Talk:Mesothelioma/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advertising Costs

Removed the language on the cost of the word "mesothelioma" on Overture and other Pay Per Click engines. This may be appropriate for an encyclopedia article on Internet advertising, but it is not appropriate for an entry on a deadly form of cancer. - Carax

  • But a web search on mesothelioma reveals a zillion attorney sites, and very little actual information on the disease. I agree that the article should be primarily about the disease, but part of understanding mesothelioma is understanding its place in society as a major point of litigation. Unfortunate attention, yes, but worth documenting. I added a few sentences mentioning this, without specifics about cost-per-click, which I agree is a bit crass in a medical article.
It is interesting, though. As of Mar-2006 its still quite popular.[1] Helps explain the incessant linkspamming. Ewlyahoocom 19:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This is why some of us have articles related to the top paying adsense words on our watchlists ;-) --GraemeL (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

question

I originated this article in Aug 2003, and it looks like my article was removed for possible copyright violation. It is understandable that someone would be concerned about this because my entry is a direct copy from an article I wrote for a website. I do own the copyright, though, so it is OK. There is no problem with what I put in the Wikipedia article.

What, if anything, do I do now?

Also, I was going to add another article in a completely unrelated area, one for which there is nothing but a stub at this time. Is that OK under my current user name?

Carax.


Commercial link

This link:

hxxp://www.themesothelioma.net More about Malignat Mesothelioma - Mesothelioma treatment, symptoms, legal issue and more.

currently in the "External links" section, seems to be a way of getting people to this commercial website: www.an-attorney-for-you.com

Is there any reason not to delete this commercial link from Wikipedia? JWSchmidt 14:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Links to useful sites hxxp://www.dtweb.org/mesothelioma.asp should only be included.

      • f/y/i dtweb site is another site that tries to get people to a commercial site.

Abuse of power against "unwelcomed links"

Are some of you on a power trip? Have you even checked out ANY of the links?

The only one that could be considered "linkspam" is the MemorialMesothelioma website.

Wikipedia's self-proclaimed problem is the fact that it is not perceived as "authoritative."

See this quote: "Imagine an article in which every fact is referenced with multiple sources! Wikipedia has the potential — hopefully the destiny — to be the most cross-referenced body of knowledge ever created, but to get there, it needs help."

Marf is a 501c3 charity, and the marf.org website's purpose is stated: "Welcome to the website of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, the national nonprofit organization dedicated to eradicating mesothelioma as a life-ending disease."

http://www.cancerbacup.org.uk/Cancertype/Mesothelioma is an information center about Mesothelioma. Wikipedia encourages other sources of information to be made available in External Links, because some sources of information may contain something that even the National Cancer Society might not have or might not be as easily accessible to.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/malignantmesothelioma is part of the NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE. It is a .GOV not a .COM, it is a government source of information, not a buisness trying to sell anyting. This one, at the very least, could NOT be considered linkspam or "unwelcomed."

seems okay, its not trying to recruit clients for lawyers or anything and has good pictures and even a flash animation What is asbestos? Simple flash animation --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.202.56 (talk • contribs)

I personally don't think it's particularly educational... it largely shows air being replaced with skull and crossbones. If such a thing really is encyclopedic, then maybe it should be converted to an animated GIF and contributed as a GFDL image. --Interiot 15:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My references are protected by Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

What are references good for?

  • Giving credit to a source for providing useful information.
  • Providing more information to curious readers.
  • Convincing skeptical readers that the article is accurate.
  • Helping other editors quickly verify facts, especially in cases of sneaky vandalism.
  • Preventing and resolving editorial disputes.
  • Establishing general credibility for Wikipedia.
  • Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty.
  • Avoiding the impression that you are making stuff up.

Dubious Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V#Dubious_sources

For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources.

Start With Outside Research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#Start_with_outside_research Try to find good online and print resources, both books and journal articles. Using good references is a way of improving the credibility of Wikipedia, which will be increasingly important as Wikipedia grows and becomes more and more relevant. Then cite your sources. By citing sources you avoid copyright violations and plagiarism as long as you use only acceptable portions of other works. Doing research also makes it easier to think of material to add and allows you to improve any article, even one you didn't know much about.

Wikipedia Proposed Guidelines and Strategies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards#Proposed_guidelines_and_strategies

Referencing in Wikipedia articles

We could significantly improve the references and the citation apparatus of various articles. Better referencing would have several benefits. It would enhance:

  1. Accuracy, by encouraging contributors to research the facts rather than writing from memory or stating mere opinions.
  2. Verifiability, by providing readers with the sources of the facts contained in the article.
  3. Agreement, by reducing controversy and edit wars. People are much more tolerant of statements that they do not agree with if it is clear that the statement is attributed to a particular individual or group.
  4. Credibility, by, for example, reducing the number of phantom attributions such as "most people feel", or "some experts claim" which are frequently used to disguise rants and mere opinion.
  5. Connectivity, by providing sources of additional information for those readers that wish to research the topic in more detail.
  6. Neutrality, by citing all relevant authoritative sources.
  7. Objectivity, by, rather than asserting a fact, attributing the assertions of fact to authoritative sources.

In determining citation guidelines the following general principles are important:

  1. The guidelines must be flexible because of the broad range of topics that they must apply to. Citations of academic topics may benefit from more rigorous standards than popular culture topics.
  2. The guidelines should encourage better "quality" sources.
  3. The guidelines should encourage more references rather than fewer (within reason).
  4. The guidelines should encourage a broad range of types of references (ie., book, journal, Web, etc.).
  5. The guidelines should encourage citation of the references from the body of the article itself. That is, wherever possible, any major point in the article should have a citation to the references section so that readers can check the original source of the idea.

Implemention may need to be multi-faceted, sequential, and/or dynamic. Possible useful tools to coordinate such an effort include:

  1. Standards for what are acceptable sources and for a minimum number of sources an article should provide.
    • These might eventually be universal across Wikipedia, but there seems almost no chance of immediate consensus on that. We may be able rather rapidly to establish standards in some subject-matter areas.
    • Possibly distinct policies on book references, peer-reviewed journal references, magazine and newspaper references, documents from governments or well-known organizations, miscellaneous web references
      • "...the gold rule is the blind juried journal, second the juried journal, then journals not peer-reviewed. In texts it is much more squiffy, with state of the field articles (synthesis of current published research), textbook chapters, case studies/research reports, and everything else as very fuzzy categories. Popular press, commentary, and other third hand reports become very questionable except when no other cite is available. [And]...what about citations which are exclusively abstracts of unpublished papers? - Amgine [2]
      • "In many fields in the social sciences and humanities, non-peer reviewed books ultimately have greater influence and are more important sources of authoritative knowledge..." - Slrubenstein
        • "Two things to consider: 1) At least in literature, the non-peer reviewed journals are sometimes considered to have a forgivable bias towards certain authors or groups of authors. These journals reflect the popular sentiment of admirers but are not considered authoritative by the academic community. 2) Many wiki-vandals when confronted with their lack of authority on a subject simply make references up. This puts an academic in untenable position, because we will undergo the time and expense to verify sources which puts an economic burden on us if we want to contribute to Wikipedia. The wiki-vandal, however, can make up references and source doctored articles with no personal repercussions just to bolster his point. The problem of authority in Wikipedia is not one dimensional (sourcing authoritative information). The reputation of the poster is another dimension that should be evaluated, just like we rate sellers on eBay. --Modemx 20:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)[3]
    • Possibility of articles about any frequently-used sources, either in main article space or in a distinct name space.
    • Strategic management proposed as a paradigm of a well-referenced article.
  2. A mechanism — comparable to Wikipedia:Cleanup and possibly placing Template:Unsourced or something like it on the talk pages — to target pages for such improvement.
    Template:Unsourced would probably work, but the vast majority of Wikipedia articles will have need this. There is a new WikiProject that aims to reference articles on Wikipedia. You could add an article to the "articles being worked on" section, or nominate it to be the biweekly special article. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 03:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. One or more "collaborations of the week" (or month) for improving references and citation apparatus for particular articles.
  4. This may be very hard for pop culture topics or recent events. Some people feel that means those topics are unencyclopedic, although it is hard to imagine a general consensus on that. We could, however, decide that some subject matter is outside the scope of this forum, even if others in Wikpedia choose to work on these topics.

Various individuals have disagreed over whether it would be best to focus such effort on controversial or uncontroversial topics. Is there any reason why some people couldn't pursue the presumably calmer work on uncontroversial topics, while others work out how we can approach controversial topics?

Referencing of Wikipedia articles

We seem to have consensus that as of November 2004 many Wikipedia articles are not yet worthy of being considered citable sources. We also seem to have consensus that it would be a very worthy goal to work out how to raise certain articles or, more precisely, certain versions of certain articles to the standard of citable, peer-reviewed literature (or to some other comparable standard). This seems closely related to the goal that some have characterized as "creating Wikipedia 1.0".

  1. Possibility of distinguishing draft articles and vetted articles.
    • Probably what we have now is a perfectly good mechanism for perpetual draft articles, so the question is how to manage vetted articles.
    • Various proposals in Wikipedia:Approval mechanism seem possibly relevant
    • Possible mechanisms for "tagging" vetted versions:
      • Software extensions for this purpose
      • Namespace distinction
      • Pages of pointers to vetted versions
  2. Who is appropriate to vet the articles? How can one define "serious and committed" editors? (All of these proposals are clearly controversial; there is no inherent reason multiple mechanisms could not be created for different "seals of approval")
    • Specific academic qualifications may be required; or alternately a history of good work on Wikipedia in that field.
    • Revealing one's actual identity (vs. strictly an online alias) may be required.
    • Groups might be chosen in a similar manner to how we already choose the ArbCom or Administrators; or alternately in the way we choose Mediators or Barnstar recipients.
    • We might be able to develop a system by which anyone could endorse a particular version of an article; presumably groups could form whose endorsement would carry some weight.
    • Rather than assume that this needs to be an elitist process, we could develop a more democratic system by which any logged on user could rate an article in a system of open voting such as the Article validation feature coded by Magnus Manske.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources

For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check#Why_is_this_project_necessary.3F

Why is this project necessary?

Wikipedia's Achilles heel is the perception that Wikipedia is not a "good" source of information, and that it is a less "definitive," or "authoritative" source than others. This perception likely comes from the idea that "normal" people could not competently create an encyclopedia (this in spite of the many academics that contribute to Wikipedia). Perhaps it is also the idea that at anytime people could put in factual errors at will, as illustrated in the Isuzu Experiment.

This project is part of the solution to these issues. Not only can we make Wikipedia a more reputable source of information, we can make it the most reputable source of information. Imagine an article in which every fact is referenced with multiple sources! Wikipedia has the potential — hopefully the destiny — to be the most cross-referenced body of knowledge ever created, but to get there, it needs help. See also

In addition, this project would make vandalism much easier to spot. Right now, we must use the RC patrol page when we are unsure if a user has fixed erroneous information, or vandalized an article. If this project succeeds, then people on the lookout for vandalism only need to compare current information with the references listed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

There is general agreement that Wikipedia articles should use reliable sources. This page is an attempt to provide guidance about how to identify reliable sources and reliable information.


THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT MESOTHELIOMA....NOT HOW TO SOURCE AND IMPROVE ARTICLES. STICK TO THE TOPIC, OR DON'T INVOLVE YOURSELF IN OUR DISCUSSION, please! I had to put it in big letters so people would be able to read it...it's on a mess on here!!! WiiAlbanyGirl 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to the above

If you want this article to be reliable, stop shoving your links in. The article will grow in quality and reliability if the body text is expanded and corrected, with good references to peer-reviewed medical journal articles.

External links are not the most important part of Wikipedia. I honestly don't care if the MARF is a 501(c)3 exempt organisation or not. Wikipedia is not a link directory. Please start contributing to articles.JFW | T@lk 6 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

MARF?

The link doesn't work. Would those users who made hidden comments in the article please discuss MARF here. Thank you. Axl 16:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The link DOES work and is needed by victims of mesothelioma. Copied from the above heading.... Abuse of power against "unwelcomed links" Are some of you on a power trip? Have you even checked out ANY of the links? Marf is a 501c3 charity, and the marf.org website's purpose is stated: "Welcome to the website of the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, the national nonprofit organization dedicated to eradicating mesothelioma as a life-ending disease." The link: Medlineplus: Mesothelioma also refers to MARF.

Its 501c3 status is not relevant. The only thing that matters is whether it is an unbiased source of information. Several readers have noticed that it is a subtle front for the class action industry. Just stop, please. JFW | T@lk

IT IS NOT a front for anything other than to help victims of mesothelioma.

It IS an unbiased source of information for meso patients. You should contact MARF if you have any questions in regard to this matter and allow victims of meso to have access to someone who cares about their health concerns.

So care to tell me why the director is a trial lawyer, who doesn't want his photo on the webpage?[4] JFW | T@lk 22:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the other guy arguing for MARF isn't signing his name to his posts, I wanted to make clear that I haven't posted anything since the last time I whined around 04:50, 6 July 2005.

-Rlee1185

There are over 20 members on the board so there isn't ONE director of MARF. MARF is an IRS certified nonprofit organization. They have no financial or commercial relationship with any drug company, medical center, physician, researcher, law firm or asbestos company (although they seek to involve all those groups in their mission), and their only source of income is voluntary, tax-deductible contributions. Their mission is to eradicate mesothelioma by:

  • funding the research which is the most high quality and promising, as determined by medical experts;
  • helping patients obtain information on their treatment options which is completely up-to-date and unbiased;
  • and advocating in Washington D.C. for the federal mesothelioma research funding necessary to stop this national tragedy.

