Talk:Sexually transmitted disease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.
WikiProject Medicine / Translation / Reproductive medicine (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force.
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edit request from mfreud, Jan 11, 2012[edit]

I would like to see the title of this article changed from "Sexually Transmitted Disease" to "Sexually Transmitted Infection" as the term STD is no longer used in sexual health education due to the stigma attached to the word disease. I am not a very experienced Wikipedia user, even though I have assisted in the creation of a feature article... that was several years ago & I do not remember a lot from those editing day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfreud (talkcontribs) 19:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

STD is still used in sexual health education. See the #STI verses STD and #Requested move sections of this talk page for further information about the title history of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from Pavelk2011, 5 July 2011[edit]

Hi there,

I would like to add a resource to the Sexually Transmitted Disease Wiki page related to rates and statistics for sexually transmitted infections located on the following URL:

Pavelk2011 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: As I see there is already an external link to Google - public data that shows rates and statistics for STDs. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 10 August 2011[edit]

This paragraph: "The amount required to cause infection varies with each pathogen but is always less than you can see with the naked eye."

Makes no sense. You couldn't see any of the pathogens listed in this article with the naked eye. So what is "less than you can see with the naked eye"?? I am not an expert but I suppose 1 single bacteria can be enough to create an infection. The whole paragraph creates confusion and misinformation. (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making this request. This statement is not supposed to be about the pathogens but about the fluid carrier. Even tiny amounts of semen or vaginal secretions can cause infection if they come into contact with mucous membrane. I changed the statement to read, "The amount of contact with infective sources which causes infection varies with each pathogen but in all cases a disease may result from even light contact from fluid carriers like veneral fluids onto a mucous membrane." I feel like my wording is awkward. Do you have an alternate proposal for wording? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC) (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I think you did a good job clarifying this. The new sentence is as accurate as possible. Thanks.

Add HTLV as sexual transmitted disease[edit]

It's sexually transmitted as refers its own page: HTLV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbletruble (talkcontribs) 14:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional Info[edit]

After throughly reading all of this, it is very formal info on STDs; however, should the info contain, at least, the basic common stages of how the STDs are form if a person is doing more than not taking caution or having protection. By this statement, I mean: add information stating what causes each Std to be form between people instead of out-right saying that un-protected sex is the cause of it.

To ensure the reader understands this article better, you can say that having unprotected sex will get you an STD, but make sure it is included that if a person does not use proper ways to keep themselves clean of having any STD form within their body, then yes, by the time they have sex, the STD will be formed if proper hygiene (Spelled wrong) is not used the moment you begin having sex. Plus, make sure even the right questions are included in this article when asking about a person's sex history or cycle. --Zhang Liao (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

STI verses STD[edit]

STI is the preferred terminology and the one used by the WHO [1] Thus I propose we move it to this "sexually transmitted infection" --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I still like the idea, but the counterarguments from the last discussion about this were substantial. We just proposed this less than a year ago. What new arguments can be made which address the past consensus which concluded that this should not be done? Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a simple reason, not covered in the previous discussion, why this article should be moved to STI. If you are going to talk about STDs, then you have to talk about things like cervical cancer (because it is a disease resulting almost exclusively from sex). But if you talk about STIs, then you don't talk about cervical cancer, because it is a neoplastic process, not an infectious process. The distinction is important, and people need to understand the distinction, especially now that head and neck cancer is becoming largely a sexually transmitted disease! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you share sources which support your statement? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that following current WHO guidelines (as the link is provided above)is sufficient evidence that this language needs to be changed. The Public Health Authority of Canada also uses the term STI [2]as does other well known sexual health services such as Options for Sexual Health [3]--Mfreud (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is enough support to move this article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a vote?Sheldon Kepler (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We could have a vote if there were a reason to do so. Wikipedia operates on a consensus model, so voting is just a way to encourage conversation and reach consensus, and not a way to settle anything. We have had two votes recently - here and here. If you have a new response to the old discussion and votes, then please share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
There still hasn't been enough support to move the article. As Blue Rasberry shows, there's been just as much support to keep the article titled Sexually transmitted disease. And per those comments a year ago, despite some sources stating that "STI" is the preferred terminology (I take it that they mean with regard to medical sources, because "STD" is still by far the most common term among the general public), I'm still not entirely convinced. I note, however, that I'm not as passionate as I once was about the article staying under this title. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Add link to STD Wizard Thanks

