Talk:Giardiasis

message: While I'm not that familiar with the infection, it seems highly dubious to me that a parasite such as giardia could cause an eating disorder as claimed in this article. Is it possible the editor who contributed this statement actually meant "emaciation" and/or "loss of appetite"? Going to add a citation request for now. Feather Jonah (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anorexia as a medical term means loss of appetite. The eating disorder is properly called Anorexia Nervosa, it might popularly be called 'anorexia', but that's not proper use of the term. So the article is correct. 94.174.108.74 (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Anorexia?

message: This article has very few links to different pages concerning things outlined on this page, ie: giardia lamblia, the parasitic protozoa itself (I fixed this), among others Matt.leeck (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: This page doesn't make clear what's so bad about having giardia — according to this website, , you can easily develop resistance/immunity. Can that be acknowledged in the text?
--Modefier (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistance/Tolerance? 

message: There are two articles here: Giardia lamblia should cover the organism, and Giardiasis should cover the infection caused by it. In reality, each article is a mishmash of both. I'll delineate them more clearly. - Draeco (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giagdiasis vs ''G. lamblia'' 

message: Unfortunately, this article contains substantial content for which we must verify license. Placed in early 2009 by User:Sparasites, there is little doubt that the material comes from this paper, as it even includes the footnote order and system (see, for example, the first edit by this user). I think there's a high likelihood that the user is the student author of the paper, but since the paper does not carry a compatible license, we have to try to verify this in order to retain the material. Given the challenges of verifying material years after the fact, it might be a good idea for interested editors to begin a rewrite. Please note that rewrites should not contain any text added by this user or built upon his or her material. This is the last "clean" version of the article before suspect material is introduced. 
Sorry about this mess. :/ I'll try to reach out to the contributor and the author of the paper. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no response. In the absence of a proposed rewrite, I have restored the last clean version. Content added by other editors may be restored, as long as it does not incorporate material from that user. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems

message: I just added this section, with the following content.  It cites just one journal article, which is not a survey or meta-study, so I'm not sure that it's sufficiently well established to put here, and I'm also not sure whether it is of sufficiently general interest: Nealeyoung (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long-Term Effects ? 

message: Could we see a rewrite of the Pathophysiology section using complete sentences and fewer buzzwords? rowley (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up the syntax a bit, and added some explanatory links, but it's still heavily jargon-laden. rowley (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathophysiology Section 

message: []32cllou (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added further balance from a 2012 major medical textbook. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Book not specific to N. AM. wilderness.  CDC has been made specific.  Nice to have all those bad statements and references gone.  Hope the fixes aren't removed and replaced by misrepresentation.32cllou (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes book actually is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of potential COI 

message: "Those at greatest risk are travelers to countries where giardiasis is common".  This passage assumes the reader is from a country where giardiasis is not common, presumably a "developed" country.  I know it is a quote attributed to the CDC, but it's inclusion make the assumption nonetheless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.12.161.74 (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed in May 2021. Nurg (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of View 

message: I do not have access to the cited source for this claim (found in the very short epidemiology section), but another source cited in the article says there are 20,000 cases in the U.S. annually, significantly less than 3%. According to the article, the infection usually resolves on its own after about six weeks. Request that someone with knowledge of the topic edit the article to correct or explain this. JeffKo427 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the difference is in total estimated cases (3-7% of the population) vs cases officially reported to the CDC (~20,000.) I think the latter are all lab verified. Many giardiasis cases are treated empirically without lab tests, many sick people do not seek medical treatment, and many people who are carriers are asymptotic. Hence the reported vs estimated infection rate. PragmaticRealist (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present in 3%-7% of the U.S. population? 

message: What about anal sex not between men? I get that the CDC statement is a reputable source but as it is worded awkwardly perhaps instead of an inline citation a summary would serve better. Besides the wole of the Risk factors subsection in the Cause section seems to add little to nothing contentwise to what is already understood from the lede. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The anal bit was fixed in May 2021. Nurg (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause sections Risk factors subsection - men who have sex with other men (??) 

