lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Primary peritoneal carcinoma

message: Wikipedia's external links policy and the specific guidelines for medicine-related articles deprecate external links to non-encyclopedic material such as blogs. 
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while it may occasionally be useful to patients or their families, it is not an advertising opportunity for blogs or support groups.  Please do not re-insert links that do not conform to the standard rules.  Any editor, BTW, is welcome to read all of the rules and perform an "audit" in the remaining links.  Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Ovarian and peritoneal epithelium share common embryonal origin, the coelomic epithelium (mesodermal origin). Coelomic epithelium is thought to be of mesonephric origin. With the overall point being that normal ovarian and peritoneal tissue is derived from the mesonephros. On the contrary, fallopian tube epithelium, endometrium and endocervix are related to paramesonephros (Müllerian duct). Surprisingly, epithelial ovarian cancer and primary peritoneal cancer are histologically similar to the Mullerian epithelium; not their embryonal origin, the mesonephros. Either a metaplasia has occurred or Mullerian remnants have been left behind in coelemic epithelium, which have turned oncogenic.
….the above text has been moved until referenced and consensus about its introduction into article has been established--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory
Talk:Mir Hasan Vazirov

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]]
Talk:Neoplastic meningitis

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Leptomeningeal cancer, Neoplastic meningitis and Meningeal carcinomatosis. PamD 08:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlapping articles?

message: These appear to be the same subject - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Leptomeningeal_cancer,_Neoplastic_meningitis_and_Meningeal_carcinomatosis PamD 11:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Leptomeningeal cancer]] 

message: Have already proposed that Neoplastic meningitis and Leptomeningeal cancer be merged; this appears to be a third article on same topic - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Leptomeningeal_cancer,_Neoplastic_meningitis_and_Meningeal_carcinomatosis PamD 11:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The direction of the merge is unclear from the above discussion, but given that Leptomeningeal cancer is broader (as, at least in theory, one could have neoplastic inflitrate without an inflammatory response sufficient to cause meningitis) I've merged there. Klbrain (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Meningeal carcinomatosis]]
Talk:Oncothermia

message: There's a lot of woo crept into this. It should likely have things that aren't nonsense in the article too. Like the reasons only quack clinics offer this. Tat (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "is especially the direct electric-field energy absorption" 

message: here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Oncothermia  
--Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[WP:FTN]]
Talk:Hemangioblast

message: addition information to be added to the lacking search  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.172.205 (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: PROPOSED EDITS

message: Evidence of its existence was first shown in vitro in mouse embryonic stem cells, where a single progenitor cell was found to differentiate into both hematopoietic and endothelial cells. (2)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdh4-NJITWILL (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof of Existence
Talk:Hemangioblastoma

message: Linac, what's that? Maybe a link would be useful here. I have just been diagnosed with such a bug in my brain. Do I have to stand in a tunnel somewhere and get shot at with a Linac?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchdavey (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linac
Talk:Malignant rhabdoid tumour

message: Someone please clarify in the article:  are malignant rhabdoid tumor (MRT) and rhabdoid tumor the same thing?  Or is MRT a subset?  Ie, are some rhabdoid tumors benign? --Una Smith 04:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Malignant rhabdoid tumor (MRT) was initially described in 1978 as a rhabdomyosarcomatoid variant of Wilms' tumor because of its occurrence in the kidney and because of the resemblance of its cells to rhabdomyoblasts. The absence of muscular differentiation led Haas and colleagues to coin the term "rhabdoid tumor of the kidney" in 1981. Although renal MRT was historically included in treatment protocols of the National Wilms Tumor Study (NWTS) Group, this tumor is now recognized as separate from a Wilms tumor. In contrast to a Wilms tumor, an MRT of the kidney is characterized by early onset of local and distant metastases and by resistance to chemotherapy. Whereas the overall survival rate for Wilms tumors exceeds 85%, the survival rate for renal MRTs is only 20-25%. MRT is one of the most aggressive and lethal malignancies in pediatric oncology.  Since rhabdoid tumor of the kidney was originally described, malignant rhabdoid tumors have been reported in practically every location in the body, including the brain, liver, soft tissues, lung, skin, and heart.
Now this section is completely devoid of citations and contains apparent nonsensical use of jargon, "Taxon".   C4dn (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: note
Talk:Glucobrassicin

