Talk:Simon Wessely and Talk:Chaundon: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
why the PROD didn't work
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-semi-sock}}
{{Talkheader}}
{{oldafdfull|page=Chaundon|date=13 April 2008|result='''keep'''}}
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}}
{{Oldprodfull
{{WPMILHIST|class=start}}
| nom= JBsupreme
| 2nd= Hello Control
| con= RMHED
| nomdate= 2008-10-03
| 2nddate= 2008-10-03
| condate= 2008-10-07
| nomreason= non-notable artist, fails WP:MUSIC
| 2ndreason= A search of the Google news archive fails to return any non-trivial coverage.
| conreason= survived an AfD
}}
__TOC__
==Notice: This article does not [[WP:Verifiability|verifiably]] establish {{ #switch: {{lc:Music}}
| academics = [[WP:PROF]]
| biographies = [[WP:BIO]]
| people = [[WP:BIO]]
| companies = [[WP:CORP]]
| groups = [[WP:CORP]]
| fiction = [[WP:FICTION]]
| movies = [[WP:MOVIE]]
| music = [[WP:MUSIC]]
| schools = [[WP:SCL]]
| web = [[WP:WEB]]
| proposed = [[WP:N]]}}==
[[Image:Ambox_warning_blue.svg|left|48px|]] In my opinion, this article either does not [[WP:Verifiability|verifiably]] satisfy the [[WP:Notability|Notability]] criteria for {{ #switch: {{lc:Music}}
| academics = [[WP:PROF|Academics]]
| biographies = [[WP:BIO|Biographies]]
| people = [[WP:BIO|Biographies]]
| companies = [[WP:CORP|Organizations and companies]]
| groups = [[WP:CORP|Organizations and companies]]
| fiction = [[WP:FICTION|Fiction]]
| movies = [[WP:MOVIE|Films]]
| music = [[WP:MUSIC|Music]]
| schools = [[WP:SCL|Schools]]
| web = [[WP:WEB|Web content]]
| proposed = one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: [[WP:PROF|Academics]], [[WP:BIO|Biographies]], [[WP:CORP|Organizations and companies]], [[WP:FICTION|Fiction]], [[WP:MUSIC|Music]], [[WP:MOVIE|Films]], [[WP:SCL|Schools]], [[WP:WEB|Web content]]}}, or it may violate the [[WP:COI|Conflict of interest]] guideline, or perhaps it is a [[WP:COPYVIO|Copyright violation]].


Wikipedia articles must be [[WP:RS|based on reliable sources]] to [[WP:V|verify]] any claims of notability. Even though the lack of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely ''no'' sources (or only [[WP:EL|external links]] to ''unreliable'' ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|align="center"|
[[Image:Diamond-caution.svg|50px]]
|align="center"|
'''This is a [[Wikipedia:List of controversial issues|controversial]] topic''', which may be [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|disputed]]. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. <br>Please '''[[WP:TIGERS|read this message]]''' from [[User:William Pietri|William Pietri]] before piling in
|}[[Category:Wikipedia controversial topics|{{PAGENAME}}]]


Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the [[WP:DELETE|Deletion policy]], I am nonetheless willing to assist '''User:{{User|Able2 }}''', and other recent contributors to this article, to make some constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.
'''Archive: [[Talk:Simon Wessely/Archive 1]]'''


Please respond on ''this'' Discussion page, instead of on ''my'' Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.
==Summary==
The value of the Gibson report was discussed at length. It was argued that this report is not a reliable source for this particular article. Information on specific cases of [[myalgic encephalomyelitis]] / [[chronic fatigue syndrome]] was shared. It was furthermore argued, that Simon Wessely's role in a controversy regarding the classification and treatment of ME/CFS should be clarified in the article. Potentially appropriate sources were mentioned:
* [http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dxt8gzv_1d55f95] ''David A, Wessely S, "Chronic fatigue, ME, and ICD 10", Lancet 1993:342:1247- 1248'', where the authors claim that the WHO was wrong to classify ME as a neurological disorder under G93.3, [[post-viral fatigue syndrome]].
* [http://www.immunesupport.com/library/showarticle.cfm/id/8219][[http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dxt8gzv_2t7nm72] ''Song, S, Jason, LA, "A population based study of CFS experienced in differing patient groups. An effort to replicate Vercoulen et al.'s model of CFS", Journal of Mental Health, 2005, 14, 3, 277-289'', where the authors show that the data do not support Vercoulen's model, which is based on Wessely's views:
"In part, due to the lack of a biologic marker, several theorists have proposed psychogenic approaches for understanding CFS (Wessely, Hotopf & Sharpe, 1998). For some, CFS was assumed to be a psychologically-determined problem (Manu, Lane, & Matthews, 1988). These views ultimately affected some physicians who believed that CFS was similar to [[neurasthenia]], and that CFS would eventually have a similar fate once people recognized that most patients with this disease were really suffering from a psychiatric illness. Complicating this situation was the fact that psychiatrists and physicians have also regarded fatigue as one of the least important of presenting symptoms (Lewis & Wessely, 1992). ... These biases ...." [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 10:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


