Talk:Granulomatosis with polyangiitis

Comments

There is a factual error regarding when Dr. Wegener identified the disease. In the third sentence, the article says he did so in 1963. Much later in the article, it says Dr. Wegener wrote two papers regarding the disease; one in 1936, another in 1939. My guess is there was a simple transpostion typing error: 1936 was mistyped as 1963.66.109.88.253 16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)terryupinsky@hotmail.com

There needs to be a disambiguation page for the word "Wegener" there is also an "Alfred Wegener" people could be searching for

I'll change the redirect into a disambig. JFW | T@lk 22:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ANCA

In severe cases, ANCA is nearly always positive doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.08.016 JFW | T@lk 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to say that this research is wrong, but the reason Wegener's Granulomatosis is hard to diagnose is that not all severe cases (I know at least two or three in the Yahoo WG discussion group) are either C-ANCA or P-ANCA positive. And, WG patients can be P-ANCA positive, which is usually a diagnosis of PAN. The doctors who diagnose these cases w/o ANCA use differential analysis. One person that I have in mind had one collapsed lung (no ANCA) before the doctor decided to use the tx for WG. She survived after the treatment was started and her lung reinflated. (Just a note: it took two decades before her doctors decided to treat her for vasculitis disease. She was in bad shape and was dying.)

One of the problems that we have helping other WG patients is that they have the symptoms, but are not positive on ANCA. The doctors do not want to start the treatment because they are more afraid of the treatment than of the disease. Unfortunately once this disease gets started, the only way to keep it under control is through aggressive treatment.

Also, in some patients the ANCA lowers or disappears during treatment. Some do not. According to research, those who don't lower are more likely to have severe flares. However, ANCA (used for diagnosis) cannot be used to test flares or severity of the disease. A WG patient can go into a flare without an ANCA. If you want to get the best understanding of diagnosis and treatment of the disease I suggest that you ask the consultants (who are trained to work with WG patients) on the Vasculitis Foundation page.

This information is coming from the Yahoo WG discussion group and my experience. I have been a WG patient for over 5 years.

Cynbag (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Systematically conducted medical research tends to be more reliable than the comments of anonymous people on a discussion group. The study discussed only severe WG, in which rapid treatment is needed to prevent organ failure. Milder forms need firm diagnosis before committing a person to long-term and potentially harmful immunosuppression. JFW | T@lk 09:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wegener and Nazi association

Wegner's role in Nazi Germany is under the microscope lately and there is an ongoing debate. He was a lieutenant colonel in Nazi party and worked in Lodz, a city where 1000 inmates out of 250 000 survived. He had letter correspondence regarding air embolism which was a feature of notorious high altitude experiments nazi physicians were performing. However it is also associated with septic abortion and other conditions. In the process of postwar de-nazification several witnesses highlighted Wegeners honourable behaviour during nazi years. In summary there is no strong evidence to prove or disprove Wegeners activities in the period. I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to address these issues in his biography instead of history section here.--Countincr^{<small ( t@lk )} 10:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It directly affects the naming of the disease, and has spurred a movement to do away with all eponyms. Do you have references supporting Wegener's good behaviour? We should certainly provide those both here and in his biography for purposes of WP:NPOV. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

let's retitle this page, "c-anca positive granulomatosis" is a better name for many reasons, not the least of which is his Nazi affiliation. Eponyms suck!

Well, whether eponyms (and in particular this eponym) indeed suck is a matter of opinion. This article should reflect current naming practices (see naming conventions) rather than proposed changes, especially with various bodies not yet having decommissioned Wegener's as an eponym. Also: if the biopsy shows necrotising granulomas and the symptoms are typical but the ANCA is negative, what is the diagnosis? JFW | T@lk 12:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The rheumatology community is moving away from calling it Wegener's and towards calling it GPA. This is the current teaching in medical schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.157.172 (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately naming it "c-anca positive granulomatosis" would not be accurate either because not all WG patients are C-ANCA positive--some are P-ANCA and some are ANCA Negative. Cynbag (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer to your second question: if the the biopsy shows nectrotising granulomas and the symptoms are typical, but the ANCA is negative ... the diagnosis is-- Wegener's Granulomatosis and patients are treated with the same treatments. ALSO some doctors can call it Vasculitis disease. Additionally, the chronic vasculitis disease family (see in John Hopkins Vasculitis Center) use the same treatment.

Cynbag (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous other vasculitides. JFW | T@lk 09:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

ANCA titres

Ann Intern Med this week suggests anti-PR3 is not useful in measuring disease activity. JFW | T@lk 22:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes I made that were unmade

First change: As per Dr. Lebovic and other ENT doctors that treat Wegener's Granulomatosis (in the WG discussion group) tracheotomy is not a good method for treating SS. First, the patient has dilation. Most surgery causes scar tissue to grow in the SS, making the problem worse for the patient.

My change: In some patients with severe subglottic stenosis (SS), tracheotomy is required to maintain an airway. At this time dilation treatment is used for airway maintenance before tracheotomy due to the sensitive tissue in the subglottic stenosis. Surgery and laser surgery can cause the SS scar tissue to regrow after the Wegener's Granulomatosis is treated.

