Jump to content

Talk:Methylene blue/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Use in pads for wound healing

Methylene blue is in dry pads that just before use are soaked with normal saline, applied to a wound area that is resistant to healing it limits bacterial growth while allowing the moist area to heal. Diabetic sores on or near feet in particular. These pads by Rx only — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.22.214 (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

discontinuation of urised

"methanamime" and "methenamine" are not the same, the former is meh590

the latter is hexamethylenetetramine and is a constituent of Prosed DS. News flash: methylamine (MeNH2) is a corrosive gas at STP so it's unlikely to have been included as an API to say the least. While either could be used to make methamphetamine (but not quite in the same way... ), and methylamine is certainly regulated, it seems highly unlikely that urised was taken off the market simply b/c it contains hexamethylentretramine. Unless you've got citations to back this up, then that assertion doesn't belong in the article. PS see the bottom of the linked page, methenamine hippurate does not have a DEA schedule if this information is accurate (it's a .gov address) http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=cc299e8a-cf9a-4dc6-b6e6-972141e59296

Hell, unless methylene blue (the subject of this article) itself was the reason Prosed was taken off the market, then the section on urised/Prosed doesn't add much value here anyway.71.202.140.109 (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Source of It

I wish that I could help with this, but not being a chemist, chemical engineer, or chemical technician, I don't have the information at hand. This article says a). nothing about where methylene blue comes from, or how it is made if it is manufactured; b). nothing about whether methylene blue is a naturally-occuring substance, or whether it is a completely synthetic chemical compound; and further c). It says that methylene blue was "identified" by Paul Ehrlich in 1891, but that says precious little. Had it existed for a long time before, and Ehrlich finally realized what it was and gave it its name? Or had Ehrlich just recently synthesized it in 1890 or 1891, and then figured out what it was?
Frequently, I find it necessary to direct people's attention to the basics of a subject, rather than arguing about the details of whether it turns your urine green or blue when you consume it.74.163.48.102 (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Presently it does state something on this in the History section - that it is the first fully synthetic drug. Thus its source is man-made, so that answers (a) and (b)
Whether it turns your urine yellow or green? LOL both.. depending on whether your urine would otherwise be yellow or clear. 129.78.233.211 (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Colour?

From the sources I've been checking out there seems to be a conflict of information on what colour methylthionine chloride actually is. Having never handled it myself, I can't be sure. From some sources, Wikipedia included, I see 'distinct blue' colour which fades with dropping oxygen levels (makes sense given the name) cake is good I also see consistent sources claiming it is dark green such as this one. Am I missing something obvious here? T-Dawg 14:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've recently used methylene blue in a concentration of 2g/lt and obtained a dark blue solution. However solid methylene blue crystals are dark green. Thus I believe that the answer to your question would be: methylene blue powder/crystals are green, but they yield a blue solution when dissolved in water. Hope this helps. Berserker79 15:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I too can confirm that at a concentration of 0.001% in distilled water, a methylene blue solution appears dark blue. Also, absorption maximum for methylene blue is 601nm, incase anyone doing some spectrophotometry needs to know (I don't know if this tidbit is important enough i like turtles

go in the actual article, so i'll put it here and let someone else decide). Ta! --mark

Methylene Blue

At what temperature and/or pressure will it take to oxidize methylene blue?

It's not a question of temperature or pressure - it depends on the chemical (redox) environment. An oxidant (like oxygen, or potassium permanganate) will oxidize it and turn it blue. A reductant (like 2-mercaptoethanol) will reduce it and turn it colorless. Why the question? Ignoramibus 05:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Pranks?

Why is there a prank listed in the article under uses? Firstly, it's topical, generally pointless/useless, and completely uncited content. Secondly, it's somewhat unsettling given the warning note under the medicine uses category. Not to mention that Methylene Blue is a WHMIS class D division 2 compound, and shouldn't be used as a prank on anyone at any volume regardless of it's purification. Whoever added this appears to condone potentially hazardous acts -- plz keep this sort of thing to your blog. Imho, it's really just disrespectful and stupid... even for Biochemist standards :P --mark

Well, I've got to agree with you about that "Pranks" section. I never went ahead to remove it because I thought it was just me who thought that stuff sounded stupid/dangerous (I tend to be a little overcautious with anything chemical...). As soon as I find some time I'll check that paragraph again and see if there's anything useful to save, then remove it. BTW, that info you mentioned about the methylene blue absorption sounds useful, you should add it to the article. Berserker79 07:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning this 'WARNING Methylene Blue is known to increase CNS leves ...'. I would like to know the references this is based on, because I have recently published about this and want to know if the Au of those comments has refs I am unaware of. It may well be a prescient warning. I shall be publishing more about this soon.Ken Gillman 23:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to have a paragraph about the prank, because if I hadn't read this just now and had blue urine one day, the first thing I would do is look it up on Wikipedia. Seriously. subasd 17:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a pranks sections but that is is comparable in length to the treatment section perhaps shows some problem with priorities or sense of proportion. --Gak 21:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep the pranks sections. The mere description of a behavior on Wikipedia is in no sense an endorsement of that activity. And the fact is, dosing unsuspecting colleagues with methylene blue (at relatively innocuous levels) has a long and dubious history among chemists and biochemists. Ignoramibus 03:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Although in preserving educational objectiveness, leaving the "pranks" section in is justifiable; but a special note of caution should be given to the potential side-effects and hazards of ingestion/ injections with methylene blue. Methylene blue is notorious for exacerbating poor renal function, even leading to renal failure. A hemolytic anemia is also a well-defined side-effect of methylene blue. Clear contraindications of methylene blue include renal insufficiency. Methylene blue is also known to cause dizziness, severe nausea and vomiting, cough, and very rarely reported encephalopathy. For a list of the contraindications and potential serious side effects of methylene blue, go to UpToDate and view drug information for methylene blue. I have added a table with the known adverse effects of methylene blue with references citations. Xopusmagnumx 22:26, 27 August 2007

The claim made in the pranks section is false. I'm in the process of an experiment upon myself with the goal of staining the sclera of my eyes blue (think Fremen) by ingesting methylene blue. As I didn't have the foresight to buy a box of empty pills, I started the experiment by drinking a solution. This is some nasty stuff. It tastes not unlike the quinine in tonic water. It would surely be noticed if it were present in any significant amount in a drink. For my metabolism I need about 60 mg for any color to appear in my urine. That amount ruins nearly any sized drink, and the most concentrated 60mg solution possible without burning one's throat is about two tablespoons. I know Wikipedia's policy on original research denies my viewpoint any authority, but I believe the claim made in the pranks section is patently false. (p.s. see also the comments 71.165.9.14 made on this talk page) RW 06:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking back in the edit history I found a source for the claim. ([1]) "Put a couple of cc's of methylene blue in a coke/coffee/dark colored drink. The next time the person has to use the restroom, surprise!!! blue urine." Notice it says "a couple of cc's", not "a few drops". Also it is presented as an idea, not as an account of an actual experience. The file has circulated around boards under the humor category, notice the lapses in capitalization. Specifically, I dispute the claims that "a few drops[...]sufficed", that "the stain's color was masked", and that the taste is "fairly faint." RW 17:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember that the taste of people differ. A taste described as fairly faint by someone who is a non-taster might taste horrid by someone who is a supertaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertaster. It might be possible to get a non-taster to drink a lot more than a few drops. Also, not all bitter sensations are even registered by all people, the bitter taste in orangepeels for instance. However, I still would not want to see this prank done to anyone. There is no telling how certain people might react to this compound. There might be an accidental poisoning instead of a prank. /Mikael Isaksson - Not logged in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.136.234 (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this revision:

In the human body, methylene blue is highly stable; if ingested, it resists the stomach's acidic environment as well as the many hydrolytic enzymes present. The kidneys quickly filter it out. Chemists and biochemists, as a prank, can add methylene blue to coffee, cola, or another dark beverage. ([2]) (The minimum effective amount is disputed.) Within a few hours, the prank victim's kidneys remove the methylene blue, which changes the urine's color. Small methylene blue amounts cause faint green or blue colors; larger amounts cause a deeper blue color. If one uses small methylene blue amounts, the prank is fairly harmless .

I excised the bit about the liver because there is no need to mention it if it is "not significant". I removed or vagued some of the unsupported claims, put everything in present-tense, and replaced the tedious "his or her" with "the". Why not reword it simply saying that when significant amounts of methylene blue are ingested, blue urine results? (*That* fact is not disputed) That's the point of the "Prank" anecdote anyway, isn't it? Some feedback, please. RW 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The original version of the pranks section was contributed by 168.103.161.121, a Coloradan who had a solid 5 edits under his belt, and hasn't contributed since 2006 April 8. RW 18:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is information on Wikipedia under Whipped-Cream Charger related to its dissociative use - Certainly not what I use my Whippet for - so how is this any different? The facts should just be present. It is information. When we start to decide whether or not the information should be presented because of what the information is, then we are entering into an entirely different area. We are then not deciding how to present the most correct information in the best way, we are deciding if we should really give people that information because of what they might do with it. I may not be right or agreed with, but it is my opinion. Bad S Mini —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bad S Mini (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the candidate version from this talk page to the main page, preserving the references that others dug up. Hopefully this helps. RW (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, I was nearly expelled from my school for trying the methylene blue prank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.51.93 (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning

This warning may actually be quite prescient, but without any indication of the sources it is based on is of limited use or assistance. It is probably something of an over generalisation, and somewhat imprecise. The only circumstance in which methylene blue is likely to be dangerous in patients is when it is infused intravenously in large doses. As far as I am aware this is only done for the purpose of highlighting the parathyroid tissues during thyroidectomy, in order to avoid damaging them. The doses used are in the region of five to 10 milligrams per kilogram body weight, infused just before and during surgery. At such doses it appears Clear that it has various relevant pharmacological effects in humans, although from my research these appear incompletely documented and partially understood. It would appear to be a significant monoamine oxidase inhibitor, and that means it maybe capable of producing serious, and even fatal, serotonin toxicity if combined with any drug that has significant potency as a serotonin reuptake inhibitor. My publication referred to above [3] has references relevant to this, and further material is, and/or will be very soon, available on my website. Assistants in understanding the chemistry of this from those with appropriate knowledge would be most useful because patients may die as a result of imperfect understanding and knowledge concerning this. It may be of interest for others to know that in the brief interval of two weeks since my publication came on line, and since I added a note here, I have received two reports of SerotoninToxicity involving methylene blue. It is beginning to look as though it is significant issue that has hitherto been unrecognised. Wiki people can make a real contribution to patient care and safety, please communicate your information, and try to give original references wherever possible.Ken Gillman 00:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Methlylene Blue can be dangerous to people with the G6PD genetic variant. c.f http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/nitrate/no3treatment_management.html Basically, it may cause your blood cells to explode. About 400 million people, mostly in regions where malaria is rampant, have evolved this genetic protection against malaria. So this can be a very dangerous "prank". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.141.250 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the G6PD issue. I looked into it and sorry but I will have to correct you on this as I found that in fact it is people who are G6PD deficient who have issues. Well, maybe it was my mistake but reading what you said ("dangerous to people with the G6PD genetic variant") lead me to believe that having G6DP caused the problem, when in fact G6DP is the "cure" as it is an enzyme that prevents issues with MB. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11048840 .. Wonder at what doses problems occur. 129.78.233.211 (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This article mentioned

I know this is not a big deal, but this article was used as a source for a cre.ations.net article on how to make you urine blue. Delta Tango • Talk 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Coloured pigments in methylene blue

I have searched all over for the coloured pigments that make mathylene blue have its blue colour, can anyone tell me what they are? or even add it into the article itself because it would be very helpful if someone could.

