Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 525

Archive 520

←

Archive 523

Archive 524

Archive 525

Archive 526

Archive 527

→

Archive 530

Requirements to translate articles

Hello,I am a beginner in wikipedia and I would like to start a project. Specifically I would like to ask what I need to do in order to translate an article in to my native language. And a more specific question :May I use the same references with the original article that I translated or I have to insert new ones even if I have only translate it without adding anything new? GreekNinjas (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, GreekNinjas, welcome to the Teahouse. English Wikipedia (this site) only hosts articles written in English. Assuming that your native language is Greek, you will need to create those translated articles at our sister project, the Greek Wikipedia / Βικιπαίδεια. You can visit their community portal at el:Βικιπαίδεια:Πύλη Κοινότητας, which should hopefully allow you to find the Greek equivalent of our Help Desk and Teahouse pages. Each Wikipedia project sets its own editorial policies, although they are often similar to the policies used here. So, we can't give specific advice on what their policies about references will be, only that it's likely quite similar, and you can hopefully use the references from here. After that, all you need to do is find out how they prefer to handle copyright attribution for articles which have been imported and translated from another Wikipedia. You are quite welcome to ask more questions here, but really should try to make contact with the community over there as well. Murph9000 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I would add to Murph9000's answer, GreekNinjas, is to look at WP:Translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Blue Lime Labs page was moved to speedy deletion - why?

Hi there,

I have just created my first wiki page - Blue Lime Labs - though it was moved to speedy deletion due to ""A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)".

Could somebody advise me if I can improve my article somehow? What influences if my article topic is significant or not?

Jolita.pundzaite (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jolita.pundzaite. What influences whether an article can be accepted or not is whether there has been significant writing published about it by people who have no connection with the subject (the Wikipedia jargon for this is notability). That's all. Not fame, importance, significance, influence, popularity, innovation, or superlatives. And certainly not what it does, says, makes, sells, or publishes, until somebody else has written about them. But if a new article doesn't demonstrate notability, it may sometimes nevertheless be kept for improvement if it shows that the subject has some importance, since there might then be enough references to establish notability. From what you have written in your draft, it looks like just a new company, of which there are thousands, and most of them will not have the notability to justify a Wikipedia article.

Unfortunately, you have done what many people do, and come new to Wikipedia, and tried to do one of hardest tasks in Wikipedia, which is creating a new article. Furthermore, I suspect you have done what many people do and come to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting your company. Please be aware that promotion of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia. Only if people have already decided that your company is worth writing about will Wikipedia be interested in it. Please read your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Troubles to edit an article without external sources

Dear guys. Wrote an article on composer Thomas Daniel Schlee some weeks ago, and added something last Sunday. One administrator deleted everything, telling me, I cannot add the article without quoting the original sources. - The "problem" is that there don't exist any original sources besides my own research and the information I got from Thomas Daniel Schlee himself. - To me it is clear that one time information has to be written for the first time, but my administrator doesn't understand this or is not allowed to accept this. Is there any chance to edit my article with myself as source? Christian Heindl (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Christian. When I was a new editor here at Wikipedia, I also faced problems like these. But though Wikipedia is a free and editable encyclopedia, we still have some rules to follow (a lot, really). External sources are required since these prove the the article about a certain topic is correct and accurate. Also, sorry but original research is not allowed in Wikipedia (you can read WP:NOR). But, you can still try to list sources that could be related to your research, or in which you can copyedit them using your research if possible, without conflict. I hope you understand. Your companion user, | Democratics ^{Talk stat: Open} | My Guestbook Here 10:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Christian Heindl, I can see that you're getting frustrated with Wikipedia's many rules, and indeed they are frustrating! But the matter here is very simple: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It publishes articles on topics that are already well known and widely written about. It is not the appropriate place to try and publish research for the first time. If you would like to get your work on Schlee out there, you should seek to have it published by a traditional publisher of original content (i.e. a magazine, scholarly journal or book publisher). Once published somewhere like that, the information can then be added to Wikipedia with an appropriate citation. But it cannot be the place your research first appears. You cannot use yourself as a source. Joe Roe (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Schlee, like many living prominent scholars and classical performers, has a lot of publications but little material about him. However, here are some possibilities: 1) http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/omz.1994.49.issue-3-4/omz.1994.49.34.214/omz.1994.49.34.214.xml, which includes the editor's introduction to him, 2) http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/omz.2005.60.issue-12/omz.2005.60.12.30/omz.2005.60.12.30.xml, which is an acceptable source of quotations by Schlee, 3)https://www.ktn.gv.at/276322_DE-Landesregierung-LR_Rolf_Holub.?newsid=24128, which gives a record of his role in one organization, 4) according to the German National Library (a good source for baiscs such as birthdate), there is information on him in 'Internat. who's who mus.' 97/01/04/08/2014 (I don't know about this publication, but the NAME sounds authoritative), and 5) if you are in Austria or have access to a good academic library in Germany, try looking in a paper source about musicians and musical scholars. Contrary to widely circulated opinions, there is a lot of good published material that is not online. Music is not my field, but I know in literature and archaeology, for example, there is a lot of material only available in paper publications. Kdammers (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys, for all your comments! As far as I see from all these English Wikipedia has other rules than the German one, which is definitely proud to be the first and only internet source for countless topics. So this was my first and last attempt to add something to the English one.194.166.18.37 (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Thomas Daniel Schlee already is an article, started over two years ago. It is lacking in citations. Kdammers (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Using interviews for biographical information?

Hi all! I've created two articles Wanda Gass and Monica Helms. In both, I use information from interviews that both women provided to populate information about their early lives, etc. I understand that the information they provided is from a primary source and read WP:Interviews. Another editor has removed much of this information (it smacks of being a little retaliatory based on this diff, but I would like to check my understanding of the issue anyway).

I restored the content, but want to make sure I did the right thing. Can someone provide me with a bit of wisdom one way or the other? Lizzius (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A reference to an interview with the subject of an article may sometimes be relevant, but can do nothing to help establish that the subject is notable. An interview can be cited to support a statement such as "she claims she was born in 1988", but not "she was born in 1988". Maproom (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think notability is in question here. There is helpful material about self-published material used as sources of information about the subject themselves here WP:SELFSOURCE. I can see no reason not to use a university published article as a reliable source for the degrees that university has granted. Gab4gab (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Lizzius The diff you provided from User:Nurse12 is concerning. Yes, in its light, this smacks of retaliatory editing rather than careful consideration of the merits of the edit. So far you've reverted twice, and did not leave a detailed edit summary on the second. I do see you've opened up a discussion on the talk page (where you both have posted with civility) which is exactly what you should have done. IMO it's best to revert once, then discuss, then return the content after some time. If you're not already, please be aware of the three revert rule and you might find the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle a useful read.

There seems to be a conflation here of a primary source's inability to help determine notability, with an inability to use them. The fact that they are worthless for notability assessment in no wise implies using primary sources is improper in any way—nor that an article that thus far fails to establish notability through secondary and independent sources, means any of the primary sources in use should be removed. Rather, the issues are separate. That being said, primary sources must be used carefully, should not be used for self-serving claims; only for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", and cannot be used for interpretation analysis, evaluation, etc. And an article should not be based primarily on primary sources, even if notability is sufficiently established through the right types of sources.

In this case. I've only looked at Wanda Gass, but the statements the primary sources were used for seemed fine – except possibly for the claim that "despite the club being created for young men...", which seems a bit self-serving; self-congratulations of overcoming institutional prejudice. (Actually, though this is in the interview source that was cited in the same paragraph, it appeared after the citation, so it's not clear that source was being used to verify that claim (it could be thus challenged and removed as unsourced (see WP:BURDEN).

So I support the return of the majority of the content removed from Wanda Gass. However, I don't think the sources thus far cited sufficiently establish her notability – again, a separate issue – but it really is something you should focus on. Maybe some of the sources here might help. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Those sources do look promising. Regarding notability I believe the current IEEE reference satisfies criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC. Gab4gab (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Great!! Thank you. I'll make the suggested edits, and thank you for finding another source to help fill out the article. Lizzius (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. Your experience on WP is stunning. I've been looking forward to getting further guidance about WP policies in light of edits that have been made between User:Lizzius and me.

1. I'm a noob. The allegation of 'retaliatory editing' is disconcerting as the interactions between User:Lizzius and I have not been put into context. It's easy to make me look like the bad girl by selectively offering one instance. On it's face, that interaction looks snotty and unwarranted. In fact, the first article I ever edited was wiped out by this user, without any constructive guidance or input. I'm open to guidance and input, but the tone set by this user was discouraging. I want to add value where I can, but my attempts at offering input were met with hostility as this user followed me to several other articles reviewing and reverting my edits without input. And this user had only been on WP two months longer than I had! I had my own, personal editor following me around WP, so I blew out and returned a month or two later...only to be met again with this user stalking me! Is there no policy against this??

2. The policy about primary sources and independent sources and interviews is pretty clear. It's recommended that a user not use as a secondary source an essay written by the subject. And a user could cite an interview as a source, but notability must first be established. That was not the case in the content I reviewed, so I removed that content with an appropriate policy citation. That wasn't retaliatory, but hypocrisy. The user's own work could not withstand the very judgments the user was using to revert my work on multiple articles.

I'd welcome any constructive input, especially advice as to how to avoid stalking by users.

Thank you. Nurse12 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nurse12. I'm sure you're aware, but "stalking" is a serious accusation and carries real world implications that are simply not relevant here. I would ask you to strike any of your accusatory comments above and remember that there are perfectly valid reasons for checking someone's contribution history (in your case, as it related to a pretty blatant BLP violation as well as two copyright problems). You can review WP:Wikihounding, specifically: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." (Consequently, Recent Changes patrol is what brought me to Scott Bundgaard in the first place, and your account was only a few days old when you offered this reasoning for your controversial edits there (this edit implies you had history with the article that extended well beyond your edits with the Nurse12 account. I asked you about it on your talk page.) Lastly, of course your edits to Wanda Gass and Monica Helms were retaliatory. While slightly frustrating and now as we both know a bit misguided, at least we both learned something and I can make the articles a bit better.

Thankfully, nearly every interaction on Wikipedia is public, so if anyone takes an interest and reviews our conversations and edits at your talk page, or Scott Bundgaard they can offer us some advice on a better way we might have been able to approach this situation. For my part, this has been good for my development as an editor, because familiarizing myself with policy as it is relevant to my understanding of some of your problematic edits has certainly improved my understanding of some of the more nuanced policies regarding sourcing, conflict resolution, etc. It's also helped me realize that I should probably have tried to be more specific on the talk-page from the onset, which I will go ahead and correct with my future edits. Lizzius (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, User:Lizzius, you are Wikihounding me! WP:Wikihounding

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

You have singled me out on multiple pages to confront or inhibit (my) work and continue to follow me from place to place on Wikipedia.

You have charged me with retaliatory editing, while you were the original offender. You have charged me with not sourcing secondary sources properly, while many of your articles violate that exact policy. And now you are casting aspersion on my intent and my identity?

I thanked you during our first exchange (as anyone can see) in an attempt to abide by the WP:Civility policy, but you continued to stalk me - to Wikihound me! Thankfully all of this dialogue is public, so that you can't spin the narrative by continually omitting facts not favorable to your position. Leave me the heck alone!!

