Talk:Alan Clemetson

Untitled

C. Alan B. Clemetson

That's interesting and valuable detail, I did not know that he had died. I notice in the obit [1] that they mention his development of histamine and ascorbate blood tests, dates and reference pointers both his and related technical developments would be nice (just the refs for details of technique). Also you might check and see if he makes any mention of vitamin K (with ascorbate) in preeclampsia and SIDS/SBS cases, for both bleeds (wall & coagulation) and bone, see GLA proteins, and gene regulation[2]. The human form K₂ menaquinone vitamers are important here, not the K₁ "plant food". CABC mentioned as an authoritative reference[3] in 1989 RDA book, 10^{th ed}--TheNautilus 15:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

His work is cited by IOM National Academies Press two times. The page was getting quite long and decided not to put the information in. However, since you mentioned the cite, I will insert both. As for the vitamin K, I went back and included the information, for what he had said in a paper. Will try and track down info on the testing.The Stroll 05:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the original Yurko text to talk for several reservations. This is Clemetson's article so any Yurko case material needs to be presented with respect to CABC. I am not following Yurko et al at WP. Alan Yurko - sentenced to life in prison + 10 years (1998) without parole by shaking baby syndrome."Bad Science" from the "Orlando Weekly" (2003) [4]- Vacated on second appeal 2004. Information on Case of Alan Yurko - Shaken Baby Syndrome [5]--TheNautilus 14:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikify

Rather than edit warring about a tag, how about discussing what needs to be reformatted, restructured, etc? -- Ronz  18:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, wikifying isn't really a critism of the subject, or even the of the article, instead it's a normal function performed within this thing called "Wikipedia". Shot info 23:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving article quality:

• condense the introduction, make it a "concise overview of the article", and provide sources for the information. See WP:LEAD. Some (most?) of the information should be moved to the body of the article in new sections. WP:WPBIO has many suggestions and resources.
• Start finding sources to resolve WP:NPOV issues, especially WP:WEIGHT
• Find high-quality biographies of similar individuals and use those as guides on how to improve this article.

--Ronz 17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Models might be found in Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the level of detail and citation appropriate to acclaimed people in the medical field. Gordonofcartoon 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes to improve things. The formatting and writing is obviously done by someone not familiar with wikiformats or style guides and needs improvement. There is loads of advocacy, IOW the article is written just as much or more to preach a message, as to tell about Clemetson, and that is totally forbidden here. This article is about Clemetson and is not for long discussions about Barlow's disease and other subjects. A single wikilink to the main article should be sufficient. That will help to shorten the article and tell us who he was, which is currently buried in unencyclopedic preaching. The long hagiographic list of his publications and letters is ridiculous and needs to be pared down to a few essential ones. I find it very telling and tragic that he would support a convicted burglar and violent career criminal who shook and hit his baby son so he died of the injuries, and who admitted to having hit the child. This article needs help! -- Fyslee/talk 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, anything not specifically about the subject of the article, per normal Wikipedia policy (I'm going to suggest BLP here, however I am aware that the subject is deceased, nevertheless it's useful to have a starting point). But looking through the long and tortorous puff-piece, I'm starting to wonder if we should AfD it? Shot info 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be inappropriate delete it. However, if sources cannot be found to support the material, much less help us determine how much is actually worthing of addressing, then it should be cut back to something well-sourced and not controversial. Hopefully more sources will be forthcoming so we can avoid cutting it back to a stub. --Ronz 02:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added an {{inappropriate tone}} tag too. It's far too technical for a general readership article, and I agree that the excessive level of detail amounts to advocacy. The also excessive quotations from papers need summarising per Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. There are areas that look like WP:SYNTH: for instance, in the Medical hypotheses section, did Clemetson actually cite the early electron microscope studies and the 2005 Bandak study? If not, their use to support Clemetson's conclusions is WP:SYNTH. Gordonofcartoon 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would even go as far as saying that the entire article is a COPYVIO having been lifted from a couple of sources. Shot info 03:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the BMJ? The obit there - intro - would be a good start in summarising what is salient about his career (as well as providing a view that's not through vitamin-C-coloured glasses - there's more to his bio than his job. For instance, it's an interesting detail that he narrowly escaped being caught in the New Orleans floods due to advanced warning from a meteorologist friend).

The CV portion is extensive copyvio from the AAPS online one - which is a partisan source anyway. Gordonofcartoon 10:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've wikified the intro, attempting to summarise his career, and removed (for the moment) the Bandak study that appears to be WP:SYNTH. Gordonofcartoon 14:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn! Before anyone whinges - I just noticed I killed the notes and refs section (working on crap old Apple Mac that I'm not used to). Will mend a.s.a.p. Mended. 16:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Would a copy of the full obit that the BMJ didn't have space to publish not be useful here? The BMJ cited publishing space as the reason, but never got around to the fuller version for the on-line copy. I'm not clear what the goal in reducing the content of Wiki is? If the information is useful to some people why would we want it condensed? Is there a function within Wiki for condensed and full version views? Would that resolve this issue for everyone? Where is the dev. req. section? Fraserbooth 22:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Would a copy of the full obit that the BMJ didn't have space to publish not be useful here?

