Talk:Mesentery

Hard to understand

This article seems averse to stating what the mesentery is made of, i.e., tissue types. Also, does it have a function in the body? I attempted to learn what "mesocolon" means, and still have no idea. Would someone kindly insert a few phrases to make this article accessible to the general reader? You might use a medical dictonary site:http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mesocolon--75.164.155.194 (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a tough concept to explain/understand: How many layers does the mesentery have and why? I had to ask my professor about this because I can’t find it online. Ill probably end up editing this article with his help to add this in unless someone else beats me to it! Dhami003 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Reclassify this as an organ

www.livescience.com/57370-mesentery-new-organ-identified.html has multiple sources talking about this being an organ... Change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeathCamel57 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"Should be thought of as an organ" does not really mean much from a medical/physiological/functional perspective. It's just a little twist that this guy gave to his review paper. His university (the decidedly 3rd rate Uni of Limerick) then decided to create this ridiculous media splash. I hope wiser heads prevail and someone with proper medical knowledge and the willingness to edit wikipedia for free (pearls before swine) will revert this.137.205.101.122 (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Gray's Anatomy has also decided to add it as the 79th organ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.226.201 (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

True, according to The Independent: here. The standard of science journalism there isn't that high, but the bit about Gray's Anatomy is interesting. The claim is that this update was added in 2015. I wonder if that claim (about the nature of that addition) stands up to scrutiny? Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Source claims Leonardo da Vinci drew mesentery (with picture)

[1]

If a good quality public domain image of the Leonardo da Vinci drawing from that article is findable, the drawing would improve the History section. Also, since this is the first (reported in the History section) known drawing or description of the mesentery, several hundred years earlier than other mentions, the exact or approximate date of Leonardo's drawing would help too. Gnuish (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Function?

I don't see any mention of this organ's function, or alternatively, of the fact that its function is unknown. Would be helpful.Tmangray (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not an organ

There're so many news sites exaggerating this part of the topic. It's not a new organ. Those sites doesn't even claim what important function was discovered yet. It's not an organ yet, nor should be claimed as such until an official site explicitly says so. However it plays an important role in Chron's Disease: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27167572 --Ai Leen! (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It is now considered an organ. http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/mesentery-new-organ-discovered-inside-human-body-by-scientists/ar-BBxQUEL?li=BBoPWjQ&OCID=ansmsnnews11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.221.18 (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

History

Contiguous v. Continuous???

Last sentence in History is "The single greatest advance in this regard was the identification of the mesenteric organ as being contiguous as it spans the gastrointestinal tract from duodenojejunal flexure to mesorectal level.[7]" I went to the original source (7) and it said "Results  Several previously undocumented findings emerged, including: (i) the mesocolon was continuous from ileocaecal to rectosigmoid level; " Will someone with better knowledge than myself please clarify or edit this possible discrepancy?73.186.17.16 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Dorsal mesentery

small stub better presented on target page Iztwoz (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): Are you able to given an opinion on the merge you proposed 23 months ago; you don't seem to have started a discussion, something now addressed by Iztwoz. Seems reasonable to me.

@Iztwoz: You're probably right that I should have just gone ahead and done it, was working through a run of drive-by taggings and was probably too grumpy to take this one seriously. It is a good idea, following the general theme that anatomy is too fragmented.Klbrain (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with the merge for both dorsal and ventral. If a section could ever grew to article length (which I find improbable), it could be broken out again. From a standpoint of embryology, it seems to be the simpler approach.BiologicalMe (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Support sorry about that Klbrain, I think we discussed this at a central location at the time. Thank you again for your work --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mesentery. 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/20060106231053/http://learning.mgccc.cc.ms.us/science/cat/sld048.htm to http://learning.mgccc.cc.ms.us/science/cat/sld048.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Susan Standring's statement

Please explain why Susan Standring's statement is wrong and must be deleted from wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Staszek Lem - the statement is not wrong in itself - the source you used imo is poor; When i spoke of the source in the first revert i was not referring to the editor as the source but the publication - a magazine. Anything reported in this way is hearsay. And it's just wrong to say according to (whomsoever) - it could be according to a vast number of researchers, editors, authors etc. in this particular case - if a relevant statement can be found in a citable source the statement can be added using the citation with no need for naming anybody. All best --Iztwoz (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

But i see that you've gone ahead and reverted again - why don't you go back to your talk page and read the advice given by Jytdog there.--Iztwoz (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Discover Magazine is a reasonably reputable source, which explains things on level understandable to general public. If one follows your logic, the everything what comes to Wikipedia is hearsay: because our major rule is Wikipedia must be based on WP:SECONDARY sources. -- wrong to say according to -- The source says "says Gray’s Anatomy editor Susan Standring". If you think that this is a common knowledge, we may remove attribution to Standring, but not the statement itself, which you yourself appear to claim is true. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing the source and your argument I think I understand better what you meant under "hearsay": the author of the publication is a journalist, who claimed that Stadring claimed something. And this extra step of information delivery, in your opinion (as I understand it), may introduce distortion. I agree, this is a valid fear, especially true for the case of sensationalist and biased sources. While I do not believe Discover is THAT bad, I respect your caution, and tagged the statement accordingly. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)