Talk:Respiratory system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

respiratory hubert ly[edit]

I have added "respiratory tract" to the list under "See also". I think the respiratory tract is part of the respiratory system: The respiratory system is not a part of the respiratory tract, but comparing the two articles it seens they would have you believe that the respiratory system is part of the respiratory tract and that the respiratory tract is not completely encluded by the term "respiratory system". Alec - U.K.

Entrance of Air[edit]

Air can enter the respiratory system through the mouth or oral cavity as well as the nostrils and nasal cavity, it doesn't seem to acknowledge this...

Medical treatment, surgical procedures and equipment?[edit]

How should medical articles related to the Respiratory system be linked to the category? I just did a change on Flutter valve to this category from where it was inexplicably pointed to Digestive system. Hmm, there doesn't seem to actually be a Respiratory system *category*, just this article.

Internationally accepted notation for partial pressures[edit]

Hi Cruithne9, You mention an internationally accepted scientific notation for partial pressure in your recent edit summary at Respiratory system. Do you have a link to a reference for this? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter (Southwood). There is great variation in the notation used in the various Physiology textbooks. A very common form is pO2, but a lower case p such as this means "the negative logarithm of the molar oxygen concentration” as in "pH" and “pKa” for the negative logarithm of an acid’s dissociation constant. This is clearly completely inappropriate and misleading when referring to the partial pressure of a gas; but like many of the other incorrect notations is simply copied from textbook to textbook without thinking. Others use PO2, or simply PO2 or P(O2). These are improvements on the pO2 theme, but although still strictly speaking incorrect, are one's only option when using MS Word, or other text editing computer program. But note that PO2 suggests a chemical formula, denoting an oxide of phosphorus! The correct notation is PO2 as indicated in <Scientific Tables (Seventh Edition), Edited by K. Diem and C Lentner. pp. 544-545. Published by Ciba-Geigy Ltd, Basle, Switzerland>. This is the notation used in the article on the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation and the article on Partial pressure, and probably elsewhere in Wikipedia where the authors have written chemistry and physics articles, making sure they use the internationally correct notation. The ppO2 used in Respiratory system article (which was actually originally entered as ppO2, but changed by me to ppO2) is an extremely rarely used notation, which the editor who changed all the PO2s into this format deemed “simpler”, though many readers of the article, if they do not notice "pp" definition in the “Control” subsection of the article are likely find confusing. Cruithne9 (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cruithne9, most obliging. I generally use the ppO2 notation in diving related articles and this is one of the notations I often find in the industry literature. It is simpler to code, but I don't see that it is any different in simplicity to read. I have also seen PO2 used, which I assume is a kludge for the <math> option. ppO2 is simply wrong, even ppO2 is better Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Factual and other problems[edit]

Hi Iztwoz. I am aware that you have received numerous awards for your contributions to the medical, physiological and anatomical article in Wikipedia. Congratulation on such an outstanding record. It therefore puzzles me that your recent editing of the Breathing and, to a lesser extent, the Respiratory system articles contain numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, misunderstandings and inaccuracies.

For instance, you use four different (undefined) notations for “partial pressure of oxygen” in different parts of the two articles: PO2, PO2, PaO2, and ppO2. The correct notation is PO2 as indicated in <Scientific Tables (Seventh Edition), Edited by K. Diem and C Lentner. pp. 544-545. Published by Ciba-Geigy Ltd, Basle, Switzerland>. This is the notation used in the article on the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation and the article on Partial pressure, and probably elsewhere in Wikipedia where the authors have written chemistry and physics articles, making sure they use the internationally correct notation. If any of the other notations is used instead, then the “2” should at least be a subscript “2”, But then PO2 could easily be confused with a chemical formula of an oxide of phosphorus. PaO2 is the most confusing of all the alternatives, even if it is explained that this refers to the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (or is it the partial pressure of oxygen in the alveoli?). That basically leaves a choice between PO2 and ppO2, although elsewhere in the article you define “pp” as “parts per …..” (as in parts per million). PO2 is no more “complex” or confusing than any of the other notations, and has the advantage of being unambiguous. So I would use that throughout.

