Talk:Poor ovarian reserve

Merge Proposal

Suggest combining this page with ovarian reserve. There is some overlap. This page emphasizes treatment, especially non donor egg options, while ovarian reserve page emphasizes diagnosis.

Requests for Comment

There is an ongoing dispute as to whether it is appropriate to mention the web site www.highfshinfo.com in this article. User 1 claims it is a personal web site that none the less is reliable and very informative and has no equal and thus needs to be mentioned as duplicating the resources on this web site on Wikipedia is not practical nor appropriate. User 2 claims it is driving traffic to the web site, contains ads, promotes a bunch of physicians and is not reliable as it is a personal web site and these points are all in violation of Wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.44.150 (talk • contribs)

I've listed the RfC in the appropriate page so that other editors know about the RfC. Leuko 04:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What tag do you suggest? Clearly there is a dispute. As for the advertising part of your claim. Wikipedia policy does not state no advertising is allowed in linked to web sites, it just should be minimal, and that is is open to discussion.

I've tagged the article with what I believe is the most appropriate tag (as clearly the categorization of the article was not disputed, since the article is without a category), and as far as the advertising, please see my comments above. Leuko 05:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

External link

Discussion by involved editors

I can't comprehend why the additional resources section listing a valuable web site (www.highfshinfo.com) that is non commercial, has no vested interest other than helping people with impaired ovarian reserve is being removed. It is an extremely useful web site, but not well known. External links are allowed in Wikipedia. Please stop removing this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.44.150 (talk • contribs).

Per WP:EL, links primarily intended to promote a website should be avoided. Also, it appears to be a personal website, and it is not a reliable source, so again it should not be linked. Finally, there is a lot of advertising for reproductive endocrinologists, which is objectionable. Leuko 03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue of reliability is wrong, it lists dozens of papers with links to medline abstracts which is very reliable. Reproductive endocrinologists are not being advertised per say, what is being listed are their attitudes and policies towards treating women with high FSH or advanced reproductive age. These descriptions of attitudes, etc. are not available elsewhere and are very helpful. It is a very useful web site and has a disclaimer that she is not a doctor. Despite this it is the best web site I have found on high FSH by far, better than any listed on web sites of fertility clinics. She clearly has done her research. No disrespect intended, but this subject is not something you know very much about. The advertising she has on her web site is minimal and in my opinion is not sufficient to ban linking to this web site.

If you wish to change the wording describing the link so it isn't "promoting the web site" fine, but leave the link on the page. If you remove the link again I will start taking formal steps to resolve this dispute. Your actions are overly extreme and unjustified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.44.150 (talk • contribs).

1) Please don't make assumptions about other editors. Reading Wikipedia's External Link Policy really doesn't require much knowledge of FSH, the female menstrual cycle and its hormonal changes, etc, but luckily I know a little bit about both. 2) The purpose of adding the link to WP is to promote the site, and to drive traffic there. Per WP:EL, this is not allowed. 3) I welcome additional input into this situation. May I suggest WP:DR? Leuko 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment that the linked to site was unreliable had no basis other than it was a personal web site, if you had an in-depth knowledge (as opposed to "luckily I know a little about both") of the subject you would realize it is a valuable resource. I have no desire per se to drive traffic to any web site, it is just impractical to duplicate all the work and resources available on her web site. My goal is to educate people who need to know about impaired ovarian reserve and very few reproductive endocrinologists are up on the latest research, high FSH equals tough luck or get a donor egg. If I knew of a government or university web site that had as much information I would put that link in instead. I believe the need for up to date information superceedes any disagreement about linking. Why not suggest different wording? How can users be informed of a useful web site and not "drive traffic to it?" I fail to see what difference that it makes anyway, her web site is non commercial. Wikipedia has many goals and sometimes strict adherence to policies can interfere with the goals of Wikipedia. I believe the need to educate users in this difficult and emotionally painful condition is more important than some legalistic adherence to some policy that you strongly believe in. I don't believe inadvertantly promoting a web site is sufficient reason to ban linking to it given its usefulness. Any link added to a Wikipedia page "promotes it and drives traffic to it" isn't that the point of putting the link in?

