Talk:Athlete's foot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Who dicovered Athlete's Foot?

Dr. Zachariah Athlete, a physician of Philadelphia, in 1832.
Uhh... cute. The "athlete" in the term "athlete's foot" was coined by WF Young (manufacturers of Absorbine liniments) in the 1930s for an advertising campaign. There's a mention of it on their history page at www.absorbine.com Student Driver 01:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Urine therapy

This part is nonsense:

...The existence of prescription creams such as Vanamide® which are indicated for dry or rough skin and consist of up to 40% urea supports this claim...

This information only suggests that urea has the effect of sofening the skin, it isn't proof that this is it's only effect. Palefire 02:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's still nonsense, since it refers now to "bacteria" after the entire article has established that athlete's foot is fungal in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.144.154 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anecdotal evidence

Anecdotal insert - I have found that athlete's foot can be completely cured by making sure that the area between the toes is totally dry before putting on socks and shoes. This would suggest that sufferers may try this for a short period before resorting to the more esoteric methods mentioned above. posted by 64.52.69.134 21:30 6 Sept 2005 UTC


This is not just anecdotal, this is well documented. These fungi thrive on moist environments, and this is exactly what people should do to try and get rid of it. If the above is not already in the article, it should be.

[edit] Between 3rd and 4th and between 4th and 5th Toes

It is a noticeable fact and mentioned in some texts that it often happens only between the 3rd and 4th and between the 4th and 5th toes. --User:Roland Longbow 00:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

But you need to be able to tell us (cite) which texts say this - might not it occur only in 1st or 2nd web space - one needs to cite source for it being more common in the lateral foot. David Ruben Talk 02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Not every bit of information is accompanied with references. I read it in some medical dictionary and saw it is the case for many people. It may occur elsewhere, but it is much more often to occur only between the 3rd and 4th and between 4th and 5th toes. This may sound odd, though, but you may want to observe for yourself. And I think this is a noteworthy feature of tinea pedis.--Roland 02:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Policy is quite clear, it is the responsibility of an editor wishing to add information to be able to cite from a reliable source to verify the information. If citation can't be found then information, even if true, should not & can not be added :-) David Ruben Talk 03:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I am indeed confused. Then where is the reference for, for instance, the first sentence of the entry? And I don't see a single reference in the sections Causes, Growth Environment, Symptoms, Symptoms, Treatment. --Roland 05:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
A lot of this article was written before policy was so clear and enforced. What you're observing just means the article needs to be cleaned up. --Neurophyre(talk) 08:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Also note that Wikipedia is NOT the place to simply hold information that cannot be found elsewhere or is not cited... chances are... its a myth or misguided information. Every sentence MUST BE referenced, that is, hold some credible source as direct proof that is a true statement. Otherwise, it doesn't belong. Colonel Marksman 13:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have athlete's foot between my 2nd and 3rd toe right now, so that theory is faulty. Bummer! :) Mazakar 19:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

found the journal references, so you wikinazis can take a chill. Repliedthemockturtle 22:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image is confusing.

It may be me, but I can make neither heads nor tails of the leading image. What on earth is happening there? It seems to defy several laws of anatomy. If there are any other images, I think they should replace the current one. GenericGabriel 04:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Upper left edge of image are the tips of fingers pulling back on a toe to show the web space. View is looking down the length of the toe (heading to centre of image) to the web space. To the upper-right is the adjacent toe. David Ruben Talk 12:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Reading this explanation, I still can't make heads or tails (fingers or toes?) of this image. The way it's cropped leaves no context, and the image is worthless for identification and illustrative purposes. The one in the symptoms section is clear, and should be the leading image. -- AvatarMN 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Therapy instructions seem a bit confusing

Personal prevention measures

   * Try to limit the amount that your feet sweat by wearing open-toed shoes when possible and by removing your shoes when at home.

"It is recommended to wear open sandals, or even better, walking barefoot as much as possible."

This seems a bit confusing to me, as walkin with bare feet *at home* will spread the spores. Both walking barefeeted and using a hairdryer are practices explicitly disadvised in the German language version of the article at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hautpilz

[edit] Wonderful helpful article, needs citations, not changes

The writing and practical suggestions are great, helpful, practical, exactly what someone suspecting athlete's foot or wanting treatment would want to see. Footnotes (no pun?) would help, but please don't destroy the value that is here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.138 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 29 December 2007

[edit] If policy prevents Wikipedia editing by public to function, then policy needs re-examination

A study shows us anonymous writers and editors add great stuff all the time. If we make a mistake, correct our mistake, please (or let other anon editors do so). But please don't take valuable information available nowhere else down simply for lacking a citation. To do so defeats the ability of, for instance, clinicians or other personal experts to contribute based on clinical experience. Letting the truth emerge from a marketplace of ideas is the genius brilliantly capitalized on by Wikipedia. Wikipedia fulfills its mission via a policy to add footnotes where available, not one requiring unexamined deletion of valuable content.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.138 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 December 2007

Wikipedia is not meant to be a "marketplace of ideas", but rather perhaps a marketplace where anyone can add suitable content to an encyclopedia, this is not a blog for any and every idea, especially if only imperfectly "based on clinical experience". As an encyclopaedia, whilst wikipedia reflects and helps distribute current knowledge, it does not try to advance the knowledge itself nor make assessments on current thinking. As policy therefore all material added must be that which can be WP:Cited from WP:Reliable sources in order to WP:Verify and the responsibility to cite sources lies with the editor (registered or unregistered) who adds it. As WP:Cite observes "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." So "information available nowhere else" presumably can not be sourced from anywhere (let alone a reliable one) to verify ?
Now I would agree that where information is commonly held to be believed, then other editors should help with improving topics by adding additional (or missing) refs where possible and not therefore revert on-sight, but if information is not generally felt to be credible and accepted by either majority or significant minority opinions, then it may be removed under WP:NPOV. So while it is policy WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, wikipedia as well as giving freedom to add material also allows editing or deletion of items, as the "Please note" shown at the bottom of every editing page states, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ..., do not submit it."
So having pointed out some policies, what "valuable information" do you feel is being taken down ?David Ruben Talk —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)