways but if it is not easy to use for everyone than we should stike we what we have.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all for your comments concerning the design, it might gave me some clues about how Wikiproject Medicine should look like, but i have one more question, Do you support redesigning the project page?? or should i stop thinking about that??. Thank you all for your time Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redesign, if your redesign didn't have the problems on narrow screens it would have probably been supported in my opinion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New design has problems. The new design has presentational problems on my screen using Firefox on Ubuntu. Of course, the new page should be tested on different screens, with different browsers, and on different operating systems before it can be rolled out. Clearly, the new design is not ready yet. I think it is better to stay with the current well tested design at the moment. Snowman (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:24, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

We were indeed already subscribed to the alerts. I've added a link to the {{WPMED Navigation}} template so it can be accessed more easily. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that you should give a link to the alert page when you are using the display=none setting.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any guidelines for naming articles related to immunoglobulins? While creating some stubs I noticed that trying to find Ig-related diseases is somewhat challenging as there are no standard naming conventions and inconsistent redirects. I have tried to create a little more organization, but there are still some inconsistencies. Compare Selective immunoglobulin A deficiency and Hyper-IgE syndrome for example. kilbad (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with sticking to the generally-accepted name of the condition? Perhaps I misunderstand, but I don't imagine having WP rename terms in common usage (such as the two you mention). --Scray (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this time I am not proposing how these articles should be named, but simply bringing it up for discussion, particularly the issue of whether an article title should use "Ig" versus "immunoglobulin". kilbad (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MEDMOS dictates that we use ICD-10 unless we have a really good reason not to (as with Tourette syndrome). So we should probably keep "Selective immunoglobulin A deficiency" and rename "Hyper-IgE syndrome". --Arcadian (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with whatever the community wants to do, and will defer renaming to someone else. kilbad (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of overly-specific categorization, but this category scheme strikes me as eminently valuable to the general public, and I'd like to expand it. Any objection to the idea? Off the top of my head, I'd like to add subcats for survivors of Hodgkins & non-Hodgkins, cervical, lung, testicular, and prostate cancers. Thoughts? Maralia (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any category that will move more than a small number of bios out of the unsorted list seems reasonable to me.

However, given that the split between HL and NHL is being dumped in the real world (as it's beyond silly to talk about NHL as if it were a single entity), I oppose that particular set of subcats. On the other hand, if you wanted to create a category for all hematological malignancies together (perhaps with the reader-friendly name of "Leukemias and lymphomas"), then I wouldn't object to that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the existing categories are by location of the cancer; what about histology? Is that known often enough that categorizing notable survivors by it would be useful? Histology is very important for the surveillance and treatment issues, and for the duration of survivorship. --Una Smith (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to improve Oxygen toxicity to become a FAC but I'm not sure of the best way to get a peer review or some constructive criticism as this will be my first experience of the process. Casliber kindly suggested I should mention it here, and I'd be grateful for any advice on the process or the article that I can get. I should add I'm a diver, not a medic, but I've tried my best to adhere to MOSMED. Thanks in advance for any help or advice. --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pointer in a notice at BG monitoring suggesting this proposed merger be discussed here. ? However that may be, here's an opinion.

These are different topics, though with a shared common term. One is a discussion of the homeostatic and physiological function of a food chemical and variants thereof. The other is a clinical topic having ot do with treatment of derangements in the management of that chemical. Too wide a difference to be encompassed in a single WP article. Visions of bloat and poor writing haunt my mind at the prospect.

Oppose merger. ww (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Apparently, the tag is (very) stale. I've removed it, and I think everyone will agree that "no merge" is the right choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles could use a little attention. I've managed to whittle it down from 145 to 94 articles, but I need a break :) Maralia (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, if Tetanized state only occurs in Tetanus...should they be merged? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although this particular task seems neither important nor urgent, since Maralia asked I did a few. --Una Smith (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As far as importance and urgence, breast cancer could use some work... :) Maralia (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Most of the cancer articles are important and at least somewhat urgent. I find them heartbreaking to work on, but I do as much there as I can. --Una Smith (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on that category here and there for months. (It used to number in the thousands.) A couple of new articles get added to it every week. Thanks for your help! WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cat is down to 36 at the moment. A few points to those new to this game:

• The details are at WP:MEDA.
• WPMED does not tag the talk pages of redirects.
• WikiProject Anatomy is the right project to support all human anatomy pages: Please remove WPMED unless there's some significant disease/treatment information in the article.
• All articles about medications should be tagged for WikiProject Pharmacology (could be both projects if there's non-trivial disease information in the article).

