Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robertinventor (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 8 April 2015 (→Issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories#Parity_of_sources Parity of sources section.

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.

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, one of the highest ranking universities in Europe. 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)