Talk:T. S. Wiley

message: Considering that T.S. Wiley has been the subject, at least in part, of articles in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, and the New York Post, as well as segments on Larry King Live, the Today Show, and 20/20, among others, I don't think there is a question of the subject's notability with regard to Wikipedia guidelines, so I'm removing it.  As well, I think this article need no longer be considered a stub. --Debv 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiley's notability

message: "Protocol" should be capitalized throughout and at least the first mention should bear the registered trademark superscript as "The Wiley Protocol" is a trademarked mark. -- Neil Raden 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are user Nraden, please sign in now that you are unblocked.  The manual of style for trademarked terms can be found here:  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), read through it and suggest corrections based on that.  WLU 14:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I've got to be more careful about. I'll check the manual, thanks. However, I thought we agreed that neither debv nor I would directly edit the article. Neil Raden 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if you aren't editing the page directly, you are much better off knowing the policy, and suggesting on talk pages accordingly.  Saves me or another editor from making the changes, then having to go back and fix them again in case the suggestion is wrong.  If you do have good reason to change the capitalization, cite the policy and please link to the specific sub-section where your guidance comes from (like this: WP:MOS#bob where 'bob' is the name of the subsection).  Suggesting corrections means you aren't editing directly, you're asking others to do it.  If you end up having suggestions you would like made quickly, you can always leave me a message directly on my talk page, I'll see it as soon as I log in.  Re: TM symbol, I can do a direct copy and paste from the TM or (C) pages, though I'm guessing of the characters not supported by my browser below the edit summary line, at least one is the symbol you're looking for.  WLU 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiley Protocol

message: Here's a quick link to a review of a book - not sure where it should go.  WLU 00:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the book was sold the title was "Kept in the Dark," but it was published as "Lights Out." Neil Raden (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book review 

message: So the two main people who are editing the page besides me, you should WP:BIO.  Also, the info added in this diff should be referenced - and quickly - as statements like this that are unreferenced are somewhat indirectly prohibited by WP:BIO.  WLU 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BIO 

message: I made a couple changes to the page.
# the direct link to Wiley's testimony I moved into the external links
# integrated the comments about the doctors being experienced in BHRT into the main body - if they are experienced in using BHRT, they are even more qualified to be criticizing it, and should therefore have more emphasis on the page.
# I removed the 'this journal is dubious' sentence from the controversy section.  It's a peer-reviewed scientific journal that can be found in the PMID database, not an internal journal to the pharmaceutical industry.  Trying to downplay it on the basis of industry ties is bullshit.  Scientific journals are the essence of WP:RS.  Compoundingfacts.org does not meet WP:RS and it's discussion of Menopause`s links to Wyeth are unconvincing.  Some of the links are dead.  The editorial board of Menopause is huge, and even if they all have links to Wyeth at some point, it is the inevitable nature of doing scientific research these days.  Fellowships does not equal veto power. -- WLU 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have issues with these changes, but the only thing I modified was the new section Wiley Protocol which redirects to the article BHRT. Wiley and BHRT are not synonomous. There are literally thousands of BHRT protocols - almost every doctor has his/her own. The WP is very specific. If you want detail on the WP, I can provide it, but do not just redirect to the BHRT page. That is factually incorrect. -- Neil Raden 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE READ THE TALK PAGE GUIDELINES.  It's an easy read.  It makes sense.  You should indent each of your comments on each section to separate it from others comments.  Also, there is now a main page, the Wiley protocol, which you will probably be interested in.  WLU 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: '2004 so-called STUDY' You have to remove this, it doesn't pertain to Wiley. Consider this - all of the doctors who signed Erika Schwartz' letter practice BHRT but are opposed to Wiley because the Wiley Protocol is vastly different. How can you cite that letter as controversy, then lump Wiley into that study? It's oil and water. In fact, Wiley argues that it's the low doses of hormones that are dangerous because they never reach the level necessary to cause the positive and negative feedback loops. I'll offer a compromise. Read the book, and if you still don't see my point, leave it in. -- 72.205.193.253 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're not willing to educate yourself on the differences between the WP and the other BHRT approaches (such as those practiced by the Erika Scwartz signers), then we have to move this disagreement to a HIGHER LEVEL. Leaving that in is like doing a review of cars that run on air and saying that a review of the literature shows that cars pollute the atmosphere. Even Debv and her RhythmicLiving crowd would not lump the WP in with other BHRT (unless of course it served their rhetorical purposes). -- Neil Raden 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the love of God man, just put a colon (:) in front of your comments on the talk page, otherwise it looks like I'm writing this.  Also, do not indulge in personal attacks as they can result in a temporary or permanent block.  I've looked over the WP website and you are correct, the information added does not match up to what the Wiley website says.  I shall address it when I have the time.  WLU 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: I am willing to take the suggestion to discuss issues here first before modifying the article, provided I feel they are getting a fair hearing and that Debv does the same. Now, here is a glaring error that Debv tried to slide in. The statement, “Erika Schwartz, Diana Schwarzbein, and five other MDs who have worked with bioidentical hormone replacement throughout their careers…” is patently incorrect and has no verifiable source. How does Debv know these doctors have worked with BHRT “throughout their careers?” They haven’t. Erika Schwartz, for example, has been a doctor for almost thirty years, but when I (and Wiley) met her in 2001, she was not practicing hormone replacement, she was pushing supplements like Carnitine. Schwartz and Wiley share the same literary agent, and Schwartz is the agent’s personal doctor. Schwartz admitted on the Larry King show that she has prescribed the Wiley Protocol but only after denying it until Suzanne Somers produced a handwritten prescription for it, from Schwartz. Schwartz has no formal training in hormones or endocrinology; she is an Emergency Room doctor who migrated to “boutique” medicine. Somers interviewed Schwartz for “Ageless,” but chose to omit her because she didn’t feel Erika added anything. Somers told me this persoanlly and also said it on Larry King.  
Schwarzbein is the real deal, a real endocrinologist, who was prescribing BHRT when I met her in 1994, but in the John Lee style of only progesterone, so she has been tinkering with it. But prior to that practice, she was treating diabetics the old fashioned, so even Schwarzbein has  not been involved in BHRT “throughout” her career. She is, however, no longer in practice and has been disciplined by the Califormia Medical Board. Suzanne Somers was under her care, as chronicled in Somers’ “The Sexy Years,” but after breast cancer and complications leading to a hysterectomy, Somers turned to Wiley, which infuriated Schwarzbein. I’ll leave it to you to research the other doctors, but given that the protagonists had an axe to grind against Somers, I wouldn’t give this letter too much credence. 
I spoke with Schwarzbein and Wiley and Somers on the phone from the green room before the Larry King Show. This is first-hand knowledge.
Jane Murray began her practice in about 1997, so that’s ten years’ of experience in a nearly  thirty year career. Hardly “throughout” her career. 
Lost in all of this is that Wiley has been researching and experimenting and publishing about BHRT since 1994, longer than most of the doctor "experts" in the letter. -- Neil Raden 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The words that you characterize as a "glaring error" and that you allege I tried to "slide in" were in fact not contributed by me.  I wouldn't have to point this out if you would A) use the history and contribs functions and B) read and abide by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Debv 01:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I apologize and stand corrected. Perhaps you would like to fix the phrase then. It's still wrong. -- Neil Raden 05:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributors can not contest the basis of the source on the basis of their own personal experience.  A person is a primary soure, and therefore do not count under the policy of WP:RS.  If anyone wants their contribution taken seriously, they should read the policy and seek out reliable secondary sources.  Additions to the article must adhere to the policy.  The policy means that Nraden, myself and Debv and any other contributor to the page can't just rely on "Well, I talked to this perons and they said it was [blank]."  It must be sourced, from the internet or from a publication, it must be sourced.  Someone talking to someone on Larry King before, during or after the show, and being unimpressed, is not reason to remove or include anything in the article.  This presents page contributions from sliding into 'well I heard this' vs 'well I heard that'.  T.S.Wiley herself is no more entitled to correct the information from the page than anyone else, though she is just as entitled to remove unsourced criticism.  If anyone wants their contributions taken seriously and to remain on the page for a significant length of time, they should familiarize themselves with the policy and argue based on that.  WLU 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was providing background material for this discussion, not entering any of it into the article itself. However, if this is the definition for reliable source, then how can footnote 10, Erika Schwartz' blog, be considered a reliable source for commenting on Wiley's capabilities? I'd suggest you remove that. -- Neil Raden 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read wp:rs to find the definition of a reliable source.  However, since the letter is signed by individuals, it is attributable to a source.  And a doctor is a more reliable source than a random blogger.  Plus, it is reported in the NY post, and presumably the NY Times, though I can't check it because I don't have access to the Times on-line.  But, you do have a point, I will correct the reference to the preferred non-blog.  WLU 00:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctors working with BHRT (or not)

