Talk:Prostatitis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removal of link to prostatitis.org

I carefully checked out prostatitis.org before removing the link. The site is full of broken links and is poorly maintained. The site sells items directly to the public. In addition it offers information about infertility, sleep apnoea, prostate cancer and BPH, all jumbled up with the prostatitis information in a way that implies the conditions may be related, even though no science exists to link these conditions. On its "Information from various sources" page, it suggests that biofilm and infections are important to chronic nonbacterial prostatitis patients, but there is no solid research evidence to support it. The site does not specify whether it exists to give information to patients with Cat I, II, III or IV prostatitis, although these are completely different conditions, conflated at their website so that dangerous confusion is sown. On its Links page, there are links to individual businesses run by urologists who could be paying for the placement. There's no other reason to have those links there. The doctors featured are not leaders in the field or specialists in the subject. There are also a bunch of links completely unrelated to prostatitis (Peyronies disease, impotence, quackwatch etc). It simply looks like a typical low quality website, home-grown, amateurish, neglected, unfocused, offering outdated, often incorrect and largely POV information (see Neutral point of view) that flies in the face of research. The site does not meet the standards for inclusion as an external link on WP. The site tries to promote ideas outside the mainstream of medical science; I can supply numerous examples if required. WP does not promote or link to sites pushing non-mainstream medical viewpoints that have scant or no research support. WP guidelines state that:

Links to be avoided :
1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain
2) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.

In reference to point (1) above, it is clear that the WP article itself is far more up-to-date and accurate than prostatitis.org. Examples can be provided. And I can provide ample evidence of point (2). I therefore oppose linking to it, no matter what tax status it has. ◄██ Unit 5 (Talk) ██► 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

While I won't dispute your removal of that link, but there is a lot of good info on that website to help guide people through the various forms of protatitis. I only hope that the reader sees this discussion page so they can check out that website. Jtpaladin 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

re prostatitis.org - there may be some 'OK' information on the site but it's hidden within a realm of bad links, adverts and I don't think it gives the visitor any real or significant guidance on how to combat this condition, which I've had for 7 years. Too much reference and talk about bacteria as well for my liking. I'd be just as well doing a google search! Silverye 06:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a personal bias against www.Prostate.org that is legendary. There is nothing wrong with either the Prostatitis Foundation, nor the material contained in it. You have a sour history with them and want to block any reference to this good material on a free and open site. The link should stay as a resource for those wanting and needing it. Let the reader judge what is useful to him. Schmoopster 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1) You are making a personal attack, breaking the Assume Good Faith rule (WP:AGF). 2) This is not about the prostatitis foundation site, but about the value of the link to Wikipedia. As discussed and not refuted, the value is low and it was therefore excluded. 3) You have re-inserted the link repeatedly using account Schmoopster, which seems to be a sock puppet created for this purpose, and is thus vandalism. See WP:SOCK and WP:VAND. The link in question is clearly a link to be avoided under WP:LINKS. 4) The link is question is easily accessible via Google and other search engines, so accessibility is not the issue and cannot be used to include the link here in any event. Skopp (Talk) 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please replace the link to the prostatitis foundation as it is a good resource for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome, and the newsletter they publish has valuable information. I have corrected at least one medical error. 1. pelvic myoneuropathy. Category III CPPS was previously known as abacterial prostatitis. Not as pelvic myoneuropathy. 2. 6 months was listed as the duration of symptoms necessary to be chronic prostatitis/CPPS but a reference should be added. 3. Other spots where references are needed were noted. 4. The text quotes an editorial rather than study conclusion at one point and makes a generalization, perhaps perpetuating the myth that: "It is well recognized that even if pathogenic bacteria are present in the prostate, as in men with established chronic bacterial prostatitis, they do not cause chronic pelvic pain unless acute urinary tract infection develops." If there is an actual study for this it needs a reference. 5. The text alleges that: "Since the publication of these studies, the focus has shifted from infection to neuromuscular and psychological etiologies for chronic prostatitis (CP/CPPS)." In fact, the cause of CPPS is unknown and all possible etiologies are supposed to be studied. 6. There is a dispute going on here over links with one Website removing the Prostatitis Foundation's Prostate.org and put up its own .com link. I want to bring this to the full dispute resolution process:

• 1 Avoidance

   * 2 First step: Talk to the other parties involved
   * 3 Second step: Disengage for a while
   * 4 Further dispute resolution
         o 4.1 Discuss with third parties
         o 4.2 Informal mediation
         o 4.3 Conduct a survey
         o 4.4 Formal mediation
   * 5 Last resort: Arbitration
   * 6 Editor assistance
   * 7 See also

7. So at this point I am requesting avoidance for at least 10 days. Reasonablelogicalman 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• You have just broken another rule of wikipedia by registering a sock puppet to force your agenda on this page. Once Schmoopster, then IP 165.166.193.82, now Reasonablelogicalman, you have already put this issue to RfC and had your answer. You cannot force your views on this page. That's not how wikipedia works. The link was rejected. Furthermore, if you want to make extensive edits to the page, please discuss them here first. I notice with alarm that you have added another of the low quality websites you own (The Human Cloning Foundation) to the Human cloning page. I have removed it. Skopp (Talk) 23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Inclusion of Link for Prostatitis Foundation

There is disagreement as to whether or not a link to the Prostatitis Foundation (www.prostate.org) is legitimate. This Foundation has been around since the early 1990s (longer than the other links listed) and is the premier organization for patients, physicians, and researchers studying this malady. It's exclusion is not rational, and the reasons provided are not true (check them). Moreover, the fact that the PF is easily obtained by Google is irrelevant, as those cited are equally available.

You say that the "reasons are not true (check them)". Well, let's take just one reason given, that the site in question is poorly maintained and has broken links and inadequate information. If you go to the page on "Causes of Prostatitis"[1], one of the most important if not THE most important page on the website , you'll find that many of the causes named are linked to dead pages [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. And let me add that this state of affairs has persisted at that website for many years! This is the sort of issue you should be discussing, not making personal attacks. Skopp (Talk) 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I note that the defunct pages I list above have now had stubs of data added to make the site look more legitimate. It is still a junky site. Skopp (Talk) 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reasonable nor rational reason to exclude the Prostatis Foundation's link from the list of links provided. Doing so is an afront to freedom of speech and information.

Thank you.Schmoopster 02:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not understand the rationale required for the inclusion of external links. I suggest you re-read WP:LINKS. The prostatitis foundation site does not meet the standards required. This is not personal, although from your history it seems you are probably associated with them and joined WP to include this link. The website in question is not the "premier" of anything. Its longevity is not the issue either. The reasons for exclusion Unit5 gave are apposite and carry weight. I have looked at the link and I have found all points raised to be true. Can you disprove them? Try starting with that, and convince us that it should be included. Skopp (Talk) 04:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no time to deal with your unreasonable belligerence. Everyone in the prostatitis field knows your game, and who you are. We'll get this fixed. Fear not.

• You are continuing your virulent personal attack in contravention of WP policies WP:NPA while simultaneously failing to provide justification for the inclusion of the link or refutation of the objections raised above or here. You have created no consensus at all and provided scant reason for inclusion other than your own affiliation to or ownership of that website. The link will continue to be excluded until such time as consensus is reached on this page to change the situation. Skopp (Talk) 22:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(Note: do not edit your comments on this page by largely re-writing them once others have responded to them. Thank you. Skopp (Talk) 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC) )

The link to the Prostatitis Foundation should read something like:

• Prostatitis Foundation - the official 501(c)3 non-profit foundation devoted to prostatitis. Lists all the National Institutes of Health prostatitis research centers and works closely with the NIH to publicize new clinical trials and to obtain government funding for prostatitis research. The Prostatitis Foundation purchases peer-reviewed medical articles on prostatitis and posts them on the website.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.193.82 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 July 2007

I've removed the link as promotional for this seeming commercial website. The front page is an adfarm for commercial products. The external link description of "Official" is misleading - there is nothing, as far as I am aware, official about the Prostatitis Foundation. Yes it may have charitable tax exemption which is obtained through official channels, but that does not make it "the official ... foundation devoted to prostatitis". Are there other prostate groups in the USA ?

As the site seems to invite/accept any information (conventional, herbal, alternative) on the topic without any editorial censorship, does it qualify as WP:Reliable sources ?

Given that the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the link has not reached consensus in the above discussion, further reinserting of the link seems to be spamming. Remember wikipedia is not a directory listings service. David Ruben ^Talk 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)