Talk:Microorganism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Micro-organism vs. Microorganism

So... is it microrganism or micro-organism? Listed both ways on the entry right now... [This commented added by anon]

Yes, I'm not sure about this one. At minimum the article should be consistent: Wnissen 16:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Biology, Wallace, Sanders, Ferl, 3rd edition, 1990, it's "microorganism". I'm going to go ahead and change it back to reflect this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also described as Microorganism in the Oxford English dictionary and Merriam-Webster. This is the proper usage, otherwise we would have to change microbiology to micro-biology! TimVickers 20:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

ugh, it just looks so strange as Microorganism, i'm tempted to just write it Microrganism everywhere i see it... LukeTheSpook (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll get used to it, I know I have over the years! Tim Vickers (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All spellings quoted in the OED before 1981 have a hyphen, but the unhyphenated form seems to have taken over in the last twenty years. I agree it looks ugly, and it is harder to read, but we cannot dictate spelling! Dbfirs 07:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

i thought that this was the best website ever it helped me tons i needed it i have to do a report for school with a friend and this basically did it for me

thanks Wikipedia- this site helped me a lot with some science research.

thanks of my work its very west full dd;llllllldef] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.116.136 (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Virus

I gather a virus is not a microorganism? If so, could this be clarified? e.g. "Viruses are not regarded as microorganisms as they are not living and are thus not organisms." --Singkong2005 06:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Brock Biology of Microorganisms (Madigan 2006) a virus is considered to be a microorganism. My prof. says that this is not the case, however. Perhaps this reflects a recent change in the microbiliologist's conception (or an ongoining debate)?

From the definition of organism, neither a virus nor a prion could be included. Have we any other references? Dbfirs 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of text

== Different types of microrganisms==

VIRUS: This type of micro-organism is the most difficult to tackle and causes a variety of diseses and infections such as chickenpox, and measles. The structure of a virus consists of the infected cells protected by a protein cell and eventually that cell escapes from the protected protein cell to harm other cells and the 'piggyback' process continues. Human Viruses are often compared to computer viruses because of the simmiliar way in which they operate BACTERIA: This sort of micro-organism is the total opposite of viruses. Bacterium and bacteria can be fought off easily due to the body's natural defences and with the help of modern day medicines such as antibiotics. White blood cells, an important feature in our immune system adapt their shape depending on the bacteria in the body, after this process the white blood cells produce a clear, relatively thick fluid called antibodies. The antibodies, help with the cell itself to destroy all the bacteria. You are probably wondering why do we take antibiotics when our body does all the work? Antibiotics are used to work in conjunction with antibodies to spped up the process of eliminating bacteria. If a person has some sort of bacteria in their body and the white cells successfully destroy the bacteria then the body will automatically leave some antibodies behind so that if the bacteria appear agian in the body they can be killed off easiy, before they multiply and cause harm.In some cases the excess reproduction of bacteria can cause severe diseases such as impetigo. FUNGI:This type of micro-organism is useful to humans as much as it is harmful to us. Yeast a well-known fungus, is used to bake bread and brew beer. This occurs because of complicated processes in the fungus cell named 'cell budding'. However fungus can also cause harm to the body temporarily but can easily be cleared away. Athletes foot is caused because of the rapid spread of fungi in wet and damp areas, usally between the toes. Fungi can be cleared easily just like bacteria. --86.17.115.193 13:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)adz_619

Clearing Microrganisms

Viruses: A virus can be cleared naturally by the body but antibiotics may be given to speed up the process. Bacteria: Bacteria in the body and how to clear it is already mentioned. Bacteria in food can easily be killed off to prevent the food poisoning, also kniown as salmonella. To perform this the food must be cooked at a very high tempreature such as 60 degree's celsius or more depending on the food. Fungi: Can be cleared with the natural defences of the body and extra care should be taken to make sure prone areas such as in between toes are dry after having a bath or coming out of the swimming pool

--boffin 13:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)adz_619

Removed the above text, as it is not relevant to the article in its current wording and context. The article on microorganisms should not be concerned with removal or treatment of microbial infections, or any other specific details such as these. Please feel free to add this info to more relevant articles if possible, though. Mushin^talk 19:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Its sad to see that this page fell prey to Vandalism, I removed it immedately.

The above clearly doesn't understand the intention on what he removed. I'm just stating a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.106.25 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So Microorganism is a germs ?

is it true and i don't understand in scuence-fiction words, please reply asnwers KanuT 18:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• microorganisms are those organisms that are microscopic in size (protists, bacteria, fungi, some algae etc), as compared to macroorganisms (worms, us, mice, starfish etc). "Germ" is a lay term that normally refers to harmful microorganisms. All "germs" are microorganisms but the same isnt true the other way around ie: not all microorganisms are "germs". MidgleyDJ 21:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

AID votes

Microorganism (35 votes, stays until October 18)

Nominated August 16, 2006; needs at least 36 votes by October 18, 2006

Support

1. Kafziel 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
2. BorgQueen 13:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Runningonbrains 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Durova 07:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Ehjort 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
6. ClockworkSoul 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
7. mirageinred 23:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Espresso Addict 21:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Tjss(Talk) 23:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
10. TransNique 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Speedystickd 05:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
12. TimVickers 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
13. WS 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
14. --Jelloyeti 08:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
15. EamonnPKeane 11:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Gray Porpoise 10:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
17. --Tachikoma 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Nbound 12:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Ehjort 15:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Daniel's page ☎ 20:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
21. --SasaStefanovic • 01:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
22. `'mikka (t) 17:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
23. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
24. Cory Liu 02:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
25. Dar-Ape (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
26. Vsion 02:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
27. DancingPenguin 04:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
28. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
29. Chino 03:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
30. Benbread 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
31. Major Bloodnok 08:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
32. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
33. Brianmcgee17 19:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
34. Kyoko 19:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
35. Exteray^T.C 00:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I was amazed that such a significant topic basically consists of three paragraphs and a "see also" section. This could be a great article if some knowledgeable people can get together on it. Kafziel 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• I found really useful, though it could do with a little more info as it is a developing field and many people are interested in it. I agree with Kafziel that 'it could be a great article if some knowledgeable people can get together on it'.Silver4
• This is about scientific informations which is Microorganism, and we can make scientific(Biologic) section. That would be best option. Daniel's page ☎ 03:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Microbiology

Microbiology defines itself as the study of microorganisms, so that topic should be about the same as this one. We should merge the two, or duplicate the content missing here. For instance, the microbiology article explains history better, links to microbial cell structure (note piped link) and agar plate, and at least mentions medical, evolutionary, and food microbiology. Art LaPella 19:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Content should definitely be merged, but I'm not so sure about merging the entire articles... after all, Neuroscience and nervous system are separate articles, as are Immunology and Immune system. By the way, thanks for fixing my spelling errors :) (I have made sure there are none in this post.) Dar-Ape 03:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My usual edits are simple things like spelling, not composing and merging. Art LaPella 17:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should remain separate articles - perhaps the "history" section of microorganism could be trimmed and a link made to the section on the history of microbiology. Otherwise, I think there is very little overlap between the two articles. Dr Aaron 06:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Info?

I find it highly disappointing that an article with high importance in science is so woefully lacking in information. Something needs to be done as soon as possible to fix this. To stub everything is just a cop out of the hard work needed to improve this article. I suggest that we find someone who has the time and expertise to improve this article to a good standard, or put it on the article drive again. I would myself but i don't know enough or have the time to do it. To put it simply, I'm not impressed. Random articles 09:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

first life forms

Hi. I've attempted to cite source for the claim that single-cell microorganisms were the first form of life, but for some reason it was deleted!. As none of us (afaik) were there when life started, we can't state this as fact can we, but we can cite sources. Correct? --Rebroad 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Which chapter of the book was this statement in? TimVickers 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea! But some sort of source needs to be cited, or a {{Fact}} tag added until the source is cited, at least. --Rebroad 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I ask as I couldn't find any mention of the origin of life when I looked in the Origin of the Species. Moreover, this sentence had a reference, so I think it would be illogical to add a "citation needed" tag as there is already a citation. I have added further references and removed the weasel words "according to popular scientific belief" as all of this article deals with scientific ideas about microorganisms. There is no reason to add this phrase in one place and not everywhere. TimVickers 15:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the policy on weasel words. TimVickers 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

According to scientists

If User:TimVickers's claim here is correct, then it is true that the qualifier is not needed. However, it is not currently clear in the article that it is an article on only scientific belief. Such an article ought to be renamed to "Microorganism (Scientific belief)" or perhaps have a sub-section on this. One group's beliefs is not appropriate on which to base the article without making this VERY clear.