No. This site is for Americans only and it is collecting data on users. Please see WP:SPAM. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Question Regarding Data for Transmission Rate Table[edit]

Looking through the tabel labeled "Odds of transmission per unprotected sexual act with an infected person" you notice that the HIV rate given for "Anal sex - insertive" is substantially higher than all the other rates of HIV transmission. Of course, there is a source, so at first I overlooked it and assumed it was correct. However, if you click the source (and unless I am completely reading the data wrong) I believe the percentage should be .62% and not 62%. Here is a quote from the source study:

"The estimated transmission rate for insertive UAI in participants who were circumcised was 0.11% (95% CI 0.02%-0.24%), and it was 0.62% (95% CI 0.07%-1.68%) in uncircumcised men."

Like I said, I may be understanding the data wrong, but if not, there is a huge difference between 62% and .62%. The3me (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are not wrong. In the future when you see problems like this WP:Be bold and fix them, if you like. If you are not comfortable changing things then posting on a board like this works also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Tariq Sadiq's mobile phone test for STD's[edit]

see include in article — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Request change of wording for STD table[edit]

hi, i'd like to suggest using clearer english on the table with:

Odds of transmission per unprotected sexual act with an infected person
performing oral sex on man
Receiving oral sex - man  
etc etc etc

one example of a change would be:
uninfected person performing oral sex on infected man
man receiving oral sex from man or woman
male receiving oral sex from male or female

just to be inclusive, as STDs do not generally discriminate against sexuality (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual),
but certain sexual orientations have higher probabilities and lesser probabilities of catching certain STDs
Tierjj (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, rationale about waiting a while is sound Mike Cline (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sexually transmitted diseaseSexually transmitted infection – This clearly needs discussing again given the discussion above and the recent move. Last RM is here. Procedural nom.relisted -Mike Cline (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Dpmuk (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the move as part of BRD and the lack of any new information that wasn't discussed in the last RM (the WHO arguement was discussed). Personally if there is no new evidence presented (and there hasn't been yet) of a change in the commonly used term then I'd oppose the move but given that previously there was evidence of a slow change in the common name I'm willing to wait and see before formally !voting. Dpmuk (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't really need any more evidence beyond the WHO. We should be going with the formal name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In January 2011 there was a vote about making the above move and I would like to propose another vote. Here is the last vote. Two others support a re-discussion here in this section since then. The situation is that historically most people have used the term "sexually transmitted disease", but since the advent of HIV many people talk about "sexually transmitted infections" since most people who are infected by HIV and many people who carry any of the other infections (including syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis A and B, and HPV) have no disease. The Wikipedia Medical Manual of Style says that "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources" so here are some world disease policy centers which use the term STI in preference to STD.

The major health agency in the United States uses the term "sexually transmitted diseases".

Most departments of health for most cities in America also use the term "STD", but among American educators (like myself) we would never confuse the term disease for when we are talking about infection. HIV, for example, is not a disease, and people who get HIV in America usually never get AIDS or any such disease because they take medication. The infection is the problem and less so the disease, so must educational outreach efforts are to try to make people aware of preventing infection and not tell them how to treat a disease.

Undoubtedly there are more articles in Google Scholar for sexually transmitted diseases, but a review over the first few pages of returned results shows that the articles using this term are older than the articles using the term sexually transmitted infections. On Google in general STD seems to be the common name, which supports keeping STD per WP:COMMONNAME.

