Talk:Cardiovascular disease in women

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sharmin68.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2021 and 20 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vs2022. Peer reviewers: Abnormalsaline.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

US Slant

Seems specific to the US Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Article Evaluation and Work Plan

Lead Section: The introduction clearly states the subject along with some general background information about the history of the topic and why it matters. It summarizes the historical aspect and the reason cardiovascular disease in women was not well understood. It does not include extraneous information, and is not overly long.

Content: The available content is a good start in addressing the topic. The article does a good job of further explaining the history behind the study of cardiovascular disease in women and gives context to the current trajectory of research in the "Shift and trends" section. It would be beneficial to expand on the "Symptoms" and "Risk Factors" sections, as well as adding content related to treatment, long term complications including morbidity and mortality, differences among socioeconomic groups, etc.

Tone and Balance: The tone is neutral and appropriate. Viewpoints do not appear biased.

Sources and Citations: All 10 citation links work and support the claims made in the article. The sources are neutral, however, the majority of sources seem to be a reflection of the American Heart Association guidelines. It appears that most facts are followed up with an appropriate citation, but some paragraphs do lack citations. I would like to add additional sources to expand upon the symptoms, risk factors, treatment, epidemiology, health disparities, etc.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is concise and easy to follow. It does not contain any obvious grammar mistakes. It is well-organized into readable sections.

Images and Media: There is currently no image or media associated with the page. The addition of relevant images will make the article more visually interesting.

Talk Page: This page is rated as a Start with High importance. It is part of WikiProject Medicine and is supported by the Cardiology task force and Translation task force. A user pointed out on the Talk page that this article focuses primarily on cardiovascular disease in women in the United States. It might be beneficial to add a section covering epidemiology of the disease, and how the mentioned sections (risk factors, exposures, long term complications, etc.) differ in various areas of the world.

Overall: The article is a good start to exploring cardiovascular disease in women. Its strengths revolve around the detailed historical context provided to explain the need for emphasis on understanding the presentation of this disease in women. The article can be improved by expanding on other areas as listed above. I plan to prioritize expanding the available sections on Risk Factors and Symptoms to begin, and will add additional sections after those are complete. I hope to embed links to other relevant Wiki pages and keep the language readable to ensure that the information on this topic is easily accessible to anyone who desires to learn more. Vs2022 (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing? Vs2022

Link to draft you're reviewing Cardiovascular disease in women

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Cardiovascular disease in women

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead does a good job introducing the topic concisely and clearly explains the importance of the topic

Although it does not specifically provide a brief description of all the sections, it provides a good introduction for the rest of the article

It does not seem necessary to provide a brief description here

Content

The content is very relevant to the overall topic and provides more detailed information regarding the topic

Tone and Balance

Since the topic is bringing awareness to an underrepresented group, it makes sense that there is an emphasis on women vs men

I think the article does a good job underlying the various ways that women are effected by CVD compared to men

It still remains neutral especially since it does provide cited statistics about CVD in men

Sources and References

New content is cited appropriately from reliable sources

The sources are current will the oldest one published in 2010

Organization

The content is well organized and is broken up into understandable sections that are easy to follow

There are a few grammatical errors but no spelling errors

The organization and order of the sections make sense

Images and Media

There are no images within the article but due to the nature of the topic, images are not necessary to enhance learning

Overall Impressions

The edits definitely enhanced the overall content and understanding about the topic

The edits adds more information regarding the CVD risk factors in women, which is very helpful in the overall understanding of CVD in women

I think you did a great job expanding on this topic and how CVD differs in women vs men

Abnormalsaline (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thesis

Thesis Proposal to edit article selected:

Wikipedia article: “Cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women.

Recommended changes are as follows:

Introduction: - Lead provides sufficient information on CVD and its history - Fails to provide brief overview of sections present in article - Edit out story regarding CVD and its rise in concern since the mid 1980s

Signs and symptoms: - Add more details regarding the symptoms listed

History: - Well written - Only provides information till 1990, needs updated data

Shifts and trends: - Information only limited to the USA (clear US slant) - Change to epidemiology?

Mechanisms and causes: - Need to add a section referring to various mechanisms that may cause CVD in women (may be difficult to encompass all of them as it can happen in numerous ways)

Treatment: - Need to add a section regarding treatments available for those seeking information for next steps if they feel their symptoms match

General: - Not enough references to address the expansive amount of information present in the medicine regarding this topic. - Need to include more graphics and images to visually summarize the presented information for viewers - General grammatical edits and restructuring to maintain consistency in tone - Change to layman terms to prevent confusion

Sahrishmasood (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: UCSF SOM Inquiry In Action-- Wikipedia Editing 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 August 2022 and 20 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rafpez, Sohinihalder (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hcmiles.