Jaxx_77 13:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC) (The closer to the blinding light you come, the darker the shadows that are bourne behind you...In the shadows I will lurk, for I will never be just a memory and in this world of darkness and light, I will be the darkness and you can be the light)

There are no coloured pigments in methylene blue − it is a pure substance. It is the methylene blue molecule itself that is responsible for the blue colour observed.
Ben 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pranks - moved from article

UPDATE! The Prank page has added info. that this is a potentially fatal prank if done to the wrong person due to M-blue acting on Serotonin and some harmful interactions with other conditions. I'm going to go-back and see if this is still in the article, if it is, I'll add the "prank"-warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housewifehader (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Note by a user: I bought some from an industrial chemical supply company and used it on myself and a roommate to evaluate it's use as a prank substance. A single 10 mg dose tasted pretty bad whether consumed in milk or soda, and very noticably discolored both. This gave the urine a decent green color for about 2 days. We eventually stepped up to 75 mg, which we have not exceeded, as this will give the urine a dark blue color about 12 hours after consumption, fading off through the shades of green for the next 3 days. Amount of coloring in the urine is darker the less frequently one urinates, as this gives more time for the kidneys to do their work, so the morning is generally darkest. Our preferred dosage of 50 mg tastes extremely bad sprinkled on a brownie, tucked in a marshmellow, or stirred into a liquid, and will dye the mouth, teeth, lips, and tongue blue for a few hours (regardless of brushing). It is our conclusion that spreading it out in hopes of remaining undetected is unrealistic, and that a single surprise swallow constitutes a pranker's best hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.9.14 (talk • contribs) 24 Feb 2007

I deleted the first paragraph that primarily cited a humor-oriented web site's list of pranks. As this list was probably compiled from message boards, I don't think it qualifies as sufficient evidence to go against two of the posters here (albeit, also in a "forum") who have reported it's not feasible. In effect, the link to the pranks list was being used as "proof" that it was feasible. Removing that paragraph allows removal of the "disputed" tag and shortens the size of the pranks section to alleviate the "keeping our priorities straight" complaint above that i agree with. I added the unsourced phrase "It is not known if the taste and color..." as a compromise between not being able to cite the above posters experiments, and not having evidence that the TV portrayals are realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.120.227 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My sister once used Methylene Blue for an April Fools joke. She made Brownies with it baked inside. They were a bit dark in color, but I think the brownie idea worked to hide the alternation. Anyway, nobody noticed any bad taste and everyone had enough to pee blue at least once (I did twice, i think). The only problem was that she fed them to us in the evening of April Fools Day and so the effect wasn't noticed until the morning of April 2nd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.32.136 (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sklera?

The word "sklera" is used in the Medicine section. What does this word mean? A search of Wikipedia itself returns only this one reference and Google recognises it only as a non-English word but suggests it may be a misspelling of "sclera" - the 'white' of the eye. I suspect this is what the original author meant but as I am unsure I don't feel confident to make the change. 83.104.249.240 11:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Methylene Blue - an observation

Some years ago a friend who kept reptiles had a Salamander with a large ulcer (c 10mm dia) om its back. Having read that Methylene Blue had antiseptic properties we applied a solution which gave a dramatic improvement after 2 or 3 days followed by complete recovery.

Correct Structure?

Isn't the structure that is shown that of leucomethylene blue and not of methylene blue, since that has a cationic sulfur group?Mbdxe (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Methylene Blue test for residual thiosulphate in film processing.

Residual Thiosulfate: All film shall meet the requirements for residual thiosulphate ion concentration as specified in ANSI IT9.1-1989; For Imaging Media (Film) -- Silver-gelatin type- Specifications for Stability, Section 6.4. The maximum allowable thiosulphate ion concentration is .014 grams per square meter. Testing for residual thiosulphate ion concentration shall be done by using the Methylene Blue method in accordance with ANSI/ASC PH4.8-1985; For Photography (Chemicals)-Residual Thiosulphate and Other Chemicals in Films, Plates and Papers- Determination and Measurement, Section 5. This test shall be conducted within two weeks of film processing and may be performed at the processing site or by an independent laboratory. All test results shall be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.144.191 (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Experimental Alzheimer's drug

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/07/29/20080729alzheimer-drugs0729-ON.html

I don't know how to do this wikipedia stuff. here is an article if anybody wants to do anything with this information.(68.2.134.151 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC))?