Update

Axl, are you updating the article with last Friday's review from The Lancet? JFW | T@lk 21:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hehe. :-) There was a mistake in the Lancet article. Wikipedia is more accurate. :-) Axl 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Care to tell me where? JFW | T@lk

The sidebar on page 401 states that mesothelioma typically shows positive staining for TTF-1. This is wrong; TTF-1 is typically positive in lung carcinoma, but negative is mesothelioma. Axl 14:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

MARF reprise

207.210.196.133 (talk · contribs) has been at it again, attempting to maximise mention of MARF in the article and removing the assertion that it was an "American charity" (which it is, and it is 501(c)3 approved!)

I've had enough. You are not here to write an encyclopedia, you are here to advertise. As Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, I thought it might to good to block you for 48h for spamming this article. Honestly, I fail to understand how you can waste your own (and our) precious time trying to push links. Couldn't you contribute intelligent content to the article?

The MARF link is staying out. If an organisation needs these kind of tactics to be noticed it cannot possibly be notable. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been of the understanding that doctors are suppose to help people. The hippocratic oath says, among other things.......... I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery. Above all, I must not play at God......

I am helping several families who have been affected by mesothelioma. I am working with a meso victims family now who who was diagnosed and a doctor who had NEVER done the surgery nor seen it done operated on a meso patient. He then told the patient that all of the meso was removed and he didn't need any further treatments. When I heard about the family and offered to help them they were so overwhelmed by what was going on that they were in a state of shock. When they saw the information posted on the http://www.marf.org web site, they were devastated because a 'doctor' had led them down the road of 'know it all' and they had no idea that there were doctors who specialize in mesothelioma. Unfortunately, one month after that patients surgery, he collapsed. We were able to get him to a competent doctor then but the surgery that had been done on him actually complicated an already dreadful disease. And that man died two weeks ago, only five months after his initial diagnosis.

Unfortunately, many doctors are now saying that the HIPPOCRATIC Oath should now be called the HYPOCRITIC Oath because some people get the title doctor and mistakenly take on a "Holier than Thou" and "Know It All" attitude.

Doctors who specialize in mesothelioma and have a track record behind their work are listed at http://www.marf.org/marfFrames/ClearingHouseFrame.htm and other important information need by patients is at http://www.marf.org/marfFrames/PatientEducationFrame.htm

I am a mesothelioma victim and I know the importance of the information that is available on the http://www.marf.org web site. I also know that when you are first diagnosed with meso that you do not have months to search thru all the sites the come up now when you do a mesothelioma search. And finding a web site that is both current on the treatments that are available in the United States and list the doctors who specialize in mesothelioma is vital to a patients survival and quality of life, be it a few months or years.

There is NOTHING to advertise about the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, all of their funds are derived from donations. You are showing that you you are not accountable in your words referring the the organization that is helping so many people in the United States and other countries because you won't give a person the opportunity to go to the home page link and use their own intelligence to see that the organization is formed by patients and others who are KNOWLEDGEABLE about mesothelioma. .

You say that you are a doctor. What kind of doctor are you? Are doctors not suppose to be dedicated to HELPING and causing no harm?

NGOs and charities also advertise, sometimes very obsessively so. I actually agreed to have the MARF link on Wikipedia, but you wanted more. I sympathise with your condition and hope your treatment has been satisfactory, but you seem to misunderstand Wikipedia policy on external links. Wikipedia does not have a duty to inform the public about anything, apart from a moral duty. If fulfils this duty not with external links but with original text that is supposed to be scientifically sound. Furthering the cause of the MARF does not necessarily fall under this remit.
Let's start again: will you agree that ONE link to the MARF main page is adequate? I will ignore your veiled personal attacks for now. JFW | T@lk 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

207.210.196.133 I did not say anything to be a personal attack. My energies and concern is strickly for for victims of meso. Since I am physically limited in my ability to help others, I do so in any way I can. I wanted you to understand that MARF is a legetimate organization dedicated to helping meso patients, mostly in the US but anywhere they can. After "living with meso" for four years, I want to help others as best I can. http://www.marf.org/marfFrames/ClearingHouseFrame.htm would be most helpful for meso victims. But that is up to you at this point. My ONLY concern is for meso patients. And that is where my energies will stay. God Bless You.

Link spam#Specific anti spam methods: "Whitelists and blacklists that prevent certain IPs from posting, or that prevent people from posting content that matches certain filters, are common defenses." Does wikipedia have a list of URLs that cannot be added to wikipedia pages? --JWSchmidt 00:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed a blacklist. A page will not save if it contains a blacklisted URL. I don't know who maintains the list. JFW | T@lk 18:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added MARF again. After returning from their second annual symposium on Malignant Mesotheliaoma, I feel that it is VERY wrong to call it spamvertization, and that MARF is actually a very important player in meso research. Here are some of my reasons:

  • Yes, MARF was started by lawyer -- lawyers lose family members to meso, too.
  • Yes, MARF is currently sponsored by lawyers --
  • MARF is also sponsored by drug companies
  • MARF's board of directors ALSO includes some of the best doctors in the field, including Drs. Pass and Vogelzang
  • MARF actually SPONSORS research -- Over a million dollars worth in 2004
  • Finally, during the conference the idea of lawsuits only came up in ONE context -- People who are suing and are NOT supporting meso research are scum. The organization as a whole seems to hold lawsuits in contempt, because they are not doing anything to help the problem.

MARF is an important player in this field, and is one of the few legitamate ones. I can understand that people are having problems determining their value, but I can tell you that my experiences with MARF are only positive. --Mdwyer 17:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah yeah. I wish you'd discussed it first and only then put it back. This has taken hours of edit warring. Also, have you noticed MARF has its own Wikipedia page now? JFW | T@lk 00:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
To be honest, I added it thinking that it was somehow just missed. I failed to read the discussion until after I had made the change. Even after reading all the discussion, I still felt it had a proper place here, and so tried to justify it as above. My apologies. I will be sure to check the discussion links before editing.
At the conference I met a number of patients and caregivers, and they uniformly expressed frustration with a lack of good information on the internet. As you probably know, most of the information is along the lines of, "You've got six months to live. Sue today." It is very difficult to keep hope when you are being pounded with negative messages like those. So, please accept my personal thanks for helping to make this article one of the better sources of Meso information out there. I don't want to start another edit war, especially after you have fought so hard already to keep this page as valuable as it currently is.
Would it be more correct to link to the Wiki page Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation or the URL? Or both? Don't even get me started on Marf. --67.177.235.1 07:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Meso RFA