Questions can be left here or at WP:MEDA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK folks, an IP with this edit, has given an explanation on my talk page.

My take in reverting was to use plainer english wherever possible for technical terms as long as no meaning is lost. However the IP has noted an emotive implication which I hadn't thought of. So which term do we prefer here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the more precise term, which in most cases would be fetus. "Unborn baby" can also refer to an embryo. Especially in the case of in vitro fertilization, when the embryos are frozen. Also, some people who want to be parents may include in the concept "unborn baby" all the babies they have not yet conceived. --Una Smith (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue arose in the page on Lorazepam and was with reference to a foetus in the first trimester of pregnancy. I think that most people would recognise the word foetus as being appropriate in lay or other usage to refer to a foetus during this stage of development. My explanation in favour of using the word "foetus" is based on my understanding of the usage of the term foetus in the UK and is different to the IPs expressed explanation. However, with regard to the IP's explanation of an unintended implication of the phrase "unborn baby" added in a good faith edit; perhaps, using the term "unborn baby" for a foetus in the first trimester of pregnancy could be something some people are understandably sensitive to for a variety of reasons including the point of view expressed by the IP. I think "unborn baby" has a slightly less precise meaning than "foetus". It is a wiki policy to use neutral language, and I think using precise neutral language here would avoid any unintended interpretations. Snowman (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I'm going to pull a line from WP:ENGVAR which also deals with viciously controversial multiple acceptable ways to say the same thing: unless a compelling reason can be found to change it, keep it the way it was. Whether the volume of controversy over the word choice question that's being introduced into the article can be silenced with precedent over pedantic spelling differences is beyond me, but there is a precedent. SDY (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During most of the 1st trimester it is an embryo, not a fetus, and "unborn baby" is very loaded. --Una Smith (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for part of the time it is an embryo and part of the time it is an foetus. Incidentally, I do not know what SDY is saying. Snowman (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More or less, if we have a question about potentially controversial choice when both choices are equally (un)acceptable, there is a precedent for how we deal with them (albeit one that has nothing to do with medicine). SDY (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, that is not the situation here, as we clearly have options that are much better than others. What is the precedent anyway? Snowman (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood the original statement then. The WP:ENGVAR policy deals with national varieties of English (i.e. fetus and foetus) where some editors have passionate beliefs about "spelling it right" (i.e. no difference in meaning, just presentation). It has some specific recommendations about how to deal with the issue. SDY (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware no one here is concerned about using the UK or USA spellings, foetus or fetus, which are being used interchangeably is this discussion and in the USA version in the article without controversy. Snowman (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling is obviously irrelevant. That there's already a policy that deals with bikeshedesque changes in article wording was why I brought it up. My interpretation of the OP's comments was that someone was changing wording without changing the meaning, analogous to a spelling change. SDY (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for refering to wording that started this discussion. I note that the introductory explanation may have been misleading and sent you thinking along the wrong way. I do not know why the introduction was phrased the was it was, because arguably the meaning had changed. Generally speaking, and not refering to this discussion, may I say, that it is always better to study the discussion and read the linked quotes, just in case someone is applying spin or made a mistake. Snowman (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) When you're specifically talking about the first trimester, then fetus/foetus is inaccurate and should not be used. Humans are embryos for the first eight weeks after conception: the fetal stage does not appear until the last couple of weeks of the first trimester. Consequently, "unborn baby" is actually more accurate (as it has a much more flexible definition). If it needs to sound science-y, the alternative is to talk about the "embryo/fetus", which is dreadful writing style.

For most articles (i.e., specifically excluding articles about elective abortions, where "baby" somehow implies a morally significant being deserving of human rights, instead of an early stage in the growth of the sort of mammal that has 46 chromosomes), I might switch back and forth between "fetus" or "embryo" (whichever was technically correct) and "unborn baby". The technical terms can link to the appropriate page on human development, and the non-technical term can help less-educated readers figure out what we're talking about.

