Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute/Archive 2

"suggested that XMRV may be a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of CFS"
The present wording in the article impies the Scence article stated a possible causal relationship. In reality, they proposed questions that need to be determined.

Proposed new wording:

and offered the questions: whether XMRV might cause CFS or simply be a passenger co-infection, if there is a relationship with other viruses identified with CFS, and if the virus could affect cancer risk in CFS.

Ward20 (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course they implied that a causal relationship could exist. They have done so not only in the Science article, but also in sundry press releases and interviews. A scientific question presents the possibilities, i.e. the things that you believe could be. You then test your hypotheses to find out which of them is/are correct. Lombardi et al propose that XMRV could be a causal factor in CFS or could be a passenger virus. I'm flummoxed by this insistence that they do not do so. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read again, they implied that a causal relationship could exist, or not, if it's a passenger co-infection. The whole story has to be presented, not a part of the story. Ward20 (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "but also in sundry press releases and interviews.". We are summarising the study.  Please read WP:NOR.  If you want to discuss a proposed wording for the Coverage of Research (oops you unilaterally deleted that heading, but the same place) then please do so. -- TerryE (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits by 74.51.82.241
This IP address editor has just made a batch of edits relating to the recent discussions. The post comments indicate that this is far from a novice unlike most IP posters, and the WP policies specifically permit such anonymous editing. From the IP location (Prairie Grove, Arkansas) I don't believe that we is one of the other editors posting on this page. His changes were as follows: -- TerryE (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Removal of McClure comment
 * but removal of reference to WPI as a laboratory
 * but removal of reference to WPI as a laboratory
 * but removal of reference to WPI as a laboratory
 * but removal of reference to WPI as a laboratory
 * but removal of reference to WPI as a laboratory

Main points from WPI paper in XMRV/CFS controversy section
I've just reread the article from to top bottom, asking myself the Q "Is it worth adding any extra information before the next material XMRV / CFS related paper? This also links back to Sam W's points in  and the following discussion.  One of the useful documents here which acts as a useful prompts is the slide deck of Mikowits' 22nd Jan presentation, which has just been released by WPI. I believe this falls within WP:RS, but clearly falls short of WP:MEDRS because of its content hasn't been release though peer review, in say PLoS ONE; so we need to be careful in using its content.  However it is worth picking up a few point from this.
 * Mikowits gives her own summary of her Science paper. These are crisp bullets, accurate and good summary of the key points so I think that there is a lot of merit in adopting her wording:
 * XMRV DNA found in 67% of CFS patient DNA
 * XMRV protein detected in >85% stimulating/dividing T and B cells
 * Antibody to XMRV Env detected in >50% of CFS patient plasma
 * Infectious virus transmitted for >90% of CFS patient plasma
 * XMRV is a blood-borne, infectious human retrovirus.
 * There is additional detail on CFS Cohort distribution, indicating the US cover and international representation.
 * The XMRV samples sequenced are philogenetically close but not identical to Silverman's sequenced XMRV and more distant to the MLVs.

The current wording in the article only talks about the DNA detection using PCR, but if you read the content of the article instead of stopping at the the abstract, it is entirely reasonable to state that the paper reported on four separate tests achieving between >50 and >90% detection rates in the CFS patient samples. All tests were accompanied by control groups and only one of these had a non-zero result (DNA detection by PCR 3.7%).

The points about the cohort demography and the philogenetic relationships are probably too detailed for a general article.

Though this wasn't explicitly stated in the Science paper, both Peterson and Mikowits have subsequently clarified that the patient population for tests 2-4 were drawn from the group of 33 patients that failed test 1, which is the reason for the 95% detection rate claim.

I also think that we should report the blood and infectious claims as Sam suggests, plus the statements from Dr. Jerry Holmberg of the DHHS OPHS on blood safety issues who confirmed at the CFSAC meeting on 30th Oct 2009 that the DHHS Blood Safety Committee will "investigate the blood safety threat from XMRV, plus Minutes of Advisory Committee, so I think that fact that the BSC is investigation the security of the US blood supply is sufficiently

OK, this is a bit more detail than the McClure paper, but I don't think that this is unreasonable given that this is a summary of work by 5 separate teams from 3 separate organisations over a period of two years.

However, I wanted to gauge the general reaction and comments before proposing a specific change in wording. -- TerryE (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On reflection I do think that the extra 3 test merit a mention, but this is best done by picking the key points from the study itself, rather than introducing the Mikowits presentation as an RS for this. I also can't find wording that clearly supports the sentence "The authors suggested that XMRV might cause CFS or be associated with it as a disease marker.", so again I have their actual wording to make an equivalent statement.  -- TerryE (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur, Terry. Sam Weller (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From the Science article: "Is XMRV infection a causal factor in the pathogenesis of CFS or a passenger virus in the immunosuppressed CFS patient population?" That is, "XMRV might cause CFS or be associated with it as a disease marker".
 * As to the points above:
 * XMRV DNA found in 67% of CFS patient DNA
 * Correct.
 * XMRV protein detected in >85% stimulating/dividing T and B cells
 * Incorrect: antibodies to mouse MLVs recognised a protein in T- and B-cells.
 * Antibody to XMRV Env detected in >50% of CFS patient plasma
 * Incorrect: patient sera antibodies detected a SFF envelope protein.
 * Infectious virus transmitted for >90% of CFS patient plasma
 * Incorrect: in the presence of CFS patient plasma and following centrifugation, type C particles were shed by an indicator cell line.
 * XMRV is a blood-borne, infectious human retrovirus.
 * Also incorrect; human-to-human transmission has not been confirmed or even investigated, as per the recent Molecular Investigations review. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are now entering the realms of discussing the accuracy of the report and criticising its accuracy as a technical expert. I was limiting myself to a précis of its contents. We are already into difficult ground because this was an article about an institute rather than a strict MED article. We non-experts should carry out pseudo-technical discussions off Wikipedia.   But, the highlight is that we have is follows.  I have quoted the relevant introductory preamble from the relevant section describing the test in the paper:


 * The one point where I have linked detail in is in the B description, where "antibodies to XMVR proteins" would be a better summary, and I concede this improvement. As for the rest, I think this demonstrates that my text complies with WP guidelines.


 * What the paper doesn't make explicit, but was the points later clarified by both Peterson and Mikowits previously that the sample group for tests B-D were the 33 patients that were not detected in test A. So out of 101 patients, 99 where positive in at least one of the four tests.  Of the 203 controls only 8 positive were detected out of the four tests.  However I wanted to present to the lay readers the key points: there were four tests, and all had high detection rates for CFS patients and low or zero for healthy controls, so I felt it unnecessary to strengthened the claims, by bringing in other sources.  On the other hand, your proposed edit is again intended to show the paper in as negative light as possible.  Yes one test only had 7 controls, but as least (unlike the Imperial study) they did use healthy patient controls in all tests.   -- TerryE (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * TerryE, my intent is to portray the paper accurately; not to "show the paper in as negative light as possible". With all due admiration for your efforts at reading this article, I must note that you misunderstand much of it. What you are calling "Test B", "antibodies to XMVR Env", is not a test for antibodies to XMRV Env. It is a test using antibodies to other murine leukemia viruses to probe patient samples. They're using antibodies not from the patients to detect proteins from the patients. Do you understand this difference? Furthermore, the authors tested at least five antibodies (perhaps more, it's not clear) with a wide variety of Murine Leukaemia Virus specificities; they report on the antibody that gives the largest number of positive results (19 out of 30). Of these 19, the authors write, a "majority....also reacted with antisera to other purified MLV proteins". In other words, the number of patient samples positive by multiple antibodies was greater than 9 but less than 19, although the authors state that all antibodies recognised XMRV-expressing cells. The authors don't formally show that the antibodies detect XMRV, i.e. recombinant protein, and they don't make monoclonals to specific viral epitopes.
 * The infectivity assay does not involve "XMRV infectivity of activated PBMCs". Instead, patient PBMCs were co-cultured with an indicator prostate cancer cell line (known as LNCaP) or an immortalised T-cell line. For either one or two samples, co-culture with healthy T-cells was performed.
 * The immune response is to SFFV Env as a surrogate for XMRV. The authors do not show directly that the patient antibodies bind XMRV epitopes.
 * You're correct on one point, however: I should have written, "a minimum" of seven controls, not "a maximum". I apologise for the mistake. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are again trying to critique the validity of the tests and their context on an expert basis. That is not your job, nor is it mine, and certainly not on Wikipedia; neither of us are independent experts who have published our views in an RS.  The content might not satisfy you, but it did satisfy a six month review period by the Science nominated reviewers, who approved its publication.  Our job is to précis the key points which relate to this article.  If we are disagreeing, then this is an indication that we need less detail not more.  How about:
 * The study also reported findings on three other tests relating to antibody detection, immune response, and patient-derived XMRV infectivity. The three tests had detection rates between 50% and 83% for CFS patients, with no detections for healthy controls.
 * If you are going to start talking about sample sizes, then we would also need to get into statistics such as the &chi;2 statistics on these data, which I do know about. (The confidence intervals around these data are pretty compelling.)   If you want an expert opinion on this, why not use Coffins description, e.g. "John Cofin, a microbiologist at Tufts University in Boston who studies retroviruses, commented 'This was as good as it gets for a first paper, but it is still just a first paper.'", or do you want to balance this with "Keeponcalmandcarryon, an anonymous editor on Wikipedia responded, ..."'  -- TerryE (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) in Writing style (third bullet) seems to favor the less detail approach. Ward20 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The inaccurate summaries are still in the article, even after my repeated explanations of TerryE's mistakes. No amount of consensus allows the misrepresentation of sources, and, frankly, the entire explication of this primary and unconfirmed report should be removed per WP:MEDRS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please suggest alternative wording that you feel accurately summarises the findings, but can I suggest that we do this in the section that you opened below now that we've started using that -- TerryE (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mission proposed changes
I removed material that has nothing to do with the mission and simplfied by reorganizing and rewording. For discussion:

Ward20 (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It reads well and you are correct in removing the history sentences. If these belong anywhere then they belong in the History section.  -- TerryE (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Implemented. Ward20 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ward, the recent IP poster flagged a "what?" in this relating to "...they started to realise ...". He/she has a point. The relevant extract from the RS is "A year ago a WPI laboratory under the direction of cancer researcher and virologist Dr. Judy Mikovits, PhD, opened on the University of Nevada, Reno campus. This dynamic researcher, whose enthusiasm Annette Whittemore has called “infectious,” is collaborating with a diverse team of immunologists, clinical virologists, pharmacologists and microbiologists. Their look at ME/CFS from a neuro-immune perspective appears be paying off, with Dr. Mikovits suggesting it could reap dividends far beyond the disease itself. 'We are beginning to realize that our research program at this Institute will have a significant impact on a much larger number of diseases with similar etiologies such as autism, epilepsy and MS.'" so given that this is painting an unfolding story, then perhaps this point would be better moved to the previous history section.


 * This is an important perspective as it gives a background as to why WPI regard some forms of autism, epilepsy and MS as related to ME/CFS. I have worded this as a Mikovits' opinion.  -- TerryE (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also I am at a loss as to why K decided to add random quotes on the four bullets, as the adjective stated in "... stated goals are" already means that the following four bullets are quotations. -- TerryE (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Quotes must be quoted. The quotes weren't random, they enclosed the quoted material. The clauses were unified by adding "to" where appropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So let me get this right? replacing ME/CFS with CFS in one quotation is OK and you don't need quotes, but if you remove a split infinitive then you have to add the quotes. In this case let's loose the quotes and bring back the split infinitives.  I think that the real difference here is that you were the originating editor for the first, but not the second. -- TerryE (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference Packing
I have been continuing my review of this articles content, and I am a little concerned that there is a pattern of reference packing. One specific case that about this is in the statements about Harvey Whittemore in the Funding and Support section. There are two statements here that I want to discuss:
 * "The Whittemore family's wealth derives from business activities including real estate, land development and joint ownership of a gas company and an energy drink.[ref][ref] Harvey Whittemore is also prominent lawyer[ref] and influential lobbyist.[ref][ref]"
 * "The institute has received federal funding through the political support of Nevada's senators John Ensign[ref] and Harry Reid,[ref][ref] the latter a close personal friend of Harvey Whittemore.[ref][ref]"

I am comfortable with this content: the first statement provides a overview of the wealth and influence which have enabled the Whittemore's to endow and create the institute; the second is a statement of support by both Nevada Senators and the friendship clause is a reasonable qualification. What I am concerned about is the use of references to introduce redundant citations and articles that are not directly relevant to the context of WPI. Yes, these references may well be valid for the Harvey Whittemore article, but what is the valid reason for repeating redundant citations here? What I will do is to trim these back to a set which support the text in the article. -- TerryE (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to "trim" references, especially when such trimming favours primary sources over independent media outlets. Also, please remember to discuss proposed edits rather than simply declaring intentions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we please discuss this rather than a plain "no" + undo.  Take one example where we have a statement:
 * The institute has received federal funding through the political support of Harry Reid
 * which cites two references: the first is Senator Reid's press release from his own official website where he states that he is supporting "$571,000 for the Center for Molecular Medicine at UNR to purchase equipment for the Whittemore-Peter [sic] Institute"; the second was a Television News article  Reno, Nevada from KRNV News the following day.  The content is not contentious.  We are asserting that X supports Y.  We have a RS which is an official statement from X stating that he supports Y.  We have a TV news short aired the following day, and since AFAIK there is no easily accessible recording, and therefore it is therefore very difficult to verify if it says X supports Y.  Please explain to us all your logic as to why:
 * [REF2] is essential; and
 * Why a practically non-verifiable TV report is a better than an official statement from the senator anyway?


 * The second undo related to the statement:
 * ... Harry Reid, the latter a close personal friend of Harvey Whittemore.[17][18]
 * This statement in itself is not contentious, though this article is about WPI and not Harvey Whittemore. Why do we need to cite two articles to support this fact, especially as neither has anything to do with WPI?  I have suggested only one is necessary.  Unless we can find one that discusses this friendship in the context of WPI, then your own argument in the next section applies and we should just delete this clause in its entirety.  -- TerryE (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Our reliable sources guidelines indicate that third-party coverage (such as television news programmes or newspaper articles) is preferable to primary sources (such as a Senator's press release). We don't have to delete the Reid source, but, where possible, independent sources should take precedence. (In addition, independent sourcing establishes the importance of the primary statements and helps us avoid the improper use of primary sources.)


 * As for removal of the clause, your own argument above applies, not my statement on an unrelated issue below. As the sources demonstrate, Harvey Whittemore's personal relationships with the Nevada senators (and other politicians) have been quite useful in generating support, including funding, for his research institute...to the extent that two Nevada papers have called WPI a "rich guy's charity" and labeled support for it as "pork". In contrast, a British advocacy organisation's selective criticism of a PCR test for XMRV not offered by WPI is irrelevant to the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see the two two sources in the article do not, "demonstrate, Harvey Whittemore's personal relationships with the Nevada senators (and other politicians) have been quite useful in generating support, including funding, for his research institute." The two sources talking about their friendship do not appear to mention WPI at all. The friendship material in the article leads the reader to believe that is a large factor in support of funding. H.Reid has been supporting CFS long before the WPI was conceived. The friendship material should be removed as WP:SYNTH if sources can not be found that states the frindship of Whittemore and Reid influenced support and funding for WPI.


 * What are the sources for the statement, "two Nevada papers have called WPI a "rich guy's charity" and labeled support for it as "pork"? It doesn't seem to come up on a google search. More important, do these sources say the friendship of Whittemore and Reid influenced support and funding for WPI?


 * The wording, "The institute has received federal funding through the political support of Nevada's senators John Ensign and Harry Reid, is not properly sourced. The John Ensign source indicates a FY 2010 funding request. There is no indication the proposed legislation was passed, or money was received by WPI. The Reid sources state the money is for The Center for Molecular Medicine, Requestor: The University of Nevada School of Medicine. WPI is only part of the The Center for Molecular Medicine, and is collaborating with researchers at The University of Nevada School of Medicine. To say WPI received money on the basis of these sources is WP:OR.


 * Maybe sources can be found that will corroborate the material in the article, but other sources should not be misused for original research. Ward20 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't derive your above claim from my reading WP:RS. It seems to be another bit of WP:SYNTH on your part, but by all means explain how you come to this conclusion.  In the meantime can I quote two specific sentences from WP:V, which I think apply:
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
 * Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy and by No original research.
 * Unless you can explain how we can validate the transcript or access a video recording, then we need to loose this citation simply on WP:V grounds, independent of other arguments. The burden is on you to do so.  Having to pay an access fee is allowed, but time travel to watch old news isn't. -- TerryE (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Picking up my last point, I have been going through the article checking article text against the citations. Where the point is not controversial as uses multiple references I have removed the redundant references to make reading easier.  Where the wording is broadly supported by the reference, but the meaning has been changed, I am reinstating the wording from the reference.  Where the wording is not even discussed in the reference and (a) the content is controversial, I am deleting the wording on WP:V grounds; (b) the wording is not controversial then I will add a citation needed tag.   I will be happy for the originating editor to reinstate the wording if he or she can provide the burden of evidence as per WP:V.


 * Note that in case (b) I also check history for the original additional to check that a valid RS citation hasn't been removed during the edit history, before deleting -- TerryE (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just realised that Sam Kean published two commentaries. A 900 word one in ScienceNow on Jan 6 (the one that K cited) and a fuller 1200 word version published in Science on Jan 15 which hasn't been discussed.  A lot of the material is common, but the second seems to contain more content.  This provides a good RS to flesh out the VIP Dx issue.  For those without a Science subscription, it is reported here.  I'll update the article when I've analysed this content. -- TerryE (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now done an intelligent diff of these two (thanks to OOo) and is anyone wants a copy then PM me and I'll send you a URL or attachment. It's in DOC format so you'll need Word or OOo to view it. The Science version has obviously been redrafted after researching the various primary sources and also reviewed by someone who understands the subject and is a lot tighter (e.g. it refers to VIP Dx and removes inaccurate claims).  This is a good secondary review of the controversy and provides a balanced view of both sides. It is also clear that this version from the same author supercedes the ScienceNow RS   This is a better RS than the ScienceNow or VIP Dx press releases for any VIP Dx text.  I will reinsert WP:V conformant versions of the VIP Dx controversy using this RS.  -- TerryE (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (edits after reading the text /diffs in detail) -- TerryE (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The wording, "The institute has received federal funding through the political support of Nevada's senators John Ensign[18] and Harry Reid,[19][20] the latter a close personal friend of Harvey Whittemore.[21][22]" has been posted to No original research/Noticeboard. Ward20 (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Refering to K's claim made above "Our reliable sources guidelines indicate that third-party coverage (such as television news programmes or newspaper articles) is preferable to primary sources (such as a Senator's press release) ...",  I realised that Ward had in fact include the URI for this in earlier edits, which you subsequently removed.  The reason that I didn't find it was that the recoding wasn't hosted by the KRNV site, but by the sister E4News site.  I watched the 93sec news item. It did not even mention the WPI.  What the newscaster did say was to refer listeners to its E4News website for more details.  This site includes a cut / paste cope of the content of the Senator's press release.  So the "television" reference fails RS, and the proper E4News ref is simply a quotation of the previous source.


