Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corposcindosis

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Corposcindosis

 * Delete I would like to suggest that the entry for "corposcindosis" is deleted from the Wikipedia encyclopedia. It is a made-up term, and an apparent self-indulgence on the part of the author. -BF (Nom by User:69.203.193.133, and this was his 7th edit).
 * Fixed up the nom process. No vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism (article states the word was coined in 2005) and probable hoax (no non-Wikipedia Google hits). --Angr/undefined 06:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a new term referring to a new disease caused by a new surgery, ETS. Non-Wikipedia references to "CS" abound on websites and discussion forums about hyperhisrosis and ETS surgery. Though in some cases the abbreviation "CS" may refer to the euphemism "compensatory sweating", it is clear that many references are made to the entire syndrome caused by damage to the upper thoracic nerve chain, the split-body syndrome now known as corposcindosis. 71.129.158.210 Songboy1234 05:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)04:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC) unsigned comment by 71.129.158.210. Xoloz 15:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense, hoax Xoloz 15:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC) New grounds: unverifiable, original research, neologism. Xoloz 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Xoloz, you offer no reasoning or evidence to support your position. I would invite others to peruse Xoloz' personal WIki page and make a judgement as to neutrality and/or seriousness. More to the point, please visit http://p069.ezboard.com/betsandreversals http://www.noetsuk.com/ http://home.swipnet.se/sympatiska/index3.htm http://www.terra.es/personal8/hiperhidrosis/ http://www.esfbchannel.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=Post-ETS http://www.ets-sideeffects.netfirms.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathectomy http://www.truthaboutets.com
 * Delete neologism. I'll mention, also, that patients don't name syndromes or diseases, doctors do. If this isn't a hoax, and if it's new, osme doctor is already naming the syndrome. Ken 02:38, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

CS is not nonsense. Severing any nerve will cause the organ, gland or muscle controlled via that nerve to malfunction. This is no different for the autonomic nervous system. A surgical sympathectomy can and does cause the sympathetic nervous system to be divided into 2 distinct regions, one dead and the other hyperactive. This makes perfect sense to anyone knowledgeable about human physiology.71.129.158.210 04:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

CS is no hoax, though the thousands of sufferers certainly wish that it was.
 * Friend, ETS seems to be real, but these sites do not appear to mention "Corposcindosis" at all. Now, I have cerebral palsy myself (which is very real), but if someone invented a symptom of that disorder called "Corposcindosis", it wouldn't merit an article.  Understand, if this is real, no Google hits is a valid reason for thinking it isn't -- nothing personal. Please sign your contributions with four tildes if you wish to be taken more seriously.  Again, nothing personal, but anonymous users here are legion, and their claims are suspect.  Xoloz 22:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note also that the article's claim that "Corposcindosis" was coigned in 2005 is prima facie evidence that an article under that name doesn't belong here. ETS very well might. Xoloz 23:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Did not mean to be anonymous. I'm songboy1234. Xoloz, with due respect, your analogy to cerebral palsy is not apt. No one has "invented" a symptom. The symptoms are real, predicted by physiology, and well documented in the published medical literature, (not to mention by thousands of oral histories on many forums). The charges of "hoax" and "nonsense" are utterly without foundation.

The charge of "neologism" does have merit. I coined the term. However, you must understand the situation to understand why the doctors will never name this disease. The doctors are CAUSING this disease. A much better analogy would be to lobotomy. A particular mental/emotional syndrome was caused by pre-frontal lobotomy, yet to my knowledge it was never named, a linguistic injustice if ever there was one. Instead, doctors busied themselves publishing "studies" which "proved" that lobotomy is safe and effective. Corposcindosis is a specific example of autonomic neuropathy, but it requires its own name. It is definable, diagnosable, measurable, it is specific, it is real, and thousands are suffering.