message: Hello all,
I will be editing this article over the next month as part of WikiProject Medicine.  My plan is the following: 
- Add Prognosis section
- Ensure article is written without bias
- Address discussion on epidemiology in this Talk page
- Ensure all information is accurately cited with reliable sources
- Ensure all source links function properly
- Incorporate a better variety of sources for information already claimed, particularly in the Lead section
I will provide a brief explanation for each edit I make.
My goal is improve the article from a C-rating and start-class rating to a Good Article (GA).
Please reach out if you have any requests and/or additional ideas. :) 
Stevent99 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Medicine Fall 2019 - Peer Review
Overall, the article is well done and you've accomplished most of what you set out to do. I have no recommendations for the content or flow of the article. I have seen a large amount of discussion on your talk page and it seems you handled it well.
The following is non exhaustive list of details from top to bottom to consider correcting.
- The first citation in the article is labeled #3 and number #1 comes a sentence or two later.
- You discussed adding additional citations for the introduction and I'm seeing just one main one for most of the statements.
- The differential diagnosis section in the summary by the introduction is pretty minimal. 
- In the signs and symptoms section, second paragraph, first line, there is a citation in the middle of sentence. It may be a stylistic choice but I haven't seen that elsewhere before now.
- Under risk factors, the quote by the CDC could likely be summarized and supported by other sources rather than just quoting the whole long statement directly.
- The pathophysio section is excellent. There are two lines at the end of the 3rd paragraph where the statements have no citation. The section might also be improved with an image if possible. For example, the life cycle of giardia if available.
- The prevention section is excellent as well. There are a few missing citations for statements in the 3rd paragraph.
- The epidemiology section is thorough. I see you are citing the last statement of the paragraph only. Other sections used the same citation for every line. It may a stylistic choice but it might be worthwhile to look around at other articles and see what they do with this type of citation.
- The "other animals" section is a little unorthodox title in terms of the manual style and may find itself better in a different section like "causes".
DocWock (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Response to Peer Review
Thank you for your review, DocWock. Here, I will address your suggestions.
- The first citation in the article is labeled #3 and number #1 comes a sentence or two later.
I was confused by this as well but I discovered that Wikipedia uses the box on the right as the start of the article and starts numbering from there.  The first citation in the lead is the third one after the citations within that box.  For a reader that glances at the overview in the box first, the numbering would make sense.  I could not find anything in the manual of style but I will check out other pages.  I will try to find a workaround for this if it appears the citations in the lead should be numbered before the ones in the block.
- You discussed adding additional citations for the introduction and I'm seeing just one main one for most of the statements.
My first edit involved adding additional citations to this but they were changed back by DocJames who stated that it did not need additional citations.  I decided to leave the citations as they were since the review article that is cited is one of the most up-to-date reviews on giardiasis.  The source appears to be unbiased and reliable; I personally think it is okay for this page.  I have rechecked the manual of style and I could not find anything that discusses repeat use of the same source.  If anyone else has input on this, please write here on the talk page.
- The differential diagnosis section in the summary by the introduction is pretty minimal.
I agree that the differential diagnoses talked about in the article is limited.  I think that a full differential diagnosis would provide the reader more information, but I have chosen to leave it out so that the article is focused more on the disease itself.  I also preferred to not include it since my target audience is not a medical professional.  I think that if a reader would like to find a differential diagnosis, they can click a link of a symptom (eg, diarrhea) which brings them to a page with an extensive list of causes.
- In the signs and symptoms section, second paragraph, first line, there is a citation in the middle of sentence. It may be a stylistic choice but I haven't seen that elsewhere before now.
I have rechecked the manual of style and they prefer citations to be as close to the information as possible so I will keep this as is.
- Under risk factors, the quote by the CDC could likely be summarized and supported by other sources rather than just quoting the whole long statement directly.
I will consider changing it for style.
- The pathophysio section is excellent. There are two lines at the end of the 3rd paragraph where the statements have no citation. The section might also be improved with an image if possible. For example, the life cycle of giardia if available.
I have been adding citations to this section as it was entirely uncited prior to editing.  I have yet to find a source for this information.  If I still cannot find it by the end of editing I think it would be reasonable to delete this information.  I will look into adding an image.
- The prevention section is excellent as well. There are a few missing citations for statements in the 3rd paragraph.
I will try to find citations for this info.
- The epidemiology section is thorough. I see you are citing the last statement of the paragraph only. Other sections used the same citation for every line. It may a stylistic choice but it might be worthwhile to look around at other articles and see what they do with this type of citation.
This does appear to be a stylistic choice.  To continue with the style of the article, I will change this.
- The "other animals" section is a little unorthodox title in terms of the manual style and may find itself better in a different section like "causes".
"Other Animals" is a section recommended in the manual of style.  I will keep this since giardiasis can occur in other animals.
Thank you again, DocWock.  I appreciate the review.
Stevent99 (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Medicine