File talk:Celiac disease.webm

March 30, 2018 revision

Hey User:EugeneZelenko I’d like to check with you first on this before I proceed. You’ll see on March 30th, 2018 a user uploaded a revision of this video I uploaded on behalf of the company I work for (Osmosis). The revision was a disclaimer attached to the front saying “The information in this video is inaccurate and outdated…” and continues to list a number of issues the user feels exist in the video.

I’ve spoken with this user in the past regarding his concerns which lead to a revision of the video made by us on March 30th, 2016. You can see the past discussion here in detail. I made some edits based on his feedback, but I felt most of the user’s comments were issues around the scope of the video. This video is a basic overview, not a comprehensive analysis, and so I feel there’s no need to make additional edits to it.

I truly respect the user’s passion about the topic, however I don’t agree with the revision this user made to the video. His revision isn’t constructive, and discredits the work of the creators because it is contrary to his opinion. It also violates the video’s Creative Commons License, as he has overwritten the original video (he should have made a separate video), and he has not indicated his video is a derivative work of the original video (as outlined in the Creative Commons best practices for attribution guide)

I think the best solution here for everyone would be to remove the video entirely off WikiMedia Commons. If that’s not possible, then I think this video should be reverted back to it’s March 30th, 2016 version. OsmoseIt (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think best solution will be to upload correct video file and eventually replace this one with it. Probably some explanations need to be done. Then you could request deletion of this file. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

OsmoseIt This comment of yours is a shame, it is totally inadequate, disrespectful, demonstrates your lack of knowledge and, worst of all, your total lack of interest to correct the errors: “I truly respect the user’s passion about the topic, however I don’t agree with the revision this user made to the video. His revision isn’t constructive, and discredits the work of the creators because it is contrary to his opinion.”

No, sorry, you are not respecting anything.

It is you who are discrediting yourselves.

Are you calling “passion about the topic” that I am requesting updated and verifiable health information? A video without any reference? A video about celiac disease, which is a systemic disease that primarily affects the intestine, made by (see credits at the end of the video): "an Assistant Professor of Pathology at the University of Minnesota School of Medicine and School of Dentistry. Before deciding to teach full time, (she) completed a pathology residency and fellowships in hematopathology and molecular pathology. (...) (she) creates materials for medical students, dental students, and allied health students."

On the contrary, I have included references from verifiable sources and of indisputable weight worldwide, they are not “my opinions”.

In addition, you are distorting the facts by linking to a single conversation. But the reality is that, after this conversation, you are ignoring all our messages and you have not answered again. Why do not you provide these other links, for example? I've cited and pinged you many times in several talk pages:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. What does Osmosis plan to do with the inaccurate videos?
• Talk:Coeliac disease. Video
• User talk:Jimbo Wales. Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation

and I've left messages on your own talk page User talk:OsmoseIt. What does Osmosis plan to do with the inaccurate videos?. But you have not bothered to answer even once.

I think the first thing you should do is apologize. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Celiac continues to be a GI disorder despite the fact that it can result in other symptoms. This video does mention some of the other symptoms that can occur.

Check out the NIH website. They say "Celiac disease is a digestive disorder that damages the small intestine... If you have celiac disease, you may experience digestive symptoms or symptoms in other parts of your body. Digestive symptoms are more common in children than adults. " Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It is possible that I am expressing myself very badly because I see that I am not being understood.

I'm not saying it's not a GI disorder (NOTE: GI=gastrointestinal). It is a systemic disease that affects the intestine in the first place, which is not incompatible and is a broader definition.

The source that you are providing dates from June 2016 [1] and the one that I included is of July 2016 and from an institution specialized in Gastroenterology, the World Gastroenterology Organization, which says Celiac disease (CD) is a chronic, multiple-organ autoimmune disease that affects the small intestine in genetically predisposed children and adults. In addition, I provided another of 2017. In any case, they are only small examples of current knowledge.

This information in this video, so outdated and inaccurate is the biggest concern that specialists have worldwide and what is causing 85% of celiacs remain undiagnosed. It is very sad that someone says that in this video are represented the symptoms that CD produces, when it is currently known that extraintestinal symptoms are the most numerous and prevalent. The video mentions two, only two!: failure to thrive and dermatitis herpetiforme. Pathetic...

