User talk:Zad68/Archive 2013 Apr

Breast Cancer screening

You can also use this as the reference [[1]] last edited dated Oct 2012, so please correct your error in BC screening.32cllou (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Will continue this content discussion at the article Talk page. Zad68 19:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits on osteoarthritis

What about the first statement don't you like? I have stopped editing. I read the abstracts and I read them to say exactly what I wrote. Please clarify.Sthubbar (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, let me review and then let's pick it up at the article Talk page. Zad68 17:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bold edit on osteoarthritis

Zad68, thanks for the bold editing of the OA article. Good job. I give you one of those stars or awards when I figure out how to do that.Sthubbar (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

LGBT Parenting

I did work to build consensus; No one has objected. If you remove per WP:LEAD, you should also remove the FL. Court's reference too. I support putting an analysis within the article matching my edits to the lead. jj (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You are correct the IP's edit needs to be removed per WP:LEAD, I didn't notice the other WP:LEAD problem and will remove it under the same principle as necessary. I'll keep an eye on the article Talk page, the last I saw was support to remove a bunch of primary studies and I didn't see that happen. Zad68 16:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you already removed the Florida case, absolutely 100% agree with your removal of it. This stuff needs to be developed in the article body and probably this court-case-by-court-case stuff should not be in the lead at all, at least not until it's demonstrated any one of them has a huge, lasting impact. Zad68

Glad we agree. I moved it to its proper place. I would like to invite you to keep an eye on the talk page-- not that many people contribute, so it's hard to build consensus. jj (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

a cup of tea from Scray dated 04:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list

Not sure I am doing this right

I got a message from you that I am spamming by putting in commercial links. While the site is commercial, the individual pages I am linking to are information about bed bugs, etc., not spam. I don't know how to message you about this as I am not so good at Wikipedia and finding out how to message someone is at least a day long project. I don't mean to spam, but mean to provide people with information about preventing bed bugs--a serious problem in NYC! Lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldmerriam (talk • contribs) 14:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lisa, yes it's a problem to use a commercial website as a source like that. Can you find an independent, academic source for the same information? Zad68 14:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you please help me

adding reliable sources to my article? I have no idea how to do it! thanks Anna Karolina Heinrich (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Be careful here, Waldemar Olszewski isn't your article, it's Wikipedia's article. Why are more sources needed? Is there content in the article that needs more or better sourcing? Zad68 18:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Burn

Attempted to address a number of the concerns. Will be a couple of weeks I think before the TBC 4th arrives. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, will look over next day or so. I saw you pointed out some spots where what I was saying might be what some would consider "wrong". I guess it's possible... Zad68 03:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Cancer Biomarker

Thanks for your help Zad! (Not even sure if this is the right place to thank you).

I'll be doing a lot more work to the cancer biomarker page in the hours to come.

Quick Question when citing things is it better to cite them this way:

While numerous challenges exist in translating biomarker research into the clinical space; a number of gene and protein based biomarkers have already been approved for use in patient care; including, AFP (Liver Cancer), BCR-ABL (Chronic Myeloid Leukemia), BRCA1 / BRCA2 (Breast/Ovarian Cancer), BRAF V600E (Melanoma/Colorectal Cancer), CA-125 (Ovarian Cancer) , CA19.9 (Pancreatic Cancer), CEA (Colorectal Cancer), EGFR (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), HER-2 (Breast Cancer), KIT (Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor), PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen), S100 (Melanoma), and many others. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

Or this:

While numerous challenges exist in translating biomarker research into the clinical space; a number of gene and protein based biomarkers have already been approved for use in patient care; including, AFP (Liver Cancer)[1], BCR-ABL (Chronic Myeloid Leukemia)[2], BRCA1 / BRCA2 (Breast/Ovarian Cancer)[3], BRAF V600E (Melanoma/Colorectal Cancer)[4], CA-125 (Ovarian Cancer)[5], CA19.9 (Pancreatic Cancer)[6], CEA (Colorectal Cancer)[7], EGFR (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer)[8], HER-2 (Breast Cancer)[9], KIT (Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor)[10], PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen)[11], S100 (Melanoma)[12], and many others.

Second seemed more correct, but looked fairly unwieldy.

Afhaque (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You got the right place! The first one (sort of) looks better but has WP:INTEGRITY issues, click on that link to read about what I mean. The second is uglier but more precise. Honestly what should actually happen at that article is: You should add paragraphs of sourced information to the body of the article covering each biomarker. Then in the lead you just put the content you have written without any references. Most often, the lead does not need references, the references are in the article body and the lead just summarizes the body. Hope that helps, feel free to ask any more questions! Also feel free just to go ahead and add the sourced content any way you see fit, and then other editors like me and Yobol will come by later and do all the little picky Wikipedia cleanup and formatting for you. Don't let the Wikipedia minutiae get in the way of what you're writing! Zad68 03:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Makes a lot of sense to avoid referencing until the body of the wiki. Thanks! And I won't think of minutiae for the time being... I think its just an OCD sort of thing. Afhaque (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Iqaluit

Thanks. I wouldn't really say we are too close to Iqaluit. Thankfully. And thanks for reverting my user page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's a relative "close", and no problem. I'll surely be asking you how cold it is there this winter! Zad68 04:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Need for secondary sources and need for objectivity

About [2], I wasn't aware of those guidelines, thank you for pointing them to me. However, I still feel that the formulation of this section is biased in favour of circumcision. In its current state, this paragraph is self-contradictory: according to itself, there is at least one secondary source that concludes that circumcision can affect sexuality in negative ways so a blunt “circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction” is wrong.

