Talk:Antibiotic/Archive 2

BBC News

Soliciting feedback on whether the following source should be cited in the article, or whether it may be wiser to wait for further progress in the research: Antibiotics: US discovery labelled 'game-changer' for medicine, BBC News. IjonTichy (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Gallagher, a BBC reporter on health and medicine, has been on the beat for several years with several previous related articles under his belt. He drew comment from Dr James Mason at Kings College London, who looks like a reliable source for the comment. The primary paper in Nature is also discussed in its editorial. If there's ever a case where a primary source should be used, this would be an example. That said, there is wp:NODEADLINE, and the primary paper is only about lab work, methodology, and mouse trials. I'd just watch for a proper review article - it likely won't be a long wait. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side-effects and Administration

People who take antibiotics, INCLUDING those who have been recently hospitalized and received intravenous (IV) antibiotics, may develop diarrhea caused by Clostridium difficile bacteria. C. difficile can cause severe diarrhea. Diarrhea caused by this bacterium usually requires medical treatment. http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/diarrhea-caused-by-antibiotics

ee1518 (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antibiotic cycle

What is the importance of completing the entire antibiotic cycle? If not completed, what negative effects does it have on the patient taking them?

First antibiotic

What was the first antibiotic? I thought it was penicillin, but a book I have says Sulfa drugs. In that case, what was the significance of penicillin? The article is confusing and uninformative, especially the 'time-line' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.224.70 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Sulfa drugs were the first systemic antibiotics. Arsphenamine was the first antibacterial chemotherapeutic agent. See the history talk section.-- Dbhall2 01:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction revamp

I'm troubled by the rambling nature of the intro to this article. First I think that we should point out the technical definition of antibiotics and then transition into what most people think of when they think of antibiotics. Anyway I typed out my thoughts, but couldn't smoothly combine them with the already stated information.

An antibiotic, by technical definition, is a compound secreted by a microorganism that inhibits the growth of or kills other microorganisms. This strict definition slightly disagrees with the popular connotation that any chemical that inhibits the growth of or kills bacteria is an antibiotic. Purely synthetic agents are referred to as antimicrobials and include all chemicals that destroy or inhibit the growth of any microorganism (not just bacteria). There is a subset of these antimicrobials that are used as medication to treat bacterial infections, and it is these that are routinely included in the term antibiotic. Common usage, even among physicians, allows this merger of ‘antibiotics’ and ‘antibacterial antimicrobials’ for the sake of simplicity.

Anyway, I think there should be clear lines drawn here and vague language removed.

The first thing on the page should be the technically accurate definition of antibiotics, maybe with a link to the microbiology page.
Then comes the long, confusing task of distinguishing which of the 'antibiotics(micro definition)' and which of the antimicrobials are referred to by the connotation of antibiotics. This will be hard to explain to an average user.
Distinguish that Antimicrobials include ALL substances that inhibit or kill any or all of the 4 classes of microbes. This includes disinfectants. Medically, Antimicrobial refers to purely chemotherapeutic agents and forgets the rest.
Find a a way to clearly point to the subset of antimicrobial agents that are therapeutically antibacterial.

I believe that I and anyone who wishes to help have a lot of work to do to this article before we even get to improving the subsections.--Mrdeath5493 (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is rambling. It also uses either wordy or passive contructions too often. I'd start with these to begin fixing the readability. Centasiafriend (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

resistance to antibiotics

In the article, it should be noted that the new antibiotics that are made against pathogens resistant against multiple antiobiotics are:

linezolide
daptomycine

other approaches are fages (mentioned already in article) bacterial interference (making a comeback; new approach here would be the use of genetic modifcation of the bacteria that is introduced to patient by doctor, so that the bacteria is rendered harmless for patient but not for other bacteria) and peptides (commercially made)

finally, viruses (other than bacteriophages) can also be used as a DNA delivery systems see http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/online/1024/a-few-good-viruses . an example is the vaccinia virus which was modified to attack smallpox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.49.94 (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the article called pathogens resistant against multiple antiobiotics can be made by a quick google translate of this dutch wiki page: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.181.143 (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bacteriophages

I added a {{expert-subject}} to the Beyond Antibiotics section; there has been some amount of recent attention on the viability of phage therapy and I don't think the section adequately reflects that. -Falcon8765 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antibiotics and alcohol

There is no categorical danger of mixing antibiotics and alcohol, but some antibiotics cause dangerous interactions with alcohol.

However, there is a widespread belief that there is a general danger, and thus this point may prove contentious; it was incorrect in the article when I read it, misrepresenting the cited sources.

For reference: I’ve stated the consensus medical view (in some cases danger, in most cases none) in this revision (these edits), with extensive quotations and citations, and this Archived discussion also addresses the issue. Hope these help!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus medical view" clearly states "avoid drinking alchohol with antibiotics". It says that in most of the sources as a bottom line. Including in that article from which you ripped the sentence out of context: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antibiotics-and-alcohol/AN01802 I dont understand how some possible explanation of a myth that is "known" only in UK and is 70 years old is relevant. I would rather base on something that is at least scientifically sound. Alcohol and antibiotics are processed by the liver. You overload the liver with one, it will choke on another. This is a serious issue - do not make it sound as if it is not dangerous at all. Some dude might read it, say oh well, go get drunk and die. Is it something you want? Andru nl (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of antbiotics are usuaally used for tooth infections?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.43.123 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you take doxycycline if you are allergic to penicillin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.35.17 (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penetration of Antibiotics into Human Bone Tissue

We have added a paragraph about Penetration of Antibiotics into Human Bone Tissue, documented by bibliography, but someone deleted it. Why? Please contact with the author Dr. Harry Gouvas Greece, in harrygouvas@gmail.com Harrygouvas (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy

There are classic examples of antibiotic synergy, and I thought a company had started down this path with not only 2-way (binary) synergistic compounds, but they were also considering higher, k-way interactions. I thought it was PharmaceuticalRX in Boston (~2003), but a Google search now yields little. I also have some email between Douglas Youvan and the Chief Scientist of the CIA dated 2002 after the anthrax attack. As his biographer, I know he took this synergy work further at the NSTDA and worked out a procedure for rapidly combining binary pairs of antibiotics. Looking through our Wikipedia articles on topics related to synergy, I don't see much. Perhaps we should start a new section, even if it is just the older, published work. Some of those publications have nice pictures of clearing zones on Petri dishes where synergy is easily comprehended by a reader. Youvan also published math and computer graphics simulations on www.youvan.com - more nice images for a new section. Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 12:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please figure out what to add

Is this the right article to add these news items?

Are there other article(s) where this would be (more) appropriate? 99.39.5.103 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone of the science reference desk suggested this would be better at Antibiotic_resistance#Role_of_other_animals or Factory farming. I still don't know how to add this, so please do if you do. 99.39.5.103 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Antibiotic Awareness Day

Details shoudl be added on this - as there is "American" awareness raising on proper use of. Thus Europe - a bigger area, greater population shoudl also be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indications - need for edit

Under the title "Indications" are two paragraphs. The first says "Treatment", then follows 3 bullet points with different indications for treatment. The first two sounds good, but the third starts with "Immunomodulation". Immunomodulation is NOT an indication, so this part should be edited. There are two conditions listed further out, but shouldn't they come first, as they do in the other parts? As it is, it sounds odd. I would have changed it myself, but I found it a bit difficult to get it written in a way that I felt was really good, English is not my first language, so I thought it would be better if somebody else did it. Thought I should make a note about it here though, so somebody can take a look... Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peapeam (talk • contribs) 19:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probiotics

I am currently taking antibiotics and no mention is made in the article of probiotics. It is extremely important to take these as antibiotics basically kill both bad and good bacteria. My doctor prescribed Probioset and I checked what it does:

"The basic requirement is the security of "friendly bacteria" and their resistance to acidic pH in the stomach and bile salts. A probiotic must adhere to the mucosa of the gastrointestinal tract to allow transient colonization of the intestine. PROBIOSET is a natural product containing in its composition two probiotic strains of lactic acid bacteria - Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium lactis, and Inulin prebiotic. Adding prebiotic prolongs the survival of probiotic bacteria and facilitates colonization of the gastrointestinal tract."

I think it is also advisable to drink sour milk and eat sauerkraut as both these foodstuffs contain good bacteria that antibiotics destroy. Ivankinsman (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be named "Antibiotics"

The merging of antibacterial and antibiotics - does it run contrary to the general public's understanding, and if so, will the merging of the articles cause misunderstanding or harm?

I am not a medical- or health- professional. I am not questioning the professional's decision to place antibacterial and antibiotics on the same page. However, for the general public (non-medical professionals) who use Wikipedia as a general reference (for example, to verify claims made by a third party), given the article's current presentation and organization, will they be able to correctly apply the information to answer their questions?

At the very least, members of generic public should be able to quickly find out which chemicals listed on this page are intended for internal use (oral, intravenous, etc) versus external use?

98.112.33.186 (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe merging the two is incorrect. Not all antibacterial agents are antibiotics. There should be two separate articles - one that generally describes antibacterial agents and one on antibiotics. These articles might be helpful: http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/agents.shtml#1 or http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotica --AmateurArzt (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

So it's going to be Antibacterial and not antibiotic? Sounds silly to me. --Lee (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need for antibiotics page

How was it decided to merge antibiotic with antibacterial - the merge proposal para seems all against a merge.? Also it makes no sense at all since there are nine other wiki entries related purely to antibiotic - and the article itself refers to five main articles using antibiotic plus there is a whole section on the Status of antibiotics development. Most people look up antibiotic, most people use the word antibiotic, all doctors in the UK refer to antibiotics.There is also an entry -List of antibiotics-. In general usage the term antibacterial is used just in relation to soaps and cleansers. Iztwoz (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose move from "antibacterial" to "antibiotics"

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

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is that antibiotics is a more common name and a more frequent search term, and that this article should return to its pre-2010 title and focus on that subject. Splitting and content rearrangement are ultimately editorial decisions; but, this move provides a central location for a very important topic. Xoloz (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antibacterial → Antibiotics – Various people have proposed this move would be right. The weight of the coverage of the topic is on "antibiotics" and not "antibacterial". Practically all other language Wikipedias use the term "antibiotics", and if anything, they have separate articles for antibacterials or antimicrobials.

Right now English Wikipedia has no article for the concept of "antibiotics". This is an oversight. The term "antibiotics" currently links to "antimicrobial", which is completely inappropriate to meet the demands of the readership because that article does not present information about antibiotics in the sense for which the word is overwhelmingly used. While this article on "antibacterial" may need to exist, the content within it now is mostly about the concept of antibiotics. Perhaps "antibacterial" information could be moved to the antimicrobial article, or perhaps a new "antibacterial" article could be made, but in any case, there ought to be an article on English Wikipedia called "antibiotics".

This used to be an article on antibiotics, but in 2010 it was moved by a single user to "antibacterial" seemingly without discussion. This user's rationale in the edit summary was "moved Antibiotic to Antibacterial: Follow MEDMOS (see ATC code J01). The article as currently written is only about antibacterial agents. Will add refs.", which at least is worth debating if it should stand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lane is absolutely correct in pointing out that it borders on silly that we don't have an article named antibiotics and dealing specifically with antibiotics; it doesn't match the needs of our readership. I agree with his renaming suggestion, and at first glance his plan with how to deal with merging content in to appropriate articles also looks good.I've also moved his sig to where I think it belongs, feel free to rv me if I'm wrongKevin Gorman (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Even scientists and clinicians use the term "antibiotics" where "antibacterials" is actually intended. With the emergence of improved antiviral, antifungal, antiprotozoal and antihelminthic treatments we will need to cover all of those in one article, ideally briefly and with great sources. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. While the term "antibacterial" may be "often used as a synonym for antibiotic", "antibiotic" is by far the more common term, even among doctors, and in most languages. There needs to be an article called antibiotics. Whether that is achieved by renaming this article, or by writing a new article under the heading "antibiotics", I leave for others to decide.

74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just notified the mover. LeadSongDog come howl!

Split create an antibiotics pharmacology page, and focus this on antibacterial stuff. And keep antimicrobial separate, since antimicrobials exist outside of drugs. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for the start, then split and/or reorganize as necessary. The merge was uncalled for in the first place (but somehow went unchallenged at the time). No such user (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support having an article called "antibiotic", but shouldn't this discussion be happening on Talk:Antimicrobial, since that's where antibiotic redirects to? Jinkinson talk to me 15:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I am amazed that Wikipedia does not have an article on "Antibiotics". What an oversight. I am unconvinced that the term "antibacterial" is "often used as a synonym for antibiotics". The references quoted in the lead section do not support the statement. I have never heard the word "antibacterial" used to describe a medication administered to a patient (although I accept that this may be peculiar to my experience in the UK). The only context that I have heard the term "antibacterial" is in reference to handwash or disinfectants. Ironically, the lead section states "Antibacterials are different from disinfectants (sanitizing agents), which are less selective substances used to destroy microorganisms." No reference is provided for the statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any attempt to address my concerns, I have deleted the text from the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support we need an article on the term 'antibiotics'. WP:COMMONNAME --LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME, etc. Red Slash 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just to copy from entry before move proposed ….the article itself refers to five main articles using antibiotics plus there is a whole section on the Status of antibiotics development. Most people look up antibiotic, most people use the word antibiotic, all doctors in the UK refer to antibiotics.There is also an entry -List of antibiotics-. In general usage the term antibacterial is used just in relation to soaps and cleansers. Iztwoz (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sideromycins

I see a fair amount of literature is available on the sideromycins, albomycin and salmycin, but don't see them discussed in this article or for that matter elsewhere on WP. Is that just an oversight, or is there some reason to exclude them?

LeadSongDog come howl! 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duration

Intravenous antibiotics are often given for arbitrary periods. The durations are poorly evidence based. Here is a review focused on children: doi:10.1002/jhm.2239 JFW | T@lk 20:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's PMID 25044445, and as you say, it addresses children. The more general case of bacteraemia treatment duration is addressed in PMID 22085732, with comment in PMID 22236377. The need and basis for duration adjustments is discussed at length in PMC 3256207. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administration

Since you are listing multiple different types of antibiotics in this section, you should describe each one, and what it does. Or else you are pretty much wasting space because I and anyone not too familiar with specific types of antibiotics would have no clue what each of them are/do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgue.13 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacodynamics

This article primarily focuses on antibiotics, however this section is entirely about antibacterial and antimicrobial topics. These are similar topics, but are not necessarily relevant to the entire article. A reader seeking to gain information on antibiotics probably will read this section and not look back on it sense there is no relevant information. My opinion would be to remove this section from the article, and perhaps insert it into another article regarding antibacterial and antimicrobial topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgue.13 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Reading over the production section of this paper interests me in learning more and make me wish that there was at least a little bit more about how antibiotics are created whether it be fermentation is explained in a simple way, or a recent new chemical pathway. There is a lot of research being conducted as we speak regarding the production of antibiotics and it would be helpful to include some of these processes here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgue.13 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False information in classes

> Following a 40-year hiatus in discovering new classes of antibacterial compounds, four new classes of antibacterial antibiotics have been brought into clinical use:[when?] cyclic lipopeptides (such as daptomycin), glycylcyclines (such as tigecycline), oxazolidinones (such as linezolid), and lipiarmycins (such as fidaxomicin).[21][22]

Oxazolidinones were in use in the 1950s (notably the TB drug Seromycin).
The citations do not support the sentence as written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.156.214 (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History

@CFCF:There seems to be something amiss with the first-used assertion. Compare Sulfonamide (medicine)#History. Of course there's a long history of herbals used as topical antibiotics too, not to mention soap and water, alcohol, etc. Some rewording would seem to be warranted. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LeadSongDog: I didn't actually add that section, but rather restored/corrected the mention of widespread use arriving with the advent of penicillin. My interest in medical history is purely non-professional so far, and I didn't question the additions by Dbhall2. Do we have anyone with specialty knowledge of medical history? When it comes to something like this which may be subject to debate I don't want to sound too authoritative only to find myself completely disproven. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LeadSongDog:@CFCF:Based on CFCF's recommendation, I reworded to clarify arsphenamine as the start of the era of antibacterial chemotherapy. The development and use of arsphenamine was notably different from agents such as alcohol, as rather than being toxic to all cells, it is toxic to bacteria in much lower doses. Please see my reference. Please do not add penicillin back into the discussion of the first antibiotic. Penicillin was hypothesized by Fleming in 1928, but it was not isolated until after protonsil (the first sulfonamide) and not mass produced until the 1940s. Mass production of sulfonamides began in the 1930s. Sulfonamides hold a very important place in the history of pharmacology. A toxic preparation, elixir sulfanilimide, lead to 100 deaths in 1937. The U.S. government responded, in part, by forming the Food and Drug Administration. -- Dbhall2 14:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, as for including penicillin it is down to what one would constitute as widespread use. I don't think it unreasonable that we mention arsphenamine, sumfonamides and penicillin as all have important roles in the history of antibiotics. To that end maybe it be best to remove the mentions of nobel prizes, or simply mention that several have been given.

As a side note I haven't seen you before Dbhall2 and I'd like to say you're very welcome to introduce yourself over at WikiProject Medicine's talk page. (There is also WikiProject:Pharmacology, but there tends to be little discussion there). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbhall2:@CFCF:Some "historical article" sources to draw from: PMC 2731226, PMID 24326504, PMID 20215414, PMID 11227256. Please be careful to reflect what the best available sources say, rather than being tempted to seek out sources to support a thesis. That habit from academia does not transfer well into Wikipedia, as it leads one into original thinking. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 22439833 & PMC 3109405 also seem interesting. Maybe something on the first antibiotic resistance could be added too. Off digging sources, fleshing out on resistance was my primary reason for coming to this article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF:@LeadSongDog:I'd agree that penicillin deserves mention in the history section, and I think it's adequately covered there. I don't think it belongs in the introductory paragraph with a description of the first antibiotic or first widely used antibiotic. There are sources that describe penicillin as the first antibiotic, but they use the obsolete definition from Waksman (see your references) of a substance made by one microbe that inhibits the growth of another microbe. Because arsphenamine (salvarsan) and sulfonamides are synthetic molecules, they don't fit that narrow definition. The history section does a good job describing the timeline. I'd say the introduction now reflects that timeline: Ehrlich comes up with the idea of a "magic bullet" that selectively targets bacterial cells, then in 1907, he finds arsphenamine, which is used clinically in the early 1900s for syphilis. In '28 Fleming hypothesizes the existence of penicillin, in 33 Domagk discovers the antibacterial effect of sulfonamides, and in the late 30s sulfonamides are mass produced and in wide use. Later penicillin is purified from penicillium mold, and then in 1944 it is mass produced by the Allies for WWII. Notably, penicillin wasn't commercially available until after the war, years after sulfonamides were in wide use.--Dbhall2 23:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF:A section, or article on the history of antibiotic resistance would be fascinating! -- Dbhall2 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbhall2:What ref calls Waksman's definition "obsolete"? LeadSongDog come howl! 00:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LeadSongDog:the article defines the term as the general definition of antibiotics, "a substance used against bacteria", so as far as this article is concerned, we're not using Waksman's definition. I thought you might find it helpful to know why some sources would describe penicillin as the first antibiotic, though. Pick up any modern pharmacology textbook and you'll see synthetic antibiotics and microbial derivative antibiotics listed together in the antibiotic section. See the industry standard Goodman and Gilman ^[1]. Katzung is another widely used text ^[2]. If you use Waksman's definition, very few clinically relevant antibiotics would count. Even the antibiotics we initially discovered by isolating them from another microbe have been modified to extend their spectrum or keep up with the spread of resistance. Of note, just to double check from a primary historical source, I looked back in my first edition Goodman and Gilman when I got back from the office tonight. It was published in 1941 and describes the arsphenamine and sulfonamide timeline as discussed above, but without any reference to penicillin (as it wasn't yet clinically available). I added the first edition G&G as a reference. -- Dbhall2 01:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ISBN:9780071624428
^ ISBN:9780071451536

Article title

Hi. The terms 'antibiotic' and 'antibacterial drug' are not synonymous. Firstly, not all antibiotics are antibacterial (eg. the antibiotics nystatin and calicheamicin γ1 have antifungal and anticancer activity, respectively). Secondly, not all antibacterial drugs are antibiotics (eg. prontosil is entirely synthetic; it is not derived from a microorganism, nor is it a semi-synthetic derivative of a microbial product). Would it not be more sensible to retitle this article 'Antibacterial drug' (with searches for the term 'Antibiotic' redirecting to 'Antibacterial drug')? tH0r (talk contribs) 11:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L0st_H0r!z0ns See Talk:Antibiotics/Archive_1#This_article_should_be_named_.22Antibiotics.22 and consider responding to what has already been said. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluerasberry. I wasn't suggesting the article be moved to 'Antibacterial'. I was suggesting it be moved to 'Antibacterial drug' or 'Antibacterial drugs'. The term 'antibacterial drugs' is more precise and less open to misunderstanding than either 'antibiotics' (which can include antifungal drugs, cytotoxic drugs etc.) or 'antibacterials' (which can include preservatives, antiseptics etc.). You previously argued that "The weight of the coverage of the topic is on antibiotics and not antibacterials." I don't disagree, but a broader view would be that the weight of the coverage of the topic is on antibacterial drugs > antibiotics > antibacterials.