67.52.142.215 added another 501c3 charity, "Mesothelioma Research Foundation of America". The site looks somewhat legit at first glance, but I don't recognize the names of any of the professionals, and the user who added the link seems to be responsible for some linkspam-like activity in the LASIK and PLASTIC SURGERY nodes. The WHOIS record suggests that the site is a front for phhlaw.com. I'd like to remove it, but I'd like to check first if anyone else can support it. Especially since my arguments against it are similar to the arguments against MARF (which I *can* personally vouch for.) --Mdwyer 23:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed them again. --Mdwyer 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
An internal link to this organization (Mesothelioma Research Foundation of America) has been added to the article. I have left it into place, but I'm keeping an eye on the parent article to that link. I have marked it for speedy deletion for the same reason I was against its inclusion as an external link: It doesn't look legit to me. --Mdwyer 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mesothelioma Survivor

Website of a mesothelioma survivor with unique content rich mesothelioma website angle. Please visit http://www.mesotheliomapoems.com. Mesothelioma Poems

I do believe someone removed my previous post from this site, which I thought was not done! It was not a personal attack and contained an excellent reference, so what's going on? My points were two, but can be reduced to one: there is no such thing as a mesothelioma survivor. It is invariably fatal. See the latest edition of the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy.Godofredo29 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be me. It wasn't a personal attack, but I thought it was pretty insensitive and uncalled for. It did NOT contain an excellent reference (how about a page number?). Furthermore, there are a number of documented cases of people surviving mesothelioma. To your credit, it is true that the only reason Mesothelioma didn't kill many of them was something else killed them first. In any case, I believe in being realistic, but I, personally, do not welcome your negative contributions. LIFE is invariably fatal. --Mdwyer (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

List of specialists

I removed the newly added list of specialists. There were some big problems with this, which I'll enumerate here:

  • It was exclusively American. It ignores the fact that mesothelioma occurs in the rest of the world.
  • It attempted to arbitrate which oncologists could be termed an "expert" - something fraught with POV and incompatible with Wikipedia policy.
  • It did not state whether these people were laboratory scientists or clinical experts. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The list was intended to be a starting point for Wikipedia, not a comprehensive list. I would hope there would be contributions by others that would include specialists from other parts of the world. In terms of the POV - each of the bios for these doctors indicates that they specialize in this form of disease and it is also their primary research focus. I'm not sure how that is violating NPOV. On your last point - all are clinical experts. I'm not sure how any of your points warrant the removal of the section as they seem fully consistent with Wikipedia policies. Cultofpj 23:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not the task of Wikipedia, and completely arbitrary. No other health-related articles mention the names of "specialists". I'm concerned about NPOV as it is not Wikipedia's job to decide who should qualify as an expert; by what criteria will you call someone an "expert"? Please don't go this way. JFW | T@lk 01:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

