Ice bucket challenge is fine in the history (or even better, society and culture) section, but as it presently exists and gets persistently reverted, it does NOT belong in the top line section. Presently it reads "It became well known in the United States when it affected the famous baseball player Lou Gehrig, and later when the ice bucket challenge became popular in 2014." This is an absolutely idiotic claim that does not belong. It did in fact become known in the United States when it affected Lou Gehrig, hence why its referred to as "Lou Gehrig's Disease." It also received a lot of attention because of Steven Hawking, who is conspicuously absent here. There is no empirical evidence that actual awareness that this is a motor-neuron disease that affects some people increased because of the ice bucket challenge. Money for research certainly increased, and stupid videos of people dropping buckets of ice on their heads increased, but you show me ONE piece of data that shows that more people knew that ALS existed because of the ice bucket challenge. Footnote 12 (which by the way is a broken link), certainly doesn't appear to support this, I googled it and found the article, but its behind a paywall, it seems to kind of make a statement that it "increased awareness" but it doesn't appear to even be an article that addressed this question. As this reads in its present form, it sounds as though nobody except a few experts knew what ALS was, then the ice bucket challenge came along. This is a completely idiotic claim and I will continue to delete that sentence until it stays out of that part of the article. You've got two damn extended pieces on the ice bucket challenge in both "history" and "society and culture." It does not need to be at the end of the intro, particularly in a way that lacks empirical support.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 27 January 201 (UTC)
please, take a breath. I am sorry you cannot access the article citing greater awareness. I can email it to you, if you like. I've added content about Hawking to the lead - I think that is a good point that he should be included there. The content about ice bucket challenge is well sourced, and whatever you think of the idiocy of the crowd, it had a big impact on public awareness. Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The ice bucket challenge has generated reliable sources and thus we include it. The lead summarizes the article and thus deals with social cultural and historical aspects of disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There was a brief mention of The Ice Bucket Challenge in the History section - I don't think it is fair to call the brie mention in the History section an "extended piece" by any reasonable use of that term. but i do think the occurrence was redundant, so I moved that sentence into the Society and Culture section. I'd like to re-settle the article. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Here in the UK I've just seen the TV broadcast by Larry Stogner, news anchor for ABC affiliate WTVD in North Carolina for 40 years, and participant in the 2014 Ice Bucket Challenge, announcing his imminent retirement owing to his being diagnosed with ALS - very moving to watch. Should he get a mention in the main Wikipedia article? ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
About this dif by Complexitydaemon, with an edit note about replacing the citation needed tag with "Dunlop et al. as PLoS ONE is a reputable peer reviewed electronic journal." and this dif by Guy...
per MEDRS, the fact that a source is "reputable peer reviewed" is not relevant -- MEDRS really emphasizes that we use secondary sources for health related content (per policies WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and the general WP:RS guideline, all content should always be based on secondary sources -- MEDRS is just more anal about it). Please especially read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources which specifically talks about avoiding primary sources hyped by the media; the additional sources that Guy added are just media hype. We aim for MEDRS-compliant secondary sources -- review articles published in the biomedical literature or statements by major medical & scientific bodies... If yuo are puzzled by the anality (?) of MEDRS, please see the lead of my draft essay, Why MEDRS?, which attempts to explain it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of good secondary sources for this condition. We should use them instead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually my view is we should use them *as well*. The Dunlop paper was widely reported, and is plainly reliable, relevant and important. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog I have found a review paper that covers BMAA misincorporation and added it in with revision . Complexitydaemon (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
nice find!!! i was just reading it, with great interest. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This actually bears somewhat on a recent discussion at WT:MED#Primary studies, about the nuances of when, how, and if we should cite primary publications—in particular, how we should cite primary sources alongside secondary sources. In that discussion, my opinion was that it was sometimes going to be useful to our readers (and beneficial for our articles) to cite important, high-quality primary studies on which our high-quality secondary sources relied.
I (and that discussion) didn't really contemplate the precise circumstance here, where the high-quality secondary source promulgates a hypothesis regarding disease etiology and a subsequent primary publication presents new data to support that hypothesis. (The third citation, a mention on a 'regular' news website, doesn't really matter either way. It just means that someone's university is good at writing a press release, not that the research is particularly noteworthy.)
I also don't know what the best practice is to deal with an issue like this, where we have a primary study carried out in cell culture that attempts to address a question of biological mechanism. On the one hand, it's not directly offering clinical advice or clear medical conclusions. On the other hand – leaving aside entirely WP:MEDRS – absent specific secondary peer-reviewed journal articles which address this specific study, it's difficult to assign an appropriate WP:WEIGHT to its findings. And if we give a particular spotlight to a particular potential etiology, then it's only a matter of time before we see ads for the $10,000 "De-BMAA herbal cleanse! Remove the secret toxin Big Pharma doesn't want you to know about!" It's a sticky question, and I'm concerned about what happens if we let the primary literature (even the in vitro literature) get too far ahead of the secondary literature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)