To all those people arguing that WP:COMMONNAME is a reason to entitle this article 'Antibiotics', I would remind them that WP:COMMONNAME refers to the name that is most commonly used "as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". Both supporting references used to define "antibiotic" in the current (17-08-2015) version of the article (ie. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Mosby's Medical Dictionary; paragraph 4 of the lede) state that antibiotics are either derived from microorganisms or semi-synthetic derivatives of microbial products. This definition does not reflect the current content of the article which includes info on synthetic antibacterial drugs such as prontosil. tH0r (talk contribs) 14:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L0st_H0r!z0ns Everything you are saying is correct. It is an especially good observation that the title is not the best match for the content here.

This conversation could proceed, and we could talk about renaming. In the longer term, there ought to be two articles - one for antiobiotics, and one for antibacterial drug. If you want the path of least resistance, forking content or making a new article with the name you want is probably it. The reason this has not been done before is that creating a new article on this topic might be a high-barrier task.

It probably is a tough sell to argue that Wikipedia should lack an article titled "antibiotics". Would you be willing to create the article you want with the name you want? Can you think of any other way forward that does not leave Wikipedia without an article titled antibiotics? How important do you think it is that Wikipedia has an article titled "antibiotics" - previously there has been the presumption that this is a topic which needs its own article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluerasberry. My preference would have been to rename the article rather than have two separate articles. All of the other Wikipedia articles on anti-infective drugs focus on the target pathogen (ie. Antifungal drugs, Antiviral drugs, Antihelminthic drugs, & Antiprotozoal drugs) rather than the drug source. There aren't, for example, any Wikipedia articles on Synthetic drugs, Drugs derived from animals, or Drugs derived from plants, so why should there be a Wikipedia article dedicated to drugs derived from microorganisms? Surely, it would be better to incorporate info on antibiotics or have antibiotics sub-sections within whichever articles are appropriate. tH0r (talk contribs) 15:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L0st_H0r!z0ns The issue is that there is a word, "antibiotics", which is internationally known and popularly used. There are not any commonly used terms for any of the other concepts you just described.

If you wish to propose a move, then follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM. Expect that the counterargument will be "every government's department of health uses the term 'antibiotics', and so do many textbooks and articles, so Wikipedia needs an article on this concept also". If you can explain why Wikipedia should not have an article on antibiotics then the move might work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluerasberry. If you consulted a hundred medical text books or a hundred physicians and asked them what the microbial residents of the human body are called, the vast majority would say "normal flora". This is far more popular than the term "human microbiota". Nevertheless, the Wikipedia article on this topic is entitled "human microbiotia". Why? Because, regardless of its popularity, the term "normal flora" is incorrect. If you consulted a hundred football fans and asked them which country Ruud Gullit played for, or asked a hundred Quentin Tarantino fans which European country has hash bars, the vast majority would say "Holland". Nevertheless, the Wikipedia articles on this football team and country are entitled "Netherlands". Why? Because, regardless of its popularity, it is incorrect to refer to the country "Netherlands" as "Holland". Wikipedia has a proud history of choosing the term that is correct over the term that is popular. I'm disappointed that appears not to be the case for this article. Never mind. Life's too short. tH0r (talk contribs) 13:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L0st_H0r!z0ns Do not blame Wikipedia for this conversation you are having with me. I am here to help. Here are some options -

I will process the move discussion if you write 1-2 sentences proposing the move
If you do not want a move discussion, you can unilaterally move the article and see what happens. That might start the discussion you want.
If you want other opinions besides mine, then know that I am not gatekeeper. Either ask someone else, or if you like, I will either introduce you to others or invite others here to support your idea.

I did not intend to be a barrier to what you wanted to do. I am just talking. Say the word and I will help you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edits

did a few edits for project[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Misuse" vice "resistance"

@Iztwoz:, I just (for now) undid your last edit. The ref cited does not appear to support it, though I expect that your statement was correct. The closest it comes to discussing identification is a discussion of signs of infection, but that discussion is not organism-specific. Can we find a better ref? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeadSongDog - A few edits before the reverted one it was resistance and I changed it to misuse. Just from re-reading I thought that probably I had been wrong to have changed it and so it went back to resistance, I hadn't read the reference. It's worth another look at. Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the use on the page to resistance is more likely correct - in the ref given there are 16 refs to resistance and none to misuse. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Effects on microbiome

On 1st March 2016 the following section has been removed with the comment 'WP:PRIMARY cite to apparently predatory open access publisher':

Some scientists have hypothesized that the indiscriminate use of antibiotics alter the host microbiota and this has been associated with chronic disease. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antibiotics&type=revision&diff=708224080&oldid=707720766).

But this is frequently heard claim and there are scientific papers from respected publishers that contain this claim:

Bugging inflammation: role of the gut microbiota, Sj Shen and Connie HY Wong, Clinical & Translational Immunology (2016) 5, e72; doi:10.1038/cti.2016.12
Antibiotics and the Human Gut Microbiome:Dysbioses and Accumulation of Resistances, M. P.Francino, Frontiers in Microbiology, doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.01543
Risks of Antibiotic Exposures Early in Life on the Developing Microbiome, Anjelique Schulfer, Martin J. Blaser, PLOS Pathogens, doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1004903
Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, Martin J. Blaser, Henry Holt and Co, ISBN-13: 978-0805098105

IMO the sentence should be restored, probably with different references.

