Jump to content

Talk:Sexually transmitted infection/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Lacks Citations in Prevention

the prevention section has a serious lack of citations which should be addressed immediately. Also, a wiki article really shouldn't read like a How-To article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.176.84 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

editsemiprotected

the article states that the term "venereal disease" gets it's name from the Roman god of love Venus. Venus is actually only the Roman name for the ancient Greek god of love, Afroditi.

The Romans "borrowed" gods (as well as most things: art, architecture, political and economic systems) from conquered cultures and did not create themselves.

So while the name of the disease does derive from the Latin name Venus, she was not Roman at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuskil (talk • contribs) 07:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not completely sure how to word that. But yes agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WHO map caption

This caption doesn't seem to match the picture "Age-standardized death from tuberculosis per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004.[12]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallenberg (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexually transmitted disease were decisive in human history

Sexually transmitted disease were decisive in human history. The end of Paganism in Europe, Africa and many parts of Asia came from sexually transmitted disease, not from biblical miracles. At the same time, the anti-masturbation hysteria was responsable for massive growing of prostituition in the last decades of XIX and the first decades of XX century. With prostituition came an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, then cureless. An average American family had eight sons in 1860, while in 1910, this same average American family had just about 3.5 sons. Anti-masturbation hysteria bought sexually transmitted diseases and then came massive sterility. Some decades ago, Soviet Union was also crippled by sexually transmitted diseases and then massive sterility of atheistic persons; mainly among Russians.Agre22 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

the fertility part is BS. Fertility declined with urbanization, not because women were going sterile. In 1860 America was largely rural, by 1910 cities grew enormously, both from migration of farmers and from immigration. As far as the Soviet Union goes, if you think the Soviet government would allow a mass epidemic of anything, you don't know the Soviet government. Russia did experience reduction of fertility for the usual reasons - urbanization, shortage of available housing and increase in hedonistic attitudes as opposed to "go forth and multiply" attitudes. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Infection vs. Disease

Maybe I'm just stupid here, but in the article it talks about how a disease is limited to an infection that is causing symptoms. But from what I've read, HIV doesn't cause symptoms, it just leads to AIDS. So, why then is HIV listed as an STD?205.115.81.37 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

HIV may in fact cause symptoms similar to a common cold 2 weeks after infection. It is also an infection. The new term for STD is STI (sexually transmitted infection) partly to address this concern.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Jock Itch? Really?

I mean, it doesn't make any sense. The article clearly states that just because you can catch it from sex doesn't necessarily make it an STD. So, you can get a cold by having sex with someone who has a cold, but because a cold can be caught so many different ways, it's not necessarily an STD. Well... I mean... jock itch is the same way, isn't it? All guys have had jock itch in their lives... probably not transmitted sexually... but here it is in the STD list... 205.115.81.37 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This ref says it can be [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image removed from article

Resolved
 – No objections to cleanup.

I removed File:Stdspain.jpg from the article, where it formerly was the lead image. It is a non free image in the article under a "fair use" claim. It's an interesting image, but I don't see that it is essential to understanding the topic, and there are a good number of free image alternatives availible on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC) moust of the time STDs are not cureable so in other words if you get any kind of STDs it could be fatel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.108.222 (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

Resolved
 – Pending changes trial is over.

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Interesting article

[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose rename to "sexually transmitted infection"

