Jump to content

Talk:Injury in humans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 6 September 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Injury → Human injury – This article is exclusively about human injury, and on 25 August 2022, it was proposed below that it be moved to Human injury. A new article about the broader concept of injury could then be created in its place. The article Human injury would remain under the scope of WikiProject Medicine while the new Injury article would be overseen by WikiProject Biology and WikiProject Vital Articles. I personally have no opinion on the question and am just converting the ongoing discussion to proper WP:RM format. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is exclusively about human injury, and I propose that it be moved to Human injury. A new article about the broader concept of injury could then be created in its place. The article Human injury would remain under the scope of WikiProject Medicine while the new Injury article would be overseen by WikiProject Biology and WikiProject Vital Articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So... why not just add some veterinary content to this article? ==Other animals== is the usual section, if you want to separate it. Otherwise, just find sources on how vets classify injuries, and add that to the end of Injury#Classification systems; find the most commonly injured parts of livestock and pets, and add that to Injury#Locations, and so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that there are separate articles for Evolution and Human evolution, for example. If the evolution article was predominantly about human evolution with a few other animals added in, we would say it was wildly incomplete. I'm raising the issue to see if that applies to this article as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the article into the human-specific injuries and animal injury would be a very complicated task. Human injuries and animal injuries overlap, although they have many differences. Here are some sources about injuries without human context: [1], [2], [3]. I think that it would be better try to writing an animal injury article to see what it would look like first. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I can see your reasoning, but it seems to me that this topic is closer in nature to, say, pelvis than to evolution. Most of what is true about injury to humans is equally true of injury to animals - they can be burned, cut, suffer fractures, receive abdominal trauma, and so on. The same cannot be said about evolution in general and human evolution in particular; the latter is a subset in the same way that bone fracture is a subset of injury and rightly receives its own page. The only instances I can think of where there are likely to be radical differences between human and animal injury is where the animal is anatomically very different from mammals - invertebrates especially. And I doubt there's enough material there to fill a generic not-mentioning-humans article on injury. I could be wrong, but I am inclined to think that treating this like the pelvis article (which focuses mainly on humans, but includes an "other animals" section), rather than the evolution article(s) is the better, and easier, way to go. Anaxial (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be hard to find sources about animal injuries. Nonetheless, this move proposal revealed some problems. The more accurate definition of injury is not about the human body, but about live tissues.

Injuries are direct damage to live tissue (Ellis et al. 2008)

— Injuries and deformities in fish: their potential impacts upon aquacultural production and welfare, Noble et al.

So the problem exists and it needs to be solved somehow. The current definition is actually wrong. Humans are dominant animals that change the world, but not the only one. D6194c-1cc (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that the article needs some re-writing - especially the first line, which I'll do now. I just don't think it's sufficient to require splitting the article into two, which I suspect would be difficult without a lot of duplication. Anaxial (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I think that's a big improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it violate WP:STICKTOSOURCE in case of some sources that are about human but used not in human context? D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@D6194c-1cc, the only source cited in the introduction is a plain old dictionary definition. It was probably the only-humans-can-get-injured version of that sentence that exceeded what the source said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote this article, I didn't consider non-human injury, and as a result it's almost exclusively about that. Other than parts of the "mechanisms" section, none of this article is currently applicable to other organisms. I'm not really sure how I feel about the pelvis article either; an "other animals" section feels tacked on and prevents the article from having a clear scope. I think I would have opposed the merge. Also it's worth noting that plants can be injured too. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and I want to say I'm sorry to oppose, because this is clearly an initiative to improve WP, and I don't want to discourage the OP. But I came here to say what User:WhatamIdoing, User:D6194c-1cc and User:anaxial have already said. Dr. Vogel (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After the edits made by Anaxial I think that it would be better to rename article to the human injury because now it's a human injury that looks like animal injury. Moreover, anyone now can add a section about fins injury for example. At least previous definition narrowed the scope to humans preventing a mess with animals, which could be classified as original research. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And one more argument is that if the article would be named as Human injury, someone can create Injury article without any naming problems. Someone can think about this situation as: "Oh! I can create another article about injury in animals or plants. But wait, this article is named as injury, so I just don't know what to do... I'll probably leave it as is." D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But what about the massive overlap? Do we want separate articles instead of sections? Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What overlap would there be with an article that has a biology focus? The article is currently medical in nature. Maybe some portions of "Mechanisms" would still apply, but I don't see any others. Every other section is made up of information exclusively related to human injury in a medical context that doesn't really translate to a biological article. That's what made me think two separate articles would be a better approach. And as D6194c-1cc brought up above, all of the sources are specifically related to human injury as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you are envisioning an article Human injury and another article called Injury that excludes all human injuries. Otherwise, I'd expect at least half of the current information to be duplicated in the all-animals article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, probably the information will overlap, but it could be different. Animals and human have different common injuries and different causes. Domesticated animals may have also different causes in comparison with wild animals. Here's one source for example: Eye Emergencies by Kirk N. Gelatt. I doubt that cactus eye injury is common with human. And I also had never heard of penetrating injuries in humans. D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And it is possible that Domesticated animal injuries and Wild animal injuries would be different articles. The question is whether we can find enough sources for that. D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is about medical condition in humans. If article name wouldn't contain the word "human" anyone can try to fix the definition to make it more accurate but although not related exclusively to humans. Human-related sources generally shouldn't be used in context of other animals to prevent possible original research (as per WP:STICKTOSOURCE), although exceptions are possible (for example to describe mechanisms). Although this article's scope is narrowed to human anatomy. WP:MEDTITLE guideline says nothing about "human" word in medical conditions/diseases, but it's a guideline, not a rule. Here's one example of naming that describes information in human context: Britannica/human disease.
    This article could be a good article about human medical condition (related to WikiProject Medicine). Making its scope broader would probably make the article's quality lower and face many possible problems. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've got things backwards for the titling process. Wikipedia:Article titles and scopes (which I've been threatening to write for years, mostly because of people on the keto diet who think their fad diet should be included in an article about pediatric epilepsy treatments) might help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title how do people feel about "Injury in humans" as a title, rather than human injury? Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone interested, I've opened a broader discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Biology articles and human focus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unnecessarily specific title. The article focuses on human injury, but what's true about human injuries is predominately true in injuries of other animals. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So if you think so, what about information about problems with identification of skin-related injuries in animals that have hair coat? The source: [4]. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking under fur for signs of injury doesn't sound too different from checking under hair for signs of injury.
    What's stopping you from adding that information to Wikipedia? Or imagine that the move request resulted in this page getting moved away: What would you write here instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some facts are notable for human and another notable for animals. Humans have hairs while animals have hair coat. Skull in human limits possible traumas. Animals also have different kinds of common injuries. Human are being treated by medicians and animals are treated by veterinaries.
    I probably won't add information about animals into articles about human because I don't want to make original research. As article about humans this article also missing a section about animal-related injuries such as bee sting, dog byte and snake bites. But in animals that section would probably have another name. D6194c-1cc (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We don't even have that generalized/animal article at the moment, and for most part in articles about anatomy/medicine we give precedence to those relating to humans. I can see some sections could be eventually split to Epidemiology of injury (cf. Epidemiology of concussion which currently redirects to Concussion). Moving the article now would violate WP:PRECISION. No such user (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget that current articles is written about humans and uses sources about humans.

    Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that

    — WP:PRECISION
    So if current article's name would be just injury, it won't be precise enough. D6194c-1cc (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not forget, thank you for the reminder. In turn, I'll remind you that you are welcome to write an article about cat injuries in the Cat Wikipedia. Oh wait... No such user (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If there will be enough sources such an article could be created. It would have distinct scope with its own notability. D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh: Humans tend to be human-centric in their perspective, and Wikipedia is primarily written for human readers. That is simply to be expected. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strong oppose. This article is about human injuries. Injury in animals would be the article about injuries to animals in general, but it would never have primary topic at injury because it's not what our readers need or want at injury Red Slash 18:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers familiar with science may expect here an article about injury, not about human injury. Currently not so many things remind here about human context, it's not obvious. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose apart from any other reason, most of the content of this article seems to be written in fairly general form which could apply to humans and many animals. I suggest expanding the article rather than moving it. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think about animal injuries to the skin? Are they minor? Do they need any specialist treatment? What about wild animals? D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

This article is missing a section about animal-related injuries (bite, sting, crush, gore, stomp, buck off, fall on, peck, or scratch). Also animal-related injuries can cause zoonotic infection transmission. Here is some background information: [5]. @Thebiguglyalien: would you like to add missing information to the article? D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is missing a section about injury to plants: there is no reason with the very broad title "Injury" for it to be limited to animals (let alone to humans). For instance "Insects and their Injury to Plants", "Plant injury due to insects, mites, nematodes and other pests", "Lightning Injury to Plants". The term "Injury" plainly applies to all organisms large enough to be able to tolerate a degree of injury (whereas single cells lyse and die if punctured, so injury=death). The current article could either be renamed "Injury to humans" or it must be broadened very significantly.
At the moment it is extremely human-specific; it may perhaps be the case that much of its medical approach also applies to mammals (which perhaps the above thread mistook for "animals"), but its applicability to other vertebrates is somewhat doubtful, and the text certainly does not cover invertebrate animals such as insects, molluscs, or cnidarians. (And its claims are non-starters for plants.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said the same thing (see the requested move immediately above this), but my understanding is that consensus was slightly in favor of the status quo. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a consensus (see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). It's a lot of opinions that have not even been analyzed. Consensus means that somebody need to analyze arguments (they can be biased, wrong or may be just opinions) and make a conclusion based on the arguments after filtering them through the English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since there are several of us who think so, supported by any number of reliable sources – there is no doubt whatever that injury has a wide taxonomic scope and importantly varies in both effect and its handling in different groups of organisms, I think we should either get the article extended, or rename the current one to indicate its very limited scope. If that requires further discussion, so be it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an argument that can produce a different result from last year's move discussion, then by all means. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It rather looks, as D6194c-1cc states, as if the arguments were stated but overlooked in the closure. It will be straightforward to adduce evidence for distinctly non-human responses to injury among invertebrate animals and plants, but perhaps the best way to do that would be to construct at least start-class articles on Injury in invertebrates and Injury in plants, so that the woolly claims about "humans = animals/vertebrates/mammals" get seen by everybody for what they are, rather narrow at best, and that the scope of Injury is much wider. At that point it should be simple to gain consensus for renaming to Injury in mammals or Injury in vertebrates (yeah, maybe that's two not one), and for creating a wide-scope article which covers all the child articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One another source that could be used to write a good article about injuries: [6]. But it probably related to domestic animals, so won't cover insects, fish, etc. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Injury in plants and invertebrates

