Talk:Calcium/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Travertine Formations

In one of the pictures the caption is "Travertine terraces Pamukkale, Turkey", which i think could be changed to "Travertine terraces near Pamukkale, Turkey" or "in Pamukkale, Turkey." Am I right? 173.79.68.101 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC) An IP you dont need to care about :D

Sources of calcium

I have just read on a website that tinned fish and tofu are good sources of calcium. When I can locate the web-based reference for this, I may add it to the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This only true for calcium set tofu see: [1] [2] --Stone (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If "tinned fish" are sardines to be eaten with bones, Ca is much higher. As opposed to say kippered herring filet. SBHarris 19:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

calcium

why calcium ion require low pH of human body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.42.67.95 (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hw do you know it does? Rephrase or restate your question. Start with your assumption. SBHarris 19:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 December 2012

This is very misleading and worded grossly improperly:

"In July 2006, a report citing research from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington claimed that women in their 50s gained 5 pounds (2.3 kg) less in a period of 10 years by taking more than 500 mg of calcium supplements than those who did not. However, the doctor in charge of the study, Dr. Alejandro J. Gonzalez also noted it would be "going out on a limb" to suggest calcium supplements as a weight-limiting aid.[43]"

They did not lose weight BY taking calcium pills ... rather there was a correlation between those taking calcium pills and those who lost weight. IN FACT, it is not known if taking calcium pills has any effect on weight loss, since CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION!

173.76.251.128 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is problematic. As a single study with ambiguous conclusions, the content is not relevant anyway, so I have simply removed it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Calcium cyclamate

"Calcium cyclamate (Ca(C6H11NHSO3)2) was used as a sweetening agent but is no longer permitted for use because of suspected cancer-causing properties."

The above statement represent purely US-centric point of view. Cyclamate salts (including calcium one) are legitimate sweeteners in many parts of the world, e.g. in EU.

Thanks! In the cyylamte it was right. --Stone (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see such prompt response and adjustments to the text. Regards, AW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.19.40.231 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 June 2013

There is a number of known calcium isotopes exceeding 48 nucleons. Known today are isotopes until Ca56 with half life and decay products (see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0994 ). Could these be included into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.222.216 (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

see main article Isotopes of calcium--Fjalnes (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Since I can't edit this myself (and I'm not sure who to ask when it's protected), I wanted to post this here. I've worked for a vitamin/supplement company for almost 8 years and I can tell you that part of that section in this article is quite wrong: "However, supplement labels will usually indicate how much calcium is present in each serving, not how much calcium carbonate is present." Some companies list the elemental Calcium while others list the complex (eg. they list X mg of Calcium Carbonate, but don't specify how much elemental). The way they differentiate that is when they say "Calcium ___ Calcium Carbonate"... the blank will either be "as" or "from." If it's "from," then it is the elemental, but if it's "as," it's the complex. I'm sorry, I don't have a citation at this moment, but I'm sure I can find one... it's the general guidelines within the industry as to the FDA's guidelines on labeling laws.

While I doubt anyone would go to this article to find this information in their initial searching, it is an important difference where some people take the 1,000 mg "as" Calcium Carbonate and deceive themselves into thinking that's all they need for the day and take no more sources of it (which is even worse if they are taking it because they are Calcium deficient). Can someone correct that statement under the "Dietary Supplements" section to give the correct information?Burleigh2 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

 DoneThis was unsourced in any case, so I have removed it for now. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Osteoperosis

I'm removing this content (the "Osteoperosis" section) from the article for discussion here. The topic of calcium supplementation and osteoperosis does not appear to have coverage in good secondary sources, so I worry this content is at the wrong level.

Such studies often do not test calcium alone, but rather combinations of calcium and vitamin D. Randomized controlled trials found both positive and negative effects. The different results may be explained by doses of calcium and underlying rates of calcium supplementation in the control groups. A 5-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in elderly women found that, due to poor long-term compliance, supplementation was not effective in preventing clinical fractures in the studied elderly population, but it was effective in those patients who were compliant.