As an aside, fetus is becoming an emotive term: I've seen parents showing off ultrasound photos and gushing about how cute "the fetus" is in exactly the same tone that happy grandmothers have gushed about babies for generations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 1st trimester refers to the pregnancy, which by convention begins on LMP, the first day of the last menstrual period. In the absence of other evidence, conception is assumed to occur 3 weeks after LMP, so the embryo is 8 weeks old in week 11 of the pregnancy. No one much cares unless it is a difficult pregnancy, when this can be a matter of life or death. --Una Smith (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on previous discussions, "baby in the womb" or "during the first trimester of the babies development", or "during the first trimester of foetal development" would probably be better than "unborn baby". Snowman (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed back to "unborn baby", and I have changed it to "developing baby" which I hope will be ok for everyone. It seems to me to be quite readable with "developing baby" and is a appropriate as the drug could affect development. Snowman (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. In fact, I think it an improvement over the other suggestions (including mine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...yeah, I am happy with 'developing baby'...anyone wanna guess how many articles one could slot in 'developing baby' for 'fetus/foetus' ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase may be best left for those points where development is the specific issue, or where fetus is inaccurate. I think fetus is acceptable when it actually describes a fetus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Developing baby" generally works for me too. --Una Smith (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing - yeah I had meant to clarify that and your interpretation is what I meant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more interesting and more relevant to think about how many times "developing baby" might be used as a more appropriate phrase in the place of "unborn baby" on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) interesting...hmm..a doptone? Never heard of that name for it (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A doptone is usually called a Sonicaid or something like "hand held ultrasound" in the UK. Anyway, not to get sidetracked, it seems that "Unborn baby" redirects to "Fetus". Is there there a better target for the wiki page "Unborn baby" to be redirect to? or should the page "Unborn baby" be a dab, or article. Snowman (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key question then is whether the lay term "unborn baby" is equal to the more technical "fetus". If so then a redirect is most prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think "Unborn baby" and "Foetus" are not equivalent; see discussion in the section "Redirect" below. Snowman (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unborn baby" currently redirects to "Fetus". The key question is what to do with the page at "Unborn baby". It could be a redirect to somewhere, or it could be a dab page, or an article. Snowman (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently dabs at The Unborn and Unborn child and there are probably other pages I have not noticed yet. The wiktionary has an entry for "unborn" but not "unborn baby". I think that the wiki page "unborn baby" could redirect to the dab "Unborn child", however, I am sure there are other options, Which is the best option? Snowman (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dab at Unborn child does the job of differentiating between embryo and fetus quite concisely, so I would go for a redirect of unborn baby there. Wikitionary is unlikely to accept "unborn baby" (since it is the sum of the parts wikt:unborn + wikt:baby) unless someone can make a really good case there that it carries extra meaning as a combination. I'd suggest Unborn infant probably ought to redirect to the dab at Unborn child as well. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect "Unborn baby" to Prenatal development is another option, which is has become my first choice. I have nominated this as a change of redirect for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 29. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like that choice better than Fetus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect's new target is Prenatal development. Snowman (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, works for me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Based on this consensus and an apparent consensus at RfD, I have just made about 12 edits to tidy up a few redirects and dab pages. Anyone is welcome to scrutinize these changes, make improvements, or to report any controversies. Snowman (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created Developing baby as a redirect to Prenatal development. At present, there are no links to Developing baby. --Una Smith (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and illness probably needs a new name. I think that it's supposed to be about whether being male or female makes you more or less likely to get this or that disease, but it's also partly a disambiguation page (to explain that "sex" doesn't mean "sexual activity" in this case, and that the page on STIs is elsewhere). Gender has been relegated to psychological status, so Influence of sex on health, maybe? Any other ideas? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about: Gender bias in disease? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems clear to me. Snowman (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Influence of sex on health" seems ambiguous to me, because it could imply sex as a behaviour or sex as a physical gender. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-specific illness might be an idea to. It is also mentioned in the lead sentence. I see that it is already a redirect to that page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the page is quite a general page. It includes all sorts of influences of physical gender or chromosomes on illness. Currently it might need a long title like "Factors influencing differences in disease rates between males and females". Snowman (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and illness? Gender-based risk of illness Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As WhatamIdoing said above, "gender" is becoming a psychological construct, whereas "sex" is biologically determined (there are, of course, differences of opinion on this). It's important to note that pharmacology and surgery can blur these distinctions, so "illness and sex" might deal with more biological mechanisms, whereas "illness and gender" might address more behavioral/psychological/epidemiological issues. --Scray (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with Sex-specific illness is that the article is mostly about "Sex-semi-specific illnesses", if you will -- not "Prostate cancer only occurs in men", but "Lupus is more common in women".

The term "sex-based" (stealing Casliber's notion) might be useful, as it's unlikely to be confused with sexual activities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Sex differences in health, Sex differences in disease or Sex differences in illness? (e.g. Center for the Study of Sex Differences in Health, Aging and Disease) Admittedly this would exclude covering similarities in health or illness between the sexes (which would fit under the current title), but the content so far seems to be focusing on the differences. Zodon (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and gender-based disparities in health? Or individual Sex-based disparites in health and Gender-based disparities in health. Sex-based would cover biological differences and gender would cover social aspects. Although we do already have a Health disparities article which only goes into race, class, and socioeconomic status it largely ignores sex and gender. But health disparities could be the main article with this one the sub-article.-Optigan13 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex bias in disease? --Una Smith (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While disparity is listed as a synonym for difference, disparities might tend to connote differences from equality (dis-parity). Which may be apropos for Healthcare inequality, but it is not clear that apropos for this article. (e.g., No reason that one would expect men to have as much ovarian cancer as women.)