message: Biosynthesis states that the first step is catalysed by CYP92B3 & 79B3 but the diagram has CYP79B2 & B3 instead
using NADPH and molecular Oxygen - oxygen should not be capitalized
to create a proposed the intermediate - delete the
Biosynthesis diagram - Indole-3-acetaldehyde is Indole-3-acetaldoxime
The S-alkylthiohydroximate Derivative is missing a CH2 above the S
Glucobrassicin is shown as a charged ion; the isolated form will be neutral (with either a H (as in the main article) or a cation (i.e., Na+) added) - Wikipedia is extremely inconsistent about this
The reactions are all shown as reversible; many are not
96.88.198.77 (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  assorted problems
Talk:Valdivia

message: The last part of the colonial history needs to be rewrited. As is is now it should better be placed in the article about Río Bueno. But it is important to show the slow process of expansion from Valdivia that led to the founding of Osorno, La union and Rio Bueno and culminated in expedition to Araucanía during the Pacification of the Araucanía. Dentren | Talk 10:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colonial history

message: The coordinates on this page for the location of Valdivia are completely incorrect. They're actually the coordinates for Brasilia, Brazil, and I apologize but I don't know how to find the actual coordinates to edit the page with. Os-osiris 13:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? 39S  and 73W goes to Valdivia Dentren | Talk 13:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Coordinates 

message: I removed this because its not enterly about Valdivia. Some parts can instead be included in the articles of La Unión, Chile and Río Bueno, Chile or City of the Caesars.Dentren | Talk 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed info

message: The result was: Merge as proposed. --B. Wolterding 17:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I just wonder in which section it should be placed. Dentren | Talk 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure - probably in the "Culture" section, under some subheading. --B. Wolterding 11:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposed (Esmeralda Avenue) 
Talk:Germinoma

message: dysgerminoma is a specific type of germinoma, that is very commonly located in the ovaries, unlike what's written in the article. Ehudzel 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that has been fixed.  If you have any other edits, please jump in and make them. --Una Smith 04:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dysgerminoma 

message: The merge eliminates much redundant text.  There are several inconsistent statements;  I have left them in, for now, but they need basic fact checking.  --Una Smith 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged dysgerminoma, seminoma here
Talk:Tumorigenesis

message: In its present form this article makes a very bad usage of the term genetic code. The genetic codes of humans, monkeys, rats and many other very distantly related living organisms are all absolutely identical. What the well intentioned editors wanted to mean instead of genetic code was probably genome. Please correct if I am right, and please explain if I am wrong. -- Sophos II (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your note.  For this article, perhaps "genes" makes more sense.  There are certainly variations in the genetic code, but that isn't really relevant to tumorigenesis.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The change is perfect. --Sophos II (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate usage of ''[[genetic code]]''
Talk:Mass effect (medicine)

message: This article and Mass effect (medical) seems to be two separate articles, but they have the same content. One of them ought to be changed into a redirect. 213.101.208.38 23:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles with the same content 

message: I have a question, why are there so many stub articles in WP about health and medicine? I would think that this is mostly due to the fact that there is simply nothing more to say about the topic at hand. For instance, what else are we going to say here in this one, "Mass effect (medicine)"? I think it's all been described quite thoroughly in this short article and it should not be labeled a stub. --Burstroc (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another medical stub
Talk:Boron neutron capture therapy

message: At some point I may add a list of nuclear research reactors that do BNCT to this article.  But it might be useful to make a tag instead.  I don't really know, what does anyone else think?  I can't right now create an exhaustive list for this, but after the research reactors series is finished I should be able to.  It's a fairly unique capability.  theanphibian 06:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Research Reactors

