Talk:Diabetes/Article Structure

Major changes
I cut a wide swath of deletion through much of this article to eliminate repetition and information which was overly technical (to the point where it obscured the topic). I slightly reorganized the article structure as well, and paraphrased some of the longer paragraphs for brevity. I think the article should strive to be a concise description of the disorder (including statistics, limited historical information, and treatment prospects), but excruciating detail on the biochemistry and modern research should be left to other sources. Jeeves 09:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * good on you for tackling this page Jeeves. it was indeed repetitious and needed a lot of work. BTW are you aware your editor has a nasty habit of putting carriage returns into paragraphs? (or is that just the new db server). I'm too tired to get past the intro tonight, but i've been threatening to do some damage to this article myself so I'll go have a detailed read through the dif in the next week or so. best wishes Erich 11:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the article should not be limited to a "concise description" but good effort on removing cruft. I think some of your removed material should be brought back (with some prodigious copyediting) as it was relevant. Alex.tan 16:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry about the spurious newlines; when I copy-pasted it from my (standalone) text editor, I naively assumed that the formatting would automagically be fixed. As for bringing back deleted material, go for it. I was mostly concerned with shortening the page, so please do re-add anything that you think should have stayed. With a bit more work I think this could be a great article. Jeeves 00:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Jeeves, I am indeed impressed that you were the first to think of using Jeeves as a username. I am imagining, of course, that it is from Bertie's adventures! Anyway, I agree with Alex.tan that you've made a valient effort at removing cruft of which there remained some despite considerable recent effort (by myself and others), but I also agree with Alex that some (much, actually, in my view) of the removed material should be brought back. I take your effort as more bold than was justified by the cruft content.
 * Part of the problem, not mentioned by Alex above, is that there are many misconceptions, urban legends, and other cruft in the minds of potential readers. This is a serious problem as DM is ubiquitious, uncurable, and so expensive that it is in some sense the prototypical opportunity for con artists and quacks. There has not been noticeable restraint on their part. DM is, or at least in a great many patients it is, quite dangerous, yet without attention getting symptoms. When treated on an urban legend basis, that danger is easily made manifest in death or irrecoverable damage; without attention getting recovery from obvious symptoms, such treatment is too easily credited with benefit. This article should inform readers sufficiently thoroughly (a hard line to tread, I agree) that the biggest quackish opportunities are foreclosed. That requires, regrettably from a minimalist verbiage perspective, more than you have left.
 * I have also left a comment below on structure (ie, a pointer collection article) which is likely relevant. Comment? Thoughts? ww 13:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What parts in particular do you think should be brought back from the pre-July-12th article? I can put them back, or you can, doesn't matter to me. As for a pointer collection article, I'm not so sure that's the best way to go. Putting myself in the shoes of someone who heard something about DM and is trying to look it up in WP, I think I would want to see a) a concise summary of what the disorder is b) brief explanations of the mechanisms and complications of DM, but not obscuring the summary and c) an extensive collection of links at the end, both internal and external, for if I needed more information on a particular aspect. So I think a pointer collection would be good, but following a good description. Jeeves 21:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

rewrite
The subject deserves an array of articles and not a single one to be comprehensive and to make a good reading. Once again we bump into the issue of "reflecting scientific knowledge" and "being understandable for general public". I'm afraid it cannot be reconciled. This page should probably be an opening portal to other articles on diabetes describing dozens of related subjects in greater detail. (see History of Poland for example). We should direct patients and interested lay public to suitable sections/separate articles.
 * There already exist a panapoly of supporting articles on various aspects of DM. See the links in the text, many of which have survived the recent major rewrite for some examples. This article, before Jeeves major changes, did not reflect scientific knowledge in any detail whatsoever. It included a good deal of statement, at a very high level of abstraction from the detailed scientific knowledge -- relating to curability, the known consequences of failure to treat or manage DM, and a survey of the available medications and what they do.
 * As an opening portal, or alternatively, an article of first reference, an article about DM should in my view address a number of issues even if not exhaustively. Among them would be to equip the Reader with a 'high abstraction level' understanding of what DM is, of the current state of treatment, of the prospects of improved treatment, and sufficient warnings about dangers (eg, of quackery) to increase the Reader's ability to detect BS.
 * To the extent that this results in a longer article than some would like, I think that unavoidable. DM is complex -- physically and medically across many physiological and specialty boundaries, not well understood even now, has no straighforward palliative treatment, expensive, and epidemic. No such subject is addressable succinctly. ww 14:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Featured article ...
I believe this article has failed to make it to the featured article section a couple of times. To qualify, major changes might have to be made such as separating parts to their own articles and lots of copyediting but I believe it can be accomplished soon if we beat at it a little longer. Alex.tan 11:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Alex, I agree that we can do it if we keep trying. Sigh... ww 14:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

reorganization due to length
The article is approaching too long and seems a bit out of balance to me in the sense that there is great disparity between amount of info on some topics compared to others which are similarly important. I suggest we concentrate in this article on defining diabetes, describing why it is so important, ways it presents (initial signs, symptoms, problems), criteria for diagnosis, goals of treatment, brief overview of methods of treatment, very brief descriptions of major acute and chronic complications, major current research directions, and briefer history. I don't want to give any of the info up, and would move the details of the shortened material into other articles, existing or new. I would suggest separate articles on type 1 and type 2 where the etiology and epidemiology are treated in more detail, separate article on uncommon forms of diabetes (a detailed classification list would now exceed 10k), diabetic hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar coma, insulin therapy, oral diabetes drugs. I am sure each of you interested in this article can come up with some more topics that warrant their own articles.Alteripse 13:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * hear, hear. I agree. There should be a good, short paragraph or two in this main article with links to the various sub-articles so the whole thing is still readable. Alex.tan 03:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I proposed it some time ago in the section rewite above. Kpjas &#9764; 10:28, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Before we rush off and do so, let me propose a problem with this approach. We will, under it, end up with essentially an annotated list of pointers. If well done, this would be perhaps more complete (as noted), and would have the virtue of reducing this article's length, but would condemn the Average Reader to much link chasing and mental welding thereof to achieve an adequate overview of a messy disease. Might it be better in such cases (cryptography and attack on pearl harbor are two others I've worked on in which similar considerations, if not solutions, have arisen) to tolerate a longer than usual article? Jeeves has done essentially this in his recent massive edits, and such comments as have been left seem not to be in sympathy with them for various reasons.
 * I suggest that the situation is not so readily dealt with. Comments? Thoughts? Reactions? ww 19:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

<-- note reversion to the margin, reset : count!

The ideal solution would be a 30k overview article that is coherent narrative rather than a list of pointers for someone satisfied with an overview. I would put the pointers at the end of each section (every few paragraphs) rather than as a single long list at the end or in the middle of sentences. Is this the point you are making?Alteripse 19:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Alterprise, That would indeed be a reasonable resolution to the problem I note. There are probably several others, but I'd find this one perfectly livable. I like 'coherent', 'overview', 'narrative' as the Average Reader will not be well served by incoherence (too common in longish WP articles due to multiple authors), nor by lack of an oveview (this is what AR is presumably looking for anyway in an article of first resort such as this), nor by a disjointed account (we, including AR, are built to understand such things as narrative. Making sense of fragmentary semiconflicting accounts is an acquired (and rarely so) skill held by only a few). ww 14:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I read through everything, I get an appreciation of the overall intractability of restructuring this article. I think it says something that the overall discussion has managed to be split across at least six different locations including at least three on this page. In the end, all I have managed to distill out of this is the need to split off the bulk of the Type 1 and Type 2 material. As I like the approached use with the section on Gestational Diabetes, I have started to replicate the approach with the section on Diabetes Type 2. Assuming there are no problems with it, I can do the same for the Type 1 section later in the month. --Coro 2 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)

Long term complications
I changed the title of this section, I believe it was long term risks, to long term complications, and I moved it to the section after the acute complications. I reorganized along the theme of large vs small vessel disease and I changed some of the pointers to diabetes-specific articles. I made a major rewrite of diabetic neuropathy and would appreciate any feedback or amendments. statkit1 1715 GMT+5, 26 July 2004

Something that might be possible
Hey this is what I want to do: Add Diabetis Type 1 to the Autoimmune disease category, but only type one and it needs to say Daibetis Type 1 on the Category page, also the link on the page should take you to the daibetis type 1 section of the diabetis page. Also it would be good if the category of Atoimmune diseases did not appear at the foot of the diabetis page as not all of diabetis belongs to that category. Some of this might be possible or not, anyone?, this is User:mexaguil 219.88.206.183 11:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the time is coming that we need to split this article anyway. The article as a whole should be about diabetic emergencies and end-organ damage, with subarticles on DMI and DMII that emphasise on pathogenesis and specific therapies (e.g. islet transplants for DMI). 13:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been toying with a better structure and division of topics. Please look at User:Alteripse/diabetes_workshop and feel free to leave comments. Especially I would appreciate it if you would list diabetes-related titles I have missed. Thanks. alteripse 14:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Unwanted redirect for Type 1
I forget where I said I would do it, but I finally got around to setting up a separate page for Type 1 Diabetes. And it got created as Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Only there seems to be some kind of redirect that keeps send me to this article instead, as if the new article was never created. Even getting to it from my contributions list is something of a trick to achieve. Much as I would like to shrink the Type 1 section in the General Article, I don't dare until this redirect issue has been dealt with. Any ideas on how I should go about it? --Coro 02:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest update, I just found out the new article had been converted into a redirect by Fawcett5 while I was setting up the links. I've left a query on his talk page as to why.--Coro 03:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just explain to him what you were doing. If you click on the message "redirected from ___ " you can edit and remove the redirect, and insert the new text. Maybe it will help. The quality of heavily trafficked articles like this is poor due to the varied quality of the small contributions. Good luck. alteripse 12:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Got his response with apoligy. He was just trying to prevent a potentially unnecessary fork. The redirect has been replaced with the initial article. --Coro 22:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We need to do this very carefully. I agree that type 1 and type 2 need seperate pages, but it has to remain abundantly clear that the treatment overlaps, and that the complications are identical. For example, I would not put a whole epistle on diabetic nephropathy on the type 2 page given that so many of them have type 1.


 * Perhaps the material on insulin therapy should be coordinated into a seperate article - this makes it easier to refer from both this article and the two "subarticles". JFW | T@lk  22:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Coro & jfw, I would note that article insulin discusses much of insulin therapy at some length. Perhaps a link to there? As for breaking out Type 1 into a separate article I must (probably) disagree with JFW. DM, whichever type, is seen by the usual public as 'a sugar problem' or something similarly indistinct. Such folks fully confuse 1 and 2 and the complications thereof, and the DM article should help them to clear up the confusion, not inform them fully about part of the problem. Info about one, without info about DM generally, would be a mistake. Yes, this article is a bit unfocused, but I think the remedy is to focus it, difficult though it is as a collaborative enterprise, between clinicians and laymen.


 * As for listing the multiplicity of ways one can become diabetic through trauma, medical intervention, or other disease, nearly all are so uncommon that they deserve here, I think, just the table suggested by Alterprise. ww 01:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is getting too bulky, and the logical choice is giving an overview of both types, and taking technical details (e.g. glutamate decarboxylase cross-reactivity with Coxsackievirus epitopes in Type 1) to a subpage.
 * Some large articles already have subarticles (e.g. Culture of the Netherlands as a subarticle of Netherlands), and this article will eventually go down that way. Due to the amount of patients and the amount of research, diabetes is too big to cover on one page. JFW | T@lk  08:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a pair of articles that seem to deal with Insulin Therapy already. Intensive_insulinotherapy and Conventional insulinotherapy. Ultimately I'm thinking they could be linked with splitting out the section on Diabetes Management which would be linked to each of the articles, which each article having a paragraph or two tailored for the article. At any rate, I will take a better look at it over the weekend. --Coro 21:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Got around to splitting out the Diabetes Management section into its own article. Still not sure if I got the summarization right or not. Somebody might like to have a go at it. In checking the article size, I found out that we still are getting a size warning at 31K. Then for the heck of it, I checked the size of the talk page and got a 55k warning. We're probably okay as long as we only edit a section at a time. As for me, I think I want to survey the results before doing anything else significant. I did link Intensive_insulinotherapy into the new article though. --Coro 03:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Whence diabetes?
This article attempts to do the impossible, and I strongly feel it should be managed like any other big multifaceted topic. This page is to become a container with brief summaries of 7-8 good subarticles, which can be much more detailed. I propose:
 * Types of diabetes enumerating diabetes mellitus type 1 and diabetes mellitus type 2 and covering gestational, steroid-induced and other forms systematically
 * Pathophysiology of diabetes (islets and physiological control of glycaemia, end-organ resistance)
 * Diagnosis of diabetes (fasting sugars, OGTT, use of insulin/C-peptide levels and clamping studies)
 * Treatment of diabetes (oral hypoglycemics in DMII, types of insulin, administration/pumps, inhaled insulin etc)
 * Complications of diabetes (hypos, ketoacidosis and HONC, macro- and microvascular disease)
 * History of diabetes (antiquity, middle ages, discovery of islets and therapeutic use of insulin).
 * Diabetes and public health (increasing prevalence of diabetes, explanations and attempts by policy makes to address the causes and the increased health spending)

I would like to have a vote before such a major split is made. An article series box linking all these articles together will be an important feature. JFW | T@lk  21:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with proposal to split. --Arcadian 21:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal to split more or less as suggested -- but here comes the stinkbomb at the garden party. This is an article of first resort, and many Average Readers will not move on to the 7 or 12 or 5 split off articles planned. Especially if those are more clinical in language or technical in content. So, in my view, this article should remain a reasonable if not very detailed overview of the mess that is DM, and not merely a list of pointers to the content in the sub articles. I mentioned to Alterprise (somewhere here) that it is only rare folk who are able to take scattered references and weld them together into a coherent (and mostly accurate) account in their heads. We simply cannot expect the AR looking at this article to be one of those. Thus, it's pretty long now, should be trimmed, but what's left should still be a coherent account (with pointers, natch), the sort that's appropriate to an article of first resort. This is of course more difficult as a writing exercise (painful professional experience speaketh loudly here)... I'm advocating actual encyclopedic style -- check out one of those paper ones if you wish. Comments on the stinkbomb? ww 08:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Its not a stinkbomb and I have suggested exactly the same think above some months ago. The problem is that an overview article on a popular topic is very difficult to do in wikipedia, since anyone and everyone wanders through and wants to add some tiny piece of information, usually not one of the top 500 facts on the topic. Although I will quickly remove errors of fact and if necessary argue forever about them, I don't like removing the single "offerings" of those who visit the article. I think an article like you propose should be initially written by one person, and criticized or corrected by all, but we would then need to enforce keeping it as a shallower overview, moving details to sub-articles. I will write some of the sub-articles, like DKA, but do any of you feel like making an attempt from scratch at an overview article? alteripse 12:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with WW that this article specifically should be easy to read, but I feel that excessive detail (e.g. the fact the inhaled insulin is becoming more popular) should be relegated to subarticles. This is hardly a stinkbomb - it is the stuff of making Wikipedia a good reference.


 * Alteripse, I can write the new outline after 7/8 December (peruse this for the reasons). But I would prefer to nominate yourself for this job that is eminently suited for an endocrinologist. JFW | T@lk  12:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

My reluctance is based on my uncertainty that my usual method is applicable to a popular article. If I think an article here is poor I simply start over and re-write it from the ground up. I have done that for several articles and intend to do it for the DKA article. I have then welcomed copyediting, corrections, and even suggestions but find subsequent rewrites by the "ignorant with an agenda" aggravating (see, for example, the early arguments with a contributor with one of the larger and more impervious opinion-to-knowledge-and-civility ratios shortly after I wrote sex differentiation). When I first joined wikipedia in early 2004 I intended to rewrite the intersexuality article, which is far worse than the diabetes article- not just badly written, badly organized, full of single POV, but full of simple errors of biological fact. But the more time I spend here the more I realize that it will never be a good article and if I rewrote the whole thing but didn't defend it every day, it would return to something like the present article in perhaps a year. The biggest problem with wikipedia is that no matter how good an article is provided by someone with real expertise, entropic degradation begins immediately if it is a topic people have opinions about. I have thought about this issue for a year and a half and I have come up with some ideas, but no obvious solution. One of my ideas is to have two versions of this type of article-- one approved and controlled by a group of people with expertise in an area, and one open to editing by anyone with an opinion. Another solution would be two sections of a major article, so that casual additions would not change the core article but would be proposals to change. Another solution would be to have three pages for many of the articles: an article page, a talk page like this one, and a minor detail/ proposed change/ differing opinion page. And of course another solution would be for me to realize none of these approaches belong in wikipedia and go away. Since I haven't reached a resolution in my own mind and doubt I could persuade anyone else to try any of the first three, I mainly (with a couple of exceptions) stick to unpopular topics that seem badly covered.

Anyway, if I rewrote diabetes, I would write the whole thing on one of my talk sub-pages, solicit feedback from those of you who have been interested in the topic, and then do a complete substitution. Would you support that or am I wise to decline?

And of course, good luck with your exam. alteripse 14:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand your reluctance but yes, I would support a total rewrite in the Alteripse garage. JFW | T@lk  22:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think splitting the article is a good idea; right now it's too big and confusing. My ideal version would have Diabetes as a disambiguation page to Diabetes insipidus and Diabetes mellitus. The diabetes mellitus page would have a short overview of the different types, what causes them, typical treatment and such things, sort of "what everyone should know about diabetes", and then links to more scientifically oriented articles (possibly on the topics suggested above). I'd like the main page to give someone who doesn't know anything a general picture of what diabetes mellitus is, and links to a number of articles for those with a special interest. I love the idea of professional-style scientific articles, but since diabetes is so common, I really think there should be a diabetes page that is approachable to the average reader as well. --Saara 23:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

...and as for things that I would like to see added or changed in the main article or the new smaller articles, please see my post from yesterday. --Saara 23:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree that diabetes should be a disambiguation page. Please review Disambiguation. I think my proposal above strongly echoes your sentiments about this article being a basic overview with more detailed material branching off. JFW | T@lk  19:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the proposed split. There are several medical articles which could seemingly benefit from this treatment. InvictaHOG 02:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The little bit about curing Diabetes (mainly type 1) would split out perfectly well, saving a few paragraphs for a linkout. I'm not sure it would fit with curing anything else, but it should sit OK on its own? Midgley 00:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

recent refactoring wrongfooted; needs rerefactoring
The recent extensive revisions of this article have had the beneficial effect of clarifying the structure and removing a goodly portion of the low growth weeds.

Unfortunately, in rereading the article (assuming as well as I can manage a "naive" perspective), I have come to the conclusion that the revisions have had the unfortunate effect of changing it from an (somewhat) useful article of first resort (somewhat) suited to the Average Reader, to a "high level DM overview" -- with pointers.

This is unfortunate, and some additional work is needed as the Average Reader is not the sort of person who can assemble a mental picture of a technical topic from various articles pointed to in passing. This is a skill which is rare enough amongst those specifically trained to develop it (eg, physcians), and very much less present in the general populations. If nothing else, insufficient context is currently available to give such a Reader an understanding of which linked to articles are necessary for an initial understanding and which can be deferred. Which is to say, that "context" and "perspective" have been lost/reduced as a result of these revisions.

The previous article, with all its vices (plentiful) was better on these points.