How is it completely arbitary? My sense is that this article and other medical articles don't provide a complete list of treatment options. But that doesn't make them arbitary. I suspect not. I used the term "specialists" because these oncologist have a particular research focus on mesothelioma. A focus that differientiates them from someone who studies brain cancer. I was very careful not to use the word "expert" in that would be a violation of NPOV. Would you be agreeable to the section being titled "Researchers." That's more neutral in tone and still answers the informative question of which doctors are focusing their research efforts on mesothelioma. Cultofpj 03:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This has no precedent on Wikipedia and I'm really not sure if this is something that should be in an encyclopedia. Perhaps a request for comments would be useful. "Researchers" would be a bit confusing, as you're trying to make a list of clinicians known for their particular experience in treating mesothelioma. I'm posting an RFC. JFW | T@lk 15:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  • A casual glance through Wikipedia shows numerous lists of persons. There's a list of geneticists and biochemists, scientists, lawyers, and even WikiPedians. Why is it appropriate to list people who contribute to Wikipedia but not appropriate to list clinicians who are contributing research and new treatments related to a terminal disease? All I'm suggesting is that we adopt the model used for the Biology page and list individuals who are researching clinical treatments for mesothelioma. If you'd rather set it up as a "topic related to Mesothelioma," that would be fine as well.Cultofpj 15:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a false premise to assume that the aforementioned lists are appropriate. If the Biology article contains an indiscriminate list of biologists, then it should be removed. Edwardian 18:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree that a small list of specialists is inappropriate here for many reasons. First, it is impossible to keep such a list accurate and complete by any objective standards. cultofpi admitted it was incomplete. Second, researchers are not necessarily the same as clinicians, and a researcher is not necessarily a better source of care for the disease, since quality of care has many dimensions. Third, there are very few diseases for which a single or a couple of doctors could be said to be truly above the rest in authority and experience; I don't think this is rare enough to be one of them. I suspect even the contributor of the list would not be able to specify what separates them from doctors not listed who treat mesothelioma. Fourth, a list like this has different implications than a list of biologists: it will reduce people's confidence about their doctors if they aren't on the list. This is not doing anyone a service. Fifth, I have a strong suspicion that each of the doctors on the list would not claim that that list is clearly distinguishable from many other good doctors and places to get care. Sixth, this type of list has a potential problem with being perceived as advertising that a random list of biologists does not. alteripse 16:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for sharing your thoughts. A couple of thoughts in response. In terms of your first point, the same arguement could be made for any article in Wikipedia - that it is incomplete or lacks objectivity. Several of the Wikipedia FAQs, including Schools' and Teachers' FAQ, point this out and request that people correct mistakes in articles, contribute to the article by adding information, and reminding people to double check the accuracy. If that is the general policy applied to Wikipedia articles, then I would assume it to be true for this list as well. In a similar vein, if you are universally applying this standard, then we should also remove the list of treatments since they are incomplete. On your third point, everything I have been told by other oncologists is that mesothelioma is indeed a rare form of cancer, particularly the in the peritoneum, The oncologists I have spoken with have a general understanding of the diseasese but each have said I need to talk with a specialist. On your sixth point, I can't see how this is advertising just by listing a researcher or clinican's name. But again, if Wikipedia has a stance against advertising then I think it should be universally applied which would mean deleting the articles on drugs like Zoloft and all the hospitals listed in the hospital section. I suspect that we could address most of the concerns raised by individuals here simply by using the template found on the Biology page, create a box containing "related information" and put a link to page of researchers there.have a disclaimer at the top of the page that reinterates the admonishments found in the FAQs (readers should add information that is missing and double check information that is presented). Cultofpj 01:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right there are some similarities to the other lists, but doesn't it give you pause that several of us think that the key difference between the lists is what makes this type of specialist list unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and it looks like advertising to several of us. You also skipped right over what I think is the biggest problem, and that is generating hardship and distress for mesothelioma patients who might read such an incomplete list. That disadvantage in my mind far outweighs whatever you think might be the advantages of listing a few. I promise you, in every field of medicine, the most famous doctors are not always the places to get the best care, and there are more dimensions to "best care" than the renown of the head of the department. I am not convinced that mesolthelioma is so rare that only a handful of doctors have expertise in it. How do you imagine this list being used? alteripse 02:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It doesn't give me pause, it puzzles me. For some reason you problems with a list of individual specialists/researchers but not treatments linked to pharmaceutical companies. And it again seems inconsistent with other Wiki pages such as the list of liberal arts colleges which includes a number of private institutions. Based on your criteria, that list is an advertisement too. As for skipping over the point that the list is incomplete, if every Wikipage was held-up due to incomplete information, then there wouldn't be any Wikipages. It is a constant work in progress - just as this list would be. We probably don't have a complete list of treatments either, but that doesn't keep us from providing an "incomplete" list, does it? I offered a compromise that we can add a disclaimer at the top of the page that clearly states that this may not be a complete list and readers are encouraged to continue doing their own research. I'm puzzled that you don't consider mesothelioma rare. Every single doctor, oncologist, nurse, and surgeon I've spoken with has indicated that it is extremely rare. Only 2000 cases each year, 250 of which are peritoneal - that seems very rare to me compared to other cancers. I imagine this list being used to help people identify researchers who are working on potential treatments. I think that would be helpful to patients as well as to others in the medical field who are also trying to identify researchers in this area. Cultofpj 01:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am also responding to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, natural science, and technology. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. We can't possibly maintain a list of specialists for all disease states on a global level, this is completely untenable. Luckily it's not anyone's expectation of what wikipedia can or should do. This can also devolve very quickly into advertising, if it's not already. cohesion | talk 09:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • How can you honestly say that listing a physician is advertising but creating a page for one specific cancer center (The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center) is not? Your article reads like an advertisement - "top cancer research insitution in the U.S." Growth rates. There's a big difference from creating a couple of NPOV pages on doctors who are researching mesothelioma and writing an advertisement. Cultofpj 01:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, just stop with the bullshit comparisons and tell us what you think this list will mean to a reader. Since you said you don't intend to claim that the list is complete, or that these people are better sources of medical care than someone who isn't listed, please tell us how you imagine what the list will mean to mesothelioma patients or their families. If someone who publishes their rating system claims that a specific hospital is #1, you can report that as a fact in an article. When there is general agreement that there is a specific researcher or medical center agreed by all to be pre-eminent in the field, it deserves mention (e.g., Hugo Moser's adrenoleukodystrophy clinic at the Kennedy-Krieger institute). But when you post a list of half a dozen specialists you imply that they have been selected according to some objective system as better than those not named. That is how people understand such lists. If you continue to tell us that is not your intended message to the reader, you are being disingenuous or obtuse. alteripse 01:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've stated this before - it is a list of individuals contributing to the research of mesothelioma. I don't believe simply listing such researchers or specialists implies that they have been selected based on an objective system as being better. Again - I point to the list of treatments which is in itself incomplete. Does this incomplete list suggest that these treatments are better than others that were not listed? I mentioned earlier that one of the Wikipedia FAQs encourages readers to double check the accuracy of articles. My assumption is that would include lists of specialists and treatments. While it disturbs me that you launch personal attacks, it disturbs me more that there is a double standard on Wikipedia when it comes to list. It is "advertising" to have a list of specialists/researchers but it is not advertising to have a list of liberal arts colleges. It could be that your group will never allow a list on wikipedia but that only weakens the usefulness of the article, the help it could provide patient, and the information it could provide other researchers. Cultofpj 03:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
So far, nobody likes your list. The many people who visit Wikipedia on a daily basis have not come to your defense, and the people responding to the RFC have unanimously voted against such a list. This is about as close to consensus as it will ever get. I will not repeat all the arguments, but will you please put your attention to something else now? JFW | T@lk 03:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
You could have told me that there was Category:Oncologists which would have solved this debate long ago. 19:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that will solve your problem. Not all "specialists" from your list will be notable enough for a Wikipedia article; I see you have already written about Nicholas J. Vogelzang, who does appear to fit the bill. JFW | T@lk 00:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggestion for user Cultofpj: Your proposed list is not the kind of thing normally found in Wikipedia. If you think such a list should exist in wiki format, maybe you could create a wikicity about medical specialists. --JWSchmidt 12:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion.Cultofpj 19:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I am responding to the RfC request. Such a list does seem like it could be a slipperly slope, but I would vote in favor of including it. Such a list could be a useful resource to other professionals but more importantly to patients. LarryKirk 04:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Then I will ask you the same question that cultofpj has repeatedly dodged: how do you imagine a patient reacting to a list like this? Do you want to take the responsibility of making sure that it includes all doctors who give high quality care for this disease? Can you describe the objective criteria by which these specialists are included and not someone else? Now think again how useful this list is to a patient. If they are seeing one of these people they don't need the list; if they are seeing someone else, all this list will do is make them feel unsure about the quality of their care and wonder if they should take the expense, trouble, and stress of traveling to one of these people. If you think we should be in the business of recommending which specialists are worth seeing and which are not, you are willing to shoulder a large serious responsibility that wiser people will decline. So far, you and cultofpj are the only people who have spoken up for this irresponsible and potentially harmful idea. Will you at least answer my question? Thanks. alteripse 11:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A patient may use such a list to guide them in their search for finding care, but I suspect they'll use Wikipedia for researching hospitals and cancer centers too even though those articles/lists are incomplete. Using your rationale, is it irresponsible to have a list of treatments that may be incomplete? The chemothereapy section is clearly incomplete as there is no mention of Cisplatin, Gemcitabine, Raltitrexed, or Bevacizumab. I suspect most patients would be more disturbed by that type of incomplete list even thought you seem very comfortable with including it while exluding a list of researchers. I thought Cultofpj offered a perfectly sensible compromise by suggesting a disclaimer to remind fellow Wikipedians that the list may be incomplete. LarryKirk 03:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just would like to point out that LarryKirk started contributing to Wikipedia on 28 October 2005, the same date that Cultofpj made his last edit. The style of edits made so far leads me to believe they may be sock puppet accounts. Alex.tan 08:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm still here but assumed that this discussion was dead for the moment. As I mentioned in one of my last posts here - the category of oncologists is essentially what I was proposing. Cultofpj 14:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. The difference between an incomplete list of treatments and an incomplete list of specialists is that no patient should be choosing his treatment from a list here. But you are explicitly saying that main point of including the list is to guide patients to care. You are at least honest about the purpose, even if you haven't thought it through. I think an incomplete guide to care may be worse than none at all. Would you feel good if that list persuaded someone in Seattle that he had to travel to Denver to get "good care" if he had been referred to a top mesothelioma specialist in Seattle who didn't happen to be on our list? What will you think if Ima Quack, MD, or Imagonna Cureyou, MD, add their names to the list next week? How will you judge who belongs? I think we have no business pretending to guide people's medical care decisions. First, do no harm. alteripse 03:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that consensus is overwhelmingly against inclusion of a list, can we please close this discussion? JFW | T@lk 08:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Then remove the Request for Comment. Four Wikipedians out of 533,905 is far from "overwhelming" but as I've mentioned, the category of oncologists provides the same service that I was proposing and seems to be legitimate to you and the others who expressed concern. Cultofpj 14:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I've delisted it. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Consensus is between those who are willing to discuss. You cannot presume that the remaining 533,901 would have chosen side. JFW | T@lk 01:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

