| Revision as of 16:34, 31 March 2016 editAndy Dingley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers160,200 edits →Garbage content based on garbage sources← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:11, 31 March 2016 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Garbage content based on garbage sources: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| :::: If you want better sources, then get better sources. Everyone likes sources. I see zero reason though to disbelieve the US Army source, a copy of which is conveniently available through Scribd - uploaded by an account which claims to ''be'' a US Army publications office, and has made seven thousand similar uploads to demonstrate this. To claim that this source now fails WP:RS is some sort of tinfoil-hat ] and you are on your own with that one. To describe the widely cited GE paper as "a fake reference to some putative GE report" though is just being abusive of other editors who do not deserve your bile. You need to ''cut that out'', you did enough of it on the last article. | :::: If you want better sources, then get better sources. Everyone likes sources. I see zero reason though to disbelieve the US Army source, a copy of which is conveniently available through Scribd - uploaded by an account which claims to ''be'' a US Army publications office, and has made seven thousand similar uploads to demonstrate this. To claim that this source now fails WP:RS is some sort of tinfoil-hat ] and you are on your own with that one. To describe the widely cited GE paper as "a fake reference to some putative GE report" though is just being abusive of other editors who do not deserve your bile. You need to ''cut that out'', you did enough of it on the last article. | ||
| :::: Any air force handbook on radar will cover the handling hazards of RF insulators. I'd cite the RAF manuals myself, except that lack of bookshelf means they're packed inaccessibly and, given the presence of the entirely credible US Army pamphlet, I feel no need to dig them out. ] (]) 16:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC) | :::: Any air force handbook on radar will cover the handling hazards of RF insulators. I'd cite the RAF manuals myself, except that lack of bookshelf means they're packed inaccessibly and, given the presence of the entirely credible US Army pamphlet, I feel no need to dig them out. ] (]) 16:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Please discuss not contributors. If you accept the US Army source, then perhaps you would also accept that sure appears to be from ] based on the account name. I will take the ScribD to RSN. I will not fuss over the GE reference anymore as apparently you have dug in your heels accepting garbage sources. Now that it is out of the lead I care less. ] (]) 18:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:11, 31 March 2016
 | Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Berylliosis.
|
 | Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Occupational Safety and Health Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alan.taylor2013 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mdahm85.
 | The contents of the Acute beryllium poisoning page were merged into Berylliosis. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Exposure to fluorescent lighting???
The article surely means to say exposure to the contents of fluorescent lights, right? Delmlsfan (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
References and Ext Links
The reference linked from "The condition is incurable, but symptoms can be treated" makes no mention of treatment. The External Link to about.com is no longer active. Replaced them both. Fenwayguy (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Should be merged?
Should this article perhaps be merged with Beryllium poisoning? User:MacSpon —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC).
Merger proposal
- 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.
- The result of this discussion was to Keep both articles, consolidating pulmonary complications in Berylliosis and remaining toxicities of beryllium in Beryllium poisoning. -- Scray (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
As suggested by User:MacSpon above, it is clear to me that the content of Berylliosis should be merged into Beryllium poisoning because the latter is much more mature. That said, the name "berylliosis" seems preferable, because it is the term most commonly used in reliable sources, such as secondary sources found in PubMed. Therefore, I'm proposing that Berylliosis as the destination with a redirect from Beryllium poisoning. MeSH also has the term "beryllium/toxicity", which could be a redirect as well. -- Scray (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support overhaul of the two articles, either merger or moving all of the berylliosis content from Beryllium poisoning into Berylliosis save for a sentence or two referring out to it. Berylliosis itself seems like a notable topic, so keeping them as two separate articles would be in keeping with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE when a subtopic forks off. But I oppose Berylliosis as the single merged article because the poisoning article has substantial content about other exposure-routes and effects. DMacks (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose complete merger that only leaves a redirect. Unless I'm missing something, poisoning can happen to any species (and is a toxicological article), whereas berylliosis is a specific human disease (a disease article). The conceptual differences are significant enough to keep separate articles. Of course, I'm sure there are lots of improvements to be made to these two articles. Moving some text over would probably be appropriate and almost certainly non-controversial, but I haven't spent a lot of time looking. Does anyone know if that would require attributing things as is described at Help:Merging#Selective_paste_merger? Biosthmors (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would not be opposed to this approach in principle, but the beryllium article and the two in question currently have zero content on animal toxicity (and I don't know how notable that topic is). So, absent evidence that animal toxicity is independently notable (rather than as a model for human toxicity) I see no reason for 2 articles on toxicity and disease. -- Scray (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a source that is a likely public domain (and tertiary, it seems). Any thoughts? Biosthmors (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- I would not be opposed to this approach in principle, but the beryllium article and the two in question currently have zero content on animal toxicity (and I don't know how notable that topic is). So, absent evidence that animal toxicity is independently notable (rather than as a model for human toxicity) I see no reason for 2 articles on toxicity and disease. -- Scray (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Transfer the respiratory information to "Berylliosis". There is just enough non-respiratory information to justify keeping the generic article "Beryllium poisoning", notably the occupational exposure limits. "Berylliosis" should be linked from "Beryllium poisoning" as a "main article" on respiratory effects. Axl ¤ 11:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Support merging Beryllium poisoning into Berylliosis, Oppose merging Berylliosis into Beryllium poisoning. We do not have an article on Asbestos poisoning. Instead it redirects to Asbestosis. We do have an articles on Mercury poisoning and Lead poisoning. That's because eating or drinking certain compounds of lead or mercury will poison you, while the same is not true of asbestos. See . (A quick look found nothing one way or the other on ingested beryllium poisoning; if here is a RS showing that ingested beryllium is poisonous, then I will reconsider.)--Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know much about this topic, but both Beryllium poisoning#Ingestion and Beryllium poisoning#Dermatological effects are cited. DMacks (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Concerning dermatological effects, Asbestos and fiberglass can also cause local irritation and contact dermatitis, but nobody calls that "fiberglass poisoning". Concerning ingestion, the section you cite says "Swallowing beryllium has not been reported to cause effects in humans" It does appear that at least on 1935 study showed effects in rats (and perhaps dogs -- the dog sample was quite small) from beryllium carbonate.
- I don't know much about this topic, but both Beryllium poisoning#Ingestion and Beryllium poisoning#Dermatological effects are cited. DMacks (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- While researching the above, I ran into Median lethal dose. It has some interesting figures:
- Water: 90,000 mg/kg
- Table salt: 3000 mg/kg
- Aspirin: 200 mg/kg
- Beryllium carbonate: 150 mg/kg
- Sodium cyanide: 6.4 mg/kg
- Beryllium oxide 0.5 mg/kg
- Based upon the above, I have stricken my previous vote. We really need to get the above information into the beryllium poisoning article. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Garbage content based on garbage sources
I removed this from lead while I was cleaning up this article in response to this thread at ANI.
...As an occupational lung disease, it is most classically associated with aerospace manufacturing, beryllium mining or manufacturing of fluorescent light bulbs (which once contained beryllium compounds in their internal phosphor coating).
And it was reverted here. The first source purports to be some army document, but it is something that has been uploaded to ScribD so who knows where it came from. Someone else saw fit to to add a fake reference to some putative GE report and use that ref to argue about whether Be was ever in fluorescent light bulbs. That is garbage arguing with garbage, and in the lead of this (yes, per the reverting edit note) important topic. This stuff was discussed no where in the body, and anything that is in the lead should be discussed in the body in detail, and should only be in the lead if it is actually important, per WP:LEAD. So yes, I deleted this garbage based on garbage sources. I included sourced content in the body about the occupational hazard bit and relevant industries, right in the first section.
References
-
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine. "USACHPPM: Just the Facts: Beryllium Exposure & Berylliosis". Retrieved 2013-11-10.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - General Electric Fluorescent Lamps TP 111R, Dec. 1978, says on pg. 23 that since 1949 GE lamps used relatively inert phosphates found to be safe in ordinary handling of either the intact or broken lamp.
-Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- User:Andy Dingley Please actually look at source 2 and tell me why it says "General Electric Fluorescent Lamps TP 111R, Dec. 1978, says on pg. 23 that since 1949 GE lamps used relatively inert phosphates found to be safe in ordinary handling of either the intact or broken lamp." and please tell me where I can find this source to even verify what it says, based on the information provided in this citation. Please also tell me why you find source 1 to be reliable. Jytdog (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- How did your "disparage every editor and every source, despite knowing nothing about the subject" strategy work for you on RepRap project? Maybe you'll get three adverse media mentions for Misplaced Pages this time round?
- You are questioning a fraction of what is there behind your large and wholly unwarranted deletion. You are blanking a significant section on the grounds that a Scribd host might have been used to edit a document to fake claims of beryllium toxicity, all on the proof by authority of your own ignorance. You are prepared to edit-war single-handedly to 4RR to defend your position over it.
- I haven't read the GE source, I don't know how much GE used beryllia in domestic fluorescent tubes, but reaching for the first lighting source off my own shelves confirmed what is common knowledge to anyone around power electronics, that beryllia is and was used as an insulator. The GE paper is widely cited elsewhere, so seems credible. I know it best from microwaves, where it's a significant hazard - open up any jet fighter and you'll see beryllium warning stickers around the radar and UHF radio transmitters. As it's transparent, it's also useful in lighting.
- As to risks of beryllium oxide formed accidentally as a corrosion product of machining the metal, then there's a cleanup site for it two cities from here. Nasty stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming to Talk. You have not responded to a) why this argument about Be being fluorescent bulbs is being fought out in the lead in refs or b) the reliability of the scribD ref, and c) your discussion of the GE source is not on point; we need enough information from the citation to actually find the ref to verify what it says and there is not enough information there to be able to find it. (Nor have you dealt with this badly sourced content being only in the lead and not in the body which is not what WP:LEADs are all about - which I have now dealt with by moving this content into the body, so that is now moot.) I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to a "large and wholly unwarranted deletion" - we are talking about one sentence and two garbage references.
- Please address the issues with the two sources. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- No one has said this is perfect. Your last edits are reasonable and I have no problem with them. Maybe some more of this belongs in the lead, but yes the main coverage of the topic does belong in the body.
- The problem is your editing style: I have encountered you twice, both times you have displayed this same really problematic WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. You have disparaged articles as "Garbage content", "garbage sources" and by implication, garbage editors. You certainly have no problem edit-warring with other people whom I know to be familiar with the topic in hand. This is not acceptable. It wasn't acceptable last week when you did it, it's not acceptable this week now you're doing it again.
- If you want better sources, then get better sources. Everyone likes sources. I see zero reason though to disbelieve the US Army source, a copy of which is conveniently available through Scribd - uploaded by an account which claims to be a US Army publications office, and has made seven thousand similar uploads to demonstrate this. To claim that this source now fails WP:RS is some sort of tinfoil-hat epistemology and you are on your own with that one. To describe the widely cited GE paper as "a fake reference to some putative GE report" though is just being abusive of other editors who do not deserve your bile. You need to cut that out, you did enough of it on the last article.
- Any air force handbook on radar will cover the handling hazards of RF insulators. I'd cite the RAF manuals myself, except that lack of bookshelf means they're packed inaccessibly and, given the presence of the entirely credible US Army pamphlet, I feel no need to dig them out. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please discuss not contributors. If you accept the US Army source, then perhaps you would also accept this diploma that sure appears to be from Universidad de Morón based on the account name. I will take the ScribD to RSN. I will not fuss over the GE reference anymore as apparently you have dug in your heels accepting garbage sources. Now that it is out of the lead I care less. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)