Talk:Travelers' diarrhea

Please rewrite the article

It has been made clear it is plagiarism, thus it should be rewritten. It's been enough time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.14.79 (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision history documents that the article has been substantially rewritten since the above was posted. Since it is now clearly different from the CDC page it was accused of plagiarizing, I am removing the "rewrite" tag. DoctorJoeE (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible Plagarism

I found this article that seems to be identical to another, aside from some minor changes, which implies that the following page has been plagarised. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/travelersdiarrhea_g.htm Bok269 23:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the references that states explicitly "This article contains material from the CDC (Center for Disease Control) website which, as a US government publication, is in the public domain." In other words copying from the source quoted is legally allowed by the US government. Thanks. Idleguy 02:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Water purification

The water purification methods reported in this article may not offer a 100% solution, as stated here: Portable_water_purification. Pepve 08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Some misinformation in the article. Not everything is killed instantly by boiling. Bacterial spores, like cryptosporidium, can survive several minutes of boiling. These spores may be dangerous to anyone with weak immune response.

Some filters DO remove viruses and spores. These often work with a chemical stage, using a substance like iodine, and then removing the iodine with activated charcoal. These filters are designated as purifiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.242.28 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Montezuma's Revenge (now merged into TD)

The symtoms section on Montezuma's Revenge (medicine) more properly belongs here. In fact, much of that article belongs here, perhaps with section here about the term Montezuma's revenge and a redirect. --Una Smith (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged. I will add the boiler there. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Article "Montezuma's Revenge (illness)" merged: See old talk-page here. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Prevention

Review on the prevention of TD, including mention of the newish nonabsorbable antibiotic rifaximin. JFW | T@lk 13:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Merge with Gastroenteritis

A merge has been proposed with Gastroenteritis; I suggest instead merge Traveler's diarrhea with Diarrhea. It is often not gastroenteritis but enteritis. --Una Smith (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly vote against a merger with gastroenteritis or diarrhea. This is a separate enough topic to warrant its own article. It could even have information for travelers about how to get treatment for different parts of the world. The Gastroenteritis article is more general and should be more technically orientated. On the other hand, I will very shortly propose a merger between traveler's diarrhea and Montezuma's Revenge (illness). Jason Quinn (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly against: Both gastroenteritis & diarrhea have a vast array of causes and subtypes. TD is a topic of acute interest to a large number of people who won't care to wade through the thickets of information on those very general categories. The TD article must be kept separate. (BTW, I entirely agree with merging TD with Montezuma's Revenge.) Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Against: Traveler's diarrhea is a clearly distinct disease, most often caused by ETEC. Gastroenteritis is a separate disease (with its own unique set of pathogens) and diarrhea is really just a symptom with a ton of causes. I don't see how TD would fit neatly into any of these two categories. With gastroenteritis, there would be an issue of trying to keep the pathogens of each distinct to avoid confusion, but that would significantly section the article. With the diarrhea article, the problem of trying to incorporate the general principles of diarrhea with a very specific disease exist. Given the length and detail of the content on the TD article, I feel it stands to warrant its own page. The disease itself is distinct, and there is plenty of content present for the page to stand on its own. Chaldor (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly agree: We definitely need to merge. Traveler's diarrhea is one type infectious diarrhea / gastroenteritis. And infectious diarrhea / gastroenteritis is one of many types of diarrhea. You can get ETEC at home. It does just occur with travelling. Doc James (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: TD is clearly in itself not just anout the list of diseases that one might not get at home, but it is from a circumstance that makes it distinct (hence should be a subpage topic) from just a description of gastroenteritis. Firstly with a third (as I was taught) of travellers getting diarrhoea due to differences in local bacterial flora (ie not just us Developed-world going to underdeveloped world who get problems, but them coming to us, or Americans coming to UK), secondly the issues of local sanitation and water contamination means that normal food-handling proceedures that I might do at home are insufficient for the traveller- so TD is more than just a disease description (else yes merge with gastroenteritis) but has worldwide and regional issues to be included. Note also Wilderness diarrhea article with just 9 pubmed hits probably needs merging here. David Ruben ^Talk 03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think we should keep this as a separate article. TD is most often caused by relatively harmless bugs that the traveller meets for the first time; often it's just E. coli, (not 0157) that differs slightly to the strain we already have in the gut. I agree with David wrt Wilderness Diarrhoea. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think we can close this as no merge. I'll remove the tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge proposal