I submit that waiting for doctors to name this disease constitutes a profound irresponsibility to the language. 71.129.158.210 04:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Songboy1234 05:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is a place of secondary sources -- no name establishes itself first in an encyclopedia. Once the community affected largely acknowledges the name, and it has been around for a few years, then it will be eligible for inclusion.  As for my suggestion that this was nonsense or a hoax, I do apologize; please understand that many people submit hoaxes to Wikipedia, and the lack of search results convinced me that this was likely the case.  I don't know enough to say what this disease is, or whether you have it, but it is clear that you sincerely believe you do. Xoloz 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article author admits its a neologism. Original research, no references, not verifiable. Quale 07:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting article. -- Crevaner 23:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism/contents unverifiable. Dcarrano 23:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * This term is completely bogus. Some unhappy ETS patients have an axe to grind about the side-effects of their surgery, so they are appropriating Wikipedia in order to advance their cause, both in this and in the ETS entry. The results of ETS are not clearly known, making it a controversial procedure, and it should be stated as such. But ETS side-effects are only "now known as corposcindosis" by the author of this entry and possibly some of his fellow conspirators. "CS" is in fact a common abbreviation of compensatory sweating, and this is a term widely accepted by the both the medical and lay community. "Corposcindosis" is a neologism created with the sole purpose of underhandedly denouncing ETS. It is a biased and deceptive term that is in no way encyclopedic.  The side-effects are real; the term is not.  (No vote.  I nominated the deletion.) -BF (Note: I tried to delete this comment but I guess we're not allowed to do that.  I don't mean to downplay the sufferings of these people or to hinder their cause.  It's the method that I disagree with, and I think this is an inappropriate entry for Wikipedia.)


 * Delete on condition that sources are not identified, and accuracy disputes are not clarified. In other words, if the article is cleaned up, identifies sources, and accuracy disputes are corrected, keep, otherwise, delete. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that I was not aware of the "neologism" rule as I authored the article. I think this is clear, as I innocently took credit for having coined the term in the article itself. Based on that criticism, I now agree the article should be deleted until such time as the term (or a different one of the same meaning) comes into wider use.

However, I feel compelled to straighten out BF on a few matters. Yes, the term "compensatory sweating" was coined by surgeons and is widely used, often interchangeably with the more correct terms, "compensatory hyperhidrosis" and "reflex hyperhidrosis", which are also used by surgeons. All current terms referring to this side effect are speculative, because no one knows what causes it. An accurate term would be "surgically induced hyperhidrosis". But we know for certain that the term "compensatory sweating" is a euphemism, and is medically incorrect, because the sweating referred to is excessive. Wide use does not necessarily mean accuracy. Truth is ultimately what we're after.

The syndrome caused by ETS surgery, which I have named Corposcindosis, is a manifestation of the PRIMARY effects of the surgery, in addition to the SIDE effects, an important distinction.

Referring to me as a "conspirator" is a disgusting libel. What purpose is attempted by it one can only guess. In one breath, BF rants " 'Corposcindosis' is a neologism created with the sole purpose of underhandedly denouncing ETS" but in the next breath admits "The side-effects are real". The purpose of the article was to document a syndrome which no one (not even BF) denies exists, not to "denounce" anything. If factual information reflects badly on a medical procedure, so be it.

Now, BF - please, in great detail, would you please elucidate any factual errors on the Endoscopic Thoracic Sympathectomy page, or the soon-to-be-deleted Corposcindosis page? Edit them in, or make me aware and I will do so. But otherwise, will you please retract your false statements alleging "appropriating Wikipedia in order to advance their cause". That statement is beyond the pale.

My only "error" was coining a new term, one which badly needs to be coined. The scientific evidence supporting the thesis is beyond question. Songboy1234 05:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to give you great detail because I don't want a point-by-point argument with you. My dispute with the ETS article is not so much the facts, although I think the negatives are over-represented, but the loaded language.  What I meant by deception is that it isn't neutral.  And I do apologize for using the word "conspirators," a loaded word if there ever was one, as well as for the entire comment, which as I stated before I tried to delete, but someone undeleted it.  It was written with emotion rather than objectivity, as I believe the two entries were.  I just find that a prospective ETS patient is always stuck with finding a middle ground between biased (although technically "true") statements by surgeons and biased (although technically "true") statements by angry patients.  They both err by omission.  The objective, neutral "truth" about ETS needs to be out there, but the current Wikipedia entry isn't it.  I suppose I could try to edit the page, but I don't want an editing war.  I wish you good health, and I'm sorry that my comments came off so personally, but that's my last word on this.  -Bruce

And there you have it for all to see. Bruce, BF, comes on, nominates the page for deletion, makes horrific personal accusations, states that another page is biased, and that it is being appropriated for some "cause", says there is "loaded language", that it "isn't neutral" and yet. . . offers not ONE WORD supporting his assertions. What loaded language? He doesn't say. Biased how? He doesn't say. Negatives are "overrepresented". What does that mean? If you have a situation where factually there are more "negatives" than "positives" then negatives SHOULD be overrepresented.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.