Talk:Diabetes/Archive 6

message: I do not see any compelling evidence for chromium/GTF's role in diabetes. I do not even see a need to include one sentence about it and do not think that it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. If evidence were provided, then I would support re-examining.  InvictaHOG 12:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ISI database contains 15 refereed papers to the query "glucose tolerance factor" AND chromium AND diabetes (sample returns Wang et al 2005 BIOCHEMISTRY 44:8167-8175; Cefalu et al 2004 DIABETES CARE 27:2741-2751; Vincent 2000 NUTRITION REVIEWS 58:67-72) that seem to support the verification aspect of the topic (I've made no evaluation of the specific claims).  I am in agreement with Alteripse in the section above, that this merits inclusion in the article, but not in the lead section. Pete.Hurd 22:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with Pete.Hurd --Jon Cates 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response for RfC 

message: Sorry JFW and others, but I suspect all your lengthy discussions above have been a waste of time, as Rok bura, john murphy, and xemijura are all GT sockpuppets. Probably the "hundreds of sleeper accounts" he's been boasting about.  He's got a vendetta against anyone who was involved in Parkinsons disease so treat all new accounts speaking "with authority" about outlandish biochemical theories with extreme skepticism. --PaulWicks 12:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tojo has now mobilised these users in his revert wars, and they have been blocked indefinitely. Discussion closed. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GT at it again

message: The comment about user:General Tojo having been the puppet master behind John Murphy, Rok bura, etc in the discussion above is odd. First attempting to comment on it in the same section heading, fails to show that the edit text exists in that seciton. Second, consulting the history of the User:General Tojo history indicates that the user has been banned from WP by the Arbitration Committee and further reference to the link to lists of sock puppets which the Arb Comm, apparently, has decided General Tojo has maimtained. Among them is Paul Wicks whose user page discusses being harassed by General Tojo or his sock puppets. And whose talk page includes a notice that this user is asock puppet for General Tojo. 
So, do we have an actual helpful comment from a medical researcher (ie, Paul Wicks) or has General Tojo or some sock puppet outed himself? Or something else? 
I think my migraines are coming back. ww 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now that edit has been alakazam! poof! disappeared. Oh my head... ww 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've restored Paul Wick's comments. DR Congo (talk • contribs) removed it and I suspect him to be a General Tojo sockpuppet too judging from his lack of edits. I can vouch for Paul Wicks and any General Tojo tags on his user/talk pages claiming that he is a sockpuppet is vandalism by General Tojo. --   Netsnipe  (Talk)  10:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Puzzling edit

message: The recent edit by LogicUser was reverted for several reasons. Inappropriate bolding, poor source (simplistic popular reporting of study, poorly done), lack of medically informed analysis, rush to judgement of supposed conclusions in a contentious field (vegetarian vs non-vegetarian diets). The data reported is also consistent with the rather better supported and already present in this article, observation that some Type 2 patients improve considerably when they lose weight and get more exercise. And there was no notice taken (in the CNN piece) nor in the reverted link, that Type 2 patients present quite varied responses to any therapy. 
WP should wait for better sourcing of this study before including it here. I note that LogicUser has included the same pointer in another article. I haven't examined that one, but suspect it might be inappropriate as well. ww 18:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reversion of vegan diet story pointer.link

message: Someone came along and slapped  on the article. I can't stand it when people do this to heavily browsed articles - ram a box on top and distract the casual reader with instructions to editors.
I do agree, however, that the intro is presently too long. I previously summarised the characteristics of the three main diabeteses in one paragraph. Then it started growing again, mainly after the John Murphy / Rok Bura fracas.
I propose we change the intro back to the one on 7 July 2006 (after my large edit). Anyone disagree? JFW | T@lk 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did so. (A small discussion then ensued on User talk:Jfdwolff and my talk page). The reason why I put the tag on the main article is because that's where they're (AFAIK) supposed to go. Tags put the article into the relevant category (in this case, :Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup) and let people browsing know that the article needs some work. Per the discussion referenced above, I will not revert. Nor will I add more to this discussion unless explicitly asked since I really don't want to get involved in a debate that's entirely unimportant to me... I'm just defending my actions, since I seem to have offended somebody deeply by actions that I still believe were entirely appropriate. --Storkk 00:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Seeing as how I "slapped" the  template on in the first place, and I think it's now vastly better; taking into account the fact that the template should really not be on the talk page of the article, I've removed it from here. Cheers. --Storkk 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro length