NEJM

There's a major review in this week's NEJM, see here. Anyone happy to read through it and make the necessary corrections here? JFW | T@lk 01:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I can do it, but I would want to create a section for references and use this system for citations and numbered references. --JWSchmidt 01:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Great! Well done! JFW | T@lk 03:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I only just got started, but I am going to bed. If anyone else wants to join the "fun", feel free. --JWSchmidt 04:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

tetrathiomolybdate

Someone inserted tetrathiomolybdate as a treatment. This is a copper chelator, and its use is experimental in all maligancies. Pubmed gave 0 results, suggesting that this is WP:NOR. JFW | T@lk 05:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Need some help please

I deleted this paragraph, because of some info I have read, that suggests there is newer evidence that may modify this. Also, this is just extremely technical, and almost too detailed for a Wiki article. I fear it would chase the average reader away.

However, I would like some input on this. Thoracic or Oncology experts out there? This is the paragraph, and please see my edit, about the World Trade Center. So what is the scientific consensus now on fiber size, does anyone know?

"Studies involving intrapleural or intraperitoneal inoculation of rats and mice with different types of asbestos fibre established that long, thin fibres caused a higher incidence of mesothelioma than did short fibres and that cells phagocytose and accumulate longer fibres more effectively than shorter fibres. Similarly, incubation of Syrian hamster cells with fibreglass which had an average length of 9.5µm resulted in cell transformation with an efficiency identical to crocidolite. Grinding these fibres to approximately 2.2µm reduced the transforming ability 10- to 20-fold while further reduction to <1µm completely eliminated the transforming ability of the fibreglass particles. "

This article reads like a medical journal. I found it fascinating, but almost too technical. I don't know that the language is appropriate for a general audience. Is there anyone who would/could help on making this a little more readable? I dont mean this as a criticism to the author, or the hard work he/she did on this. It's a good article. I just wonder if it can be made a little easier to read for a lay audience. As another example, this:

Experimental evidence suggests that asbestos acts as a complete carcinogen with the development of mesothelioma occurring in sequential stages of initiation and promotion.

Would the average (non-technical) reader knows what this means, without a lot of effort? MollyBloom 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

mesothelioma.cancer-help.co.uk

I have reverted this edit as spamvertization. After I took a look at the site, though, it lacks a lot of the things that usually identify spam links. That said, the edit was made by CancerHelp, who has never done any other edits -- especially to other Cancer pages in Wikipedia, even though the site seems to answer questions about many other forms of cancer. In any case, this MIGHT be a good link, but I'll let someone else argue for them. --Mdwyer 04:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My first impression was also that it looked like a spam site, though spam sites don't make it easy to figure out what's legit. On further examination, I also thought that maybe it might not be a spam site (there aren't any suspicious mentions of lawyers, and the about us link seems more academic than spammy), but I don't think it's any more informative than any of the government links, so I don't think think it's necessarily worth keeping either. --Interiot 12:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mesothelioma Online / Histopathology India

  • www.histopahology-india.net/MesoOnline.htm Mesothelioma Online A site for medical professionals and pathology residents highlighting various aspects of the Pathology of Mesothelioma.
Except the link doesn't work and I can't find any WHOIS information. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure this link has been booted from the External Links section a number of times already. I can't really let it remain a link here, either. I'll leave it here if someone wants to go there, but I'm going to unlink it. No search engine spamming for you! --Mdwyer 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The above block of text has been blanked twice by anon users in the SIFYNET block - 124.7.0.0 - 124.7.255.255. Note that the reason there is no whois information is that the link is actually mistyped. 'paThology' has a 'T' in it. --Mdwyer 19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The link has been added again by someone in the SIFYNET block. I've removed it because of the link-spammer tactics, but I'd like someone to please take a look at the site, because there actually does seem to be a lot of good information there. I'll let the link stand if someone else will stand up for it. --Mdwyer 22:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

www.allaboutmalignantmesothelioma.com

I removed this link, even though it looks like it could have some decent information. I generally don't think an eye doctor is the right person to be giving advice on meso. The site is part of the Ceatus Media Group, and I think it is suspicious that the other edits done by this anon user were to add external links for their other properties.

On another note, would it be a suitable use of subpages to archive anti-spam activities somewhere that wouldn't interfere with the rest of this talkpage? Say, /Linkspam? Under a reading of WP:SP it seems like it might fit under the Archiving rule, but it isn't strictly an archive. --Mdwyer 17:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

treatment time lines

I think the following line is miss leading

"Treatment of MM using conventional therapies has not proved successful and patients have a median survival time of 6 - 12 months after presentation."

patients only have a 6-12 month survival time, after the cancer is stage 3, at stage 1, presenting early symptoms I believe its 1 - 3 years.sailor iain 21:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This could be further complicated by the lack of an agreed-upon staging method. I'm not confident enough to remove or edit that line, however. --Mdwyer 22:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Kraus

Paul Kraus is a mesothelioma survivor (perhaps the longest living survivor in the world) and author of the best-selling mesothelioma book in the world - "Surviving Mesothelioma and Other Cancers: A Patient's Guide" He has his own entry here. Here's a question to the editors of this page - would it be possible to add Paul Kraus as an internal link or external link? His website is survivingmesothelioma.com

I am writing for Cancer Monthly. We published his book. info@cancermonthly.com

Thank you for your thoughts.

I don't think it would serve WP:EL to include an external link. However, certain excerpts from the book could be included with references.
An internal link would make a little more sense, assuming a bio page could survive on Wikipedia. I don't see anything at Paul Krause right now.
As for the noteriety of being the longest living survivor, I don't think that is notable. The differences in diagnosis times make that a terrible indicator. Besides, if we want to start naming names, I think Klaus Brauch deserves a mention. Considering we don't even mention Warren Zevon, a list of patients would probably not be welcome. --Mdwyer 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Or Steve McQueen! I wouldn't be against including a list here of people who already have articles on Wikipedia who died of mesothelioma. I don't know that Paul Kraus passes WP:BIO to be able to have an article though. --Interiot 21:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cancer Monthly here again. Thank you for your thoughts and consideration. I hope you don't mind us engaging in a discussion with you on this, we appreciate the opportunity.

An entry appears here for Paul Kraus (no "e" at the end), and is being edited.

Mesothelioma is considered a "terminal disease" with a median survival rate after presentation (as you point out in the article) of approximately 6-12 months. A nine-year survivor may be worth mentioning only because it provides an example that this so-called "terminal disease" may not be terminal in every case. As a patient or a family member of a patient this fact adds a hopeful dimension to their thinking about this disease. You already have the sentence, "Long-term survival cannot usually be expected." Perhaps that sentence can be expanded. For example, "Long-term survival cannot usually be expected, HOWEVER, THERE ARE LONG TERM SURVIVORS OF THIS DISEASE. SEE FOR EXAMPLE PAUL KRAUS AND KLAUS BRAUCH."

