Misplaced Pages

Talk:Myalgic encephalomyelitis: 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 21:00, 20 October 2007 editJfdwolff (talk | contribs)Administrators81,547 edits →Vote← Previous edit Revision as of 22:09, 20 October 2007 edit undoRoadcreature (talk | contribs)4,347 edits →VoteNext edit →
Line 138: Line 138:


Can we please agree to automatically strike the votes of any new users (account <1 week old)? However much I appreciate the opinion of {{User|Jlasf1}}, I refuse to let this turn into an astroturfing and sockpuppeting game. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Can we please agree to automatically strike the votes of any new users (account <1 week old)? However much I appreciate the opinion of {{User|Jlasf1}}, I refuse to let this turn into an astroturfing and sockpuppeting game. ]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

:As long as we are striking votes, I'd like to strike Mastcell's, in view of his open hostility regarding ME patients. But no, this is not an official vote, nor does there need to be a vote to start an article. It is the content that matters, or at least that is how it should be. ] 22:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:09, 20 October 2007

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.

Article

This page is not needed; proper article at Chronic fatigue syndrome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedreamdied (talk • contribs) 13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is needed - read the text of both pages! Chronic fatigue syndrome and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis are not the same - although very similar. If you disagree than take it up with the WHO. It is not normal for Misplaced Pages to list different things as one and the same.
This page should address the specifics of ME for those who want to know them. The CFS page should address the specifics of CFS. If you want to discuss the similarities then these can be mentioned in the relevant sections of each page or a seperate page can be created for that. If you want to debate the name or nature of the illnesses then wikipedia isn't the place.
Kmclellan 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Treatment section

Removed some inappropriate text from the treatment section. Jklsc 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirected

Obviously, chronic fatigue syndrome has now grown enormously, and this page is just a placeholder for those who disagree with the terminology. I strongly suggest we keep this as a redirect. JFW | T@lk 06:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Removed

Jfdwolff, please read, and contribute to, the discussion page of a topic before you start applying redirects willy nilly and taking over. This is not a POV Fork as you implied. In fact, your redirect is the opposite of a neutral point of view (please see "NPOV" and the NPOV tutorial) it can also be argued to be original research as it advances the position that ME and CFS are the same thing despite debate in the wider community, declarations and classifications by the WHO, and published scientific articles.

As the user above mentions, CFS and ME maybe very similar, they may be the same thing, I don't know. However, they are different terms with different histories and deserve different, albeit related, entries (hyperlinks are an easy tool to add to an article you know). Personally, when the World Health Organisation decides to list them as the same thing then I will let you implement the redirect. Until then, separate entities deserve separate entries.

I have labeled this page as controversial for now. Jklsc 11:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your reinstatement, and will leave a post for discussion on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. You need not lecture me on NPOV. NPOV does not mean we should have articles about different names, and most authorities (e.g. the new NICE guideline) state unequivocally that whether it's called ME or CFS, it is the same condition. This WHO business is the result of heavy political lobbying, and I am unaware of a source that does not map chronic fatigue syndrome to G93.3. I suggest you participate in discussion on the CFS talkpage. JFW | T@lk 09:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem convinced that CFS and ME are the same thing despite the evidence to the contrary. I do not know of this consensus which you refer too. You may not have noticed that the NICE guidelines you refer to have had more objections by health profesionals and researchers (let alone other interested parties) than any previous guidelines. I personally feel that international consensus (i.e. the WHO) trumps my opinion whether I like it or not. Since my arguments haven't worked on you, and yours have not worked on me nor the others who have posted here, what would convince you that there is a need for a separate ME page?
Incidentally, I see that G93.3 makes no mention of CFS... perhaps you are using the wrong term or they are different things? Mapping to G93.3 is not the same thing as being listed under it.
NB this is a dispute about the ME page so it belongs on the ME page not the CFS page.
Jklsc 15:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
JFW should be well aware of the objections to the NICE Guidelines - I have already pointed out to him on the CFS Talk page that the national patient organisation, The ME Association has called in a press release for the withdrawal of the guidelines and that this call is supported by the national charities, The 25% ME Group (for severe sufferers) and the Young ME Sufferers Trust. CFS comes in several different flavours; Wessely and KCL's version of CFS is NOT ME - this is a concept that JFW (who is very busy on the Wessely Talk page) has yet to grasp. MEagenda 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been discussion on this at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Please look there - at the moment there is no consensus for dual articles. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, in discussions elsewhere there is no case for forking this article. If you want to turn this into a fork, please encourage other contributors to discuss either on the CFS talkpage or here. JFW | T@lk 11:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Jfdwolff please stop forcing your opinion on the contributors of this page. Contributors to this page have given valid reasons for it's existence. You have not provided anything other than your opinion that this page should be redirected to the CFS page. The relevant justification for the redirect should be provided here and agreed to here. This page is not a fork and should not be treated as one. As you are the only person here who has a problem with this page then you need to encourage other contributors to discuss this page here.
Let me re-iterate that CFS and ME are not the same thing. ME criteria fit within the American CFS criteria but not the other way round. A fitting analogy is that it would be unusual for there to be a page on Great Apes but not on Homo Sapiens as Homo Sapiens are Great Apes but not all Great Apes are Homo Sapiens. Also, the contributors to one page do not automatically override the contributors to the other. So, again, please make your case and back it up with evidence, rather than point of view, that ME and CFS are the same thing and that ME should redirect to CFS. Alternatively, please state what we can do to convince you that this page should stay. Kmclellan 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