message: The other better article neutron capture therapy of cancer has only one paragraph that isn't about BORON-based neutron capture therapy (NCT) (this paragraph is about gadolinium-based NCT). That other article is far more detailed about the boron-based NCT than is THIS dedicated boron neutron capture therapy article. So we have an overlap, but in the wrong direction, as the general article on NCT for cancer has a far better and longer review of "boron neutron capture therapy" than does boron neutron capture therapy. 
Possibilities are: 
#Delete this boron neutron capture therapy article and redirect to the general neutron capture therapy (of cancer) article. This isn't really a merge as the boron NCT article is short, and doesn't really have any info that neutron capture therapy of cancer doesn't, and only has one illustration lacking here, which could easily be moved here (I think the one here is better, but the other could be used farther down).Note that the "of cancer" part of this article is superfluous since NCT (whether with B or Gd as target) is only used for cancer. But I don't think that's enough reason to rename this article by shortening it, unless it is to be renamed anyway. 
#Another possiblity is that the article neutron capture therapy of cancer could be renamed boron neutron capture therapy (deleting that one) and spinning off gadolinium neutron capture therapy as a stub. I don't like that option, as it would be a pretty small stub, and there's a better place for it with this other material, which incorporates most of the same external techniques. 
If I don't hear from other editors in a week I'll just be WP:BOLD and do option #1. SBHarris 18:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? I'm going to merge these and tag this shorter one PROD (proposed delete). SBHarris 21:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: i concur with the merge after reading the articles; i say go ahead. --RichardMills65 (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for a merge or (better) delete
Talk:Forward planning

message: I propose that this page, along with Inverse planning be merged onto Treatment planning. Wantdouble (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to be about the radiation oncology use of the term.  If the same term is used in other fields, that would be more appropriate in other articles, not this one.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Talk:National Academy of Medicine

message: Page was highly disorganized and redundant. Began cleanup. More work needed. Leonard Finger (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: not sure how much more is needed as cleanup. You might consider reinserting some of the material about their publications. and perhaps we need a separate full list of members wit hlinks to their WP articles. See List of 08 elected members?
No need to include Dr. with M.D. that's restating something that is already stated.  It's either Dr. - -, or it's - -, M.D.  02:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul and attempt to wikify 

message: This organization is now known as the National Academy of Medicine, as of today, July 1 2015  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallopingwalker (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the name of the article be the United States National Academy of Medicine (section)?Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: For my own notes, I reordered the list from the lead as follows, in decreasing order of size (and presumed eminence within this domain, per geographical bucket): 
* World Health Organization
* World Heart Federation
* European Food Safety Authority
* United States Food and Drug Administration
* American Heart Association
* American Dietetic Association
* Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Medicine — American non-profit 
* British National Health Service
* British Heart Foundation
* British Dietetic Association
* Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
* Dietitians of Canada
The The Good Judgment Project has demonstrated that combining experts is valuable, but only if the experts are working from independent sources of evidence or via distinct modes of analysis. There's nowhere close to a dozen independent lines of evidence represented in that list, and sorting the list into random order only helps to mask this issue. This entire list represents somewhere between two to four distinct expert opinions (as defined in The Good Judgement Project) in my rough assessment. 
Less of a jumbled ordering would be more neutral in my opinion. — MaxEnt 21:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert dog pile
Talk:Cancer support group

message: The external links section needs some pruning.  I've removed two dead links.  The links in this article really ought to be primarily about cancer support groups (how to run them, for example) instead of to cancer support groups (sign up here if you have cancer).  So far (in a very quick check), the only one that has any information like that is the mentalhelp.net link.  Does anyone else have any opinions?  Are there better subpages available on some of these websites?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I’ve been sick over 2 years. Drs don’t seem to care, I haven’t been able to find a good one. Thursday dr said he didn’t want to alarm me but sounds like cancer. I’ve been going in for blood test every month and all he does is call in different thyroid med. I’ve ask to see endroconoligest he said I didn’t need to. I keep calling telling them I just keep getting sicker, more symptoms and loosing so much weight. The girl that answers phone told me it’s all thyroid and nothing else to do. How can I help getting alarmed when I’ve been trying to tell 2 drs how sick I am and they don’t listen and now telling me cancer on phone and they can’t get me in for over a week. I haven’t been able to think of anything else, I can’t sleep or eat, before the phone call I was trying to eat right exercise and get better, now I gave up. I feel so alone too, I think that’s my biggest problem and probably what got me sick in the first place. I’m looking for some support from people going through same thing.  Actually I hope no one is going through this but I’m sure people have it worse. If anyone has any advice I would appreciate it 
Thanks  Rosehaus (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer
Talk:Spondylitis Association of America

message: See the current changes I have made to correct some of its problems. Additional support is needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: In risk of deletion

message: Please review the changes made.  User:sackofrice (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised
Talk:National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

