User talk:Doc James/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

Further specific request -- one tag returned

While tags are largely here nor there in the discussion that must take place at the NP article, still, I have to request that the Expert requested tag be returned.

This has a specific purpose, and puts the article out for attention it will otherwise not receive. I would generally consider an exception to this, if you yourself are an expert in natural products in medicine—someone with a deep background in the history and broad use of natural products-derived therapeutics in modern medicine, e.g., in oncology and infectious disease, or in preclinical drug discovery, or the like—and could speak thoroughly to all the issues in play. But in this case, the point is not to find one expert (thanks for coming), but to attract a number, so that there is a broad discussion about the direction of the article. Please, an editor can always revert their own edits without issue. I ask that you revert that one edit, and leave that tag in place in order to facilitate the discussion that must take place for the article to move forward.

And if you want to add a similar tag for other subject matter experts in another area, feel free. Pharmacology? Welcome, absolutely. Take care, for this walks the fringe areas of medicine, and you may, if not careful, attract the alternative medicine crowd. (You are welcome to do this, because the evidence-based answer to the direction of the article is pretty clear; it will just take much longer getting there if the discussion does not remain on point.) Otherwise, please note: I explained in some detail, in the Edit summary and at Talk why this Expert tag was placed. If I am reading the "this tag is strange" as being associated with this particular tag removal, it cannot be seen as reciprocal or sufficient of a justification, can it? 'So again, I request, revert and return the Expert tag. Thanks for the consideration.

Next section, skip for now, they are notes in answer to your questions of balance or sourcing; will return to these and walk you through it when the foregoing is answered/acted upon. Cheer. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The best way to recruit further input is 1) post a note at the appropriate Wikiprojects 2) start a RfC. Am still trying to figure out the issue. Until the issue is clear having an expert-needed tag is clutter IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me speak plainly. The article had not been attended to by editor Boghog in approx. 6 mos. It has not been edited to you, ever, as far as I can tell (unless your username has changed). I make an appeal to settle a longstanding dispute, regarding the definition of terms that Boghog placed, over my objections, in Dec last year. These "Classes" (definitions) are at the head of the article, and constrain the development of the article; moreover, the article is saddled with large swaths of text introduced early, including much without any attribution/sourcing—text that is either subpar in its content, or simply unrepresentative of the academic fields and broader societal and commercial enterprises that focus on natural products. For these reasons, I call attention to these issues, and add labels highlighting them. Immediately, Boghog appears and begins editing. Soon after, an administrator, who (as much as I have, and wish to esteem him) appears that has no history at the article, but has clear past ties with Boghog, and also begins to edit the article. I will not argue this further. For sake of appearance, if not substance, I assert that you are not the Adminstrator to adjudicate this, and ask (i) you provide the reversion I request, and (ii) recuse yourself from further participation, per [1], except as participating as a future committed editor of this article, in a discussion overseen by a separate Admin who has not a prior strong relationship with one or other of the editors. Please. You have a position of authority and confidence. I respect you, and that office. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. It appears that you have no interest in substantiation why you added the tags in question. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

To the contrary, the substantiation regarding the single tag in question (the one you were asked to revert), is contained in [A] the content of the Expert request tag, saying that the "article [is] static and with significant historical deficiencies, [with] constraining definitions and structure, and [with] limited participation of knowledgable or expert editors", [B] in the Section at NP Talk entitled "Opening discussion on future course of article" which explains and defends the identified issues, here [2], and [C] in a pointed rebuttal to Boghog's counterclaims to the tag's points (static, historical deficiencies, constraining definitions, limited participation), here, in the paragraph beginning "Per the foregoing discussion" at [3]. I say again, that my statement regarding your conflict of interest trumps going any further into the details of this. It is for this reason only, I again point you to the two requests, (i) and (ii) immediately above, and ask you respond clearly and directly to them. If you wish to make a public statement regarding your relationship with Boghog, and how it is you came to the article, I would be welcome that as well. Cheers. I await your decision. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are the notes from an earlier analysis

Analysis of natural products journals:

• See [4]
• See [5]

Analysis of Pubmed TIAB content for key concepts in "Classes" (definitions section):

• 85 hits for organism, none found relevant,(NOTE 1) see [6]
• 195 hits for tissue, none found relevant, see [7]
• 4 hits for probiotic, none found relevant, see [8]
• 21 hits for nucleic acid, none found relevant, see [9] 21 hits
• 8 hits for cellulose, none found relevant, see [10]
• 8 hits for lignin, see [11]
• 1359 hits for compound, see [12]
• 2991 hits for synthesis or chemistry, see [13]
• 157 hits for secondary metabolism, see [14]

NOTE 1: Here, the phrase "none found relevant" implies that in essentially cases examined, the reference to the search word in the TIAB was unrelated to the definition of the term, which still appeared to reference the concept of natural product as small molecule (see compound, synthesis, chemistry searches below.