I believe this calls for the creation of Rember (disambiguation) to distinguish between the two compounds. Wish there was some information that hinted what type of compound this new 'rember' is. I've done a quick journal search and I can't find anything that clearly describes what it is. Oh well, the various AP news stories are enough to justify a stub for now. --VectorPotential Talk 12:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh, that's not right. Rember ǂ Methylene blue, the redirect that took you here is slightly misleading. As best as I can tell Methylene blue is a component of 'rember' so my suggestion of a disambiguation page wouldn't make any sense.--VectorPotential Talk 12:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm not sure anymore, I think I'll wait for a published journal article before I make any more presumptions.--VectorPotential Talk 12:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

rember

I think I'll pitch this one to WT:MCB and see if they think it should be a separate article from Methylene blue.--VectorPotential Talk 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link in the article's 'see also' section to Rember. The new drug contains a form of methylene blue, but it is not exactly the same thing, so not exactly applicable to this article. A 'see also' link is probably most applicable at this time. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Autism and Methylene blue

We have recently started my non-verbal Autistic son on Methylene Blue in hopes of seeing some improvement. Anyone else out there experimenting as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.201.217 (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Broad Beans?

The article currently lists the ingestion of broad beans as a cause of Methemoglobinemia, but I cannot find any reference to such in either of the aforementioned articles. That statement could certainly use a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synetech (talk • contribs) 05:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Interaction with DNA and RNA?

The main page for methylene blue(MB) states that MB does not intercalate with DNA. If this is so, how does it stain DNA? Methylene blue is also a planar molecule that is just about the right size to intercalate with DNA. If no evidence can be put forward to support MB's not intercalating with DNA, then it should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.79.176.240 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I was quite surprised when reading that. Intercalation is thought to be the preferred binding mode. Some references: doi:10.1111/j.1432-1033.1975.tb04137.x, doi:10.1002/bip.360210904, doi:10.1007/s10812-013-9811-7, doi:10.1002/bip.360350502, doi:10.1021/ja992966k, doi:10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2004.03.005, doi:10.1021/bi500068z - Falke000333 (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

So I added a television show reference and it was deleted two times with the remark that WP does not have this kind of info. But the section is here already. Copied here is what it looked like before the untold stories of the ER info. was taken off. Anyone want to discuss this please?
(section blanked in bold) In popular culture

In the 1946 film noir, Decoy, the chemical is portrayed in an entirely different manner - as having resuscitative qualities – in that it is used successfully to bring a criminal back to life after execution by hydrocyanic gas.[48][49]

The tactic of using methylene blue to monitor medication compliance has been noted by authors such as Kurt Vonnegut in the 1968 story "Welcome to the Monkey House".

A 1982 episode of M*A*S*H, "Sons and Bowlers," showed Major Winchester using a dose of methylene blue to take down a rival camp's bowling champion—who had been a high-ranked professional bowler in civilian life—during a contest. The champ panics when his urine turns blue, and listens to Winchester's advice to refrain from all exercise – including bowling, which allows the 4077th to win.

The television show Untold Stories of the ER documented a prank using the chemical, in the episode, Frat Boy Blues.[50] In this story there was a full recovery from the prank, but for certain people the substance could be fatal.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

So the last ref. is deleted twice by another editor. At the risk of edit-warring I am not re-un-doing, but in my opinion if there is a popular culture section, and there is further information, then why not add it?TeeVeeed (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
None of these listings are worth including in the article. They are all just trivia. If methylene blue is central to an important work of literature, it may be worth mentioning, but these are all passing references (being noted in a story, a mention in a single episode or a TV series, etc.) I particularly object to the Decoy reference which describes something entirely different than methylene blue (entirely fictional properties) which just happens to share a name with it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see the page statistics for the article:http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Methylene_blue . I checked to see if there had been a "spike" in page-views, and my suspicion was correct. The particular episode of Untold Stories of the ER, which was aired on the TLC cable network yesterday, (the item which is now deleted), provided an unusual jump to apx. 2000 daily page views up from around 1200 more or less daily. I checked a few other well-known chemicals/compounds Arsenic, Cyanide, and Strychnine, and all of them have extensively documented cultural references. Those references are not on the material's main article pages, but in the case of methylene blue, I think that popular culture, (on the main page), is appropriate.TeeVeeed (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC) CORRECTION- The "popular culture" references for Strychnine are on the article's main page.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)CORRECTION to CORRECTION-ooops, they are not.

