Talk:Schistosomiasis/Archive 1

Civil Engineering
Can I ask why the references inserted to the role of civil engineers in causing the disease have been downplayed? The most significant feature about the disease, is that the massive increase has been largley caused by ill thought out irrigation schemes. This was pointed out 30 years ago, but it was not until recently even in the Wiki article. - for desctription of symposium attended by engineers where this problem became apparent see: The IRG Solution - Hierarchical Incompetence and how to overcome it. David Andrews. Souvenir Press, London, 1984. Pages 200 - 220. ISBN 0285 626620. Page 88 - 89 Engineman 08:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Swimmer's itch reference
Swimmer's itch is not caused by the etiological agents of schistosomiasis! Swimmer's itch is caused by avian parasites, which will penetrate human skin but then die, as they cannot survive in a human host. Seriously, saying that swimmer's itch is the acute phase of schistosomiasis (see introduction of article) is likely to freak out some poor kid. In contrast, the Swimmers itch article correctly notes that a completely different genera of organisms is responsible for swimmer's itch.

To a certain extent, the confusion is understandable: the organisms that cause swimmers itch are schistosomes in that they are members of the family Schistosomatidae; but, again, they are not members of the genera Schistosoma, which cause the disease schistosomiasis.

To a reader with no background in biology, this is likely confusing. I suggest that, at the very least, the same note be added to the introduction, and the reference to swimmer's itch in the introduction ("cutaneous schistosomiasis is sometimes commonly called swimmer's itch") should be removed. However, I am concerned that this may unduly add information that could be confusing... So, if someone can think of a clearer change to make, please do so, or add some suggestions about possible changes.

Thanks. --Keereann 04:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

from web
University of Toledo For blatent theft of generations of research by Ethiopian scientists. In 1990 Ethiopian scientist Aklilu Lemma was offered an honorary doctoral degree from the University of Toledo for his development of the Ethiopian endod plant ("soapberry") as a possible cure for schistosomiasis. While in Ohio, Lemma demonstrated that the endod plant would also destroy the zebra mussels which cause US $5 billion damage each year to the Great Lakes. Four months later, the University of Toledo applied for a patent in its own name. Ethiopian research on endod began centuries ago when mothers found that endod protected their children playing in the water. Ethiopian scientists devoted 19 years to testing endod before Toledo's patent was granted. Special Endorsement: "Marie Antoinette Napkin Ring" For offering to license Ethiopians their own technology. Early in 1995, the president of the University of Toledo advised Ethiopian scientists that they could buy a license to continue their own research on endod for a generous US $25,000. For an outstanding contribution to the "let them eat cake" modality of North-South cooperation, the Coalition grants the University of Toledo the Marie Antoinette Napkin Ring.

The ethiopian scientists got the Right Livelihood Award in 1989.--217.251.141.170 02:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Added to Pokeweed--217.251.141.170 03:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Snail fever is not very common in the USASharkkid125 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Infection Rate
The article cites 200 m as the number of people who are actually infected. This is a number I have seen many times in the literature. The thing is, as one 8 year old becomes infected, one 13 year old loses the worm. Thus, there are always 200 million people with the bug. One would have to go very deeply into African culture, sub-continental culture, Thai culture and South China culture to understand how young men and women could lose this bug so regularly and completely so as to be completely free of it; free enough to emigrate freely to Europe or North America; free enough to operate restaurants in Hong Kong. A trip to the Chinese Dictionary would not be out of line at this point, as I have found that the information regarding the bug is written into the Asian characters in very subtle and clever ways, in the same way that French culture is written into the English language. Tropical people don't really face a winter flu like Russians or Ontarians do. If one is instead faced with complete schistosomiasis as an environmental hazard, and if one's culture leads irresolutely to antisepsis in the early teens, then one would be in possession of a cultural process that is relatively alien to Northerners. In this case one would want to use a word hoard that was skewed North -- South to solve this bifurcate epidemiology instead of a Nordic/Bantu linguistic construct, as exists in the Western Hemisphere. Chinese and the other Asian languages indeed skew North -- South, as the written characters are identical in Hokkaido, Yunnan and at all points in between.

McDogm Apr 28 2005 1800 est usa


 * Respectfully: I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say. 65.183.135.231 (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism concern on Diagnosis section
Much of the first three paragraphs of this section appear to be copied from another source without correct citation. If you go to http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/Schistosomiasis.htm, scroll to the bottom and on the lower right, it will read "Page 1 of 2" with a "next" button. If you click the "next" button, and read the section titled "Laboratory Diagnosis", the information contained here almost exactly matches that on Wikipedia. This probably needs to be cited or re-written.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.48.170 (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

BMJ review
10.1136/bmj.d2651 JFW &#124; T@lk  05:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Schistosomiasis
There is a huge repository of abstracti at EntrezPubMed keyword Dongting Lake, the giant lake south of Wuhan City in China. I get the feeling that the bug community is using 'Kettle Lake' as a launching pad for a complete look at schistosomiasis problems in general. I really don't know the abstract landscape; where are the richest depositories of information?

McDogm Apr 28 2005 1625 est usa

I have removed this part - (platyhelminth infection, or "flukes"), a parasitic worm of - from the opening sentence because it renders it meaningless or redundant.

Chhandama (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Endod Plant
With regard to the above discussion, it would be helpful if the Endod plant was mentioned in the article with regard to Aklilu Lemma's research. ixo (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Epidemiology
The current source concerning the number of people at risk from schistosomiasis is not strong. The Thétiot-Laurent et al. article is primarily focused on types of treatment for schistosomiasis, not schisto epidemiology. The reference, published in the German Chemical Society's journal, only seems to make passing mention of the global disease burden in its abstract and introduction. I cannot find any other good sources for global estimates of total number of people at risk of infection, but I propose that we use the World Health Organization's Preventive Chemotherapy Databank as a starting point.

EStrunz (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a tendency for young adults to lose the Schistosomiasis they acquired in their early years. Adult EPGs per person are very low. Most EPG consists of preteen EPG. There is an occasional spike in an adult's EPG due to occupational exposure. As primary and secondary school conditions are improved, EPG declines.

McDogm Apr 28 2005 1718 est usa

Lancet
10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61949-2 JFW &#124; T@lk  21:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Figures on epidemiology
I have just edited the epidemiology section. I think it is useful for the reader to see figures from different sources in a bullet point list (also from different years; there could be a trend in an up or down direction), so that the reader understands that this figure is not set in stone and that it is actually very hard to pin down. (perhaps we should even re-group it to clearly distinguish between infections and direct deaths).

For the figures in the lead, we should probably quote a range or in any case ensure it doesn't contradict what is said in the epidemiology section. But the epidemiology section should be quite detailed. My plan is to set this up in a similar way for all the helminth diseases that are neglected tropical diseases and then on the helminthiasis page to finally have a summary table to show them all next to each other. I guess one should show figures on infections and figures on deaths. Although the death figures can be misleading: a helminthiasis may cause a low number of deaths directly, but when coupled with malnutrition it actually indirectly leads to many more deaths. EvM-Susana (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Altered it further before seeing this. The list form EvM refers to can be seen here
 * I tried placing it into two paragraphs. One for estimates of disease were most seem to agree. And one for mortality where estimates vary more. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Further information about link with sanitation and water
This article could be useful to cite if we want to beef up the section explaining WASH as a cause: http://www.parasitesandvectors.com/content/8/1/156/abstract ''The role of water, sanitation, and hygiene in reducing schistosomiasis: a review Jack ET Grimes1*, David Croll23, Wendy E Harrison4, Jürg Utzinger23, Matthew C Freeman5 and Michael R Templeton1'' --> do we regard this as a high quality secondary source? And the same applies to this article: ''Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH): A Critical Component for Sustainable Soil-Transmitted Helminth and Schistosomiasis Control Suzy J. Campbell, Georgia B. Savage, Darren J. Gray, Jo-An M. Atkinson, Ricardo J. Soares Magalhães, Susana V. Nery, James S. McCarthy, Yael Velleman, James H. Wicken, Rebecca J. Traub, Gail M. Williams, Ross M. Andrews, Archie C. A. Clements'' http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0002651#pntd-0002651-g001 EvM-Susana (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Review
In CMR about diagnostic testing 10.1128/CMR.00137-14 JFW &#124; T@lk  14:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What's "bilharziasis"?
Is it a synonym for this disease? Equinox (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Farley (Bilharzia: A History of Imperial Tropical Medicine, p5) bilharziasis and bilharziosis are alternate terms and interchangeable (Farley prefers bilharzia, which seems to be the preferred alternative to schistosomiasis). The WHO Study Group in 1949 recommended bilharziasis but schistosomiasis seems to be the primary term used now by WHO and CDC, ICD, CCDM. The pathogen is Schistosoma, so I guess that makes most sense unless you wish to honor  Bilharz ~ juanTamad (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should also provide this clarification in the article - at the moment it only appears in the history section? Make it clear in the lead that they are alternative terms? EvMsmile (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Bilharzia is the primary alternate form, so I think it's ok as is in the first sentence. I'm going to work on the history section and may add something about the terminology. juanTamad (talk) 12:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Copied content
Our content was added in 2005. This was published in 2014. So they copied from us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks fairly similar indeed. And yet, they are claiming "All Rights Reserved" on that. Not exactly in compliance with our copyright licenses, evidently.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

PD material in quotes
Does public domain material need to be in quotes. From my understanding the answer is no on just needs to reference it. Per here it says attribution is required (ie we ref it) but no mentioned of quotes  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Asked here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Public domain material should be attributed at least, not necessarily in quotations - c.f MOS:QUOTE. Otherwise it's a) hard to verify that it's in fact PD and b) unattributed copying is plagiarism, which is a problem even when copyright concerns don't exist.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes everyone agrees attribution is needed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As for quote marks ... only if it's in fact a quotation. If you are including PD text, there is a template that can be used to mark such articles but I don't think quote marks are used then.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have the PD template used in the reference. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is an exact quote; therefore, quotation marks are necessary, even WITH the attribution template. That is clear. 70.124.133.228 (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Until I came along, this article had a CDC quotation (with minor alterations) for YEARS despite having a fact tag. Now, Doc James wants to continue the quotation (again, with minor alterations) WITHOUT quoting. That is plaigirism, plain and simple. 70.124.133.228 (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Except it is not as it is PD material. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The copyright status of a work has no bearing on whether copying it is plagiarism. I do think that the diagnostic text here though seems to be clearly marked as being from someone else, so it's not plagiarism.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PD means it is not copyrighted at all. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * agree w/ DocJames--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, but copyright violations and plagiarism are two different problems. Commonly confused, as noted on Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches and Plagiarism.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Plagiarism, quotation marks are not required as long as an in-line citation is included as was done in this case. Boghog (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * From a purely legal aspect attribution is not required, and as such we definitely don't need quotation marks. That we chose to reference the original source is in this case purely for the sake of being able to validate the information—not for attribution.
 * No Wikipedia policy dictates that we need to use this content within quotation marks. CFCF   💌 📧 12:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be necessary to pin people down on exactly what they mean by 'attribution'. We use that word to mean different things.
 * Is that WP:INTEXT attribution? There are some 10,000 articles containing word-for-word EB1911 content, but there are very, very few that use in-text attribution such as "According to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica...", so in actual practice, the community's policy is not to use INTEXT attribution for public domain text.
 * Is that WP:ATTribution? That means basically WP:V, and requires only an inline citation.
 * Is that license-related attribution? That requires only an edit summary saying something like "public domain text from ___" when the content is added.
 * IMO the claim that including public domain text without in-text attribution is plagiarism is the result of muddled thinking. Unlike a student who is writing a paper for school, and who is presenting that paper as something that s/he wrote entirely, we're not presenting any article as having been written by one person.  You don't require in-text attribution for what I write, even if you copy it from a different article; are you plagiarizing me by not saying "According to WhatamIdoing..." when you copy over the occasional line of decent prose that I write?  And if it's not plagiarism to copy my CC-BY-SA writing, then why would it be plagiarism to copy someone else's public-domain writing?  Plagiarism is when you actively misrepresent who wrote something.  It's not merely when you put different someone else's work on the same page as your own.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this definitely doesn't need to be in quotes. It's in the public domain and as such the inline citation should be good enough with an edit summary indicating that the PD text is being used. Keilana (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the specific context here, inline citation seems important for authority of sourcing, rather than attribution. The attribution in the edit summary seems sufficient for that purpose. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Treat PD material in the same way as moved Wikipedia content When for whatever reason, content is moved from one Wikipedia article to another, there is no sense of quoting the source Wikipedia article. The public domain should be imagined as an extension of any given Wikipedia article, except with even fewer attribution requirements. Citing PD sources in the edit history is sufficient. Attribution is opinion, as are citations. Plagiarism is a professional violation but not a legal one, and Wikipedia has no clear policy on avoiding plagiarism. Wikipedia sort of encourages plagiarism, because the base of plagiarism is copying ideas and not copying content. I am happy for Wikipedia articles to incorporate PD content, unchanged, without attribution, except that in the edit history there should be a note for the source. If someone wants to provide further attribution then that is fine, but otherwise, PD content added to Wikipedia can be treated as if it came either from the submitted Wikipedian or from any other Wikipedia article.
 * At George P. Larrick, I brought an entire public domain biography into Wikipedia. I used citations for quality control, but the article is not rewritten from the source and I made no clear notation that the article was an exact copy of public domain material. I would not even know how to give that kind of credit in Wikipedia.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Copyright is a legal matter. Plagiarism is about integrity.  They may or may not intersect.   (in some contexts you can violate copyright without plagiarizing (e.g. I can show a movie in my apartment and charge people to see it, without a license to do that) and you can plagiarize without violating copyright (e.g. represent a public domain work as your own).  The latter is what happens if you copy-paste a bunch of public domain content word-for-word into Wikipedia and you don't note that you are doing that in your edit note (the article history is where Wikipedia records authorship).  Blueraspberry did it perfectly in this edit note where he wrote: "create article - almost entirely a copy of , a public domain work of the US government..."  He also cited that source inline a bunch. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Simplifying the lead
"Each year" rather than "annually", "a long time" rather than "chronically". Not sure what is wrong with that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a problem with "annually" in this and other articles. "A long time" is inherently vague. Not sure why you object to piping "chronically" to "chronic condition." 2605:6000:EDC5:2400:B810:CCFE:6179:30C6 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what is wrong with "each year" and "a long time"? I do not see justification for your changes. Chronically is equally inherently vague.
 * A genus is a type of the organism aswell. We do not need to make the leads complicated.
 * We get a fair bit of negative coverage for being overly complicated. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wholly agree with Doc James, this is a major issue all over Wikipedia. CFCF   💌 📧 06:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * each year or a long time seems better..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs sourcing part 1
I moved this here from the article, until sources can be provided:

Species of Schistosoma that can infect humans:
 * Classification

Avian schistosomiasis species cause swimmer's itch.
 * S. Mansoni (ICD-10 B65.1) and S. intercalatum (B65.8) cause intestinal schistosomiasis
 * S. haematobium (B65.0) causes urinary schistosomiasis
 * S. japonicum (B65.2) and S. mekong (B65.8) cause Asian intestinal schistosomiasis

Species of Schistosoma that can infect other animals:

S. bovis — normally infects cattle, sheep, and goats in Africa, parts of southern Europe and the Middle East

S. mattheei — normally infects cattle, sheep, and goats in central and southern Africa

S. margrebowiei — normally infects antelope, buffalo, and waterbuck in southern and central Africa

S. curassoni — normally infects domestic ruminants in west Africa

S. rodhaini — normally infects rodents and carnivores in parts of central Africa

- Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs sourcing part 3
The following is subject to edit warring, but is unsourced. Can't determine if it should stay or go, without sourcing...


 * Pathophysiology

Life cycle
Schistosomes have a typical trematode vertebrate-invertebrate lifecycle, with humans being the definitive host. Infections by this parasitic worm is in a family of diseases known as helminthiases.

Snails
The life cycles of all five human schistosomes are broadly similar: parasite eggs are released into the environment from infected individuals, hatching on contact with fresh water to release the free-swimming miracidium. Miracidia infect freshwater snails by penetrating the snail's foot. After infection, close to the site of penetration, the miracidium transforms into a primary (mother) sporocyst. Germ cells within the primary sporocyst will then begin dividing to produce secondary (daughter) sporocysts, which migrate to the snail's hepatopancreas. Once at the hepatopancreas, germ cells within the secondary sporocyst begin to divide again, this time producing thousands of new parasites, known as cercariae, which are the larvae capable of infecting mammals. Cercariae emerge daily from the snail host in a circadian rhythm, dependent on ambient temperature and light. Young cercariae are highly mobile, alternating between vigorous upward movement and sinking to maintain their position in the water. Cercarial activity is particularly stimulated by water turbulence, by shadows and by chemicals found on human skin. The most common way of getting schistosomiasis in developing countries is by wading or swimming in lakes, ponds and other bodies of water that are infested with the snails (usually of the genera Biomphalaria, Bulinus, or Oncomelania) that are the natural reservoirs of the Schistosoma pathogen.

Humans
Penetration of the human skin occurs after the cercaria have attached to and explored the skin. The parasite secretes enzymes that break down the skin's protein to enable penetration of the cercarial head through the skin. As the cercaria penetrates the skin it transforms into a migrating schistosomulum stage. The newly transformed schistosomulum may remain in the skin for two days before locating a post-capillary venule; from here the schistosomulum travels to the lungs where it undergoes further developmental changes necessary for subsequent migration to the liver. Eight to ten days after penetration of the skin, the parasite migrates to the liver sinusoids. S. japonicum migrates more quickly than S. mansoni, and usually reaches the liver within eight days of penetration. Juvenile S. mansoni and S. japonicum worms develop an oral sucker after arriving at the liver, and it is during this period that the parasite begins to feed on red blood cells. The nearly-mature worms pair, with the longer female worm residing in the gynaecophoric channel of the shorter male. Adult worms are about 10 mm long. Worm pairs of S. mansoni and S. japonicum relocate to the mesenteric or rectal veins. S. haematobium schistosomula ultimately migrate from the liver to the perivesical venous plexus of the bladder, ureters, and kidneys through the hemorrhoidal plexus. Parasites reach maturity in six to eight weeks, at which time they begin to produce eggs. Adult S. mansoni pairs residing in the mesenteric vessels may produce up to 300 eggs per day during their reproductive lives. S. japonicum may produce up to 3,000 eggs per day. Many of the eggs pass through the walls of the blood vessels, and through the intestinal wall, to be passed out of the body in feces. S. haematobium eggs pass through the ureteral or bladder wall and into the urine. Only mature eggs are capable of crossing into the digestive tract, possibly through the release of proteolytic enzymes, but also as a function of host immune response, which fosters local tissue ulceration. Up to half the eggs released by the worm pairs become trapped in the mesenteric veins, or will be washed back into the liver, where they will become lodged. Worm pairs can live in the body for an average of four and a half years, but may persist up to twenty years. Trapped eggs mature normally, secreting antigens that elicit a vigorous immune response. The eggs themselves do not damage the body. Rather it is the cellular infiltration resultant from the immune response that causes the pathology classically associated with schistosomiasis.

- Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced content part 4
the following bit from the treatment section needs sourcing

Mefloquine may be used in combination with praziquantel or artemisinins. Its mechanism of action is not known but it causes extensive and severe morphological, histopathological, and ultrastructural damage to adult and juvenile schistosomes, particularly, the worm tegument, musculature, gut, and vitelline glands of female worms.

-Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced part 5
the following bit from the Research section is unsourced

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has recently funded an operational research program — the Schistosomiasis Consortium for Operational Research and Evaluation (SCORE) to answer strategic questions about how to move forward with schistosomiasis control and elimination. The focus of SCORE is on development of tools and evaluation of strategies for use in mass drug administration campaigns.

- Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Deleting large blocks of content
While the content is not well referenced it:
 * 1) Has been in the article a long time
 * 2) Is not really incorrect
 * 3) The deletor is neither trying to improve nor find refs for the content in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with you, User:Doc James. What I don't understand is why the editor in question does not respond to repeated requests to rather take this issue to the talk page of this article than just doing these repeated deletions. I have even put the same - very nicely - on the person's talk page, and what does he/she do? Just deleted my comment on his/her talk page! That's not good style and not helpful. Is this editor now going to go around and put the "fact" note on any sentence or paragraph on Wikipedia which is - for whatever reason - not (yet) referenced and then two weeks later comes back and deletes that part of text from the article, without any real justification other than it was not referenced?? If he/she could at least state why he/she has doubts over that particular content in question, then that would make a difference. But like this... - it is totally unhelpful and wasting our time! EvMsmile (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with both - about time he registered an account too, if all those isp edits are the same person. Just removing whole slabs that are mostly correct is not helpful. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * agree as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Pgcudahy (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am appalled at the disrespect shown here to the fundamental sourcing pillar of Wikipedia. You cannot simply agree to ignore it. The pillar is mandatory, and repeatedly restoring unsourced material will lead to sanctions. By all means, find sources and THEN restore it. But not until then. 70.124.133.228 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when was there a requirement that editors register? Putting unwelcome, disrespectful, erroneous, and harrassing information on editors' talkpages deserves summary deletion. 70.124.133.228 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I copied the unsourced content below.  Deleting it was pretty aggressive and is really the subject of the edit war; in general i think removing unsourced content is a good thing to do, because the mission and VERIFY.  But edit warring over that is not good.   The copyediting changes by the IP were pretty good, actually.   IP address, WP:DONTBEADICK and if you really are interested in this topic, please consider getting sources for the excluded content and adding it back yourself.   If anybody else loves the content below, please find sources, make sure the content actually reflects accepted knowledge, and add back.  Please. Everybody wants this to be a good and useful article, i am sure.  Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an incorrect interpretation of WP:V which requires material to be verifiable. It does not require that every assertion has a reliable source now. Text should only be removed if the editor removing it has reason to doubt the material is verifiable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is an incorrect interpretation. The policy is Able to be verified, including through means like "going to a library and personally asking a reference librarian for help", not WP:Already cited.  The logged-out editor should probably consider a very relevant section of said policy:  "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. Everyone else should probably consider whether it's faster to complain or faster to spam a few sources into the text.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Selective quotation of policy. What you left out is this: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." 70.124.133.228 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOCITE: "If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, you may remove it from the article or, alternatively, use the template, which will add an inline tag. If you choose to use the tag, remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. If a claim is doubtful and harmful, remove it from the article. You may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless it is very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to the talk page either." 70.124.133.228 (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) I tried the latter & found it remarkably hard going, though I did ref one bit. All pubmed seems to have is massively specific primary stuff on lab work or mass prevention/treatment programmes & reviews of same. Other web sources too short and superficial. We need someone with a big textbook on tropical medicine - Ozzie? Actually for once the DMOZ page given at EL seems rather useful. I hadn't read the top sections of this talk page - it rather seems as if all this is about attributing, not the actual reliability of the information. Johnbod (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So semiprotection of this article from me is the solution?
What is the purpose? To preserve unsourced material that no one has bothered to source in years of editing? To motivate me to become a registered user, as several of you have strongly advocated here and on my talk page? Seriously? 70.124.133.228 (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you were a named account I would have brought a 3RR case against you for your disruptive editing, but that is pointless against an IP. We have semi-protection to deal with disruptive IP editors.   You deserve to be blocked because of your behavior -  because you are editing disruptively and aggressively based on your narrow and rigid interpretation of Verify that others working here do not agree with - you have edit warred over it and even continued doing more after I tried to calm things down, semi-supporting you.   (please do not start arguing that your interpretation is correct - the Verify policy has nothing to do with the problem here anymore).  If you look at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS you are doing most of the examples provided there. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * fully concur with the action taken by Jytdog - thank you. The editor with IP address 70.124.133.228 seems to have no real interest to improve the article, but rather trying to make a point that ALL unsourced content (whether it's contested or not) needs to be deleted within a matter of a week or two after the fact tagging has been placed (everywhere on Wikipedia!). If this was the case, the whole of Wikipedia would really suffer. If the editor had a real interest in the article, he/she would have long ago taken up our repeated requests to please discuss such huge text deletions on the talk page first. I have no problem with deleting pieces if someone can at least give a couple of sentence why they think the material is wrong or unverifiable. But this is not the case here. - Anyhow, moving forward: a good solution would be if we find some people who really know a lot about schistomosiasis who could probably quite quickly assess the text pieces in question and provide links to sources - most likely some good medical textbooks would do the trick! If someone knows people working on schistomosiasis, could they please contact them and try to enlist their assistance? I think this could very quickly resolve the issues.EvMsmile (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs sourcing part 2
the following bit from "Signs and Symptoms' has been subject to an edit war, and it is not sourced so shouldn't be in the article yet, in any case


 * Continuing infection may cause granulomatous reactions and fibrosis in the affected organs, which may result in manifestations that include:
 * Colonic polyposis with bloody diarrhea (Schistosoma mansoni mostly);
 * Portal hypertension with hematemesis and splenomegaly (S. mansoni, S. japonicum);
 * Cystitis and ureteritis (S. haematobium) with hematuria, which can progress to bladder cancer;
 * Pulmonary hypertension (S. mansoni, S. japonicum, more rarely S. haematobium);
 * Glomerulonephritis;
 * and central nervous system lesions.

- Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * as so often with unsourced "OR", this turns out to be near copyvio from an official source - in this case the CDC - a link i found as the image file source of that diagram below. I haven't checked it in detail or added a ref to the article - perhaps the ISP can do that, if he's so bothered. Johnbod (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While being unsources as the content is from the CDC it is not a coyrvio as the original is PD. It should however be sourced. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be attributed if a quote, which I don't think it is exactly. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Same pattern of deleting "unsourced" content on helminthiasis article!
I have also put this on the talk page of helminthiasis already; I am getting increasingly frustrated with this kind of behavior, so I am repeating it here to see what others - who have been involved with this case - think (perhaps there has even been a precedence elsewhere on Wikipedia before where someone goes around deleting anything that does not have an inline citation with each sentence?): I have put this on the talk page of the editor who edits with the IP number: 70.124.133.228 - but as he/she seems to have a habit of deleting comments from his/her talk page, I am repeating it here and will put it also on the talk page of schistosomiasis: "Hi, you're probably going to delete this comment of mine from your talk page, like you've been deleting other comments in recent days, too. I see that after your rather unhelpful work on the schistosomiasis article you've now turned to helminthiasis with exactly the same pattern of editing: You add the "citation needed" to any sentence that doesn't have a citation, then a few weeks later you come back and delete that section. This is totally unhelpful. I have not once seen you actually look to find the citation yourself. In many cases, the source could probably be repeated from the next sentence! Whilst I had little to do with writing the schistosomiasis article, I put quite a bit of effort into the helminthiasis article, and I find it very unhelpful that you're now thinking you can delete anything that is in your view not sourced. This is unhelpful.EvMsmile (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you please get in the habit of discussing planned deletions of text on the talk page first and give people who really CARE about an article a reasonable time frame (at least several months!) to react to your request for finding a reference before deleting it. Or even better, help us with finding the right sources, rather than deleting text without putting any argument forward that would explain why a piece of text is "doubtful"! EvMsmile (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Simplifying the lead
"Each year" rather than "annually", "a long time" rather than "chronically". Not sure what is wrong with that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a problem with "annually" in this and other articles. "A long time" is inherently vague. Not sure why you object to piping "chronically" to "chronic condition." 2605:6000:EDC5:2400:B810:CCFE:6179:30C6 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what is wrong with "each year" and "a long time"? I do not see justification for your changes. Chronically is equally inherently vague.
 * A genus is a type of the organism aswell. We do not need to make the leads complicated.
 * We get a fair bit of negative coverage for being overly complicated. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wholly agree with Doc James, this is a major issue all over Wikipedia. CFCF   💌 📧 06:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * each year or a long time seems better..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP has never addressed this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Terminology
Regarding this dispute, I would go with genus. A type is a single specimen that represents a species, or a species that represents a genus etc. The group of worms are schistosoma (which is a genus and not a type at all). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * i.e. in biology type has a specific meaning that is no way equivalent to the lay meaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How about "kind" than if type has a specific meaning. Genus means nothing to most people and we should try to keep the leads easier to understand. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hmmm, not convinced but not opposed either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * hm. Someone changed it back to genus again. I suspect this will keep happening since the "kind" phrasing was a bit awkward. How about "Schistosomiasis...is a disease caused by parasitic flatworms called schistosomes." Does that seem clear? I think the biology types will be less itchy to change that. Thoughts?Ajpolino (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I like that wording. Thanks User:Ajpolino Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Moved information to here from the organism article Schistosomia mansoni
I have just moved information to here from the organism article Schistosoma mansoni. Now we still need to check if this has introduced repetition. I don't understand why people working on the organism page keep insisting that it should include information on diagnosis and treatment which are clearly medical topics and not "microbiology topics", see talk page of Schistosoma mansoni. Why would people be keen to double up the information on two pages? OK, a little bit of repetition might be OK, particular about the transmission part but diagnosis, symptoms and treatment don't belong in the organism article. EvMsmile (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Minor Addition
Added some information regarding the physiological effects that treatment drugs have on the helminth to the Treatment section. PencilNick (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed this part because to me this seems like primary research. If it's not then it would belong under "treatment". We don't have a separate section on "research" in these articles:

Research Locomotion is an important aspect of the parasite’s pathology, as worms in the host burrow through blood vessels to develop and find a mate for copulation.[1] Therefore, pharmacologists have targeted parasite muscles, means through which locomotion can occur, with various drugs to weaken the pathology of the organism on its host. Mendonca-Silva et al. (2006) found that voltage-operated calcium ion channels control the contraction of muscle fibers to an extent, and when introduced to dihydropyridine drugs, the activity of these channels is limited and muscle contraction may not occur.[2] EvMsmile (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * OK< I will say a third time. read WP:MEDMOS which has a defined section for research.   I am actually fine with removing that bit about locomotion based on the sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog: I would appreciate it if we could nicely discuss this on the talk page rather than you accusing me of edit warring. Take a look at all the other pages dealing with helminthiasis - they don't normally have research sections. In my opinion this is primary research that had been added! Why do you find it so crucial to keep this information about locomotion? Pleaes explain. EvMsmile (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You did edit war.  You don't seem to be aware of MEDMOS. Read it.  Jytdog (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I take it you're referring to this sentence in the MOS: "Research directions: Include only if addressed by significant sources. See Trivia, and avoid useless statements like "More research is needed". Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers." - I don't think those were "significant sources", nor "research directions". - And I did not edit war. E.g. I moved something about vaccination that was under "research" to "prevention". What's wrong with that? EvMsmile (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am referrring to the sectioning; Research is in everyone of them, and loads of WP articles about health and medicines have Research sections. Per MEDMOS.  And it is really important not to load up Treatment  or Prevention sections with stuff that isn't actually clinical.  In any case are we settled on the content? Jytdog (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Almost. What do you mean by "stuff that isn't actually clinical"? In my opinion this sentence belongs to the treatment part, rather than being the only content under a "research" section: Mirazid, an Egyptian drug made from myrrh, was under investigation for oral treatment of the disease up until 2005.[57] Because praziquantel was proven to be about eight times as effective as Mirazid, it was not recommended as a suitable agent to control schistosomiasis.[58] - In any case, if that drug was stopped being used in 2005 (11 years ago!), is it still worth mentioning it at all? At least not in a "research" section? - And I would like to kindly ask you to remove the edit warring notice from my talk page, I think that was a bit exagerated and based on a misunderstanding of my intentions. I've never been accused of edit warring before - it was only twice that I reverted your edit (I could accuse you of the same, as you also re-inserted the content twice, before taking this to the talk page, didn't you) EvMsmile (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Clinical" means "available in the clinic" - an actual product that a doctor can use. Not some research project (alive or abandoned) that isn't actually a treatment or a vaccine. In my view the  Mirazid is of historical interest and is fine in the research section.  Jytdog (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for the explanation on "clinical". If Mirazid is of historical interest then I would move it to the history section. Under "research" I would expect "current or recent reearch", not something from 11 years ago. And I would prefer the information on vaccination in the "prevention" section. But anyway, I will leave this article alone now. Perhaps some of the other editors who're watching this page can chime in on this "research" section - if it is adding any value how it is now. EvMsmile (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion of Mirazid is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it's a different issue and AFAIAC you can remove it. The question is whether to include a primary source about the (unapproved) use of dihydropyridines for treatment of schisto. Absent a high-quality medical reference I was tempted to delete the content altogether, but thought that we could test it in Research. My inclination now is just to remove since it's controversial and poorly-supported. Interesting, but not well-sourced. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Have trimmed the primary sources and added a subheading on vaccine. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * am good with that. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Me, too. Thank you. EvMsmile (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is Bilharzia not mentioned in the first or second sentence as an alternative name? Andries (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Primary source
This is a primary source and therefore not suitable. Another issue is the account that has repeatedly added it appears to be connected with the author in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also the text is already covered elsewhere in the article and this is not epidemiology "Common symptoms of Urogenital Schistosomiasis include painful urination or blood in the urine. If not treated, chronic infection can result in bladder cancer. There are many proteins secretions of S. haematobium that are potential candidates for causing granuloma formation and eventual bladder cancer. One secretion of interest is IPSE (interleukin-4-inducing principle from schistosome eggs), which has been shown to induce IL-4 expression and a Th2 immune response classically associated with anti-inflammatory properties" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the full text of the above publication as well. I agree that it is a primary research paper. It is not a suitable source to use as evidence in the article as per WP:MEDRS. JenOttawa (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
Reference #8 is irrelevant and should be deleted. I tried, but the formatting is so complex that I failed.Nigelrg (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Deaths per year more like 800,000 ?
Regarding "An estimated 4,400 to 200,000 people die from it each year". can a specialist in the field please review the following:

Jan A. Pechenik - Biology of the Invertebrates, 7th edition, McGraw Hill Education (ISBN 978–0–07–352418–4), p. 159, writes "Schistosomiasis kills about 800,000 people yearly, in part by inducing cancer", referencing Mayer, D. A., and B. Fried. 2007. Adv. Parasitol. 65: 239–96. (doi:10.1016/S0065-308X(07)65004-0). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.103.88 (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Avian schistosomiasis statement with source not relevant to those species
The Signs and symptoms section says: These symptoms can also be related to avian schistosomiasis, which does not cause any further symptoms in humans. As noted by the tag: "Request quotation|date=July 2021|reason=The source does not seem to mention "avian" or "bird".", the source cited does not support this.

It's sorta, kinda, mainly true, but not exactly. If other editors agree, I suggest something along the lines of These symptoms can also be caused by avian schistosomiasis, which usually do not cause further morbidity in humans, unless ... something, or other, etc. using this, or other, cites. (I realise it is getting a bit old as a source.) Included is a quote that explains the point (that I could not atm}. 49.177.69.7 (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

'''

UCF WikiProject Medicine Fall 2021 – Work Plan
Greetings everyone, I am a 4th year medical student enrolled in the UCF WikiProject Medicine, and I am planning to pursue a career in Emergency Medicine. I have chosen to update and add more details to the schistosomiasis Wikipedia page because of my interest in global health. Below is my plan for each section:

Signs and Symptoms Transmission Mechanism Diagnosis Epidemiology Prevention Please let me know if there are any suggestions as to which section you feel still lacks clarity and requires updates. Thank you for your time. Checkoutchek (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Expand on the details of the existing subcategories of diseases that can caused by schistosomiasis infection. For instance, I would like to add a section to include hepatosplenic schistosomiasis, which is currently grouped under intestinal schistosomiasis.
 * Add a picture of the lifecycle of Schistosoma spp. from the CDC website and perhaps add more details to the description. Different species of schistosome can survive in fresh water for different duration of time.
 * Although the mechanism of schistosomiasis is discussed throughout the Wikipedia article, I think it would be helpful to add a specific section on pathogenesis and pathophysiology of this disease. I plan to add this section.
 * I want to talk about the use of rapid tests such as urine dipstick to look for hematuria for S. Haematobium and occult blood test to look for blood in the stool in cases of S. mansoni and S. japonicum. I also want to mention lab test to look for eosinophilia and liver function test to investigate liver involvement.
 * Add a Diagnostic Imaging section to talk about the use of x-ray, ultrasonography, CT, and MRI can be used to identify various subcategories of schistosomiasis.
 * Add an updated graph of 2020 schistosomiasis endemic regions statistics from World Health Organization.
 * Format species of schistosome vs. endemic regions in a manner that is easier to read.
 * Update this section with information from WHO’s Prevention and Control section on the schistosomiasis fact sheet 2021.

UCF WikiMedicine Project Peer Review
Overall very good revision with added content.

Introduction- I like the the flow of the paragraph. It reads well and properly cited.

Signs and Symptoms: great picture! still requiring quotation to verify for the last sentence of the first paragraph, but otherwise very clear.

Acute infection- perhaps listing that there are two types of acute infections that will be discussed: Cercarial Dermatitis and Acute Schistosomiasis under the heading of "Acute Infection." Not a big deal, but just to help with organization.

Chronic infection- very good, I like the flow and how you went into each subsection and described the manifestation

Transmission & Life Cycle- I thought this was very well put together especially with the added diagrams from the CDC and the lifecycle of a trematode. It makes the verbiage make more sense to have a picture to reference to.

Pathogenesis- some of the words might be difficult for the lay person to understand, however this is a difficult topic to describe without using the appropriate terminology (specifically in the chronic infection part).

Diagnosis- very clear. I liked the headings. good citations.

Prevention- good flow

Treatment & Epidemiology- I thought that maybe these sections could be higher up in the article, since these would be most likely the reason someone is searching this topic. Asking if this affects someone based on the area they live in, and if it does, how is it treated. I think its fine toward the end of the article, but if someone was concerned about being infected, having the ease closer to the top could be nice.

History & Society and Culture- the "c" in culture just needs to be capitalized.

Research- maybe can add if there are any future research trials taking place if any.

Overall great job! the article is much more robust and thorough. a great read! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliaseid95 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Futurevet97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)