There is such a thing as a "sexually transmitted disease" but there should not be separate articles for STD and STI. The content of this article is entirely about STIs with no information about diseases given. The term STD is a holdover from a time when it was not socially permissible to discuss how anyone might prevent getting a sexual infection and from times when people could not treat infections so never worried about them until they became diseases. I would like the move considered again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • This is a tough one. Certainly the literature is moving toward STI, but check out the ngram comparing the two terms. It only goes up to 2008, and extrapolation implies that by 2012 the lines will have converged or crossed, but it's not at all clear. Nonetheless, given what seems to be an inevitable trend here, I cannot reasonably oppose this proposal. Powers T 15:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and give it a break for a year or so. Wikipedia is committed to avoiding advocacy of anything on our article pages, that's an important part of who we are. Advocacy of this name change is a good test case, nobody is really questioning the merits of the WHO direction, but the onus of proof that this name change has been accepted is on those who wish to move the article, and it's not there yet. It may be soon but that's still a no. Meanwhile there are many more pressing matters. Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A slightly more formal !vote than my conditional comment at the start of the discussion. No evidence has been presented that suggests a change in circumstances since the last discussion so I still oppose for the same reason I gave then - namely that STD is the common name, although as I noted then I'm not sure it will be for too much longer. Dpmuk (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not mind you evaluating the circumstances as not meriting a merge, but I do object to you saying that the circumstances have not changed. We collected evidence from major representative bodies of more countries demonstrating that they use the newer term, and that at least shows a change. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
You're right that some of those are new and maybe I didn't explain myself as well as I could have done. I think it was well established at the last request that STI is the currently preferred term among health organisations and the new sources reinforce this. However the issue at the last discussion was which term is the common name, which in my opinion means the term in everyday use by the wider society not just health organisations. So in my opinion the circumstances last time were "STI is currently preferred by health organisations but there's evidence it's not the common name used more widely" and I've not seen any new evidence here to refute that. Finally, have I missed something? I thought we were discussing a move, as Sexually transmitted infection redirects here I don't think there is anything to merge. Dpmuk (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Our "Use the common name" principle doesn't require us to treat all sources equally. We can, and should, favor more reliable sources over colloquial vernacular. Powers T 19:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of that but, as your ngram shows, it's not clear even in books and a google scholar search for 2012 seems to show a slight bias for STD. I'd also point out that this subject goes beyond the medical field into other areas e.g. social policy and no ones presented any evidence of use in other fields yet. So even given different weight to different sources I still think there's not enough evidence to move. Dpmuk (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I am completely happy with that explanation. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
To be honest I also think there's a lot of merit in naming articles by their most correct name (in this case STI) but I think that change would need to happen across the project as I think the extra confusion caused by a few instances of being "correct" contrary to our policy elsewhere is not worth the benefit for this article. What ever title this ends up at I think it needs a good lead explaining the two terms. Dpmuk (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I totally understand and agree. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

contradiction between two article[edit]

In this article the only danger from preforming oral sex on a woman is: Herpes, in the Cunnilingus article the danger includes: Chlamydia, human papillomavirus (HPV), gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis.

so why the different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Both articles probably need revision. What you are talking about is in the table of this article, and there is no reference. The cunnilingus article is more accurate as all of those things are risks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Press release from the WHO on gonorrhea[edit]

[11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge Venereology[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No merge There is no consensus to merge here. (Note: I was involved as KarlB but am closing anyway) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This merge has been proposed since October 2011. I'm putting a notification here, but there has been no discussion to date. I would !vote for merge. --KarlB (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We have a page on cancer on cancer and one on oncology (the study of cancer). I think we should keep them apart as we do with similar topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 20:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
But, James, looking at the Venereology article, it looks like merging is the best solution to me. Not just because of that article's lackluster state, but also because there isn't much to state on the subject that isn't already covered in the Sexually transmitted disease article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
On second thought... If the article is expanded to be about the practice of venereology, for which there are enough reliable sources about, it should be fine. It doesn't have to mostly be about the STDs themselves, and shouldn't be, so I don't know why I pretty much implied that that's all it can be about. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Edit request on 6 July 2012[edit]

In the 3¶ that begins "Sexually Transmitted Infection" & the 4th sentence that starts "In either case," I suggest creating a hyperlink from the abbreviation HPV to the wikipage

