text:
Talk:Orthopedic surgery

Seattle Harborview
The mention of Harborview Hospital in Seattle was such that it did not link to the corresponding article. I have reworded it. I hope that's ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.32.251 (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) rggdhhy

Ambiguity
"Particularly important for injured athletes was the use of arthroscopic tools by Dr. Watanabe of Japan"

Watanabe is a very common name in Japan. Replace "Watanabe" with "Brown" or "Smith" and read that sentence again. Sounds ambiguous, no?

Dr. Kirschner did wires as in K or Kirschner wires. IM rodding was pioneered by Dr. Kutchner (? SP) of Germany and Dr. Rush of Meridian Mississippi.

Correct spelling of the IM rod pioneer is Kunschner. He started using IM rods before world war II but German soldiers injured during that war recovered much quicker than Allied soldiers. As a result treatment with "K nails" became more popular in North America. However, traction treatment for fractured femurs was still the standard until 1970's when locked intramedullary rods inserted without opening up the fracture was popularised by Dr Winquist in Seattle. A great orthopaedic pioneer not mentioned in this account is Dr Ilizarov whose work with external fixators revolutionized the treatment of non-union and malunion of fractures. Myles Clough MD (user Mylesclough)Sept 20th 2005

 * Myles, could you update this article accordingly? This is of major historical interest and definitly worthy of inclusion. A historical overview of the orthopedic field, e.g. the AO rules, K wires, Pauwels and Garden... JFW | T@lk  17:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that Pauwels and Garden should be discussed with reference to hip fracture and AO contributions, K wires etc in bone fracture --Mylesclough 00:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * OK JFW | T@lk  17:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that there was no wikipedia entry for Hipocrates (?spelling) or for medical indications, both of which deserve an entry IMHO Reconstructive surgery bounces to Plastic surgery. Orthopods think of Reconstructive Surgery as joint replacement and other bone reconstruction. It is a separate subject. --Mylesclough 05:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hippocrates is a good page. Medical indication indeed has not been written; you are free to change indication from a redirect into a disambig.
 * As for reconstructive surgery, this is indeed a good point. Again, you may wish to change the redirect into a stub (or even a full page) to emphasise that reconstructive surgery is germane to all branches of surgery. JFW | T@lk  07:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have either got into or created a muddle over reconstructive surgery. I wrote a short article describing orthopaedic reconstructive surgery then created a reconstructive surgery (disambiguation) page. I had thought that the creation of a disambiguation page would automatically mean that all links would land on it. At the moment the page is held up on the database somewhere so I cannot test that. After I had done all that I thought it would bave been much simpler to create a new page Reconstructive Surgery (Orthopedics) and leave Reconstructive surgery to the Plastic surgery guys. Please advise --Mylesclough 06:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's okay now, although in the future the page may develop seperate sections for the plastic and orthopedic forms of reconstruction. If you think the principles of reconstructive orthopedics are radically different, you may choose to start reconstructive surgery (orthopedics), but now it's still okay. JFW | T@lk  17:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not totally OK because reconstructive surgery lands on my new page not on the disambiguation page - which I cannot now find. I suspect that I didn't know how to establish a disambiguation page correctly. The result is that all the links from Plastic surgery subjects which were originally redirected from reconstructive surgery to plastics now land on the new page. They can get through to Plastics so this page is in a sense a disambiguation page but not in official form. Sorry --Mylesclough 21:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have collected some images from the Orthopaedic Trauma Association site and am planning to put them on the page about hip fractures. They have a statement on their site "To encourage the use of this compendium of fractures, reproduction of the figures and use of the classification is possible without the need to request permission from the OTA or publisher." I explored the Wikipedia Help page about uploading images and was bemused by all the different copyright options etc. Can you give me a quick run down about this specific situation and one in which I personally get permission from the copyright holder to post an image on Wikipedia. --Mylesclough 23:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Question
--> SPELLING QUESTION: WHY IS THIS WORD SPELLED Orthopaedic AND Orthopedic AT SEEMINGLY RANDOM TIMES, BOTH IN THE ARTICLE, AND IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE ARTICLE??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testing123abc (talk • contribs) 24 December 2005

Templates
Orthopaedics and most other surgical subjects have at least two aspects which would benefit from a standardized approach. One subject is the conditions that may be treated surgically and the other is an account of the operation (procedure) that a surgeon might perform. To help us get organized I propose the following template for orthopaedic procedures viz Name of Procedure; Description; Synonyms; Technique; Variations; Indications; Contra-Indications; Pre-Operative Work-up; Post-Operative Rehabilitation; Timecourse of recovery; Risks and Complications; Controversies; Prognosis; History. I have used this template for Knee replacement and would appreciate comments.

A template for conditions might be one that is common to all medical conditions not just orthopaedic ones. However, because the key issue in potentially surgical conditions is the question of operative indications I think that a specifically surgical template for conditions is justifiable and might be Name Definition Synonyms Incidence Pathogenesis and predisposing factors Pathology Stages Classification Natural History/Untreated Prognosis Clinical Features Investigation Non-Operative Treatment Risks of Non-Operative Treatment Prognosis following Non-Operative Treatment Operative Treatment (Note that each operations should have its own wiki entry) Risks of Operative Treatment Prognosis Post Operation Complications Management Prevention History n

Comments? Provisionally I have copied the template to the talk page of all the orthopaedic stub pages I could find.--Mylesclough 05:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

move. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling (requested move)
Given what this article says in the terminology section, that the spelling "orthopaedic" is prefered by the AAOS and most academic organizations, I think that we should favor that spelling in both the name and the content of this article. And that's a pretty strong argument in itself before you even start to also consider transatlantic spellings. What do you think? I'd like to edit and move the page accordingly, but I'll wait a couple days first to see if anyone objects here. Arbitrary username 17:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I see nobody has commented on this yet, so here's what I plan to do. I'll wait another day or two, and unless I see obvious disapproval, I'll standardize the usage within the article to "orthopaedic" (currently it's a random mixture of the two spellings). If that passes a further day or two without having generated controversy meantime, then I'll request administrator assistance in renaming the page (which will require removing the existing redirect).  If you have opinions, then please speak up.  Arbitrary username 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Still silence here. Okay, now standardizing on "orthopaedic" in article. Let's see if anyone objects. Arbitrary username 16:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Have now listed on WP:RM. Arbitrary username 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What you have discovered is that no-one is actively watching this page. Coming from WP:RM I have some doubts. "Orthopedic" is common enough in American usage that I suspect that this Anglo-Americanism again combined with Anglophile snobbery. Septentrionalis 20:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd support moving this article to "orthopaedic". For whatever reason, even in the United States, the "ae" spelling is quite predominant, especially among orthopaedic surgeons (see, for example, professional societies such as the AAOS). I normally don't favor moves of this sort, but there are a handful of instances (such as at Archaeology of the Americas) where the "Americanized" version is not that prevalent, even here in the US. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I oppose this move. Wikipedia policy is clear on spelling: When an article doesn't deal with a "national" topic, the original spelling used in the article (in the title, and in the article itself), should be kept, provided the spelling is not incorrect. Orthopedic is not incorrect, so it should be kept. I understand your motivation, and I might be inclined to agree if orthopedic were a weird or rare spelling, but googling /orthopedic site:edu/ and comparing that with /orthopaedic site:edu/ makes it clear that orthopedic is not at all an odd spelling. Indeed, given that many of the hits from the "edu" Google switch are from foreigners putting up their research papers on American Web sites, it's clear that orthopedic is not just an acceptable spelling, but is the preferred spelling in the U.S. Webster's confirms this. Indeed, "orthopedic" is nearly as popular in countries like Germany and Sweden as "orthopaedic" is! (See: /... site:de/, /...site:se/.) BrianinStockholm 2006.05.30, 06:40 (UTC)

 * Two in favour, one against, and this is not the typical British-vs-American case, so... Moved. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

When I have a moment (probably tomorrow), I'll fix any double redirects and similar issues relating to the move (specifically, the related category name), unless anyone gets there first. Arbitrary username 11:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 * ?! I count two opinions expressed in favor, two against. This move needs to be undone, and more time given to the matter. Please don't make any other changes until the move is reverted. BrianinStockholm 11:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Most administrators are anti-Americans of one stripe or another. The policy on spelling is, in practice, make it British/Commonwealth whenever possible.  This Night Stallion person is just adhering to the de facto policy.  Outrageous, yes, but no one here seems to care. Too bad.

 * Please assume good faith. I suspect Nightstallion will realize his error -- what I in any event believe is an error -- and revert it. That's not to say there's not a lot of anti-American bias in Wikipedia. There is; and there's also a bit of anti-British bias. To be expected. Best, BrianinStockholm 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Fine, I won't make any other changes until this discussion has run its course. Though I think that to say "until the move is reverted" does rather seem to be prejudging the result. Arbitrary username 11:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. :) Sorry. But it seemed so obvious to me that the move was made incorrectly that I assumed it would immediately be reverted. BrianinStockholm 12:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling again - need more people's views
What seems to have happened regarding the spelling is now unfortunately messy. There is contention about whether Nightstallion made the right decision or not. I agree that simply based on the math Nightstallion's decision was questionable, but then again Knowledge Seeker is (or has been) a physician in the US (see earlier versions of user page e.g. ) so ought to have more idea than most about what it's actually called in US English, and Nightstallion could legitimately have given weight to this. But whichever way one might interpret the discussion so far, hopefully we all agree that it has only involved a small number of people, and I think that if there is disagreement it would be beneficial to attract more people to the discussion so as to result in a decision which will be more readily accepted as consensus. This is particularly important as the spelling appears in a number of places, and editing without consensus is liable to lead to inconsistencies, which I really think we ought to strive to avoid. These places are:
 * the text within the article
 * the name of the article
 * the name of the category
 * (maybe others?)

What is the best way to involve more people? I see that there is the RfC process, but it gives me the impression of being generally used for issues which have become rather heated, and I think it would be a great shame to categorize this essentially amicable disagreement in that way, so it would be nice to use something rather more informal to invite people to visit this talk page. I am going to post a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Other suggestions very welcome.

Arbitrary username 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You (Arb. username) and I are both fairly new here, so this might be the blind leading the blind, but my impression is that it's policy to be very careful about involving other people. "Getting out the vote," for example, is against policy, I'm pretty sure (can't find a link to that part of policy right now). I agree it would help to have more people involved, but I lean more strongly than before towards thinking the article (and spelling in category name) should be left as is (after my revert of Nightstallion's move, that is). This represents a big change. One thing, though: you refer to a notion of what it's "actually called in US English." We don't need experts for that. We know that both are acceptable. And, speaking as a linguist, I'd be willing to bet that, if anything, the -ped- spelling is gaining the upper hand, since English (all dialects) are moving in the direction of reducing ae to e. Regardless, the orthopedics is definitely a correct spelling. That's not at issue. BrianinStockholm 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Just a comment that I assume there is a difference between "getting out the vote" (i.e. inviting specific groups of people who are likely to support a particular POV), and widening the readership in a neutral way. At least, I sure hope there is!  Anyway, you'll obviously realize that I disagree with your reversion of the move, but pending wider discussion I'll merely state it here because I don't think it would help anyone for us to get into a cycle of reversions.  Regards, Arbitrary username 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, widening the readership in a neutral way would probably be fine. For the record: I believe in ruthless adherence to principle, so I'll revert my own revert of NS's revert if sentiment moves in that direction! Although, technically, I'm not sure what the operative principle is here, with the vote "officially" being closed, and the person who "took the pulse" having admitted he might have been wrong (to the extent that he suggested it would be OK for me to revert his change....) Complicated! Is the situation precisely as it would have been if no change had been made at all? If so, you'd need to call a new vote, but that itself, might be against policy, for obvious reasons (John Kerry can't call for a new election next week).... :-/ BrianinStockholm 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Hello. Yes, I am (still) a resident physician (I still have the category listed on my user page). I don't have a strong preference to either spelling, but overall, as I mentioned above, I prefer orthopaedic in this case, though I am American and normally use American spellings. While American and British spellings should not be lightly switched, I don't think this is a simple American vs. British issue. Orthopedic is certainly less common in American English than orthopaedic, but see for instance its Merriam-Webster entry, compared to the one, say, for gynaecology, which is listed as a British variant. Undoubtedly both spellings are "correct". My personal philosophy in naming and spelling, both on Wikipedia and in real life, tends to give more credence to respected authorities or professional societies than to overall surveys of usage. Since my perception is many orthopaedic surgeons in the United States tend to use the ae spelling and professional societies like the AAOS use it, my preference is for that spelling. That said, there are many who use the e spelling and perhaps it will become more well-established with time (I am not a linguist and cannot pass judgment on this). Which spelling is ultimately used is not very important to me. I think it would be very appropriate to seek feedback (I'd recommend the clinical medicine WikiProject. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi. Just thought I'd pop my head up.  A long time ago I read something about spelling  with respect to english dialect variations - I'm not sure if it was a Wikipaedia policy or simply a suggestion, but it seemed quite sensible at the time - so here it is:  Go with the spelling you use regionally, as long as it's correct (ie in a dictionary).  Most people are aware that different english dialects have differing use of dipthongs and tend to allow for that in online searching.  I'm training in orthopaedic surgery and so I routinely use both spellings, for example, in Medline searches etc.  As long as there is consistency in the article it shouldn't really matter which spelling is used.  And if you create an article who's name has recognised alternate spellings, create redirects in consideration of others who may want the information.  That's it! Happy wiki-ing Mattopaedia 05:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I work in the field, though not in the US, and my general preference is Orthopaedics. BrianinStockholm's points are well taken - as a liguist you would probably know better than I about the general trends for language going from "-paed-" to "-ped-". However, like Knowledge Seeker, I find that even many US Orthopaedics experts prefer the -paed- spelling, and my feeling for the field is that this spelling is still prefered overall.

I would point out that majority of the orthopaedics journals (http://freeortho.com/journals.html) use the -paed- spelling. Thus I heartily endorse a switch back. Aaron 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should at least be consistent in its spelling. And what's with the "also spelled … se below" bit? I couldn't find anything below about it. (Ok, I found it after searching, but I still find that comment confusing.)83.226.236.68 21:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I realise this discussion was ages ago, but I was on this Wikipedia page and think it's pretty bizarre that "orthopedic" is the spelling used... Surely it should be "orthopaedic" given this was the original spelling, and is how it is spelt in English outside of the USA? I'm also not sure about the original logic used by reading that discussion. Simply because whoever bothered to make the article first using "orthopedic" means that it must be used for all eternity because technically "it isn't incorrect"?

I have changed the spelling in this article to 'orthopaedic' is almost every instance except when in references to publications entitled under the American spelling. I have done this to reflect that the vast majority of readers will be located in areas where 'orthopaedic' is the almost universally accepted term and in addition I have taken into consideration that numerous American journals and publications, some listed in the article itself, choose to use the spelling 'orthopaedic'. Thedaveformula (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ENGVAR, once one spelling type has been established, we generally do not change it. I have therefore changed ti back. Yobol (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thedaveformula, from what I can tell, "Orthopaedics" is NOT the original spelling if the word was coined by M. Andre because he spelled it the French way, Orthopedie, and soon after British classicists adopted the more erudite latinate spelling with ae. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not like this Americanised spelling in this article and I do not like that the changes I made have been undone, this is unfair. It doesn't matter where the root came from. Wikipedia should be presenting subjects in their contemporary usage for a modern audience and therefore the matter regarding spelling rests on what most accurately serves the education of those reading it. The vast majority of people, including prominent institutions within the USA, are using the spelling 'Orthopaedics' and therefore it is my submission that it is in this way it should be spelt in this article. The fact that it was spelled "Orthopedie" in the French context is not a reason to spell it "orthopedics" because language changes and this article should reflect that change by using the version of the word as written by the majority of people in the world. To change it to 'orthopedics' is American exceptionalism and even American elitism which I find to be counterproductive and rather arrogant. I will be intending on changing it back, in due course, but I will read what others have to say in the meantime. @Yobol: I reject the argument that the spelling cannot be changed as I do not regard the matter to be one of established conclusion. --Thedaveformula (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There needn't be any debate on this; WP:ENGVAR is pretty clear. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Even the AMERICANS within the field itself are saying it's ORTHOPAEDICS. What matters to you more: accurately representing the truth or adhering to some rule that says 'the first person who came up with the spelling gets to decide what it is and there's no debating it'? Now we've got a situation where a child may have to do some research for school on a branch of science and comes back with an American spelling of Orthopaedics despite the fact that they live in Australia, the UK, or anywhere in the world where American English is not used. This is ludicrous. How about we put this matter to the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons? Yes, note the spelling in 'Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons'. This is unbelievable, you're selling out to some rule that forfeits the truth and you're saying it can't be changed. Well it can be changed if it takes me twenty years. I'm going to stop editing this article and take this matter a level higher. I'm going to win this case. --Thedaveformula (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fill your boots, then. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

 * I took the matter to the board for consultation but could not convince the majority. I maintain I am right on this issue however I am will contribute to improving this page using the American spelling because I believe the subject matter itself deserves attention inspite of the spelling. I walk away from this spelling debate with my head held high but will not walk away from Wikipedia because I believe I have much to contribute. Thedaveformula (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Linkspam
Is there anything that can be done to discourage linkspam (unnecessary external links) from this subject area? I find it mildly annoying that this page keeps needing to be reverted. Dr Aaron 22:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am currently exploring options. The spammer is using a dynamic IP, so it is difficult to block them that way.  We could put partial protection on this page, but this particular spammer is hitting a number of other pages.  Until my latest attempt goes through, the best we can do is keep an eye on the changes and keep thwarting him. --Mdwyer 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Goodley's comments
An important brief digression is essential here: The hidden consternation implicit in the above description of orthopedics is that this vast area of medicine, most of which is non-surgical, is viewed herein through minds dominantly predisposed to surgical approaches. That reality expresses medicine's Fundamental Flaw, from which the Pain Pandemic - the countless who unnecessarily persist in pain and impairment – emanates. Future historians may well call this last century a time of unnecessarily perpetuated pain. In contrast, comparable specialties such as neurology and neurosurgery; internal medicine and general surgery conjointly emerged balanced, dynamic and mutually respectful. But for a number of reasons, this did not happen in orthopedics. This story began about a century and a half ago when during one of medicine's low intellectual ebbs clinical biomechanics of the musculoskeletal system through hands-on examination and treatment was repudiated, skills that require special palpatory training and manipulative reasoning. Thus, osteopathy reluctantly emerged and then chiropractic to which traditionalism reacted with reflexive antagonism instead of reflecting and performing a "systems analysis" to study what had gone wrong. The medical scene became a war zone of confusion that continues to confound (realized or not) everywhere that Westernized medicine is practiced. Eventually, Orthopaedic Medicine developed as a discipline within medicine. Its scope includes caring for the commonest of conditions, the “aches and pains” that orthopedic surgeons willingly admit disinterests them. Unquestionably, Orthopaedic Medicine’s "Father" is Dr. James Cyriax, deceased, a British physician, author of the Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine I & II. Unfortunately, "Jimmie" fell victim to his greatness and eventually concluded that if he could conceive of assembling such an encyclopedia of knowledge - and develop extraordinarily powerful fundamental tools for clinical examination -then all of his reasoning must have been of the same stature. It wasn't true, and he became deservedly controversial. The story is long one and requires its own space. (This statement is initially necessary because, in some minds, this controversy colors the major issue. It should not. While Dr. Cyriax was the first to begin codifying the discipline, his work does not circumscribe it.) It will be highly desirable for the purposes of Wikipedia if an Orthopaedic Medicine section be established for the full elicitation of this critically important discipline whose guidelines fulfill the requirements of a specialty. In essence, the musculoskeletal system (it can be more accurately but more complexly, described) can also be viewed as a machine where the joints, the ligaments etc. have equivalents. While problems of alignment may be expressed as pain and dysfunction, or squeaks, the effective approaches are similar, and restorative rebalancing becomes first obligation. I phrase, 'the task of the musculoskeletal clinician is to restore appropriate motion. All the rest is commentary.' The necessity is to follow all clues that are evident and commensurate with the patient's complaint. The traditional orthopedic examination is too coarse to distinguish the subtle abnormalities that traditionalism did not historically accept because "they" were doing such things. The realization is essential that the final book on the orthopaedic clinical examination has not been written. As one example of a cause for self-perpetuating therapeutic failure: the spine came to be clinically examined as if it were like a spring, with a unitary motion. The fact, of course, is that the vertebral column is a complex, multi-articulated structure whose small individual movements are normally reflexively coordinated into movements that appear to be unitary. That stated, the primary purpose of this digression is completed at this time. With respect and gratitude for the reader's attention, you are now returned to the orthopedic surgical perspectives. Contributed by Paul H. Goodley, M.D.

 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Please get a user account. You will have more rights and be taken more seriously. Your comments above are interesting, but are not written in a style suitable for the article. They can be discussed here, and if anything usable is developed, it can be added to the article a little bit at a time. -- Fyslee 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag
I just noticed that this whole page got tagged as {unreferenced} - I think such a tag should be accompanied by a more detailed explanation on the talk page. In addition, there are lots of referenced elements to this page so such a tag might be better placed before a specific section rather than the whole page.

As such, I reverted the {unreferenced} tag. Dr Aaron 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable edits to "History" section
By this edit an anon IP removed a big chunk of the "History" section, with what remained being obviously garbled (ending in mid-sentence, for example). The deleted material included what appeared to be some commercial puffery but also much valid information. I'm going to restore the entire deleted text and then review the part that seems dubious to me. Goodguy2 (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The addition I thought dubious was touting, in glowing terms, the work of Thomas Meredith. I thought it might be worth including, given that Meredith had an article, but that turns out to be a completely different person. The contemporary Thomas Meredith was indeed issued a patent for "Method of forming a composite bone material implant" but it doesn't seem to have been widely discussed and doesn't merit inclusion in the article, unless someone can find sources indicating its importance. I'm removing that passage. Goodguy2 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Children?
Does orthopaedic surgery mean the surgery is on children, or is the word just there by historical coincidence? ƕ (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Questionable edit to "Joint replacement" section
While I do not doubt the contributions that Dr Chitranjan Singh Ranawat has made in the field of orthopedics, I am not sure how inserting his name in a sentence would add value to the article. After Googling his name, this is the best description that I could find. Iiamjon (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Salary information
Anyone else think that we should just remove info from salary surveys completely from this article? Of course, if we include such information, we're going to use reliable sources rather than sites like averageorthopedicsurgeonsalary.com --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, remove until a reliable source is found. Yobol (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Two disjoint language groups
There appears to be two separate clusters of languages on this topic (see below). Although they have different titles, their contents have mostly overlapping coverage. The languages that appear in both clusters (es, it) make inconsistent choices of coverage under the two titles. There is no clear rationale for this split. These two clusters should be merged. From past discussion it appears that this article was previously titled Orthopaedics or Orthopedics, which should be the preferred name.

orthopedic surgery (Q15218776) ar جراحة العظام ca Cirurgia ortopèdica ckb نەشتەرگەریی ئۆرتۆپێدیک da Ortopædkirurgi en Orthopedic surgery es Cirugía ortopédica it Chirurgia ortopedica mk Ортопедска хиругија no Ortopedisk kirurgi

orthopedics (Q216685) be Артапедыя bg Ортопедия cs Ortopedie de Orthopädie el Ορθοπεδική eo Ortopedio es Ortopedia et Ortopeedia eu Ortopedia fa ارتوپدی fi Ortopedia fr Orthopédie ga Ortaipéide he אורתופדיה hi विकलांग शल्यचिकित्सा hr Ortopedija hy Օրթոպեդիա id Bedah ortopedi io Ortopedio it Ortopedia ja 整形外科学 ka ორთოპედია kn ಮೂಳೆ ಶಸ್ತ್ರಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ko 정형외과 ky Ортопедия lt Ortopedija lv Ortopēdija ne हाडजोर्नी शल्यचिकित्सा nl Orthopedie no Ortopedi pi हाडजोर्नी शल्यचिकित्सा pl Ortopedia pt Ortopedia ro Ortopedie și traumatologie ru Ортопедия sa हाडजोर्नी शल्यचिकित्सा scn Mèdicu di l'ossa sh Ortopedija sk Ortopédia sl Ortopedija so Addimo-yaqaan sr Ortopedija sv Ortopedi te కీళ్ళ సంబంధిత శస్త్రచికిత్స th ศัลยศาสตร์ออร์โทพีดิกส์ tr Ortopedi uk Ортопедія zh 骨科 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.110.88 (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling
I just came across this article. I couldn't care less what it's named, but the fact that it uses both spellings throughout is really really odd on here. As such I see three options:
 * 1) Keep as is
 * 2) Keep name, and change all uses to Orthopedic
 * 3) Move and change all uses to Orthopaedic

I'm in favor of either 2 or 3, obviously. I've done this as an RFC to get it wide, and included it in style to have that group on here. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I believe leaving it as is is confusing and is the worse option. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the policy WP:ART1VAR might have an answer to this. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  04:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - Hmmmmm.... WP:ART1VAR suggests we should pick option 2 or 3, right? Do you have a preference for 2 or 3? NickCT (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with below; however, ultimately whether two or three will end up going to consensus, I think. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @  14:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - Actually, I'm wondering whether we should just make the change. Looks like this was last discussed in 2011. Also looks like we have a local consensus of three editors here. I'd motion that we close this RfC and move to make the change if there are no dissenting voices in the next 24hr. NickCT (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, in that case we should do 2 if we don't get dissent by 14:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Prefer 2. 3 is OK. Not 1. - I think I'd opt for 2 over 3 here. I'd point to WP:COMMONNAME to support this (yes, I know commonname is for article titles, but I think it applies in principle to this discussion). After a cursory simple search engine test, "orthopedic" appears to be the more common usage. That said, it looks like both usages are fairly common, so I don't 3 would be a bad resolution here. NickCT (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 or 3 Consistency is paramount for any future FA candidacies. Fdssdf (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 prefered, 2 ok like fdssdf said. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  11:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2 preferred, 3 OK A google books search finds more results for Orthopedic, And more modern results for orthopedic. Similar for google scholar. The article originated as orthopedic. There seems to be no good reason to change away from Orthopedic. Also the article uses Americanized spelling ("popularized", "utilizing", "standardized", "organization" & "hospitalizations") which would tend to point to Orthopedic. All that being said I have no problem with either option but inconsistency should be removed. Just as a note for whoever implements this, a simple find replace will not be sufficient as organisation names will need their spellings preserved. SPACKlick (talk)

