Talk:Physiology

message: The article about physiology is incorrect regarding origins of the field.  Hippocrates "of cos"(460 BCE to 365 BCE) the article credits with starting physiological studies) actually studied in Egypt. Before Hippocrates, Imhotep (2667 BC - 2648 BC) of Egypt was the father of physiology and medicine, etc. In fact, contrary to what racists tend to believe today, even Hippocrates credited Imhotep as the Father of Medicine.  (Recently additional evidence of his studying in Egypt was found. A Sinaitic manuscript was written over a text by Hippocrates, but clearly he was simply taking notes and reflections on his lessons from Egyptian sages/teachers. Also see "The medical papyri written and found in Egypt, which was written in 2,500BCE)  Some of the editors of Wikipedia articles are racists that tend to ignore the non-EUropean, non-Western(sic), non-White tribes, nations, accomplishments (or they are ignorant of truth and therefore should not be editing articles of this magnitude, at all. History should not be written by ignorant individuals, but by scholars of history and researchers unmoved by their own racism, sexism, and other man-made social constructs that block their ability to think critically. To maintain a reputation as a source of accurate information, Wikipedia owners need to do a better job of weeding out white supremacist, sexist articles and editors! --68.173.189.62 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures for alternative perspective. Rgdboer (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Early discussion

message: Not every organism can reproduce. But every organism has a birth and a death date. Why not study the Earth as an organism?
 
See also the Gaia hypothesis. Indeed, but this is more related to the field of environmentalism.Userafw (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaya 

message: A large edit to this article  appears to be taken from Encyclopædia Britannica . --Ronz 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I removed the information in question on October 24. --Ronz 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible copyvio

message: I removed the addition of the sentence "The emergence of chaos theory renewed physiology in the 1980s."  If this is a true, it needs a reference.  I didn't know physiology was having any trouble before the 1980s, and I'm not sure what chaos could do to help with any problems that physiology was having.  Human medical physiology is a huge field, comparative physiology is small but seems steady or slow growing in size, plant physiology grew a lot in the 80s and 90s, but that was from portable technology, not from chaos theory.  - Enuja  (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chaos theory]] 

message: Is this image appropriate for this article?  How was Vitruvian Man significant in physiology (as opposed to anatomy or biomechanics)?--Wiki11790 (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A agree, it's not a terribly appropriate image; do you have an idea about what would be better?  - Enuja (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitruvian Man 

message: Okay, the coverage of physiology in this article is, in a word, embarrassing. I've never seen a better example of an article where the  Croughton-London rule applies. Physiology is a basic topic. Expansion is desperately needed. —Skittleys (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion DESPERATELY needed

message: is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 8 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits).  Tobby72 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misusing of refs 

message: "Most aspects of human physiology, and animal experimentation has provided much of the foundation of physiological knowledge."
This sentence is really awkward, but I can't piece together what the original author intended to say. Take a shot at fixing it if you can. TennysonXII (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote what I thought the sentence meant.  Also re-wrote some of the rest of the Human physiology paragraph.  Should it be moved to after the history section? Shanata (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward sentence 

message: The first phrase of this paragraph is not entirely clear.
:The biological basis of the study of physiology, integration refers to the overlap of many functions of the systems of the human body, as well as its accompanied form. It is achieved through communication which occurs in a variety of ways, both electrical and chemical.
Does anyone know where the first phrase come from? Who affirms that integration is the biological basis of the study of physiology? What's the "accompanied form"?
A perhaps clearer version:
:Communication processes across and within organization levels (e.g., tissues, organs and systems) are crucial and central issue in physiology, as they enable the existence of cooperatively exerted functions. This communication may occur in a variety of ways, both electrical and chemical.
Ricardohz (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological basis of the study of physiology 

message: I notice that you need a citation under the section titled Human Physiology. I have a suggestion.   
Your article states, "Much of the foundation of knowledge in human physiology was provided by animal experimentation.[citation needed]"  In the Wikipedia article on Leonardo da Vinci, the section titled "Anatomy," states, "Leonardo also studied and drew the anatomy of many other animals as well, dissecting cows, birds, monkeys, bears, and frogs, and comparing in his drawings their anatomical structure with that of humans."
Using that source as a citation would give you an historic source dating back to 1500 or so. 
I hope this is useful.  --Walter Wright (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: Attached behind the history section on Physiology are two paragraphs that do not include references or citations, and that certainly have nothing to do with the history of physiology. I assume someone added them erroneously. I realize they must fit somewhere else, so I opted not to delete or tamper with them. --Vize X-- 14:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physiology History 

message: Whilst lots of valuable information had been added to this article about the role of women in physiology, the layout was a little odd, so I have reorganized this and optimized some of the formatting to maximize readability. Some detail, whilst correct, was not relevant to the role of women in physiology but the precise nature of their research - only a brief summary is needed, more detailed explanations will be found within the linked articles. I've limited the list to only Noble Prize winners to ensure actual notability, which has resulted in one woman being removed. The content removed was of good quality, so I've provided a link to it here incase anyone would wish to access it: . Please do not just re-add or restructure the article before discussing this here on this talk page to gain consensus for the changes, which would in my view make this article atypical in its layout and content.
There may well be enough material for a full article on Women in physiology, which would surely be an excellent prospect for a more thorough exposition on this subject. 
Thanks,
Acather96 (click here to contact me) 19:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate article on Women in physiology would be good. However, the issue is more about human recognition and rights, not really about physiology as such. If a special section on "Woman in physiology" is to be allowed within the physiology article, then for balance should there not be another section about "Men in physiology"? Then I suppose, to keep the whole thing even, there should be sections on "Blacks in physiology", "Whites in physiology", ""Half-tones in physiology", "Homosexuals in physiology", "Straights in physiology", "Theists in physiology", "Atheists in physiology"... The article will become non-ending, and there will be very little room left to mention anything about physiology itself. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "major events in physiology" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Week 2 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikimedian in Residence at The Physiological Society 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some Thoughts

message: Voice 2409:4071:4E1F:A6BE:4BE9:E571:6ABB:B63E (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Blood pressure