I will deal with other problems sentence by sentence more or less in the order of importance. The sentences in italics are quotes from the articles

  • The sentence that reads: Exercise also increases the breathing rate due to the extra demands for oxygen, makes no mention of how this is determined, thus reducing this to a teleological statement, with no scientific value. Everyone knows that your breathing rate increases during exercise; the physiological question is HOW does this come about?
  • The same mistake is made elsewhere in the article: The rate and depth of breathing is controlled by the respiratory centers, according to the changing needs of the body. How do the respiratory centers work out what the changing needs of the body are?
  • The sentence about the effect of exercise on the breathing rate is immediately followed, in the same line by: Information received from stretch receptors in the lungs limits the depth of inhalation and exhalation as if this is the physiological answer to the increased rate of breathing during exercise.
  • You state that Diaphragmatic breathing involves the use of the main muscles of respiration whilst "abdominal breathing" shown in Fig.3 involves the use of the abdominal muscles to increase the thoracic capacity. Firstly which are the “main muscles of respiration” apart from the diaphragm? But more seriously, the abdominal muscles CANNOT “increase the thoracic capacity”. During inhalation they ALWAYS relax, whether breathing at rest or during exercise. The sentence that follows on from there reads: However, both of theses terms are often used interchangeably as diaphragmatic breathing also involves the abdominal muscles, and abdominal breathing also involves the diaphragm. This is as confusing as it is incorrect. The correct sentence should read Diaphragmatic breathing is often termed “abdominal breathing” because the movement seen (on the outside) when the diaphragm contracts is a bulging of the abdomen; whereas when the diaphragm relaxes the stretched abdominal muscle squeeze the abdomen back to its resting position. This makes it appear as if the breathing is carried out by the abdomen.
  • The sentence Breathing is one of the few autonomic bodily functions that within limits, can also be controlled consciously. is incorrect as the autonomic nervous system is not involved in breathing. The word you are looking for is “automatic” or “reflex”. The motor nerves serving the muscles of inhalation and exhalation go to skeletal muscles (otherwise known as “voluntary muscles”!) The autonomic nervous system has a very specific anatomical and physiological meaning, serving smooth muscles, various parts of the heart, and various types of glands. The autonomic nervous system does not innervate skeletal muscles, and therefore none of the muscles of ventilation.
  • The sentence: At sea level, where the ambient pressure is about 100 kPa, oxygen contributes 21% of the atmosphere and the partial pressure of oxygen PO2 is 19.7 kPa. is self-contradictory. If the ambient pressure is 100 kPa and 21% of that air is oxygen then the partial pressure of oxygen in the ambient air is 21 kPa (i.e. 21% of 100 kPa).
  • Further down in the article you state that the PO2 at sea level is 21.0 kPa. which is correct, but contradicts your earlier claim that it is 19.7 kPa.
  • When describing the diving reflex, it is stated that The metabolic rate slows right down and has the effect of transferring oxygen from other parts of the body. Slowing the metabolic rate doers not TRANSFER oxygen from one part of the body to another. The redistribution of the circulation is effected by intense vasoconstriction to the limbs (skin and muscle), and the abdominal visceral organs, while dilating the arterioles to the heart and brain. The slowing of the metabolic rate is a CONSEQUENCE or RESULT of this redistribution of blood to only a small part of the body. It is NOT A CAUSE of the redirection of the available oxygen to “other parts of the body”.
  • …rise in the pH of the arterial plasma leading to respiratory alkalosis. Cause and effect have once again been switched in this sentence. The accumulation of CO2 in the blood causes a “respiratory alkalosis” which in turn (if it is not compensated by the renal excretion of H+ ions in the urine) leads to a rise in the pH of the arterial plasma. Not the other way around.
  • With each breath only about 350 ml, less than 15% of the residual air is expelled. The term “residual air” has a very specific meaning in respiratory physiology. The word you are looking for is Functional residual capacity.
  • The partial pressures of the gases in the blood flowing through the alveolar capillaries equilibrate with the partial pressures of the gases in the FRC, ensuring that the partial pressures of carbon dioxide, and oxygen of the arterial blood, and therefore its pH, remain constant. How does the equilibration of the gases pulmonary capillary blood with those in the alveoli ENSURE that the partial pressures of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the arterial blood remain CONSTANT? The equilibration only ensures that the partial pressures of these gases are the same in the alveoli and arterial blood. Keeping them constant (unchanged) under a wide variety of circumstances requires fairly complex control mechanisms, which measure the gas pressures and institute corrective measure if they deviate from their “set points”.
  • increased pressure (of CO2) is sensed by the peripheral chemoreceptors which stimulate the respiratory centers. They respond by stimulating motor neurons at the muscles of respiration increasing the rate and depth of the breathing rate, and thereby increasing the supply of oxygen. This keeps the partial pressures of carbon dioxide and oxygen in equilibrium. Firstly the partial pressure of CO2 is measured primarily by the CENTRAL blood gas chemoreceptors on the surface of the brain stem. The peripheral blood gas chemoreceptors are more sensitive to the partial pressure of oxygen than they are to that of carbon dioxide. But more seriously, what does the sentence This keeps the partial pressures of carbon dioxide and oxygen in equilibrium. mean? and how is this achieved?
Some minor points:
  • Muscles of forceful inspiration are the: scalenes, the sternocleidomastoid, the serratus anterior and posterior, pectoralis major and minor, the levatores costarum, and the quadratus lumborum. The serratus anterior and serratus posterior are not accessory muscles of inhalation as their fibres run along the ribs (i.e parallel to them), and therefore do not help to lift them.
  • Similarly, the latissimi dorsi are not accessory muscles of exhalation, as stated in the sentence: Muscles of forceful expiration are the transverse thoracic muscles, the rectus abdominis, the abdominal external oblique, and the internal oblique muscles, the latissimi dorsi, and the serratus posterior inferior muscles.
  • In the sentence that reads anatomical features of the respiratory system include the trachea, bronchi, bronchioles, lungs, and diaphragm, the word features should be replaced with organs. Organs have “features” such as lobes, indentations, ligament attachments etc. But “features” do not have organs. The words are not synonyms. Furthermore the list of organs is strangely incomplete. Should “alveoli” not be included? and if the diaphragm is listed, then mention should also be made of the other muscles of ventilation.
  • In the Respiratory system article, the statement that The right side of Fig. 2 shows that during exhalation, at rest is incorrect. In fact it shows FORCED EXHALATION.
  • The statement in the Respiratory system article, that the so-called pump handle and bucket handle movements of the ribs as shown in Fig. 2. is also incorrect. I think you mean Fig. 1; and that figure only shows the operation of the “pump handle movement”.

