Talk:Adenoid

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Questionable Source

The Almighty Google yields nothing regarding a book by a "George Carlin" by the title The Breath of Life Can anybody verify the citation given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.22.95 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is a good book and all, but should a medical source be quoted when it is 95 years out of date?

Bad heading

I broke up the article into sections, but am still not happy:

The heading is poor: excessive and entirely unnecessary use of medical jargon. The beginning should be something any idiot (like me) could easilly follow.

Could someone with medical training, who can also write in common speach, write a new intro, and then please move the medical textbook description down into the next first subsection? Tom Lougheed 23:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to add a sentence somewhere which outlines what the Adenoids actually do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7e:f09:b200:6819:b9b3:1182:4795 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Negative skew of article

This article paints an almost entirely negative view of the adenoids. Surely immunology has moved on from the days of "dunno what they're for, let's have them out". 80% of this article describes what can go wrong with them. Surely we know more about their positive function these days? (I came here to find out!)

Insignificance of 'cultural significance'

Not to single this page out for abuse, but i did a google search on "adenoid" already knowing that one of the first results returned would be a wikipedia article with a pretentious and unnecessary note about the organ's appearance in _Gravity's Rainbow_. For my money, this section of this article is a perfect example of one of the major problems with Wikipedia. Not only is this kind of pop culture trivia useless to anyone who wants to know something about the function of the adenoids, it wastes resources for the entire wikipedia project and fails to enhance anyone's understanding of _Graviy's Rainbow_ itself. I would suggest deleting the entire "cultural significance" section on this page, as well as the vast majority of the "trivia" or "appearance in popular culture" sections on most wikipedia pages. R0m23 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Histology

Don't think this makes sense:

Most people's adenoids are not even in use after a person's third year, but if they cause problems they must be taken out or they may otherwise shrink.

This also contradicts the comments made in the adenoidectomy article. Sam Dutton (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name: pharyngeal tonsil vs. adenoid

I changed this article's name from pharyngeal tonsil to adenoid. I apologize if anyone is upset that I did not go through the formal procedure. The change was obvious, in my opinion, so I thought that the moving procedure was unnecessary. If anyone disagrees with the move, we can have a discussion on what to name it. If there is no consensus to keep the name "Adenoid", I will move the article back. If there is consensus on another name, I will move it to that name. It will be necessary to alert me on my talk page when it is time to move the article. Otherwise, you can contact another administrator or follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requested moves.

"Adenoid" seems to be the most common usage by far, even on medical websites, like the National Institute of Health (U.S.). I checked to see if there was a difference in usage in Britain and Commonwealth countries compared to the United States, but I did not find any. While a medical textbook may prefer "pharyngeal tonsil" to "adenoid", Wikipedia favors using the most common name unless there is a very good reason not to use it. Personally, I generally prefer using proper technical names, but I do not think it is appropriate in this case.

There is some question of whether the article name should be "adenoid" or "adenoids". It does not seem to be as clear cut as with other body parts, such as "ear" vs. "ears". I attempted to get more information on how adenoids work and their structure, in order to shed some light on what the article should be called, but I could only find the kind of information already in the article. Wikipedia favors using the singular version, unless there is a good reason not to use it. However, if you have an argument in favor of the plural version, please give it below. -- Kjkolb (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Kjkolb and Doc James: as mentioned on text books that adenoids are a symptomatic pathological hypertrophy of the nasopharyngeal tonsil. That in presence of certain predisposing factors (like allergy, environmental pollution..etc), abnormal hypertrophy of the nasopharyngeal tonsil occurs and normal physiological regression is slowed down (nasopharyngeal tonsil normally starts to diminish in size at the age of 7-8 years), and the hypertrophy condition here called "adenoids" --Alaa :)..! 15:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah interesting. So we should probably move it back than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adenoid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106202643/http://bicmra.usuhs.mil:80/MRA/HSeries/H14/HTMLdocs/H14low.html to http://bicmra.usuhs.mil/MRA/HSeries/H14/HTMLdocs/H14low.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link works and seems useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

non peer reviewed reference cited

research by Byars, Sean G.; Stearns, Stephen C.; Boomsma, Jacobus J is listed as non peer reviewed. should it be included? 172.58.123.120 (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]