As an unexpected result of an RfC at Wilderness diarrhea, that article is being merged into this one. Much of it was originally copied from this one anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note two of the article Traveler's diarrhea which indirectly supports a merger proposal with Wilderness Diarrhea, is an incorrect citation. It was added by WhatamIdoing on Sept. 9 on the day he proposed the merger.

The cited document (top of page 248)[[1]] merely contrasts (rather than equates) the terms wilderness-acquired diarrhea and travelers' diarrhea. This is the document's only mention of the term traveler's diarrhea.

As presented, the note implies that the document supports the statement that WD is a term that some prefer for TD, when in fact it suggests the opposite.

Either a different citation is required, or the sentence should be removed.Calamitybrook (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Calamity, everything that I added to this article today was cut-and-paste out of WD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Hang on one moment here. It's not right to just propose a merge and then start merging content without even seeking consensus from editors at the target article as to whether the merge is appropriate. It's great that people on the Wilderness diarrhea page came to this conclusion, but I wasn't watching that page and didn't know to participate in this discussion. So I have a clue as to what's going on, can someone please explain the proposal and why WD should be merged into/with TD? Further, until we reach a consensus, the article should not contain any merged content. I will revert the content merged thusfar. Chaldor (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chaldor,

The reason that WD is being merged into TD is because they are exactly the same disease: they are both diarrhea acquired due to inadequate sanitation. If you compare the pages, you'll see that significant sections of WD were copied word-for-word out of TD. It's just a content fork. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. I really appreciate it. I do have a couple concerns.

1. I have an issue regarding the term itself. This is probably why the article got nailed as a neologism. Reaffirming my suspicion, a quick google for the term "wilderness diarrhea" or "wilderness acquired diarrhea" came up with less than 50 results, whereas "traveler's diarrhea" brings up around 150,000. Traveler's diarrhea is a medical term and a known, classical subset of gastroenteritis. I don't think wilderness diarrhea is an actual condition worth noting on the same level that TD is. I don't think it belongs up in the lead if it were to be merged here.
2. I think there is a significant difference between TD and WD. TD is primarily a bacterial gastroenteritis (most commonly ETEC). WD, however, appears primarily to be giardiasis. Though they may have the same mechanism of origin (lack of sanitation), they are not the same disease. In my opinion, if WD is to be merged anywhere, it should be merged to the giardiasis article, not here. Just a quick glance at the giardiasis article reveals that the lead even mentions the term "backpacker's diarrhea". Isn't this WD?

I think we need to look a bit more carefully about what WD is, whether it is a notable term, and how best to partition up its content. From what I can see upon initial inspection, it has a better fit within giardiasis than it does in TD. Chaldor (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out this [[2]]. It suggests that a merge with Giardia article is inappropriate. The relative prevalence of Camylobacter might suggest a merge with Traveler's diarrhea But ETEC isn't mentioned at all, raising doubts about this alternative. Of course, it's only a single study.

Here is some research in JAMA that suggests eating in restaurants is among the most important risk factors for acquiring travelers' diarrhea [[3]]. This may suggest that a merge with TD is inappropriate. (And incidently, that travelers', not traveler's, diarrhea is correct.)

WhatamIdoing's link above supports the notion that WD is not TD, although I'm not convinced of this.

I too have an issue with the term "Wilderness Diarrhea."

But Chaldor, googling the term "wilderness diarrhea" using quotes, comes up with 516 results. In Google Scholar, a Boolean search of wilderness and diarrhea comes up with 2,520... Simply googling wilderness and diarrhea provides 210,000 results.