As far as relation between this article and health disparities - if anything sex/gender based health disparities would seem to be a subtopic under sex differences in health.

So far the health disparities article deals primarily with differences resulting from socioeconomic factors, rather than genetics and physiology.

Not sure about bias - seems rather anthropomorphising, or again as if there was reason to expect equality (e.g. statistical bias).

By the way, Google search for "Sex differences in health" 41,700 hits Zodon (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's "bias" in the technical sense, here a result of sex linkage, which suggests Sex-linked disease. --Una Smith (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like that title. Any objections to Sex-linked disease?

Interestingly, we also have an article, Alcohol and sex, that uses the other meaning of sex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like sex-linked disease would preclude talking about issues of healthcare inequality. (At least if taken in a strict interpretation, as sex linkage.) Also sex-linked disease gets even fewer Google hits (11,000) than Sex differences in health.

So it partly depends on what the article is to be about - just those differences that have been shown to result from genetic difference between males and females (sex-specific illness). Just those differences that result from cultural and environmental factors. A mix of the two.

Currently the article appears to be about differences that may arise from genetics, from culture/environment, or mix of the two. If that is to remain the topic, then not clear that sex-linked is good title for it. Zodon (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I guess I think that health is different from healthcare: You can be perfectly healthy with zero healthcare, and entirely unhealthy with ideal healthcare. I'd put those subjects in different articles, but other editors might make different choices.

BTW, we appear to need a merge (or a rational split) between Health disparities and Healthcare inequality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Neuropathy and Neuronopathy the same thing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should both probably be merged into Peripheral neuropathy. --Arcadian (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

never heard the latter term at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dorland's IIlustrated Medical Dictionary, "neuronopathy" is "polyneuropathy involving the destruction of cell bodies of neurons". "Neuropathy" is "a functional disturbance of pathological change in the peripheral nervous system, sometimes limited to noninflammatory lesions as opposed to those of neuritis". Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of Narcissism (psychology) into Narcissism, join the fun at Talk:Narcissism#Merger_proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok folks, what should we do with Doptone - merge it to...what Medical ultrasonography? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article for it at Doppler fetal monitor, which already contains all of the information in Doptone. I'd just put File:Doptone.jpg in Doppler fetal monitor and then redirect Doptone. Doppler fetal monitor has very few links to it, and sections (or list items) about Doppler fetal monitors should be added to Medical ultrasonography, Obstetric ultrasonography, Prenatal care, and Obstetrics. --Scott Alter 13:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, a fine choice my good sir. Go for thy life for I must to sleep..... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doptone seems to originate as a trade name for a doppler fetal monitor, made by Smith-Kline in 1965. It should be mentioned in Doppler fetal monitor for sure. However, as both Medical ultrasonography and Obstetric ultrasonography are defined in their lead as "imaging techniques" or "visualisation", perhaps their "See also" sections would be most accurate place to link to Doppler fetal monitor. --RexxS (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the articles, but did not add any information on the history. I'd like to see a more complete account for the device's history from an authoritative source. I also put links to this article from prenatal care, medical ultrasonography, and obstetric ultrasonography. --Scott Alter 14:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

. At Featured picture candidates, a diagram of a hand and wrist is being reviewed. It's high quality and appears accurate, but feedback would be appreciated on accuracy (for us of non-medical backgrounds). Cheers. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

I have proposed new text for intro on consciousness article on the related discussion pages. I think that I managed to articulate it in line with the latest findings in psychology and neurology, but would like others to review it and comment.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed an anon placing a link to this database in a large number of articles. See for example Severe combined immunodeficiency, or any of the list of contributions. While the links are relevant to the pages concerned, they would appear to fail WP:ELNO, particularly the clause which reads:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Shall I warn the user and roll back the links as spam?-gadfium 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't warn them as if it appears to be in good-faith. Can't go wrong with informing them of their mistake, though. Cyclonenim :  Chat  00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them a note explaining that the link doesn't meet the guideline, and rolled back the edits.-gadfium 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just wondering if any surgerons are out there. Maybe they are all too busy. Must be some retired ones though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any surgeons around for some time. For some reason, there are more internists than surgeons around on Wikipedia (and internists are just as busy!) I totally agree that a surgery taskforce would be appropriate, but only if there's enough people around to deal with the article maintenance! JFW | T@lk 22:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should these articles be merged? If so, I will defer the move to someone else. kilbad (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across an article about a doctoe, Rashid M. Rashid, and it looks like a résumé/CV to me. Therefore, I wanted to know what doctors are considered notable? Is this article appropriate for wikipedia? kilbad (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We usually use WP:PROF as a guideline. It won't fit perfectly for non-academic physicians, but the principles are generally adaptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Chrysalis count for national award? Does not look like a CV as a check on pubmed revealed a high volume of work. Only some of the more unique appear listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrysalisowner (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great debate. I guess you have to question a few things:

a) what is a primary source. In this case, I do not think a peer-reviewed manuscript is primary as it has to go through a review process both legal and scientific. At least in some of the medical articles (other then letters to the editor that are commentary), these are all that is available on certain rare diseases. Furthermore, it is not like you can pay a journal to publish your work if it does not meet the criteria of significance for the fields journal. It is not pay-to-publish.

b) impact. when dealing with a small field (dermatology) with many rare diseases and even more rare treatment options, it may be more appropriate to determine impact via how recognized publications are in the literature. This is a specialty notorious for rarity, and so many reports are only on case or case-series basis. When managing such patients, it really is about whos articles are most often read/cited. Especially in reviews. So if an article on a rare disease is cited in numerous other articles, no matter how "small" the original article was it obviously was of significance to the other authors in the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primarypp (talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you've asked (a), but the Wikipedia article is at primary source, and the concept's relationship to the verifiability policy is at WP:PRIMARY. WP:PROF doesn't care whether a person has written solely primary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems like medical journals qualify for (a). As stated "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is."

It is more an issue of recognition and relevance to the field as stated in (b). One of the few ways to recognize this fact may be citation by others. Of course this will be field dependent. I am board certified in internal medicine AND dermatology. In internal medicine we have larger reviews/studies due to larger disease base in the population and so it is harder to achieve relevance without major changes in observation/managmet. In dermatology, it is very different. In fact, sometimes one or 2 reports, no matter the size, lead to complete alteration of management strategies. The main reason seems to be due to small disease base in the population and the resultant rarity in geographic locals, preventing the standard larger studies seen in other fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have three brand-new accounts here (Welcome to Wikipedia!), let me explain something about the two policies that seems to be confusing:

• WP:N, or notability (of which WP:BIO and WP:PROF are variants that apply the principles to specific sub-types of articles), answers this question: "Should Wikipedia have an article at all about this person?"
• WP:NOR, or no original research (of which WP:PRIMARY is one section), answers this question: "Since we've already decided to have an article about this person, what can we say in it without making stuff up ourselves?"

WP:N is trying to keep the encyclopedia from, say, getting filled up with vanity pages about middle-school students.

WP:NOR is trying to keep the encyclopedia from being filled up with made-up nonsense. In particular, here at the doctors' mess, we want people to avoid putting together two unrelated case studies on different subjects and then concluding that ____ is obviously the One True™ Treatment for a medical condition.

Once you've decided to have an article on a subject, you're completely finished with considerations of notability. Individual sources do not have to be notable; individual facts do not have to be notable.

The facts (but not sources) shouldn't be trivia, however, because an article full of random-but-true facts would be low quality. So instead of notability, you move on to a third policy, WP:NPOV, or neutrality, and specifically the section WP:DUE, or due weight. The point of this policy is to have articles be about what's important. For example, if someone is important because of their medical work, then the article should be primarily about medical work, not about his grandkids or his garden. There is no similar policy for sources: we like high-quality reliable sources, but an otherwise "unimportant" source could be a perfectly good source for a given fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of advice for new editors:

• When you leave a message on a talk page like this, type ~~~~ after it. That will insert your name at the end of the message. (If you don't, the bot will eventually do it for you, but it makes you look like you know what you're doing.)
• If the three accounts listed on this page don't quite represent three individual people, then please pick your favorite account and stick with it. Using multiple accounts to make your opinion look like it's supported by several editors (1) doesn't fool anyone [all experienced editors defaultly assume that all new accounts in the same discussion are the same person, even when it's not true, because it's so often true], (2) doesn't matter, because we care about best complying with policies instead of counting up votes, and (3) can get all the accounts blocked under WP:SOCK. There are sometimes good reasons to change accounts (forgot the password, decided you didn't like the old name, etc.), and that's fine: nobody's mad, and we want you to keep editing.
• If any of you happen to be the person whose bio is under consideration, or connected to him, that's okay, too. We have rules about not abusing a conflict of interest, but we're not going to kick you off of Wikipedia if you play straight with us. Someone connected to a subject is often very helpful, as s/he often knows about published sources that no one else can find. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it sounds like the notability issue is resolved as it seems the articles are notable, are in good sources. In this case, it seems like wording and format are an issue now. I will try and work on this. If it helps to declare conflicts of interest or familiarity, I am in Dermatology so in the case of this article I did some editing to make sure only the more recognized citations are listed i.e those cited by others. Thanks Skinobs (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have apparently been unclear. The fact that Dr Rashid's own publications would typically be considered reliable sources does not mean that either he or his individual publications should have an article on Wikipedia ("notable").