To better understand why I have used this template, please read ''[[:Template:Flag-templates#Flag templates for deletion warnings|Flag templates for deletion warnings]]'' ... I realize that some of the expressed ''possible'' concerns may not be appropriate in this case.
:Both sources you advance are already part of the CFS article. The role of the subject in the CFS/ME controversy is already well established by the present source. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 11:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Flag-editor end -->[[Category:Flagged articles]]


Happy Editing! &mdash; '''{{#if:72.75.82.202|{{User|72.75.82.202}}|[[Special:Contributions/72.75.82.202|72.75.82.202]] ([[User talk:72.75.82.202|talk]])}}''' <sub>21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</sub>
Well, I disagree. The historical angle is missing, and for the sake of neutrality, it should be made clear that Wessely's views are not mainstream. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
*The problem is you can't PROD an article that's already been to AfD. You have to take it to AfD again and make your case there. PROD is for uncontroversial deletion, and obviously this would not qualify. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 20:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


== Lipstick on a pig ==
:Not mainstream? That is quite an accusation, given the fact that the guideline {{NICE|53|CFS/ME|2007}} seems to strongly subscribe to the view that you argue is "not mainstream". If an NHS-wide consensus guideline is not mainstream, then what on earth is? [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Well, if nothing else, I discovered the {{tl|Allmusic}} template ...
::I'd hate to burst your bubble, since you'd fall so deep, but no, this is not a consensus document, and England does not rule the waves. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 18:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


<pre>
:Uh, please [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]], thank you. I note your objections to the NICE guideline (and the fact that ''some'' patients' organisations are unhappy about it), but you are simply wrong about the "mainstream" bit. Being on one side of a controversy doesn't make a view "non-mainstream". [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 19:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
*{{allmusicguide | id=11:dzfexqlsld0e~T0 | label= Chaundon }}
</pre>
gives us:
*{{allmusicguide | id=11:dzfexqlsld0e~T0 | label= Chaundon }}


And that's as much lipstick as I feel like putting on this pig. :-) &mdash; [[Special:Contributions/72.75.82.202|72.75.82.202]] ([[User talk:72.75.82.202|talk]]) 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Why is he wrong about the mainstream bit? I haven't counted it down yet, but it seems to me that a patient organisation not unhappy with the NICE Guidelines ist the exception, rather than the rule. If you see things differently, let's discuss it.
::As for what's mainstream and what's not: The opening paragraph of the entire NICE document states something to the effect of "two sides with strongly held views". I don't know how you manage to get to the conclusion that Wessely's view is the mainstream view nevertheless.
::Maybe because the guidelines emphasises CBT & GET? Have you ever flipped through the documented stakeholder responses? There is miles & miles of complaints about the guideline and the overemphasis on CBT and GET. Even the Association of british neurologists complained about that very point. Other psychologists are complaining about it. Also, the one major charity who didn't immediately call for a withdrawal (AFME) complained about it.[[User:JayEffage|JayEffage]] 09:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

:::You've missed my point. Even if numerically in the minority, Wessely's perspective is still one of the several ''mainstream'' opinions (as opposed to some loony with a blog claiming that CFS is caused by alien abduction etc). [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::Support by you does not make it mainstream. Respect [[WP:NPOV]], if you please. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 19:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

:Neither does opposition by you take it out of the mainstream. NPOV is for articles, not for talkpages.
:I don't think you should separate your "summary" above from this discussion with extra headers. The discussion follows directly from your summary, and the summary only covers some of the sources discussed. It is obvious that you are trying to restart the discussion, and I don't think your statements should go unchallenged.
:Now, is there anything on the menu that comes from the famous cuisine of [[WP:CONS|consensus]]? [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the challenge. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this qn, but I'm wondering why the Martin J. Walker article "The WWW. Weird World of Wikipedia" was removed from this page. Surely this would be the appropriate place for it, if not the entire thing, then an intro and a link to it? Virginia (sorry, I'll get myself a proper account some time) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/210.79.21.2|210.79.21.2]] ([[User talk:210.79.21.2|talk]]) 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* Because it fails our sourcing policies for [[WP:BLP|biographies]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
But this is a discussion page. And Walker discusses the merits of Wikipedia's sourcing policies vis-a-vis this biography. So surely this is right on-topic. Virginia <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/210.79.21.2|210.79.21.2]] ([[User talk:210.79.21.2|talk]]) 05:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* Nope. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 10:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - I'm new to Wikipedia, and fine about discussing. Perhaps you could clarify why you simply responded with a "nope", considering
(i) I didn't suggest allowing the article to be posted on the actual biography page, but on the discussion page (and it *is* a discussion page, right?)
(ii) Walker's article discusses what should go under Simon Wessely's bio, so it is on-topic, even if you disagree with its contents and don't personally support any of its points about changing the bio page
(iii) Other comments on this discussion page are likewise discussing what should go on the bio page, but they have not been deleted. Again, I get it if it's an issue about length - so why not just include an intro and then a link to the full article?
cheers
Virginia <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/210.79.21.2|210.79.21.2]] ([[User talk:210.79.21.2|talk]]) 10:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* It's just a rant by someone whose friends have, largely due to their own absolute unreasonableness, been prevented from skewing an article towards supporting their external agenda against someone. Such input generally falls somewhere between unwelcome and ''very'' unwelcome, especially in cases of sensitive biographies. It has absolutely no merit as a source for content, and as a debating point it will achieve nothing other than further inflaming a dispute which is quite heated enough already. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


