User talk:Jfdwolff/Archive 14

Naming conventions for articles on Jews

As there is a great deal of inconsistency in the naming of articles about Jews, I have proposed that they be made consistent. I'd appreciate it if you could commment on this here: Template_talk:Jew#Name_of_articles_on_Jews. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not...

Hello Dr. Wolff: Please see User talk:FDuffy#What Wikipedia is not... for observation and input. Thank you. IZAK 04:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your assertions, and have added by $ 0.02 JFW | T@lk 07:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Location of Jerusalem Temple

Hello Dr. Wolff: See Location of Jerusalem Temple? It can and should -- after some good editing for removal of "fluff" -- be easily merged into the main article at Temple in Jerusalem. I have indicated that on the former's page. IZAK 11:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's redundant with the other article. I've turned it into a redirect. JFW | T@lk 14:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ezekiel 38-39 War

What do you make of this: Ezekiel 38-39 War??? IZAK 15:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Emek hamelekh#Later discoveries

Thanks again. I cannot decide what to make of this: Emek hamelekh#Later discoveries??? IZAK 15:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Mormon_jew

Looking at a new article called Groups Exiled from Judaism, and not quite sure what to make of it, I was shocked to see that the well-used Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar has now been "taken-over" by a pro-Mormon user and a new similar-looking Template:Mormon_jew is now being utilised. This Mormon template plagiarises and makes confusing use of the original Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar. The Mormon template must be radically changed ASAP. Your attention is needed. Perhaps we should follow official channels too. Thank you. IZAK 16:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

cancer research

Thanks for your response. I am new here so I may have overreacted a bit.

I still think that the "cancer research" piece lacks explanation of methods in which research is conducted. I am a student biomedical sciences, currently not active in cancer research, but have had some cources oncology. I'll try to add the information I think is missing. Any comments on that are welcome of course.

About my contribution, Yes you are probably right that it is allready explained in the "cancer" section. I am afraid I was a little proud on the way I was able to explain how cancer evolves without making it too complicated for the reader. Articles are often written in such a way that it's difficult to understand for a child or somebody not in the field of research. Sometimes I think readers should be able to set a level of difficulty for articles. The number of people able to read the article should be as important as the thruth or completeness. The "cancer" article, for instance, is probably very correct but may be a little too difficult for the average reader.

Picobyte (talk · contribs)

I'll be responding on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalising Passover

STOP vandalising!!! ZPMMaker 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, wrong guy. ZPMMaker 00:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

afd helper

I have built a script to speed up voting on AFDs and am looking for feedback. Please have a go! jnothman ^talk 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

IV IG in Myeloma

Although I will concede the ESR point in the workup of myeloma, use of IVIG in the supportive care of myeloma is rare and confers no survival benefit. I see quite a few myeloma patients and can not recall it ever being used. Guymd 07:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Although treatment with IVIg may be indicated in certain patients, it is not standard of care. Bisphosphonates, erythropoietin are. See link to current UK myeloma guidelines. http://www.bcshguidelines.com/pdf/UKNordic_070705.pdf Guymd 07:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Hormones

Thanks for the kind words! And I applied some judgement as to which ones I considered "major" enough to include, but you may want to take a look at it to see if you think any more belong there, or if some of the borderline ones don't. (I went back and forth on Anti-müllerian hormone and Enteroglucagon.) --Arcadian 16:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

RFC/Ombudsman

I don't have any comment on the particular issue that you've brought up, but I've come across some similarly frustratingly/worrying stuff relating to neuroscience/pharmacy/psychiatry, with quite extreme POV. I'll refer you to chemical imbalance theory as an example. The whole article is effectively a straw man for anti-psychiatry POVers to attack, with the content of it barely reflecting the current state of neuroscience research (but perhaps reflecting 70s/80s stuff which the world has moved on from). I don't feel that's enough for me to sign up to your RFC, but I do believe there are issues to be addressed. Cheers Limegreen 23:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Just responding to your note. To the extent that he refuses to enter into talk-page discussions, and reverts changes claiming POV as NPOV, that very much reflects the behaviour exhibited, although not with reference to vaccines. I'm deeply unfamiliar with wikipolitik, but if you're still keen, you want me to be the second certifier? I just ask, because I'm not too familiar with this. You might also note that there has been previous action viz the username and the potential for confusion about an official role (with no response from user).Limegreen 09:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to endorse, but perhaps I would be better to put in an outside comment and outline some of my concerns. i.e., lack of participation on talk pages, unwillingness to respond to messages left on talk pages, and fringe agenda pushing. As you're an admin, perhaps you'd be best able to suggest how and where I should comment. Limegreen 22:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Would an "outside view" be the most appropriate place for me to spell out my related concerns?Limegreen 23:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Nursing care plans