"We should have an article about Dr Rashid" is a completely separate consideration from "This source should be in the footnotes." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashid M. Rashid and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew C. Miller. Seems all Texan dermatologists are famous now. JFW | T@lk 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rather odd comment, wolf. I will say if notable=famous then this article does NOT count. It seems like the only objective and well explained person here is WhatamIdoing and it is much appreciated. The publications are notable, not so sure the doctor is, so WhatamIdoing makes a good point and appears to be one of the few that read the whole article and the comments about it. I think someone more like WhatamIdoing or another Dermatologist should chime in for discussion. It would help. I can find nothing else on this person and will no longer add anything else, if it is to be deleted, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am prone to odd comments. Bear with me. The same user created a raft of articles about Texan dermatologists, some of whom simply not notable by encyclopedic criteria. It is not up to dermatologists to decide whether these people are notable. This is about notability, as WhatamIdoing has explained so succinctly. Indeed, the more reliable sources one has published the higher the chance that someone is notable, but this is not automatic. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is the challenge. I was able to verify the publication of the manuscripts, all 30 something are in peer reviewed journals that are notable and verifiable. I deleted ALL but the ones cited by others, and seem to play a larger central role in orphan disease understanding, characterization, and management as emphasized by unrelated authors from other countries and institutions. So it seems that the material IS notable, BUT like you said, it is not clear the author is notable. I have given up searching further, but am following the debate for curiosity. It does make me wonder about silly thins like movie stars. They are notable because of the movie, without the move, their is no star. So is it really the fact that people "talk" about the movie that really matters. This is odd because in such a case it sounds more like a popularity contest then one of contribution to society, literature and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointless to have an article on every doctor who has published 30 or more medical papers if not very many people know them because no one is really going to look them up. Also there are policies regarding living person's. Articles on living person's need to be monitor to avoid slander or defamation occuring. Articles on people who aren't widely known are unlikely to be monitored for vandalism or defamation etc. There are lots of reasons why it is a bad idea to have an article on someone who is not widely known outside of his research papers and place of work, too many reasons to list. Anyway this policy has been shaped over years of debate on wikipedia and is not likely to change much in the near future regarding what constitutes notability. Please remember to click on the in the editor panel before saving the page on talk pages like this so we know who is leaving messages.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point and I agree. I leave it to the wiki process to determine what happens. I havent given too much time to this so it isnt too bad either way. I guess I was just trying to emphasize articles that lead to insight and other novel concepts. But again, this is a good democratic process and I defer to the system. --Skinobs (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of fact: I'm not a dermatologist (or any sort of physician), and I technically haven't even read more than two sentences in the article about Dr Rashid. But I'm glad that my explanations made some sense to you.

Wikipedia's policies and processes are complex, and can seem maddeningly arbitrary until you've had enough experience to grasp the overarching goals. We really need more dermatologists, so I hope that you'll stick around despite the frustrations. WP:DERM would love to have another knowledgeable person on board. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DERM would LOVE another knowledgeable person on board ;) kilbad (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I have everyones' attention about this issue, (1) there are multiple dermatologist articles that I think lack notability, and so I wanted to know if perhaps someone would review Category:Dermatologists and weed through which are notable and which are not, and (2) I think a general category "dermatologists" is needed, but not necessarily subcats based on nationality... what do you think? kilbad (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stared work on expanding Hyperthermia therapy, which I've focused on the cancer treatment. (Heat therapy is now the place for all other uses of heat as a medical treatment.)

What I've done so far is to move a bunch of information about "hot cancer treatments" from other articles into this one (plus adding some basic summaries based on the NCI FAQ). I've merged most of what I could, but there are probably still more out there. Most of them are practicallly unsourced, and a few, like Oncothermia, have been very company-specific and promotional in nature.