These searches prove little or nothing, but what am I doing wrong with Google?

Also, it's relevant that Wilderness Diarrhea may be currently in an unstable condition.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Calamity, it would be nice if you could use the same number of indents on each paragraph. I've corrected this comment, but using the preview button might help you find the problems yourself in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies, my reply to this was smushed by an edit conflict and I didn't notice. I had a typo on my posted numbers. "wilderness diarrhea" returns 524. "wilderness acquired diarrhea" returns 32. "traveler's diarrhea" returns 149,000, 3-4 orders of magnitude more than WD. I was trying to point out the issue with the neologism, but I think this is settled now. Chaldor (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support the proposal to merge. The two conditions are the same. If you go to St. Petersburg, Russia, and drink the tap water you will get Giardiais, if you avoid the tap water you still get diarrhoea from the Russian coliforms. Without the merger there will be two articles with the same content. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Except one might argue that St. Petersburg isn't the wilderness, so the term is somewhat misleading. Is it not? Chaldor (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Additionally, up to two-thirds of diarrhea among backpackers is strongly suspected of being fecal coliform diarrhea due to poor hygiene (not washing hands before eating, someone pooping too near the stream that you're washing your dishes in...). Consistently disinfecting water against giardia substantially, but only reduces diarrhea by about a third, and the sanitation facilities in the wilderness are clearly primitive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This fact is substantiative and perhaps the strongest piece of support for the merge. It still sorta gets me though that we're bringing in a dicey term. The method of infection described above (river contamination with feces) used to happen in most cities along rivers in in Europe before reasonable sanitation because of upstream dumping from other cities. In that context, it happened in the cities, but now just in the wilderness? Presumably there are parts of the world where city sanitation is not up to par and the same thing happens. Are these areas to be considered wilderness? I dunno, it just seems a bit shaky to me. Chaldor (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong merge - wilderness diarrhea is a neologism with just a trivial minority number of papers using the term directly (9 hits at PubMed) - see prior discussion at Talk:Wilderness diarrhea#Should this article exist?. The amount of information to be merged is quite modest (relatively few studies to source from and the currently verbose material at 'Wilderness diarrhea' needs a severe pruning to summarise information rather than be a collection of abstracts or itself a journal-review - see rephrasing examples) David Ruben ^Talk 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  Question - If WD is indeed a neologism and it is only mentioned in a very small number of articles, why are we even considering it for a merge? Shouldn't it just be deleted? According to WP:NEO and WP:DUE, it would seem that neologisms should not be used in articles and that extremely minority ideas/terms/opinions should not be included at all. Given that WD is both of these, isn't that a rather compelling argument to delete instead of merge? (side note, I put in three threaded comments at the same time in here. I'm rarely in discussions this active. If it is better practice to lump in all my comments in one gaint post, let me know, I figured this way would be easier to parse through my ideas). Chaldor (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  Chaldor: Can you explain my difficulty with Google? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 September 2008

  Thanks Chaldor, but I think issue is over term WD as being essentially equivalent to TD, rather than any issue of the specific infections involved (which themselves are notable/real/not-neologisms). So no reason why some (heavily summarised) information on risks included in the WD article might not be transfered across. As for why not just be bold and delete/merge, for reason you highlighted in your "Hold on" above: that source article talk in agreement, but need offer target article talk a nod of approval first. At WD, Calamitybrook although not objecting to a merger, seems in disagreement over level of details to be preserved so approapriate to have editors here look at current WD to consider what (if anything) might be transfered on a merger.David Ruben ^Talk 21:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  If I understand things correctly, I think I'm agreement here. I have no objection to beefing up the TD article with more causes/infections. Giardia/colioform infections, etc should all have mention here as they are forms of TD, certainly. So as far as a content merge of WD is concerned, I'm all for it. My only concern is with the term itself. I don't think the term should be carried over per it being a neologism. I think I would be quite satisfied if the term WD never appeared in the article, but we had a redirect for WD to TD. It would be our way of acknowledging the fleeting existence of the term without giving it any undue weight and supporting it as a neologism. Apologies if it appeared I was against a content merge, that was never my intent. Chaldor (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  Entirely agree with that :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Works for me. I thought the long list of possible-alternate-specialist-outdoor names was ugly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Merge - I support the relavent content merge of WD to TD conditioned on the fact that the term WD is not included in the article. I support a redirect for WD to the TD article. Chaldor (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Merge is OK with me. My main interest is the subject of potability of water in the North American wilderness and I suppose I can work on that wherever it is. But I hope that more editors will take an interest in protecting and improving the article. I've seen signs of that recently from DavidRuben and some others and I hope they will continue and I hope other editors will join in these efforts. And most importantly, when two editors disagree, editors familiar with the article are needed to step in and form a consensus.