The current prognosis page about WG is wrong. All patients that have WG if not checked often by doctors (most are on maintenance medications) will end up flaring (we use the word flare or flaring not flare-ups). One of my contemporaries who had WG as a 13 year old when the first cytoxan/prednisone mix was introduced was in remission for five years before flaring. She has flared several times since she was 13 years old. Also, any person who has WG and who is not treated will eventually go into systemic failure. (This information is from the Yahoo WG discussion group through talking to other patients and from the John Hopkins Vasculitis Site. Also, I am a patient with WG).

My change to reflect this fact.

Prognosis Majority of the patients respond well to treatment, but most of these patients are on maintenance medications to keep them from suffering from flares. Even when in remission, this disease can flare quickly. It is best to have labs done two to three times a year when in remission. Remission can last from one month to over fifteen years or more depending on the patient.

Also since it is a systemic disease, there are more complications besides renal, deafness and hearing loss. There can be brain problems, loss of lungs and nodes, renal failure, hearing loss, deafness, saddlenose (which is a very common problem), sinusitis, heart failure, etc. etc. etc. Also edema, afib, etc. Heart failure is usually caused by water around the heart.

My changes included, but could have been more:

Long-term complications are very common (86%): mainly chronic renal failure, lung problems, hearing loss, deafness, saddlenose, and other sinus problems.[1]

Much of this information can be found in John Hopkins Vasculitis Center, WG discussion group on Yahoo, and doctors that treat this disease (on the Vasculitis Foundation page).

I was very disappointed that you deleted all of my supposed unsourced material. I have had this disease for five years. I have talked to other patients on the WG discussion group for that long. The prognosis on your page gives the person looking for information that false notion that they will be cured. Nothing is further from the truth. This is a chronic disease that is quieted by drugs, but is not cured. Patients such as myself who have kidney failure because of the disease will always be under a doctor's care and are hoping that they can handled the medication used to keep the inflammatory response under control.

Another problem you have is the medication remicade. It has already been proven in research to not work with this disease. Rituxen is now being used, but only for those patients who cannot take cychlophophamide or other treatments. It is still under observation as a drug for WG patients.

Anyway, if you want to talk to me about these changes and why I am concerned about the current information on wikipedia, you can contact me (Cynthia Bagley) at cynbagley@hotmail.com

Yours, Cynthia Bagley 69.229.194.101 (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am now a member. I have a lot of research info on my blogspot at http://cynbagley.blogspot.com Cynbag (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You must support your edits with reliable sources. Failing to do that opens up the possibility that you are editing purely on the basis of opinion or personal experience. JFW | T@lk 09:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

British guidelines

doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kem146b JFW | T@lk 06:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Azathioprine versus MTX

Perhaps not suitable for inclusion yet (as a single trial), but AZA and MTX are just as good as each other for relapse prevention in WG: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/359/26/2790 (NEJM Dec 2008). JFW | T@lk 09:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

1st known surivor of Wegener's Granulomatosis

In 1968, my father (Thorold B Thompson) was diagnosed with Wegener's Granulomatosis. It took 6 months for his doctor to figure out what the problem was. He was on his death bed when they started him on massive amounts of Prednisone. The doctor told my dad that no one had ever survived this disease before and this treatment may or may not work. The large doses of Prednisone would eventually kill him if they could not be reduced. They got the Wegener’s Granulomatosis under control and he lived for another 25 years (until 76). He never could be removed form the Prednisone completely and continued to take Prednisone in small amounts until he passed away. In the end, his kidneys failed due to the Wegener's Granulomatosis and long term use of the drugs (Prednisone) he used to control the disease. My dad was the first person ever to survive from Wegener's Granulomatosis. (His name is in medical journals for this) I see that the treatment they used back then still is being used today, along with Chemotherapy. This all happened in Sayre PA @ Robert Packer Hospital. Doctor’s name was Bocelli (retired). I thought this would be interesting to all who cope with this disease everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.224.204.109 (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion about a potential reference

I just checked out of the hospital a few days ago after landing in the ER at the last stages of WG - my lungs and respiratory tract were affected, but not my kidneys. Perhaps it's here and I didn't catch it with all the technical language that I don't understand, but there's a study that was referenced by my rheumatologist that she said was instrumental in deciding how to treat me. She said she had found little guidance that gave her confidence until discovering this study where the process that was (and is being) used on me was described and 20 out of 20 patients in similar condition survived. I think she said it was published 5 years ago or so. It took her a while to find it as I understand, and I'm not sure what tools she was using to research, but it seems like it would be a good item to reference here. I can't find the research paper myself, but I'm not very good at researching online.

A side question I have that I did look for an answer to but didn't find is whether there is typically also a page on a disease like this that is intelligible to the average person. My family and friends are all looking up Wegener's on wikipedia and they are learning almost nothing and moving on to other sites like Mayo Clinic, etc.

Thanks, Nicolas.oliva (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

C = Classical

The article states that the "c" in c-anca stands for cytoplasmic but ANCA is an acronym for anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies so all of the ANCAs are cytoplasmic. The "c" stands for classical; as opposed to "p" for perinuclear. I didn't change the text so I believe it is wrong as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.104.53.59 (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Both "C"s in c-ANCA stand for "cytoplasmic." It might sound a bit redundant, but it just means that the pattern is noted diffusely in the cytoplasm as opposed to only around the nucleus. Furorimpius (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Using Humira as a treatment

I have been suffering with Wegeners since 1998. I started out with steroids and cytoxin, for 4 YEARS. Almost died from the treatment. I then found a Doctor that knows what he is doing.