The article is still called STD, though the lead says STI is preferred. (I noted this when an IP changed it--I reverted, but they have a point). If STI is indeed the better term, the article should be moved. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I also believe that this page should be altered to STI as it concerns infections not just associated diseases which are in effect just symptoms/ complications of an infection. I believe STD came about because up until recently they did not know what causes these diseases as they only could perceive what was visible to the naked eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.212.205.197 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above two posters and have just renamed this article. This has also been discussed here, here, and here. I do not mean to do anything controversial, so if this needs to be debated then someone should say so. But this has been discussed since 2006 so I think it is time for someone to take initiative. Blue Rasberry 00:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree STI is best. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
To me, "STI" seems to be more of a polite way of describing infections, but "STD" is the more common name, and complies with WP:COMMONNAME. I prefer "STD," as I don't hear/see "STI" stated as much as "STD," and because the word disease does not have to be taken so literally and or technically. For example, some people refer to alcoholism as a disease (though I have always hated it referred to as such, as I don't view choosing to do that to your body a disease in the technical sense, no matter your addiction; "disorder" is a better word to me in that case). In any case, however, disease is defined as "an abnormal condition affecting the body of an organism." That covers infections too. Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The WHO uses STI as their preferred term (WHO - STI) Since WP:COMMONNAME specifically refers to what is commonly used by authoritative sources, and the WHO is pretty much the most authoritative source on health, I'd say that their term should be followed. STI is also the common term used by the Canadian government, all provincial governments, all Canadian medical associations, and the U.S. National Institute of Health.71.7.224.10 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME does not specifically refer to what is commonly used by authoritative sources. It refers to what is the most common name, period. "STD" is the most common name. You don't usually see commercials on the matter saying "STIs" (at least not in America). They say "STDs." Plenty of people are unfamiliar with what "STI" stands for regarding this subject. But everyone who has been taught about sexual precautions knows what you mean by "STD." And WHO is not authoritative on everything. It's the reason it's not used as the main source for the Gender article, for example. That said, we do not always go by the common name policy, as WP:COMMONNAME states. The only way I can see this article being named Sexually transmitted infection (other than someone moving it without consensus again), as it once was, is per WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions, but even that is not completely clear cut, per all the Google results in the closed move discussion below. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME does not refer to "the most common name, period" or "authoritative sources", it refers to " it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." So just because people don't know what an STI is doesn't mean anything, because random people aren't reliable sources. So the question needs to stop being "this is what I hear my buddies talk about all the time" and actually cover "this is what reputable sources actually use." STD is something I hear people use in casual conversation, but I only ever see public health messages use STI. STI is definitely the most commonly accepted term within its professional domain (medicine/public health); while STD is more commonly used in the mainstream media. The medical domain is the more authoritative source but is less prolific than the media. 99.192.61.3 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
How does WP:COMMONNAME not refer to "the most common name, period" when it is titled WP:COMMONNAME and says "which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources"? Unless you mean what is common in American culture does not mean it is common in other cultures. If so, for the English Wikipedia, we usually go by common names as frequently used in the English-language. As for your other argument, English-language reliable sources in the medical field commonly use "STD," as demonstrated below in the closed move discussion. And, really, it is reliable sources such as those which caused "STD" to be so commonly used in casual conversation. WP:COMMONNAME is actually about naming articles based on the names people are most likely to look for them under. That is indeed "STD." Public health commercials here in America still generally say "STDs," for example. "STI" definitely being "the most commonly accepted term within its professional domain (medicine/public health)" was not definitively proven below in the move discussion. You have a point about going with more authoritative sources for medical topics (which is why I cited WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions above) , but, again, this was not definitively proven below in the move discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
If the terms STD and STI meant the same thing, then as synonyms, the most common usage would make sense. It is my viewpoint, and apparently others, that STI covers the whole range, while STD only refers to a subset of all STI's. So, both are appropriate, when used in the context of their meaning. What would be logical, based on that, would be that the article should be titled STI, and then either in the lede paragraph, or a full subsection to explain what STD means, with the redirect for the term STD to that section, or the article as a whole. This has been discussed though, and because of the confusion of the term, and the misunderstanding that they are synonymous, that even though there is no consensus of editors that the term STD is more appropriate, there is also no consensus that the article ame should be changed to STI either. Given time, the usage of the respective terms will change and clarity will exist here for what it better. Atom (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how they aren't synonymous, given the various reliable sources which use them the same way, and the wider definition of disease. These sources aren't confused, neither are people such as me; it just depends on which way the term "STI" is being used. Yes, some sources distinguish, and prefer "STI" because of that distinction, but that has to do with the way they define disease. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, if they were synonymous, your logic holds up. I think a majority of people discussing the general topic do use the term roughly interchangeably. In that way your logic regarding commonname makes sense. From a medical or scientific perspective though, there is a difference between an infection and a disease. As the article is in an encyclopedia and intended to educate or inform readers on the medical and scientific issue, using the terms correctly is more important than general conversation. An infection is "The growth of a parasitic organism within the body."[3] a disease is "Illness or sickness often characterized by typical patient problems (symptoms) and physical findings." [4]. When, from a scientific perspective, one wishes to discriminate between say, a person who is infected because of their sexual activity (even though they may have no knowledge or symptoms), and could possibly transfer that infection, one would want to use that term. When one wanted to discuss the symptoms and illness characteristics of someone who has previously been infected, then they would use the term disease. Later on, if the disease is treated properly, they may no longer have an infection, but still have symptoms of the disease as they finish recovery. So, as there is a time when they may be infected, but have no disease, and then infection and disease, and then later disease but no infection, there is a use for describing those states with words. Just because laymen may not use the correct term that a Doctor would use is not a good reason for us being sloppy in our article too. Atom (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