Nurse12 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Need help merging

I was about to start editing the wikipedia page on the AURAI, but noticed it should be merged with AURA. Can I do that? And if so, what do I do with the empty Aurai page? Please help!GrecoRomanNut (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, GrecoRomanNut! The pages you're looking at, Aura (mythology) and Aurai have had proposed merger templates on them for more than a year, and have been logged (Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers/Log/July_2015) but WikiProject Merge has a very long backlog (back to 2013). While it may seem simple enough to take content from one article and copy & paste it to another article, that won't preserve the page history which is an important part of Wikipedia's licensing.

I would probably leave it alone and concentrate efforts on the larger article. However, if you feel you can expand Aurai as a unique article that may be a better option. I note that the only comment about merging (which predates the templates) is against a merge, so at least one editor wants to keep it. - Reidgreg (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Reidgreg, thanks for the help. I was just going through all the Greek Stubs, searching for one I can expand. I am good at referencing and adding thigns in the right spots, my problem is just finding the info in the first place! I will leave Aurai alone and edit Aura! GrecoRomanNut (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Uploading Photo

How to upload a photo from my computer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, Rudra Protap Chackraborty, and welcome to the Teahouse! To upload an image, follow the instructions here. Be very sure that the image you're uploading is something you have permission to upload. (Being able to download an image to your computer does not mean you have permission from the image creator to upload it to Wikipedia.) Otherwise, it will likely be deleted quickly, as Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

However, I believe you still need to wait two more days for your account to be autoconfirmed in order for you to be able upload images on your own. To be autoconfirmed requires that your account be four days old (According to this, your account is two days old.) and have at least made ten edits in total. This is to protect against vandalism. You will then be autoconfirmed automatically and be able to do things like edit semi-protected articles, etc..

-- Gestrid (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please check my article

Hello!

I've just posted an article CloudMounter, could you please check it and let me know if I need to correct anything. I tried to make it corresponding to all requirement.

Thanks in advance!DashaG11 (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

DashaG11: without pronouncing on the subject's notability, which the reviewer at AfG will be better equipped to assess, I can tell you that the screenshot section is unnecessary. You will find that short articles on software do not feature one, for the simple reason that there is little of general interest in the average application UI screenshot :) Your referencing looks good to me (but please move the inline ref tags after rather than in front of the sentence's punctuation). Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@DashaG11: I have rewritten the article slightly (see what I changed here) to convey a slightly more encyclopedic tone. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: ::@Elmidae: Thanks!

sourcing problems

I have a myriad of problems with an article I have been trying to write for several months, ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB). It is an organization I became interested in because I work with an inorganic standards producer who depends on their services. They are active in more than 50 companies overseeing ISO certifications and are referenced several places on wikipedia already so it would seem they meet the notability threshold. My problem is sourcing. The best information is from their website. There are some word combinations that are unavoidable. After months of futility, I finally reached out to them and they tried to grant permission to use their website as source, which they did. Can this be done without uploading the original source files for the website, simply by the owner of the intellectual property?

Bbcard1 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If they are willing to license the content of their website under a suitable licence such as CC-BY-SA (which will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose, even commercial), then it will allowable to use content from it directly in Wikipedia - they would need either to declare on its website that it was so licensed, or to send a mail as specified in donating copyright materials. Permission to use it on Wikipedia is not enough.

However, it is rarely appropriate to get the owner to license text in this way. The content of most organisations' websites is too promotional for a Wikipedia article; and it is not usually necessary to quote the text precisely anyway unless it is a literary work or something like that.