Please note that this objection is not a technical one, nor an encyclopedic one (except perhaps that an article of first resort on important topics should perhaps be an official rubric for encyclopedias), but a writing/teaching/understanding one. Non-technical readers have entirely characteristic properties and behaviors and limitations (a personal empirical observation, professionally) and WP writers/editors must -- to do their jobs well --recognize this and compensate for it. The article in its current state substantially fails to do so; the prior verison did so (somewhat) better and so the recent edits are wrongfooted.

I would undertake revisions to this effect on my own hook (on the general principle of "Be Bold!"), but so many editors have become involved with the article that I am inviting discussion before even really thinking about it. Comments, please! ww 16:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The first pair of sentences in the article are pretty nasty...Midgley 10:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Any type of diabetes if properly dealt with a disciplined regimen of blood glucose checks will enhance the quality of life in no way allowing diabetes to become a life-threatening disability which can happen if left unchecked. Glucose checks are a necessary part of diabetes management which have to be done in awkward moments. To strive for better control in Type I as well as Type II diabetes, glucose levels must be checked periodically to maintain a high standard of care and quality of life regardless of of the discomfort others may have with the glucose monitoring event."

What kind of sense does this make? The article generally is pretty unreadable but this sentence-resembling monster is something special. What does it matter if others have discomfort? And how does "any type of diabetes --- enhance the quality of life"?! Why do measurements "have to be done in awkward moments"? Please, fix this! Saara 17:54, 27 January 2006

Duplicatiohn with Diabetes mellitus type 1 and Diabetes mellitus type 2
These two articles have been separate since 2002. Most of the information is duplicate from the present article, but given the many changes in all three articles the information has become inconsistent. Either all three articles are merged, or the general article has to bee thinned out. I would think that given the fact that both forms of diabetes have important issues in common regarding diagnosis, treatment, and complications, I would favor merging. Andreas 14:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be against any merger. I think that the parent article should be thinned out. DM1 and DM2 are more than enough for individual pages. And they are quite different in their epidemiology, history, diagnosis, and treatment. If the articles don't reflect that, they should be altered rather than be merged, IMHO! InvictaHOG 17:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * agreed - no merge. they are very different topics.  this article (the main DM page) is way too verbose, complicated, and bulky anyway. Tmkain 03:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite?
A little while ago there was some talk about a big rewrite, but no volunteers have stepped forward. Should we try to recruit someone? JFW | T@lk  05:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably. I would nominate one of the doctors who edit here since edits by others are likely to draw more conflict and controversial edits, though of course even those will, it seems, get their share. Part of the purpose of such a major rewrite should be to impose a more coherent coverage instead of the variable perspective and tone from section to section that we have now.
 * I note for instance an edit this day by Davidruben to the glucose monitoring section which invovles that section in a great deal of clinical detailed discussion about the virtues (or vices) of intense glucose managemtn in Type 2. This is unfortunate for several reasons. The tone is quite at variance with the introductory non-clinically detailed point of this article (general coverage nad introduction), as well as being crossways to the clinical reality of some not insubstantial portion of the type 2 population. As some type 2 are also type 1 (in that they require insulin) much of what is said in this edit does not apply to them. Type 2 is so variable that almost everything, save a statement that normal glucose values have been shown to reduce complications rates substantially, is probably contraindicated in an article of first reference as this one.
 * It may be that a dual edit would be best. First, by you, or Alextan or Alterprise, or ... followed by an edit (by someone else I would suggest) to clean up the prose, reword some of the technically opaque medical phrasing with something more approachable by the average Reader coming to this article. Refernces to more technical WP content (as the article on insulin) could provide the technical detail and more exact phrasing. ww 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally agree. I wouldn't tend to say that needing/treating with Insulin makes someone Type 1 as well as Type 2.  The division into two types is less lear than it used to be, as we understand more about the systems involved, in particualr MODY doesn't really seem to be best described that way.  There is an article on some of this at http://ganfyd.org/index.php?search=MODY&go=Go (the Ganfyd licence isn;t the same as WP's). Midgley 23:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree article in need of a tidy up. I have largely just tided up the references allowing attributation of some of them to points in the text. cmnt left by David Reuben