Talk:Witch's milk

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal 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.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Witch's_milk was copied or moved into Galactorrhea with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Well, you don't really need an admin to merge, do you? ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 20:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]