I should add that the present form of the WD article occurred after an editor did extensive editing that introduced significant problems that were previously fixed and undid editing of another editor, changing structure and removing content, etc. There was a recent suggestion that no major changes should be made so I'm reluctant to go against that without a consensus. I will lay back and see what happens after the expected merge and I will resume editing only if it appears that there is a productive atmosphere. The WD article had a situation that was very inefficient for editing and it was very difficult. I don't expect that I will return if that situation persists. So I'll wait and see and maybe test the waters. If I don't return, I wish you all good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Diarrhea acquired in wilderness areas of the developed world is widely discussed in society separately from travelers' diarrhea, as demonstrated by innumerable published sources. A merger would simply ignore this fact, and as such, represent a peculiar standard.

To narrowly view WD as merely a collection of medical conditions is to miss some of the broadest principles of environmental health and to ignore the social (not medical) context of WD that is reflected by the various published sources.

While for example tobacco and health affects many hundreds of millions of people, there are perhaps only a few million annual visitors to the North American wilderness. Yet narrowly presented topics of interest to this relatively small group are seen as wholly legitimate and justified in the larger society.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not saying that issues related to WD should be deleted from the encyclopedia; we're saying that they should be presented in the same article, because they are the same disease. Your argument is not very different from saying that we should have Heart attacks in the developed world and Heart attacks in developing countries. There's a world of difference in the outcome -- but they're all still the same disease. Let's have one, global article on diarrhea caused by drinking (and washing in) non-potable water. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's been over a week. I don't think any other editors are going to chime in. Considering that we've addressed all the issues brought up with the merger and no dissenting opinions have since been voiced, I think it is safe to say that consensus has been reached and this merger can be approved (no consensus yet Chaldor (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)). The relevant content within the Wilderness diarrhea article will be merged into the Traveler's diarrhea article. The term "wilderness diarrhea" itself will not be included in the TD article because it is a neologism, however, a redirect from "wilderness diarrhea" to TD will be made so that the wiki can acknowledge the existence of the term and point those people who search for it explicitly in the right direction without giving it undue weight in the article and legitimizing it as an established medical term. Chaldor (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that the term wilderness diarrhea needs to be mentioned (although not necessarily prominently) so that people that are redirected here realize that they are in the right place. It's possible that a decent section could be created on wildernesss-specific issues (say, under prevention). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • This is a delicate situation. We need to be careful not to be pushing a neologism by presenting the term. I'm not sure what the best means of handling it is. It appeared to me that there was support for my suggestion (both by you and davidruben earlier on Sept 11) that there should be no mention of the term in the new article. Have you changed your position on that? I think discussing the wilderness-related issues is most appropriate, but I was under the impression that consensus was to not present the term because it is a neologism. Chaldor (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Wilderness diarrhea redirects here would probably be good enough. We just don't want normal readers to be confused. If you want something more than that, hiking is a kind of traveling, and it presents some issues (such as drinking directly from surface water) that are not present in a hotel in Moscow (even though the traveler is likely to end up with exactly the same infection as a result). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Certainly, that shows up at the top of any page that gets redirected by default, so it would perfect, yes? It would only show up for those people that searched for it exclusively, and for everyone else, it would not appear. I think if I am understanding what you are saying correctly, that sounds ideal. Chaldor (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
          • No, I think it would be visible on all pages:
            "Wilderness diarrhea" and "Montezuma's revenge" redirect here. For other uses, see Wilderness diarrhea (disambiguation).
            . WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
            • On further reflection, explaining the context of WD seems appropriate. I think it needs to explain that it doesn't matter what country the "wilderness" is located in; diarrhea while traveling to a place with primitive sanitation in your own country is not notably different from diarrhea while traveling to a place with primitive sanitation in some other country. If you prefer the "redirects here" approach, then feel free to delete the first paragraph (the ref will need to be preserved) and replace it with {{redirect2|Wilderness diarrhea|Montezuma's revenge}} WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
              • I think we'll manage either way. It's fine as you are describing. Chaldor (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• • None of the issues raised Sept. 12 are addressed. Calamitybrook (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Apologies, there was over a week of silence on this page, and I was under the impression that you had consented when you did not reply to WhatamIdoing's reply to you on Sept 12. If that is not the case, please continue the discussion on that thread until all concerns are met. Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Wilderness-acquired diarrhea is well-established as a topic that is discussed independently of TD. A merger ignores this fact and is therefore completely off base.