Given that the need for the qualifier is currently debated, I have left this out, and have replaced with "it is believed" - similar wording to that which was agreed in the Solar system article. --Rebroad 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See the policy WP:Weasel. The statement is supported by multiple verifiable sources. TimVickers 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mis-applying WP:Weasel. Wikipedia is supposed to only state as fact what is proven. If it is a belief, then this can be stated as such. I.e. is it a fact that people believe this. Unless it is proven, it cannot be stated as fact. The cited source does not point to a proof. The sentence needs to be attributed to those which have that belief. I agree that use of the word "many people" is not ideal, but until it's attributed I propose it be removed from the article. --Rebroad 17:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See source, this is simple statement of fact backed by two verifiable sources. TimVickers 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is nicely summarised in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#A_simple_formulation, it states "assert facts, including facts about opinions - but do not asserts the opinions themselves." It is not a statement of fact. It is an opinion. If you could point me to a proof, I will be happy to leave the statement of fact in the article. --Rebroad 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added a third review. This is a simple statement of fact backed by three reliable sources. TimVickers 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I appreciate the effort you have gone to to find these sources. I will certainly read them. But I am still a little confused, given that there are so many theories for how life started on this planet (such as intelligent design, it arriving on an asteroid, etc). These have all been disproven have they? I find it hard to understand how they could have been (if this is what you assert. Would you be willing to briefly summarise on this talk page please. Many thanks, --Rebroad 09:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find alternative theories backed by reliable sources stating that multicellular life originated before microbial life, then this statement will have to be altered. An extraterrestrial origin of life is improbable but possible, but this would also be microbial life, so fits under the current statement. The policy you are quoting states:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).

However, religious beliefs such as intelligent design are not backed by reliable sources. We could add a section on "Religious beliefs about microorganisms" at the end as an interesting piece of anthropology, but this would be describing beliefs about microorganisms, not verified facts about microorganisms. TimVickers 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"If I can find alternative theories backed by reliable sources"?! It seems like you might as well be asking me to prove the moon is made of cheese in order to prove it isn't made of rock. I don't have to provide reliable sources for anything that I'm not claiming. It is only people who are stating things as fact that need to provide the adequate corresponding reliable sources. Regarding how life started on earth - I prefer to keep an open mind until someone can come up with proof to any of the theories. --Rebroad 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources to include content in Wikipedia. There are no reliable sources to back anything apart from the "microbes first" explanation, therefore these unsubstantiated alternative theories are not included. People are free to think whatever they want, but personal beliefs do not belong in an encyclopedia, we can only discuss verifiable facts. You have stated you have no reliable sources to back alternatives to what is described in this section, If you do not provide such sources, I will remove the "disputed" tag - as you will have nothing to dispute it with. TimVickers 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Please would you answer these two simple questions: 1) Is it scientifically proven that single-celled microorganisms were the first forms of life to develop on earth? And 2) Is it proven that it was 4 billion years ago? Many thanks, --Rebroad 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to understand the data upon which this section is based, it would be best to read the references. Are there any verifiable alternative explanations missing from this section? If not, I will remove the tag, as this section will then be in compliance with the NPOV policy I have quoted above. TimVickers 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As no additional sources have been supplied, I have removed the tag. TimVickers 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Life on mars?

This unsourced essay was added:

Interestingly, in light of the ubiquity of microorganisms on earth, none have been found to date on any other planet, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars in extra-terrestrial exploration, especially to the planet Mars.

