Talk:Gout/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is an archive of past discussions about Gout. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
References
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Gout. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://guidance.nice.org.uk/TA164/Guidance/Considerations_1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Text
This is not correct "The deposit of urate crystals in soft tissues, in particular the joints and kidney, causes pain and inflammation, which can be seen if near the surface as red, inflamed tissue called 'tophi'." Tophi are not red and inflamed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- From the source given: "Such deposits, when superficial, can be seen grossly as reddish, inflamed masses called topi." You can insist it is the surrounding tissue that is inflamed but that is just nit picking. Try improving the article by providing a definition that gets straight to the point rather than defending what you obviously believe to be your purview. Zedshort (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- The source provided is Parker, Sybil (1982). McGraw-Hill Concice Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. McGraw-Hill. p. 808. ISBN 0-07-045482-5. which is a little old.
- Is it this ref that supports this?
- WRT this content "s a disease caused by abnormal purine metabolism that results in increased levels of uric acid in the blood, and the failure of the kidneys to excrete the uric acid at a sufficient rate. Primary gout is a hereditary disease seen most often in middle-aged males that, however, is not see as frequently in females. Secondary gout is the result of some other disease that produces gout."
- The second paragraph already says "The cause is a combination of diet and genetic factors. It occurs more commonly in those who eat a lot of meat, drink a lot of beer, or are overweight. The underlying mechanisms involves elevated levels of uric acid in the blood. When the uric acid crystallizes and thecrystals deposit in joints, tendons, and surrounding tissues, an attack of gout occurs."
- And the fourth paragraph says "Older males are most commonly affected."
- Therefore what you are adding is simply duplicating content already covered with better sources. Doc James (talk contribs · email) 18:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)·
- I see, and so you think that the original and very badly written definition that begins with a particular example in that definition is better? Having following paragraphs support the definition is helpful not a hinderance. Afterall the introduction starts the article and all of that material is expanded on in the body of the article. If you think the other paras are redundant, please remove them. Stuffing podgora up front is not appropriate, as it is a specific example, so how about removing it? The date of the reference is immaterial as it is a complete definition. Better still how about if I refer to Britannica? Surely that would be better than the dross you support. Zedshort (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- We generally provide 4 paragraph overviews for diseases. This should be read as a whole. We do not have a one paragraph overview and than repeat it all again in the next three paragraphs and than repeat it all a third time in the body. We just repeat it twice, once in the lead and once in the body. Also do not add blocks of copyrighted text again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- First off, who is "we"? Is that the royal we you are using? Honestly that is how you come across. Why don't you read the original definition of gout and honestly ask yourself if a person who is unfamiliar with the subject would gain a clear understanding of the subject? <redact> Zedshort (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Zed, can you propose a new version here instead of copying and pasting large blocks of copyrighted materials from tertiary sources? The wording can be improved, yes, but let's collaborate. And using up to date summaries of reviews in medical journals is better than using encyclopedias.
Zad6820:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- We generally provide 4 paragraph overviews for diseases. This should be read as a whole. We do not have a one paragraph overview and than repeat it all again in the next three paragraphs and than repeat it all a third time in the body. We just repeat it twice, once in the lead and once in the body. Also do not add blocks of copyrighted text again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see, and so you think that the original and very badly written definition that begins with a particular example in that definition is better? Having following paragraphs support the definition is helpful not a hinderance. Afterall the introduction starts the article and all of that material is expanded on in the body of the article. If you think the other paras are redundant, please remove them. Stuffing podgora up front is not appropriate, as it is a specific example, so how about removing it? The date of the reference is immaterial as it is a complete definition. Better still how about if I refer to Britannica? Surely that would be better than the dross you support. Zedshort (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Was also just coming here to comment on that 1982 encyclopedia, McGraw-Hill Concice Encyclopedia of Science and Technology--this is a very old (per WP:MEDDATE) source and is a generalist tertiary source, it's a low-tier source and much better sources are available and in use in the article. This source should be avoided.
Zad6819:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Zedshort you have Wikipedia upside down. You write "the introduction starts the article and all of that material is expanded on in the body of the article". No. per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the body. Please don't introduce content or sourcing to the lead that is not already in the body. Please also note Zad's comments about your source, above. And please don't copy/paste from other sources, as you did from this source in the difs you are edit-warring over, especially not when there is nothing particularly sparkling or essential in the content. It doesn't get more pedestrian than Britannica. In my view, the current introduction is an apt summary of the body. Rather than continuing to edit war, please consider proposing changes here. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Inflammatory arthritis
this comes as a complete layman in medicine so I might be missing jargon or some other detail, but the inflammatory in inflammatory arthritis seems rather redundant considering the meaning of the -itis suffix. I cannot imagine a form of arthritis that is not inflammatory. Is this done to make it easier to read or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henkalv (talk • contribs) 11:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- The use is appropriate. See, for example, this page from the Arthritis Foundation. It's a distinction based primarily on the characteristics of the synovial fluid (see PMID 2198352). When there are fewer than 2000 leukocytes (white blood cells, WBC) per cubic mm and less than 75% of them are polymorphonuclear (PMN, which would include granulocytes), the fluid is considered non-inflammatory. The most common condition associated with non-inflammatory synovial fluid is osteoarthritis, which we now know is an inflammatory condition but not as inflammatory as rheumatoid arthritis, septic arthritis, or gout. Hope this helps clarify. — soupvector (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Rasburicase
Rasburicase is not a human protein and to my knowledge, bears no significant homology with any human protein. Therefore, it cannot trigger a 'autoimmune' response, merely an immune response leading to similar outcomes as the immunization to monoclonal antibodies from mice or rats used in the past. 80.12.33.4 (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)