User talk:CFCF/Archive 19

Hello! You put back info in a new form which I had previously removed.[1] That Statens institut för rasbiologi was the first of it's kind has been discussed on swwp.[2] It seems it is a "factoid", originally created by Herman Lundborg himself. I can't see that the source you reference states that "As a result of the institutes work a law permiting compulsory sterilization of certain ethnic groups was enacted in Sweden in 1934". It is not correct that the institute was a driving force behind the sterilisation law and the reference does not say so. It is not correct that the law permitted the sterilisation of certain ethnic groups and the reference does not say so. Edaen (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've used proper sources, and I removed the statement about ethnic groups (it only says groups). However if you dig deeper there are a multitude of sources showing how the law was used to sterilize both the mentally disabled as well as certain populations of Romani. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a multitude of sources, but the quality of them varies enormously. The law did not target any ethnic group. The Roma is the only group were it is likely that they were sterilised more often than the average population. That the Roma ran a higher risk was not due directly to ethnicity but to social reasons. Edaen (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, it may be subject to legitimate debate (though I doubt it), but this isn't even in the article. The current text is supported by its sources—they could be stronger—but they're generally of high quality. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know there is one or maybe two sources with special authority in this field. They are Monika Bukowska-Jacobsson's report included in SOU 2000:20,[3] pages 240–243 and Mattias Tydéns report, SOU 2000:22 and as doctoral thesis 2002, pages 62–64. Most other sources are at best interviews or recorded family history, but much is simply tabloid grade. Other sources than the two mentioned should be used with caution. Edaen (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Those might be better, but can you show that they come to any different conclusion from the sources I used? I'm currently not that interested in adding more than a single paragraph, but those could probably build a lot more content. The Uppsala page should at least be of rather high quality, and what about these: [4], [5]? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone of those authors made empirical research into the application of the law. Both of those are historians (of ideas). Their works are older and their results should have been considered in those mentioned by me, particularly in the works of Tydén, considering his coauthoring works in this field with Broberg. Edaen (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A general criticism of the contribution is that it overstates the position of racial biology in Sweden. In those days, Lundborg was held to be a leading researcher whereas Swedish research as a whole was lagging behind.

Nutida debattörer framhåller ofta rasbiologins tidiga genomslag i Sverige. Slående är därför att i princip samtliga debattörer 1918–1921 som ett viktigt argument för ett svenskt institut framhöll att den svenska rasbiologin stod sig dåligt i den internationella konkurrensen.
[translation] In today's debate, a point is often made of the early breakthrough of racial biology in Sweden. Against this background it is striking that as good as all participants in the debate of 1918–1921 considered it an important argument in favor of a Swedish institute that racial biology in Sweden was lagging behind in the international competition.[6]

The contribution has factual errors and gives Swedish research a too prominent role. So, if you don't mind, I'll remove or shorten the part. Edaen (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, why did you remove the Category:Alternative_medical_systems tag from the Cupping therapy page? VdSV9•♫ 19:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Because it isn't a system, it's a therapy. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

23:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carl, thanks for the welcome message. I am looking forward to making evidence-based contributions :) If you have any suggestions or feedback, that would be terrific! JenOttawa (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi JenOttawa!

Being a sucker for evidence based medicine myself, I think that sounds awesome. I have to say though, that with there being so much to work on—it's difficult to give advice on general topics. It's easier for me if I know which fields you are interested in? There are some very good health technology assessment institutes from Canada, such as CADTH. They're pretty underrepresented on Wikipedia, and using their reports, or Cochrane reviews would be excellent. Materials from the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality are in the public domain so you can copy their content without having to paraphrase, so that's always a good tip. If you're interested in Toxicology there is always NIOSH, and we currently have two Wikipedians in Residence there who I know would love to help you out (if they have time). Ping James Hare (NIOSH), Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH). Please tell me if any of this was helpful, and feel free to ask more.  
P.S. There is also always anything from this list: INAHTA members, which is great and includes 4 Canadian institutes. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I am presently focusing my efforts on updating articles with recent versions of Cochrane Reviews, in order to practice editing, and to learn how to cite properly on wikipedia. My training was in molecular medicine (cardiomyocyte stem cell research) and molecular pharm/tox (etiology of xenobiotic induced birth defects research). I am interested in anything evidence-based. I am also a volunteer this fall with Cochrane Global Ageing. My present focus will be on articles related to ageing and my work will be geared towards ensuring wikipedia provides elderly individuals and their families/caregivers a reliable (peer-reviewed) source of medical information. I am willing to tackle anything, as long as it is backed by reputable sources. I will make mistakes as I learn, so please do continue to give me feedback! Thanks again. Have a great day!JenOttawa (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:Anatomy newsletter (#5)

Previous - Next

Released: November 2016

Editor: Tom (LT)

Hello WP:Anatomy participant! This is our fifth newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. There hasn't been too much worthy of news, and I have less time to dedicate to this project, so I've slowed down the release of this newsletter.

I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list

What's new

• Adrenal gland, thyroid ima artery, Ear, Heart, Esophagus and Lung are promoted to good article status
• Our previous barnstar has changed to the new shiny "Golden galen" barnstar to celebrate contributions to anatomical articles
• We are featured in the journal Clinical Anatomy [15]

How can I contribute?

• Participate in discussions - a number of discussions such as those on our talk page or about our infobox would benefit from your opinion!
• Continue to add content to our articles
• Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!

Focus - how far we've come

How far have we come since our first newsletter... the answer is quite a lot! Here goes:

• Hundreds to thousands of articles improved and standardised by many, many editors.
• 14 new good articles created or added to our project [16]
• Improved quality of our articles - subjectively and objectively. GAs quadrupled from 5 to 16, B-class articles doubles from 62 to 115, C-class article well on the way to trebling from 219 to 611, Start-class increased from 1,082 to 1,570.
• Tens to hundreds of mergers performed between tiny, unedited articles - a remnant of our Gray's Anatomy (1918) heritage.
• Layout guidelines changed and layout standardised for the majority of our articles
• In the project space:
  • WikiProject Animal Anatomy created
  • 20-30+ new members
  • 200+ new editors welcomed with our new welcome template
  • Interdisciplinary category system to help new editors
• Active integration with wikidata in our infoboxes
• Overhaul of all of our navboxes
• Review and integration of all of our templates
• External link templates reviewed to ensure they all work
• To help improve anatomical literacy:
  • Creation of a suite of five Anatomical terminology articles, and overhaul of existing articles
  • Creation of the {{Anatomy-terms}} template created
  • Links provided in infoboxes
  • Simplifying anatomical terminology essay released

These are substantial improvements and my thanks go out to our many editors who played a part in this. These improvements are almost always the result of consensus, compromise, collaboration and discussion between multiple editors.

I hope we can continue to improve in the future. How can you help? Continue to edit, add content, and create a welcoming atmosphere so that new editors will join us.

Well done to us all, and the many anonymous editors who've helped along the way!

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list

Message delivered on behalf of WikiProject Anatomy by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Medical resources. there is a problem with the template. k18s (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)