WhatamIdoing's merely uses an argument from repetion (a type of fallacy), with the questionable assertion that "they are the same disease." He or she, seems to have no grasp of much of the basis for the fields of public and environmental health; i.e., context;

But I'd submit that this entire merger proposal is actually based on the following bits of exchange:

Me to WhatamIdoing:

Your comment that Wikipedia articles should be readable by high-school students ignores the standards set by innumerable Wikipedia articles on science and medicine. It also disrespects readers' intelligence, which is a frequent and unfortunate error made by many accomplished writers. To improve your effectiveness as an editor, you ought to closely examine this question.

What:

As someone who has been significantly involved in setting the style and source standards for Wikipedia articles on medicine, I think I have a good grasp of what the actual goals are.

I then asked What to review the following definition of Appeal to Authority: "An appeal to authority...is a type of argument in logic called a fallacy. It bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it."

What:

Your continued insistence that I don't know Wikipedia's standards for medicine-related articles even though I have helped write them is highly offensive.

David Ruben chimed in with the following: "Calamitybrook, suggest you stop wikilawyering and obfuscating with logical principles, and start collaborating with others as this article is at real risk of getting merged/deleted." That WhatamIdoing was involved in developing the WP:MEDRS is a fact (go look at its history), that he therefore is well aware of the guideline is therefore also true.

---

WhatamIdoing's lack of understanding of Wikipedia standards (Ruben's too) is unfortunately more profound than I initially realized. Calamitybrook (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Continue attacking other editors like this is souring the discussion and likely to get you blocked, on this I have a quite clear understanding. David Ruben ^Talk 21:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Further comment

I just left the following for Dave:

Regarding your recent comment on my Talk page, I mentioned to you at one point "The Charms of Wikipedia," an interesting article in NYRB. You can find it here 11

You're probably insufficiently curious enough to read it, but here are a few applicable excerpts:

..Still, a lot of good work—verifiable, informative...is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come.

..Andrew Lih, one of the most thoughtful observers of Wikipedia's history, told a Canadian reporter: "The preference now is for excising, deleting, restricting information rather than letting it sit there and grow."

...Howard Tayler, said: "...'purges' are being executed throughout Wikipedia by empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors."Calamitybrook (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: (I can't figure out where to place this; please move if needed.) Traveler's diarrhea and Wilderness diarrhea, while obviously closely connected, are different topics. Look at how the organization of the articles parallels, but have a completely different focus. A merge would dilute one topic or the other; presumably lots of people will be frustrated with the result. —EncMstr (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: Probably not the best idea to merge the two articles - unless you merge both with Diarrhea. Wilderness diarrhea is caused by very different wild strains of bacteria, wrt most cases of Traveller's Diarrhea, which is almost always a case of poor sanitation in travel accomodations. ray (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: This is a specific topic and is within scope for article status. DiverScout (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Tthey are NOT the same diseases. They are of different pathogens, climate and have different Incubation period. I had them both, so I know. Nevertheless, since you have not reached consensus in any way, the merger idea seems to failed. For what it’s worth, I’m opposed to the merge.

