Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tension myositis syndrome

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus but a default keep. Since this is a long discussion, and a complicated close, I'll explain myself a little.

To begin with, the closure does not endorse, support, or in any way reward Ralphyde's aggregious abuse of Wikipedia guidelines in this dicussion. If anything, it had a negative effect on this article's chances. Prior to the extensive re-write done to the article, this would have been a delete. However, the admirable efforts of users to source and re-write this into an encyclopedic format is laudable.

Nonetheless, I cannot determine a clear opinion either way, do to the confusion of the discussion caused by the sock-puppetry, and the re-write/"reboot" which occured perhaps 3/4's of the way through. As such, I'll close this without a firm decision from the community and without prejudice to a later renomination. Hopefully then we will get a firm decision, and without the sock-puppetry. --Haemo 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Tension myositis syndrome 1.1 Section Break 1.2 Section break 2 1.3 Start over

[edit] Tension myositis syndrome

Tension myositis syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Highly biased article that is little more than advertising for the books it uses for "reference" - Pacula 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Relisted? Was there, like, a debate or something? Mandsford 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A diagnosis that only one doctor in the world claims exists? Look like spam for his books. MarkBul 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It is just advertising the views of a single doctor.--Danaman5 17:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's a WP:SYNTH violation at best. --Evb-wiki 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article has been on Wikipedia since January, 2004. While controversial, tension myositis syndrome is a legitimate diagnosis that has been very successfully used, and thousands of patients with chronic pain have been successfully treated with this psychosomatic disorder since 1982 at the Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine at the NYU Medical Center. To post it for deletion simply reflects profound ignorance or bias toward psychosomatic medicine. Dr. Sarno has been a physician since 1950, at the Rusk Institute since 1965, where he has treated tens of thousands of patients, healing them of various mindbody disorders such as chronic back pain, fibromyalgia, RSI, and various other TMS equivalents. He is also Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine at New York University Medical School, and has written four books on his successful methods. His success rate is said to be over 90%, and his methods have been adopted by numerous other physicians, many of whom were actually cured of chronic back pain by him, and six of whom have written chapters in his latest book (2006), The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders. He is in high demand, with a worldwide reputation for curing chronic pain, and is still seeing patients at the age of 84 at the Rusk Institute. And there are other books on TMS written by other physicians but not listed here. For those of you who know nothing about Dr. Sarno or his methods, I suggest you watch the 20/20 segment [1], or listen to this recent WOR interview (April 2007) [2]. To infer that he is trying to promote his books is simply absurd. Dr. Sarno is a dedicated and successful pioneer in the field of psychosomatic medicine in a medical establishment that has been taken over by drugs and surgery, dealing with symptoms instead of causes of disorders. Ralphyde 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Given the amount of times "Dr. Sarno claims" shows up in the narrative I'm surmising that he hasn't actually proven anything yet so basically it boils down to original research really. --WebHamster 17:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, idiosyncratic diagnosis of what the medical community most often terms RSI. --Dhartung | Talk 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE, almost textbook - "If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia." Pubmed turns up nothing and the mainstream journals provided as citations say nothing about TMS directly (it's a WP:SYNTH). The sole scientific publication is a conference abstract calling for more study. WLU 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WLU... examining the citations, they don't seem to demonstrate anything about the claims, just that the answers aren't known. Accounting4Taste 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I myself have benefited from this book in that I have cured my chronic pain. Although Dr Sarno wrote the book referred to, he is not the only doctor to use this method. Some more are listed here: http://www.tmshelp.com/links.htm HilaryN123 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit: From my own knowledge of the subject this seems to be well-written article. I do think that the links to buy the books make it look like publicity for Sarno and I think perhaps they should be removed as they distract from the subject matter of the article. Deleting the article entirely would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. HilaryN123 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• • — HilaryN123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC)..
• Comment: Why is it that in AFDs on these particular types of topics lots of WP:SPA accounts voting keep start to congregate? Is it osmosis? Divine intervention or merely a magnetic navigational sort of thing? --WebHamster 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Never underestimate the power of self-preservation. --Dhartung | Talk 00:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Please do not generalize, especially not with a sarcastic tone. I !voted "keep", below, and I have never even seen this article before today. I read it and did some research and found it to easily pass WP:N and WP:V, though it needs work to conform to WP:NPOV (details in my comment !vote below). Also, the account labeled above as a SPA (by an editor who did not sign the template) has never edited the article at all and may simply be a new user, which is what the user states in their comment on the talk page of this AfD. --Parsifal _Hello 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete of course the sock or meat puppets find their way to these articles by psychic means lol. These theories should merely have a brief mention in the bloke's own articles. The person further above said this is a recognised diagnosis, then goes on o say it's only diagnosed/treated at this one clinic.Merkinsmum 00:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that it is only diagnosed/treated at only this one clinic. Dr. Sarno has been working at Rusk Institute since 1965 (that's 42 years), and during that time has cured tens of thousands of patients of chronic pain while developing his method there. It is also diagnosed and treated at various other places in the country and the world by doctors who have adopted his methods, such as the list referred to above, as well as Dr. Andrew Weil, Dr. Andrea Leonard-Segal, Dr. Ira Rashbaum, Dr. James Rochelle, Dr, Douglas Hoffman, and many more. Do any of the skeptics on this topic have the slightest knowledge of TMS or Dr. Sarno? If any of your relatives or friends have chronic back or other pain, they would be lucky to find him, and have a chance at true healing. Do a little research. Watch the 20/20 segment mentioned above. It proves that the treatment works beyond a doubt. Or would you rather have surgery and "failed back syndrome?" Ralphyde 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable enough yet. Ralphyde, you've got to stop the spamming. Be patient. Wikipedia isn't going away, and if this concept becomes recognized by the mainstream, you'll be able to produce plenty of peer-reviewed research to establish notability. Until then just wait. BTW, using Andrew Weil as some kind of evidence isn't the smartest move. He recommends all kinds of nonsense. -- Fyslee/talk 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Vote changed to KEEP below. -- Fyslee/talk 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Fyslee. This just has too many WP:REDFLAGs for me. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• *Keep This article describes a non-mainstream but extremely effective medical approach to chronic pain. It is used effectively as a diagnosis by physicians other than Dr. Sarno, including Dr. David Schechter, Dr. Mark Sopher, and Dr. Scott Brady. Furthermore, in some portions of the mental health community, it is commonly accepted that emotional difficulties can cause physical illness. This point of view is espoused by, among others, Dr. Charles Whitfield and John Bradshaw. This is essentially the same theory, but looked at from the opposite perspective, so Dr. Sarno and other TMS physicians are hardly the only ones who hold this viewpoint. The article effectively describes the theory and surrounding information and provides a number of relevant references on chronic pain; it is hardly uncited or of poor quality. There are further websites discussing and detailing success that individuals have had with the treatment which do not currently appear in the article, such as http://conquerrsi.com/ and http://podolsky.everybody.org/rsi/. In short, there is much more information about this topic than many voters for deletion seem to be aware of. This article is particularly worthwhile for those who may hear about this diagnosis from a friend, TV show, or article and want to find out more about it. For that reason I strongly believe it should be kept as a resource. Armchairlinguist 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite to NPOV. Per WP:HEY - This article has problems as an article, but the condition is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. There are at least 42 non-self-published books that mention the diagnosis listed on Google Books, and Google Scholar lists 15 citations, including for example Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 1989. Amazon lists 46 books that discuss that term, using their "search inside the book" system. So, the article needs a major rewrite and needs the sources to be added, but there is no reason to delete an article just because it needs improvement. Instead, it should be improved. --Parsifal _Hello 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC) [striking out and replacing my comment as follows, because the article has been re-written since I wrote my original comment. --Parsifal _Hello 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)]

• Keep. [Someone started a new section below, "Start over", so I've entered my !vote there too, not intended as a duplicate, just for clarity, and with a reference to this entry to make sure it does not seem like a duplicate. The rest of my comment here still stands. --Parsifal _Hello 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)] The condition is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable, and the article is now WP:NPOV. It has 28 footnotes so far, and only a few of them are related to the physician who coined the term. The condition has been discussed in a full 20 minute segment on ABC's 20/20, and in numerous other places. I do not believe it is a diagnosis accepted in general by mainstream medicine, but it is a notable topic and appropriate for an article. I've struck out my initial !vote just above which was to "keep and rewrite", because after I wrote that and my other comments below, I decided to dive in and improve the article; I rewrote much of it and added many references.

I had not seen this page and found it through this AfD. I had not previously known about the condition or edited any related articles. It's clear from the discussion on this page there are a lot of SPA's, and some COI agendas, so the challenge is to see through that stuff to whether the topic itself is notable, and it turns out that it is. There were significant NPOV problems with the page, but those have now been fixed, and the questionable external links that some considered to be spam have been removed. Beyond the references that I (and another editor or two) added to the article in the last few days, there are at least 42 non-self-published books that mention this topic listed on Google Books, and Google Scholar lists 15 citations, including for example Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 1989. Amazon lists 46 books that discuss the term, using their "search inside the book" system.

I don't know why this topic has generated so much SPA/COI activity on both sides of the debate, but if that stuff is filtered out, the content of the article is worthy of a "keep" according to the core Wikipedia policies. --Parsifal _Hello 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Whether it's real or not, it's fairly widely reported on, so we ought to have an article on it. • Lawrence Cohen 05:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. What is the problem with adding a section stating the concerns above? Deleting the article does no good since there are a few NYTimes bestseller books that reference it. There's no reason to pretend this doesn't exist, since many people do not take stock in this theory and many others will research it on Wikipedia for more information. 66.92.43.103 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

— 66.92.43.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's more understood than RSI, which is very vague to say the least. After considerable time spent studying RSI and it's physical maladies, most people become aware of Sarnos theory, and have a need to research more into it. Therefore it would be hindrance for many to remove this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.244.9 (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

— 90.207.244.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Anyone who has spent any time researching chronic pain knows that there is no good physical explanation for most of it. TMS is just one part of mindbody science, and we are only starting to understand psychosomatic medicine. I was very fortunate to find Sarno's books in a local library, which helped me avoid spinal surgery, and im an ardent skeptic who sees much "alternative medicine" as worthless or at best placebo. Read the books and do some simple research before deciding the world really is flat. 204.227.127.171 08:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WLU's rationale above. The case for keeping the article is not compelling, and I'm not seeing the kind of mainstream medical community recognition of the theory as I'd like to in order to convince myself that it is a notable practice. What I am seeing a lot of are testimonials from supposed beneficiaries of the treatment and readers of said books. This I find suspicious. --Agamemnon2 09:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "Mainstream" is a somewhat dubious criterion for judging what belongs here. TMS is a valid diagnosis, with decades of clinical studies behind it. Back surgery, as a "treatment" for back pain, has a dismal record of success, but lots of "mainstream" use. Eliminating valid diagnoses and treatments from Wiki because they are not accepted by "mainstream" doctors does this information site a serious disservice. Ignorance is pretty "mainstream" too, and I'm seeing a lot of it here. Oh, and the "cure" rate for RSI and fibromyalgia by "mainstream" doctors is pretty pathetic too.Mamaboulet 13:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

— Mamaboulet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Parsifal comments above, the diagnosis described in the article is clearly WP:N and WP:V. The article needs to be re-written to better maintain neutrality, and it requires improvement. But the diagnosis and treatment of TMS is described by licensed and practicing medical doctors, the list of which is objective and verifiable: Note qualification of those authoring the numerous texts available on the topic. And the scientific evidence to support the diagnosis or efficacy of treatment should not be the only guide to a decision to delete or include... the availability of evidence should only guide the appropriate presentation of the information. There is "no" scientific evidence to support articles like "astrology" (which is a beautiful and informative article by the way). Indeed there is scientific evidence to refute its claims. Yet the subject is clearly notable and verifiable, and as such adds to the richness of information available on Wikipedia. So as an alternative medical treatment modality, mainstream or not, clinical evidence supported or not, the Tension Myositis Syndrome also adds to the richness of information available on Wikipedia. The article should only be presented within the proper context of the available objective clinical evidence. As the evidence increases or decreased over time, the article should be updated to reflect this. But the article should not be deleted. Ej2pi 15:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• — Ej2pi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Those of you coming from ralphyde's call-to-arms post on the TMSHelp forum, please realize again that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion looking for a consensus on how to best handle this issue based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That said, we -do- welcome your input in this matter - and do not forget that you can also help by fixing the article so that it better meets Wikipedia's guidelines (most importantly in this case WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability). - Pacula 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As an "ignorant", "know-nothing", perhaps I should point out that I've been an FMS sufferer since the age of 12 (35 years ago) and have been reading up on the subject (and associated subjects) for more than 20 years, I still vote delete. So "HilaryN" ("it's a pharmaceutical conspiracy"), "armchairlinguist" ("too many ignorant people here"), "mamaboulet" ("terribly impatient with smug ignorant people") now that we know your true feelings for the thoughts and editors can we expect further helpful insights and continued help with the growth of Wikipedia? PS, I wish I did work for the pharmaceutical industry, my living conditions would be considerably higher. --WebHamster 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that you weren't able to tag me with the "has made few or no other edits outside this topic", so it's a bit inappropriate to ask whether I, at least, am going to contribute outside of this situation. (And if I were the other people, I'd say why bother after seeing your behavior, frankly. Luckily, I've seen some of the better sides of WP too.) I've been an active, if low-volume, contributor to Wikipedia for some time. Many people on Wikipedia are ignorant about this topic -- as I am on many other topics that exist on WP, which is why I only edit in areas I know something about ... Armchairlinguist 22:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If my behaviour is of concern to you then may I respectfully suggest that you make an official complaint? If you are going to accuse me of bad behaviour then do it officially, do not suggest it in a debate without backing it up by evidence. If you aren't sure where to complain please let me know and I'll help you out by pointing you in the right direction. meanwhile do not make baseless accusation. On another note, I'm glad to see that you didn't deny your insulting comments, thank you for your honesty. --WebHamster 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to report that Pacula has threatened to block me from updating because I have been attempting to repair the damage he has done on this and related articles. First he posted this Article for Deletion, then, on the same day he went to all the many references and links to tension myositis syndrome in Wikipedia, and deleted them. This created a huge mess of broken links and deleted citations, which I would characterize as nothing short of vandalism and censorship. When I tried to repair the damage he had done in the various articles, he accused me of "spamming" and advertising, and followed me around reverting my repairs and calling me a "very determined spammer." I have protested his behaviour on his talk page, on Wikipedia alerts, as well as with other editors. I don't know his motivation for attempting to censor the tension myositis syndrome article, but I urge him to desist. As this is a well established topic, and needs to be on Wikipedia for those who suffer from chronic pain and need to find this very successful treatment. Ralphyde 19:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Advice: This is not the place for this sort or report/complaint please go to WP:ANB if you have any complaints about another editor's activities. --WebHamster 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Advice: - Whilst you travel across WP this is a recommended stop too... WP:CANVAS#Stealth canvassing--WebHamster 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The prevalence of the condition and the failure of modern medicine to deal with it makes me inclined to agree with Lawrence Cohen that we ought to have an article covering the possibility that the condition is psychosomatic. (Both in cause and cure). What I would prefer to see, however, is a more general and less doctor-specific article.

Marcus22 19:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I do think that Sarno himself is notable; though there is insufficient acutal information to keep the page (in my mind), the little information that's worth keeping could be merged to that article, though I forsee that page itself turning into a similarly tenuously-sourced WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:FRINGE piece. Having two extremely stubby pages seems superfluous though. Information moved over would have to be carefully screened to keep only the 'good' stuff. WLU 21:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Part of the problem is that so many people are saying that there are lots of doctors who treat this condition, know about this condition etc etc so how come it's only Samo's name that shows up in every paragraph? How come it seems to be Samo's pet theory? The sycophants can't have it both ways. It's either Samo's claim or it's a widely accepted medical diagnosis. If it's the former then it needs to be deleted. If it's the latter then Samo's involvement needs to be either totally removed from the equation or severely pared down. So which is it folks? Either way Samo's involvement needs to be minimised. --WebHamster 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• • In my own case the condition to which I refer to as being prevalent is undiagnosed backache/pain, not TMS. Backache/pain, with no apparent physical cause, is a widespread and widely recognised condition. I would imagine most doctors are aware of it. Not just Samo. Marcus22 12:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break

• Comment. Let's focus. I've already !voted to keep the article, but not because it's a valid medical diagnosis. This is not a debate about how to improve the article or what the article should be about, this is just a debate to find consensus about if the article should be kept or deleted. Whether it's a "real" medical condition or not doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is: Is it WP:Notable? Is the notability WP:Verifiable? The answer to both those questions is yes. There are 45 or so books and a bunch of scholar papers that mention the condition (even if some of those mention it just to debunk it, they are still discussing the topic). To be clear, I am not at all saying this is a good article. It's not - it needs to be made NPOV, and that means it needs to include negative as well as positive information, depending on what can be found when the sources are researched. But it doesn't make sense to delete an article about a topic mentioned in 45 books (that are not self-published) - that's notable and verifiable enough. When the AfD is closed, or sooner if someone has the time, the article should be gutted of all none-WP:RS info and re-written with in-line citations and footnotes. --Parsifal _Hello 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - I've seen only one mainstream science mention of TMS, that's one of Sarno's students who 'published' it, and it's a conference abstract, not a journal article. The journal references currently used in the article are all completely bogus from what I can see, they represent the WP:SYNTH portion of the page. Valid info should be moved to Sarno's page. WLU 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Here's a brand new study on tension myositis syndrome, just published today: [3] Ralphyde 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So put it in the article, not here --WebHamster 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"it may be possible", yes very conclusive. --WebHamster 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition, that's not a journal publication, that's basically a press release. WLU 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the following criteria:

• WP:Avoid_neologisms - the phrase is a unrecognized term whose only advocate is a solitary source. The de facto definition of a neologism.
• WP:CITE - The requirements of scientific citation, especially in medical terminology, requires third party verification. Though many sources are cited, the only ones that directly address the main article topic refer back to a solitary author's self-published source.
• WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is not the forum for self-publishing fringe theories.
• Though not a direct criterion, the amount of sock-puppetry doesn't speak kindly towards the article.

