Talk:Legionnaires' disease

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

I think this article should be merged with Legionellosis. It is just two different names for the same disease. 130.216.172.170 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Malke 2010 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You actually just copy-pasted things in a wrong direction and without attribution. I redirected it properly now.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NO, that is NOT what I've done. I completed a merger according to WP:MERGE. If there's a mess is yours entirely. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You created a fork to start with. Now as you asked me to stop wasting my time at your talk page, may I please ask you to stop wasting mine. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT intentionally create a fork. I explained my reasoning. Anybody examining the edits can see that. I merged the two articles according to WP:Merge and the edit histories were intact. You've come along to accuse me of something I've not done and refuse to answer my questions or acknowledge the evidence I've shown on my talk page. That's WP:BATTLE. I'd like to know exactly what is your motivation in all this. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explained at the talk page of the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be there. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is there. However, by now you have written already twice that my explanations are not welcome at you talk page, so that you should not really be surprised if I stop responsing to you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you question Ghirlandajo about reverting a perfectly proper merger? Malke 2010 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People, why don't we play nicely and not bicker like children. Unless of course you are child, if so then please speak to each other with respect, and not hide behind the internet. Just my $.02. 30 June 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.147.28.61 (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sentence[edit]

"Cooling towers used in industrial cooling systems as well as evaporative coolers, nebulizers, humidifiers, whirlpool spas, hot water systems, showers, windshield washers, fountains, room-air humidifiers, ice making machines, and misting systems typically found in grocery store produce sections" is not a sentence. It's a series of things. A list of things is neither true nor false. So why is it here? And why is it referenced. Cabbages and turnips grown on organic farms funded by the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.103.211 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin?[edit]

Not a single word about where the bacteria originally came from. What are its origins? Was there malicious intent? Why no illnesses of this type anywhere in the world until 1976? How did the bacteria end up in the water tank at the hotel? How was the air conditioning system and water tank at the hotel eventually sanitized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.246.178 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you would reflect on the simple fact that we don't yet know anything about most of the microbiology of the planet, you would then be able to relax into the certain knowledge that we are simply ignorant. (and stop hyperventilating) To be continually surprised by the 'new' is the current state of things in microbiology.
It came from the environment around us - nothing special happened. Look up the word 'ubiquitous'. It you want to imagine malicious intent by nature, go ahead (and start hyperventilating again). It got in the tank by accident, which given its distribution throughout the environment, means it was only a matter of time. And the article mentions things like heat and chlorination and other treatments. Pulling things apart and sterilizing those individual sections might've been done.
In short, ignorance, dismissal of that, imagined non-ignorance, all these are characteristic of the human condition. See above. Shenme (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

29 Deaths or 34[edit]

This article lists two different figures for the number of original deaths, both citing sources. Which is it, Obama? 192.41.96.212 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, there are three different sets of numbers for that incident. Amazing. Shenme (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70713-3 Lancet Infect Dis JFW | T@lk 22:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again in the Lancet itself doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60078-2 JFW | T@lk 12:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

I note that an edit by Flarf21, described as "Adding an online-accessible reliable source to supplement material in printed work", was reverted by Mean as custard without explanation. I suppose--this is only an assumption on my part--that the reason is because Mean as custard does not consider the source that was cited to be reliable, since it is a wiki. This is a legitimate objection. However, note that the wiki itself cites on-line, published sources which appear to meet Wikipedia's standards. Therefore, it should be possible to add citations to these sources in place of the reverted citation to the wiki (after verifying that they in fact support the statements they are cited to support). I would also remind all parties that an edit (including a reversion) should always be accompanied by an explanation. Davidhof (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DUE?[edit]

It is not clear to me that two cases should be listed in this article, or even at the List of Legionnaires' disease outbreaks. If anything it should be in the list article, but this is not even an "outbreak" at this point. .... WP is not an indiscriminate list of every infection that occurs. ...

In March and April of 2017, two people contracted legionnaires disease after staying at the Rio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. The health department tested and discovered the legionella virus in the Rio's water system.[1]

References

  1. ^ Rossman, Sean (June 10, 2017). "Guests leave Las Vegas' Rio hotel with Legionnaires' disease". USA Today.