message: The NHLBI's logo page shows something more akin to the parent's (i.e., the NIH's) logo than the logo on top of the article. (Not uploading it, since they say it may only be used with explicit permission from the NHLBI, and it sounds as if that may not be granted for non-government use.) I can't find anything about the history behind a logo change. Does anybody know? --SpecMade (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo
Talk:American College of Emergency Physicians

message: The statistic stating there are 600,000 emergency physicians, residents, and medical students is obviously an error. I will look for a 'good' statistic, but will assume for the time being that there was simply an extra zero added to the actual number.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddyowe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

message: bchdchsdhusmbihmbgtmf  fifffgeuednc dxfwswtxcx diefndkfo cbcddheiewaau  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.157.2 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  change my bchfvgsd 

message: There is an hour-long talk available on-line - 'Reproductive Health and the Birth of the HFEA' - by the ex chairperson of the HFEA, Baroness Deech: 
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=779
I think that this would be an obvious and unquestionable addition to this page.
(I only don't put it up myself as there is a possible conflict-of-interest as I am connected with Gresham College, where the lecture was given).  Jamesfranklingresham (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link Suggestion
Talk:National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

message: This is a federally appointed position and it's not a given that Biden will select the current acting director. The fact of a current job listing for the position implies there are others being considered.
Is there consensus to remove the new director from the table until it's settled? Amthisguy (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too early to know new director
Talk:LEPRA

message: It is important to point out here that the acronym LEPRA is identical to the Latin word lepra, which is the origin of the modern term leprosy and its equivalents and derivatives.  Faulty transmission of the word had far-reaching consequences.  Between Mediterranean Antiquity and the European Middle Ages, the interpretation changed gradually, from a generic designation for scaly skin diseases in Greek medicine to a specific label for what largely corresponds to Hansens Disease.  In a first stage, the Septuagint and Vulgate translations of the Bible adopted the Greek word and its Latin transliteration for the Hebrew term tzaraath.  The latter term referred primarily to skin disease(s) as an issue of ritual pollution (Mosaic Law) and of incurability by human hand (New Testament miracles).  Thus, the translators’ choice, imprecise albeit not incorrect, shifted the meaning of lepra towards legal and moral connotations.  The impact of this shift became historic in a second stage of the tortuous transmission.  Between the fifth and tenth centuries of the Common Era, at times and places not yet determined with certainty, Latin religious and medical authors gradually substituted the word lepra for elephantia and similar terms which covered the disfiguring, disabling, and incurable disease upon its first appearance in the Roman Empire. Ridemate (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  acronym "LEPRA"
Talk:University of Wales College of Medicine

message: Can the old UWCM logo be included on here somewhere?
I'm not sure how to do this, but the image is on the web eg
http://bridgendvts.co.uk/links.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustAnotherKinase (talk • contribs) 15:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: This article describes the situation as it existed some time ago during a period of instability, and is no longer relevant. I suggest that it should be turned into a Wikipedia:Redirect page to the Cardiff University School of Medicine article, which appears to be accurate and to contain all the correct information from this page. The Welsh National School of Medicine redirect page should similarly be changed to point to Cardiff University School of Medicine. I will do this soon if there is no substantial objection. --TedColes (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turn this page into a redirect
Talk:Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

message: The links re-added by Dicklyon do not appear appropriate.  Lynn Conway's and Andrea James' sites are self-published and not subject to review to verification; they are not appropriate as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29.  NARTH is not reliable IMO; but even if they were deemed so, they do not pertain to CAMH.  The Xtra article is not about CAMH.  In fact, none of the references actually support anything said on the page.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read them, just objected to your reason for removing them.  If you have a different reason, put it in your edit summary. Dicklyon (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off topic and self-published cites 

message: I made some corrections to the "Criticism" section as it gives the mistaken impression that the people criticizing Zucker and the clinic are "activists" when in fact it's primarily scientists. Even if one wants to argue that the scientists are acting as activists, then it makes no sense to not apply the same label to the fringe groups defending it. 
It also fails to clearly state that one of the main reasons for closure was the fact that it constituted conversion therapy (instead it presents it more like an unfounded allegation). 
The whole thing just seems really unbalanced and doesn't accurately reflect the situation, and does not meet the standards for neutral POV. Wikisamsa (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section