But I have another concern. Wikipedia articles should normally be based nearly 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have published about the subject: what the subject has said (or their friends, relatives, employees, associates, or customers) is of little interest. From your description, it sounds as if unusually, there might be a substantial amount of uncontroversial factual information which can appropriately be included from their site (see PRIMARY); but the fact remains that if you cannot find any substantial independent published material about them, then they fail the criterion for notability, and no article will be accepted, however it is written. If you read Your first article, you will see that you are recommended to start by finding independent references, and then write the article from those independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bbcard1, and welcome to the Teahouse. The main problem seems to be your previous use of copyright text in the article ANAB - The ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board. For them to grant permission for this material to used on Wikipedia, you and they need to follow the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. A warning, it's a complicated process and if it is not followed to the letter, the text will be rejected here. There is also the issue that the tone of the text on official websites will almost always be too promotional and would require heavy editing to bring it into line with Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, etc. This is a notable organization and should have an article, try the advice I give people who get into similar difficulties here:

1. Read their relevant website pages, and more importantly consult independent sources too, like this, this, and this. Digest the material. Internalize it. Make sure you understand the outline of the subject well enough to explain it verbally to another person without looking at the sources.
2. Then make an outline of the facts only (no adjectives; no phrases; just the facts.)
3. Now attempt a draft of the topic, just using your outline, preferably after not having looked at the source article for a little while. Work on it in your sandbox, rather than attempting to create it immediately in article space. But remember, you cannot paste copyright material into your sandbox either.
4. Go back and check your draft against the sources for accuracy and add the appropriate inline citations.

Any help? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that can help. It is an organization that is growing quite a bit. I'll do notes today and try to do an article over the next couple of days. I may start with a less ambitious article. While there is an importance to the ISO certifications they do, it has seemed to be a part of the problem. Some of the organizations that they govern, such as The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors have wiki articles and I may use them more as a guide, at least for starters. Good idea or bad?

Bbcard1 (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

One other question, I have looked into the matter and it appears the common license permission was sent some time back by ANAB. How do I know if it was processed? is there a database that can be searched?

17:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbcard1 (talk • contribs)

"Less ambitious" is probably good, Bbcard1. Make sure your notes are predominantly based on sources unconnected with the organisation - and note that organisations that it has provided a service to are not independent. Wikipedia doesn't care about "importance", except insofar as that importance is manifest in independent writing published about the source.

As for your question about the permission: I'm not certain if there's a way to find out, but the OTRS Noticeboard is probably a good place to ask. --ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary source when the primary is only updated infrequently

Does the existence of an authoritative primary source justify never using a reliable secondary source? See Talk:List of circulating currencies#ISO codes.

There is a dispute, which I am trying to mediate, over the acceptability of a secondary source (Xe.com) for ISO 4217:2015 three-letter codes for circulating currencies, such as GBP for the British pound and TVD for the Tuvaluan dollar. Both editors, Normakku and Zntrip, have been quite civil, but I believe neither of them is completely in the right.

The question at issue is whether the existence of an authoritative primary source justifies not using a reliable secondary source, when

• the primary source's own material (declarations, really, since it is the authority that issues the codes) is revised between public releases (Talk:List of circulating currencies#amendments)
• the secondary source is updated frequently (Xe.com: ISO 4217 Currency Codes) and
• the secondary source currently reports a change that does not appear in the most recent public version of the primary source

Fuller discussion is at the Talk page. I'

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Thnidu. The principle that Wikipedia does not rely on original research is one of our three core content policies. That policy states quite clearly that reliable secondary sources are preferred, although primary and tertiary sources can be used to fill in the non-controversial blanks. I have no expertise regarding ISO currency codes and so I am commenting on the general principle instead, so here is the bottom line: Reliable secondary sources are preferred, because they have the expertise to interpret the primary sources and present the information in context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. Zntrip has done some more digging and demonstrated clearly, in their own words, that "While XE may be a reliable source for exchange rates, I don't think the same can be said about its presentation of ISO 4217."

Re: primary vs secondary: this case is not typical of the cases discussed at WP:PSTS. This isn't material resulting from research by the primary source, or non-trivial, possibly controversial assertions about the source itself, or anything else the source reports about the world at large. The codes we're talking about are defined and promulgated by this source: by definition, they are whatever the source says they are, and questioning the source's reliability makes about as much sense as questioning the reliability of the U.S. Congress's official website as the source for the text of a Congressional bill, e.g. H.R.213 [114th Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2015] (top of "Most-Viewed Bills | Top 10" as I write this).