 * As the original RS also doesn't even mention WPI (as Ward has previously pointed out), and I asked you to check your sources before reinstating your content twice before each of your content REDOs, this is at best a piece of sloppy editing on your part, and at worst ... Look, we're all human and can make mistakes, but preventing this sort of mistake giving rise to bogus article content creates a lot of effort for all of us.  It would be nice if you occasionally apologised for the inconvenienced caused to others and took steps to avoid this error in future. -- TerryE (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would advise you to keep your comments civil. As for a primary source from a Senator's office not being RS for the Senator's actions, especially when repeated by a television news source, I advise you to look at your own history of primary source usage, including in articles where such sources have no place. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked you to validate the source as I couldn't find it, the onus was on you to do so. You declined to respond, but still reverted twice.  I then found and checked the source, and (a) it didn't support your claim; (b) the actual website as simply a verbatim copy of the senators website.  And yes, you are correct I have reverted an edit twice for RS failure when it was unjustified, but I did apologise for my mistake  when the editor concerned pointed this out. -- TerryE (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

08 Feb Mass Revert #11 -- The name ME/CFS
You change ME/CFS to CFS citing "The name ME/CFS, although used by some, is least of all used in the United States; the Wikipedia article should use the currently accepted name of the condition", REDOing this change twice. Can I point out that the context in the article is the sentence "Annette Whittemore stated that ..." taken from an RS, and AW actually used the term "ME/CFS" in this RS. Since when has it become the job of editors to make debious 'corrections' when quoting RS content? I am reinstating this wording. --- TerryE (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you insist on quoting AW, you must also explain what "ME/CFS" means and why it is not in favour. It's much easier simply to use the prevalent terminology. Unless, that is, you're intent on promoting a cause rather than building an encyclopaedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the common usage in the UK, though not by the CDC in the US. However, you are correct in that we should include an interpage link ME/CFS.  As I said above this has been in place since 2006. I will make this change now. -- TerryE (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only is "ME" not in universal use in the UK, many experts object to the misleading implications of the name. Furthermore, the Whittemore Peterson Institute is in the United States. Finally, that Myalgic encephalomyelitis redirects to CFS demonstrates that CFS is the proper terminology for the encyclopaedia. Please remove the name and the improper double redirect. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The UK bible for this is the NICE guidelines: Chronic fatigue syndrome / Myalgic encephalomyelitis. They swapped the order round a couple of years back. ME/CFS is not the dominant usage in the US but it is an accepted usage.  I repeat, in this section (unlike other references) we are quoting a source, and given that is an accepted usage and the actual phrase is used by the source, then we shouldn't change it. -- TerryE (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

08 Feb Mass Revert #13 -- Minor rewrites for NPOV
One of the deletions by K was the deletion of a new para relating to the work of the HHC BWC. Since none of the other items cover this, I assume that this is a "minor rewrite of NPOV". The extract has appropriate RS, and Dr Holmberg references findings of the WPI paper as the reason for this action. I welcome constructive and evidence based improvements to this para, but not its entire deletion without a justifiable reason. I am reinstating this content. -- TerryE (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate content, as agreed by multiple uninvolved editors at WP:MED. I would also note the characterisation of Ward20's editing behaviour as "soapboxing". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should update this decision in the light of the final WP:MED recommendation. -- TerryE (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

08 Feb Mass Revert #13 -- Minor rewrites for NPOV (II)
One of the edits that Keepcalmandcarryon has introduced is the attribution of ownership of VIP Dx to the Whittemores citing the CFIDS article "a Nevada company owned by the Whittemore family, formerly known as RedLabs USA. VIP Dx", however, the later Science article qualifies this with the statement "(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.)", which I guess that he added after validating the WPI statement in their press release, "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.".

We either have both the ownership claim and the clarification of putting this interest into trust, or we drop both. Restoring one without the other fails NPOV. I propose we keep it simple and drop both, but I'll leave it a day or so for K to comment. -- TerryE (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Whittemores own it. They pledge to give the profits to their own Institute. Is there something confusing about this? Lombardi founded VIP Dx. Now he is a WPI employee. It's not clear when his personal financial interest was dropped, but it apparently was. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the references and previous discussions. The Whittemores have put there interests in VIP Dx into trust.  The proceeds go to WPI.  They hired Lombardi from VIP Dx to work at WPI full time.  His only interest in VIP Dx is (unpaid) quality control validating the XMRV test. Yes, it is confusing which is why I would like to restructure / trim but hopefully maintaining NPOV and consensus amongst the editors -- TerryE (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

08 Feb Mass Revert #14 -- Imperial College test Coatrack
Keepcalmandcarryon's statement is that the announcing and subsequent withdrawal of the Imperial College test is nothing to do with WPI, and that she has therefore removed this. However, I would also point out she herself added this association by stating in original text for the article "Virologist John Coffin and Myra McClure, corresponding author for the British team, expressed concerns that Lombardi's team were taking advantage of patients"[my ital]. She has now restored this McClure claim 3 or four times.

We have two teams A and B. We quote BossB for criticising team A for taking an action. Shortly after team B takes the same action then later decides to withdraw it. We either have both point or neither. This is either in scope or out. In or out. I don't care which, but we can't cherry pick to present a POV. Keepcalmandcarryon, I'll let you choose. -- TerryE (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a couple of days since I asked you this and you have been active on Wikipedia in the interrim, so I think that it is reasonable for me to propose a some wording here. Perhaps the easiest thing is to drop the clause "including Coffin and McClure" so the wording is now "Some scientists feared that the VIP Dx took ...".  Shorter and reads better but leaves the point.  I think that this closes this Imperial Coatrack issue, but the whole relationship and coverage of VIP Dx is still too tangled for the general reader to fallow, but I'll open a new section to discuss this. -- TerryE (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Coffin and McClure made these points; where possible, name names instead of using weasel words. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I don't have a problem with this, but in this case you are bringing into scope McClure criticising WPI + VIP Dx for releasing the test. However some 14 days after this statement by McClure, Imperial was itself planning to release a test.  Drawing the line on one side of both or the other side of both maintains NPOV, and as I said above I would be happy with either.  Adopting the middle as you suggest doesn't. -- TerryE (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

08 Feb Mass Revert #15 -- Mikovits comments on insurance company conspiracy
K, As you yourself observe, this is a "notable and rather shocking comment" that you attribute to a living person. In other words this falls under WP:REDFLAG scope. The context must be properly verifiable from a high-quality source. Let's examine the actual wording from the RGJ article written by the jounalist Lenita Powers in the RGJ. "'They paid to have their study published in the Public Library of Science, and it was then picked up by Science (magazine),' said Mikovits said, who suspects insurance companies in the United Kingdom are behind attempts to sully the findings of the Reno study."The reference to having to pay for publication is PLoS is a direct attribution, but the "who suspects ... " is an interpretation by the journalist, that is indirect hearsay. The onus in this case is on you to prove that this is a directly attributable to the person concerned, this RS does not support your claim and therefore falls short of the REDFLAG guideline. I am removing this text and if you reinstate this for what is now the third time, without providing a proper RS, then we can take this to BPLN. -- TerryE (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't address the "accusation .. of fraud" element. The RS doesn't contain the word fraud.  This is pure fabrication on your part. -- TerryE (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, please drop the uncivil language. You don't gain anything by insulting me or accusing me of fabrication. When a scientist says another scientist cooked their results, that's called accusing them of scientific fraud. And that's precisely what Mikovits did. She accused McClure et al of setting up their experiment in such a way as to obtain the result they wanted. She also accused them of "paying" (read: bribing) to have their paper published quickly, and of being part of an insurance company-funded conspiracy to discredit her results. Previously, you included an entire paragraph from the Reno paper; I simply summarised, and in an accurate fashion. That's not fabrication; it's writing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No "paying" means "paying" which is what the authors have to do to publish PLoS ONE. This is a simple fact.  (I also approve of authors doing this BTW). If there is an inference of bribrary, I don't know whether this is on your part or the journalists.  At least your statement "That comments by the WPI's lead scientist, reported in reliable sources, attacking other scientists by accusing them of outright fraud, are to be glossed over by omission" was made on the talk pages.  So let me understand you: insulting experts is OK, but not other editors.  I regret both, even if I am sometimes mortal.


 * I've already quoted one extract from the RS above, the other relevant one is: "You can't claim to replicate a study if you don't do a single thing that we did in our study," she said. "They skewed their experimental design in order to not find XMRV in the blood." I agree that the second sentence is provocative and I feel that JM was unwise to say that.  (However, they did chose not to use the assays that WPI had made available to the research, and use an assay that has been criticised by some technical reviewers.  Had they done so, then any comparison with the WPI findings would have had stronger merit.)  So provocative and ill-advised perhaps, but this is short of your text.  I stand by my position.  You can always choose to ignore it and revert this edit.  -- TerryE (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Whittemore Peterson Institute section Feb 12 2010
Replace, "The Whittemores describe their motive for founding the CFS research institute as a desire to help their daughter, Andrea Whittemore-Goad, and other CFS patients. Their daughter developed symptoms as a child and was diagnosed with CFS at the age of twelve. ."

with

"The Whittemores, and Daniel Peterson established the Whittemore-Peterson Institute in 2005 to aid patients with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia and related illnesses. Annette Whittemore, founder and president of the institute, describes the inspiration for the institute was the illness of her daughter, Andrea Whittemore-Goad. She was diagnosed with CFS at the age of twelve. "

This establishes material for the lead that isn't in the body, is better sourced, and eliminates redundancy. Ward20 (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove, "subsequently rejected by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."


 * AWG was taking Ampigen under an Investigational New Drug program which is still ongoing. The FDA's rejection of the approval of Ampligen's New Drug Application for retail marketing approval has nothing to do with AWG nor WPI. Ward20 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First, the name of the disorder is CFS. Unless you're going to quote directly and explain subsequently what "ME/CFS" is and why most doctors consider ME to be a misleading name, please simply use the prevalent name. Second, the Whittemores founded WPI to investigate CFS. I am bemused by the insistence of several editors here that WPI is about anything except for CFS. Sure, WPI has a statement to that effect, but read any CFS website, read any history of WPI, and you will reach the inescapable conclusion: WPI was founded to find an acquired cause of CFS. It was founded because the Whittemore's daughter was sick. Annette Whittemore has even stated that she does not want to cure CFS unless she cures her daughter. In other words, it's the daughter who matters, and other CFS patients are an afterthought.
 * Ampligen was rejected by the FDA in December 2009. You can add any number of caveats to that, but it was rejected. The drug has efficacy issues, perhaps others, and we can't introduce it here without mentioning the negative aspects.
 * Editors on this page must stop abusing Wikipedia as a soapbox for promoting this Institute uncritically, with deletion of any information deemed negative. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we mustn't promote or abuse WPI uncritically, but Ampligen has nothing to do with the WPI. Should we also say that WPI employee X smoked and start giving health warnings about smoking? -- TerryE (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference that is specifically dedicated to the creation of the WPI specifically states Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia and related illnesses. Other sources and the instute use ME/CFS. Unilaterally second guessing references about the teminology they use is original research. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome terminology are well explained on the Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. It can easily be linked.

Keepcalmandcarryon stated, "It was founded because the Whittemore's daughter was sick. Annette Whittemore has even stated that she does not want to cure CFS unless she cures her daughter. In other words, it's the daughter who matters, and other CFS patients are an afterthought." Keepcalmandcarryon, produce a RS to verify your statement or it will be removed as a BLP violation. This news source directly contradicts that statement. (start at timestamp 15:40)

Keepcalmandcarryon please read the paragraph I wrote above your post. If the reader wants to read more about ampligen the material is there. This article is about issues concerning the Whittemore Peterson Institute not the regulatory merits or demerits of AWG's treatments. Ward20 (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote by Annette Whittemore is in the New York Times, alongside additional Whittemore Peterson Institute information you have chosen to suppress by a 3-2 vote, including the employment history of the Institute's scientific director:
 * "'She is just really very, very sick,' Mrs. Whittemore said. 'She’s had this for a long time. We’ve got to get something for her as soon as possible. That is the driver for the speed on this. I don’t want to lose her. I can’t lose my daughter. I don’t want to win this battle and lose the war.'"


 * The "driver" for the Whittemore's urgency, then, is their daughter's condition, CFS, not the suffering of various fibromyalgia and autism patients, as the article currently claims. Whittemore "can't lose" her daughter. She doesn't "want to lose her". She doesn't "want to win this battle" (finding a viral cause for CFS) and "lose the war" (saving her daughter). The "war" for Mrs. Whittemore, is the fight for her daughter's health. The relatively minor "battle", for her, is fighting CFS in general. And she doesn't want to do that unless she also saves her daughter. I'm not sure how one argues with the directly quoted words of Annette Whittemore (even if she has elsewhere contradicted herself, as you suggest).
 * In any case, you've neatly diverted the discussion to a frivolous BLP charge: My point was not to explore the Whittemore's motivations, but that editors of this article have repeatedly removed reliably sourced information they consider negative. There's no good reason for this type of behaviour apart from what I repeated from the WP:MED discussion: soapboxing for the subject. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As for Ampligen, this experimental drug has been rejected as a treatment for CFS. Even AWG had to stop taking it due to side effects, according to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Per WP:MEDRS, we are obligated to provide accurate information about this drug; currently, it is presented as a wonder drug, the only product to help the Whittemore's daughter. That's inaccurate and against policy. Ward20's continuing suppression of negative, reliable information about this drug is beginning to appear somewhat suspicious. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and we have a few RS which confirm that secondhand smoke is tied to cancer (e.g. NYT Jan 8, 1993), but what has this to do with WPI either? The article has a single reference "with the experimental antiviral drug Ampligen" when discussing AWG, but as you can see that reference links to the Ampligen article which explains the issues around Ampligen in a lot more depth than your caveat.  Of course a simple alternative would be to follow one of the references and remove the word Ampligen entirely. How about that for a proposal?  -- TerryE (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If removal of Ampligen is the only way out, then I agree. But the Ampligen story appears to be a vital part of the background to WPI's founding, as reported by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal: AWG was supposedly doing better for a while on Ampligen, then had a reaction and was forced to stop taking it, and the Whittemores, as exemplified by Annette Whittemore's NYT quote, were frantic to arrive at new answers. Hence, WPI. Of course, Ward20 and TerryE have chosen to remove both AWG's adverse reaction to Ampligen and the fact of Ampligen's FDA rejection. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made this change. -- TerryE (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ampligen can come out. The WPI was created in 2005 when AWG was on Ampligen. She came off Ampligen several years after 2005 and her health declined. Please see, these sources show that AWG was doing fairly well when the WPI was founded so Ampligen did not play the role in the founding of WPI Keepcalmandcarryon suggests, "AWG was supposedly doing better for a while on Ampligen, then had a reaction and was forced to stop taking it, and the Whittemores, as exemplified by Annette Whittemore's NYT quote, were frantic to arrive at new answers. Hence, WPI." Ward20 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote, "If removal ...is the only way out". As for TerryE's edit summary about restoring split infinitives, there were no split infinitives, and I didn't ask you to remove anything, as you incorrectly imply. With this misleading edit summary, TerrE has restored a grammatically incorrect, improperly cited crib from the WPI website.
 * As for Ward20's primary source, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are preferred sources for the encyclopaedia. The context of the Whittemore quotes in the New York Times, in particular, supports my assertion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I thought that we had agreed, but obviously I thought too soon.  On a lighter note, I incline to the Gower interpretation on the split infinitive, which also includes a split from any implied "to" prefixing an infinitive: so the marriage vows -- at least according to Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer -- include the phrase "to have and to hold" and not "to have and hold"; in this case the second "to" is implied from the first and split by "have and", just the same way as "To facilitate and [to] advance patient care" to even "To facilitate ... [To] Research the pathophysiology".  Still, I only did Maths at Uni -- though I did need to pass "Use of English" to get into Cambridge :)  I guess that you were an English major, so I bow to your greater knowledge.  Grasshopper he say: lighten up, it was humorous comment, and certainly not meant to cause offence.  -- TerryE (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

edit 07:45, 16 February 2010
Harmonize material in lead to material in history section, and use reference that is specifically about creation of the Whittemore-Peterson Institute. Ward20 (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

04:30, 16 February 2010 and 04:45, 16 February 2010 reverts
The first revert put "controversial" back in the lead. This is still being discussed in the RFC and there is still consensus it should not be in the lead at this time.

The second revert added back, "and formed a CFS research institute in 2004."[unsourced] This conflicts with other sourced information in the article so I will remove that material.

This material was also re-added, "The Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease has also been reported variously as "The Whittemore Peterson Institute for Chronic Fatigue" and the "National Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Institute". Come now, let's be sensible, The same Davidson Academy article also reported WPI as "The Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease" and The NY Times called the WPI a "research foundation" and a "research center". If all the names that sources call the institute are added this would get silly. I am going to remove this obvious POV material. Ward20 (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WPI views itself as a research center. The Guardian notes that this research center consists of a single lab. There's no contradiction and there's no reason not to report the Institute's size.
 * The Institute now claims that it exists to research autism, etc. It's mission at founding was manifestly to research one particular view of CFS, with the primary goal of helping the Whittemore's daughter. The past names are part of that history. In addition, Senator Reid's funding requests from 2007 call WPI the "Whittemore Peterson CFS Institute". Why is there a need to conceal this reliably sourced, relevant information? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS and consensus
I have attempted once again to bring this article into line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially those governing medicine-related articles. Several editors will no doubt accuse me of acting against consensus. To those editors and others scrutinising my actions, I encourage you to take into account as well the opinions of other editors as articulated at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Viral_causes_of_autism.2C_CFS.2C_etc. the fringe noticeboard] and at WP:MED. Editors JFW, Doc James, Whatamidoing and Scray are some of the most respected medical editors we have. I don't claim that they would necessarily agree with all of my edits, but there is certainly little support outside what TerryE has called the "inner circle" of CFS special-interest editors for writing articles like this from press releases. Compliance with Wikipedia policies is not a matter of polling. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * K, I think that your suggestion to keep the MEDRS elements on the XMRV article might help to remove some of the heat out of discussions on this article. So that leaves us with the overview, history, mission, funding, organisation, media coverage, etc.  I will address notability in a separate section.


