Talk:Aluminium phosphide poisoning

Attribution
@RHaworth : Acknowledgement was provided in reference list. Its not required to include the same in the article itself. I realised that the dose was "hopelessly wrong" but I didn't find any other in-journal document then to correct it. I have found an article elucidating a fatal dose and have corrected your correction.

As per WP norms, acknowledgements for articles are taken to be a part of the Reflist and it doesn't go in the article itself. Sorry to see that you didn't know that despite your adminship. And about "Large chunks of this article (including the hopelessly wrong dose level! - now corrected) have been copied" - I do not think WP allows original research. Sarindam7 19:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Citing a source as a reference is quite different from actually acknowledging that you have used large parts of its text! Of course WP does not allow original research but it always encourages re-writing in your own words . &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Re-writing starts off with some original content. I did the primary writing. You are just as free to rewrite this yourself as I am. I'll need some time to do it myself. Lets not forget that scientific papers are PD. It was an important poisoning that lacked a WP page and I decided to create one. I think rewriting it won't be that difficult. Sarindam7 21:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Attribution by initiator of article:
 * Text has been copied into this article from various public domain (CC) medical publications with minimal editing. Kindly rewrite. Sarindam7 22:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What a strange attitude: "I have dumped this (non-copyvio) text - someone else please tidy it up". I would say that is totally contrary to "WP norms". The approach should be: "here is a short stub in my own words with sufficient refs to show that the subject is notable. Now will others please expand it, again in their own words". &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Fatal dose
For the fatal dose, I favour the figure of 0.15 - 0.5 gm quoted in HKJEM - page 3 of the PDF or search for "fatal dose". The figure of 1.5 gm given in PubMed 8941200 sounds too high for something described as "highly toxic". The 150 to 500 grams given in IJA is, of course, ridiculous but if we take it as typo for 150 to 500 milli grams, then it agrees with HKJEM. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed Sarindam7 21:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wired magazine article from 2014
I just came across [http://this%20article. http://www.wired.com/2014/03/dead-tourists-and-a-dangerous-pesticide/] It talks about the lack of correct information on WP, in March 2014. I updated this page about deaths in Thailand about 6 months ago. Will update more today. The image in the article is supposed to be on WM commons, but I can't find it. Would be nice to include. juanTamad (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)