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting it should, insofar as legionnaires is under reported. In addition, I was a guest at the rio this last weekend, and I have a copy of the letter they gave me stating that they were still finding legionella in the water system (!!) perhaps just posting the image of the letter is sufficient? --user:Myndex

I understand that this is personally important to you. An N of 2 is just UNDUE in the main article. I looked again and there are Ns of 1 and 2 in the list article, so I guess it could there. I will add there shortly. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done, here. btw it is caused by bacteria, not viruses.Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We generally write[edit]

In easier to understand language per WP:MEDMOS.

Thus IMO "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period) is generally 2–10 days, but can rarely extend to as long as 20 days."

Is perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "incubation period" is easy to understand. Two editors disagreed with your patronising text. Stop editing disruptively. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
81.35.37.251, please provide diffs for your claim. So far as I know, no other editor has given their opinion on the proposed version. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 18:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could simply check the history. But ok: [1]
That was a revert for a different version. Doc James proposed this revision in light of that. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 22:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was a revert for exactly the same reason that I gave. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Doc James - a high proportion of our readership will not know clearly what an incubation period is. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
also agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis do you think readers are idiots? This is a commonly understood term. An ngram search reveals that it occurs in the English language with a similar frequency to "thunderstorm".[2] Do you think "thunderstorm" is a term that people don't understand either? 81.35.37.251 (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have zero awareness of the very well-researched field of reading comprehension re medical matters, and generally, especially with a global audience.(Personal attack removed) Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have no evidence to support your belief that readers are idiots. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you have remarkably detailed knowledge of wp jargon & processes for someone who began editing yesterday! Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is pretending not to understand IP addresses a fun way for you to avoid the topic? You have no evidence to support your belief that readers are idiots, so why not just admit that? 81.35.37.251 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach doesn't leave much room for any admission to the contrary but I'll do it anyway. I remember when I'm told, but otherwise, although it's not an alien jargon, I don't always know that that's exactly what that means in medical science. You'll just have to take my word for it that I'm not an idiot. The proposed version is a reasonable compromise in that it neither requires a wikilink to be a sentence long (the Teahouse objection), nor lay readers to click/hover over the link to know what it precisely means (Doc James' argument). Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 22:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've shown you that it's as common a term in the English language as "thunderstorm". You've offered me an anecdote. I don't believe your claim, but if you, yourself, genuinely struggle to remember what the term "incubation period" means, then you obviously are an idiot. For people like you, the wiki link is provided. For the general reader who understands the term just as clearly as they understand what a thunderstorm is, no patronising explanation is necessary. Unless you can provide actual evidence that readers are idiots and cannot understand a term despite its common use in English, I will remove the patronising explanation again. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted to "incubation period" without realizing it was a revert after being brought here by Wikipedia:Teahouse#How_long_should_hyperlink_titles_be?. Regardless of "hyperlink too long" issues, I do not think "incubation period" is esoteric enough to warrant a periphrase. I would expect north of 90% of people where I live (France) to know the term "période d'incubation" and be able to produce a simple definition ("delay between contamination and symptoms"); certainly, finer points of detail such as latent period etc. are not well-known but they are not relevant in context.
Now, maybe the French "man of the street" is more familiar with that exact topic than the "man of the street" in the UK, or US, or India; maybe the "man of the street" is more, or less, informed than the Wikipedia reader. I do not think there is much dissent about policy (I would disagree with the WP:MEDLEDE argument applied by DJ at the TH, but WP:JARGON is functionally equivalent). The question is whether "incubation period" qualifies as a technical term. I doubt anyone can be convinced either way, so it will probably come down to a headcount RfC (I know, consensus is not voting etc. etc. but the only real alternative is an edit war until one side surrenders).
Finally, if/when it is agreed that the periphrase should stay, I would put it after the shorter term: incubation period (delay between...) instead of delay between ... (incubation period). That way, readers familiar with the term can more easily skip the parenthetical. It is also the recommended way per WP:JARGON. I will edit this in shortly. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to have it first IMO. We could actually simple get ride of incubation period entirely as unneeded if we want to make it shorter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: - It is better to have it first IMO - because...? Again, complex term (simple explanation) is the way WP:JARGON says to use, not the other way around, and it is also easier to skip the part you don't need. I do not buy the argument that "incubation period" is too complex, but it's an argument. "I disagree" is not. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with Doc James. "Incubation period" is all that is required: It is a phrase of the complexity you could expect to hear on the evening news. I take issue with Johnbod's introduction of ad hominem and red herring fallacies during the discussion with 81.35.37.251. Vitreology (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC) (Edit: I am not opposed to [1], but I am opposed to [2] Vitreology (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Legionnaires' disease", Wikipedia, 2019-09-17, retrieved 2019-09-17
  2. ^ "Legionnaires' disease", Wikipedia, 2019-09-16, retrieved 2019-09-17
curious... I seem to disagree w/ your point Vitreology--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you? I guess I stand corrected then. Vitreology talk 16:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think incubation period by itself is acceptable. Readers not familiar with the term can easily navigate to that page to better understand. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with the IP editor above that adding an explanation for "incubation period" sounds patronizing, or at least overly verbose. Adding a wikilink to the term "incubation period" is more than enough for such a commonly used term. AlexEng(TALK) 19:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are unduly patronizing our readers by explaining a potentially misunderstood term. While many people do understand it, I strongly suspect that many people, including most younger readers, will not. If we keep WP:ONEDOWN in mind, I think it makes sense to at least explain the term briefly before using it. And while we could eliminate the term to make it shorter, I personally prefer keeping it in. CThomas3 (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throwing my two cents in, I have a hard time imagining the reader (whether adult or child, fluent in English or not), who will not understand the phrase "incubation period" but still understand the phrases "exposure to bacteria" and "appearance of symptoms", particularly where "exposure" is used in the medical sense ("contact") and not the common sense ("display"), and "appearance" is also used in a medical sense ("manifestation") and not necessarily the common sense ("visible display"). In the medical sense, one can look in a microscope and see bacteria without being "exposed" to them, and symptoms can "appear" that are invisible. So, I guess I'd argue not for "incubation period", but for something even simpler than Doc James' suggestion. That said, it needs to be said, that this is obviously a content dispute about which reasonable editors are disagreeing, and thus nobody should be edit warring (especially not anyone in a very high leadership position). – Levivich 21:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a technical term. It is not jargon. It is not potentially misunderstood. It is plain English. Wikipedia is written for adults, not children. According to google ngrams, the term "incubation period" occurs in the English language with a similar frequency to to the terms "thunderstorm", "gas station", "backpacking", "television program", and "large intestine".[3] Do you find any of those terms obscure or hard to understand? 81.35.37.251 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To quote I forget what movie: "that's just like, your opinion, man". You're putting way too much stock in Google N-grams. First, Google N-grams aren't very reliable; contrary to Google's claims, they do not actually contain all the books that were ever written, just a selection of them, and so N-grams are only as good as the corpus they're based on, and none of Google's corpuses (corpusi?) are terribly complete. (You'll find this point has been made like 100,000 times on Wikipedia; I don't have the research pointing out the flaws in Google N-grams handy, but I've seen others post it.) Second, even if you assume the corpus is valid (or at least it's the best we have to go on), you're conflating two concepts: language level, and the incidence of words. Just because a word appears commonly in books does not mean it's well-understood, or even that it's used commonly. You have to think about what is written in books and what is not written. You're not accounting for what portion of the corpus is medical texts, for example. Third, you're not accounting for the difference between what is written and what is spoken. Most people don't read or write very much at all, and the corpus won't include any verbal conversations, even though that's most of our communication. Hence, Google N-grams is a terrible way to determine whether a word is commonly understood or not.
And just to prove my point, here is an N-gram that shows that existentialism is more common than smelly – which word do you think people are more likely to understand? Google N-grams will tell you how often a word is used in formal writing, not how often a word is used overall. – Levivich 21:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are caveats. It is, however, an objective data point. No objective evidence has been put forward to support the claim that readers are too dumb to understand a simple term. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to say: "Uh huh. So, put forward evidence to support the claim that 'smelly' is more widely-undersood than 'existentialism', because I have an objective data point that says 'existentialism' is more understandable than 'smelly'." But that would just be screwing around with you. Let's get to the bottom of it: you're analyzing the situation incorrectly in a very basic way. First, this has nothing to do with whether readers are dumb or smart. This has to do with reading comprehension level, which is about education, not intelligence. Second, you have not provided any evidence that "incubation period" is a simple term. You're asserting simplicity without proving it, and then using that unproven premise to attack the straw man argument that "readers are too dumb". You might be more successful in convincing other editors of your point of view if you answered these questions (with appropriate reference to policies/guidelines and reliable sources): (1) For which reading comprehension level do we write? (2) Which reading comprehension level has vocabulary words like "incubation" (the noun not the verb) and "period" (time not punctuation)? – Levivich 23:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the first question: WP:ONEDOWN is the relevant policy. "The typical level where the topic is studied" could be argued. I would say somewhere in med school for the article's content, so let's say secondary school. For the second question, whether you did or did not learn the term at that level probably depends on the exact school you went to... (Personally, I remember learning the term in collège, not sure when exactly, but it was before 15.) TigraanClick here to contact me 09:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Here's a couple of interesting articles, one from 2012 about Wikipedia's readability in general, and one from 2017 about Wikipedia's articles on autoimmune diseases specifically. In both cases they indicate that we're generally writing at a far too advanced level for our audience. I find this quote in the former article appropriate for this discussion: Even when they try, it's difficult for advanced readers and writers to write to a lower reading level. It feels condescending, like you’re "dumbing it down," and also prevents you from using sentence structures and vocabulary that come to you naturally. It's hard work, and it's unnatural. But it’s also extremely important to do it right. CThomas3 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at a couple high school curriculums (curricula?) around the world, picking every developed country for which I was able to search for the curriculums (which means English-speaking countries plus France).