Bluee Mountain (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bluee Mountain, are you aware (say, from reading this article) that there is no single pathogen responsible for TD? And are you aware (say, from reading Wilderness diarrhea) that there is no single pathogen responsible for the TD variant, WD? Most cases of both TD and WD are due to (any one of dozens of different kinds of) fecal coliform bacteria -- this pathogen appears in both TD and WD. Other cases are due to giardia -- again, appears in both TD and WD. Your personal experience is not a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just taking the time and reading the merge discussion above suggests the spectre of the talk page that has consumed more energy and time than creating either articles - what a waste - why not just leave them separate with either a see also or link between the two that determines that they are different phenomenon - and a clear and definite indicator of why the one is different from the other - so that when the cycle of a another lot of editors comes to battle out the same merge idea down the line - that there is something to hold the off from wasting a whole lot of time again - reminds me of the cycle of the word java - every year another generation of geographically challenged editors want to make it start from the programming language - and the actual origin of the word has to be pointed out to them SatuSuro 06:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct.

Bluee Mountain (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge The new title (Wilderness and diarrhea) fixes any wp:NEO concerns, and the topic is a well discussed one with very different concerns than those of TD (besides the question of which microbe is to blame, there are also vast differences in prevention and treatment, and differences in affected populations as well). Wilderness and diarrhea could conceivably become part of a larger series on wilderness related articles, and both articles with Giardia etc can become part of a Diarrhea portal (that's kinda gross, but why not?). NJGW (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Um, guys, not to be mean or anything -- but if you've appeared on this page because of Calamitybrook's many recent messages to potentially sympathetic people, then it's considered appropriate to point that out. Calamity might also want to consider reading WP:CANVASS. I actually lost count of the number of messages when I started looking a recent comments left on User talk: pages the other day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is always a ~wise thing to ask for a third opinion. Bluee Mountain (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply I'm here by pretty random circumstance.... did you have a response to my suggestions? NJGW (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm not sure that it matters. Renaming the article is unimportant. It's the concept, not the wording, that wants merging. While there are some differences in emphasis (the appropriate prevention behaviors are different if you're in a city than if you're in the field), it's the same set of diseases. It's caused by the same stuff. Furthermore, it's beyond silly to call it "WD" if you get it while backpacking in your own country and "TD" if you get it while backpacking in the next country -- and that's what this split promotes. Finally, if you read the actual WD article on Wikipedia, it states plainly that WD is TD.

Finally, please don't be distracted by the perceived length of the WD article. This merge began life as an effort to reduce the WD article to an encyclopedic study of the very small number of "WD" studies. Once the cruft is removed (such as details about exactly how many people were enrolled in exactly which kind of study -- things you'd provide in a scientific treatise, but not in an encyclopedia), and the cut-and-paste duplication of material from this article is accounted for, there's actually very little information that is WD-specific. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out, it is always a good thing to ask for a third opinion, and listen to it. This merger is highly controversial, it should be quite clear by now. Don't you have other things to do? Why not try to merge Hamlet into William Shakespeare ?

