Talk:Microbial symbiosis and immunity

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Immcarle37.

Above undated message substituted from

Immcarle37 (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to rename the page as "microbial symbiosis".

First, the lede is written suggesting this as the title. Immunity isnt even woven in in a single sentence (preferably beginning of the lede per

Second, immunity is an interesting, but only a single particular aspect of microbial symbiosis. It is also nowhere clearly defined (human, mammalian, other ?) as it should be, being part of the title.

Microbial symbiosis isnt a page yet, so Microbial symbiosis and immunity should be a section.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -   Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  11:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback! I added a definition of immunity in the lede section. Please let me know if there is a better way to weave this into the lede section. Second, I agree that immunity is only a single particular aspect of microbial symbiosis and that microbial symbiosis and immunity should be a section on a Microbial symbiosis page. I am currently focusing my research on microbial symbiosis and immunity. Therefore, I want to improve this page as much as possible before creating a new page on microbial symbiosis with immunity as a subsection! Thank you very much for your feedback! Immcarle37 (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from (an immune system centered perspective). However, I do not think that you understood the issues I raised. The article title is Microbial symbiosis and immunity, ie starts with the term "microbial symbiosis" and mentions "immunity" second and not vice versa. The article cannot be taken seriously without immunity even occurring in a single sentence at the beginning of the lede (read

WP:MOS

). You added the term immune system, but that is not the same as immunity. Also, the article is becoming tunnelfocused on human immunity, which is a pity (anthropocentric). I saw on your college course list that you have other articles you work on, so you arent losing this one, if it was to be renamed. It´s important to service the existing article, otherwise you are not really improving the page, but creating your own. No i dont have a better way to weave this into the lede section. I am for renaming the thing.

Also If you want to draw attention that you replied, it´s best to address the person like that, Immcarle37 (also called pinging). --Wuerzele (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wuerzele, I interpreted the title as the symbiotic relationships between microbes and the cells of the immune system, and how these relationships contribute to host immunity. In other words, I interpreted the title as the interactions between microbes and the immune system/immunity, rather than a sequential "microbial symbiosis" first and "immunity" second. I found it challenging to discuss immunity early in the lead section before explaining microbial symbiosis and why microbes would be interacting with the immune system in the first place. Perhaps I could rephrase it again, but Chiswick Chap suggested I avoid editing the lead section. Regardless of the phrasing of the lead section, I am ok with renaming the page.

This is probably a naive question, but I don't think I understand the difference between the immune system and immunity as it relates to this article. Would you be willing to clarify what you mean when you say the immune system is not the same as immunity, and how that would affect the content of this article?

I apologize for my bias and focusing the article on human immunity. If there are certain topics which you think could be added to this page to make it balanced, I will be happy to read about them and incorporate them into the article. Thank you very much for your feedback! Immcarle37 (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Immcarle37 please read immunity, first, which ive cleaned up a LITTLE bit, then i can answer specific questions.--Wuerzele (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can a symbiotic relationship be parasitic?

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  11:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment! No, a symbiotic relationship cannot be parasitic. I tried to clarify this in the lead section. Immcarle37 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can, though: see Symbiosis, which says, cited, "any type of persistent biological interaction (in other words mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic)." Long ago, I learned that lichens were symbioses; now we learn they are mutualisms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Immcarle37 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you are working hard to make the lead say ... everything. It's not possible, nor even desirable. The lead's job is to summarize what is in the rest of the article, in a short, easily digestible form for readers in a hurry (that's most of them). It should avoid technical terms as far as possible; steer clear of complicated definitions; avoid parentheses, asides, digressions, clarifications and other forms of academic pussyfooting (as a famous academic once wrote). We also don't usually put refs in the lead (except for direct quotations, or desperately controversial points). In short, keep it simple.

It's practically impossible to write a good lead section before the rest of the article is at least roughly in shape (which it ain't right now). So, let's not try too hard to tweak the lead - let's make the article simple, clear, and logical, and then we'll try to make it elegant and comprehensible as well, and then we'll see about the lead. For now, I'll take out the parentheses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you! Immcarle37 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]