Talk:Louse-feeder

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^C 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^C 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)

Thanks. I hope to get it up to GA eventually though for that it needs some more work and a bit more content. Two things which are missing is the link with modern lice feeding as you point out, but also a discussion of lice feeders in Nazi concentration camps, which was a different phenomenon (there it was pretty much a death sentence) though related enough so that it should get some treatment here.

Speaking of that, Piotrus, I assume you're familiar with Kaczmarski's song "Nawiedzona, wiek dwudziesty". How would you translate "nawiedzona" in this context?VolunteerMarek 20:28, 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)

Malick, I'm gonna only tell you one more time: stop trolling my articles. As to your concerns: yes, a ref is given for the guinea pigs, right at the end of the paragraph, as is standard practice for DYK articles. Read the source. And the answer to your question is "both pigs and guinea pigs" (the pigs didn't work out and guinea pigs weren't all that good either), which you'd know if you had actually bothered to read the source you link to rather than just trying to find non-existent problems with the article. Here's a clue: go to the source you link to. Press control-F. Type in "pig" in the search field. Look at ALL (all 2 of them) mentions of the word pig.VolunteerMarek 20:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, just helping (didn't the other stuff I added today help?). And really, it's not your article. Time to get over it. WP is collaborative. Malick78 (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Malick78, stop picking fights by accusing him of WP:OWN. If it's true you are WP:HOUNDING this editor, it's much easier to show/prove than OWN, and more serious. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

VM and I have only been communicating on Western Betrayal (which he instigated, not me), on his talk page (because he wrongly deleted info I added on the Western Betrayal article without explaining why in his edit summary (and I wrote on his talk page to avoid an edit war)), this page, and its DYK page. That's not anything like hounding ("joining discussions on multiple pages or topics [an editor] may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work"). Our contact is restricted to this issue. Previously, we'd last interacted in November (only briefly, it was mainly in September the last long interaction) - here, where he made seemingly (to my mind), petty and pedantic complaints about an article I had started (and which the Polish cabal unsuccessfully, and again pettily, tried to AFD). I see no hounding from me. There was a long gap until he (wrongly) deleted the info I added on the Western Betrayal article. Really, I'm happy to ignore him - but when I see something that can be improved (e.g. this article's title) I'm not going to ignore it just because it has a connection with VM. Now, please stop making accusations just because VM has made them. He's being over-sensitive and there's no reason to join him in it. Malick78 (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lice feeders

This title sounds more natural, to be honest. It's used here in a 1949 newspaper report. "Feeders of lice" sounds like a horrible Polish translation.Malick78 (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Human hosts feeding lice" might be an alternative title , which could be piped here.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Human lice feeders"? The newspaper linked to above uses that, and it sounds better. Malick78 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, "Feeders of lice" or "Feeder of lice" is just fine. For the newspaper link info, we need a secondary, not a primary source.VolunteerMarek 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a secondary source. It's not the scientists or lice feeders talking. Aren't all the other sources we use just using the word "feeders of lice" and the article is taking that to be the term? Same thing. Or is there one which says "The English term for these people is..."? Chyba nie. Malick78 (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree.

Alternative names can be piped here, as usual.

The suggestion "human lice feeders" concatenates three nouns and so sounds Germanic.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense. English being a Germanic language, I'd have thought Germanic sounding is better than Slavic, wouldn't you? Malick78 (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please control yourself, if you are not trolling. Your argument suggests that this is Saxon Wikipedia. "Feeder of lice" sounds like a fine offering from the smörgasbord of modern English. Consider reading about the Norman conquest and French's influence on English.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Again not trolling, see my additions today to this page please and assume good faith. My comment didn't seem too different from your previous one in tone. to be honest. As for French's influence. Sure, there's a lot. But a) English is still Germanic and b) are you saying FoL is similar to French? If not, what's your point? FoL still sounds alien to a native English speaker. Malick78 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether you are a native English speaker or not is irrelevant. There are plenty of native English speakers who cannot speak coherently and are illiterate. You lack competence to assess whether prose is English or not, and we have had enough of your trolling and harassment of Volunteer Marek.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about the article, not him. How is that harrassing him? And what on earth does "You lack competence to assess whether prose is English or not" mean? Have I made some bad spelling mistakes or something? Malick78 (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Scope

Is the article only about the particular research in Lwow or also about subsequent research on louse-borne diseases? [1] 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 Wikipedia 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)

In the media

There was even a film with them in :) Malick78 (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

B-class

Confirmed for WPPOLAND per MILHIST review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Spotted typhus

The article speaks of "Spotted typhus". Is it possible to define this expression ? Thanks. Marvoir (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feeder of lice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817165333/http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/pdf/virtial_wall/poland.pdf to http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/pdf/virtial_wall/poland.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)