Requested move 13 July 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Good arguments were put forward on both sides of the issue, but there is no consensus for the proposed title. No such user (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

14:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Orthopedic surgery → Orthopaedic surgery – Per WP:COMMONALITY; there is no WP:ENGVAR issue at stake, since orthopaedic institutions and publications in North America also prefer the ae spelling (an uncommon situation). That spelling is thus the actual WP:COMMONNAME in genuinely reliable sources; the e spelling is primarily used in news journalism and in signage, both of which focus on brevity above all. More detailed rationale below. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  Dr Strauss   talk   11:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * Oppose. Either variant is probably fine, but the current title is probably better. Google Books is actually an excellent way to answer the question: How is this word spelled in reliable English-language sources? Which is really what we're after here - not just how do experts refer to something in their own world. And Google Books shows that orthopedic is used at more than a 2:1 ratio over orthopaedic. And WP:COMMONALITY cuts both ways. While ae is certainly found in a healthy minority of American books, e is found in a similarly healthy minority of British books. (Sorry rest of world - that's all that Google Books lets me zone in on.) Google Scholar prefers ae to e by less than 2:1, with a smaller corpus. And following JAMA and NEJM is hardly "dumbing down" anything. We already have the more common spelling, and a spelling that is universally recognized. This one ain't broke. Dohn joe (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: if there is no reason to adopt a US spelling (which, clearly, is not even standard in the US), go for this. The ae spelling is universal, ie used all over the world, whilst the e is not. – Sb2001 talk page 14:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons, spell it that way, so this means that like aluminium, it is recognised with that spelling in professional scientific circles on a worldwide basis, and hence it is a special case of WP:ENGVAR, which is not just a continental split, but there is a version with more academic and scientific commonality attached, hence we should use that. — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Both spellings appear to be perfectly acceptable and in wide use, and while some evidence shows that "Orthopaedic" is more common, "Orthopedic" is more common in others, notably Google Books ( vs. ) and Google News ( vs. ). This clearly isn't an WP:ENGVAR or WP:COMMONALITY issue since both spellings are found on both sides of the Atlantic. The article was created using "Orthopedic" so WP:RETAIN carries weight here.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion
The 2016 discussion was irregular; the standard process for settling article title questions is WP:RM, and we do it this way because RM attracts analysis and input from more than just the "regulars" at a particular article. This is particularly important for compliance with the naming criteria; the very reason RM exists is that the regulars at innumerable articles often prefer titles that conflict with article title policy, a continual WP:CONLEVEL problem.

I've reopened this as a proper RM discussion, because: — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:COMMONALITY strongly suggests to use the ae spelling, which is universally recognized in English.
 * 2) It is the more common spelling (WP:COMMONNAME) in English, world-wide, in sources that are actually reliable on the subject (WP:RS, WP:V).
 * 3) There is no WP:ENGVAR argument to make; US institutions and publications that actually focus on this discipline also prefer that spelling.
 * 4) This is a special case, not comparable to paediatric/pediatric, encyclopaedia/encyclopedia or foetus/fetus, because the actually reliable American sources also lean toward the digraph, an uncommon situation.
 * 5) Google Books (heavily relied upon in the 2016 discussion) is not a source, and is full of false positives (especially in the form of unreliable publications). Even where it provides some useable information, it has to be used and interpreted very carefully, with cognizance of biases, especially in cases like this – many publications "dumb down" spellings for an American audience, and the US produces a) more books than anywhere else, and b) more low-end books than reliable sources. (NB: I say this an American.)
 * 6) The "just-e" spelling is primarily used in news journalism and hospital wall signage, both mediums that prioritize for compression over other concerns. WP is not written in news style, as a matter of policy. While WP does care about concision, it is not chief among the naming criteria, and as a Wikipedia matter is one of excess wording, and rarely pursued down to the single-character level, and not without very good reason.
 * 7) Nearly a year has passed since the above poorly-attended discussion, with only five respondents to the original poster.  pinged for their additional input. (Previous discussion was way back in 2006.)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hip surgery
Just want to see video of anterior and posterior hip surgery 2601:3CA:C201:32E0:F11A:D785:5735:219E (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Orthopedic surgery


text:
Talk:Otorhinolaryngology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tjones32.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do they exist?
Just curious why someone would decide to go to an otolarynhgthist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.45.237 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Maybe because they have an extreme sinus, nose, throat, ear problem? Probably the vast majority of their patients go to a "regular" (nonspecialist) physician 1st, then get referred because the problem is too complex. I was personally referred to one when I was 13 years old, to have surgery on my nose & sinuses.  As for your topic heading, why do any specialists exist? Why not just have all doctors be "jacks-of-all-trades"; better yet, why not just have everybody be "generalists", doing away completely with specializaton and go back to a barter economy. Is that what you'd like? Have you ever heard of the concept of the "division of labor"?173.16.124.196 (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.124.196 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi all, I am interested in standardizing and cleaning up this wikipedia site. I don't believe the current "Topics" section is particularly well organized, nor is it very helpful to people (especially potential patients) to have various sections on surgical techniques like free tissue transfer. Perhaps we instead name this section "Specialties and Related Conditions" - and implement a separate section on tests used by ENT docs so patients might get some guidance into what an ENT can help them with. Thoughts? --Nicoespi (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

i
i want to be one. help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.150.254 (talk • contribs)

 * Well, finish primary school and secondary school, go to university, get a medical degree and apply for specialist training in otolaryngology. Simple. JFW | T@lk  18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

ENT
"A somewhat outdated, but nevertheless commonly used, term for this speciality is ENT (ear nose and throat)." This seems to be a put-down of the majority of people, who use ordinary, easy-to-remember English terms rather than medical terminology. --Singkong2005 00:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just got a job at an eye and ear hospital. I now sort all of the incoming mail. Leaning why the mail for ENT goes in the same box as the mail for Otolaryngology was useful to me. -- Ianiceboy 11:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

otorhinolaryngology
hopiakuta 00:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

International Leaning
This article only has a US-angle (and, contrary to popular belief there is a world outside of the USA), can someone change it so that it has different areas for different countries - for instance, training in the United Kingdom is very different to that undertaken in the states? --CapFan —Preceding comment was added at 14:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Aww what, no pronunciation key and example? C'mon someone muster up the pronunciation key for this, the hardest word to pronounce in the English language :P SyBer WoLff  02:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
User:Avg inserted an etymology for the term otolaryngology (on August 12, 2007) which is quite misleading. Many medical and scientific modern Greek terms (such as the word for biology, biorhythm, and xenoglossy) don't come from from Ancient Greek but from Neolatin compounds (usually via German or French) which in their turn are based on ancient Greek roots. This means that the English word otolaryngology is cognate to Greek ὠτολαρυγγολογία, since they are both derived from the Neolatin 'construction'. Stating that a word is a derivate of another word while, in fact, they are cognates is misleading. In this respect, the article should either just include the Greek roots, or, alternatively, also include the cognate modern Greek word provided that the relationship of the latter to the corresponding English term will be explicitly stated. Note, that this is the way every other wiki-article on a theory/concept which is described by a Neolatin word based on classical Greek roots deals with this kind of etymological confusion (see also agnotology). --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The etymology given in the article has changed since 2009, but it may still be incorrect for the reason given above. It is not clear that the "etymology" given is not just original research by various editors. I have requested a citation to support the etymology given, and will remove it if no citation is provided. It is not clear that it is appropriate to give etymology here, anyway. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The etymology of an article's title is not in general relevant to the topic of an article. This article's proper topic is "the study of ear, nose, and throat conditions", not the word otolaryngology.--Srleffler (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 * Seems kind of weird to comment on this so late, but describing any of the words involved as “cognates” is improper. Cognates are lexemes which have descended into two or more sister languages stemming from the same lexeme in a common ancestor language, not just two words that are the same/related in two languages. The word “television” in English is not a cognate to French “télevision” as they did not arrive from a common-ancestor-language word, but were instead both borrowing from a newly coined Neolatin term. The important distinction here being necessary is that cognates demonstrate full sound and semantic mutations of related languages and allow us to learn what rules lead to a sound shift. While borrowings do not, they instead demonstrate either none (learned) or some (semi-learned) of the accompanying sound shifts. “Ear” is the cognate to “ὠτός”, not the “oto—” of otorhinolaryngology.
 * To bring this around to something “actionable” the description that exists now as “a combination of New Latin combining forms … dervived from four Ancient Greek words” is linguistically accurate, and again no cognates are involved. --Puellanivis (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Please correct name
The correct name is Otorhinolaryngology and this should be the name of the article. It may be commonly referred to as Otolaryngology, but that is an incomplete name and should not be the title of the article. Afil (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Otolaryngology → Otorhinolaryngology – That term is more correct because ORL also studies nose ( ῥίς (rhís, “nose”), genitive: ῥινός (rhinós)) not only ear and throat, all the other Wikipedias use it (check it if you don't believe me), it's an international term, the name of specialization is otorhinolaryngology worldwide, that term is used by the majority of the ORL (not OL) specialists 93.136.62.213 (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC). 93.136.62.213 (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The common name for the specialty. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes sense. Asturkian (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support --WS (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Does the rhino face extinction?
I've no particular opinion on whether a rhino belongs within oto?laryngology. I did rerhinotize the article -- not because of my own understanding of what was inherently better, but simply in accordance with both the article title and what I read above. This was reverted by 72.234.41.245, who didn't explain himself where he should have, but did post the following on his own talk page:

The name of this speciality has been changed from Otolaryngology to Otorhinolaryngology because the latter is the "proper" name.

