Talk:Colitis-X

Causes

The article states "the disease has been attributed to viruses, parasites, bacteria, use of antibiotics and sulfonamides and heavy metal poisoning." This statement needs a reliable source. Could it be a understanding of the Schiefer ref, which states "clinically, a number of differential diagnoses have to be considered, such as intestinal accidents, salmonellosis, heavy metal intoxication and occlusive verminous arteritis." (That is jargon for "these are not colitix X but on physical exam they look the same".) --Una Smith (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't put cites in the lead, and I restored the language to what the sources said, making the lead a consolidation of material cited elsewhere in the article. Merck is actually a bit oversimplified when compared to the journal abstracts I located. The term seems to be used both for the one form where they have narrowed down, though not pinpointed the cause, as well as the cases of unknown origin. it appears that the term is getting dated and falling out of favor, but the only sources I could find for that were blog comments, which, of course, we can't use here. I put the cites within the body of the article pretty close to the material from which they were derived, but reworded some of it to avoid copyvio, also, in the lead, I consolidated the statements made across multiple articles. Cleaning up the jargon works, in some cases I did have to phrase verbatim as I am not super good with medical jargon and absent access to a medical dictionary may have either repetitious or contradictory material. However for the issue of antibiotic triggers, the sources disagree, some seem to think it's a trigger due to the way antibiotics can kill beneficial gut flora, other sources seem to pooh-pooh that, so there probably best to note both arguments. Montanabw^(talk) 04:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I do put citations in the lede, in the form <ref name=Foo/>, with the full citation elsewhere in the article. It is important for DYK that the "hook" be in the lede, complete with citation. --Una Smith (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• You can put citations in the lead if you wish, or if editorial consensus supports it: it is not required, and is seldom done unless information is controversial or likely to be disputed. See WP:LEADCITE.
• DYK does not require that the hook be in the lead - i don't know what gave you that idea, but check out Wikipedia:Did you know. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I said important; I know it is not required. Medical articles often do put cites in the lede, the cause is a matter of discussion in the literature, and it has been my experience with DYK that editors who make up the queues like to work the hook and the cite into the lede. --Una Smith (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

My concern with the statement is primarily the heavy metal poisoning. One source says colitis X may be confused with heavy metal poisoning, but the article states colitis X may be caused by heavy metal poisoning. So it is important to have a reliable source for the caused by. --Una Smith (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the statement that Clostridium difficile is the more likely cause. The source for this is a case report of a single horse. C. difficile is part of the normal human gut flora. What does the source say about how they ruled out contamination of samples? Or about the incidence of C. difficile in healthy horses? --Una Smith (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Several sources say the pathology is pathognomic, meaning it gives a sure diagnosis. So, PMID 10572668 is important: Exposure of a group of horses to tetracycline-contaminated feed resulted in acute colitis and subsequent death in one horse and milder diarrhea in 3 others. The most severely affected animal demonstrated clinical and pathological findings typical of colitis X. --Una Smith (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Per with wikipedia MOS, you NEVER put citations in the lead. You don't need the citation for a DYK hook. The C. difficile is in more than one source, if I recall correctly, and it's cited. How about you just read the actual sources, all of which were peer-reviewed journals (two older, from the 80s, however) or the Merck manual, all reputable, verifiable and reliable. If you don't agree they were properly quoted, or you disagree with their findings, find better ones. I think you are edit-warring with me, and while I am trying VERY HARD to not take your involvement in this article personally, I believe you are targeting me personally due to our past history. You seem to do so every winter, and have done so for the past two years. I ask, most respectfully, that you back off of this article and if you think your concerns are legitimate, then find a fellow editor who does not have our "history" to look into this article. Montanabw^(talk) 02:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, i don't know what the history is here. Una has raised some useful points, but they can all be dealt with in the usual course of editing. I think some of the conflict here relates to the DYK nom. I have corrected Una on a couple of policies (see above); likewise, Montanabw, it is not true that the MOS says you never put cites in the lead - cites should be used in the lead for facts likely to be controversial or contested. I don't think that applies to this particular article, though I could be wrong. I have checked the article out and it is OK for DYK, and best using the ALT1 hook - you can see my comments there. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears Montanabw thinks I am trying to sabotage her. She has had that idea before. I thought we were working together, in a spirit of collaboration. I offered better DYK hooks including the one that was selected, and I spent a lot of time improving the article. At no point did I in any way endanger the DYK nomination. As for edit warring, the article history and this talk page speak for themselves. --Una Smith (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes, these incidents occur about once a year, usually around this time of year. Ask Lar and check the block logs. It always starts with a few useful edits, and then escalates into a round of tenditious editing on her part, insertion of OR and statements that on the surface sound reasonable, but in reality are merely disruptive and pointy, just as here where she makes comments like "I offered better DYK hooks" (No Una, your DYK hooks reflected your edits, they were not necessarily "better" they were just yours). So given the nature of our past history (I'll spare the laundry list for now because I DO NOT want to get into this), it is just very wise that we avoid one another, especially articles one of us has created. Anyone else want to edit and improve the article, great. And you will note the history from Una's first edit, about all any of this is about is the phrasing of the lead. I actually kept a lot of what she did. Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• @Una Smith - It does appear that you're being a bit tendentious here. You're making arguments without merit, and seem to be subtly baiting Montanabw. You need to stop, and now. UnitAnode 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)