Djma12 ^(talk) 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep ,Whether you buy into this doctors diagnosis or not, it is a valid diagnosis. I've been able to get rid of 3+ years of pain through this diagnosis and treatment program. Not everyone believes back surgery is proven in all cases to eliminate pain, but I'm sure there are all sorts of references to surgical procedures in here. Bottom line is that for anyone doing research, there should be at least a reference. My take is that the people opting for this article to be deleted have a monetary stake in nobody finding out about this treatment program that would crush many a back surgeons or chiropractors business. Let's not be so hasty to eliminate a good working cure to a pain that plagues 80% of people at one time or another. Massage doesn't work for all, accupuncture doesn't work for all, chiropractic care doesn't work for all...and nor does the diagnosis of tension mysositis syndrome. But that doesn't mean we should strike all references of any less than 100% cure. It's a valid diagnosis - keep the reference. Let the reader (not some people on a mission to protect their wallets) decide if the term applies to them. 68.32.12.92 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC) — 68.32.12.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Given that you've now set the precedent for not assuming good faith by accusing us of having ulterior motives. How are we to take what you say in good faith. How do we know you don't have an ulterior motive e.g. book sales, after all you are anonymous!. Please read WP:GOODFAITH before you make any more public accusations like that. --WebHamster 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Regardless of what you personally believe about the therapy, please remember WP:No Original Research. What is important is not whether you believe the therapy works or not, but whether it is verifiable. (Hence the maxim, wiki does not seek "truth" but verifiability.) Djma12 ^(talk) 02:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can't the wiki and fringe science all just get along? Make friends and go read some Voltron pages together, how about it? Then rewrite the page to be absolutely neutral and both parties let it stand. Some information, good or bad, is better than none. If no one talks about anything that's fringe how will they know to verify it or to avoid it? PenguinEatingAnApple 08:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

— PenguinEatingAnApple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I disagree, no information is far better than bad information.--WebHamster 10:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral factual information is best. Even if it implies someone is a quack. Or not. PenguinEatingAnApple 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I agree with :) --WebHamster 13:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FRINGE. The article has many, many sources, but only 3 of them apparently deal with the "syndrome" itself, and two of them don't even use the same name for the syndrome. Disclosure: I came here because of the WQA opened on this matter. --User:Darkwind (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and keep checking for NPOV. This is an interesting special case of fringe science, where the proponent is in fact highly qualified in the field and had an unimpeachable academic. Sarno is Professor of Clinical Rehabilitation Medicine at NYU_School_of_Medicine, a world-famous medical center. and Director of the Outpatient Department at its Rusk Institute, one of the preeminent rehabilitation specialist institutes. There are no higher qualifications. And yet it does seem as if no other qualified specialist thinks his method is valid, or that the diagnosis is real. I think that his stature however makes it notable, and the article is necessary. A notable error or a notable quack theory, whatever you prefer, but notable. DGG (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

** Comment - WP:NOTINHERITED, Sarno may be notable, but I don't think his treatment necessarily is, if the only sources we have are his own books. The little information that will remain in TMS after removing all the OR and SYNTH can easily fit into Sarno's own rather stubby page. WLU 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • Question./Comment. You wrote... the only sources we have are his own books... have you taken a look at the 42 books listed on Google Books that include references to that phrase? Only three of those books were written by Sarno himself. As I wrote above, the article needs improvement, but 39 books (not including the 3 books written by the person who defined the condition) is a significant set of resources that can be tapped, easily meeting WP:V. You might not agree with what the books state about it, and you may not respect some of the authors, but the books have been published and are valid secondary sources. --Parsifal _Hello 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• It isn't necessarily relevant that it's mentioned in the books, it's how it's mentioned, what is mentioned, why it's mentioned and how much is written about it in them. Don't forget the words "substantial" and "non-trivial" will you because they are relevant? --WebHamster 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Echoing WebHamster (though in a more conciliatory way). I looked into only one book from Google Books, and the coverage appeared to be trivial. Parsifal, did any of the books have anything substantial to say? I can only think they will not, as not a single peer-reviewed journal article has cropped up. Actual researcher/scholars wouldn't include a serious discussion of TMS in a book if they did not have some sort of peer-reviewed research. Though I can't speak for the other 38 books listed, I was hoping someone else would do the legwork for me :) WLU 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

First, just so you both know where I'm coming from, this particular article is not a big issue to me. The Wikipedia process is of interest though, and I see nothing in the policies that requires the use of peer-reviewed journals to keep an article. Sure, peer-reviewed is better, but when those aren't available, other sources are OK. Are the references trivial? I don't know, that would depend on how you define trivial. This book: The Clinical Practice of Complementary, Alternative, and Western Medicine By W. John Diamond, 2001, CRC Press, ISBN 0849313996 has 356 pages, devotes around 3/4 of a page to this topic, and lists it in the index both as an abbreviation and the full name. This book, The Undivided Self: Alexander Technique and the Control of Stress, By Theodore Dimon, Jr & Theodore Dimon, North Atlantic Books, 1999, ISBN 1556432941, gives it around a half page out of the book's 100 pages. In Awe and Trembling: Psychotherapy of Unusual States, By E. Mark Stern & Robert B. Marchesani, Haworth Press, 2000, ISBN 0789009730, they only give it one paragraph, but it's a paragraph where this condition is mentioned along with Sarno's work as a serious reference regarding how pain may be part of the cause of some panic attacks. Are those trivial references? There are a bunch more of them, and they are not self-published or spam-ish. It may turn out that with further research the article eventually says that the condition is only a theory that hasn't been proven (I'm not saying that, this is just a hypothetical). Even if that happens, it's still notable enough to be mentioned in 39 books and that's 39 books more than lots of topics in Wikipedia that have only magazines or blogs for references. Anyway, I've come to the end of my time budget for looking into this. I don't see any problem with a small article that has these kinds of references, Wikipedia is not paper, and some books made of paper had room for the topic. I think we have room for it here as well, though the article needs to be balanced and sourced. --Parsifal _Hello 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Part of the problem here is that people are misinterpreting the guidelines. "Reliable" is relatively easy to interprete as is "substantial". I believe the problem lies with the "non-trivial". There seems to be a fair bit of quoting of reference of TMS which only involve a passing mention, a few words here or there. These, IMHO, aren't adequate references. The problem is that these mentions just establish that the name TMS is out there and I don't think that is in doubt. Drive-by mentions only demonstrate existence of the name, they don't demonstrate notability, importance or even if the actual malady exists. For an article on a scientific term, which in effect it is, it needs scientific back-up by independent sources with the the appropriate scientific credentials. A 2 page dissertion in Old Moore's Almanac is not a valid reference, whereas a paragraph or two in a rheumatologist's Phd thesis is. It's all about. It has to revolve objectivety rather than subjectivety.--WebHamster 10:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please be careful with statements like people are misinterpreting the guidelines. The word "misrepresenting" means "lying about in order to manipulate". I'm sure you did not intend to imply that I was purposefully doing that. I will assume good faith and that that you actually meant that you believe I "misunderstand", not that I "misrepresent".

• Are you getting confused. I didn't say "misrepresent", I said "misinterpret", where you got "misrepresent" from I have no idea. Freudian? --WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• You're right, maybe I need new glasses. I apologize and I have struck-out my comment above on that. --Parsifal _Hello 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• On the topic you mentioned, WP:N and WP:V are policies, not guidelines, and they are not "bright lines". And they have room for interpretation, depending on the situation. When you use a word like a "drive-by" mention in a book, that's your opinion. In some of those books they refer to Dr. Sarno's work as groundbreaking and valuable. There is nothing in the guideline that says that has to be in a PH.D. thesis, and there is nothing in those books that imply they are in any way not objective.

• A back-hoe is groundbreaking but otherwise non-notable --WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, Backhoe has its own article. Bad example? --Evb-wiki 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't assert any notability, the guidelines and criteria for that sort of article are different to this article. A generic backhoe isn't notable but it is encyclopaedic :P (well caught though heheheh) --WebHamster 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome to your opinion that this article is not notable, and you've made your opinion very well seen on this page by replying to so many comments, arguing over and over that the topic is not notable. What is your motivation in doing this? I don't get it. Anyway, whatever your motivation is, you stated in your note just above, the following: these mentions just establish that the name TMS is out there and I don't think that is in doubt. Well, you have just agreed with me that the term is notable and verifiable. That's what those policies mean, that the topic is "out there", ie, that there is usage and awareness of the topic in secondary sources that are not self-published. So, we know this topic is "out there" and has been written about. Now, let's improve the article to explain what those sources have said. If it turns out that there are sources debunking the idea of the condition, that's OK, let the article show that too. And, by the way, Dr. Sarno does have real qualifications, and his books while not independent, are not self-published; they are published by reputable publishing houses, with editorial staffs, and they are on the bookshelves at Borders and Barnes & Noble, and many other mainstream places. That, plus the 39 other books, is plenty of notability and verifiability to justify an article. It's not by any means justification for assuming that his theory is correct or accepted by the medical mainstream, that would require peer-review. But there is no doubt, as you agreed, that his theory is notable and verifiable, because it has been noted, and that can be verified by looking at 42 books. --Parsifal _Hello 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• My motivation for doing it should be quite clear don't you think? I simply don't believe that it is notable, period. Why is it so hard for you to believe that? Another Freudian thing? I haven't agreed that "being out there" means that it is notable. You couldn't be more wrong. Notable means "worthy of note or notice; noteworthy" or "prominent, important, or distinguished". It does not mean "mentioned in passing", "mentioned as an aside" or "someone made a note of it" etc. I've seen graffiti that says "Bill Posters is innocent", does that now mean that Bill Posters is notable and should have an article? As for qualifications, Dr Crippen and Harold Shipman both had superb medical credentials.--WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• To me, 42 books is quite different than graffiti and I don't understand how you can use that as a serious comparison. But that's how you see it, so OK... we've each made our points; let's agree to disagree on how the definition of notable works. --Parsifal _Hello 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break 2

• Comment I have read about ten books on TMS, including all four by Dr. Sarno. Dr. Marc E. Sopher's book is also very good. He has a way of stating issues clearly, for example; "TMS is a strategy of the brain's to keep unpleasant thoughts and emotions from rising from the unconscious into the conscious mind. The brain, through established physiologic pathways, creates pain as a distraction. By focusing our attention on physical symptoms, we keep these painful thoughts and emotions repressed. This is a very effective strategy as there is an absolute epidemic of mindbody disorders in our society."

"Eliminating the pain is startlingly simple. We can banish the pain and thwart the brain's strategy by simply understanding and accepting that the pain has a psychological causation, that it is not physically based."

"While much of the pain we experience has a psychological basis, it is essential to first be evaluated by your physician to determine that there is not a significant disease process. Unfortunately, if your physician does not consider TMS in the process of generating a differential diagnosis of your symptoms, it is possible that he or she will give an incorrect diagnosis. This occurs all too frequently as a physical cause is mistakenly offered. This results in a treatment plan that is often unsuccessful. As an example, many people with back pain are told that their symptoms are due to a herniated disc or disc degeneration, when in fact these findings are often incidental and normal. This helps to explain why physical therapy, medications, and surgery are often unsuccessful." pp 5-7 of his book, To Be or Not to Be... Pain Free.

Here's another quotation from his book: "With the availability of CT and now MRI scanners, it is possible to obtain remarkable images of the body. That is the good news. The bad news is that many of these images will be reported as abnormal - one study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that greater than 60% of spine MRIs showed abnormalities, the same percentage in those without pain as with pain. Virtually every person over 20 who has a spine MRI will be told they have degenerative disc disease, disc herniation, degenerative changes, or some other abnormality. As these findings are present equally, no matter whether symptoms exist, it is Dr. Sarno's and my contention that these are incidental, rarely the cause for pain. Unfortunately, physicians are taught to find a physical cause for physical symptoms and thus tell their patients about their "back problem."

"Being told that you have a "problem" or "condition" can aid the "nocebo response." This is the opposite of the placebo response. With a placebo, belief in a worthless remedy can provide relief, almost always temporary, due to the desire to be well and faith in the value of the remedy. With a nocebo, symptoms will persist or intensify as a result of being informed, incorrectly, that a significant defect or problem is to blame. This is a critical part of conditioning - coming to believe that certain actions, circumstances, or aspects of the environment are the cause of symptoms, when in fact the cause lies in the mind."

In the 20/20 segment with John Stossel and Dr. Sarno [4] (14 minutes long), which I urge you to watch, as it proves that the TMS treatment works, the lawyer in the segment had seven herniated discs. He was very lucky to find Dr. Sarno before the surgeons found him, and he was cured of his chonic pain within a week, simply by being educated to the true cause of the back pain and changing his thoughts and attitudes toward his pain.

A Study in the New England Journal of Medicine by M.C. Jensen and others, in 1994 entitled "Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Lumbar Spine in People without Back Pain," showed that there was almost no correlation between pain and what shows up on MRI images.

John Stossel, probably as much of a skeptic as WLU or WebHamster, or even Fyslee, was cured of 20 years of chronic back pain by Dr. Sarno. He says on the 20/20 segment, "Frankly, I think this sounds highly unlikely, and I wouldn't even be telling you about this if 15 years ago, ABC correspondent Arnold Diaz hadn't talked me into going to Sarno. With one lecture, Sarno cured me of 20 years of back pain. It's so embarrassing, I can't believe I'm telling you about this..."

Another lady in the segment had chronic back pain for years before it went to her ankles and she had to go to work in an electric wheelchair for three years before seeing Dr. Sarno. Her previous doctor reading her MRI gave her the nocebo that he was "pessimistic about any recovery," that "it looks like you've tried everything." She was cured in a week by Dr. Sarno, and was jogging without pain three months later. Stossel's brother, a doctor, even more of a skeptic than Fyslee, kept his back and neck pain, rather than see Sarno, because as Sarno expresses for him, the attitude of many doctors is, "If you can't prove it in the lab, it doesn't exist."

Which brings up the difficulty of "proving" or even setting up a clinical study for a mindbody or psychosomatic treatment, where acceptance of the possibility of a psychological cause is a prerequisite to curing the disorder. As Dr. Andrea Leonard-Segal, a certified Rheumatologist and internist and professor of Medicine at George Washington University Medical School, who was also cured of her chronic back pain by Dr. Sarno, says, "It is difficult because psychological treatments do not easily lend themselves to the ideal clinical trial methodology. How can we conduct studies to see if psychological approaches can cure this condition? Patients with TMS must be psychologically open to the diagnosis to improve. They must be ready to renounce the idea that their cure is to be found in structural or chemical means. Thus, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to conduct a study in which patients with the same condition are randomly assigned to different treatments, one of which is the TMS treatment. Because getting better depends on accepting the TMS diagnosis, most patients assigned to TMS treatment would not improve because they would not be able to accept the diagnosis." This explains why there are not more studies out in Pubmed. Dr. Sarno has chosen to put his experience since 1965 at the Rusk Institute, 42 years of frontline clinical experience with tens of thousands of patients, into his books, so sufferers of back and other chronic pain can cure themselves by reading his books and following his treatment methods. In his latest two books he extends his treatments to other misdiagnosed mindbody disorders which are cropping up in epidemic numbers, such as fibromyalgia, and RSI, and others, for which the conventional medical establishment has no cures, and only treats the symptoms with drugs and surgery, and treats the body as a machine with no connection to the mind. This, however, is rapidly changing, and medical pioneers such as Dr. Sarno, are finally finding the cause of our disorders in our minds, and learning how to cure them.

By taking careful histories of his patients, Dr. Sarno gradually realized there was a pattern or profile for people who get chronic back pain caused by repressed unpleasant emotions. These are conscientious, hard working, talented, perfectionistic people, who tend to put others ahead of themselves, and they may have had a difficult childhood, been a child of divorce, or suffered other abuse or neglect. And he came to believe that the majority of back pain falls into this category.

Other books I have read are, Pain Free For Life, by Dr. Scott Brady (also cured by Dr. Sarno), who builds on Dr. Sarno's methods, but calls his diagnosis AOS (autonomic overload syndrome) instead of tension mysositis syndrome. And two other authors who were also cured of disabling Chronic pain by Dr. Sarno, Fred Amir, who wrote Rapid Recovery from Back and Neck Pain, A Nine step Recovery Plan, and Get Rid of the Pain in Your Butt Now!, by Monte Hueftle. And then there's a book I would recommend especially for WebHamster, Freedom from Fibromyalgia; The 5 Week Program Proven to Conquer Pain, by Dr. Nancy Selfridge, who cured her own fibromyalgia using Dr. Sarno's methods and is now curing other sufferers. There are others, by Dr. Schecter, and other doctors who have been trained to diagnose and cure chonic pain using Dr. Sarno's pioneering mindbody treatment.

I would further suggest that the skeptics here go to Amazon.com and read some of the many customer reviews of Dr. Sarno's and the other doctors' books. They are overwhelmingly positive, and contain many success stories by people who cured themselves of years of suffering with chronic pain just by reading the books. Especially see, Healing Back Pain: The Mindbody Connection, which was a NYTimes best seller, and has over 300 customer reviews. If you still have doubts as to whether tension myositis syndrome is a significant breakthrough method for curing chronic pain, then I think you must be beyond hope, just like John Stossel's brother, the doctor. Please watch that 20/20 segment [5]to begin to understand what tension myositis syndrome is all about. People in chronic pain need to be able to find real answers on Wikipedia. If you know anyone in severe chronic pain, and there are millions, think about them actually finding a cure that works.