No more cytoxin, AND no more steroids!!!

I am on an injection of Humira twice a month. And I can do this at home. I have been using it for 8+ years and not a single flair!!! According to my doctor at Loyola University in Chicago, I was the first patient in Illinois to be on Humira for a treatment to Wegener's. Humira suppresses the immune system so I have to be careful not to get sick, and if I do, I need to take it seriously.

No, this never goes away, always hiding, and I still see doctors 3-4 times a year, but the Humira is working great for me.

My prayers go out to all with Wegeners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooseketeer (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Once your doctors have written about their experiences in reliable medical sources, and these sources are supported by WP:MEDRS-compatible sources, they can be included. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Move

"Granulomatosis with polyangiitis" is the new name adopted by a body of experts. It is not, however, the WP:COMMONNAME. A lot of people seem unconvinced by the evidence against Wegener, and others don't see why the eponym is quite so bad even if the namesake was. This requires discussion. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

About the wording in the opening sentence

Hello. As a med student, I would like to make a suggestion to reword "is an incurable form of vasculitis (inflammation of blood vessels) that affects the nose, lungs, kidneys, and other organs." to some variation of "is a chronic vasculitis with periods of remission and activity...". The reason is simply that, for the general public (which is most of the people who will look at this page), the word "incurable" often comes with a connotation of a disease that will either necessarily be the cause of death in the long run or of being essentialy untreatable. Of course, to call it incurable is perfectly accurate, but so could be called the VAST majority of all diseases known to mankind; it has the benefit, at least, of being a disease that responds well to treatment and has a generally good prognosis if well managed.

Compare with Metabolic syndrome, a vastly more common "disease" which is also incurable that is generally much harder to adequately treat due to needed changes in lifestyle; and which results, along with Hypertension, Type 2 DM and Aterosclerosis, its incurable sister diseases, in far more long term mortality and lethality rates than Wegener's Granulomatosis could ever hope to achieve given adequate treatment.

I ask this only because this kind of information, if seen by patients or their family after a diagnosis, may create a certain amount of mistrust with the medical team and the treatment regimen required. Most patients who are bluntly told that they have been diagnosed with an "incurable" disease without first being told the technical and precise definition of the term will be deeply affected, and this may cause issues of non-adherence to drugs that cause visible and severe adverse effects, such as Cushing's syndrome.

Again, the word is accurate, but perhaps it is in the best interest of the patients reading that it be changed to an equivalent meaning.

Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.136.182 (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was moved to Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener's) (note the change, due to WP:NCCAPS, which is also consistent with usage in that source). --BDD (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Wegener's granulomatosis → Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (Wegener's) – Please change the title of this article to Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis (Wegener's) to reflect the ACR consensus on the title of the disease -- http://www.rheumatology.org/Practice/Clinical/Patients/Diseases_And_Conditions/Granulomatosis_with_Polyangiitis_(Wegener_s)/. --Relisted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Medstudent88 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

No discussion has taken place at all. The official name is not in widespread use and should not be used until more widely adopted. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Went ahead and moved Wegener's to GPA. GPA is the accepted name. ACR, ASN, and EULAR -- the largest organizations for rheumatologists -- all agree on this point (Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:704 doi:10.1136/ard.2011.150714). Also, note on ACR's website, they say GPA and (Wegener's) in parenthesis (https://www.rheumatology.org/Practice/Clinical/Patients/Diseases_And_Conditions/Granulomatosis_with_Polyangiitis_(Wegener_s)/). And if anecdote mattered, I'd note that every conference I've personally been to in the last year where GPA was discussed, GPA was the primary name used. Furorimpius (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You have not followed the correct procedure for moving a page. I understand your concern that the page doesn't follow formal nomenclature, but for Wikipedia that is not necessarily grounds to move an article. WP:NC, the policy on naming conventions, is quite clear that names commonly in use should be followed. Large numbers of clinicians outside the rheumatology field continue to use the eponym, as well as many patients who cannot remember the descriptive name.

I realise that you're keen to have the page moved, so rather than using the "copy and paste" method, please follow the procedure on WP:RM (requested moves). JFW | T@lk 15:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move, Attempt 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wegener's granulomatosis → Granulomatosis with polyangiitis – GPA is the accepted name. ACR, ASN, and EULAR -- the largest organizations for rheumatologists -- all agree on this point (Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:704 doi:10.1136/ard.2011.150714). Also, note on ACR's website, they say GPA and (Wegener's) in parenthesis (https://www.rheumatology.org/Practice/Clinical/Patients/Diseases_And_Conditions/Granulomatosis_with_Polyangiitis_(Wegener_s)/). And if anecdote mattered, I'd note that every conference I've personally been to in the last year where GPA was discussed, GPA was the primary name used. Furorimpius (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC) It looks like the first move request was approved ... was it just never implemented because it was a technical move? Furorimpius (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Furorimpius Should be moved, GPA is the accepted name. Sometimes those merge criteria are overly technical, just do it again and follow the guide on WP:MERGE and it wont be any problem. (Some people on Wikipedia seem to only focus on administration and don't add much content or improve much). CFCF (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

CFCF, I reversed the move because I am personally unconvinced that GPA meets WP:COMMONNAME, and then again because Furorimpius had done a "copy & paste move" that fragmented the edit history. I am personally opposed to a move at the moment, but will happily yield to consensus.