References

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• This is a pretty good overall review-- the latest i can find. It should support a paragraph which is approximately that of the review conclusion itself. [3]. SBHarris 06:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Super! I found another for child health too - will add. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi me again. I promise I'll be on holiday soon. :-) I contributed that 5-year double-blind from AIM before I understood your opposition to "primary" sources, if I even understood that this term applied here. I think this especially is an area that will attract lay readers who will add turds if they find it lacking in content. Pretty sure it was the question of taking a calcium supplement for bone health that first brought me to your neck of the woods. :-) Best wishes finding better sources. Ajobin (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's non my opposition to primary sources, it the settled consensus of the community. But yes, it's counter-intuitive for editors from other fields suddenly to find out that peer-reviewed content in prestigious journals isn't necessarily considered reliable - but that's the nature of scientific publishing & investigation. I hope you can contribute to other health-related topic, as you're right there are many improvements that can be made across Wikipedia! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Supplementation & Cancer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Discussion of this content.

Any content added to this article on this topic should be sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. We shouldn't be quoting primary research, particularly to complicate what is found in a strong secondary source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

* That policy does not say that articles should ONLY contain secondary sources. You are removing ALL mention of certain areas of research. Why remove all reference to the subjects? Simply because there are no secondary sources for it?

* Those were credible scientific journals and the *person* who contributed them obviously worked hard to provide a succint summary. They are not worth any mention at all? If you disagree about the importance of that research or the strength of its outcomes, then say *that*. If you think it deserves fewer words in the article, then why not provide a briefer summary. If the other person's summary was good (which it was!) but just not important enough to take so much emphasis, then move the other person's summaries to the comments. What purpose does it serve to remove all mention of that research?

* You are wholesale removing the work of others who provided good summaries of recent research and credible citations. This is not more scientific, nor is it more balanced. It is just pure censorship.

* I am a supportor and donor to Wikipedia, but I am very tired of the way Wikipedia has worded this policy to encourage this behaviour of censoring rather than improving. I don't have time to argue with you about Wikipedia policies or to figure out how to use appeals processes. But you are turning people away from Wikipedia as a community. This practice of wholesale removing well written summaries and credible, relevant, and informative citations makes it so that people are afraid to contribute to Wikipedia. People like you make people like me want to find other projects to support instead. This is not the model by which you improve the scientific literacy and engagement of people who contribute here. It is just turns them away. Think twice about whether you really think what you are doing is in the best interests of this community. Ajobin (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Instead, I think we should simply follow our policies. Obviously, contributing to MEDRS-related content on Wikipedia requires a great deal of competency that can be intimidating for newcomers. It would be helpful to have guidelines and essays to augment MEDRS for newcomers, perhaps like those for WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That policy does not say that secondary sources are not allowed. Those were credible scientific journals. The summary was succint, but perhaps it deserved fewer words or a different characterization. What purpose does it serve to remove all mention of that research? Why isn't it worth mentioning that this is an area of active research?? Ajobin (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you just assuming that the contributor was a newbie or do you know who contributed that summary which was removed? Ajobin (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS has, in bold, "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content". There are a few very rare exceptional circumstances where a primary source makes sense; this isn't one of them. If research is significant we can find it mentioned in good secondary sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(1) Why remove all mention of this as an area of research? Would it not be more constructive to remove the specific findings from primary sources but still mention that (weak) research has been done on XYZ subjects?

(2) One of the findings you removed was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. It was from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 36,282 postmenopausal women from 40 Women's Health Initiative centers. The paper had over a dozen authors. Not exactly a typical "primary source" situation. Publication in the New England Journal of Medicine is not a good enough arbiter of study quality? Rather than remove this information, would it not be more constructive to tag it as needing a better citation (from a secondary source)? Ajobin (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of where they were published, or how many authors, primary sources should not be used except in select circumstances, which I don't see here. Important areas of research may be mentioned under Research directions, when they are covered by independent secondary reviews. We don't publish original thought.

