# Talk:Wilson's disease

doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2013.09.008 JFW | T@lk 11:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Julie Saeger Nierenberg‎ added a section "research directions". I've moved it here because I have some concerns.

The main issue is that this focuses entirely on one experimental treatment. A "research directions" section should cover all major recent development. Furthermore, it should be based on secondary sources (see WP:MEDRS for sourcing guidelines). In addition, the section talks a lot about oncological use of molybdenum, which is a little bit off-topic. Let me know if I can be of any assistance in getting this covered. JFW | T@lk 07:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The article already says pretty much everything there is to say about molybdate. It is used experimentally but with some evidence of benefit. Julie's addition of huge numbers of references (some not directly relevant to Wilson's) and the name of a company manufacturing the stuff is not helpful. JFW | T@lk 09:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dr. Wolff. Thank you for your advice and patience with me as I learn how to navigate the nuances of best practices for Wikipedia. I will revisit this and possibly solicit your guidance when new information and secondary resources are available to substantiate and reinforce the various applicable points made in these multiple references. Kindest regards Julie Saeger Nierenberg (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


### References
This May, the Ann N Y Assoc Med discussed copper metabolism in great detail TOC. There are two issues; to reach the "clinical" issue, press "next issue" from the TOC of the first. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The treatment section had poor readability and so has been updated with subheadings and bullet points. If you disagree with the subheadings then please suggest alternative ones. If you disagree with the bullet points, please explain why. Hardtofindscience (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you found so hard to read and understand in the Treatment section, which has undergone a good article review as you can see above. But in any case classifying medical treatments as old-current-new instead of based on their indication, mode of action, effectiveness, side-effects etc is frankly silly (ie, unless one were specifically discussing the history of development of these treatments, which is not the case here) and the reason both User:SandyGeorgia and I reverted your change. If you wish to propose such a idiosyncratic scheme for this article discuss first and obtain concensus for it here (or, wikipedia-wide at WP:MED). I am reverting your changes till you establish such a consensus, and  note that continuing to edit-war on the page is liable to your getting blocked. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't find it so hard, it's just that generally any piece of informative writing which has a lot of text can benefit from things like subheadings and bullet-points to help the reader. If you find the subheadings "silly" then why not simply suggest new ones? Also, do you have any objection to using bullet-points to list the chelation treatments - if so could you explain why? Hardtofindscience (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It may be a matter of stylistic preference, but typically in encyclopedic/formal writing free-flowing text and non-stubby sections are preferred over bullet-pointed lists that are all too reminiscent of powerpoint presentations (I myself favor bullet-points on talk pages, but horses for courses ...). But, list vs paragraphs was a minor issue with your edits and not the primary reason for my reversion.
Aside: I hope that instead of us being fixated on stylistic issues, someone will make an effort to update the article with more recent references than the ones currently used (I have personal opinions on the subject, and a potential second-order COI, so I don't intend to make any "content" additions to the page itself). Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Would you have any objection to me adding back in the bullet-points then? Perhaps we can discuss other changes to the section, such as subheadings, in the future. Hardtofindscience (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the current version, but frankly am indifferent on the issue of bullet-points. But given that you are on the verge of 3RR violation, I would suggest that you drop a note at WP:MED or at Sandy's talk page to make sure there is no objection from editors who edit medical articles more regularly. before making the change. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I have formatted the medications as a bullet-point list. Just for the record, I have/had no intention of edit-warring, nor am I on the verge of a 3RR violation, I'm simply making the section easier to read. Hardtofindscience (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
(←)  Hello Hardtofindscience. Your edits have unfortunately destabilised the article. Please hear me out before doing any more reverting. Your editing changed very little to the actual factual content of the article, but it led to the creation of entire sections without a single reference; that is a step backwards and affects article quality. Furthermore, you tried to reformat entire sections using the "bullet point" approach. This is fine for a medical handbook, but MOS:LISTBULLET is quite clear that it should be avoided if you can say the same in prose. I am aware that some of the content is in need of updating, but ideally without sweeping changes to the organisation. JFW | T@lk 21:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"Disease-a-Month" doi:10.1016/j.disamonth.2014.07.002. JFW | T@lk 17:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Dr. Wolff. If references about ongoing investigations of bis-choline TTM are inappropriate to use, even in the specific context of that wording, then I will not post them. I am learning and appreciate the feedback to this process. Julie Saeger Nierenberg (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding primary sources:  relevant research directions will be mentioned in secondary reviews.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Julie Saeger Nierenberg I have explained on several occasions that references to individual studies, particularly when still ongoing, are generally not suitable. An encyclopedia is not a support group for patients and their carers. Many studies will be negative, and discussing them here would raise false hopes for no good reason at all. JFW | T@lk 00:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ferenci: doi:10.1586/17474124.2014.899898 JFW | T@lk 09:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lancet neurology doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70190-5 JFW | T@lk 17:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Rising sharply. May be suitable for inclusion doi:10.1002/hep.27663 JFW | T@lk 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Because this disease prevents one from metabolizing copper, and all the treatments are about removing copper from the body, do they then develop copper deficiency? Isn't that just as fatal?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.206.153 (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 

Dunno about fatality, but excessive decoppering could lead to copper deficiency. JFW | T@lk 15:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence of the last section:  "In non-Wilsonian copper accumulation states (such as Indian childhood cirrhosis), no COMMD1 mutations could be detected to explain their genetic origin.[30]"   appears to be about human children and not about animals, even though it may or may not come from the article footnoted in [30] which is about dogs.   In other words, this paragraph is entitled animals (dogs), not Indian children. Christinedoby (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Up-to-date review doi:10.3390/ijms17020196. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

doi:10.3928/19382359-20181026-01 JFW | T@lk 11:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)