It seems off topic to me, and lacks attribution. .. dave souza, talk 15:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If that much has been spent to something already, it mostly is worth being mentioned in an encyclopedia. Besides in itself it's very interesting to many. But it did raise the question, how many microbe lifes this project has cost already (microbes, that naturally live in crude oil, of which fuel is made, and that are killed in the refining process or by fire, when fuel is used). Natubico (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

recent changes

I have to decided to remove this early hypothesizing that such things as microrganisms existed. First of all neither of these early claims resemble in any way that microorganisms existed. Worlds like foul earthly bodies and contagious entities does not in any way mean someone was talking about microbes. I mean were these foul contagious entities made of what? solids, liquids, a combination. Basically by saying these early people were speculating on the existence of microbes is fallacious since one is just amplying a modern interpretation to ancient words. Essentialy one is just assuming, ohh contagious entities, well they must be talking about microbes, but thats just retrospect since we now know such things exist. This early section is best kept in the germ theory page. Lastly, associating microbes with disease is foolish since its not true, not all microbes cause disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomasz Prochownik (talk • contribs) 08:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

While slight rephrasing may be in order, the information you deleted is useful for context and should remain. Please make proposals on talk pages first rather than blanking paragraphs, remember to fill in an edit summary, and remember to sign your posts. .. dave souza, talk 08:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

rewritting

i think that we can break the section up into whats called pre-microbiology, and then discovery???, i think that sounds good, but am still gettin rid of this early section in bacteria since its not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Microorganism drugs

There are many drugs like magic mushrooms which are actualy microorganisms! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.58.72.102 (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirections are annoying!

With each article I look up on wikipedia, most of them redirect to another one. Well stop! That's called being a know-it-all and it has to stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.139.234 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

You guys really need to have more pictures of mirobes. Microbes are so cool and I need to do research on them but all the websites have only a little bit of pictures and most websites don't have any pictures of microbes whatsoever I mean is it really that hard to get pictures of microbes when theres all those scientists out there. Really dudes its not cool to not have microbes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.183.84 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't try google images hè? Natubico (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hygiene

Added to this section might be the more or less new awareness, that all methods, that are used to prevent spoiling of food, by eliminating microbes,(cooking, pasteurising, freezing, etc.) strongly reduce nutritional value of that food, because as a result the eliminated bacteria, like vitamins, are not able any more to practise their essential functions, such as bringing minerals from the food to the organs, where they're needed. (See also literature about Raw foodism). Natubico (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought this might not exactly be a matter of Hygiëne, but just of (artificial) Food conservation. Natubico (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.86.71.20 (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unknown organism

Anybody knows, what this could be? The circle is the field of view of a microscope in 400:1. (not 10:1 !!)

It consists of only one cell.

Thanks, Saippuakauppias ⇄ 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on editor's talk page. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the page history, and found 8 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edit). Tobby72 (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you are making an accusation, the burden is on you to prove it. Can you explain why the provided sources do not support that edit? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Jagged 85 claims in the Infectious disease and Avicenna articles that [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] Avicenna discovered the contagious nature of infectious diseases and introduced quarantine as a means of limiting the spread of contagious diseases.

Similar assertions, though less bold, are in the Microorganism article :

He also hypothesized that tuberculosis and other diseases might be contagious, i.e. that they were infectious diseases, and used quarantine to limit their spread.

The source cited for this was:Tschanz, David W. "Arab Roots of European Medicine". Heart Views. 4 (2). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Jagged 85 is using a large number of scholarly works not available on the internet, such as the "Arab roots of European Medicine", and I have no access to a university library, but I found rather different assertions here and here:

Avicenna recognized the presence of infectious diseases such as leprosy, scabies, smallpox, measles, and pestilential fevers (plague) and adopted, from the Greeks, the theory that epidemics are caused by pollution in the air (miasma).

In 1348, the City of Venice first introduced the idea of quarantine — by requiring incoming ships to be isolated for 40 days before landing.

I think it should be double-checked. Thanks, Tobby72 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the source he cited, Tschanz, David W. "Arab Roots of European Medicine". Heart Views. 4 (2). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help), doesn't support his claim? Crum375 (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't support his claim.

The article mentioned above has been published in a variety of low grade journals but was originally published as:

• Tschanz, David W. (May/June 1997). "The Arab Roots of European Medicine". Saudi Aramco World. 48 (3): 20–31. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

I'm pretty sure this journal does not count as a reliable source for this sort of information and there is no obvious quality control of the relevant sort. Also the article does not give any sources for its claims and so is a tertiary source.