[edit]

I'll be working up a brief overview of this topicthese topics at User:Chiswick Chap/Injury in plants. Anyone who feels like helping in this will be very welcome. Other injury topics which need an article are listed in the thread above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source that might be helpful: [7] (frost injury). D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Related article: Wound response in plants. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another source. About heat injury: [8]. This source might be valuable. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed a brief summary article on Injury in plants. The implied article hierarchy is:
* A new "Injury" article covering injury to animals and plants of all sorts
* A renamed Injury in humans/mammals/vertebrates..., the existing article
* Future articles on The newly-created Injury in invertebrates, etc
* The newly-created Injury in plants article.
For my money, this means that easily the best route to a sensible article hierarchy would be to rename the current in-humans article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien: I've created a (distinctly stubby) framework article, temporarily named "Injury (all taxa)", and subsidiary articles on injury in invertebrates and in plants. The current "Injury" article would work as a subsidiary article on humans/mammals/vertebrates according to taste: there is plainly scope for further work in that direction. Clearly also the framework article's title should be "Injury" so I'd suggest we swap the two articles over. This is a quite different situation from a year ago, so I'd be minded simply do make the swap and choose a new name for the humans/mammals/vertebrates article. Or we could have an RFC or whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking injury in humans should be it's own thing, since a good portion of this article applies solely to humans in regard to classification, frequency, social effects, etc. We might reduce the mechanisms section so it's more about how the different mechanisms apply to human injury so that the general mechanisms info is in a broader article about vertebrates/animals/life as needed. Are vertebrate and invertebrate injury different enough to warrant different articles? It would be much cleaner if we could have a single Injury in animals that covered all general types of injuries across the animal kingdom (maybe with a section or subsections about the distinct injuries between vertebrates and invertebrates). But if the mechanisms are largely unrelated, then I guess that wouldn't be practical. Cell damage might also warrant a section in the main all taxa article, especially if we're looking at single-celled organisms as something that can be injured. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Humans are animals ... but yes, the stuff about hospital treatment etc doesn't much apply even to other primates, I guess. I don't specially see the need to have yet another article with a pair of "main"-linked summary sections (verts and inverts), but if you feel like doing it then it's not totally illogical. The inverts share something of the innate immune system and the general business of coagulation, but they don't have the (newer) adaptive immune system of vertebrates; and their powers of regeneration after injury vary widely, from the utterly incredible in the coelenterates downwards. The all-taxa article obviously has much potential for further work. None of this should now be an obstacle to renaming the article, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see it being one of these two hierarchies, depending on how much overlap there is between the vertebrate and invertebrate articles. If there isn't much overlap:
If there's significant overlap:
Each article would include brief summaries of the articles below them per WP:SUMMARY. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One another good source for the injury in animals article: [9]. D6194c-1cc (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could do it either way. Not quite sure why I'm doing all the running but I guess I'll fix this one also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened with the talk pages after the pages were moved? Talk pages of the injury and injury in humans are mixed up. D6194c-1cc (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, we will need an admin to fix that; could you arrange that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's another problem. Articles in non-English Wikipedias might have translations of previous article with attribution made by wikilink. After the move attribution in many articles have been made broken. Also, it is true for all the sites that might borrowed information from the article. We need to fix that issue. Any ideas? D6194c-1cc (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That happens whenever articles are moved, it can't be helped. All that can be done is to update article talk pages as attributions or links are discovered. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects usually solve the problem. But in our case the article looks like another another article and has wrong edit history, so all previous attribution was broken. Talk pages are not guaranteed to be sufficient attribution, and as I think they aren't. Once I've already proposed the solution: 1165137067 / 1165137600. The simplest way of moving one article over another is making first edit a redirect to the moved page, the edit summary must notice special:diff of previous article and its name. Can administrators add an edit to the history (something like history merge)? D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said already, you'll need an admin to fix this. I expect they will simply swap the talk pages, but if a history merge is needed, they can do that too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: English 102

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trentbowser (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Trentbowser (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Injury_in_humans&oldid=1235436690"