message: I just deleted a big infodump from Wiley's biopage as a violation of Wikipedia:Copyright violations.  Please don't add it again, though the page could be used tenuously as a source of information for the page itself.
WLU 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Why is the phrase "Main article Wiley protocol" where it is, it seems dangling?
72.205.193.253 01:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is standard formatting for a main page link - Wikipedia:Template messages/Links.  WLU 14:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I get that. My question is, why is it placed where it is when there is a link to it in the first paragraph? Neil Raden 17:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To bring attention to the fact that there is a main page which has more information on the subject.  I looked for a guide to use for the template and can't find one, but that seems appropriate based on what I've seen on other pages.  The only caveat I could think of might be the section following the template is a bit too long.  You might be confusing  with the 'see also' section, where you are not supposed to duplicate links on the body of the article.  WLU 18:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of Wiley Protocol link 

message: I'd like to see the templates on this page and the T.S. Wiley page removed, I don't think they're needed anymore.
72.205.193.253 01:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to give it a read when I've got time (which is almost never), or you could request one of the other regular contributors to read through the page and see if they think the Neutrality and COI should be removed.  I'd say the COI should stay a bit longer at least, until there have been several contributions from other editors.  There's so many templates at the top of so many pages, I don't think most people even see them anymore.  WLU 18:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've added an infobox person.  Feel free to fill it in. Pustelnik (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: If there is going to be section like this, there should be a section of websites favorable, or neither. I won't clutter this discussion page with the websites favorable unless it is agreed to leave the critical sites in. Neil Raden 16:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Post 'em here and they'll be reviewed.  There is precedent for both sub-sections on other wiki pages.  WLU 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are two, both MD's, which you've already said enjoy high credibility here, certainly more so than a couple of amateur hate sites:
http://balancedapproaches.com/people/ching/faq/wiley.html
http://www.bobyoungmd.com/wiley.htm
Neil Raden 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Here is another doctor site: http://www.mdgyn.com/html/wiley_protocol.shtml
Neil Raden 05:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a matter of better or not, there's a standard format for sections:  here.  As external links they automatically go at the end. WLU 23:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you had a chance to review these sites? You said yourself that a doctor is a more credible source than a website. Neil Raden 05:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have looked at them and added them to the Wiley Protocol page.  They discuss the protocol, not the person, so are appropriate there.  I did not put in the bobyoungmd one 'cause it's blatantly advocating for WP, not informing.  Two pro-WP sites are adequate I think.  WLU 20:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, using that logic, I'd remove Wiley Watch from the Wiley Protocol page. It is almost exclusively critical of Wiley. Neil Raden 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The bobmd one didn't have any actual references, was proscriptive, and quite short, none of which impresses me.  The mdgyn one, now that I look at it a little more closely, doesn't actually add anything to the page.  It's basically an advertisement that the clinic provides the WP as a service.  I removed it.  Even the balancedapproaches.com page is has an advertisement-like feel to it, but has enough information and weblinks to make it worth keeping.  Both critical links have references and weblinks, so I'm satisfied with them.  In order for a link to be included in the page, it should be informative, and the two I turned down were not more informative than the wikipedia article itself.  WLU 02:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then why isn't the blancedapproaches link in the article? Neil Raden 04:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Because this entire discussion has taken place on the wrong page - the balancedapproaches website discusses the wiley protocol and that's why it's on the wiley protocol page.  None of the other websites discuss wiley the person that I've seen, so they don't get posted here.  The critical websites do.  WLU 11:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Websites Critical

message: I think it's time to remove these templates from the article as these issues have been resolved and the vitriol has died off. Neil Raden 17:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controvery and COI

