Talk:Intravenous therapy

Intravenous therapy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 20, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intravenous therapy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Article policies

Archives: 1

WikiProject Medicine / Emergency medicine and EMS

(Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)

	Medicine portal v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (marked as High-importance).

This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

A fact from Intravenous therapy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 10 November 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in the early use of intravenous therapy, attempts were made to inject milk, sugar, honey, and egg yolk into a person's veins?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Intravenous therapy.

Wikiversity[edit]

Added this template:

hope thats ok

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

( Review or comment
Article history )

Modern intravenous therapy bags hanging from an IV pole

... that the first recorded attempt at providing intravenous therapy was an attempt to treat Pope Innocent VIII with IV injection of blood from healthy donors? Source: Millam D (January 1996). "The history of intravenous therapy". Journal of intravenous nursing : the official publication of the Intravenous Nurses Society. 19 (1): 5–14. PMID 8708844.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kommt ein Vogel geflogen
Comment: Not too attached to the hook or image, so willing to work on either.

Improved to Good Article status by Berchanhimez (talk). Self-nominated at 14:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New Enough: Y Long Enough: Y

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Y Neutral: Y Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Y

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Y Interesting: Y

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Y Used in article: Y Clear at 100px: Y

QPQ: Done.

Overall: epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Pope Innocent VIII[edit]

The claim from Intravenous therapy#History about the Pope Innocent VIII and the first intravenous therapy attempt is contradicted by Pope Innocent VIII#Death. Both claims are cited to reliable sources, but the other article has three (or four? It seems two might have been accidentally combined) to this article's one. I cannot access any of them besides the one that is online, but two (or three) of the other article's sources are journal articles specifically about this alleged incident, whereas this article's source seems to just be a broad overview of the history of intravenous therapy with presumably considerably less focus on the pope's story. Unless someone with actual access to the sources sees a reason to do otherwise, I think we should replace this claim to wording similar to the Pope Innocent VIII article. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I should clarify that I think the rest of the paragraph that goes into this dispute helps, but I still think our presentation is a little too weighted toward presenting it as a fact if indeed it's been as thoroughly debunked as the existence of multiple journal articles specifically about its falsehood seems to imply. But it could also be that the Pope Innocent VIII article is exaggerating the strength of its sources' claims. Access to them would be very helpful. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not have access to the two offline sources in the other article either. The one source that I can access in that article is not such that I am confident that it's not some "social warrior" trying to "rewrite history" to fit their worldview. I've made a reword to clarify that it may not have occurred and is disputed by some. I do not believe that it is contradictory in that it claims it's "recorded" - it is recorded that it happened, but that doesn't mean the record is correct. I will not remove the "contradictory" tag without your approval as I believe in the process, but I would like to have others weigh in if they are able before rewording as I feel it's clear as is, and any further rewording would over-emphasize what I personally (without being able to verify the other offline sources at this time) feel is potentially a biased/COI view present in these other sources. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I think I was a little overzealous with that tag, I've reverted it myself. Your edit fixed what I considered the most problematic sentence, and at this point I think it's just a matter of hopefully being able to improve it with better access to the sources in the future. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't at all trying to push you to do so but I thank you for your response here. I welcome others opinions as well, and if anyone can access sources (be it those listed in the Pope's article or others) that support edits one way or another I'm more than happy for someone to add/make edits to it. I think it is important to say it's disputed, but also I personally don't feel it's disputed enough to flat out call them false at this time. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Anh Duc Wiki -3

Tuesday, November 17, 2020