Parkscorner (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --KarlB (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 July 2012[edit]

In section Sexually transmitted disease#Condoms, the words "oral sex only" should be unbolded, since this meets none of the exceptions listed in MOS:BOLD#Other uses. Thank you. -- (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Yobol (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. -- (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Add "mouth to mouth" section on sexual activity chart[edit]

Considering how much the very first paragraph below the chart starts talking about mouth-to-mouth as a transmission medium, shouldn't it have a section within the chart itself to make things clearer? Or does there need to be separate "mouth to mouth (light)" and "mouth to mouth (heavy)" groupings as well?

What about other contacts? Even the "non-mucous contacts (hugging, etc.)" should have a section to help make things clearer in the chart without relying on the text so much. Otherwise the chart is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support adding such information to that chart if a source were identified which described rates of transmission for those acts. Do you know of any such source which could be cited? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Add "Ejaculation" sections on sexual activity chart[edit] which is already used as a referenced in the pathophysiology section also list risks associated with getting ejaculate on different parts of the body. This should also be included in the chart. Additionally a source needs to be found for ejaculate on the anus as well as the penis as that source does not list it. Data for female ejaculate should also be found. (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

STD wizard[edit]

We need independent third party high quality sources for this. Otherwise looks like spam.

=== STD Wizard ===

The STD Wizard"STD Wizard""The downside of 'friends with benefits'". CNN. April 15, 2010. is a publicly available expert system for determining which screening tests, vaccinations, and evaluations are recommended, related to sexually transmitted diseases. The information included within the STD Wizard is based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines - 2010". The system has English and Spanish language interfaces.

The STD Wizard runs in a web browser. The program asks a series of questions, related to demographics, behaviors, and symptoms. There are potentially over 100 questions, but most users get asked about 20. The exact questions asked depend on the user's responses. Typical questions include:

  • Demographics - How old are you, in years?
  • Behaviors - Have you had more than one sex partner within the past six months?
  • Symptoms - Are you having a discharge from your penis or burning during urination?

Typical recommendations include:

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for moving to the talk page. I don't think it's spam. But I guess it's a matter of opinion. And, in the interests of disclosure, I wrote the STD Wizard, so I'm not the best person to decide if it's spam or not, or how to include or not include.
Here's what I can offer against it's being spam: 1) It was funded by the federal government (CDC and ATPM). Could that qualify as a third party high quality source? 2) It has a mention in the CNN article. Does that qualify as an independent source. Are more needed? To my knowledge, there are no more third party mentions at present. There are links to the wizard from various health clinics and university student health centers. 3) The wizard is no cost, and will stay that way. Does the non-commercial nature argue against being spam? 4) It seems directly related to the STD article, since the STD Wizard lets any user tell which tests they need, based on the CDC Guidelines.
The STD Wizard section was in the STD article a long time, with no objection. It seems this just arose when I edited the article to reflect that the software was updated to cover the 2010 Guidelines. I guess that triggered someone to take a look. I agree that the current section is probably too long, within the context of the whole article. What if the STD Wizard section were made shorter (perhaps really short), and there was a separate article about the STD Wizard? The separate article could include the current text, and also mention that CDC funded the development. Dagoldman (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This is indisputably spam and that is not a matter of opinion. See Wikipedia:Spam. Knowledge of the STD Wizard software is not fundamental to an international understanding of STDs and therefore does not belong in this article, and that is the factor to consider. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes we would need sources such as review articles. And even than the most this would be applicable to would be a sub page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This nonexistent user also agrees that we need high quality medical sources to include even a mention of it in this article. Smells like spam. Yobol (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
To Bluerasberry: WP:SPAM describes three types of spam. "These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced." The STD Wizard text is not any of these. Therefore it is not "spam" by the definitions that you claim to refer to. The banner also includes the summary "Spam is the inappropriate addition of links or information to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting an outside organization, individual or idea." The STD Wizard text might fit this more inclusive definition, but it certainly isn't "indisputable".
In any case, I agree that the STD Wizard text should not be in this article. This (and its duplicate articles) is the only reliable third-party source that I found about it. The CNN reference doesn't actually mention the Wizard; it only includes a link to the "quiz". I didn't find anything in PubMed. The sources are inadequate to justify its own article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree - not Spam per those criteria, but should not be included without notability and MEDRS. -- Scray (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
1) I wasn't aware of the "Family Practice News" independent third-party source. That makes at least two, since CNN seems a reputable source. Is that enough? How many are required by wikipedia? 2) Since the STD Wizard presents exactly the same screening logic as the CDC STD Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines (but in a much more usable and understandable form), couldn't that be considered to meet the MEDRS requirement, which mentions "medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies"? 3) As to what is "fundamental to an international understanding of STDs", I would suggest that there are many ways the relatively short STD article could be written, things that could be included or excluded, but that a publicly available way for people to easily determine which STD screening tests they need is a reasonable thing to briefly mention. So would it be OK to include as last paragraph of "Diagnosis" Section *** The "STD Wizard" is a publicly available expert system for determining which screening tests, vaccinations, and evaluations are recommended, related to sexually transmitted diseases. The information included within the STD Wizard is based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines - 2010" *** and put deleted three paragraphs in separate short article? Dagoldman (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion of the STD Wizard does not belong in this article because discussion of this diagnostic tool is not central to an understanding of the concept of an STD. I disagree with Axl and Scray because the content meets all spam criteria - the content is an advertisement for one particular service when hundreds of diagnostics exist, and the content put an external link directly in the middle of article space, and because again it is promoting a single regional service when many international guidelines on this topic exist. There is no reason why an arbitrary instance of United States software should have precedent in this article over guidelines of international health policy organizations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The popular press is not a reliable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