::Regarding Wessely's views on ME being mainstream or not, and what exactly these views are, it's worth recognising that his comment in the Gaurdian "Battle fatigue" article was a regret over ''language'' used, not a regret over the sentiment expressed. He's more "careful", usually, now about what he says, but the spots haven't really changed. If they had, he'd be turning away CFS research funding and instead nominating Spence, Gow, Kerr et al for much needed pathoetiological research, while he concentrated on the limits of his expertise in mass psychogenic illness/hysteria/PTSD/somatised depression/anxiety etc. His so-called "biological" studies on HPA axis and so on are not specific to ME and quite specific to anxiety disorders and other functional/behavioural/psychiatric/"biopsychiatry" states which are usually reversable through psychological debriefing and exposure therapy, unlike ME. The CDC doesn't seem to agree with him regarding the status of ME anymore. [[User:MEspringal|MEspringal]] ([[User talk:MEspringal|talk]]) 09:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

== Daily Mail article of December 14, 2007 ==

Yesterday the Daily Mail had a news story on the Camelford water poisoning scandal of 1988 [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=502442&in_page_id=1770]. The One-Click Group [http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=1760&end=1780&view=yes&id=2025#newspost] links this to an article by Simon Wessely and Anthony David in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol 39, No 1. pp.1 9. 1995, "The Legend Of Camelford : Medical Consequences Of A Water Pollution Accident" [http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/ME-CFS_docs/The%20Legend%20of%20Camelford.pdf]. The authors claimed that "there was little cause for concern".
I don't know whether One-Click's conclusion to an intentional cover-up has any merit, but this seems serious enough as it is, if the Daily Mail sketches the right picture. Any thoughts? [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

:The Daily Mail article does not mention Wessely. Wessely's article from 1995 does not, to my reading, suggest there was little cause for concern - the conclusion reads, in part, "To this day it is impossible to quantify the morbidity, be it primarily psychological or physical, arising from the water contamination incident." I would suggest that One-Click's website is not a suitable source to make unsubstantiated, inflammatory allegations (per [[WP:BLP]]). '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 19:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

::Ah. I think I see what happened. The article reads: "The committee concluded that acute short-lived intoxication was so unlike the circumstances of long-term renal dialysis that there was little cause for concern." The One-Click group translated this into "Wessely concluded" and concern in general. The members of the committee are not listed, but from the text it seems unlikely that Wessely was a member himself. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 20:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

:::The whole tone of Wessely's article is however derisive of any organic basis for symptoms. This is evident in his source selection and of course reading the article in the context of his other work. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.108.105.204|88.108.105.204]] ([[User talk:88.108.105.204|talk]]) 23:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Certainly; the article should be more explicit about Wessely's views on the topic of ME/CFS and the consequences thereof. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 12:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Guido: if you can find a source that can support your interpretation, fine. But so far all we have heard from many contributors is allegations. In what way has Wessely been "derisive" in a way that is ''not'' open to various interpretations. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

::::The article is called "the Legend of Camelford" which does suggest a degree of unreality and Wessely's views on chemical sensitivity are well known. Also Wessely works for UNUM provident. Surely this should be in the wikipedia article??? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.108.43.49|88.108.43.49]] ([[User talk:88.108.43.49|talk]]) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::Perhaps the question should be, why is there any need for psychological explanations when there is perfectly good toxicological evidence that the disaster occurred? Surely the causality between aluminium sulphate poisoning -- especially when tardily recognised and untreated (if there is a treatment) at the time -- and long term health effects is a no brainer: which part of that exactly is confusing? Why bring in the official state figleaf at all -- unless there's something to cover up? That seems to be Wessely's speciality, after all: is there ''any'' condition he hasn't at least initially poured a lakeload of cold water on, reassuring the plebians that we're just getting worked up over everyday "symptoms" (something of a contradiction in terms, not that that's ever bothered the psychological lebensraum).

