|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cholera article.|
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical content are defined in the guideline, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Cholera.
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 100 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|Cholera was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|Cholera has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is/was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details are available on the course page.|
Cholera "Society and Culture" Section
I am planning on making some changes to the existing “Cholera” article for a class project, and I would appreciate any advice/suggestions you might have.
I would like to add a “society and culture” section to this article. This section will include information about the role governments play on the prevention and spread of cholera, and other socio-economic factors that influence its spread. I think it is important to make these connections because if cholera spreads, there are serious economic and social political repercussions for the country. Governments also play an important role in preventing/ helping cholera spread, an important connection that is not always made. As the current Wikipedia article on “Cholera” notes, the disease is pretty much under control in developed nations. However, it is still a huge issue in developing countries. This is a highly relevant topic, since cholera prevention in developed countries shows it can be stopped, but recent outbreaks in poorer countries show that it is still occurring, when it does not need to be. The amounts of cholera outbreaks have actually risen in some countries-like Haiti- over the past few years. This makes exploring it’s spread a highly relevant topic. Does anyone have thoughts about creating a “society and culture” section? In this section, I will summarize a lot of existing Wikipedia articles related to cholera, like “Cholera Outbreaks and Epidemics,” “Cholera Vaccine,” “Zimbabwean Cholera Outbreak,” and “2010-13 Haiti Cholera Outbreak.” What other topics do you think should be covered in a “society and culture” section on Wikipedia?
Is it ok if I delete the existing subsections called “Enrichment Media” and “Planting Media” (under Diagnosis)? There are no references, and I am not sure if the information is accurate. Are there any other sections of this article you think need serious revision?
Do you feel that the existing cholera article has any unnecessary information that should be taken out? Any really important information/sections I should work on adding?
- Hi Kimmy, I hope you are not feeling too discouraged. Editing new information into an existing article can be very difficult--I think that it is sometimes easier to write a brand new article than to try to edit an existing one. Plus, if the student has not first spent a (perhaps) great deal of time learning the basics of the article rather than just spend time on the section that they plan to write about, it is really obvious in their edits and something I see again and again...like an essay tacked on at the end of the article. That said, I believe that the idea for your addition is excellent and something that is important to me in our medical articles. Just coming here from the appendicitis article, I have to wonder if we are writing our medical articles for med students who are, hopefully, using their text books for information rather than Wikipedia, or for the general public. Gandydancer (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- As an afterthought, when I do my edits I have found that after I think I'm about done I go through and delete everything that is not absolutely needed, and I've found that I often end up with about half of what I started out with. Gandydancer (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I am a peer reviewer from Kimmyfromtexas's class, and offer suggestions as a new yet informed Wikipedean. Your contributions to this article brought the social contexts of cholera into a previously purely biological entry on cholera. There are some sentences that lack relevance, such as your mention of "bad air" as a misconception of the causes of cholera. Consider adding information that dispels this myth, such as the deleted sentence that stated cholera can live in a variety of environments. Also clarify that cholera is a waterborne disease, and thus air quality is irrelevant to its spread. Overall, your contributions added an important new social dimension to cholera.
- Student peer reviews do not belong on article talk pages; please place them on user talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I have only glanced at a large new addition here and see some problems (there are others, but for a start):
- Kimmyfromtexas removed the appropriate for WP:MEDMOS#Sections "Society and culture" section, and
- replaced it with a section that is actually text that belongs in numerous other sections (causes, prevention, screening, history and others), and
- added material to the cholera article that belongs in the Zimababwe cholera article (assuming a Zimbabwe cholera article is even needed-- I haven't yet checked whether it is compliant or an essay, and curiously, it is not even linked in this article ...),
- used a few sources that don't comply with WP:MEDRS for medical statements (not as bad as what we usually see with student editing, but some nonetheless).
Independently I haven't yet even looked at the Zimbabwe article to see if it is appropriate or an essay, but here we seem to have the creation of a new section which has some elements of being an advocacy piece rather than an encyclopedic entry.
All of the new text needs to be vetted for WP:MEDRS (which will be made more difficult than necessary because Kimmyfromtexas has provided no PMIDs, that is PubMed identifiers for her sources), and whatever portions of it are salvabeable need to be moved to the correct sections.
Again, this appears to be editing of medical articles by a class that has never been informed of MEDMOS or MEDRS, and since it is easier for the prof to grade material put into one section, the creation of one non-MEDMOS section for the addition of new content. The following may be helpful:
- Our medical guidelines
- Guidelines for organization of sections in medical articles
- Our medical sourcing guidelines
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches explains how to search PubMed and use PMIDs.
- Because Sandy and Biosthmors have both expressed negative opinions about the addition, I've opened a discussion at the Education Noticeboard incidents page. I'd like to suggest we have the discussion over there, rather than here, since it's of interest to both medical editors and editors working with the education program. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Cholera. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Agree and have reverted the changes in question. Lots of issues with language with terms like "victim".
