Starriekittie

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Starriekittie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! NW (Talk) 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Hi there! I have updated with the suggestions you have made above and in addition added the remainder of the page to be reviewed.

Two questions!

1. Is there a way to clean up the references a bit? I'd like to just have titles as placeholders instead of all the jibberish that currently shows.
2. For the Cleveland Dealer article, how can I remove the "[ and ]" at the beginning and end?

Thank you again for all your assistance!

Starriekittie (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, with various cleanup edits - see the history. For more about reference citations, see user:chzz/help/refs.  Chzz  ►  21:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Eric Topol

Hi. I noticed that you removed a great deal of material from Eric Topol. I didn't quite catch your explanation for the removal. I think the material is a relevant part of his biography, and its sourcing appears adequate to meet our policy on biographical articles. Looking back, I notice that you removed other third-party independent sources as well, such as this New York Times article. Could you leave a note here or (perhaps better) at Talk:Eric Topol to discuss any concerns you have about the material? Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

=======================

Hello MastCell. The material that was added and sectioned off on Eric Topol's page was, possibly unintentionally, biased and unfairly represented - even if "well-sourced". In addition, this page is intended to be a Biography of a living individual and not a forum for all things Vioxx related and the angst that surrounds the case.

As this is now the main focus of Topol's Biography, having a predominant amount of discussion listed, it is completely disproportionate to the outstanding life and professional work that he has achieved in the many years of his field, before and after the Merck case. These milestones that have been achieved are now shadowed by an inconsequential part of his career, and it should not remain as written.

Moreover, it is stated under Wikipedia Editor conduct that all Editor's are required to give "neutrality" to all posts, fairly representing all viewpoints: Due and undue weight Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". You do not add the references of articles that supported Topol's viewpoint and his decision to speak out against Merck. For example: "Drugs, Devices and Doctors"

Likewise, it is also stated that all articles are to be written from a neutral point of view, see: Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Again, your changes to the previous Biography page represent a biased and unfair depiction of the individual's achievements. Inserting two words or a sentence from a source without context is highly misleading and inaccurate.

Minor remarks: -Your reference to the Fortune article by Betheny McLean, was entirely erroneous, written by Merck, as an unsuccessful attempt to destroy Topol's reputation. This is not to be considered a “reliable source”. -Many books have been written on the subject, including: Denialism, Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Drug Scandal, All the Justice Money Can Buy: Vioxx, Backroom Intrigue, and a Million-Dollar Lawsuit (amongst others). There is no need to continue this thread of discussion on Topol's Biography page. If more interest is needed, wikipedians and users should be given the reference to the Rofecoxib page directly or one of the many books for details.

I do not wish to continue to watch and update the Topol Biography page for poorly sourced changes and so if a neutral point of view, fairly represented by both sides and being brief cannot be achieved, this matter will be escalated and Topol's page will become "protected" from further changes. Starriekittie (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

=======================

Hmmm. First of all, what is your basis for claiming the Fortune article was written by Merck? It's a pretty serious accusation to make against Bethany McLean, whom as far as I know is a respected journalist in good standing, to allege that she was a willing conduit for the drug industry's efforts to destroy an individual. In fact, if you can't substantiate those sorts of claims, they are better left unmade on Wikipedia - see WP:BLP, which applies to user talk pages as well as other areas of the project.

This should not be a claim that the Fortune article was written by Merck, truly. The information and innuendo, however, was given to McLean by a relative of a Merck senior employee but that source was not revealed or known to her at the time. But the insinuation that Topol was somehow involved with a hedge fund’s profit related to Merck was entirely off base. All information and perspective that Topol had on Vioxx was previously published in various articles. He pointed out these issues here: "Dr Eric Topol denies conflict of interest over Vioxx condemnation" and also published the first article on the relationship between physicians and the financial community (JAMA article: "Physicians and the investment industry" by Topol EJ & Blumenthal D, 293(21):2654-2657, 2005 PMID=15928288). Topol was never invested in the fund, had no knowledge that Vioxx would be taken off the market, never spoke to the fund about Vioxx or any pharmaceutical company, and was only occasionally contacted by telephone for his involvement with this fund as an advisor according to theheart.org article referenced above. With only one side of the story, from 6 years ago and completely tangential from the Vioxx controversy itself, this has no place in Topol’s biography.

The biography has been changed with your input to reflect the important consequences of Topol speaking out about Vioxx, culminating in the elimination of his positions as Chief Academic Officer and Provost of the medical school he founded. But that occurred as a result of testimony under subpoena by the Federal Court November 30, 2005 at which time it was revealed that the CEO of Merck had been communicating with the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Cleveland Clinic: Merck's Vioxx Posed `Extraordinary' Risk, Cardiologist Contends. It was two days after that when Topol was informed he was no longer on the Board of Governors and that these positions had been eliminated.

However, it should be noted again that however relevant you deem it, the work Topol did on Vioxx was a small part of his career that has otherwise not been focused on drug safety or public policy. To be proportionate to his work and contributions, the biography should accurately reflect the efforts and leadership in clinical trials, genomics and wireless medicine-and not be taken over by the Vioxx topic.

I've read Denialism - in fact, I think I inserted material citing it into the article. If you'd like to use the other books you mentioned as citations, then that might be reasonable as well - I haven't read them, but assuming they meet basic sourcing requirements, I don't see a problem.

