User talk:Sciencewatcher/Archive 6

Please allow my improvements to the IBS wiki page

Sciencewatcher,

The comorbidity between IBS and GERD is well-known. In fact it is already mentioned in the Wiki entry on IBS, and I cited a good reference on the subject. If peppermint is known in the literature to exacerbate the symptoms of GERD, and the vast majority of IBS sufferers exhibit the symptoms of GERD, then it is common sense that this point be mentioned at the correct place within the entry on IBS. GERD can have serious consequences, so it seems appropriate to bring this to the attention of someone who may be considering the use of peppermint to treat IBS.

Your desire to keep up the standards of the page is laudable, so when you first removed my reference to peppermint and GERD, I happily did the research to find the second citation, but the application of the anti-synthesis rule seems inappropriate here. It is not my original idea, since web pages like [1] independently make the same point. It does not appear to me to be "advancing a position", just bringing relevant facts to the attention of the readers.

thanks, --Pmadany (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that GERD is different from IBS. Some IBS patients have GERD and vice-versa, but they are different illnesses. It just seems way off topic giving info on treatments for GERD on the IBS page. If you disagree, you would be better bringing it up on the talk page of the IBS article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I brought it up on the IBS talk page, since it is completely on target. --Pmadany (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Hi Sciencewatcher! I've noticed your hard work to apply WP:MEDRS to XMRV. I think the Bisphenol A page could use a lot of WP:MEDRS help as it's dominated by recent primary studies, so if you're looking for something new to work on... If you're not interested, no problem. Billgordon1099 (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

General statement at XMRV

Hi, I wrote a little warning for everyone at XMRV. I think going back to the strict sourcing requirements is the only resolution that will bring some peace to the article. Cheers! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute article

• :Please see Request for discussion on triggering Edit War Process. Feel free to contribute to this discussion if you wish. I apologise for contacting all contributors, but I have been asked to be impartial by another editor working on this page. -- TerryE (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Hi -- just to point out an error in your edit summary: rollback undoes every edit by the most recent editor, back to the last edit by a different editor. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome

Yes, for some reason I got confused. I did a diff and I assumed rollback would roll back to the previous diff I was looking at, but it doesn't. I've been using twinkle for a few years so I should know how it works. I think perhaps it isn't the most obvious user interface. I messed it up twice, but then fixed it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I did some tweaking on some material you edited in January.[2] Would you please look it over to see if you agree or might improve. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I think I just mostly copied that text from the XMRV article anyway. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What was added to the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity wiki page were not pov edits

Sciencewatcher,

Twice, you reverted to a previous version of the multiple chemical sensitivity wiki stating "pov edits" were the reason. All of the information I added was cited, and if you took the time to check those sources, you would see that everything that was added was valid scientific fact and not "pov". I took extreme care in making sure the information was based on proven fact, because the majority of what is written in this wiki currently is heavily biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.10.161 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

First, you say 'working in conjunction to supress its recognition' which is clearly POV. And later you say the double-blind trials have been 'interpreted' to show, which is incorrect. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree that adding "interpreted" was incorrect, because "interpreted" means "understood as having a particular meaning", and the tests were understood as having a particular meaning by those conducting them, whether or not they were correct. That some doctors and lawyers are "working in conjunction" with the chemical industry to suppress the recognition of MCS is not a "point of view"- it is a fact. They have monetary interest in multiple chemical sensitivity not being recognized as a legitimate illness. All of this aside, if these are the only parts of my edits you felt were objectionable, why weren't they removed and the rest of the article left in tact? 68.196.10.161 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be a new editor, so I would suggest you read the various policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS before doing any more editing. And it is not a 'fact' that people wish to suppress MCS - it's simply that the research shows there is no such organic illness and it is in fact people like you who are trying to suppress the truth. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia revert

I assume that this revert was intended to correct some perceived injustice in the label "neurological disorder". Care to suggest a rephrasing which avoids this imagined wrongdoing? The first sentence of the article is currently a complete mess. I'd rather you sorted it yourself if you're going to summarily revert edits you disagree with. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What injustice? I simply reverted it because fibromyalgia is not recognised as a neurological disorder. There is actually more evidence that is is psychiatric rather than neurological. If you want we could put 'unknown etiology' or similar. You might want to have a look at the chronic fatigue syndrome article. It says 'The etiology (cause or origin) of CFS is currently unknown and there is no diagnostic laboratory test or biomarker'. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What about just "disorder", then? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone for "medical disorder", which clarifies it a little from a 10,000-ft level without saying anything disputed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the word 'debilitative'. As far as I can tell, that word means 'an illness that causes weakness', which is not necessarily a symptom of fibromyalgia. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