Yes, it would not be useful here. See WP:V; It's one of the core policies that material used here has been previously published. As to "why condense?" - as discussed below, there are various issues. Gordonofcartoon 01:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical hypotheses section

Worth expanding with a summary of what specifically he argued in each. Gordonofcartoon 23:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as we have sources clearly demonstrating they are important hypotheses. --Ronz 23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

True. We don't have a third-party source that explicitly identifies them as notable and separate. I got hold of the BMJ obituary, and it just summarises them collectively:

His legacy to medicine is the condition, known to those that understood his work, as the Clemetson/Kalokerios syndrome. It results from a precipitous fall of serum ascorbic acid and malignant histaminaemia following routine paediatric inoculations, particularly in the presence of infection and malnutrition ... He believed the shaken baby syndrome is a manifestation of Barlow's disease that is induced by maternal malnutrition and infection and in the infant by recurrent infections and recent multiple vaccinations. The associated retinal and intracranial haemorrhages are therefore manifestations of vascular fragility secondary to relative vitamin C deficiency and not the result of inflicted trauma. Gordonofcartoon 00:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good source to use, but I think it suggests we should say little else per WP:WEIGHT without other sources. --Ronz 00:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK - condensed per BMJ obit. Gordonofcartoon 01:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

On reading this we have to ask do you want to site primary support for statements or not. The discussion above wants it both ways. You say there is not enough reference to proof and too many primary articles sited. So what is it that has got your goat? Perhaps trying to save the lives of babies is not important to you? CB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.7.219 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? If you have a specific question relating to the article please ask it. Shot info 22:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've repaired the "Medical Hypothesis" section to include an outline of the extensive work of a great man who inspired many doctors including myself over many years... Fraserbooth 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. It was removed because of inappropriate style, WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE - this is meant to be a general-readership biographical article, not a coatrack for a dissertation on the content of a few articles in a non-peer-reviewed journal. Gordonofcartoon 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Having read Dr Clemetson's work on Vitamin C, it seems unlikely he would feel the style inappropriate. He always strove not to dumb down the presentation of knowledge to a lowest common denominator. Why should that be not still be the case in his biography? Could you explore the specific points that are of concern to you? Fraserbooth 22:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter what Dr. Clemetson thought appropriate. It is what Wikipedia thinks appropriate via the Wikipedia policies (ie/ WP:SOAP, WP:UNDUE, etc) that are articulated above. Most of the detailed explainations are not biographic, nor encyclopedic but seem to serve to prove a point. Discussions on Vitamin C and the like have their own Wikipedia articles for discussion. Thanks. Shot info 22:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Anywhow, WP:TONE is clear enough that Wikipedia is meant to be accessible to the intelligent lay reader, and that aim is not served by a humungous info-dump from specialist papers. Gordonofcartoon 02:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Achievements

Dr. Clemetson had a long and distinguished academic career as a medical doctor, scientist and researcher. During his forty year professional career, he implemented numerous scientific studies and was instrumental in furthering scientific knowledge.

Anyone else think this looks like countersinking? We already know all this from the biography and CV. Achievements also need rewriting (copyvio from [6]) and also prioritising to show which ones are important (for instance, "measuring the electrical charge on rat ova" has some relevance to contraception, but it's a bit obscure). Gordonofcartoon 10:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical edit note

Since the editing of this article has some aspects of a pendulum swinging, I will offer my opinion that this previous edit[7] is near the most exhaustive treatment of Clemetson, lightly edited by editors more familiar to me at the S Barrett space pages, that I saw. On an added note, a number of CAB's lesser publications are still present in this historical dif linked, but are commented out of the *displayed* text (still available in the edit mode).--TheNautilus 09:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It may have had the most text by volume, but it was subsequently edited down for style and excessive quotation of primary sources, and for being a coatrack in giving greatly undue weight to his four Medical Hypotheses vitamin C / shaken baby papers. The current section C. Alan B. Clemetson#Medical hypotheses explains his work in that area far more accessibly. Gordonofcartoon 11:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not criticize the specific result, I merely pointed out any relevant trimmed content could probably be found without laboriously clicking through, where less familiar readers or editors might choose to ascertain the previous additional content concerning CABC, whether something is known about him since another editor seemed to have an unusual familiarity with, and knowledge of, CABC.--TheNautilus 12:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That could be taken as content fork by link, especially when a different version is framed as "the most exhaustive treatment". Gordonofcartoon 13:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought of it more as a bookmark. As I mentioned the pendulum, where one version is POV one way and too long, the other appears overcut to me. Perhaps other editors could do a better job of achieving an NPOV balance and the bookmark is a starting point to examine the content of the divergence from. I haven't been very active here other than to try to nudge things along and keep the peace.--TheNautilus 09:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Clemetson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209165905/http://www.orthomed.org:80/jom/jom02.htm to http://www.orthomed.org/jom/jom02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150608190251/http://bookstore.ift.org/store/iftstore/newstore.cgi?itemid=26357&view=item&page=1&loginid=12557688&priority=cat1101egory&words=Clemetson&method=and& to http://bookstore.ift.org/store/iftstore/newstore.cgi?itemid=26357&view=item&page=1&loginid=12557688&priority=cat1101egory&words=Clemetson&method=and&
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309046335/html/115.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://print.nap.edu/pdf/0309039797/pdf_image/227.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)