" 

 == Last statement on the AHA Statement == 

 I noticed the revert to MastCell's version, which I guess is normally an excellent idea... I'm not really interested in a big fight over this, so I'm just going to say what I think is wrong with the treatment of the AHA statement, and since I doubt you trust me to be neutral, please just ask any good editor that you trust to consider this from a basic sourcing perspective: 
 * We quote the authors from their conclusion and then from an included figure in the introduction, as if these were the words of the authors themselves. 
 * We use the word ""meaning"" as if these are definitions of Class IIb, when they are actually writing recommendations. Sparaig2 was on about this for a long time, and even received a response from the lead author saying we misrepresent them, but you really don't need to ask the authors about this. It is plain from just looking at original AHA statement that the committee could have used wordings from any of the three recommended formulations to write their conclusion, and they chose to use only the first. 

 At the very least, please acknowledge that these are not definitions of class IIB. These are ""suggested phrases for writing a recommendation"". If we must include the third one, although the authors themselves did not use it in the body of the article, we should at least not imply that the authors did write this.    
 :: added this text. Lets allow him to comment. It has been in the article a long time.   ·  · email) "