By the way, I don't "only focus on administration", as a quick glance at my userpage will rapidly reveal. JFW | T@lk 13:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't per say mean you, just though to note that there are such people. I'm sorry if I offended you. CFCF (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I suspected the comment reflected on me because no other editors other than me have made a fuss here. JFW | T@lk 23:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to address the concern that Wegener's is the "common name" and GPA is the "official name." Wikipedia defines "common name" as the name "most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." I've offered two reliable sources above that refer to the disease entity primarily as GPA. If someone wishes to fight for the name Wegener's, please offer similar reliable sources. Furorimpius (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The name GPA has only been in use for a very short period, and in daily practice many people still use the eponym. Have a look at WP:OFFICIALNAMES.

I will ask WP:MED editors to weigh in so we can get good clear consensus here. JFW | T@lk 13:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The ICD9, ICD10 and MeSH still use WG. medline use GPA [1]. If it is an accepted change it is fairly recent. The medical profession is trying to move away from naming diseases after people to more descriptive ones. No significant opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to GPA international consensus in Rheumatology is clearly to replace use of the eponym with GPA (i.e., the common name in the relevant field is GPA). Redirects and lead paragraph(s) can address legacy use of WG. -- Scray (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support move consensus among pathologists seems to indicate the name has changed. Pubmed for Wegener's granulomatosis show 7046 hits with a decrease over the last 2-3 years, while Granulomatosis (with) polyangitis gives 6602 hits with an increase the last year or so. CFCF (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. WG is still in significant use, so I think most people will be looking for this disease under this name. In maybe another year, and certainly when ICD-11 comes out (because I believe it will switch to the new name), then I'd support it. But right now, it seems a bit premature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to GPA As demonstrated above, the common name is GPA and most contemporary references refer to the disease entity as GPA. Here is yet another source: the NIH: "Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), previously called Wegener's granulomatosis..." http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/gpa/Pages/Default.aspx. That's the ACR, EULAR, the ASN, and the NIH -- how many more reliable sources are necessary? Furorimpius (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• FYI, the person who nominates a move generally is not required to "vote" in a addition as it is granted that they support their own proposal. Like James I have no real issue here. It is clear that both terms are in use. if it is moved, Please keep a redirect from the old name and makes sure the alternative name is mentioned first in the 'also known as' parenthetical list in the lead. Lesion (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Hi, I realise that many professional bodies have changed to GPA but the ICD-10 still calls it WG and WP:MEDMOS says we should name disease articles according to how ICD-10 names it. Fuse809 (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS doesn't say we should name articles according to ICD-10. It says "An international standard should be sought. Some examples of international standards include ... ICD-10." Professional bodies are also an international standard. Furorimpius (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Formerly known as"

The eponymous name is still in common use amongst patient populations and the medical profession in general. Using the term "formerly known as" at the beginning of the article, suggests that the term is not in current use and is archaic. This is not the case.

It is true to say that some professional associations have changed their standard naming practice, however that does not mean that the term has gone out of use amongst the general population of patients and medical professionals. If in the future the eponymous version has become archaic and is not used by the patient population and medical profession in general then it will be factual to say "formerly known as", until then it must be admitted that the term is in common use.

Personal preference or opinion on use of one term or another should not allow biased editing to suggest that the term is not in common use. Stick to use of factual language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D7:4858:E41D:646D:2C9E:5C74 (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. This is in conflict with how this is treated within the remainder of Wikipedia and there are numerous instances of this exact terminology "formerly known as" in Wikipedia. Additionally, it's been six years since the Chapel Hill criteria were released (that's plenty of time to incorporate a simple name change). We already give adequate coverage to the persistent colloquial usage in the history section. Furthermore, most medical journals and other reliable sources use the terminology or a clear variant of it in this way. A few illustrative examples: [2],[3], [4], [5], [6],[7], [8],[9], [10],[11], [12],[13], [14], and [15]. Please note the use of terminology such as "used to be called" or "formerly known as". Other sources use this language too [16], [17]. This is not personal preference but reflects the majority of sources. Ultimately, the contrasting views boil down to a linguistic prescriptive vs descriptive approach.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the old term is no longer recommended by academia. Yet the 2018 source you mentioned on my talk page says it is still commonly used.

That many people still call this condition "Wegener" is unfortunate but appears to be true. Ie it is not a historical name even though we wish it were. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

At what point would we consider the old name to be "not commonly used"? Do we need to wait for some sort of quantitative study on term usage to show significantly-decreased usage? Myoglobin (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Myoglobin. It's a slippery slope without a clear endpoint, James. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It is the accuracy of language that is being discussed. It is not accurate to claim that the term is not in common use. It is a reasonable question to ask, when is it that a term can be accepted as being archaic or fallen out of use? The most practical answer is that a term can be accepted as being "formerly used", when there is consensus of that being the case. There is no such consensus and the term is in common use. Many others would likely agree with this statement, despite what their own personal opinion might be. It is not the job of Wiki editors to attempt to engender change in language use by misrepresenting fact. Finally, referencing other sources which are inaccurate and may well be inaccurate owing to this very Wiki page - is neither helpful nor justification to continue with erroneous editing.

