Talk:Physiology

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 21 August 2023 for a period of one week.

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Veterinary medicine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Biology High‑importance Physiology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Physiology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to the field of physiology. Medicine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

where's mention of the legendary roy & sherrington experiment of 1890? observation and measurement of the phenomenon known as neurovascular coupling isn't on par with those listed? surely it's superior, arguably the crown jewel of physiology experiments (given its longevity) 96.52.168.137 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?

- This phrase: “In other words, the body's ability to regulate its internal environment” is not cited. I wonder if these are the editors own words, because it sounds exactly like a textbook definition of homeostasis.

-“It should be noted that, William Beaumont was the first American to utilize the practical application of physiology” is not cited, unclear where the editor got this information from -“The Society was founded in 1887 with 28 members” not cited. - “In medicine, a physiologic state is one occurring from normal body function, rather than pathologically, which is centered on the abnormalities that occur in animal diseases, including humans.” This is linked to reference 4, a news website, which is not a reliable source. -“His modification of this theory better equipped doctors to make more precise diagnoses.” This statement is not supported by a citation.

There are quite a few references in this article that are not reliable: -reference 1 is an online etymology dictionary, not a reliable source as it appears to be an independent site and it has an advertisement. -reference 9 is not from a reliable source, it is a website from a professor who doesn’t list any references and it doesn’t appear to be peer-reviewed. -reference 13 is a link that is not working -reference 17 is from an online encyclopedia called “Jewish Women’s Archive”, not a reliable source because they have an interest in making her activities appear more important than they might be. -reference 20 is from a website that is not a reliable source, a “medical-dictionary” website, which has advertisements introducing a conflict of interest between the truth and the interest of the viewer.

The statement about Barbara McClintock “ was rewarded the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of genetic transposition McClintock is the only female recipient who has won an unshared Nobel Prize.” Is paraphrased from the Wikipedia page on her. This is a hard statement to rewrite, but could have had more effort put in.

The statement “Soon thereafter, in 1913, J.S. Haldane proposed that women be allowed to formally join The Physiological Society, which had been founded in 1876 “ has been plagiarized from the site: http://www.medicaltalk.net/t/about-the-physiology-category/1629. This could explain why the author did not include a citation and it is listed as ‘citation needed’ at the end of this sentence.

The remaining references are to textbooks or articles published in pubmed, which are reliable source because they are peer reviewed. Encylopedia Britannica is referenced several times. This is a good resource with a neutral tone that is peer reviewed according to their site and has multiple authors who are experts in their field. --Nhose711 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

-“Major figures in these fields include Knut Schmidt-Nielsen and George Bartholomew.” This phrase should be cited, and include several other “major figures”, it seems a little biased.

-The section “Women in Physiology” should perhaps be included under history, because giving it a separate heading over-represents women and to be fair, one could argue that a “men in physiology” section should be added.

-“It should be noted that” in “It should be noted that William Beaumont was the first American to utilize the practical application of physiology” should be deleted, and instead just stated as a fact.

The bottom of the article indicates or suggests that physiology is a field of study under forensic science because it uses the term “part of a series on Forensic Science.” However, forensic science utilizes portions of physiology as opposed to the other way around.

The article appears to be heavily biased towards the authenticity of the Nobel Prize as the ultimate achievement in physiology. There are other scientific awards that could be discussed and the award of scientific grants to women might be a better statistic to talk about women in the field since that is a general statistic than Nobel Prizes, which are awarded to outliers in fields (exceptional outliers).

In conclusion, the article is overall neutral about the field, however it has a predisposition, i.e. it is leaning towards the emphasis of women in science as a major component in the field, as opposed to the proper field, which should be the history of physiology. It is over-represented by making it a special section.

3. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

-“Given the size of the field” distracted me. I would leave it out and just state that it is divided into several types. The types listed in the article should be somewhat changed. It states that: “it is divided into, among others, animal physiology (including that of humans), plant physiology, cellular physiology, microbial physiology (microbial metabolism), bacterial physiology, and viral physiology.” Perhaps it could say instead that: it is divided into vertebrate physiology which includes animal (mammalian) and human physiology, microbial physiology, which includes bacteria, fungi, viruses and parasites, plant physiology, and cellular physiology.

