Talk:Etiology of chronic fatigue syndrome

Create Sandbox and copy CFS Pathophysiology and Hypotheses Draft I created for security and improvements. Jagra (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Show-stoppers?

What issues are presently the reason for not deploying this article? -- Strangelv (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am just fine-tuning now and this could go on forever!, so give me an hour then ready to go. Jagra (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Done. Jagra (talk)

electromagnetic fields

Material below moved to Talk:ME/CFS hypotheses from Chronic fatigue syndrome Hypotheses for discussion because source does not appear to meet WP:RS and should be in this article if (RS)ed). Ward20 (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

---

It has also been hypothesized that electromagnetic fields might also have some connection with CFS in certain cases, if not as a direct cause, then possibly as a cofactor. The condition known as Electrosensitivity or Microwave Sickness has a family of symptoms remarkably similar to chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome. Possible connections have been postulated between the abnormalities found in CFS patients and the results of RF exposure found in scientific research. Another interesting observation in favor of this hypothesis is that CFS became widespread in the 1980s around the same time that cellular phone systems started becoming popular, and that it may be more prevalent in countries with developed wireless systems than those without it.

Well, this source certainly does not meet the reliability bar, but maybe someone else makes the same speculations? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know who origonated the edit, but the reference is not RS. Even given the similarities, I am not aware of any papers on diagnosed CFS patients claiming that eitiology? Jagra (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

These reference PMID 12194895, PMID 17178585 are RS but only mention ‘chronic fatigue’ which may be a common abbreviation but a different condition to CFS, although MS and fibromyalgia are discussed, also MCS, PMID 1386626. I found 313 likely RS papers on the subject in pubmed, so no shortage of material for an Article in own name. It appears that there is no agreed case definition yet, so difficult to say if any relationship to CFS, and no published linking hypothesis was found. Jagra (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Navbox placement

Moved from my talk page for wider participation. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your revert here, firstly WP:MOS is not a policy but simply as it says a guide. Secondly I can find no where on that page, or related pages such as Style Guide Medicine to support your notion. a See also is to contain blue wikilinks, which a navbox contains. I cannot see, despite what you say, why manual links cannot also be included if need be under that heading, above the box. All in all your revert, to say the least, appears pendantic, perhaps you might explain further your explanation? As origonating author of that Article there are indeed good reasons for the change. Jagra (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would opine that there is nothing wrong with a little pedantry in an encyclopedia, but more importantly placing the {{navbox}} in the See also section breaks the style guide for no apparent reason. Yes, it is only a guideline and should be ignored when specific circumstances warrant, but I do not see how that condition obtains here. I might also note that there is nothing wrong with including short explanations or subheadings in a See also section. Perhaps you would be so kind as to elucidate your reasoning for how putting the navbox elsewhere than at the bottom of the page, where readers will expect to find it, aids in navigation?

The relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions (explanatory note 4). - Eldereft (cont.) 00:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried a compromise where the See also section has an Articles about ME/CFS link that jumps down to the navbox. Will that work for you two? Ward20 (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably not ideal, but I can live with it. Thank you. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It works for me too. Certainly a lot less words than listing seperately all the 12 ME/CFS sub-articles, there in the See also section, of course the Navbox digits are even less, added kB's. With this type of article by necessity it contains large numbers of references which means the existance or not of other related articles is not otherwise immediately apparent. Jagra (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also see this guideline with Navboxes in the See also space Jagra (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Stress

This discussion has been moved to Talk:chronic fatigue syndrome as it is pointless running two discussions on same matter. Jagra (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the paragraph that began with "A novel hypothesis that CFS in a subset is a neurophysiological disorder focussing on the amygdala. The unconscious amygdala may become conditioned to be chronically sensitised to negative symptoms arising from the body."

There is no research behind this, the reference goes to a so called "study" (which is actually just a hypothesis with no original research) written by Ashok Gupta, a man with no medical or science related experience or qualification (other than a degree in economics), who is currently selling an unproven hypnotherapy based treatment for ME and seems to have written the paper to try to give his treatment some convincing scientific-sounding backing. The paper gives no new information on the causes of CFS and just seems to be speculation based on common perceptions about ME. The wording of the first few sentences and the wording of some things on Gupta's own site make it look like someone involved with the site may have added this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.69.218 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychiatric fatigue

The article says "Accordingly, the fatigue symptoms are assumed to be the consequence of other (somatic) diseases" about the psychiatric/psychosocial theory. I see this sentence is taken directly from the abstract of an article, but it appears incorrect. Fatigue is a well-known symptom of psychiatric illnesses, and it isn't assumed to be caused by other, somatic, illnesses. Should this sentence just be removed? --Sciencewatcher (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)