Talk:Klinefelter's syndrome/Archive 1

message: Direct quotations in the manner of interviews and such a meandering, magazine-article approach are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. There's a lot of POV here and useless information. Unless strong objections are voiced, I'm going to cut a wide swath of deletion throughout and pare it down to a facts-only format as we have for other medical disorders. Jeeves 09:07, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut the article, since it was bloating this talk page and it had been here for a year. See the link above or an old talk page if you want to look at it.--Prosfilaes 05:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strip this article

message: I'm really really tired with the whitewashing of this article. Descriptions of all the disorders use the word "rare" or "slightly"; but the discussions of rare X-linked disorders never mention how rare they are in normal males.--Prosfilaes 03:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The linked article says that they will most probably be infertile and most have some degree of language impairment. They're also at risk for male problems (including a high risk for gynecomastia) that women just don't have to worry about.--Prosfilaes 02:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Gynecomastia is listed in the category "health conditions related to obesity", has negative social and psychological effects, and is frequently cured by drugs, surgery, or radiation. The source above says that XXY males are infertile; we need a contrary source to change that. Wikipedia demands that things have verifiable sources. --Prosfilaes 01:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another cure for gynecomastia is phsychotherapy. I say this as a "sufferer" of 46/47 XY/XXY Klinefelters mosaic (this is admittedly on the low end of the spectrum of troublesome symptoms). Some of us just choose to live life fully without scalpels and drugs. --MalcolmGin 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop whitewashing

message: These sentences from the variations section factually:
The 48, XXYY (male) syndrome occurs 1 in 17,000 births and is also considered to be a variation of Klinefelter's syndrome. XXYY is no longer considered a variation of KS, although it has not yet been assigned an ICD-9 code.
I have changed the first of the two sentences to coincide with the second sentence, but I am not familiar with this topic and am uncertain of which statement is correct. --Matthew 00:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting facts 

message: XXY redirects here.  It would be great if there could be article on the more general phenomena rather than exclusively focusing on the human application.  I was looking for this non-existant article after reading abouy all male calico cats being XXY.  If there is a more general article under another name I can't find, please make a proper disambiguation.  But somehow I suspect it more of the overwhelming human bias of WP!--71.81.70.212 04:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that common a condition, and the concept only applies to species who have mammalian sex determination. Cats are known about, but the overwhelming knowledge is human, it's not the bias of wikipedia per se as much as the bias in the literature. - cohesion 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XXY 

message: The article doesn't mention that XXY males invariably have atrophied and firm testicles. According to many studies (sorry, lost the links) this atrophy, which is often severe, is found in 99 to 100% of XXY men, like sterility, and is considered a hallmark of the syndrome, along with hypogonadism and sterility itself. A population study carried out in Denmark on 14 XXY males (and 12 XYY) found that no one had a testicular volume above 9 ml, while normal is above 10 and average is 18. Some had a testicular volume under 2 ml, which is a normal volume for a young child. Sorry, I lost the links but I can provide a picture of a page of that study that I downloaded. Other Wikipedias also clearly state this (fr, es, ...) and people of xxytalk (a forum on Klinefelter's syndrome) confirm that this is the most striking evidence of XXY syndrome.  We cannot say that XXY people are tall and lanky (many XY are) and may have gynecomasty (many do) and forget about this!  Please improve this article. 80.104.86.84 19:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend being careful of connotations. "Atrophy" seems to imply lack of use. Also, "hypogonadism" has, in my presence, been used to refer to the condition of having smaller testicles. I say this as a person with 46/47 XY/XXY Klinefelters mosaic. --MalcolmGin 13:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doctor, I feel I must note that being a health-oriented masculine human, I actually feel my own testicles pretty regularly, so maybe what I should feel in contrast is a normal phenotypical male's testicles to make the comparison. --MalcolmGin 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atrophied testes

message: It seems to me that there is in this article a strong bias toward medical intervention/treatment and plastic surgery advocated for in this article. While I admit I am a low-symptom Klinefelter's patient, and it's true that some variations of Klinefelter's can be strongly affecting from the point of view of secondary symptoms and social acceptability, is it possible that there's a bias here toward the theraputic interventions available?
I'm not an expert on the Wikipedia genetics and medical projects, but I do know, even as a relative newbie on Wikipedia that there's meant to be a bias against POV, but I'm puzzled as to why medical/plastic surgery sources are considered less biased than any other source.
Having been a Klinefelter's patient less interested in strong medicalization and strong medical intervention, I've been refused the opportunity to speak out about potential alternatives in the past, so it wouldn't surprise me if I were shouted down here as well, but is it possible to have a medically-acceptable/scientifically-acceptible article here that also allows for other treatments/therapies/coping strategies? --MalcolmGin 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DrBermant, are you quite sure that links to what is clearly a commercial interest are the best NPOV source for information about Klinefelter's Syndrome? --MalcolmGin 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong bias toward medical intervention/plastic surgery? 

message: Looks like DrBermant reverted his changes. As such, the article probably needs more revisions/references. I'll probably get to it this evening, unless someone else gets to it sooner. --MalcolmGin 17:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll go through the article and change what needs changed/provide references from verifiable sources ASAP 

message: There are quite a few, and some of them sound spurious, so we should provide citations or delete those assertions.
Still working on putting together meaningful research, but as I put the citations together, I'll try to replace these things with citation-friendly "facts"/interpretations. If my findings seem to signficantly diverge, I'll put together an "alternative viewpoint" or "nontreatment" or some other such section that can ride along with the body of the current article until someone more gutsy than I merges it. :) --MalcolmGin 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marked all areas where a citation is needed 

message: I move some of the older discussion, and some of the less edifying recent discussion to and archive page, linked above. I preserved the above sections which contained either relevant recent suggestions or topics for discussion, or good references. alteripse 22:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: It may be in the archives by now, but I'd mentioned wanting to provide a commons-hosted, freely re-usable set of phenotypical morphology pictures for males. Styled along the lines of the kinds of clinical pictures I've seen elsewhere, the goal is for each subject to allow 10 photographs of his clothed and torso-naked body to be taken while standing. I'm collecting very light amounts of metadata (age, height, weight, any medical info the subject wants to share), anonymizing the subject's identifying marks, and getting people to participate by photographing friends and acquaintances according to the same scheme.
Though I've had some incident of "Hey, that's a great idea!", I haven't seen any other picture sets come in yet.
However, in case anyone's interested in keeping an eye on the effort/using the pictures, by all means, that's what they're there for. The index is probably the most usable page for watching, but you might also consider watching the Commons:Category:Body morphology project. --MalcolmGin 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second set is now up, and the scope has changed to include all bodies. More definitely on the way as I drum up more "business". --MalcolmGin 02:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First set of photos at commons for body morphology project 

message: Only our article seems to assert (from what I've found so far) that the syndrome's symptoms derive from genetic expression on the paired Y chromosome. I can't so far find any article/review that substantiates that. Any idea where that came from/who inserted it? Maybe they have a citation we can use.
So far, I've found only two other major themes that talk about how X-Inactivation works with respect to XXY males and the only one that seems to provide an explanation is that the X-Inactivation for XXY males is incomplete or skewed. The other seems to gloss the explanation.
So the round-up is as follows:
Sources for incomplete/skewed X-Inactivation:
* http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=141
* http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=865519
* http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jc.2005-0432v1
* http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/16/8/1653
Sources that are non-commital/talk about other mechanisms that are in common with normal females (like Barr bodies and vague mentions of partial inactivation, or random X-Inactivation etc.):
* http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/SexChromosomes.html
* http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jan2000/948207055.Ge.r.html
* http://www.showcatsonline.com/x/calico-genetics.htm
Sources for complementary Y genes:
* This article.
I think we may need to belly up to the bar and produce some good citations here. On my first pass, I got nothing, but I haven't really thoroughly searched PubMed or gone to a library. Can anyone else help find citations for this? Remember, Wikipedia does not allow original research, and this assertion stinks of it. --MalcolmGin 02:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dropped a note on 's talk page asking about a citation. He was the first author on this article and made the assertion on his first edit. Hopefully we'll hear mroe soon. --MalcolmGin 12:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have found some interesting but not entirely helpful information out with respect to X-Inactivation/Lyonization in Klinefelter's and our need for citations 

message: This should probably be merged somehow into Symptoms, or we could potentially move more of Symptoms into Complications. Regardless, the wording of the actual text in Complications needs to be refined, as it is not obvious that "50 times" refers (I assume) to comparison to typical genotyped males. It would probably take finding/reading a copy of the study referenced to be totally sure. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about new Complications section 

message: So, for some reason right now, the opening paragraph to this page refers to "kool cat syndrome" rather than to Klinefelter's syndrome.  I'm going to assume that this is just a case of vandalism and switch it back.
171.65.82.36 (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kool Cat syndrome? 

