Talk:Witch's milk

Vote to move

I'm voting to move this to neonatal milk and instead have Witch's milk redirect there. I believe the scientific term should take precidence. Objections? Please vote. Tyciol 19:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection, although the word is "precedence" ;-) When/if it gets moved, switch the order of the names in the article lead. Tomer^talk 05:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Conditionally Oppose until evidence is of "neo-natal" being correct is provided. The external link to the JAMA article uses the term "Witch's Milk" (albeit in scare quotes) and the other linked article uses other terms. AjaxSmack 08:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Galactorrhea, not enough for second article, keep redirects. Gene Nygaard 23:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of the term/condition Galactorrhea, I think it's a great idea to merge this into it, and redirect all different names to it. That helps bypass the controversy of what to name it entirely. Tyciol 01:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you don't really need an admin to merge, do you? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 20:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

it's not true that this only occurs with full-term babies, my son was born five weeks early and had this condition

Merged

Since there hasn't been any discussion on this since 2006, and especially no votes against merging, I have gone ahead and merged this article into Galactorrhea. I called the sub-section "Neonatal Milk", rather than "Witch's Milk" - the only opposition to this was a lack of evidence that "neonatal milk" was the correct term, but I've found this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1538139/ titled "Milk protein concentrations in neonatal milk (witch's milk)." which seems to suggest that the term is correct. Dracunculus (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fake!

I am sorry to say it but this babymilk-thing must be fake! Can anyone provide any scientific evidence for this phenomenon actually existing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.167.154.135 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Witches' milk#References *rolls eyes* ~九尾の氷狐~ ^{(「Sumimasen!」 「Dochira samaka?」)} 12:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Undoing merge with galactorrhea

Witch's milk is not a disease or anything that should prompt concerns hence I think it is a bad idea to have it as a subsection of a condition that is frequently indicative of serious conditions. Richiez (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Article title is weird

Shouldn't the title be "Neonatal Milk?" Folksy terms like "witch's milk" are typically mentioned as an aside so as not to overly validate them. In this case it’s a huge focus od the article for some reason I am possibly not aware of.

Don't get me wrong, I love the term, but it is quite bizarre. 2603:7081:1603:A300:BC83:BC4:8C21:63F1 (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JohnnyLi24, Vy Ton, Irenamurray, Eileemendoza, Jaysamson10 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nbdo, Jdoan22, HanDinh2026, Edere00.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2024, Group 2 Goals & Proposed Edits

Our goals for this article include:

-Improve the pathophysiology, neonatal milk’s characteristic, complication, and the medication caused sections

-Reorganize sections

-Add pictures

-Investigate risk factors contributing to development of witch’s milk

-Investigate whether newborns who are not breastfed develop witch’s milk

-Add more information regarding the folklore behind it JohnnyLi24 (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review from Group #1

Person A: Nhi Do

1. The group’s edits have substantially improved the article. The inclusion of more detailed medical explanations and cultural interpretations has enhanced the depth and breadth of the content. Additionally, the addition of references and citations improves the article's credibility and reliability. Nhi Do 7/29.
2. The group has achieved its overall goals for improvement. The article is now more detailed and better referenced, providing readers with a thorough understanding of the topic. The added information on cultural aspects and medical explanations fulfills the goal of making the article more comprehensive. Nhi Do 7/29.
3. A. The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. The information is presented objectively and covers multiple perspectives. The article does not favor any particular cultural belief or medical theory but rather provides a balanced view of the topic. The use of citations and references further supports the neutrality of the content, ensuring that the information is reliable and based on credible sources. Nhi Do 7/29.

Nbdo (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Person B: Elena Dere

1. Yes, the group's edits have substantially improved the article. The editors have incorporated material from newer sources, updating the information to reflect more recent research. These contributions have made the article easier to read and more comprehensive in informing people about Witch's milk.

2. According to their talk page goals, they have greatly improved this article. They added helpful information that was not previously on the page and edited pre-existing information to make it more accurate.

3. Their sources appear to be reliable as all the references are published peer-reviewed journal articles.

Edere00 (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Edere00

Person C: Josephine Doan

1. Yes, the group's edits have substantially improved the article as described per Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework." This is exemplified by the editors expanding more on the topic and including more references. They made the article easy to understand while still including a lot of helpful information.

2. Yes, the group has achieved their overall goals for improvement. Their article is well structured and they were able to find information to add to the the sections that were initially lacking.

3. Yes, the formatting is consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. All the headings and subheadings are properly formatted and divide the article in an easy and organized way for readers to understand. Every section is also supported by citations to reference where the information came from.

Jdoan22 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Jdoan22

Person D: Han Dinh

1. The group edit has substantially improved the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review "Guiding framework". They have summmarized information from the a variety of reliable sources. The authors also made the article more clear, easy to understand and informative.

2. The group has achieved their overall goals for improvement. Their article has included more information about the disease compare to the original article and the article also has a neutral tone.

3. The group edit has reflected language that support diversity, equity and inclusion. They have used non-bias and neutral phrases and words that are respectful and avoid stereotyping.