User talk:MastCell

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear MastCell: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy ^Talk 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Citrus aurantium

I'd be grateful if you would allow me to improve this article without interjecting your own biases. I don't know what you have against bitter orange-containing supplements, but I can assure you that I couldn't care less if they all disappeared from the market tomorrow. What I am trying to do (if you'd just leave my stuff alone long enough) is to present an "encyclopedic" article which covers as many aspects of this topic as possible. WP's "Citrus aurantium" article should not focus on one controversial use of the material. It's pretty clear to me that you have not read (or do not have the specialized knowledge required to fully understand) some of the citations which you so staunchly defend or so ardently oppose. It is certainly evident that you have not read widely on this subject, or you would not make statements like "the changes in wording seem to downplay the content/emphasis of reliable sources". What makes you the arbiter of what is or is not a "reliable" source?

Let's take an example of what you consider to be a fair and balanced statement: "Following an incident in which a healthy young man suffered a myocardial infarction (heart attack) linked to bitter orange, a case study found that dietary supplement manufacturers had replaced ephedra with its analogs from bitter orange." How exactly was bitter orange linked to the heart attack? The authors reported what they apparently read on the label of the supplement - they didn't do any chemical analysis of its actual contents, hence my use of the word "ostensibly". Furthermore, the thrust of this publication did not concern the replacement of ephedra by its analogs - a subject on which the authors did not exactly have any objective evidence, nor any professional authority. Indeed, if you really want to be pedantic, "ephedra" is a plant genus including a number of different species, some of which do not contain any of the stereoisomers of ephedrine. Even if you restrict yourself to the specific "Ephedra sinica", which does contain ephedrine isomers (which do not have identical biological properties and are present in varying proportions), how does it equate to "analogs from bitter orange"? Which "analogs"? I'm sure you know what you meant, but your statement isn't exactly a model of clarity and veracity. Xprofj (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear: the bitter-orange-related heart attack was described here in the medical literature. The authors clearly implicated synephrine: "Although the nutritional supplement in question, Nutrex Lipo-6x, contains a variety of sympathomimetic and stimulant compounds, the most likely culprit for the induction of coronary artery spasm is synephrine, consequent to its structural and pharmacologic similarities to ephedra." You don't get to editorially disparage the published source in the article simply because you personally disagree with its findings. And, in contradiction to your assertion, the journal article does go into detail about the ban on ephedra and its replacement with other related sympathomimetics (see both the introduction and the middle paragraphs of the discussion).

I think that the text I included is a fair and accurate representation of the cited source - which is, after all, our goal as Wikipedia editors. If you prefer more precise wording about ephedra vs. ephedrine, then feel free to propose some such changes. It's probably best to conduct further discussion at Talk:Bitter orange rather than here, so that other interested editors can comment. I've already posted there. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that the use of the word "ostensibly" constitutes "editorial disparagement". I don't disagree with the findings of this particular paper, I disagree with the biased summary in the WP article that I tried to replace. By the way, thankyou for inviting me to feel free to propose changes to the precise wording re ephedra vs ephedrine. Feel free to be be peremptory in your editing with someone else. If you refer to what I actually wrote to you, above, you'll see that I used the word "thrust" in regard to the content of the paper. Precise terminology is important. Citrus aurantium does not equal "synephrine" does not equal Neo-synephrine does not equal "ephedra analogs". Scientifically, this is gibberish, and what better place to clarify the issues than in an encyclopedia?

Look, I don't want this to turn into a shoving contest, because it wastes time that both of us could be using more profitably elsewhere, and I know my subject too well to back down. You write that you "think" that what you've written is a fair and accurate representation of the original source. Well, what if I "think" otherwise? If you really care about the quality and accuracy of WP articles as much as I do, you should exercise a bit of self-scrutiny, not to mention self-restraint, and ask yourself why you feel so strongly about the subject of Citrus aurantium-containing supplements. What sort of prejudice do you hold against Herbalgram (or, perhaps, Mark Blumenthal, or herbal medication in general)? The Web article I cited was in support of the reference to marmalade, and if you bother to read it, you'll see it has a pretty decent description of the product (of course, you'll probably disagree with my assessment of "pretty decent"). I used this citation, not because I secretly wanted to further the cause of Supplements, but because I felt that as a Web-based source of information about the use of Citrus aurantium in marmalade, it would be easily accessible to most WP readers.

If your agenda is to warn an unsuspecting public about the dangers of Citrus aurantium, I suggest you marshal your evidence fully and properly, and write it down somewhere instead of taking me to task for the use of the word "ostensibly" in regard to a single publication with a particular viewpoint. I'll be glad to summarize it and put it into the appropriate WP article.Xprofj (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not an expert on the pharmacology or toxicology of sympathomimetics; I accept your implication that you know the subject better than I. But I do have some experience with spoken and written English. "Ostensibly" is a word used to communicate the speaker's skepticism about the claim that follows. It's not really appropriate, for instance, to summarize an article about AIDS with: "HIV ostensibly causes AIDS."