There are still a number of items in both articles that need correction or re-wording, but they are of relatively minor importance, and can easily be dealt with when the other problems are sorted out.

Cheers Cruithne9 (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Have responded to same input on Breathing talk page.--Iztwoz (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of unconventional symbols for pressures and partial pressures[edit]

Iztwoz, Please use currently conventional symbols for pressures and partial pressures to minimise confusion. Please do not change from the more acceptable format previously used in the article to the system now used which is, as far as I am aware, incorrect. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter (Southwood) the 'ordinary' format is used on many pages including the entry page of PCO2 - should all these other pages be changed too? Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I think they should. As far as I know they are wrong, not 'ordinary', and things that are wrong should be corrected. Things that are right should not be changed without discussion. I am currently trying to find out if there is any MOS guidance on this point. In the meanwhile I would appreciate if you would restore the correctly subscripted chemical symbols. I will cheerfully accept it if you change to the IUPAC approved symbols. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Have just looked at the Blood gas tension page and that uses ordinary format and conventional symbols when an equation is used. There are no equations on this page. ? --Iztwoz (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
and likewise Breathing gas.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I have not yet checked the blood gas tension article, (or breathing gas) so not sure that I understand you correctly. However that may also simply be wrong. There is no good reason to use formatting that causes confusion when the facilities to use correct, unambiguous formatting are readily available. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Both Blood gas tension and Breathing gas use subscripts for the chemical formulae. Breathing gas uses pp for partial pressure, as this article did until you changed it. I do not get your point. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
My point is that the use is not uniform or consistent, and in my view not needed on pages being read by a general reader where the use of symbols to the uninitiated is clumsy and off-putting.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The correct alternative to using the correct symbols would be to not use symbols and use the correct term in full. Use of kludge symbols does not clarify to the uninformed reader, and makes the article look unprofessional to the informed reader, so that confidence in the overall quality of the article is eroded. We should strive for more consistency as we strive for better referencing, correct information, consistent formatting, correct spelling and grammar and all the other things that make a quality article. As long as changes consistently improve an article they are good.
I see that you have improved the article by both using correct terms and correct symbols. Thanks for this. It looks much better already. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
By looking at various relevant pages - they all (ALL) use ordinary font for use in prose and use symbols for use in formulas and equations. Is there any good reason to deviate from this? The featured article Oxygen toxicity uses 'partial pressures' 32 times with not one use of symbols. Likewise Oxygen saturation (medicine), Pulmonary gas pressures, Blood gas test, Pressure, PCO2 and on and on. Are you really suggesting all these pages should be changed? By the way I disagree with your ref to kludge symbols - they are merely abbrevs as commonly used in all articles. --Iztwoz (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry it's been a long day - i've only just read your comments on 'symbols' used and ref to kludge symbols - I agree with your preferred choice if that was the way to go. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Full text is always acceptable, and ordinary font is as far as I am aware, normal usage. I refer to when a symbolic representation is used, where at absolute minimum, the correct subscripts must be used in chemical furmulae, and either a recognised symbolic system used as recommended by a reliable source, such as IUPAC, or the symbology must be defined in the article. The symbology should remain consistent throughout the article, and a recognised system should not be replaced without discussion. There does not appear to be a MoS agreement on the details, but I think this complies with the general philosophy in MoS. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Human physiology[edit]

I concur that for the most part, the general explanation uses human physiology for examples and details. There are a few examples of non-human physiology referred to in the section, but probably not a problem. The Other animals section could use a section on mammalian physiology to include the two special cases mentioned - horses and elephants - which explains that human respiratory system is very middle of the road for mammals, and that the two examples mentioned are there as exceptional cases. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision[edit]

The article as it stands consists of a confused, unorganized, fragmented jumble of headings, some of which contain nothing more than an uninformative sentence or a disconnected, incomplete table of data no one is likely to make sense of, or use. The content under some of the headings contradict the content of others. In other words there is no continuity of thought or the presentation of information. There are are also numerous inaccurate, misleading and confusing non-statements, many of which are listed above. There is no consistency in nomenclature, or symbols used.

I have therefore revised the entire article ensuring that there is a proper hierarchy in the headings, and that things that belong together are grouped together. I have eliminated all the inaccuracies I could identify, and made the content that is presented as generally understandable as possible, ensuring that cause always comes before effect - and that that link is obvious. Eliminated all the symbols that have a mathematical flavor, sticking to prose throughout, and proper grammar. All the figures are numbered sequentially, for easy reference (including back reference). Cruithne9 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit, Cruithne9. I really appreciate the time you dedicate to editing these articles and also the patience with which you have tried to learn our (somewhat confusing and arbitrary) wiki-ways. New edit and structure looks wonderful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit note[edit]

Just to note following edit made to remove: The lungs manufacture surfactants which for local use. I have posted this here since all of my more recent edits to these particular pages have been automatically reverted on the grounds of vandalism. I have only just read through the list of 'complaints' lodged against me - most of them were not even made by me - so what's occurring here? --Iztwoz (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)--Iztwoz (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The deletion of the unnecessary and out-of-place sentence mentioned above is entirely justified and an improvement to the section on surfactant. Thanks.
But your most recent edits to the lead section about the branching of the bronchi give an anatomically incorrect impression, and are far from an improvements on what was there before. They, and your edits over the past weeks, are the arbitrary, senseless ramblings of someone who seems not to have any knowledge of respiratory physiology, anatomy, zoology or physics. If this willful nonsensical editing on these pages continues I will post the list of your vanadalisms on your talk page, and add to that list as you continue rampaging your way through respiratory physiology articles.
By the way I have sampled some of your edits on the other pages where you have been busy, and they contain exactly the same sorts of off-the-point and erroneous remarks, almost every time.Cruithne9 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

last edit[edit]

Cruithne9 - here is a record of the last edits of yours which I have restored to a correct version as was - no doubt with your obsessive puerile attacks on my editing you will reintroduce the errors - as long as they're your's I suppose. your contributions in italics:

These communicate with the external environment via a system of airways, or hollow tubes, of which the largest is the trachea, which branches into the two main bronchi at the level of the angle (or uppermost joint) of the sternum. These main bronchi enter the lungs where they branch into narrower and more numerous secondary, tertiary and progressively smaller bronchi that eventually gives rise to the millions of smallest tubes, called the bronchioles.