-The “Women in Physiology” section distracted me, and I don’t think this should be a separate section, instead it should be added to history. It is not part of the definition of physiology.

-These two sentences should be switched: “The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is awarded to those who make significant achievements in this discipline by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. In medicine, a physiologic state is one occurring from normal body function, rather than pathologically, which is centered on the abnormalities that occur in animal diseases, including humans.” It would make more sense for the sentence about Nobel Prize to follow the description of a “physiologic state”. On that note, I would expand on the definition of a “physiologic state”, as it applies to humans, and include that it involves the maintenance of homeostasis and link the word ‘homeostasis’ to its wiki site.

- “Most recently, evolutionary physiology has become a distinct sub-discipline.” Probably a sentence that is out of date.

-To lengthen the lead, I would definitely add a sentence and say that physiology is an integrated/ interdisciplinary science overlapping with disciplines such as biology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, anatomy, neuroscience, genetics, medicine, and pharmacology. I would also mention that homeostasis as an integral part of human physiology in the lead.

-The end of the history section should include some of the more recent discoveries/ famous people in physiology, such as Eric Kandel, who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2000 for his work related to hippocampal formation of long term memory. No information on the site appears to be outdated except as mentioned above, but the most recent Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine was from 2009. A comprehensive list of Nobel Prizes would be an effective addition to the page.

-The “Human Physiology” section should appear earlier in this article, perhaps after “History” (which would include “Women in Physiology”)

-“Barbara McClintock was rewarded the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of genetic transposition. McClintock is the only female recipient who has won an unshared Nobel Prize.” This information for women in physiology is an important part for the advancement of women in science, but this is included only because the word physiology occurs in the Nobel Prize name. It is not central to the definition or understanding of physiology as a field.

4. How does the Wikipedia article compare to the ways we've discussed this topic in class? Does it align? What information might be incorrect or missing? 

Compared to our introduction to physiology from class, the information in the Wikipedia article does not point to homeostasis as an integral part of human physiology. It also does not discuss the general principles of physiology mentioned at the end of chapter 1 of our textbook, which I think should be discussed before the history. Nhose711 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing some work as a Wikimedian in Residence at The Physiological Society over the next few months. As part of that, I have added a list of prize winners to the article about the society - there are lots of red links there for folk to work on! Please see also Wikipedia:GLAM/PhySoc and note there any articles you create in response to this initiative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I just wanted to hop on here before I start working on the article to introduce myself, let everyone know what I’ve seen in the article that could use some improvement, and see if anyone has run into the same issues I am seeing and has suggestions. I’m working on this article for a class (it’s true), but I also really want to improve the page for its own sake, and for the sake of its many readers. For such an important page, I’m shocked it’s as underdeveloped as it is.

The first thing I’m encountering as potentially problematic is the brevity of the Human Physiology section. I’d like to introduce a Foundations of Physiology section that Human Physio could be a sub-section of, along with sub-sections for plant physiology and the physiologies of non-human animals.

Another thing I’d love to hear your thoughts on is the placement of the Women in Physiology section. I know there’s been a lot of contention surrounding the inclusion and placement of this information. I think the information may work better if included in a Notable Physiologists section rather than tacked on to the end of the History section as it currently is.

I’m really looking forward to working on this page! Morrieormaury (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that a key issue here is that Physiology is such a broad concept that adding more content in any one particular area might start to make the page unbalanced (and I think that there is already some unbalance present). I wonder whether Outline of physiology might be used to help structure new sections; perhaps even merging the two, as I'm not sure how widely the Outline articles are used. Klbrain (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voice 2409:4071:4E1F:A6BE:4BE9:E571:6ABB:B63E (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather cryptic edit from 2409:4071:4E1F:A6BE:4BE9:E571:6ABB:B63E; I think that we can call that a test edit ... Klbrain (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]