Can anyone suggest a title of another page to put the now-blanked "In Popular Culture"-section of the page? I don't have a problem with keeping it off of the article main page, but for users and readers of WP, (see page view spike mentioned above), and the continued appreciation of editor's contributions,--I don't see how anyone could object to a "see also" link on the page? (although keeping it on the page seemed better to me)TeeVeeed (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I also dont think that TV shows are notable enough for inclusion in this article. US TV shows, New Zealand TV shows, Burmese TV shows, or any TV shows for that matter. It is cute information and I respect the motivation for including that information, but I think that the inclusion is misguided. Trivia detracts from the encyclopedic tone (IMHO) and distracts from core information of those seeking knowledge of this compound. According to Chemical Abstracts, 21503 technical articles have been written on methylene blue. We cite a tiny fraction of these articles, why would a US TV show trump some technical article discussing discovery, uses, applications, environmental effects? Seems like WP:UNDUE. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the entire section In Popular Culture was deleted (removed material can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Methylene_blue&diff=prev&oldid=558998464).TeeVeeed (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Section "In popular Culture" has been blanked. Would appreciate suggestions on content preservation. TeeVeeed (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2013

As others have mentioned, this sort of random trivia does not belong in encyclopedia articles. The sources for it were primary sources. If you can identify secondary sources covering the phenomenon of methylene blue in TV shows like this, great, then it might be worthwhile to have these mentions, but without a secondary source to support, they're just trivial mentions and should not be in the article. Zad68 19:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevant to this discussion is WP:CHEMMOS. While pop culture in the context of these articles is not specifically addressed, but should not be given more weight than "current events". --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For an example of why this should be included, on the day that Untold Stories of the ER aired the repeat episode, "Frat Boy Blues", the article saw a spike of about 800 page views compared to the day before. Personally, I do not know exactly why someone would be interested, (wanting info. about the substance, or about the television show), and that really isn't my concern. But by "keeping"-cultural, media references, WP is enhanced by the preservation of these edits because it is easier for the users and readers to find whatever it was they were looking for. Q:What was the substance in that episode of Untold Stories of the ER? (Or, M*A*S*H...)A:Methylene Blue, or Q:What was that television show where they used Methylene Blue? A:...
I'm not exactly sure if Untold Stories of the ER is fact or fiction, since in the episode they featured news cameras, supposedly documenting the "incident". A secondary source for that particular edit could be something else altogether, such-as "In the News".TeeVeeed (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the argument you're describing is based in Wikipedia content policy, and if it is I'd like to know which one. Secondary sources are required to establish how noteworthy something like this is. Otherwise we end up with this problem. Zad68 19:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with secondary sources, I was asking if that could change the category to "news" for one item. In my opinion, the blanked content is "encyclopaedic Encyclopedia" (copied) "...a type of reference work – a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge...." as opposed to a Dictionary which would have the more limited type of information that seems to be wanted here. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there is any evidence to say that a TV show airing is responsible for a change in page view statistics. But even if it were true that people are coming to this page because methylene blue was mentioned on some TV show episode, how is it helpful to them to include in the article a comment that methylene blue was mentioned in that TV episode? ChemNerd (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
A;To help someone find the article(s) in the first place based-on a presumable search.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to "In popular culture" sections in articles, but they should only be included if there is something notable to include. None of the examples given here, or which were formerly in the article, appear to be anything more than mere trivia. There is nothing notable about the fact that this chemical was mentioned in one particular episode of a TV show. There is clearly no cultural significance in that. ChemNerd (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The compound was not just "mentioned" in the examples that were blanked. It was a critical part of the plot in each instance. In the literary reference, Welcome to the Monkey House, I would say even more-so, because although M-blue was referred-to, it was never mentioned by name in the story. If the purpose of WP is to provide encyclopedic information, it would qualify based on that alone. Also, in the film Decoy-the author is on record as stating that he used the compound in his story because of the antidote properties that he inferred due to cyanide and/or carbon monoxide gas from a gas chamber execution.So even-though it would be unlikely, there is a relation to the material.The Untold Stories of the ER, episode was the season premier episode and received more media coverage than usual because of that. That segment of the episode was used for the title. Also Untold Stories of the ER is a "docu-drama", which is that it is re-enactions of "real events". The M*A*S*H episode used it to advance the plot substantially, no "trivia" in any of this.

