Talk:Poor ovarian reserve

message: There is an ongoing dispute as to whether it is appropriate to mention the web site www.highfshinfo.com in this article.  User 1 claims it is a personal web site that none the less is reliable and very informative and has no equal and thus needs to be mentioned as duplicating the resources on this web site on Wikipedia is not practical nor appropriate.  User 2 claims it is driving traffic to the web site, contains ads, promotes a bunch of physicians and is not reliable as it is a personal web site and these points are all in violation of Wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.44.150 (talk • contribs) 
:I've listed the RfC in the appropriate page so that other editors know about the RfC. Leuko 04:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged the article with what I believe is the most appropriate tag (as clearly the categorization of the article was not disputed, since the article is without a category), and as far as the advertising, please see my comments above. Leuko 05:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Per WP:EL, links primarily intended to promote a website should be avoided.  Also, it appears to be a personal website, and it is not a reliable source, so again it should not be linked.  Finally, there is a lot of advertising for reproductive endocrinologists, which is objectionable. Leuko 03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 1) Please don't make assumptions about other editors.  Reading Wikipedia's External Link Policy really doesn't require much knowledge of FSH, the female menstrual cycle and its hormonal changes, etc, but luckily I know a little bit about both.  2) The purpose of adding the link to WP is to promote the site, and to drive traffic there.  Per WP:EL, this is not allowed.  3) I welcome additional input into this situation.  May I suggest WP:DR?  Leuko 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the point of adding external links to encyclopedia articles is to include "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article."  As this is a personal webpage, the accuracy of the material is questionable, as it is not peer-reviewed, as well as the neutrality of the page, since it appears to have an agenda.  I see no reason why any verifiable information from the page can not be integrated into the WP article, nor do I see any reason why "up-to-date information" can not be included in WP.  I mean WP is not a paper encyclopedia. Thus, the link becomes unnecessary, and only serves to promote the site.  Oh, and yes, it is a commercial site, as it contains advertising for GNC, Barnes and Noble, and a bunch of physicians. Leuko 04:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? I would think the yellow pages would have a listing of physicians that is relatively easy to come by.  I worked with two reproductive endocrinologists, but I don't see their names on the list.  Does that mean I should add their names to the article?  And as far as integrating the information, it really shouldn't be that hard... Since WP requires that articles be verifiable, all the information that is not cited from a reliable source on that page need not be added, so that would cut down a lot.  Medline searches are also relatively easy to perform, so I am not convinced that that is a reason that a link to this page is necessary.  Finally, the purpose of the link is to drive visitors to the personal website which contains advertising which makes money for the website owner.  Hence commercial. WP:COI perhaps?  And the information is inherently unreliable (notice I did not say inherently untrue).  As a personal website, the owner can post whatever they want without anyone checking the facts.  Hence not a WP:RS, and a link to be avoided per WP:EL. Please also see Self-published sources Leuko 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know - there hasn't been any activity on this page in a while.  You'd have to ask the IP address'es opinion, but I am still opposed to the inclusion of the link. Leuko 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  I just don't see how 3 individual's response to treatment is encyclopedic at all. Leuko 23:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for Comment

message: ====Discussion by involved editors====
I can't comprehend why the additional resources section listing a valuable web site (www.highfshinfo.com) that is non commercial, has no vested interest other than helping people with impaired ovarian reserve is being removed.  It is an extremely useful web site, but not well known.  External links are allowed in Wikipedia.  Please stop removing this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.44.150 (talk • contribs). 
:Per WP:EL, links primarily intended to promote a website should be avoided.  Also, it appears to be a personal website, and it is not a reliable source, so again it should not be linked.  Finally, there is a lot of advertising for reproductive endocrinologists, which is objectionable. Leuko 03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Please don't make assumptions about other editors.  Reading Wikipedia's External Link Policy really doesn't require much knowledge of FSH, the female menstrual cycle and its hormonal changes, etc, but luckily I know a little bit about both.  2) The purpose of adding the link to WP is to promote the site, and to drive traffic there.  Per WP:EL, this is not allowed.  3) I welcome additional input into this situation.  May I suggest WP:DR?  Leuko 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the point of adding external links to encyclopedia articles is to include "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article."  As this is a personal webpage, the accuracy of the material is questionable, as it is not peer-reviewed, as well as the neutrality of the page, since it appears to have an agenda.  I see no reason why any verifiable information from the page can not be integrated into the WP article, nor do I see any reason why "up-to-date information" can not be included in WP.  I mean WP is not a paper encyclopedia. Thus, the link becomes unnecessary, and only serves to promote the site.  Oh, and yes, it is a commercial site, as it contains advertising for GNC, Barnes and Noble, and a bunch of physicians. Leuko 04:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? I would think the yellow pages would have a listing of physicians that is relatively easy to come by.  I worked with two reproductive endocrinologists, but I don't see their names on the list.  Does that mean I should add their names to the article?  And as far as integrating the information, it really shouldn't be that hard... Since WP requires that articles be verifiable, all the information that is not cited from a reliable source on that page need not be added, so that would cut down a lot.  Medline searches are also relatively easy to perform, so I am not convinced that that is a reason that a link to this page is necessary.  Finally, the purpose of the link is to drive visitors to the personal website which contains advertising which makes money for the website owner.  Hence commercial. WP:COI perhaps?  And the information is inherently unreliable (notice I did not say inherently untrue).  As a personal website, the owner can post whatever they want without anyone checking the facts.  Hence not a WP:RS, and a link to be avoided per WP:EL. Please also see Self-published sources Leuko 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know - there hasn't been any activity on this page in a while.  You'd have to ask the IP address'es opinion, but I am still opposed to the inclusion of the link. Leuko 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: I can't comprehend why the additional resources section listing a valuable web site (www.highfshinfo.com) that is non commercial, has no vested interest other than helping people with impaired ovarian reserve is being removed.  It is an extremely useful web site, but not well known.  External links are allowed in Wikipedia.  Please stop removing this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.44.150 (talk • contribs). 
:Per WP:EL, links primarily intended to promote a website should be avoided.  Also, it appears to be a personal website, and it is not a reliable source, so again it should not be linked.  Finally, there is a lot of advertising for reproductive endocrinologists, which is objectionable. Leuko 03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Please don't make assumptions about other editors.  Reading Wikipedia's External Link Policy really doesn't require much knowledge of FSH, the female menstrual cycle and its hormonal changes, etc, but luckily I know a little bit about both.  2) The purpose of adding the link to WP is to promote the site, and to drive traffic there.  Per WP:EL, this is not allowed.  3) I welcome additional input into this situation.  May I suggest WP:DR?  Leuko 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the point of adding external links to encyclopedia articles is to include "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article."  As this is a personal webpage, the accuracy of the material is questionable, as it is not peer-reviewed, as well as the neutrality of the page, since it appears to have an agenda.  I see no reason why any verifiable information from the page can not be integrated into the WP article, nor do I see any reason why "up-to-date information" can not be included in WP.  I mean WP is not a paper encyclopedia. Thus, the link becomes unnecessary, and only serves to promote the site.  Oh, and yes, it is a commercial site, as it contains advertising for GNC, Barnes and Noble, and a bunch of physicians. Leuko 04:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? I would think the yellow pages would have a listing of physicians that is relatively easy to come by.  I worked with two reproductive endocrinologists, but I don't see their names on the list.  Does that mean I should add their names to the article?  And as far as integrating the information, it really shouldn't be that hard... Since WP requires that articles be verifiable, all the information that is not cited from a reliable source on that page need not be added, so that would cut down a lot.  Medline searches are also relatively easy to perform, so I am not convinced that that is a reason that a link to this page is necessary.  Finally, the purpose of the link is to drive visitors to the personal website which contains advertising which makes money for the website owner.  Hence commercial. WP:COI perhaps?  And the information is inherently unreliable (notice I did not say inherently untrue).  As a personal website, the owner can post whatever they want without anyone checking the facts.  Hence not a WP:RS, and a link to be avoided per WP:EL. Please also see Self-published sources Leuko 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion by involved editors

message: *Is this issue still in dispute? I cannot see any external links on the article page. SheffieldSteel 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know - there hasn't been any activity on this page in a while.  You'd have to ask the IP address'es opinion, but I am still opposed to the inclusion of the link. Leuko 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by uninvolved editors

message: Case histories section removed by Leuko on June 20, 2007.  Request for comments on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.44.150 (talk • contribs).
:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  I just don't see how 3 individual's response to treatment is encyclopedic at all. Leuko 23:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Case histories