- We already had "Water purification: All water used for drinking, washing, or cooking should be sterilized by either boiling,chlorination, ozone water treatment, ultraviolet light sterilization". So I am not sure why "The World Health Organization's Global Task Force on Cholera stresses the importance of using water that has been boiled, bottled by a reliable source, or treated with chlorine to drink, cook, and clean dishes with."
- This ref does not go anywhere . Is it referring to this lecture on youtube? ?
- CNN is not a good source 
- Why was this removed " Rice-based solutions are preferred to glucose-based ones due to greater efficiency"? The source was good
- Yes this is not a great article but we do not need to duplicate content.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the following text because a) it uses a primary source (please see WP:MEDRS), but more importantly, it is too closely paraphrased. Please find a secondary review, and paraphrase in our own words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Laboratory tests have shown that using 1 to 4 layers of sari cloth to filter pond and river water containing V. cholerae attached to small crustacean zooplanktonic copepods and particulate matter reduces the number of V. cholerae bacteria in the water by 90%. Four layers of sari cloth were considered optimal for water filtration, since it consistently removed >99% of the bacteria, but 2 or 3 layers were approximately equally effective. In 2005 a field trial using cotton sari cloth was performed; village women were taught how to use folded cotton sari cloth or nylon mesh to filter their daily water. A third group of villagers, receiving no instruction with respect to filtration of their water, served as the control group. Results of the field trial showed that the number of cholera cases was reduced approximately 50% in the group using cotton sari cloth to filter water, with nylon filtration slightly less effective and also very expensive compared to sari cloth. http://mbio.asm.org/content/1/1/e00034-10.full http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/world/old-sari-cloth-filters-cholera-study-finds.html
- It seems just common sense to me that one need not be so concerned about wording too close when one is taking information from a study as compared to other published sources, but it seems that I am wrong on that. As for using this large primary study, IMO it is going beyond the meaning of our med article guidelines to say that it is not appropriate. I will leave this article to those who better understand the guidelines and are more experienced than I. Gandydancer (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes these edits do contain extensive copy and pasting  with text in bold being exactly the same.
Ref says  "When this method was tested in the laboratory, using 1 to 4 layers of sari cloth to filter pond and river water containingV. cholerae attached to small crustacean zooplanktonic copepods and particulate matter, this simple procedure successfully reduced the number of V. choleraebacteria by 2 log units (10–12). Whether 1, 2, 3, or 4 layers of sari cloth was used as a filter, the number of V. cholerae bacteria in the water was reduced by ca. 90%. Four layers of sari cloth were considered optimal for water filtration, since it consistently removed >99% of the bacteria, but 2 or 3 layers were approximately equally effective (10). After the laboratory-based tests were completed, a field trial using cotton sari cloth was performed, and as a reference, a commercially available nylon material that was used to eradicate dracunculiasis in Africa was included. Both were field tested for efficacy in reducing cholera in Matlab, Bangladesh. That is, village women responsible for collecting water, in a population of 30,000 (15,000 in each group, one group using sari filters and the other using nylon filters), were taught how to use folded cotton sari cloth or nylon mesh to filter their daily water. A third group of 15,000 villagers, receiving no instruction with respect to filtration of their water, served as the control group. Results of the field trial showed that the number of cholera cases was reduced approximately 50% in the group using cotton sari cloth to filter water at the time of collection, with nylon filtration slightly less effective and also very expensive compared to sari cloth "
Content added "Laboratory tests have shown that using 1 to 4 layers of sari cloth to filter pond and river water containing V. cholerae attached to small crustacean zooplanktonic copepods and particulate matter reduces the number of V. cholerae bacteria in the water by 90%. Four layers of sari cloth were considered optimal for water filtration, since it consistently removed >99% of the bacteria, but 2 or 3 layers were approximately equally effective. In 2005 a field trial using cotton sari cloth was performed; village women were taught how to use folded cotton sari cloth or nylon mesh to filter their daily water. A third group of villagers, receiving no instruction with respect to filtration of their water, served as the control group. Results of the field trial showed that the number of cholera cases was reduced approximately 50% in the group using cotton sari cloth to filter water, with nylon filtration slightly less effective and also very expensive compared to sari cloth"
Now it is an open access publication but not one compatible with Wikipedia. At the bottom it says "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." Always best to rephrase and simplify to stay out of trouble. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This edit is cut-and-pasted from this source. Even if public domain, this is still plagiarism (see WP:PLAGIARISM). Gandydancer, please be more careful to include cut-and-paste text in quotes or to rephrase in your own words (I am aware that you have done this on other articles). Jmh649 has already corrected this instance. I do not have a copy of the Lancet article; will someone pls review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- My understanding of public domain material is that anyone can copy and paste it without necessarily using quotes. It is always a good idea to paraphrase as that wording was not really encyclopedic in style. With CC BY SA material you need to state where you got it from in the edit summary but do not necessarily need to quote it. That is why we can move around material from one article to another. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)