Template:Did you know nominations/Melvin Ramsay

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Melvin Ramsay

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Femke (talk). Self-nominated at 10:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Melvin Ramsay; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Starting review. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria. Was nominated 5 days after being promoted to GA. No concerns with tone, sourcing, nor with copyvio.

Regarding ALT0 -- the hook seems to be sourced to this text -- Since the first recognition of ME/CFS in an outbreak in Los Angeles 1934, the illness has undergone various changes in terminology and case definition [17]. Dr. G. Beard (1839–1883) first disclosed the illness in his book and introduced the term 'neurasthenia' in the 1860 s [18]. Later, the features of neurologic symptoms during the U.K. outbreaks led to naming the illness ‘benign ME’ [19], then Ramsay created the 'ME' case definition in 1986. I am assuming the term "case definition" means something specific here because this does not seem to be attributed to Dr G. Beard. With that, I am comfortable approving ALT0.

Re: ALT1. The sourcing seems to be tied to this text In 1970, two psychiatrists in the United Kingdom reviewed the reports of 15 outbreaks of benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and concluded that these outbreaks “were psychosocial phenomena caused by one of two mechanisms, either mass hysteria on the part of the patients or altered medical perception of the community” (McEvedy and Beard, 1970, p. 11). They based their conclusions on the higher prevalence of the disease in females and the lack of physical signs in these patients. The crux of this, as I read it, is that ME was tied to "mass hysteria" was not because of the incidence in women -- but, it (along with "altered medical perception of the community") was because of the incidence in women AND the lack of physical signs (symptoms?). Irrespective, I am not convinced on ALT1.

Passing this back to the nominator for their inputs. QPQ is done. Ktin (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

For alt0, I've linked case definition, so it's more clear that this is indeed more than a simple illness description. It is an exact definition who counts as having this illness, and who doesn't.
For ALT1, which is the more interesting one, it could be changed to:
Symptoms are what an ill person subjectively experiences, and signs are objectively observable (see signs and symptoms). While there were and still are few signs of ME/CFS, the psychiatrists claim that there weren't any signs was incorrect, as iirc muscle fatiguability was measureable even then. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Femke: Thanks. ALT0 looks good to be marked approved. I am on the fence re: ALT1b. There is nothing wrong with your phrasing. However, I am thinking (or rather hoping) that the reason the physicians tied it to mass hysteria (wrongly we can say now, with the benefit of hindsight) was because of the lack of physical signs in these patients. But, your piping of the gender bias page in the article leads me to believe that there might be something there. I also think that your hook would be diluted if we just say -- MR refuted the then prevailing notion that ME was a form of mass hysteria. Thoughts? Ktin (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The treating physicians never tied it to mass hysteria; this was done by psychiatrists who reviewed the case notes, but never spoke to the patients to obtain consent or see if there were any signs. At the time the psychiatrists published their work, the prevailing view aligned with the current view of a mainly biomedical disease. It took a while before a (less overtly sexist) psychosocial view become dominant (between ~1985-2010?). A new paper discusses the sexism of the hysteria label in ME/CFS more closely from a social science perspective. This paper says the proportion of young women at the hospital was the main reason the psychiatrists gave for the diagnosis. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Femke: Thanks. Can you paste the relevant sentence(s) from the paper here? I do have access to T&F via the WPL. However, for some reason search there is not pulling this paper in the results. Ktin (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
For McEvedy and Beard, the “undue proportion”50 of young women working together at Royal Free was the “primary data”51 that supported a hysteria diagnosis. Of course, large groups of women do not constitute a disease, but most if not all the Royal Free ME patients likely experienced an actual illness that was ignored as psychosomaticism.. Both 50 and 51 cite the two psychiatrists. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Marking ALT1b approved based on the above conversation. ALT0 is already approved. Either of the two hooks can be promoted. Striking out ALT1 to improve readability. Ktin (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
PS: @Femke: you might find it mildly amusing that the other DYKN that I just reviewed was Template:Did you know nominations/Femke :)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Melvin_Ramsay&oldid=1194183646"