Talk:Diabetes/Archive 5

message: From my (User:Karada's) talk page:
Hello Karada,
You asked about diabetes mellitus article and my objections to its content.
First, it is of patchy quality. There are passages or section that are quite
acceptable and other that need major rewrite.
Second, its style is inconsistent. Sometimes it uses scintific language and
nomenclature and sometimes it is written in badly conceived "for patients"
style. (I once proposed to make corresponding "Patient information" pages in
this case "Patient information on Diabetes mellitus" linked to the
scientific article Diabetes mellitus)
Third, see sections Diabetes mellitus#Diabetes treatment. Current standards - St Vincent declaration.
Presentation is also lacking and diabetic ketoacidosis is insufficient.
My ideal for a medical article would be a well researched, well referenced, scientific language, readable  and state-of-the-art body of information.
Kpjas 06:53, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro does need to mention the main complications, however gruesome they may sound to a newly diagnosed diabetic. JFW | T@lk 21:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The right balance and tone for an article like this is often a matter of contention. I don't think anyone could disagree that chronic complications are one of the 5 most important facts about both types of diabetes (thereby deserving mention in the introductory paragraph). Likewise all would agree that one of the key goals of management is to keep diabetes from interfering with the worthwhile aspects of life. However, a lot of people with diabetes would argue with you that neither (a) the daily work & pricks to maintain sort-of normal glucose levels or (b) trying to pretend you don't have diabetes and eventually facing the consequences is accurately described as "leading a normal life". I do know what you meant and agree with you, but do you see how tricky the tone and choice of words becomes? Your participation and suggestions are welcome. alteripse 19:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur entirely with Alteripse (got it that time!!) on this point. It's annoying and worse to have to constantly consider all this nuisance, it marks one aside from the regular folk, and much of the concern must be for the future (either a few days down the road (eg, DKA) or some years down the road (long term complications), something humans aren't all that good at. Nonetheless, until cures are avaialble, exactly those things are obligatory except in those who would not object to DKA or an amputation or two or .... Groucho said it best, though not re membership in the fraternity of diabetics. ww 19:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections to diabetes mellitus article

message: A disease consisting of the failure of a single organ (type 1 diabetes, the Islets of Langerhans) with a relatively simple function, points at the cure. Type 2 diabetes is more complex and difficult, but increasing physical activity and correcting body mass may be very helpful.
Could this be revised a bit? From what i know, it seems completely wrong, its implying Type 1 is not anymore complex than the failure of a single organ, when its not so much the failure, but the immune attack on that part of the pancreas caused by an unknown event/gene..
:I agree that this paragraph makes some fairly wild conjenctures. There are many diseases of one organ that cannot be cured just that easily. With respect to curing type II DM, we'll first need to find out what the causative mechanism actually is before we can dream of curing it. JFW | T@lk 05:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Curing Diabetes - Revision?

message: There are, in Wikipedia, articles on Katy Harris and Coronation Street. As this programme has a wide audience in the United Kingdom, perhaps this article should establish wiki-links with these articles. Katy was diabetic, and for many people, the representation of Katy in this programme will represent their public knowledge and understanding of diabetes. It would be good if, having established a wiki-link to the Katy Harris article, medical authorities could give their verdict on how accurate the information conveyed in this programme was. ACEO 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links suggested are best made from the Katy Harris and Coronation Street articles. They are, after all, fictional, however popular and so incidental to a factual article (insofar as we can manage) on a disease. A comment on the diabetic accuracy and context of the information in the katy Harris article can be found in Talk:Kay Harris. Does it help? ww 16:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to Katy Harris article

message: I'm inclined to oppose for the following reasons. This ia already a large article of first resort. It should be written for the Average Reader, leaving detailed coverage of special topics like this to their own articles. The connection is already mentioned, in any case. Comments? Thoughts? ww 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed b/c I found it during new page patrolling and thought someone had mistakenly made a page duplicating the content here. Sorry. Should have read more carefully. It just seemed bizarre that we wouldn't already have a page on the topic. Anyway, whatever you all think is best. --Kchase02 (T) 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm failing to see why a merge is needed... Although the Viral Diabetes article isn't of the highest quality, a rewrite by someone who understand the topic should suffice. --Mechcozmo 04:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll remove the merger tags. Thanks for your input. Viral diabetes. --Kchase02 (T) 05:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: viral diabetes merge

message: I've done quite a lot of slashing. Apologies to those whose work may have been moved to subpages. But I think it's clearer now. JFW | T@lk 00:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big edit 

message: Stonbull, Your edit comment is either wrong or confusing. The amount and trendline of DM is certainly significant. And that it is in the top ten or higher is certainly a useful fact. Or you meant something else altogether. Thoughts? ww 16:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reversion of para removal

message: On 18 July editor Xemxija changed the intro to include that diabetes may be caused by a problem in the action of insulin. I removed this, given that the main problems in diabetes are due to impaired pancreatic secretion or tissue insensitivity to insulin. In my view, problems with the action of insulin are not really of relevance in diabetes. Xemxija reverted, suggesting that GTF (glucose tolerance factor) plays a role in insulin action, and that problems with GTF hence cause diabetes. Extensive searching by myself failed to confirm good evidence of such a link, although alternative health sites abound that suggest that GTF or chromium improve diabetes.
Rok Bura reverted several times on 19/7, but has not discussed the issue here (nor has Xemxija, who has disappeared), but JohnMurphy was willing to discuss the topic. Still, many other editors (myself, Alteripse, David Ruben, AndreasJS, WW) are of the view that while there may be some scientific support for a role for GTF/chromium, this is presently much too tentative to adapt the lead section of this article to include this view.
John has now reinserted his version ([diabetes] result[s] either from inadequate biosynthesis, secretion or action of the hormone insulin [...]) several times despite the responses here. I have provided several arguments, including the complete absence of the whole topic in a very well known clinical handbook known for its comprehensiveness, and was wondering if there were other views on this matter. JFW | T@lk 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Characterised by" rather than "results from", otherwise we risk chasing a regression back to the first egg.  Midgley 23:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ... the silence is deafening. JFW | T@lk 10:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary for RFC