Thank you for your consideration and looking forward to your thoughts.

I took the liberty of adding links to your comment.
I'd like to tell every meso patient that with strength, luck, and proper treatment, they can beat the odds. I've seen it! But I can't in good conscience tell them more than that. Not in this forum, at least. I've seen some amazing research that could change my mind in the very near future.
Until then, I agree with Interiot. See if you can get Paul's article polished up enough to pass WP:BIO, then we can add it along with Steve and Warren. You might also look for apropriate places to add biblographic references to the book.
Regarding your "I hope you don't mind" comment: Quite the opposite, actually. I think I speak for most editors when I say that I very much welcome this discourse. Alternatives to bitter edit wars are a Good Thing. --Mdwyer 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, we changed the text on the entry for Paul Kraus and are still waiting for feedback from those editors. Thank you for your patience. - Cancer Monthly
Hello Mdwyer, You had written, "See if you can get Paul's article polished up enough to pass WP:BIO, then we can add it along with Steve and Warren." We are new to this so perhaps you can help us understand whether it has passed this inspection point. How do we know? Paul Kraus' entry has been up now for over a month. Thank you. - Cancer Monthly
You know, that's a good question. :) There isn't really an 'inspection' process. What should happen is that someone goes to the Paul Kraus article who thinks it is good enough to merit removing the banners from it. Anyone can do this, especially if they support their decision on that article's talk page. I'll leave you a more specific note there. --Mdwyer 22:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

People

Hello, As a follow-up to our previous discussion on Paul Kraus, Interiot wrote, “I wouldn't be against including a list here of people who already have articles on Wikipedia who died of mesothelioma.” Here’s one suggestion of how to address this. Perhaps between the sections “Prevention & Expectations” and “Legal Issues” a new section called “People” could be added. Here’s an example of a possible draft. (Each of these individuals has an article on Wikipedia and all citations and references would be provided.) Thank you in advance for your feedback. 65.41.47.232 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Cancer Monthly


Examples of people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma include the paleontologist and writer Stephen J. Gould, the writer Paul Kraus, the movie actor Steve McQueen, and the musician and songwriter Warren Zevon.

In July 1982, Stephen J. Gould was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma. His therapy included an experimental treatment of radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery. After his diagnosis, Gould wrote the "The Median Isn't the Message," for Discover magazine in which he discussed the fact that statistics such as median survival are just useful abstractions, not destiny. Gould lived for another twenty years eventually succumbing to metastatic adenocarcinoma of the lung. Paul Kraus was diagnosed in June 1997 with peritoneal mesothelioma. He used an experimental therapy that comprised various lifestyle changes and alternative modalities. He continues to enjoy a good quality of life and wrote a book, Surviving Mesothelioma, that described his healing philosophies and therapy decisions. Steve McQueen was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma on December 22, 1979 in Los Angeles. Doctors at Cedars-Sinai did not offer him surgery or chemotherapy because the cancer was too advanced. McQueen sought alternative treatment from the Santa Rosa Clinic in Mexico. He died of a heart attack on November 7, 1980 in Juárez, Mexico following cancer surgery. After a long period of untreated illness and pain, Warren Zevon was diagnosed with inoperable mesothelioma in the fall of 2002. Refusing treatments he believed might incapacitate him, Zevon focused his energies on recording his final album. Zevon died at his home in Los Angeles, California, on September 7, 2003.


Hello, just a question. The above was written to initiate and engage in a discussion about the best way to provide some additional information about individuals who have been stricken with mesothelioma. We thought there would be some collaboration on this issue. Instead, it appears that one person unilaterally made an addition to the article without comment or discussion. We are not suggesting that what was posted is better or worse than what was drafted above. Nor are we suggesting that what was done was inappropriate. We are, however, asking the question how are things done here? If someone initiates a discussion on a topic is it appropriate to ignore the discussion and do what you want (posting to the article) in respect to that topic? If it is that's fine. We are new to Wikipedia and want to better understand some of the unpublished rules that govern here. Thank you. 65.41.187.103 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Cancer Monthly

Hello. In general, Wikipedia encourages you to be bold in making changes to articles. You do not need to have permission or consensus to do so. In the event that someone else objects to your edits, they will most likely draw this to your attention. (If the edit is very objectionable, they may revert the edit.) However you don't need to worry too much about this.
With specific reference to people with mesothelioma, personally I don't like having this list in the mesothelioma article; it would be better placed on its own page. However this is not a strong objection; I am prepared to allow it here because other users consider it appropriate. Axl 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
As Axl mentioned, discussion is necessary if editors disagree. Discussion is also a good idea if you anticipate possible disagreement. Otherwise though, you usually can go ahead and make your changes without discussion (though it helps to explain what and why in the edit summary)
Maybe I should bring this up at Talk:Paul Kraus instead, but regarding the notability of Paul Kraus.... I don't understand what's unique about him. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 1997, and so has lived 10 years since the diagnosis. (and that's the only basis for notability for the article) Whereas Stephen Jay Gould lived for 20 years after his diagnosis, and that's not the only thing his notability is based on. Is there something that makes Kraus's 10 years more special than Gould's 20?
Re: Axl... I did a fairly thorough search of articles on Wikipedia when I created the list, so I don't expect the list to grow very much, as long as new articles aren't added solely for their connection to mesothelioma. (in case that helps anyone be more comfortable with the list being part of the article) For what it's worth, that section could be moved elsewhere (eg. the bottom?) if that makes it less intrusive. --Interiot 21:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Intrusive... How about making into a paragraph, as the Paul Krauss contributor recommended? I think that would be less intrusive, and might also serve to prevent people from adding too much to it. That is, when people see a list, they expect it to be all-inclusive, but if we write out a paragraph about notable patients, where we say what is notable about each, that would offer a higher barrier to entry. It would also serve to hilight SJG's success better.
For example, Mesothelioma, though rare, has had a number of notable patients. Songwriter WZ was diagnosed in XXXX and died in XXXX, soon after writing a song describing some of the symptoms. ... Although survivors are rare, there are several notable survivors... --Mdwyer 21:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've maintained lists like this where anything that doesn't have an article for it is removed, making the barrier to entry equal to wikipedia's inclusion criteria, which is usually sufficient (and it formalizes the discussion over whether something should be included or not). From an aesthetic standpoint though, yeah, it may be better if it's converted to paragraph form. --Interiot 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Interiot, thanks for clarification. Axl 21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for all the great feedback. Interiot asked why is Paul Kraus notable. Living 10 years with mesothelioma is notable given that the disease is tantamount to a death sentence. The fact, that he did this after being sent home to die by his doctors also makes his story exceptional. But more than this is the fact that Kraus accomplished this feat having declined all orthodox therapies (no surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation). This makes him both notable and remarkable.
We have decided to be "bold" as Axl described and convert the list into paragraph form. I am glad we added this section. We think it puts a human face on this disease. Cancer Monthly 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have heavily edited your contribution. I will NOT allow a direct link to your site, especially since both WP:SPAM and WP:EL apply. I culled out a number of links, and generally made the section more compact. The idea is that people can click on the link and to get the rest of the story, so it doesn't need to be quite so wordy. I think the dates will still need to be linked as per WP:MOS, but I'm afraid that's not my forte. --Mdwyer 05:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. I am inclined to agree with Mdwyer. A number of those external links are inappropriate in the 'mesothelioma' article. Axl 08:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve McQueen

