Talk:Moregellons Lyme hypothesis

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 [6], 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 " [cite]? 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 [6], 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)

Okay I didn't know that about masters theses. Just read what the guidelines say, so that seems pretty conclusive that we can't use Schone's thesis. I'll remove it then. I'm going to do a copy of this article first for reference while working on the new version.

I'm writing this as a fringe science article, so I don't think it needs to satisfy WP:MEDRS. If you are restricted to using papers that are reviews of established ideas, describing what is regarded as acceptable in the mainstream, you simply can't do an article about a fringe theory, because by definition it is not going to appear in those articles. If it did, it wouldn't be fringe.

I want this article to focus on the fringe theory itself and describe it clearly enough so the reader knows what the theory is. I don't want to get distracted into writing an article about the Morgellons debate as that would just be a duplicate of the main Morgellons article. I think it is enough to make it clear that this is a fringe theory and link directly to the main article for the mainstream idea.

Anyway I'll delete that section first. I'll also collapse the rest of the talk posts here as they are mostly about that section and this page is getting a bit long.

I find this quite difficult to write, so please bear with me. It's not easy to get used to these guidelines, and I am also used to writing science blog posts, which leave you far more free in the way you say things, also of course the style is different as well. I find it okay in pure science material, also maths and polyrhythms and microtonal music, and I found it okay in the ICAMSR fringe science article I wrote - there were some issues there but not nearly as hard to write as this article. Here, it's quite tricky!

Especially as I think personally, just from reading the report itself, that the CDC report states quite clearly that it has limitations, and that they were not able to conclusively say what the cause of Morgellons is, and also I feel Harry Schone makes good points about the way it has only 41 clinically assessed patients due to the rarity of the condition and the objections made by the researchers that they don't think that necessarily all of these had Morgellons. So - it's something that seems clearly true to me, but because of the guidelines, can't be said in the article. Which is not saying at all that I think the fringe theory itself is true. Just that it seems clearly true to me that the CDC study had some limitations, and that there is at least some "wriggle room" there that makes it understandable that some people could feel that more research is still possible.

But I understand that I can't say that in this article, because a masters thesis is not considered authoritative enough, so will write what can be said here. Robert Walker (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Ca2james, Okay - how do you find it now? I decided to turn it completely around and start by stating the fringe hypothesis itself in more detail in the first paragraph. Because that's the topic of the article after all. Then after that follows with the CDC report and refers to the "matchbox sign" which then makes it clear how it is that the CDC consider it to be delusional. Then I refer the reader to the mainstream article on Morgellons for more details of the mainstream view - and then continue to more details of the fringe hypothesis. I felt this worked okay - at least that this way of organizing it may have addressed many of the issues you raised, but what do you think? Robert Walker (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

On prominence, the guideline for fringe theories is "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear."

So - as I understanding the guideline at present - that means that in a mainstream article you have to avoid undue weight. But in the article on the fringe theory, you don't, otherwise the article on the fringe theory would end up being a duplicate article on the mainstream theory. See WP:FRINGE. Instead the important thing is to indicate the relationship of fringe theory with the mainstream idea clearly. Robert Walker (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW I'm going to use the research I did for that section on the CDC limitations for a science blog post elsewhere outside of wikipedia instead. And I think I'll contact both Harry Schone and the Morgellons Research Foundation when I write it (which I haven't done yet). In that situation I can write about the CDC report, and quote from it directly and from their FAQ and from Harry Schone's thesis and nobody I think will find that biased in a science blog post :). Robert Walker (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just erased the rest of this page not sure it is worth having an archive yet. Robert Walker (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Break

I'm just adding a break for ease of editing. I was editing here and then I lost it so I'll try to remember what I said.

Overall, it looks much better, thank you. I like what you've done at the beginning with mentioning the main controversy. I did want to mention that the spirochaetes are just the latest possible cause (previously suggested were insects, radiation, and contrails) and it might be worthwhile mentioning that fact.

I'm not sure about the Mayo section where it says something about "this" in the first sentence. I don't know what that this refers to. Also, I'm not sure about the lengthy quote. I'll look at that more in depth later as I'm travelling and on my phone and I'm afraid to switch windows again because that's what caused me to lose my edits last time.

I have some quibbles with the presentation (for example, "in the 2015 dermatology paper" should say "authors A and B said such and such in 2015") but that kind of stylistic thing isn't as important.

I do understand that writing for Wikipedia is difficult, especially if one is accustomed to writing for other venues. TherThatcher a learning curve associated with Wikipedia and it's harder to climb that curve when you're having to completely change how you do things. All I ask is that you keep an open mind when reading what I say about Wikipedia style, guidelines, and policies. It's natural to want to defend yourself and your choices but sometimes those choices aren't compatible with this place. I do think you've got a lot of knowledge and that you could contribute a lot of great work here.

You're welcome to write about this subject in other venues and to contact whomever you wish to do that. Please just be aware that you will not be able to use that writing as a RS for this article. Ca2james (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great news, that at last it is taking shape :). And thanks for your understanding. Yes of course, I wouldn't expect to use my science blog post about it as a RS for the article.

I've had a go at adding another section - "previously suggested causes" at the end, referring to a couple of hypotheses mentioned in the NS article in 2007, so that gets that started - it's all I can find for now by way of scientific theories that are more than just a few passing remarks. For the theories that are Fringe science in the second sense of not following the scientific method and not published in peer reviewed journals, for now I've just said that there are several of them. The contrails hypothesis you mention I think may be the Chemtrails, which is the sort of thing that gets used by conspiracy theorists to explain anything that is hard to explain. Anyway other editors could add to that if they feel it needs to be expanded. Also fixed those two minor points you mentioned. Robert Walker (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to say - I'd rather forgotten about it, caught up in other things. With a fresh look, I saw better ways to phrase some of the sentences, but not much else I can think of to improve it further. So, fixed that, and I've submitted it for review as a new article. Will see how it goes. Thanks for your help! Robert Walker (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Parity of sources

Just commenting on the recent edits. By in large I'm okay with them. The quotes in the footnotes were included mainly in order to help editors, in early stages of editing, rather than readers of the article who as you say can go to the sources. They also help make it clear which section of the linked page or article the text relies on. Was thinking about removing them myself.

Just wanted to say something about the requests for Medref type sources for the article.

Please bear in mind this is a fringe science theory. But notable enough I think to deserve an article of its own. The lede makes it clear that it is fringe science.

For this type of a theory, as I understand it, and as we went over in the discussion above, then the criteria for sources is a little different from a mainstream medicine article.

"Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review, other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects. The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative."

Most of the sources I included are from peer reviewed science journals. But I think sources shouldn't be removed just because they don't have the weight of scholarly review of a mainstream medical theory article. Because the aim is to present a fringe theory and because the intro makes that clear, so then reader comes to it with different expectations, or should do, about the sources it relies on.

At least that's my understanding of it. Do say if you have other ideas about the guidelines. The guidelines I followed are here: Fringe Theories - Parity of sources.

But on the other hand it is about fringe science in the form of science that follows the scientific method but minority view science. So the core of the article consists of articles that are published in scientific journals for that reason. It's just that if you then expect to find scientific reviews supporting those articles and their interpretations by other independent sources - well you won't find them, because it is fringe science that is not at present supported by other researchers.

We have a mainstream article on Morgellons, and this article links to it as is required for a fringe science article and makes the connection clearly so if you want to know about the mainstream theory you know where to go. As I understand it from the guidelines, this obligation goes one way only. There is no requirement the other way around for the mainstream article to mention the fringe theory.

This fringe theory is supported by a group of maybe half a dozen researchers who do follow the scientific method, and are scientifically trained, and support each other, and their work has had some media attention as well as considered notable enough to be mentioned by the Mayo clinic in their summary of this topic area - but they are following a line of investigation that is not supported by mainstream science researchers in their topic area. That's my understanding of the situation at any rate. For more about this see the discussion above. Robert Walker (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirected

Timtrent and Robertinventor, please become familiar with WP:MEDRS; this was a POV fork that a) duplicated some valid content that is in other articles, and b) advanced a hypothesis as a POV fork based on two primary sources. Also, please sign your talk page posts; there is a wall of text above with no indication of who wrote it. After spending unnecessary time on significant cleanup to identify which sources were MEDRS-compliant and which were primary sources, I found the only new content (that is, not covered at Morgellons or elsewhere already) was based on primary-sourced hypothesis. Wikipedia is not for advocacy; please refrain from doing something like this again. If you are unsure about policies or guidelines, you can ask at WT:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia - I discussed this at length for I think a couple of weeks or so before I submitted it. It's a fringe theory and as I said above - that for fringe theories the criteria are different. It's not advocacy. I am not an advocate for this hypothesis at all. I don't have any connection with the researchers. I don't personally know if it is true or not, if they are on the right lines or not. Just writing about it as a fringe hypothesis, that's all, that I think deserves to be mentioned as such in wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please keep discussion at Talk:Morgellons. If you discussed with one person (Timtrent), that's not really discussion. No need to ping me to this page: I will follow discussion at the Morgellons talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. This is a POV fork and only belongs as at most a section in the Morgellons article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)