Talk:lead poisoning
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Deletion discussion[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Change to an &lit. It's poisoning by means of lead. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. It is my thumbnail understanding that "lead poisoning" refers to poisoning by incidental absorption through the skin. If you decide to do away with your evil twin by mixing lead into their tea, they may be poisoned by it, but this would not be "lead poisoning" as it is traditionally used. Consider:
- 2005, John Emsley, The Elements of Murder: A History of Poison, page 317:
- Specht and Fischer deduced that Clement had been fatally poisoned with lead and that this had been taken repeatedly and over a period of time. They concluded that his remains revealed a pattern of lead poisoning similar to those who had been exposed to lead as a result of their occupation and who had died of this cause.
- 2005, John Emsley, The Elements of Murder: A History of Poison, page 317:
- Cheers! bd2412 T 18:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, simple enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- "...poisoned with lead...revealed a pattern of lead poisoning..." seems to me to be evidence for exactly the opposite case that BD2412 is trying to make. SpinningSpark 23:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- The book is about murders committed with poison. In context, the passage is about how researchers knew that Clement had died of from exposure to lead because he had symptoms similar to those of crafstman who worked with lead (i.e. had actual "lead poisoning"), and concluded from those symptoms that Clement had been poisoned with lead - much like finding that someone had died from burns (the symptom, which might be found on people who work in fire pits and boiler rooms and get burned incidentally) and concluding that this particular subject had been murdered by intentionally being set on fire. bd2412 T 00:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are two definitions of poisoning. "The administration of a poison" is what you're focusing on as the SOP meaning, but "The state of being poisoned", works just fine for the common usage. Lead poisoning is a condition or syndrome that is the result of too much lead in one's body- how it got there is irrelevant. For instance, if children eat chips of lead-based paint, they get lead poisoning. If someone is shot and the bullet isn't removed, they're at risk for lead poisoning. "Poisoning by incidental absorption through the skin" isn't part of the definition. In fact, one could say "this particular case of lead poisoning was no accident- someone deliberately poisoned him with lead." It seems to me a matter of whether the fact that only one definition of a component contributes to the default meaning is enough to establish idiomaticity. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Point taken. Delete. bd2412 T 13:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are two definitions of poisoning. "The administration of a poison" is what you're focusing on as the SOP meaning, but "The state of being poisoned", works just fine for the common usage. Lead poisoning is a condition or syndrome that is the result of too much lead in one's body- how it got there is irrelevant. For instance, if children eat chips of lead-based paint, they get lead poisoning. If someone is shot and the bullet isn't removed, they're at risk for lead poisoning. "Poisoning by incidental absorption through the skin" isn't part of the definition. In fact, one could say "this particular case of lead poisoning was no accident- someone deliberately poisoned him with lead." It seems to me a matter of whether the fact that only one definition of a component contributes to the default meaning is enough to establish idiomaticity. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- The book is about murders committed with poison. In context, the passage is about how researchers knew that Clement had died of from exposure to lead because he had symptoms similar to those of crafstman who worked with lead (i.e. had actual "lead poisoning"), and concluded from those symptoms that Clement had been poisoned with lead - much like finding that someone had died from burns (the symptom, which might be found on people who work in fire pits and boiler rooms and get burned incidentally) and concluding that this particular subject had been murdered by intentionally being set on fire. bd2412 T 00:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- There are no non-literal senses in the entry, and it's not a translations target, since plumbism hosts the translations... so if it's decided that any poisoning by lead is lead poisoning, the thing to do would seem to be delete the entry, rather than make it an
{{&lit}}. - -sche (discuss) 00:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- @-sche: There was a non-literal sense when I nominated it. Semper deleted it out of process and I reverted him. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the context from that sense, because I don't think it's correct. I have heard or seen that figure of speech in fiction, so it may be that the contributor saw it in some western and assumed that was the context. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- For some reason or other many lexicographers find this worth including, including Merriam-Webster, usually fairly picky about excluding MWEs. See “lead poisoning”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Merriam-Webster definition is quite specific, too. bd2412 T 13:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- For some reason or other many lexicographers find this worth including, including Merriam-Webster, usually fairly picky about excluding MWEs. See “lead poisoning”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the context from that sense, because I don't think it's correct. I have heard or seen that figure of speech in fiction, so it may be that the contributor saw it in some western and assumed that was the context. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- @-sche: There was a non-literal sense when I nominated it. Semper deleted it out of process and I reverted him. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per lemmings, so per DCDuring. In general, I find a replacement with &lit is rarely an improvement. Furthermore, I find it of interest that there are various curious terms apparently denoting the condition: plumbism, Devon colic, lead colic, painter's colic, saturnism. As per plumbism,Devon colic,lead colic,painter's colic,saturnism,lead poisoning at Google Ngram Viewer, "lead poisoning" is most common by far. The existence of dedicated terms suggests the users of the term think of this condition as a specific thing. I am actually not sure all of these are synonyms rather than symptoms, but "plumbism" should be a synonym per oxforddictionaries.com, Collins and Merriam-Webster online, saturnism per AHD and Collins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. It is too useful not to keep. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept. bd2412 T 17:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)