The trade body of this group of doctors is the American Board of Otolaryngology.

A Google Ngram of this word is illuminating with the usage split about 7.5:1.

And apart from anything else you confused the hell out of me and I lost about half an hour working out what Otorhinolaryngology was and researching and correcting this.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Otorhinolaryngology%2COtolaryngology&year_start=1880&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2COtorhinolaryngology%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2COtolaryngology%3B%2Cc0

Keep up the good work!

Steve

The ngram to which Steve links is indeed impressive. This does not mean that it's decisive. However, it is evidence; whereas the only two arguments for rhino-retention in the section "Requested move" above are are accuracy and (from Necrothesp, without accompanying evidence) commonness of use. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Hello, I am the person that requested the move. The anonymous user above states that the term Otorhinolaryngology confused the hell out of him and, well, for me it was quite the opposite — the term otolaryngology confused me very much. In my language we also use this Latin term and we always say it as ORL not OL. I don't know why the English language threw "rhino" (nose) out of specialty's name (probably for the easier pronunciation which is pointless), but in most other languages the ORL term is more frequent and here are Google Ngrams to prove it: German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian. Google Ngrams don't offer other languages so these are all. As you can see, in all of them ORL is much more common and if somebody, whose mother tongue is not English but either one of those languages or most other world languages, will go searching internet and Wikipedia for ORL, not OL and therefore that should be the name of the article. Also, look at the article name for all other Wikipedias. And not just because of that, but because of accuracy, as you mentioned. ORL is for noses as well as for ears and throats. 78.0.208.231 (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Correction suggestion
"Latissimus is another word for back in the medical field as well as rectus abdominis which is your abdominal area" This is not an accurate statement, as those muscle names are not "another word" for those body regions. 162.211.72.10 (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Otorhinolaryngology


text:
Talk:Plastic surgery

The father of surgery are susukta  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:DC6:E36B:0:0:41CA:CC01 (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Justjoyy, Kmsmitty296, Carms15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge from Cosmetic_surgery_in_Australia
It seems that that section of the Australian-focused page is a generic overview, it does not seem to discuss anything specific to Australia and would benefit from being merged here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts. I have left a comment on your talk page with some more details. I am reviewing Merging and preparing myself to take on this daunting task for a relative newcomer to Wikipedia! I expect to make some errors in formatting as I undertake this process, and any assistance you could provide in this regard would be incredibly helpful. --- Marcia Barnett (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Walter Theo Image
The description of the Walter Theo has two different stories. In one instance, it says the image shows him before surgery and the other is after surgery. Another instance states that one image is immediately after surgery, and the other is after more healing time from the surgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.210.44 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic research about plastic surgery
I want to report in my classmates and teacher 124.217.120.238 (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for feedback - March 17 2024
I recently published a Wikipedia article on Snapchat dysmorphia and noticed this concept was mentioned within this article under the "Psychological Disorders" section, so I have linked the new article! I would appreciate any feedback on the Snapchat dysmorphia article. Please reach out if you have any questions/concerns. Thank you! - Jinnyjin123 (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Plastic surgery


text:
Talk:Vascular surgery

The words "interventional neuroradiologists" in the opening paragraph link not to a page about the profession or even radiologists in general, but rather to a scholarly journal with a similar title. This seems improper, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.93.252 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

ANZSVS-related suggested updates
The development of endovascular surgery has been accompanied by a gradual separation of vascular surgery from its origins in general surgery. Most vascular surgeons would now confine their practice to vascular surgery and similarly, general surgeons would not be trained or practice the larger vascular surgery operations or most endovascular procedures. More recently, professional vascular surgery societies and their training program have formally separated "Vascular Surgery" into a separate specialty with its own training program, meetings, accreditation. Notable societies are Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), USA; Australian and New Zealand Society for Vascular Surgery (ANZSVS). Local societies also exist e.g. New South Wales Vascular and Melbourne Vascular Surgery Association (MVSA). Larger societies of surgery actively separate and encourage specialty surgical societies under their umbrella e.g. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS).

Vascular Surgery Training (in Australia): 6 years (1 year to meet prerequisites, 5 years training)

This open access article also outlines information about Vascular Surgery in Australia. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0741521408013852

Possibly relevant but out of context sentence moved
The information below was an isolated paragraph in the Scope section of the article. Although it contains infromation relevant to vascular surgery it is isolated from any context.

It is unclear on the benefits and harms of wound drainage after lower limb arterial surgery.

Scope
Moved scope section with minimal info here as it is somewhat redundant with new Management sections of the article

The main disease categories and procedures associated with them are listed below.

title: Talk:Vascular surgery


text:
Talk:Urology

Sections
I have amended the subspecialties slightly, adding references and info to Endourology with a link to the international sub-specialty's website. I have changed the Urologic Oncology Management description, the management mode of cancers correlates with doctor's training, unfortunately, and not the other way round (which would be more logical but is untrue). --Ariolan (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Paedophilia
I have removed a link at the bottom of the page to paedophilia with the words (pediatric urology) in parentheses, because the page on paedophilia made no reference to urology. If there is in fact more of a connection here beyond a few chuckles, it must be made more explicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.226.217 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Male-centric
"Branches of urology" goes on and on about prostates and penes and then at the end there's a paragraph on "gynecologic urology", as if women were a special case of men. While this may reflect the sad state of urology in practice, urology as a medical field is about all urogenital variants alike.--87.162.20.28 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism Section
Do you think medical articles on WP should include information on to what extent the current practice is "Evidence-Based"? There is no critique in here on the effectiveness of the diagnostic and treatment methods of modern urology and whether or not urology is practiced strictly according to sound science.Herbxue (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Urology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150205173633/http://www.auanet.org/content/residency/what-is-urology.cfm to http://www.auanet.org/content/residency/what-is-urology.cfm

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Urology


text:
Talk:Pulmonology

Merger with pulmonologist
The pulmonologist article is newly created with good content that would be better suited in the pulmonology article. To be consistent with all other medical specialties, the article about the physician working in the specialty ("-ist") should redirect to the specialty ("-ology") article. There is already a training section in the pulmonology article, which is where information in the pulmonologist article would belong. The pulmonology article has been in bad shape for a while, and merging these articles could be the start of a decent comprehensive article. --Scott Alter 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Greetings, I made that edit to the pulmonologist article and think that your idea could work very well. I just want to verify that you want the content of the pulmonologist article moved into the appropriate places on the pulmonology article page. Thank you for your thoughts, -- Tyrol5  [Talk]  16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 * As no one owns or can claim sole authorship of any articles, you can do whatever you want to any article. However, there are guidelines as to how to format a medical specialty article.  The Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) has a section on medical specialties, so you could follow this style to format pulmonology.  As a general rule when merging, you should not remove any content such that information is lost.  So you should not completely overwriting information in Pulmonology with content from Pulmonologist.
 * Getting in to specifics of pulmonologist, the lead paragraph is mostly duplicate information from pulmonology, so it does not need to be merged. The information you wrote about medical school admissions is inappropriate for either article, as it is not directly applicable to the field of pulmonology.  There are separate articles about medical school and medical education (and see also Medical school in the United States and Medical education in the United States).  I'm not really sure where to put the salary information - maybe someone else can think of an appropriate place for it.  Ideally, all information in all articles should be cited by a reliable source.  Indicating that the information comes from prior knowledge is not acceptable to have in an encyclopedic article.  I'm going to remove the inappropriate content from pulmonologist, and I'll leave the merging for you - since I think you intend to expand pulmonology further.  --Scott Alter 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much for your feedback. I did not intend to take any ownership. I am curious enough to ask you what content from the pulmonologist article you think is good information to move over into the pulmonology article. Thanks again, -- Tyrol5  [Talk]  23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I just did the merge of the articles. If you think I missed something, you can add it back to pulmonology.  --Scott Alter 01:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your help, scott -- Tyrol5  [Talk]  17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Point of view" comments removed
I have removed this text from the article: "This salary is not easily earned though. Pulmonologists, as well as all other types of physicians, are among the most training required of all jobs, however, they are probably some of the most rewarding of all jobs. Becoming a pulmonologist or other physician requires a huge commitment of time and money."