MSG

Why did you remove my edit to the MSG page? I took great care not to make it sensationalistic. It is not OR, and it should not require a citation as all it did was draw on the preceding sentences in the article to highlight a possible reason why DBPC trials have not shown the kind of ill effects that some people have reported from MSG, namely that capsular administration means they must have solely been absorbing MSG in the stomach and below, not in the mouth and throat where it would be absorbed from food. As it stands, the article was in danger of appearing biased towards the view that anything not found in a DBPC trial can be disregarded, and that MSG is definitely safe for all. I merely wanted to highlight that such a conclusion is questionable. I'm completely impartial on the MSG debate, but I do think there is a dangerous tendancy among the scientific community to regard DBPC trials as the be-all-end-all, and if something is not shown by such a trial, it doesn't exist. 93.97.161.214 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I can't see any reason how absorbing through the throat/mouth could have any possible health effects (apart from locally). And even if it was plausible, you would need to find a reliable source, otherwise you are engaging in WP:OR. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you personally can see how something could happen is of no relevance to this discussion. But for your illumination: First of all, MSG is used precisely because it has effects in the mouth, namely that it triggers certain taste receptors; it is entirely feasible that triggering those receptors to excess could cause side-effects. Secondly, it is well known that chemicals can be absorbed into the bloodstream directly from the mouth, and that absorption in this way can result in radically different effects than absorption in the stomach. Indeed, some chemicals that are completely inactive when ingested, perhaps due to being broken down by certain enzymes in the stomach, are biologically active when absorbed (for example) sublingually. I didn't say any of this in the article, because that would have required citation. What I actually wrote was wholly derived from the preceding sentences of the article, so I fail to see how it can possibly be OR or require citation other than the citations already present in the article. If the article says basically "they did X", with a citation, why on earth would I need a citation, and why would it be OR, to simply highlight the fact that X doesn't include Y? Tell me precisely which part of WP:OR you think this falls foul of. 93.97.161.214 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that it is WP:OR. But if you think different, feel free to bring it up on the talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Aerotoxic Syndrome

Editor TCP146 has posted a new PDF link to support the claim of BAe Systems admission that the seals leak on their planes. I have tried several times, for over 3 hours to open that document (a 3-page PDF file), but always end up with an error message (Adobe has to close).

I think it amounts to a dead link, but before I delete it as such, I would appreciate your trying to open it, just to be sure the problem isn't with my computer, or my ISP. Here is the link:

http://www.aerotoxic.org/download/docs/reports_and_evidence/BAe_All%20Op%20Message%20030.pdf

It is reference number 5 and is being used to support an alleged quotation by BAe Systems. EditorASC (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That pdf loads fine for me. Sometimes Adobe can be a bit flakey - try just saving the pdf to your disk and then loading it by clicking on it. If it still doesn't work, try updating to the latest version of Acrobat Reader. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both for that advice (I finally got it to work, after many more tries---could be that my dial-up limitation conflicted with that particular document), and your suggestion that it would be best to leave the article in place, so that the facts of science will make it obvious they are trying to sell another snake-oil "disease." Some of the very documents, from which they want to make very selective quotations, affirm that there is much more to the story, when those documents are read in their entirety. EditorASC (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

MSG controversy

Hey, I had a few thoughts on your undoing of my edit. If there is a growing negative conception of MSG, then shouldn't it be discussed lightly in the opener? It seems wrong to me that the article explains that people with a gluten intolerance can ingest MSG safely, but it doesn't mention anything about the controversial side of MSG. What do you think about this?Xetxo (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It is actually all covered in the glutamic acid article. I would prefer the controversy to be in the MSG article, but others disagree (see the talk page of the glutamic acid article for reasons). --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't really provided a strong justification for why the controversy of MSG should not be mentioned in the opener of the MSG article. What do you find to be the differentiating factor between the two articles (MSG and MSG Ingredient)? And with the differentiating factor you have chosen, justify why MSG should be recommended to Gluten Intolerant people in the MSG article and why no mention of the controversy should be made in that same opener. Can you see how your logic might seem inconsistent to others?Xetxo (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The lede needs to summarise the article. Because the controversy isn't in the MSG article (it is in the Glutamic Acid article), that article is where the controversy should be in the lede (and it is). And as I said above, I agree with you that the controversy should be in the MSG article rather than the glutamic acid article. See the discussion on the talk page of the glutamic acid (flavor) article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see, that's fair enough. The main issue is the fact that the article urges people to eat it, but it does not enlist any warnings in the opener. I see that a header "Health concerns" does exist in the MSG article at present. I revised the sentence explaining that it's acceptability to celiacs to also include a warning that health effects are contested as a temporary fix. I doubt there will be much outcry over an edit of that sort.Xetxo (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I undid this because msg has been proven to be safe to eat with no real health concerns (all the potential concerns have been proven to be invalid), so saying it is 'contested' is npov. Anyway, you should probably discuss this on the MSG talk page so that other users can comment (rather than on my talk page). --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you undid my edit. The description you gave in your undo (and here) is invalid =/ There are a lot of citations on the web that contest the assertions at issue here. Stating this fact is NOT a pov, it is simply stating a fact. Here you claim that "ALL concerns have been proven invalid." That statement carries dubiously with me. Do you mean this concern too http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080813164638.htm (I freshly pulled from google) Please explain what proves it to be invalid. It seems to me that you are the only proponent of blocking this new edit. That kinda makes your talk page the best place to discuss the issue. If someone else has a problem with it, I will start a section on the talk page devoted to it and get things worked out from there. Also, keep in mind that it's totally ok to eat MSG if you want, and whether we personally think it is or isn't responsible for obeistiy or other illnesses really should not be a factor in determining what edits we approve of and what edits we object to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xetxo (talk • contribs) 04:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The obesity link is already covered in the article you will see. When I said invalid, I was talking about 'Chinese Restaurant Syndrome'. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

External links

About this: I have no opinion on the link you removed (as I haven't looked at it), but "not MEDRS" is an entirely irrelevant consideration, because external links are not required to be reliable sources. In fact, unreliable sources are explicitly permitted under WP:ELMAYBE #4. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the criteria is different and they don't have to meet MEDRS so my comment wasn't exactly correct, however this link had a lot of dubious unproven pseudoscience (saying that casein is opiate-like and causes addiction, etc) and wasn't really appropriate or helpful. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

cfs/me

why did you undo the information I posted about dr lerner and twisk and maes on the CFS/me page? I put all the citations, both the papers I cited are published in journals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.39.201 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@IP217: SW is correct in his edit. This caveat does not belong at para 2 of this section. If anywhere is fits near the end, but this is a primary study and such content should first be discussed in the talk page. -- TerryE (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anon: the references failed to meet WP:MEDRS. Just because something is in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean we should put it in the article. The Maes+Twisk article was discussed in the CFS talk page a while ago and it was agreed not to put it in. I would recommend you read up on all of the policies such as WP:MEDRS, as well as checking out the talk page (let me know if you can't find the discussion and I'll find it for you). As TerryE says, you are better discussing edits like this in the talk page and you will get a more detailed explanation about whether or not the edit is appropriate (rather than the somewhat terse 1-line edit summary if someone reverts). I would also recommend setting up a username rather than editing as an ip address. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your comments and reply, I looked at the reliable sources page you highlighted for me, and I cant see why the link I put to Dr lerners papers would not be allowed, they are reliable sources..they are scientific studies. Also I looked on the discussion page and couldnt see a reference to why twisk and maes was unallowed???? with regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.134.171 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

@IP217/IP86: as SW says, create a user ID so that we can see who you are and don't get confused by dynamic IPs. Use the talk page of the article to discuss article content. You can't expect editors to do this on their user talk pages. -- TerryE (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

with respect it was this editor who removed my edit which I might add took me a long time to write and also I did included all the relevent references....twisk and maes, and Dr lerners work should be included on the site, if the editor thinks they shouldnt I feel I have a right to know why they hold that view, I am new to wikipedia editing so I dont understand all the acronyms, hence me posting here, many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.134.171 (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is conventional and more constructive to discuss your edits on the discussion page of the article you edited. Then all the editors watching the article can see the issues and comment. It is much more efficient than editors discussing edits individually on their pages. The editors will do their best to help. Ward20 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey sw, maybe K and IP86.159.3.27 need to compare notes on whether I am pro-biological or pro-psychological causation. LoL. People can't seem to accept that both have a part to play. -- TerryE (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You amuse me. Patients hate the name CFS/ME, they hate the Government for using the official name CFS/ME, as it represents one disease, and is an attempt to get rid of ME. Therefore, your comments about POV are ridiculous. You fail to read the factual information, and are unable to provide any evidence for your POV. Having others who are also as ignorant as yourself come along to back you up is of no merit. It merely demonstrates the bias toward factual information. Your calculations on time are also incorrect, but why am I not surprised. Again, just in case you also failed to realise, THE HEALTH MINISTER IS GILLIAN MERRON, NOT ANNETTE BROOKE.UYBS (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

article

You may have missed this on the CFS talk page. PM me an address I can send an attachment to and I will send you the full text PMID 18019402. Ward20 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I did see that, and I sent you an email through wikipedia with my email address. Check your spam/junk filter. Is there another way to PM you? --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Try GmaleW_gmail.com with an @ sign instead of the underline. Ward20 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Never mind I found where it went. Ward20 (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sent, tell me if you don't get it. Ward20 (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for greeting.

Thanks for clearing that up and the link. I originally thought if something was merely a small expansion on a topic already described it would be "minor" (vs simply grammar and spelling ). I will make sure to note the difference in the future. Thanks for your greetings! DavidDuff (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)