Misplaced Pages

Talk:Morgellons: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:09, 17 November 2013 editDbrodbeck (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,171 edits →misleading lead: please see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=566271317&oldid=566270320#Morgellons_and_Talk:Morgellons← Previous edit Revision as of 16:06, 17 November 2013 edit undoScray (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,806 edits →misleading lead: unsignedNext edit →
Line 106: Line 106:
"signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are '''very similar to''' those of a mental illness involving false beliefs about infestation by parasites (delusional parasitosis)" "signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are '''very similar to''' those of a mental illness involving false beliefs about infestation by parasites (delusional parasitosis)"


Thus it does not support the current lead which says Morgellons is simply this one delusional belief. Unclear why several editors keep reinserting this non-sourced claim, and thus I would be grateful if you could give your reasons here, or at least find a source that actually supports the current lead. Thus it does not support the current lead which says Morgellons is simply this one delusional belief. Unclear why several editors keep reinserting this non-sourced claim, and thus I would be grateful if you could give your reasons here, or at least find a source that actually supports the current lead. {{unsigned2|15:04, 12 November 2013|82.45.196.6}}
:This seems to be splitting hairs to me. We have a well established lead actually. I don't think edit warring helps very much. ] (]) 19:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC) :This seems to be splitting hairs to me. We have a well established lead actually. I don't think edit warring helps very much. ] (]) 19:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


::Well established perhaps, but also unsupported by the sources. That is, the sources offered are nowhere near as definitive as the lead. Specifically, the sources all have caveats such as "likely" or "similar" that are completely absent from the lead. And, if it is just splitting-hairs, as you claim, then you should have no objection to my version. ::Well established perhaps, but also unsupported by the sources. That is, the sources offered are nowhere near as definitive as the lead. Specifically, the sources all have caveats such as "likely" or "similar" that are completely absent from the lead. And, if it is just splitting-hairs, as you claim, then you should have no objection to my version. {{unsigned2|19:58, 12 November 2013|82.45.196.6}}
:::My objection is to changing a contentious article without discussion and edit warring actually. I still see it as splitting hairs, and, therefore, and unnecessary change. I would like to see what others think though. ] (]) 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC) :::My objection is to changing a contentious article without discussion and edit warring actually. I still see it as splitting hairs, and, therefore, and unnecessary change. I would like to see what others think though. ] (]) 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
::::Agree it is laregely splitting hairs, but changed source for that sentence to the Freudenmann review. No need to cite Mayo when we have an authoritative review on the topic. ] (]) 20:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC) ::::Agree it is laregely splitting hairs, but changed source for that sentence to the Freudenmann review. No need to cite Mayo when we have an authoritative review on the topic. ] (]) 20:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:06, 17 November 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Morgellons article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Morgellons.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
It is requested that an image or photograph of Morgellons be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload


Archive
Archives

The SECONDARY and THIRD source HAD ARRIVED

http://f1000research.com/articles/2-118/v1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257881/ Blueyefinity (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Already discussed. First isn't RS, for the second, see archives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, umm look up what a secondary and tertiary source are, they don't just enumerate how many sources you have. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

undiagnosed itch conditions

Is it possible to put something about sufferers of Morgellons having "real itch illnesses" that don't get treated sucessfully, which they then asign to morgellons?--149.254.58.126 (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an acceptable source to cite to show that this happens? 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's a source from the UK newspaper "The Guardian". http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/may/07/morgellons-mysterious-illness And here's a relevant quote from that article:
I contact Dr Anne Louise Oaklander, associate professor at Harvard Medical School and perhaps the only neurologist in the world to specialise in itch. I email her describing morgellons, pointing out it's probably some form of DOP. But when we speak, she knows all about morgellons already. "In my experience, morgellons patients are doing the best they can to make sense of symptoms that are real. They're suffering from a chronic itch disorder that's undiagnosed. They have been maltreated by the medical establishment. And you are welcome to quote me on that," she adds.
--149.254.51.166 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
That is Dr Oaklander's theory: she isn't asserting it as fact. She also makes clear that she considers that morgellons may sometimes have psychiatric causes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing is denying or lessening the strong psychiatric component of morgellons. There are no parasites or etc. But some people who have Morgellons have real itch, and because they're don't get an effective treatment for it, go on to self-diagnose morgellons. All I'm asking for is a small mention, (not in the lead) that some people with morgellons have undiagnosed itch conditions.--31.96.231.85 (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The Guardian article was written before the CDC study was completed and exclusively quotes people we already know to be fringe view advocates. Without an actual reliable source that supports Dr. Oaklander's hypothesis, I'm not seeing a good reason to include her opinion in the article. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Extended content

All itching/pain/touch is psychological as with sufficient drugs you can be set on fire and not feel a thing. The point being that if doctors can't do anything that addresses a known real problem then take the anti-depressants etc. They are NOT treating you unfairly. Its a universal treatment for BOTH crazy people and people with acknowledged real diseases especially terminal diseases which doctors cannot address in a real and effective way (if doctors think its a real disease for which the cause cannot be addresses its called pallative treatment). Real or imagined they can make the symptoms go away. 2605:6000:1011:4083:D522:2E64:E9E8:794B (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection

Addressing the physiological aspect of the Morgellon disease, the wiki article should be REWRITTEN with data extracted from the National Center for Biotechnology Information here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257881/#!po=5.00000

and other sources

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10694837.htm

http://f1000research.com/articles/2-118/v1

Hopefully someone will make the time and properly review the Morgellon wiki article that is presently addressing just the "psycho" part of the disease. If doctors and scientists take their time and study this condition seriously, not just labeling it "delusional belief" and put the a lid on it, I think the Misplaced Pages users can do the same and make the articles in such manner to reflect all points of view, not just the old, superficial ones. I hope someone will find the time and take a look at the info before discarding it as before. As for AndytheStump, maybe he will learn to read an article and see all the references pointing to, some of which are already presented in the wiki article, before reverting changes on a whim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyefinity (talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a single primary source. It is entirely unjustified (per both WP:MEDRS and common sense) to rewrite much of the article based on it. If you bothered to check the archives, you'd see that it has already been discussed. Furthermore, the images you have uploaded are clearly derived from the same source , and uploaded in breach of copyright. I see you have already been warned regarding copyright violations, , and I can think of no good reason not to report the matter immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
And I now see that you have further violated copyright by copying text from the same source. I shall now be reporting the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

- Here's your second source: http://f1000research.com/articles/2-118/v1

That is not a RS, please see the archives. In fact, just go read the archives anyway. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Exactly - F1000 is an open-access journal, with no peer review prior to publication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous Editing on Misplaced Pages Keeps Morgellons Sufferers in the Dark

Nothing to see here. This is not the reference you are looking for. Move along.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As cited from: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10707772.htm

"what the public does not realize is that Misplaced Pages is posing as a genuine source of knowledge, the accuracy of their information is greatly lacking and it is vulnerable to manipulation through editing by anonymous special interest groups." Lots of astroturfing here on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyefinity (talk • contribs) 02:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

This too has been discussed, prweb is about as reliable as the National Enquirer. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Yup. Nothing but a press release by a disgruntled researcher. Worthless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Plus, it is really nothing but an attack page about a particular editor, I am going to hat this Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)|}
at least is a researcher, maybe disgruntled, but not only a measly "editor" as some of the stumps here Blueyefinity (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

misleading lead

The source - The Mayo Clinic - does not support the view currently attributed to it. The source says, quite specifically, that

"signs and symptoms of Morgellons disease are very similar to those of a mental illness involving false beliefs about infestation by parasites (delusional parasitosis)"

Thus it does not support the current lead which says Morgellons is simply this one delusional belief. Unclear why several editors keep reinserting this non-sourced claim, and thus I would be grateful if you could give your reasons here, or at least find a source that actually supports the current lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.196.6 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be splitting hairs to me. We have a well established lead actually. I don't think edit warring helps very much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Well established perhaps, but also unsupported by the sources. That is, the sources offered are nowhere near as definitive as the lead. Specifically, the sources all have caveats such as "likely" or "similar" that are completely absent from the lead. And, if it is just splitting-hairs, as you claim, then you should have no objection to my version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.196.6 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
My objection is to changing a contentious article without discussion and edit warring actually. I still see it as splitting hairs, and, therefore, and unnecessary change. I would like to see what others think though. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree it is laregely splitting hairs, but changed source for that sentence to the Freudenmann review. No need to cite Mayo when we have an authoritative review on the topic. Yobol (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
That's better, although the intial part of the lead still inaccurately characterises Morgellons as being that delusional belief alone rather than as a variety of genuine symptoms which also include that belief (as a symptom). Unsure why it can't just be characterised in line with the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.196.6 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

........The current lead and the entire article actually is in no way supported by the sources provided. However, it is supported in it's entirety solely by the group of editors who insist on the continuation of the POV which these editors have chosen for some reason to adhere to. It is not only derogatory toward Morgellons patients but it also misrepresents the viewpoints of America's health organizations as well as degrading to public view on Misplaced Pages in general as being a source of any reliable information. The viewpoint of Misplaced Pages editors on the Morgellons article is shared solely by the editors themselves. The Mayo Clinic as well as the authors of the CDC report disagree with the viewpoints in this article. Why would a few editors on Misplaced Pages wish to override more authoritative viewpoints from those much more credentialed and certainly more informed? That is a question to which no one seems to have an answer. Maybe the editors themselves can explain their fixed and unshakable beliefs that Morgellons is purely psychological in origin. Sierraparis (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Sieraparis

Pretty much everything you just said is wrong, as we've repeatedly explained to you. However, if you have a specific proposed edit for the article, post it here and we can discuss it. If you don't have a proposed edit for the article and are just here to advocate your point of view without actually being willing to put any effort into building an encyclopedia according to Misplaced Pages principles, then there's no reason to allow you to continue disrupting the people who are. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Sierraparis, have you forgotten this . Attacking other editors (saying we are 'derogatory towards Morgellons patients') and misrepresenting sources are exactly the kind of bullshit you have been told to stop or you will be topic banned. Stop it now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Categories: