Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 4 March 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / European / German / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force

Name

The article isn't really about the profession as such, it seems to be mainly about research into lice in Lwow. Only minor sections talk about the profession, if it can be called that. Shouldn't the article's name therefore be changed?Malick78 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no it's not. It's about the profession although - I think very understandably - I provide a description of the research involved. Now, how about you stop stalking my edits and harassing me every time I "disagree" with you on some other unrelated article - which in this case just involved me adding a citation after you added a "cn" tag. You're being immature, unnecessarily vindictive and disruptive. Please don't continue this kind of behavior.VolunteerMarek 22:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned your edits. Do you own this article? As for the description of the research - it seems to be 90% of the article. That's too much surely. Oh, and assume good faith please.Malick78 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, it's not 90% of the article. Now stop it.VolunteerMarek 23:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, what percentage would you say? Either way, it seems to me to not be about the profession. That's a problem. And no, I won't "stop it". It's not your page and my point is relevant.Malick78 (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The name seems fine to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the name. This article is discussing the occupation feeder of lice. Since rhesus monkeys cannot hold an occupation (nor are they allowed to sign the required paperwork to hold one), the use of lice on said monkeys doesn't apply to the topic of this article. Silverseren 05:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So an article on automobile factory workers also shouldn't mention that their job is now done by machines, because machines can't have a profession. Thats nonsense.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't have anything to compare it to. We don't even have an article on the general Factory worker, it just redirects to factory. But, anyways, I could see a mention that machines are both taking jobs away and making life easier for those workers still employed. But I can't see anything more than a paragraph being added in such an instance, since the machines are not employed factory workers. Any more info and the machines should have a separate article.

The same is true here. I could see a mention that feeding of lice is now done on rhesus monkeys rather than on humans, but only a mention is appropriate. Any more and it should be a separate article. Silverseren 18:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with putting in something about the monkeys in the final section, but as Silver seren says, it would be just a couple of sentences. The obvious significance/notability of the profession is 1) that humans had to be used at some point and 2) that it allowed a lot of brilliant academics to survive WWII. The source about the monkeys you provided though just seemed to suggest that this kind of thing was done on them now - it would be nice to have a source which directly outlines the development of the process from Weigl to modern day. Unfortunately the medical side of things is a bit out of my area of expertise.VolunteerMarek 18:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I do think that for the article to be located at this title (as opposed to for example "Typhus research in Lwow") it would be good to set it into the larger context of medical experiments on humans, typhus research and if possible other experiments that have required lice to be fed somehow and therefore would have employed "feeders of lice" (if such exist).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's why I put in the part about Nicolle infecting the chimp in there. For more modern developments I'll have to search around though. Btw, any search for "feeder of lice" or the Polish, "karmiciel wszy", is going to yields hits which are precisely about this subject. There's even some stuff in (Polish) popular culture and I believe the phrase appears in some dictionaries. So the article currently is very much on topic - aligned with the title - though of course it can be expanded to some degree.VolunteerMarek 19:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a great article by the way and I think it deserves B class.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it's still off topic and rambles. Btw, it says that he first used guinea pigs (no ref given), but here in 1 c) it says he used pigs. Which is right?

Since this is about the profession, what was the psychological effect on the feeders? It can't have been nice doing it.Malick78 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Scope

Is the article only about the particular research in Lwow or also about subsequent research on louse-borne diseases? this suggests that the job still exists today but is carried out by rhesus macaques. I am sympathetic both to the focus on the amazing story of the Lwow research and to the appeal of the striking title "feeder of lice" instead of something more prosaic such as "Human experiments in Typhus research" (which does somehow feels more like the title of an encyclopedia entry), but I think Malick has a point that there may be a mismatch between the article title and its current scope. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am also having troubles finding sources that have "feeder of lice" as their topic. There are many that mention the "job", especially biographies of Stefan Banach or other holocaust survivors but I am not sure that the coverage of the "job" is broad enough relative to other aspects of the research to warrant this title.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the feeders in Lwow. Most of the stuff about subsequent research on the typhus vaccine - though of course I mention it briefly here - belongs in the typhus article. Thanks for the monkey link - I'll try to find out some more details and maybe add something about it to the article.

As to the title, "feeder of lice" is a job description which is what the article's about. The analogous article on Polish Misplaced Pages is under "Karmiciel wszy" - i.e. feeder of lice. Now, the info about the profession usually appears in sources in three ways:

1. Sources about Rudolf Weigl and his work.

2. Sources about one of the feeders.

3. Sources about World War II in general.

AFAIK there's no single dedicated work to the profession, nor any work dedicated to any kind of broader phenomenon which could suggest an alternative title. Still all three kinds of sources use the phrase "feeder of lice" or "karmiciel wszy" to refer to the profession. Hence I do think that it's the best - and in fact only - title.

On coverage - well, to explain what a lice feeder did, there is a need to provide some background; what did they produce, why they produced it, how did they produced it. That's why I put in the detailed "Procedure" section. But the article is still primarily about the people who worked as lice feeders.VolunteerMarek 22:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What about "Lice feeder"? It seems slightly more natural than "Feeder of lice". It gets some hits, half as many as FoL, but then maybe this article's existence has upped the latter count.

Regarding scope, if the "article is about the feeders in Lwow", then that should be the title, not something that suggests a general account of the profession is the aim. It's worth remembering that the Polish version of this article is short for this reason - it sticks to the point.Malick78 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Poland articles
• Low-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• C-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles