Talk:Simon Wessely/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comments 1.1 exchange 1 1.2 exchange 2 1.3 exchange 3 1.4 exchange 4 1.5 exchange 5 2 What the huh? 3 Criticism section 3.1 10 Feb 2006 4 Links 5 Simon Wessely Training and Interests 6 ME Association (UK) and other sources 7 For future reference 8 Photo? 9 The One Click Group 10 Where are the archives? 11 Psychiatric paradigm 12 An email from Simon Wessely 13 Illegible 14 Archiving

[edit] Comments

The following was added by an anonymous IP on 3 Feb, 2006:

The Gresham College fiasco

On the evening of Wednesday 25 January, 2006 a protest had been planned to coincide with a lecture being given by Professor Wessely at Gresham College, Barnard's Inn Hall, London.

The lecture, entitled "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: The true story of Gulf War Syndrome". had been widely advertised on the Gresham College website and elsewhere, as had the call for a protest.

Throughout the day of the lecture, members of the public telephoning or visiting the college in person with enquiries about that evening's lecture or for information about wheelchair access, were being told that the event had been cancelled by Professor Wessely, and would no longer be taking place. But the lecture went ahead as planned and despite the "cancellation" so did the protest.

Professor Wessely was invited to issue a public statement accounting for what appeared to be a deliberate attempt on the part of the college administrators to mislead those who planned to attend the demonstration or the lecture itself - which included Professor Malcolm Hooper and the Countess of Mar. The administrators of Gresham College and Professor Wessely have failed to explain to the public and the press why they were being told that this lecture would no longer be going ahead whilst all the time the chairs were being put out for this event.

Obviously this needs to be backed by citations fro reliable sources, and if it is verified it needs to be reworded to conform in neutral terms.

[edit] exchange 1

Citation [1] Added by MEagenda 3 February 2006

From Malcolm Hooper Ph.D.,B.Pharm.,C.Chem.,MRIC http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Gresham_college_letter_By_Malcolm_Hooper.html

From Malcolm Hooper Ph.D.,B.Pharm.,C.Chem.,MRIC Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry School of Sciences Fleming Building Wharncliffe Street University of Sunderland SUNDERLAND SR2 3SD

Phone 0191 515 2501 FAX 0191 515 3405 Public Relations Office 0191 515 2691 Chief Scientific Adviser to the Gulf Veterans' Association

web site http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism

26 January 2006

Dear Sir,

I attended the lecture on Gulf War Syndrome by Professor Simon Wessely on Jan 25th at 6.00 pm.

I write to express my extreme disquiet about the proceedings surrounding the lecture which led to many, including myself being totally misled about whether the lecture would be cancelled or not. Repeatedly, I phoned 3 times, I was told categorically by your office staff that the lecture had been cancelled and had been withdrawn from the College web site. Several others were similarly informed, including one member of the House of Lords.

When Professor Wessely was contacted directly he gave a clear assurance that the lecture would proceed to one person, but indicated to me that he "had not yet decided" about whether he would proceed with the lecture. The whole thing became a farce with disturbing overtones of deception and obfuscation. Wittingly or unwittingly your staff were drawn into all this. These activities reflect very badly on the College and particularly since no apology for all the confusion was offered to those attending the lecture. The College prides itself on providing public lectures in honour of its Founder. To be faced with such dissimulation is not in accord with the ethos behind the lectures and besmirches the honour of Sir Thomas Gresham.

I have written elsewhere about the contents of the lecture and will forward a copy to you. To do this important subject justice it is important that you invite a response from someone who can present a more up to date and hopeful picture of the truth about Gulf War Syndrome that comprehensively covers the peer reviewed literature particularly that which shows the extent of sickness among veterans and the failure of Government to care for all the sick veterans.

I would be willing to give such a lecture if invited.

Yours sincerely

Malcolm Hooper

So that's a letter from someone with a grudge, have you got any reliable sources? I believe the transcript begins by saying that Wessely strongly considered cancelling due to physical threats against him, which adequately explains any confusion. We know form past history that some people hate the man, so it's not a surprise to hear that he was threatened - having seen what the One Click mob do to innocent bystanders I can quite see why anyone would think twice before potentially setting themselves up in front of a baying mob. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] exchange 2

No, that is a letter from a highly respected UK university professor and I strongly object to your suggestion that Professor Hooper cannot be considered a "reliable source". Professor Wessely was present at the venue during the afternoon talking to the public. He had a young boy with him. During the lecture he gave out the address of his home and named the pub he would be drinking in after the lecture - the behaviour of a frightened man? A large number of the seats in the main lecture room appeared to have been reserved and were occupied by a party of schoolchildren and students.

Neither Gresham College or Professor Wessely have answered the following questions:

1] Why Gresham College were giving out this announcement when it is clear that preparations were being made for the lecture to take place, as planned, that evening?

2] On whose authority this message was being conveyed to the public?

3] Had the college taken reservations in advance for seating from selected individuals and parties?

4] If so, were those individuals and parties who had been permitted to reserve seats in advance, also informed on Wednesday that the lecture had been cancelled? MEagenda 3 February 2006

It just sounds like a muddle brought on by threats to me. Or maybe they were advised to tell external callers it was cancelled because of the threats. Either way, it's speculation. The verifiable fact here is: there was a muddle of some sort. I guess we can assume that threats were made, since both sides agree there was a planned demonstration. Given the depth of hatred some people feel for the man I think it not unlikely that he would think twice about appearing after threats were made. The article already makes clear that some people hate him, so I really don't see what this adds. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your choice of the words "a baying mob" is highly emotive and highly speculative. By using this phrase, is it your intention to suggest that this demonstration was felt likely to be a noisy, disruptive and confrontational event and if so, whose opinion was this - yours, Professor Wessely's, or the administrators of Gresham College?

The demonstration outside the building was a peaceful one; there were no incidences. Protesters who were subsequently able to secure seats within the main lecture room and those attending only the lecture, itself, reported a calm, almost subdued atmosphere. At the end of his lecture, Professor Wessely took a number of questions from the floor from an audience which included individuals with interests in GWS, ME/CFS, organophosphate poisoning, Lyme Disease, Fybromyalgia and other illnesses and conditions, which were raised in an orderly and non-confrontational manner.

There was no "baying mob". What evidence can you provide to support the use of such an emotive phrase? Can you supply citations from reliable sources in support of this supposition? MEagenda 3 February 2006

Read the transcript: threats were made. The prospect of a baying mob (in my colourful language) was clearly raised, giving rise to evident fear. I didn't say it happened, only that he felt (in as much as one can glean form the evidence) a fear of same. It's not clear to me, incidentally, what authority Prof. Hooper has in this. What is his speciality? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, forget that question: I see he's a pharmacist. Or perhaps a pharmacologist. Are there any critiques from MDs on this? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Malcolm Hooper Ph.D.,B.Pharm.,C.Chem.,MRIC is Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Sciences, Fleming Building, Wharncliffe Street, University of Sunderland. MEagenda 4 February 2006

[edit] exchange 3

From the official transcript of Professor Wessely's lecture:

"I received some intimidatory threats suggesting that it would be wise for me not to give this lecture, and I have to admit that I certainly considered not doing so."

From Professor Wessely's public statement:

"As I announced at the beginning of the lecture, I received intimidatory threats from an anonymous source..."

Professor Wessely uses the term "intimidatory threats". He does not say, as you have reported, "physical threats". Could we stick to the facts, please? Readers should not be expected to rely on your interpretation or your "colourful language".

"Just zis Guy" states: "The verifiable fact here is: there was a muddle of some sort."

No, the verifiable fact here is: the college were giving out incorrect information. The public were being told the lecture had been cancelled. It has yet to be confirmed whether this was "a muddle" as you term it, or whether college staff had been instructed to tell the public, on the Wednesday, that the lecture had been cancelled, and if so, on whose authority. Neither Gresham College nor Professor Wessely has accounted for why this information was being given to the public nor have they clarified whether those with prior seat reservations were contacted by the college on the day of the lecture and told that the lecture had been cancelled. They have thus far elected not to be accountable for what took place. MEagenda 4 February 2006

Exactly, it has yet to be confirmed - you are speculating, and from an apparently prejudiced position. As to "accountable", why should they be? As far as I am aware there is no rule supporting the idea that either Prof. Wessely or Gresham College are accountable for their actions to you, whoever you are. It seems your major complaint is that people with an agenda against Wessely who wished to disrupt the event were encouraged not to do so; I see no evidence that the intended audience has complained. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you agree that it has yet to be confirmed whether it was the case that the information being given out throughout the day, by college admin staff, that the evening's lecture had been cancelled was given out in error (despite the fact that Professor Wessely was himself on the premises during the afternoon) or whether it was the case that this was a deliberate attempt on the part of the college, at the behest of Professor Wessely, or another party, to dissuade members of the public who did not have reserved seats (which may have included Professor Hooper and a member of the House of Lords) from attending and thereby minimising the potential for protesters also attending. Why then did you previously state that the situation was "verifiably" due to "a muddle"?

You have also stated, "It seems your major complaint is that people with an agenda against Wessely who wished to disrupt the event were encouraged not to do so;". Please provide evidence that the protesters who were present at the event, outside the building before the lecture took place or during the course of the lecture, or who also obtained seats at the lecture itself, did so with the intention of disrupting that lecture. Where does your information come from that the intent was to cause disruption? Please provide sources.

How do you define "the intended audience"? What methods have you used to establish how many members of the audience, other than Professor Hooper, have lodged complaints with Gresham College about the "cancellation" issue? Where does your evidence that there have been no other complaints from the audience come from?

This "cancellation" issue would have caused inconvenience to both members of the public and protesters, alike. Why should Gresham College not account for why members of the public were inconvenienced? Why should they be apparently unwilling to confirm whether those with reserved seats were also informed on the day that the lecture had been cancelled or whether this information was only being given out to those who did not have reservations?

(Posted by one of those individuals who phoned Gresham College on the Wednesday afternoon and was told that the lecture had been cancelled and that there were no plans to reschedule it.) MEagenda 4 February 2006

It's conjecture, yet to be confirmed, and as it stands I see no particular reason why it should be anyway. You have yet to give a convincing explanation of why Gresham College should be accountable to anyone for their actions, let alone you, whoever you are. The evidence of intended disruption is in the transcript: threats were stated to have been made. I did not say that the intended audience had not complained, only that I see no evidence that they have. Or that it would be relevant to an article on Simon Wessely, since there is also no evidence that this was at his instigation. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] exchange 4

So what we have here is an incident: a nearly-cancelled lecture and a furious Hooper with a big nasty peeve. This only confirms that Wessely's critics do not hesitate to resort to threats, disruption and all else under God's blue sky. It is also highly confirmatory of post-modern anti-scientism, or the suggestion that a scientist should adjust his views (never mind the freedom of speech) to what some bloody pressure group has to say.

The role of patients' groups in CFS is well documented. A Lancet review by Prins et al published last Friday contained a reference to a revealing study that membership of CFS groups was a poor predictor of recovery in patients undergoing cognitive behaviour therapy. Bravo, One Click, keep them ill. JFW | T@lk 04:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A selection of referenced critiques of this controversial Prins et al paper can be read on the Lancet website. MEagenda 5 February 2006

For further criticism of bias towards the biopsychosocial model in the Prins "CFS review" see also: Letters page: Chronic fatigue syndrome, Dr Vance Spence, Neil C Abbot (Director of Operations, MERGE biomedical research charity for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) print edition The Lancet 2006; 367:1574, May 2006 MEagenda 14:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"So that's a letter from someone with a grudge..."

"...a baying mob..."

"...a furious Hooper with a big nasty peeve..."

"...some bloody pressure group..."

I do not imagine I am alone in having registered the contemptuous tone and inflammatory content of the responses made on this discussion page by Wiki administrators Mr Guy Chapman and Mr JDF Wolff. Where evidence is not available, might we not expect an administrator to refrain from delivering conjecture by admission, in his own "colourful language"? I very much doubt that it would be considered acceptable by Wikipedia administrators for the type of comment evidenced above (and elsewhere in these discussion pages and archives) to appear on Wikipedia pages. Why, then, do you gentlemen consider it acceptable on this discussion page? You both seem extraordinarily adept at breaking every rule in your own Wiki rule book. MEagenda 5 February 2006 [Does not work for ONE CLICK; is not a member of the protest group; did not attend Gresham College protest or Wessely lecture.]

Fascinating how it's always other people who are biased (and nicely selective quoting, by the way). Read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS and then tell me how we are supposed to cover conjecture by someone with an agenda without giving it undue weight. Right now it looks to me as if any mention at all constitues undue weight. But hey, you are right - some of us have become extremely suspicious of anonymous edits incorporating anti-Wessely views (something for which One Click are largely responsible). I have yet to see any ocnvincing explanation of what particular barrow JFW or I am supposed to be pushing, or why. Since neither of us are either sufferers or acquainted with Wessely it is unclear to me why our POV is always painted as being non-neutral. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Suzy: what exactly is it that you're trying to say? Why on earth do we need to make mention of that Gresham College lecture? And for what reason has the very good Prins et al paper become "controversial"? Is it simply that anyone who does not agree with the agenda of the pressure groups automatically becomes "controversial"?

At the moment the Wessely article states exactly what it should: that detractors criticise Wessely for stating that the only proven consistent abnormality in CFS happens to be a mental one. I cannot see in what sense this needs to be improved. JFW | T@lk 05:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would refer readers with concerns about the modus operandi of Wiki administrator, "Zis Guy" and his fellow administrator, "JFW", who describes himself as a Dutch doctor working in the UK, to:

The Weird World of Wikipedia by Martin J Walker February 2006. MEagenda 6 February 2006

Hey, look Guy! We're on TV! An article of 34 pages! The second time in a day someone accuses me of being a drug company plant! Good point though about Wessely's "public siege from his critics". Wikipedia shall not be an outlet for this kind of criticism strictly beyond what is actually notable (very little). One of my pals in vaccine-land, Whaleto, has even written a page on Martin Walker on his site (NOTE: blaklisted link -- User:euyyn). A very neutral voice indeed. JFW | T@lk 10:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That whole thing bears so little relation to reality that I wonder whether the author has been looking at the same article. One Click's version of events is certainly grossly distprted (see [1]), and the way he uses your statement as an example of "insider argot" without mentioning that WP:NOR, WP:NPOV etc. are Wikilinks which can be clicked to give full and user-friendly definitions of precisely what the terms mean - to say nothing of the fact that previous extensive explanation had already been given - is laughable. I suppose it's accurate to call me an admin now, although when they first started saying it I certainly wasn't. And why would it be a surprise that an article on Wessely covers mainly what he says? Or that I created a scratchpad of citations to follow up during the rewrite? Should I just have made it up? The most baffling thing to me right from the very outset has been why they didn't co-operate in the process. If they had it's quite likely that their POV would have eben much more strongly represented - I am naturally disposed to be sceptical of medical orthodoxy from my experience elsewhere. Instead they chose to insist on text which was so blatantly defamatory that Jimbo stepped in and killed it - pure genius! No wonder they apparently have such difficulty getting their voice heard.

It does seem tome that the vitriol directed against him is not explained or properly covered in the article, though. I suggest adding the following to the controversy section:

There exists a vocal group of patient activists who reject absolutely the idea that ME/CFS has anything other than a physical cause, often disputing even the terminology CFS (see main article at chronic fatigue syndrome). Wessely, as a leading proponent of palliative treatments centred on pshychological models, has become something of a focus for these groups. A similar situation exists within some Gulf War veterans' groups, despite Wessely's documented role in having GWS recognised as an effect of Gulf service.

I tried to recruit another editor with more experience of the CFS issue, but they reckon their perspective is not significantly different from ours so couldn't really add much.

I just noticed, though - see the bit where "Suzy" talks about referring readers with concerns about the modus operandi of Wiki administrator, "Zis Guy" etc. to the One Click website? See the irony? Yep: my request for adminship prominently mentioned this article, with the result that I was supported by a margin of 102/1/1 (see WP:100 for how rare that is) at least partly because of it! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] exchange 5

Readers familiar with the Wiki entry for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome will already be aware from the Talk pages that Wiki administrators, "Just Zis Guy" and "JFW" are also involved in the editing of that entry. Recognising that he is out of his depth, "Just Zis Guy", has now put out a call for more input on the Simon Wessely entry from those with greater understanding of the issues. On CFS Talk he says, "The article on Simon Wessely needs more input from people familiar with the debate on ME/CFS and able to state it in NPOV terms. At the moment we have an article substantially written by me (being clueless on the issue)..."

Just to interject here, this is complete bollocks. Read the talk archives: I have never pretended that I know anything about either CFS or Simon Wessely, I have stated several times that I don't know the subject. All I've ever done is try to ensure that whatever we say about Wessely conforms to policy. Just that, nothing more. You should also be aware of the contemporaneous John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy and its effect on Wikipedia culture. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't yet found a reference or link on either the Simon Wessely entry or the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome entry to the publication:

What is ME? What is CFS? Information for Clinicians and Lawyers: E.P. Marshall, M. Williams, M. Hooper, 2001

This is an omission which needs rectifying for this publication is an essential starting point for anyone attempting to understand the issues. This document is co-authored by Professor Malcolm Hooper, Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry School of Sciences, University of Sunderland and is fully referenced.

If you are determined to carry on editing an area in which by your own admission you are out of your depth then at the very least read "What is ME? What is CFS? Information for Clinicians and Lawyers".

Hooper is the Professor of Medicinal Chemistry who had planned to attend the Gresham College lecture but who was told three times that it had been cancelled. In the event, he chose to ignore the information being given out by Gresham College just hours before the lecture took place and attended the lecture at which he raised a number of questions with Professor Wessely [Note: questions from the floor are not included in the official lecture transcript.]

He was accompanied by the Countess of Mar, a member of the House of Lords who for many years has advocated on behalf of the ME community and GWS veterans and has a particular interest in organophosphate poisoning. She, too, chose to continue with her plans to attend this lecture, despite having also been alerted to the fact that Gresham College staff were repeatedly telling callers that it had been cancelled.

Professor Hooper is a respected academic whose work in the area of GWS and ME is well documented and a key figure in the ME/CFS debate - you cannot talk about Wessely without reference to Professor Hooper - yet Wiki administrators "Just Zis Guy" and his colleague "JFW" have dismissed Professor Hooper's relevance as being just someone "...with a grudge..." and "...a big nasty peeve...".

You are not going to be able to address the ME/CFS debate from a balanced perspective without an understanding of the background and without reference to the political issues nor without addressing your own inherent arrogance. Please take some time to read "What is ME? What is CFS? Information for Clinicians and Lawyers". Please ensure that anyone who takes over the editing of the Simon Wessely entry or the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome entry, either now or in the future, has read it too. Please also include an external link to this document on both entries.

The historical misattribution of polio, Parkinson's Disease and other illnesses and more recently, Autistic Spectrum Disorders, by the medical profession to psychological "defects" in the subjects being studied (or those who care for them) is well documented. "JFW", a member of the medicical profession, himself, will confirm that the uncontrollable shaking seen in Parkinson's Disease was historically attributed to a suppressed desire on the part of the sufferer to masturbate; in the case of ASD - to a refrigerator mother.

However much "Just Zis Guy" and "JFW" may dislike the notion, you cannot take the politics out of ME and CFS. MEagenda 7 February 2006

You are labouring under a misapprehension, I think. Wikipedia is not a political tool, it's an encyclopaedia. The political aspects opf ME/CFS are discussed in some detail at chronic fatigue syndrome, and being an encyclopaedia that encompasses covering both sides of the debate - which means that if you want to link the Hooper et. al. paper, that's where it should go. But do please be warned that if it's not been through peer review and been published in a reputable journal, there may be some resistance to its inclusion. And as soon as you can cite some verifiable information from reliable sources which critiques Wessely and his work specifically, it can be added here (in suitably neutral terms of course). JFW and I have the same objective as most other Wikipedia editors, which is to build an encyclopaedia which is accurate. Where inaccuracy can be found, it can be fixed. Thus far nobody has pointed out any inaccuracy in this article, althogh a lot of people have said what a bad person they think Wessely is they haven't actually produced the kind of edits or the kind of material which the fundamental policies of Wikipedia require. I can't speak for JFW here, but I think that's a shame, since there is obviously more to this controversy than is revealed here. The way to fix that is not to add yet another bunch of innuendo and arm-waving, it's to come up with properly referenced and verifiable details.

Suzy, I wish you'd register - I'd have posted the standard Welcome message on your Talk page which includes a few documents that tell you all this stuff in nice, user-friendly terms. We've had edits reverted or even articles deleted as violating WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS to use the jargon (you see they are links, you can click them), very few people get it right first time and it usually takes a few dozen edits and discussions to work out the Wikipedia way of thinking and doing - after which it becomes easy to make your point the right way. It is a pity that most of the poeple who come to this article don't register, don't become part of the community and don't work out what it is they are doing that makes it impossible to include their point of view in the way they initially try to express it. I try really hard to assume good faith with each new editor on this article, but none of them seem to want to join in actual dialog, to register and join the comunity to assume any good faith on my part or indeed to do anything except vent their hatred of Simon Wessely, who as far as I can tell is actually doing his best to understand what is still a medically inexplicable condition, and to extend that hatred to anyone who is not openly hostile to the man. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the huh?

JZG, you sure take on the fun ones. I read the Walker screed... I mean article. Near as I can tell, his main points are:

1. Won't somebody think of the children???
2. It's possible it's all a big Soviet style conspiracy and Wesely's behind it (just thinking out loud of course!).
3. Citing Wiki rules with clickable links that lead to pages which explain the rules in plain English is deliberate obfuscation.
4. Expecting me to abide by rules is arrogant!
5. I am not comparing Wessely to a Nazi.
6. It's all a big conspiracy.
7. You unpaid volunteer editors need to spend hours and hours and hours doing research into the matter but we don't have to do anything, we're busy.
8. When we're "combative," it's a time honored tradition. JZG is a potty mouth. And he thinks he's Jesus too!
9. The government is out to get us!
10. Peer reviewed papers are just a ruse anyway.
11. I am not calling Wesely a Nazi. Really, I'm not!
12. Wikipedia is a cult!
13. There's just oodles of research. Now, go find it. I'm busy.
14. You're gonna be sorry someday, you'll see!

<snork>

(Wonder if I'll be accused of being in league with the pharmaceutical industry for commenting?)

I notice One Click is using at least one Gastrich tactic: digging up Usenet posts and saying "See what poopy head he is??" Which, frankly, is a smear tactic that reduces them--in my eyes--to the status of cranks.

They obviously don't like what the Wiki is and expect it to be something it's not. But they seem to think expecting them to even so much as bother reading a page or two of rules that explain how this place works is an unresonable demand. Apparently, the Wiki must be changed by hours of work performed by other people to suit what they think the Wiki should be. And if people don't hop to it right now, they'll... they'll call JZG a poopy head again!

I'm underwhelmed.

You know, I was diagnosed with CFS/FMS (and maybe RHG) myself. Incorrectly diagnosed it turned out years later (though the RHG thing seems to have some merit). I'm rather the flip side of this. An uncritical doctor that accepted many of the positions of "advocacy" groups treated me over a period of years for something I did not have. That uncritical position delayed for years the MRI at which we could point and say "ohmigod, so that's what's going on!"

Advocacy can have its downside. I could have known years before what was going on and how to deal with it. I now wish I'd had a much more skeptical doctor. Mark K. Bilbo 00:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What is RHG? Not Royal Horse Guards of course. Google was not helpful. Sorry to hear about your diagnostic difficulties. Hope things are better now.

Your summary of the One Click pamphlet is great. I often tell POV warriors that with more cautious adherence to NPOV/NOR/CITE their view could well end up being represented in a way that would satisfy them. JFW | T@lk 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Reactive Hypoglycemia. Oddball version of hypoglycemia in which your blood sugar goes whacky after eating rather than the usual hypoglycemia in which things get weird if you don't eat. Disturbingly, it can be an early indication of Type II diabetes lurking in the shadows. Which is one reason I really need to clean up my act. I let myself go after Katrina (talk about stress eating) but can't keep eating the way I have been lately. The other problem is a hereditary disk problem in the neck that pretty much everybody in the family shows up with. I just happened to have the luck to have a car wreck years ago that set it off so it likes to act up now and then to let me know it's there. The thing that irritates me about that issue is it was spotted by a doctor twenty years ago, he just didn't put two and two together (neither did I until recently but, then, I didn't go to medical school).

Anyway. I just can't see spending so much time griping about how the Wiki works. It is what it is (warts and all). The issues those folks have simply cannot be settled here. This isn't the venue. Not if the Wiki hopes to live up to the word "encyclopedia."

And I have to wonder what the problem is. If all this research they say exists actually exists, it should be easy to cite shouldn't it? Mark K. Bilbo 04:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Some notes that probably belong at the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome article. In response to some of the points made by Mark:

• According to a doctor's guide distributed by the (UK) ME Association, the use of MRI brain scans and other experimental or non-proven tests in ME/CFS patients is not usually recommended (at least not in the UK). This is being challenged by a number of UK-based patient groups such as the 25%MEgroup (and yes, also by One Click). Mark, I am wondering whether you are living proof that this recommendation can lead to misdiagnosis. The recommendation aims to prevent exactly that by indicating that the doc may decide to do additional tests if the signs and symptoms seem to warrant it. Do you think this recommendation, if your CFS doctor had been aware of it, might have prevented your misdiagnosis? I'm also asking because once "CFS" patients have been rediagnosed (or have e.g. recovered, or died), they usually disappear from the CFS radar, meaning that in an unknown number of cases medical information pertaining to ME/CFS is lost. It is quite interesting to hear back from one of them.
• Observation: One of the rare conditions some patient advocates and some doctors say should be ruled out before a CFS diagnosis can be made, is Arnold-Chiari malformation I, especially if accompanied by syringomyelia. While not the same thing as what Mark describes, there are parallels. In an unknown number of cases, the signs and symptoms that CFS/ME, Whiplash syndrome, Fibromyalgia, Chiari and probably Mark's disk abnormality have in common are indicative of brain/spinal abnormalities (cf. the encephal- and -myel- parts of the classical "Myalgic Encephalomyelitis" name, respectively).

From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Mark made an important and crucial point above: "(...) how the Wiki works. It is what it is (warts and all). The issues those folks have simply cannot be settled here." As a CFS/ME/ex-Lyme/etc. patient myself, I have been following the history of the Simon Wessely article for several months. It didn't take me long to discover I actually liked Wikipedia and I have been editing other articles for a while. I discovered that there is more to Wikipedia than meets the eye, especially the existence of a large number of policies/guidelines/rules and a community-based administrative system (see WP:POL and follow the links from there). I soon found myself participating in the community (e.g. WP:RfC discussion and votes, resolving conflicts, learning the ropes). One of the things I hoped to discover was how viewpoints I knew to be underrepresented or missing altogether could be given more space. I was unhappy with what happened to the SW article, and expected to find out that JzG and Jfdwolff were doing something wrong. What I found, however, was that both had been doing things by the book. Other than biting the newbies, which can, however, be understood in view of the earlier conflict and Jimbo's intervention. However, the anger should be over by now, I reckon. Otherwise newbies (even Internet veterans start out as Wikipedia newbies) arriving here now are likely to think personal attacks are OK on Wikipedia. They are not. See WP:NPA.

The problem is not a personal one. Wikipedia is not so much serving "establishment" views as it is geared to reflect the real world as described by other sources, such as reputable newspapers, scientific journals, major TV network coverage, etc. The importance of Internet sources is viewed as secondary, and even then only to be used if the source reaches a large number of people (see e.g. WP:CITE, WP:NOR). All this means that Wikipedia is safeguarded against pollution by all kinds of crackpot theories, personal theories, etc. etc. The trade-off is that viewpoints that have not (yet) had sufficient media coverage are not represented in the encyclopedia - not even if one can prove the truth of these views. Do not be surprised to see Wikipedia report the same views your GP also has. The reality of CFS today is such that doctors' knowledge and attitude will largely reflect what they read in the medical literature, which is definitely dominated by the views of Simon Wessely. It also means that this article is likely to underrepresent the number of patients and medical professionals/researchers who see weaknesses in Wessely's viewpoint(s).

Therefore, I applaud JzG's initiative to invite experienced Wikipedia editors with knowledge of CFS/ME to come forward and go over this article to see if it underrepresents or fails to represent viewpoints shared by a sufficiently large number of people (to the extent that reputable sources have documented the existence and relative importance of these viewpoints, e.g. in view of their number of adherents). I would like to add that everyone is welcome to do so (if you can provide sufficient citations from reputable sources). However, although Wikipedia encourages people to go ahead and edit articles straight away, here's a word to the wise: People who are relative Wikipedia newbies are advised to post any proposed edits (changes to the Simon Wessely article) here on the Talk page. This article has a turbulent history, and biographies are, per definition, a sensitive area on Wikipedia due to the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. As a result, most edits of the main article that have not been discussed on this talk page are likely to be reverted immediately. In this case especially the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies are in themselves sufficient reason for any editor to remove material that is viewed by many CFS advocates as perfectly reliable but does not stand the test of WP:CITE.

As for me, I've already gone over the article and to me it looks like there is not much that can be added to the Simon Wessely article as things stand now, in view of the dearth of reputable sources reporting on the viewpoint of a large minority of patients and some doctors/researchers relevant to Professor Wessely's role and work. I may of course be wrong. But I think it may be necessary to change the world a bit before Wikipedia can report on the change. Getting factual information out in mainstream media (which does, by Wikipedia's own rules, exclude Wikipedia) has always been an important task for patient advocates. Where successful it now may have the added bonus of getting more coverage in Wikipedia. Perhaps the tide is turning with changes going on at the UK ME Association that might play a major role now that it is realizing what it means that its own membership consists of subgroups, and hopefully will start to separately represent the main groups whose "CFS/ME has a primarily physical flavour" vs those whose "CFS/ME has a primarily psychiatric flavour" (to quote Charles Shepherd in his role as medical advisor).

Arie van Buuren AKA AvB ÷ talk 12:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. I guess what happened here was a situation of biting the newbies in reverse, since I came to this as a Wessely newbie and One Click certainly bit big time! I want this article to be unbiased, neutral, to cover the subject in a way which explains the incredible personal animosity felt towards Wessely by some people, but we simply can't do that without constructive input and reliable sources. And I know how hard it can be to get dissenting views into the mainstream, especially on medical issues - for example, it has taken several years to get the BMJ to agree to cover dissenting opinion on bicycle helmets and even now they insist on a "balancing" piece set against a report which details the failure of bicycle helmet laws to achieve any measurable improvement in injury rates anywhgere they have been tried. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

It really bugs me that the criticism section gives no real clue as to the depth or cause of the animosity directed against Wessely. It badly needs expansion (with due regard to WP:NPOVUW and WP:NOR). It's also not entirely accurate, in that Wessely's work does not seem to be subject to any significant published criticism, what criticism there is lies mainly with his treatment model and the vernacular he uses when describing both CFS and GWS to a lay audience; also, at least some of it is rhetorical rather than scientific. I'd like to start with something along the following lines, based on the reading I've been doing in the last couple of days:

There exists a vocal group of sufferers and activists who do not accept that ME/CFS has anything other than a physical cause. Indeed, they dispute even the label CFS, which they consider part of a "psychiatric paradigm"{ref 6}, preferring the term ME. It is thought possible by some that there are two variant causes of similar symptoms (see also chronic fatigue syndrome). The prominence of Wessely's work in the medical literature on psychological treatment models for ME/CFS symptoms, his robust criticism of many of the purported physical causal mechanisms, and perhaps the terms in which he discusses the disorder informally among a lay audience, have led some to personalise their dispute and direct considerable animosity against him. This has been extended to cover his work on Gulf War Syndrome, despite his documented role in achieving recognition of the disorder and compensation for those affected through the Lloyd Inquiry.

Little of this criticism finds its way into the published literature. This may be partly due to systemic bias and partly due to a mismatch between what Wessely actually states in his research and how it is interpreted and represented by some, including the media. The argument has been further fuelled by recent research{ref. Lancet} linking insistance solely on physical causes and treatments with worse long-term recovery outcomes, an implied criticism of the sufferers' groups involved.

Above all I'd like more editors involved. Too much of this is still the result of my original literature trawl trying to balance out the One Click stuff. Their version is available here if anyone is interested. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The second part of the above looks like a good start to me. The first few lines are a problem though. It would need more time than I have to fully explain why that is, so I'll just put in some statements here while aware that they will need to be expanded and sourced before they can be used to change a line or two. (I'm limiting these comments to the UK situation.)

• The more vocal people are the tip of an iceberg. I estimate the proportion of patients who share the goals (but may favour other methods) at some 15% of the CFS population, and growing.
• This large minority not only favours the name ME and opposes the name CFS. If that were the situation, one could rightly say their version of reality is badly in need of a good check. But it isn't, since they also reject the CFS diagnostic criteria (Fukuda 1994) (which do not make assumptions as to etiology) and favour ME criteria (e.g. Ramsay 1988) (which per definition say that ME is a neurological disease). Another problem they have with CFS is that its criteria have become looser over time and are now said to have become virtually identical to Neurasthenia criteria (i.e. selecting large numbers of psychiatric patients as well as ME patients).
• One of the problems they have with Wessely is his claim that the CFS population does not contain a significant number of ME patients although its criteria were originally devised to include ME (as well as covering outbreaks in the USA). Another one is that he has used even looser criteria than Fukuda 1994 (using additional inclusion criteria with a low cutoff point).
• I tend to go with this minority when they claim that some 25% of the CFS population have a physical illness.
• ME or no ME, we know for a fact that the CFS population does contain a number of (misdiagnosed) patients who have another condition, or vice versa (MS, Lyme disease, Chiari I, or see Mark's story above, to name a few). Such misdiagnoses prove that the signs and symptoms that make up the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome can be indicators of a physical illness.

I hope others will come forward to help inform editors or propose their own edits here, or contribute to the article directly. AvB ÷ talk 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly doubt the need for hairsplitting the definition of CFS in this article. We are not here to fisk Wessely's research. We are here to allude to the presence of critics and a general summary of their criticism where this is notable. In-depth analysis of research findings and corrobation and contrast with other studies is not the task of an encyclopedia, unless a critic has famously made these analyses.

Guy, I think saying that Wessely's critics are unpublished because of systemic bias amounts to original research. JFW | T@lk 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome: Editorial bias in the British Medical Journal: Goudsmit, E, Stouten, B, Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 2004, Vol. 12(4), 47-59. [2005] MEagenda 17:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

So help me phrase it so it isn't. We know what they think and AvB and others know in detail why, I think we need to explain it (without straying into rehashing the ME/CFS controversy). Soem people have chosen to personalise the whole issue, this article does not really explain why. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"The argument has been further fuelled by recent research{ref. Lancet} linking insistance solely on physical causes and treatments with worse long-term recovery outcomes, an implied criticism of the sufferers' groups involved."

The 2006 Prins et al article published in this month's Lancet (which I am assuming is the one you are refering to above) is a review of selected research papers dating from 1984 to 2005; which specific paper/s within this review is the above statement based on, please? MEagenda 13:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

MEagenda, are you suggesting you haven't read the paper? I'd expect the PDF to be doing its rounds amongst ME activists! References 126 and 127 are linked: 126 is Deale et al, Am J Psychiatry 2001;158:2038-42 and 127 is Powell et al, Br J Psychiatry 2004;184:142-6. The second study was not performed by Wessely's group, in case this is what you wanted to know.

Guy, I would rephrase the systemic bias thing as follows: "Activists have claimed that alternative views and critical responses are often turned down by professional journals, suggesting systemic bias in the medical research community." No more needs to be said, as long as we can find some One Click document making this claim, which should not be hard. JFW | T@lk 13:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As JFW says, it's a comment within the review itself. I'm not saying it's correct, but it has certainly poured petrol on the flames! Still, I'm encouraged that in recent days we've seen two logged-in users (Ombudsman and MEagenda) supporting what I guess one might call the ME camp (as opposed to CFS). We also have (hopefully still with us) Suzy. Past experience indicates that if everyone takes a deep breath and counts to ten before saying anything, and especially if we talk about theings before sticking them in the article, we should be able to arrive at an appropriately encyclopaedic statement of why so many people seem to hate Wessely. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

MEagenda is Suzy. Hello Suzy. Shall we all try to get to WP:NPOV in this matter? I like the counting to 10, which is very long by modern-day annoyance standards (three rings on the phone is apparently enough to send the adrenalin racing). JFW | T@lk 13:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Just Zis Guy" I have a copy of the Prins paper and yes, I have read it too, but there will be others reading this Talk page who won't have done so. Your suggestion for additional text for the "Criticism" section of the Wessely entry could be read as inferring that the Lancet paper was a recent study into illness beliefs, treatment preferences and long-term recovery outcomes - it is not. It is a review of selected papers dating from 1984 to 2005, hence a request that you clarify this - not for my benefit, but for the benefit of others reading your suggestion for an addition. I fail to see the need for such a confrontational response to a simple request for clarification.

By the way, is it official Wiki policy to scrutinise the IP codes of those who have recently set up accounts and disclose their identities on the Talk pages - or is this a personal quirk of "JFW"? MEagenda 15:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to cite the Prins paper at all. And Suzy: it was pure coincidence that I found out - I have no access to the IP number of a registered user. But you signed your comment on Indymedia as Suzy. It's Chapman, right? As on BMJ Rapid Responses? JFW | T@lk 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "JFW". I don't consider the citing of the Prins review nor specific reference to "membership of patients' groups and long-term recovery outcomes" to be useful additions. This is not new research - the small (but frequently cited) number of papers reporting association between membership of patient groups or the receipt of benefits with long-term recovery outcomes would already have provoked response from the patient community when they were first published; this is, in any case, only one issue amongst a number which have been raised by the patient community following the publication of this Lancet review. But if you are going to include reference to the Prins paper then it should be made clear that you are referring to a review of selected, previously published CFS papers and not to a new study into this specific area.

The evident glee with which "JFW" seized upon this scrap of "patient's group" related material was really quite alarming; how quick he was to make the leap from "an association with membership of patients' groups and long-term recovery outcomes" to "ipso facto, patients' groups hinder recovery". As any fule know, being in receipt of benefits or gravitating toward a patients' group (be it a campaigning group or a support group) may equally be an indication of the level of disability in the subjects being studied or an indication of a symptom level severe enough to negate employment due to an aetiology for which no short-term recovery is possible since no effective treatments are yet available. But I really shouldn't need to have to point this out, should I? I see "JFW" has been busy Googling my name. Shame he didn't mentioned my entry in PubMed while he was at it - even stroppy ME activists occasionally make it into the BMJ print edition :o) MEagenda 22:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If MEagenda is Suzy, that's mostly good (good that you've registered, less good in that it's one less new person than I'd thought, and your username implies you're only interested in this subject - hopefully Wikipedia will suck you in and you'll be all over it soon). Frankly I don't care whether Prins et. al. goes in or not, my main interest here is to get to the point where the article explains the problem without recourse to diatribes on websites that fail the WP:RS test - in any case those illustrate the problem but they don't really explain it, any more than walking in oin the tail end of any argument explains the original dispute. And either way they fall well short of the standards of neutrality to which we have to conform.

So, if my suggesting is wrong, please make a suggestion of your own. We are never going to reach a resolution if we just continue with me setting up suggestions and other people shooting them down without making any of their own. Oh, and you can call me Guy (that really is my name). I'm guessing we're not related. Even if we have both made it into the BMJ print edition... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10 Feb 2006

Given the somewhat turbulant history behind the compilation of this entry I would suggest the entire entry remain open to further discussion pending greater involvement from others from within the ME community, itself.

As far as the Opposition and criticism section is concerned, in the interim, I would suggest a brief "holding" text, pending further input from others:

Opposition and criticism

Wessely's work has been the subject of heated debate in the medical community. On one side of the debate, neurologists and endocrinologists who consider ME/CFS to be a neurological disease, as does the World Health Organisation that has classified neurological ME/CFS under ICD-10 G93.3. The other side, including Wessely, considers it to be a somatisation disorder - a theory called the 'psychiatric paradigm' by opponents.[6] The scientific community and patients' groups have claimed that alternative views and critical responses are often turned down by professional journals, suggesting systemic bias in the medical research community.

Gulf War syndrome sufferers claim that his connections with the military involve conflicts of interests, and his work on Gulf War syndrome is thus suspect.

A word about "hate": it's not a word I like to use myself. I cannot speak for others, but I don't "hate" Wessely any more than I "hate" Chalder, Deary, Burgiss, Bentall, Wearden, Powell, Cleare, White, Sharpe, Garralda and a number of others. It is their influence, their beliefs and the impact of these on the lives of ME sufferers and their carers, that I oppose. Amongst those involved in the online ME community there may be several who might consider inputting into this entry. I am well placed to put out a plea (in neutral terms, of course) for others to come forward - would you like me to do this? Hello to Arie. Small pond, eh, Arie? MEagenda 11:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Suzy, nice to meet you again. AvB ÷ talk 00:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

All articles on Wikipedia are always open for editing, usually by anyone who wants to. There is a tendency to adopt a "talk first, edit later" approach for articles covering controversial subjects, especially biographical articles on living people where there is a history of defamatory text (we have the Seigenthaler case to thank for that), but in the end unless the article is protected it can be edited by anybody at any time. Although I'm now an admin (as of 17 January), as with all admins I'm restricted by community consensus from using my admin powers - even the minor ones - on articles where I am personally involved, including this one.

Now, to your proposed text: where are the citations for debate within the medical comunity? That would make a lot of difference here: studies from medical journals which identify problems with Wessely's view (which is to do with treatment, not cause, as far as I can tell) would be very welcome. A really good neutral statement of the debate, maybe in a BMJ editorial, would be hugely appreciated.

The WHO classification issue is addressed in chronic fatigue syndrome - the separate classifications for ME and CFS appear to be an artifact of the rules governing categorisation, not formal evidence of two distinct conditions. I already got slapped down once for suggesting that there might be two separate conditions. The so-called "psychiatric paradigm" looks to me, as an outsider, to be at least partly a rejection of pshychological and behavioural treatments based on a dogmatic view of cause, but I see not evidence that those offering the treatments claim that the success of the treatments in mitigating symptoms precludes a physical cause. Given that Wessely has specifically stated that not only does he not dispute the possibility of a physical cause, but that he actively supports the search for one, and the evidence suggests that research in his group has identified some possible leads, the dilemma presented appears to be a false one. I could be wrong, of course, but that is what my reading leads me to conclude at this point, and yes it is quite possible that some or all of the CFS camp do actually believe there is no physical cause and simply state that they don't exclude it as a way of deflecting criticism, but that is a big assumption to draw when Wessely has publicly stated that he believes some or all sufferers may have an as yet unidentified physical cause.

In any case, general controversy over ME/CFS needs to go in CFS, while this article needs to explain why that controversy has been laid at Wessely's door in particular, not simply rehash debate which is already covered elsewhere and is not specific to Wessely. That is the problem here: why Wessely in particular.

I'm not suggesting that you personally hate Wessely, either. But someone clearly does: the way I was attacked for trying to tone down a grossly defamatory article was not the result of a reasoned and calm critic. At the very least there is a significant group out there who are intent on playing the man rather than the ball, which I think we really need to avoid here, and I guess you'd agree. Are other editors welcome? Of course. Provided they can park their baggage in the rack by the door :-) I have no brief here other than to keep the article within policy and ensure that it explains in appropriate terms who Wessely is, what he does, and why, despite his evident academic and political standing, some people don't like it - or him. I have no dog in the ME/CFS fight at all, I'm neither a medic nor a sufferer. Ditto GWS, where I am baffled as to why some poeple are dead set against a man who appears, form the Lloyd Inquiry transcripts, to have made a compelling case for their receiving compensation, in the teeth of opposition from precisely those vested interests which he is supposedly propping up. I am notoriously naive, though, and have a tendency to take things at face value and miss what's written between the lines. In many ways I'd be a lot happier if a couple of people from his team would take over fighting his corner for him, since as it stands I have to infer a lot from the reports of what he's said rather than getting it direct. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I see I have mistaken the text on the right side of your blog entry for text which you considered would be acceptable. (I had fully intended acknowledging that the suggestion for "holding" text incorporated material from previous suggested versions but that line has evidently been left behind during c & p.)

The current text reads:

Areas of Wessely's work have been the subject of criticism, both from the scientific community and from patients' groups. The bulk of this criticism concerns his view that chronic fatigue syndrome is primarily a psychiatric condition, a theory called the 'psychiatric paradigm' by opponents.[6] Wessely counters that few deny a potential physical mechanism, but that the effects are mainly mental; research conducted under his direction has detected markers of physical abnormalities in CFS.[7]

What citations were used, at the time, in order to support "criticism...from the scientific community" when the current text was approved? MEagenda 13:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. No, the text on my site (is it a blog? I'd never thought of it as such) addresses the specific claim that I am in some way a "wessely hagiographer" - it is there to show that all I did was rephrase One Click's text in more neutral terms. They chose to interpret that as evidence that I am in some kind of thrall to Wessely and committed to preventing any legitimate criticsm of him from seeing the light of day.

No citations were used in the preparation of that text, in as much as I can remember it was a survival from the original rewrite I think (a lot of water under the bridge since then). I suspect I misread some of the stuff on the web as being criticism from the medical community - I know better now, and I know more about what constitutes a reliable source in a biography of a living person, per Seigenthaler and also Min Zhu. I'm quite open about the fact that this article as it stands is essentially a monograph, that's why I want more input. I am reasonably sure of the factual accuracy of the biography, but the controversy section has always concerned me. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Looks like half those links amount to offsite POV forks to me. I checked them quite carefully, it's obvious there's a depth of feeling there which this article does not cover, but none opf them are form reputable peer-0reviewed journals, none of them constitute reliable sources per policy, they are not scholarly in tone - they read as diatribes - and in the end they probably do his detractors more harm than good. So let's have some proper references for criticism, not just activists writing letters. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, justifications given for suppression of the several external links, evidencing extensive dissent stirred by Wessely, appear to result from preconceived conclusions, rather than a fair minded attempt to ensure an accurate reflection of the range of opinions expressed on the subject. For entirely valid and rational reasons, the fine line of npov is about as close as the Wiki can achieve in its mission to provide bona fide and comprehensive content without making undue sacrifices to achieve objectivity. Such fence sitting is inappropriate in this case, especially given the fact that the criteria for external links is another animal entirely. The application of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, apparently designed primarily to address content rather than external links, is questionable in this case, although not without some merit. The question here is whether or not the links are representative and/or valuable in terms of reflecting the realities surrounding Wessely's debatable scientific integrity and questions about his apparent conflict of interest problems. The article itself seems to have been watered down considerably in this regard, seemingly due to reasonably justifiable npov concerns. If anything, external links in this case can, and probably should, provide a means of balancing out the shortcomings of the article's main content that have been attributed to npov guidelines. Failure to include links to articles by significant stakeholder representatives would amount to silencing dissent, a decidedly unWiki-like prospect. Ombudsman 21:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not suppression of information, it's simply not linking to offsite rhetoric. Substantive criticism should be covered in the article, not byt reference to offsite articles which lack Wikipedia's requirement to remain neutral. None of those links actually explain the problem they merely illustrate the fact that some people dislike Wessely. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Wessely Training and Interests

Guy,

The following snip from, Simon Wessely Training and Interests is inaccurate.

“Post-doctoral studies included a year at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and a year studying epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.”

Wessely attended the MSc Epidemiology course at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. This course is not of one year but two years duration. His MSc thesis, “The epidemiology of fatigue: evidence from a large UK National Survey” is dated 1989 and is therefore pre-doctoral, not post-doctoral.

It would be of benefit to readers if they were made aware that the control of non-communicable infections, such as borreliosis or filariasis, is a module of this course.

--212.85.13.68 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Will fix in a bit (or you can - correction of minor factual inaccuracies is not controversial) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ME Association (UK) and other sources

Criticism of the psychologisation of ME has been building ever since PMID 5411611 and PMID 5411596 (McEvedy & Beard, 1970). See also this. It accelerated after ME had been subsumed by CFS around 1988 and developed into today's Wessely criticism driven by the growing influence of Wessely on CFS in the UK.

Taking on board some of Suzy's comments - when talking about Wessely criticism and Wessely critics we need to distinguish between:

• Documenting the reasons and relative importance of the opponents of the growing influence of the "Wessely school" (term often employed by opponents and much less frequently by more neutral & mainstream groups).
• Documenting the apparent hatred for Wessely (the man) emanating from small but vocal subsets of the opposition. This subset often uses the "psychiatric paradigm" soundbite.

The website and the archives for members of the MEactionUK E-mail group are good sources in this respect. It should be noted, however, that information and opinion are often covered in several layers of hatred, making the points themselves difficult to discern. The POV of Wessely haters is more visible there than the POV of the larger group of "Wessely school" opponents. I am not so sure this is a notable or reputable source but it certainly documents many aspects and reasons of the hatred and can be used as per the Wikipedia rules.

A reputable source those documenting Wessely criticism may want to keep an eye on is the ME Association. The ME Association is the UK's second largest ME/CFS charity and has traditionally been "working with the system," leaving much of the psychological side of the work to the "Wessely school" while itself working on both sides of the "physical/mental" fence. Recently some cracks in the pavement have been observed, e.g. here. AvB ÷ talk 13:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on membership figures and annual financial returns to the Charity Commission, AfME is the largest national UK ME/CFS charity, not the ME Association. MEagenda 14:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, changed to "second largest." (MEA is the largest charity representing patients directly via voting rights (on e.g. policy and trustee appointments), AGMs and other processes.) AvB ÷ talk 15:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

PS You can also change other people's edits directly. "It's a wiki". I never complain when others "refactor" factual errors in my contributions. AvB ÷ talk 15:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Derek Pheby's 2003 book review is also interesting. Note "Wesseley" misspelling. AvB ÷ talk 15:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Whilst acknowledging that AfME no longer hold AGMs in which their membership participates, in the interests of accuracy, it needs to be pointed out that following the adoption of Resolutions 3 and 4, proposed by the Board of Trustees by way of Extraordinary General Meeting in September 2005, it can no longer be said that trustees are appointed to the MEA Board of Trustees through a wholly democratic process. The MEA Board of Trustees now has the power to prevent any candidate of whom it does not approve (for whatever reason) from standing in MEA AGM elections - an issue recognised as being outside the scope of this discussion. MEagenda 17:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Arie has referenced a response by the MEA to reports of concerns for the type of treatments currently being rolled out by PCTs in England and the fact that many of these are being developed within psychiatric settings.

But Wessely's opponents also claim that his influence and that of the so called "Wessely School" extends considerably beyond the issue of treatment models and in which setting, and by whom, this illness is treated or "managed", or that in many cases, little is being offered to patients other than therapies based on research studies using "catch all" CFS diagnostic criteria and which have, in many cases, proved harmful or ineffectual.

Opponents argue that the extent of Wessely's influence and that of the "Wessely School" also has a negative bearing on the range and accessibility of medical investigations and specialist referrals offered to patients prior to diagnosis of ME/CFS, or post diagnosis, when patients present with new symptoms - with the potential for misdiagnosis; that their influence impacts on patients financially, shaping DWP and social security policy, restricting access to disability benefits with resultant financial hardship, to social services care packages, and access to suitable housing or disability adaptations; that it influences the outcome of medical insurance and employment insurance claims, forcing already financially challenged claimants to employ legal assistance with their cases; that it influences the decision makers responsible for recommending and instigating the provision of appropriate education in the home, by LEAs, for children too ill to access mainstream education and for how long that provision is made; that its influence is responsible for the intervention of social services where parents have opposed management strategies such as Graded Exercise Therapy or psychotherapies as being inappropriate for their ME/CFS children; that its influence diverts money away from research into aetiology and effective treatment and into funding "rehabilitation" programmes.

Yes we are angered by Wessely's construct of "CFS". Yes, we are angered by the bias in medical journals. Yes, we are angered whenever another CFS "review" paper comes out recycling that small number of studies associating membership of patients' groups or receipt of benefits with being poor predictors of recovery. And we are equally angered when Dr Wolff, using tabloid terminology, refers to a "revealing" study, and asserts that "The role of patients' groups in CFS is well documented" and implies that patients' groups hinder recovery. But it is the perception of the downstream effect of the "Wessely School" and its impact on the quality of life of ME/CFS sufferers, adults and children, that also underlies the depth of feeling.

The reality for some ME/CFS sufferers is lying all night in their own shit and menstrual blood because an adequate care package providing the overnight personal care they need has not been put in place; or suicide following the rejection of benefits or when personal carers have suddenly been withdrawn by social services; children and young people with ME/CFS being put on "at risk" registers - and you wonder at why we have been so angry for so long?

Could the section: Criticism and opposition be stripped back to the statement below and worked up from there?

Patients' groups claim that alternative views and critical responses are often turned down by professional journals, suggesting systemic bias in the medical research community. MEagenda 22:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

MEagenda and anyone else, it would be helpful to see sufficient citations from reputable sources to underpin what you know to be true. AvB ÷ talk 07:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see citations for the stuff that Ombudsman just added to the ME/CFS section, which does not read well to my eyes. Lots of "some poeple say" but no actual documentation that it is Wessely himself who is responsible for people being denied treatment, or indeed that the treatment they seek is actually appropriate. That seems to me to belong in the CFS article since it is a much more complex argument than can or should be covered here. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Arie, I will endeavour to provide suitable sources over the next few days. I note that "Ombudsman" has taken an extract from the comments I made last night (which were made in response to points previously raised by Guy and not written as a suggestion for additional text) and added these to the Wessely page. I am about to delete it. MEagenda 13:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see this extract has already been deleted, thank you. MEagenda 13:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That would have been premature in any WP article, User:Ombudsman. Let alone this one. If you take a look at the history of this article you will see your action will not only serve to anger some with whom you have been crossing swords all over the place, it will also give others, especially Jimbo and indirectly Wessely, an entirely valid reason to clamp down on this article again. JzG and others have worked hard to get the minority view in, please don't do this again. Let's get it in as factually as possible. MEagenda's contribution paints a picture that all editors here should read and understand, but it will never survive in the article itself in any shape or form without pretty substantial evidence documenting the size of the minority and indicating this info describes their problems with Wessely. (In other words, I would have improved and defended it if it had been sufficiently sourced). AvB ÷ talk 13:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi MEagenda, we tried to update the talk page at the same time - you got in first :-) AvB ÷ talk 13:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I was the person who actually wrote the "criticism" section as it stands now. Before this, there was no "criticism" section. The way it stands it requires little expansion, apart perhaps from the view that Wessely's stance was a major influence in the way UK doctors think about CFS.

Suzy, you said "And we are equally angered when Dr Wolff, using tabloid terminology, refers to a "revealing" study, and asserts that "The role of patients' groups in CFS is well documented" and implies that patients' groups hinder recovery." Who are the "we" in the sentence, and why should I be attacked for simply citing a scientific paper? This is a talk page, and anger is completely counterproductive when trying to write an encyclopedia article. JFW | T@lk 22:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The comments by Dr Wolff which have caused offence are:

"So what we have here is an incident: a nearly-cancelled lecture and a furious Hooper with a big nasty peeve. This only confirms that Wessely's critics do not hesitate to resort to threats, disruption and all else under God's blue sky. It is also highly confirmatory of post-modern anti-scientism, or the suggestion that a scientist should adjust his views (never mind the freedom of speech) to what some bloody pressure group has to say.

The role of patients' groups in CFS is well documented. A Lancet review by Prins et al published last Friday contained a reference to a revealing study that membership of CFS groups was a poor predictor of recovery in patients undergoing cognitive behaviour therapy. Bravo, One Click, keep them ill. JFW | T@lk 04:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)"

1] I have discussed these comments with several members of the ME internet community who have been following recent exchanges on these Talk pages. They reported that they also found Dr Wolff's comments relating to "patients' groups" offensive - in particular, "Bravo, One Click, keep them ill." which was considered to be inflammatory. They also considered, that since Dr Wolff did not specify what type of "patients' groups" were referenced in the papers selected by Prins et al in the Lancet review, his implication was that membership of all "patients' groups" is a barrier to recovery. This was seen as being prejudicial against "patients' groups" in general; those with whom I have discussed Dr Wolff's comments have also been angered by this implication.

2] Dr Wolff has challenged my use of the term "controversial" in relation to the recent Prins et al CFS review because I had not provided reasons or cited evidence in support of the use of this term. Dr Wolff had, himself, used the term "revealing" in relation to an [unspecified] study cited by Prins et al in the CFS review. But he has failed to qualify his reasons for the use of the word "revealing" - which renders it a meaningless description, and possibly POV. If Dr Wolff objects to others applying loose terminology such as "controversial" to research papers or reviews and without qualifying why and by whom this is considered to be so - why does he employ terms such as "revealing", himself? What exactly does Dr Wolff mean to convey by his choice of the word "revealing"?

3] Dr Wolff states that the role of "patients' groups" in CFS is "well documented" but he fails to cite any sources which have studied the role of "patients' groups" other than his passing reference to this "revealing study" from the Lancet review by Prins et al of [selected] CFS papers.

A negative interpretation of the role of "patients' groups" has been drawn by Bentall, Powell et al in their 2002 paper (referenced by Prins et al in the Lancet review). The Bentall, Powell et al [2002] paper also cites negative associations in papers by Mechanic [1986]; Abbey [1993]; Surawy et al [1995] although positive psychological benefit from support gained from membership of "patients' groups" is also cited by Bentall, Powell et al, in a study by McCully et al [1996]. Bentall, Powell et al do not specify which types of "patients' groups" their subjects had reported being members of, either in their own studies, or in earlier studies undertaken by others to which they have referred in their 2002 paper.

The Bentall, Powell [2002] paper, published by the Department of Psychology, University of Manchester*, acknowledges the co-operation of "support groups" within the Merseyside area in relation to the adoption of their treatment programme within the NHS. It is to be assumed that by "support groups" Bentall, Powell et al are, in this instance, referring to what are commonly known as "local ME/CFS support groups" - distinguishing them from the national UK ME/CFS charities, two of which, historically, maintained strong affiliations with "local" groups and organisations although the ME Association no longer maintains any financial interest in or affiliations with "local" ME/CFS support groups.

There are many kinds of "patients' group" in the UK representing the interests of ME/CFS sufferers, carers and families: two national charities for adults; two national charities for children and young people; a registered national charity for the severely affected (The 25% ME Group); over 100 "local" ME/CFS support groups and organisations, some of which are also involved in campaigning; organisations such as BRAME (who were closely involved in the instigation of the All Party Parliamentary Group for ME), RiME and Invest in ME; internet support and information forums, a number of which also maintain dedicated websites for information and resources, and there are the internet based political campaigning and pressure groups which also maintain dedicated websites. These provide a very broad resource for the UK ME/CFS community delivering, between them, support, information and advocacy for ME/CFS patients and their families, and representing their needs, both locally and at government level.

They can all be described as "patients' groups".

I, and others with whom I have discussed this issue, consider that Dr Wolff may have sought to flag up interpretations from a study of selected papers presenting a negative view of the role of "patient's groups", in order that he might deliver a side-swipe at one specific campaigning group with whom he has issues. This was considered "below the belt".

Dr Wolff has not provided references to other studies, outside the scope of the Prins review, which have reported positive associations for ME/CFS patients (both adults and children) from involvement with "patients' groups". Although Dr Wolff evidently holds very strong personal views about the ONE CLICK group, in his scant reference to the "well documented" role of "patients' groups" he does not offer readers a balance of opinion and his comments are perceived as being prejudiced against "patient's groups" in general and as such, unacceptable. If there is no place for anger on a Talk page then there is equally no place for prejudice, either.

Since Bentall, Powell et al use only the generic term "patients' groups" (which tells us very little about the type of organisations to which the subjects in their studies, and those of others, reported membership of), and since we have established that this term covers a very broad spectrum of organisations which together embrace a very wide remit could Dr Wolff please clarify to readers exactly what he understands by this term?

• The Department of Psychology, University of Manchester is currently undertaking the FINE Trials awarded to: Dr A Wearden (PI), Dr R Bentall, Dr P Powell et al. MEagenda 17:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If Dr Wolff is refering to having written the text for the section "Opposition and criticism", as it stands at the moment on the Wessely entry, himself, can I assume that the reference to the "psychiatric paradigm" and the link to this document have been considered by consensus to be acceptable? MEagenda 18:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Suzy, you are again confusing NPOV on articles and on talk pages. Yes, it is my personal conviction that patients' groups have done a lot of harm, and I singled out One Click because they descended on Wikipedia like a swarm of buzzards. No apologies.

This article is not the place to discuss CFS/ME research. It is the place to write about Wessely, his research, views and of course his critics.

I find it quite unpleasant that you claim to be speaking on behalf of a horde of other people. I do not have the benefit of a sounding group, nor is anyone examining your edits on my behalf. Further postings of this nature will be ignored.

Now please tell us what you would like to improve in this article. JFW | T@lk 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Bentall, Powell et al. use only the generic term "patients' groups", and since MEagenda has established that this term covers a very broad spectrum of organisations which together embrace a very wide remit, and since the reasons why membership of a support group has in some cases been associated with a poorer prognosis have not been established, I hope MEagenda has convinced other editors that a "guilty by association" line of thought is not warranted here. AvB ÷ talk 14:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

MEagenda wrote: "can I assume that the reference to the "psychiatric paradigm" and the link to this document have been considered by consensus to be acceptable?" Just a note re consensus on Wikipedia. Consensus is ephemeral. A specific consensus is mostly relevant to the editors involved in reaching it, at the time it has been reached. Editors may go on to edit other articles, change their mind, other editors may come along, etc. Consensus is typically NOT carved in stone. AvB ÷ talk 14:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

JFW and MEagenda, I think it is very clear that both of you felt offended by some of the other's remarks so I suggest it would be better to refrain from voicing such opinions where they are not helpful in editing the Simon Wessely article. AvB ÷ talk 14:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

MEagenda, please try to familiarise yourself a tad better with the relevant policies and guidelines and the general feel of Wikipedia and how things are done here. JFW's objection to quotes from people not involved in editing this article is completely understandable. It is a decidedly unWikipedian thing to do. We are not writing for an external audience here. We are hashing out a difference of opinion between some editors who want to change the criticism section and others who think it should not be changed. Everything else is cruft; let's please stay focused and not waste one another's time. How about finding some references? AvB ÷ talk 14:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The "criticism" section already has references. No more are required, unless there is an outside source specifically documenting criticism from patients' groups from a birds-eye view. To my knowledge, no such report exists beyond the good article in the Guardian already mentioned. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• You are quite right. My point was that they should look up references in support of the edits they intend to make - time much better spent than taking shots at other editors.
• The ME Association reference I gave can be cited. The MEA represents some 6,000 members directly and about all UK patients indirectly. The reference contradicts the picture that critics are just a small group of dissenters.
• It has not been proven that the information MEagenda et al. will need is not out there in some verifiable form, or will not become available before long. AvB ÷ talk 17:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For future reference

• ME Association vs "Wessely school" (August 2005)
• ME Association letter to the MRC re research into physical causes vs "psychological and behavioural model" (February 2006)
• Commons' Early Day Motion - 216 signatures so far (Retrieved 16 February 2006)
• Dr. Derek Pheby's 2003 book review. Note "Wesseley" misspelling. (Retrieved February 2006)
• PMID 16473456, PMID 15450690, PMID 11790441 - Examples of papers on subgrouping. AvB ÷ talk 16:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• PMID 16403245

What is the gist of each of these references? JFW | T@lk 16:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Small question, long answer, little time... Common denominator: references touching on current developments as seen from the perspectives of various "stakeholders," such as patient organisations, CFS experts and people's reps. I sometimes come across such information when trying to keep up with both the medical literature and the politics of CFS; copying it here is a matter of seconds. Feel free to remove if all agree the info is useless in editing the SW article. AvB ÷ talk 18:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that's fine, but apart from the blog posts there's little about Wessely directly. Which ones do you think could be helpful in improving this article? JFW | T@lk 22:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you're asking. All of them actually; but their significance is probably more apparent to people with inside information on the position of many leaders of local CFS support groups in the UK. Without this (confidential) info these refs may not seem all that helpful, but I think we're witnessing substantial shifts in position of the various stakeholders. I expect the picture to become clearer over the next few months. In the meantime, there's a fascinating "narrative synthesis of the literature" in Psychol Med. 2006 Jan 10;:1-6 [Epub ahead of print] which you may want to read to get a better perspective on Wessely's true thoughts on CFS and (by omission) some solid info on the type of paper he does not consider part of "the literature". If you want to read the full text but (unlikely I guess) can't access it, let me know and I'll lend you a copy. AvB ÷ talk 00:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The abstract to that paper appears quite balanced. I find it very troublesome to assign motives to a researcher where the only evidence present is circumstantial (such as being selective in choosing research material). "True throughts" are conjecture by definition - so far I have not met anyone who can read people's minds. The question is how far we should go in this article in trying to do just that. I say: not very far, unless one or two solid sources can be quoted (e.g. "patients' group X maintains that Wessely is actually of the opinion that CFS/ME does not exist"). That is more helpful than going for primary sources, which are open to interpretation and conjencture. JFW | T@lk 01:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The 25% ME Group a charity registered in Scotland, represents and supports over 800 severely affected UK ME sufferers and is a good source of material documenting patient group opposition to Wessely and the "Wessely School".

• 25% ME Group submission to the Gibson Parliamentary Inquiry [2005]

• 25% ME Group statement on suspension of PACE and FINE Trials [2005]

See also:

• Supporting people with severe myalgic encephalomyelitis Nursing Standard. 19, 21, 38-43. Date of acceptance: September 28 2004. Crowhurst G [2005] [Secretary to the 25% ME Group] MEagenda 14:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

JFW, you should really read the paper itself before attempting to analyse my description.

• I did not assign any motive or claim to know Wessely's true thoughts on CFS. But even if I had, you would still have to read the paper before being able to form an opinion whether the motive was assigned correctly and the thoughts were described accurately.
• True thoughts is not conjecture by definition: Where so much else that has been said about Wessely's views IS conjecture, this paper gives the inside view: what Wessely HIMSELF has to say. The perspective is better because it is Wessely's own perspective. If it's conjecture, it's the authors' conjecture. (But I for one do not doubt that the authors are giving their true thoughts, and not only because they labeled the paper a "narrative synthesis.")
• If you read the paper, I guarantee you a better perspective on SW's true thoughts on CFS than just about anything else you have read. It probably won't make you change your mind about Wessely. It's just a fascinating read for people interested in the man, his work and his ideas.

I've been wondering about some of your responses. Could it be, by any chance, that you think I am trying to convert you to an "anti-Wessely(an) viewpoint"? I am not. I am not even anti-Wessely myself. I value your presence as an editor for this article precisely because you are a "mainstream, evidence-based" doctor. As a doctor you simply have to rely on the various journals. You are representing the majority POV. You know it inside and out. I am taking your contributions here very seriously indeed. AvB ÷ talk 14:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Arie, I'm not speculating on your motives, nor do I desire to speculate about Wessely's. If the paper in Psychol Med appears biased, so be it. But it is an attempt at research (even if considered misguided by the critics), not a political tract. It survived peer review, which makes the journal editors and peer reviewers complicit in whatever is written. Of course I need to read the fulltext to comment fully on the paper. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the laugh (the Freudian I/It slip). Re bias, I think we're on different wavelengths where we shouldn't be. I found the paper honest and unbiased (as narrative syntheses go - i.e. subjective and personal by definition). It rings true from start to finish. So much so that I would be somewhat surprised if the paper had undergone substantial peer review. Wessely and Huibers did seek some external input though: The authors are grateful to Peter White, Chris Clark, Stephen Zavestoski and Michael Sharpe for their comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. And they came up with gems like: Sound evidence for the treatment of CFS is still poor. For patients seeking active treatment, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) are currently the best available options (Whiting et al. 2001). However, it should be kept in mind that evidence from randomized trials bears no guarantee for treatment success in routine practice. In fact, many CFS patients, in specialized treatment centres and the wider world, do not benefit from these interventions. When it comes to the management and treatment of CFS patients, there is still a lot to be learned. AvB ÷ talk 15:15, 19 February

2006 (UTC)

For a critique of the psychiatric paradigm promulgated by the "Wessely School" - a paper by Australian psychiatrist, Eleanor Stein:

• Assessment and Treatment of Patients with ME/CFS: Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists: Stein, E MD FRCP(C) [2005] MEagenda 13:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo?

Well this is a nicely-layered discussion. Any chance of a picture of the guy? BigBlueFish 16:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You'd be looking for a PD or GFDL image. Not easily. JFW | T@lk 17:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have serious reservations about putting up a photo of Prof Wessely without his explicit permission. --PaulWicks 17:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree here. Dr Wessely has become somewhat of a public figure in the wake of the Lloyd enquiry and various public speaking sessions. It is very common for newspapers to print photos of people without their explicit permission. This is different if the photo is exceptionally unflattering or caricaturistic, in which case I would oppose the insertion. JFW | T@lk 18:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If a PD image exists, there is no real problem with including it. If the One-Clickers have a picture they have yet to upload it (and I'm guessing they know what he looks like anyway) but it would be nice to put a face to the name that launched a thousand vituperative blog entries :-) Just zis Guy you know? 18:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reason why photos have to have permission from the subject; there certainly isn't anything in Wikipedia policy. There may be permission issues in taking the photo in the first place, but I'm sure he must have posed for a fair-use photo at some point. Anyone who knows the word Google can find out what he looks like anyway. BigBlueFish 20:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if I asked him and he said no would people respect that?--PaulWicks 09:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't immediately think of such a reason, but if he gave a fair enough reason then I suppose they might. However, I think this unlikely, so it's unlikely his opinion comes into this. WP:NOT censored. If George W. Bush demanded his picture be removed from Wikipedia, it wouldn't happen. Consider also the Muhammad drawings and the outcome of that. I don't see why he'd want to keep it off anyway, he doesn't look that bad. BigBlueFish 12:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I probably would, at least for a while, but you cannot expect or require blanket cooperation from all current and future editors of this article. Such an agreement or promise simply won't stick on Wikipedia, unless made by Jimbo. In the meantime, here's a Google search that yields several photos of Wessely. No idea if any of them are in the PD. GFDL seems unlikely. AvB ÷ talk 12:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

When we made some brochures (in England), we wanted to include Tony Blair. Because he was famous, we needed his permission (which he gave). If it had just been a random person in a photo, we wouldn't haave needed permission. I think this was because we couldn't use his fame to promote our product without his permission. The case here seems to be different, in that you are not promoting a product. In the US, people have been publishing photos of President Bush with various dodgy people which have been released under the Freedom of Information Act without his permission presumably. Stephen B Streater 09:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm a bit paranoid because I know for instance some scientists have had the animal rights people come after them after having personal details about themselves put on the web. I've got my pic plastered all over the web but that's because I only do nice friendly happy research =) --PaulWicks 09:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that images of Professor Wessely are already freely available on the internet and have been for years; given that there is a video of Professor Wessely delivering the Gresham College lecture available from the Gresham College website; given that during the course of that lecture, Professor Wessely pointed out to the audience, on a slide, not only his house but also named the pub to which he intended retiring following that lecture, then I would suggest that your fears are somewhat misplaced - shrinking violet, he ain't. MEagenda 19:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The One Click Group

I hope I'm not being too much of a pokey outsider, but something else that struck me as an outsider to the subject (whose perspective is a vital consideration when writing articles) was that this group seem to play a significant role in the opposition to Wessely, at least through these talk pages and are currently cited once in the article. Would it be out of citation practice to link the name The One Click Group to their website? It would identify an obvious answer to the question of who on earth they are, which is what struck me after seeing it several times. In particular, because the cited link is a pdf, one can not find out by directly following the cited link. It seems such a small thing now, but I want to tread carefully. BigBlueFish 21:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The One Click Group is discussed so much over here because they targeted Wikipedia with some form of coordinated attack. There are several groups of CFS patients who have a peeve with Wessely. It would be wrong to pick just one of them, nor would I be enthralled if their numerous websites suddenly had to be linked from this page.

A more reliable reference would be list or catalogue of all CFS organisations who officially disagree with Wessely's views (and hence his copious research). JFW | T@lk 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting cataloguing the groups who oppose Wessely, although it's interesting to learn why. My main concern was that particular name which crops up in the references section, and jumps out simply because it is a name and has no indication to who or what it belonged to. It's often common practice to include an internal link around the author of a source, but there is no Wikipedia article on One Click, so I wondered whether an external link would be an acceptable alternative. BigBlueFish 21:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with linking One Click is that in this article it amounts to an offsite POV fork. Look at this example of their work: [2]. Much of the time, One Click's home page ammounts to an attack page on Wessely. I am not comfortable with linking there, not only because of the way they treated me, Jimbo and the whole Wiipedia community. I don't have any such qualms about linking to other sufferers' groups, though. Just zis Guy you know? 09:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If they're really that controversial then they shouldn't be cited at all. It's not a question of representing their POV, it's saying their name and not explaining who they are. It's unencyclopedic and unhelpful. I don't really know how important the source they are cited for is to the article... BigBlueFish 16:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I sympathise with Guy, but I would not like to declare One Click taboo as a reference. At least we have editorial standards. The only link to their work is to an article detailing the "psychiatric paradigm", and is typical for similar statements on other CFS activism sites. If a better example can be provided, soit. JFW | T@lk 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:RS their site is not a reliable source for anything other than themselves. I have not seen any reliable sources use the term "psychiatric paradigm", but that does not mean no such sources exist. Just zis Guy you know? 12:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The term "psychiatric paradigm" obviously bears a certain POV, but it's our job to write about that POV, like the Criticism and opposition section does. It's impossible for One Click to be unreliable in that context, because by expressing that POV they are demonstrating that it exists. One could argue that writing about it constitutes original research, but who actually writes and publishes any real commentary on the thousands of social groups documented on Wikipedia? BigBlueFish 14:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is a valid expression used in debate then a reliable source must surely exist. See General Medical Council for the kind of thing that can happen when one vociferous blog shouts loudly - in the end, without corroboration from reliable sources, we (as non-specialists) cannot verify that we are covering it neutrally. <comment slightly edited by Jimbo--Jimbo Wales 22:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)> Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the archives?

A question for admins "JFW" and Guy: what has happened to the archives for November 2005; December 2005 – December 2005; December 2005 – January 2006 for this Talk page? MEagenda 19:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

They've been deleted by the foundation office, presumably because they contained a lot of abuse levelled at numerous living individuals. I'm not unhappy about that (naturally, as one of the targets! but I did not request the deletion), I think the current exchanges are massively more constructive than what went before. Just zis Guy you know? 20:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

So the deletion of the archives for November 2005 to end January 2006 is not related to the message of concern left by Mr Jimbo Wales under the heading "Please be polite", on your User Talk page, on 10 March? MEagenda 13:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Guy has already answered your "vanishing archives" question to the best of his knowledge. The "be polite" note referred to a recent sentence removed from this page. You don't have to speculate whether or not these issues are connected. You can simply ask Jimbo (but you may want to duck for cover when you do). AvB ÷ talk 16:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have had an email from Jimbo about this, and a messsage on my talk page. I think his view was that the archives contained little but attacks against Wikipedians and occasional retaliations, and were of no value in building an encyclopaedia. But that is just my interpretation, if you want chapter and verse you'll need to ask Jimbo. Just zis Guy you know? 10:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is necessary to set the record straight over the removal of the archived talk pages, and some of the claims being made by Just Zis Guy. One Click have been in correspondence with Jimbo Wales for some weeks now, over the large number of abusive insults, and defamatory and libellous (both misleading and downright false) comments about One Click that have been made by both JFW and JZG on the Talk Pages. In fact, the archived talk pages were removed, we understand from first hand information, at Jimbo Wales’s instruction. We had not asked for this, only for the offending comments to be removed, but he informed us that this would probably be his way of dealing with the problem. I think in the circumstances, we have been very reasonable under extreme provocation, and the documented evidence bears that out (evidence which we have to hand and which clearly shows how badly JFW and JZG have behaved, and how reasonable we have been in comparison). For some months, we have seen ludicrous and vicious comments and absurdly false claims being made about One Click on these Talk Pages, with the clear intention of discrediting us. As the evidence shows, WE CLEARLY have not stooped to obscenities, lies and nasty and false innuendo or just downright false claims, preferring instead to focus on the problem at hand and clearly and honestly state our position and our problems with what has transpired with regard to this entry. The likes of JZG and JFW, however, seem to have a cognitive problem with realising WHY it is unacceptable, partisan, stupid and anti-intellectual to use falsehoods and insults against us in order to denigrate us, including; calling our work ‘faecal matter’ and ‘bollocks’; labelling us as a ‘mob‘ and ’bunch of paranoid zealots’; and accusing us of keeping people ill, implying that we ‘hate‘ Simon Wessely (which is ludicrous), and using inappropriate false innuendo to link us to the ‘threats‘ Wessely alleges he received. This is not an exhaustive list of the abuse, defamation and libel committed by these gentlemen against us of course: though we do have that to hand.Just Zis Guy should also be made aware that we advocate on behalf of our children who were originally diagnosed with ME/CFS, not ourselves. This is just one of various factual errors Just Zis Guy has been making alone. And clearly, both JZG and JFW have partisan positions on this issue, as their comments on these talk pages have illustrated. This needed to be reiterated, as we have had to witness this partisan behaviour for a long time and it has been excruciating, as has their inability to even try to behave in an ‘NPOV’ manner or keep to the Wiki rules of engagement. In fact, the denigration and trivialising of the behaviour and concerns of the ME/CFS community per se on these Talk pages has been horrific to witness. One Click are a political pressure group who liaise with medics, politicians and other government representatives, and the media. We sit on the NICE Stakeholder Group. We submit evidence to government agencies. We are a global resource, read in over 70 countries. Our ethical opposition to the psychiatric paradigm (a term used by others I should add) is legitimate and coherent, and of course we are not alone. For us to have been treated in such an unreasonable and abusive manner by Wikipedia editors is pretty shameful, though we are well able to rebut such attacks and it has not stopped us from our exponential growth as a successful advocacy organisation. But people, not involved in Wikipedia or even in ME/CFS politics, have been inevitably watching the situation, and JZG and JFW’s unreasonable, abusive, defamatory and libellous actions do not look good to those people not part of the Wiki world. This is why the various measures had to be taken, no doubt. We can only hope that these two gentlemen can refrain from their previous ill behaviour, and try and understand that they are not exempt from the various Wikipedia rules of engagement. Angela Kennedy, The One Click Group 81.101.64.40 17:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And if you look on my Talk page right now you will see that Jimbo has posted a message which is highly complimentary of me. You can also see the basis of the One Click tirade and assess their version of what constitutes a neutral point of view on my website. The archives showed far more vitriol against Jimbo, me and other Wikipedians than it did against them. Nor am I alone in my low opinion of One Click's extraordinarily aggressive stance: this commentary by a former member also describes them as "vitriolic" and states that One Click’s “ME activism” seems increasingly to consist of little but attacks, abuse and threats. Not that you need external commentary - One Click's website is all the evidence you need. But I am not a plaster saint - given sufficient provocation I will of course kick back, as I did in the case of One Click. To accuse somebody of hagiography implies that they think the subject is some kind of saint; I am still waiting for Once Click to document precisely why I should do that, since I had never heard of Wessely before One Click's original anonymous edit - I thought it was one of the Methodist Wesleys, mis-spelled, and I came along to fix the mistake.

So, now you have two versions of events: one from a group stated even by former supporters to be abusive, threatening and vitriolic, and one from me. The Wessely article was prominently cited in my request for adminship, which passed by an unusually high margin despite the fact that the full text of all exchanges was visible to all during that process. Am I pefect? Hell no, nor have I ever pretended to be. Apparently the Rouge Admins strike again... Just zis Guy you know? 09:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Angela, I have no intention to offer any defence. For you it may be acceptable to engage in the behaviour that has been displayed over here, but members of One Click have been committing serious Wikipedia policy violations, and attacked Guy when he attempted to set the matter straight. This is serious. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for activism, and I fully sympathise with Guy's chagrin at finding that people were commenting on his actions in a forum where he could not respond. There is no reason why I should not be allowed, within the constraints of Wikipedia policy, to refer to this as "faecal matter". I am also fully within my rights to adhere to the view that groups like One Click have - from a clinician's point-of-view - a detrimental effect of the CFS patients' chance for recovery; this is especially true when I base my opinion on scientific research. Because this is a talk page. This is the place for personal opinions, collaboration and the occasional mild peeve.

Angela, if you ever hope to see your opinion adequately presented on Wikipedia, I have a prescription. First of all, read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines; it's all you need to do to write properly for Wikipedia. Secondly, get a username; this aids in the discussions and increases your credibility. Thirldy, focus on content and ditch the ad-hominems against Wessely and against Guy and myself; nothing is achieved by you ranting at people. Having followed the above instructions yours will be a respected voice whose edits will not immediately be reverted for being outrageous. JFW | T@lk 10:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The strange thing is, I am a long-time capaigner on a number of controversial issues, in some cases going against "received wisdom" (i.e. the collective prejudice of lots of published research by poeple who had made up their minds beforehand). The possibility that I am wrong has been known to keep me awake at night. I read and re-read evidence looking for the elusive grians of certainty - but they are absent. As with CFS: the only certain thing is that we have no idea of the cause. Some poeple have made up their minds that it is or is not Factor X, and I envy them thier certainty, but it is equally posisble that, as Bertrand Russell once said, "the problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and wiser men so full of doubts". I am still unable to make up my mind whether Wessely is right or wrong; it would be much easier if I could join others in the argument "given that he is wrong, therefore..." but I can't find any such certainty on either side. Of course, I have not read half as much on this issue as I have on bicycle helmets for example, where I have a collection of nearly a thousand published papers and other reports, and by now I can be nearly sure of my facts. Just zis Guy you know? 23:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychiatric paradigm

I'm going to return to this one. We are citing Angela Kennedy as a source for the term "psychiatric paradigm", but Angela Kennedy has no medical qualifications of which I am aware. The text piles straight into ad-hominem, stating that Wessely "has had a key role in facilitating the emergence of the notion that ME/CFS is a psychological disorder" - but Wessely states that he does not promote this view, and he explicitly states that the disorder has no known cause - his interest appears to me to lie in the use of psychological modes of palliative treatment. I am very uncomfortable with linking to that document. It carries on about "refusal to accept that ME/CFS is a neurological illness", which is absurd given the publications from Wessely involving searching for a physical cause. It misrepresents the WHO classification as acceptance that it is a neurological disoprder, rather than acknowledging the truth that the WHO classifications do not allow for coding of a disorder of unknown cause which may be neurological or not. And it repeats all the biased assertions which have been repeatedly removed from this article. If this is called the psychiatric paradigm by anybody other than One Click, no evidence has yet been presented. I'm sure if we looked long and hard enough we could find someone who referred to Mother Theresa as a Nazi, but we shouldn't include it in the article.

I guess what I am saying is that we should represent the mainstream of patient group perspectives oin Wessely, not that of One Click, whose view of Wessely is extreme and appears to me to be based largely on deliberate misrepresentation. As noted above, there are other targets of their attacks. Can we not find a calmer example? Or is One Click the sole source of the purported opposition? Just zis Guy you know? 16:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Arie and I have already provided sources of opposition other than ONE CLICK in the section "For future reference", including a recent paper by psychiatrist Eleanor Stein. Could I please refer you back to this section if you have not already noted these links.

Yes, Wessely has accepted a good deal of funding for research into what you term "physical causes" but Wessely's Kings College CFS Unit promotes the concept that although CFS (they do not use the term ME) may have a physical cause or an as yet unknown cause, that the persistance of illness is maintained by psychological factors, faulty illness beliefs, "deconditioning", "over-involved parenting", "secondary gain" etc. If you really want to understand the mindset of Kings College CFS Service then you need to read the article on the Kings site written by Mary Burgess, based on the work of Pauline Powell - I will dig out the URL for you shortly. The issue of the research criteria used by Wessely et al for patient selection also needs to be understood. This has no doubt already been raised before on the (now deleted) Talk archives but are you aware that studies carried out on patients selected using Oxford criteria, for example, may include subjects suffering from "chronic fatigue" and anxiety as opposed to Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome?* MEagenda 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Physiological Aspects of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Mary Burgess PhD - based on the work of Pauline Powell. MEagenda 19:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• It is not only the use of Oxford and Fukuda criteria with their implications for subject selection which is an issue but also the validity of results and conclusions drawn from studies where the methodology, itself, is questionable, for example, the 2003 paper: Epidemiology of chronic fatigue syndrome and self reported myalgic encephalomyelitis in 5-15 year olds: cross sectional study: T Chalder, R Goodman, S Wessely, M Hotopf, and H Meltzer [2003] BMJ 2003; 327: 654-655 Full text MEagenda 10:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please understand, I do accept that any group of academics can be vulnerable to systemic bias, in effect finding what they are looking for. I have long and bitter experience of just that, to the evident detriment of public health in at least two countries. In this case KCL have published a good deal of peer-reviewed evidence to support their view, but I am not inclined to accept evidence simply because it is peer-reviewed, still less to weigh arguments by column inches - peer-review can have the effect of simply reinforcing pre-existing conclusions. But what I am talking about here is the fact that we have no credible sources for the interpretation that Wessely can be held responsible in any part for this view, or that patients' groups outside the extremist One Click see it as such, or that the term "psychiatric paradigm" is used outside of one group.

I am still of the view that the article does not adequately explain the depth of animosity apparently felt by some towards Wessely personally. But if that animosity is restricted to One Click that is clearly not an issue, since that one group is not globally significant.

I'm still not sure I'm making myself clear here, but please humour me. Just zis Guy you know? 23:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

With regard to JZG and JFW’s comments in the past two days: Firstly, I am a social sciences lecturer and researcher, working on a PhD (though this has been delayed because of my daughter‘s illness), with a special interest in research methodology, among other subjects, so I am academically qualified (I shall pre-empt any silly attempts at claiming that only medical professionals have expertise on the methodology of psychiatry and explain that any such claim will make the claimant a laughing stock on so many levels). My document is, to the best of my knowledge, the only ONLINE comprehensive summary of the problems identified in the psychiatric paradigm and the beliefs of the “Wessely School”. In fact, this is why I wrote it, because there is apparently nothing else of its kind and I felt there needed to be. It is a ‘summary’, a resource document. There is also Hooper’s ‘Mental Health Movement: Persecution of Patients’ and the two volume ‘Denigration by Design’ (the whole document is not online, unfortunately). Both document Wessely‘s problematic behaviour and beliefs. In fact, these two documents are far more specifically critical of Wessely than my document. Hooper and Reid in their recent submission to NICE (also submitted to the Gibson Enquiry) use the term ’psychiatric paradigm’. I explain the use of the word paradigm related to a chapter in the Hyde et al book in my document. For JFW to claim his prejudicial comments against One Click are backed up by ‘scientific research’ is comically untenable. Psychology is a Social Science, and Psychiatry not only utilises much social science methodology, but also often cannot claim the status of natural science, because of problems with verifying/falsifying certain claims made within this discipline. There is a huge problem with validity because the paper(s?) he relies on are based on interpretations (of data) which can be demonstrated as biased and unsound. JZG‘s claim that Wessely is only interested in palliative psychological approaches to ME/CFS grossly misrepresents the situation, evidenced by Simon Wessely himself no less over many years, and JZG’s comments about the WHO were remarkable, considering the unsuccessful attempt to destabilise the ICD-10 neurological classification of ME/CFS, led by the Institute of Psychiatry, and documented in my summary, and JZG’s alleged lack of personal investment in this issue. Indeed, the evidence from the past two days alone indicates that JZG at least is being ‘fed’ by someone with vested interests in either promoting Wessely and the psychiatric paradigm of ME/CFS, or discrediting One Click, possibly both. In the circumstances, it is very clear that it is impossible to engage in any reasonable debate with ‘faecal matter’ hurlers, and so JFW’s ’prescription‘ is absurd. Therefore we will not be engaging with Wikipedia as this is obviously pointless. But we will be publishing material on the OC website that is read by congressmen, senators, governors, ministers, members of parliament, academics, government departments, civil service, doctors, the media et al in over 70 countries. Investigative writer Martin Walker’s article on Wikipedia will be highlighted. Angela Kennedy, One Click Group

• Denigration by Design: Update: 1996 - 1999: A Review, with References, of the Role of Dr (now Professor) Simon Wessely in the Perception of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, Margaret Williams (ME Research UK) Forward MEagenda 22:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Do be sure to let us know when it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. And any time you want to document what my vested interest in this is supposed to be, do feel free. As to discrediting One Click, Google is your enemy here. The above linked commentary was third or fourth on the list when I searched earlier. Perhaps you should consider adpoting a more conciliatory tone some of the time, and not assuming that everyone who is not uncritically supportive of you is your mortal enemy. Just zis Guy you know? 23:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article does not say that One Click is the only to employ the term "psychiatric paradigm". Hooper is an obvious critic of Wessely. I read what Martin Walker wrote. It is rather unexciting and a massive waste of time. Whatever he has been trying to achieve, it has been contraproductive. Same goes for the incitement on your website. Wikipedia is in the Top 15 websites in the world. One Click is not.

I have never suggested that non-doctors are not capable of understanding research methodology, nor will I suggest it now. But you attack my statement by stating that the research in question is biased, without much more than a blanket dismissal of anything published in the social/mental health sciences. That is bizarre. Is it too much for you to state explicitly why I cannot base my views on a peer-reviewed study? Or is all science bad when it reflects badly on you?

A shame you choose to ignore my prescription. If you say "we will not be engaging with Wikipedia", then please leave this talk page and stick to your tactics of writing long articles on your website, calling Martin Walker, sending emails to Jimbo and whatever. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 00:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For reference: a fine article by Wessely about the ICD-10 trolling and the CFS/ME nomenclature[3]. JFW | T@lk 00:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the whole Action for ME site fairly balanced, although I'm sure Angela will disagree here. JFW | T@lk 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And so would I. Whilst Action for ME (AfME) are currently the largest UK ME/CFS patient organisation (between 8-10K members) they cannot be said to be representing the voice of their membership since they have not held an AGM or Trustee elections in over 8 years. MEagenda 09:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Guy, you have said: But what I am talking about here is the fact that we have no credible sources for the interpretation that Wessely can be held responsible in any part for this view, or that patients' groups outside the extremist One Click see it as such, or that the term "psychiatric paradigm" is used outside of one group. Will you elucidate, please, for the benefit of future readers/contributors <God help them> why you are apparently unable to accept material from a long established patient organisation and registered charity, such as the 25% ME Group, as credible evidence? Is this material also viewed as "extreme"?

Like Angela, I feel as though I'm wasting my time here. I'm away, too, to find a nice hard wall to bang my head against. MEagenda 10:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with including the 25% group, or AfME for that matter - how they run themselves is not really of much concern to me. Let me see if I can explain this better: we have a policy, WP:V, and a related guideline, WP:RS. The latter defines the kinds of sources which may be considered reliable. There have been many arguments in the past over various contentious issues, and the settled view is that Wikipedia exists to document the dominant view, and to explain dissent fomr it. The dominant view seems to be that Wessely does a lot of good work, but there is a dissenting view. From my own reading I'd say that much of this is based on a misconception - that use of CBT necessarily excludes a physiological cause. As a depressive I know that to be false: depression can be treated with drugs and behavioural therapies, and both work. But that's an aside. What I want is a good, authoritative and reasonably neutrally stated view of why people have chosen to attach this to Wessely in particular. I don't think the One Click document could be described as neutrally stated. And much of what we have seen is essentially "given that ME is not psychosomatic and given that Wessely is responsible for the idea that it is, then..." - but I don't see any good evidence to support either premise. I will have another read around, of course.

But all I am saying here is that (a) we need a relaible source to make the criticism section much better and (b) One Click is not a reliable source, per policy. That is all. And I've been saying much the same for a long time. Maybe I am just looking for somethign that isn't there, I don't know. Other controversies I've been interested in, there is at least some credible coverage of the dissenting views in the academic press; often you will get special issues of the relevant journals dealing with the controversy, covering both sides. There was one of these recently on epidemiology and the HRT/CHD link, it was most informative. I'm really sorry I can't seem to put this across better. Maybe that indicates that I don't know what I am looking for, only that I haven't seen it yet :-( Just zis Guy you know? 10:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Guy, on the contrary, it is germane that you are aware of how this patient organisation is run if you are considering citing AfME as being representive of the voice of their members and the wider ME/CFS community. You need to be aware that AfME sold their members down the river some years ago. Since AfME (CEO, Chris Clark) no longer hold AGMs or Trustee elections, their members (now termed by AfME as being "Subscribers") are no longer permitted to take part in democratic trustee election processes, attend AGMs, put forward resolutions, call EGMs and shape the organisation's policies. Do not assume that just because AfME are the largest UK ME/CFS registered charity, both in terms of membership and income (which includes government grants to promote the PACE Trials), that their policies are representative of the views of their membership; AfME have been in bed with the psych lobby for years. MEagenda 15:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that both Arie and Suzy have been making edits to Guy's comments. Please do not do this. Rather, respond to the message. JFW | T@lk 17:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check the History page again, with care, Dr Wolff. You will see that I have changed "although the cause of CFS" to "although CFS" in my own comment. I would not presume to edit anyone else's comments. I'd like an apology, please. MEagenda 19:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology granted. Night shift interfering with my judgement. JFW | T@lk 02:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, have edited Guy's (and other editors') comments on quite a few occasions - in principle, technical points they would sooner or later have corrected themselves*. I will take this as meaning you do not want me to edit your talk page edits, a wish I will respect. In the meantime, if Guy does not agree, I think he will tell me so himself. AvB ÷ talk 21:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

*Taking great care to only correct where I was sure it would be appreciated, and never ever could be remotely considered to my advantage.

I can't say I'm bothered, I make mistakes all the time and I'm generally quite happy for them to be quietly and unostaentatiously unostentatiously corrected. I was rather annoyed by one editor who struck and "corrected" by X perfectly valid British English spelling, but good faith corrections are no problem. Just zis Guy you know? 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What nearly killed me was your change of my Spanish Inquisition link on the Mrs G user page (which, I immediately admit, was my, erm, politically slightly correcter version of your original tag which was funny as hell). So you say you are not the actor formerly known as John zis Gleese Cleese. Guy, I officially declare you have done your best regarding the Wessely AND Gastrich situation (and whatnot). I also officially declare your best is not just someone's best... it's not just your best... it's THE best. Unless you're swearing of course but that goes without saying. You have another barnstar coming up. No fear, I'll add it later, when the fever is down and I'm rational again. Perhaps I shouldn't have accompanied/chauffeured my daughter to the Kelly Clarkson concert last night. ;-) AvB ÷ talk 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking this as my final cue to stop contributing to this article or its talk page. I'm sure the Wessely article will get along just fine without me. There will be other editors available to kindly explain to new, well-meaning anti-Wessely-school newbie editors why they cannot simply add their generally held POV and tell them that they may do so at some point in the future following policy, once the medical journals are reporting what they already know: Wessely's treatments have no effect whatsoever on ME or strictly defined CFS. We know because we've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. The idea that CFS patients try to prove they are physically ill and therefore do not accept psychiatric treatment is nonsense. Desperate patients will try anything. They have no choice. They will go for it. This is evidenced by older patients such as me who didn't know anything about ME or CFS and believed it when told that their body would mend once they had their emotional problems licked. Once they had put an end to their emotional/mental problems, depression, anxiety insofar they had them and insofar psych treatments could help, their mens sana discovered that their corpus was as ill as before.

I'll leave with a message for all current and future editors: You may want to ask yourselves if the Countess of Mar or Prof. Hooper count as prominent adherents of anti-Wessely-schoolism in the following context:

From a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

AvB ÷ talk 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

PS No bad feelings. I feel a Wikiburnout coming up (quite incidentally after my 1000th edit) so I think I'd better give in to what seems most natural, and that's +-editing in less contentious areas, reverting vandalism or perhaps translating a medical article or two (one of my specialties). Hints welcome (Dutch/German/French to English or English/German/French to Dutch). AvB ÷ talk 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Arie, what is your point when citing WP:NPOVUW? And why should you get wiki burnout from a good discussion? JFW | T@lk 02:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Did I cite undue weight? All I know is that that shortcut doesn't work - try it. Apparently shortcuts to sections are not supported.

Good discussions are ok. This was not something in a discussion, just a very minor final straw. Sometimes my body reminds me I shouldn't act as if I'm a healthy control. Any hints for translations that might be useful? AvB ÷ talk 04:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the [[WP:NPOVUW]] shortcut has since been deleted. It was not at all clear and didn't work anyway (redirects to sections are currently not supported by the software). For now the use of [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight]] is recommended. AvB ÷ talk 18:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jacob (it is Jacob, isn't it, as on BMJ Rapid Responses?), thank you for your apology. What a pity you have alienated Arie, too, who would have proved a fine editor. Before I exit, I'd like to leave you with the following released today by Eileen Marshall and Margaret Williams, who as you may recall work closely in association with Professor Malcolm Hooper of University of Sunderland, since it draws together a number of issues which I and others have touched on, here, over the last few days. If you read nothing else about ME I would urge both you and fellow Wiki Admin, Guy, to find time to at least read What is ME? What is CFS? Information for Clinicians and Lawyers; Denigration by Designand the recent paper by psychiatrist Eleanor Stein: Assessment and Treatment of Patients with ME/CFS: Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists. I have taken the liberty of posting this response by Marshall and Williams, in full. I understand that a paper to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Hayworth Press, will be addressing, again, the issue of bias in the BMJ - another one for you to look out for. Ciao.

The Model of the Myth?: Eileen Marshall, Margaret Williams [March 2006]

In case members of the ME community find it helpful, attention is drawn to three important items.

In “The myth of the biopsychosocial model”, N McLaren exposes once and for all the myth upon which the so-called “biopsychosocial” model of illness so favoured by Wessely School psychiatrists depends (Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, March 2006:40:277).

McLaren comments on a recent paper by advocates of the biopsychosocial model who suggest that “cases with complex medical, psychological and social interactions require more services” and who lament the fact that orthodox medical services tend not to address such issues adequately (ref: Operationalisation of biopsychosocial case complexity in general health care. De Jonge P et al. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2005:39:795-799).

McLaren does not beat about the bush, pointing out that De Jonge et al (and psychiatrists in general) have made a mistake in crediting Engel as author of the biopsychosocial model of disease, when Engel did not write any such model. All Engel did was to plead for “a more considerate type of medicine”.

McLaren notes that Australasian psychiatry seems to have mistaken Engel’s call for a more considerate model with an assumed existence of such a model. To quote McLaren: “Nothing (Engel) wrote constituted a coherent series of propositions that generated testable predictions relating to the unseen mechanisms by which mind and body interact, ie. a scientific model for psychiatry”.

McLaren concludes: “Science is conducted according to rules, one of which states that people cannot believe just what they like. We are compelled to adjust our ideas according to the evidence, yet the frequent defences of Engel’s mythical model indicate little awareness of the discipline required to advance the science of psychiatry. Instead of an objective neutrality, we see an inexplicable partiality that serves only to retard model development in psychiatry”.

Perhaps Professor Peter White (editor of “Biopsychosocial Medicine: An integrated approach to understanding illness” [OUP 2005] who is currently principal investigator in the Medical Research Council PACE trials of this model) -- as well as other Wessely School members -- are unaware that the model they so fervently espouse is based not on a legitimate model by Engel after all, but simply on a myth? (For information on White’s book, see “Proof Positive?” on Co-Cure ACT: 2nd September 2005).

The ME community may like to know that McLaren presented a paper entitled “The biopsychosocial model and scientific fraud” at the annual congress of RANZCP in May 2004, which is available from the author at Northern Psychiatric Services, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.

