Jump to content

Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Labongo (talk | contribs)
Line 389: Line 389:


:Thank-you KCACO, but I did ask that we discuss next steps before requesting arbitration, so that we could agree the wording of the request. This page is about a chartered charitable institute and therefore the RFC should also fall under the econ category. -- [[User:TerryE|TerryE]] ([[User talk:TerryE|talk]]) 16:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
:Thank-you KCACO, but I did ask that we discuss next steps before requesting arbitration, so that we could agree the wording of the request. This page is about a chartered charitable institute and therefore the RFC should also fall under the econ category. -- [[User:TerryE|TerryE]] ([[User talk:TerryE|talk]]) 16:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' from uninvolved person: article seemed to be fairly NPOV. It may have an undue weight in being to ''paranoid'' about the institutes funding and mission. For example it seems out of place to criticize in the "Mission" section the feasibility of the research goals (the critique should be in a separate section). Also, I was puzzled that the article gives an impression that the institute is lead by a "former bartender" and then get's a publication in Science. I would suggest you reorganize the article to first present the institute (mission, funding, staff, etc), and then have a separate section about the controversy that apparently surrounds the institute. Finally, I am not going to check all sources so if someone believes a source is misrepresented they need to identify the source and what misrepresentation. [[User:Labongo|Labongo]] ([[User talk:Labongo|talk]]) 05:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


== University of Nevada article on Mikovits ==
== University of Nevada article on Mikovits ==

Revision as of 05:12, 19 January 2010

retrovirus "causes" XMRV

I've reworded the intro because they don't claim this. They only claim association at this present time. TerryE (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WH Edits and General Accuracy

Sw, I understand what you say about WP:COI and the reversion of the HW edits. Keepcalmandcarryon has done a good first-start framework. Nonetheless, the article at this early version is riddled with factual inaccuracies. I will do some research tomorrow and come up with some reasonable evidence / RS based corrections. However, it's now bedtime for me, so this is a job for tomorrow. :-) Terry 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. There may have been some useful edits in there, I just didn't have time to go through them all in detail. I think you or someone else should definitely have a look if you have time. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking more about Keepcalmandcarryon's recent comments on the XMRV Discussion, and I would like to try maintain a positive / consensus approach to developing this article. As some of you are a lot more experienced as Wikipedia editors, I want to seek your guidance. I propose that we discuss and agree an approach that is consistent with WP:COI, WP:RS (and WP:MEDRS when referencing technical content), etc. If you want to point to other specific guidelines that should inform this then please post back.
  • I will be honest and declare a POV on journalist sources (having been misquoted myself in the past). I have very little confidence in their accuracy. OK attributed quotes (that is in quotes) are usually accurate but they do have a habit of paraphrasing and context shifting comments to spice up the reader interest (usually = controversy).
  • I would personally prefer to use alternative sources e.g. public statements (including blogs) by reputable domain experts, which do fall within the WP:RS guidelines; also in the case of reporting controversy statements and analysis by qualified third party sources (and third party is usually a valid description where we have controversy).
  • My last point is that I would prefer to omit contentious points / claims unless they add materially to the value of this article, simply because we could waste our time discussing and debating points which add no value when we should be focusing on adding value for the general readership.
End of my pompous bit, and I guess that I owe Sw and Kcaco one free pop at me :-) I will leave off making any material changes until I've got some feedback one this. TerryE (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and honesty, Terry. I appreciate your position on journalistic sources and agree on the tendency to sensationalise. However, Wikipedia does give weight to such sources. Although judicious use of blogs is allowed, my impression is that such blogs are usually those associated with reputable news organizations. If you have specific blog-type sources in mind, let's discuss them, and if necessary consult the reliable sources discussions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that a lot of high profile scientists don't have blogs - they tend to just comment in newspaper and magazine articles (e.g. Simon Wessely). I think WP:RS basically says that we can trust that the NY Times and similar quality publications aren't lying. Also see the point that (I think) Ward20 brought up in the XMRV discussion page - Imperial College had a story on their website, but it wasn't terribly accurate in places. I would much prefer to use Science or NY Times as a source. But I guess that if we are just quoting a prominent scientist as saying a particular thing, then if he or she says it on their blog then that should be as good as it being printed in Science or whatever. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the accuracy is what I was referring to. To expand, I think it would be wise to be careful about controversial issue sources to see if they correspond with the other sources and/or note where they differ. Ward20 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I did not notice this section until after I posted a separate response in a "Mass reversion" section below, although the content is still valid. - Tekaphor (TALK) 04:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a CoatRack

I am a little worried about the relative size of the XMRV/CFS controversy section. This article is shaping up to be a coathanger. Goodnight. -- TerryE (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Science article could have it's own section (it has more press so should have more weight) and the contradicting follow-up studies and results arguments could go into a XMRV/CFS controversy section. That would structure the article better and reduce the controversy section somewhat. Ward20 (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this and the guidelines do allow for a "single dominant even" justification, so I think that we can cover this section so long as the article isn't simply a vehicle to have an article on this topic. -- TerryE (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need somewhere to put this info, so either we put it here or we create another article for the XMRV/CFS controversy (which I think might be overkill). --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that here can work for now as long as we don't forget that the main purpose of this article is to cover WPI. Also a PS: I've corrected the title of this section as the WP term is Coat Rack and not CoatHanger (one of this EngUK vs. EngUS things). -- TerryE (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We probably do not need two articles. We could just as easily have called this article XMRV/CFS controversy, as WPI is known only in relation to this issue. I can find only two RS mentioning WPI prior to the Science article, although there are certainly many more internet sources that probably don't qualify. Thus, the XMRV issue will necessarily make up most of the article, at least for the moment. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was to structure like this:
XMRV study
Describe Science article.
XMRV/CFS controversy
Describe PLoS ONE article and the fallout. Ward20 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I propose a slightly different interpretation to Keepcalmandcarryon's "WPI is known only in relation to this issue" based on the following.

  1. WPI has been founded as a research centre for the study of "Neuro-Immune Disease" and has already one high profile (XMRV) paper in Science.
  2. There are technical details relating to this XMRV study.
  3. There is a degree of controversy reported in the press over this study especially after the Erlwein...Wessely study.

Given the Google number of hits on WPI and and its profile in the CFS community, there is a sound argument that (1) now merits its own article. (2) relates to medical content (that is under WP:MEDRS et al). (3) is summarising a controversy largely whipped up by the press. So my vote for now is to leave (2) where it is under the XMRV article but do as Keepcalmandcarryon has proposed and put (3) as a subordinate to (1) for now. In terms of the controversy, probably the two items that you want to detail are (i) the decision of WPI to endorse a publicly available XMRV test outside the scope of a specific research project and (ii) that the Erlwein team and the WPI team have publicly criticised each other's work, rather than leaving such comparisons to independent secondary review. I don't think that we can get into the science here as we aren't really qualified to assess its relative merits. How does this sound? -- TerryE (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Ward20 (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass reversion

The first version [1] and current version [2] of this article states that WPI is "dedicated to the study of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)".

User:Harvey_whittemore performed a series of edits [3] all of which User:Sciencewatcher mass reverted [4]. One of User:Harvey_whittemore's edits [5] had replaced "chronic fatgue syndrome (CFS)" with "neuro-immune disease" and "laboratory" with "institute" (which as previously stated, was reverted).