Hi, I'm glad to see someone else noticed all of that. I have indeed taken on the project of moving them into a separate category and cleaning them up. The introductory paragraphs in each care plan are indeed similar to the article on the disease itself. I think many of them should be reduced to just a couple of sentences and all of them should link to the article on the disease or disorder. However, a nursing care plan for chest pain is as distinct as a medical algorithm for treating chest pain is from an article on the disease itself. I think it's great to have a subcategory for nursing care plans in the hope that nurses, especially student nurses, will start using Wikipedia and contribute to the nursing articles in general. As far as the copyright issue, I think that the biopharmaceutical association did indeed release these care plans which were indeed written by different nurses into the public domain in the hope of having the link to their organization picked up by the search engines. However, I am of course eliminating that link from the articles as it is irrelevant. Once they have released it, it's open to whatever... THB 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, it is an encyclopedia, not a nursing manual. I did not realize how restricted an encyclopedia is on what it should include. I agree that any useful information on the disease or disorder should be merged into the primary article. The nursing plans should not be merged, but deleted instead. THB 12:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit war in Bobov

Hello Dr. Wolff: You may be aware that there is presently a split in the large main Bobover community in Boro Park following the death of the last short-lived rebbe, Rabbi Naftali Halberstam, between his son-in-law and younger brother (who is the son of the next-to-last long-reigning previous rebbe). So it is actually interesting that there is a minor edit war going on between followers of both factions in the two articles:

1. Ben Zion Halberstam (The Second) and
2. Mordecai David Unger

Could you please help by keeping an eye on the edits and re-edits of these smallish articles, and in the main article Bobov because of the fact that this involves a sensitive case and may be a reflection of the current real-life Din Torah and legal court case that is presently underway. Thanks a lot for your help. IZAK 08:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Martin Luther

Would you mind taking a look at Martin Luther? I feel that someone is trying to whitewash his works. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at Targeted therapy

I started this stub just now, Targeted therapy and would appreciate your input. Much obliged Joaquin Murietta 05:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

mitochondrial disease

Excuse my ignorance, I had also thought mitochondrial myopathies referred to all the diseases. The reason i added it was because i redirected mitochondrial myopathy to that page. It was a two liner and not much use. Could we at least incoorporate the mitochodrial myopathies as a section on that mitochondrial disease page? Or do you think it is different enough to have its own page? David D. (Talk) 14:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Targeted therapy

Thank you for your edits to Targeted therapyJoaquin Murietta 01:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Worried about another user's edits

Hi, I'm worried about the edits of this anon user. He seems to be link spamming and the site mentions (gulp) Scientology. However I lack the expertise to place a sound defence of my deletion of his links in an edit summary. Could you take a look and delete with a firm explanation or pass this on to another Wikipedian you may know who has an interest in Psychiatry? (I noticed you had been monitoring the Psychiatry article). Thanks. --bodnotbod 15:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

These links can be reverted on sight. The psychiatry article covers opposition by scientology extensively, and the CCHR has its own page. LRH's people need no further coverage. JFW | T@lk 17:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cleanup

Sorry about that. I've begun an undertaking aimed at standardizing all benzodiazepine related pages, and (in my opinion) they all need cleanup. Perhaps you would be interested in giving me feedback regarding section layout/content? You can see my current ideas (which are based on the sub-sections covered in various textbooks) on my user page. Being a doctor as you are, I have a great deal of respect for your opinions, and would greatly appreciate any suggestions you might have. Thanks,

Fuzzform 05:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much for supporting my rather contentious request for adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to do a little dance here *DANCES*. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future, and thanks once again!  ALKIVAR™ 07:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute at Mizrahi Jews

