Talk:Gastrointestinal tract/Archive 1

Stuff

Should the section on digestion be transplanted to the digestion page? --Alex.tan 04:47, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's out of place here. AxelBoldt 22:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

what about naming it Human gastrointestinal tract and using the reference that I placed at digestion? moogle

No. How about all the other mammals with a gastrointestinal tract, not to mention other kingdoms? JFW | T@lk 08:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Intestinal mucosa redirects to this article, yet is not discussed in any detail here.

Enteron to Enron

A piece of humor for the article? According to Conspiracy of Fools by Kurt Eichenwald, a consulting company proposed Enteron as the first name for Enron, Ken Lay's natural gas pipeline company, a name rich in irony.

I may be having a slight sense of humour dysfunction, but this doesn't strike me as funny. JFW | T@lk 21:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multicellular Animal

Are there even such things as unicellular animals? That distinction seems unnecessary. That page just redirects to multicellular ORGANISM anyway. Lantoka 05:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can have unicellular animals. The difference between the two is generally taken to be autotrophy or heterotrophy. Uni- and multicellular animals take their food in from outside sources while uni- and multicellular plants make their own food. Shalinikc 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Digestive System

so that it matches its category name -- Fplay 14:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think it is useful to keep articles for anatomy distinct from related topics. --Arcadian 18:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this page's entry from Wikipedia:Requested moves due to a lack of consensus on the move. If this changes, feel free to add another request. --Lox (t,c) 16:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Catguts

I changed the section on "Uses of Gut", wherein it says cat gut was not actually used for strings: I have a copy of "Foxfire" (a book of interviews of old people, and instructions on how to make nearly antique items, such as banjos, wool spinners, butter churns, etc...) in which an older (80ish at the time of the interview, which was about 20 years ago now) man discusses how he used to catch cats and use the hides for both the banjo face and the strings. ---The Sane One

Um, hide is skin, not gut. Zachary Gibbons 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silk was mentioned as a "synthetic" material (along with nylon and steel) used in place of animal guts to make strings for musical instruments. Silk is not synthetic - it's a natural protein fiber. (Nikola Pekas)

Watch this page!

I just found some vandalism on this page that was about 6 hours old. This page is frequently vandalized. If you have the time, consider putting this page on your watchlist. Maybe it would help if more people were keeping a close eye on the article. Thanks! delldot | talk 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! --Animeronin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help?????

i dont think this is much help and it should have just a *digestive system* page!!!!!!!!!!!Rdsess 16:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the alimentary canal also mean gut???? My homework says what is the scientific word for gut and i looked it up on google and it says alimentary canal but that is only 1 page and 1 piece of evidence. This page doesn't mention anything about a gut. 09:12, 29 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.88.91 (talk)

Vandalism on this page

I have restored some substantial vandalism that happened on this page, essentially from the time of my edits I had to go back to this edit on 16 December 2006, phew. In case this happens again, this edit on 31 January 2007 was where I think I got all of the vandalism/blanking restored.--DO11.10 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect?

The description that the "digestive tract" is another name for the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) is misleading. I believe that the digestive tract commences at the mouth and ends at the anus i.e. includes mouth, pharynx, oesophagus, stomach and intestines (small and large). The tract along with teeth, salivary glands, liver, gallbladder and pancreas is called the "digestive system". The GIT however only comprises of the stomach and intestines (small and large). Can someone please check this and update if my comments are correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.249.124 (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. My reference, Principles of Human Anatomy by Gerard Tortora says, "...the the gastrointestinal (GI) tract or alimentary canal, a continuous tube running through the ventral body cavity and extending from the mouth to the anus...". Figma 15:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... sorry I have to be a persistent bug, I'll will have to look into it further. I believe it is a common misconception as I am studying medicine and this is what we are taught. I'll have to find a book to reconfirm your reference. If you look at it from a Greek (I don't think it's Latin) POV - Gastro being stomach, and intestinal ... well, intestine. I'm not saying your reference is wrong, but has it been changed since? Just a simple google search will provide both definitions, my one and your one. I'll get back to you. :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.249.124 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-26T08:09:57

Ok I found a book, the first book I looked at really: Seeley, RR, Stephens, TD, Tate, P, 2002. "Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology," 4th Edition, McGraw Hill, New York. It reads on page 431: "The digestive system consists of the digestive tract, a tube extending from the mouth to the anus, plus the associated organs, which secrete fluids into the digestive tract. The term gastrointestinal tract technically only refers to the stomach and intestines but is often used as a synonym for the digestive tract". I guess it's a case of how technical you want to be. I've discussed it with my fellow students and teachers and they agree with the book definition. Well good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.249.124 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-02T09:39:32

I agree with the previous author. The digestive system, the digestive tract and the gastrointestinal tract are three closely related terms, but they are distinctly different. In a proper anatomical ontology, these terms would be related as follows: gastrointestinal tract part_of digestive tract part_of digestive system.

Even though these terms appear to be interchangeable in common speech, you should aim for unambivalent headers wherever possible. This article is primarily about the digestive tract and its title should be changed to that, with a short explanation explaining the difference between the terms. The digestive system includes the salivary glands, liver, gall bladder and pancreas. The caption of the illustration is therefore misleading, suggesting that these organ structures are in fact part of the digestive tract.<—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.52.242 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-13T14:03:45

if the GI tract technically only refers to stomach and intestines, what are we to make of the term "upper GI tract" (which according to the main page includes the esophagus)? Should this be technically referred to as "upper digestive tract"? Cmungall (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Title of the article should be changed to ''Alimentary Canal." (EnochBethany (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Too human-centric: needs a worldwide view

This should include or link to some information about the GI tracts of ruminants and non-mammals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.45 (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the digestive system is importanat

the digestive system is very important! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdestiny33 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are creatures that don't have a gastrointestinal tract?

This article discusses the "tube" body plan (organising that take in food through the mouth, and dispose of undigested material through the anus); what is the term for those animals that take in food, digest it in a pouch and expel the waste through the same opening? i.e. those that never evolved the gastrointestinal tract? What are they called? Come to think of it, what is the collective term for those that did evolve this feature? Anxietycello (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture to the right doesn't show the Jejunum.

Right in the middle of the lede is this sentence: "The picture to the right doesn't show the Jejunum." It interrupts the flow, doesn't seem to fit and is not central to the article. Maybe it can go into the caption for the picture?Originalname37 (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract is disjointed

The article abstract meanders without design, is difficult to read, and does not work to convey an overview. —Christian Campbell 16:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pathology -> common treatments?

Given that this article briefly mentions some common diseases, perhaps it should briefly summarize common treatments?

I ask because I noticed a press release about an article which broadly Japanese herbal treatments for gastro disease [1]. II | (t - c) 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stomatitis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.75.4 (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor looks like he was adding something useful

...but broke something existing as well. I don't know enough about the subject to correct his error and include his information, so I'll leave the diff here and experts can sort it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gastrointestinal_tract&diff=301466751&oldid=301441329 Plasticup ^T/C 23:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article content and title: split?

As its stands this article (which contains a lot of very good material) seems to be a mixture of two separate articles. The lead para, which matches the article title, describes digestive tracts in general. Then at the end of the lead we have a statement that "The remainder of this article focuses on human gastrointestinal anatomy" (although in fact we do go back to uses for animal guts at the end).

The lead must summarise the article, and both must be reflected in the title. If the article is indeed about human gastrointestinal anatomy, then that should be the title and the lead should summarise it. If it is about intestinal tracts generally, then the human anatomy sections should be far briefer, and descriptions of other animal's innards should be included in similar detail. We can't have the lead, title and body of the article about different subjects!

It seems to me that best solution would be to split the article into two: "digestive system" and "human gastrointestinal anatomy". Any thoughts? Richard New Forest (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. There is now some work to do straightening out redirects, and splitting out the animal material, possibly back to [[Gastrointestinal tract (pending a better suggestion). I'll start that, and anyone else is more than welcome to pitch in. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrointestinal tract → Human gastrointestinal tract — No responses to the previous comment, after several weeks... I therefore propose the following, slightly different from above:

Move the article to Human gastrointestinal tract, because the current title does not match the subject of the article. Needs to be an admin move, as that title is occupied by a redirect to here.
Rewrite the lead para to reflect the content.
My suggestion above of a split is not appropriate, as Digestion already covers the general subject very well. Therefore, omit non-human material from this article altogether.
Move material about uses of non-human animal guts to somewhere better (suggestions?) or if can't find anywhere, make new article of it.

Richard New Forest (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support split' there's already extreme bias on this article, so a split to a more generalized article, and a human specific one is a good idea, with a "human" name appended to counter systematic bias on Wikipedia that assumes everything is human. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support; very many articles with general anatomy pages names are occupied by human anatomy content, the rest of the animal kingdom relegated to a short section at the end. --Una Smith (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Metal Eaters?

Can humans eat metal and glass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.233.69 (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Pica_(disorder). Ttiotsw (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting paragraph: bolded term?

The lead paragraph should include "Human gastrointestinal tract" bolded as soon as possible (WP:BOLDTITLE), instead of, very strangely, talking about the digestive system. The problem is that the latest version that has the term bolded is, I think, at least 50 edits away, and the article has changed so much that the old introduction doesn't really fit anymore. Can somebody who knows this subject better deal with it? (We don't even acknowledge that "GI tract" is an abbreviation for... what?) colfulus ‽ 13:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long is the GI tract really? Clarification needed.

"the GI tract is approximately 5 metres (20 ft) long in a live subject, or up to 9 metres (30 ft) without the effect of muscle tone"

5 m ~ 16 ft

6 m ~ 20 ft

Can anyone clarify? Thanks! --Eleysanne (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duodenum

The duodenum is listed in the article as being both part of the upper and lower intestinal tract - is it really part of both? Can someone more knowledgeable provide clarification? Errodiel (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

enteron and enteric canal

I was redirected to this page when I searched for enteron. I was seeking information on enteron/enteric canal, but even though there is a redirect from "enteron" the word is not mentioned in the article. Wakablogger2 (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_{SHOOPDAWOOP U HAZ COPIED AND PASTED HAZ U NOTZ?}

Mouth and pharynx not part of upper GI tract?

Reading the upper and lower GI tract section, states upper GI tract begins at esophagus. Suggest oral cavity, oropharynx and laryngopharynx (aerodigestive tract) also part of GI tract. Other pages sort of state otherwise:

Human pharynx "The pharynx is part of the digestive system"

Human mouth "primary role as the beginning of the digestive system" lesion (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]