As Tobby72 mentions, there are other sources that contradict the claim that Ibn Sina introduced quarantine and in fact the quoted source makes no such claim, it simply says that "Ibn Sina's theory of infection by 'traces' led to the introduction of quarantine as a means of limiting the spread of infectious diseases", which is compatible with it first being introduced by the Venetians.

As Tobby72 further points out, the preceding claim about "foul foreign earthly body" follows from the fact that Ibn Sina is a follower of the the Greek miasma theory, so this is nothing new with him and thus not particularly notable.

I've deleted both claims and will do the same in other articles where they occur.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing Avicenna from the history of microorganism flies in the face of many existing reliable sources. I have restored the material and added this source. I am sure there are many more. Crum375 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding another reference for that Crum375 but I rather doubt the "reliable sources" part. Unfortunately I think reference should also be deleted as those claims appear to be sourced from Wikipedia; especially as it contains claims such as he "practiced evidence-based medicine", which is a classic [[[edit]Presentism (literary and historical analysis)|]] claim, with which such articles have been filled by Jagged.

It's not hard finding published sources for such claims, but I would deeply like to have a decent, reputable, academic and secondary source for things like this. Otherwise editors such as Jagged simply need to find any random publication that contains something that accords with their view and then stuff articles with that information.

This is not a subject area (history of medicine) where I have the skills or knowledge to take this any further but I think that unless a rather better source can be found than this, it should be deleted. Further, since the view appears to be a simple repetition of Greek miasma theories, those should be reported and the rather less interesting information that Ibn Sina agreed with them, should itself then be deleted as per WP:UNDUE.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Colgan, Advice to the Young Physician: On the Art of Medicine, 2009. I am afraid that Jagged's erroneous assertions are spreading outside of Wikipedia.

For example [6]: "In The Canon of Medicine (1020), Avicenna discovered the contagious nature of infectious diseases such as phthisis and tuberculosis, the distribution of diseases by water and soil, and fully understood the contagious nature of sexually transmitted diseases. In epidemiology, he introduced the method of quarantine as a means of limiting the spread of contagious diseases.". R.d. Tribhuwan. Body Image, Human Reproduction and Birth Control, 2009. ... Jagged's 2007 edits: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Tobby72 (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement that the best sources should be used, and that Wikipedia "echoes" should be avoided. But going around making accusations about "misuse" of sources, without hard proof, is also problematic, as it can come across as censorship and a witch hunt. It's best to lower the tone, and instead of focusing on this editor and his "mission", to focus on trying to get the most reliable sources for Avicenna's apparently many important and early contributions to science and medicine. Crum375 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Propagation

I read that microorganisms propagate, yet I don't seem to find the methods used. Would somebody elaborate a bit on the topic, please? Yotwen (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Microorganisms ( as noted in the article) is a collective name for many different types and species of organisms. Please see the articles about the individual organisms which should have details of their reproductive behaviour. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Fungi

Are all fungi microorganisms? I think the text suggests that but it lacks an explanation why this exception is made (they can grow huge mycelia and mushrooms of more than a decimetre). For plants and animals there is an explanation that only the small ones are micro-organisms. PinkShinyRose (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur with your point, and have changed the article text to reflect the point - does the current version look better ? I have also removed planarians as they are rarely microscopic. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is an improvement as it doesn't suggest the definition contains all fungi anymore, but wouldn't "and various forms of eukaryotes: the protozoa, and microscopic fungi, algae and animals." Otherwise the large number of comma's make it difficult to read, but an oxford comma would in this case show the distinction between the sets 'microscopic fungi, algae and animals' and 'protozoa and set 1'. I'm not good with punctuation though, so there may be a better way to unambiguously show the word "microscopic" refers to the whole group. PinkShinyRose (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Microbes were postulated to exist by the Romans

See here:

Roman cities, villas and forts were built in what were considered healthy places. The Romans knew not only where to build but also where not to build:

“When building a house or farm especial care should be taken to place it at the foot of a wooded hill where it is exposed to health-giving winds. Care should be taken where there are swamps in the neighbourhood, because certain tiny creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes breed there. These float through the air and enter the body by the mouth and nose and cause serious disease.” Marcus Varro.“There should be no marshes near buildings, for marshes give off poisonous vapours during the hot period of the summer. At this time, they give birth to animals with mischief-making stings which fly at us in thick swarms.”

