Talk:Entamoebiasis
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Even after treatment. symptoms may continue. As the parasite feeds on the protein in the blood, it will take time for the globulin (not to be confused with hemoglobin) levels to return to their former state.
Proposed merger
[edit]Please comment at Talk:Entamoeba histolytica. Hairy Dude 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why STI?
[edit]Can someone tell me why Amoebiasis is listed as a STI at the bottom of this page? It is RARELY transmitted in this way, although a number of cases have been reported in Japan in the male homosexual community. Listing it in this way gives the wrong impression in my opinion. There have been cases of transmission by enema but that doesn't mean it ought to be highlighted. It is primarily transmitted through faecal contamination of food or water, or by person to person transmission. Can someone tell me how to delete this feature of the page? Thanks. Entamoeba 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Entamoeba
Who changed the name?
[edit]Who changed the name of this article from Amebiasis to Entamebiasis? First of all Entamebiasis is not a word - it is Entamoebiasis. Second of all this word is rarely if ever used to described the disease - you will only find it called amebiasis or invasive amebiasis. In fact the WHO defines amebiasis/amoebiasis as infection with Entamoeba histolytica whether symptoms are present or not, so the inclusion of specific inclusion of 'Ent' in the title is superfluous. PLEASE can we have the title revert to the previous and correct version? Not sure how to do that or I would... Entamoeba (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Entamebiasis" is an appropriate spelling, per Dorland's, though I would have no problem with a move to "Entamoebiasis". Per MeSH, use of the more general term has been obsolete since 1975. Amoebiasis can refer to primary amoebic meningoencephalitis as well as entamebiasis. --Arcadian (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that it is in a dictionary does not make it correct and certainly does not justify using it as an article title. Both are at best archaic and obsolete and are certainly not in general usage, even if it is a MeSH term. A quick search of entamebiasis in PubMed finds only 4 entries, none since 1990. Likewise for the use of entamoebiasis in title or abstract, except for one (mis)translation from the Japanese. As an author of over 50 papers on Entamoeba, I can say with some confidence that the terms are not in current use and so I feel it is a step backward to use them in Wikipedia. As to primary amoebic meningoencephalitis being called amoebiasis or amebiasis, I have also worked on the organism responsible and these terms are again not used in this context except very rarely. PubMed shows only 3 usages of Naegleria+amoebiasis in Title+Abstract and only one of Naegleria+amebiasis. Similar numbers apply to Acanthamoeba and Balamuthia. So, again, to include primary or granulomatous amebic meningoencephalitis in the definition of am(o)ebiasis does not reflect common usage. Since Wikipedia is becoming the first port of call for many people seeking definitions and information I feel strongly that rather than introducing or reintroducing outdated terminology its articles should represent the prevailing views among experts in the field. This is what I try to do with my edits of various articles and I believe that 1. the title of this article should revert to the previous one, and 2. anything other than Entamoeba infection should be removed from the article on Amebiasis except perhaps a footnote to say it is rarely and incorrectly applied to infection with other amebae. Entamoeba (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have added more detail at Amoebiasis and Entamoebiasis to help clarify the relationships. If you still wish the content currently at Entamoebiasis to be moved to Amoebiasis, please describe in more detail how you would envision the organization of the content on these two pages. --Arcadian (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is quite simple in my view. 1. Restore everything related to Entamoeba histolytica back to the Amoebiasis page. 2. In case anyone searches Wikipedia for the term Entamoebaisis keep a brief descriptor of this term as a rarely used alternative on that page and refer them back to Amoebiasis. 3. By all means retain a section listing other amoebic infections and cross reference from Amoebiasis to those pages (i.e. Dientamoebiasis etc.). That will take care of things. Thanks. Entamoeba (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have added more detail at Amoebiasis and Entamoebiasis to help clarify the relationships. If you still wish the content currently at Entamoebiasis to be moved to Amoebiasis, please describe in more detail how you would envision the organization of the content on these two pages. --Arcadian (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that it is in a dictionary does not make it correct and certainly does not justify using it as an article title. Both are at best archaic and obsolete and are certainly not in general usage, even if it is a MeSH term. A quick search of entamebiasis in PubMed finds only 4 entries, none since 1990. Likewise for the use of entamoebiasis in title or abstract, except for one (mis)translation from the Japanese. As an author of over 50 papers on Entamoeba, I can say with some confidence that the terms are not in current use and so I feel it is a step backward to use them in Wikipedia. As to primary amoebic meningoencephalitis being called amoebiasis or amebiasis, I have also worked on the organism responsible and these terms are again not used in this context except very rarely. PubMed shows only 3 usages of Naegleria+amoebiasis in Title+Abstract and only one of Naegleria+amebiasis. Similar numbers apply to Acanthamoeba and Balamuthia. So, again, to include primary or granulomatous amebic meningoencephalitis in the definition of am(o)ebiasis does not reflect common usage. Since Wikipedia is becoming the first port of call for many people seeking definitions and information I feel strongly that rather than introducing or reintroducing outdated terminology its articles should represent the prevailing views among experts in the field. This is what I try to do with my edits of various articles and I believe that 1. the title of this article should revert to the previous one, and 2. anything other than Entamoeba infection should be removed from the article on Amebiasis except perhaps a footnote to say it is rarely and incorrectly applied to infection with other amebae. Entamoeba (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)