For the person asking for a further explanation on MEDRS, this page may help: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your reply. I feel like I am talking to a brick wall otherwise. I was not the original contributor of those summaries. I contributed some other information to this article, which has not been removed, but I guess should be if we want to be consistent. It was in my watchlist after that. My main motivation here is this: it is not constructive to wholly remove the work of others and censor entire topics. It is better to mention things with due weight, not remove them wholly. If we are going to remove things, let's be consistent. There are other primary source references from the New England Journal of Medicine in this article which were not removed. And many others from lesser journals. Shall we remove those also? Nevermind that much of the article's informative content will be gone if we follow this standard? If this is the standard that we are following, then we should do so consistently and not enforce MEDRS so selectively.

I am not suggesting we publish original thought. Why can't we just say that such and such are areas being studied (preserving references until better ones are found) and say that the research is not conclusive? Why isn't that a better thing to do? I think it is for several reasons (1) The reader will know this is an area of research. (2) We build upon the work of other editors rather than just removing it, which is better for community, and the editor can better learn from this what level of detail is acceptable, rather than finding his topic wholly censored. (3) Furture editors will see that this topic has been addressed at an appropriate level of detail, rather than coming along to make the same mistake. Ajobin (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want to change the policies and guidelines, this page is not the place to try it. They're being correctly applied here (i.e. in the case of this contested edit). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with MEDRS. I have a problem with: (1) Your entirely removing certain subjects (and another editor's work) rather than constructively editing it down to give due weight to this area of research and the (inconclusive) findings in it. (2) Your selective implementation of MEDRS in this article. If you insist that this article have no primary sources (even randomized controlled trial published in journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine), then we should do so consistently. We will need to remove a lot of information from this article. Is that what we should do? Ajobin (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me you need to raise it in another forum. Please keep this page's discussion focused on content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Another straw man, instead of responding to my points. I do NOT have a problem with *you*. I have a problem with your selective enforcement of MEDRS *here*. I have not looked at your work elsewhere on WP. I also think that wholly removing another editor's work and topics in this article is not constructive for the article or for the spirit of collaborative editing. Ajobin (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)#