The second item of importance is a letter sent on 17th January 2006 from Susanna Agardy to Chris Clark, CEO of Action for ME, in which Agardy perfectly exemplifies the non-mythical issues:

Referring to the “Research Summit on CFS/ME” arranged by Action for ME in conjunction with the MRC that is scheduled to take place in April 2006, Agardy goes straight for the jugular:

“It appears that the Summit will be dominated by psychiatrists and others who adhere to their views about CFS/ME. I hope you will ask the psychiatrists why they are so keen to be involved in ME/CFS. Psychiatry has spectacularly failed to alleviate the problems of mental illness. Certainly, its effectiveness is not nearly commensurate with the power and prestige the profession seems to enjoy.

“What we see is that, rather than trying to improve their skills in the area of supposed expertise, some (psychiatrists) are increasingly encroaching upon and appropriating physical illnesses, among them CFS/ME, in which they have no expertise.

“Some psychiatrists act as if the large body of evidence of the physical abnormalities in CFS/ME did not exist and pass the illness off as some kind of belief disorder.

“Psychiatry is replete with examples of the abandonment of humanity, ethics and common sense.

“Why should psychiatrists’ self-generated aura of infallibility in judging the human condition be accepted? Where is the evidence to back up this claim?

“While you have such an excellent opportunity, I’d like you to ask the psychiatrists how they propose to treat ME/CFS phenomena such as low blood volume, cardiac insufficiency, lack of perfusion to areas of the brain, various immune and neurological abnormalities, channelopathy, Low Molecular Weight RNaseL, many deficiencies eg. of potassium, infections with mycoplasma and viruses, to name a few. As you would know, there is well-researched evidence for all of these and more. How do psychiatrists address these serious problems? How do they manage to ignore the evidence for them and to prescribe treatments which are contraindicated? Is this ethical?

“You might also ask, in the interests of clear, unambiguous research, how they get the positive results for CFS/ME people in GET studies. You could ask why the Oxford criteria are repeatedly used for selection of subjects, when these criteria do not even include ‘post-exertional malaise’ that is the distinguishing feature of CFS/ME.

“The use of the Oxford criteria invites an unknown number of subjects to participate who very likely have idiopathic fatigue. The results are then passed off as applying to ME/CFS people and widely imposed on us.

“The conclusions of these flawed studies acquire the status of self-evident truth by merely being repeated uncritically, ad infinitum.

“In the interests of your constituency, the CFS/ME community, I hope you will ask these questions and bring back the responses to you membership”.

If the Summit goes ahead, about which there is now some doubt, the ME community will require an appropriate response from Chris Clark to this most reasonable request.

The third item dates from March 2005 and is also by Susanna Agardy (see “Does Graded Exericise Therapy improve post-exertional malaise in CFS?” Co-Cure RES: 30th March 2005). It is a damning indictment of the selection of participants for studies that are intended to support current psychiatric management regimes for those with ME/CFS:

“People with CFS/ME are being increasingly urged to exercise to improve functioning. In (an) Editorial (Med J Aust 2004:180:437-438) the problem of post-exertional malaise is acknowledged: ‘the cardinal phenomenon in CFS is characterised by a marked and prolonged exacerbation of symptoms following minor physical activity’. As people with this problem know, this exacerbation is often delayed and brings into play many symptoms.

“Three studies, two of them British and one Australian, have been cited as providing evidence for the benefits of GET. To what extent can the results of these studies be generalised to people with post-exertional malaise?

“Two of the studies, which are often quoted, show no evidence of directly addressing post-exertional malaise and do not even mention it (refs: Randomised controlled trial of patient education to encourage graded exercise in chronic fatigue syndrome. Powell P, Bentall RP, Nye FJ et al. BMJ 2001:322:1-5; Randomised controlled trial of graded exercise in patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome. Fulcher KY, White PD. BMJ 1997:314:1647-1652).

“These studies used the Oxford criteria of 1991 (but) the syndrome definition in the Oxford criteria does not include post-exertional malaise (and) there is no requirement to include subjects who have this problem. The amorphous and confusing term ‘chronic fatigue’ fails to do justice to the phenomenon of post-exertional malaise. These studies leave themselves open to the interpretation that some subjects did not suffer from post-exertional malaise to begin with.

“These studies do not justify claims which imply that graded exercise assists in overcoming the effects of post-exertional malaise because they subscribe to the belief system which dictates that most of the limitations (of those with ME/CFS) reside within their ‘dysfunctional’ belief systems.

“Where selection of subjects ignores and excludes post-exertional malaise (as with the use of the Oxford criteria), the experimenters’ belief system is perpetuated and remains unchallenged.

“For GET studies to have credibility for sufferers of post-exertional malaise they need to demonstrate that the subjects suffered from this problem before and not after the study. This would mean using the Canadian criteria.

“While there is any ambiguity about this crucial issue, people with post-exertional malaise cannot but reject the generalisations from these studies”.

Is it not bizarre that certain psychiatrists --- most notably those of the Wessely School --- persist in their belief that they alone have the undisputed right to demand a level of “evidence-based” proof that ME/CFS is not an “aberrant belief” as they assert, when their own biopsychosocial belief system that perpetuates such an aberrant belief about the nature of ME/CFS has been exposed as being nothing but a myth?

MEagenda 19:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• For further discussion of "The myth of the biopsychosocial model", see also: More on the Myth?: Eileen Marshall, Margaret Williams [21 March 2006] MEagenda 21:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What makes you say that I've alienated Arie? He has not attributed his "Wiki burnout" specifically to my responses. I will not address the numerous points you made - BigBlueFish sums it up brilliantly in his reponse below. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Pause for breath. Why do these sources need to be reliable or credible in this context? Going back to JzG's original concern, the link as it is currently in use, this is about documenting opposition, not documenting Wessely's actual correctness or the reliability of his research. We have articles on Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, Elvis sightings and, of all things, The da Vinci Code, and they are all fine because they discuss an opinion known to be held. The mere existence of One Click demonstrates that the discussed opinion is held. So is it not therefore appropriate to mention it in the article? If we can find more authoritative bodies who make similar claims to them, then we should use these and make more of the significance of this opposition, but none of the above discussion shows any constructive signs of finding such a source. So the question is, what are you going to do about it? BigBlueFish 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess in the end that my major concern is this: any quote from One Click amounts in my view to an offsite POV fork. I am far more comfortable with criticisms from mainstream groups like 25% and ME Action. I am not entirely convinced that One Click would recognise a neutral opinion if it bit them on the arse, although this is of course the result of having been personally attacked by them for daring to dispute the neutrality of stating that "Wessely should be granted a dictionary of his own, so far has he stretched the meaning of the English language" and "He has trodden the tightrope of confusing semantics with the balance of Blondel and the focus of a train spotter." One Click and their supportes thought that changing the language of those sentences, and others comparable, was sufficient justification for publishing my personal details on the web, and attacking me as a hagiographer. They woudl not tolerate anything other than those phrases, word for word. Strangely enough, the result is that I don't actually respect their opinion very much. Funny, that. Just zis Guy you know? 23:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean, of course, action for ME. I was confusing my actions and my agendas :-) Just zis Guy you know? 10:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

For all your commendable work handling some genuinely bad approaches to the construction of this article, I'm afraid I think you're wrong on this one. Articles on Jack Chick or Holocaust denial qualify as POV forks? I think not. So long as it remains clear that it is an extreme POV, readers should be allowed to see who this group is for themselves. BigBlueFish 13:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"BigBlueFish" can you tell me why you feel ONE CLICK's view to be "extreme" when evidence of other examples of opposition and criticism have already been provided? I consider that the link for the ONE CLICK article "The Psychiatric Paradigm" should remain but I also consider that the patient group/charity organisation the 25% ME Group should be cited as a source of evidence for opposition, likewise the MEA; Prof Hooper and the Countess of Mar can be cited as prominent individuals who have (for many years) publicly expressed their opposition to Wessely and "The Wessely School" (or does Parliamentary Privilege negate Hansard as being a reliable source?). Do you consider their views should also be held as being "extreme"? What about the views of Dr Abhijit Chaudhuri, Dr Margaret Cook, Dr Eleanor Stein? How many examples of evidence need to be provided before a view can no longer be considered "extreme" but one expressed by a small but significant number? Please consider whether there is an agenda behind wishing to cite only ONE CLICK as a source of criticism and opposition when it is evident that opposition to Wessely and the "Wessely School" exists not only amongst the more political and vociferous ME/CFS advocates but also amongst the charities who represent the ME/CFS patient community, amongst the academic and medical communities and amongst members of the House of Lords. In proffering ONE CLICK as sole source of criticism and opposition, the extent of opposition may be marginalised to just this one "voice", with the result that it may be dismissed by readers unfamiliar with the issues as being little more than a view held by an extremely small but vocal minority - a view which both "JFW" and now, "BigBlueFish", would wish to see defined as "extreme"; this will grossly understate and misrepresent the true extent of the opposition but perhaps this is precisely what "JFW" seeks to achieve. MEagenda 13:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think One Click is actually a good example of a group that specifically opposes Wessely, and is hence a reliable source of their opinion. I don't think offsite POV forking comes into the equation at all. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

MEagenda, be assured that I am relatively ignorant of the Wessely debate, and am only advising based on what has already been suggested. JzG, whose cool handling of this debate in the past has been commended by the encyclopedia's creator, and who therefore earns my respect, is contending that One Click is decidedly more one-sided than other members of the "anti-Wessely" community. He suggests that the material on the website is less neutral and gives less perspective, and that for this reason should not be cited at all in the article. It is this rejection of what he considers to be the view of the overwhelming majority that I call "extreme" and I really shouldn't use the word without associating it with the word "minority". It is up to you whether you consider this to be true. It should at least be taken that in the practising medical world, Wessely's research is generally accepted. I am arguing that no matter how "extreme" or controversial One Click's view is, so long as it has a significant presence (which it certainly has), then its viewpoint must be mentioned, not purged like the suggestion of JzG. I am absolutely not suggesting that the viewpoint given such a label as "extreme" in the article since this would be subject to very subjective terms. Acceptable vocabulary which might be needed to be correctly informative may include "small groups", "pressure groups", "a small minority of the scientific community", "although Wessely's work is accepted by the majority of the scientific community" etc. if it is seen notable that opposition to Wessely is particularly small, which I do not dare assert. That doesn't mean that any of them are necessarily appropriate or relevant to the article either. I hope that clears it up a little. BigBlueFish 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An email from Simon Wessely

I have received an email from Simon Wessely, having suggested he might come along and comment on this Talk page about any inaccuracies. he does not feel comfortable with that but sent the following:

[article says]

"Wessely is an adviser to PRISMA Health, a commercial organisation that `acts for insurance companies by arranging rehabilitation programmes for people with CFS. PRISMA was founded in 1999 and began establishing its programme in Europe and North America. Its head office and the corporate staff are based in Essen, Germany. As adviser, he devised the CFS programme that PRISMA offers to insurance companies for those with chronic fatigue syndrome"

I am not.

For what it is worth I was briefly a non executive director of PRIMSA, which is an unpaid position, when they were thinking of setting up a research programme. when it became obvious they weren't going to that, I stepped down, and have no contact with the company for years. My involvement was to attend perhaps a handful of board meetings.... in terms of my life history barely worth mentioning. I didn;t devise their programme, they were more than capable of doing that without me, but i did advise them on research, which never happened.

again, in terms of the context of my life it seems not worth mentioning - for example I spent 5 years on the MRC Neurosciences Board, which did take up an immense amount of time, as did the many other MRC committees that i have served on over the years. I was spent five years on the Wellcome Foundation Clinical Epidemiology Board, which again took up an immense amount of time and so on and so forth. i really object to having four lines on my cv about a miniscule involvement with a perfectly sound commerical company, for which i recevied expenses only!

meanwhile, we have been active elsewhere

"He is currently running a study on the health of 20,000 UK military personnel who took part in the invasion of Iraq."

should now read

"He and his team have completed a study on the health of 20,000 UK military personnel who took part in the invasion of Iraq. The results were published in the medical journal the Lancet in 2006. They showed that contrary to expectations, there has been no repeat of the Gulf War Syndrome saga, and neither has there been an epidemic of mental health problems in British soldiers who have served in Iraq. They did however show that reserve forces such as the Territorial Army have suffered an increase in psychiatric problems on returning home, and this prompted the Ministry of Defence to extend mental health care support to the TA even after they have returned to civilian life"

we are rather pleased with this, since it is not often that research actually changes policy!

I have removed the PRISMA reference since it appears to be plain wrong, I've noted the publication but will leave any commentary to those who can read the article (I don't have access to The Lancet). I guess the para as proposed is probably fine, but I'm wary of WP:AUTO by proxy so will leave the judgment to others. Just zis Guy you know? 14:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found two references, and suspect we should include at least one of them:

• Hotopf M, Hull L, Fear NT, Browne T, Horn O, Iversen A, Jones M, Murphy D, Bland D, Earnshaw M, Greenberg N, Hughes JH, Tate AR, Dandeker C, Rona R, Wessely S. The health of UK military personnel who deployed to the 2003 Iraq war: a cohort study. Lancet 2006;367:1731-41. PMID 16731268.
• Horn O, Hull L, Jones M, Murphy D, Browne T, Fear NT, Hotopf M, Rona RJ, Wessely S. Is there an Iraq war syndrome? Comparison of the health of UK service personnel after the Gulf and Iraq wars. Lancet 2006;367:1742-6. PMID 16731269.

Frankly, I have not read the abstracts well enough to see which one if more representative in this context. I completely agree with the removal of the PRISMA paragraph - this was an attempt at disinformation by the clickers and has been proven to be false (unless reliable sources become available that show us otherwise).

I congratulate Prof Wessely on his recognition that Wikipedia is an increasingly popular source of information, and I would hope he could instruct some of his research staff to join us to edit chronic fatigue syndrome and Gulf War syndrome into shape. Until now, those pages seem to contain more heat than light. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have invited him to do so, obviously. I think that past experience has soured his view of the project somewhat, but maybe we can turn that round. Just zis Guy you know? 12:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegible

Man, this talk page has become ILLEGIBLE. Please someone remove from here all the discussion below that has NOTHING to do with encyclopedic content. I've wasted enough time reading all the discussion about what did or didn't happen in some place at some time involving some people I don't care about. And I don't want othe wikipedians to have to waste their times as I had to do, just to find the discussion didn't belong in Wikipedia. --euyyn 16:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

There has been only 11 edits to this talk page since April, and none of them in August, so I propose to have this page archived. I dont have expirience with archiving and dont wanna start with controversial articles. But since the main discussion seems to have died down I feel archive would be pretty usefull. Shinhan 13:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)