the long read with sources
  1. England: see "Health, disease and the development of medicines" in Key Stage 4 (age 14-16) (link says to study body defences against pathogens and the role of the immune system against disease.
  2. Scotland has no such thing as a national curriculum
  3. Northern Ireland has something but it's hard to cut through the mumbo-jumbo. The schedule to the legislative text only mentions that students should learn about "Organisms and Health" without much detail.
  4. Wales does not seem to include much study of disease in the science curriculum. It does include general hygiene i.e. "wash your hands" and sex ed i.e. "use condoms" in the non-science curriculum but that's probably not dealing with much science.
  5. Ireland: the curriculum website is here. It is not clear to me that biology requirements apply to all students (I doubt all students have to learn Arabic plus ancient Greek plus Russian), but here they are. The end of 3.5.3 includes some immunity response topics but it's not clear how detailed it is.
  6. Australia: link Students study how the invasion of an organism’s internal environment by pathogens (...) triggers a series of responses or events in the short- and long-term in order to maintain system function
  7. US seems to have no real federal-level curriculum. There is the Common Core State Standards Initiative but it does not cover biology.
  8. It seems to be even less organized in India.
  9. France: "Agents pathogènes et maladies vectorielles" (pathogens and zoonotic diseases, link in French) includes discussion of symptoms and factors for the transmission speed.
So, out of those who have a (meaningful) standard curriculum, England, Australia and France study symptom development and disease transmission mechanisms; I would say that is likely to mean the students hear the term "incubation period" at some point. On the other hand, Wales does not. For Ireland it's not clear.
If someone wants to do the analysis for the US and Indian states, be my guest. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is purely my own original research, but I have spent a lot of time working of farms in the US midwest, and I can assure you that, despite the US certainly teaching what the medical jargon "incubation period" means in public schools, to many farmers "incubation" has exactly one meaning; what happens in an Incubator. There are readers of the English Wikipedia who live in areas where there is no public education, or where education for females is illegal. Thinking that we can get away with not following MOS:MED just because we are familiar with a lot of medical jargon is a classic example of the western/industrial/first-world bias that is so common on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Technical terminology says:
"When mentioning technical terms (jargon) for the first time, provide a short plain-English explanation first, followed by the jargon in parentheses.." (emphasis added) If I had noticed this dispute earlier, I would have reverted to the version that conforms to MOS:MED.
If anyone here doesn't like our manual of style or thinks that following it is optional, the way to change it is to request a change is WP:MOSTALK, not to revert an editor who is following our existing standards for dealing with medical jargon. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK for MOS:MED putting the jargon last, that answers my question to Doc James above.
For the rest, well... We do expect a minimal level of education in our readers. As hinted by Vitreology below (with a level of sarcasm I do not approve of), someone who cannot read English or understand the most common concepts cannot use Wikipedia at all. If your hypothetical midwest farmer does not understand "incubation period", does he really understand "bacteria"? The guideline is WP:ONEDOWN, not WP:TENDOWN.
I mean, in that very article, the first sentence of the lead contains atypical pneumonia (a bluelink not synonymous with "a weird kind of pneumonia"). The rest of the lead contains "urinary antigen test" and "fluoroquinolones". I doubt those can be explained adequately to a reader who struggles with "incubation period". TigraanClick here to contact me 16:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tigraan: All jokes aside, time is a far more difficult concept to understand than incubation period, despite the fact that nearly every one of us would say the word time on at least a few occasions every day. Seriously: using just one simple sentence could you please try explaining time so that it can be understood by those of us who are less intelligent or educated than Steven Hawking or Albert Einstein? If you can do it, I'll be really impressed. Vitreology talk 16:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friends. I must have been asleep during my three science-based tertiary qualifications, because there are some parts of the sentence "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period)" which I find even more challenging than incubation period. For instance:
  1. Time
  2. Appearance
  3. Bacteria
So, could the group please also apply (WP:ONEDOWN) to these difficult terms as well? Thank you. Sincerely yours, Straw man...oops, sorry, I meant Vitreology talk 14:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we all acknowledge how very very clever you are with word games, but the fact is that "jargon" and "difficult concept to explain" are really quite different concepts. Try writing a parenthetical definition for "is" or "the" sometime. I suggest that you read our article on Jargon, take a short break from trying to score debating points, and try to wrap your mind around the basic concept of "jargon". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"incubation period" is not a technical term, nor jargon. It does not need to be explained as if it were. I have documented its frequency in a large English language corpus, and below, its frequent use in news articles without explanation. Nobody has presented any evidence to support the notion that it is hard to understand, nor even claimed that such evidence exists. Therefore, I have changed the article back to the non-patronising version. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You posted the sources below at 18:28, and then at 18:32 wrote that you were reverting. I don't think that's very helpful for consensus-based editing. Some of the sources you posted actually explain the term "incubation period", which completely undercuts your point. E.g., "incubation period for Ebola – the gap between an individual being infected and showing symptoms" and "The incubation period between being infected and showing symptoms is between three and 12 weeks." I haven't gone through them all yet. – Levivich 21:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I explicitly stated, one of the sources I posted explains the term. That doesn't undercut my point; it is my point. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page break 1[edit]

Here are the first 10 articles from each of the Guardian and the BBC when I searched them for the term:

  • https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29836550
    • Ebola, which is only spread through close contact with the bodily fluids of a sick patient, has an incubation period of up to 21 days, during which patients neither show symptoms nor are infectious.
  • https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29685127
    • They were subject to twice-daily monitoring during the 21-day incubation period
    • The WHO can declare an Ebola outbreak over if two incubation periods of 21 days pass with no new cases
    • Incubation period is two to 21 days

So that is 22 uses, 18 medical, 2 idiomatic uses, 2 with wording that could be considered to be explaining the term, though not really written in such a way, 1 accompanied by clearly explanatory text - so, it is used almost exclusively without any assumption that the reader will not know what it means. 81.35.37.251 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First ten articles from a search of the New York Times:
  • [4] The time between infection and signs of illness, or the incubation period, is about...
  • [5] ...had symptoms of AIDS 9.8 years after they were infected with the virus, an incubation period...
  • [6] This initial phase takes one to four days. “The more you inhale, the shorter the incubation period[...]In the beginning, you don’t feel sick. You don’t even know it’s there.”
  • [7] the incubation period — the interval before symptoms set in —
  • [8] Not explained explicitly but the whole article is basically about it
  • [9] Not really explained
  • [10] ...incubation period of seven to 14 days, then becomes a full-blown illness[...]may lurk undetected in its victim...
  • [11] Precisely how long does it take to develop (the so-called incubation period)?
  • [12] The incubation period — the time it takes to get sick after being exposed to the virus —
  • [13] Quarantine applies to healthy, disease-free individuals or animals that might develop an infection after a variable and ­asymptomatic “incubation period.” CThomas3 (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And here are what I get from the first ten article of the BBC when I search it:
  • [14] The incubation period before symptoms develop is usually a month.
  • [15] The incubation period before the symptoms start to develop can be anything between six weeks and six months.
  • [16] Not explained
  • [17] The time taken between infection and the appearance of symptoms is called the incubation period. (emphasis in original)
  • [18] Not explained
  • [19] "incubation period" is one of the quiz questions
  • [20] Following infection, there is a very long incubation period before symptoms of the disease occur.
  • [21] Not explained
  • [22] Not explained
  • [23] Not explained, but uses Symptoms of pneumonic plague occur 2-3 days after infection after using The incubation period for bubonic plague is 2-10 days in the previous paragraph CThomas3 (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All you have done is demonstrated that some publications that are aimed at an educated first-world audience use medical jargon without explaining it. The English Wikipedia is read by people all over the world, not just in the US, Canada, and Europe.
What part of "When mentioning technical terms (jargon) for the first time, provide a short plain-English explanation first, followed by the jargon in parentheses." are you having trouble understanding?.
Go ahead. Use the word "patronising" again. See what happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly will happen, Guy? Are you threatening 81.35.37.251? Vitreology talk 04:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If by "threat" you are asking will I sue him, beat him up, or even say mean things about him, of course not. If by "threat" you mean will I seek to have him blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated incivility and personal attacks, then yes. I am "threatening" him. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vitreology: I will block the IP, or anyone else after a warning, if they resume sniping. The issue for this talk page concerns wording in the article, not characteristics of editors. Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page break 2[edit]

@Johnuniq:: When I googled '"sniping" [24] the top two definitions given were "the action of shooting at someone from a hiding place, especially accurately and at long range." and "the action of verbally attacking someone in a sly or petty way."
Do you agree that "sniping" pretty much means an attacking a person (ie, an ad hominem argument) which is petty, cowardly and pointed?
By asserting that an editor's comments are "sniping", you are ipso facto asserting that the editor's comments are also petty.
Does everyone agree?
By accusing an editor of "sniping" you are asserting that the editor's arguments are petty (amongst other things). You are allowed to feel that that way, but I do not believe that is the role of administrators to be the judge and jury of whether an editor's concerns are petty.

However, moving on, I would really like something constructive to emerge from this.

I would genuinely appreciate it if you could teach me (and others) the most appropriate way of making a legitimate and important point, without being accused of engaging in sniping.
For instance, if during a talk page discussion, an editor feels another editor has compelling track record of being WP:disruptive, provoking an WP:editwar to make a WP:point about their own hierarchy, what would be the best way of raising their point for serious consideration by everyone involved without falling foul of any Wikipedia policies?
I'm asking for your recommendation here with the utmost sincerity.

Thank you, Vitreology talk 06:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vitreology, I specifically mentioned how, in the Teahouse thread, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1015#How_long_should_hyperlink_titles_be?. Take it to their talk page, or WP:ANI. Focus on content on article talk pages. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 07:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vitreology: I am reluctantly replying here to avoid the turmoil that might have resulted from what I should have done, namely remove this subsection as off-topic and copy it to your talk with my reply.
The word "sniping" is colloquial English. For examples, try this search of WP:AN and WP:ANI to see 455 usages of that word. Debating a word's precise meaning is rarely helpful in the context of a talk page—it should have been obvious that commments such as this, albeit toned down from the original, are not appropriate here. The guideline is WP:TPG but common sense shows that such comments are not useful for resolving a disagreement. The principle, for an article talk page, is often summed as comment on edits, not editors.
Re the request for a recommendation, I'm afraid that is way outside my power. Actually, it is beyond anyone's power although you can read the formal advice at WP:DR. Wikipedia has no good way of dealing with content disputes when talented people start butting heads. I would hope that after any last words added here (I am most unlikely to reply on this page), everyone will observe comment on edits, not editors. If someone was being all those bad things, they might be reported at WP:ANI but I would not advise that because the issue is quite trivial by ANI's standards. However, if an editor were to prolong a disagreement over a handful of words with slow edit warring and pointy commentary, they might be reported at ANI. This answer was written before I saw Usedtobecool's reply—that reply is probably all that need be said. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation Period: Plain English or Medical Jargon?[edit]

Let's have a fresh start here, and calmly and rationally discuss what the content of this page should be. I would suggest posting a brief summary of your argument if it is discussed in the previous sections.

Right now the candidates are:

The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms (incubation period) is generally 2–10 days, but can rarely extend to as long as 20 days.

This appears to be supported by:

  • Cthomas3
  • Doc James
  • Guy Macon
  • Johnbod
  • Ozzie10aaaa
  • Usedtobecool
  • Levivich
  • TylerDurden8823 (or the 3rd alternative mentioned below sounds fine)

(Feel free to insert further names here or to move your name if you don't support this version)

The incubation period is generally 2–10 days, but can rarely extend to as long as 20 days.