I'm sorry I'm coming across as peremptory - really, I apologize. But that's how Wikipedia works. When you contribute here, your writing gets edited, and sometimes completely removed, by other editors - some of whom know less about the subject that you do. It happens to all of us. It can be really annoying. At the same time, people who respond to editing conflicts by asserting their real-life authority and knowledge, or with chest-thumping along the lines of "I know my subject too well to back down", usually don't end up thriving here. It's just not the sort of place where that approach works, for better or worse.

To answer your question, if we disagree about the best way to cover the topic, then we need to try to resolve the dispute via this site's dispute-resolution process. The first step is to discuss the issue and get outside input at the article talk page.

To answer your other questions, I don't hold any prejudice against bitter orange, and I'm not even sure who Mark Blumenthal is. I'm pretty confident that an herbal-industry trade publication isn't the best place to find scholarly, objective information about a dietary supplement. As to "warning an unsuspecting public", I think it's enough to honestly and accurately present the current understanding of the safety and efficacy of specific dietary supplements - without trying to put our thumbs on the scale with words like "ostensibly". That's our job, and if we do it well, then the reader can draw their own conclusions. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Belchfile

I left a note on my talk page, but wanted to ping you personally. Belchfire got an indef for continuing to sock, yet again. And a CU block at that, so no non-CU will be reviewing it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I can't say I'm surprised, but I do wish we'd cut the cord sooner - like maybe around his 4th or 5th block for partisan edit-warring. The drain on time and goodwill that these sorts of editors cause is really disappointing. I wish we had a more effective approach to the problem of tendentious, ideologically driven editing. Dealing with these sorts of folks is as responsible as any one factor for our failure to retain good editors, and for the process of disillusionment and cynicism that turns once-polite and effective editors into burnt-out, snippy grouches. MastCell ^Talk 16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

On conflict of interest

Hey. Just a few comments with respect to User_talk:SlimVirgin#Thanks. Yes it's absurd that PR guys could suggest changes to an article in a serious encyclopedia, but I think it's a good idea to point out a lot of what happens in wikipedia would be absurd in a serious encyclopedia. I think we can agree that in principle a paid PR person either has a COI issue, and sometimes are paid to POV push. But we have plenty of editors here who are perfectly happy to POV push for free.

We've had true believers pushing material in innumerable articles. It would be absurd for professional astrologers to edit the astrology articles (particular the scientific criticism), dowsers edit the dowsing articles, etc etc, but this happens in wikipedia. They argue criticism from the article and it's not even contentious that they do it; in fact most editors would consider it rude to point out in a discussion that the person is an astrologer, dowser etc. We've also had a scientifically illiterate climate denialist skewing the Hurricane Sandy article during the Hurricane (just look at the "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" part on the talk page). The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster got skewed and is still skewed as a result of the anti-nuclear editors (who seem particularly strong on wikipedia). There are tons of examples like this; these pushes are invariably very public high volume articles, and very embarrassing for wikipedia's credibility. None of these things would happen in a serious encyclopedia, but they do here. We have to live with the fact that people who have serious issues disconnecting their private beliefs from what is most prevalent in the most reliable sources edit wikipedia, and no one opposes it because those editors aren't paid. Wikipedia will never be perfect, it will always reflect these sorts of POV to some degree since anyone can edit.

At least with paid editors who've declared a COI, they keep their hands off the articles, and other editors use their judgement; if an editor has no judgement they face the consequences. I suppose an analogous argument would be, if a regular editor had found BP's material on their website (and not given on the talk page) under the GFDL and CC-by-SA and fully sourced, would you consider anything improper to have happened if they decided to incorporated it in (perhaps this misses some of the subtleties of the arguments). I don't think it's ideal to have paid editors, but I think wikipedia has much more serious issues with different editors who are here to push a POV pro bono. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, but I see what you're describing as a false dichotomy. We can be concerned with both amateur POV-pushers and corporate PR efforts. The existence of one doesn't mandate that we ignore the other. (Apologies if I'm over-simplifying your point). I actually view the corporate PR efforts as a greater concern than "amateur" agenda-driven editing, precisely because most Wikipedians don't view the former as a problem and are thus unequipped to address it.

Think about the last few major POV-pushing cases that reached ArbCom (WP:ARBCC, the Abortion case, etc.) - they ended with topic bans for at least some of the POV-pushers. Now look at the last COI issue to reach ArbCom: the Transcendental Meditation case. Remarkably, that case ended up giving a conflicted editor free reign to edit articles in the area of conflict, and permabanned the individual who attempted to address the COI.

I agree we do a piss-poor job of dealing with agenda-driven editing, but I at least have faith that amateur POV-pushers will be handled if one invests the time to bring the situation before a group with a sufficiently high clue level. On the other hand, I have zero confidence that true conflicts of interest, paid editing, or corporate PR influence will be addressed effectively by any of Wikipedia's mechanisms, including ArbCom.