Analysis of current section content (proposed section additions incomplete, 13 June 2014, 1240 CDT)

• Lede, 12% (unrepresented areas include:)
• Classes (definitions), 12%
• Classes of Compounds , < 1% (one sentence)
• Natural sources, 38%
• Evidence-Based Medicine (text on natural product agents on market or in clinical trials, see also list), 0 %
• Traditional medicine, 21%
• Isolation and purification, 7%
• Partial Synthesis. 8%
• Semisynthesis, Total Synthesis, 0 %
• "Impact on chemistry", 10%
• History, 0 %
• Drugs (List), 0 % (no text, majority of 48, one source)
• See also

(See also list: Ayurveda, Chinese medicine, Ethnobotany, Pharmacognosy, Phytotherapy, Secondary metabolite)

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The question I had was "To which viewpoint is this article unbalanced and which are missing? What high quality secondary source are you proposing to use to support the missing viewpoint?" What you have provided above is original research unless it is within a secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking for a dictionary definition? [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, the answer to your questions is nested in the foregoing analysis and other data I have gathered. (It should be clear, if near 100% of available primary literature focuses on natural products as small molecules isolated from natural sources, and studied using the tools and practices of chemistry and pharmacology, the secondary literature, which is derived therefrom, follows suit.) I am using the clear statistics of the matter, because they make the prima facie case plainly, and give anyone unbiased in perspective somewhere to have a quick look (having part of the work done for them). However, as I said above, I am not yet asking you to review this in detail, and if the time comes, I will step you through it (if you remain interested in the article). For now, I cannot engage further given the course this is taking—you as a friend of Boghog's and not admitting to it, and not submitting to a reasonable request from an involved committed, contrary editor. Instead, you are making changes to the article question (despite no prior interest, and only relationship with one party), changes that will make it more difficult for a neutral discussion to take place. I have made my two requests above. Please, give them thoughtful consideration. We, neither of us, based on out training and expertise [16], lack confidence. You have taken sides, a priori in an argument wherein you have COI as a result of prior relationship with one part in the debate. Long debates that are inherently unfair are of no help to WP or its participants. What is needed is a fair decision regarding process, for each of us to apply our confidence and determination. My two requests are above. I urge you to proceed judiciously. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This is strange. I asked for one simple thing, a secondary source that you wished to use to change the article in question to make it more balanced. You provided me a list of google and pubmed searches. Seriously? If you cannot substantiate tags they do not go on articles. If you have further comments post them on the talk page of the article. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be absolutely clear that I am strongly committed to sound, secondary sourcing (see my User page, review my articles and edits, or just return in the article's Edit history, to see what the tags you removed were about. It should also be clear here that the matters at hand are not about one citation, but about tens of reviews and book chapters needed to address the many issues of the article, which appear above in the links I gave you (which you have in fact had access to, and certainly should have consulted before you began to edit anew at this article). There is not one issue; there is not one book chapter. You are arguing your premise reductio ad absurdum. In fact, there are two real issues here, first, my conflict of interest claim against you (which takes precedence), and second, the several detailed questions relating to the article quality, for which tens of sources will need to be invoked. We can turn to the second matter, with the rest of the WP natural products community after the first issue is addressed. I ask again, please provide simple responses relating to the COI issue; see requests (i) and (ii) above. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clearer as you do not seem to have understood my previous comments above. Please do not post on my talk page again. I am not interested. If you have concerns about COI take them to a notice board. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Got it, and forgive this acknowledgment. Will proceed separately. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Statins

The Comparative Effectiveness section of this article states rather emphatically that there is no difference between agents, but the abstract of one of the two cited sources seems to say there is a difference in secondary prevention, and the other source is 9 years old. I didn't want to change this because I"m not familiar with the ins and outs of statin dosing, and because I don't have access to the full paper, but was wondering if you would be interested in taking a look.

Also, this is a bit of a judgment call and I don't want to do it without your agreement, but I am inclined to delete the 2010 meta analyses finding no effect in primary prevention. From what I can tell, these studies are simply obsolete.

• Several major trials or long term followup studies we published in time for incorporation in the later analyses, including the 12K patient SEARCH trial, and 11 year followups of the HPS (20K subjects) and ASCOT (10K subjects) trials and possibly others
• Consequently the number of subjects included in the later analyses is greater, substantially more so when you consider patient-years. The Cochrane review is behind a paywall, but the 2011 and 2012 analyses included 80K and 140K subjects respectively. The 2010 analyses that failed to find a SS effect included 21K to 65K subjects.
• The point estimate for RR in the all three 2010 trials that failed to find a statistically significant effect was less than 1.0, and in two cases it just missed statistical significance.

Also, thanks for the pointer on citation tools. Much appreciated. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Off for the weekend. Will look on Mon/Tues Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been mentioned

Hey Doc, editor Tremello mentioned you directly in some (in my opinion) uncivil comments here, just wanted to make sure you were notified and had the opportunity to respond if you'd like to. Zad68 15:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)