Talk:Spontaneously hypertensive rat

Removal question
Why on earth is this editor removing changes from an article on medical matters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.132.163 ( (talk • contribs)
 * Because you don't provide sources or can't interpret a source properly.  One study saying, "Based on behavioral, genetic, and neurobiological data, the spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR) obtained from Charles River, Germany, (SHR/NCrl) is at present the best-validated animal model of ADHD." does not lead to the conclusion, "with the main emphasis on models purchased from Charles Rivers" --Neil N  talk to me 22:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The study is less than two years old and has been cited 16 times. You only made changes to this article after disputing my changes to another article - where you said hearsay was sufficient for making quantity based claims. Also the one study comment is a fallacy, somebody with serious science training would understand that, so I am concerned that you are making these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'm an uninvolved admin trying to mediate here. The main issue appears to be whether or not the method from Charles Rivers was the "main emphasis" for coming to the given conclusions, correct? To me, it looks like Neil is saying, there is no source explicitely crediting him as "main", where as the IP keeps on giving sources that show his effects, but don't necessarily label it "main" outright. Is this correct? Sergecross73  msg me  13:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes. This is the IP's desired wording:
 * "The Spontaneously Hypertensive Rat (SHR) is also used as a model of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, with the main emphasis on models purchased from Charles Rivers."
 * This is what the source says:
 * "Based on behavioral, genetic, and neurobiological data, the spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR) obtained from Charles River, Germany, (SHR/NCrl) is at present the best-validated animal model of ADHD."
 * The proposed wording implies that Charles River rats are the focus for all studies in this area. --Neil N  talk to me 13:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Better wording: "Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats sourced from Charles River Laboratories are also regarded as the best models for studies involving attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder." --Neil N  talk to me 13:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that wording is much better, and yet still manages to mention CR as well. I would think that is the best route to take. Sergecross73   msg me  13:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading my wording again, it also implies something it shouldn't. Tweaked: "Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats are also used in studies involving attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, with rats sourced from Charles River Laboratories regarded as the best models." I'll make this change tomorrow if there are no objections (or someone else can do it). --Neil N  talk to me 14:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy with that change, too. Although perhaps change [SHR are also used in studies involving to ADHD, to "SHR rats are also a used as an animal model of ADHD (useful if a hyperlink is added to animal models (if such a page exists). I think its important to emphasise the word animal model, too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.95.63 (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats are also used in studies involving attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, with rats sourced from Charles River Laboratories regarded as the best animal models." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think its important to emphasis they are an animal model of ADHD, sure - at least interested users can then link to find out more about animal models.

Also, please check the Sagvolden wiki link. it notes he was a prolific researcher, and one of his papers demonstrating the animal as a model of ADHD is one of his most cited papers.
 * I'm not sure if you're agreeing with the wording I proposed. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see that Jamie has changed the wording. I'm fine with that. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

, aren't the first and second sentences in that section saying almost the same thing? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for catching that. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)