Bluee Mountain (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Absolutely oppose, very different topics and almost completely unrelated. Cause, prevention, treatment and the location and transport risk make these two very different things that only appear to be related in the most superficial manner.76.217.93.176 (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merge: This is a specific topic of interest to backpackers and needs its own article. Those affected, and the conditions under which they are affected, are different enough that it needs its own article. However the article must be renamed to Wilderness-Acquired Diarrhea (not "Wilderness and diarrhea" which Calamitybrook did without discussion). —SaxTeacher (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I restored the merge tags just now. I suggest waiting at least a week from the last opinion or comment on this matter. That would be October 19, 2008, unless there are further opinions/comments. I don't see a consensus for the merge, but I haven't examined the comments carefully. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Renaming move

I note Calamitybrook, without discussion, renamed this from "Traveler's diarrhea" (342 PubMed hist, 147,000 Google) to "Travelers' diarrhea" (302 PubMed hits, 139,000 Google). I see no justification in this, see Wikipedia:Naming Conventions#Prefer singular nouns, and diseases are generally named for how it affects an individual (hence "myocardial infarction" not "myocardial infarctions"), specialist and general usuage favours possesive singular. I have therefore reverted back - re-move should only be with a consensus. David Ruben ^Talk 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree and appologize.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Montezuma's Revenge Ride.

There was, when I was a child, and very well might still be an excellent roller coaster at Knott's Berry Farm amusement park. It consisted simply of a sloping fall into a loop to a sloping rise, whereupon the cars stopped at the top and then went down the slope backwards. Rinse and Repeat.

I'm wondering if this is worthy of a disambiguation page.

Oh. I see using Google, that there is a disambiguation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montezuma%27s_Revenge_(disambiguation) from which I find a link to the ride: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montezooma%27s_Revenge (notice the pun :) )

Is it not inappropriate that entering "Montezuma's Revenge" automatically directs the visitor to this topic with no link or indication given of a a disambiguation page?

Thanks

--128.206.170.57 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Citing Zell's paper

The anon seems to be having some difficulties with the citations. S/he cites this paper: http://www.wemjournal.org/wmsonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0953-9859&volume=003&issue=03&page=0241

If you click that link, you'll see that it takes you to a page that says: Journal of Wilderness Medicine: Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 241–249. Epidemiology of wildernessacquired diarrhea: implications for prevention and treatment [by] STEVEN C. ZELL, MD, FACP

Remarkably, that's exactly the same paper that was already cited: Zell SC (1992). "Epidemiology of Wilderness-acquired Diarrhea: Implications for Prevention and Treatment" (PDF). J Wilderness Med. 3 (3): 241–9. -- exactly the same, except that the pdf linked in the proper citation takes you to the entire paper (free), instead of just the abstract.

If anyone is able to find any difference between Steve Zell's 1992 paper "Epidemiology of wilderness-acquired diarrhea: implications for prevention and treatment" and Steve Zell's 1992 paper "Epidemiology of wilderness-acquired diarrhea: implications for prevention and treatment", then do please explain the difference here, rather than continuing the edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

42 Editors and 3 Years: Now 2-3 Editors Seek Merge

It appears the article wilderness acquired diarrhea has been edited by 42 people over a three-year period. Yet WhatamIdoing and perhaps, one or two others, believe they have uniquely determined that it is not properly a separate topic for Wikipedia, and will be merged.

WhatamIdoing has very clearly asserted that she has in some key way, helped to establish current Wikipedia medical publishing standards. This may indeed be a laudable achievement. Yet the merger proposal suggests a peculiar editing standard.

WhatamIdoing asserts that because WAD is potentially a form of a water borne disease, it is the same as TD. But no credible volume of countervailing material is offered to counterbalance the rather vast number of citations and the evidently prevailing societal view that WAD is an essentially separate syndrome from traveler's diarrhea.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WAD Citation

The third sentence of this article says that wilderness-acquired diarrhea is another name for travler's diarrhea and cites a single sentence from research by Steven Zell: "Wilderness medicine...has yet to thoroughly address the issue of wilderness acquired diarrhea as has been done for traveler's diarrhea."

This isn't a relevant citation.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Mergers? Schmergers!

I would just like to "refudiate" the idea of a merger. As long as there are links one need not get all "wee-wee-ed" up about mergers. As a casual reader, I know how to click a well stated link to sate my curiosity. Clear links are more important than mergers or non-mergers. Links - a great idea that gives unlimited utility to the web and power to the reader. Embrace them. Now go out and actually write more articles.