To your last point, I do see a big difference between a freelance editor who happened across material on a BP website and a corporate PR group providing us with material. It's the difference between a physician scouring the medical literature under his/her own initiative, vs. a physician being presented with a pre-selected set of journal articles by a drug rep. These things do matter when it comes to credibility. I get that Wikipedia is different because of our open-editing model, but to me that only makes it even more imperative to think seriously about handling these sorts of conflicts of interest. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the transcendental mediation case is a complete joke. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a pretty terrific statement posted at 11:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC) on the workshop of the TimidGuy ban appeal. It's pretty emblematic of a lot of the ways certain Arbitrators approach editing, both then and now. Not all of them, but unfortunately, not just the author of that statement. NW (Talk) 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbs could learn a good lesson from the Timidguy case if they took the time to examine Transcendental Meditation articles now, a year after the case closed. Maharishi_University_of_Management students and faculty have systematically collaborated to extol the TM movement and remove nearly all critical material. John_Hagelin's hagiographic article was rubber-stamped through GA late last year. I have no inclination to touch those articles because people who edit the topic critically get reprimanded and banned. Skinwalker (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a discussion needs to be held somewhere about the issue of whistleblowing on Wikipedia. What is a Wikipedian supposed to do when they find a serious conflict of interest? We're not allowed to out people onwiki (and I support that), we're not allowed to link to material that might out them (I support that too, but it currently means I can't link to an article in which BP named the BP editor, so it certainly creates a chill), and there's a strong sense from certain editors that we shouldn't even be looking into certain cases. Will was banned after emailing Jimbo with concerns. A member of the ArbCom at the time almost seemed to try to threaten Doc James because Will and Doc had exchanged emails about it. [1] [2] [3] Here yesterday a member of the ArbCom said we shouldn't "bully" the BP editor.

Responsible whistleblowing is increasingly encouraged and respected in the real world, so Wikipedia is very out-of-step. Where there's a demonstrable public-interest issue, rather than some internal Wikipedia spat, editors really shouldn't feel threatened by the ArbCom. How we do encourage editors to feel able to speak out about COI when the issue is clearly serious enough? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, because of my growing concerns, only a few weeks ago I again raised the issue of paid editors with an editor that I thought was sympathetic to the concerns over paid editing and it all ended up with him asking me to delete any reference to our discussion from my talk page and he deleted the discussion from his page as well. I am not suggesting a conspiracy here--it seems he was embarrassed because he thought that he had responded--but never the less it was a very strange experience. In any big corporation, which is what Wikipedia has become, the upper levels just totally loose track of reality and people of all levels just do not like to rock the boat. As MastCell and NW know, I was just devastated when arbcom almost decided that I was not fit to work on some women's articles. That is when I realized that some of the editors that have been promoted to the top positions here are really out of touch with what it's like in the trenches, and Risker certainly made that fact apparent in her/his comments on the BP talk page. And then I was just absolutely floored to read of the fantasy land that Ocaasi lives in. Your "whistle blower" idea is perfect--I know I looked many times for a place to go and nothing was there for me. WP must realize that we have gotten so big that little people, like me, are getting lost in the maze of policies that have been created to keep up with changing times and our increased growth and importance to the larger world of information Unfortunately, on the other hand, these same guidelines that were created with good intentions have further isolated many editors from a way to take part in what attracted us/me to this site in the first place: a people's encyclopedia. I guess? :-)Gandydancer (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Transcendental Meditation research now states "TM improves cardiovascular function in the elderly and slows the aging process". It is mostly a bunch of cherry picked quotes from the literature promoting the practice. Independent sources are not given greater weight than ones written by the faculty of MUM and the practitioners of TM. AHRQ and Cochrane are not given greater weight than the "Journal of Integrative Cardiology". Arbcom has failed. Anyway have tried to restore the content at Transcendental Meditation that was supported by the last RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• @NW Two comments were made @ 11:34, and to me both are problematic. It is worrying that Arbs view "not found health benefits" as grudging negative terms, and view "found comparable benefits" as neutral (to me that would be the opposite, it makes confirming the null hypothesis look like a positive result). Did anyone ever find out what "When editing articles such as this, do you do so primarily from the perspective of a physician?" meant?

These transcendental medicine articles clearly also violate WP:FRINGE on multiple accounts. What sort of stuff were the arbs smoking to explain away the evidence, some of which is damning? The guy looks like he is trying to appear unbiased, but he fails horribly. When someone has a conflict of interest, they can't see their own bias. You need outsiders to judge it. Here is something I just came across which is clearly problematic since it tries to give it more scientific legitimacy:[4]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes and Will Beback managed to keep this sort of promotional / advertising copy to a minimum. Since he has been blocked all the articles now read more or less like a press release for the organization in question.

Wikipedia has become an advertising platform for a "new religious movements" which is attempting to portray itself as a science. And after considerable concerted effort a number of us have been able to do little about this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What Roger Davies meant was entirely apparent - he meant that he seriously considers a physician to have a "conflict of interest" in editing a medical article, by virtue of, I dunno, actually knowing something about medicine (there was some off-wiki follow-up which I'm not going to quote here, but which underlined that interpretation of his comments in the case). And yes, Roger's idea of "grudging negative terms" is curious, to say the least. But this is where ArbCom stands on the subject. They see a real COI concern in the idea of a physician editing a medical article, but they don't have any problem with the BP public-relations team editing the BP article. MastCell ^Talk 22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)