This appears to be supported by:

  • AlexEng
  • Tigraan
  • UWM.AP.Endo
  • Vitreology
  • 81.35.37.251   (Blocked sockpuppet of long term abuser WP:BKFIP)

(Feel free to insert further names here or to move your name if you don't support this version)

In addition, there appear to be some comments / edits by administrators who are not WP:INVOLVED in the actual content dispute. I tried not to count any of those.

So, after any edits to the above because I got something wrong, is anyone willing to change their position on this? Do we need an RfC to bring in opinions from uninvoled editors in order to reach a consensus? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for doing this, Guy Macon. I support an RfC. I'm not willing to change my position on this, at this stage. Cheers, Vitreology talk 12:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you don't mind my refactoring, Guy (feel free to revert or change it further if you do), but I moved my name up to the first group, and also struck the BKFIP IP. – Levivich 15:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feeling a bit stupid now, realising I was supporting a long-term repeat-offending sockpuppet. Sorry. Vitreology talk 16:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Vitreology, don't feel stupid! There's no way you or any of us could have known that, and if you hold a view that happens to be shared by an LTA, that doesn't in any way invalidate your view. For example, Hitler, Stalin and I all agree that the sun rises in the east. – Levivich 16:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK I'm just going to make it a little complicated and suggest this third alternative, but I'm totally good with the first alternative above unless others think this formulation is better (that is, I wouldn't oppose the first in favor of the third, nor insist the third be included in an RfC, unless there was support from others for it):
      The length of time between contact with bacteria and symptoms developing (incubation period) ... – Levivich 15:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no preference. this or the first are both fine with me. I still maintain that using just the medical jargon without an explanation assumes an educated first-world reader. I just don't see someone living in west Africa with no education or someone in a US elementary school automatically knowing what an incubation period is. I also reject the argument that there exists other jargon that we don't explain. Those should be fixed as well. Alas, several editors disagree. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Absolutely agreed with you. I was trying to show that some publications, even those aimed at educated first-world readers, actually do explain the term, as should we. CThomas3 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned about assuming reader knowledge here. I have definitely met a lot of people that I thought would understand a basic concept like this one and they didn't because their health literacy was so extremely poor. Personally, I would favor keeping it as simple as possible. As Guy said, much of Wikipedia is already written at a reading level that is too high for a general readership. It remains an ongoing endeavor to simplify these areas. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Guy Macon Thanks for the summary. Also happy with User:Levivich's wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a library of research showing that perfectly intelligent people don't understand, or wrongly understand, medical terms that seem very basic to those in the game. And that's just native speakers, while our medical content is very widely read indeed. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guy Macon: Another alternative: I think The incubation period (delay between <blah blah>) (which I edited in here) is a viable option (at least I find it superior to candidate 1 and I expect those who support candidate 1 would prefer it to candidate 2, so it could be a Condorcet winner even if it's a second choice to most). I still support the no-explanation wording in light of the (now-blocked) IP's and CThomas3's search of the newspapers. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there is no reason to invent a new way of writing here. As explained above, WP:MEDMOS includes When mentioning technical terms (jargon) for the first time, provide a short plain-English explanation first, followed by the jargon in parentheses. There is also no reason to invest all this attention in one word—just do it the way the guideline says. Alternatively, go to the guideline's talk page and argue that it should be changed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if we consider a situation where an explaination of incubation period is necessary, "The length of time between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms" is such a damn awkward way to describe this concept.
      • Are we also assuming that the word duration is also too complex?
      • The word delay is even more informative than anything else that has been suggested.
        • I propose alternative as option number (n+1):

          "The delay between exposure to the bacteria and the appearance of symptoms"

          Vitreology talk 09:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is nothing wrong with the current wording! It's short, it's clear, and it does the job. Surely there are other problems at Wikipedia where people's talents could be applied? Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            Johnuniq, I'm treating this as a precident for the level of verbosity required for very slightly obscure terms. The consensus reached here will have a significant impact on the way I edit. Vitreology talk 11:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            That would be a big mistake. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Either follow the existing guideline or go to the guideline's talk page and argue that it should be changed. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are we even discussing this or taking a vote then? From what you're saying, it is the wrong forum to have this debate. If I thought this debate was just relevant to this specific change on this specific article I would lost interest a long time ago. If this is a serious debate on jargon, could someone please organise it in a way that will have meaningful outcomes?
If nobody is prepared to do so, please remove my vote, because I couldn't care less about the presence or absence of couple of words, if the scope of the impact is confined to just this specific article. Colossal waste of time, if that is the case. Vitreology talk 14:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing this because some editors, including you, disagreed. If you no longer disagree, please strike your !vote. You gave no indication that you had failed to read and understand Wikipedia:Consensus, and as soon as you indicated that you mistakenly believed that a handful of editors having a discussion on an obscure talk page can change Wikipedia's policies site-wide I corrected you.
Here are the key policies and guidelines that all Wikipedia editors expected to know:
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: If "incubation period" is a "technical term" for the purpose of WP:MEDMOS, then yes, MEDMOS applies and says explanation first, term later. I disagree on the premise though, and think the term alone would suffice. However, I have no strong opposition to (term, then explanation) (see above for why I prefer it to (explanation, then term)), and I suppose this is massively more popular than (term alone) for the "MEDMOS applies" camp.

Should the upcoming RfC determine that it is not in fact a technical term for the purpose of MEDMOS, it makes sense to have something palatable to everyone rather than declare the "MEDMOS applies" camp's arguments invalid. The RfC must be a clear choice, but not necessarily a binary one. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After all the discussion above, are you seriously contemplating running an RfC? There is no more pressing problem at Wikipedia other than arguing about the established text which clearly complies with the relevant guideline? Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the first part, that's pretty much textbook WP:DR when a "standard" discussion fails to come to a consensus. (The second part is WP:OSE/begging the question.) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tigraan, It makes me so happy when someone successfully calls someone else out for using fallacies. Bravo. Vitreology talk 08:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The claim "when a 'standard' discussion fails to come to a consensus" is factually incorrect. The consensus is currently 8 to 3 in favor of "incubation period" being a technical term (jargon) for the purpose of WP:MEDMOS compliance, and I expect the consensus at any RfC to be even more overwhelming. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, Go have a read of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:VOTE. A straw poll has been used to evaluate whether a consensus has been reached - and it has not. Therefore, further comment is required to bring us closer to a consensus. Hence, an RfC is absolutely required. Your reference to WP:SNOW is completely absurd and raises the question of whether you even understand this process at all.
A straw poll has indicated that we have not reached a consensus given the available options. Thus, there is obviously more than a 'snowball's change in hell' that, through further discussion, a consensus will be reached for any of the above options. Perhaps, further discussion during an RfC will help develop a brand new option which is easier to build consensus around. Vitreology talk 15:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with your inability to understand the difference between "I expect X to be..." (a statement of opinion about what I believe the result will be) and "I know that X will be..." (an assertion about what the result will be). If you feel that an RfC is required, feel free to post one and see what happens. You don't need my permission. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of Legionnaires' disease[edit]

Here is some interesting reading about the CDC's effort to identify Legionnaires' disease during the Philadelphia Outbreak: The Source: An American Outbreak of Death and Panic. It provides the history this wiki article lacks, like how Dr. Joe McDade, who was a rickettsial researcher, isolated the bug and why other specialties missed it.

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of the disease[edit]

Wouldn't it be beneficial to include where the name "Legionnaire's Disease" originated? Bubbecraft (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legionnaire's suspected cause of Argentina pneumonia deaths (BBC)[edit]

Legionnaire's suspected cause of Argentina pneumonia deaths
Health officials in Argentina have said that an infectious pneumonia outbreak which killed four people may have been caused by Legionnaire's disease.
Seven other cases have been found, most at a clinic in the northern province of Tucuman where the deaths occurred.

...

Doctors trying to determine the cause of the flu-like symptoms ruled out Covid-19, flu and the hantavirus - a severe respiratory disease carried by rodents - after testing the patients in the city of San Miguel de Tucuman.
The symptoms included high fevers, body aches and breathing difficulties.
Officials said the symptoms first appeared in six cases related to the facility which developed between 18 and 23 August.

...

Argentinian Health Minister Carla Vizzotti said on Saturday that the authorities were working to ensure the clinic was safe for all.

BBC news - [ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-62785348 ]

- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:900D:2B9C:BDBD:6F47 (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legionnaires%27_disease&oldid=1195076782"