Gydoen (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agree w/ that, the references would follow MEDRSWikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives

Shouldn't we mention furanones ?^[1]^[2] KVDP (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not currently in the text, therefore don't see why not[3] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ref

Obesity & malnutrition

Historical review doi:10.7326/M16-1855 JFW | T@lk 11:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any information about the research being done into the effectiveness of the alternatives to antibiotics being done? There's a general overview of each one, but only Vaccines are credited with any mention of their effectiveness. Also should citation 66 have a hyperlink or ISBN number associated with it? I found these two that could help: Hardcover ISBN: 9780815515265, eBook ISBN: 9780815518563. I feel like the article is otherwise perfect. Everything is explained and cited well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tykam993 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

will look (*Pharmaceutical manufacturing encyclopedia (3rd ed. ed.). Norwich, N.Y.: William Andrew Pub. 2007. ISBN 9780815515265. Retrieved 23 January 2017. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)..not certain about this source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Antibiotics. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000084
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109031010/http://www.legaltext.ee/text/en/T80294.htm to http://www.legaltext.ee/text/en/T80294.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/aug/12/the-end-of-antibiotics-health-infections
Corrected formatting/usage for http://aac.asm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9736537
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpr/archives/2009/news2609.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.keepantibioticsworking.com/new/index.cfm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.genetics.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=17247100
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/871.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antibiotics-and-alcohol/AN01802
Corrected formatting/usage for http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs%20hsdb%3A%40term%20%40rn%2057-63-6

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 15:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antibiotics. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5uJyhPBKO?url=http://www.keepantibioticsworking.com/new/index.cfm to http://www.keepantibioticsworking.com/new/index.cfm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 08:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative roles at sublethal concentrations

Removed this to talk for reliable sourcing. There is no "review", this is simply a reprint of a (primary source) paper in the sources archive. Per WP:PST "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". We need (several?) secondary sources to establish if this is even notable and secondary source evaluation/interpretation. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a review, specifically a narrative review of the primary literature. There is no original data presented. It summarizes a series of other authors original research over the past decade, and puts it into context. If you read the reference you'll see there is no new data. See the description of secondary sources for scientific literature in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#How_to_classify_a_source

There are additional secondary sources that could be used to reference this also, for example here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=19556482 This isn't a new discovery. It's been reported and reviewed for a while. This is the second time you've reverted this edit, originally added by Jxs07. Please talk first, revert later :)Dbhall2 —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read your edit summary of the revert, Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Where are you getting the idea that the reference is a reprint of a primary source? It's not. Dbhall2 —Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, we can read it here. Its an overview of raw research data written by two researchers in the field, still making this a research paper of raw research data, a primary source at WP:PST (read note #3 first bullet). A secondary source would be a journalist writing a story on this finding. You need that observation by (several) sources for this to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting the idea that it is an overview of only two researchers work? First you say it is a reprint of original research (which it isn't), then you say it is an overview of raw research data written by two researchers in the field. It isn't either of those things. It is a review of several researchers work that analyzes and interprets their work, putting them into context. The raw data isn't even part of this review, though the original articles are referenced. The review analyzes and interprets primary literature (primary sources) by Kolter, Davies, Kessin, Martinez, Griffin, and Hessin, among others. These are separate research labs, with separate work. Dbhall2

As defined by Wikipedia, a secondary source in scientific literature is a narrative or systematic review. You're trying to classify this source, so please read the article on how to do that for scientific literature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#How_to_classify_a_source You don't need a journalist to write a story about it in order for it to count as a secondary source. Here is the quote of the description of secondary sources in scientific literature from the wikipedia guidelines:

"In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source. These publications, which may be in peer-reviewed journal articles or in some other form, are often called the primary literature to differentiate them from unpublished sources. Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered secondary sources, because they are based on and analyze or interpret (rather than merely citing or describing) these original experimental reports."

This Ratcliff source is a narrative review. It analyzes and interprets many other researchers works (not two researcher's work). Even if it was just an analysis and interpretation of one researcher's work, it would count as a secondary source because it is removed from the

Can you clarify what you mean by note #3 first bullet in WP:PST? I'm not sure what you mean by a note. As far as the definition of a secondary source in WP:PST, this is it:

"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[7]"

The Ratcliff review fits that definition quite well. It's the author's own thinking based on primary sources, and it is at least one step removed from the event. There is no style or policy guideline that says a journalist has to write about it in order for it to be in Wikipedia. We can add additional references of secondary sources here if you'd like. Dbhall2 —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh.. I see the notes now. Here's the first bullet for Note 3 that you reference above:

"The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, and speeches; creative works, such as art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry; and relics or artifacts, such as buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery."

This Ratclif review isn't any of those things. You may be referring to raw research data, but that review doesn't contain any raw data. It refers to, analyzes, and interprets others raw data. Hence, it is a secondary source. Dbhall2

Its simply a reiteration of research data, it contains no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Every claim is footnoted to the various researchers. A third party secondary source would read "in the year 20XX researchers at X and Y found that microorganisms do this and that". If this was notable there wouldn't be a problem of splitting hairs on a source, there would be ample secondary source articles written at an accessible level. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it's reiterating research data. I don't see any raw data in it. Can you please give an example? It is exactly analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis. The fact that the analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis are referenced to the primary sources doesn't make it reiteration of the data. Ratcliff says: look, people have been finding interesting things about what happens when you expose bacteria to sublethal concentrations (ref these primary source). But this other theory in this other source says this kind of thing should be rare (ref that source). Here's a way to think of this to put this all together (synthesis). Here's an overarching principle we can draw from these different primary sources (source, source, source). Here's how this work (source) can be interpreted as an example of the same things happening in this other work (source). That's what analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis are.