message: The mosaic version of Klinefelter's syndrome was seen on a recent episode of "Diagnosis X" where real doctors and interns re-enact semi-fictionalized accounts of real patients whose conditions were strange and baffling. http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/diagnosis-x/diagnosis-x.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagnosis X

message: In the opening, it states both, "Klinefelter's syndrome is the most common sex chromosome disorder," and "it is the second most common disease involving the presence of an extra chromosome." I don't think it can be both of those, for if it is the most common sex chromosome disorder in general, it can't be second to another kind. Does anybody know which is right? PhoenixSunburn (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the Down syndrome? Admiral Norton (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Maybe adding language to the text indicating that Down syndrome is the most common extra-chromosome condition, while Klinefelter's is the most common sex-chromosome condition, would be in order. However, getting all of that information into one or two sentences without creating too much of a distraction for parenthetical information might be more easily said than done. 64.85.229.248 (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Common...or 2nd? 

message: i removed some links to other Wikipedia articles such as those to Turner syndrome and 47,XYY. While removing links is typically not a good beneficial i felt that in this case it would be becuase
1) these conditions and distint and unrelated to "Klinefelter's syndrome"
2) i added the link Aneuploidy which directly links to every link i deleted.
Check out the links. If afterward you believe this edit is inappropriate please tell me why. Jsorr (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also edits

message: I think it is important to note that although the testosterone replacement is lifelong, it does not correct the infertility that goes along with Klinefelter's.  I would add it, but I don't have a reference for it. (D.c.camero (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: Is there any medical reason to have "excess" breast tissue resulting from gynecomastia removed i.e. is it a threat to the health of the individual? If not, the word "require" in this sentence, "but only about 10% of XXY males' gynecomastia is noticeable enough to require surgery," needs to be changed to something that doesn't prescribe normative appearance as a necessity. Alternately, the section could be changed to read "but only about 10% of XXY males' gynecomastia is superficially noticeable as non-normative" or something similar. I'd make the change right now, but in the event that the breast tissue poses a health risk (other than any risks associated with simply having breast tissue, since, if we're considering that a "health risk", then everyone with breast tissue "should" have it removed), the sentence is fine as it is. 129.89.40.245 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mastectomy may be indicated for gynecomastia, which places considerable psychological strain on the patient and increases the risk of breast cancer."  Source: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/945649-treatment#a1128  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.116.205 (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gynecomastia 

message: Immediately before Source 4 is cited, the Article states that not all men who test positive for an XXY karyotype have Klinefelter Syndrome, but I found this to be misleading when I read the actual source. What the source document actually says is that not all men who test positive for the karyotype display all the symptoms of Klinefelter Syndrome, implying that most show perhaps just a few of the symptoms. As for those who express no other symptoms, I would highly suspect that they only have their karyotypes tested (thereby being known and documented as XXY Males) after they find out they're sterile. Given that those men showed no other symptoms than sterility, I can understand the argument that they lack the general syndrome, but are they a majority of those without all symptoms? This point should be clarified, perhaps even by saying, more faithfully to the source document, that not all the symptoms of Klinefelter always line up. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 4 

message: are there support groups out there 
]]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardPetersen (talk • contribs) 12:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for discussion of how to improve the article, and not for finding support groups. However, if you follow the link at the bottom of the article to the Open Directory Project, you may find useful links there.-gadfium 20:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  looking for other parents of children w/klinefelters 

message: From the article: only about 10% of XXY males' gynecomastia is noticeable enough to require surgery.
Something in that sentence is wrong.  By its nature, surgery for gynecomastia may be elected to reshape the body according to social or individual expectations, but it's by no means biologically "required" for the functioning of the body.  This is important because we don't want to tell people what their bodies should be like.  I'm not sure what the right phrasing should be, though.  Some options:
* ...gynecomastia is noticeable enough to indicate surgery.
* ...gynecomastia is noticeable enough for the individual to desire surgery.
* ...gynecomastia is noticeable to others.
* ...gynecomastia is noticeable.
* ...gynecomastia is significant.
Any other ideas? Kevin Saff (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "require" surgery?