Talk:Medical uses of silver

message: ::I propose reintroducing into the lede the line 'Silver was the most important antimicrobial agent available before the introduction of antibiotics.'  This is a true statement, is reliably sourced, and satisfies the Wikipedia Lede style guide MOS:LEAD, in particular... 'It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on', and 'explains why the topic is notable'.  It also introduces a fact that is described in the article but at present is entirely absent from the lede.14.2.5.218 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose leaving it exactly as is, per WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:UNDUE  The proposed line is not a viewpoint. Its just a historical fact - referenced and briefly stated. And anyway, I can't imagine that anyone reading this article is seeing an undue emphasis on the 'positive' aspects of medical silver. Quite the opposite in fact.   14.2.5.218 (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per WP:FRINGE, I am disinclined to take your word on anything, given the above advocacy for whitewashing the lack of safety and efficacy. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You put in endless references that quote each other without realising none of them actually have any clinical research to back their claims. Yet you view any attempt by me to introduce a referenced historical fact as 'whitewashing'. 14.2.5.218 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You put in endless references that quote each other without realising none of them actually have any clinical research to back their claims. Yet you view any attempt by me to introduce a referenced historical fact as 'whitewashing'. 14.2.5.218 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I haven't reversed the burden at all. I haven't tried to remove your references. I just commented that although they are technically 'reliable' they are in fact weak. I could go on and argue that (as your own references say) argyria is a cosmetic issue not a safety issue but I cant be bothered.  My gripe is that even a simple, referenced, historical fact can't make it into the article because it upsets your agenda.14.2.5.218 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, you have. The onus is on those seling a medical (or faux medical) product to demonstrate that it is safe and effective. The default position for medical claims is that they are false until proven true, and the medical claims of colloidal silver are not proven true. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposed addition had nothing to do with colloidal silver or alternative medicine. To remind you, it was this: 'Silver was the most important antimicrobial agent available before the introduction of antibiotics.'  This was a reliably sourced statement about the historical use of silver and is relevant to all the modern uses of silver described later in the article.  14.2.18.236 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is far too vague, and far too sweeping a statement. This would need clear attribution and context, and is undue weight based on this single source. Grayfell (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I give up. I'm not wasting any more time on this. When a dodgy vague 'negative' quote from an opinion piece is dragged out you are happy to go along with it. When we try to make a quote more accurate (as per the 'Efficacy' topic) you reject it. Yet when we quote exactly from a reference that you have used yourself you want it moved, reworded, reattributed, etc etc. Clearly you have no NPV on this.14.2.18.236 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay then. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical use as an antimicrobial agent 

message: The wikipolicies require that medical articles in particular be kept up to date, and that the "state of the art" be reflected using recent sources rather than sources that are decades old. There are numerous sources cited here that are very old, and that have been overtaken by more recent events and research. Obviously we can use old sources to support the history of the thing, but for the "state of the art" we should be using recent sources. I propose to remove all sources that reflect on the state of the art but which are more than 5 years old. Any objections please? Wdford (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is OK for mainstream use of silver, but the quack usage (colloidal, basically) is treated under WP:FRINGE - there are not expected to be up to date MEDRS sources for bullshit, so reliable but older sources can still be used. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up old sources 

message: this entire article is about approved medical uses for silver and then at the very bottom it says there are no proven medical uses for silver. These two ideas are contradictory. Meaning half this article is untrue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.197.3 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Where at the very bottom? Please be specific - I can't see what you see? Wdford (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  what am I reading?