And what do you base this "practical answer" on exactly? Formerly known as is definitely appropriate wording. Also, please be sure not to forget to sign your comments! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"Formerly known as" is definitely not correct in this case, as "Wegener's granulomatosis" is widely used. The "practical answer" is based upon the human experience, otherwise known as "common sense". That is to say - when nobody uses a phrase anymore it is fair to say it is "formerly used". When a term is still in common use, the phrase "also known as" is correct. This isn't difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D7:4858:31CE:A683:F545:A57C (talk) 11:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you on all points. It's absolutely correct. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely incorrect. To declare that the term "also known as" is not accurate, one would have to agree with the comment - "the term Wegener's Granulomatosis is not in common use". That comment is patently untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D7:4858:A8F8:3736:E5F5:F569 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You're completely wrong but this discussion is not productive. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I know this counts as a primary source, but I'm just throwing it out there that I'm a first-year medical student, and we're being told by our teachers (retired & active Pathologists) specifically NOT to use the term "Wegener's", just to recognize it for testing purposes. Perhaps we could find sources/recommendations for this in USMLE guidelines or something. Myoglobin (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not productive to consistently assert that accurate use of language is incorrect - without offering reasoning for such a statement. This is a discussion of accurate language use, not personal preference of naming protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D7:4858:B832:1E:2FA3:466 (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Personal experience of naming preference of individuals does not constitute global concordance.

• There was never a consensus. Don't revert editors based on your opinion when there is an ongoing discussion. For the record, I think also is more correct than formerly, as it is still a very common name. Natureium (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Natureium, first, don't ever speak to me like that (see WP:CIVIL and WP:5P). Second, the edit was a reversion to the longstanding language, which was the status quo for quite some time (months to years since its introduction) and is consistent with the remainder of Wikipedia (and is supported by multiple high-quality sources). The discussion was not moving forward and there was no clear consensus for the rather bold (see WP:BRD) change proposed. Your anecdotal experience and opinion do not outweigh the clearly cited sources. Lastly, your edit summary completely misrepresented what I said and I don't appreciate that. Upon further review of the edit history of this article, it has had a few tug of wars this way since 2015 but ultimately has remained stably "formerly known as" or "previously known as" for a prolonged duration with multiple editors reviewing this page since then. Respectfully, I completely disagree with you and maintain that the phrasing "formerly known as" or "previously known as" is the most accurate (well-supported by sources). The onus is on you and the other dissenting party to justify the change since this language has been relatively stable since at least 2013-2014 on this article just a couple of years after the Chapel Hill criteria were released (see here: [18]). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There was nothing uncivil about what I said. Other people on this page also disagree with you. Just because the article said something for a few years doesn't mean it's correct, it just means no one checked. Natureium (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on the matter of your civility. In any case, the fact remains that only one other editor clearly supports your view and others disagree with it. You have not sufficiently proved that there is a community consensus to make the bold change you are proposing. Furthermore, your hypothesis that the lead sentence simply had something incorrect in it with all of the attention it's received over the years and no one noticed it is nonsensical and very dubious. The current language has been in place for years, is well-sourced, and should not be changed unless you prove clear community consensus. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is not being addressed, this is a discussion on the use of the English language. It is not a discussion on naming protocol. Furthermore, consistent and longstanding incorrect use of language is not justification for continued incorrect use. This discussion revolves around a simple premise - Is the term "Wegener's Granulomatosis" in common use among patient populations and health professionals? Yes, this is not a matter for debate - the term is clearly used currently as supported by the whole body of literature, internet search engines results etc. Should it be in common use? That is a matter for debate but that is not this discussion. The correct use of the English language in this case is "also known as". The term "formerly known as" implies that a term is archaic and not in use, which is not the case for the term "Wegener's Granulomatosis". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:B8CC:A106:93EB:E16A (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, as previously - individual references will likely be presented to support the fact that professional organisations have changed naming protocol and a number of recently published papers by members of these organisations reflect this fact. That is true. However, to suggest that patient populations do not currently use the term "Wegener's Granulomatosis" at all - is absurd - as a majority of editors have agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:B8CC:A106:93EB:E16A (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to ask how issues like this are handled in general: I strongly doubt there is ever much research published on professional/academic usage of clinical terms (e.g. Wegener's vs GPA). It would be great if one could study this, but vocabulary epidemiology probably doesn't win much grant funding. So, is there any non-subjective way to determine whether one term or the other is used "more often" than the other aside from published research? How is this issue settled in other situations on WP; do we really need to wait for research that may never happen? Myoglobin (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

IF there ends up being no studies on term usage, are we allowed to choose a term based on benefits/risks of term usage ourselves? E.g. there are known problems with using the term Wegener's, while it is not clear what downside there could be to using GPA instead. As a fairly-new editor I would appreciate direction to the appropriate WP help pages on situations like these (if they exist). Myoglobin (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is, it doesn't matter which is used more frequently - both are used. In order to accurately reflect this the term "also known as" is appropriate. Using the term "formerly known as" just isn't accurate. It serves the purpose of supporting one naming protocol over the other whilst ignoring real world usage. Editing is done in good faith to represent the topic as factually as possible, even if it does not correlate with the preference of the individual. Once again, this is a discussion of language use not naming protocols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:B8CC:A106:93EB:E16A (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's an interesting point and seems valid. There are other medical articles where "formerly known as" is used for similar reasons. Before we go and change all of those over to "also known as", how do we tell when a switch from also to formerly is appropriate? E.g. on Wiktionary, there are often terms and definitions marked "obsolete", but I'm not aware that any studies are cited to justify that. Myoglobin (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It may well be that such incorrect use of the English language is seen in other articles also - perhaps for similar reasons of enforcing personal naming preference as on this article. However this talk section deals only with this article and other information is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:B8CC:A106:93EB:E16A (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point: it's unlikely that the majority of Wiktionary is incorrect (in that it can argue terms are obsolete without sourcing those claims), so I'm thinking that we don't have to be quite so strict with language here either. With the reasoning you are using, no article should ever say a term is obsolete, and that all instances of "formerly" should be replaced with "also" (unless there happens to be research done on term usage, which is rare).

The problem I'm trying to point out is that it seems like there aren't any guidelines on WP about situations like these, where we cannot find sources to back up one phrasing or the other. For example, we can find guidelines suggesting that we use GPA instead of Wegener's, but we can't yet find proof that this change has already occurred. If a more experienced editor knows of such guidelines, it would be immensely helpful if we were directed to those pages.

If those guidelines don't exist, I think we just have to pick one based (unfortunately) on opinion. Where I come from, everyone uses GPA and always uses "formerly known as Wegeners'". I understand how it could be different where you are from, and this is exactly why it would be better to have studies on term usage to refer to (what I'm worried we have to resort to is akin to original research). Myoglobin (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Literature of this type does not exist, there is no reason for it to exist. Terminology in common use is a constantly evolving area. There are no concrete guidelines defining the exact language that is commonly used worldwide. GPA is not the only term in use, therefore "also known as" Wegener's Granulomatosis is an objectively correct statement. The nature of the evolution of terminology may mean that in time "formerly known as" would become more correct, for Wegener's or for GPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:B8CC:A106:93EB:E16A (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep! That's what I'm getting at :) So, the question is whether this evolution has already happened. I and many of the posters above think it has already happened, but perhaps we're wrong. We would very much "like" it to have changed already, but we haven't done any research on this to back it up. I would guess the reason such research doesn't exist is not that it "shouldn't", but more that it would be difficult to get funding for it. If I weren't busy with school I might try to get a GoFundMe "grant" and study this myself, get it published, and hopefully someone could cite that.

Perhaps we need to have another vote for consensus as was done for the previous move attempts higher up in the talk page. Anyone know how to do this? Myoglobin (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Should we begin the article with "GPA (formerly known as Wegener's)" or "GPA (also known as Wegener's)"? Myoglobin (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion on correct use of the English language has been derailed again and again and used as a proxy for personal preference in naming. Clear bias has been displayed.

The language has clearly been accepted by the community for years and this has already been discussed. GPA clearly replaced WG. The current language is appropriate and well-supported by representative sources. The earlier discussions on the talk page have made it clear that the community recognizes that GPA has replaced the term "Wegener's" and is not merely a synonym. Anecdotes and preferences do not carry significant weight. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be interesting to hear from the participants of the last discussion on this issue five years ago. BDD, Doc James, Jfdwolff, CFCF, WhatamIdoing, Furorimpius, what do you think about this now that five more years have passed? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any input, at least for now. As the closing administrator, I was just judging consensus. It's certainly been long enough that that discussion doesn't necessarily need to be taken as precedent. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

No strong position. As Wegener's is still commonly used I think "also known as" is fine. But it is no longer recommended so "formerly known as" is also reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If anything, GPA is in far more common use now than it was in 2013. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is really that important. I also don't think that these are the only two possible (or reasonable) options.

Personally, I tend to prefer "also known as", and to reserve "formerly known as" for clearly historical names. Even Intellectual disability, whose former names are really significantly former among nearly everyone who interacts with affected people, still describes the most recently former names with "also known as".

But there are other options that could work equally well for this condition. I would encourage people to consider "originally known as", or even a plain "or", as in "GPA, or WG, is...". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That could be an ok compromise. "Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), or Wegener's granulomatosis (WG), is a long-term systemic disorder..." Natureium (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's an important distinction. "Originally known as" or "formerly known as" make sense. 98.142.37.252 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think WG is a clearly historical name, WAID. With that said, I think "originally known as" is not an unreasonable alternative to "formerly known as". I do not think "also known as" is okay. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion section was never about what the condition should be called, or which term was the preferred term - even though it strayed into this realm often. It was always a discussion to recognise that both terms are in common use and to word the article to factually demonstrate that. One term may be used more often that the other that is certain - but both are broadly used. Editors may have allowed their own personal preference of terminology lead to the use of language at the beginning of the article that supports or enforces the use of that terminology. It is understandable that this action is taken especially if an editor feels it is a righteous act, but that does not make it correct. At times editors must concede to fact even if it something they do not personally agree with. Examples of a situation where "formerly known as" would be more a more correct term to use would be in the case of the archaic term "King's Evil/Scrofula" but still the relevant article says "also known as" which could be contended is the less correct term in that situation. In this situation other editors agree that "Wegener's Granulomatosis" is obviously not an archaic term and as such "also known as" is the more correct language choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:DCA8:C429:36E0:89B6 (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