vascular damage

ME is a historical diagnosis CFS is not. This is the position of Vance Spence, Byron Hyde, Betty Dowsett, Ramsay and numerous other experts on ME. Nice are very good on CFS I am sure but ME patients don't have fatigue as a symptom- so saying they suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome is erroneous- they suffer from CNS dysfunction that can be measured using SPECT etc. Whilst autopsy of these patients always shows vascular injury. At Akureyri this was vascular injury in the basal ganglia, vascular injury was also found in the sporadic Newcastle outbreaks via autopsy.

THIS PAGE MUST STAY!

88.108.49.106alpinist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am working on the historic aspect of the disease which is different from CFS- please can we not have any reverts- I have used one source which is copyright free and am about to work on cross referencing etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.49.106 (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Alpinist, there is a general consensus that CFS equals ME. If you want to quote the dissenting opinions, do so on chronic fatigue syndrome. Please discuss further forks there. JFW | T@lk 06:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
No, such a concensus does not exist. The two are certainly not the same, and cannot be, since they are different types of entities. CFS is intended for the same patients, but it's a different diagnosis, where many people get diagnosed with CFS that do in fact not have ME. Guido den Broeder 23:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

move?

Shouldn't this be Myalgic encephalomyelitis with a lower-case e rather than capital? It's per WP:MOS#CAPS. WLU 16:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Even an example that they gave at WP:MOS#Article_titles.2C_headings_and_sections doesn't follow the rules: The Rolling Stones as it is title case and starts with 'The'. The illness is normally refered to as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, so I don't think that it matters either way. Still, since Multiple Sclerosis is 'Multiple sclerosis' on wikipedia and yet 'Multiple Sclerosis' almost every where else, we might as well stick with Jfdwolff's conversion to Myalgic encephalomyelitis... Kmclellan 02:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Some comments on the below discussion:

  • the ICD10 link proves that the ICD uses the ME diagnosis. If reliable sources agree that it's substantially the same as CFS, it should only be one page. Link 4 on CFS seems to though I can't read the article itself.
  • age isn't the best way of determining the page name, it's usefulness. Which is more common? If they are interchangeable (in reliable sources), it should be one or the other. If doctors are settling on CFS (as CFS ref 4 suggests), it should be CFS.
  • The Rolling Stones point does not support the move - the name of the band is The Rolling Stones, not Rolling Stones.
  • patient advocacy sites are sources for discussions of controversy, not suggestions for page names. Peer-reviewed trumps all. No-one has brought it up yet in this discussion, but I figure I might as well strike pre-emptively.
  • rather than advocating on talk pages, finding and citing sources would be much more helpful. If ME is not CFS, find a RS and cite it. WLU 20:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect or Not

Template:RFCsci

Should the Myalgic encephalomyelitis page redirect to the Chronic fatigue syndrome page?

The page was previously 'Myalgic Encephalomyelitis' and experienced many reverts by two users.

Please note, many contributors to this page may have this illness and may not be able to respond quickly.


Vote

Below is a table for casting your vote on whether or not this page should re-direct to Chronic fatigue syndrome. Please copy the last row and fill it in with your user name, view, and comment.

