Talk:David Sheffield Bell

Is the material discussed in the section above verified by sources or original research? —Ward20 (via posting script) 04:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Bell's CFS Ability scale was published in his book The doctor's guide to chronic fatigue syndrome ^[1] The scale has been used or recommended to document severity of symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome in government publications and in clinical studies.^[2]"

The RFC was intended to address the material in the box above but an editor changed it in the article with claims, "he modifies the Karnofsky scale", and "he argues the name chronic fatigue syndrome should be replaced", which do not appear in the sources.Ward20 (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor removed material and the edit summary said, "quote when you are taking stuff from a source like that part from hhs."

The removed material stated, "The committee also advises on development and implementation of informational programs about advances related to CFS to the public; health care professionals; the biomedical, academic, and research communities".

The source actually states,"The advisory committee is also charged with advising on the development and implementation of programs to inform the public; health care professionals; and the biomedical, academic, and research communities about advances related to CFS." It wasn't a direct quote.

The rest of the edit is a WP:NPOV violation. Ward20 (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor says NPOV it was a quote from the book how is that more NPOV then the editor's own version. The editors copy sentence is exact same just a word and two moved that is copying. I saw that in alot of the CFS articles before they should pls quote it when the editor want to copy stuff. RetroS1mone talk 05:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The committee material is not a direct quote and the information came from a work from the US government. "Works by the U. S. government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection.". There were no copy or copyright issues and the RSed material was wrongly removed, but I will compromise and add the material back as a direct quote. Ward20 (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit also changed the material the RFC was about and makes it difficult to comprehend. I won't edit war over this, but would appreciate it if someone would revert the edit for the sake of the RFC. Ward20 (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC materials still there. RetroS1mone talk 13:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The book is self published but WP:SPS states, "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Bell is established as a expert in the relevant field by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services , and his work in the field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The only claim that is asserted is that he wrote the book so the information is reliable and verifiable. Ward20 (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bell is not on the HHS thing any more i think, it was a year or two years?? And is the committee notable, it is just in government register a primary and the HHS press release a primary. And the second source that says about it says the HHS does not take the committee serious. I think it was set-up by HHS like, ok we do not agree so we give you activists a committee and let you meet all the time and talk about your stuff. I think it needs reliable independant second sources. RetroS1mone talk 14:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source for bell's chairmanship.. The U.S. Social Security Agency looks to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee to keep them up to date.

"One way in which SSA tracks new information on CFS is as an ex officio member of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Advisory Committee (CFSAC). The Committee provides science-based advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a broad range of issues and topics pertaining to CFS. SSA is also an ex officio member of the Patient Care/Quality of Care subcommittee of the (CFSAC). In addition, the SSA medical officer responsible for CFS is currently performing a medical literature review on recent medical advances in CFS."

It does not matter much WP:PRIMARY:

"Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."

This material is not interpreting anything that is not described in the text, we can quote the text verbatum if necessary. The secondary sources can be added for backup but don't take out the expert wording or the description of the scientific advice that CFSAC provides as that pertains to Bell's expertise and notability.

Ward20 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry the IACFS/ME is not notable organization. News that says about it is from two or three press release one is about Montoya and other about Klimas and the rest is Townsend Letter, totaly not reliable. IACFS is like a club for people some doctors and researchers and social workers and patients that are out of main-stream medical, and they write lots of papers they review themself and publish in their journals and newsletters. Pls, this stuff needs reliable independant second sources or it is not going in. Thx RetroS1mone talk 14:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The IACFS/ME is specifically described in the J Psychosom Res (second source) as the only professional organization representing the concerns of CFS researchers and clinicians around the world. PMID 17662750 It's hosting the 9th international conference on CFS. Ward20 (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Posted at Reliable sources/Noticeboard Ward20 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

J Psychosom Res is a primary source, it is a statistical analysis from literature trends. RetroS1mone talk 01:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"J Psychosom Res is a primary source, it is a statistical analysis from literature trends." That statement's preposterous. WP:SECONDARY "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." Ward20 (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a review it is a statistics analysis of topics that is primary research. But main thing is, it is not a review of IACFS ME or David Bell. A notable organization has significant second sources about it, there are not about IACFS ME. When you are going that deep to a primary research cited by zero people to find some thing just saying their name, what does that mean about notability. RetroS1mone talk 02:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RetroS1mone, the quote is from the introduction of the article talking about the small number of researchers in this field. The article specifically talks about IACFS/ME (please note the correct name) being the only dedicated professional organization in the field. Stop shifting the goal posts and stating incorrect information. There are secondary sources. Ward20 (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ward20 i think you are confused about reliable independant second sources. Newsletters of activist organization and web site is not independant second sources. HHS press release is not second source. A quote from a primary research article that is not cited by any one is not a good source. RetroS1mone talk 15:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Ward20 what are you doing. The links you are giving are most of them primary sources and self published by activist group web sites and a opinion thing from David Bell. Do you think notability means how many times are you mentioned in your club's newsletter on line or how many times you mention your self?? There is a USA Today article, that is a reliable source but it has a quote from David Bell it is not about David Bell and it does not say any thing about IACFS. We are discussing if IACFS is notable or David Bell being on a board of it is notable. So not relavent. The SF chronicle article is based from press release from activist organization and it is written from a activist author who plugs her book in it, so it is not independant and who cares, it does not say any thing about IACFS. Pls read articles before you give a list of not relavent stuff like this, i think it is very mis-leading. RetroS1mone talk 15:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize about mixing up the sources. I was sloppy last night and did not take time to separate out the secondary sources from primary. I should have said here are "some" secondary sources.

I disagree that organizations such as The CFIDS Association of America that talks about the IACFS/ME conferences on this page, the National Women's Health Resource Center Inc info about the mission of the IACFS/ME , and the HHV-6 Foundation brochures that talk about the mission of the IACFS/ME are not reliable secondary sources. They have boards of directors, scientific advisors, and editorial staff. These sources do not describe the IACFS/ME as a "club". The USA Today article is not about David Bell but it does state, "David Bell, a national CFS specialist who was one of the first researchers to study the disease." and specifically talks about one of his studies, mentioning him by name. There are about 5 or 6 other secondary sources in the list above that talk about Bell and his opinions. a Medscape article calls him, "an internationally recognized expert on adult and pediatric CFS."

It seems as though you are asking for a source that specifically states how David Bell's board membership in the IACFS/ME is notable in order to include it in the article. It is published David Bell held a board membership in the IACFS/ME. An editor at the reliable sources/Noticeboard believed it was reliable. The J Psychosom Res describes the IACFS/ME, and so do other secondary sources. The article should attribute and present the IACFS/ME description so the reader can understand what Bell was a board member. You had no problem with describing the IACFS/ME as "an advocacy group" from The New York Times in the Leonard A. Jason article..

Why discount the article from the San Francisco Chronicle? A lot of it is on Bell and his opinions. Only the small section that begins with "How is CFS diagnosed?" is adapted from a pamphlet. Why is that biased? Biased in what way? Labeling an author of a publication an activist and then discounting the material based on a label is not a correct way to evaluate material for an article IMO. Ward20 (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

New York Times is a little more respected independant then a newsletter from activist club and Leonard Jason has own article in New York Times. There is not such thing for Bell, I do not think Bell is notable. I am saying club it is just my word bc it is not just a professional organization. The boards and people in all these clubs are the same people, these organizations make a big echo chamber, they all verify each other and they are made from patient researchers and activist researchers that get money and awards from patient groups w same goals and prejudices. The San Francisco chronicle article is by a activist. Why do you have problem with activist? It is not bad being activist it just means the person is not independant. It is not bad being activist organization like CFIDS or IACFS it just mean the organization opinion on the other organization with the same people and same politics is not independant. This is the same thing I saw at Morgellons article and the "chronic" Lyme Disease people, some doctors and nurses and social workers and lawyers who think they have Morgellons or Lyme Disease start alot of little organizations with newsletters etc and they say we have a professional organization, sorry that is not a professional organization like the big medical organizations!! The CFS people are more respected then them and more reasoned but it is still same concept.

OK but Bacchus is saying a good suggestion, may be putting on AfD is a good way improving article. I will let you do that bc Bacchus is right, it is just you and me argue about these minor people, i think it is not so bad when a few minor people get biographies at Wikipedia when that is so important for you. RetroS1mone talk 17:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ward20 btw i am sorry you will not talk to me when I add on your talk page, it is there i tried and explain why I am against these minor articles, like resumes and lists of publications. I know these people are very important to you but pls try and make the articles for WP:BIO not your opinion of them based from primary sources. Like at Leonard Jason there is not problem for activist researchers being on Wikipedia when they have reliable second sources like New York Times. BC it does not matter for Wikipedia if they are activists or not activists just they are notable. One Times article makes notability better then 50 AAME Organization News articles and when you are using those for notability it kind of supports me. RetroS1mone talk 17:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it is just too convenient labeling people activists, biased, and prejudiced, not explain why and then dismiss them. That is exactly what I believe is happening. You say the IACFS/ME is not a professional organization. Show me a reliable source that states they aren't. Here are two that say they are a professional organization.. They don't have as many members as big medical organizations since they specialize. Nothing unusual about that.

Just to set the record straight, I have not expressed any opinions of anyone based from primary sources. To my knowledge I've only expressed my opinions of wording and sources for the article. And I know what is important to me, you don't. Ward20 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sorry it is just too convenient labeling people activists, biased, and prejudiced, not explain why and then dismiss them. That is exactly what I believe is happening." You just hit the nail on the head so accurately that you violated the Planck length. This is exactly what goes on at the CFS related articles. - Tekaphor (TALK) 03:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The material is original research and not NPOV: "In The Doctor's Guide to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Bell modifies the Karnofsky scale to measure fatigue in CFS and he argues the name "chronic fatigue syndrome" should be replaced by a more serious sounding name like "myalgic encephalomyelitis" that he says "sounds as if it could be fatal." Bell's modified scale has been used or recommended to document severity of symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome in government publications and in clinical studies."

The claim, "Bell modifies the Karnofsky scale to measure fatigue in CFS", none of the sources state this. The secondary sources say it is "Bell's CFS (Dis)ability scale" and the article should attribute him as the original wording did. I thought a google search indicated this article used Bell's scale, but I have not been able to replicate it in google or on PubMed.

The claim, "he argues the name "chronic fatigue syndrome" should be replaced by a more serious sounding name like "myalgic encephalomyelitis" that he says "sounds as if it could be fatal." is not what he states in the book, pg. 8. The book states: "In this book I have chosen to use the name "chronic fatigue/immune dysfunction syndrome" or CFIDS, because it combines the most prominent symptom, fatigue, with the presence of a dys-functional immune system. The name is designed to separate the illness from the chronic fatigue caused by the stresses of daily life. However, the name of the illness is not as important as its understanding, and I am equally at home with almost all other names. I like the term "myalgic encephalomyelitis" used in the United Kingdom; it is a little harsh and somewhat technical, but there can be no doubt that it represents a real disease. It sounds as if it could be fatal."

Ward20 (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The primary sources, they say it is a modification of Karnofsky scale and thank you that you quote the whole part where it has the quote I used, a summary is what I wrote, Bell wants a new name for CFS like ME that "sounds as if it could be fatal." I revert, when you do not want this accurate stuff in your article, i think we should back from all those primary sources. RetroS1mone talk 03:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please quote the passage where a cited source says, "it is a modification of Karnofsky scale." I read the sources and saw no such wording. The secondary sources say it is "Bell's CFS (Dis)ability scale" and the article should attribute him as the original wording did or it is not WP:NPOV.

The claim "he argues the name "chronic fatigue syndrome" should be replaced by a more serious sounding name like "myalgic encephalomyelitis" is a very strange and POV interpretation of, "In this book I have chosen to use the name "chronic fatigue/immune dysfunction syndrome" or CFIDS, because it combines the most prominent symptom, fatigue, with the presence of a dys-functional immune system. The name is designed to separate the illness from the chronic fatigue caused by the stresses of daily life. However, the name of the illness is not as important as its understanding, and I am equally at home with almost all other names. I like the term "myalgic encephalomyelitis" used in the United Kingdom; it is a little harsh and somewhat technical, but there can be no doubt that it represents a real disease. It sounds as if it could be fatal"

Bell never claimed that CFS is caused by a retrovirus. He and the other researchers' results showed there appeared to be an association with an unknown retrovirus when compared to controls. The CDC never duplicated their findings in part because they didn't use the researchers methods to look for the virus.(spread out through many pages unfortunately.)

The edits RetroS1mone made here are not accurate to the sources, removed many of his publications from the article, and are not WP:NPOV. I am asking RetroS1mone or produce quotes from sources that support the changes, or to self revert all the edits. Ward20 (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ward20 i do not get it, Bell writes he wants a more serious sounding name and "it sounds as if it could be fatal" that is just what i said in the edits. The primary sources said it is a Karnofsky scale. You can look up and pls look up Karnofsky scale you will see. Osler's web is a conspiracy activist book i would not use that for much stuff. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY it is not for putting all of a persons fourth author publications. What would Leonard A. Jason or Simon Wessely be like when we do that. Pls spend more time to find reliable second sources and not argue about primary research and your interpretation from primary soruces. Thx RetroS1mone talk 13:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The source does not state he wants a more serious sounding name. That's WP:OR, just like, "The primary sources said it is a Karnofsky scale." I asked you to produce quotes from sources that support the changes and you have again ignored my request. Please produce quotes from sources that support the changes. Ward20 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ward20 you put in the whole quote your self!! This is like Guido where ten reviews say things like the cause of CFS is not known and when i write the etiology of CFS is not known Guido says that is not in the sources. Duh i am just saying it in other words. I guess people that like to just copy stuff do not like it that way?? RetroS1mone talk 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something (I don't have the book), going by the quote used above, I have to agree with Ward20's criticism. Bell actually chooses "CFIDS" and notes that he likes "ME". Trying to condense the entire quote into something like "he argues the name CFS should be replaced by a more serious sounding name like ME that he says sounds as if it could be fatal" seems distorted. Why isn't "CFIDS" mentioned at all in the Wikipedia article and why such the emphasis on the alleged ME naming advocacy? - Tekaphor (TALK) 05:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You can say about his CFIDS thing but the big dispute in world is between CFS and ME, Bells point is, he thinks CFS is not serious enough, it is better have a name like ME "sounds as if it could be fatal" that is his words from the book. RetroS1mone talk 12:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RetroS1mone, Bell does not even mention CFS in the passage quoted from the book. You are taking a quote out of context and making a claim the book said something it didn't and that is original research. Also, the text that you edited that said "Bell modifies the Karnofsky scale" is not in the cited sources so that is original research. Your edit, "described his belief that CFS is caused by a retrovirus" is original research as I discussed above. I asked repeatedly, and am still asking for quotations from the cited sources that show "Bell modifies the Karnofsky scale" and "described his belief that CFS is caused by a retrovirus". You have not supplied them. I have looked and looked through the references and I don't believe the quotes exist.

You removed accurate material from reliable sources and edited it into original research. You have also removed many of Bell's works and moved his books to a further reading section below the references section. Please stop this, it is not improving the article and it is misleading the reader. Ward20 (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ward20 your activism i admire, but it does not help Wikipedia, the articles you are supporting with trivia from primary stuff. Wikipedia is not a directory for lower impact papers from low impact journals by may be notable may be not people that are not having significnat coverage in reliable sources. RetroS1mone talk 06:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What does it advocate? Name history AACFS---> IACFS---> IACFS/ME

Homepage Mission Statement. Sponsors International IACFS/ME professional Research and Clinical Conferences. Appropriate for Readers of: JAMA, Arch Intern Med, Arch Neurol, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. AACFS, an international scientific organization that promotes, stimulates, and coordinates the exchange of ideas related to chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia research, patient care, and treatment. Professional Societies. Cleveland Clinic Department of Rheumatic and Immunologic Diseases, "a variety of current sources of reliable information. Many of these can also be found on the internet and include the American Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (www.aacfs.org) which links to a variety of other reliable sources at the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others." "International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (IACFS) This website address provides a link to the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, a private organization of scientists and clinicians involved with CFS" "Specifically, only a single modestly sized professional organization (about 300 members), the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, represents the interests of CFS researchers and clinicians worldwide."

Ward20 (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ward20 IACFS/ME is some activist researchers, alot from them say they have CFS themself, they do not like psychological explanation may be they think psychology is for "crazy people" and they say it must be a virus or blood volume or some thing else and they have a conference every year and Byron Hyde has like three or four posters and other people that are self publishing people. And they had a journal together where they write their papers and "review" each other and come on. That is activism, ok you find a paper by people in organization and that is proof they are professional?? I said it is great you have activists like this and there is people that question the main-stream but it is not medrs for Wikipedia and we do not pls pretend they are so notable. OK? RetroS1mone talk 04:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RetroS1mone, I hope you aren't offended by a little unsolicited advice. Attempting to convince Ward20 that he is pursuing activism and that he should stop is very unlikely to be successful, in any way. It's a very, very good bet that Ward20 believes that he (or she) is editing in line with our policy on neutrality, just as you are certainly editing in a way that seems entirely neutral to you.

If you believe that the topic is not notable, then your best bet is to stop trying to convince Ward20 of anything, and nominate the article for deletion to get the wider community's input on whether or not the topic is notable. Sitting on this talk page and arguing about it with one other person is not going to lead anywhere useful. I speak from experience.

The trick on Wikipedia is not to win arguments; it's to bring a larger audience. At which point... it's best not to be the guy seen disparaging the other guy's motives. Crowds hate that here; it'll turn them against you. Be careful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Added back WP:V material. Added back IACFS/ME material. Google Scholar search for the various names of the organization. You can see notability in the dozens and dozens of research articles presented at their scientific conferences which were later published in medical journals and books. There are also many attributions of their membership. Added back his major publications since there appears to be no guidelines not to, and other bios have listed them. IE: Sigmund Freud Ward20 (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OK when David Sheffield Bell is so notable as Sigmund Freud pls put every paper he signed on Wikipedia, I have no problem. Problem is, you are writing about a person w/ not alot of second sources, Wiki is not a resume posting web site. RetroS1mone talk 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So we treat bios differently according to how notable they are? Who gets to decide how to treat one bio verses another according to these different standards of notability? RetroS1mone, I don't understand the logic of that at all. Just because Bell's publications are listed does not make it a resume. Your edits keep deleting a lot of WP:V information from primary and secondary sources. Deleting his educational material (for example) because it was published on his website and the IACFS/ME organization he belongs does not conform to WP:V policy. WP:SELFPUB "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves," Ward20 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions about self published, primary and secondary sources for Bell material posted to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability Ward20 (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Added back WP:V material. Added back IACFS/ME material. Google Scholar search for the various names of the organization. You can see notability in the dozens and dozens of research articles presented at their scientific conferences which were later published in medical journals and books. There are also many attributions of their membership. Added back his major publications since there appears to be no guidelines not to, and other bios have listed them. IE: Sigmund Freud Ward20 (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ward20 do you have relationship with David Sheffield Bell? RetroS1mone talk 16:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy your self from April and revert all edits w/o real discussion, you accuse me of that and you do it to. Why?? RetroS1mone talk 16:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the first paragraph of this section RetroS1mone you will see I discussed them. Ward20 (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrosimone, you made huge changes to the article with no reason given on the talk page on June 5th and June 6th. I did give my reasons for my last two large changes to this article April 19 and June 6th on the talk page. Yet you me accuse above and in your edit summary of not discussing on the talk page. I did discuss you didn't and you have the gall to say the opposite. I already said I have no COI. How many times do you want me to say it 100, 1000, 10⁶ times? I am getting very mad RetroS1mone. Ward20 (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fix inaccuracies and reinstate verifiable information from reliable sources. Fix reference as RetroS1mone suggested Ward20 (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

5-09-2009 added material and add RS for education section in article. Ward20 (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal web sites primary sources, OR from primary sources, resume writing, not for Wikipedia. It is warning to me, when editor has personal sources, organization sources from subject organization, obscure sources "a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference" and never a one thing, 3rd source it is just about the subject. Why?? RetroS1mone talk 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Need more editors to weigh in on the large scale differences between two edits.. Ward20 (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still familiarizing myself with all the rules, since I generally only make grammatical and similar such edits, but as I understand it, in a biography of a living person, self-published sources by the subject are quite acceptable, so I think articles of note that he has written should all be considered reasonable to include on that basis.
• As documented here, the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is probably not the best source. I would suggest trying to find other sources. For academic achievements, I wouldn't expect this to be too difficult.
• A statement like "various publications have used or proposed Bell's scale" really shouldn't be that hard to prove. If multiple publications that use it can be cited, then the statement is correct and I see no reason not to use it, provided the publications mentioned aren't self-pubs and Bell wasn't directly involved with them.
• Similarly, it's not hard to figure out whether a book "includes" or "describes" Bell's scale, provided the book is available online. Heck, a quick search for "Bell's Fatigue Scale" produced this result, amongst others, which would seem to confirm that the book "includes" the scale (though obviously the website itself is nothing close to an RS).
• There are a number of fixes in that diff that would be considered non-controversial such as grammar and punctuation improvements. Can I suggest making the totally non-controversial edits separately (much as I did on Malcolm Hooper Simon Wessely's article), then take the rest of the concerns one-by-one (or section-by-section, at least) and provide quick citations of the referenced material on the talk page so that it's easy to see what material each statement is based on and why it should or should not be included. It will be easier for other editors to "digest" the information that way.

--Rob (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Rob great idea we should make edits separate then the conteroversial things can be reverted and not change the minor. The problem on this article, WP:SELFPUB point #5, the article should not be mostly from that kind sources, this article is from personal web sites and advocacy organization web sites and primary sources w/ alot of OR. I do not find reliable third sources about David Sheffield Bell. "multiple publications site" that is original research, and it is strange for me, when a person is notable you do not need that original research.

This article was made by a web master for patient activist web site. It has notability and source tag since January and FEb. Alot of times, people w/ MUS start networks and send people to "special" doctors, like "lyme literate doctors" for "chronic lyme disease" so is this person notable, is it just a promotion by COI editor User:Lassesen? RetroS1mone talk 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If the body of the article is mostly from self-pub sources, then yes, that is a problem. In terms of listing them in his publications, as long as there aren't too many, I think that's fine, since they're not really contributing to the main body of information in the article. The number I see there now looks fine to me, though maybe a few more in the "Articles" would be useful, but that's entirely my own opinion. I don't think Wikipedia has any sort of guideline on that. And of course, which publications deserve mention over others is another question that's up for debate.

As for the person that created the article, is your assertion about who he is stated anywhere on the Wiki? I certainly don't see it on his User page (which is blank) or his Talk page; please be careful that you're not outing him in any way. (That's not an accusation of any kind, I'm just saying to make sure that it's been said somewhere.) Also, I don't believe you can establish COI here, unless you base it on the information that you removed from his talk page yourself (which I won't link to for the very reason that you gave when you removed it)...even there, it might be a little tenuous, depending on the level of involvement.

But putting that aside for a moment, who created the article is irrelevant if the content is well-sourced, relatively unbiased, and notable. As you say, that needs to be established clearly based on the requirements at WP:NOTABLE. The sources seem to be more than adequate (assuming they're RS), and since I don't know much about him, I can't really judge the "unbiased" section. As for notability, a quick glance at the web finds 660 hits on "David Sheffield Bell" (I didn't bother to search for variations that may have missed his middle name), including a variety of websites, a listing of one of his books at Barnes & Noble, and several references to him by other professionals (in other words, not just the ones by his publisher) that refer to him as something along the lines of "leading CFIDS researcher", "CFS expert" and similar such terms. So that, to me, would seem to satisfy the criteria for notability, though of course a more formal examination than a quick web search would be required to truly establish it.

Anyway, that's my input for what it's worth. --Rob (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the user said it themself, when it was not that person the name was a violation of Wiki names policy. Thx for the warning tho. RetroS1mone talk 04:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and coming back to the JCFS point for a minute, I remembered there being a longer discussion on the topic and I was correct. It can be found here. No firm decision was ever reached there, either, but I would agree with the general idea that WLU and an anonymous editor indicated towards the end of the discussion: use with caution - use better sources if at all possible. The very last comment by Jagra may also have some bearing. --Rob (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, it is may be not where to discuss RS but "JCFS" is discussed three?? or four?? times at RSN and other, the uninvolved editors said it is not a reliable source, it is from MEDRS, it is not from Pub Med. Some editors were "forum shopping," people put the same question on RSN again bc they hope they get a different answer. May be people can use that source when they want say what a "pro organic" researcher believes, for MEDRS it is not RS RetroS1mone talk 04:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The first time was balanced...one person spoke for (briefly), one against. Most of the other times except for the really long discussion just got redirected to one of those two discussions. At least that's all I found. So in the second one, I think there were a lot of good points made that the JCFS is not a good source to use. But while they were points, they weren't proof. Still, as I said, I would tend to agree that JCFS should be avoided if possible, and if you do use it, only use it for relatively non-controversial stuff: biographies, maybe a broad overview of something, etc. If it's likely to be controversial, I wouldn't use JCFS as the only source. As for forum shopping, it's possible that it was, but with the first one being one-for, one-against, I think it was bound to come up again. --Rob (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's obvious that Ward20's preferred version is preferable to RetroS1mone's preferred version. I don't see any of Ward20's additions that are inappropriate in content or tone, and it's clearly better sourced. It should be improved upon, not reverted. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Quadell for finally an outside judgment. I submit to your ruling totally except two things, i do not agree that every paper a person is a coauthor should be on Wiki, we do not have that even for non-dispute notable people like Sigmund Freud, all of the publications is on a resume. And my opinion it is OR or close when you say, here is what a person published and here are the sources that cite it, that is very strange to me and for non-dispute notable academices, i did never observe it. I do not think Bell is a notable academic WP:PROF but the Newsweek source is enough for notable person, two other independent sources say his name once only but, i guess one source, is enough. RetroS1mone talk 04:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a stab at touching up the article. For now, as I suggested in the thread above, I'm trying to make my edits non-controversial. Some of the wording has certainly been changed, but only to bring it closer to the sources being cited. Only information which is redundant will be removed, and no significant new information will be inserted. Some information may significantly be re-ordered, however, in order to make it flow better.

If the consensus is that information is currently missing, is incorrect, or that my edits have substantively altered the meaning of any portion of the article, please bring it up here so that we can work together to resolve the issue.

Only the initial paragraph really needed work in my opinion. I was taking it one paragraph at a time and saving between each, in case any of the edits was deemed controversial, but as it turned out, the other paragraphs only needed a couple of commas.

I do believe the term "Selected" is appropriate when it comes to publications, as we don't want to make it appear that these are his only publications if they're not. For now, I've added the word to the entire publications section. If we're certain we've listed all his books, then it should be moved down to just the "Articles" section. --Rob (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to reinstate the sourced information by Ward20 into the article, without undoing any of the positive recent contributions discussed here. I apologized if I missed anything. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, the article should be a biography like on WP:MOSBIO. The lead should say name, nationality, why he is significant. The education and unconfirm faculty position can be in a section. Ward20 compared sources on this article and Simon Wessely, great job Ward20 that is alot alot of work!! I agree on, Simon Wessely is more like this article should be. I think, the big differences are, Wessely's website w/ biographicall detail is a confirmed official university website and the medical organizations he is with are recognized medical organizations. IACFS/ME is great but it is a advocacy group, and it has "faculty" but they are not academic faculty, it is not accredited institution.

Only main secondary source is Newsweek article, it is not about Bell but it has alot about him and it is accessed, the article should get built by the Newsweek source. The TV program is paid access has any body seen it beyond Ward20? BC that source is possible but Wiki is mostly for text sources bc it is harder to verify other medias. In Newsweek, Bell is known for two things treating the outbreak at Lyndonville and he was co author on a paper about retroviral hypothesis.

Does an editor have confirmation about the HHS panel from second source, was Bell on it, how long, is the panel notable?? RetroS1mone talk 12:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that we should re-format this to follow WP:MOSBIO standards, which would also have the benefit of highlighting his notability within the opening paragraph. In terms of his education, per WP:SELFPUB primary sources are okay in this instance, as long as there's no reason to doubt their authenticity (which I don't believe there is). Similarly, citing that he was on the board of IACFS/ME when the source is one of their own newsletters, is also reasonable under SELFPUB rules. I think where that sentence is now is an appropriate place for it. Similarly, on the HHS, it's a government department which is entirely independent of Bell (i.e., he doesn't run the department), so I don't believe a secondary source is required.

I'm still fairly new to the various content requirements, though, so if my understanding of any of the above is incorrect, please let me know. --Rob (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am still working on the analysis of sources between Bell and Wessely . I would like to also analyze a featured article for comparison. Ward20 (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the questionable "COI" tag and reverted non-consensus changes which were done without discussion. Please refrain from repeating baseless accusations which have already been refuted (see Ward20 on talkpage 07th June 2009). RetroS1mone, your attempt to have this page deleted has failed twice. Please move on. - Tekaphor (TALK) 09:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The responding to honest COI question was refuse to answer. i take out more trivial things from a vanity article, Wikipedia is not resume posting. RetroS1mone talk 06:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. It was answered nearly a year ago and again recently elsewhere. My use of the word "refused" in the edit summary was a typo, I meant "refuted", and I used that word above on this talkpage. But to reiterate, your continued accusations of "COI" have been refuted here and elsewhere on more than one occasion. Yet you just put the COI tag back in again, what's the deal 'man? What's your "COI" issue with this person? - Tekaphor (TALK) 01:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The External link to the lyndonville news website doesn't take me there, but to a "you are not authorised to view this page" page. I propose to remove this link within the next few days, unless somebody has reasonable objections. --Roxy the dog (bark) 11:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Sheffield Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202010142/http://zeitgeistfilms.com/films/irememberme/presskit.pdf to http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/films/irememberme/presskit.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)