What you call my "selective enforcement" is effectively an accusation of impropriety, and makes no contribution of value here; if you want to pursue that line take it elsewhere. FYI, as I remember, I came to this article entirely focused on the cancer aspect, and my edits will have watchlisted it for me. I then react to edits that appear on my watchlist. It's entirely appropriate to delete other editors' comments contributions if they are crap & degrade the encyclopedia. Since competence is required at some point people wishing to edit here need to make some effort to understand the WP:PAGs that apply, and that includes WP:AGF, which you are obviously struggling with. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow are you determined to make this personal & hostile? What point are you making by citing me CIR? Exactly how have I not AGF here? In truth, I have *no* doubts that your intention is to improve the article. I just think some of your edits are overly destructive. To take another example, your recent edits on Bone Health are sure to inspire new edits to add what people perceive as missing information. Ajobin (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ajobin, please have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; it isn't always feasible (timewise) for an editor to go back and fix everything in any given article. Often, the best we can do with limited volunteer time is fix what we see when we see it, and hopefully use that as a means of bringing other editors up to speed on policies and guidelines. I would personally kill on sight all poorly sourced text, exactly as we do for BLPS, but current policy on Wikipedia doesn't allow for that, which means someone has to take the time to painstakingly go back and rewrite the article from correct sources, which can take weeks to months. But the prior existence of anything that doesn't conform with policy or guideline doesn't mean we should add to it with new edits. (I haven't checked all the other NEJM sources you reference, but remember that some of them might in fact be secondary sources ... it is timeconsuming to check them all, but I linked you above to further info on that topic ... perhaps you are willing to undertake that work). I have moved your RFC template to the top of the section, and it need not be signed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - (summoned by the bot) - Is there a specific edit this debate circles around? Can someone provide a diff? If not, what exactly are we debating? NickCT (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for you input. And thanks to Sandy too. The edit I am getting at is here. To be really honest, after reading MEDRS and also hearing the reasoning behind deleting rather than revising down, I do not think this is a huge deal. I did look at those studies and would agree that their conclusions are not as strong or definitive as the original text (however nicely written) made it out to be. Probably the original contributor just did not understand the need for 2nd parties to evaluate any flaws in the study design. I do still think that removing the New England Journal of Medicine citation is a loss versus putting it a better perspective (stating that the findings are not conclusive). The main thing that I think though is that this haphazard enforcement of a policy is wasting the good will of editors who are not familiar with MEDRS. Wikipedia is allowing people to write such well written detailed edits with the intent to improve the article in total ignorance that this (a) does not fit a policy (because said policy is inconsistently enforced even in the same article) (b) that the policy can be selectively enforced. It wouldn't be so bad for the community if editors were willing to refactor the previous work, but they find it easier to delete. Personally, I wanted to see what kind of response this gets and what the general feeling was about this arbitrary MEDRS policing that I am observing across Wikipedia. This leads to bias when certain POV & subjects are subjected to MEDRS and others in the same article are not. In the case of this article, I have to admit is it is not a significant bias. My feeling is there needs to be a change in policy -- not MEDRS, but the consistent enforcement of it & notification about it. If you have any thoughts about that more generally feel free to comment on my talk page. Ajobin (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, again, Ajobin. I appreciate the feedback but, in this case, you are "preaching to the choir"!! You are advocating for the same thing that I have long advocated -- that we need a consistent policy, similar to what we have for WP:BLPs (Biographies of Living People). The BLP policy originated because protection of living people is so important that editors are able to "shoot on sight" any text anywhere on Wikipedia about a living person that is poorly sourced or unsourced. I have always argued we should be able to do some for medical information, since peoples' lives and health can be affected by that content. I also believe that, in the health area, no information is better than potentially bad information, so I would remove everything that is poorly or unsourced, exactly as we are at liberty to do for BLPs. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer -- a community-wide discussion -- the proposal to prominently link to MEDRS and add a disclaimer on articles did not prevail. Further, there is currently no practical way for a few volunteer editors to go back and clean up all the seriously bad medical content thoughout Wikipedia. We have no BLP-like policy, and we have no disclaimer, and to clean up the bad content on every article is a painstaking and time consuming process. We can only hope that discussions like this one will help bring new editors up to speed, and that they will help in rewriting the significant amounts of really poor medical content that is everywhere on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That proposal looks like a good idea. I liked the modified A or B the best. More to the point in this debate, I also agreed wtih Alexbrn comment on that proposal about having a warning before editing. In fact, the only problem I see with saying "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" is that it will inspire more people to do so. In absence of a strong warning at the time of editing about MEDRS in language comprehensible to lay people, it will lead to 'crap' edits as Alex calls them. Personally, before reading and rereading MEDRS, I would not have thought a peer-reviewed, randomized, double-blind trial with multiple authors from different centers was an unreliable primary source before reading that. And when I already see such studies being used in the same article, I would (and did!) think it was fine to add others. It is really discouraging for editors to work in good faith on something, only to see it removed entirely. So I think we should avoid encouraging more people into this situation, so long as it exists.

Based on your and Alexbrns complaints about the reformats I made, and the lack of any positive comments, I restored it to as it had been. I just wanted to make it more scannable for new readers. I'm sorry it was less readable for you. Ajobin (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Proposition & Support New Wording - @Ajobin and SandyGeorgia: - After looking at the edit I think I'd support the new, MEDRS-compliant wording mainly for two reasons. 1) The original version looked technical to the point of appearing to be an academic journal. Wikipedia is not an academic journal. 2) I don't think the cancer subsection provides anything to a reader to begin with. Frankly I'd be for deleting it all together. If the best opinion we can find says Ca supplementation may or may not affect likelihood of cancer, why mention it? I'm sure Ca supplementation may or may not affect one's chance of alien abduction. Does a reader really benefit by knowing that? Failing deleting the section, I'd suggest it be kept as short and simple as possible. Since the MEDRS compliant version is shorter and simpler, I support it. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! The thing is calcium supplementation is not like alien abduction. This is an active area of scientific investigation for a reason, and alien's abudcting you for your bones :-) is not. When people who are interested in this come to the article, and see nothing, they want to add what they have found. The fact that somebody already did is proof of this. IMO it is better to say *something* brief about it. It (1) is an area of scientific research, (2) shows more respect for the work of others (3) deters s/o else from adding the same kind of information.