Why introduce a seven word piped link which just goes to the sternum and not to the actual known part - the carina? Why keep insisting on going to smaller bronchi when the smaller bronchi are the bronchioles. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Iztwoz. The "carina" is name given to the branch point of the trachea (actually only part of it). So your version says that the trachea branches at the point where it branches! Not a very useful or insightful remark. Plus the ordinary reader, as well as most past students of anatomy, will not know what the carina is. So it does not help them place the branch point in their bodies. Whereas the angle of the sternum is a point on the body that can easily be located on the chest and marks the "surface anatomy" (an official anatomical term) of the branch point of the trachea. I would leave the whole sentence out, as it is of such minor anatomical, and functional concern that it hardly belongs in the lead to an article on the "Respiratory system".
Concerning the branching of the respiratory tree, and its branches: If you have a look at the section labeled "Anatomy" you will see that the name "bronchus" (or bronchi, plural) is used used to describe the majority of the ever narrowing succession of branches, down to really very small tubes. They are distinguished by their adjectives: "main", "lobar", "segmental", "large subsegmental" and "small subsegmental", the last of which is less than 1 mm in diameter. The tubes start to be called "bronchioles" only when they have no cartilagenous rings or plates to keep them open. So your contention that all the bronchi smaller than the main bronchi are called "bronchioles" is patently false and not supported by any Anatomy textbook. It is this type of fundamental ignorance of very simple anatomy, physiology, science, zoology and physics that characterizes your edits and confuses the ordinary reader, while confirming the informed readers' contention that Wikipedia content cannot be trusted.
I am therefore deleting your last edit under the "Vandalism" banner. Cruithne9 (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Daily WP perusal. Agree with your both here. "Carina" should be directly mentioned. It is a confusing abstraction to not mention it by name and instead refer to it via surface anatomy, I (personally) do not see an issue not mentioning it by name. Agree Cruithne with your correction identification of bronchi / broncioli. This content dispute is not vandalism. Tom (LT) (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I would have no problem with a sentence such as "The bifurcation of the trachea into the two main bronchi is called the carina", except that that is not true. The carina is the saddle-like ridge formed by the splitting of the trachea into the two main bronchi. It is of interest only to pulmonologists who are dealing with people who have inhaled a foreign body (e.g. food) which, as it falls down the trachea, lands astride the carina, and therefore goes down neither main bronchus, but partially or wholly blocks off one or both bronchi. So "carina" is not synonymous with the branching of the trachea. It is a structure only seen from inside the trachea, and is therefore not shown or named on a typical anatomical diagram of the respiratory tree. The use of the name is therefore confusing. Cruithne9 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The respiratory physiology and anatomy articles: Numerous factual and other problems[edit]

Hi Iztwoz,

Here is a partial list of the many serious problems caused by your persistent edits and interferences with of the respiratory physiology and anatomy articles over the past few months. Your words (edits/sentences) are indicated in italics.