You and some others don't view them as synonymous because of how you define disease. That is my point. But as the Disease article showcases, there are different definitions of "disease." I understand scientific perspective, but this is more about medical perspective. This is why from a medical perspective, even alcoholism is considered a disease. Even from a medical perspective, the words "STD" and "STI" are often used the same way. This has been shown below in the closed move discussion. It is only recently that "STI" has started to become preferred by some medical/health sources, because they have decided to distinguish for the reasons you noted above. You did not have to explain to me why you and others prefer "STI" over "STD." I have read the talk page responses about it, after all. I am also quite educated in the scientific field. My point is that even some doctors and researchers use the words in the same way. If "STD" and "STI" were not interchangeable at all, all medical and health sources would have moved over to the "STI" wording, and we would not be having this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not mean to be pedantic with you, my apologies. I tried to add clarity for the benefit of others who will read this at some point too, not just for you. I have respect for you and did not assume you were ignorant of medical or scientific issues. I only tried to point out the logic in having two different words mean something different. Medical sources are, it seems, moving to using the terms correctly. I have not read the literature extensively, and I am sure if challenged you could show examples where medical professionals used the term STD when they should have (based on the context) said STI. Even though the authors are smart people, as it is language, it takes time for it to be new terms to develop. Your example of alcoholism as a disease, in my view, only makes my point. It is a disease, based on the medical dictionary entry I quoted. It is not an infection. If someone were to refer to it as an infection (based on the misunderstanding that infection and disease were synonyms) then others would find that humorous. We do not need to discuss this further, I think we both have expressed ourselves well. I will end simply by saying that we should use the terms disease and infection correctly in a medical article. Using the terms incorrectly because others use them incorrectly is not proper. Atom (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I accept your apology, but still state that you are using the word "disease" narrowly, as there are different and equally valid definitions of "disease." However, I also use the word "disease" narrowly at times, as I don't consider alcoholism a disease. It should only be classified as a disorder, in my view, like the Wikipedia article on it initially does. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sexually transmitted disease → Sexually transmitted infection — Procedural nom having denied the G6 speedy of sexually transmitted infection as I think this deserves a full discussion. Some relevant discussion above. Dpmuk (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I said I moved the page; actually I requested the move and Dpmuk the admin suggests that there needs to be current consensus before a move happens due to past discussion. So far as I know the discussions to which I have linked and the lede to the article show that STI is the preferred term for the subject of this article. In 2006 in the above-linked archive some people preferred STD. I do not feel that the justifications they listed are meaningful today, and I do not think that any major health organization in America currently uses STD in preference to STI. Is there any objection to a rename to STI? Blue Rasberry 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: The most interesting move proposal to come up for some time, for reasons that have nothing to do with the fascination this age has with sex. Google [5] [6] shows more than 3:1 in favour of the existing name (STD), but scholarly sources are likely to prefer STI. Wikipedia is changing, more and more preferring scholarly sources to everyday usage. This RM will be an interesting barometer of how far down the track we are. No vote as yet. Andrewa (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not want this to be interesting. "Disease" commonly refers to a condition with some noticeable abnormal symptom. The STI of most pressing interest is HIV, which causes no disease for an average of 7 years with no treatment and an HIV carrier can further postpone disease with treatment. People living with HIV generally admit to being "infected with HIV" and not "diseased," unless they have the disease known as AIDS.
STD was the historical term because before HIV, infections with long latency were not frequently considered. Now more commonly the general public recognizes with the public health community that one can contract HPV, herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, and other sexually-transmitted infections and not exhibit disease characteristics or otherwise be aware of the infection. People generally prefer to make responsive decisions based on infection status and not disease status, so STI is the preferred term in most cases. Blue Rasberry 07:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Ah, but that sort of argument is just what makes it so interesting. It completely ignores Wikipedia policies, specifically Wikipedia:article names and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. And such arguments are, by my observation, becoming more often heeded in decisions. Still no vote from me. Andrewa (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
And it's exactly that issue why I thought a G6 was inappropriate. Should also point out that I'm not an admin. Dpmuk (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with your call on the G6, and of course a non-admin is quite entitled to do this, and thanks, it helps spread the load. Andrewa (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose; STD is still by far the most common appellation. Absent evidence to the contrary, the article should remain where most people will look for it. Powers T 13:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We use what is common use in English. No evidence has been presented that use has changed. Medical jargon may have possibly changed in some parts of the world, but general English use hasn't. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move, for the following reason: According to WP:MEDMOS, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources". As Andrewa notes, STI is used far more frequently in the medical literature. Therefore, it is the title that we should use as well. Note: I have informed the Medicine WikiProject about this move discussion. NW (Talk) 16:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move For the reasons NW gives above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move, it is the correct term, and the scope of the article is larger than diseases. STD is outdated and inaccurate nomenclature, and utterly deprecated in medical circles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- I think the present name reflects common usage in UK, even if techically incorrect. If moved retain present name as redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Even recently STD appears to be used more regularly in the academic literature (Google scholar: 7480 for STD, 4490 for STI from 2009 onwards), in the press (Google news: 2910 for STD, 1060 for STI in 2009 and 2010) and in general use (Google: 1.03 million for STD, 0.29 million for STI in the last year). Dpmuk (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Wikipedia:Article titles, the full policy (of which COMMONNAME is only a small part). The policy specifically refers to WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions, which quite unambiguously states: "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." We have redirects available to take care of anyone searching by an alternate name; for example, I've yet to hear of anyone having a problem finding Heart attack, which is actually titled Myocardial infarction. --RexxS (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • But google scholar results would seem to suggest that it isn't "most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." I'll admit that google scholar is a bit crude for this but I would like to see what evidence you have to the contrary. Dpmuk (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think you have a point there. On Google Scholar usage in 2009 was 65%/35% in favour of STD over STI, dropping to 60%/40% in 2010 (searched on "sexually transmitted disease"/"sexually transmitted infection" - 2009 results calculated from difference between "since 2009" and "since 2010"). However, searching PubMed for the last year gives "sexually transmitted disease" = 155 and "sexually transmitted infection" = 242, which is 61%/39% in favour of STI. I'd suggest that the trend in scholarly journals is moving away from STD towards STI, while in medical journals it's clearly already in favour of STI. I do understand that these sort of metrics are not conclusive, but I feel that the PubMed results fit better with "recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources" (my emphasis). Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
        • That's interesting and it makes the issue less clear cut than I originally thought. However I'm still going to oppose for two related reasons. Firstly this topic isn't just medicine related, there's social policy, social impact, religious views etc so I'm not sure we should simply be applying medicine guidelines to this page - especially given that many of these areas are still scientific. Secondly I note from WP:MEDMOS that "WikiProject Medicine has developed ..." As such I wonder how much usage in a non-medical context was considered when coming up with the guideline. On a page which is nearly entirely in the medical field this wouldn't be an issue but on a page such as this I think the consensus on naming needs to be from a wider audience. Taken together I think that in this instance we should fall back on the "use common name" policy rather than apply WP:MEDMOS and the common name appears to be STD. That said from the evidence here I suspect my !vote is likely to be different in a year or two. Dpmuk (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment None of these sources are conclusive, but at least they provide more support to a stance. I do not think any reliable sources have stated that STD is a preferable term to STI, and I would suggest that WP:GHITS alone not be used as a condition for determining what term is best.

  • STI is the term being used by the World Health Organization. See here.
  • from a book called Essentials of Obstetrics, see here in the first sentence where it says STI is preferred over STD.
  • I live in Seattle, Washington, USA, and our state has a school curricula ("F.L.A.S.H.") for high school teachers to use to teach sexual education. On page three at the top it says in the instructions to the teacher that "The outdated term venereal disease (VD) should no longer be used. In some medical circles, the preferred term is now sexually transmitted infection (STI). Infection is used instead of disease because many infections don’t cause disease; they are asymptomatic and don’t always cause adverse reactions. But the term is less widely recognized by the public than STD. ... This curriculum uses the term sexually transmitted disease (STD) to describe all the kinds of organisms that are frequently or exclusively communicated through oral, anal and/or vaginal sex."
  • Here is a link to a modern psychology book which says that STI is now the preferred term. Look for the heading "STI."

I would also like to assert that the current article content contains little or no information about disease, adverse symptoms, or descriptions of the human experience of contracting these infections. Instead the article describes infection agents, epidemiology, public health viewpoints, medical data, and other information of specific interest to using the term technically to mean STI and not the technical meaning of STD. The most natural way to talk about a disease is to do so on the disease agent's own page. As infections HIV, herpes, gonorrhea etc. have a lot in common, but as diseases they have much less in common. Blue Rasberry 03:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

DMacks (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Microbicides for prevention

The article could use some additional work in the area of microbicides, which is a relatively promising area - Focus on antivirally active sulfated polysaccharides: From structure–activity analysis to clinical evaluation is a 2009 freely-available review. May add it later after reading a little more into this area. Another free review in this area is Structural and functional insights into sulfated galactans: a systematic review (2009) by Pomin. Natural Sulfated Polysaccharides for the Prevention and Control of Viral Infections (2007) by Pujol et al is not freely-available, but is also on the topic. Plus A Review of Current Intravaginal Drug Delivery Approaches Employed for the Prophylaxis of HIV/AIDS and Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections (2008) free and Microbicides: A new frontier in HIV prevention (not free). II | (t - c) 08:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tariq Sadiq's mobile phone test for STD's

see http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/05/new-test-mobile-phones-diagnose-stds include in article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.104.126 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pavelk2011, 5 July 2011

Hi there,

I would like to add a resource to the Sexually Transmitted Disease Wiki page related to rates and statistics for sexually transmitted infections located on the following URL:

http://www.lifestyles.com/health-and-wellness/about-stds/

Pavelk2011 (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: As I see there is already an external link to Google - public data that shows rates and statistics for STDs. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Add HTLV as sexual transmitted disease

It's sexually transmitted as refers its own page: HTLV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbletruble (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 200.188.217.170, 10 August 2011

This paragraph: "The amount required to cause infection varies with each pathogen but is always less than you can see with the naked eye."

Makes no sense. You couldn't see any of the pathogens listed in this article with the naked eye. So what is "less than you can see with the naked eye"?? I am not an expert but I suppose 1 single bacteria can be enough to create an infection. The whole paragraph creates confusion and misinformation.

200.188.217.170 (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making this request. This statement is not supposed to be about the pathogens but about the fluid carrier. Even tiny amounts of semen or vaginal secretions can cause infection if they come into contact with mucous membrane. I changed the statement to read, "The amount of contact with infective sources which causes infection varies with each pathogen but in all cases a disease may result from even light contact from fluid carriers like veneral fluids onto a mucous membrane." I feel like my wording is awkward. Do you have an alternate proposal for wording? Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

200.188.217.170 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I think you did a good job clarifying this. The new sentence is as accurate as possible. Thanks.

Additional Info

After throughly reading all of this, it is very formal info on STDs; however, should the info contain, at least, the basic common stages of how the STDs are form if a person is doing more than not taking caution or having protection. By this statement, I mean: add information stating what causes each Std to be form between people instead of out-right saying that un-protected sex is the cause of it.

To ensure the reader understands this article better, you can say that having unprotected sex will get you an STD, but make sure it is included that if a person does not use proper ways to keep themselves clean of having any STD form within their body, then yes, by the time they have sex, the STD will be formed if proper hygiene (Spelled wrong) is not used the moment you begin having sex. Plus, make sure even the right questions are included in this article when asking about a person's sex history or cycle. --Zhang Liao (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.212.50.243 (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Add link to STD Wizard http://www.stdwizard.org/ Thanks

No. This site is for Americans only and it is collecting data on users. Please see WP:SPAM. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Question Regarding Data for Transmission Rate Table

Looking through the tabel labeled "Odds of transmission per unprotected sexual act with an infected person" you notice that the HIV rate given for "Anal sex - insertive" is substantially higher than all the other rates of HIV transmission. Of course, there is a source, so at first I overlooked it and assumed it was correct. However, if you click the source (and unless I am completely reading the data wrong) I believe the percentage should be .62% and not 62%. Here is a quote from the source study:

"The estimated transmission rate for insertive UAI in participants who were circumcised was 0.11% (95% CI 0.02%-0.24%), and it was 0.62% (95% CI 0.07%-1.68%) in uncircumcised men."

Like I said, I may be understanding the data wrong, but if not, there is a huge difference between 62% and .62%. The3me (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are not wrong. In the future when you see problems like this WP:Be bold and fix them, if you like. If you are not comfortable changing things then posting on a board like this works also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Request change of wording for STD table

hi, i'd like to suggest using clearer english on the table with: 

Odds of transmission per unprotected sexual act with an infected person
performing oral sex on man
Receiving oral sex - man  
etc etc etc


one example of a change would be:
uninfected person performing oral sex on infected man
man receiving oral sex from man or woman
male receiving oral sex from male or female

just to be inclusive, as STDs do not generally discriminate against sexuality (homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual),
but certain sexual orientations have higher probabilities and lesser probabilities of catching certain STDs
Tierjj (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

contradiction between two article

In this article the only danger from preforming oral sex on a woman is: Herpes, in the Cunnilingus article the danger includes: Chlamydia, human papillomavirus (HPV), gonorrhea, herpes, hepatitis.

so why the different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.162.254 (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Both articles probably need revision. What you are talking about is in the table of this article, and there is no reference. The cunnilingus article is more accurate as all of those things are risks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


Requested move (2012)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, rationale about waiting a while is sound Mike Cline (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Sexually transmitted disease → Sexually transmitted infection – This clearly needs discussing again given the discussion above and the recent move. Last RM is here. Procedural nom.relisted -Mike Cline (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Dpmuk (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the move as part of BRD and the lack of any new information that wasn't discussed in the last RM (the WHO arguement was discussed). Personally if there is no new evidence presented (and there hasn't been yet) of a change in the commonly used term then I'd oppose the move but given that previously there was evidence of a slow change in the common name I'm willing to wait and see before formally !voting. Dpmuk (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In January 2011 there was a vote about making the above move and I would like to propose another vote. Here is the last vote. Two others support a re-discussion here in this section since then. The situation is that historically most people have used the term "sexually transmitted disease", but since the advent of HIV many people talk about "sexually transmitted infections" since most people who are infected by HIV and many people who carry any of the other infections (including syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis A and B, and HPV) have no disease. The Wikipedia Medical Manual of Style says that "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources" so here are some world disease policy centers which use the term STI in preference to STD.

The major health agency in the United States uses the term "sexually transmitted diseases".

Most departments of health for most cities in America also use the term "STD", but among American educators (like myself) we would never confuse the term disease for when we are talking about infection. HIV, for example, is not a disease, and people who get HIV in America usually never get AIDS or any such disease because they take medication. The infection is the problem and less so the disease, so must educational outreach efforts are to try to make people aware of preventing infection and not tell them how to treat a disease.

Undoubtedly there are more articles in Google Scholar for sexually transmitted diseases, but a review over the first few pages of returned results shows that the articles using this term are older than the articles using the term sexually transmitted infections. On Google in general STD seems to be the common name, which supports keeping STD per WP:COMMONNAME.

There is such a thing as a "sexually transmitted disease" but there should not be separate articles for STD and STI. The content of this article is entirely about STIs with no information about diseases given. The term STD is a holdover from a time when it was not socially permissible to discuss how anyone might prevent getting a sexual infection and from times when people could not treat infections so never worried about them until they became diseases. I would like the move considered again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • This is a tough one. Certainly the literature is moving toward STI, but check out the ngram comparing the two terms. It only goes up to 2008, and extrapolation implies that by 2012 the lines will have converged or crossed, but it's not at all clear. Nonetheless, given what seems to be an inevitable trend here, I cannot reasonably oppose this proposal. Powers T 15:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and give it a break for a year or so. Wikipedia is committed to avoiding advocacy of anything on our article pages, that's an important part of who we are. Advocacy of this name change is a good test case, nobody is really questioning the merits of the WHO direction, but the onus of proof that this name change has been accepted is on those who wish to move the article, and it's not there yet. It may be soon but that's still a no. Meanwhile there are many more pressing matters. Andrewa (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A slightly more formal !vote than my conditional comment at the start of the discussion. No evidence has been presented that suggests a change in circumstances since the last discussion so I still oppose for the same reason I gave then - namely that STD is the common name, although as I noted then I'm not sure it will be for too much longer. Dpmuk (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not mind you evaluating the circumstances as not meriting a merge, but I do object to you saying that the circumstances have not changed. We collected evidence from major representative bodies of more countries demonstrating that they use the newer term, and that at least shows a change. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
You're right that some of those are new and maybe I didn't explain myself as well as I could have done. I think it was well established at the last request that STI is the currently preferred term among health organisations and the new sources reinforce this. However the issue at the last discussion was which term is the common name, which in my opinion means the term in everyday use by the wider society not just health organisations. So in my opinion the circumstances last time were "STI is currently preferred by health organisations but there's evidence it's not the common name used more widely" and I've not seen any new evidence here to refute that. Finally, have I missed something? I thought we were discussing a move, as Sexually transmitted infection redirects here I don't think there is anything to merge. Dpmuk (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Our "Use the common name" principle doesn't require us to treat all sources equally. We can, and should, favor more reliable sources over colloquial vernacular. Powers T 19:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of that but, as your ngram shows, it's not clear even in books and a google scholar search for 2012 seems to show a slight bias for STD. I'd also point out that this subject goes beyond the medical field into other areas e.g. social policy and no ones presented any evidence of use in other fields yet. So even given different weight to different sources I still think there's not enough evidence to move. Dpmuk (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I am completely happy with that explanation. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
To be honest I also think there's a lot of merit in naming articles by their most correct name (in this case STI) but I think that change would need to happen across the project as I think the extra confusion caused by a few instances of being "correct" contrary to our policy elsewhere is not worth the benefit for this article. What ever title this ends up at I think it needs a good lead explaining the two terms. Dpmuk (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I totally understand and agree. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Press release from the WHO on gonorrhea

[15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2012

In the 3¶ that begins "Sexually Transmitted Infection" & the 4th sentence that starts "In either case," I suggest creating a hyperlink from the abbreviation HPV to the wikipage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV.

Parkscorner (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --KarlB (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 July 2012

In section Sexually transmitted disease#Condoms, the words "oral sex only" should be unbolded, since this meets none of the exceptions listed in MOS:BOLD#Other uses. Thank you. --213.196.217.46 (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Yobol (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --213.196.217.46 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge Venereology

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.
No merge There is no consensus to merge here. (Note: I was involved as KarlB but am closing anyway) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This merge has been proposed since October 2011. I'm putting a notification here, but there has been no discussion to date. I would !vote for merge. --KarlB (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We have a page on cancer on cancer and one on oncology (the study of cancer). I think we should keep them apart as we do with similar topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 20:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
But, James, looking at the Venereology article, it looks like merging is the best solution to me. Not just because of that article's lackluster state, but also because there isn't much to state on the subject that isn't already covered in the Sexually transmitted disease article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
On second thought... If the article is expanded to be about the practice of venereology, for which there are enough reliable sources about, it should be fine. It doesn't have to mostly be about the STDs themselves, and shouldn't be, so I don't know why I pretty much implied that that's all it can be about. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add "mouth to mouth" section on sexual activity chart

Considering how much the very first paragraph below the chart starts talking about mouth-to-mouth as a transmission medium, shouldn't it have a section within the chart itself to make things clearer? Or does there need to be separate "mouth to mouth (light)" and "mouth to mouth (heavy)" groupings as well?

What about other contacts? Even the "non-mucous contacts (hugging, etc.)" should have a section to help make things clearer in the chart without relying on the text so much. Otherwise the chart is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.126.107 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support adding such information to that chart if a source were identified which described rates of transmission for those acts. Do you know of any such source which could be cited? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexually_transmitted_infection/Archive_3&oldid=1137182152"