:::::"Furthermore, the image of evoked potentials as entirely ‘objective’ may be confusing. Like most physiological measures they are influenced by such things as anxiety and hyperventilation [20] as well as being open to deliberate deception." Ah, the old hyperventilation fandango again, scourge of ME sufferers before it was trashed as nonsense there. I don't have access to the full article so I wonder what other delights lurk in his deliberate deception, sorry, "reassurances". The suggestion of "deliberate deception" is surely both beneath contempt and above arrogance.

:::::This character here[http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p000463.html] is citing Wessely's Camelford piece as evidence of "Mass Psychogenic Illness". Are we expected to believe poor ol' Simon has been "misunderstood" again? D'oh! [[User:MEspringal|MEspringal]] ([[User talk:MEspringal|talk]]) 09:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

::::This talkpage is not for ranting. Please tell us what changes need to be made, not what your opinion is about this or that. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 13:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

==Please move the admin category to the talk page==
[[:Category:Place of birth missing (living people)]] should be on the talk page, not the article page. [[User:Alex Middleton|Alex Middleton]] ([[User talk:Alex Middleton|talk]]) 17:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:Done. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[[Category:Year of birth missing (living people)]]
[[Category:Place of birth missing (living people)]]

==the importance of popularity==

Surely to be a good doctor one needs to be liked?? {{Unsigned|88.108.113.151}} ''disruptive comments unsuitable for [[WP:TALK]] removed by [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)''

:Yes, a small group of noisy people opposes Wessely, despite his high-profile clinical research into several enigmatic conditions and significant benefit derived by patients from his research. You made an edit to name them (Spence, Goldstein and Hooper), and you also alleged that the subject "works for" an insurance company, a claim that has been repeatedly debunked on this talkpage.
:This is an article about a living person, and therefore [[WP:BLP|specific guidelines]] are in place to prevent gross distortions without suitable sources from making their way into a widely read public resource. From your use of rhetorical questions I surmise that you are no great fan of the subject of this article, and perhaps you should also read [[WP:COI]], because in many cases "no great fans" originate very unbalanced content.
:I am one of the Wikipedia administrators who watches this article closely in view of previous disruption. Please work with me, and take into account my above comments before making any further attempt at editing this page. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 12:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So UNUM's annual report was a fake??? associated if you prefer, it is still a conflict of interest. Also I am unable to find any physician apart from one or two north of the border who take his work seriously. "noisy people" is this your attitude when 95% of YOUR patients think the treatments you offer are unhelpful??? It is simply not correct to produce stalinist biographies of people who are so controversial. ''Threatening and unhelpful comments removed [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)''

Anyway I'm not about to discuss this with you as I think like various religions you are a wikipedian and thus a cult member ie irrational (like Judaism or Christianity) {{Unsigned|88.108.113.151}}

:Well, suit yourself. You have managed to get the page as well as this talkpage semiprotected. I asked you to work with me, and your agenda and obvious rudeness got in the way. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

== Early days ==

* ''In the early days of recognition of chronic fatigue syndrome (also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis), it was often played down in the media, for example being described as "yuppie flu".''
This seems not entirely accurate, since the disease had been recognized with the diagnosis of ME decades before. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 18:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:No, CFS was coined in the 1980s. ME has existed since the 1950s, and probably much longer if we are to believe Byron Hyde. What would you like to change? [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 10:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would write something like:
* ''In the early days of the introduction of the diagnosis chronic fatigue syndrome (as an alternative to the existing diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis), it was often played down in the media, for example being described as "yuppie flu".'' [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 21:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

::But there is no consensus about that at all, so I cannot imagine that we could phrase it this way without POV violations. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 22:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
:::No consensus about what, exactly? Maybe you can rephrase it. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 08:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

::Argh. You seem to be suggesting that ME had no stigma at all, and that when the concept of CFS was introduced it came to be denigrated as "yuppie flu". [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 08:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
:::You have sources that it is otherwise? [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 12:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

==The subject speaks==
{{DOI|10.1192/pb.29.7.280}} is a rapid-fire interview in the ''Psychiatric Bulletin'' that could be used to attribute quotes if needed. It is silent on CFS/ME controversy. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 10:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

:{{DOI|10.1192/bjp.181.1.81}} more from the subject. Contains autobiographical content and again very little on CFS/ME. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 11:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

== More Alpinist ==

Some Alpinist activity on 2/8/2008. The article is protected again. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 21:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

==untrue==

prompted by members of the ME community I am posting here to say the above is untrue "alpinist" no longer edits wikipedia. As we know people on both sides of this debate myself and my partner wish to distance ourselves from the activities of JFdwolff and whoever has been editing "simon Wessely"

Fiona <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Catherinefionarichardson|Catherinefionarichardson]] ([[User talk:Catherinefionarichardson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Catherinefionarichardson|contribs]]) 10:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Could you also distance yourself from the miserable nonsense being spouted by 88.108? [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 12:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

== Why is this article so sanitised? ==

When I click on a controversial figure at Wikipedia, I expect to see what they said and why it's considered controversial. I can find out exactly what controversial comments [[James Watson]] made about race and intelligence, but on Wessely and CFS all I see is some vague sentence about psychological factors. The background which the reader should know about is essentially omitted, and the current article seems to understate the situation and related criticisms. I ask myself why these "noisy patients" are indeed noisy at all, and why the least respected field of medicine is given such weight over other fields despite a poor track record.

I would like to know what Wessely has actually said himself, but without personal journal access or practical library access to the full text of articles in which Wessely comments on CFS and ME, where else can people turn to in order to find out what he has said and why it is deemed controversial? The answer is, "''those activists' websites''", which highlight the statements apparently made by Wessely (and associates) that can easily be seen as insulting to patients, and alas, the anger from patients suddenly makes a lot more sense, especially when these comments are inaccurate and unrepresentative of patient experience.

If Wessely's work and comments are correct, they should stand on their own merit; but here you will barely even find any direct quotes, yet alone the resultant criticism. On a finishing note, all the historical baggage attached to this article is a turn-off for anything besides a passing comment on this talk page, not to mention any actual edits to the article. Indeed, even this talk page is over-regulated and some interesting points have been deleted.

[[User:Tekaphor|Tekaphor]] ([[User talk:Tekaphor|talk]]) 09:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:Because those sources attribute views that Wessely claims not to hold in other fora. The Burne source is fine. This article has been blanked by Jimbo in the past for hair-raising NPOV/BLP violations and a number of editors has been banned for soapboxing here. You are free to propose improvements here but they need tight consensus forming before they can be integrated into the article. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 11:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is difficult to find the actual text for some of Wessely's supposed views/quotes. However I did just spent some time investigating the comment from the Countess of Mar where she claims that Wessely said "M E exists only because well-meaning doctors have not learned to deal effectively with what he called 'suggestible patients'"[http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2002/apr/16/chronic-fatigue-syndromeme]. I found the actual text of Wessely's article here [http://peter200015.tripod.com/ME/index.blog/200200/mecfidscfsfm-uk-scandal/]. As you can see, he said no such thing. What Wessely does say in his articles is that CFS is a real illness, but primarily psychiatric in nature. For whatever reason, many patients would prefer their illness to be organic rather than psychiatric, and because of this they have vilified Wessely and made false claims about what his views are and what he has said. --[[User:Sciencewatcher|Sciencewatcher]] ([[User talk:Sciencewatcher|talk]]) 20:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

:Now if you could find a reliable source for that. It is clear that Mar's comments were immediately seized upon as potentially libellous if not uttered in the Lords. The blog page you cite does not give me the answer at all. If you want to insert a quote to the effect that "Wessely views CFS as a psychiatric illness", then we also need a quote to reflect the fact that the "ME community dislikes this perspective and goes ''ad hominem'' about it".
:In the absence of a reliable source, this article will remain as sanitised as Tekaphor found it. Rather that than BLP violations. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 05:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::Sciencewatcher, that many patients would prefer an organic illness is a myth. Patients don't care about that. They do care about a correct diagnosis though, and not to be labelled as psychiatric if they have an organic illness, or vice versa. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 13:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::;The Countess of Mar's comments

:::The Countess of Mar said, "''Simon Wessely has been relentless in his proposition that ME does not exist. For example, in the journal of psychological medicine in 1990 he claimed that M E exists only because well-meaning doctors have not learned to deal effectively with what he called 'suggestible patients'.''" When I searched for "deal" on the reference that Sciencewatcher posted, I found the paper ("Old wine in new bottles: neurasthenia and ME.") where Wessely makes the following statement: "''Suggestible patients with a tendency to somatize will continue to be found among sufferers from diseases with ill-defined symptomatology until doctors learn to deal with them more effectively.''" Elsewhere in this paper, Wessely is clearly equating the symptoms attributed to organic "ME" with psychiatric neurasthenia and therefore implies that ME doesn't exist literally because neurasthenia will suffice.

:::Her statement about that specific paper wasn't ideally precise, but makes more sense when considering Wessely's statements in other papers he authored (which are featured on the blog too). For example, in another paper ("Functional somatic syndromes: one or many?") he argues that the appearance of such "''specific somatic syndromes is largely an artefact of medical specialisation''", and in another paper ("Psychiatry in the allergy clinic: the nature and management of patients with non- allergic symptoms.") there is the statement '''' ... in distinguishing between the epidemiology of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), a belief, and chronic fatigue syndrome, an operationally-defined syndrome''". When considering these statements, among others, it's fairly obvious they suggest Wessely holds the following opinions: (a) "ME" as a distinct organic neurological illness (WHO) doesn't exist and outbreaks were likely a form of mass hysteria or psychogenic illness, (b) the symptoms commonly attributed to "ME" today are essentially neurasthenia/CF, (c) such attribution is merely a "belief" of the patient rather than a reality, (d) the supposed distinct existence of ME/CFS is an artifact of medical specialisation, (e) 'suggestible' people prone to somatisation aren't dealt with effectively by doctors and this leads to problems a/b/c/d.

:::Consider this scenario: a patient goes to the doctor, suffering symptoms which appear to be neurasthenic, a supposed mental illness assumed to be caused by stress and/or negative cognitions and best treated with psychotherapy; however, the patient also happens to match the description of ME, who then resists psychologisation of their physical symptoms and begins to identify with ME. Wessely argues that these physical sensations are symptoms of psychiatric illness, that ME doesn't actually exist and the patient only believes they have ME. He also argues that this belief only perpetuates or worsens these symptoms and hinders the goal of psychotherapy. Additionally, he appears to argue that if doctors only dealt with such patients better (who are suggestible people prone to somatisation), not only would their condition be successfully treated, but they would no longer be wallowing in false illness beliefs (such as being organically diseased and being negatively affected by activity etc). From memory, his colleges whom he supports also argue that the severity of physical symptoms is largely due to (psychiatric) somatosensory amplification of otherwise normal or mild sensations rather than a disease process, thus fueling and fueled by, the false illness beliefs that lead to "fear avoidance" and therefore consequential "deconditioning", the two supposed main factors behind ME/CFS.

:::So the Countess' words, that Wessely claims ME only exists because doctors don't effectively deal with such patients, is not so far off the mark afterall. I guess there are two interpretations of the Countess' comment: (1) the diagnostic entity of ME only exists because, (2) the illness symptoms of ME/CFS only exist because,. I'm guessing Sciencewatcher's criticism was based on #2. Either one appears valid because, seemingly according to Wessely, neither the belief in ME or the symptoms associated with ME would exist if doctors dealt with these patients more effectively.

:::_[[User:Tekaphor|Tekaphor]] ([[User talk:Tekaphor|talk]]) 17:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So, Tekaphor, please suggest on this talkpage how you would amend the article. I would like to see a reliable source that is actually his own work and not a (re)interpretation of Wessely's writings, and I'd like to see NPOV phrasing that we can all agree with. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 20:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what is generally understood by the 'Wessely school'. The problem for Wikipdia is that Wessely & co have not published their point of view in full. One has to string the pieces together, and that is dismissed as original research, valid or not. The root of it all can be found in Wessely's and David's letter to the Lancet at the time that CFS got classified.
*David A, Wessely S, "Chronic fatigue, ME, and ICD 10", Lancet 342:1247-1248 [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 22:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:It is not Wikipedia that has a problem. It is those who are bent on attributing to a researcher particular views that he either doesn't hold or hasn't expressed in so many words. I think we should move on, unless Tekaphor can show us something. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 22:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::While Wikipedia has every right to make certain demands when it comes to their articles, don't let yourself be blinded to the point that you consider them the scale of absolute truth, conclude proof of lack from lack of meeting these demands and claim that people are making false attributions. Wessely has expressed these views, only not in the neat package that Wikipedia would be willing to consider. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 23:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Guido said "Sciencewatcher, that many patients would prefer an organic illness is a myth". Sorry, it is not a myth - I have experienced first hand, many times (including from you Guido) that many patients do very much prefer an organic etiology for the illness. Anyway, back to the point of discussing this article. I agree with JFW that it is better to just leave the article as it is rather than going into a "she says/he says" discussion. As can be seen above, Mar's comments misrepresent what Wessely actually said. All we can say is that Wessely has caused controversy with patient groups due to his views on the illness, and the article says that adequately. It shouldn't be dragged out, especially as this is a biography. The article already gives a summary of Wessely's views on CFS. --[[User:Sciencewatcher|Sciencewatcher]] ([[User talk:Sciencewatcher|talk]]) 00:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:Personally, I would prefer to have no illness. I had a good life before I fell ill. Now, apart from the devastating illness itself that has left me unable to profess my trade or do many things that the healthy take for granted, without income and dependent on others for my bare survival, I am faced with people who fall over each other in their zeal to hammer me down further with the doctrine described by Tekaphor above, simply because they can. Do not claim for one instant that you know what I think or feel. You know nothing. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 00:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::JFW, NPOV phrasing? I used quotes from Wessely's work, although I didn't bother to hunt down and confirm all the papers in PubMed if that's what you mean. Sciencewatcher said "All we can say is that Wessely has caused controversy with patient groups due to his views on the illness, and the article says that adequately." But what are those views exactly? Imagine saying "James Watson caused controversy over racist comments" and then not elaborating. The article claims "''Wessely's summarised his view on CFS in a 2003 review article, co-authored with Baruch Fischhoff and published in the British Medical Journal.''"; I had a look at this reference ("Managing patients with inexplicable health problems.") and it doesn't seem to be speaking specifically about CFS, although uses it as a prime example; the tone seems more poetic than descriptive.

::I demonstrated above yesterday that he clearly implies ME doesn't exist, that patient's beliefs are core to their psychogenic symptoms, and that a diagnosis of neurasthenia can capture these symptoms. The article goes on to say "''Some critics hold him responsible for promulgating the view that chronic fatigue syndrome is primarily a psychiatric condition, an approach termed the 'psychiatric paradigm' by opponents. Wessely counters that few deny a potential physical mechanism, but that the effects are mainly functional; research conducted under his direction has detected markers of physical abnormalities in CFS.''"; I ask, what does Wessely "counter" exactly, as if this is some wildly inaccurate accusation? This is odd considering that Wessely appears to have academic influence and has clearly argued that it is indeed primarily a psychiatric condition, and if I remember correctly, he even tried to reclassify it as such.

::On the topic of "interpretations", the article also claims: "''Wessely's work suggests CFS is generally consequent from some organic trigger, such as a virus, but that the role of psychological, physiological and social factors should also be considered when considering failure of some patients to recover - and that treatments centred around these factors can be effective in many cases.''" It does? Who's interpretation is that? More importantly, where is the actual reference that states what "Wessely's work suggests", and how blatantly hypocritical is it to demand high quality references for any changes when the entire "Work on CFS/ME" section is practically unreferenced.

::What the euphemistic sentence really means is "''patients generally develop symptoms of neurasthenia after a bout of stress and/or ordinary infection, so illness beliefs and social factors should be considered when such patients fail to recover, and related psychotherapy can be effective''". It's incredible to insist on one hand that CFS is primarily a mental disorder with secondary physical symptoms, and then on the other hand deny that's what Wessely's papers represent, especially when the "bio" aspect of the BPS model for CFS is focused on biological psychiatry, and when Simon Wessely himself is a psychiatrist publishing psychiatric papers about a supposed psychiatric illness! What's so difficult to fathom about that, and why is it apparently so difficult to summarise Wessely's work?

::As for my suggestions regarding how to improve the article; I think I hinted this at the beginning with the comparison to the entry on James Watson (eg actual quotes). However, when considering the long history of intensive arguing on this talkpage I suspect ironically that even Wessely's own papers generally aren't considered "NPOV" and "RS" enough for this article, and editors here can't agree on how to use them anyway, so there appears to be a dead end as far as editing is concerned. JFW previously said, "''Because those sources attribute views that Wessely claims not to hold in other fora. The Burne source is fine.''" OK, so why aren't Wessely's other papers fine and how do they deviate radically from the ME/CFS advocates' claim that Wessely promotes the idea that ME/CFS is a psychiatric illness?

::_[[User:Tekaphor|Tekaphor]] ([[User talk:Tekaphor|talk]]) 12:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What I believe I asked was an attempt to write an NPOV and well-cited summary that we could integrate into the article once consensus has been reached. Instead we have more personal comments from various editors. You are correct that I would not want Wessely's work to stand on its own; I'd much rather have a secondary source that outlines which areas of his work have drawn so much fire. For these purposes, the Burke source is excellent because it is exactly that: a secondary source that tries to hear out both Wessely and his perceived arch-enemy Hooper. If you have further sources of the kind that document the struggle that you are alluding to: be my guest. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 22:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:However, while secondary, the Burke source is not very informative. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You have not found a similar source that covers the debate fairly. Go back three spaces and miss a turn. Do not pass GO. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:The letter to the Lancet should be referenced to in the article, but you prevented that earlier. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here. [1] Whether Wessely ever said that ME doesn't exist and [2] whether he thinks it is primarily psychiatric or organic. I think it's pretty clear he never said ME doesn't exist - he just doesn't agree with the classification of it. But as for his views on whether the illness is primarily psychiatric I would agree with Tekaphor that it's hard to pin down. My own impression is that Wessely views CFS as a primarily psychiatric illness with some physical signs and symptoms (this is what his research implies), but he tends to play this down when he talks in public, most likely because of the reaction he knows he would get. There's a TV interview with him you can find on the internet where he says something along the lines of "emotional factors are also important in the illness, of course, as they are with any other illness" (that's not a direct quote - just a recollection from my probably faulty memory). Of course there's no way you can put this into the article unless you can find a NPOV comment by some respected authority, as JFW has said. --[[User:Sciencewatcher|Sciencewatcher]] ([[User talk:Sciencewatcher|talk]]) 22:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:Wessely's point of view is that ME/CFS is a manifestation of [[neurasthenia]], and does not exist as a separate disease entity. This is in the letter that I mentioned. He is working with a case defintion that reflects this (the Oxford criteria). As a consequence, it is likely that the patients he sees are indeed mostly neurasthenia-type patients rather than genuine ME/CFS patients. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 22:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, Wessely views CFS as neurasthenia. But saying it doesn't exist as a separate disease entity is not the same as saying "it doesn't exist". And the difference between CFS and neurasthenia is purely down to the presumed etiology, not a different type of patient. Have a look at the defined symptoms of neurasthenia and you'll see it is the same illness as CFS. --[[User:Sciencewatcher|Sciencewatcher]] ([[User talk:Sciencewatcher|talk]]) 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Neurasthenia explicitly excludes post-viral disorders, see the ICD 10. Yes, some symptoms are the same, hence the recurring confusion in certain circles. But many other symptoms are not, and neurasthenia by definition shows no results if the patient is medically investigated, while ME/CFS shows many. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Then perhaps the definition is wrong, which is what Wessely is saying. --[[User:Sciencewatcher|Sciencewatcher]] ([[User talk:Sciencewatcher|talk]]) 00:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::The Burne source (published 6 years ago) contains an overview of the situation, but isn't very informative about the papers which patient advocates are critical of. Readers are directed towards his casual comments made to a journalist and his summary about dealing with related patients, but not the actual work that critics deem faulty or offensive, which is somewhat misleading. Some researchers have criticised his work, but this is getting too deep into CFS research for a biography rather than simply documenting the ''existence'' of criticism. Why were we discussing the Countess of Mar's comment anyway? Was it previously used in this WP article, or is this some attempt at summarising and debunking the critics? Wessely implies that beliefs determine the severity of symptoms, and psychotherapy is based around challenging these beliefs. Suggestions are also made about patients' behaviours, motivations, personalities, introspection, legitimacy and honesty; some of these are perceived as insulting or patronising. However, sometimes the impression is that CFS isn't solely psychiatric but psychosocial factors are substantially important and need to be considered; this more "reasonable sounding" wording is probably what Sciencewatcher and others think about when claiming that patient advocates are making wild accusations about Wessely's work. But it seems that all this has already been thrashed out before without much of a resolution and everyone is firmly holding their ground. - [[User: Tekaphor|<span style="color:blue">Tekaphor</span>]] ([[User_talk: Tekaphor|<small>TALK</small>]]) 11:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

::::If you're so keen to include criticism of Wessely, could you identify a suitable source? Failing that, will you accept that there are [[WP:V|verifiability]] and [[WP:BLP|BLP]] problems restricting us from picking alternative sources? Nowhere in Wessely's work have I seen anything that makes suggestions about patients' "behaviours, motivations, personalities, introspection, legitimacy and honesty". I think there's a lot of strawmanning against him in the fringes of the CFS/ME community. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 19:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::I find it odd that you've never read in Wessely's work any suggestions about patients' behaviour etc; I understand that there is room for interpretation of statements made in a research context, but I don't believe that advocates are writing fraudulent extracts. I can't verify or even endorse all the claims made by advocates, but I'm still skeptical about the way these are all dismissed above as "noise" from "trolls" that are only trying to make Wessely "look bad" because they demand an organic classification for their illness in order to "avoid responsibility" (did someone mention strawmanning?). I accept that there are Wikipedia rules which make it more difficult to find "appropriate sources". I'll be tied up with the CFS articles for some time; maybe I'll have another proper look later on. - [[User: Tekaphor|<span style="color:blue">Tekaphor</span>]] ([[User_talk: Tekaphor|<small>TALK</small>]]) 09:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(Undent.) I have not closely read much of Wessely's work because my task on this article has mainly been to stop the POV pushing by detractors. At no point did I suggest that "advocates" were writing fraudulently. All I did suggest was that they were strawmanning Wessely; there are plenty of doctors who have no time at all for CFS/ME and regard people with diseases from this spectrum as ''de facto'' malingerers. Wessely happens not to be one of them, but he is being strawmanned by advocates because he dares to suggest that psychological approaches to CFS/ME might be helpful, irrespective of an underlying somatic cause.

If you can provide purely NPOV content which is appropriately sourced, you are most definitely welcome and I would be the last to opppose you. When you're finished with the CFS articles please come back and discuss constructive ways to improve this article. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 20:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:22, 11 October 2008

Notice: This article does not verifiably establish WP:MUSIC

In my opinion, this article either does not verifiably satisfy the Notability criteria for Music, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable sources in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist User:Able2 (talk · contribs), and other recent contributors to this article, to make some constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings ... I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case.

Happy Editing! — 72.75.82.202 (talk · contribs) 21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is you can't PROD an article that's already been to AfD. You have to take it to AfD again and make your case there. PROD is for uncontroversial deletion, and obviously this would not qualify. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lipstick on a pig

Well, if nothing else, I discovered the {{Allmusic}} template ... 

*{{allmusicguide | id=11:dzfexqlsld0e~T0 | label= Chaundon }}

gives us:

And that's as much lipstick as I feel like putting on this pig. :-) — 72.75.82.202 (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simon_Wessely&oldid=244635349"