  • The sentence that reads: Exercise also increases the breathing rate due to the extra demands for oxygen, makes no mention of how this is determined, thus reducing this to a teleological statement, with no scientific value. Everyone knows that your breathing rate increases during exercise; the physiological question is HOW does this come about?
  • The same mistake is made elsewhere in the article: The rate and depth of breathing is controlled by the respiratory centers, according to the changing needs of the body. How do the respiratory centers work out what the changing needs of the body are?
  • The sentence about the effect of exercise on the breathing rate is immediately followed, in the same line by: Information received from stretch receptors in the lungs limits the depth of inhalation and exhalation as if this is the physiological answer to the increased rate of breathing during exercise.
  • You state that Diaphragmatic breathing involves the use of the main muscles of respiration whilst "abdominal breathing" shown in Fig.3 involves the use of the abdominal muscles to increase the thoracic capacity. Firstly, which are the “main muscles of respiration” apart from the diaphragm? But more seriously, the abdominal muscles CANNOT “increase the thoracic capacity”. During inhalation they ALWAYS relax, whether breathing at rest or during exercise. The abdominal muscles can only DECREASE the thoracic volume. So what you have written is complete nonsense.
  • The sentence that follows on from there reads: However, both of theses terms are often used interchangeably as diaphragmatic breathing also involves the abdominal muscles, and abdominal breathing also involves the diaphragm. This is as confusing as it is incorrect. The correct sentence should read Diaphragmatic breathing is often termed “abdominal breathing” because the movement seen (on the outside) when the diaphragm contracts is a bulging of the abdomen; whereas when the diaphragm relaxes the stretched abdominal muscle squeeze the abdomen back to its resting position. This makes it appear as if the breathing is carried out by the abdomen.
  • The sentence Breathing is one of the few autonomic bodily functions that within limits, can also be controlled consciously. is incorrect as the autonomic nervous system is not involved in breathing. The word you are looking for is “automatic” or “reflex”. The motor nerves serving the muscles of inhalation and exhalation go to skeletal muscles (otherwise known as “voluntary muscles”!) The autonomic nervous system has a very specific anatomical and physiological meaning, serving smooth muscles, various parts of the heart, and various types of glands. The autonomic nervous system does not innervate skeletal muscles, and therefore none of the muscles of ventilation.
  • The sentence: At sea level, where the ambient pressure is about 100 kPa, oxygen contributes 21% of the atmosphere and the partial pressure of oxygen PO2 is 19.7 kPa. is self-contradictory. If the ambient pressure is 100 kPa and 21% of that air is oxygen then the partial pressure of oxygen in the ambient air is 21 kPa (i.e. 21% of 100 kPa).
  • Further down in the article you state that the PO2 at sea level is 21.0 kPa. which is correct, but contradicts your earlier claim that it is 19.7 kPa.
  • When describing the diving reflex, it is stated that The metabolic rate slows right down and has the effect of transferring oxygen from other parts of the body. Slowing the metabolic rate does not TRANSFER oxygen from one part of the body to another. The redistribution of the circulation is effected by intense vasoconstriction to the limbs (skin and muscle), and the abdominal visceral organs, while dilating the arterioles to the heart and brain. The slowing of the metabolic rate is a CONSEQUENCE or RESULT of this redistribution of blood to only a small part of the body. It is NOT A CAUSE of the redirection of the available oxygen to “other parts of the body”.
  • …rise in the pH of the arterial plasma leading to respiratory alkalosis. Cause and effect have once again been switched in this sentence. The accumulation of CO2 in the blood causes a “respiratory alkalosis” which in turn (if it is not compensated by the renal excretion of H+ ions in the urine) leads to a rise in the pH of the arterial plasma. Not the other way around.
  • With each breath only about 350 ml, less than 15% of the residual air is expelled. The term “residual air” has a very specific meaning in respiratory physiology. The word you are looking for is Functional residual capacity.
  • The partial pressures of the gases in the blood flowing through the alveolar capillaries equilibrate with the partial pressures of the gases in the FRC, ensuring that the partial pressures of carbon dioxide, and oxygen of the arterial blood, and therefore its pH, remain constant. How does the equilibration of the gases pulmonary capillary blood with those in the alveoli ENSURE that the partial pressures of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the arterial blood remain CONSTANT? The equilibration only ensures that the partial pressures of these gases are the same in the alveoli and arterial blood. Keeping them constant (unchanged) under a wide variety of circumstances requires fairly complex control mechanisms, which measure the gas pressures and institute corrective measure if they deviate from their “set points”.
  • increased pressure (of CO2) is sensed by the peripheral chemoreceptors which stimulate the respiratory centers. They respond by stimulating motor neurons at the muscles of respiration increasing the rate and depth of the breathing rate, and thereby increasing the supply of oxygen. This keeps the partial pressures of carbon dioxide and oxygen in equilibrium. Firstly the partial pressure of CO2 is measured primarily by the CENTRAL blood gas chemoreceptors on the surface of the brain stem. The peripheral blood gas chemoreceptors are more sensitive to the partial pressure of oxygen than they are to that of carbon dioxide. But more seriously, what does the sentence This keeps the partial pressures of carbon dioxide and oxygen in equilibrium. mean? and how is this achieved?
  • Muscles of forceful inspiration are the: scalenes, the sternocleidomastoid, the serratus anterior and posterior, pectoralis major and minor, the levatores costarum, and the quadratus lumborum. The serratus anterior and serratus posterior are not accessory muscles of inhalation as their fibres run along the ribs (i.e parallel to them), and therefore do not help to lift them.
  • Similarly, the latissimi dorsi are not accessory muscles of exhalation, as stated in the sentence: Muscles of forceful expiration are the transverse thoracic muscles, the rectus abdominis, the abdominal external oblique, and the internal oblique muscles, the latissimi dorsi, and the serratus posterior inferior muscles.
  • In the sentence that reads anatomical features of the respiratory system include the trachea, bronchi, bronchioles, lungs, and diaphragm, the word features should be replaced with organs. Organs have “features” such as lobes, indentations, ligament attachments etc. But “features” do not have organs. The words are not synonyms. Furthermore the list of organs is strangely incomplete. Should “alveoli” not be included? and if the diaphragm is listed, then mention should also be made of the other muscles of ventilation.
  • In the Respiratory system article, the statement that The right side of Fig. 2 shows that during exhalation, at rest is incorrect. In fact it shows FORCED EXHALATION.
  • The statement in the Respiratory system article, that the so-called pump handle and bucket handle movements of the ribs as shown in Fig. 2. is also incorrect. I think you mean Fig. 1; and that figure only shows the operation of the “pump handle movement”.
  • The introductory figure in the top right hand corner of the Breathing article supposedly illustrates Clavicular breathing a type of breathing in humans involving the raising of the clavicles. Firstly the clavicles are not even shown in the diagram, nor is there any explanation anywhere what "clavicular breathing is, or how it comes about, or when it used. And it is certainly not the main type of breathing in humans and therefore does not deserve such a prominent place in the article. In my revision I tried to include "clavicular breathing", with an explanation of its place in breathing. So the figure needs to be removed, and if it is to be retained it needs to be redrawn (at the very least) and placed at the very bottom of the section on the Mechanics of breathing. I defy anyone ("general reader" or "respiratory physiologist" or other scientist) to see any meaning or contribution the figure makes to the subject of "Breathing".
  • Figure 3 in that article is a physiological and anatomical impossibility. No one ever breathes or can possibly breath like that! The movement illustrated only occurs when someone is "pulling their belly in, and pushing their chest out" for a more flattering pose for a few seconds while a photograph is being taken. The person has to hold their breath for those few moments. So the picture is complete nonsense, in every sense. It too needs to be deleted from the article. In fact you have no concept of how erroneous your the figure is. You should try to breath like that yourself (pull your belly in, while expanding your chest - you can only do that by holding your breath in). If you call my diagrams "simplistic", then what would you call yours? They contain no useful information about breathing or how it occurs. Only fig. 1 is vaguely useful as it shows the action of the diaphragm, but contains no information about what happens to the squashed organs below the diaphragm. Figure 2 which supposed shows "abdominal breathing" is, if that is the case, the CONSEQUENCE of what is illustrated in Fig 1, and NOT a separate form of breathing.
  • Figure 4 does not illustrate "abdominal breathing". It is a drawing of a person in pain, with a severe stomach ache or cramp. And if that is the case, they would be reducing "abdominal breathing" to the very minimum. Therefore the last thing the illustration shows is a form of breathing, abdominal or other wise.
  • The text opposite Fig. 4 (see preceding note), which mentions what abdominal breathing, reads: Diaphragmatic breathing involves the use of the main muscles of respiration whilst abdominal breathing shown in Fig.3 involves the use of the abdominal muscles to increase the thoracic capacity. However, both of theses terms are often used interchangeably as diaphragmatic breathing also involves the abdominal muscles, and abdominal breathing also involves the diaphragm. The abdominal muscles CANNOT increase the "thoracic capacity". It is complete anatomical and physiological nonsense to make such a claim. The abdominal muscles are active only during forceful EXHALATION, by DECREASING "thoracic volume". Also to assert that "abdominal breathing involves the diaphragm" (and vice versa) is to reverse cause and effect. The movement of the diaphragm CAUSES the abdomen to buldge and retract. At rest the abdomen and its muscles are entirely passive.
  • Only fig. 1 is vaguely useful as it shows the action of the diaphragm, but contains no information about what happens to the squashed organs below the diaphragm. Figure 2 which supposed shows "abdominal breathing" is, if that is the case, the CONSEQUENCE of what is illustrated in Fig 1, and NOT a separate form of breathing.
  • Your "simplification" of the caption to Figure 4 (Some water vapour is lost from the surface of the alveoli and this can be seen condensing when breathed out on a cold day.) is so fundamentally untrue that it can only classed as vandalism. The water vapor that condenses as mist when breathing out through the mouth on a cold day comes from the nose and pharynx while the air is breathed in. The alveoli do not add any water vapor to the air that enters them. That air is already saturated with water vapor from the upper airways and cannot have water added to it. So the caption I wrote for that figure needs to be restored for the illustration to tell the truth.
  • What does the opening sentence in the "Mechanics" section The primary and accessory muscles of respiration are classified differently across species mean? It is out of place, and is not followed up in any sort of way, or contribute to the understanding of "Breathing". This is a typical example of a "copy and paste" exercise from an arbitrary text without asking the question why it should be included it in the Breathing article, without any further elaboration.
  • Almost none of your edits are referenced. And the one or two that are there, refer to pointless and inappropriate comments. The references that occur in the article are left-overs from edits made by previous editors. Your comment that you are exempt from providing references because your statements are "easily citable", leaves me flabbergasted! This is inexcusably arrogance, especially since none of the items listed above as being erroneous can be backed up by any reputable reliable sources.
  • In the “Birds” section of the Gas exchange article you changed “cross-current” blood flow through the gas exchanger to “counter-current” blood flow, leaving the references that state categorically that birds have CROSS-CURRENT gas exchangers.
  • On more than one occasion you removed a valid reference, and replaced it with an inappropriate “citation needed” flag.
  • What does the sentence: In diazotrophs nitrogen is exchanged in denitrification and nitrogen fixation mean? “Nitrogen fixation” is the opposite of “nitrogen fixation”.
  • The sentence In most fish, and a number of other aquatic animals (both vertebrates and invertebrates) that live in water contains a tautology. “Aquatic” animals live, by definition “in water”. It is a pointless clumsy edit, which was much clearer in its original form.
  • You state that The lower tract includes the lower part of the larynx, the trachea, bronchi, bronchioles and pulmonary lobules that include the alveoli. How do “pulmonary lobules” fit between “bronchioles” and “alveoli”? The pulmonary lobules do indeed contain alveoli, but those alveoli that bud off from countless bronchioles.
  • There are a number of stages called generations, in the branching of the airways bringing air to the respiratory surface, and these vary according to the size of the mammal. In the human the described generations are 0–16 in the conducting airways from the trachea to the respiratory bronchioles, and 17–23 in the respiratory part from the respiratory bronchioles to the alveoli. These two sentences are incomprehensible. Saying that a “stage” is called a “generation” is unhelpful, as is the comment that these stages “vary according to the size of the mammal”. It is an example of the very poor English that characterizes a great number of your edits.
  • Having stated that there are 23 “generations” in the airways (of what animal?) you then proceed to give a list of the generations of airways which is only 10 items long.
  • The "carina" is name given to the branch point of the trachea (actually only part of it). So your version simply states that the trachea branches at the point where it branches! Not a very useful or insightful remark. Furthermore the "carina" cannot be found in any Atlas of Anatomy, showing the trachea and bronchi.
I would have no problem with a sentence such as "The bifurcation of the trachea into the two main bronchi is called the carina", except that that is not true. The carina is the saddle-like ridge formed by the splitting of the trachea into the two main bronchi. It is of interest only to pulmonologists who are dealing with people who have inhaled a foreign body (e.g. food) which, as it falls down the trachea, lands astride the carina, and therefore goes down neither main bronchus, but partially or wholly blocks off one or both bronchi. So "carina" is not synonymous with the branching of the trachea. It is a structure only seen from inside the trachea, and is therefore not shown or named on a typical anatomical diagram of the respiratory tree. The use of the name is therefore confusing. The whole sentence should be left out, as it is of such minor anatomical, and functional concern that it hardly belongs in the lead to an article on the "Respiratory system". This advice has been studiously ignored.
  • The lead of the Respiratory system article mentions that the article will cover the entire range of Biology: mammals, fish, molluscs as well as plants. It is therefore logical that the first Main heading announces which creatures will be described and discussed first. Instead the first major heading after the Introduction is labelled (unqualified) Anatomy with “Ventilatory volumes”, ”Control of ventilation”, “Mechanics of breathing”, “Gas exchange”, “Responses to low atmospheric pressures”, “Other functions of the lungs” and “Clinical significance” as subheadings! That makes no sense! "Gas exchange" is not Anatomy, or part of Anatomy as suggested by this arrangement of the headings and "subheadings"!
The next main heading after Anatomy is Other animals. Other than what animal? What is more the main heading AFTER “Other animals” is Birds followed by the next main headings: Reptiles, Amphibians, Fish, Invertebrates and Plants! This implies that Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fish and invertebrates are NOT animals! The original had Mammals is the first main heading, with “Anatomy” as the first subheading on a par with “Ventilatory volumes”, “Mechanics of breathing” etc.
I notice that this problem has been pointed out to you before under the heading "Your revert on Stomach" by Vigilius on 5 April 2017 above, without any corrective action on your part. Changing something as neat and sensible as what was there before into the mess that has now been created is nothing short of vandalism.

The list contains numerous falsehoods, misrepresentations, peculiar confusing grammar, and a total disregard for presentational neatness, and logical sequencing of facts. While the items listed above are not all equally disastrous, together they speak of an editor who has no regard for scientific truth, and the betterment of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. I call that vandalism, and will be reporting these edits as such. I have sampled some of the edits in the other articles where you have been recently and found that your style of dubious editing occurs there as well. Cruithne9 (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cruithne9, Without prejudice on the validity of the points you make above, I would like to direct you to the policy/guidance article on WP:Vandalism which in it's opening line states On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge., and later, Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful. (my emphasis) I suggest that Iztwoz's edits listed above were done as a good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia, and any harm done was incidental, unintentional, and due to not being a subject matter expert. As you may be aware, a very large part of Wikipedia is and has been created by amateurs, in several senses of the word. They do it for love, they are not paid, and they are often not expert, but do their best based on the available material, and often imperfect understanding of the sources. In spite of these limitations, the encyclopaedia is generally improved. We have a policy to not call such people vandals, even when their efforts are counterproductive in one area, as recognition that without them the encyclopaedia would probably not exist. It is apparent to me that you have a better grounded knowledge and understanding of physiology than most people, and probably an academic background in citation procedure. This is good, and your work has greatly improved this article, but please try to be more tolerant of those who do not have your skills, but are nevertheless doing what they can to advance the project. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iztwoz, I recognise your good intentions and that you have done good work on Wikipedia, that has been recognised by other Wikipedians, but although Cruithne9 misrepresents your efforts as vandalism by Wikipedia customary standards, I understand their underlying point. You are both valuable contributors and it would be preferable if you could work together to improve articles (or if you prefer, work separately to improve different articles). Learn from each others strong points. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)