Two hours ago, Hyperthermia therapy was a one-sentence stub. With some attention to proper references, I think it's going to be a good candidate for WP:DYK — assuming, of course, that we'd like to be on the front page enough to get a bit more work done before the five-day timer passes. I think this topic has something for everyone, because it includes everything from cutting-edge research to complete quackery, so I'm hoping to find a partner or two.

I'm going to be offwiki for a few hours, but if you're interested, please drop by and do what you can. If you don't want to help write, but you've got a list of favorite sources, or know of yet another article that needs to be merged and redirected into this one, please feel free to share your thoughts on the article's talk page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the Acrocyanosis worth a merger? kilbad (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the hyposensitization be moved/renamed to allergy immunotherapy or allergen specific immunotherapy? The term hyposensitisation is not a common terminology used hence why I think that it should be renamed. I am posting here because there don't seem to be many active editors on that article.

Also the benzodiazepine article is up for review for good article status if anyone has the time to review it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move to allergen immunotherapy; Immunologic Desensitization and Hyposensitization therapy are both MeSH terms, but rarely used in core clinical journals during the last five years. I favor allergen-specific immunotherapy but this term appears to be used less frequently based on a PubMed test. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goesgolf20 has moved Central obesity to Abdominal Fat. Yes with a capital F. Changed things back and he reverted it again. Think we will need some discussion on this.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is taking place at Talk:Abdominal_Fat#Issue --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have agreed to move it to Abdominal obesity. If an admin could do this it would be much appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move has happened. Zodon (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Asperger syndrome #Asperger photo about the suitability of a non-free image of Asperger with one of his subjects. Any input would be appreciated. Eubulides (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can people with some knowledge of the subject take a pass at National Board of Medical Examiners, and possibly also Federation of State Medical Boards. The first one was proposed for deletion. I deprodded it and dropped some references in, it looks like a notable organisation, but I'm out of depth and it could use subject specific experts. As could the latter, which looks to be in a bit of a mess. Cheers, Hiding T 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out at WP:FTN#Repetitive strain injury, this article has been hijacked by some folks with an agenda, and will probably need cooperative efforts to fix. Expert eyes would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a section of uncited text. His theory is very dubious and he takes the mind body, psychosomatic theory of physical symptoms to the extreme and think it is reaching WP:FRINGE standards or lack of. I think someone is promoting a book, perhaps it is Dr Sarno himself doing the editing to try and sell his book? I commented on the talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read part of this book. It is popular right now. He basically says that all disease is psychosomatic. It is complete garbage.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at Medical analysis of circumcision and I have some concerns. Maybe it is just me but it seems kind of confusing for the general reader. Most topics read like a medical journal article - citing primary sources and whatnot. I am not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on this, in regards style and eligibility for the general reader though , so could someone with more experience comment on the article?

The guideline (not policy) that you are looking for is WP:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl 13:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The gentleman Michael Gibson who operates wikidocs[1] is interested in combining wikidoc with wikipedia or at least working more closely with wikipedia. I think that this would be a wonderful idea. They are under the same license as wikipedia but have tighter security with respect to vandalism. They are also written more for a medical audience. Not sure if it would be best to attach it as a sister project or combine much of the information into wikipedia ( as that is were much of the information comes from in the first place ). I have brought the disucssion to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Anyone have any thoughts?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at some articles and 99% of info was from previous versions of wikipedia; and in the mean time such articles here have greatly improved while they have not in wikidocs... The only possible collaboration would be if they pointed out any content they had that here we did not and we could add it; since the other way is almost everything. Our quality is much above that of wikidocs. --Garrondo (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidoc was introduced with much fanfare and without any consultation with this WikiProject. The vast majority of its editorial board are cardiologists, leading to a likely imbalance in the quality and quantity of the content. It still strikes me as odd that none of these eminent people seem to have made an attempt to participate here, which would have been so very beneficial. JFW | T@lk 09:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to infectious, dermatology-related categories, there is the following:

• Infectious skin diseases

• Bacterial skin diseases

• Mycobacterial skin diseases

• Mycotic skin diseases
• Parasitic infestations, stings, and bites of the skin
• Viral skin diseases