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: In the New York Times article, already cited here, which is a RELIABLE SOURCE, Wiley responds the critcisms: "Does it have to come from a pedigreed source?” Instead, she maintains that the debate is really a “fight over women’s bodies and how much money those women are worth to doctors, who gets to prescribe and sell hormones to these women." I think that belongs at the end of the Controversy section because it allows Wiley, in her own words from a highly reliable source, to provide counterpoint to the controversy. Neil Raden (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm patient, but this deserves an answer after eight months. Neil Raden (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance the Controversy Section 

message: Since Lights Out was published, there have been numerous reports of research confirming what Wiley claimed over ten years ago about the relationship between artificial light at night and the rise of the diseases of civilization. Here is a recent one: 
Lights at Night Are Linked to Breast Cancer
Study Bolsters Theory About Interference With Production of Key Hormone
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902398.html
I will post the others if someone responds to this message. I haven't had responses to any of my comments here in quite a while. I've agreed not to edit the article, but that presumed some dialog on this page. Neil Raden (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to have timet he next week, you could try asking Sandy as she's usually pretty responsive and will be able to answer quickly if there's merit.  WLU (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the opinion that statements like these are WP:SYNTH-y, so I don't like adding them. If you could get a convincing opinion otherwise on WP:AN/OR, and find the original study, I could be swayed to add something.  WLU (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  . You will find that Wiley also explained the danger of shift work and explained it as a function of light at night.  Neil Raden (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern about WP:SYNTH still remains - I don't see this as vindication of Wiley's theory, merely potentially superficial similarities. WLU (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe you said that. Would you call Eddington's 1919 proof of Einstein's Special Theory a potenially superficial similarity?? This is conventional, peer-reviewed science that is clearly stating an observed link between light at night and cancer. This is Wiley's central concept in Lights Out, that the light deranges the action of melatonin, prolactin, seratonin and cortisol. She argued from a molecular level. I was going to start compiling the other studies, too, but if you're just going to dismiss them, I won't bother. I'd prefer you present this to SandyGeorgia, you and Cheeser1 have already poisoned that well for me Neil Raden (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The Washington Post article mentioned above doesn't refer to Wiley's work. All reliable sources that actually comment on Wiley should be considered for inclusion here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it doesn't. That was my point. 10 years after Wiley unearthed this connection and wrote about it, academic research is catching up to it, but mainstream media reports it as if it's brand new. I can cite dozens of instances of this for both Lights Out and Sex, Lies and Menopause. Neil Raden (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could be right that the mainstream should have seen this earlier. But our job is just to keep up with the mainstream; we don't have to step forward as the champions of unjustly-neglected work. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting comment. Wikipedia, a project started by hobbits with good intentions but only scoped as far as the staus quo. What a pity. Sort of a waste of effort. Anyway, the original thinkers rarely get credit, and sometimes get killed, but that wasn't my point. I was hopinmg to get Wiley a little cred here, a place where she only gets abuse. Neil Raden (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  We report what is unequivocally verifiable, we do not synthesize new conclusions.  We do not give Wiley cred, we source her past history.  Readers then take that and determine for themselves what cred she has or does not have.  I see nothing here worth commenting on beyond this.  Ed is adhering to a very conventional interpretation of WP:NOT and WP:OR.  You can take it to the original research noticeboard for an outside opinion if you'd like.  WLU (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is the statement "possibly dangerously high doses of hormones" unequivocally verifiable? SHow me where. There is not one shred of evidence in the literature that this is true. I challenge you to find it, or remove this slanted statement. The Danish study, in fact, casts some light on this, but you refused to investigate it. I'd suggest you remove this statement. Neil Raden (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Research 

message: I'd like to remove the neutrality tag.  What issues remain for neutrality?  WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't, I would strongly object to that. There is nothing neutral about this article. And by the way, since when can Debv start editing the article again? I thought we had an agreement. Neil Raden (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

text: And I've been waiting nine months for someone to respond to the Balance the Controvery section above. Why are Wiley's comments in the New York Times not as valid as the others in that article? Neil Raden (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Wiley is now a featured blogger on the Huffington Post. Perhaps you would like to include that. Neil Raden (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Huffington Post and other New Facts

message: In the article, it is written this way: "Wiley is listed as co-author of three scientific journal articles along with biochemist Dr. Bent Formby between 1998 and 2001" In fact, it is not known who actually WROTE the articles. It may be both Formby and Wiley, Wiley only or Formby only. What is know is that Wiley was a co-Investigator/Researcher on the experiments. Please change this. 68.84.147.20 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writings and Beliefs