Jump to content

User talk:Doc James/Archive 69

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Doc James

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 23:13, 26 June 2014 (Archiving 4 discussion(s) from User talk:Jmh649) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 65←Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 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:

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)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

Comment

Thanks James for your comment. There is not much written about allergy and I want to do something to give better knowledge to our patients and colleagues. We are attending many congresses and scientific meetings and if we can increase awareness of the current research, we can make someone's life better. bw Mike.

Excellent and welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI on Neuraxis

Specific reasons for the requested action proposed now against Neuraxis would be really helpful. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Have added a few details. If you look at the users editing history and more will come up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Penilo-Cavernosus Reflex

Hey James, I just posted this in the "talk page" and I just wanted to share with you too. I want to add a piece of information to the "Circumcision" page under the "Adverse Effects". I was blocked temporarily a few days ago because I wasn't really aware of how Wikipedia worked and the rules associated with it. So today I am going to discuss what I want to post and the type of sources I have along with my proposal. I want to talk about how the penilo-cavernosus reflex is responsible for sexual, bowel, and urine function. The foreskin which is removed, contains a high density of fine-touch mechanoreceptors while the glans do not. Since the foreskin is removed in circumcision, the penilo-cavernosus reflex is less elicitable in circumcised men and men with retracted foreskins as opposed to men who are intact.

My source is the following link from a peer reviewed, BJUI International Journal. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10364.x/abstract According to Wikipedia, peer reviewed journals are allowable sources to use for medical purposes. Please let me know what you think, thank you.

-BobbyEnlightened one088 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Doc James, this is a minor update. I just want to make sure you as well as other users such as "Zad" know that the original "source" I posted, was indeed reliable. http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2012-02_Podnar.pdf This is the website I originally posted; but if someone actually clicks on the link and reads the sources, one will know that it is 100% a reliable source because "doctorsopposingcircumcision" is just an organization. But the information they provided is officially reviewed by the BJUI International Journal and is secondary, peer reviewed information. Thank you again Enlightened one088 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This [17] is a primary source. Please use high quality secondary sources. These are review articles typically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, thank you for replying. Would you say BJUI International Journals such as this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10364.x/abstract is a primary source?

Small update: Under the editorial policies and procedures, this is what is said: "The journal operates a stringent peer-review process. All manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editors, members of the Editorial Board, or other expert reviewers." Thank you Enlightened one088 (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a primary source. This does not mean that it is "bad", it just means that it is not suitable as a reference for medical content on Wikipedia. Please take some time to review the difference between a secondary and a primary source. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Clopidogrel

I think I probably went into way too much detail here, one of the hazards of writing while learning.

The smoking connection is an interesting one, but I hate to see it be the only discussion of efficacy. There is a mechanistic basis for the hypothesis as smoking induces the enzyme that forms the active metabolite, but the whole thing just has an air of "and nobody noticed for 17 years" about it. Its behind a paywall and I couldn't assess the potential for confounding with what appeared to be retrospective subgroup analysis.

The story of the metabolism in the package insert is quite interesting. Since it is activated by a fairly complicated and highly variable metabolic process, the pharma guy in me wonders why nobody ever tried to develop the active metabolite of this extraordinarily profitable drug. Also rather discouraging how small the effects of Clopidogrel are in absolute terms. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do not believe that we should be discussing the individual trials in detail. We should more provide a simple overview of the conclusions of meta analysis and other high quality secondary sources. Otherwise looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Meningitis

Hi,

Just wanting to find out if I can put our not for profit website address on Wikipedia in the External Links area for meningitis related problems.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meningitiscentre (talk • contribs) 05:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No that is not possible. We are not here to promote not for profits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

meningitis

Hi again, So what would I have to do to include it on Wikipedia in the external links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.146.30 (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah. It is not an appropriate external link. You can ask for a second opinion on the talk page if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism about you: User:Bellylint

Just in case you're interested, see here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Crasy... Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Blausen Endometrial Cancer Image

Sorry but we do not currently have an unwatermarked illustration available for Wikipedia. BruceBlaus (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Bruce Blaus

Okay no worries. Thanks for looking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Request discreet assistance

James, could you perhaps kindly reassure a MED regular, SW3 5DL, that I'm an ok gf contributor here. Since User talk:SW3 5DL appears to be protected I've had to respond to charges on an article talk page, which is kind of awkward. Sorry to bother you, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I may not be the best person to intervene. I think they and I may have had some disagreements in the past. Do not remember what they were though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
No problem. And thanks for clarifying the policy. I hope that suffices :) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Endometrial cancer

Hey! I just wanted to say thanks for helping poke endometrial cancer into shape, I really appreciate it! :) I was wondering, would you be willing to take a look at some stuff for it when I've gone through a few more sources - perhaps sometime next week? I want to make sure I'm being medically accurate since I don't (yet!) have a degree. Hope you're well, Keilana|Parlez ici 23:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure am happy to. I will likely come and poke my head in more. Am slowly working to bring the leads of all important disease related articles up to "okay". This one is on the list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
That would be really helpful - thank you! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 23:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Permission to highlight your remarks

Doc, I would ask you to reconsider allowing your remarks at the NP Talk page to be highlighted. I have been highlighting all new, outside comments, so as to make clear the contributions from those other than the two arguing editors, me and Boghog. All other new, outside comments are highlighted. This will, I hope, help steer the matters being raised to a resolution. Note, I ask this despite your comments not being necessarily flattering to myself. I just think it best for the discussion, to see the outside comments most prominently (where readers can then go to our responses, if they wish). Cheers, RSVP here? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I generally never highlight my text. I do not take efforts to make what I write out stand out any more than that written by others as I do not consider this to be fair play. Thus I would never use all bolding or underlying. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I am arguing this is a special case, where minority voices are being drowned out. Highlighting all of your block of text does not add/change emphasis, and it makes your comments easier to find and refer to. This is done as a service to readers. Please consider. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I also do not consider this fair play. What @Leprof 7272: has done is done is highlight everyone else's comments besides my own and his. On the surface, this seems fair. However the length of his posts has far exceeded mine own by a wide margin. Effectively he drowned out my voice and I strongly object. Boghog (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Odd thing, this concern of yours, alongside you collapsing your own text. But the highlighting calls attention to the questions people are asking, and you and I always answer when others come on (often enough you before me). So I think the insecurity you express at being heard is unnecessary. People will read you, as you have elsewhere obversely argued, because yours are the briefest. But if it must be thus, feel free to allow me to highlight your comments as well, Bog, if this is what we need to get us past this. Mine can be the only un-highlighted (since I don't imagine others will now demand non-highlighting). I would rather have Doc join them, even if for your concern for your being heard, you also have to be added. I think Bog, you will be surprised how much gray appears if you do insist on this. Doc, please RSVP one final time; Bog, as you please. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I have unwatched the discussion in question. As stated I do not wish my writing highlighted or bolded in any fashion do to the reason mentioned above. IMO none of us should be using highlighting or bolding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Case reports

OK, I wasn't aware that scientific journals also published anecdote-level material like simple case reports, I just assumed since the text was on a journal's website it was good enough. :) Donjoe (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

While we use scientific journals only certain types of articles within them :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doc_James/Archive_69&oldid=614566652"