However (emphasis added):

  • The official website's logo [6] is Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease;
  • On the "About WPI" webpage, there are large letters at the top, "The first institute in the world dedicated to neuro-immune disease;
  • Below on the same page, under "Our Mission": "The Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro Immune Disease exists to bring discovery, knowledge, and effective treatments to patients with illnesses that are caused by acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system [...] Our goals include: Research the pathophysiology of neuro-immune diseases such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism.
  • The PDF file about the institute states "The WPI institute was uniquely developed to serve those with neuroimmune diseases, ..."
  • The website shows up on Google search [WPI CFS] as "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease".

Perhaps having 5 examples above was overkill, and I realise that some people won't like the idea of CFS as a "neuro-immune disease", but that is what the official website states and ME/CFS is not the institute's only focus (but probably their main focus).

Now back to "laboratory" vs "institute", another one of User:Harvey_whittemore's edits [7] had changed "pathology laboratory in Reno" to "charitable 501 (c)(3)clinical research institute located at the University of Nevada in Reno", but this was later reverted. However, the above mentioned PDF states "The Whittemore Peterson Institute, (WPI), is a comprehensive translational research institute located on the University of Nevada’s medical school campus in Reno, Nevada." [Post update] Someone pointed out this page from the website, which states "WPI is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. All contributions are deductible as provided by law, but since individual circumstances vary, please contact your tax professional about the deductibility of your gift." The source [8] does not use the phrase "pathology laboratory" nor does it contradict the above text that it is located at the University of Nevada. Therefore, I am going to restore some of User:Harvey_whittemore's edits which were reverted.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 14:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me. We can assume that the local paper knows where it is - "the Whittemore-Peterson Institute at the University of Nevada, Reno" [9] WPI website does not say they only research (i.e. 'dedicated') to CFS, but mentions other diseases at the same time. Sam Weller (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.[10] I have run out of time for now, and I'm still not sure how appropriate it is to use several references from the website. - Tekaphor (TALK) 16:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly important to include the WPI's statements about itself; many thanks to Tekaphor for the excellent work on these sources. However, I would also consider it important to include what third parties say about WPI. I might like to call myself a "respected science journalist", but The Guardian might go with "chronically under-employed college dropout"; a Wikipedia biography of me should probably include both. Not that "pathology laboratory" is a particularly shameful appellation, in any case... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything can be made to sound shameful. The Guardian didn't bother to report the Science story, but featured the PlosOne rebuttal.[11] Note the comparison between 'Scientists at Imperial and King's universities in London' and 'Lombardi and colleagues at a small private pathology laboratory in Reno' (no mention of the NCI or Cleveland Clinic). Sam Weller (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also unhappy about Keepcalmandcarryon's reversion of the intro. "Pathology laboratory" isn't a particularly shameful appellation, but neither is car mechanic. The point is that it isn't a complete description of the WPI scope or mission. It calls itself a research institute, and just because a UK paper calls it a "pathology laboratory" to make a simplify a story for its readership doesn't mean that we can retitle it. A recent Nevada State Appropriations request "Project:Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro Immune Disease, Construction" identified funding: "The purpose of this project is to build and equip a comprehensive research and clinical outpatient facility to serve patients with Neuro-immune diseases such as ME/CFS, atypical MS, Fibromyalgia, Gulf War Illness and Autism, and to facilitate the immediate transfer of new knowledge to effective patient treatment and physician education through the combined efforts of researchers, clinicians and educators at the medical school campus of the University of Nevada, Reno." or Senator Ensign's description [12] "The University of Nevada School of Medicine, Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease- Whittemore Peterson Institute is a comprehensive outpatient medical center and translational research center, dedicated to patient care, basic research, education and drug development for a spectrum of neuro-immune diseases including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, atypical multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia and Gulf War Illness. They plan to add other neuro-inflammatory diseases, such as autism, to their clinical practice.". Or is a UK Newspaper reference more reliable then US government documents? The attendees at the recent CFASC who are domain specialists referred to it as the "WPI" or "the Institute".
I also dislike the padding of this intro section with unnecessarily controversial detail. For this short of article we should keep the intro short and to the point. Historical points if supported belong in the #History section. Daniel Peterson has his own page, but if we need to include a sentence of explanation then do it in the history section. IMHO, the recent changes have resulted in a introduction that is significantly poorer than that in the 19:19, 10 January 2010 version. I propose that we reinstate this version but ask for the other contributors views here first. -- TerryE (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't see why material from a source that appears to be inaccurate should be used in preference to mutiple RS's that corroborate each other. Trim down as you see fit. Ward20 (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TerryE and Ward20. Sciencewatcher's claim that "Keepcalmandcarryon is the most NPOV editor on this page," is looking pretty thin, after KCCO's work here and at Harvey Whittemore. Sam Weller (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned that Keepcalmandcarryon is not joining in this debate but is instead quietly backing out changes that we have made. However, since three of the four active editors on this page agree with this recommendation and the fourth hasn't commented, I will now implement them, but convert the HW reference to his new page. TerryE (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not defined as the will of the majority, but rather as the verifiable information provided with proper weight. As reliable sources go, an article in The New York Times trumps any and all of the sources listed above. Deleting The Guardian and The New York Times in favour of what an organisation states about itself is unlikely to advance NPOV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
??? When I check the NYT article it refers to "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease, a nonprofit in Reno, Nev" and doesn't mention a "private pathology laboratory" anywhere. -- TerryE (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is sourced to The Guardian, which calls WPI a "small private pathology laboratory". This would appear to be an accurate statement considering the independence of the source and the number of employees; it's certainly more informative than giving the group's tax status as the first descriptor. The New York Times states that WPI is a center for chronic fatigue syndrome, as do other sources. The sources also make clear the Whittemore's reasons for founding WPI. WPI has published no research on autism, MS, fibromyalgia or Gulf War and with the exception of MS none of these is generally recognised to be an neuroimmune disease. I have no objection whatever to mentioning WPI's plans for its future in subsequent sections of the article. To place this in the lead, however, while excluding information from third-party sources like The Guardian and NYT is not at all NPOV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More sources for Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease: Science mag,University of Nevada, The National Cancer Institute,The Reno Gazette-Journal. Ward20 (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how accurate 'pathology laboratory' is. Research institute seems to be more accurate, based on what they are doing. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is called the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease. That's not in question. What it is, what it studies and why it was founded are the questions, and while it's certainly appropriate to give WPI's view of itself, that shouldn't displace the views of independent sources. I have no objection whatever to calling it a research center, which is what the NYT uses. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is/was that you put 'pathology lab' in the very first sentence, right after giving their name. So while we definitely should give other people's comments about the lab, we don't necessarily want to put them practically in the title especially if most other sources say 'a research institute' (which seems more correct anyway at describing what exactly they are). Anyway, I think the first sentence in the current version of the article is good. - sciencewatcher

There are several sections where material is original research or synthesis of published material that advances a new position. I am removing the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR material to this section for discussion. Ward20 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

The Whittemores and Peterson shared a conviction that government agencies were ignoring CFS patients and that the disorder must have an infectious cause. They also felt that the syndrome should be renamed "myalgic encephalomyelitis". WP:OR not in any reference given.

Harvey Whittemore, who is a lawyer[1], lobbyist[2] and multimillionaire land developer in Nevada[1], also assisted in securing political support and funding from Nevada[3]. WP:SYNTH of published material that advances a new position

XMRV/CFS controversy

CFS patients reportedly began to buy a diagnostic test offered by a WPI-associated clinic and to ask for antiretroviral drugs.[4] WP:OR not in reference given.

Supporters of the two teams traded accusations of conflicts of interest, technical sloppiness and failure to care about patients.[4] The subject of financial incentives for WPI was mentioned in several subsequent publications, including an article in ScienceNOW.[4] The lead author for WPI, Vince Lombardi, was in talks with WPI over intellectual property for XMRV diagnostics.[5] Soon after publication of the Science paper, Lombardi[6] and his clinic began selling the diagnostic kit for $650.[4] Virologist John Coffin and Myra McClure, corresponding author for the British team, expressed concerns that Lombardi's team were taking advantage of patients.[4] WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of published material that advances a new position

Please indicate how this material doesn't violate the outlined policy with reliable sources that support the specific material before re-adding to the article. Thank you.

Ward20 (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Whittemores and Peterson, as covered by several of the sources here, have at least a decade-long relationship and share the opinions that CFS is underfunded by the government (hence, "government agencies were ignoring"), that the likely cause of CFS is viral, and that CFS is an inappropriate name (unless they have changed their minds to XAND, and I haven't found evidence for it, their preferred name is myalgic encephalopathy). I believe that all of this is in the ProHealth source, but I have read numerous corroborating sources. Are these statements controversial? If so, I will gladly search out the additional sources or work with you on refining the language.
Whittemore as lawyer, etc. This statement is verifiable and accurate; sources are given. If there's something you disagree with, please ask for clarification or another source before deleting.
Tests and drugs. The given source mentions the test kits, but a better source for both testing and antiretrovirals is The Guardian, a source in the original article but deleted by Ward20 as a "dup ref".
As for the putative OR and SYNTH, every statement in the disputed text has a reference. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a quick look, and all of the statements seem to have refs. Ward20 removed the Guardian ref himself, so that is why the statementx funding and support. I don't see any synthesis. Putting two statements about a person beside each other isn't synthesis, it's just giving two bits of info.
Why do you want to remove the info about WPI and Lombardi's lab making money off the tests, Ward20? Surely you must see that is a very important point and something that people should know? --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WPI put out a press release coincident with the lab announcement (that is before the media reporting of this (IIRC, I gave it's URI in the XMRV discussion page but here it is again [13]), which stated that “Tests conducted for XMRV, and other tests that support the diagnostic process in this field, will support the continuation of vital work at WPI through our donation of all of our net proceeds.”. WPI is a Not-for-Profit foundation. Charging licence fees which will contribute to research is reasonable, I think and "Making money off" is an unreasonable way of saying this but making a non-controversial statement along these lines would be fair because people are, as you say, interested.
The fact that Vincent Lombardi is both Director of Operations for VIP Dx [14] and the WIP leader of the XMRV study is a point that I feel could be introduced in the controversy section. -- TerryE (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also rereading the cited sciencenow reference, it talks of "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease" and "Lombardi's clinic" in different terms and in the context "But some scientists, including Coffin and McClure, fear that Lombardi's clinic took advantage of that hunger by offering the $650 diagnostic test, 300 of which have been administered so far." seems to be a criticism of VIP Dx rather than WIP. -- TerryE (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 issues with the test. First of all, WPI have made the test public before it has been validated. Second, Lombardi's lab (vipdx), which is a for-profit company as far as I can tell, is making money off the test, so you have a potential conflict of interest. So both vipdx and WPI (and Lombardi himself) are all fair game for criticism as far as I can see. As for what we say in the article, of course it has to come from a reliable source. You'd need to see what the other criticisms say - I don't have time to look right now. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian was never actually sourced in the article. The original edit shows the source was labeled Guardian but indicated the material was from the Reno Gazette-Journal. It was still that way a day and a half later when I was adding URL's to sources so I could check content. It appeared at that time the reference was a duplicate so I combined it. I probably could have caught the error. I'm sorry I didn't, eliminating a source was not my intention.

"The Whittemores and Peterson shared a conviction that government agencies were ignoring CFS patients and that the disorder must have an infectious cause. They also felt that the syndrome should be renamed "myalgic encephalomyelitis". This is a distortion of any source I've read. What RS says this?

Proheath states,[15] "Annette's husband Harvey Whittemore, an attorney and real estate developer, had been active in Nevada's political circles for many years. Harvey signed on to the project, and the three began the long odyssey of gathering the necessary financial and political support."

The article states, "Harvey Whittemore is a lawyer,[7] lobbyist[8] and multimillionaire land developer in Nevada.[7] He also secured political support and funding from Nevada."

The reader, looking a synthesis from a number of articles is lead to assume Harvey Whittemore alone used his influence which is contradicted by the Proheath article. Additionally, most reliable sources state Annette Whittemore was founder and instrumental[16][17][18][19] in getting the project going, not Harvey Whittemore. That is why the material is WP:SYNTH of published material.

"conflicts of interest, technical sloppiness and failure to care about patients." is a distortion of material in the source.[20]

I don't want to eliminate material that Lombardi's lab makes money off tests. But synthesis of material from different sources leads the reader to believe VIP Dx is taking advantage of patients by profiting off them. The source says, "All of this leaves doctors and patients in a muddle. There's no doubt they're hungry for information.".... "But some scientists, including Coffin and McClure, fear that Lombardi's clinic took advantage of that hunger by offering the $650 diagnostic test," Conspicuously absent is, VIP Dx states "that it is donating all profits from XMRV testing to the Whittemore Peterson Institute."[21]

Cherry picked material from different sources used to bolster editorial interpretations of sourced material is WP:SYNTH or not NPOV. Ward20 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that vipdx is donating the profits could probably be added, although it would be nice if they fixed the spelling in the article so it makes sense ("VIP Dx has states that it is donating all profits from XMRV testing to the Whittemore Peterson Institute") --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read the WPI press release [7]. It isn't entirely clear, but now that I have read it carefully it does seem to say that vipdx will be donating the proceeds to the WPI. Previously when I read it I assumed it meant the WPI would be donating the proceeds, which didn't really make sense. The press release also implies that the Whittemore family are funding vipdx, and I think I read this somewhere else.
As for the synthesis, I think it's just a matter of tweaking the text so that it matches what the sources say. Harvey's political influence was undoubtedly important, so that fact should be mentioned. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing other editors of "cherry picking" is unlikely to be productive. No editorial interpretations are given, and every statement is sourced. Ward20's view of synthesis seems to depart significantly from the actual Wikipedia policy.
sciencewatcher: Correct. Viral Immune Pathology Diagnostics, sometimes referred to as VIP dx, was formerly known as RedLabs USA and is owned by the Whittemores. Reliable sources state that Vincent Lombardi is the director. It would thus appear that WPI and VIP dx are separate in a legal/tax sense, but that they share the same funding sources and oversight. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ward20 states that the impetus for founding WPI is incorrect: "This is a distortion of any source I've read. What RS says this?"
The New York Times: "Mrs. Whittemore said she had long believed that the syndrome was an infectious disease, but that scientists had rejected the idea. She finally decided, she said, “if there was a place of our own where we could find the answers, we could do it more quickly.”" Also stated is the Whittemore opinion that government researchers marginalise patients.
The Wall Street Journal: "They were frustrated by the lack of government funding for scientific research into the disease."
The ProHealth source: "ME or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis is the correct name for the illness that my daughter has"
If any of these sources are missing from the article, they should be added. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I did not accuse or talk about editors above. I discussed material. "Mrs. Whittemore said she had long believed that the syndrome was an infectious disease"[22] is in the source, "but government agencies have ignored CFS patients and doctors have marginalised them." is not. "frustrated by the lack of government funding"[23] is not "stalling research progress". "Researchers have not pursued the infection theory seriously enough, in her opinion,[24] is not "charging scientists and doctors with unfairly rejecting the virus theory". The Mikovits story is out of context. The roll of Mrs. Whittemore is shoved aside to emphasize Harvy Whittemore. Material is constructed to marginalize WPI. I will attach the appropriate tags. Please do not remove them unless consensus is reached on the talk page that material is NPOV. Ward20 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear, based upon the examples you have given, that you oppose any attempts to summarise source information.
Before you begin placing tags, please consider proposing alternative language, as per the NPOV tag guidelines. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose summarizing source information that mis-states sources. Please link to the NPOV tag guidelines. Ward20 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[25]Please state material in source, "government agencies have ignored CFS patients and doctors have marginalised them" thank you. Ward20 (talk)
[26]"seems to be in the source I'm looking at. putting two things in the same sentence isn't automatically synthesis. what is being synthesized??". "as stated by the Whittemores, was intended to find the infectious cause of chronic fatigue syndrome that they felt government scientists and agencies were ignoring," First "government scientists and agencies were ignoring an infectious cause" isn't in the source that I could find. In other sources Annette Wittemore simply says not enough research was being done in infectious causes. The source simply doesn't state WPI was intended to find the infectious cause of chronic fatigue syndrome.
The source says:
"Frustration with the lack of answers led Annette and Harvey Whittemore, whose 31-year-old daughter has had the syndrome for 20 years, to spend several million dollars to set up a research institute at the University of Nevada in Reno in 2004, and to hire Dr. Mikovits to direct it.
Mrs. Whittemore said she had long believed that the syndrome was an infectious disease, but that scientists had rejected the idea.
She finally decided, she said, “if there was a place of our own where we could find the answers, we could do it more quickly.”"
She said she wanted answers but not that the answer had to be what she believed. The other material that was from the WPI website and removed contradicts what is there now, "states it is dedicated to researching illnesses that are caused by "acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system", such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism."[27] The synthesis is putting disorted material with the initial name from another source to encourage the reader to think WPI's goals are different than what WPI states. Ward20 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous, Ward20. I have just wasted an hour of my time checking through refs to find that the information is actually there, or just needs a slight tweak. And I have no idea why you think there is too much emphasis on Harry as his name appears EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF TIMES as Annette's in the article! You give the distinct impression of being a POV warrior and the impression I had of you as an unbiased editor has been seriously dented. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The NPOV guidelines Ward20 requested are linked in the very tag Ward20 placed: WP:NPOVD. It's not enough to complain about an article and riddle it with tags; NPOVD states "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." Given the clarity with which the Whittemores describe their motivations and the lucidity in the many third-party reports, I quite frankly cannot understand what the problem could be. "Ignoring" versus "neglecting" or "not spending enough money" is not a POV problem. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started this section on 06:25, 11 January 2010 giving specific examples and details of what I believe are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. From WP:NPOVD, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research". Two days later, the issues were still there and I tagged the article with POV. I further explained why I tagged it but didn't make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute", sorry about that. I have also asked for sources for specific material, which is a separate issue, and many were indeed lacking and IMO still are. I have asked specifically where in the sources the material came from and have still not received a decent response. In some instances I have received no response, or sources that don't appear to mention WPI. Harvy Whittemore is a minor figure in his role at WPI as the sources indicate. I have tried to explain that twice before in this section and have been ignored. Mrs. Whittemore is the founder, president, and major fundraiser in most sources yet Harvy is portrayed as a major player. Hello, it's Mrs. Whittemore's alma mater too.[28] The story about Judy Mikovits omits the fact she moved to CA to get married and was working at a drug development company that failed before tending bar. IMO there are many other parts in the article that are biased. I have not edit warred on anything to push any point of view. I am trying to get NPOV information in the article from the best sources available. Asking for specific passages that verify the material from the sources helps assure material is directly and explicitly supported by the source.[29]Ward20 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, many of your taggings were not valid. Only two of them I agree with - the Harry Reid one, and the 'government agencies have ignored CFS patients' one (although it may be a summary, but my brain hurt from trying to figure it out). And this second one certainly isn't inserting anything NPOV into the article anyway. So I don't see any reason for marking the entire article as NPOV. It looks like you are just clutching at straws. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the political support: there are two refs there, but neither seems to mention WPI. They only support the fact that Whittemore is friends with the two senators.
So if this is the only issue with the article, I think we should remove the npov tag from the top of the article. If there are still issues, please list what they are. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added sources for Ensign and Reid, who have both secured earmarks for WPI. We should probably also add Berkley's request for over $2 million in earmarks for 2010. I am completely receptive to any proposed alternative language for "ignoring CFS patients"; I'm not at all bound to these words, which I wrote as what I thought was an accurate summary. I could well be wrong. I would encourage editors to follow NPOVD in this regard. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the summary. Mrs Whittemore certainly discusses the CDC and other researchers in the article, so it's not as if you are deliberately trying to insert your own POV or mislead people. It seems a reasonable summary. If Ward20 has an issue with it, perhaps he can offer an alternative. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are still many problems. The weight of HW has not been addressed. The primary sources for the earmarks do not indicate if: Ensign's earmark was passed, or Reid's funding was an earmark or if WPI was the recipient of Reid's funding. The POV in the article still includes WP:SYNTH ie. the history section contains too much weight on the motivation of the Whittemores and their personal story. Events are put together out of order to advance a POV. What is this doing in the mission section instead of the history section? I brought this up earlier about SYNTH, "The Whittemores envisioned WPI as an integrated facility for dedicated CFS treatment, education and research.[6] WPI has been known as "The Whittemore Peterson Institute for Chronic Fatigue"[10] and the "National Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Institute".[11]" There was NPOV context material added today from RS that that Keepcalmandcarryon deleted or changed for various reasons. I disagree the article is close to NPOV. I have other things to do right now. Ward20 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The weight of HW has been addressed, both by sciencewatcher and by me. Ward20 has accused editors of pushing Annette Whittemore to the side; in fact, I was simply unaware that UNR was the alma mater of both H and AW. I corrected the text accordingly. How was this a POV violation? Where else is Harvey Whittemore emphasised over Annette? Was the New York Times wrong to report that Harvey and Annette Whittemore founded WPI?
How is the Ensign and Reid sentence a POV violation? Does Ward20 dispute that both Senators requested and received funding for WPI? Or that Reid and Ensign have close personal and financial relations with the Whittemore family? If so, on the basis of which reliable sources?
Ward20 states that "the history section contains too much weight on the motivation of the Whittemores and their personal story." How so? Was this not the main reason behind the WPI, as stated by the Whittemores and reporters in reliable sources? Did the New York Times and other prominent sources not devote large portions of their articles to the personal story?
"Events are put together out of order to advance a POV." For example? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply a diff where Ward20 has accused any editors of pushing Annette Whittemore to the side.
There are a least a couple of NYT articles, which one are you refering to.
Earmark carries a connotation. I explained, "The primary sources for the earmarks do not indicate if: Ensign's earmark was passed, or Reid's funding was an earmark or if WPI was the recipient of Reid's funding."
It's a history of the WPI not the Whittemores. An enclopedia is not a newpaper.
"Harvey Whittemore is also prominent lawyer[13] and influential lobbyist.[14][15] The Whittemores successfully lobbied the Nevada legislature for support and arranged an affiliation with the University of Nevada, Reno, the Whittemores' alma mater." This presupposes HW was the driving force in lobbying the Nevada legislature for support and arranging an affiliation with UNR. The sources don't state that. Ward20 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Out) Responses:

Ward20 wrote, "The roll of Mrs. Whittemore is shoved aside to emphasize Harvy Whittemore. Material is constructed to marginalize WPI." Shoving and constructing are done by thinking humans, editors.

Both New York Times articles mention that Harvey and Annette Whittemore founded the institute. Additional sources, RS and not, are a mouse click away, from a CFS blog I found several days ago to The Las Vegas Sun.

I'm not familiar with the connotations of "earmark", but I will look them up. What alternative wording would you propose? And, again, how does the level of accuracy of the word "earmark" affect the NPOV status of the article?

The WPI would not exist without the Whittemores, their personal experience, their money and influence. An encyclopaedia is not a newspaper, but newspaper articles are often the best RS.

The article does not state that HW was the primary driving force behind the lobbying. It's quite possible that his ties and experience were important, but the sources say that the Whittemores lobbied, raised money, etc., and that is precisely what the article states. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote, "The Mikovits story is out of context. The roll of Mrs. Whittemore is shoved aside to emphasize Harvy Whittemore. Material is constructed to marginalize WPI. I will attach the appropriate tags. Please do not remove them unless consensus is reached on the talk page that material is NPOV." I was obviously talking about material not an editor. Ward20 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious, rather, that content does not "cherry pick" itself, nor do words randomly assemble to marginalise institutions or "shove aside" the contributions of living persons. But I'm not concerned so much with the antagonistic tone you've chosen to adopt as with your silence on all of the article-related responses above. Please address the article-related issues so that we can make progress on NPOV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Ward20's comments about the political support. It seems a bit of a stretch to go into the senate earmark documents - that looks like WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. As Ward20 says, this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. Can we not just say he had political support/connections (or whatever it says in the prohealth source) and leave it at that?
As for Ward20's comment about Harvey's wife being shoved aside: I've already pointed out above that Harvey and his wife have equal number of mentions, so why do you think that? If you have a suggestion for changing anything, please post it rather than just adding tags. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on all points. I've added a news programme to complement the primary sources from the Senators' offices. I also changed the "earmark" language since this word is not in my dictionary and it might have negative connotations. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been one day. Sorry I have other things to do right now than this one WP article. I will get around to your questions. By the way there are many many questions I have asked on this page that have never been addressed either. Ward20 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy in lead

The sentence "The institute is dedicated to researching illnesses that are caused by "acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system", such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism" is inaccurate and inconsistent with reliable sources. None of these disorders is generally accepted as "acquired" (i.e., infectious), and with the possible exception of MS, none is accepted as caused by either immune or nervous system dysregulation, much less immune and nervous system dysregulation. It's acceptable to quote WPI, but it's also our obligation to emphasise that this is WPI's opinion, one that's not supported by scientifically reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in quotes, which is a start, but people will likely take it at face value so perhaps it should be changed. We know that WPI were primarily set up to study CFS, and that is all they have studied so far, so perhaps we should just change it to CFS. If they have a reference for their theory about those other illnesses being linked, perhaps that could be put into the main section, along with a note saying something about it going against current scientific opinion about those illnesses. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[30] Please give the place in the source where is says "dedicated to the study of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)." I could not find it. Ward20 (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re "WIP's opinion" I gave a couple quotes above. e.g.
"The purpose of this project is to build and equip a comprehensive research and clinical outpatient facility to serve patients with Neuro-immune diseases such as ME/CFS, atypical MS, Fibromyalgia, Gulf War Illness and Autism, and to facilitate the immediate transfer of new knowledge to effective patient treatment and physician education through the combined efforts of researchers, clinicians and educators at the medical school campus of the University of Nevada, Reno." [8] [my ital]
And sorry, I deleted the change Ward20 commented on above. I've learnt from experiences that your refs sometimes don't support your wording. Or is Congresswoman Berkley not a WP:RS? TerryE (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WPI's opinion of itself, or that opinion as repeated by a Congressperson, is of secondary relevance to the article. Of over 100 reliable sources, third-party news reports, mentioning WPI, all but a few have appeared since and in response to the XMRV/CFS report. WPI, for the purposes of an encyclopaedia, is XMRV/CFS. It was founded by the parents of a patient and a doctor who treats that patient. Its first reported names indicated a dedication to CFS. Its sole published research has involved CFS. We can report the WPI mission statement, but it's probably inappropriate for the lead, and we are obliged (since it contains scientific claims) to remind readers of the accuracy of those claims. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KCOC, The purpose of the intro para is to introduce the subject of the article. Keep it short and to the point. We had a discussion about this and there was a consensus between myself, Ward20 and Sam Weller on this which is why I restored the previous version. Sw didn't joint this discussion and you didn't give a specific "no", so I make this change. You've since changed it and I've backed out your change because the change wasn't supported by the reference that you gave. The institute is for a purpose. The fact that Congresswoman Berkley and Senator Ensign's have both quoted this purpose on State government websites. I would normally back this out, but I think that if I could up I would slide into WP:3RR. Your rewrites add no value other than to push controversy into the opening agenda. I ask you to revert this otherwise, I am sorry to say that we will need move to the next phase of WP:DR. I'll leave you to explain why the statement from one of the top government officers in the State of Nevada is not a WP:RS for the purposes of this intro and purpose. -- TerryE (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead must "explain why the subject is interesting or notable" and summarise the article briefly. At the moment, WPI is interesting or notable only because of the XMRV/CFS report and subsequent controversy. The WPI's mission statement, although worthy of inclusion somewhere in the article and in appropriate scientific context, does not contribute to the subject's notability and contains scientific inaccuracies. We unpack this mess later in the article; it's too detailed and POV for the lead. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now we get to the nub. My interest in WPI is because it seems to be the first serious research centre that has been founded to look into possible biological causes of a class of illness where this argument applies. The XMRV study is simply the first such to be published and a stark example of the difference that such funding can make into progress for the understanding of potential biological causes. These funding requests make it clear that its scope is larger than you imply. You clain my intro is POV, but it is also the POV of the US State government officers who are sponsoring the part funding the institute as well as the founders. You say my intro is too detailed, but it is shorter than your replacement.
On the other hand, your statement "WPI is interesting or notable only because of the XMRV/CFS report and subsequent controversy" is your assumption and POV, and you seems to refuse to consider any alternative viewpoints. You unilaterally back out any changes that run counter to this without being willing to debate them and reaching consensus before acting thus. -- TerryE (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a RS for the version TerryE, myself, and Sam Weller favors, there is not a rs for the material Keepcalmandcarryon and sciencewatcher favors. Ward20 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which RS states that WPI is notable for its belief that autism is caused by infection-induced neurological and immune dysfunction? And how do you balance that RS, if it exists, against greater than 100 RS covering the XMRV/CFS story? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that WPI main exposure to the public is because of the XMRV paper in Science, however notability is not the same as public exposure. By this argument an institution such as CERN is only notable because "it's got that big machine to make the God particle" because if you go to the blogspace or popular papers, that all the coverage there is about CERN at the moment.
Your position is "WPI is interesting or notable only because of the XMRV/CFS report and subsequent controversy" and you are assessing all other judgements by this axiom, but it is your personal axiom; it isn't shared by me and is probably not shared by other editors. It does remind me of the sort of circular argument that proponents of Intelligent Design make: I believe in X and therefore I reject A,B,C because they are works of evil and therefore not RS; golly-gosh, the only true evidence supports my case!
The fact that the State of Nevada is intending to allocate funds to enable WPI do autism studies is notable, and source is an RS in this context. This isn't solely a medical article. If and when WPI publishes such studies, then these will be medically notable. -- TerryE (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not equipped to predict the future, nor to conclude from the size of Congressperson Berkley's funding request that WPI is notable, for now, for anything beyond what has been reported in third-party publications. Have I overlooked several hundred articles on WPI's autism, fibromyalgia and MS research? As for debate, I have offered cogent arguments for every edit I have made or proposed, in edit summaries and here on the talk page. And consensus is not majority rule; it is adherence to Wikipedia policies. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your logic completely escapes me. We have the first major independent Research Institute into this class of illness and you are the final arbiter that the decision by a US senator and US congresswoman to support the funding of it by the State of Nevada is not sufficiently notable and therefore excluded. You've lost the plot. -- TerryE (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently mentions the funds secured through the political support of John Ensign and Harry Reid. I stated previously that we should include the Berkley appropriations request. Berkley is not, however, a reliable source for the assertion that autism, etc., are caused by infection, which is scientifically inaccurate and is what you have been trying to add to the lead. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry: there is no class of illness called 'Neuro-Immune Disease'. It's a category made up by WPI and so far they haven't done any research. Your CERN example isn't valid because CERN have done lots of research into various things. WPI haven't, therefore they are only notable for this one study. As KKCO says, we can certainly mention that WPI thinks these diseases are linked and they plan to research them, as long as we say that this is not a recognised category. Oh wait, we already do say that! -sciencewatcher

About Berkley as a reliable source: I do not at all oppose inclusion of her funding proposal. However, consider what she's said (or misread from WPI copy) on the record in the US House. She has called CFS "chronic disease syndrome" and states that WPI's CFS research will save the lives of millions of Americans. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@sw, are you now saying this article falls solely under MEDRS in which case we had better start deleting a lot of content? We are talking about a research institute which is set up for a purpose that is research on a group of illnesses which it defines as a class. The US gov't funding agencies have adopted this very same wording to allocate funds so whether it is a recognised medical class in a formal sense, it is still what this clinic is dedicated to. Also the claim that "so far they haven't done any research." is your POV which to my knowledge isn't specifically made in any POV. The haven't as yet published such the results of any such research which is an entirely different matter.
@KCCO no one is claiming that Berkley is an RS for discussions that autism is caused by infection. You are the only one raising such claims. She is supporting the funding of a research institute to have a scope which includes the investigation of autism which is a subtly (but still nonetheless entirely) different issue. TerryE (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course I'm not saying the article should be subject to MEDRS. I'm just saying we should have common sense - this is an encyclopedia after all, not a newspaper or a US government document. We already have info on the made-up illness class "neuro immune disease" with appopriate caveats, so we should just leave it at that. And perhaps they have done a whole load of research into autism, but there is no WP:RS saying that. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an institute says it has been founded to do X,Y,Z and we have US gov't sites referencing its proposal to fund X,Y,Z then it does make sense to refuse to put in the intro that the institute was founded to do X,Y,Z because it is your opinion / OR that X doesn't exist or the institute hasn't published any results for Y yet. In this case the concept "neuro immune disease" makes sense to me (and this exact phrase has some 130,000 google hits so I am not alone). However if you can find an RS which says that is a made up illness class then of course it makes sense to put this in the article somewhere such as a controversy section. It's not our job to censor content based on our own OR. -- TerryE (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take a WP:RS to conclude that it's a made up illness group, and number of google hits on its own doesn't mean anything. If you search for 'homeopathy works' you get 150,000 hits (whereas searching for 'homeopathy doesn't work' only gets 115,000 hits). As well as relying on reliable sources, we also have to use our common sense. And we're not censoring - we already discuss this so-called "neuro-immune disease" in the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just playing a spin on your analogy back: let's say (for the sake of this argument) that WPI had been set up to research the effects of homoeopathy (or sheep turds for that matter) on a class of illnesses and received government funding on that basis. Whether you think that homoeopathy is bogus or a recognised medical discipline, it was still set up to study homoeopathy. The fact that you can't find a medical treatment called homoeopathy doesn't mean that it can't be mentioned in the intro. Whether or not the number of hits includes "doesn't work or not" is also irrelevant. The point is it in common use, as is "neuro immune disease". The purpose and scope of its charter is what it is. Whether this is widely accepted by the medical profession can be discussed in the controversy section(s). -- TerryE (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though homeopathy doesn't work, it is a technique that is used by millions of people around the world. As far as I know, 'neuro-immune disease' was invented by WPI and the only reason there are 130,000 references is because people are talking about WPI. So if you want to mention it in the lead I suppose that's fine, but you would need to include some caveats. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS does not apply to the article in general (that's why I created this article), but it does apply to any statements within the article regarding science and medicine. As for why WPI is notable, we've discussed this already. WPI is notable for the reasons it is covered in reliable sources. To this date, WPI's XMRV report and subsequent controversy are covered in RS. The WPI's founders' view of the institute and its future can be mentioned, although, in my opinion, preferably not in the lead, along with reliable information to place it in context. Which, as sciencewatcher noted, we've done. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VIP Dx and drug tests.

We've had this conversion in an earlier section. At the moment we've got two references to this:

  1. In Funding and support: "Supplemental funding for WPI comes from the sale of XMRV diagnostic tests by Viral Immune Pathology Diagnostics (VIP Dx), a company owned by the Whittemores and co-founded by one of WPI's lead investigators" using the CFIDS article Testing for XMRV
  2. In XMRV/CFS controversy: "CFS patients reportedly began to buy the VIP Dx diagnostic kit and to ask for antiretroviral drugs." referencing the Sciencenow commentary and Guardian articles.

What I would suggest is that we keep the controversy to do with VIP Dx in the controversy section -- that is move the "a company owned by the Whittemores and co-founded by one of WPI's lead investigators". In the current second reference the wording again doesn't reflect the references.

  • The Guardian article is the only one mentioning patient demand: "The study in Science ... sent many patients hurrying to doctors for tests and antiretroviral drugs." though the Sciencenow article does include the sentence "All of this leaves doctors and patients in a muddle. There's no doubt they're hungry for information."
  • IMHO, The best article for the WPI announcement of the test is its own press release.http://www.wpinstitute.org/WPI%20Release%20Diagnostic%20Test.pdf]
  • There is the science community reaction to this which is reported in the Sciencenow piece "But some scientists, including Coffin and McClure, fear that Lombardi's clinic took advantage of that hunger by offering the $650 diagnostic test, 300 of which have been administered so far."
  • There is the potential conflict of interest WP/Lombardi over WPI vs VIP Dx. The Lombardi conflict is clear in there are a number of RS (including the VIP Dx website) which state that he is the operations director. A couple of editors have mentioned that the WPs own VIP Dx (and this is mentioned in the CFIDS article), but if we are going to state this in the article here then I would prefer it is we included a RS in respect of company ownership. I don't think that a CFS Association website is really suitable for this claim.

The last issue which only really came up last night (as far as I can see) is that the VIP Dx and RedLabs USA sites seem to have vanished and the WIP press announcement has been pulled from the WPI site, even though the WPI entry page still has the wording "WPI Announces Availability of XMRV Testing. See our press release or visit VIP Diagnostics (VipDX)." on it with the dead links. I wonder if WPI is rethinking the wisdom of offering this test. However, I don't think that we can comment on this until some independent RS does as this would constitute OR.

My view on this is that there is a controversy on this drug test and therefore the article should reflect this, but let's do it in one spot and keep to a NPOV middle line. -- TerryE (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CFS association would not be a reliable source on a scientific topic. For reporting on a specialist topic such as the ownership of a CFS diagnostic lab, it may or may not be acceptable. I am more inclined to accept the reporting of the association on an institute or a lab that shares their views on CFS. However, it may be best to attribute the statement directly. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An Indefatigable Debate Over Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Sam Kean Science 15 January 2010: Vol. 327. no. 5963, pp. 254 - 255 DOI: 10.1126/science.327.5963.254
However, VIP Dx developed its XMRV test only after a different company began offering one; VIP Dx officials saw their test as a more expert alternative. What's more, Lombardi—an unpaid consultant for VIP Dx who helped set up and manage the testing program—argues that the test is useful. Patients could in theory avoid infecting other people with XMRV and can have their diagnoses validated, if nothing else. His test results also bolster the science in the original paper; he says 36% of tests have detected XMRV, including a few from the United Kingdom. (Test proceeds roll back into research and development at Whittemore, which licenses the test to VIP Dx. VIP Dx has also received financial support from the Whittemore family in the past.)
Full text [http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?2304-An-Indefatigable-Debate-Over-Chronic-Fatigue-Syndrome-Science-Virology-2010-01-15&p=35188#post35188
Sam Weller (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WPI press release. "We structured the licensing contract to be sure that any and all profits that might emerge at VIPDx from XMRV testing come directly back to WPI to benefit the research program” said Whittemore. Dr. Lombardi is an employee of WPI, and has no personal financial interest in VIP Dx. Likewise, the Whittemore family put their interest in VIP Dx into a trust to benefit WPI." Ward20 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The PR is also reference on the front page of the WPI website in a lot more readable format [31]. -- TerryE (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for discussion on triggering Edit War Process

We seem to have triggered a ping pong edit war on a number of sections in this article. We (and I mean us as a collective, and that includes me) are adopting positions where edits are being made where we know that these will be rejected by other editors. This article is going nowhere healthy, and I think that the situation has gotten to the point that we seem to be unable to reach consensus amongst ourselves and such a war is the most likely outcome without arbitration. However, I would like to request the view of the other contributors to this discussion their views on this specific subject before (and preferably as an alternative to) initiating this arbitration process.

I think that the situation become unacceptable. I will now notify all active participants of this discussion and invite them to participate. -- TerryE (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:RFC with respect to article content might be in order to pull more editors into the discussion. Ward20 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ward20. Can a WP:RFC on Harvey Whittemore be coordinated as part of the same problem? Sam Weller (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

Comment requested on the following: Is the article NPOV? Does it lend too much weight to a particular viewpoint? Are sources misrepresented? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you KCACO, but I did ask that we discuss next steps before requesting arbitration, so that we could agree the wording of the request. This page is about a chartered charitable institute and therefore the RFC should also fall under the econ category. -- TerryE (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from uninvolved person: article seemed to be fairly NPOV. It may have an undue weight in being to paranoid about the institutes funding and mission. For example it seems out of place to criticize in the "Mission" section the feasibility of the research goals (the critique should be in a separate section). Also, I was puzzled that the article gives an impression that the institute is lead by a "former bartender" and then get's a publication in Science. I would suggest you reorganize the article to first present the institute (mission, funding, staff, etc), and then have a separate section about the controversy that apparently surrounds the institute. Finally, I am not going to check all sources so if someone believes a source is misrepresented they need to identify the source and what misrepresentation. Labongo (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Nevada article on Mikovits

http://www.unr.edu/silverandblue/

http://www.unr.edu/silverandblue/archive/2010/winter/Pages%20from%20NSB_Winter_2010_12-13.pdf

In less than three years since she was hired as the research director at the Whittemore Peterson Institute, Mikovits and her team have identified a genetic susceptibility marker to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, developed a cytokine signature describing Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as an inflammatory disease, produced a sensitive and accurate test for coinfections, and described an abnormal number of pathogens in this population.

Formally trained as a cell biologist, molecular biologist and virologist, Mikovits has studied the immune response to retroviruses and herpes viruses. In addition, she has coauthored more than 40 peer-reviewed publications that address fundamental issues of viral pathogenesis, the production of blood cells and cytokine biology.

Sam Weller (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ampligen

A well-sourced sentence about a formerly experimental drug was deleted by Terry E with the explanation that it constituted synthesis and "We don't know when and why AH stopped this drug so this RS quote is irrelevant." In fact, the New York Times states that side effects forced the individual to stop taking the drug. We also know that she stopped taking it before the rejection by the FDA.

Ampligen is not a drug with proven efficacy for CFS, nor is it free of reactions, as evidenced by the FDA rejection. An encyclopaedia can't introduce the drug without explaining this. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am going senile, but I've found it wise to check your references for your claimed content. In this case the referenced article [32] (pages 1 and 2) doesn't even contain the word Ampligen so I missed the quote at the bottom of the page "For a while, Ms. Whittemore-Goad had improved on an antiviral drug, but she had to stop taking it because she had a reaction to it." However, since this isn't specific about which drug, to state "she was treated with an experimental antiviral drug, Ampligen, by Daniel Peterson. Side effects have since forced her to discontinue use of the drug" citing this sentence is WP:SYNTH so my decision was correct. Please find explicit RS reference, and then you can reinstate the text.
It would greatly help future discussions if you provided the verbatim extracts which support your case, so we can understand what you are taking about. Thanks. -- TerryE (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the URI of the Philadelphia Business Journal. What I am slightly confused about is that I found this by doing a search on Ampligen in the PBJ website. When I did this I found an article published on the 14th Jan [33] which provides some follow-up clarification.
OK we already have the following coatrack chain (forgive the mixed metaphor)
  • Article about WPI
    • whose President is AW
      • her daughter
        • who took drug which absolutely nothing to do with WPI or its scope of research
          • which was withdrawn from experimental use by FDA after she had stopped taking it.
Surely, this is piece of information is totally irrelevant to WPI. Nonetheless if the consensus of the editors is that this fact should go in then we should be saying stating something that actually are a more unbiased reflection of the content of these two references, for example:
In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration has rejected an application for Ampligen as an experimental treatment for CFS and recommended at least one additional clinical study, involving a minimum of 300 patients taking the drug for six months, “which shows convincing effect and confirms safety in the target population.” In Jan 2010, the makers of Ampligen submitted reports of new preclinical data, which it believes should be sufficient to address certain preclinical issues raised by the federal agency".
However, this really does underscore my original point: what on earth has this got to do with the WPI? And why therefore does one editor include it then reinstate it twice into the article when other editors have queried its inclusion? -- TerryE (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it's OT. I merely ungarbled the OR/SYN, without thereby endorsing it. Sam Weller (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neurologists Intrigued, But Not Convinced, by Study Linking Retrovirus to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2009/12030/Neurologists_Intrigued,_But_Not_Convinced,_by.11.aspx

"It's been one virus after another, said Thomas D. Sabin, MD, professor of neurology at Tufts Medical Center and co-editor of a 1993 book Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins). Each time, there's been great excitement, and then it's faded. Right now we should await confirmatory evidence from other laboratories."