 * However, what you have actually done here is to do another mass edit cutting across and undoing the work of half a dozen editors less than 7 days after your last "stop reverting" warning. You have posted a manipulative and POV RfC less than six hours after the previous RfC lapsed without reference to previously agreed consensus and many open issues and points which those editors have asked you to comment on, dismissing them with your statement that such discussions have become pointless. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Whenever you raise an issue or a question on this talk page, at least one of the other editors tries to give you a reasoned direct and constructive response.  Can I ask you to do likewise instead of ignoring many if not most of the points, issues and questions that we raise in return?


 * You have accused what appears to be all frequent of the editors on this page of being a determined cabal promoting fringe ideas without a shred of evidence. You have accused me of threatening litigation, conflict of interest, promoting bad science for repeating text from a field expert, of attacking you, this article and other contributions that you've made, of coordinating attacks against you on Facebook.  This all becomes very tedious.  Can I ask you to stop these tactics on this page, to stop the accusations and talk of cabals and inner circles, to work with us constructively to improve this article?  Can we please stick to the content, and work within Wikipedia policies?


 * IIRC, three other editors have raised comparisons between your behaviour and that of Retros1mone. I can't directly comment since I never edited across her, however looking at some of her editing tactics and having now read WP:RFC/RetroS1mone, I can understand this view.  I would really prefer functional cooperation, but if you don't start doing this, I can't see any alternative to proceeding along this route.  Lastly I apologise if the protocol should be for me to raise this on your talk page, but (i) our issues here relate to your conduct on this page and (ii) On the last few times that I've posted on your talk page you've simply deleted my comment without reply. -- TerryE (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * TerryE, your exasperation is justified. Wikipedia should not be used as an attack blog. 32nd degree cabal member, Sam Weller (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Although User:RetroS1mone was justified in removing these inflammatory comments per WP:TALK, they are perhaps best left in place as representative of the strong emotions and mindset behind the editing behaviours we've observed here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for this edit. Though I would have preferred a response to substance of my points. -- TerryE (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Subsectioning of
RetroS1mone has reordered the content of this section and added a sub-section structure.

I have extended this to introduce an alternative framing of the issues raised by Keepcalmandcarryon but framed in a way which is more consistent with the body of previous discussion on these pages and the majority view of these points. The subsection structure is a good idea and I have used this to delineate the insertion of this alternative framing so that any commenting editors can choose to respond to either or both should they so wish.

I have not changed any other contributions and the juxtaposition of the two framings is for sound reasons. However, if the consensus from active editors on this page is that this section insert is inappropriate then I will relocate this section in line with that consensus. -- TerryE (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment: several unresolved issues
Issues as Framed by Keepcalmandcarryon


 * WPI is known in the media for one paper: a 2009 report in Science that a retrovirus is associated with and may cause chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Much of the coverage of WPI mentions the controversial nature of this and past viral association claims, and the controversy was heightened in January with release of a contradictory study finding no evidence of the retrovirus in CFS patients. Is it appropriate to characterise (as in this previous version of the lead) the report as "controversial"?
 * WPI is currently a "small private pathology laboratory" according to The Guardian (see this article). The Institute's website seems to indicate that the Institute has only two PhD scientists. Is it appropriate to mention the Institute's current size alongside its plans for expansion in future?
 * According to The New York Times, the scientific director for WPI, Judy Mikovits, was was hired as a direct result of an introduction made by a client of a yacht club bar where she was working as a bartender (see this article). Is it appropriate to mention this fact briefly alongside the scientist's previous employment history?
 * When scientists from two UK universities published results contradicting WPI's virus claim, the lead investigator for WPI explicitly accused them of doctoring their experiments; paying to have their publication expedited; and of being part of an insurance company plot to discredit her institute (see the Reno Gazette-Journal). Is it appropriate to summarise these comments as "accused the British team of scientific fraud, paying to publish their results and participating in an insurance company conspiracy to discredit WPI"? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk)

Alternative Framing of points by TerryE
 * Should we be using the word controversial in the second sentence of this article to describe a paper published in Science, when none of the cited references describe it thus? There is a full section following which describing the controversy as reported in the media.
 * Should we be describing an institute using a derogatory description in the first sentence of this article? Yes this description is by one RS compared to the hundreds which haven't. It is also factually incorrect.   The point is also addressed later in the History section.
 * This article is about an institute. When discussing its science director should we limit description to their technical qualifications for the role, or can we introduce a factually flawed anecdote from a single RS then rephrase it in such a way as to create a derogatory impression about this scientist?
 * When two teams of scientists ill-advisedly use the press to trade insults against each other, should we
 * rap these up in a blanket statement "Supporters of the two teams traded accusations of conflicts of interest, technical sloppiness and failure to care about patients" with a selection of references;
 * join in the exchange by picking a balanced set of accusations from both parties;
 * remove all criticism of one party, but find the most damning quote from the other then rephrase it to spice it up further? -- TerryE (talk)
 * 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ''Keepcalmandcarryon's comment at 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC). TerryE's at 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC).  Formating for including of comment into RfC -- TerryE (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Responses from uninvolved editors
Point 1, Yes. The institute is not very notable, it is only notable for it's unreplicated article, without the controversy it would go to Articles for Deletion. Point 2, Yes it is small and the Guardian is a good source, for ward20 pathology laboratory can be left off. Point 3, Yes but make it short, it is minor, Point 4, Yes but make it short also. Comments. The article is too big for a small family institute and there is too much from the institute press releases. Use reliable sources to make it encyclopedic. MiRroar (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not let them discourage you, I go from Wikipedia six months, people still attack me, they have agenda, they attack every thing you do, also when you are gone. They say NYT and guardian are false, also, lol!! Ignore, ok?!! RetroS1mone  talk  14:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support KC, Wikipedia, WP:MEDRS, WP:RS. The article is good.
 * 1) very controversial.
 * 2) very small.
 * 3) yes to mirroar


 * 1) I think that "controversial" describes the situation accurately, but I don't think that it's really that important an adjective in this case.  The results could equally well be described as "unexpected" or "surprising" or "disputed".
 * 2) It's appropriate to mention the organization's size and age; every article about any company should include such information.  Nobody should leave the article thinking that it is as large or as old as, say, HHMI.  "Small" and "new" are not insults (far from it, in many readers' minds).
 * 3) Specifically about Judy Mikovits' employment history:  It appears from the source that a person who lost her job through no fault of her own took an honest job to keep food on the table -- or possibly was just volunteering at her club, instead of turning into a couch potato -- while looking for full-time employment in her field.  It is not appropriate or WP:DUE or frankly even rational to consider temporary employment such an important aspect of her career to mention it at all in the approximately five sentences given to her existence.  Surely 22 years at the NCI is far more important than a short stint at bartending.  I think that adding a sixth sentence about bartending -- and thus making 16% of the content about her be about a temporary job -- would be wildly WP:UNDUE.  It's a cute anecdote, but it's for a magazine, not an encyclopedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) TerryE, if you want to play 'dueling sources', then that's okay, but you've got to actually produce the sources.  Otherwise, Keepcalm's source wins by default.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Responses from involved editors

 * The first bullet point was already discussed on this talk page in an RFC here and later here. The result was Keepcalmandcarryon wanted to include, and Labongo, Ward20, 74.51.82.241, and Sam Weller expressed not to include controversial in the lead. I didn't find where TerryE specifically expressed their viewpoint. Ward20 (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The second bullet point was already discussed on the talk page section, Mass reversion (now in the archives here). The result was Keepcalmandcarryon wanted to include the wording "small private pathology laboratory" from The Guardian. Tekaphor, Sam Weller, TerryE, and sciencewatcher did not think the wording was accurate. Ward20 doesn't either. The Guardian states, "The study in Science, by Vincent Lombardi and colleagues at a small private pathology laboratory in Reno, Nevada..." Most of The Guardian wording is wrong according to other reliable sources. One problem is some colleagues are also from the the National Cancer Institute and the Cleveland Clinic. If one assumes The Guardian forgot about the other institutions and was talking about WPI, The Guardian is still wrong. WPI is a public charity, not a private entity. The Guardian is also wrong about it being a pathology laboratory. A pathology laboratory mostly does testing of tissue samples, and bodily fluids for diagnosis and monitoring of diseases. The WPI describes itself as a research institute and the NY Times agrees (the NY Times also describes WPI as a research foundation and a research center). We could consider the word small, but I would suggest getting a better source than The Guardian because it has a lot of errors on this topic. Ward20 (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also other editors and an RfC commentator have stated that we shouldn't be introducing controversial claims in the into para.  If you look, I've put the laboratory comment in the history section.  As W says,  "private" is factually incorrect.  "small" is a subjective description.  -- TerryE (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Re your point 3, do you dispute my explanation that this anecdote is factually incorrect, as per our discussions in the Bartender section in the archive? If so, on what grounds? If not, then why are you wanting to include text based on an extract which is known to be factually incorrect? -- TerryE (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Re your point 4, McClure found no evidence of XMRV using her nested PCR amplification procedure amongst her sample of UK patients. As subject experts such as John Coffin have pointed out the McClure findings do not contradict the WPI paper as there are many plausible reasons why both conclusions might be correct. Can we please stick to reporting the opinions of reputable independent experts and not refute them from claims of personal expertise? -- TerryE (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

-There's a difference between being known in the media and being notable. The WPI will be the first translational research facility devoted to the study of neuroimmune disease, including CFS, Fibromyalgia, Autism, etc. in the entire country. That is extremely notable, and that should be the main focus of an encyclopedia article.

-To describe the WPI as a small pathology laboratory is not accurate. When the WPI opens it will occupy 15,000 square feet on both the second and third floors of the UNR's Center for Molecular Medicine. The CMM, where the WPI will be housed, is not finished being constructed, therefore 'plans for expansion' is not an accurate description.

"More than 15,000 square feet on the second and third floors will house the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease, the first institute of its kind in the United States. Dedicated to finding a cause and cure for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and other neuro-immune diseases such as fibromyalgia, Gulf War Illness and autism, the Whittemore Peterson Institute will not only conduct research in the new facility but will also treat patients and develop educational programs for complex disorders of the immune system and brain''." http://www.medicine.nevada.edu/cmm/CMMGroundbreakingRelease2.25.07.pdf

Notice the Floor 2 and 3 pdf's, the red is where the WPI will be. http://www.medicine.nevada.edu/cmm/Floor1.pdf http://www.medicine.nevada.edu/cmm/Floor2.pdf http://www.medicine.nevada.edu/cmm/Floor3.pdf

-As for Dr. Mikovits, I would say that her working 20+ years at the NCI in the field of retrovirology is more suitable for an encyclopedia.

-As far as the insurance industry bit, that was not a direct quote and could well have applied to the general situation regarding the inappropriate influence of the insurance industry in CFS research, which was suggested to be formally investigated in the 2006 'Gibson Report', a UK government inquiry on the status of CFS/ME- note the CFS/ME used in the title of a British Government report. http://erythos.com/gibsonenquiry/Report.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As proposed above, I think the scientific controversy does not belong here, and locating at CFS Controversies would help to shorten an overlong article.


 * On Point 4, the Plos One discussion comment that their care to avoid contamination differentiated them from WPI/CC/NCI was highly unusual, to say the least. Mikovits's response at Faculty of 1000 (see below) and the comment in yesterday's Retrovirology paper, make clear it was also unnecessary, ill-judged and provocative. If we are going to report Mikovits's response to the unsupported allegations in Plos One (and McClure's high-profile press conference), it should be contextualised to maintain NPOV. Sam Weller (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As accurately stated above by User:Miroar, without the scientific controversy, WPI is not notable. Indeed, notability on Wikipedia is significant coverage in the media. The media coverage of WPI is almost entirely to do with the controversy. The "unsupported allegations" in PLoS ONE were not at all unsupported or unusual, and they were hardly the first broaching of the possibility by notable scientists. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * K, there are four regular and 3 occasional editors who seem to think this institute is notable. The fact that you + one guest commentator don't does not form a majority on this.  But the notability Q is a valid one.  I will insert some supporting material for the Institute's notability. -- TerryE (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * KC, Raising the 'possibility' of contamination is par for the course. Plos One did not do that: it stated that the IC study was different from WPI because they had taken care to avoid MuLV contamination. McClure also said WPI 'rushed' their study out. IMO, both statements were "unnecessary, ill-judged and provocative". Sam Weller (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

TerryE believes that in filing this RfC, Keepcalmandcarryon hasn't fulfilled the requirements of WP:RFC #3 in that on each of these bullets she states has not framed these issues in a set of neutral statements, and does not reference the thousands of words of discussion and the many valid questions asked of her by other editors in trying to resolve these issues and where she declines to respond. I have therefore included an alternative phrasing of these same four bullets in. Perhaps these do reflect my POV on these same issues, but how you phrase these Qs effects the answers and the independent commentators can now choose which they prefer. -- TerryE (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC) updated in response RetroS1mone's edits of my posts -- TerryE (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Faculty of 1000 reviews
An even-handed blog discussion of Lombardi vs Erlwein mentions Extensive reviews of Lombardi et al, here (Citation) Faculty of 1000 Biology: evaluations for Lombardi VC et al Science 2009 Oct 23 326 (5952) :585-9

Faculty of 1000 is clearly a relevant RS for this controversy. In particular, Mikovits responds in some detail to the contamination issue raised in the single dissenting review (out of nine): (Citation) Faculty of 1000 Biology: evaluations for Lombardi VC et al Science 2009 Oct 23 326 (5952) :585-9 http://f1000biology.com/article/id/1166366/dissent

I found it easy to log in for the free trial period. Sam Weller (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Blog discussions, as Sam Weller has agreed previously, are not RS. On the other hand, if Sam Weller has had a change of mind, there are some very interesting blogs the CFS special-interest editors would certainly object to, but that we should include for NPOV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I merely mentioned that this blog pointed to a peer-reviewed expert discussion at Faculty of 1000, which appears to this editor to be RS for this controversy. Interesting that you selectively ignored that, and chose instead to misinterpret it as a request to include a blog as RS. Sam Weller (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * K, re Blog discussions, we haven't agreed on this. Last time I quoted the relevant section of WP:RS -- and I do so again: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Mikowits falls into this category as does Prof Vincent Racaniello with his secondary commentary on this discussion.  However, I agree that we need to handle all our sources with balance and care.  -- TerryE (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm no, medrs. RetroS1mone   talk  14:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Can people please address the question whether Faculty of 1000 is a RS? I profoundly regret naming the source where I discovered the link to Faculty of 1000. I did not suggest it was of any importance in itself, and it appears to have generated an irrelevant discussion. Sam Weller (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Our sourcing requirements are quite clear on this point. Faculty of 1000 is not a peer-reviewed publication. As a source for sociological aspects, whatever they might be, of the XMRV/CFS controversy, I suppose Faculty could be considered reliable for the opinion of individual authors. However, if the intended use is to explicate a primary scientific publication that's now been contradicted twice, Faculty is no more reliable than Wikipedia itself. And with the recent results, any such explication beyond "it was contradicted" should be kept to a minimum. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's get this straight. A newspaper report containing the 'bartender' anecdote, whether it's true or not, meets 'our sourcing requirements', but Mikovits's response concerning alleged lab contamination at Faculty of 1000 doesn't. Does that strike anyone else as perverse? Sam Weller (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The contamination point falls under our sourcing requirements for science claims; Wikipedia should not play host to a debate about whether or not contamination explains the different results of primary scientific studies.
 * Biographical details do not require the same level of sourcing as do scientific claims. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong, see WP:BLP, "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Ward20 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The New York Times is one of the highest-quality references used by Wikipedia and is a superb source for claims about living persons. However, the New York Times, although one of the most acceptable sources we have on most topics, is unacceptable as a reliable source for scientific claims. Hence, the pool of reliable sources for scientific topics is considerably smaller than that acceptable for BLPs.
 * In every case, the New York Times will be accepted over reports of private sleuthing by a Wikipedia editor. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree that the popular press is not acceptable for scientific claims, WP:MEDRS but, "Biographical details do not require the same level of sourcing as do scientific claims" is a different statement and contradicted by WP:BLP. Dispite your assertions, the New York Times bartender material is vague. It's irrelevant to Mikovits's expertise as a virologist unless a reliable source (not an editor) says it is. It  should not be used to cast doubt on the professional capacity of Mikovits's role at WPI as it was so obviously used in the article. Ward20 (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not questioned the professional competence of Mikovits; I have merely questioned whether we should include an anecdote the New York Times apparently considers important. Perhaps your criticism would be better directed towards the New York Times (which, I understand, is a sockpuppet of The New York Post). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please realize this discussion is not about you. It's about the article inferring doubt about the professional competence of Mikovits by out of context misleading and/or irrelevant details about her qualifications. In context, the NY Times material is trivia. Using material out of context to create a derogatory impression about a person is a multiple policy violation. This same issue has been discussed in, Talk:Whittemore_Peterson_Institute/Archive_1 Talk:Whittemore_Peterson_Institute/Archive_1 Talk:Whittemore_Peterson_Institute/Archive_1 Talk:Whittemore_Peterson_Institute Talk:Whittemore_Peterson_Institute Talk:Whittemore_Peterson_Institute Talk:Whittemore_Peterson_Institute.  Ward20 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversial, redux
Astoundingly, after hints of contamination in the editorial accompanying the paper itself and two subsequent reports finding absolutely no XMRV in any CFS patients, several editors continue to question the controversial nature of the WPI virus/CFS claims. The controversy is hidden only from those who don't wish to see it, as emphasised at CROI in San Francisco last Friday. The first speaker for the HIV/XMRV session, Stephen Goff (and, no, I am not Stephen Goff or his sockpuppet), called the notion of XMRV involvement in disease very controversial. John Coffin (again, not he) referred to the state of XMRV science as "murky and confusing". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WPI can indeed be perceived as "controversial", depending on the application of the word. The irony of course is, as someone has previously mentioned, certain Wikipedians will not allow the mention of Simon Wessely as controversial, despite him obviously causing it and even openly admitting to it. One therefore wonders why the WPI is especially controversial that is warrants the word being in the first sentence of the article, while no mention whatsoever at Simon Wessely. When defined as something which is debatable or disputable (or causes debates or disputes), controversy can be an accurate state of affairs. However, it can also be used negatively to purposely undermine something's credibility (just ask JFW who had a real problem with the notion that the NICE 2007 guidelines were controversial, despite hundreds of complaints from stakeholders, including non-patient organisations, boycotts from patient groups, etc). And on the issue of "scientific" vs "social" controversy, if all that needs to occur to be controversial is to publish an opinion or study that has later been disputed or questioned, then both Wessely and WPI are controversial both scientifically and socially. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 01:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please tell the whole story. Coffin also states there are good reasons to think XMRV might possibly be associated with XMRV and the confusion comes from the fact it's still early in the research much like AIDS was in the beginning.(6:30) Goff states the latest XMRV association with CFS is very exciting and could be the cause of the illness.(3:45) Ward20 (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's telling that Ward20, Sam Weller and other CFS special interest editors appear to get most of their information (and opinions) from blogs. The purported XMRV/CFS is controversial (and exciting, as I have noted myself on many occasions): it's scientifically controversial. Wessely is controversial to patient groups, not to scientists. There's no question amongst scientists that Wessely's science is sound. That's the difference. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keepcalmandcarryon, I specifically reponded to your post, edit summary controversy: CROI at the top of this section where conversations by John Coffin and Stephen Goff at the 17th CROI in San Francisco were discussed. I noted, (with diffs and time stamps to videos of the conference), where the virologists said the the confusion over the differing study results were somewhat typical, happened in the early days of AIDS research, and that a link between XMRV and CFS may have been found. Coffen said there are good reasons to think there is a XMRV CFS link. I wanted to put the "controversial" wording in context. If wording is taken out of context and used in the article there may be bias. Part of your response was, "Ward20, Sam Weller and other CFS special interest editors appear to get most of their information (and opinions) from blogs." Please follow talk page guidelines and don't state your opinions about other editors. Ward20 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

References for National Cancer Institute and Cleveland Clinic involvement in XMRV research
I'm not good at technical stuff like adding references but wanted to offer them here if someone who is more knowledgable than me wishes to add them, thanks.