No, the point of adding external links to encyclopedia articles is to include "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article." As this is a personal webpage, the accuracy of the material is questionable, as it is not peer-reviewed, as well as the neutrality of the page, since it appears to have an agenda. I see no reason why any verifiable information from the page can not be integrated into the WP article, nor do I see any reason why "up-to-date information" can not be included in WP. I mean WP is not a paper encyclopedia. Thus, the link becomes unnecessary, and only serves to promote the site. Oh, and yes, it is a commercial site, as it contains advertising for GNC, Barnes and Noble, and a bunch of physicians. Leuko 04:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she has an agenda which is to provide the latest information on high FSH, the facts she states on her web site are accurate. It would take a long time to integrate all her information. It is unfortunate that her web site contains ads for GNC, Barnes and Noble, but that is not the main purpose of the web site, the ads are to help pay for the cost of the web site as she herself says on the web site. Note, Wikipedia itself has considered ads. Public television has corporate sponsors. The main purpose of the web site is not commercial. Just because she is not a doctor doesn't mean her infomation is not reliable and the links to medline are very useful and reliable. The list of physicians are those who may be able to treat this difficult condition. It is very useful and not easy to come by.

Really? I would think the yellow pages would have a listing of physicians that is relatively easy to come by. I worked with two reproductive endocrinologists, but I don't see their names on the list. Does that mean I should add their names to the article? And as far as integrating the information, it really shouldn't be that hard... Since WP requires that articles be verifiable, all the information that is not cited from a reliable source on that page need not be added, so that would cut down a lot. Medline searches are also relatively easy to perform, so I am not convinced that that is a reason that a link to this page is necessary. Finally, the purpose of the link is to drive visitors to the personal website which contains advertising which makes money for the website owner. Hence commercial. WP:COI perhaps? And the information is inherently unreliable (notice I did not say inherently untrue). As a personal website, the owner can post whatever they want without anyone checking the facts. Hence not a WP:RS, and a link to be avoided per WP:EL. Please also see Self-published sources Leuko 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree your alert is more appropriate, mea culpa.

As to your comment about using the yellow pages, I wish it was that simple. As comments and letters to the editor in the medical journals show, many reproductive endocronoligists don't know much about high FSH and advanced reproductive aged women. I know of two reproductive endocronoligists who are considered tops in their state and they were not aware of J.H. Check's (M.D., Ph.D) work in New Jersey on high FSH and advanced reproductive aged women. Maybe the two you worked with did, but the two I know did not. I wish all did, but they don't and hence the need for the list on www.highfshinfo.com. I believe her information to be reliable, sometimes patients end up knowing more than their doctors as in this case. (Believe me I have read countless papers and searched the web far and wide and know her information is accurate.) Why is it OK to cite a medical journal that accepts advertising to stay viable, but a web site that has a modicum of advertising is not OK. Clearly, the main purpose of her web site is not commercial. I can assure you that the amount of money one can make on her kind of web site is very minimal. In many ways her web site is the best that is out there and if I knew of a good survey article on the subject of high FSH and advanced reproductive aged women I would cite it and not mention her site. I agree her web site has flaws, but they are minor and she has done a great service and her site is the best there is. Nobody else that I am aware of as put together so much material and listed every option and cited so many papers. Believe me other web sites are way more biased. I don't have the time to integrate all her information and get all the references to fully document everything.

Comment by uninvolved editors

• Is this issue still in dispute? I cannot see any external links on the article page. SheffieldSteel 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - there hasn't been any activity on this page in a while. You'd have to ask the IP address'es opinion, but I am still opposed to the inclusion of the link. Leuko 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Case histories

Case histories section removed by Leuko on June 20, 2007. Request for comments on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.44.150 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I just don't see how 3 individual's response to treatment is encyclopedic at all. Leuko 23:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that most RE don't even know of any cases it is important. Except for the DHEA study every report, whether in the medical literature, mainstream or complimentary/alternative, is a case history. I am sure that if there was no cure for a disease, but just a few cases of recovery were reported in the literature any encyclopedia that covered that disease would mention the case histories. It is all there is, can't you comprehend that? Why not err on the side of hope? Why not leave them in and let other editors etc. decide? Why not contribute something constructive instead of just deleting things? You have a background in this area, are intelligent and can write well, why not use these qualities and skills to give hope? Why not use your abilities to find a way to discuss these very unusual case histories in a way that conforms to the spirit of Wikipedia and even the letter? Instead of removing case histories, why not suggest a way to include them in the article? You didn't remove the case histories by JH Check which were in another section and attributed differently. The ethyl estriodol up regulation treatment is totally experimental with no clinical studies, its validity is comparable to the one on Chinese medicine that you removed from a peer reviewed Chinese medicine journal.