"The authors did not describe the characteristics of the patients or controls, said Karen Roos, MD, the John and Nancy Nelson Professor of Neurology at Indiana University, where she specializes in the study of CNS infections. I am surprised that Science published it. It is far too premature to comment on the significance of this."

--sciencewatcher (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"But Dr. Mikovits, who spent more than 20 years at the NCI before joining the Whittemore Institute, strongly defended the integrity of her study, noting that all patients defined as having CFS had been diagnosed with it by a physician and met the CDC criteria."

"For all his doubts, Dr. Berger pointed out that the recent history of medicine has been studded with examples of diseases thought by doctors to be primarily psychosomatic or caused by stress, until evidence established an organic cause."

"I'm not ready to sign onto the bandwagon yet, he said. But they seem to be onto something. Remember, we viewed Helicobacter pylori as a cause of peptic ulcers with great skepticism, until it turned out to be irrefutable."

Sam Weller (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and Dr. Berger (that is Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor and chairman of neurology at the University of Kentucky) was the main neurologist being interviewed in this article so if we want to remain neutral perhaps we should include both the critical and supportive comments. -- TerryE (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I've added the "controversial" tag, as this article is being used as a surrogate for CFS controversy. Sam Weller (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In view of this controversial status and the Wikipedia rules for working on thus flagged articles, can I ask all editors who are introducing new references to include the include URIs for references which are also online to assist other editors in validating references? This is just a matter of courtesy to colleagues. Also if you are reviewing an existing reference and locate an online copy, can you please do likewise. Limiting RS to paper versions prevents those editors, who do not have the necessary financial resources or geographic access, from validating such references. -- TerryE (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation

I have just reread this section in its entirety. I do think that we have lost our way here. Surely a section on the "Organisation" of a research institute should actually discuss its organisation -- that is the main players, their roles, how many staff of what types etc., and not act as a WP:COATRACK to make sideways innuendo about the staff. In terms of the organisation I think that its possibly worth briefly summarising the following members:

  • Annette Whittemore, Founder and President ...
  • Daniel L. Peterson, MD, Medical Director ...
  • Judy A. Mikovits, PhD, Director of Research ...
  • Michael D. Hillerby, Vice President ...

together with its Science advisory board, the core XMRV team, plus perhaps information staff numbers, locations, associations with other organisations. OK we need to include RSs for these, but in this regard isn't the organisational announcements that WPI itself puts out suitably RS, e.g. [34][35][36]; though I would agree that any contentious medical claims about the staff or the WPI itself should be validated by independent RS. This is entirely consistent with the guidelines in the relevant section in WP:RS. I mentioned a CERN analogy in an earlier discussion and in case other editors state the position that this is unreasonable, I would point out that CERN references provide the bulk of RS in this regard.

My proposal here is also that the following specific points should be removed:

  • Re Mikovits. This "bartender" sojourn is an interesting anecdote for a Judy A. Mikovit should she ever become sufficiently notable in her own right to merit an article. However this article is about WPI. Only details relevant to her role and qualifications to fulfil this role should be included. The fact that she lost a job in a biotechnology company because it failed is dubiously relevant (since there is no referenced RS that would implicate her as having a causal part in that failure), but the fact that she worked as a barman whilst looking for another role to match her qualifications and experience is totally irrelevant to an article about WPI.
  • Re 'Lombardi' we have a statement "The second lead investigator is a biochemist who completed PhD training in protein chemistry at the University of Nevada, Reno, in 2006. Prior to receiving his degree, he co-founded RedLabs USA, Inc., now VIP Dx, which is owned by the Whittemores and sells XMRV diagnostics." referencing a CFIDS article [37] which doesn't even mention Lombardi let alone his background or the VIP Dx controversy. Even if this source did discuss this, I don't think that the clause "which is owned by the Whittemores and sells XMRV diagnostics" is appropriate here. If we want to raise this point then the correct place is the VIP Dx para in the controversy section. (Oh yes, a good ref for his bio is a WIP page [38]).

Comments before I work up a proposed draft? -- TerryE (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. The article on Mikovits and the WPI published by the University of Nevada looks reliable. Sam Weller (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naming individuals who are not notable in their own right is generally discouraged. Peterson, the Whittemores, Mikovits, and probably Lombardi are notable or nearly so, as is at least one past or present member of the WPI board, Billy Vassiliadis. Naming every member of WPI with WPI as the only source would be unencyclopaedic.
On Mikovits, the "bartender sojourn" illustrates how and why Mikovits got the job: she was available, she was interested in viruses and she knew a friend of a friend of the Whittemores. It's reliably sourced. In contrast, although I would not oppose linking the University of Nevada article, we must consider the relative value of the New York Times and UNR, a publication of the Whittemore's 'alma mater', WPI's host institution, and the recipient of millions of dollars as a result of the Whittemore's WPI lobbying: that is, perhaps not an independent, third-party source.
As for Lombardi, the WPI research profiles page, at least as it existed in early January, included any information you couldn't find in the CFIDS article. In my notes, I had used this page as a source, but I may not have transferred it to the article. I will do so now.
Efforts to assume good faith of other editors are strongly encouraged. I created this article specifically so that CFS interest editors could have a place other than the inappropriate XMRV to portray the ongoing controversy, and I have spent a moderate amount of time collecting sources, researching and writing. I apologise for omitting some of the URLs and leaving some sentences with only one source rather than two or more. I have made such mistakes of omission not because of any ill intent or participation in a POV-pushing conspiracy, as some editors have implied here and on other talk pages. Please, let's work together in a collegial and polite manner, discuss all changes as Sam Weller has suggested and pursue dispute resolution when we cannot agree compromises here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Whittemore suggestion

Annette Whittemore is probably notable and does not currently have a Wikipedia biography. Some of our contributors appear to be quite knowledgeable about her and interested in representing her accomplishments; I would suggest biography creation as a useful and constructive project for these editors. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Neubauer, Chuck (25 June 2004). "Senator's Bill Would Help Friend's Development Plan; Harry Reid of Nevada seeks to lift an easement. Two sons work at the landowner's law firm". The Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. ^ Vogel, Ed (02 May 1999). "He's no listless lobbyist". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Las Vegas, Nevada. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference ProHealth was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b c d e Kean, Sam (06 January 2010). "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Attacked Again". ScienceNOW Daily News. US: AAAS. Retrieved 06 January 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference pmid19815723 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference UNR_Virus was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ http://www.wpinstitute.org/WPI%20Release%20Diagnostic%20Test.pdf
  8. ^ Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (04 June 2009). "2010 Appropriations Requests, Commerce, Justice, Science". Retrieved 2010-01-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)