Talk:Macrophage migration inhibitory factor

NPOV, OR, and Weasel words
Statements in Wikipedia articles must be backed up by reliable sources. Furthermore Wikipedia articles should simply summarize conclusions in these sources and not add commentary as to the reliability of these sources. If a studies conclusions have been questioned by a second reliable source, then by all means mention that in the article and include the second source. However questioning the reliability of a source without providing a second reliable source to support that doubt constitutes original research and is not permitted.

It is also true that sources, especially in the scientific literature, often use cautious language to describe the studies conclusions, especially with respect to possible applications of the studies findings. At the same time, Wikipedia articles should to the greatest extent possible simply state facts and minimize the use of weasel words. The right balance between accurately reflecting the reliable sources own caution and writing in a clear, straight forward style must be found. In my opinion, these edits introduce a tone that is even more cautious than the cited sources and therefore does not maintain a neutral point of view. Furthermore these edits have introduced a number of unnecessary weasel words. Boghog (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversy?
A number of edit summaries to this article have implied that this MIF is a highly controversial field. However after reading two recent reviews (see and ), I fail to find any evidence to back up these claims. Hence I think the addition of cautionary qualifiers to this article is unjustified.

I am also very puzzled why one set of citations were replaced by another set when the original set seemed relevant and reliable. Furthermore no justification for these changes was provided. I have therefore re-added these citations. Boghog (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of references
Users, , and each have removed or replaced without explanation the following set of references which I have restored. Furthermore, each of these three contributors to date have only edited this article.


 * ; cited 195 times
 * ; cited 217 times
 * ; cited 24 times
 * cited 85 times
 * cited 340 times
 * cited 13 times

The above references appear to be reliable and support statements in the text. Hence I am very puzzled as to why this set of references has been repeatedly been removed. Richard Bucala is listed as a co-author in all the above citations. Does someone have something against Richard Bucala? Boghog (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
These papers are very minor references. I think that if you knew this field you would know better. I do not see why you insist on including them. Please see WP:COI. Are you employed in the laboratory of one of these people? In science it is customary to use qualified language. It is not a weasel word to say that we do not know something, but someone has suggested some idea. It is however inappropriate to say that something is proved, just because someone has written a paper on it. Please use common sense!

Elias Jack (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no connection whatsoever with any of these laboratories. Furthermore  is the first crystal structure of a human MMIF.  characterizes the enzymatic activity of this protein.  reveals an important interaction of this protein with CD74.  The rest of the citations are authoritative reviews of this protein.  These are not minor papers.
 * As I have stated above, it is not acceptable to question the reliability of a reliable source in a Wikipedia article unless a second reliable source is provided to document that doubt. A neutral account of the work must be maintained.  If there is serious doubt about the reliability of a source, then the text along with the citation should be entirely removed from the article.  So far you have not provided any evidence that this work is not reliable.  Boghog (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added external links to Google Scholar in the above section that show how many times each reference has been cited. These numbers range from 13 to 340 times. If these references are "very minor", why have they been cited so many times? Boghog (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Will keep an eye on thinks. A little strange I agree. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

COI Part 2
Seems pretty clear from this and Boghog talk page that there is a real COI problem here--looks like Boghog is trying to turn the page into a shrine for this Bucalow guy--well if he is so great where is his Nobel? Anyway all I know about protein is what I read on food label so I will leave it to the experts. Happy editing, and don't shoot the messenger. Lots of people watching this page now.Secret Frog (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly requested evidence both above and on my talk page to support the claim that the subject matter of this article is controversial. I have also repeatedly requested evidence that the sources cited in this article are not relevant and reliable. So far only opinions have been offered without a shred of evidence from a reliable source to support those claims. Furthermore I have no connection whatsoever with Richard Bucala or his research group, but it is becoming increasingly clear that those that are objecting to the citations included in this article have something against Richard Bucala. Boghog (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

bizarre tags
I removed the tags. I found nothing fringey or confused here. I am open to hearing whatever concern... Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)