The video has more errors, such as saying that "as many as 1 in 100 north americans are diagnosed with it". No, that is the estimated prevalence, but only about 10-15% of them are diagnosed.

What is undoubted is that this is a disputed issue, so it is perfectly valid to put the Template: Factual accuracy

P.S.: It is a pity that no one warned me about the irregularities by overwriting the video when I showed it on several Wikipedia pages and explained the changes that I made, almost two months ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. What does Osmosis plan to do with the inaccurate videos? Talk:Coeliac disease. Video). I would not have had any problem in undoing the changes myself. On the contrary, I thought it was a correct procedure.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am moving this here

The factual accuracy of this video is disputed. See talk page https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Celiac_disease.webm The information in this video is inaccurate and outdated. It focuses on celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity as simple digestive diseases, but: «Celiac disease (CD) is a chronic, multiple-organ autoimmune disease that affects the small intestine in genetically predisposed children and adults.» (1) «CD is an immune-mediated systemic disorder elicited by gluten and related prolamines in genetically susceptible individuals and characterised by the presence of a variable combination of gluten-dependent clinical manifestations» (2) «The abnormal immunological response elicited by gluten-derived proteins can lead to the production of several different autoantibodies, which affect different systems.» (3) «Presentation of CD with malabsorptive symptoms or malnutrition is now the exception rather than the rule» (4) «The most important obstacle to implementing the recommendations is poor awareness of celiac disease by patients and physicians. Among gastroenterologists, there is a sense that celiac disease does not require follow-up by a specialized physician after diagnosis and may be considered a minor condition in comparison with irritable bowel disease (IBD) and inflammatory bowel syndrome (IBS).(...) There is an urgent need to increase awareness among primary-care physicians and pediatricians about the wide diversity of clinical manifestations.» (1) «That gluten sensitivity is regarded as principally a disease of the small bowel is a historical misconception» (5) 1. World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines (WGO). "Celiac disease". (2016). 2. Husby S, Koletzko S, Korponay-Szabó IR, Mearin ML, Phillips A, Shamir R, Troncone R, Giersiepen K, Branski D, Catassi C, Lelgeman M, Mäki M, Ribes-Koninckx C, Ventura A, Zimmer KP, ESPGHAN Working Group on Coeliac Disease Diagnosis; ESPGHAN Gastroenterology Committee; European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (2012). "European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition guidelines for the diagnosis of coeliac disease" . J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 54 (1): 136–60. 3. Lundin KE, Wijmenga C (2015). "Coeliac disease and autoimmune disease-genetic overlap and screening". Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 12 (9): 507–15. 4. Newnham ED (2017). "Coeliac disease in the 21st century: paradigm shifts in the modern age". J Gastroenterol Hepatol (Review). 32 Suppl 1: 82–85. 5. Hadjivassiliou M, Grünewald RA, Davies-Jones GA. “Gluten sensitivity as a neurological illness”. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002, 72, 560–563

I disagree that this means the video is factually inaccurate. Were does the video state the disease is "not chronic" or "only one system is involved"? Were does it say it is "not immune-mediated"? Were does it say it is "not elicited by gluten"?

"as many as" means the number is up to that. Sure would be better as "as many as 1 in 100 north americans have the condition" Put that in the description as being better but the prior is not technically wrong either.

You want a video that says something different? Well go ahead and make one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not want a video that says something different. I want this video, which hundreds of thousands of people have already seen in Wikipedia, Commons and YouTube, be erased and do no more damage. As the responsible ones refuse, at least that the people know that it is disinforming them seriously.

James, you know that I like to collaborate with you and that I respect and appreciate your work, but in this case you are not right.

The template is not placed on the talk page, but on the file page (see the list of files that contain this template) and is for freely used by all users. It contains parameters to describe the irregularities, with no extension limit. Template:Factual_accuracy

If you want, you can leave it here too, I will not oppose, but I will restore it on the file page.

I have already accepted to modify it and lower the level to this less forceful, although in my opinion the other one Template:Inaccurate is the appropriate for this video.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure the video does not promote your POV on the condition in question. It is however inline with the CDC and NIH.

Were does the video state that 5 things you listed are NOT true? You are claiming it is making false statement but you have not provided evidence of this. If you want a video that says the things you wish, make it. Not everything needs to repeat what you feel is key.

Seriously you need to drop the stick. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, it's worrying that you think it's "my POV".

No, it is not "inline with the CDC and NIH". Check the link you have provided yourself (all the information and not just isolated parts chosen arbitrarily) and you can check how poor and deficient the video information is.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You have not answered the concerns above "Where does the video state the disease is "not chronic" or "only one system is involved"? Where does it say it is "not immune-mediated"? Where does it say it is "not elicited by gluten"?"

This appears to be a continued push to provide undue weight to the issues of this condition you care about most. As the video does not provide the weight you feel it deserves you have repeatedly tried to tag it. Not appropriate.

The video discusses some of the skin effects and T cell lymphoma. Thus your claim is not correct. Additionally it mentions that "chronic" a couple of times as well as the fact that it is autoimmune. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: Answering your message and your specific questions, and starting from the basis that you are a doctor, one could draw these conclusions:

• that you are joking,
• that you have not understood my arguments nor the references that I have provided,
• or that you have not wanted to understand them and you are distorting my words in a premeditated way.

In any of the cases, your attitude and reaction in this talk page are a clear example that corroborates what the World Gastroenterology Organisation and those who like me are specialists in Gastroenterology, Internal Medicine, celiac disease and associated disorders, are writing since some years in specialized scientific journals, following the recent advances in the knowledge of celiac disease and the rest of gluten-related disorders:

«The most important obstacle to implementing the recommendations is poor awareness of celiac disease by patients and physicians. Among gastroenterologists, there is a sense that celiac disease does not require follow-up by a specialized physician after diagnosis and may be considered a minor condition in comparison with irritable bowel disease (IBD) and inflammatory bowel syndrome (IBS).(...) There is an urgent need to increase awareness among primary-care physicians and pediatricians about the wide diversity of clinical manifestations.»

--BallenaBlanca (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Edit warring

I am restoring the "disputed" template added by BallenaBlanca and it shall remain permanently because the content is disputed. Doc James is hereby warned that if he continues to edit war on Commons I shall go to AN/U to have his account blocked. James, you are not an admin here and have no authority here. You are medically unqualified to act as a self-appointed gatekeeper on medical information on a specialist topic on Commons. Commons has no mechanism to settle content disputes, which is why videos of this sort are highly problematic. The most anyone can do on Commons is tag the video as "disputed" which is what BallenaBlanca has done.

By attempting to erase all indication that there may be issues with the video, Doc James is engaging in censorship and demonstrating clearly to everyone that the only opinion that matters is his. It was well established on Wikipedia that James has a serious conflict-of-interest problem with these videos, which he arranged the creation of with a private firm who sell subscriptions to medical videos, without wide community approval, inserted into 300+ articles by stealth (no edit comment), and then edit warred to retain. The very most James is permitted to do here, is present his argument regarding the disputed content, providing sources, and then leave it at that. Nothing more. He is not permitted to remove the disputed template. He is not permitted to censor comments by others. Anyone considering using or viewing this video is entitled to know that it is disputed and why it is disputed. That's how Commons works. It is not a collaborative editing project where editors push towards a clean consensus version of the page, and since nobody can edit the video to make it better, there will always remain a lack of consensus about its content. It is going to remain disputed. That's how it is going to be James. -- Colin (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure we can take it to AN/U User:Colin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. By "it" do you mean your content dispute? No, the only matter for AN/U is your behaviour. You have twice reverted a valid, and permitted, and well-reasoned template addition to this page that the material is disputed by experts. You have done so without gaining or even seeking consensus for those actions. That is the behaviour of an edit warrior and a bully. AN/U deals with ongoing problems, and your last edit was five days ago. So, I'm just warning you. Stop it or a block will be requested. -- Colin (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, User:Colin.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)