— Assignment last updated by Kwallabear (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2023

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) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Cardiovascular disease in women → Cardiovascular disease in females – Besides many articles, this is yet another article that ignores differences between sex and gender, and is completely inconsistent with the article sex-gender distinction per WP:CONSISTENT.

The pathology of cardiovascular diseases depends on sex, based on anatomical and hormonal differences, and not on gender. In fact, the article itself implies as such:

CVDs, especially heart attacks, often present symptoms in women differently than in men due to anatomical and hormonal differences.

Thus, I propose that this article be renamed to "Cardiovascular disease in females" and to replace all instances of "men" with "males" and all instances of "women" with "females", in order to include all females, including women, pre-operative trans men, post-operative trans women, non-binary people, and agender people who have female gonads and female genitals, including a uterus, 2 fallopian tubes, a vagina, and a cervix.

Intersex people with one or more female gonads and/or female genitals also have anatomical and hormonal similarities to females, hence CVDs' pathology can also be similar in intersex people compared to females.

LGBTQ+ people do not need to be necessarily mentioned in articles, unless they are quite notable according to independent reliable sources. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 13:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Women are female humans. Even our own article on women says so. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sex and gender are different things. Trans men are born females but they are men, not women. So are agender females, but they are born without any gender.

  Pretending that "sex and gender are the same thing" is biologically inaccurate, unrealistic, and totally unreasonable.

  Notability is not the sole reason of existence of the sex-gender distinction article. Either we should delete the article, or we should make all other articles consistent with it.

  WP:ADVOCACY correctly says that advocated groups should not be excessively mentioned or portrayed in ways that promote a persons' or an organizations' beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies. Yes, LGBTQ+ people do not need to be necessarily mentioned, unless they are notable. This page move does not mention LGBTQ+ people in any way.

  Many LGBTQ+ people are researchers and scientists, but their work and contributions are often ignored. This is what discourages LGBTQ+ people to be Wikipedians, and LGBTQ+ editors avoid editing such articles because of ingrained systemic bias.

  And all others pretend that it's okay just because LGBTQ+ people are not objecting to status quo, and no policies are being violated. Are Wikipedia's policies actually based on neutrality of points of view regardless of gender, sex, and sexuality? I doubt that, because LGBTQ+ editors have rarely participated in the creation of such policies. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 08:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. A female human is a woman. A trans man would not consider himself to be female, so I fail to see what this nomination hopes to achieve. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, on several bases. This will be long because of the number of rationales and follow-up arguments by the nominator that need discrete examination (plus two concerns they missed). The short version is that the proposed name fails WP:PRECISE, fails what WP:CONSISTENT actually means (nominator badly misunderstood it), is not well-supported by RS usage, and the arguments presented in favor of it are demonstrably faulty, often badly so.

Detailed argument:

CVDs don't seem to affect girls (or "pre-maturity human biological females" or whatever you want to say to get at the genetically- and age-definable category) frequently enough to be worth renaming the article. Not an argument the nominator raised, but one I had to consider. Iff there is enough RS material about that to develop a properly encyclopedic section on that sub-subject, and that actually happens, then this could conceivably move to "cardiovascular disease in human females". A Google Scholar search indicates some material about this exists, but our article does not include the words girl or girls even once, nor does it have any information about adolescents/teens in it, only adults. The present rename proposal fails WP:PRECISE and one sense of WP:RECOGNIZABLE, because every species of animal has females, but this article is not about CV disease among female animals, only among female human adults; yet CV diseases are a major veterinary subject: dog health#Heart disease, Boxer cardiomyopathy, feline arterial thromboembolism, African horse sickness, etc., etc. The nominator totally misunderstands WP:CONSISTENT policy, which is entirely and only about consistency in article naming patterns across a category; it has nothing of any kind to do with consistency between the title of one article and arguments presented in another (about a subjective concept undergoing considerable debate and revision in the real world, even if leaning strongly in one direction, as does race as a social construct and some other conceptually similar topics from social constructionism). The nominator's misinterpretation of CONSISTENT, if accepted by the community as the new interpretation to use, would lead to constant PoV-based movewarring across a wide swath of categories, which is the opposite of the purpose of WP:AT policy. The actual WP:CONSISTENT result – consistent with the titles of our other articles on human health topics with sex-splits – is to leave this where it is. Since more precise wording usually applies, there are not a lot of them (women's health, Category:Women's health movement, women's health movement in the United States, 20th century women's fitness culture, autoimmune disease in women, disability and women's health, women and HIV/AIDS, violence against women, and several others). Articles and categories of this sort don't use "female[s]", except where this is the overwhelming preference of independent reliable sources (e.g. female ejaculation, female infertility, where alternatives like "woman infertility" or "women's infertility" are awkward and have no currency), or where the subject notably applies to girls as well as women (e.g. Category:Human female endocrine system, Female genital disease, Category:Noninflammatory disorders of female genital tract [which seems to need a the in it]). And it's not clear if all of the latter sort are properly named (some may need "human" added where the topic isn't naturally circumscribed to our species to begin with). The broader and more subjective sense of encyclopedic consistency also leans in the women direction, since woman, our core article in the category, is defined mostly in terms of human biological sex not socially-determined gender, with WP:DUE weight being given to trans women in the material where it make sense (they are often not actually pertinent because most of the biological material in that article doesn't relate to them). It is not the fault of WP, or its editors, or its readers, that "woman" now has multiple overlapping meanings in our language; our biological articles that use the term are clearly intending only one of these meanings (the most obvious and widely accepted one, and the one logically applicable to biology material). In short, consensus having remained stable regarding the meat of the woman and man articles, in response to trans-activism arguments (many times and for a long time [1][2]), isn't going to magically be undone by trying to do an end-run around it by renaming side articles. If someone thinks WP's entire conceptualization of what woman means and how to use the term should change, Talk:Woman is where to try (yet again and somehow more persuasively). In side relation to this, see how little support for the term "pregant person/persons/people" there is presently on Wikipedia. These terms do not appear at the pregnancy article (despite at least 5 discussions bringing up the idea [3]) or other major articles, just here and there in a few places that aren't well watch-listed. It's simply too soon to assume that language changes some people want to engineer into English are actually going to catch on well enough to become encyclopedic usage. Some of them do, like singular-they, but many do not. Broadly replacing "women" with "females" or "female people" or "women and trans men" or some such substitute is among those that has not. "include all females, including ... pre-operative trans men, post-operative trans women ..." does not appear to be applicable. Most medical conditions that are linked to, or have different effects or prevalence within, a particular human sex are not going to be affected by whether someone is pre- or post-operative in either direction (aside from the obvious – a post-op trans man with no ovaries can't get ovarian cancer; for CVD purposes, they might no longer be subject to CVD presenting as it would in a biological woman, depending on a lot of factors, none of which are covered by our material and sources). There's no RS evidence presented here that CVD's particulars as they present in women/females go away or are acquired as a result of maculization/feminization surgeries. It's conceivable (where's the RS evidence?) that hormonal changes from hormone therapies or from gonadal removal might have some CVD-related effect. But leaping from "heart attacks often present ... differently ... due to ... hormonal differences" to an assumption that trans-related hormone usage makes a trans woman a female for purposes of CVD and this article's sex-specific coverage of it is just WP:OR and wishful thinking. Our article and its sources suggest nothing of the sort, but rather the opposite: "hormone replacement therapies have not been successful" in recreating the natural resistance to CVDs of pre-menopausal women. "people who have female gonads and female genitals, including a uterus, 2 fallopian tubes, a vagina, and a cervix" seems even less germane. Is someone no longer a woman/female, biological speaking, if they've had a partial hysterectomy that removed the uterus? If they were born with only one fallopian tube? If they had cervical cancer and had to have a trachelectomy? If they had gender-affirming surgery including vaginectomy and then a phalloplasty or metoidioplasty? How could any of that have anything to do with sex-based CVD presentation, if the ovaries (which have a massive effect on hormone levels over a lifespan, in synergy with other bodily systems) are still present and functioning? Our sources so far suggest nothing like this at all. Intersex people with a particular gonad type are always going to have at least some (usually lots of) applicability to any medical issue that pertains to that type; it's implicit in what it means to be intersex of this sort (as opposed to mixed gonadal dysgenesis, in which later-life medical results are not likely to be very predictable). We do not need to rename and rewrite all our medical articles to compensate for this. "Either we should delete the [sex–gender distinction] article, or we should make all other articles consistent with it" is several kinds of logical fallacy at all once, which I needn't analyze in detail unless someone demands it. The appeal to LGBTQ+ editorial and external-researcher sensibilities is also fallacious for mulitple reasons. This rather one-sided and simplistic trans-advocacy-inspired move idea isn't even consonant with a lot of trans men's self conceptualization. It's another in a long litany of people trying to treat all trans people (and often all LGBTQIA+ people) as if they are some kind of hive mind who agree on everything. The details in this article will likely apply to most trans men, but if they're about equally unhappy being called "female" as being called "women", the move's alleged silver lining amongst all this cloud isn't real to begin with. Never mind that none or nearly none of it will apply to trans women who identify as women and in many cases as female.

Until the English language changes much more than it already has in this sphere, the present title is the best one and is going to remain that way for a long time. Wikipedia never leads in change-the-language efforts, it only follows what the preponderance of high-quality reliable sources are doing. Compare these Google Scholar searches [4][5][6][7]. Not only does "in women" lead over "in females" in this subject by a wide margin, relevant works that mention "transmen"/"trans men"/"transgender men" strings at all are few and are usually trans-specific, not "women and trans men" pieces of the sort that the move-nominator is trying to engineer here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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.