" I wasn't aware of the "Family Practice News" independent third-party source. "

Family Practice News and its clones are essentially newspapers targeted at health care professionals. These sources are not peer reviewed. WP:RS states "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.... News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." WP:MEDRS gives more medicine-specific guidance. With its lack of peer review, Family Practice News lies somewhere between "Popular press" and "Newsletters" as described in WP:MEDRS. Thus its reliability as a source is limited.
In my opinion, it would be suitable to support the statement "STD Wizard is an internet-based tool to assess an individual's need for STD screening." However even if the consensus agrees with this, in my opinion this is not sufficient to include this text in this article. We would require a reliable source about sexually transmitted diseases that includes discussion of the STD Wizard.

" CNN seems a reputable source "

My problem with CNN isn't actually its reliability, although being "Popular press" does limit its reliability. My concern is that the CNN source doesn't actually mention STD Wizard at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

" I disagree with Axl and Scray because the content meets all spam criteria. "

You have not understood the meaning of WP:SPAM, despite referring to it yourself and my explanation of it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Blue waffle redirects here?[edit]

If someone is looking in the Wikipedia for information about the blue waffle disease, which is a very popular hoax, they'll be redirected here and assume it is real. If you don't create an article that busts the hoax, don't make it worse by redirecting the terms to STD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Other animals[edit]

Do STDs exist in other animals or just humans? Portillo (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And which ones can be transmitted between humans and other species? (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Venereal disease[edit]

I would like the old term VD - Venereal Disease to be preserved, a country which protects its "reputation" in an unsavoury fashion from its own citizens´legal international recourse is notable for promoting the spread of VD - Venereal Disease via encouraging its acceptance as a natural disease, when practice has proven it is not but is the direct result of prostitution, and secondarily of intercourse with grossly promiscuous individuals who may have had physical relation with an infected individual who has had intercourse with another infected individual so that the chain of individuals can lead on to prostitution. Moreover today the WHO and the police worldwide in effect promote the spread of VD through never sufficiently isolated and protected full physical examinations and body searches, which also applies to prisons. (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Sexually transmitted disease v. Sexually transmitted infection[edit]