I didn't think the original was too technical. As a lay person, it was exactly the kind of thing I would want to know if I wanted some general information about the benefits etc of calcium supplements. But it was not well-founded/sourced, so something else should be said.

Sandy, I will take a look at the failed project. My intuition is that this failed because people do not trust the agenda of the people who want to control these articles. If they were less biased (ie, more consistent) in what they select for attack (and I am not so much talking about this example), it might succeed. Biography is more general interest. Science requires more education to interpret well. This sets up a concerns of elitism and the systemic biases that go with that. Especially when we see that already happening; many of the MEDRS police are strikingly unwilling to take a collaborative approach or explain themselves to we less qualified mortals. Ajobin (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Since cancer is many diseases, not one, you need reviews for each type. Calcium has done best in the prospective epidemiological study of colon cancer, and I'm especially impressed with a significant positive dose response, which is as good as you get without prospective *randomized* trials. So in my mind, it's worth mentioning with that caveat.[4]. I have no problem putting in the NEJM study as our single biggest and longest randomized study, [5], but it was 7 years and needs replication. Right now the best epidemiology says yes, but the largest randomized study says no. SBHarris 21:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I hope it invites some educated responses. My two cents is that the citation from the New England Journal of Medicine that was here worthy of inclusion, but I will defer to the experts on this.

Ajobin (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't be amateur dealers in primary research, especially when scholarly reviews are available ( e.g. PMID 25386054 ) that give a professional assessment of that very same study. Wikipedia is a tertiary-level publication digesting accepted knowledge as found in good secondary sources, not an ersatz secondary publication attempting to sift and present primary material. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I will defer to your and other commenters' judgements on that NEJM citation.

In the meantime, another editor has recently addeed a strong citation to a very thorough review written for a lay audience by the NIH summarizing their findings on the issue of cancer and calcium supplementation. With this citation, the topic is better covered. An empty section invites people to 'improve' it -- seeing no evidence of previous work. With the current version, they can at least see that the topic has been addressed and that there are other editors on the topic preceding them. The current wording is strong enough to deter the casual editor from seeing an empty topic and unknowingly wasting effort adding weak information. Ajobin (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is okay with me if this RFC is closed in a few days. I will in any case MIA for the holidays. NickCT agreed with Alexbrn to keep all his changes. Sbharris seems to mildly agree with me that it may be worth mentioning the NEJM reference, with reservations. A better source has been added. If the other commenters are satisfied with current version, then so am I. Thank you again to everyone for their helpful responses.Ajobin (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Calcium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150823101215/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

various problems

Notable characteristics - "...rapidly forms a grey-white coating of calcium oxide and calcium nitride for reacting with..." should be "...by reacting with...". "Part of the reason for the slowness of the calcium-water reaction is a result of the metal being partly protected..." - "a result of" should be deleted. H and K lines - "Measurement of periodic variations of these active regions..." should presumably be "...from these active regions..." or "...caused by these active regions...". Isotopes - "In supernova explosions, calcium is formed from the reaction of carbon with various numbers of alpha particles..." - Much (probably most) of the calcium is formed before the supernova occurs; the supernova spreads some of it into space. "...by the repeated reaction of carbon with alpha particles..." is clearer. Isotope fractionation - typo - "...conventionally are expressed AS the ratio...". History - "Significant statues made from lime plaster date back into the 7 millenia BC were found in 'Ain Ghazal." - Suggest "...dating back to around 7...". Calcium compounds - Calcium carbonate - should presumably be "...as mineral specimens AND in toothpastes...". Calcium hydroxide - suggest "bubbling" instead of "being bubbled". Calcium sulfate - "...as well as, in its hemihydrate form better known as Plaster of Paris." - Suggest "...and, in its hemihydrate form, as Plaster of Paris.". Dietary supplements - typo - "Also different kindS of juices...". Bone health - typo - "...in either men or women." (not nor). Hazards and toxicity - typo - "High calcium intake..." (delete s). 69.72.92.221 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Calcium signalling

I recommend expanding the brief mention in the article of the role of intra-cytoplasmic calcium ions in cell-signaling, maybe adding a list of cellular processes in which calcium signalling is important, such as muscle contraction and sperm-egg fusion. Also mention the sarcoplasmic reticulum, where Ca2+ ions are stored.

Also, a brief mention of calcium-sensitive fluorescent dyes (invented by Roger Tsien might be appropriate somewhere in the article.

HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Per WP:MEDRS, I would be grateful if someone could kindly trim from this semi-protected page some inappropriate content, which is sourced to two primary studies and currently concludes the Hazards and toxicity section:

Excessive (≥1400 mg/day) calcium supplementation can be detrimental to cardiovascular health, in women, according to a study. Excessive (≥1000 mg/day) calcium supplementation can be detrimental to cardiovascular health, in men, but not in women, according to another study.

(This sort of content is not helpful to our general readership.)

Thank you, 86.190.99.59 (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC) - no COI

might you have any particular review/meta-analysis in mind?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This section has been updated with a new reference by Jrfw51. Marking as answered. Mamyles (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you, 109.158.15.138 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Geochemical cycling

Can we please talk about how the entire "Geochemical Cycling" section is torn directly from http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150845/ without even a reference, and that that article itself is apparently torn verbatim from elsewhere? (Google the first sentence or two and several Google Books links appear.) I've created a separate page for the calcium cycle on my personal page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daemon328/Draft_of_Calcium_Cycle) but would appreciate feedback and additional sources before I publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemon328 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Calcium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519141702/http://iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D/Vitamin%20D%20and%20Calcium%202010%20Report%20Brief.pdf to http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D/Vitamin%20D%20and%20Calcium%202010%20Report%20Brief.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703153023/http://www.rxalternativemedicine.com:80/headlines_news.php to http://www.rxalternativemedicine.com/headlines_news.php#headline77
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831105237/http://www.mtwilson.edu/hk/ to http://www.mtwilson.edu/hk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007105207/http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/healthydiet/nutritionessentials/vitaminsandminerals/calcium/ to http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/healthydiet/nutritionessentials/vitaminsandminerals/calcium/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Some reorganisation of Physiology and Nutrition and Cell Physiology sections

These two sections, which I've placed to be side-by-side, now, have some evident similarity and possible overlap. Perhaps a knowledgable editor can weigh in and address this so that the content is better organised? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yah not sure. Those are not really "uses".

Foods are "sources of calcium" rather than uses of calcium.

So adjusted that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Have split off much of the health care stuff to keep this article more balanced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Calcium for stroke patients

A couple weeks ago I added the sentence, "However, it has been found that the taking of calcium supplements by people with a history of stroke or with white matter lesions greatly increased their chances of developing dementia." This was promptly deleted by user Alexbrn with the comment, '(Reverted to revision 736538815 by Donnowin1 (talk): Rv unreliable, need WP:MEDRS - besides: "we cannot assume that calcium supplements cause dementia".'

I would like an explanation why he considers Neurology to be an unreliable source. Deleting this information puts people at increased risk of dementia.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

E - Its not the journal, its the nature of the evidence. Wikipedia strongly prefers meta-analyses and systemic reviews to individual studies, especially an observational one of the nature you cited. Here is an intervention trial that reported no benefit or harm. [Rossom RC, Espeland MA, Manson JE, Dysken MW, Johnson KC, Lane DS, LeBlanc ES, Lederle FA, Masaki KH, Margolis KL. Calcium and vitamin D supplementation and cognitive impairment in the women's health initiative. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012 Dec;60(12):2197-205.] Although larger and placebo controlled, this article is also not sufficient evidence to cite in the Wikipedia entry.David notMD (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I took out the dementia risk content. Jurgen is a small study and it was not a RCT. Instead, it tracked subjects who chose to take a calcium supplement to those who did not. The New Scientist ref was just a description of the Jurgen study. More credence can be given to Rosson 2012: over 4000 subjects, half getting 1000 mg calcium, tracked an average of 7.8 years, no significant difference in the development of dementia. Until there are more studies, which lead to a systemic review or meta-analysis, not appropriate for Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Calcium-48 half-live inconsistent

The isotope Calcium-48 has a dedicated article as it is one of the most important isotopes studied for double-beta-decay. In this article, the half-life ist given as $6.4\cdot 10^{19}$ years from a recent reference (2016), while the older reference listed in the short and long isotope table here gives a half-life of $4.3\cdot 10^{19}$ years. Should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C80:40:480:129A:DDFF:FE59:5287 (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Calcium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Parcly Taxel (talk · contribs) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Well that rewrite was unexpected… Parcly Taxel 14:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Problems found and corrected

• Some of the references don't use templates; I've gone ahead and converted them.
• Nevertheless, there are significant differences in chemical and physical properties between beryllium and magnesium (which behave like post-transition metals, especially aluminium and zinc respectively) and the group members from calcium onwards, and thus the "alkaline earth metal" for the group 2 metals was traditionally only applied to calcium and its heavier congeners. Some redundancy here, and of course there is the debate on whether zinc is a PTM.
• ⁴⁰Ca, ⁴²Ca, ⁴³Ca, and ⁴⁴Ca are predominantly built up in the oxygen-burning and silicon-burning processes; however, ⁴⁶Ca and ⁴⁸Ca are too neutron-rich to be so produced and must be produced via neutron-capturing processes. ⁴⁶Ca is mostly produced in a "hot" s-process, as its formation requires a rather high neutron flux to allow short-lived ⁴⁵Ca to capture a neutron). ⁴⁸Ca is produced in the r-process: in type Ia supernovae of progenitors stars whose masses are near the Chandrasekhar limit, electron capture after ignition results in high neutron excess, as well as a low enough entropy that the ⁴⁸Ca produced mostly survives. No need to mention so many individual isotopes!
• Lime as building material was used since prehistoric times going as far back as 7000 to 14000 BC. I thought "prehistoric" meant "100,000 BP"…

Parcly Taxel 04:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

References are useless. MANY are to Greenwood or to Ullmann and there are no links to those documents. For Ullmann, there is not even a complete reference. The biology section could be much better, even if there is a link to Calcium in Biology. David notMD (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Why should there be links to them, since they are offline? Print books still exist! (Even if I gave a Google Books link you wouldn't be able to verify all of it anyway, as it would get hidden fairly quickly for copyright reasons.) ^_^ It's not meant to be a detailed biological exposé, anyway: Ca the element is useful in chemistry, geology, physics, and many other more mundane explanations, so I mostly took Ullmann as a source for the biological aspects since it covers the main uses in some detail, and summarised it. You are free to suggest specific additions. Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

For Ullmann, there is no reference information anywhere. Ref numbers 9, 11, 40, 46 and 47 just have "Ullmann" and a page number. David notMD (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It's Hluchan and Pomerantz, a chapter from Ullmann's encyclopaedia. I tend to mentally refer to it as "Ullmann" anyway, especially since the template is called that too, but I'll edit the refs in the article to clarify this. Double sharp (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Weak, weak, weak!

Compared to other minerals that are also essential nutrients, this entire entry is muddled. Most of the others have extensive content on the mineral, a short description of biology, and a link to a ____ in biology entry. There is a "Calcium in biology" entry in Wikipedia, but it is very short. Some of the content here could be moved (with an appropriate link), much as was done for calcium supplements.David notMD (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we know: that's why it's assessed as C-class. (Although maybe it should be Start-class). Most of the articles about really important elements either have this sort of problem of rambling and never saying anything substantial (which means nobody's got to them yet), or they're very good (in which case somebody has). I've been spamming my way through important elements (I got N, Na, Cl, Fe, Ga, Br, Sr, In, I, La, and Ce done last year), but I'm just one person and I can't possibly do everything myself. Mg and Ca are next on my to-do list, though. Au has this sort of problem too, but doing it terrifies me completely. Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been trying to tighten up the vitamins, but also the biological aspects of minerals that are essential nutrients: Mg, Zn, Cu, Se, I. Probably will not attempt to write/revise Ca, K, P or Na.David notMD (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be great to improve this article. Like Double sharp says, element articles are often rambling accretions of factoids. Many such factoids tend to be health related, and many factoids are added by hobbyists lacking perspective. Larger applications apps are often under-emphasized, as plaster and concrete industries are massive. In terms of biology, the descriptions can be awkward because what a biologist means by "calcium" is vague, but maybe unimportant. I support moving most dietary and heath related content to specialized articles, allowing the article to be about the element and its main compounds.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