Would you mind taking a look at a dispute I am having with User:Al-Andalus at Mizrahi Jews? It's regarding various wordings, and I'd appreciate some outside opinions. Thanks, Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Will do  :) Fintor 09:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Neomycin

Not my specialty, but I asked around and, a least in the USA, at least some folks still be giving their hepatic encephalopathy patients neomycin and its use is still mentioned in the texts. Interestingly, a recent article out of University College London (PMID 15976747) describes neomycin and paromomycin as "the antibiotics most commonly prescribed for hepatic encephalopathy." Do you have a source for your assertion that "nobody uses neomycin anymore?" Osmodiar 18:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah, just my boss. The same UCL group also suggested that protein restriction and lactulose are useless in a recent Lancet review. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Neomycin is still used a lot here in the US for encephalopathy. Metronidazole is also popular. InvictaHOG 06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll relent. JFW | T@lk 08:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Chemotherapy regimens

I've finished the first cut of Chemotherapy regimens, but if you get a chance, you might want to take a look at it, and see what other major ones might be appropriate to include. --Arcadian 22:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'm looking at Template:Chemotherapeutic agents, and considering organizing it to reflect some of the structure at Chemotherapy#Types_and_dosage. Any thoughts/objections? --Arcadian 00:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Whinging Old Git wants you to rewrite a para in Angina ...

Hi JDW

Some interfering zomboid Old Git would like to bring your attention to Angina and a particular 1911 para that really needs a wash and brush up. It's in full in the Angina Talk page, but just for ref it begins, "An attack of angina pectoris ... and ends " ... without any such exciting cause."

Yours ever,

The Git of Oldness :) 138.37.199.199 11:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I wouldn't be so self-deprecating. Contributing constructively to Wikipedia automatically removes even a loquacious centenarian from the category of "zomboid Old Git". JFW | T@lk 20:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, for both. :) Gonegonegone 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, well done, it's much, MUCH better!!! :) Gonegonegone 08:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Linkslayer

Given your role as Linkslayer, would you mind taking a look at Talk:American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee#Excessive_linking? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Emergency department

I wonder if you would consider supporting this article at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Driveas part of our effort to increase the profile of medical articles on wikipedia. The (accident &) emergency department is a key area where the public accesses medical care, but the current article is very inadequate.--File Éireann 23:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Foreskin

Jfdwolff, as a medical doctor, would you mind taking a look at the Foreskin article? From what I can tell, people are inserting claims that have no medical basis. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, it's that time of year again. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos by year

In an effort to have this vote go as swimmingly as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos by name, I'm pointing it out to all the people who voted on the previous one, as it's basically the same information, differently arranged. Had I known it existed at the time, I would have included it in the AfD. Too late now. Thanks. -R. fiend 01:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

IZAK disputes changes by Gilgamesh

User:IZAK and User:Gilgamesh have a dispute over Hebrew transliteration conventions in article space, and your input is requested. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Hebrew) for details. - Gilgamesh 16:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Persistent spamming of hemorrhoid

Hi JFW,

A user (72.42.xxx.xxx)has repeatedly spammed hemorrhoid by inserting his external site. This has been reverted 5 times or so, and every time it was re-inserted. What to do? Hfwd 01:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

question on alleged copywrite violation

Hi Jfdwolff,

I noticed that you've worked on the copyright violation for Charming Hostess. I submitted the material (my first on Wikipedia) and am unsure what the violation problem is. The material is original material written by the band's composer (Jewlia Eisenberg) and posted by me (AnMarie). I have posted it on both Wikipedia and the page referenced on the band's website [1] -- hence the alleged copyright violation. However, since the author (Jewlia) gives her permission to use the material and has written it herself I don't understand alleged the copyright violation.

I'm sure the problem is due to my ignorance of Wikpedia procedures. Is there anyway to clear this up?

Thanks for your help,

--Anmarie 17:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)AnMarie

[2]

Keeping ultra

I posted a response to keep ultra on medical ultrasonography talk. Ultrasound is the term used most often by far, so it‘s unreasonable to argue that ultra is wrong.--FloNight 23:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

I agree that the article on Bipolar disorder is indeed chaotic, no doubt complicated by the fact that mental illness diagnosis and treatment can be controversial and lag far behind the rest of medical science. Perhaps the article should be split?