There seems to be some inconsistency in other articles as to whether the description "Sexually transmitted infection" should be used in place of "Sexually transmitted disease". If this article is titled STD than all other references (unless there is a specific need for it to be STD) should be to that title, otherwise the title should be changed to "Sexually transmitted infection" and references in other articles, as appropriate, should be to STIs. Personally, I would prefer the use of the term STD in other articles, which is a term more widely used in the press and the community. Enthusiast (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

For what led Ewawer (Enthusiast) here, see this and this.
Like I told Ewawer, and as those familiar with this talk page know, this matter has been discussed on this talk page. Extensively, in fact. #STI verses STD and #Requested move are the most recent discussions about it and note the past discussions. To others, like I told Ewawer, I am now in favor of using "sexually transmitted infection" or "STI" over "sexually transmitted disease" or "STD." Using either is not that big of a deal to me anymore, however. I still consider any of these infections to be a disease, based on the definition of disease. And no matter the title of this article, either name will bring readers to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
That is what brought my query here for clarification (I'm not seeking a title change). I also am not fussed about which term to use, but it should, I believe, be consistent. Enthusiast (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
STI is the term used by the ICD10. We could discuss it again as it has been more than a year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The distinction between STI and STD seems pedantic and confusing. This kind of terminology mixup is pitiful. Why would an article be called STD and then say STI is preferred, and use STI pretty much throughout? :) Why would someone think an infection is not a disease? With the basic terminology in such confusion, it's a bad sign the field is in confusion / disarray. (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Saw the comment by the IP around the time that the IP made the comment, but I was too sleepy to be in the mood to reply at that time. Anyway, IP, besides the previous discussions noted above (that mostly address naming issues, but also discuss the distinction between an infection and a disease), reading some of the Infection and Disease articles may help you understand why distinctions are sometimes made between infection and disease (particularly in the medical field). Flyer22 (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Transmission probabilities[edit]

This is confusing. I assume that these risks are of transmission if the partner is infected with the given STD. Otherwise, statements such as "Hepatitis B 50-70%" might lead people to interpret that 50-70% of people have Hepatitis instead of there is a 50-70% of catching Hepatitis B from someone who has Hepatitis B during the given sex act. I also assume that these figures are for unprotected sex. There is still risk of getting STD even with protected sex, do we have any sources on that? I think it would benefit to be exact about what these figures mean, otherwise their meaning might be wasted. Lesion (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked about a year ago for any compilation of these kinds of numbers and was unable to find anything at that time. What I would want is transmission rates for a given disease under a set of circumstances. I think that single data points exist for some diseases - like for example, rates of HIV infection for certain kinds of people in certain conditions - but I do not think that any research has compiled a comprehensive table of all that Wikipedians would want. The section is confusing and it is also incomplete. I am not sure what to do. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Just looked again at the table. The title is "Odds of transmission per unprotected sexual act with an infected person". I must be going blind. Re. your comment, I understand your concerns about this table. To gather many different sources and hammer their results into the format of this table might constitute original research even. I would personally leave the table since so much work has obviously gone into it. Hopefully a good source will become available that will fill in many of the blanks, and also lead to less dependence on comparing results of studies with perhaps completely different methodologies and confounding factors that invalidates their comparison. I would imagine the WHO would have data of this nature? Or you checked there too? Lesion (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I only checked with Google scholar and search at a research library. I have not checked WHO. Something else really interesting - HIV does not spread easily alone, but if either partner has another infection - especially an STI but also many other infections like TB - then the rate of transmission goes up a lot. This is really significant with things like asymptomatic HPV infections correlating highly with HIV infection. I would expect that if anyone were to compile this data they would do so when discussing co-morbidity of various diseases. Since the advent of the HPV vaccine this research must be happening somewhere. Let me know if you find anything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been involved with some formal HPV research in the past, and honestly my patience for that particular topic is exhausted for now. Suggest WHO or maybe CDC as potential sources for anyone who is interested. Lesion (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Add transmission probabilities for Mycoplasma genitalium[edit]

The article for Mycoplasma genitalium says it it sexually transmitted. Transmission probabilities should be found and added to this page. (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)