What about reactive arthritis? To me, this discussion seems similar since both conditions were previously named after dishonored physicians; how do we know that ReA is definitely "former" yet GPA is still "also"? Also, the disambiguation page for GPA (disambiguation) uses "previously known as" language. Myoglobin (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The beginning of change from "Reiter's syndrome" to "Reactive arthritis" was over 40 years ago. Currently "Reactive Arthritis" is used overwhelmingly in favour of "Reiter's syndrome". Therefore, "formerly known as" is much more correct in that situation. Also an important distinction is that the cases of Reiter and Wegener are completely different. Hans Reiter was charged with war crimes and was found guilty in court of law of said war crimes, whereas Friedrich Wegener was never charged with war crimes or found guilty of anything. Suggestion has been made that Wegener may have been involved in wrongdoing but no direct evidence has ever been presented. Friedrich Wegener the "dishonored physician" may well be entirely innocent and in fact, in the eyes of the law he is innocent and must be presumed so. That is the difference between these two situations.

All should keep the discussion on the topic of language use.

From a language usage point of view, how do we know that ReA is used much more often than Reiter's? Is it just another measure of consensus, or were there actual usage studies done? If it is just consensus, we should set some sort of reminder every 5 years or so to re-assess whether Wegener's is still in "common" use or not I guess. Myoglobin (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's still too vague and nebulous. How common or rare is common or rare enough to warrant a change? This is ill-defined. 98.142.37.252 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly my point; I'm starting to be less interested in the outcome of this particular RFC and more curious about how these situations are and or "should" be approached. Myoglobin (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Realistically if a number of editors agree that the term "Wegener's" is in common use, other editors should concede that "also known as" is reasonable language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:DCA8:C429:36E0:89B6 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. That's a logical fallacy and a slippery slope. How many editors have to agree to that for other editors to concede that point? As others and I have said, that's far too vague. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So, when there is a dispute over a topic that cannot be resolved via a third-party study that can be cited, how do we resolve the dispute? Surely there must be some WP guideline about this (newish editor here asking for help finding this) Myoglobin (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The longer this debate goes on, the more I start to see the same pattern on other pages in WP, even relatively non-controversial ones like this. There must be a better way to deal with these situations than to just argue endlessly until someone publishes a usage study we can cite. Myoglobin (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

File:The Elephant in the Room Banksy-Barely legal-2006.jpg

It will help other respondents to this RfC to understand the motivation behind the debate. See Granulomatosis with polyangiitis#History. Wegener did things which almost all of us would disapprove of, and some feel that he doesn't deserve to be honoured by having a disease named after him. It's disappointing that this wasn't mentioned when the RfC was created. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I mentioned it when I asked about how to create a RfC and forgot to move it here: [19] Myoglobin (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not the point of this discussion and has been covered numerous times. Perhaps refer to the post about Reactive Arthritis above.

What things in particular are you referring to? The community seems to skate past the fact that there is no evidence against Wegener at all. If examined with a totally objective and neutral mindset and reading into the case in detail, it becomes apparent that the entire case is conjecture. "Wegener - probably - did X or - perhaps - did Y. These comments are speculation, there is literally nothing to back them up. An investigation into Wegener at the time brought no charges against him. He never even went to trial. It is likely that most editors are not aware of this or choose simply to ignore it.

Editors should particularly avoid any such editing motivation as it is unacademic - focus on the language as is the point of this discussion. "Realistically if a number of editors agree that the term "Wegener's" is in common use, other editors should concede that "also known as" is reasonable language" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.99.243 (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the cited sources there is evidence that he likely had some form of involvement or failed to intervene while atrocities happened in the same building. It's more than enough to besmirch his name. On a side note, eponyms are ridiculous (and pointless) anyway. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect once again, through every source that exists on this topic there isn't the slightest evidence to suggest his direct involvement. Any records of Wegener's work involved cadavers and autopsy only. This is perhaps why he was never charged with any wrongdoing. It may be correct that unethical research was conducted in the same medical establishment, but to suggest that he was aware of this and could have done something about it, is just that - a suggestion. It proves nothing. The discussion about the validity of the use of eponymns in general is a worthy topic, but not this discussion.

Even looking at the post below we see it is widely used still in academia. Can we finish this and concede "also known as" is a fair and reasonable term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:2197:8615:74C2:481E (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your assessment, 2001. Although no direct evidence has yet been uncovered (and perhaps never will be since records from that period are quite incomplete), there were many suggestive/indirect lines of evidence discussed in the 2006 Woywoodt review on the topic. Your opinion that what they found "proves nothing" is simply your own opinion but does not reflect what the cited sources say. I can quote it directly if that's necessary but I hope it's not. Regardless, you have not proved consensus to change the current (and I maintain correct) wording. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Within the 2006 review the authors concede that despite thorough research no evidence was forthcoming. That is not an opinion. Indirect or suggested evidence as you mention is wholly insufficient. In fact there were positive character statements found, which were glibly ignored. To maintain a "guilty until proven innocent" view, with full knowledge of the lack of evidence is incomprehensible. Of course it easy to abandon justice or even the most simple mandates of law, "Audi alteram partem" - when you attack a dead man. As long as this discussion has continued it has strayed into this domain which may have been instructive to editors that were not aware of the facts, but still it is not the point of the section.

