Wikipedia

Talk:Diabetes

Former featured article candidateDiabetes is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Other Type 3s

[edit]

I see some lists [1][2] of Type 3A thru Type 3H. Since Type 3C seems to have an official definition, I'm wondering if there are medical sources that define these more reliably than Internet forums and blogs, or if they can be documented as abandoned designations? -- Beland (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Genetics Fall 2025

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2025 and 12 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paisleydarst (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by StacyFlours (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing like one possessed

[edit]

Recently in this article I read, “Diabetes is due to either the pancreas not producing enough of the hormone insulin or the cells of the body becoming unresponsive to insulin's effects.” This I amended to “Diabetes is due to either the pancreas's not producing enough of the hormone insulin or the bodily cells’ becoming unresponsive to insulin's effects.” The editor Richard-of-Earth promptly edited “cells’ becoming unresponsive” to “cells becoming unresponsive” on the stated basis of “Grammar.”
But “cells’ becoming unresponsive” is proper formal grammar. “Becoming” is here not a present participial verb (as in, “These cells are becoming unresponsive”) but a gerund, i.e., a nounal form of “to become” (as in, “Becoming unresponsive is a risk for these cells”). Nouns must be modified by adjectives, and the possessive pronoun “his” functions as a possessive adjective (or, more broadly, a genitive adjective). Maybe the matter is easier to understand if simple pronouns are substituted in the article’s text: “Diabetes is due to their becoming unresponsive” is correct formal prose. “Diabetes is due to them becoming unresponsive” is not. So too in other instances; for example, “I don’t like his doing that” is formally correct; “I don’t like him doing that” is colloquial but strictly incorrect.
Note also, in the same sentence, that I altered the wording from “the pancreas not producing enough” to “the pancreas's not producing enough,” for the same reason. “Cells’ becoming” uses the correct plural genitive form of “cells,” for, in the “Saxon genitive” case, the written form of plural nouns ending in -s or -es is created by adding a terminal apostrophe: girls’ softball, boys’ choir, states’ rights, teachers’ lounge, lovers’ lane, witches’ brew, ten bucks’ worth, nine days’ wonder. Many people casually (or ignorantly) write, say, “girls softball” and even “womens softball,” but these are improper in formal use, and a general encyclopedia worth taking seriously ought to observe proper formal grammar.
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen another WP editor mistakenly “correct” my correct grammar, but it does make me wish that elementary and secondary schools still taught the subject. Mucketymuck (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that one is the standard and that the other is traditionally proscribed, but it seems like this is a rule of grammar that has been softened by an increasing number of style guides. I am not arguing to change the genitive to the base noun, as I personally like it. However, I know there are speakers to whom it sounds objectively wrong, so I can understand why someone would think it to be incorrect. Is there a more neutral alternative? IndigoManedWolf (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mucketymuck: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. It simply looked wrong to me at first. After much study of the matter and making examples myself, I came back to the sentence as you wrote it and it did not look so wrong. However I feel using the possessive+gerund form vs noun+verb form does not improve the article. The possessive+gerund form is correct for traditional formal writing, but not necessarily modern formal writing and may be very bad for Wikipedia's objective in its style. Using unfamiliar constructs can make it harder for readers to understand the meaning. That said, one advantage of the possessive+gerund form is it emphasizes the action over the object. That is something we should strive for here I think. I propose "Diabetes is due to either the reduced production of the hormone insulin by the pancreas or the unresponsiveness of bodily cells to insulin's effects." To be less formal we can remove a couple of the "the"s; to be more formal we could say "the effects of insulin". Thoughts? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, and the thought had occurred to me too. After all, to debate the finer points of punctuation and grammar in an article on a medical topic seems hairsplitting. (I’m surprised to find, at a casual glance, this Talk page so empty; I’ve seen a greater clamor on the Talk pages of WP articles about third-string entertainers. Maybe the more pertinent discussions here have been archived?)
To be sure, laymen coming to this article would best not be put off by stilted grammar. But, then, I don’t find the apostrophe at issue here to be stilted. Still, I must admit that even the medical personnel I’ve dealt with, including doctors yet, show most of them little concern for accepted standards in writing, or anyway in speech. So, I’ve reworded that sentence, largely per Richard-of-Earth's proposal, including removing some of the definite articles (the). I’ve added an initial clause to further the definition, in particular because the progressive nature of Type II seems better known popularly than that of Type I.
Alternatives that give semantic primacy to anatomy over physiology: “Diabetes is due to either a pancreas that produces too little of the hormone insulin or bodily cells' increasingly diminished response to insulin's effects.“ “Diabetes occurs when either the pancreas produces too little of the hormone insulin or the bodily cells become unresponsive to insulin's effects.” Mucketymuck (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the revisions as you made them improve the readability. I can not say I have an opinion about the primacy issue you mention. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than primacy, Richard-of-Earth, I ought to have said precedence. You spoke of emphasizing action over object. Mucketymuck (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was what you meant. I just do not know which deserves precedence. I am not a doctor. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Improving top-importance medicine articles: Join the Vital Signs campaign 2026

[edit]

The goal of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026 campaign is to bring all 101 top-importance articles—including this one—up to at least B-class quality. Many of these articles are widely read but overdue for review, so even small improvements can have a big impact.

If you watch or edit this article, your help would be very welcome. You can:

  1. Add yourself as a participant
  2. Note the state of the article in the Progress table (is the current class still correct?)
  3. Update the article based on recent clinical guidelines and review papers
  4. Help address gaps, improve clarity for a broad audience, or improve image selection

To reach B class, articles should have: suitable referencing, reasonable coverage, a clear structure, good prose, helpful illustrations, and be understandable to a broad audience. Contributions of any size are appreciated. Femke (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]