Columella.

Count Iblis (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Microorganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110503050312/http://www.hmc.org.qa:80/hmc/heartviews/H-V-v4%20N2/9.htm to http://www.hmc.org.qa/hmc/heartviews/h-v-v4%20n2/9.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110717183759/http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/newton/math501/Sp05/Shapiro.pdf to http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/newton/math501/Sp05/Shapiro.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080527234727/http://www.asm.org/ASM/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000003691/Uncharted_Microbial_World.pdf to http://www.asm.org/ASM/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000003691/Uncharted_Microbial_World.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051101012902/http://gsbs.utmb.edu:80/microbook/toc.htm to http://gsbs.utmb.edu/microbook/toc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead doesn't reflect text

The lead section, meant to summarize the article, does not reflect the section structure well, but instead introduces substantial amounts of new material, often with citations not found in the body either. We should move all the lead materials (text and citations) to the relevant parts of the body, and basically we'll then have to rewrite the lead by summarizing each section in turn. I'm happy to do this but would welcome collaboration in the task. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this view and would be happy to help. --Iztwoz (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Feel free. The obvious place to start is to move the citations out: if they're in the text already, they can simply be deleted from the lead. If not, the whole of each claim should be moved out boldly, text and all. Then the text will likely need shaking down so the sections read coherently. Then we can redraft the lead: it's easiest to start again usually, but it requires a quiet moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems from first sentence - a mid-sentence ref is given for single celled organisms and nothing for multicellular. Trying to find ref for both cannot be done - sources say that microorganisms are usually restricted to single-celled - bacteria etc. and the multicellular organisms are referred to as such or as multicellular animals. Sometimes multicellular microorganisms are descriptive of colonies. The entry for micro-animals makes no ref to microorganism. Would it be better to remove the inclusion of multicellular organism from the page? --Iztwoz (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove what you like. I'll rewrite I have rewritten the whole lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap I'm battling with a bug at the moment - so out of action for now. Quick look at page shows big improvement. cheers--Iztwoz (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Here are the materials from the lead which I have now cut and rewritten. Feel free to use anything relevant in the text and strike it out here when you do so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"Microorganisms live in every part of the biosphere, including soil, hydrothermal vents, hot springs, as endoliths inside rocks, in the deepest parts of the ocean, and at least 64 km (40 mi) high in the atmosphere. Many microorganisms that have been shown to exist in extreme environments, are known as extremophiles. Microorganisms, under certain test conditions, have been observed to thrive in the near weightlessness of a spacecraft, and to survive in the vacuum of outer space. Microorganisms likely far outweigh all other living things combined. The mass of prokaryote microorganisms including the bacteria and archaea may be as much as 0.8 trillion tons of carbon, out of the total biomass of between 1 and 4 trillion tons. Microorganisms appear to thrive in the Mariana Trench, the deepest spot in the Earth's oceans. Other researchers reported related studies that microorganisms thrive inside rocks up to 580 m (1,900 ft; 0.36 mi) below the sea floor under 2,590 m (8,500 ft; 1.61 mi) of ocean off the coast of the northwestern United States, as well as 2,400 m (7,900 ft; 1.5 mi) beneath the seabed off Japan. In August 2014, scientists confirmed the existence of microorganisms living 800 m (2,600 ft; 0.50 mi) below the ice of Antarctica. According to one researcher, "You can find microbes everywhere — they're extremely adaptable to conditions, and survive wherever they are.""

"Microorganisms are crucial to nutrient recycling in ecosystems as they act as decomposers. As some microorganisms can fix nitrogen, they are a vital part of the nitrogen cycle, and studies have indicated that airborne microorganisms may play a role in precipitation and weather. Microorganisms are also exploited in biotechnology, both in traditional food and beverage preparation, and in modern technologies based on genetic engineering. A small proportion of microorganisms are pathogenic, causing disease and even death in plants and animals."

References