My March 18 changes trying to clean up duplication of refs and obsolete refs; added bit on tox. Still thinking that A BOLD change would be to merge the "Calcium Supplements" topic that was established a while back into "Calcium in Biology" and then move even more from "Calcium" over to that.David notMD (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Move it!--Smokefoot (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: I hope my recent rewrite of the Ca entry addresses your concerns! I'll try to get to Mg later. Double sharp (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added Dietary recommendations to Calcium in biology. David notMD (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

To add an external link Waqasatb (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If you wish to add an external link, paste the link here, someone will add it for you, it it was in compliance with WP:EL. When you have the link, re-open the request by changing the |answered=yes parameter to no. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In good faith?

@Double sharp: My objective with these several edits was to improve the accessibility/readability of technical material in Wp for the lay reader. (Technical report writing, with emphasis on readability by non-tech readers, has taken much of my professional engineering/science career of 30+ years.) If, by your lights, I didn’t make my objective, I regret it.

BTW, other than capitalizing ‘Group 2’---for which, with respect to lay readers, there is reasonable argument---I did not aim to change technical content. So, if you found stuff wrong, then it was wrong---or its meaning lost in awkward wording---before my edits.

Double sharp, if your objective was to be offensive, and to foist arrogance and dismissive disrespect upon another Wp editor, then you succeeded admirably. ///Jbeans (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Jbeans, you might be reading too much into terse edit notes. These pages are busy, editors are monitoring hundreds or thousands of articles, and most edits are rejected. Upshot: edit notes can sound harsher than intended. The goal here is to improve content, period. So thanks for helping out and keep it up. If you think that there is a global problem with an article, leave a note on the Talk page.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jbeans: Yes, I didn't mean to be as harsh as I came off, and I apologise for it. I did not have time to edit it as I would have liked when I did this and thought it might be better to revert to the older version until I could do so, as it was correct (if poorly worded at times, such as when describing Ca's melting and boiling points in group 2); I am aware that this does not excuse my wording. Thank you for your copyedit, which contained a lot of good changes; I will try to incorporate these when I have time as soon as possible. Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have begun to go through Jbeans' copyedit and improve it by taking his text as the basis and comparing it with the previous one to make sure the meaning remains the same. I am unfortunately short of time again this week, so I will probably be able to tackle only one or perhaps two sections at a time. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jbeans and Smokefoot: I have reinstated the portions of Jbeans' copyedit on the biological part of the article, and have edited them slightly for the other parts. Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking such care with this article. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"Calium" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Calium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Kalcium" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kalcium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

Calcium carbonate is a chemical compound with the formula CaCO3. It is a common substance found in rocks as the minerals calcite and aragonite (most notably as limestone, which is a type of sedimentary rock consisting mainly of calcite) and is the main component of pearls and the shells of marine organisms, snails, and eggs. Calcium carbonate is the active ingredient in agricultural lime and is created when calcium ions in hard water react with carbonate ions to create limescale. It is medicinally used as a calcium supplement or as an antacid, but excessive consumption can be hazardous and cause poor digestion. 71.169.165.216 (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The format for proposing a change in the article is to state "a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y" and to provide a WP:MEDREV source. --Zefr (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML)

Christian75 Calcium, as calcium (section 27), calcium folinate (section 8), and calcium gluconate (sections 4 and 27), appear in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML). It seems appropriate to add the WHO EML discussion and related category to the article. The supplement categories seem appropriate too. Please let me know your thoughts. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The Uses, Food sources, and Biological and pathological role sections discuss calcium in food and as a supplement. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The Biological section says Ca²⁺, calcium compounds and calcium ions i.e. not calcium (alone). But you are right, calcium is on the list as "calcium (elemental)" (I'm a little supprised...:-). (calcium folinate and calcium gluconate are calcium ions). Christian75 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request 6 January 2021

Monovalent calcium has been isolated and observed in the form of 2D crystals of CaCl: https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa274 The discussion of the valence of calcium should be updated accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:8100:3600:5907:345B:AD7D:A003 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)