There is no problem with splitting hairs on this source and WP:NNC notability guidelines don't apply to internal content, just to whether a topic should have its own separate wikipedia article. Saying we wouldn't be splitting hairs if it should be included is using the fact of your own disagreement as evidence for you being correct. That's not a valid argument.

The source you say is primary is a standard perspective article in Science, a very reputable publication. If the journal Science is classifying this as a secondary source, it's a little bizarre that you keep making up reasons why it's not a secondary source. First you say it's a reprint of an original research article (it's not). Then you say it's just reporting the raw data from two other researchers (it's not--there is no raw data in it). These kinds of articles happen all the time, and they're exactly what secondary sources in the scientific literature are. You seem to want a popular press article about it, or possibly, you're concerned because it's something you haven't previously heard of. You say you want a journalist to report on it, then you say you want someone reporting the date and result. I'm not sure why those particular things would be required.

Here's a more accessible source, written by a science reporter instead of a researcher: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19556482 Before you say this is a news article about the original source, it's not. Look at the publication date. It is written by another author, at another time, also analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing the primary literature on the topic.

Here's another review in another journal, also reviewing this topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3173521/

Here's another, more recent review, in yet another journal (12/2017): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28688575

Just because you haven't heard about it, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in a wikipedia article. It's relevant to the topic, accurate, and established. The primary topic is antibiotics. This is a subtopic on the scientific understanding of a natural role for antibiotics in more relevant ecological niches (vs. the lab). It is established: it has been discussed in multiple secondary sources for nearly a decade, not as a controversy, but as an understanding of how natural antibiotics work in the environment. You reverted the addition of this content by two users (both times), and your explanation both times was that the reference was a primary source. It's obviously a secondary source, not a primary source, and there are many of them discussing the same ideas. I think you need to provide another explanation for why it doesn't belong in the article, or we should go back to the content before your revision, possibly adding the additional secondary sources.Dbhall2 —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fountains of Bryn Mawr Since you keep coming up with new reasons why this isn't a secondary source, and I think it's obvious that this is a secondary source and the content is well established with other secondary sources, we seem to be at an impasse. I'd like to request a third opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. Ozzie10aaaa concurred right at the beginning, but hasn't been involved since it was clarified that the source isn't a reprint of an original article, so I think we would still fit the guidelines for a third opinion. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbhall2 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This isn't a new discovery. It's been reported and reviewed for a while." "Ratcliff says:...." ..... and there in lies the problem. We can make that synthesis and boil it down for the reader, but, we don't per Wikipedia policy. Feel free to seek a third opinion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're not making the synthesis. Ratcliff is. As are Mlot, Townsley and Romero, in three additional secondary sources. We're reporting the synthesis that the secondary sources make. That's what we do, per Wikipedia policy. Dbhall2 —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr is concerned that the data had not been discussed in their own right prior to being referred to by Ratcliff. However, User:Dbhall2 is trying to alleviate concern by providing other articles where the phenomena are discussed. Am I correct? If so, why not include the section and include the sources with a caveat? User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr can you surmise the caveat you would add in a few words? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:PST. We are citing research papers (primary sources) and a review that simply summarizes the primary source papers without the "author's own thinking" on the matter (see WP:PST, secondary source intro bullet sentence and note #6). Per note #6, we seem to have what they mention here, a review that is a primary source, no thinking or synthesis. So we have no secondary source (like an article in a science magazine) telling us this is a notable "thing" and "who, what, when, where". There is also a carried over WP:NOT PAPERS since we are citing something that is not synthesized/summarized. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clear and detailed explanation of your position on this issue User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr. I hope it helps User:Dbhall2 understand better where your objections came from. Looking carefully at note #6 it says that a review can be both a primary and a secondary source but not either a primary or a secondary source. So I see the argument that it can be both rather than just a secondary source. What I do see as a problem is that the deleted wikipedia section needed to report what the review says in a more detailed way. User:Dbhall2, could you re-write the section as a report here please for us to comment on and improve? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah I would be happy to rewrite here with more detail. If Fountains of Bryn Mawr agrees not to dismiss the section out of hand and delete it a third time. Fountains of Bryn Mawr Do you agree?