There's a lot of emotive language in your post, but it's still unclear to me what, exactly, you consider "biased and unfair" about the changes I've made. Previously (and as reverted by you), the article made it sound like he just decided to leave the Cleveland Clinic for Scripps one day. Clearly, that is not the case - in fact, the circumstances surrounding his departure from the clinic were notable enough to make the national news, as evidenced by some of the citations to the New York Times and elsewhere. If I were to use emotionally charged language, then I would say that your edits are "biased and unfair", because they mislead the reader by omitting this clearly relevant aspect of Topol's biography.

Please note that Dr. Topol had a position with Case Western Reserve University before being recruited by Scripps Health. Included below is the quote from the CEO from the reference in the biography. I have no issue with stating the public reasons why he left Cleveland Clinic (they are obvious for anyone with access to a search engine) and went to Case Western, but again the main intention is to be balanced. How can we be balanced when there is so much debate surrounding the reasons why he left? Do we wholly trust the media to portray the story correctly? Do we wholly trust the statements of the individuals involved? We can only procure as much information surrounding the event as possible and make statements that reflect all sides of the departure with accurate references.

For clarity on his departure, there is new wording that should be a hopeful compromise of this section:

Topol departed from the Cleveland Clinic in 2006 following the removal of the Chief Academic Officer position, to be Professor of Genetics at Case Western Reserve University. He was then recruited by Scripps Health and The Scripps Research Institute in 2007 to the post of Chief Academic Officer and Professor of Translational Genomics Noted Cardiologist, Eric J Topol MD, comes to Scripps.

FYI: “This is a continuation of a strategy that Scripps Health has been implementing over the last seven years,” said Scripps Health President and CEO Chris Van Gorder. “Scripps Health is now in a position to recruit more renowned physician-scientists like Eric Topol, M.D., the first of many physician-scientists we hope to bring to Scripps in other clinical specialties. Just as Dr. Topol took the Cleveland Clinic to the number one heart program in the nation, we know his contributions will help Scripps realize its vision of becoming the destination heart program for the West Coast.”

It's not my intention to take away anything from Topol's achievements. I think they are well described in the article, but if you have alternate language then I'm sure we can work something out. I don't think his record of achievement is seriously doubted by anyone - he is one of the most prominent and accomplished scientists and medical researchers of his generation. I think that comes across in the article - if you disagree, then we can talk about how to properly represent it. MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I wholly agree, and hopefully we can achieve a consensus.Starriekittie (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

=======================

Response to revisions made on 24 July 2010 by MastCell

Explanation for removing the Fortune article reference:

1. The author (McLean) insinuated that all of its advisors all invested in the hedge fund. It was documented that Topol never invested in the Fund. Furthermore, despite innuendos, Topol had no conflict of interest.

2. This is completely irrelevant to the Vioxx controversy. It also is dissociated from any involvement that Topol had in highlighting the adverse cardiovascular effects of Vioxx.

3. As was documented in a JAMA 2005 article, Topol never provided any advice to the Fund about Merck or any drug company (JAMA 293(21): 2654-2657, 2005).

Many of these problems are exemplified by the case of one of us (E.J.T.) and an investment fund. A life science hedge fund had a medical advisory board with several academic leaders across multiple medical disciplines. The fund sold Merck stock short in July 2004 and ultimately profited because of the unanticipated, precipitous withdrawal of rofecoxib on September 30, 2004. The fund’s October newsletter, sent electronically to investors in the fund, boasted about the profit made by shorting Merck stock and provided the name of the physician on the advisory board who had been outspoken for years about rofecoxib safety issues. Even though there had been no discussion between the advisor and the fund about rofecoxib and Merck, the firm’s literature created the perception that the fund had proprietary information and the physician had a conflict of interest. But the advisor was not invested in the fund, had no interest in the fund, and had no idea that Merck was an investment of the fund. While no true conflict of interest existed in this case, the appearance was troublesome both to the physician involved and to the scientific community, and the case poignantly illustrates how a relationship with an investment company may entangle physician advisors in real or apparent conflicts of interest that are very difficult to manage without severing the relationship.

4. Please note New York Times Magazine article by Jeffrey Rosen, July 25, 2010 pgs 30-37. Specifically pg 34 (Reputation Bankruptcy and Twittergation).

5. Before Mast Cell’s posts, there was only one sentence about Vioxx. Now there is an extensive, major section that has been preserved. This demonstrates that the current edit is not intended to alter the intent of Mast Cell, but to present appropriate, relevant data with due respect to fair weight and context.

Starriekittie (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A second username?

Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should use provide links between the accounts. Links should ideally take the form of all three of the following:

1. Similarities in the username (for example, User:Example might have User:Example public or User:Example bot).
2. links on both the main and alternative account user pages, either informally or using the userbox templates made for the purpose. To link an alternative account to a main account, use the main account to tag any secondary accounts with {{User alternate acct | main account}} (using the main account shows it's genuine) or {{Publicuser}} if the account is being used to maintain security on public computers. The main account may be marked with {{User Alt Acct Master}}.
3. links in the alternative account signature: if not linking to both the alternative and main account, link to the alternative account, and if necessary provide a note there requesting contact be made via the main account, or simply redirect the user talk page.

Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or member of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. Note that email is generally not considered a secure way of communication. Concerned editors may wish to log into Wikipedia's secure server then email the arbitration committee or any individual with checkuser rights through a secure connection to Wikipedia's computers.

Editors who have abandoned an account in order to edit under a new identity are required to comply with the clean start policy. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)