Also, I see that you deleted a few of my edits, namely:

• (although non-abusive substance usage is falsely consider abuse in psychiatry)

I feel it is important to note that psychiatry in general considers any substance use to be abuse, which appears to be more political than medical.

• although it should be noted that bipolar disorder may not be recognized until later in life

Studies which attempt to place substance use/abuse before the onset of bipolar disorder may be hindered by the failure to acknowledge recent discoveries that many mental illnesses which begin in childhood (or even infancy) do not become recognizable until early adulthood. Thus any attempt to determine which comes first should be considered dubious (especially since many such studies are financed by anti-drug abuse agancies).

• which often occurs due to early misdiagnosis

Most bipolars are misdiagnosed as depressives at first, and are then given anti-depressants which often trigger manic episodes (which is why suicide warnings now appear on many anti-depressants).

I acknowledge the controversial nature of my above edits, but it clear that there is a significant gap between the psychiatric profession and psychiatric patients. I myself am bipolar and have known many other mentally ill people; we all have been misdiagnosed, given medication which actually makes us worse, and had our concerns ignored by psychiatrists. In this light, the emergence of anti-psychiatry can be understood (although the anti-psychiatry movement itself suffers from other significant problems as well). To ignore this gap (as almost all "official" mental illness websites do) does mentally ill patients a major diservice (and leads to many deaths).

I invite discussion on these matters, as wikipedia is fast becoming THE primary source of information on the internet.

-- Anarchist42 00:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Your additions have a fair deal wrong with them. To say that "non-abusive substance usage is falsely consider abuse in psychiatry" is not NPOV. Similarly, your use of "misdiagnosis" is unclear; do you have studies to back up these claims? JFW | T@lk 00:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply! I accept that you disgree with my assertions, and applaud you willingness to engage in discourse (there is very little discourse between the mentally ill and doctors). I have conducted a lot of research on bipolar disorder (and mental illness in general), due to my negative experiences (which are all too common, unfortunately), including: misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, being prescribed a mania-inducing anti-depressant, being prescribed a placebo (the rarely-metioned $430 million Neurontin scam, which caused significant permanent physical side-effects), being told I was cured (of an incurable condition), told I was a drug abuser (because I occasionally smoked a joint), had a correct diagnosis removed from my file and told the doctor who made it never even existed, etc. Nonetheless, I have long since lost my anger, and now realize that such negatice experiences are not just common but apparently the norm.

• All "official" mental illness websites mention drug abuse, but none mention simple drug use. To be more specific, any use of any substance is called abuse instead of calling use of a substance over a certain amount abuse (as is often done, for example, for alcohol). In recent years I've noticed that the Canadian psychiatric community has incorporated drug-war propaganda, to the stage now where psychiatric institutions are now also drug abuse treatment centres. The result is that mentally ill patients now simply lie to their doctors about any drug use, lest their mental illness tretment gets a back seat to drug abuse treatment. If you can point me to several major mental illness websites that actually do distinguish between simple use and real abuse I will reconsider my claim.

• As for misdiagnosis, this is not just common, but based on my private discussions and online patient discussion group lurking over many years it appears to be almost universal. The most common form is to diagnosis bipolars as depressive (which is why drugs such as Prozac seemed to cause so many suicides, murders, and other crimes). Underdiagnosis is also common: despite the fact that the majority of the mentally ill have two or more co-existing mental illnesses, most psychiatrists stop after then reach one dignosis. These problems DO exists, as most patients are well aware, but is rarely mentioned by the psychiatric profession - this is a very serious problem, and underscores the fact that there is a huge communication gap between psychiatrists and patients (patients often complain that their psychiatrist doesn't listen to them).