Although I agree with this (being a pulmonologist myself), this information is biased and does not belong in the article. Axl ¤  [Talk]  09:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I didn't even read the entire text that I had merged. I agree that the removed information does not belong.  --Scott Alter 12:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Title Change
I think we should change the title of the article to 'Pneumonology', and redirect 'Pneumology' and 'Pulmonology' (both of which are incorrect titles). Refer to this journal article: http://www.chestjournal.org/content/121/5/1385.full Basically, Pulmonology is incorrect because it mixes two languages: 'Pulmo' (Latin for 'lung') and 'logos' (Greek for 'speech' or logic'). 'Pneumo' refers to air, whereas 'Pneumon' refers to lung. See the article for an in-depth discussion. Garaiavu (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pneumonology" is a word, but I do not believe it is necessary to change the title. Pneumology redirects here. It is not necessary to change the title, as all other terms for pulmonology can be redirected here.  Tyrol5   [Talk]  13:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pulmo" and "logy" may be from different languages, but "pulmonology" is a derived term. I have never heard of "pneumonology." Tyrol5   [Talk]  21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Cleanup
I believe that this article is in need of cleanup. It has not been a very comprehensive or good quality article ever since its creation. More sources need to be referenced. A proper reflist needs to be added (I have very little experience with this), and last but certainly not least, the article needs to be set up so that it does not look like a list of concepts. Please feel free to help improve this article. One may wish to look at higher quality medical specialty articles such as Endocrinology for how to format the article. Please also see Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). Thanks. Tyrol5  [Talk]  00:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Acute and Chronic cough: the need for effective treatment.
I have a great interest in the management of cough. I would very happy to share my 35 years of experience in the management of cough with anybody who has the same interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.64.26 (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pulmonology


text:
Talk:General surgery

Incredubke
This is the first Wikipedia article that I have looked at (and I have been browsing Wikipedia for over 4 years now) that specifies a concept amongst the English speaking world[[ as being applicable to both the non USA [[Anglosphere and the USA. Well done to whoever contrbuted to this article !

Most articles (non universal English language) are written in the English language as if everyone in the English language used the articles term actually uses the term (which is frequantly not the case) or the article concerned is written specifically fron a USA perspective.

This article is great !

--Ordew 15:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the last bit about training program was pretty US centric. I decided to axe it-- not 'cause it was US centric, but because I don't think it has a place in Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not a residency guide. Nephron  T|C 04:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Some parts of this article are unprofessional and should be deleted in my view; for instance take the following quote: "General Surgery has lost most of its former glory and scope. Nonetheless, it continues to be a somewhat competitive, rewarding and demanding specialty in its own right"

It has lost its former glory and scope? In the eyes of whom? If this is true, why? It is a "somewhat competitive" field? What does that even mean? Competitive how?

This is just one example. I'm not going to change anything unilaterally, but I just wanted to draw attention to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.151.163 (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

FRCS /M.S and picture
M.S/F.R.C.S

Some comments:

Good, atleast mask is there. I think during "war time surgery" too, there should be "Surgical Etiquette"
 * How can that DUDE in COMABAT-DRESS can be in OT-HALL during OPERATION? No restriction? No OT-DRESS?

Which country is that?

Please, with all my respect, remove that picture. That will give negative information about/towards surgery. (It certainly will give a lot of questions.) ''' Infact, according to my knowledge medical science related students/professionals do practice very complicated methods/procedures before, during and after surgical procedures.

And if possible please, explanation expected relating F.R.C.S and M.S.
 * F.R.C.S is well defined here, what about M.S?

Thanking you

(AnThRaX Ru 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

Minor Edit 11/10/2008
I changed the phrasing "Causes less of chest complications" to "Causes a lower instance of chest complications..." under the Colorectal sub-headng.--Legomancer (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

About Pediatric Surgery Title
"Pediatric surgery is a subspecialty of general surgery...."
 * In many countries pediatric surgery is a subspecialty of general surgery but in some countries Pediatric surgery has its own speciality program apart from general surgery. It should be noted in the article.

"Pediatric surgery is 5–7 years of residency and a 2-3 fellowship"
 * The sentence is not clear. It may be " Pediatric surgery is 5–7 years of general surgery residency and a 2-3 pediatric surgery fellowship". But it is not true for all countries again. Because in some countries pediatric surgery is a residency program after the medical school not fellowship after the general surgery. -- Antmqr  mesaj at  13:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"On award of the MRCS examination, surgeons may hold the title 'Mister' or 'Miss/Ms./Mrs' rather than doctor."
I had assumed that this dates back to Nelson's time when the Royal Navy who I very strongly believe pioneered surgery, employed a 1st lieutenant in that role and he would be referred to as 'Mr' JRPG (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:General surgery


text: User talk:68.42.191.92

title: User talk:68.42.191.92


text:
Whip (disambiguation)

A whip is a stick, cord, or strap, usually with a stiff handle, used for striking or as an animal training aid.

Whip or whips or WHIP or The Whip may also refer to:

People

 * Whip (musician), American folk singer-songwriter
 * Whip Jones (1909–2001), American ski industry pioneer

Fictional characters

 * Whip (comics), several DC Comics characters
 * Whip (King of Fighters), a video game character

Films

 * The Whip (1917 film), an American silent drama film directed by Maurice Tourneur
 * The Whip (1928 film), an American silent film drama directed by Charles Brabin
 * The Whip (1939 film) (Spanish: El látigo), a Mexican film directed by José Bohr
 * The Whip (2024 film), a British heist film directed by Christopher Presswell

Music

 * Whip (percussion), a percussion instrument
 * The Whip (band), a British electro-rock band
 * "Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae)", a song by the American rapper Silentó
 * The Whip (album), a compilation album

Other uses in arts, entertainment, and media

 * Chicago Whip, a defunct early 20th century African-American newspaper often referred to as The Whip
 * WHIP (AM), a radio station (1350 AM), Mooresville, North Carolina, US
 * The Whip (play), a 1909 melodrama
 * The Whip (ride), an amusement ride
 * The Whip, a dance move popularised by Watch Me (Whip/Nae Nae)

Devices

 * Whipping knot (or whipping), a binding around the end of a rope to prevent it from fraying
 * Whip antenna, for radio waves
 * WHIPS, Whiplash Injury Protection System in automobiles
 * Whipstaff or whip, used to steer an old sailing vessel
 * Whip, slang for a car

Sports

 * Walks plus hits per inning pitched (WHIP), a baseball statistic
 * Washington Whips, a defunct US soccer/football team

Other uses

 * Whip (politics), a political party discipline official
 * Whip (tree), a slender unbranched shoot or plant
 * Whip, to punish using a whip; see Flagellation
 * Walnut Whip - a chocolate sweet

title: Whip (disambiguation)


text:
User talk:128.95.141.33

Proposed deletion of HC Andersen (band)

The article HC Andersen (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "WP:N; unsourced since 2009"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:128.95.141.33


text:
Utensil

Utensil may refer to:

 * Kitchen utensil, one of the tools of cooking and baking – cookware and bakeware
 * Eating utensil, a tool for shaping and carrying food to the mouth
 * A tool, serving a set purpose
 * Dragon Throne, also called the "divine utensil" – the rhetorical seat of power in the Empire of China (221 BC – 1912)
 * Royal Utensils, associated with the quintet of Royal Regalia in Thailand

title: Utensil


text:
Talk:Armand Hammer

Untitled
Armand Hammer Biography: Blumay, Carl, The Dark Side of Power, ISBN 0-671-85086-5 0671700537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.141.37 (talk) 13:32 & :36, 20 May 2004

(Dossier I)
Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer By Edward Jay Epstein; Random House/US This investigative book exposes the life of Armand Hammer -- hailed during his lifetime as a successful businessman and philanthropist -- for what it was: a myth, nurtured and embellished for nearly 70 years. In 1922, Lenin wrote a secret letter to Stalin, designating Hammer as their official "path" to the resources of American capitalism. From then until his death in 1990, Hammer was indeed a Soviet agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.63.141 (talk) 05:00 & :01, 17 January 2006

(Dossier II)
--Jerzy•t 07:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ''I've used "[--]" below to replace line breaks that made material more confusing: links and comments apparently relating to them are no longer on separate lines.

http://independence.net/gore/ [--] The history of A.H., his connection with the Gores, and his false credibility. Most of them are taken from the Epstein's Dossier

www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38c4a8fd6308.htm [--] How Mr Clean got his hands dirty [The Gores, Armand Hammer, and Oxy Petroleum] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.63.141 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2006

 * http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/armand_hammer.htm [--] Reviewing DOSSIER: THE SECRET HISTORY OF ARMAND HAMMER

 * http://members.iglou.com/jtmajor/Hammer.htm [--] ... in green background

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.63.141 (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2006
 * |The The Great Pretender [--] Another review of Dossier, highlighted on Hammer's connection with English royalty

Hammer's FBI files have been pulled by researchers using the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI followed him closely through much of his life. You can find the records online if you search a bit. The nasty stuff boils down to
 * I've actually read "The Dark Side of Power" and "Dossier", not just the book jacket blurb and reviews. The Soviets were delighted to have a sympathetic ear in Armand Hammer, and had great hopes for him as an "agent of influence" (their expression, not mine). Note, however, that an "agent of influence" is not a Soviet agent in the sense that the Washington Times or Free Republic would have you believe. He did not take orders from anybody behind the iron curtain; they just hoped that his positive experiences in the USSR would serve as a role model to convince other capitalists to regard them more favorably. In this, they were disappointed. Through his life, Hammer regularly exaggerated his wealth and influence. He got a lot more from the Soviets in business deals and classic art than they ever got from him.
 * His father had been a communist (as discussed in the Wikipedia article)
 * Hammer gave illegal support to the Republican party
 * Uucp 11:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(Medicine (& Dossier III))
There's a discussion at http://www.volokh.com/posts/1177040902.shtml that mentions inaccuracies in the article, including that:
 * The "although he never practiced medicine" part is inaccurate
 * The botched abortion which the Wikipedia article attributes to his father was performed by him
 * Quite a bit of negative information from Dossier is not present.