"Silverman was part of a team of researchers from the Clinic, the University of Nevada at Reno and the National Cancer Institute that recently reported a link between XMRV and CFS." http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2009/11/cleveland_clinic_conference_pu.html

"In October, a team of researchers from the Clinic, the University of Nevada at Reno and the National Cancer Institute reported finding the virus in the majority of patients they studied who had chronic fatigue syndrome." http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2009/11/top_scientists_to_meet_at_clev.html

"Research at the Cleveland Clinic appears to have found a link between chronic fatigue syndrome and the virus XMRV, which already has been linked to prostate cancer." http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2009/11/study_finds_potential_link_bet.html

"Scientists at Cleveland Clinic are part of new research showing a potential retroviral link between XMRV...and chronic fatigue syndrome..." http://my.clevelandclinic.org/news/2009/research_showing_potential_retroviral_link_between_xmrv_and_cfs.aspx

"Researchers from the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI), located at the University of Nevada, Reno, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, and the Cleveland Clinic, report this finding online Oct. 8, 2009, issue of Science." http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/CFSxmrv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Bartender &mdash; the saga continues
In this post, I invite Keepcalmandcarryon's response and apology. Let me explain. We've had an entire discussion on her repeated assertion her various claims that Mikovits worked as bartender before joining WPI, not only in these talk pages but on three other noticeboards in Wikipedia. We've covered this in depth in Bartender and various echos on this page. The key points of my argument were: And so I put myself in her shoes and asked myself if our roles were reversed and I were the editor who adds the material; how could I reasonably verify my claims when presented with this request and this is what I have done. First I googled "yacht club mikovits" and came up with a reference which mentioned "Judy Mikovits Nolde, Junior Staff Commodore. 2005" with a referenced PDF which lists the same. Unfortuately the www.pbyc.org site is broken so I picked another unusual name from this ref and googled on this ("Michael Ottevanger" yacht) which gave rise to this. From these we learn that the Pierpoint Bay Yacht Club might have a crappy website but it is a functioning yacht club. We learn that Mikovits was a junior staff commodore in part of 2005 but was replaced later in the year by one Joe Vetrano. From a little research (e.g. PDF) we can see that this role is an elected position of a club member. OK, I acknowledge that this is all OR on my part. However, my aim here is not to include content in an article but to validate the reasonableness of an interpretation of an RS, but it does appear that my analogy was right on the nail.
 * The NYT article referred to her tending a bar.
 * Keepcalmandcarryon has repeatedly asserted that her interpretation that Mikowits was working [that is implicitly in fulltime paid employment] as a bartender.
 * I pointed out that I've served (the Brits serve, the Yanks tend) at a bar in a club where I was a member as a volunteer so this is a dangerous inference to make.
 * I have pointed out that under Wikipedia policies that the burden of evidence is on her to support her interpretation of these facts on a number of occasions, and on each she has declined to respond to or acknowledge this issue; she has repeated her view that her reasonable interpretation of the NYT source is entirely adequate.
 * I have also pointed out that other RSs provide collateral evidence that the NYT anecdote is flawed (her introduction to AW was from an entirely different route).
 * Mikowits wasn't a paid employee working in a yacht club. She was a club member who was an elected official of that club.  As with many clubs, such duties are shared out on a voluntary basis, and (as previously discussed) she wasn't introduced to AW by a "customer", but by a mutual colleague.

It does turn out that the NYT source can't be reasonably view as reliable for this claim after all. I believe that what was an annoyingly inaccurate anecdote in an otherwise very supportive NYT article (and hence not worth rectifying by Mikowits complaining to NYT) has now turned in clear defamation in these pages. Up to this point we might accept the assumption of good faith for Keepcalmandcarryon's edits here, though I still feel her failure to validate facts when repeatedly asked to do so was unreasonable. However, I now ask Keepcalmandcarryon to withdraw this claim on this page and on the various boards where she has repeated it. If she declines then we must really begin to question her motives in continuing with this claim. I also think that an apology might be appropriate, given the effort that this has caused for her fellow editors. -- TerryE (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Terry, I'm genuinely taken aback to hear you say that KCCO has been commenting adversely about Mikovits elsewhere. Are you sure of this? Are they public or private boards? I would need to check this for myself. If you're right, it's ironic that KCCO claimed your statistical comment on Plos One was a COI that she hoped would stop you editing here. Sam Weller (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The New York Times mentions the failure of the company where Mikovits worked, then states, "She was tending bar at a yacht club when a patron said her constant talk about viruses reminded him of someone he knew in Nevada. That person was a friend of Annette Whittemore’s. Dr. Mikovits soon found herself at a conference on chronic fatigue syndrome" Nowhere, as I have stated several times now, have I claimed anything beyond what is stated in the New York Times. Mikovits was working in a bar (with or without compensation) and was introduced to the Whittemores through a mutual friend who was a "patron" of the bar.
 * In any case, this discussion is of little importance, as the reliably-sourced information in question has been removed from the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * @Sam, no not off Wekipedia, though her Wikipedia wording has been quoted off Wikipedia. K's statement that this is of little imports "because the text has been removed" is strange because there are three separate open issues where she has quoted this.  The referenced quotes from K that I've cited are:
 * BLPN: There is also no question that The New York Times reported that she was working as a bartender after the failure of the biotech company where she worked. The New York Times, furthermore, reported that Mikovits was introduced to her eventual employers by a client in the bar who noticed Mikovits's interest in viruses. That the head of a controversial and notable organisation was hired as a result of bartending is interesting (probably unique in the history of scientific institutes), notable and eminently well-sourced.
 * RfC: According to The New York Times, the scientific director for WPI, Judy Mikovits, was was hired as a direct result of an introduction made by a client of a yacht club bar where she was working as a bartender (see this article). Is it appropriate to mention this fact briefly alongside the scientist's previous employment history?
 * Fringe Theories: The lead investigator for WPI, Judy Mikovits, is probably the only Institute director to have been hired from behind a bar in a yacht club. To the CFS editors, it's neither interesting nor noteworthy, even when reported by the New York Times, that Mikovits got the job through someone she was serving in a bar, so they delete.
 * What I was hoping for was an "OK, I see that your analysis on this point is reasonable; I will remove these specific points and withdraw this claim." An admission that the actual facts seem to be exactly what I proposed and I asked her as originator to verify in line with WP:V and that failure to meet WP:V was the primary reason we removed it and not "To the CFS editors, it's neither interesting nor noteworthy, even when reported by the New York Times, that Mikovits got the job through someone she was serving in a bar, so they delete".  She still hasn't accepted that JM was actually introduced to AW by Loomis which is nothing to do with her voluntary work at her yacht club.  We have all wasted just so much effort on this.  :(  --  TerryE (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Subsequently KCCO appears to think it does matter: Sam Weller (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe this debate continues. The NYT article states that Mikovits was "tending bar", which could either mean working as an employee or serving as a member/volunteer. Not only does the NYT not indicate which one of these were the case, TerryE's "sleuthing" has revealed that the latter interpretation is more likely. KCACO's previous insistence on "working as a bartender", appeared to be WP:OR that is unsupported by any additional evidence. She now takes the position above that Mikovits was working in a bar "(with or without compensation)" and claims that this is "reliably sourced information". Again considering the two different meanings (and "working in a bar" leans towards the implication of employment), why is KCACO not insisting on using the same wording from the NYT to avoid confusion? - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not insisting on any wording at all, but I would certainly not oppose a direct quote from the New York Times if you would prefer. Mikovits was working in a bar, and this position (job or volunteering) was, again according to the New York Times, somehow a part of her introduction to WPI. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You said this before. See our previous answers:, , , , and oh yes, there's also  where I pointed out under WP:V that it was your responsibility as original poster to provide verified RS for your points; something I did the other day only it provided reasonable supporting evidence that your inferences around Mikowits were wrong.  This article isn't about Mikowits.  Its about WPI.  -- TerryE (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Well I agree this material would not belong on a page pertaining to a disease or medical condition, this page is about a institution which is more cultural than medical. Thus the more human side of science deserves to be discussed ( like the in fighting, the hiring practices, the concerns regarding corruption / conflict of interest ). BTW how many employees does this institue have? If it is 10 or 20 than a single employee is important. If it is hundreds probably less so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know it size but given its current financial budgets, I would guess that the 10-20 figure is probably a good guess. The NYT article which is in general a very complementary write-up of the WPI that mentions a human interest anecdote in passing that Mikowits was introduced to the Whittemores by someone who overheard her talking about virology at a bar in a yacht club.  However  Keepcalmandcarryon uses the wording "Mikovits ... was working as a bartender when a patron introduced her to the Whittemores through a mutual friend." I would have thought that more details of her professional career would be more relevant, especially as it was actually Kristin Loomis, founder of the HHV-6 foundation, that introduced them by inviting them both to the 5th International HHV-6 conference in 2005 in Barcelona (as discussed in the talk archive). -- TerryE (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Doc James on the cultural nature of WPI. Unless I've read something incorrectly, as recently as 2007 or 2008, WPI's largest expenditure appears to have been for advertising (or lobbying?). As for size, it would appear that WPI has at least two PhD scientists, one of whom received the degree in 2006 and already had ties with the Whittemores. Two additional employees are listed as co-authors on the Science paper. The members of the board aren't employees, since as late as the last available tax year they did not draw salaries.
 * I also agree on the point that the hiring practices deserve to be discussed, especially given the coverage by the New York Times. WhatamIdoing is correct that mentioning the Mikovits bar anecdote would normally be undue weight; however, given the prominence of the source and the fact that WPI is not exactly a standard scientific institute, it may merit mention in this case. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again you misreport a source. Lombardi was awarded his PhD in 2006 not his first degree. He came to his PhD later in his career (somewhat like Aubrey de Grey) in his case after first setting up RedLabs and gaining some reputation for his lab work.  Not everyone has wealthy parents who can fund them through first degree, masters and PhD without a break.  So what is your substantive point or claim?
 * We have have a broad consensus that this Mikovits anecdote is WP:UNDUE. I repeat for what must be for the fifth time, if you want to claim that she "worked as a bartender" or in any other imply that she was thus employed, then under WP:V you must find an RS which actually states that.  -- TerryE (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * RS: The New York Times writes that she was tending bar. The assumption that "working in a bar" necessarily means "she gave up science and was drawing her only income from a bartending job" is yours. I wrote that Lombardi got the degree in 2006, "the degree" being the PhD from the previous clause; again, you read into my words something that's simply not there. What's relevant is that WPI hired, as one of its first two lead investigators, an individual who had just received a PhD in 2006; and, as its research director, an individual whose last company had failed and who, in one capacity or another, was working in a bar. Lombardi and Mikovits look to be fabulous scientists, and I don't in any way question their competence. Still, I hope you'll forgive me for finding these hiring practises somewhat unrepresentative of scientific institutes...at least until you find me an example of another institute director, who, according to the New York Times, made a contact with her soon-to-be employer while tending bar.
 * As for "broad consensus", Whatamidoing brought up the concept of undue. Several other editors, including most recently Doc James, disagree. At most, we have a lack of consensus on this issue. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Who are these "several other editors"? - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 02:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's look at Doc James "agreement" and actually see if its directly applicable, eh?: " I agree this material would not belong on a page pertaining to a disease or medical condition, this page is about a institution which is more cultural than medical. [a general statement of context NR] Thus the more human side of science deserves to be discussed ( like the in fighting [NR], the hiring practices, the concerns regarding corruption / conflict of interest [NR]". So the only relevance possible source of agreement would be if this anecdote indeed related to WPIs hiring practices. We have already referenced in previous discussions an RS which states that JM was introduced to AW by Kristen Loomis.  In otherwords the initial contact as far as WPI was by recommendation of someone with a high profile in the HHV-6 community.  We simply don't know what the WPI selection or hiring process and practices are.  The NYT source makes absolutely no claims about these.  So where is this agreement from Doc James?  Your assertion has vanished in the fog.


 * At its worst the implication is that a conversation over a bar lead to a cascade intro. This might be a nice human interest anecdote for a JM article if she ever becomes sufficiently notable to merit her own article, but it has nothing to do with WPIs hiring practices.   What was the event that made you decide to apply to your first university?  Has this anything to do with the practices by which your university selects its students.  No, this point does not belong in this article.  It is very much pure coatrack on your part.  -- TerryE (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding wrong and misleading material to the article
I removed this BS material, The Institute has also been incorrectly reported variously as "The Whittemore Peterson Institute for Chronic Fatigue"(pg 3) and the "National Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Institute".

The first ref states,(pg 3) "The Whittemore-Peterson Institute for chronic fatigue at UNR received $3 million." that's lower case "chronic fatigue" not upper case, not a proper name at all. The second ref states, "...the National Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Institute in Nevada", but also states another designation, "The Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease." Government documents show the name has consistantly been the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease. Almost all sources say WPI, Whittemore-Peterson Institute, or Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease. Stop putting wrong information in the article. Ward20 (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Done for the night, tired of running into edit conflicts. Ward20 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that you would call information "BS" when it's reported by a newspaper, using as your source primary documents. It's clear that the Whittemore Peterson Institute has been called by these names. And there's another: Harry Reid's 2007 appropriations referred to WPI as the "Whittemore Peterson Chronic Fatigue Institute". That's not BS at all. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is WP:SYNTH. As we have pointed out for what I think is the fourth time, in the case of the RS that you quoted for "Whittemore Peterson Institute for  C hronic  F atigue", the actual source is  "The Whittemore-Peterson Institute for  c hronic  f atigue at UNR received $3 million" just like it says above "The University of Nevada, Reno received $18.9 million for a library".  A more reasonable reading of this would be that the Whittemore-Peterson Institute received $3 million for chronic fatigue [research].  WP:NOR: this sort of source use should be avoided.  Your claim fails WP:V.  -- TerryE (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As Ward says when an article uses the Institute's correct title in the body but has a headline "National Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Institute" this is descriptive banner aimed at drawing in a reader and not a claim that the institute is called that. Please stay within the bounds of common sense.  The same WP:NOR caveats apply.  -- TerryE (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * and another change slipped in again
 * The wording in the source is "With the support of other medical professionals and families affected by the illness, the Whittemores and Dr Daniel Peterson of Incline Village established the Whittemore-Peterson Institute in to help millions of patients suffering from Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia and related illnesses".
 * The original wording in the article was "The Whittemores and Daniel Peterson established the Whittemore-Peterson Institute in 2005 to aid patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia and related illnesses".
 * K has replaced this with "The Whittemores and Daniel Peterson say they established the Whittemore-Peterson Institute in 2005 to aid patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and other conditions they feel are related illnesses.
 * This was a historical statement of intent giving the reader a background to the founders motives. No medical claims are made.  So why replace an accurate summary of the RS by a butchered one which can be read to cast doubt on the founders motives when there is not a single known RS which does so? This is pure WP:OR -- TerryE (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's not clear from the medical literature that these conditions are related, certainly not in the sense of common infectious cause as implied by WPI. As such, per WP:MEDRS, we need to state clearly that these are the opinions of the founders, not established medical wisdom. Also, please don't capitalize the names of the illnesses. Let's follow Wikipedia's style guidelines. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for this directed response. One point that I would make in reply is that you with (my explicit and the other editors implicit) agreement have now removed all WP:MEDRS information from this article.  It has become (what IIRC Doc James called) more of a background article on WPI.  The MEDRS content has been moved to XMRV.  The scope of MEDRS is governed by its statement that "it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge".


 * However, laying this point aside, let me pick apart this RS statement: the wording "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia and related illnesses" doesn't imply any biomedical information other than to imply that CFS and Fibromyalgia are by implication themselves related.   This is hardly controversial in that both the CDC's basic facts on CFS and the NHS NICE guidelines both mention this association.  I agree that later in the article where they also group in MS and autism, now this does fall outside the MEDRS guidance and that is precisely why we developed and agreed the caveat that follows this statement.  But this statement in itself doesn't contravene MEDRS and so there is no reason to change it on these grounds.  -- TerryE (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mission statement
I attempted an improvement and replaced the New York Times article with a NIH News article which cites the WPI website, then got more specific with the stated goals at the WPI website. I assume the NYT article is used as a secondary source, but its use here is inadequate because it does not really go into the purpose or mission of WPI. Also, someone please explain (convincingly) why CFS etc are not "acquired", the definition is general and does not necessarily mean "infectious" (which is the reason it appears to be disputed here). - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 04:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Starting archive by Mizabot
This page is getting unwieldy and I therefore suggest that we start archiving by Mizbot; something like: but I thought that I'd better check for comments first, just in case anyone has a problem with this. -- TerryE (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done -- TerryE (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that Keepcalmandcarryon has since extended Archive threshold to 60 days. However this talk page is already 256Kb long and editing it will soon cause resource errors in the Wikipedia apache2 processes which handle the WPI talk page requests.  This is in no one's interests.  The active editors here on this page know how to search Archives, so I am reseting this back to 14 days -- at least until the talk volumes subside. -- TerryE (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Mass reversion" meme
"Mass reversions" are what StevieNic and other special-interest editors have performed following fully explained, policy-grounded edits by others. In contrast, I have explained each of my edits in detail. There is consensus (including amongst uninvolved editors) that the size of the institute should be mentioned, that information based only on primary sources is discouraged and that the WPI claim of XMRV association is controversial and disputed. More importantly, Wikipedia guidelines support these edits.