The purpose of this discussion is to use correct language in the opening statement and avoid biased language. This biased language is used in order to support a particular naming protocol. In the article below, all authors clearly state they are aware that "Wegener's Granulomatosis" is in common use even within academia - which term is used more often is immaterial as both are used. If it is in common use today "also known as" is reasonable language, "formerly known as" is objectively incorrect because it suggests a historical term which isn't in use. However for the purposes of this discussion editors will not acknowledge that fact, despite having clearly stated it below in another discussion that they are aware the term is currently in use. So theoretically as long as one ideologue persists - we cannot correct the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:5547:11B2:E890:698A (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, this is the last time I'll say this. You have not proven consensus for your proposed change. Please WP:FOC instead of making personal attacks with mischaracterizations of being an "ideologue" (that's ridiculous). It is merely your opinion that the evidence presented in that 2006 article is insufficient for the name change. Many others in the academic community disagree with that opinion and it has formally changed (I'm sorry if you don't approve of that but that's how it is). The positive character statements were not ignored in the 2006 review (nor here). The presented evidence has been deemed adequate by the academic community to change the name. The current language of formerly known as is correct, well-supported by multiple high-quality sources, and your arguments to suggest otherwise have not been persuasive. A fair amount of editors have now weighed in and there is no clear consensus for the proposed change by 2001. Therefore, I move to close this RFC. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Answer the question. As long as one person does not agree, that constitutes a lack of consensus. Is this the outcome of any RFC? A dogmatic individual could stop any progress being made potentially. Notice how that is also nonspecific and does not refer to any individual, there is no "personal attack". It is not an opinion once again that evidence is insufficient. There is none. There is no evidence. Also positive character statements were largely ignored. But the need for name change is not the point of the discussion. There is no debate that some professional bodies have changed their naming protocol and that GPA is used more frequently now in the literature. These are facts and not up for debate.

The debate comes when editors are aware that "Wegener's Granulomatosis" is a term which is used, but choose to misrepresent this fact in the article. In fact all editors that have taken part in this discussion have admitted that the term is used - either in this discussion or the one below, but will not agree that "also known as" is reasonable language use. This is frankly duplicitous and not editing in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:BC00:F39B:DA58:D071 (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I have answered the question. If you disagree, I'm sorry to hear that but I no longer think this discussion is productive since it has devolved into hurling accusations (if you're suggesting it wasn't aimed at me, that's fine but that seems disingenuous). It is your opinion that the presented evidence is insufficient. That is not what the sources say. We reflect the content of reliable sources per WP:V. Positive character statements were not largely ignored. If you want to add that to the Friedrich Wegener page (that there were some colleagues who spoke well of him, then you're more than welcome to do that). I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that facts are being misrepresented in the article. Once again, your characterization of editors' conduct as "duplicitous" fails to focus on content and constitutes a form of personal attack. The current language is absolutely reasonable and the precise language is supported by multiple high-quality sources. A sufficient number of editors have now weighed in and the only editors who have clearly agreed with your proposed change to the article are you and Nature. Myoglobin and I disagree. That's two for and two against. Therefore, as I have said numerous times, you have not demonstrated a clear consensus to incorporate your proposed change. The onus is on you to demonstrate why the change should be made and (once again) you have not proved this. Once again, I think the RFC is ready to come to a close. This is just going in circles now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It is said on the "Move Page" talk section, by all editors that the term "Wegener's" is used. Everyone agrees. But then it is wrong to say that both terms are used in the article? That is what is duplicitous. Editors know the term is used but prefer the article not to reflect that because they disagree with the term being used. This is quite a simple issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:681A:2FC6:1164:53CE (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's simple. The current language is correct and this discussion is circular and now unproductive. I think we're done here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It is incorrect and there has been no response to the point made of potential editing bias. It is not logical for any editor to freely say that a term is in current use in one section of the talk page, but then in another section claim that it is not in use and the article should say it is formerly used - Totally contradicting each other. This is utterly farcical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D9:A58:9F5:641B:D91:9C53 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Move page

I think this should be moved to Wegener's granulomatosis. The name is far more widely used and has more hits on google scholar, and google itself. This is the common name. I see the move request above, but that was several years ago with the assumption that GWP would become the common term, and it hasn't. A few medical societies declaring it hasn't made it so. Natureium (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a fair and reasonable request. Realistic and factual in that the naming protocol of individual professional associations does not equate to the worldwide medical community resolving to follow said naming protocols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:9D7:4858:D75:910A:986B:AB98 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The correct name is granulomatosis with polyangiitis. It should not be moved. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct according to who? There is not one body responsible for worldwide naming of diseases. Natureium (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

According to whom* See above illustrative examples of widespread use. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph of this section of the talk page, while there may be more total hits on Google Scholar for the older term, it's likely this is because the majority of research was done before the switch to the new term was made. To test this, we could see what the ratio of old:new terminology in the last 5 years was. Myoglobin (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to keep it at "granulomatosis with polyangiitis" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Myoglobin, since 2014, according to Google Scholar, the ratio is about 6:5 in favor of the new name. The equivalent search at PubMed is 9:2 in favor of the new name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing thank you for looking into that; I was just taking the initial search for granted. Myoglobin (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WAID, thank you for taking a look at that. I anticipate, though I qualify this particular statement as only my own speculation, that the aforementioned ratio will only continue to skew in favor of GPA (even more heavily) as time goes forward. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right, Tyler, because eponyms have been unfashionable for a long while, and the trend seems to be intensifying rather than abating. Ask me again in ten years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)