The article currently claims that McQueen worked in a shipyard during World War II. He was only 15 at the end of WW2 and I can't find any sign that he worked in a shipyard then. But he did join the Marines later than that, and may have been exposed to asbestos then; and supposedly the protective suits he wore for car racing were insulated with asbestos. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on a single cause of exposure. I'm about to adjust the article accordingly. Gareth McCaughan 02:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Warren Zevon

He took it to his grave, apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.152.74 (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Smoking & mesothelioma

Smoking is not associated with mesothelioma. The recent reference (that I deleted) did not indicate a higher risk of mesothelioma in smokers. However in the case of lung cancer, there is indeed a synergistic effect from smoking and asbestos. Axl 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for asbestosis, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. WiiAlbanyGirl 02:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Asbestosis is not associated with smoking. Axl 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

History Section Needs Revamping

I think the history section in this article is deplorable. Certainly, a wide array of examples from various countries, including the 1979 EPA ban of asbestos because of links to mesothelioma, and other countries following this example. When I have time, I can definitely take a crack at this. In the meantime, someone please add some more examples, there are lot of links out there!! WiiAlbanyGirl 08:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Talc and Mesothelioma

Minnesota mining data and upstate New York data are not conclusive. It may be beneficial to start a section on talc mining and mesothelioma but it would be purely speculative.

The concern isn't necessarily about Talc, so much as asbestos fibers that are found in the same ore. Similarly, Vermiculite isn't asbestos, but one often occurs with the other. --Mdwyer 21:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Libby, MT

No article on this subject is complete without a discussion of the situation in Libby, MT. --68.111.129.69 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. One should be able to navigate there via Asbestos and Vermiculite and Libby, Montana, but the full discussion does not necessarily belong here. I'll look at the article and see if I can figure out where to mention it, though. --Mdwyer 00:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Screening with mesomark

Fujirebio has released a product, which I'm pretty sure is called "Mesomark" which can be used to some extent to screen for Meso. I'm not sure of the regulatory status of this product, though, so I don't want to add it, yet. Can one of the resident experts take a look at it? product site --Mdwyer 23:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone already created Mesomark assay. It's a stub. --Mdwyer 23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bernie Banton

Yes he is a notable victim and has his own page but I don't think he deserves as more than one or two sentences compared to the notability of other victims. He has his own page so I think that should cover the rest.67.67.216.5 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Especially *because* he has his own page, he should only be mentioned in passing -- the same as the other victims. I'll pare it down when I get a chance, unless someone else beats me to it. --Mdwyer 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bengin!

This article doesn't even mention benign form and says outright in the second sentence that it involves malignant cells. I don't have time or knowledge to fix this right now and will shortly forget all about it. ----Seans Potato Business 19:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of The Mesothelioma Society

I put a link to the The Mesothelioma Society (www.themesotheliomasociety.com). I have read about 80 sites covering mesothelioma and I thought their coverage is the best of the 80 sites. Someone removed the link, citing general Wikipedia guidelines but did not mention any specifically wrong with the site. It is clearly not a lawyer or spam site. So I have undid his deletion. If anyone believes that sites is not appropriate, I would love to hear why.

JamesHMitchell (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

James, this site adds nothing of value to this article. I see zero useful, reliable content to supplement our article. It doesn't look like anyone is linking to it from off-Wikipedia, either, (other than a comment spammer):
Neither these other associated sites sites you (or someone) added anonymously to our Fentanyl‎ and Celecoxib articles‎:
Interestingly, a reader can't tell where this "Mesothelioma Society" is located or even, without a subpoena, who registered its domain name.
Accounts adding one or more of these links:
Please do not add any of these links again. Refer to the links in the warnings you received for more information on editing at Wikipedia.
Here's a link to the associated report: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#"The Mesothelioma Society"
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ir ia unclear to me how much A.B. has even read this site. I have not found a better gloassary on any other site, their treatment discussion is excellent, and they have a good unbiased list of doctors. I am adding it back. Please do not delete this link again.

JamesHMitchell (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Compare texts:
  1. http://www.baronandbudd.com/legal_services/mesothelioma_asbestos/exposure "© 2008, Baron & Budd, P.C." (law firm)
    • www.themesotheliomasociety.com/risk-of-asbestos-exposure-job-sites-trades-health-hazards "Copyright © 2007 The Mesothelioma Society"
      • Compare the first 274 words
  2. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/mesothelioma (not copyrighted)
    • www.themesotheliomasociety.com/mesothelioma-asbestos-cancer-facts-and-figures
  3. http://www.mesotheliomanews.com/blog/uncategorized/2008/02/28/update-on-the-proposed-asbestos-ban/ "© 2008, Baron & Budd, P.C." (again)
    • www.themesotheliomasociety.com/news-mesothelioma
  4. hubpages.com/hub/Asbestos-Cancer---Facts-and-Historical-Information
    1. www.themesotheliomasociety.com/about
      • compare third paragraph of the hubpages.com page
    2. www.themesotheliomasociety.com/category/asbestos/asbestos-exposure
      • Compare the "Mesothelioma Society's" third paragraph with the hubpages page's second paragraph. The plagiarism even includes the same grammatical mistake: "All to often, individuals…"
See:


When someone fills out the contact form requesting help on the "Society's" website, who gets it? It's worth a lot of money to American asbestos lawyers looking for new clients. The same is true for leads from the fentanyl and celebrex web sites; both drugs are now involved in expensive litigation in American courts. To get a sense of this "market" for web traffic and new legal clients, search Google for each of these terms, then look at the Google ads on the right side of the results page: Fentanyl, Mesothelioma.
Also, note the text of fentanyladvisor.com's privacy policy page:
  • www.fentanyladvisor.com/privacy
    • "Not Found… Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here."
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


For a sense of the value of web leads, asbestos lawyers are reportedly paying $46.44 for just a click on some mesothelioma Adsense ads. Consider how much more they'd pay for the actual contact data of individuals seeking help?
See also this discussion among mesothelioma site-owners, keeping in mind that they are discussing primarily ad clicks, not much more valuable referral data (names, addresses, etc.)--A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mesothelioma/Archive_1&oldid=1137004460"