Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome/Archive 3

message: In case you have missed it, the NICE Guideline for CFS/ME is out: . Guido den Broeder 20:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NICE Guideline

message: I've spent some time doing cleanup today, and boy what a collossal mess. People have routinely disregarded the most basic editing guidelines in their rush to shove in as many references as possible. Most hair-raisingly, I removed an unsubtle solliciting of votes for an E-petition (heaven knows how long that has been on the page!) There were various instances where articles were being referenced multiple times without using proper cite.php linking. I've fixed some of them now. There were other instances where the reference ought to have been a journal source, but instead a nonauthoritative website was used for the same content (e.g. CDC 1994, Carruthers 2003). This is clearly not acceptable.
I urge all contributors to help out with the proper sourcing of studies. At the moment, many references appear to have been copied & pasted from elsewhere. PMID or DOI codes are essential in making academic sources rapidly accessible for readers. With some gentle use of PubMed and Diberri's citation tool this shouldn't be a big deal at all.
We must also show restraint in linking to press releases from all sorts of pressure groups. There are many of them, and their reactions to published scientific evidence are not always useful. I'd much prefer a national news provider citing press releases from CFS/ME patients' associations in their context, and preferably with responses (if the journalist has been doing his job properly). JFW | T@lk 12:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Can we please have some consensus to archive older discussion on this page? Thanks. --- Taroaldo 22:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to archive all except the recent and continuing discussions? Thedreamdied 21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, perhaps everything before the NICE guideline section, if possible. - Tekaphor 11:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe all subtopics not edited in the past 30 days?  I'll go along with whatever decision as long as we have a more manageable talk page size before it gets even larger.  Maybe we need two or more archive pages from the current talk page? -- Strangelv 18:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest all items before Item 36, is it possible to select particular items for retention? Jagra 05:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've archived everything before and including 'Herbalism', the page had become too long to load properly and quickly. If you want, Jagra, you can go to the archive and copy any other discussion you want to continue into the current page. Thedreamdied 11:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: In the section above their is some discussion of benefits. I know nothing about the US but in the UK there is an issue with Incapacity Benefit with many being denied IB and having to appeal. The appeal win rate is about 80% when helped by the Citizens Advice Bureau but the appeal can take six months. A brief section on benefits even if it is just links to help sites would be helpful even if it is not medical or controversial.
--86.153.45.249 00:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the DMOZ link in external links.  There's a variety of sites related to CFS listed there. --- Taroaldo 01:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits etc

message: Over the last few weeks I've been improving the references. As I noted before, there is some pretty dodgy referencing in this article. Can I please urge all editors to help out here. If all of us were to run 10-15 references through the PubMed Single Citation Matcher we could provide PMID codes or DOI numbers for all of them. If we could also use the  template on each reference that would be better still. David Iberri's template filler makes this job easier still. JFW | T@lk 05:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix those references! 

message: Unfortunately, Sciencewatcher has not seen fit to respond to my attempted conciliation and has continued to proceed with a narrow scientific point of view which does not seem to have any support among editors here. I have issued a 3RR notification.  I must now also call into question any references which SW cites: the "psychosomatic" comment in the article had a fact tag on it since May.  SW never made any attempt to add a credible source for this in the past 5 months. This weak sentence more than qualified for removal.  But now SW suddenly comes up with a citation based on an interpretation of a couple sentences gleaned from the abstract of a single paper.  This does not serve to improve the article and gives credence to the notion that there is a narrow agenda at play here. SW's unwillingness to collaborate in a collegial manner is wasting the time of the other editors here and is stalling productive work on this article. --- Taroaldo 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only added a reference now because you seem to have a problem with it now, and I thought that would be sufficient to stop your reverts but obviously that is not the case. This is one of the main proposed etiologies, and you cannot remove it just because you don't like it. A lot of the other editors here do not like it, and I agree that I am in the minority. But that is not a good enough reason for deleting it. It seems that you removed it for POV reasons, but according to wikipedia policy we have to respect all major POVs in the article, so the paragraph should stay. There are a lot of possible references for this, but I included a review by one of the authorities on functional somatic syndrome (Simon Wessely). --Sciencewatcher 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A random reference won't do. The reference you gave does not support your text. Guido den Broeder 20:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read it? Simon Wessely is the authority on FSS, and the article was discussing why CFS is a FSS (unless I mistakenly referenced the wrong article). So how does it not support the text? --Sciencewatcher 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is easy to be 'the authority' on something you have (more or less) invented. The point is, however, that even Wessely's views do not support yours. Guido den Broeder 21:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That is just one POV, and another POV is that CFS is psychosomatic. It is not up to us do decide, we should include all POVs as per wikipedia guidelines. --Sciencewatcher 20:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we also note in astronomy articles the POV that the Sun revolves around the Earth?  I think that one has been mothballed for a little while now.  Psychosomatic CFS isn't far behind. --- Taroaldo 20:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ME/CFS is a neurological disease by definition. Any view that says different is therefore basically non-E and should not be mentioned on the same level as other views. Guido den Broeder 20:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? By the majority of doctors? And who says that? You? Or do you have a source on that? JayEffage 08:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry to see that once again you have no clue. Interesting claim though that the earth revolving around the sun is a minority viewpoint. :-) Guido den Broeder 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think both the neurological and psychiatric sections need work, with more concise content. Sciencewatcher, you have added/included supportive information about stress that isn't directly related to CFS (e.g. animals under stress, fibromyalgia and CSfluid, possible role of nitric oxide in stress, etc). I don't have a major problem with that (although I'm not sure how appropriate it is), however you must then accept that supporting information can also be added about other aspects of CFS by other editors without you then removing/refusing it on grounds of being "speculation". This applies to everyone, and if we all essentially agree that the different proposals deserve a fair presentation, we should stick to that as our main common ground. Perhaps there should be a brief mention at the start of the section that some of the overlapping research can be interpreted differently and that the understanding of some of these related fields is still rather limited. - Tekaphor 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to that, tekaphor. JayEffage 08:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: General information on stress should not be included in this article. The text is long enough as it is. Guido den Broeder 09:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current editing conflict 

message: I've protected the page, ladies, gentlemen... try to work this out.  I'm not going to put everyone into the sin bin for 24 hours this time.  Please adhere to three revert rule.  Regards, Navou  banter  22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Infections triggering CFS either viral or other is a hypothesis (educated guess)...it has not been proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community...since not proven should anything except simple statement be included in encyclopedia....??....statement: some researches based on outbreaks around the world hypothesise that cfs may be triggered by a virus.....have fun.....sno  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sno2 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is too long in general...there is a lot of unnecessary info throughout the article that can probably be removed. The problem is doing it without treading on various peoples' toes. --Sciencewatcher 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My preference would be to delete the irrelevant stuff about Lyme disease, interesting as it is, but definitely keep the stuff about Viral infection that seems to make up most of what you removed. Thedreamdied 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions - Bacterial Infections