message: What is the reference for the new results from the ASCOT study that shows that perindopril + amlodipine have a reduced incidence of diabetes compared to BDZ + atenolol? JFW | T@lk 20:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohoo: ramipril too! NEJM. JFW | T@lk 08:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASCOT study 

message: Hi, I seem to be free again for awhile, and took a more thorough look at the talk page and found what looked like a request. I have inserted the first draft onto this page for the moment, and would like comments either here or on Template talk:Diabetes before proceeding further. Here until life barges on me again... --Coro 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked the layout and added a few extra entries. Main problem on actually inserting into relevant articles was its lying side-by-side with any other template boxes that might be on the page (i.e. the template:infobox disease) or indeed images. Solution seems to be to place it not at top of an article but just before the first section header. This then leaves the introduction alone, and the navigation box appears level with the list of contents. Where required, I also needed to use the break tab to force completion of the introductory block - using  - hardly neat markup. Can anyone tweak this navigation box's own markup to help (just adding break clear tags also shifted the article's text to the end of the template:Diabetes) ? David Ruben  Talk  02:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Series Box 

message: We seem to have two different claims recently, both un-cited:
*The ancient Chinese tested for diabetes by observing whether ants were attracted to a person's urine, and called the ailment "sweet urine disease" (糖尿病);
*The ancient Indians tested for diabetes by observing whether ants were attracted to a person's urine, and called the ailment "sweet urine disease" (Madhumeha);
Which is true? If no one can provide a citation soon, I will remove the claim from the article (which would be a shame, is it is an enlightening bit of trivia). Anarchist42 18:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese vs. Indian Ants 

message: The word 'farting' is used in the first paragraph. I'm not a doctor, but it doesn't seem to be used in the correct context. Could someone please clarify.
:Some short-lived (9 minutes) vandalism. It's been corrected.–RHolton≡– 02:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farting? 

message: I've found a nice paper that details the history of diabetes in clinical research: Am J Physiol. I have updated the Dobson reference, but there are several other nuggets of gold in there. JFW | T@lk 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical material

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of MODY in the article somewhere?
:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.90.185 (talk • contribs)  14:12, 29 November 2006
::Yes, there should as a varient of type 2. Anyone already know much about this ? David Ruben  Talk  14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  explains it quite well. SenorKristobbal 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MODY? 

message: I've added one sentence to the section on Type 1 Diabetes referencing the recent paper published in the journal Cell, which might change just about everything.  Diabetics have seen promised cures disappear before, and given the number of us with this condition I didn't want to make a big deal about and get people's hopes up.  Having said that, the findings of this study look like very, very good science.  I leave it to others to try and strike the right balance, but this looks about right to me.
If someone can clean up my references (citations), I'd appreciate it as they look messy right now, and I can't find a page telling me how to do it properly.JakartaDean 04:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that iansmcl has reversed my changes, without comment here.  Ian, what's up?  I feel it's unneccerassily rude to cancel others' edits without comment.  Why?  i stand by what I put in, and feel it's appropriate that I reinsert in 48 hours, unless you present contrary evidence.JakartaDean 17:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find myself with iansmcl in this case. JD, your comment above, that "...this might just change everything..." pretty much covers it. This is a article of first resort for the Average Reader, and as such shouldn't have much (ideally none) of potential might be sort of stuff. I was myself struck by the Cell report and the possibility of more links to other body systems. Sounds quite plausible to me, actually, but that's not sufficient for WP, expecially in an article like this. Perhaps this should go in one of hte other more specific DM articles under a heading such as interesting research with considerable promise, or some such. Lizard spit wasn't even mentioned here for quite a long time and I think is gone again, and that's been an accepted therapy for a while now. And has a great story behind it. Wrong place I think, at least now. When we know more about what it means, maybe...  ww 21:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your kind comments Ww.  I understand you POV, and appreciate it, and I hope my concern came across also.  I understand the need for balance, but I (perhaps hopefully, but I don't think so) find this research breathtaking.  I think I wrongly blamed Ian before I fully checked the 'audit trail' of revisions.  As I hope was clear, I think this is wonderful, Nobel prize worty resarch, but I understand the need to keep folks who haven't studied it on an even keel.  Your improvements are fine with me.  Merry Christmas, Seasons Greetings, ...JakartaDean 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of Nervous System, Reversability? 

message: The use of toe socks to prevent gangrene would belong to the gangrene article. However, before it is included there, a serious search for sources would be necessary to give neutral (non-advertizing) sources for the utility of toe socks for gangrene prevention.  Andreas  (T) 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toe socks