Removal of secondary sources and properly sourced information is not grounded in Wikipedia policy and is inappropriate no matter the level of consensus amongst special-interest editors. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Small" has been reverted again. How could we better and more informatively characterise the size of the institute? Perhaps: "...consisting of a laboratory and two lead investigators"? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be MUCH better since it is a fact rather than an undefined descriptor. How important that "fact" is and where it belongs in the article is the next baby step. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Not sure about the medical stuff, but "small" is weaselly and not needed, especially in the lede, unless you are pushing some agenda. Is that the case? Just like you wouldn't use "new" since in a 100 years that is not the case. What is "small"? (no funny jokes about body parts here:)) Seriously, are we talking square footage or number of employees, ect or what exactly? A source using that description does not impress me nor sgould we use it just because they have. It is best not to use such descriptors, especially in the lede, but better to say when it was founded and how many employees it has, or how many rooms the place hasect IF appropriate relevant. Also, for full disclosure, I don't give a rat's azz about this place, whether it be nuked or it finds the cure for cancer....cheers, --Tom (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the descriptor 'small' is incorrect. As references are provided for above in the RfC, the WPI is to be located in the Univ. of Nevada's Center for Molecular Medicine which is set to open later this year. Prior to this, the Institute has been operating out of laboratory space provided by the University, hence the description 'small' in the reference provided(which is the only reference thus far which uses such a descriptor). However to describe the Institute as a whole as 'small' is factually incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest using the following material and sources specific to space to establish a consensus on size in the History section.


 * The Reno Gazette-Journal article states, "The institute will have a new home next year when it moves from its one small laboratory and tiny office in the Applied Research Facility at UNR into a new $86 million state-of-the-art research facility scheduled to open in the fall on the north end of the university.", The new size should also be fleshed out, "15,000 square feet on both the second and third floors of the UNR's Center for Molecular Medicine" from the source editor 74.51.82.241 gave in the section Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute. When consensus is reached in the History section we can better decide what should be in the lead. Ward20 (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no reason not to include its current size ("small", "tiny") and its future plans. However, even as an institute occupying two floors of a building, WPI would be a small institute. Most institutes have a dedicated building or multiple buildings and house tens or scores of independent labs. They are usually led by research directors with many years of experience running large laboratories or organisations. I don't have an agenda in pointing this out; I'm simply agreeing with User:Whatamidoing and others who have emphasised that the size of the institute is an important fact to note. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "the size of the institute is an important fact to note", I agree, but in context, in the right sections, by consensus, and with sources that support arguments on talk pages. Ward20 (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The NYT describes the WPI as an 'upstart medical center', which is a much more accurate description than 'small pathology lab'. The NYT also notes the WPI to be 'a nonprofit in Reno, Nev.' and a 'research foundation'. Research institute and charitable foundation describe the Institute just fine, IMO. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/giving/12SICK.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would very much favour using the New York Times as a source over primary documents. "Upstart medical center" also would be a satisfactory description. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The trouble with small and large is that they are relative. If I said that I was a divisional CTO in EDS with technical oversight of a large part of its EMEA operations, what does that mean? One persons large is pretty insignificant to another.  If I said that I had technical oversight of a 14,000 strong organisation it immediately turns the subjective into the objective.  Why don't we just state the floor space of the the new facility (which we know from the above RSs and .  The facility is roughly 104,000 sq ft of which 70,000 sq ft is dedicated to shared research laboratories, vivarium and office space. More than 15,000 square feet on the second and third floors of the southeast wing is dedicated to the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease. Nevada Cancer Institute will occupy 8,800 square feet on the first floor of the southeast wing.  To K this is clearly small, but to someone who thinks small=one man+dog in shoe box in the middle of the motorway then this is quite large, and we avoid all this reverting. -- TerryE (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've updated the wording to reflect this but moved the description of the sources to the reference to keep the article body clean. Given all of the heated argument on this page, I feel that this addition is justified.  My reason for including the NCI (that is the university element) is that it sets the dedicated office space in context.  BTW 15,000 sq ft would typically house 75-150 staff depending on mix of cubicles and dedicated office accommodation; a little more that the "3 scientists" previously mentioned. :-) -- TerryE (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like the use of "upstart" as it is one of those words that has different meanings on the two sides of the Atlantic, and EN Wikipedia is for all English-speaking users not just those from the US. Just like you can happily ask a young lady in the UK if she wants a lift (UK = elevator in US), but this might be taken quite differently in the US! -- TerryE (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The National Center for Charitable Statistics is a secondary source. WP:SECONDARY "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event." This organization has no ties to WPI. Ward20 (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro/lede
The introduction as it stands now is completely NPOV. It fails to describe what the WPI actually is, which is a research institute and charitable foundation, and instead focuses mainly on one aspect, which is the Science/XMRV paper, which itself is already given an entire section in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keepcalmandcarryon edited the wording "CFS research institute" into the lead and removed "charitable foundation". The wording "CFS research institute" is not supported by the source given yet the secondary source removed by Keepcalmandcarryon does support charitable foundation. The wording was changed back by 74.51.82.241. I edited and added the proper references into the lead. The NY Times reference at the end of the sentence supports "research institute". Ward20 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WPI is known for one accomplishment: publishing the XMRV/CFS Science article. Without it, WPI is not notable. Per WP:LEAD, we must mention the source of WPI's notability in the lead. Multiple editors, including uninvolved commenters, have endorsed the mention of the paper and the adjectives "controversial" and "disputed".
 * WPI is a CFS research organisation, as multiple sources demonstrate. If WPI has published research on other conditions, please provide the sources. "Charitable organisation" is simply a tax code status, and the source is primary. Such sources should not be the sole source for information in an encyclopaedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We have mentioned the source for WPI's notability- the fact that it is the first translational research institute and charitable foundation in the country, if not the world, devoted to the study of neuroimmune diseases, including CFS, autism, fibromyalgia and Gulf War Syndrome. WPI has not even officially opened yet, to ask that they fulfill their mission before even opening their doors is a most onerous request indeed! As stated before, the Science/XMRV paper has an entire section devoted to it in the body of the article and does not encapsulate what the WPI is, which is what an introduction of an encyclopedia entry should do.

Not to mention, the WPI did recieve media coverage prior to the Science paper- the show 'Nevada Newsmakers' featured the WPI on no less than 4 of it's shows prior to the publication of the Science paper, which is extremely notable since the first of these shows occured up to 3 years prior to the WPI's official opening, which is set for late 2010. The Reno Gazette Journal also was covering the WPI prior to the Science paper as did other publications. What other than a notable institution would recieve ongoing coverage from the media and elsewhere so far in advance of it even opening it's doors?

Monday, April 2, 2007 Host: Sam Shad Guests: Annette F. Whittemore, Founding Director, Whittemore/Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease, Andrea Whittemore, Patient, Anita Patton, Patient, Rebecca Patton, Daughter http://nevadanewsmakers.com/video/nnmstreamm.asp?showID=395

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 Host: Sam Shad Guests: Annette F. Whittemore, Founding Director - Whittemore/Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease Dr Daniel L. Peterson M.D., Medical Director Judy A. Mikovits, PH.D, Research Director http://nevadanewsmakers.com/video/nnmstreamm.asp?showID=396

Thursday, September 4, 2008 Host: Sam Shad Guests: Annette Whittemore, Founding Director for The Whittemore Peterson Institute and Mike Hillerby, VP The Whittemore Peterson Institute http://nevadanewsmakers.com/video/nnmstreamm.asp?showID=698

Thursday, March 12, 2009 Host: Sam Shad Guests: Annette Whittemore, Founder and President of The Whittemore Peterson Institute & Dr. Judy Mikovits, WPI Scientist-Research http://nevadanewsmakers.com/video/nnmstreamm.asp?showID=816

Article in Reno Gazette Journal Feburary 4 2009- http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/docs/CMM_RGJ040409.pdf

Whittemore family invests in neuro-immune institute- Nevada Silver & Blue, Summer 2008- http://www.unr.edu/nevadasilverandblue/archive/2008/summer/Philanthropy.pdf

74.51.82.241 (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I've been through my stages of grief, plus I read the WP:LEAD article which KCCO helpfully linked to which says the lead should try and summarize the entire article. How about something like this in the lead in a possible second paragraph- "In a 2009 paper published in Science, WPI researchers were the first to describe a novel retrovirus, XMRV, in the blood of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome patients, although subsequent studies have not replicated this finding in other patient cohorts."


 * This is pretty similar to what is in the article-
 * "In 2009, researchers from the Whittemore Peterson Institute, National Cancer Institute and Cleveland Clinic reported in the journal Science that a retrovirus known as xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) is associated with chronic fatigue syndrome.[24] Two follow-up studies published in 2010 in PLoS ONE and Retrovirology found no evidence of XMRV in CFS patients.[27][28]"


 * However this should not be followed up with a "Scientist Smackdown" teaser. From WP:LEAD- "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article."


 * What say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * IP74, I agree with Keepcalmandcarryon on some issues of principle, though rarely in their interpretation. One of these is that any specific medical claims in this article should conform to  WP:MEDRS. So a good way to do this is to parrot the wording in the intro to the XMRV article.  It is also unnecessary to repeat caveats or detail discussed in the body of the article.  Hence I would suggest that your sentence becomes: Researchers from the Whittemore Peterson Institute were co-authors of a paper published in Science in 2009, which identified a possible association of the retrovirus XMRV with CFS [SCI REF].  Two follow-up studies have failed to confirm this association. [REF to PLOS ONE and RETROVIROLOGY]". -- TerryE (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm good with TerryE's wording. Ward20 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I note that Keepcalmandcarryon has reverted this wording and gone back to her old baseline for what must be the eighth or nine time despite the previous edit warning on this, and without reference to this discussion. I don't know why we bother if our discussion is just ignored.  :-(  -- TerryE (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite to history section
Edited for accuracy to sources, remove original research, add public charity to History, and edit for chronology. From:

To: Ward20 (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Shorter, yet less paraphrasing of sources, and repetition removed. I think that it reads better and more encyclopaedic.  So +1 from me. -- TerryE (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks a lot better and reads with a lot more concision..nice job..StevieNic (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mind summarising, but removing sourced content based solely on one's personal opinion is hardly appropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I count three editors above not one. What is the basis of your revert ?  We return to this motivational stuff three times.  What we are trying to do is to trim this down to lose the repetition without important content.  If I asked you to lose 30-40 words without losing material content, which would you  pick?  -- TerryE (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that StevieNic has reverted this with the edit summary "Removed tabloid style 'sensationalized' material. This really is not necessary for an encyclopaedia article". -- TerryE (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Donnica Moore
The spokesperson material has been removed at least twice against policy. The material is reliably sourced per WP:SELFPUB. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves,...so long as:"
 * the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

As the WPI and it's news release corroborate the material there can be no doubt about the information, and it is not contriversial. Ward20 (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This has also been widely reported amongst the patient organisations that are tracking the WPI's work, but given the above refs and the non-controversial nature of this statement, we don't need to pack the article with such refs. -- TerryE (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article should be built around secondary sources. Primary sources may be used to confirm information from secondary sources. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes simply another server for the press releases and websites of marginally notable organisations. There is no reason to include this information. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are going to rule on Wikipedia policy then wouldn't it be better to quote the RS -- oops Ward just did that above. If you want to change Wikipedia policies then enter into the appropriate discussing on the relevant WP talk pages and RfC.  In the meantime work within them.  The quote falls within the above categories.  I have already said that we can add 3rd part RS if you want, but don't repeatedly abd unilaterally revert other editors content which falls within policy guidelines and there is a solid body of editors who wish its inclusion.  -- TerryE (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am starting to worry that K may have had a valid point here. I've just checked, and in the month since her announcement, I can't find a single Internet piece of evidence that Moore has actually actively acted as WPIs spokesperson anywhere.  If this was just an announcement for the mutual self-publication of WPI and Moore then this would be a valid reason to reconsider on the grounds that there is reasonable grounds to doubt its accuracy.  I think that we should watch this one?  Comments?  -- TerryE (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both WPI and Moore have stated she will serve, that is a verifiable fact. The question of whether or not she has served because it can't be found on the internet is not verifiable. If she retracts, we can take it out of the article. The present wording could be attributed, "The WPI released a statement...." Ward20 (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that they have both quoted from the WPI press release on the DrD and WPI sites and this has been echoed by various news and CFS patient groups as a response to the news feed. I am just a little uneasy that there isn't any supporting evidence of her fulfilling this role. Still we couldn't reduce the emphasis on this any more by rephrasing, as the included text is already just about as short as it could get thanks to Verbal joining in the edit ping-pong on the Dr saga :lol: -- TerryE (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CREDENTIAL
This is a disagreement about scope of a WP guideline. Within the guideline Manual of Style (biographies), a clause WP:CREDENTIAL gives advice that professional titles should not be prefixed to the subject's name within the biography. etc. We have two view points: This has already gone through 5 rounds of do/undo and we're stalled. So comments please. It would useful to get a wider view of such precedence cases. The existing editor dialogue follows. -- TerryE (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One editor feels that WP:CREDENTIAL should be applied in all articles, biographies or not.
 * Three editors feel that WP:CREDENTIAL should only be applied to non-Bios when it makes sense to do so. This is a case of a single passing reference to an MD known in the media as Dr. Donnica Moore; the sources use Dr. Donnica Moore and it therefore makes sense to refer to her as Dr. Donnica Moore so that the general reader recognises this association. We have pointed out that whilst the Bio for Dr Drew Pinsky (who is the MD cited in WP:CREDENTIAL as an example) conforms to the guideline, over 90% (149/160) of other WP page references to Pinsky use the "Dr Drew" form, so there is a precedent for our argument.

Note that this is also linked to the discussion above where Keepcalmandcarryon previously deleted this content in its entirety. -- TerryE (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Updates to clarify following discussion with WhatamIdoing. Clarify that CREDENTIAL should not be regarded as mandatory.   Move dead text here: " The editor concerned has now decided to go on a spree editing other articles the same way (other examples) (Edit: Sorry these were all WP:BLP. This is the only non-Bio case). "  Update revert count. -- TerryE (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * withdrawn. Discussion is spent and feedback inconclusive.  -- TerryE (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:CREDENTIAL, the academic titles of individuals are not affixed to their names. Thus, one would write, "Donnica Moore, a celebrity physician", not "Dr. Donnica Moore". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed this comment. WP:CREDENTIAL specifically refers to use of titles in Bios.  It is less consistently applied elsewhere when mentioning people in passing.  However, I think that we would have no problem with Donnica Moore, MD, which is the change that I've just made.  I hope that you are comfortable with this. -- TerryE (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:CREDENTIAL states that "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name". Thus, "Donnica Moore, a celebrity physician", not "Donnica Moore, MD". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I will say this again WP:CREDENTIAL is an advisory section in Manual of Style (biographies) which defines its scope as "The objective of this Manual of Style (or style guide) is to provide guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles." That is a guideline and not a policy relating to Biographic articles. This isn't Donnica Moore's Bio, which does conform to this convention.  It's passing reference.  In fact I have been considering this one and since the "Doctor" prefix is an intrinsic part of her identity I feel that we should reinstate it.  For example another celebrity "Dr Drew" has 149 usages of this in WP and 11 hits on Drew Pinsky without the Dr prefix -- and yes one of these is his Bio.


 * Again can I ask you please to read my comment, and respond to its content before repeating you position and reverting. -- TerryE (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's biographies policies refer not only to actual biographical articles. Take, for example, the BLP policy: it refers to all mentions of living persons on Wikipedia, even on talk pages. I'm not going to go so far as to suggest we can't call someone "Dr." on a talk page, but its best to follow the manual of style in the articles. That other editors have not followed the MOS is hardly a good argument to ignore it here. In any case, what's the problem? If we say she's a physician while following the MOS, why is that reversion-worthy? Is it just about antagonising me? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * About Drew Pinsky: as his biography states, "Dr. Drew" is Pinsky's nickname on television and radio and in print. We wouldn't refer to him as "Dr. Pinsky". Instead, as you can read in his biography, "Pinsky" is used throughout unless the text refers to Pinsky in his radio persona, "Dr. Drew". That said, there are many, many articles in which the MOS is not followed on this point. These mistakes don't mean the MOS is rubbish any more than misspellings disprove the dictionary. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes his bio conforms to the bio style guide and does Donnica Moore. However 93% of the other articles which refer to him do not.


 * I am not trying to antagonise you, nor have I ever stated that MOSBIO is stupid. What I do believe is that when a guide says its scope is X then perhaps it means its scope to be X and not Y.  I am also pointing out that when someone goes to the effort to quote a section of a policy/guideline in support of an argument, then it is worthwhile refreshing your memory of (the relevant sections of) the document before claiming to know its content.  In this case we have:
 * The policy WP:BLP which as you correctly say starts with the preamble "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. And them goes on to give guidance for what constitutes appropriate information.
 * The guideline WP:MOSBIO (which includes WP:CREDENTIAL) limits itself to "The objective of this Manual of Style (or style guide) is to provide guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles." [My ital]
 * So yes, the rules regarding biographical information apply to any such information, but the style-guide is for laying out biographies. (1) Guidelines are advisory, and anyway (2) nowhere does it state or imply that this guideline has wider scope.  The Wikipedia readers will know her as Doctor Donnica Moore, but may not so readily recognise Donnica Moore without the title.  We have at least three editors who feel that the "Dr ..." form is more appropriate, and there is valid a reason for our wanting this change.  So the reasonable course here is for you to yield on this one. -- TerryE (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A perceived vote of three to one sanctions ignoring MOS and implying you know better than Wikipedia guidelines no more than it does misspelling words (say, the frequent misspellings of Mikovits as "Mikowitz" or "Mikowits"). "Donnica Moore, a celebrity physician" makes it quite clear the subject is a celebrity doctor and fully satisfies MOS; further, the name is linked for those who wish to know more. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I already realise that one side effect of my illness is that my typing speed has dropped and the number of my spelling howlers has gone up, but just like the rest of the crap in life, I have to put up with it with a smile. However, it would really help if you stopped taking sideways swipes at CFS symptoms real or imagined, especially as this isn't really relevant to this discussion. Is it?   The issue if that this is a non-mandatory guide that is written for Bios.  Three editors here feel that there are sound reasons to use her public usage and one doesn't. -- TerryE (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2010(UTC)

Dr. Donnica Moore is a celebrity persona she uses and is most widely used. Google search hits are, 206,000 for "Dr. Donnica Moore", 50,100 for "Donnica Moore", 39,200 for "Dr. Donnica". Use common sense in that the most common name is one that readers will recognize most without having to follow the link. Ward20 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * W, actually you are wrong here. The hit count at the top of google is notoriously in accurate.  It's just a multiplier of the frequencies of each word in the term.  Add more words and the count goes up.  What you need to do is to page-down (set your page size to 100 say) until you hit the end-stops and this gives you the true count.  You also need to quote phrases otherwise you will separate word hits and you need to use negation to remove overlaps: e.g. "Donnica Moore" -Dr also checking the content as this is with match Dotore Donnica, etc. So if you limit this to English pages google has 313 hits and a lot of these are Donnica Moore, MD.  There are over 1000 hits for the various permutations of Dr/Doctor Donnica ... so the ratio is closer to 3:1 maybe 4:1. -- TerryE (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where in WP:MOS it states that Dr Donnica Moore is objectionable, but Verbal objected to it here. I tried to fix the problem by using simply Dr. Donnica Moore Ward20 (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dr. Donnica Moore was reverted again with the edit summary, "no, my objection is MOS". Does anyone know what is being referenced by MOS? Ward20 (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS, WP:CREDENTIAL and also consistency, and neutrality. GHITS are never a good reason for something. Verbal chat  21:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Verbal: sorry, but this statement doesn't make sense to me.
 * WP:CREDENTIAL is part of WP:MOSBIO which limits itself to Biographies, so ''this doesn't apply.
 * I entirely agree that WP:MOS is a guideline for all articles and it therefore  does make sense to apply it. However, the only reference to the use of Dr is the statement "Abbreviations formed by ... contraction (Dr. for Doctor) may or may not be closed with a period; a consistent style should be maintained within an article. A period is more usual in American usage (Dr. Smith of 42 St. Joseph St.); no full stop is commonly preferred in British and other usage (Dr Smith of 42 St Joseph St, although one or other St might take a period, in such a case)." So clearly it does permit the use of Dr.
 * What has WP:NPOV got to do with the application of a title to a doctor? How does the application or not change the POV of the article?
 * WP:GHITS makes a lot of sense but again it is part of an essay WP:AADD which about arguments to avoid for notability on deletion. We weren't using it here for this purpose; merely to provide a supportive rationale for why we think that a person is better know by the title than not. -- TerryE (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In WP:MOS all I can find is Academic titles which states, "For the use of titles and honorifics in biographical articles, see Honorific prefixes." That link leads me to WP:CREDENTIAL which states, In cases where the person is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not), it may be included as described above."

I assume the objective is for the reader to be most able to recognize the person being referenced, "Dr. Donnica Moore" seems to be the most suitable name in this case. Neutrality seems to support this. What is non-neutral about "Dr. Donnica Moore"? She is a doctor and it is how she is most known. GHITS also supports that, "Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is", even though it talks about AFDs. It would seem the policies, guidelines and essays referenced support using "Dr. Donnica Moore". Ward20 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Responding to a Request For Comment: I would, personally, be inclined to INCLUDE the Dr. with the name. The editors in favour of this are clearly trying to make the first part of the page register with readers. While the wish to stick to policies is commendable, in this case I would say WP:IAR SmokingNewton (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No valid reason to IAR has been presented. I'm strongly opposed to this appeal to authority and celebrity. Verbal chat  10:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Verbal, you still haven't explained why you feel that "Dr Donnica..." must be removed under MOS when the only reference to Dr in MOS is how to lay it out and not how to remove it. How does the use of the title Dr appeal to "celebrity"?  K's suggested alternative wording "Donnica Moore, the celebrity physician" might, but in this case we should be discussion the appropriateness of the use of the adjective "celebrity".  -- TerryE (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Terry, why can't we have "Dr Donnica...". I really can't see what the problem is?StevieNic (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Plain name. I don't believe that WP:CREDENTIAL is limited solely to biographies, and WP:MEDMOS, which certainly applies to non-biographical articles, opposes this kind of credentialism.  It happens that I've never heard of this 'celebrity physician' -- so perhaps there's an argument to be made for using her stage name, although I can't make it -- but I can tell you that among most American physicians, it's generally considered improper to sign your name or advertise yourself as "Dr John Smith" ("John Smith, MD" would be correct in professional contexts, and plain "John Smith" otherwise).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but in that case why stick WP:CREDENTIAL in WP:MOSBIO which defines its scope as "The objective of this Manual of Style (or style guide) is to provide guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles." and why have a section in WP:MOS on how to use the title Dr. I can just about relate to all these policies if we go on the presumption that they try to mean what the words in them say, but I just really don't understand this philosophy that that they actually mean what senior editors want them to mean.  If the meaning in MOS and MOSMED is wrong then why not just change it to what everyone seems to think that the mean and also create a project to correct the tens of thousands of occurances of such usage. -- TerryE (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't address the WP:MEDMOS point. I assume that you are referring to the para beginning Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors. In this context, I would agree, but this is the only passing reference to Moore. We had also suggested Donnica Moore, MD but this was rejected/reverted.  Your point about stage name is also relevant.  A plain "Donnica Moore" would be lost on most readers where "Dr Donnica Moore" would not.  This is exactly analogous to the use of Dr Drew in 90% of the articles that refer to Drew Pinsky. -- TerryE (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, the 'stage name' issue is something that other editors will have to figure out; I don't know who these people are and don't have any idea how they market themselves on television.
 * I don't know why CREDENTIAL is in MOSBIO, or why MOSBIO currently claims that it is optional advice (I believe that full compliance is actually required for all Featured Articles, regardless of primary subject), but I do know that CREDENTIAL is widely applied, despite whatever the first sentence of the page says. This is generally true of most parts of MOS:  the fact that advice is given originally in one context does not mean that it may be safely ignored in all other contexts.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyway, there is a discussion here on topic with editors giving their views. I believe that is an improvement over previous non-responses. Hopefully a consensus will emerge. Ward20 (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As an inveterate opponent of the use of academic titles (or any titles) in biographies, I have no problem whatsoever with using an academic title in a reference to an individual in another article in which said title is germane. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What about: "Donnica Moore, known professionally as Dr. Donnica..."? - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 01:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Might be the best compromise if we get stuck on WP:MOSBIO. Ward20 (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If we go down this route then this sentence becomes unnecessarily convolved, IMHO. The use of "Dr Donnica ..." is an anathema to Verbal and fine by Necrothesp.  WhatamIdoing seems more concerned that we should leave the precedence of MOSMED vs. MOS etc. woolly than the rights and wrongs this particular case.  So the external council seems to be a split decision.  I'd go back the original "Donnica Moore, MD" but that would just prolong the edit war.  So I guess that I am prepared to live with Donnica Moore as the best alternative to an edit war.  I would only consider making further edits here if she actually starts to have a material presence in this role. -- TerryE (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring of Media coverage and controversy
We had previously attempted to restructure these points into a sensible order, but since this was reverted by Keepcalmandcarryon, I thought that I should explain my recent edits. This section covers three points: I have therefore reordered the sentences into three corresponding paragraphs and I think that this reads better.
 * The WPI and media reaction following the Science paper
 * The media reporting following the publishing of the first (and to a lesser extent) second study which failed to confirm the first paper's findings
 * The reporting and discussion of the VIP Dx blood tests.

In respect of this last paragraph, I've added an OR flag to K's wording "The Whittemores' company" as this is normally taken to mean that the Whittemores are the sole owners. To my knowledge there are RS which support that the Whittemores had a financial stake in VIP Dx (but none which claim full ownership) and in fact the RS cited in this section which discusses this stated that the Whittemores had put this financial interest into trust with the proceeds going to WPI. (This clarification was previously in the text, but K removed this). I therefore feel that this OR flag is a reasonable caveat. -- TerryE (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See CFIDS: VIP Dx is "a Nevada company owned by the Whittemore family, formerly known as RedLabs USA". I wouldn't consider CFIDS to be a particularly reliable source on topics of science, but as part of the advocacy network in the US they would know the Whittemores fairly well and wouldn't have any conceivable reason to misrepresent them. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting the last Keen article: "VIP Dx has also received financial support from the Whittemore family in the past."[My ital] which Keen amended from between his ScienceNow and Science articles presumably after validaing the statement in the WPI press release  which was released between these which clarifies "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." These are inconsistent with the CFIDS claim of full ownership.  We've gone over this a few times now.  Could you please familiarise yourself with the talk content which explains why I've done something instead of just reverting and restating your position.


 * And which does takes precedence BTW: the CFIDS webpage or the later article published in Science? -- TerryE (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not use both, as we do now? And why are you (and others) so interested in obscuring the connection between the Whittemores and VIP Dx? Not that it's particularly important now: three separate studies in respected journals have cast serious doubt on the WPI report. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These are two separate points. Please don't mix RS and MEDRS claims and content.


 * Yes it would be reasonable to keep both or to remove both. However, we don't use both because you removed the qualification that the Whittemores had put their interests in VIP Dx into trust.  To  remove one and restore the other leaves the reader with an impression that we all know to be false.


 * We have four primary studies: one which has published a set of conclusions; three which fail to replicate (parts of) these conclusions. As discussed above one of the most eminent retrovirologists in this field gave a presentation on this providing a secondary review of these just a week ago and didn't once suggest the inference that you have just placed here.  Please follow WP:MEDRS guidelines here: "Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources".   For the purposes of this discussion and also quite possibly in the outside world, you are not a qualified expert in this field. -- TerryE (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The CFIDS source claims that VIPdx is owned by the Whittemore family, citing this broken link which I found on the WPI website. It is obvious they supported the lab, but not obvious that they actually "own" it. I performed this edit to suit, which also included the other press release mentioned by TerryE above. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 01:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

# 10 08 Feb Mass Revert #15 -- Mikovits comments on insurance company conspiracy continued.
This topic is a continuation of the following sections: where Keepcalmandcarryon has again taken the actual wording in the source: and transformed this into the clause (for what must be the 6+ time). for what must be -- I don't know any more I've lost count --
 * 
 * 08 Feb Mass Revert #15 -- Mikovits comments on insurance company conspiracy
 * ''You can't claim to replicate a study if you don't do a single thing that we did in our study," she said. "They skewed their experimental design in order to not find XMRV in the blood." ... They paid to have their study published in the Public Library of Science, and it was then picked up by Science (magazine)," said Mikovits said, who suspects insurance companies in the United Kingdom are behind attempts to sully the findings of the Reno study"'
 * with Judy Mikovits accusing the British team of skewing its study and of participating in an insurance company plot to discredit WPI's results.

So we again have reporters interpretation of a suspicion magically transformed in a direct accusation by JM of a plot. Hell, why bother with the sources. Let's everyone start making things up :LoL: -- TerryE (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stick to the sources, assuming they are accurate of course. - Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 01:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional reporting of Media coverage following 2nd and 3rd studies
As far as I can see we've have no other MEDRS resources that we can use other than the statement of non-confirmation that Sam W, Tekaphore and I (IIRC) added into the intro, with it being repeated in further detail in the Media coverage and controversy section. However, as well as all the blog comment we've also had editorials which have specifically followed these up. Though their content and criticism doesn't fall under MEDRS so we therefore shouldn't include it, how about adding some like the following at the end of the "Three follow-up studies published in 2010 ..." paragraph:
 * "The publishing of these papers has resulted in further commentary by medical reviewers."

Citing the BMJ editorial of 25th Feb "Chronic fatigue syndrome and human retrovirus XMRV" and Dr Vernon's review of 15th Feb "Second XMRV Negative Study … Still In Search of a Proper and Robust Replication Study"  so at least readers can go and read these articles and get some informed and critical comment.

Is this a reasonable suggestion? -- TerryE (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. Two more I found, Third study finds no link between mouse virus and chronic fatigue syndrome (Updated) and the most scientic based CROI: Secrets of Novel Retrovirus Unfolding. Ward20 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The second URL from Ward20 states "Even the links to prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome are controversial, with centers reporting anywhere from 0% to 23% and 0% to 67% prevalence in tested cases, respectively, Goff noted." No such mention of this controversy about the former disease at the prostate cancer and XMRV articles. Important? -  Tekaphor  ( TALK ) 01:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've watched the video on this ref and its a 10 min short. If you want the real deal then by far the best is Stephen Goff's Plenary Keynote "Mouse to Man? XMRV and Human Disease" which an hour long presentation including slides.  I think that Vernon's review was probably the most critical of WPI, so we shouldn't lose this.  I'll add a draft which references the BMJ, Vernon and Goff's presentation. -- TerryE (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes March 24th 2010
1)The word controversial has been introduced into the first sentence of the lead again by Keepcalmandcarryon. This is after multiple and prolonged discussions on the talk page pointing out that the sources do not describe the study as controversial, and it is not NPOV to frame the lead sentence of the article with loaded wording.

2)The coatrack material on the FDA's rejection of Ampligen has also been reintroduced by Keepcalmandcarryon. This was also discussed before and rejected. Once Again, the FDA's refusal was for Ampligen's New Drug Application (NDA). The NDA is concerned with marketing approval of the drug, not experimental usage. Ampligen never had retail marketing approval, only experimental studies approval (including open label), and the FDA decision doesn't change experimental studies approval. AWG used Ampligen under experimental studies approval and that hasn't changed. The FDA decision on Ampligen's NDA has nothing to do with AWG or WPI.

3)Peterson is described as a CFS physician by Keepcalmandcarryon's edit. As far as I know sources state he is a physician and his practice is not limited to CFS. If Peterson's expertise in CFS is described in the lead it must be described in detail in the body per guidelines.

4)Keepcalmandcarryon's edit claims WPI groups diseases such as autism, CFS and fibromyalgia into an "infectious" category that appears to be original research, and removed a tag on the basis of WP:FRINGE. I find nothing in FRINGE that justifies removing the tag. The original research and the tag removal violates policy.

I will make changes according to above. Ward20 (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a mass revert of several edits that were discussed on the talk page above, edits that added material from references, and still others that clarified. The mass revert violated WP:NPOV and other policies, and IP:74.51.82.241 reverted. I support the reversion by IP:74.51.82.241. Ward20 (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * +1 -- TerryE (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The CFS XMRV controversy is the defining feature of this institute and the lynchpin of their notability. Their place in this story needs to be made clear up front. If the research bears out their hypothesis, we can edit the lead to reflect that. Really, the last thing this article needs is to recapitulate matters better covered elsewhere.
 * The location of the headquarters is important for encyclopedic coverage, but should not take precedence. In any case, I put it in the infobox, which should serve the readers at least as well. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with 2/0's assessment. Unless perhaps as a footnote to the political dealings of Harvey Whittemore, the Institute does not seem to be notable apart from the controversy. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the main notability of the institute is from this XMRV research. It would be notable whether or not it was viewed at controversial.  I haven't found the adjective controversial used yet in a MEDRS source; just in some of the press coverage and some blog rants.  -- TerryE (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The controversy is actually over what the different results mean between the four different studies and the analysis of various parties and news articles. Ward20 (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the prostate cancer / XMRV studies have yielded similar inconsistent findings with failures to repeat in German and Irish studies. It seems that there may be a geographic and certainly process sensitivities to studies, yet no one has suggested that we lead in with controversial in the general intro the discussion of XMRV.  -- TerryE (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should mention the controversy in the XMRV lead. However, the claimed XMRV/CFS connection is surrounded by considerably more controversy than the prostate cancer studies, from the fact that the finding comes from an institute founded by individuals who believe fervently in a CFS-virus link, to the outright accusations of fraud by that Institute's lead investigator. As several previously uninvolved editors have noted, WPI is synonymous with the XMRV-CFS controversy and is not (or barely) notable apart from it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Patient samples not limited to Incline Village
I deleted the reference to samples coming from the Incline Village outbreak as this is not correct. The WPI has a sample repository which contains samples from all over the country and Dr. Peterson has a personal repository which includes longitudinal samples from the Incline Village outbreak. The WPI has explicitly stated that samples from the Science paper came from the WPI's main repository and not Dr. Peterson's on their Q&A page-

"Where did the samples come from for the XMRV study?

The WPI repository samples came from patients who live in many different locations around the US. Physicians who contributed patient samples include: Dr. David Bell, Dr. Paul Cheney, Dr. Daniel Peterson, and Dr. Eric Gordon. Other individual patient samples came from individuals who became ill while living in California, Wisconsin, South Dakota, etc.

What about Dr. Peterson's private repository?

Dr. Peterson has a repository of samples from the original out break in Incline Village, Nevada which also includes longitudinal samples taken from patients from the 1980's through 2005. [i]None of these samples were used in the XMRV study[/i]."

From- http://www.wpinstitute.org/research/research_biobank.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Further, the van Kuppeveld study presented information that conflicts with the original Science study, "Recently, at the Tri-Society Annual Conference 2009 in Lisbon, a presentation reported that the peripheral blood mononuclear cells were derived from patients from the outbreak of chronic fatigue syndrome at Incline village at the northern border of Lake Tahoe, United States (1984-5).19"


 * The Lombardi Science study stated in the Supporting Online Material, " Samples were selected from several regions of the United States where outbreaks of CFS had been documented (S2)." Ward20 (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we're all aware of the claims made in the Science paper and by WPI on their website and Facebook page. However, as reported in the peer-reviewed literature, individuals associated with WPI have reportedly made conflicting statements about the provenance and history of their samples. van Kuppeveld et al and McClure and Wessely in their commentary (both of which were peer-reviewed) state that Mikovits presented the samples in Lisbon as deriving from patients of the initial outbreak at Incline Village. Perhaps those patients now live throughout the United States, hence the Science language?
 * We should report both the WPI version and the BMJ version. The possibility that WPI's reported XMRV association with CFS may be confined to a single local outbreak is intriguing and has become a notable part of the controversy. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If we are all aware that differing claims have been made in different sources, then we need to be extra careful about the possibility of presenting false information.


 * The presentation given by Dr. Mikovits at the Tri-Society Conference was entitled- 'Detection and Immune Correlates of an Infectious Retrovirus, XMRV, in Blood Cells of Patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome', which is different than the Science paper. Since the allegations refer to this presentation, which was not necessarily on the same patient cohort as the Science paper was on, then there is no reason to doubt the Science paper's explicit reference to samples coming from multiple physician's practices around the US, with no mention whatsoever of samples coming from one localized outbreak.


 * Since the WPI has specifically and explicitly rebutted these allegations and provided clarifying information[referred to below], and since there is no mention whatsoever of lymphoma nor any mention of samples being taken from one specific outbreak in the Science paper, which instead contains an explicit reference to samples being taken from multiple physician's practices from around the country, and since this information is only in the 'Supporting Online Materials' and not in the main body of the paper, which would reasonably cause confusion if an individual had not taken the time to look through the supporting materials and had only read the main paper, then I think there is more than enough reason to leave these claims out unless there is proof to back them up.


 * "Who were the patients and healthy controls in the recent XMRV study published in Science?


 * Every patient sample used in the study (taken from the nationwide WPI repository gathered from several regional physician practices) had a physician's diagnosis of CFS."
 * http://www.wpinstitute.org/xmrv/xmrv_qa.html


 * Were any patients with lymphoma mentioned in the XMRV study?


 * Blood samples from the WPI repository were chosen at random and there were no patients chosen with lymphoma or mention of lymphoma in this study. Another preliminary study was done at a later date that had nothing to do with the XMRV Science publication.
 * http://www.wpinstitute.org/research/research_biobank.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keepcalmandcarryon, McClure and Wessely's commentary was not peer reviewed. "Editorials represent the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the BMJ or BMA." The van Kuppeveld paper didn't say the Science study cohort came from the Incline Village outbreak. Only that a Lisbon presentation reported on a study that blood was used from patients from the CFS outbreak at Incline village. That doesn't merit ignoring the Science paper study description and the WPI's clarification of the patient cohort. Ward20 (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ward20 again dissembles in the interest of excluding any and all verifiable information deemed potentially harmful to WPI and its XMRV-CFS claims.
 * From van Kuppeveld, et al.: "Unfortunately, the paper of Lombardi and colleagues lacked a clear description of their patient cohort. Recently, at the Tri-Society Annual Conference 2009 in Lisbon, a presentation [by Mikovits] reported that the peripheral blood mononuclear cells [i.e. the PBMCs from the Science study] were derived from patients from the outbreak of chronic fatigue syndrome at Incline village at the northern border of Lake Tahoe, United States (1984-5). This outbreak has long been thought to have been caused by a viral infection and has been associated with a number of viruses, most notably Epstein-Barr virus20 and human herpes virus, but firm evidence for a role of viruses in this particular outbreak has never been provided. It is possible that the study of Lombardi et al has unravelled the viral cause of the chronic fatigue syndrome outbreak [i.e. the Incline Village outbreak]..."
 * Whether or not McClure and Wessely's commentary was peer reviewed (I assume that it was, but by Ward20's logic, no articles in BMJ are peer-reviewed because the BMJ, its editors and reviewers are not willing to list themselves as co-authors on every paper), van Kuppeveld decidedly was. I do not propose that we ignore the Science description; rather, we should note the reported discrepancy between what Mikovits said at the conference and what was claimed in the paper. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My logic has nothing to do with McClure and Wessely's commentary being not peer reviewed. I gave the "source of the McClure and Wessely editorialwhich states, "Editorials represent the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the BMJ or BMA."


 * I assume studies published in BMJ are peer-reviewed. I have no idea why you believe you know different based upon something I've never expressed.


 * The van Kuppeveld study didn't specifically state [i.e. the PBMCs from the Science study], that's your wording. Mikovits may have been talking about another study. I'm working on getting a copy of the presentation to see what study she described.


 * Keepcalmandcarryon, you stated, "I do not propose that we ignore the Science description;" which is, "Samples were selected from several regions of the United States where outbreaks of CFS had been documented". You said you were aware of the Science description and the WPI clarification here and stated that the Science and BMJ versions should be included 21:31, 5 April 2010. Yet you edited the article otherwise without the Science version as if it was a fact the patients were, "from a local "outbreak" of CFS-like symptoms in Nevada in 1984-85", on 21:40, 5 April 2010 sourced from the BMJ. One thing was discussed by you but nine minutes later you edited the opposite, and later you deny ignoring the Science version. Ward20 (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Science study is the subject of van Kuppeveld's discussion, not a hypothetical second study. Both van Kuppeveld and the McClure/Wessely article state that the Science paper described its cohort poorly and that the patients were from the Lake Tahoe outbreak. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

From the description of 'New Strategies to Decipher the Pathophysiology of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome', which is already referenced on the article page, "The overall goal of this research project is to define these viral and host parameters in European and American cohorts of CFS patients that correlate with distinct disease phenotypes, including the development of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) in a subgroup of the American cohort."

http://www.researchgrantdatabase.com/g/1R01AI078234-01A2/NEW-STRATEGIES-TO-DECIPHER-THE-PATHOPHYSIOLOGY-OF-CHRONIC-FATIGUE-SYNDROME/

This is in exact agreement with what has been placed on the WPI's webpage, "Were any patients with lymphoma mentioned in the XMRV study?

Blood samples from the WPI repository were chosen at random and there were no patients chosen with lymphoma or mention of lymphoma in this study. Another preliminary study was done at a later date that had nothing to do with the XMRV Science publication." http://www.wpinstitute.org/research/research_biobank.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We're obliged to accept statements in the BMJ over original research from primary internet documents. It's very clear that van Kuppeveld and colleagues, as well as McClure and Wessely, reported a contradiction. Whether that contradiction is real, it is currently notable and relevant to the discussion and should not be changed in the absence of additional reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Canadian CFS restricted from donating blood
The wording, "In Canada, WPI's claims of XMRV-CFS association prompted Health Canada in March, 2010, to disallow blood donations from individuals with CFS." is editorializing POV. Sources do not say, "WPI claims prompted"

"...virus that has been linked to chronic fatigue syndrome is causing Canadian blood officials..."

"The precautionary move is a result of Health Canada's concern over a virus known as XMRV..."

Lest anyone forgets, the NCI and CC were coauthors of the study published in Science. Ward20 (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

New XMRV review article
Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Prostate Cancer Ward20 (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Media coverage and controversy sub-headings
This section is getting somewhat long and complex with the paragraphs not following a clear chronological order, but instead grouped by XRMV / CFS association; XMRV testing; blood supply. It therefore makes sense to reintroduce subheadings along these lines, which I have now done. -- TerryE (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

the subsection about patient cohort is irrelevent, there was never any controversy, merely the negative xmrv study scientists failed to read the original paper closely enough, including their comments on wikipedia is irrelevent becuase the cohort issue was never really in doubt, it is just slanderous and biased to have a whole section dedicated to an imaginary "controversy".

Details for discussion
The three negative studies tested 186+ 299 170+32 = 517 388 cfs patients. Can the article state, "Three follow-up studies published in 2010 in PLoS ONE, Retrovirology, and BMJ respectively found no evidence of XMRV in 517 388 CFS patients." without it being OR? Ward20 (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have opposed including numbers in the article, but I will defer to 2/0 if he feels it's important. Adding numbers is not usually considered OR, although the Bishop study examined only 170 patients, not 299. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I could go either way on the numbers issue - on the one hand it would not do to bury the conclusions in minutia, but on the other there should be space in this article to do a proper treatment of these four studies. I think that that addition would be too simple to count as OR, but we do need to be careful not to embark on a full meta-analysis. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly Biochemist-Vincent Lombardi is notable to the WPI staff. He was one of the lead authors in the Science paper.


 * A reliable source CROI 2010, Plenary Keynote: Mouse to Man? XMRV and Human Disease reference was removed here? The edit summary isn't relevant to the reference removed.


 * Reliably sourced information about the WPI's creation was removed. "Harvey Whittemore stated his wife also wanted to recognize Daniel Peterson for his history of treating the illness since 1984."


 * The coatrack and misleading material, "now rejected by the FDA" has been reintroduced for about the fifth time. The explanation why the material is misleading and not relevant to the article was already discussed here #2.


 * The National Cancer Institute, and Cleveland Clinic were very much involved with the WPI in the study and the reliable sources state this.


 * Ward20 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to mentioning Lombardi; I simply find it strangely Undue to list every member of an institute in the Wikipedia infobox.
 * Yes, several individuals at NCI and CC were involved. No, they did not initiate the study or do the bulk of the research. This is a Mikovits/WPI report and the lead does not need to mention the relatively minor contributors.
 * Ampligen was been rejected by the FDA. There's nothing misleading about that, and to claim otherwise is to dissemble. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Vincent Lombardi of the WPI and Francis Ruscetti of the NCI are explicitly listed as co-lead authors of the paper. Jaydip Das Gupta of the Cleveland Clinic is listed as second author. This is not in keeping with a 'relatively minor contribution'.
 * http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1179052


 * Ampligen is still available under a cost recovery orphan drug program, perhaps the statement in the article needs to be clarified in regards to this? That's if it's even considered pertinant to the WPI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Besides the sources above, The WPI, the NCI and the CC all state they collaborated on the Science article.


 * WPI: "Scientists from the Whittemore Peterson Institute, Cleveland Clinic and the National Cancer Institute were the first to discover XMRV in the blood of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) patients."


 * NCI "Scientists have discovered a potential retroviral link to chronic fatigue syndrome, known as CFS, a debilitating disease that affects millions of people in the United States. Researchers from the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI), located at the University of Nevada, Reno, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, and the Cleveland Clinic, report this finding online Oct. 8, 2009, issue of Science."


 * CC "Dr. Robert Silverman, a cancer biologist in the Lerner Research Institute who was part of the team that discovered XMRV, and collaborators at the Whittemore Peterson Institute, located at the University of Nevada, Reno, and the National Cancer Institute, published their findings in the Oct. 8 online issue of Science." Ward20 (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Once more. the FDA's refusal was for Ampligen's New Drug Application (NDA). The NDA is concerned with marketing approval of the drug, not experimental usage. Ampligen never had retail marketing approval, only experimental studies approval (including open label), and the FDA decision doesn't change experimental studies approval. AWG used Ampligen under experimental studies approval and that hasn't changed. The FDA decision on Ampligen's NDA has nothing to do with AWG or WPI. There seem to be no reliable sources that state the rejection of the application for retail marketing of Ampligen has anything to do with WPI. The Ampligen material been discussed and rejected before . Please stop adding against the policy of WP:consensus.  Ward20 (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The material, "Reid is a personal friend of Harvey Whittemore." is original research. Neither source mentions WPI. Unless there is a reliable source that states Reid's friendship with Harvey Whittemore was important in the funding of the WPI it violates policy. Ward20 (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the policy interpretations of Ward20, a largely single-purpose editor who appears to view his or her role as censoring any verifiable information that is potentially detrimental to WPI. I also disagree with Ward20's heavy reliance on primary sources, including WPI itself. However, I also understand that the political agenda of Ward20 and other members of TerryE's "inner circle" of ME activists seems to relegate Wikipedia's basic policies to a secondary position and to preclude rational discussion of these points. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keepcalmandcarryon, I have been discussing article content, sources, and policies. The paragraph above is just a personal attack with no basis. Ward20 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This edit removed verifiable information from the article with the edit summary, "Again, please provide evidence that these entities lobbied for the money" The source at the end of the sentence states, "Recognizing the need for improved health outcomes across the state, the University of Nevada School of Medicine and the Whittemore Peterson Institute joined forces to secure state funding for the Center for Molecular Medicine project during the 2005 legislative session." Ward20 (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quote. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

April 22, 2010: clarified some wording on science cohort, add NY times JM material caution about proof, re-add properly sourced info. Ward20 (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

These edits introduced bias in the article
They removed important WP:V information in the lead that WPI worked with the National Cancer Institute, and Cleveland Clinic on the Science study as RS's state and was previously discussed on the talk page.

XMRV is properly Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus not murine leukaemia virus. The prior is a human virus and the latter a similar mouse virus.

Putting an opinion by Mikovits in the lead, "The WPI's lead investigator stated that XMRV is a cause of at least some CFS symptoms." sourced from a single newspaper is not logical because that is different than what was stated in the Science article and to my knowledge other articles do not refer to this speculation ie.

They removed information on the Science cohort and the source leaving only a one sided different description of the Science cohort by the van Kuppeveld study and the BMJ editorial opinion paper.

They edited in the wording "first local outbreak of CFS-like symptoms" which is not in the sources.

They added the editorializing statement "Controversy was also generated by" which is not in the sources.

They removed part of a Mikovits quote, "but did not know whether it would be susceptible to the same heat treatments that successfully kill off the AIDS virus in blood products." and replaced it with wording that has a different meaning. (WP:BLP violation?)

They removed "and other laboratories are participating in" and replaced with "is cooperating with". The source states, "The federal working group's project has three phases. First, labs at six participants—including the FDA, the National Cancer Institute, the CDC, and the Whittemore Peterson lab—are using a panel of blood samples to try to establish which of the labs' tests are sensitive and reliable enough to find XMRV in the blood."

They removed WP:V information about WPI and the section topic, "The WPI is also collecting blood from CFS patients who received their diagnosis after a blood transfusion and are planning to conduct their own study on XMRV blood transmission."

They removed "reported in Science" and a source that verifies this and replaced it with "WPI's claims" which isn't in the sources.

These edits introduced blatant bias and inaccuracies in the article. Ward20 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * More WP:TE from Keepcalmandcarryon:
 * removal of refs to NCI and Cleveland -- talked to death and consensus-1(CM1) reached.
 * overloading XMRV with MLV origin. A newish one, but what's the value?
 * the HamSpec ref should be covered in the media section. It isn't sufficiently notable / reputable to merit hoisting to the introduction.
 * Ampligen. Another CM1 -- let me try some alternative wording picking up the "The agency is recommending ... at least one additional clinical study" that might be mutually acceptable.
 * removal of the information on cohort definition from a MEDRS reference because this is inconsistent with cohort claims included from a subsequent RS reference. Hummmnnn, I wonder why this edit was done?
 * removal of the AW response to SW/MM. Snap.
 * I will also change the HamSpec quote to reflect the actual wording. -- TerryE (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More biased edits removed verifiable information, introduced inaccuracies, added weasel wording, and removed the cohort definition that was actually reported in the "Science" paper so it couldn't be compared to what was reported in the Dutch study and the BMJ editorial opinion. The edit also removed reference formatting improvements. All was done without discussing the talk page issues above. Reverting. Ward20 (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to pretend that explaining your edits on the talk page is a substitute for following Wikipedia policies. Removing reliably sourced information relevant to the topic simply because you view it as potentially damaging to your espoused cause (e.g. the Toronto Sun/Hamilton Spectator quote) is unjustifiable by any amount of talk page explanation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No pretending necessary, edits have been explained, often explained multiple times except by Keepcalmandcarryon. Accusing editors of having an agenda without proof, and stating editors explaining their edits on the talk page is against policy, is inexplicably wrong and unacceptable.


 * It is against policy to take incomplete and misleading cherry picked material from the Toronto Sun/Hamilton Spectator to make it appear WPI's lead investigator said something she didn't. Ignoring the weight of other reliable sources that state Mikovits may think XMRV is causal but cautions they have not proven causality is not WP:NPOV.  Continuously reintroducing bias and inaccuracies in the article against consensus without discussion is WP:Tendentious editing by Keepcalmandcarryon. Ward20 (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Explaining one's edits is not against policy, nor have I stated such. Removing reliably sourced material and adding unreliably sourced information (such as the purported Annette Whittemore personal letter) with undue weight IS against policy. Explaining one's edits, however verbosely and with however many links, does not change the violation.
 * Mikovits has clearly stated (in a direct quote, no less) that XMRV causes some of the symptoms associated with CFS, despite an utter lack of data to support this claim. This is notable and well sourced (and rather interesting behaviour for a leading scientist). That she may have contradicted herself in other interviews, as WPI has apparently contradicted itself on the source of its samples, may be worth noting but does not change the fact that she said what she said. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've picked up one point out of many and even then didn't reply to the issues discussed about. This is not a resonable base to ignore the above. -- TerryE (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The continued removal of the reliably sourced "purported" Annette Whittemore open letter to Dr. McClure on WPI's website (where anyone can view it) is WP:Tendentious editing. The letter addresses the cohort question and offers a solution to solve the studies' differences. The material is pertinent to the issues. This is WPI's article, so the views on the issues expressed by WPI on their website should carry weight.


 * Removing a complete quote by Mikovits and substituting a partial quote that omits key wording (while citing the complete quote on the talk page) is also WP:Tendentious editing. As I previously pointed out, in the NYT article she states they have not proven causality with XMRV. Yet your version ignores the weight of the NYTimes article and only includes the differing material from the Toronto Sun/Hamilton Spectator. An editor's opinion of what is notable (based on a solitary contradicted source) and their opinion of a scientist should not dictate what is included in the article.


 * You have also reverted twice today a number of improvements and other issues discussed above by editors Terry and myself (using an edit summary that tries to cast doubt on editors) against consensus without any discussion of those topics by yourself. Reverting to NPOV version . Ward20 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A personal letter is not usually a reliable source, even when posted online and, in any case, giving it two paragraphs is undue. Furthermore, this is Wikipedia's article about WPI; it is not WPI's article. Secondary sources will always take precedence over primary sources, and as numerous previous commenters have stated, this article has relied too much on the quite biased primary WPI sources.
 * As I stated previously, Mikovits has made conflicting statements about causation, just as she has apparently made conflicting statements about the source of her samples. That doesn't mean that individual editors with transparent agendas get to delete information with which they disagree. Partial or full quote: it doesn't matter, but we need to make clear that WPI has not consistently stated that causation has not been proven. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem reporting this Incline / multiple regions of the US dispute if we do it in a balanced way. SW is quoting vanK whose own text isn't supported by his reference.  It is also in direct conflict with the original Science paper that SW was also supposed to be commenting on (I do wonder whether SW/MM bothered to read the supporting material) and subsequent WPI statements.  If we can come up with a neat way of saying all this then fine, otherwise omit it.  Ditto, Mikovits conflicting statements about causation: find a reasonable printed RS or mainline site as a reference and we can put it in.  However, these are minor points in the overall mass revert that you are hanging off this.  -- TerryE (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can reliably say anything about why the studies differ. If you are being objective you have to admit that both WPI and the other studies both studied 'proper CFS' patients. And as I pointed out above there is evidence that it is the tests that are different. If you want to say something about the criticism of the Science article, you might want to use this or this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The letter was publicly published by WPI. It's a reliable source of what AW stated in the letter on behalf of WPI which is all that is stated in the article. It meets WP:V, see WP:SELFPUB. It's on topic, relevant to the section, and is not undue. Wikipedia's article about WPI should state the views of WPI as well as other sources about WPI. Contrary to Keepcalmandcarryon's assertion of secondary sources, van Kuppeveld's article is a primary source. McClure's BMJ article is simply an opinion piece written by non neutral parties which refers back to the same van Kuppeveld primary source, so the material comes from one primary source that is disputed by the Science paper and WPI. Those sources along with the material are presently represented in the article in a neutral version.