We don't have direct sources for the first two (unless it's in Dossier, which someone else will have to check), but we don't have sources for the parts of the article that contradict them either. Ken Arromdee 13:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The botched abortion was performed by his father, according to the Biographical Dictionary of American Business Leaders, p. 533. That source also indicates "he was sent there [Russia] in 1921 (while waiting for his internship to begin at Bellevue Hospital)", and in Theodore D. Lockwood's Dreams & Promises: The Story of the Armand Hammer United World College, p. 11 we also find that "Hammer had studied medicine at Columbia University and had received his M.D. in 1921, but before he could take up his internship he went to Russia".

Biruitorul 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While neither of these explicitly say "he never practiced medicine", the fact that he never did an internship would indicate that. However, if you want to be airtight, you could replace it with something like "Although his medical career ended before he could begin his internship"...

Biruitorul 03:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussion at Volokh, it seems possible he practiced medicine while a student. So we could say something like "Although he never completed his internship...", to cover the possibility that he did practice while at Columbia.

Soviet Order of Friendship of People
There is no such thing as "Lenin's Order of Friendship of People", there are Lenin Order and Order of Friendship of Peoples; Hammer was awarded the latter. Corrected in the article.

oxana (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Julius Hammer as owner of Soviet Concession
In Alexander Barmine's book "One Who Survived" it was Dr. Julius Hammer who received the Soviet stationary concession and Barmine was in a position to know since he was in charge of the trading company that bought the supplies from Hammer's factories. It appears that Armand Hammer later told journalists that he ran the Soviet concession and deals when in fact it was his father, Julius, who did so. Barmine refers to Julius Hammer as "Dr. Hammer" in his book so apparently Armand was imitating his father with this title as well.

John Chamberlain (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone about california have a reference to this.
I remember from a report I did about 1982, on the year 1971, that during this cold war period, it was claimed that Armand Hammer died in 1971, as did Louis Armstrong. Does anyone have a reference book showing this data, as all current data shows revisions, as in The Summer of Love article on wikipedia calling it 1967 only, and not 1969, or even into 1969 (until it was updated).

LoneRubberDragon (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It was still deep in the cold war era, about the times of COINTELPRO, hyperinflation from the 1960's technology economy bust and housing market home price inflation, and the cuban missile crisis was recent as with the Kennedy Assassination. Propaganda cannot be ruled out to Manufacture Consent, since Armand Hammer was a russian of Baking Soda and other fame. LoneRubberDragon (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

LoneRubberDragon (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The report was made within united states, california, los angeles county, LAUSD, Diamond Bar, Grade School infrastructure which is located next to the Diamond Bar oil fields with (now decomissioned) NIKE missile site protection, so cold war propaganda to Manufacture Consent may very likely apply to this historical data reference, now missing in records.

LoneRubberDragon (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puente_Hills

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brea-Olinda_Oil_Field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_missile

LoneRubberDragon (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Quest for the Romanov treasure (retitled) UNTITLED REDUNDANT SECTION
I retitled the section - to draw maximum attention to the issue. The section has no content - none whatsoever - addressing the original section title. I hope for productive response to this - to wit, deletion or, if possible, applicable refill. JTGILLICK (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This section should be expanded or have its name changed. There is nothing in the this section that even hints at the Romanov treasure except that it questions his motivations for going to Russia/Soviet Union. The reader is required to make some pretty broad assumptions in order to make a connection.

John Elson ★ 3Dham ★  WF6I A.P.O.I. 18:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Uucp (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Quest for the Romanov Treasure" is the name of the book Hammer published about his early years in the Soviet Union, and the material in that section presumably derives from the book and other people's responses to it.

Why the "See also" section
What's the link with Cyrus Eaton? There's no mention of Armand Hammer in that article, or Cyrus Eton in this one.

Jed (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of inapplicable terms
In the lead section: --Jerzy•t 02:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) If you object to a *person* (rather than to some role being assigned to him), i think you want him killed or left to starve. In any case, tell us the context.
 * 2) You pretty much cultivate people by deciding to, and pretty much succeed or fail at that attempt "thanks to" your resources (including skill) or lack thereof.

--Jerzy•t 07:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My preceding comments in this talk section explain logic behind my corresponding rewrites in same 24 period.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Armand Hammer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080703201642/http://hammer.ucla.edu/collections/2/ to http://www.hammer.ucla.edu/collections/2/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Armand Hammer. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000522/silverstein
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724222406/http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/87-88/reg878a.cfm to https://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/87-88/reg878a.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

How about WWII?
Seems a glaring omission to leave out of this article exactly what he was doing during all of WWII. Starhistory22 (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Julius Hammer
Is there an article on Julius Hammer somewhere? It seems like a separate article on him is warranted based on the amount of information in this article on him. Nogburt (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Armand Hammer


text:
Talk:Mastocytosis

c-kit
c-kit mutations are common in SM] Imatinib, anyone? JFW | T@lk  06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

PREVENTION
THERES TREATMENTS FOR THE SYMPTOMS BUT IS THERE PREVENTIONS FOR THE PROBLEM? LIKE EATING CERTAIN FOODS AND THE REST? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here == HELP ==

Where the Mastocycoma is locaited on the arm of a child, can the arm of the child just stop working, go limp so to speak or have any pain do to this?

My son has this on his left arm today he stopped useing this arm, you can tell there is still feeling in his arm but he is not lifting things or raising his left arm.

So the question is, is this caused by the Mastocycoma on his arm?

Please Anwser Or write if you and you know some one that has this disorder. ms_princess_420@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.47.125 (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here == Lack of documentation to support promotion of antidepressant use by people with mastocytosis ==

A point stated in the article:

"Antidepressants are an important and often overlooked tool in the treatment of mastocytosis. The

stress and physical discomfort of any chronic disease may increase the likelihood of a patient

developing depression. Depression and other neurological symptoms have been noted in

mastocytosis.[7] Some antidepressants such as doxepin are themselves potent antihistamines and can

help relieve physical as well as cognitive symptoms."

We are a referred to an article [7]. The article only mentions antidepressants being used by

three of the people in the study reference. There is nothing documenting efficacy although it

is

reported that one of three on an antidepressant attempted suicide.

Given that it has been found that antidepressants are ineffective approximately 66% of the time,

and placebos effective 30% of the time, strong promotion (as above) of antidepressants in the

treatment of mastocytosis is inappropriate without documentation. Further, there is no

documentation showing Doxepin as efficacious in treating "physical as well as cognitive symptoms".

Halaluani (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Doxepin
Doxepin is an tricyclic antidepressant at 150mg or greater however at lower doses doxepin acts more as an antihistamine. Doxepin is a strong H1, H2 and H4 antihistamine. H1, H2 and H4 receptors are dominant on the human mast cell making doxepin something of a mast cell stabilizer. The trouble with using doxepin to treat systemic mastocytosis is people with this disease may have abnormal serotonin levels so even at a very low dose there is a risk of serotonin toxicity. Usually the benefits here outweigh the risk of trying doxepin as its effective against bone pain, neuropathic pain, dementia and flushing. I'm speaking from experience here as a patient however I will try to get you some references. Buddha443556 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dementia
Two symptom that are missing from the mastocytosis page is dementia and delirium. Mastocytosis patients refer to it as brain fog. Realize the is one of the most disabling symptom of systemic mastocytosis if your thinking is impaired there is not much in the way of work you can do and you will be lucky to be able to care for yourself. See http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/48/6/437.pdf Buddha443556 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge
Hello to all! I am proposing a merge from the following articles into this article:
 * Diffuse cutaneous mastocytosis
 * Erythrodermic mastocytosis
 * Adult type of generalized eruption of cutaneous mastocytosis
 * Xanthelasmoidal mastocytosis

This is for the following reasons:
 * These articles are very short in length (1-2 sentences) and have not been edited significantly in 3-4 years.
 * This knowledge shouldn't be obscured from readers of this article by virtue of being isolated in an obscure article of 1-2 lines.
 * These topics may receive more attention by being mentioned in the main article.
 * The articles, if needs be, could be re-expanded at a later date.

Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Hello! I agree that articles on ICD-acknowledged forms of mastocytosis should be merged, i.e. types of mastocytosis with similar pathogenesis. Further I don't find it natural to merge articles on reactive forms of mastocytosis with other pathogenesis.

Kind regards, Carl Michael Berg (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Critical care management
10.1186/s13054-015-0956-z JFW | T@lk  09:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

NEJM
10.1056/NEJMra1409760 JFW | T@lk  22:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

WHO 2016
Blood 2017 129:1420-1427; 10.1182/blood-2016-09-731893 JFW | T@lk  09:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mastocytosis. 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/20131228172813/http://www.mastocytosis.ca/masto.htm to http://www.mastocytosis.ca/masto.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

darier's sign
I think there should be mention of Darier's sign, where when a lesion is scratched it creates a erythematous and pruritic response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C20:111A:6D9D:99F:470A:77CA (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Done --Jhoughton1 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Review
Br J Haem 10.1111/bjh.16288 JFW | T@lk  13:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Another diagnosis?
Hmmmm. I came to this page because I have massive sun-exacerbated skin rash on my forearms, almost certainly caused as a side effect to my immunotherapy (Keytruder for metastatic ureterial cancer). My local doctor suspects possibly also mastocytosis, also from the immuno, and says that there is a specific blood test for it. THere is no mention of a blood test under Diagnosis that my non-knowledge of medicine can discern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E422:3C01:1D88:2285:7779:B2F9 (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mastocytosis


text:
Talk:Gastrointestinal stromal tumor

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Gastrointestinal stromal tumor. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060925045501/http://www.liferaftgroup.org/gist_genetics.html to http://www.liferaftgroup.org/gist_genetics.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130116073058/http://sarcomahelp.org:80/articles/gist-prognosis.html to http://sarcomahelp.org/articles/gist-prognosis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gastrointestinal stromal tumor. 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/20071217014235/http://www.projectflag.org/ to https://projectflag.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gastrointestinal stromal tumor. 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/20051125041205/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/CRI_2_3x.asp?rnav=cridg&dt=81 to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/CRI_2_3x.asp?rnav=cridg&dt=81

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gastrointestinal stromal tumor


text:
Talk:Limonium

I took the liberty of moving to the far more common name. It looks like some use "sealavender" for genus and "sea lavender" for species, but that's just asking for massive confusion - better to treat them as synonyms. (This is where we decide that WP's common name is breaking down and go with with Linnean names... :-) ) Stan 13:38, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Fine by me, and thanks as ever for the courtesy of commenting. It's one of those words I know orally rather than in writing anyway.  My original instinct was to write it as two words, but then I found ITIS made it one word - there seems to be a tendency to do similar things for quite a lot of plants when they become genus rather than species names, e.g. fiddleneck rather than fiddle neck, deathcamas rather than death camas.  I guess the thinking is that it helps when you then stick a further adjective in front - it makes it clear that the California Sealavender is a sealavender from California rather than a lavender from the California Sea; and from a Wikipedia point of view, writing it as a single word does reduces the scope for argument on the capitalisation front, if only by one letter!  But basically I'll get on with writing the text and let those who know more about it worry about spaces and caps.  seglea 17:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm taking the liberty of moving it on to Sea-lavender (the orthography given in my books!), for the same reason Seglea makes, to show it is not a Lavender - MPF 09:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Extra photo:

title: Talk:Limonium


text:
New York, Rio, and Buenos Aires Line

New York, Rio, and Buenos Aires Line (NYRBA or NYRBA Air Lines) was an airline that operated seaplane service from New York City to Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, and intermediate points on the east coast of South America during the 1920s. It was forced to merge into its competitor, Pan American World Airways, in 1930.

History
NYRBA was founded by Colonel Ralph A. O'Neill, who had been a decorated ace fighter pilot in World War I and then been a main figure in the establishment of both civil and military aviation in Mexico. He was named the exclusive agent for Boeing and Pratt & Whitney in all of Latin America in 1927, and in his travels he conceived the idea for the airline.

A self-made man, O'Neill personally establishing all South American stops for NYRBA, created designs for the company's seaplanes with leading manufacturers, and arranged the financial backing for his new company. On August 21, 1929, NYRBA started to fly daily between Buenos Aires and Montevideo using the S-38. On September 1, 1929, a flight to Santiago de Chile was initiated and on November 29 on the same year, a flight between Buenos Aires and Yacuíba, Bolivia with multiple stops, started. Brazilian operations started on January 24, 1930, with the creation of its Brazilian subsidiary NYRBA do Brasil with flights along the Brazilian coast. The inaugural flight between Buenos Aires and Miami took place between February 19 and 25, 1930, using eight different Commodores seaplanes and from then on they became regular. Refueling bases consisted of barges and boats that were stationed every 125 to 460 miles along the routes. Most would fuel with five gallon tin cans shipped from Standard Oil in New Jersey. Passenger loads in March 1930 were 15% from Miami to Montevideo, 70% to Buenos Aires, and 45% to Santiago with 16 to 20 cents charged per mile.

Another coup by O'Neill was to secure the Ponta do Calabouço landfill, considered the most valuable real estate in Rio de Janeiro, for use as NYRBA's base in the city.

With the construction of these first "airports", NYRBA was at the time, the world's longest airline, 7,800 miles.

O'Neill met callous opposition from Juan Trippe, who with his associates had taken control of Pan Am. Trippe, his wealthy Yale roommate Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney, and their Aviation Corporation of the Americas chairman Richard Hoyt were related thought marriage and close to the Second Assistant Postmaster General, W. Irving Glover, the professional head of the U.S. Post Office as the position of Postmaster General was a political sinecure. Glover refused to grant air mail contracts to any company not controlled by Trippe's triumvirate. This action was both highly illegal to monopoly laws and a morally corrupt abuse of power.

O'Neill soldiered on in the belief that an airline could actually support itself by carrying passengers, and managed to obtain backing from James Rand, Jr., head of Remington Rand, and others, and NYRBA took to the skies. Their proudest aircraft were the Consolidated Commodore flying boats, although they also used the Consolidated Fleetster, and the Sikorsky S-38.

After the onset of the Great Depression NYRBA's backers were coerced by Trippe and Glover to began to pull out their investments. Though the company's business was growing and it had far more assets, it was compelled to merge as the junior partner into Trippe's Pan Am under circumstances O'Neill described as "a shotgun wedding after a damnable rape". On August 19, 1930 Pan American took over NYRBA for the bargain price of US$2 million.

O'Neill, when offered to head Pan Am's East Coast operations, stated: "You can steal my house, but you can't ask me to run it for you".

While the aviation business thrived, with financial credit given to Pan Am which contrived to take even when it was still controlled by NYRBA, the Brazilian government re-appropriated Ponta do Calabouço. The subsidiary NYRBA do Brasil, which Pan American retained 100% of the shares until 1942, was renamed Panair do Brasil on November 21, 1930. It later became that country's flag carrier.

The NYRBA legacy has been greatly overshadowed by Pan Am, but it's plethora of accomplishments cannot be denied.

Destinations
NYRBA once served the following destinations:

 * Buenos Aires
 * Havana
 * Miami
 * Montevideo - Carrasco International Airport
 * New York City
 * Rio de Janeiro - Manguinhos Airport
 * Santiago de Chile - Los Cerrillos Airport
 * São Paulo - Congonhas International Airport
 * Yacuíba - Yacuiba Airport

title: New York, Rio, and Buenos Aires Line


text:
Sigrun Wodars

Sigrun Grau (née Ludwigs, then Wodars, born 7 November 1965) is an East German former middle distance athlete who was born Sigrun Ludwigs in Neu Kaliß, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. She started out as a 400 m hurdler in Schwerin and finished fourth at the 1981 European Junior Championships. She then switched clubs and changed to the 800 m like her new club mate, Christine Wachtel, who would also become her closest rival.

Now competing under the name of Wodars, she won her first national title in 1986 and placed second at the European Championships in Stuttgart, behind Nadezhda Olizarenko of the Soviet Union.

In 1987, she lost seven out of eight times to Wachtel, but the race she won was the World Championships in Rome, defeating her in a close finish. The two repeated their one-two finish at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul.

Wodars completed her set of titles by also winning the 1990 European Championships in Split, her last title. She divorced and took part as Sigrun Grau in the 1991 World Championships and the 1992 Olympics, reaching the semi-finals both times. She retired after the Barcelona Olympics and currently works as a physiotherapist.

title: Sigrun Wodars