So as far as I'm concerned, this dispute is resolved in favor of Zntrip's choices. Normakku, I hope you'll continue to contribute with the same level of enthusiasm and dedication you've shown here, and with proper attention to the general issues we've discussed. We should never stop learning. I freely admit that I was wrong to assume that Xe.com's codes were as reliable as their exchange rates (appear to be), and I'm very glad Zntrip looked into it.

--Thnidu (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Submission issue

Hello everyone, Thanks for accepting me to this group. I have tried to create a page on Wikipedia about an organization called Connect4Climate. I like what they have been doing and realized they don't have a page on Wikipedia. Did some extensive research and submitted a page. So far the draft hasn't been approved. What has been happening? The link to the draft page is Draft:Connect4Climate Thanks much. Best, Daniel DPLopes (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@DPLopes: This is because the draft has not been submitted yet. To do so place {{subst:submit}} on the top of the article to enter it into the articles for creation process. -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 19:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not quite, The Voidwalker. DPLopes: when you removed the submission template (which recorded the failed submission on 24 April) from the draft, that removed the "resubmit" button. Quite apart from removing that button, the fact of the previous rejection is important information for any reviewer. PrimeHunter has restored the template, so you can resubmit. --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hadn't fully checked the history, thanks ColinFine! -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 21:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DPLopes. I took a look at your draft article Draft:Connect4Climate and would like to make some recommendations. Your references are presented as bare URLs. I recommend that you flesh them out into full references with bibliographic details. Please read Referencing for beginners. Your draft has many external links in its body. This is not allowed, although a small number of external links are allowed in a separate section at the end of the article. I also have concerns about the large number of sources which are not independent of Connect4Climate and its affiliated organizations. A Wikipedia article should be built primarily by summarizing what reliable independent sources say about the topic. All assertions which are in any way controversial must be referenced to a reliable independent source. I noticed various lists of notable people that lack references. In conclusion, please read Your first article and revise your draft following all of its recommendations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

allergic reaction to triatomine bites in the U.S.

I looked up triatoma bugs. A possibly useful addition is that bites can cause severe anaphylactic shock in those allergic to them. I KNOW. This happened many times to my mother and me over 50 years ago when we lived in a then isolated rural area in So. Calif. (outside Orange). This is a rare but life-threatening fact with application to other areas in the southern U.S. 2602:30A:C059:A9E0:A0C5:E938:5DC0:B71C (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@2602:30A:C059:A9E0:A0C5:E938:5DC0:B71C: Yes, you're right, that is important and should be added to the article if it is verifiable. So far, though, we have only your word for it. That doesn't mean I'm doubting you, but No original research is a fundamental policy here. Among the many good reasons is the fact that anyone can say, for example, "The White House has been infiltrated by hostile aliens from the Lesser Magellanic Cloud. I KNOW! I've seen them!". Can you provide references, whether from newspapers, health agency warnings, medical journals, or other reliable sources? ("Reliable sources or it didn't happen!") Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

This CDC website mentions that the saliva of certain types of triatomines can cause an allergic reaction in some people. Mduvekot (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mduvekot and 2602:30A:C059:A9E0:A0C5:E938:5DC0:B71C: Oh, good find! Even better:

Could I be allergic to the bite of a triatomine bug?

Yes. The saliva of certain types of triatomines can cause an allergic reaction in some people. An allergic reaction may be characterized by severe redness, itching, swelling, welts, hives, or, rarely, anaphylactic shock (severe allergic reaction). ... It is important to note that not all triatomines are infected with the parasite even though they may cause an allergic reaction.

And the Centers for Disease Control are indisputably a reliable source for disease information. --Thnidu (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm adding it to the article now. --Thnidu (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)