 * As far as the Mikovits' statement, it hasn't been removed from the article at all, but sources don't state it's notable, and it doesn't merit also being in the lead, especially when more notable sources such as the NYTimes dispute it.


 * Other parts of the reverts removed improvements to the article discussed comprehensively on the talk page, and introduced biased or wrong information which has been opposed by multiple editors on the talk pages and in edit summaries. Please stop editing against consensus. Ward20 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) On the TorontoSun/Hamilton Spectator versus the New York Times: wrong comparison. It's Judy Mikovits vs Judy Mikovits. If I am a prominent scientist and I state in one place that HIV does not cause AIDS, all the while admitting in the New York Times that I have not proven this, the New York Times is not disputing the first source. And you would probably be correct to call me an AIDS denialist. What our special interest editors do not seem to appreciate is that noteworthiness, like consensus, is not always a matter of tallying scores. Maybe it's not fair, but (to give an example), of Senator Harry Reid's thousands of comments about African Americans during his career, the unrepresentative outlier stands out. Similarly, Judy Mikovits's unguarded comment about causation is interesting and relevant precisely because it represents the idea espoused by so many of the more activist CFS patients and physicians like TerryE and Ward20 (that CFS is a purely physiological phenomenon, caused by an infection) and what the Whittemores' history suggests is the guiding light of WPI's founding: the belief that a virus causes CFS and has not been found yet simply because of a conspiracy-driven suppression of research.

A personal letter by Annette Whittemore has no place in a general encyclopaedia unless it has been covered in a secondary source. Even then, it does not merit two paragraphs. Ratchet the absurd up a notch: the special interest editors maintain that while a personal letter placed on a website is worth two paras, a commentary by the world's most notable CFS expert and a leading retrovirologist in one of the world's most prestigious medical journals is inadmissible under our sourcing policies. That's simply bizarre, a circumstance that a vote of two (or three, or more) individuals with outspoken views on the subject cannot change. Strongly POV editors, whether two, four, or six, especially those with largely single-purpose editing histories, do not constitute a consensus to overturn WP:PSTS or WP:UNDUE. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I broadly accept that Ks latest set of edits represent a counter offer towards consensus, and I thank her for this. I can live with the JM "inconsistent statements" phrasing. The tidy-ups and the NZ blood supply comments add to the article.  The only wording that I am uncomfortable with is the wording of the SW/MM editorial.  If we are going to leave this in then at least we should get this accurate. -- TerryE (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We are reporting a controversy over claims about the "Incline Village statement". This is not "medical information" in the sense of MEDRS. So no we are not obliged to accept one set of opinions over another, as we are not here to present one side of this dispute and censor the other. We either report this dispute in it entirety, or we report both sides accurately.  My latest version is an accurate summary of the facts, messy and regrettable as  they are:
 * vanK made a statement in his paper based on a reference.
 * Yet it wasn't supported by his cited reference.
 * There was clearly contradictory statement in the Science paper that was also cited in the VanK paper but yet this statement was not quoted by vanK.
 * SW/MM wrote an editorial which was a review across all previous papers. They chose to publish the VanK interpretation yet also ignored the Science statement.
 * WPI have refuted/clarified this in many presentations and the letter. (Many of these were well publicised and predated both the vanK paper and BMJ editorial.)   I have included the letter reference and omitted a string of presentation references, but I can add them if you really want.  This letter is simply evidence that WPI dispute this claim and is a perfectly valid RS for this use.
 * If any of these statements are factually incorrect then give me the references; let me know, and we can discuss it. I would prefer to omit this squabble in its entirety, but K won't accept this, so we default to the entire factual inclusion. -- TerryE (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC) (moved from earlier section to correct slot -- 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Again, "Strongly POV editors". If you have a complaint then discuss it on our talk pages or file an ANI / RFC whatever, otherwise please stop making attacks.  It gets very tedious. -- TerryE (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * K, How on earth can you purport to be carrying out an unbiased edit if you remove all the views and comment by one of the parties? This section is "Conflicting reports on XMRV and CFS" -- that is we are exploring conflicts in the view of the various actors not acting as lobbyists on the part of one.  I have removed this section until we can resolve this in discussion.  We need to omit this in its entirety or accept the principle that both parties perspectives must be reported.  Where are my facts above wrong?  Paper A  makes statement X ("many regions"). Paper B cites A but ignores X, but claims Y ("all Incline") citing some conference abstract.  Paper C cites A and B quoting Y but again ignoring X.  I have many references consistent with X which I can add to this.  The 'only' reference which I can find which support Y is this hearsay.  I can find no WPI paper, announcement or presentation which is consistent will this statement. -- TerryE (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The solution is not to delete the BMJ information, but to extend a balanced, NPOV description of the various versions of WPI's claims. One claim is that the samples were from Incline Village. This claim was made by Mikovits in Lisbon. This is verified by two sources in the BMJ, including at least one peer-reviewed article. It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to exclude a reliable source by accusing the authors of fabrication, distortion, or ignoring evidence. The BMJ is a reliable source.
 * NPOV description, by the way, would not include the word "ignoring". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is - just include both the BMJ comment and WPI's letter of rebuttal. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the BMJ is a reliable source and a personal letter on the WPI website is not. The BMJ letter and a description of the WPI supplementary material would be preferable, I think...worded in such a way as not to imply the BMJ articles are "ignoring" anything on purpose. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in WP:SELFPUBLISH or WP:PSTS that states the letter is not a RS, rather that it is a RS:
 * ": Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source..."


 * The WPI letter rebuttal was in this verison and removed by Keepcalmandcarryon.


 * "Annette Whittemore writing on behalf of the Whittemore Peterson Institute to one of the British study authors (McClure), has stated, "...patients in the Science study were well defined in the paper as having CFS by the Fukuda and Canadian consensus definitions of ME/CFS. More importantly the patient samples did not come from the “Lake Tahoe outbreak” as you assert, but rather from patients who had become ill while living in various parts of the United States."


 * Not only that, the guote from the letter is completely compatible with the science article. Ward20 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the best way to tell this is as a chronology, reporting the statements from the various parties and leave the readers to spot the inconsistencies. -- TerryE (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have restored the content that K wants and removed any OR interpretations. I have also inserted the relevant chronology for the WPI statements.  The first two are recorded in the Science paper and minutes issued by the HHS, so these are irrefutable.  The AW letter is only used here in the context of supporting this timeline.  I know that this is somewhat long, but I don't think it can be shortened much without introducing bias.  I am also trying to track down an RS for Mikovits slide deck at the Lisbon conference and if I find that I will slot it into the time sequence.  Any interpretation are now left to the reader.  Despite what K claims, I've tracked pretty much all of the web accessible talks and slide decks by JM et al and their story on the sample is very consistent in line with what is listed here.  The only one who seems to claim otherwise is K and she has yet to provide any direct evidence to support this statement.

I also notice that this repeats an earlier point so I will remove this duplication. -- TerryE (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops - reverted wrong thing
I just meant to revert the Anon's edits, but I inadvertantly also reverted TerryE's latest change as well. Sorry about that. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Ward20 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Anon's reverts
Anon says that the ref doesn't support the text, but it does if you pay for the full-text. Most journals are pay-only so we can't exclude a ref because of that. Also there are lots of free versions of the full-text on the web if you care to look. I'm not edit warring, so I'll leave it to someone else to revert back. If this keeps up we will simply protect the article so that Anons can't edit it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This edit by 86.159.3.27 deleted material.


 * Here is the wording from the source Reno-researchers dispute-British-challenge-to-virus-discovery So 86.159.3.27, please describe how the source doesn't support the article wording, suggest other wording or revert yourself. Thanks.

""But McClure and her team did not duplicate the scientific techniques used by the Whittemore-Peterson Institute in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the Cleveland Clinic, Judy Mikovits, a lead researcher at the institute, said Tuesday.

"You can't claim to replicate a study if you don't do a single thing that we did in our study," she said. "They skewed their experimental design in order to not find XMRV in the blood."

The Whittemore-Peterson Institute issued a statement saying the British study was published after only three days of review as opposed to the institute study that underwent six months of vigorous peer review plus confirmation by three independent laboratories before it was published in Science magazine.

The statement also cited different techniques used in the British study that make its conclusions meaningless, including the use of a molecular plasmid control in water instead of a positive blood sample.

"They paid to have their study published in the Public Library of Science, and it was then picked up by Science (magazine)," said Mikovits said, who suspects insurance companies in the United Kingdom are behind attempts to sully the findings of the Reno study.""


 * Ward20 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We are getting some mass deletions previously from IP 86.159.3.27 (Solihull, UK), from IP 86.133.108.42 (~ Hereford, UK), IP 86.133.108.188 (~ Hereford, UK); possibly external forum coordinated meet puppets.  I propose that we treat such anon bulk deletes as vandalism unless the IPs concerned show evidence of compliance with the WP policies and guidelines and explain their edits within this framework.  We already have some strong views amongst the editors on this page and we can only work successfully if we all stick to the rules.  In the case of these last content deletes, the content was all underpinned by appropriate RS, and in my view, it also presented a balanced view that favoured neither party. IP86, please highlight were content does not reflect RS, propose RS based content or enter into a constructive debate on this talk page.  Don't do bulk deletions without rational justification.  -- TerryE (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should assume these IPs are all the same person because they are all btcentralplus. It also seems to be the same person as Goldstein123. This person has been causing disruption on the CFS pages recently - edit warring, pov pushing, personal attacks and refusing to work with other editors or discuss issues. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

it is amusing to see editors like sciencewatcher accusing people of an agenda when they themselves clearly have a negative agenda, the editors on the CFS pages, including whittemore institute pages are clearly breaking rules and flaunting wikipedia editing policy, do you not feel ashamed to be writing such biased edits? -- 86.133.108.188   17:35 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, IP86, that is your PoV. I also think that this tale is a mess and would prefer it removed, though I don't think it does WIP discredit. However, this clearly occurred and two other editors wish to retain the BMJ reporting of this patient cohort, so we need to reflect both sides from the appropriate RS.


 * Re the JM quote from the RGJ, you will see that there is a whole dialogue on this in the talk page archives. The source is reputable and if anything Lenita Powers is a pro "the home team" WPI in her reporting.  JM has had subsequent interviews with her, so it can hardly be viewed as slander.  About the only dubious interpretation is K's wording uses "accuses" which the reporter didn't, but to state that another research team slewed their results is an accusation and our consensus was to accept this.  What is perhaps more suspect is the statement "with Judy Mikovits accusing the British team ... of participating in an insurance company plot to discredit WPI's results." since the actual reported content was '" ... " said Mikovits said, who suspects insurance companies in the United Kingdom are behind attempts to sully the findings of the Reno study.' in other words it was not a direct quotation in the reporters opinion she suspected, which is a lot weaker that a direct quote of an accusation.


 * You have also breached WP:3RR -- TerryE (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done 2 reverts and want to stay away from 3RR myself so I'll leave it to the other editors to act here. One proposal that we might consider is a more faithful reflection of the RS that avoid any accusations of embellishment: "with the WPI's Judy Mikovits accusing the British team of skewing its study and in an interview for the Reno Gazette and Journal; the reporter felt that Mikovits suspected the British team of participating in an insurance company plot to discredit WPI's results. -- TerryE (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)I agree that the IP is not discussing their edits to achieve dispute resolution on the talk page. This is actually too bad (are you listening IP?) because there is one edit summary that could use discussion, "this section is irrelevent, it was a confusion between a few scientists, it was never a "controversy". This is in part true, there are no media sources or involved parties that called it a controversy. van Kuppeveld, McClure and Wessely simply had a difference of opinion on the cohort and advanced several hypnoses (the article only talks about one based on a single epidemic population). Other sources and WPI confirmed the original "Science" paper. The material may merit article inclusion. Consensus may be that it should be called controversy, but it seems to me more an artifact of the editing recently rather than what the issue actually represents. No significant third party source I know of has even commented on this topic at all, much less calling it a controversy. The whole section is uses primary sources and one editorial opinion by involved parties. Terry stated earlier that it may not merit inclusion and I tend to agree. The IP obviously does, and it would be much more constructive and not disruptive if s/he would engage in the topics and not discuss the editors. Ward20 (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I made some compromise edits to try to obtain neutrality. Ward20 (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming of individuals
This was a point raised by K in an earlier discussion thread. I have been reading the article through and one thing that does strike me is the inconsistency in description of the actors in this article. What we should try to do here is fall in line with the MOS guidelines (including Bio and Med) for describing them. So where possible we should introduce and describe the person once and thereafter just use the surname. The one exception here is the Whittemores, where we should use "Whittemore" to describe Annette as she is the officer of the company and "Harvey Whittemore" to describe her husband.

One other change that I will do here is to hoist the Organisation section to above the mission section, so that we can describe people like Mikovits in the correct context. -- TerryE (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have finished this clean-up. I also removed the second case of some duplicated points and move a couple of points to the correct section.  My intention here was keep emphasis / content the same and only improve readability / standardise as per MOS.  If you fand any material content changes that I have accidentally made, then I apologise.  Let me know.  -- TerryE (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of quotes in XMRV/CFS controversy.)
Thanks to 87.115.177.29 for pointing this one out. Where do I begin: I have replaced K's version with one taken directly from the source. Perhaps it is longer but it concentrates on the meat of the WPI response rather than a tabloid summary. -- 02:13, 29 January 2010 TerryE (talk)
 * K's content: ... Soon after publication of the Science paper, Lombardi[3] and his company, owned by the Whittemores,[6] began selling the diagnostic kit for $650. Virologist John Coffin and Myra McClure, corresponding author for the British team, expressed concerns that Lombardi's team were taking advantage of patients' hunger for information. In response, Judy Mikovits stated that the UK researchers had "skewed their experimental design in order to not find XMRV in the blood". Mikovits opined that the British team had paid to have their study reviewed quickly and published in the Public Library of Science as part of a UK insurance company plot to discredit the WPI findings. [My Ital to highlight to content in discussion]
 * RS wording: "You can't claim to replicate a study if you don't do a single thing that we did in our study," she said. "They skewed their experimental design in order to not find XMRV in the blood." The Whittemore-Peterson Institute issued a statement saying the British study was published after only three days of review as opposed to the institute study that underwent six months of vigorous peer review plus confirmation by three independent laboratories before it was published in Science magazine. The statement also cited different techniques used in the British study that make its conclusions meaningless, including the use of a molecular plasmid control in water instead of a positive blood sample. "They paid to have their study published in the Public Library of Science, and it was then picked up by Science (magazine)," said Mikovits said, who suspects insurance companies in the United Kingdom are behind attempts to sully the findings of the Reno study.
 * 1) This is a another RS mangling on the part of K
 * 2) The cited source was interviewing JK in the context of a response to the Imperial Study; it had nothing to do with the VIP Dx test. (Though this may just be bad editorial juxtaposition
 * 3) The "They skewed ... " and "They paid ..." are direct quotes, but the predicate to the first "You can't ..." is an important context which should not have been omitted. These statements where in the context of the referenced formal response press release January 6, 2010: Official Statement from the Whittemore Peterson Institute Regarding UK Study from WPI yet this isn't referenced.
 * 4) JM did not "opine", that is state as an opinion "that the British team ...". The wording "who suspects ... " was an interpretation of Letina Powers, the cited journalist.  This was [somewhat provocative] hearsay should not be directly attributed to JW.

Latest Keepcalmandcoarryon / RetroS1mone reverts
Surely if editors wish to start reverting to old versions past those established by consensus, then they should at least refere back to previous discussions and explain why they differ. Simply ignoring these for a few weeks and reverting without reference is simply WP:TE. In one particular case of Ks edits, we have discussed this in previous talk dialogue. Yes the RS headline does use the phrase "FDA rejects Hemispherx’s chronic fatigue drug Ampligen" but the content implies (as the actual FDA ruling makes explicit) that this was for marketing and full release. The RS itself states "The agency is recommending Hemispherx conduct at least one additional clinical study, involving a minimum of 300 patients ..." -- precisely the same license that Peterson used applied for treating AWG. If you had a problem with this, then you should have raised this when we first discussed this. -- TerryE (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This extreme and (on the part of at least one editor here) conflict of interest-prompted whitewashing of Ampligen's history and status is akin to saying, "heavy calibre automatic assault rifles are approved for limited use". That's technically true: the Armed Forces and perhaps certain agencies are permitted to have them. But it's also a violation of weight: most people are not allowed to own or use heavy calibre weaponry. Ampligen was rejected. Focusing on trivia that can be salvaged from this wreckage betrays a POV that's incompatible with encyclopaedia writing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I am lost. What conflict of interest could I have here?  Ampligen isn't approved in the UK for anything.  If you've read my User page recently then you will know that I am largely in remission from my last ~30 month illness.  I have absolutely no incentives for promoting Ampligen as even if I could get an approved supply, I wouldn't dream of using such an unproven (for general treatment) anti-viral.  What heavy calibre weaponry do I have?  This analogy has really lost me.  I only pointed out that the actual FDA announcement and the RS asked for further clinical trials -- the same umbrella under which Peterson treated AWB, and which he abandoned before cofounding WPI.  Perhaps we should go back to the debated that we held from Feb through April where we pointed out that this article is about WPI.   The FDA / Ampligen interaction is described fully in the Ampligen article.  Perhaps there is an argument for including the Ampligen reference in the Peterson article as his involvement with Ampligen is clear, but WPI have made no statements about Ampligen and as far as we know they aren't involved in Ampligen research at all.  My suggestion last month that we use the wording about its use being limited to clinical / experimental trials was intended as compromise wording to try to avoid what must now be your 7th revert on this.  My preference would be to remove this piece of WP:COATRACK in its entirety.   -- TerryE (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ampligen is rejected from FDA, it failed, ok. Take it out from article or it needs to say medrs, the drug does not work by FDA approval. RetroS1mone   talk  06:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just come across this . Yes, I know it isn't RS and we need to wait for the RS papers, but what this does demonstrate that WPI are studying Ampligen, and I therefore withdraw my assertion that Ampligen is nothing to do with WPI.  -- TerryE (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)