-- Anarchist42 01:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

Jfdwolff: If you can now see that correct psychiatric diagnosis rates are unreasonably low, and that the psychiatric profession neither listens to their patients nor believes that their concerns are valid, then perhaps you can agree that, unlike other medical fields, psychiatrists' claims can not be taken at face value and hence the bipolar disorder article needs to been sprinkled with some salt. -- Anarchist42 17:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not convinced at all that "diagnosis rates are unreasonably low". Quite the opposite: this is the whole point of my discussion with Francesca. Psychiatrists know more about bipolar disorder than any other health professional, so I think their views should be considered authoratitive. Are you suggesting we should be taking haematologists' views on leukemia with a pinch of salt because their patients still die of it? I'm really wondering what kind of view you have of the medical profession as a whole. JFW | T@lk 20:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff: Here's where I'm having a problem: Psychiatrists claim a high rate of correct diagnoses, yet no patient I have ever met has had a correct diagnosis the first time; hence someone is not being entirely honest, and considering that only one side has a vested interest this suggests that we should assume that the correct diagnosis rate should be considered unknown (until someone can provide a reliable study on the issue). Can we agree to move to the middle ground for now? (Note that bipolars are typically depressed 37 times more often than they are manic, which suggests that bipolars are MUCH more likely to present symptoms of depression when they are first diagnosed) -- Anarchist42 21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff: As for considering psychiatrists' views to be authoratitive, please keep in mind that a rather large number of them prescribed Neurontin despite the fact that there were NO studies which showed that it had ANY effect on ANY mental illness (recent papers show that it is actually LESS effective than a placebo). The manufacturer settled a $430 million class action lawsuit and admitted to bribing psychiatrists to prescribe it, which suggests that psychiatrists can not be trusted. -- Anarchist42 21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff: As for my view of the medical profession as a whole, I did have 2 doctors who knew what he was talking about, but I had 3 who didn't: 1 lied and destroyed my file (specifically the correct diagnosis made my another doctor in his employ; yes, I do have proof), another claimed I was cured of an incurable illness, and a third prescribed Neurontin (which caused permanent physical damage). Thus I think that the medical profession is no different than any other, in that some are qualified any some are not, hence I do not take their word for it without doing my own research. -- Anarchist42 21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope that we can continue this discussion, as it is rare for a doctor to actually listen to these concerns. -- Anarchist42

Anarchist42: what makes you think your personal experiences can be applied to the whole field of psychiatry? You have certainly had a nasty case of bad luck, and I hope that your proof is admissible in court. Concerning doing your own research: modern medicine is all about empowering patients, and I'm personally not very daunted by patients searching the internet to explain their symptoms. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My personal experiences are not unique: as I've stated before, they are quite typical of almost all mentally ill patients I've talked too (which is quite a few over the years); my university training normally makes me leery of anecdotal evidence, but in this case the large number of anecdotes is too overwhelming to be ignored (especially with the lack of any counter evidence). My lawyer informed me that it is virtually impossible to sue my doctors, regardless of proof. -- Anarchist42 22:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The correct diagnosis rate depends completely on the circumstances, so one cannot generalise and say "it's 59%". Some conditions every medical student can spot from a mile, while some others are notoriously elusive (e.g. certain personality disorders). But to insist that this is unique to psychiatry would be wrong: many patients diagnosed with lung cancer were treated for a presumed bronchitis in the months prior to their diagnosis. JFW | T@lk 22:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree in general. However, bipolar disorder is a bit unusual in that patients tend to seek medical help only when they are depressed, so they are far more likely to be misdiagnosed than they would be for other mental illnesses. What is remarkable is that once depression has been indentified (it is usually quite obvious) a diagnosis of depression is made without checking for bipolar disorder, despite the fact that both conditions present the same symptoms (this is especially dangerous because anti-depressants can be extremely dangerous for bipolars) -- Anarchist42 22:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This is called "premature closure", and indeed a common problem in medical practice. But clinical depression is overwhelmingly more common than bipolar disorder. If you have some good resources (e.g. "what percentage of newly diagnosed cases of a major depressive episode actually have bipolar disorder", "what can a physician do to identify these cases" etc) I can't see why we shouldn't incorporate this issue in the bipolar disorder article. JFW | T@lk 23:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

To respond to your comment from above: "Psychiatrists know more about bipolar disorder than any other health professional, so I think their views should be considered authoratitive. Are you suggesting we should be taking haematologists' views on leukemia with a pinch of salt because their patients still die of it?" Psychiatrists may know more about bipolar disorder than other doctors but they don't know more about it than sufferers or philosophers or psychologists for that matter. I certainly do not consider psychiatrists' views authoritative and a growing portion of the public doesn't as well. And your analogy is weak. Yes, we would take haematologists' view on leukemia with a grain of salt if patients did better without their treatment. And asking what percentage of newly diagnosed depressives are actually bipolar is kind of a circular question. In North America, if you become manic on antidepressants, as many, many patients do, the psychiatrist typically pronounces that you had "latent" bipolar all along and will then add mood stabilizers to your drug cocktail. This is an obscene and farcical scenario that happens over and over. Psychiatrists will not admit that they actually *cause* a lot of bipolar disorder through their treatment of depression. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder is not caused by antidepressants. Mania may be. For a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, several episodes of mania are required. I don't disagree that it is easier to prescribe some fluoxetine than to ask about past episodes of mania, and I can't disagree that this sometimes happens, but I think you are wrong that psychiatrists cause bipolar disorder, and I disagree that they do worse with treatment. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

For many depressives, treatment causes mania. Thus unipolar depression becomes bipolar disorder. That's what "caused" means in this circumstance. And in Canada, anyway, only one manic episode is required to get the diagnosis. I didn't mean to suggest that antidepressants are the ONLY cause of bipolar disorder, but it's certainly a significant one, acknowledged by several pro-psychiatry groups such as NAMI. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 09:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff: With regard to "premature closure", we are at last getting somewhere! Can we agreee that "premature closure" is in fact a form of misdiagnosis (at least with respect to bipolar disorder)? If "premature closure" is indeed a common problem in medical practice, that would seem to imply that potential misdiagnosis is a common problem in medical practice, which would seem to me to be a major problem (although I agree that this conclusion may be debatable). I note that in all my research, I have never come across the term "premature closure", and only found a few mentions that symptoms of depression may be a sign of bipolar disorder. I suggest that the wikipedia article on clinical depression should include a prominent warning about the potential danger of "premature closure" and that anyone with symptoms of depression must be checked for potential bipolar disorder (especially considering that anti-depressants can be very dangerous for bipolars). Since 16% of people will at some time be despressed, and that 1% of people are bipolar, then at least 6% of people with symptoms of depression will in fact be biploar (much more info is needed to actually arrive at valid percentage). -- Anarchist42 17:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Premature closure leads to misdiagnosis. I disagree that clinical depression should make specific mention of this phenomenon unless you can provide evidence that it exists specifically in the context of depression. I think it is a problem that can occur to any doctor in any situation, and it would be wrong to apply it specifically to your favoured article.

As I said above to Francesca, it is jolly easy to write up some fluoxetine for someone with low moods and to neglect a good quality psychiatric examination. But this can happen to any doctor or indeed to any professional - lawyers may oversee potential complications in what they thought was a straightforward matter, and so forth. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So premature closure could perhaps be considered a form of mala praxis (I could not find a less harsh term)? Should premature closure be added to the misdiagnosis article? I imagine that there are a number of illnesses for which premature closure has a risk of (potentially dangerous) misdiagnosis, so this is not about my favoured article, rather it is about the fact that a typical bipolar will first be reading the [[clinical depression] article and not the bipolar disorder article, and in reading that article he or she will presently not be aware either that testing for bipolar disorder is necessary (I can explain why if necessary) nor that anti-depressants (without a mood stablizer) can be very dangerous. -- Anarchist42 22:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether premature closure is malpractice is the judgment of the courts. It may be forgiven if the condition under discussion is extremely rare or the symptoms were rather subtle. I agree that the depression article should mention that a depressive episode may not be the same as depressive disorder, but that it may be reactive, drug- or substance-induced, or part of bipolar disorder. The only "testing" that can be done is to ask for past symptoms of mania. If there cannot be elicited, it does not mean that bipolar disorder is excluded, but it is much more likely that this is a depressive episode. Far be it from me to insist that screening for bipolar disorder should be "mandatory" or "necessary". This is up to the professional organisations. I am simply suggesting it would be good practice.

I am not sure whether "premature closure" as a term is sufficiently accepted to be included in medical error. I suggest you Google it up and see whether it is mentioned at all. JFW | T@lk 22:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply

You wrote on talk:obesity: I think Nv8200p was quite right. This article does not illustrate that particular cartoon. It could not possibly fall under fair use. Jason, please go do something else now. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My reply: I do NOT agree. Fair use is not as narrow as you indicate -- regardless of what is in writing. "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Given a) the context of the section and b) the nature of Wikipedia, I belive the use of the image here IS fair use.

Jfdwolff, what's your problem? Robeykr (talk · contribs)

See talk:obesity. JFW | T@lk 07:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

שלום

ראיתי שאתה כתבת את הערך על הרב חיים קנייבסקי תוכל להרחיב אותו? (הערך הורחב בויקיפדיה העברית) תודה

I have written all I know about Reb Chaim. If there is anything to add, please let me know. I will gladly translate it. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dorian Gray syndrome

Saying that there is only one (english) case study is wrong. Abuse of Life Style Medication is a widespread fact, and documented pretty good. See Hyperlink for three other publications in german Periodicas. A DFG funded Congress about the theme is projected next autumn a new publication with exemplified clinical case studies is , and crossfaculty scientific discussion in germany is documented. Because of the the controversial Nature of that Discussion, i would agree to place the Link in a '#Controversy' Chapter.

Listen, I don't doubt there is Dorian Gray syndrome and that some people may be using these drugs for this reason, but it's not a significant reason. There is no need for a "controversy" section in the articles we are talking about. Please continue working on the Dorian Gray syndrome article, but don't assume that it should be linked from everywhere. JFW | T@lk 19:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Psychogenic non-epileptic seizure(s)

The article in question is not about the phenomenon of isolated psychogenic seizure; it is about the syndrome of recurrent psychogenic seizures (pseudo-epilepsy, as it was called before the possible pejorative connotations of 'pseudo' were recognized.) In particular, an isolated psychogenic seizure almost certainly fails to meet any set of criteria for conversion disorder and does not require treatment; in fact, nearly the entirety of the article is invalid when applied to the phenomenon of isolated psychogenic seizures. This is more than a stylistic point; you should consider moving the article back. -Ikkyu2 21:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm moving it back. JFW | T@lk 21:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit freeze for Mordecai David Unger

Hello Dr. Wolff: Kindly place a freeze on the page of Mordecai David Unger based on my last edits until the vandalism stops. Thanks. IZAK 04:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit freeze for Ben Zion Halberstam (The Second)

Similarly, please freeze the page at Ben Zion Halberstam (The Second) until vandalism ceases. Thanks a lot. IZAK 04:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

David and Moses dying on their birthdays

Hi. I've left a message for you on Talk:List of people who died on their birthdays. Cheers JackofOz 12:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I've responded there, thanks for letting me know. JFW | T@lk 18:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Prostate cancer on WP:MCOTW

Hi! You showed support for Prostate cancer, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for taking the time to respond to my RfA. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging Ethnic Jew into Jew

Hello Dr. Wolff: I have recently come across the article Ethnic Jew composed by User:Zestauferov once upon a time because he felt "This page is created in response to the lack of NPOV on the Jew page...11 May 2004". After all this time, the article is basically redundant because all the "base lines" are indeed discussed and covered in the main Jew article (as well as in the Judaism article). I have therefore inserted a merge template on the Ethnic Jew page. Can you please look into this. Thanks. IZAK 02:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Medical College and Medical School

Please note that there is NOTHING called as Medical School in India. Just because there is No medical college in America, why should Indians adhere to Medical School. Don't we have a right to have an article on something we have.

Do you agree that College and School are different entities. If not, why can't you merge School and College —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorbruno (talk • contribs)

No, I don't agree at all. Just because it's called differently that doesn't mean it isn't the same concept. Of course you have the "right" to call it "medical college", but as this is where they train doctors, and the places where doctors train are called "medical school" in the remainder of the English-speaking world, I think this content belongs on medical school. JFW | T@lk 15:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

To Be Bold

Hi

I followed your suggestion of being bold. Thanks for paying attention. Just a queston:

How did you notice that talk page? I didn't send a message to you about it I think? Is there a way you can know of newly added content of pages, without watching all pages?

Thanks again

huji 20:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Emergency department

Many thanks for your support!--File Éireann 23:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Bobover Fights

Hello Doctor, FYI, the Bobov and the BZ Halberstam and the MD Ungar Unger pages are IMHO to be fully edited. However, the Kartchin page is to be DELETED! Unger or his followers don't call themselves Kartchin. The split is 65/35 according to the larger group, and 55/45 according to the smaller group. To be fair, one would say it's 60/40. Yosselle (talk · contribs)

Frankly, I'm not sure whom to be believe in this issue. The fact is, I'm only a yekkishe Doktor and have no intimate knowledge of the Bobov succession fight. Typically the Hamodia is silent about this issue, so I'm lacking source support. But what strikes me is that numerous editors are engaging in a silly edit war without any form of discussion, sources, or other objective parameters. This is why these articles have been protected. I will learn the facts as we go, but at the moment there is a lot of heat but no light.

If Kartshin is not the actual name of the Rav MD Unger faction, then what may be reason a page was created for this? What does the Rav Unger faction call itself?

I find it almost impossible to believe how proud Chassidishe dynasties are blowing themselves up with internal strife. You may say this is different, but I understand very similar things are happening at Satmar at the moment. The chillul Hashem, as I stated on one of the talk pages, is breathtaking, especially when these things are fought about on a public forum like Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 08:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Kabbalah followers

Hello Dr. Wolff: I have nominated the outlandich category of Category:Kabbalah followers for deletion, see the reasoning and please vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 24 Thank you. IZAK 10:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleting frivolous Jewish people categories

Hello Dr. Wolff: Kindly take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 25#Sub-Categories of Jewish people. This area needs some cut-backs again. IZAK 03:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Cheers

Thank you for the kind sentiments you expressed, along with the support you registered on my RfA. I have now been made an admin, and I hope every vandal I block appreciates the humour! Steve block talk 10:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Campaign to delete Jewish categories

please vote here Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Sub-Categories_of_Jewish_people. Arniep 13:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

flatulence -> fart

We don't need to have a "request for move" to move a page -- wiki is all about empowering individual editors and being bold, not asking for permission from admins who are busy on other articles.

Anyway, it seems like your beef is with the move, not the technique. No one calls farts flatulence, and wiki is pretty clear about what the correct name is -- the common name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)

-Justforasecond 05:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I will respond on Talk:Flatulence. JFW | T@lk 05:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute on Reform Judaism article

We seem to have a problem with the set of articles on Reform Judaism. Did you know that Reform Jews accept Jewish law and tradition as binding and normative, much like Orthodox Jews do? Neither did I, probably because such a claim is patently false. Did you know that Halakha is not Jewish law, and the customs of other groups, like the Samaritans and Karaites is "Jewish law", and that the practice of Reform Jews is also "Jewish law"? Therefore - by this linguistic trick - one is forced to claim that Reform Jews are observant of Jewish law! This kind of linguistic trickery is propaganda, and not worthy of an encyclopedia entry which tries to openly and honestly describe what people believe and practice.

I am afraid that a couple of otherwise well-meaning contributors have fallen for this misleading wordplay. In fact, most Reform rabbis throghly agree with me. Most Reform rabbis that I have spoken to explicitly admit that Reform teaches that Jewish law and tradition (i.e. halakha) is not normative (to be taken upon yourself as binding) - and most admit that Reform Judaism actively discourages certain elements of halakha.

For some time it has been a settled useage on Wikipedia that (a) halakha is often usefully translated as "Jewish law and tradition", or something like that, (b) the practice of Karaites and Samaritans is not usefully or accurately described as "Jewish law"; they are quite different groups! and (c) Reform Judaism does not accept that halakha is normative. Yet in the last few weeks two Reform apologists have begun rewriting these basic facts to make Reform look as traditional as Orthodox, which is both a diservice to actual Reform Judaism and to Orthodox Judaism. It also will confuse and mislead the vast majority of people who read our articles. Please take a look at the discussion. User:RK 00:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The distinction being made there between "halakha" and "Jewish law" is unusual, as is the claim that Reform is in some sense a halakhic movement. I've commented, but I'd appreciate your thoughts as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)