Talk:Babesia

January 2008

This paper ("Polyphasic Taxonomy" GERRIT UILENBERG & WILL L. GOFF, 2006)[1] seems to change the positioning of Babesia microti to Theileria microti, along with a number of other changes to the Babesia genus. I'll try to move it round at some point.--PhilMacD (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PhilMacD, Babesia microti and Babesia microti-like group are still considered their official names in the Clinical Microbiology community (see Manual of Clinial Microbiology, Babesia, by Bobbi Pritt. Last update 3 Feb 2023). Can this comment be removed? Blossiraptor (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Changes by User Nmunabi

I have just wikified all the references after User Nmunabi reformatted them from Wikipedia style to manual (no internal or external links, just numbers). He/she also killed all the wikilinks. User Nmunabi seems to have done a lot of work on this article, apparently expertly, including changing all the scientific classifications. However 'Nmunabi' is clearly a temporary account of an experienced Wikipedia editor, used only for this article.

So, who is Nmunabi and please can we check his work? Maybe start with those scientific classifications (see revision of 16:20, 26 February 2009). Earthlyreason (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The classification in the current version is rather odd. Eukaryota might be a domain, or a superkingdom, or something, but I'm not aware of much of anyone who would call it a kingdom (most of wikipedia calls it a domain, which seems like a good precedent to follow). When I look at Nmunabi's edits, I see not only deletion of internal links (which presumably happens because a document is copy-pasted from an external source - watch for WP:COPYVIO), but also misformatted text, deletion of valuable information (such as the reference to Theileria microti), and just inexplicableness (Babesiidae, in the taxobox, makes no sense as a genus name). I also don't know whether the errors corrected here are typos or what. My tentative diagnosis is that this material was pasted into wikipedia from some external source by someone who doesn't fully understand it, and doesn't understand wikipedia (I wouldn't have thought "experienced Wikipedia editor"), but speculating isn't really as interesting as figuring out what to do. I would recommend reverting to the revision of 19 January 2009. Kingdon (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The changes made by Nmunabi appear (to a complete non-expert like me) to be valid, perhaps excepting any removal of valid material. I have no way of knowing if their changes represent true information; they could be learned vandalism. My contribution to the article was merely disambiguation so I am in no position to say yay or nay. Dirkbb (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Kingdon, you are right. 'Nmunabi' is probably not an experienced Wikipedia editor. (The template additions I saw were merely moves.) But if his edits were cut and paste, I can't find the original online. Earthlyreason (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arcadian placed here by Earthlyreason, from his talk page:

From what I can see, Nmunabi's edits had three effects. (1) Update the taxonomy in the infobox. I agree with the edits. (Protist classification is notoriously contentious, and very inconsistently applied in Wikipedia, but Nmunabi's terms are more up-to-date.) (2) Place a greater emphasis on disease. This I disagree with. Disease-specific additions should be added to Babesiosis. (3) Undo inline citation. Of course, you and I both disagree with this, and in my opinion, the benefits of his edits don't outweigh the long-term harm done by fixed numbering of citation (though since you've already updated the citations, the issue is moot. Thank you for doing this.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As a quack diagnosis

Does anyone have the expertise to add information on babesia as a quack diagnosis for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ chronic inflamtory disease? Benvenuto (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

how can one have spenomegaly post splenectomy?? 162.134.72.5 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC) K.O.Anderson, MLT, ASCP

Hi, I am Cheungd (talk). I accidentally made a comment as a random user 165.134.212.77, but I just wanted to note a minor edit made by moving a paragraph in the "adaptations" section to the "life cycle" section. This paragraph was regarding the incomplete mortality rate of the disease. As there was no data or reason supporting it as an adaptation within the wikipedia article, I moved it to the Life cycle paragraph. As for the climate change section, I am unsure if that should be within this article because of its experimental nature. There is no conclusion of this correlation. 10.24.15 Cheungd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The content movement makes sense. The point on climate change was included to discuss that climate change in the past was thought to play a large role in tick-borne disease emergence, but after experimentation it was determined to not be a big factor. Cheesecakefantasy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The following has all been addressed: For first mention of species the full name with the genus was inserted. The following was explained: “it can also infect a variety of hosts, allowing for adaptation to occur and evolution to lead to more genetically diverse species." Section on how the host responds is a little hard to follow. Not sure what to do here, but I am working on it to make it more clear. The section on climate change was made more concise. Cheesecakefantasy (talk)

I made a minor edit on the adaptations section by adding a paragraph on the selfish relationship between the parasite and the host. I also made the "influence of increasing temp" as a subsection on its own under the "effect of climate change" section. no new info was added to the section however. i also made some minor grammar edits in the article. The author might want to expand on how lifespan and generations are affected-under "influence of the environment". The last sentence leaves that section on somewhat of a cliffhanger.Sluology (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The following was addressed: "The author might want to expand on how lifespan and generations are affected-under "influence of the environment". The last sentence leaves that section on somewhat of a cliffhanger." More information was added to expand and clarify on what was stated. Cheesecakefantasy (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Commenting on Adaptions of Babesia:

This is a very interesting section. I really like that the relationship type is specified and explained. In the next edit of this article maybe add why being infected can lead to death or other costs of the selfish relationship. Also, It is good that it is explained why the parasite cannot be too lethal. Maybe for the next edit of the section expand more on the first paragraph about host specificity. Overall are good section.Fins42 (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The following was addressed: "In the next edit of this article maybe add why being infected can lead to death or other costs of the selfish relationship... Maybe for the next edit of the section expand more on the first paragraph about host specificity." Host specificity was explained by discussing the rise of genetic diversity as each subspecies infects many different organisms, and has evolved to effectively do so. There are no costs to the selfish relationship, as infection is maintained in a manner to keep the host alive and thus increase the chances of transmission- it would, however, be costly if infection led to immediate death which would imply that the virulence is in accordance with the short-sighted evolution hypothesis, where traits enhancing within host fitness reduces the pathogen's ability to transmit. Cheesecakefantasy (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)