Regarding the disagreement, my hope was that we could get some other eyes on the sources. The reference to WP:INDISCRIMINATE is new here. So far the dispute has been whether the sources are primary or secondary. If 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah could review the sources and comment, I think that could be helpful. From my understanding of WP:PST, the description of how to classify secondary sources in how to classify a source, and the specific recommendations in WP:MEDRS, specifically WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions all of the sources discussed here are unambiguously secondary sources. None of the four sources report raw or original data. All four provide synthesis, analysis, and context for findings from other sources that are primary. The first source discussed here is categorized by the journal Science as a commentary, specifically a perspectives article. You can see in the instructions for authors ( http://www.sciencemag.org/authors/science-information-authors ) the requirements for that kind of an article are that it provides analysis, context, and "not merely summarize experiments in original research papers". That's a quote from Science, which is listed as one of three core biology journals in WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Biomedical_journals, so I'm not sure how Fountains of Bryn Mawr can say that it's simply summarizes the primary source papers when the publication guidelines from one of our most trusted sources says it doesn't. I do believe Fountains of Bryn Mawr is editing in good faith here, but I think there's a misunderstanding of what primary and secondary sources in biomedical sciences are. This section was added by two different users, and deleted each time by Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Both times the reasons was "this is a primary source". I'd love to have someone else actually read the source(s) and chime in on how they would classify them. If we should be debating WP:INDISCRIMINATE instead, that's fine, but I think we need to start by clarifying whether these are appropriate sources for wikipedia. Maybe we should ping WP:MED? It's entirely possible I've misunderstood the guidelines for biomedical sources for wikipedia. Some other eyes on the actual sources could be helpful. Dbhall2 23:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Ozzie10aaaa if he could take a look at the actual source(s) in question and comment on their status as primary or secondary, since original source under dispute wasn't obviously linked when he made his comment at the top, just the characterization of it by Fountains of Bryn Mawr. I've added it as a reference here^[1].Dbhall2 00:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content usually goes back to status quo ante unless there is a change of consensus, so please do not blame me for the Wikipedia process with remarks such as "dismiss the section out of hand". If I am reading this right (below) WP:3 has been rejected on technical grounds. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fountains of Bryn Mawr I'm not blaming you for anything. I'm saying I'll put the work in to do a rewrite of the section, if you'll engage in a process to come to consensus about the content of the section. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. If you believe strictly that the section doesn't belong no matter what the content, then it's not worth it for me to put in the work for a rewrite. You've already reverted it twice, when Jxs07 added it, and then again when I added it, so I'm not going to do a rewrite unless you're interested in engaging in the content. Will you engage in finding consensus on the content of the section, or do you believe the section doesn't belong no matter what the content is? Dbhall2 04:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it is a bit like mocking someone to let the re-write a section only to dismiss it. I'm sure User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr will not do that will you? Let's work together on the section here before putting it into the article. Concerning Ratcliff, like I said, it IS a secondary source as well as a primary source fitting into the category described in note #6. We don't dismiss a secondary source just because it can be used as a primary source too. Such sources are common in science. With regards to its uncreative style, secondary sources in hard sciences are usually better if they are more dry than would be in other disciplines. It does not mean they are not to be considered secondary. Please include the other sources you have mentioned in the discussion. I recommend to start with the phrase "It has been reported by Ratcliff that...". 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah Will do! I should be able to set aside some time in the next few days to focus on it! Dbhall2 06:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, let's just wait for a confirmation of consent from User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr that it is an acceptable endeavor to work on together. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be getting the cart before the horse trying to fit this first into a more general overview article like Antibiotics. I would recommend proposing/reviewing this at Talk:Microorganism and/or a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology (the editors who deal with this subject). If they consider it encyclopedic it should be in a detailed referenced form at one of those subject articles (maybe Microbial intelligence and or Antimicrobial resistance? - the first seems to already hit on it) and maybe a sentence or two or a sub-section added here, maybe under Research. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify why you believe a section on the effects of antibiotics would fit better in microbial intelligence than in the antibiotics article? This doesn't directly have much to do with resistance so it wouldn't fit in Antimicrobial resistance at all (without drawing some conclusions not in the sources). User:Dbhall2 18:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr has made a very constructive suggestion of adding a short section about the phenomena under the research subtitle, and linking to microbial intelligence which it looks like the sources do indeed hint at. Isnt that suitable User:Dbhall2? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely suitable. I agree it's an example of Microbial Intelligence, and linking to that article would be appropriate. Is that what you're saying Fountains of Bryn Mawr? That a short subsection here in the antibiotics article, under the Research heading, would be appropriate, and that we'd link to microbial intelligence? User:Dbhall2 18:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! If you are both happy with my mediation please can I invite you both to give a brief feedback to my page and thank the talk of the Third Opinion page where I found this topic? Thanks. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref

^ Ratcliff, William Croft; Denison, Robert Ford (2011-04-29). "Alternative Actions for Antibiotics". Science. 332 (6029): 547–548. doi:10.1126/science.1205970. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 21527704.

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under Production

I am pretty sure that the statement "production of the active compounds is carried out using fermentation, usually in strongly aerobic conditions" makes no sense and should be removed. By definition fermentation is an anaerobic process. Beyond that the sentence is not contributing any information and as already indicated lacks a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.240.14 (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to fix archive problem

This article has had various renames. Somewhere in this there was an archive mix-up. Here are two full archives:

Talk:Antibiotics/Archive 1 <---starts 2015
Talk:Antibiotic/Archive 1 <---starts 2004
Talk:Antibiotic/Archive 2 <--- empty

I propose to delete the empty "Talk:Antibiotic/Archive 2" and move "Talk:Antibiotics/Archive 1" to where that is. I think this would disrupt nothing. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antibiotic drugs

Explen 2409:4063:4E22:6627:3723:27E2:36AA:CD50 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

did you have a question...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note

What do you think will happen in the future with antibiotics 109.163.174.203 (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do you have a specific text or source to add to article?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ISBN:9780071624428

[2] ISBN:9780071451536

[3] Furanones mentioned as alternative to antibiotics

[4] Biofilm-inhibiting chemical protects surfaces

[5] Ratcliff, William Croft; Denison, Robert Ford (2011-04-29). "Alternative Actions for Antibiotics". Science. 332 (6029): 547–548. doi:10.1126/science.1205970. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 21527704.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]