Talk:Renin-angiotensin system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale

[edit] Terminology

The reason I reverted back to the other version was because a layman most definitely would be able to understand the syntax, terminology and wordage used in the article. Furthermore, some of the alternative terms were misleading; "created", for example, is extremely misleading, as none of these hormones/agents "creates" the other. I feel it should read "stimulates the releases of" which is correct in terms of endocrinology/physiology, and simply more accurate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to agree (regarding "create", that is). "Angiotensin creates aldosterone" implies that the latter is directly derived from the former—that's not easier to understand, while it is inaccurate. Perhaps some compromise wording can be found, easier to understand while maintaining accuracy? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that should be easy to do I think. What confuses me was that the phrasing (of the older version) was "simple" in some places, while "advanced" in others, the mention of resistance with respect to the the afferent and efferent arterioles for instance. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perils of collaborative editing, I guess. Few articles have an internally consistent level of language when you look closely enough. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom89, the reason I don't think they'd understand it is that I've talked to a lot of educated, intelligent cancer patients, and also to social workers and other non-clinical medical professionals, and I was surprised to find that they don't understand a lot of the words that you and I would take for granted.

Why do you think a layman would be able to understand the lead? Nbauman (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ok well, let's get specific for a moment so that we can discuss this in more depth. Which words do you feel are too obscure/arcane for the layperson? I feel that any confusing physiological terminology can and would be blue linked (e.g vascular resistance) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for example, "vascular resistance." Not only are the words difficult for the layman, but the concept is also difficult. In order to understand that sentence, you have to understand that vascular resistance causes pressure to increase. That's not a trivial or intuitive concept. Why should the pressure increase? I have a water pipe in my kitchen sink. If the water is flowing, and I increase the resistance, by tightening the faucet, the pressure doesn't increase. If I replace a low-resistance bulb in my light socket with a high-resistance bulb, the voltage doesn't increase. If you didn't already understand the physiology (and the physics) of the cardiovascular system, you wouldn't understand that sentence.

People often argue, "If the reader doesn't understand a technical term, they can always click on the Wikilink for an explanation." That doesn't work for several reasons. One reason is that when you click on the Wikilink, you usually get an explanation that just as difficult for a layman to understand as the one you started with. That's the case in Vascular resistance. It says, "Vascular resistance is a term used to define the resistance to flow that must be overcome to push blood through the circulatory system." That's saying, "Vascular resistance is vascular resistance." If you didn't know what vascular resistance was in the first place, that definition wouldn't help you. Nbauman (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)