I'm willing to move all of this with a link to "See Also"-"Methylene Blue Cultural References", or whatever better heading that anyone can suggest. There just wasn't that much extra info. that i thought that it warranted it's own page, but better that than the blanking in my opinion. TeeVeeed (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. For those of us maintaining these chemical pages, it is an unending battle against entropy to focus the article on the grand scheme of things - what it is, how and how much it's made, what it's used for, as opposed to crufty trivial mentions like this. I imagine the TV-viewer that googles this compound and finds this page would rather be enlightened by finding out what it's actually used for, than amused that its mention in TV has been documented here. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed... at this point, TeeVeeed/Housewifehader is the only one still supporting this mention without any clear backing in content policy; everyone else involved here is bringing up concerns backed by Wikipedia content policies and guidelines including WP:UNDUE (especially due to the lack of secondary sources) and WP:CHEMMOS, and the concerns raised at WP:POPCULTURE. Consensus is clearly heading against inclusion, but this RFC has only been open one day. Zad68 16:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I reserve the right to include the editors who added the info. and users who learned of the substance via the popular culture references, who are unaware of the blanking, as silent supporters. There is nothing in the WP:POPCULTURE guidelines that I disagree with related to the question here. (Quote)"such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias".....To answer an earlier question about whether or not a spike in page views can be attributed to an airing of a particular television program, statistics are being kept regarding page views and article exposure on the WP Mainpage, which is equivalent to being noticed by a wider audience than usual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DYKSTATS. There could be other reasons for a surge in page views on a particular day, such as final exam studies, but in this case the jump in pv was significant enough to attribute it to a specific event.TeeVeeed (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I invoke my silent supporters too.... And secondly, if page view count is the criterion for inclusion, more creative ways exist to attract views - dont get me going!!! No: the criterion for inclusion is relevance to what readers are likely to seek to learn about methylene blue, it is a chemical compound with wide applicability (as I said, >21000 technical citations).
  • We all experience the pleasure of adding content. But articles do not exist as vehicles to make editors feel good, they exist to address readers seeking information on methylene blue.
  • TV shows and novels probably do not present a credible chemical information. Chemical compounds for stories are selected for their "buzz-effect" (do the chemical names sound scary, hi-tech, intellectuallizing, etc).
  • Editors of technical articles are careful about maintaining a non-national perspective, whereas this trivia tends to be US-oriented. A national culture slant de-objectifies articles IMHO.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you can't simply include supporters who aren't bothering to come share their views. You can use statistics to try to prove your point, but it's a fallacy to assume that everyone who learned of Methylene Blue through one of these TV episodes believes that the TV show should be mentioned in the article. Besides, Wikipedia works by consensus, not by majority. You can count random people all you want, but without commenting here, they do not add to the consensus. The whole point of an RFC is to get comments from folks who are otherwise disinterested parties (like myself), and if there's clear consensus one way after an RFC, it's a clear indication of what Wikipedia editors, as a group, think is the best direction. Arathald (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with above editors that this content is not Encyclopedic or significant, and therefore, should not be included. The point about more users visiting the article upon seeing the TV show it moot -- users see the TV show, hear about methylene blue, and come to Wikipedia to learn more about it. It's a rare user that comes to the article after seeing the TV show... to learn whether methylene blue was mentioned in the TV show. Furthermore, a single episode of any TV show really isn't all that culturally significant. If Discovery Channel started a whole series on a family that owned a methylene blue production plant or something asinine like that, it may merit a quick mention. Even that, I'd be hesitant to include. Arathald (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support the section. We're here to serve all people, not just chemists, even with our articles on chemical substances, just as our article on Lion isn't just for biologists and our article on Mars isn't just for astronomers. Television episodes where the substance was the main focus of the episode, not just an offhand mention, are worth a sentence in this article. --GRuban (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to include most of these popular culture mentions, with a possible exception for the Untold Stories episode, although I think it would be better off to use a print or news reference about the incident. Even then, it's a bit iffy, and more suitable for inclusion in the Uses section rather than a pop culture section.  — daranz [ t ] 16:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment by ColonelHenry: I am not a fan of popular culture sections, especially when it becomes a plethora of non-notable popular culture references (i.e. brief mentions, me-too included items, etc.), per WP:IPC. However, this objection only extends as far as the non-notable reference does nothing to explain or interpret the core purpose of the article. If the popular culture mention is something that edifies a reader about some aspect of the topic, by all means include it. If the mention is "well, they mention it for 2 seconds of dialogue in discussing poisons on (insert-here-some-television programme-currently-popular-but-likely-forgotten-in-fifteen-years). I removed such fluff from several articles I've worked on (several that I brought to GA), and despite the fact they were meaningless mentions, some editors insist on including every minute reference even if by a garage band, or 2 seconds of film on some stupid forgettable sitcom or crime drama. Typically, those who do such brief mentions in their "work" don't understand the work and use it only to appear erudite (i.e. a form of conspicuous consumption)--like all the Hollywood movies that quote Rainer Maria Rilke in discussions of love or angels but likely have never really read the Duino Elegies or understand what Rilke was saying. I would support if done wisely and it's adds substance to our understanding of the article subject. Here, however, the mentions were crufty and lacking substance. Therefore, as far as continuing to insert these non-notable reference, I oppose. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: Support. Like Col Henry I am not a fan. However, I also am not opposed to harmless remarks on substantial shows and those mentioned in this case reflect either technically correct points or popular misconceptions. It seems altogether reasonable to mention them, if not strictly necessary. The objections are subjective, quantitative and unconstructive. In such cases anyone who decides that something needs to be done more adequately and more wisely so that it adds substance to our understanding of the article subject is free to edit it appropriately. This would be constructive. Deletion instead of improvement is a disservice rather than an improvement. If we were to work on a basis of deletion of all imperfections, we would have a very slim WP indeed, patrolled by smug erasers. Before we had WP that is more or less what we did have, except that we didn't need the erasers. JonRichfield (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support For example, an article about Krypton would be lacking if it didn't mention its role in Superman. Perhaps the section could be trimmed to mention only very notable instances of this substance being given mythical powers in fiction and omit one or more of the more minor fictional usages of Methylene blue. (Great name for a substance! I can see why an writer might want to imbue it with mythical powers.) Chrisrus (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This argument is incredibly pedantic. Removing an obviously valid entry is not the case here. Either talk to the people that make the rules and ask them to be more specific or let it go. This argument of what information is or is not trivial is not up to you. You cannot tell me the removed entry regarding methylene blue causing mass hysteria was trivial because of a straw man argument you saw in a comic book. The entry was medically informative to me. If you are afraid of millions of entries regarding popular references that needs better policing then that is great but your argument here, on this page is misdirected. I only use Wikipedia for science as there is a standard that makes it really hard to spread bad information and really easy to prove good information. I use Wikipedia science area every day I've never seen this type of a broken page and have never needed to attempt to make any major changes so please forgive me if I'm not using the proper format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrrstin (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Methylene blue. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Using Chembox instead of Drugbox

I suggest using chembox, so that hazard and other chemical properties can be added. Punchalee.mon (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is on the WHOs essential medicines list. Therefore a drugbox is good aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Citation report

According to Chemical Abstracts, methylene blue has been discussed in 45,333 publications and reports, 329 reviews have been written since the year 2000.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Methylene_blue/Archive_1&oldid=1248651799"