Username Keep, Redirect, Neutral Reason
Kmclellan Keep CFS or ME are similar but complex and separate entities with different histories and different diagnostic criteria. Redirecting ME to CFS is not necessary, confusing, and ignores the fact that ME is internationally recognised as an illness in it's own right (see ICD10 G93.3). Kmclellan 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder Keep Since CFS is only a syndrome diagnosis and ME is 30 years older than CFS, it is otherwise not possible to provide certain information, at least not in a comprehensible and readily recognizable manner. Guido den Broeder 10:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
JFW | T@lk Redirect Most authorities use CFS and ME interchangeably, and given the enormous overlap this can only justifiably be dealt with on one page, which I submit should be chronic fatigue syndrome. Please note that this issue has already been discussed in extenso on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. JFW | T@lk 19:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
MastCell Redirect Both terms exist, but that does not mean they need individual articles. They are currently used largely interchangeably by reliable sources, and any historical differences can be adequately summarized in a single article. In addition, content forks of controversial or battleground articles are a generally poor idea, as they simply diffuse the conflict and often end up contradicting each other.
WLU Neutral I'm neutral due to a lack of expertise, but if reliable sources document them as the same or discuss (subtle?) differences, a single page with a controversy section or possibly a main seems the solution. If RS fail to document the difference, or document that they are the same thing, the page should reflect this. Verifiability, not truth, until a difference is discovered and discussed in RS, they are verifiably the same thing. Is this a straw poll or a discussion?
Thedreamdied 21:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Redirect I agree with everything JDW says - most people use both terms to mean the same thing, and we can include an explanation of why and when some people use different terms in the main CFS article.
Sciencewatcher 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Redirect Everything JFW says. And as discussed in the CFS page, ME implies an etiology that simply doesn't exist.
Jlasf1 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Combine I agree ME and CFS/CFIDS are different and a cause for much confusion. Yet most researchers have moved beyond the name argument and reference ME/CFS. Why not combine the name(s)/entry? Provide sections w/the differences/histories,etc. If this were a published encyclopedia there would be separate entries; however we users desire current info, which seems best suited to one entry. How will sub-group names be managed - such as VICD?


Third Opinion: Two things before I go about with the third opinion. First, third opinions are given when disputes involve only 2 editors. As can be seen in both articles' talk pages, a couple (more than 2) editors are involved and therefore other methods in the dispute resolution process are encouraged; such as the request for comment that was initiated above. Second, as per WP:VOTE, polling such as the above table is highly discouraged as people tend to forget that it's not a subsitute for discussion regardless of the outcome of the vote.

As for the third opinion, from what I can ascertain, ME can easily be dealt with in the CFS article to differentiate the two terms if that is indeed necessary. At this point in time, there is no need to fork the two. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have only the CFS article to go on, you can't know what is missing. Guido den Broeder 00:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the 3O is to provide a third opinion. Though it's really outside of the 3O bounds, the opinion was to say the CFS article should document the discussions, differences and disagreements between the terms and uses of CFS and ME or any other terms. It's a statement I agree with. If the differences are major (as documented in reliable sources), then discussion can begin on breaking out to a new article. Start the article, here, or ideally on a sub-page of your user talk on the disagreements about ME/CFS and labelling, and ask for comments once you are done. As is, given the vote/opinions above and the 3O, it looks like it's going to be a redirect to a single article. If you've a better idea, write it first, then post and ask for comments. Misplaced Pages isn't going away, so you can at least get it done eventually, even if it isn't right now. WLU 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is not necessary at the moment. The choice is basically trichotomous: fork, redirect, neutral. People who suggest a merge should closely review the present CFS article, which is already a combination of CFS and ME research, given that most authorities (apart from Byron Hyde, obviously) feel that these are either identical or strongly overlapping conditions.

I agree with WLU, with the added request that any rewritten article should be composed in a user's own userspace, and moved to mainspace when there is consensus that it is good enough for prime time.

Can we please agree to automatically strike the votes of any new users (account <1 week old)? However much I appreciate the opinion of Jlasf1 (talk · contribs), I refuse to let this turn into an astroturfing and sockpuppeting game. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as we are striking votes, I'd like to strike Mastcell's, in view of his open hostility regarding ME patients. But no, this is not an official vote, nor does there need to be a vote to start an article. It is the content that matters, or at least that is how it should be. Guido den Broeder 22:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Category: