Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 9 April 2015

Issues

There are still WP:OR and WP:POVFORK issues and the whole thing reads like an editorial essay, not an encyclopaedic article.

• Title - should be something like Morgellons controversies, not one that names these two specific controversies. The primary controversy is whether Morgellons exists at all as a separate disease. The secondary controversies are then the causes of the disease. The focus on these two aspects only is what makes this a WP:POVFORK.

• CDC Limitations section - The peer review for the study you're using as a reliable source is not itself a reliable source. A Master's thesis may or may not be considered a reliable source; either way, even if reliable sources do discuss limitations in the study, that does not mean that the article should include quotes describing those limitations. That whole section has to go.

• The Mayo quote is WP:UNDUE. Instead of including the whole quote, the paper can be used a reference. Take out that whole quote.

• References - Including a quote in the References and saying it's from some paper or other is not the way references are cited on Misplaced Pages. Better to cite the paper again and include the quote in the cite. Also Diagnosis or Delusion? Critical article covering the foundation by Katherine Foleyjan, 2015 is inappropriate: we Misplaced Pages editors do not describe the reference used; we only state the reference itself. This reference is also incomplete as it doesn't include the source name - is it a website, a journal article, a news site? Try using the cite templates.

• Overall - it's written as an essay, not an encyclopaedic article. Things like For more details, see the paragraph describing limitations of the study in the conclusion of their report , and their paragraph about whether it is a mental illness in the report are something you'd find in an essay. Encyclopaedic articles start a particular way, which is to define the title of the article. I strongly urge you to read the Manual of Style with particular attention to things like tone and style.

This article might have potential but it needs work. Would you object if I took a crack at it? Ca2james (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay taking your points in turn, and repeating them, so as not to break up your original post:

• Title - should be something like Morgellons controversies, not one that names these two specific controversies. The primary controversy is whether Morgellons exists at all as a separate disease. The secondary controversies are then the causes of the disease. The focus on these two aspects only is what makes this a WP:POVFORK.

Perhaps the title is misleading. I find titles often are the most important thing to get right.

It's a single theory, "borellia spirochetes, and Lyme disease" - as some species of borellia spirochetes are the cause of Lyme disease. They are claiming that the same organisms that cause Lyme disease later cause Morgellons, and that nearly all the patients concerned had Lyme disease at some point in the past, and that the common cause is the borellia spirochetes. It's not two theories, one related to borellia spirochetes and another to Lyme disease.

I wanted to focus on this particular theory as the subject of the article. Because there are many controversial theories for Morgellons on the web. Things like nanobots and all sorts of crazy seeming ideas.

Perhaps another article could cover the other ideas, but I'm not sure they are notable enough as they do not get mentioned in peer reviewed scientific journals, and don't get extensive coverage much of anywhere except blog posts and very occasional mentions in news stories in the papers who cover the wilder types of story.

This is the only theory that is being pursued in a scientific fashion as far as I can see. There were other theories back before the CDC report that were also subject of scientific reports, but they don't seem to be mentioned in the literature any more so I assume that they are no longer considered viable. And I think again it would lose focus if it were to talk about all those theories.

I couldn't find any other theories in Google scholar post CDC in reputable sources.

So, I'm not so keen on this idea of making it a general article about all the Morgellon controversies. Fine with the idea of indicating more clearly that it is controversial that Morgellons exists at all as a separate condition, no problem with that at all, and if you have a title that indicates that more clearly, fine!

When covering fringe theories, then I think you can have one article per theory, depending on the situation. I just feel it is distracting to the reader to cover non scientific fringe theories along with ones that are minority science not accepted by the mainstream. I'd be okay with a more general title if there were more scientific theories to be covered but I don't think there are right now, except perhaps for a history section covering pre-CDC theories.

• CDC Limitations section - The peer review for the study you're using as a reliable source is not itself a reliable source. A Master's thesis may or may not be considered a reliable source; either way, even if reliable sources do discuss limitations in the study, that does not mean that the article should include quotes describing those limitations. That whole section has to go.

It's mid edit. I was going to search to see if that peer review is published somewhere. So far I only found a copy on the Morgellons Disease Foundation website. But it has many names on it, and they may have copied it from somewhere else. I was going to search for those names and see where it comes from. If it is just a quote from the MDF, I agree that it should be deleted.

Well probably anyway. It's a little different for fringe theories see the Parity of sources section. But I'm okay with deleting it anyway unless some more substantial connection with the CDC turns up when I search for the names of the authors.

I don't feel strongly about including this section, first draft didn't have it I think if I remember right, but I thought it would help the reader to understand how it is that the scientists continue with their research in this fringe science area. If you just present the CDC study and then don't mention limitations in it, then it makes it seem like they are crazy for continuing to pursue research in this area which I think isn't true.

None of this is to try to convince the reader that this hypothesis is true. Is just so they can understand the reasoning of the researchers who are pursuing this hypothesis. If it presents the situation clearly as they see it, while at the same time qualifying it as a fringe idea clearly, then I'm okay with it. If it misrepresents their ideas and their reasoning, then I feel that is a problem. Because then it is not giving the reader a chance to make their own assessment and come to their own understanding of the situation but is in effect influencing the reader's assessment through misrepresentation of the researchers views.

It could be just a sentence, if you think an entire section is too much, but I think it should be said somewhere that both the CDC as well as other commentators say that their study has limitations, and that they did not conclusively confirm Morgellons as delusional infestation, as that was outside their remit.

It is quoting from the FAQ on the CDC website. And not picking out paragraphs or summarizing or paraphrasing, just direct quote of their entire answer to each question. In short summary form as they state it themselves, so not requiring reader to read through a technical paper to verify a paraphrase. I thought that that was enough to answer your points there?

University College London is a prestigious institution, counts amongst the highest ranking universities in Europe (article says it is 4th best in Europe in some rankings). I think a Masters degree from UCL carries some weight.

• The Mayo quote is WP:UNDUE. Instead of including the whole quote, the paper can be used a reference. Take out that whole quote.

You mean just something like the Mayo Clinic refers to this theory as a "possible link between Morgellons and infection with Borrelia spirochetes " ? I'm okay with that. I included the rest just to put it in context.

• References - Including a quote in the References and saying it's from some paper or other is not the way references are cited on Misplaced Pages. Better to cite the paper again and include the quote in the cite. Also Diagnosis or Delusion? Critical article covering the foundation by Katherine Foleyjan, 2015 is inappropriate: we Misplaced Pages editors do not describe the reference used; we only state the reference itself. This reference is also incomplete as it doesn't include the source name - is it a website, a journal article, a news site? Try using the cite templates.

Okay for sure. Anyway at this stage those quotes were mainly for other editors (including myself) to help verify the paraphrases. I type in the references by hand as wiki code rather than use the Cite button at the top of the editor as I find it much easier that way, and the cite template is not so easy to type as wiki code. Yes fine with converting those to the more usual cite format for quotations in footnotes.

• Overall - it's written as an essay, not an encyclopaedic article. Things like For more details, see the paragraph describing limitations of the study in the conclusion of their report , and their paragraph about whether it is a mental illness in the report are something you'd find in an essay. Encyclopaedic articles start a particular way, which is to define the title of the article. I strongly urge you to read the Manual of Style with particular attention to things like tone and style.

Okay again, I'm fine with editing it for style. I write articles here as best I can, and expect some editing for style to be needed. Maybe I can learn from the way it is re-edited? Robert Walker (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This article might have potential but it needs work. Would you object if I took a crack at it?

Yes for sure, but can we first sort out these various questions first. I see the main points here as

* whether it is okay to focus on the scientific papers rather than the wider range of Morgellons controversies

* whether to mention the limitations of the CDC report in some form, and if so, how to do it.

Then once we are sure we are on the same page, with a reasonable and acceptable shared vision for the article, then great to have someone to help with fixing issues in the article!

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If the article doesn't prominently discuss the main controversy, which is that mainstream science says Morgellons is the result of delusions, then it winds up being a POVFORK and it will be deleted. Moreover, most RS say that this small group says it's not just a manifestation of delusions, making it controversial, so not including that fact is OR and SYNTH. The controversy over the spirochaete is much less prominently reported in independent RS and so should not be more prominent than the controversy that is reported. Finally, the spirochaete papers do not comply with MEDRS since they're primary studies so I don't even know how much they can be used. I think mention can be made that the research is ongoing but I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from the studies.