However, while I like the general structure of this categorization, there is some lack of precision in the names. First, "Mycotic skin diseases" contains articles about fungi and yeast. Second, all of these categories may contain conditions not only of the skin, but also the mucous membranes. Finally, there are times when certainly bacteria colonize the skin without causing disease, so I think "condition" should be used over "disease." With all that being said, how would you name all these categories? kilbad (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with "mycotic", but I'd recommending pushing "mycobacterial" under "bacterial". --Arcadian (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I edited the structure above. kilbad (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the question is about "Mycotic skin diseases" - would assume should be relating to all fungi, so makes sense that yeast would be there. (Or is it that want to subdivide mycotic skin diseases into separate subsecategories for yeast vs. other fungi?) Zodon (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the term "Mycotic" encompass yeast? kilbad (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Arcadian (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How should these category names be worded such that the inclusion of conditions affecting the skin and mucous membranes is appropriate? kilbad (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I've allowed myself to be sucked into a rather lengthy exchange with an AIDS denialist at Talk:Zidovudine. Leaving aside the sound and fury, the issue is whether AZT's affinities for various enzymes should be described using the words in vitro. My feeling is that all affinity measurements are performed in vitro, so adding the phrase is redundant and perhaps misleading (in that it implies the affinities do not hold in vivo). Things have sort of degenerated, so I'd welcome any comment, even if it's just to say that I'm making a mountain out of a harmless molehill. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this stuff and therefore am an eminently qualified "casual" reader. Could a compromise be to include in vitro followed by "as are all (enzyme) affinity measurements" -- or something like that? Some resolution seems required, as there are already many pages of repetitive argument and though personal attacks so far are minimal, they may escalate. - Hordaland (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs at Talk:Zidovudine. The pages of discussion have involved just a couple of editors, and a discussion involving more editors may actually help bring about resolution if consensus can be established. --Scray (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if I can entice anyone to join me at the obesity page to do some editing. Currently it is a FAC however still needs some work on prose which is not my strong point. Obesity was the 837th most viewed page on Wikipedia this last month. http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikipedia/en/ --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the term "thrush" a term used strictly for oral candidiasis, or is it a more general term for candidiasis of any mucous membrane (vaginal, etc)? I have a secondary source, Andrew's (see WP:DERM:REF for full ref) that seems to indicate that "thrush" is a term used strictly for oral candidiasis. I ask because I want to know where Thrush (medicine) should redirect? kilbad (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a vaginal yeast infection, or balantis in male. Thrush is only for the mouth in my opinion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other types of thrush: yeast infection of the breast (common in nursing mothers); (yeast?) infection of the sole of the hoof in horses. I think Thrush (medicine) should be a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from my source, do we have any other reliable secondary sources stating thrush is something other than oral candidiasis? kilbad (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In UK (at least) Thrush when talking to an adult woman would always imply vaginal candidiasis, and when referring to a baby either oral infection or nappy rash. For a selection of sources re candidial vulvovaginitis see Patient.co.uk article which is cited by National Library for Health, BBC information page on thrush STI, a women's support group leaflet[2], branded clotrimazole manufacturer's UK webpage [3]. Synonymous terms confirmed per Cochrane review Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush). For "nappy thrush" again from a Patient.co.uk article [4], Trip Database (data-mining site used by NHS) provided link on "nappy thrush" to Australian State of Victoria infosheet which lists one factor as "Thrush (candida)"[5]. David Ruben ^Talk 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I agree with Una Smith that Thrush (medicine) should be a disambiguation page. Does someone want to tackle this? kilbad (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that in almost every page, causes for medical conditions are listed without any concern for statistical likelyhood.

Example: "heart failure" and "Nasopharyngeal carcinoma" are listed as causes for epistaxis(nose bleed) on the same level as "foreign bodies" (e.g. nose-picking). I do not agree with this policy. The first two above-mentioned conditions are extremely rare and ARE highly unlikely causes for epistaxis (which is a very common occurrence), when compared to nose-picking or even inflammatory reactions. All this will achieve is to concern people with a nose bleed that they may have cancer or heart failure, which is ridiculous.

Other example: "Vertigo" can be caused (on the same basis, according to wikipedia) by "boat travels", "consumption of alchool", "inflammation of the inner-ear" (a rather common cause) or "opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome"(extremely rare!)

The list goes on and on.

This is very poor, and may bring great damage and anxiety to many people who see Wikipedia as a reliable and accurate source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umgambit (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that most medical articles lack this very important information, but the cause is not lack of concern but rather lack of reliable sources for this information. You can help by doing literature searches, so that what information does exist gets into the articles. --Una Smith (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer Una Smith. But most of the information you mention already exists within Wikipedia. For instance, if you check opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome, you will learn that it affect 1 in every 10.000.000 individuals each year. To put this side-by-side with "inflammation of the inner-ear" as possible cause for vertigo is just plain silly by any standard (even if you don't have the exact reliable numbers). This kind of practices should be banned from wikipedia pages: as I mentionned before, this is not an isolated case, a great number of wiki medical related articles suffer from the same kind of incongruence.

My main concern are the persons without medical training that read this kind of information.