Talk:Human homeostasis

message: This article may be an intro to all those Main articles that already exist on this topic. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose

message: I started that article a long while ago, but the only function it has beyond all those that already exist is to show the dynamics of those lipids, and as such, it would fit better by expanding that section in this article (which is currently empty).Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this article is very much an overview article and as such, it is really worthwile. Lova Falk talk 10:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from Blood lipids

message: I would like to make an urgent plea to redirect this article on “Human homeostasis” to the Homeostasis page.
There a several reasons. Firstly, most of the work on homeostasis relates to the mammalian homeostatic mechanisms, precisely because of their bearing on our own (human) physiology and disease. It is therefore almost impossible to support two separate articles, one on human homeostasis and a general article on ‘homeostasis” as the two will cover almost exactly the same physiology.  
The second reason is that the mechanism whereby homeostasis comes about is finally mentioned, almost in passing, only in the very last sentence of this article. None of the rest of this article supports this final statement on the mechanisms responsible for homeostasis 
There is, for instance, the statement that the “the kidneys are responsible for regulating blood water levels…”. But perfectly healthy kidneys will excrete 20-30 liters of dilute urine per day, killing the person through dehydration, if the osmosensors in the hypothalamus, or their ability to communicate with the kidneys via the secretion of ADH into the blood (via the posterior pituitary gland) are compromised. Thus the kidneys have no “responsibilities” – they are passive organs that respond to signals, mostly in the form of hormones, that originate from tissues that contain sensors that detect errors in the osmolality and electrolyte concentrations in the blood plasma. It is the totality of these negative feedback systems, each component as important as the other, that regulates the internal environment, and maintains life. To single out the kidneys as “the regulators of blood water levels” is therefore highly misleading and inaccurate, making a travesty of the science of physiology.
  
Unfortunately all of the headings and subheadings in this article make the same mistake. Only the subsection on “Calcium” makes mention of a sensor which can detect errors – in this case, in the “blood calcium” - but without specifying that it is the plasma ionized component of the “blood calcium” concentration that is measured and is homeostatically controlled. 
In short, this article is not about “Homeostasis”, and does no justice to the science of physiology or the topic of homeostasis.
Cruithne9 (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK—no objection. Neither design is inherently wrong: either (1) two articles, homeostasis and human homeostasis, in the spirit of WP:Summary style and WP:Splitting, or (2) one article that covers all homeostasis, including the branching tree through life, plant, animal, mammalian, and human homeostasis, and continually keeping straight which level is being talked about (critical thinking). For example, we should not talk about an aspect of homeostasis as being human if it is clearly germane to all mammals. The latter reminds me of this. And Cruithne9 is quite right that the two-article design will inevitably contain a lot of overlap from animals generally to humans specifically. If you really think critically, the overlap is probably too much to truly warrant separate articles, although I don't say that as an absolute. Not saying separate articles can't be done. The question is, in the execution of either of those two designs, "Have we done it well enough yet?" Cruithne9 shows a good example of how, no, we haven't yet. The highest triage priority is getting someone knowledgeable and interested in the topic area to work on the articles and reach a better level of content/execution. If we have that, then we can leave the question of "which article design to follow" to their judgment. IMHO, I encourage Cruithne9 to work on them and see how things shape up. If it is desired to follow the one-article design from the get-go, one might run into the problem of the intermediate states being ugly and criticized by drive-by reversions. If so, one suggestion is to sandbox a new article all the way to the point of being decent and then overwrite the homeostasis article with that result and turn human homeostasis into a redirect, all at once. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

text: There is info here that is not in Homeostasis yet. It should all be integrated there before the redirecting. In other words, I'm not against merging this one into that one, but the work of merging has to get done as part of that process. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Hi. Thanks for the effort and follow-up. Sounds like you have analyzed it well, point by point. This takes care of my concerns, other than that the history section should be moved over rather than lost. Unless you feel it is not good enough to keep. I'll accept your judgment on that. Thanks again, Quercus solaris (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Homeostasis]]