Dr. Andrea Leonard-Segal concludes her article, "A Rheumatologist's Experience with Psychosomatic Disorders" in The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders, with the following quotation: "The beauty of the TMS diagnosis is that it is a hopeful one that can result in a true cure. The treatment leads to resumption of full physical activity, the emergence of a more emotionally healthy life, and an education in self-awareness. The patient who has recovered from TMS grows into a happier, more comfortable, more peaceful person who sees new paths toward greater personal fulfillment."

Thanks for your careful consideration, Ralphyde 04:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's nice to see that you are so well read and purchase so many books. It's also refreshing to see someone who is passionate about their interests. The problem is that none of the above is relevant to an AFD. An AFD is to see if an article meets the requirements of Wikipedia guidelines, it isn't to establish whether a malady is real or not, fringe science or not, one doctor's word against another's or not. You would be best served posting the above on the the article's talk page where it is most appropriate, not here. --WebHamster 10:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• WebHamster, I'm quite puzzled by your attitudes here. You have made 18 negative posts to this page so far. Yet you said above that you have been a victim of fibromyalgia since age 12. I'm wondering, Is it that you have just accepted the conventional doctors' nocebos that there is "no cure" and that you just have to learn to live with it? Have you given up hope that there is any hope for a cure for you? Do you find it insulting (as some people do) that the cause might be in your own mind? Have you ever read that book I recommended for you above, Freedom From Fibromyalgia? And here you are, trying to cut off the ability of other fibromyalgia patients from finding a cure for their suffering on Wikipedia. I don't get it? The only person I knew personally with fibromyalgia, who went through many painful years trying to find a cure for herself, finally did, but only, she said, after dealing with her "parental abuse," confirming a psychological or emotional cause. Yet many people find their pain preferable to facing their repressed emotions, which in some cases are horrendous, as with my friend, so they reject an emotional cause, and the possibility of a cure. I'm very curious and puzzled as to what makes skeptical people so skeptical?. Ralphyde 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't given up on being cured, I also don't have a problem with the possibility of it "being in my own head". My userpage should demonstrate how I dan't have problems admitting mental health issues. It should also explain why I am unable to get past the logic that it is currently fringe medicine that currently has no notability. Please note that I said "currently". FMS was discovered around 1860 but there are still conventional doctors denying it exists (personally I think it's because 1) they can't cure it 2) it will cost health care a fortune to treat it properly). Which ever way you look at it, it's only a tag, a description. Part of the reason I don't believe the term TMS is notable is that basically it's just another name for FMS. It's a term been coined by one person, or at least is being attempted to have one person's name attached to it. Let's face it doctors want to do two things in life. Cure people and discover an unbefore documented malady so their name goes down in the medical journals. I believe TMS is Samo's attempt to do just that, and I don't intend to help him. --WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WebHamster, I really appreciate your response. You say that TMS is just another name for FMS. Dr. Sarno would agree, except that he came up with the diagnosis of TMS with regard to his narrower focus on chronic back pain, which he has been curing with a 90% success rate since the early 1980's. It was only later that he began to see FMS as a more severe form of TMS, which he was also able to heal with his mindbody methods. He believes that FMS is in epidemic mode because it is being misdiagnosed as a physical disease.

Dr. Sarno says on p.62-63 of Healing Back Pain: The Mind-Body Connection (1991)[6] "Typical of these reports is one published in the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology in 1986 (Vol 15, p.165) by N.Lund, A. Bengtsson and P. Thorborg titled 'Muscle Tissue Oxygen Pressure in Primary Fibromyalgia.' Using an elegant new laboratory tool, they were able to measure muscle oxygen content with great accuracy and found that it was low in the painful muscles of patients with fibromyalgia."

"What this means for the etiology (cause) of TMS, as I have long maintained, is that fibromyalgia, also known as fibrosis and myofibrositis (and to some as myofasciitis and myofacial pain), is synonomous with TMS. I have treated a large number of patients who came with the diagnosis of fibromyalgia; their medical histories and physical examinations were consistent with severe TMS. As proof that the diagnosis was correct, they recovered completely."

In his later book, The Mindbody Prescription: Healing the Body, Healing the Pain (1998)[7] in which he expanded the TMS diagnosis to other TMS equivalents based on his long experience at the Rusk Institute, he says on pp 76-77, "I have maintained for years that fibromyalgia was a severe form of TMS. The similarity of my findings to the diagnostic criteria of the American College of Rheumatology reinforces that diagnostic conclusion."

"People with fibromyalgia commonly have psychological symptoms as well. They are often anxious and depressed, have sleep problems and suffer from lack of energy."

"Since fibromyalgia is part of TMS, I have seen and sucessfully treated many patients who had been given that diagnosis before they came to me."

In Dr. Sarno's latest book, The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders (2006)[8], he says on pp.21-22, "Fibromyalgia is a medical term that has been around for a long time. For some reason it was adopted by the rheumatology community in the early 1980s and applied to patients suffering pain in many locations in the trunk, arms, and legs. In fact, it is a severe form of TMS. Significantly, fibromyalgia patients commonly suffer from other mindbody disorders as well, like headache and irritable bowel syndrome, as well as emotional symptoms including anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. When rheumatologists first became interested in people with these symptoms, they were not able to explain what caused the disorder, but they created diagnostic criteria to define it. That became a kind of medical kiss of death. The American College of Rheumatology decreed that the diagnosis could be made if the person under examination exhibited pain in eleven of a potential eighteen locations. Since that time, hundreds, if not thousands, of papers have been published describing studies that try, still unsuccessfully, to explain the disorder. Two of these published studies of people with fibromyalgia found that the oxygen levels in their muscles was reduced, confirming the hypothesis that fibromyalgia is a manifestation of TMS, which we've seen is caused by mild oxygen deprivation. But the rheumatology community did not accept the idea of mild oxygen deprivation as the cause of fibromyalgia, and the epidemic continued. By the year 2000 the enormous increase in the number of people with this diagnosis prompted an article in The New Yorker magazine by Jerome Groopman, a professor of medicine at Harvard, in which he noted that there were six million Americans (mostly women) with this disorder of unknown cause and that it appeared to be analogous to the nineteenth-century epidemic of neurasthenia."

"The fibromyalgia story is another tragic example of the epidemic proclivity of psychosomatic disorders when they are misdiagnosed and, therefore, inevitably mismanaged." I think we are in near agreement. Ralphyde 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually no we aren't. I'm sorry to be blunt, but it's my way. As far as I'm concerned this is just Sarno's quest for glory. Renaming something that already exists and calling it an "invention" is neither a way of obtaining notability, nor is it something I personally find inherently useful. It's taken long enough for the medical fraternity to actually believe in FMS and take action, it does it no service for someone else to come along with another fringe theory and muddy the waters. This is totally out of keeping with an AFD debate, but as you bring it up... No I don't believe (at least not in my case) that FMS is psychosomatic as I have several other things going on (which I'm not going to bring up here) which have a proven physical cause. Nothing so far has changed my mind about TMS being notable, if anything as this discussion goes along I believe it less and less and I'm less inclined to apply the "assume good faith" mantra about Sarno and some of the other editors in this discussion. To my mind there is more going on than meets the eye. Especially given the behaviour and tactics applied by some to get their point across. IMHO anyone who needs to do that to say something is pushing an agenda of some sort (for whatever reason), this in turn makes me think that notability is something that they need to achieve some purpose other than to get an article in Wikipedia. For me the meat-puppetry was both the clincher and several nails in the coffin of this discussion. --WebHamster 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Quest for glory"! Give me a break! This man is 84 years old, and still seeing and healing new patients at the Rusk Institute every day, as he has been for 42 years! Does that sound like questing for glory? I'd call it uncommon dedication and devotion to the suffering of his fellow human beings. In terms of "suffering relieved," I can think of no one else on this planet who might have relieved more pain than Dr. Sarno in terms of patients cured directly, and through his books. He is a pioneer of a new paradigm for our time in medicine. FMS had "no cure," just a bunch of symptoms. Why would he take on that name for his psychosomatic diagnosis and cure of chronic back and other pain? But, good luck in finding your cure, sincerely. But I hope you'll read that book I recommended for you, Freedom From Fibromyalgia: The 5 Week Program Proven to Conquer Pain, by Dr. Nancy Selfridge, who cured her own FMS using Dr. Sarno's methods. Maybe you'll change your mind. Ralphyde 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• 84 stuck in the same place for 42 years, I'd say that was a perfect time for a bit of glorification in the medical history books. Perfect way of gaining immortality I'd say. Now your mileage may vary of course, but personally I wouldn't let an 84 year old near me for treatment. Come to think of it I wouldn't want to be on the same highway as a n 84 year old let alone a treatment clinic. When someone is described as "inventing" a diagnosis then my cynicism antennae are perked up immediately. When I start to mistrust the person making that claim then it's only one more step to distrusting what it is they are saying. So far all you've managed to do (for me) is demonstrate that the guy isn't to be trusted and if he can't be trusted then what he says can't be trusted. If I'm not believing what it is he's saying then I can't believe that it is notable... implausible, incorrect, ludicrous... now I could be persuaded to believe that of his claims, but sorry no. The other thing you have to take into account is that I'm British, and inherently suspicious of anyone who charges for medical treatment. You see profit comes into it then and that in itself opens a whole new can of worms. There are far too many things going against it for my taste. My vote remains the same. Delete. --WebHamster 22:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I just went to one of the links given in the article, one I hadn't been to yet. $90 for a f***ing DVD, you have to be shitting me? Looks like Sarno himself has proven my above point! --WebHamster 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Stuck?" in the preeminent Rehabilitaton Institute, Howard A. Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, in the country? Don't you think he could have retired 20 years ago if he didn't love his job and the personal satisfaction of healing people of years of severe pain? I can't believe your cynicism! But something I agree with you on: "I'm British, and inherently suspicious of anyone who charges for medical treatment. You see profit comes into it then and that in itself opens a whole new can of worms." I would be happy if our medical system were not-for-profit and free like yours and those of most other industrialized countries. That would be a big improvement, as most bankruptcies over here are for medical bills, which are huge, and line the pockets of insurance and drug company CEOs among others. But I've given up on persuading you of anything, as your skepticism and cynicism are way too deep. But good luck on your healing, and you never did say if you watched that 20/20 segment or read that book on Fibromyalgia. Ralphyde 00:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I watched the 20/20 segment and apart from it being a puff pience there were a lot of inconsistencies e.g. they all described themselves as being "pain free" after the 3 hour lecture, but then immediately went on to explain what they did when they had relapses. Excuse me but if the pain keeps coming back then that is not "pain free". Likewise they mentioned about how much is being lost because of back pain, but here we go 8 years later no-one has taken up the challenge and put money up to do a full blown study. Just think of all the money that could be saved if he's correct, but no-one has funded him. To me that says a lot, likewise it says a lot when this so-called eminent doctor is hawking his wares all over town. Even in this debate you've been trying to sell his books. So to answer the question about reading the book... there's no way in Hades I would hand over coinage to this guy. $90 for a DVD, how the hell is that justified? This is about money or glory or more likely both. Add to that the intensity of your efforts to get this article into WP and I'm now convinced that this is all about $$$ and nothing more. --WebHamster 01:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I'm truly sorry to get you so upset. But I must say that with your negative attitudes and cynical thoughts, I doubt if you'll ever be open to a real cure. Good luck, though. I feel for you, and all people in chronic pain. Ralphyde 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Firstly please don't be so patronising. You're sounding like a salesman who's just realised he isn't going to make a sale. Secondly one last comment about Sarno himself. Any doctor who casually says to a reporter that he is welcome to look though his patient files and then use those files as a source to cold-call those patients is a doctor who should be struck off. That doctor seems to be more concerned with publicity for his pet theory than he is for patient confidentiality. --WebHamster 09:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys....nothing to do with the AfD, all it's doing is making a lot of noise for zero input into the discussion over whether or not the article should be deleted. Shot info 07:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable per WP:N. There seems to be a lot of hand waving here trying to establish notability but they don't override policy. There is zero third party references used, in particular references by reliable sources seem to be lacking, particularly those that mention the expression outside of an insular fringe community. At the moment the article reads like it's lifted from Sarno's books (possible WP:COPYVIO) and generally appears to be "advertising" his information (possible WP:SPAM). Probably could be merged with Sarno and trimmed to reflect it's relevance. Shot info 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I believe that the subject Tension Myositis Syndrome (TMS) meets the Wikipedia criteria, which require the article to be WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. The notability and verifiability come from a small number of articles in journals, an article in a medical school's proceedings and an article on Prevention magazine's web site. I just added citations for the medical school and Prevention magazine articles. Currently, the Wikipedia TMS article only has one reference to a medical journal article on TMS. This article is in the journal "Evidence Based Integrative Medicine", which is not included in PubMed. I will work on getting other journal articles added to the footnotes. Although the TMS treatment has not been studied with controlled clinical trials, such proof is not required for a Wikipedia article. Also, the topic of TMS is not original research because of the articles mentioned above, as well as the numerous books which mention TMS. Perhaps individual statements in the Wikipedia TMS article are original research, but that does not affect the proposed article deletion. JTSchreiber 04:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC) — JTSchreiber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up. I have added two more journal articles to the footnotes. Here is a list of the sources which need to be evaluated to see whether the article is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable (in approximate descending order of reliability by Wikipedia policies): (a) three articles in peer-reviewed medical journals-Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, Evidence Based Integrative Medicine and Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, (b) one article in a peer-reviewed psychology journal-Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, (c) one article in a medical school's proceedings-Proceedings of UCLA Healthcare, (d) two articles on mainstream medical media web sites-Medscape and Prevention magazine, and (e) one segment on a nation-wide American TV newsmagazine-20/20.

Here are some additional comments on the sources. First, each of the articles focuses on TMS, rather than mentioning it briefly. Second, I want to note that even thought the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation article is a supplement, this journal conducts peer reviews on supplement articles. Third, the footnotes also contain an abstract for a paper presented at a medical conference. I am not sure whether an abstract without the full article should carry much weight, so I did not list it above. Finally, although I definitely appreciate Parsiful’s efforts to add references, I do not believe the Harvard RSI Action Group reference should be considered in the AfD evaluation. This group is composed of Harvard students with no medical training.

Thanks to all who provided constructive criticism and/or helped to clean up the article.JTSchreiber 05:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note to closing administrator. I've already !voted above, but I got frustrated with some of the arguing here, so I have edited the article a bit for NPOV, and I added a reference from Medscape Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine. I had never edited or even seen this article before this AfD, but since there are references available, I thought I'd add some. So if you had looked at the article previously, please recheck it before closing the AfD. --Parsifal _Hello 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up. I've now rewritten much of the article, made it much more NPOV, removed unsourced information, added several more references, and tightened up all of the language. I believe it's now completely clear that this article is not spam. The condition has even been the subject of a full 20 minute segment on ABC TV's 20/20 show; that certainly supports that, while controversial, this topic is fully notable and verifiable. --Parsifal _Hello 09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I wanted to say I much prefer Parsifal's edits of the page. This version doesn't read like an advertising blurb from the back of a book. Clearly expressed are both the potential value and the unverified and non-mainstream nature of TMS. This is much more credible a page overall to me. PenguinEatingAnApple 10:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — PenguinEatingAnApple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp Djma12 ^(talk) 12:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC).

• Keep - I don't agree with the request to delete. Dr Sarno's first book was published in the 70s (I think) and is still available today. So is broadly read not an 'insular fringe community' as quoted above. A major contribution to mind-body medicine, which is slowly growing in acceptance judging by the increased mentions in the media. Longshanks 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

— Sillver Mountain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Evb-wiki 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

- also note the use of "[[User:Sillver Mountain|Longshanks]]" above - not sure if that's an intentional attempt to mislead or not.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacula (talk • contribs)

• - - Ha Ha - no not an attempt to mislead,just trying to get the hang of this script! Editors here seem to be virtually all software engineers or similar - not sure if such scientific types would give a fair appraisal of TMS, non-scientific mind-body theory - though I'm sure they will insist they are following wiki rules.Longshanks 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• It most certainly is an attempt to mislead. Your user name is not Longshanks, it's Sillver Mountain. If it's 2 people sharing an account then please don't, get your own it's against the rules. Please see WP:U#Sharing accounts. --WebHamster 09:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think the article should stay but, as others have said, monitored for NPOV. I recoverd from excruciating RSI by using the mind-body techniques of Sarno, Schlechter and others. Had I not found out about it I would still be in pain, depressed, and not able to pursue my career. People should have the option of knowing there are other ways of treating chronic pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnels2 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

— Jnels2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You are correct, WebHamster, I have made absolutely no other edits outside of this topic. I am one of those people who found out about this discussion from the TMSForum site and came over here to register my opinion that the article should stay. Actually, I hardly ever go to TMSForum because I don't think about my erstwhile RSI much anymore, nor do I want to. But once in a blue moon I go back there to see what people are talking about, and I saw the discussion about the potential pending delete for the TMS article and I thought I'd make my very first foray in to Wikipedia to make a comment. If people think this is a crack-pot idea, then maybe the "controversy" section should be bolstered, but why delete the whole thing? I myself found out about the TMS/Sarno/Schechter/Amir school of thought completely by accident, but I'll tell you that I am really thankful I did. Basically what happened is that I didn't believe it, I read the books, I started thinking about it and saying to myself "well, why not give this approach a try? He's not advocating any drugs, surgery, or anything that could harm me, he's just saying to think about pain in a different way, i.e. that it's tension-related." And 2 weeks later a 2 year struggle with excruciating pain was over, and I was back to using the computer full time and was pain free. That was 2 years ago. Basically, I read a couple of books and I got better. MUCH more preferable to me than wrist surgery, anti-inflammatory medicine, splints and the like. It would be too bad if this article got deleted. I think people need to have more options rather than fewer when it comes to their health. -jnels2

• Reason for the number of meatpuppets - I thought editors would find this post by Ralphyde on the TMS Forum interesting. Help on Wikipedia Djma12 ^(talk) 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have no regrets about what I said on that post. The TMS Help Forum is a website where people afflicted with chronic pain from tension myositis syndrome assist each other in applying Dr. Sarno's and the other doctors' mindbody treatments to reach successful healing of their pain. There are many success stories posted there [[9]] as well by those who have come through and gotten well from chronic back pain, fibromyalgia, RSI, and other variations of TMS, and I invite you to go there and read some of them. Some take longer and are still struggling to adopt the proper attitudes and overcome their doubts to beat TMS. This is a critical topic for most of the people who post here, and many of them first heard of tension myositis syndrome from Wikipedia as they researched their symptoms, which should be part of its purpose, to let people find out about what ails them and seek healing. Most went through the conventional medical community for years with no relief from their painful symptoms, so when they found out about TMS, they began to get their lives back. So when a person who knows nothing about the subject marks it for deletion for bogus reasons, then deletes all links to it from related subjects, then reverts all my attempts to repair his vandalism, and others who know nothing about the subject pile on, I sounded the alarm for help from others for whom this is an important subject who might also be Wikipedia editors. There are those who are hopelessly biased, such as WebHamster, a fibromyalgia sufferer, who has made 31 negative posts to this site so far, who is so personally attached to his belief that his ailment is physical that he attibutes bogus motives to everything anyone else says to hold onto that belief, and wishes to deny other fibromyalgia sufferers access to this important healing method. As he said, "No information is better than bad information," which reminds me of the Taliban blowing up ancient Buddhist statues. Yet the section on WP:FRINGE, says, "By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "debunk" notable ideas which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." Ralphyde 17:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Way to go Ralph. Wiping your feet on (and admitting to) WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:CANVAS#Stealth canvassing, WP:OR. WP:FRINGE and WP:SOCK all in one paragraph. There's probably more too. May I point out that you know next to nothing about me so keep the personal comments out of it okay? Save that for the TMS forum where my ailments are being cogitated (incorrectly as it happens) by people who wouldn't know neutral if someone gave them a flyer with Webster's definition of "neutral" written on it in 72pt Inpact. --WebHamster 18:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• You're right, WebHamster, I know next to nothing about you except what you have posted above in 32 or more posts, in which you said you had fibromyalgia and pointed me to your talk page, and the unending negativity of your posts. I tried to engage you in a reasonable discussion, but got only negativity, biased projections, and ridiculous attributions about Dr. Sarno's motives in return. I don't think I've been uncivil, but if you do, I apologize. Ralphyde 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but debates mostly have one person being positive and the other being negative? The view of that polarity depends on one's outlook. You appear to believe that because I haven't changed my mind that I'm somehow in the wrong. Has it not occurred to you that you haven't shifted your position one iota either? Which from my standpoint makes you the negative one who won't change his mind. It's all about perspective and subjectivety. As for the Sarno accusations. I saw the evidence and said what I saw. Just out of interest, just how much does that 3 hour lecture cost? I ask purely for balance of course. I explained my rationale ($90 DVD etc), yours seems to be based purely on your word with nothing else to back it up other than "buy the book". --WebHamster 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know that cost. I think it's part of the treatment. But you tell me, how much would it be worth if it cured your fibromyalgia? Ralphyde 19:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just get Sarno to fax the script to my GP and I'll get it for nothing. Now please leave me and the FMS out of it. The discussion has been sidelined far too much already. I'll say the same to you as I do to anyone who comes to my door. "No thanks, I never ever, buy from someone who tries to sell me something. They aren't impartial. I buy from where I choose to go". Now please feel free to have the last word, it's more than likely a repeat anyway. --WebHamster 20:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. But I didn't come to your door, nor try to sell you anything. I'd say you came to mine by responding to my post. I've simply tried to educate you and the others here with regard to the tension myositis syndrome diagnosis and cure that has worked for tens of thousands of pain sufferers. Here's another good educational interview from 2007 [[10]] in place of that fax you requested. It won't cost you a thing, and you might even learn something. Best wishes, Ralphyde 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Start over

• Comment - Based on the edits made by Parsifal, I think the discussion on the AFD should be re-started, essentially ignoring the above discussion 'cause it's so long and the page has changed so much. My reading of the page as it exists now is that it passes WP:N and can stay up, though there are still significant problems. Congratulations Parsifal for putting in the work to make this enormous discussion obselete :) Who's with me? WLU 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Second that. I don't know if there's a precedent or not, but this AfD has gotten absurd. But on further thought, I don't want to do this over.--Bfigura ^(talk) 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• This absurdity is secondary mostly to a WP:CANVAS violation. To stop now would be analogous to negotiating with terrorism. (Tongue in cheek.) Djma12 ^(talk) 00:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• God no - I could not stand following another five days of this drivel back and forth. --Evb-wiki 23:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Following Parsifal's pruning and other contributors work to remove the hyperbole, rhetoric and spam. A keep purely on the basis that it's encyclopaedic. Total WP:BOLLOCKS, but encyclopaedic bollocks. --WebHamster 00:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Based purely on Parsifal's good work. Ralphyde's serious violations of CANVASS notwithstanding. Since this is not a vote, the number of "votes" that are not legitimate shouldn't sway the admin who decides this. They should not count for a keep, and even if Ralphyde were punished for doing it, it should not count against the article's status. I think Parsifal has brought this article up to a notable standard for inclusion. I'll reword my vote above. -- Fyslee/talk 00:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Still Delete, NO REBOOT

• If you'll ask the majority of non-meatpuppets on this page, I'm sure the still conclude that this article does not "pass WP:N and can stay up." Though I appreciate Parsifal's substantial efforts for this page, this article still fails WP:Avoid_neologisms, the academic standards of WP:CITE, and WP:SPAM.
• The discussion should definitely NOT be rebooted. There are still substantial, unaddressed criticisms that can not be easily reproduced after a reboot.
• Any attempt to reboot now will merely be an attempt to swing an Afd by attrition -- delaying AfD enough until the critics tire and drop out. This is completely against the spirit of AfD.

Djma12 ^(talk) 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - the 20/20 segment is verifiably about Sarno and TMS, I think a US national news program means the article passes notability. Add to that several interviews and a conference abstract and I think the page passes. Not with flying colours, but passes. Problems with the article, the AFD meatpuppetting and the whole AFD are independent of notability, which is established in my mind. WLU 09:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per my comments above - 20/20 interview, conference abstract and interviews establish notability. WLU 09:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Subject appears to be well documented and written about, even if the information about the subject is negative; the fact that people are compelled to publish critisism of it shows that it has some sway. My understanding is that if something is notable, "people want to write about it" - therefore this subject is notable. Denaar 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - in my opinion this condition could/should be considered as part of Fibromyalgia - having a separate entry for Tension myositis syndrome is making a distinction without a difference. Frig ears 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• — Frig ears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ---- WebHamster 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Today's New York Times had two paragraphs on Sano and TMS, calling his work pioneering and one of the "most common back pain treatments". I think WP:N may be a bit too strict if Wikipedia's standards are higher than those of 20/20 and the New York Times. Parsifal's rewrite addresses NPOV and quality issues. Billgordon1099 17:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Since the idea of re-starting the AfD !votes in this section seems to be happening, I'm noting my "keep" !vote here. I should be clear, I did already vote "keep" near the top of the AfD - this is not intended as a duplicate vote, I'm just transferring it down to this section for visibility. My reasons for keep are that the topic satisfies WP:N and WP:V, per the 20/20 show, the NY Times mention, the Medscape interview, and more. Now that the article has been re-written, it also meets WP:NPOV. All the spam-ish links and related text have been removed; and the article has plenty of inline references to reliable sources. Plus, there are 38 or so more books listed on Google Books mentioning the term, that we have not yet explored. Some of those may be too minor to be helpful, but some of them may turn out to be good sources to continue expanding the article over time after the AfD. --Parsifal _Hello 18:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• See, this is what I'm afraid of. I know you mean well Parsifal, but this "Reboot" thing has only confused the AfD even more. A substantial number of the original editors who felt this article violated policy have moved on to other projects, leaving only the hardcore Keep editors to continue voting (as if this were a vote.) This concept in itself is prejudicial. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't think we need to worry about that. The closing admin will not be confused - he or she will see the whole flow of the discussion. This is not a counting-vote, we're looking for consensus. Also, the article as it is now is completely different than it was when this AfD started. So anyone who !voted at the top was looking at a different article. It was spam-ish before, now it's a solid NPOV article worked on by multiple good-faith editors, with no COI and plenty of reliable sources. By the way, in case there's any question on this - I did not start the "re-boot" section myself, I'm just going with the flow. Finally, I should mention that it's not accurate to characterize these later entries as "hardcore Keep editors"; for one thing, there are at least two experienced editors who entered !votes in this section who did not comment above, and also, it looks like three of these new "keep" votes are reversals of prior delete votes. That's a valid and proper use of this debate process; the votes changed because the article improved. --Parsifal _Hello 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would only people who wanted to Keep the article still be following it? On another AfD, not a million miles away, I have said Delete and have now been told that only those who are hardcore deletists are still following the vote!!! Blimey. Dunno if I'm coming or going.... Marcus22 15:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a copy of my previous vote down to the "Start over" section. My reasoning remains very similar as in the follow-up to my previous vote. The only change is that there are now two more sources (the NY and Seattle newspapers) to support WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. JTSchreiber— JTSchreiber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Still a keep for me too. Marcus22 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Can someone please explain why even the "improved" article passes WP:NEO? To quote, "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." The article self-admits that 99.999% of the medical community does not recognize the phrase, and only a small community of Sarno believes in it. This is, by definition, a neologism. Having a 20/20 segment debunk it does not magically make it more adherent to WP:NEO.Djma12 ^(talk) 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a red herring and does not apply to this decision. TMS is not a neologism at all. It's not even a "new" term, - Sarno's first book about it was written 25 years ago in 1982, several more books followed later; the ABC segment was in 1999. That excludes it from the definition of neologism, by longevity. Also, it's is a definition of a medical condition, not a linguistic construct that has not made it into the dictionary yet. Even if it were a neologism, which it's not, the "nutshell" of WP:NEO states this : "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term." And we do have reliable sources, many of them.

