Talk:Gay bowel syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Obsolete[edit]

This term is obsolete. It was never widely used in the medical literature, as a brief search of the relevant databases will confirm. More to the point, it has virtually disappeared from use in the last few decades. The McGraw-Hill Handbook of Colorectal Surgery and the article from J Homosexuality both make clear that this term is obsolete. I don't think that the publication date of a Medscape blurb can be held up to negate these reliable sources.

Further, the handling of the topic is inappropriate. Since the term is obsolete and (per expert opinion) best understood with reference to more specific underlying diagnoses, we should do the same. This article should briefly (given the paucity of sources) recap the history of the term, while medical detail should be deferred to articles which are more appropriate, such as proctitis, LGBT issues in medicine, or Homosexuality#Health. MastCell Talk 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the article as reverted by Thisglad (talk · contribs) contains numerous misstatements and inaccuracies. For example, looking only at the lead paragraph:
  • The lead paragraph makes no mention of the well-documented obsolescence of the term, leaving a reader unaware of a key aspect of the topic (a problem with WP:LEAD).
  • Thisglad's version cites a "2004 study by the John Hopkins school of medicine with gay men". There is no such study. The source in question is a Medscape blurb written by a physician at Hopkins. The actual study, PMID 14699467, was conducted by researchers in the San Francisco Dept of Public Health - and, incidentally, does not use the term "gay bowel syndrome" anywhere. So no, it's not "used in the medical literature" in 2004, as most people don't consider Medscape to be part of the scholarly medical literature, but rather an informational website.
  • Of course, even the Medscape source held up as evidence of currency explicitly notes that the term is obsolete ("There were multiple studies of the newly recognized "gay bowel syndrome" in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, subsequent attention and study has been sparse.") This is basic misuse of a source to advance an editor's viewpoint, as the source is being used to argue a point that the source itself explicitly rebuts.
I'm not going to revert further at this point, since I don't want to contribute to an edit war, but I would encourage both outside opinions as well as input here from Thisglad (talk · contribs) regarding these edits, which appear to me to be both inaccurate and an inappropriate use of sources. MastCell Talk 21:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
For the curious, and for reference: it appears that the Canadian Association of Gastroenterologists ceased using this term in 2004, after an activist complained:

"Gay bowel syndrome" is an outdated term from the 1980's that appeared accidentally in the textbook, First Principles of Gastroenterology: The Basis of Disease and An Approach to Management, according to a CAG official. "It slipped into this [edition] purely by accident," said Dr. Eldon Shaffer, head of the Department of Medicine at the University of Calgary and the textbook's co-author. "I didn't even know it was still in there; I had to find it. It's gone." [1]

According to the Washington Blade, there was a bit of an issue when the group from Hopkins used the term loosely in 2005 ([2]). The CDC got involved, and said that the term had little meaning and had long since fallen out of use at the CDC. Even the physician in question, from Hopkins, stated: "It [Gay Bowel Syndrome] almost disappeared after the early 1980s because of safer sex practices." The point being, again, that this is an obsolete, unused, and largely meaningless term. MastCell Talk 22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why a term's obsolescence would be of relevance. An encyclopedia should be an historical record, whether the record was right or wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talkcontribs) 15:57, June 23, 2009

Typically, we re-direct a term if another one replaces it or it can be best placed under the umbrella of another condition. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, wikipedia is not a history book, or a place to post random, out of date information.Fuzbaby (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with Flonight if the term was renamed. I disagree with Fuzbaby's premise, however. Random information is what an encyclopedia is all about. What is random to one person is cool to another and interesting to another. If the information is out of date it should be updated. There is nothing unencyclopedic about an article that relates information about a medical diagnosis that is now understand to be wrong, provided of course that the article makes clear that the diagnosis is wrong. I'm not that familiar with the subject; I happened here by accident, so this discussion can be academic if we are only dealing with a replaced term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talkcontribs)
To be clear, I'm open to maintaining a standalone article here as opposed to a redirect. My concern is that the standalone article should accurately represent this topic. Personally, I think that this version is significantly more useful, readable, interesting, encyclopedic, you-name-it than the alternative. This is a term with virtually no medical currency; therefore, this article is not the place for a lengthy disquisition about the causes of proctitis. It's a place to explain the historical usage of this term, and the reasons why it has fallen from favor. Medical detail belongs in the appropriate medical articles, predominantly proctitis. MastCell Talk 04:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a stand alone article might be doable but it needs to make it clear that it is an antiquated or obsolete word. See Vapors for an example of an outdated medical concept. My concern is the Gay Bowel Syndrome was not every really an idea that was well accepted by the medical community as a disorder and so the term has the two problems. It is obsolete and also not something that should be presented as ever being a well defined and established medical diagnosis. That is the reason that I would not argue against a redirect or complain if one was done. But if the article is kept as a stand alone entry then it needs to be extremely short and focus on the historical development of the term similar to the Vapors article. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The are references in medical literature to GBS. The Illustrated Dictionary of Immunology (2009), Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (2009), and the Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine (2006) contain information related to GBS and make no reference to the term being obsolete. Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Epidemiology, Pathology, Diagnosis and Treatment (1997) contains quite a bit of detail on GBS. I think it is noteworthy to have an article provided, of course, current information from reliable sources is included in the article. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • GRIBS - GBS is commonly abbreviated online in BBS to "gribs" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.127.151.119 (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Stub and re-write[edit]

  • My preferance is to stub the article and re-write each line on this talk page to make sure that there is accuracy with each detail of the content.
  • Having inaccurate or outdated material about medial conditions absolutely needs to be avoided. So, we need to review the content to make sure that it accurately reflects the sources. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For the moment I have restored MastCell's version of the first paragraph, since the other one simply couldn't be taken seriously. It's worth noting that the serious regression of the first paragraph happened as part of a wholesale revert, with an edit summary that had nothing to do with the most noticeable effect. [3] [4] Hans Adler 23:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

article needs improvement[edit]

This article seems to be about how the term is obsolete and those health care people are bad for using it. There is just one sentence about what it is! This needs to be expanded. User F203 (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)