I understand that the sources from (fr) don't quite fit, but do you agree that a reformulation is needed here to signal that there is an ongoing controversy on this topic?

Evpok (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am composing a reply right now, one moment please... Zad68 18:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Evpok, thanks for talking to me about your concerns, happy to respond here. First, regarding bias, Wikipedia defines neutral point of view as "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". In this particular case, multiple independent high-quality secondary sources support the current content in the article. Personally I don't really even see how a general consensus among the sources of "no effect on sexual function", as is the case here, is "biased in favour of circumcision" - a bias in favor of it would be stating that circumcision improves sexual function (and there are individual primary studies and I think even a secondary source that actually do say this), which the article does not state. Regardless, all we do on Wikipedia is summarize what the best-quality reliable sources say. Regarding the KNMG Viewpoint, be sure to read carefully. They do not state an overall effect on sexual function, but rather "complications in the area of sexuality have ... been reported." See WP:MEDASSESS, this is anecdotal, and they do not explain why they chose to highlight this but appear to ignore the findings of the more recent RCTs, so the scientific backing behind this viewpoint is much weaker than the other sources we have. Reports of individual complaints as the KNMG mentions does not contradict the secondary sources: In any large data set there is some variation and outlying data points. The overall assessment of the secondary sources is that there is no effect; the KNMG notes individual complaints. Both are reflected in the article. Zad68 18:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer. My issue with the current formulation is that in this section there is only one source to support a claim that has been disputed (in both directions) and that the paragraph leaves an impression of undisputed consensus, which is not the case. Meanwhile, I have found Circumcision controversies, which is much more detailed on the medical disputes on this topic, would you mind a link to this other article in this paragraph? Evpok (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There's not just one source, there's four. Reference [18] is actually a list of four recent, authoritative, independent secondary sources, in the article click on ref [18], and it will take you here:

See: American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision "Technical Report" (2012), Sadeghi-Nejad et al. "Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual function (2010), Doyle et al. "The Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV Transmission" (2010), Perera et al. "Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review" (2010).

and honestly there are even more secondary sources supporting the same finding that we could include in addition to these four, but I thought four should be enough. Are you saying we do indeed need to add more? I think it would be overkill.

From my reading on this particular topic, what the article currently states is indeed the current scientific consensus, and only activists state that there is a controversy here. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE it would inappropriate to put a link to Circumcision controversies in the Adverse effects section because it would give undue weight to the notion that there is not scientific consensus. The article already links to that subarticle from the Ethical and legal issues section where the "long-running and vigorous debate" is discussed, and that's the appropriate location for that link. Zad68 18:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand how this is “the current scientific consensus” when there are contradicting (granted, primary) peer-reviewed sources, but fine. You seem to be unbiased and I don't have enough expertise in this field (and in medicine in general) to determine the validity and the relevance of all these sources — especially considering the strong PoV-pushing pression from both sides on various media – so I leave it to you. Thanks again for your time . Evpok (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Chapeau, Evpok - it's so refreshing to see such a reasonable exchange of ideas on a topic that usually causes explosions. Thanks to you both (and please excuse my lurking). -- Scray (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Lurking totally encouraged, in fact it's flattering! Zad68 04:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Evpok, thanks for that vote of confidence. It sure has been a tough article to work on and I really appreciate it.

Regarding conflicting primary sources: that's exactly what the value is of using secondary sources! The quality of primary study results - even ones published in good, peer-reviewed journals - is extremely variable, and it's not always obvious whether a particular study result is even relevant to the question you're asking. We depend on secondary sources to take the big pile of primary results, evaluate the quality of them, check their relevance, synthesize them and come up with some useful statements about what they actually mean. This is why (on English Wikipedia at least) we have such a heavy emphasis on using secondary sources for medical information. It's a terrible idea for individual anonymous Wikipedia editors to try to do that selecting, evaluation, interpreting and weighting of primary sources, and in fact it's expressly disallowed (at least on English Wikipedia).

You sound like you are a native French speaker with a decent command of English, please consider working on the Wikipedia translation task force. Thanks, and good meeting you! Zad68 04:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did some (en)→(fr) when I was still young with plenty of free time (that would be 5 years ago ), if I happen to find the time again, I'll certainly resume my work in this area. Can I bother you one last time on this topic? Someone pointed me [3], it is already cited in Circumcision for its commentary on HIV prevention, do you think it fit of inclusion in Circumcision controversies and/or on other points ins Circumcision? From what I read in WP:MEDASSESS, I'd say yes, but I'd rather avoid further mistakes. Thanks. Evpok (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That commentary by Frisch et al. that you linked to, and also the AAP's response here, are technically WP:PRIMARY sources in the ongoing circumcision debate - each is an argument being made in the debate. A secondary source really should be used that reviews, interprets and provides weight to them, placing them in context within the overall topic, and it shouldn't be hard to at least find an article from a noteworthy newspaper or magazine that does so, although an academic journal article would be preferable. However, given who has produced these statements, I would not object to having the two of them mentioned in the Circumcision controversies article, but if someone removed them arguing they should not be included until they're covered by a secondary source, that would be hard to refute.

Regarding their use in the main article, this has been discussed before - they really cannot be used to source biomedical information as they are commentaries (like letters to the editor) and not peer-reviewed review articles or meta-analyses, and per WP:MEDASSESS they are expert opinion and are at the bottom of our evidence scale. Zad68 13:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)