Your use of the word "debunk" to describe the 20/20 segment is completely off-track, Have you watched the entire segment? While Stossel acknowledges the condition and treatment are not used by mainstream medicine, overall the segment is strongly positive. And as an aside, even if the segment were debunking, that would not reduce the notability of a topic being discussed on a major USA national news show, though it would change the way the segment was described in the article. But, that's neither here nor there, because the show did not not debunk, not anywhere close to that, which you can see if you watch the video.

Further on a procedural basis, WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy, whereas WP:V and WP:N are core policies, clearly satisfied by this article in that the condition has been explored on a major national news show, mentioned in major metropolitan newspapers and by many other reliable sources. --Parsifal _Hello 18:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• More references. I added another reference today, a book by Dr. By René Cailliet, with a four page sub-chapter chapter on TMS. The name "Tension myositis syndrome" is listed as a sub-chapter heading in the table of contents, along with various other possible causes of back pain. To be clear about the qualifications of the author, Dr. Cailliet is not an "alternative practioner", he is himself quoted in books like this one: Burchiel, Kim (2002). Surgical Management of Pain. Thieme, 134. ISBN 0865779120.  I did not add this second book to the article because it does not directly mention TMS, however, it does quote Calliet stating that Sarno's "conclusions may be questioned, but his diagnosis of 'nonorganic signs' raises a question that current knowledge of low back disorders does not answer." I'm providing this for context only, to support the reliability of the source of the reference I added, and also to show that Sarno has not been dismissed as a kook by "real doctors"; his ideas are mentioned here by a physician specializing in back pain, in a serious medical text about surgical pain management. I'm not jumping to conclusions and saying Sarno's diagnosis is widely accepted; this is just one more example that the notability of the condition extends beyond Sarno's books and interviews. He had no direct involvement with Cailliet's book. I don't have time to seek out more right now, but I thought it would be useful to add at least one more, to show by how quickly that could be done, that we are not at a loss for finding additional third-party sources. This further confirms notability and verifiability.--Parsifal _Hello 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:NEO doesn't apply. It's a described medical diagnosis of dubious merit, but it verifiably exists, which is the threshold for notability. Wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth, and TMS is a verifiable, though possibly completely imaginary. WLU 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I really must give applause to the efforts of those who have been seriously attempting to fix the problems in this article, especially compared to the mindless bleating that's taken up most of the space in this 'discussion'. That said, there is still one important question that I'd like to see answered before this matter is closed: what exactly is TMS that makes it a distinct subject? From my perspective, it seems like nothing but a fancy label that Dr. Sarno has created for 'psychosomatic pain', possibly (warning: wild personal speculation) to avoid the stigma of words like 'psychogenic' and 'psychosomatic'? While Dr. Sarno's ideas and methods may be valid (my own personal leaning is that there is some merit to them), that doesn't mean that there should be a seperate article on them. Until TMS becomes accepted enough that it's possible to talk about it without referring to Dr. Sarno, and is used by more than the current handful of doctors who follow Dr. Sarno's work, I think information about it should be placed in the article on Dr. Sarno. - Pacula 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply. What makes this a distinct topic is that the term "Tension myositis syndrome" is WP:Verifiable and WP:Notable. Most of your comment is WP:Original research. It's not our job to figure out if TMS is the same as psychosomatic pain - that's the job of others. Our job is to report what has been said by reliable sources about the topic. It doesn't matter if we think it's a real medical condition, or if it's the same as something else.

It's incorrect that the clinic you linked are the only ones using his methods. There are some number of clinics that do (I haven't counted them), and multiple books written by doctors and other authors not associated with that clinic.

I understood why you nominated the article for deletion at first, since it did not have third-party references and had lots of self-published links. But now that the article has so many reliable secondary sources, I don't understand why you still want it deleted. Dr. Sarno is a person, he's notable and he is covered by a biographical article in Wikipedia. "Tension myositis syndrome" is not biographical, it's a medical condition with a definition and a treatment; it's controversial; it has not been widely accepted by the medical establishment; but it has been reported in large-scale mainstream media, in many books about healing back pain (only some of those books are written by his associates), and in various other sources listed in the article and elsewhere. That's a separate topic and not part of a biography. --Parsifal _Hello 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply - I guess my primary remaining concern is the question of if the phrase 'tension myositis syndrome' itself passes the WP:NEO test. Virtually all of the notable references to term that I've been able to find refer to it as 'a term coined by Dr. Sarno' or something similar, and I'm not sure if that's good enough to not qualify as a neologism. I am not arguing that the theory behind this is non-notable - but I also don't think that the name that Dr. Sarno invented for it is. At the least, not until the name can be found in secondary sources without being refering to as being a phrase coined by Dr. Sarno. - Pacula 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few... It's a notable topic. It's not the same topic as Dr. Sarno's biography. There are references that don't mention Sarno; some are even in the article already, such as the ones by his associates, like Dr. Schecter and others. While they may be associates, they are separate people, some have separate clinics, and they often use the term without mentioning him, should they all be moved into his biography too?

Aside from his associates, there are plenty of professionals who use the diagnosis and treatment method in their private practices or pain management and/or psychotherapy clinics, often without writing about Sarno. Here are several I found quickly: Susan Farber, psychotherapist - support groups for care-givers and individuals with brain injury, stroke, and chronic pain; Chiropractor professional organization in South Carolina; Here's a blogger with a Master's degree in Public Health who mentions TMS and does not mention Sarno: Tension Myositis Syndrome: Low Back Pain Related to Stress: Cause, Origin, Symptoms and Treatment Options; Here's a seminar workshop program that mentions TMS and does not mention Sarno: NEW YORK SOCIETY OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS, 19thAnnual Clinical Hypnosis Workshop for Health-Care Professionals, Workshop by Marlene Levy, PhD, AAPM; and ... here's a book that lists TMS as one possible cause of back pain that results in lost work days, among a list of other causes, and this book does not include the name of Dr. Sarno: Sall, MD, Richard E. (2004). Strategies in Workers' Compensation. Hamilton Books, 91. ISBN 0761827714. . (This is a good solid reference, I'll add it to the article).

Now, even though I provided some examples of what you wanted, I do not think that these examples were needed to establish the article as notable or separate from his biography. But I went ahead and found them anyway just to make the point that they can be found. I did this in 15 minutes, so imagine what someone could accomplish if they were to do some real research on the topic. This article is not at all like what it was when you originally wanted to delete it; has lots of reliable sources, is NPOV and fits well within Wikipedia policies for inclusion. --Parsifal _Hello 23:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I hearby stand corrected on the matter, and once again commend you on your persevereness. I was already realizing how weak what was left of my argument was, and now you've gone and completely finished it off. :) - Pacula 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Change of mind due to revamped article: Keep - The article at the time of the AFD nomination was a horrid biased mess, but things have improved dramatically since then, having essentially been rewritten from scratch. Since the article now handles the topic in an appropriately neutral way, and shows notability without trying to claim that the ideas aren't without controversy, I no longer see any reason to object to it's presence. - Pacula 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.