Like it or not, but much of the reliable sources for this are probably going to be articles like the one in Scientific American. Using the peer review is WP:SYNTH since it would be used to support the assertion that there are limitations to the CDC study which is not the point of the peer review. To mention the CDC limitations you need RS that specifically mention the study, the limitations, and the impact it's had on Morgellons research. I don't know if the master's thesis is a RS because it hadn't been peer reviewed, vetted by the community, and it's not for a PhD. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Has this thesis had such an influence? Has it been cited anywhere?

The CDC section is better without the quotes about limitations. However quoting the thesis isn't that much better. The preceding paragraph says In their criticisms, they cite certain limitations of methodology mentioned in the study, as well as demographical and geographical limitations. Who are "they"? What are the "certain limitations"? Better to provide a reference for "they" and sum up the limitations with references to whoever noted those limitations instead of quoting just one reference there. Ca2james (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

New edit today

Going to try a few ideas to see if they help with the issues you identified. So first:

• Moved the title to "Hypothesis that Morgellons is linked to Lyme disease, with common cause of Borellia spirochetes" to make it clear that it is just one hypothesis covered here, not multiple different fringe theories.

• Rewrote that section (for discussion) as "The claim that the CDC report hasn't completely "closed the book" on Morgellons" and quoted a long section from Harry Schone's Master thesis.

It's a long quote in order to have the minimum of editorial influence on the quote. And I feel that a masters thesis on the History and Philosophy of Science is about as NPOV as you could get in this context, with no evidence of any connection between him and the researchers and his thesis not at all written in a tone to support or promote their research. Robert Walker (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Also rewrote the lede and put the Mayo clinic quote into a footnote with just a short one sentence paraphrase. And removed the "External peer review" as I couldn't find anything to suggest that it was used in some substantially noteworthy way beyond being put on their website. Which doesn't mean it wasn't, Google is not infallible, and also depends on choice of key words, but I can't find any evidence it was yet.

I think it's not too surprising if an article like this it takes some time to get the right balance. I'm mainly concerned that it should represent the views of the researchers correctly. I don't want to write an article which they would feel misrepresents their ideas or reasoning. But also don't want to write an article that the CDC or medical establishment would feel misrepresents their ideas or reasoning either! It seems to be a topic area where there has been a break down of trust, as Harry Schones points out in his thesis about the debate in his section on Trust, e.g. patients not mentioning symptoms because they don't want to be diagnosed with delusional parasitosis, and doctors prescribing anti-psychotic drugs without telling the patients that that is their main purpose, referring instead to side effects that help with skin conditions.

So I want to be especially careful not to that in any way, in either direction, and make sure that everything I put in the article is an accurate statement of the views of those concerned. Robert Walker (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Just put the Schones quote into a ref. We can make all the quotes in the refs into proper cite tags later if it is accepted that this is a good way to do it. Anyway this makes that section very short now, and maybe okay especially with the new title which makes it clear it is not attempting an objective assessment of the CDC report, but just to present the view of the researchers on the report. What do you think - does it achieve that, which was my aim? And is it acceptable now? Robert Walker (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Some more rewrite of that section, trying to get the balance right, new section title is "General consensus that the CDC report has "closed the book" on Morgellons" Robert Walker (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Also tried another variation as Version with the two CDC sections merged together Robert Walker (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Another try

Hi Ca2james, I've done one more try today. The aim is just to say somewhere in the article, somehow, that the researchers involved think that the CDC report is something that is capable of critical appraisal while all the other researchers consider it to be a closed book. And to present that in as WP:NPOV way as possible. I tried many ideas as you'll see from the history, but best I could do is this short quote from the Schones thesis which I think is the only approximately WP:NPOV study that we have available to us to write this section.

This is the best I can do. If you think that all mention of criticisms of the CDC report should be omitted from this article, well okay but I'd like some more discussion first to understand better why you feel it should be omitted.

If you can find a way to improve this, go ahead and edit it as you please!

Robert Walker (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)