Anonymous non-editor and neologism supporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.63.134 (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Travelan

I am trying (so far unsuccessfully) to find some sort of objective documentation of the efficacy of this product. The two cited references are both from the manufacturer's Web site, which is clearly unacceptable. I will continue looking for valid references to replace the invalid ones, but unless there is some independent data, I think the entire paragraph should be removed, because as it stands it's just an advertisement for the product. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Coloqs

Is it asbsolutely necessary to spend an entire paragraphs on colloquialisms? This is not the urban dictionary. The McShits and the Hersheys etc. are all listed oin the Urban Dictionary, and probably not necessary here. Adacus12 (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an old but entirely valid point. Fairly recently, someone has added still more trivia to this section, and absolutely none of it is sourced. The above editor is correct -- we're not the Urban Dictionary, which is a more appropriate place for this stuff. Unless good sourcing can be added, I would support removing it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 06:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Traveler's_diarrhea#Causes

What do the percentages in the table represent? This is completely meaningless. —Michael Z. 2012-10-24 03:30 z

It's explained (sort of) in the text. The percentages represent the estimated percentage of total TD cases that are caused by that particular microorganism. Ranges represent the facts that (1) different studies cited in the source material contain different estimates, and (2) causative organisms vary by country, and by region within countries. The text could probably make this clearer; I will work on it as time and spouse permit. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 12:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Washing fruits and legumes with surfactant?

Did one of you ever try to wash the fruits with a biological surfactant like Polysorbate? (Instead of peeling the fruits) That probably should work, shouldn't it? Btw eating some polysorbate isn't a problem at all. I'm convinced that washing the fruits with this substance could easily solve any hygienic food problem. --178.197.228.24 (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Putting my physician hat on for the nonce, washing and/or peeling fruits and other foods is always the best option, because you are physically removing pathogens from the food. Polysorbate has some antibacterial activity, but there is no credible data regarding its effectiveness against viruses and protozoa, and I personally wouldn't trust it unless no other options were available. I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a substitute for washing or peeling. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

JAMA review

doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17006 JFW | T@lk 23:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ref

This ref is broken ""Disease Listing, Travelers' Diarrhea, General Information - CDC Bacterial, Mycotic Diseases". cdc.gov." but redirects to here http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/travelers-diarrhea. This spot however does not state it is a "is a stomach and intestinal infections" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Almost all unsourced

Moving here per PRESERVE - these should not be moved back to the article until they are sourced, reliably:

A number of colloquialisms are used for travelers' diarrhea contracted in various localities, such as "Montezuma's revenge", "turistas", or "Aztec two step" for travelers' diarrhea contracted in Mexico, "Pharaoh's revenge", "mummy's tummy," or "Cairo two-step" in Egypt, "Kurtz Hurtz" in Uzbekistan, "Bombay belly" or "Delhi belly" in India (the latter after which Aamir Khan titled his 2011 Hindi film, Delhi Belly), "Back Door Trots", "a case of the shits", "Hershey squirts", or "the McShits" in North America, "King George's revenge" in the United States, "down under butt chunder" in Australia, "Karachi crouch" in Pakistan, "Suryavarman's revenge" in Cambodia, "kabulitis" in Afghanistan, "Thriller in Manila" in the Philippines, "holiday tummy" in United Kingdom, although this is not directed at tourists in the UK but at British tourists abroad, "Bali belly" in Bali, or "Taghazout tummy" in Taghazout or "Kathmandu quickstep" in Nepal. In China, diarrhea is referred to as 拉肚子 (pinyin: lā dùzi, lit.: "pulled stomach"). A recent local term in Pattaya, Thailand, is "Thai-dal wave". Peacekeepers to Arabic-speaking countries have called it "yalla yalla" (Arabic for "fast, fast") referring to the extreme urgency it causes. This one is similar to "corre corre" meaning "run run" used in some regions of Colombia. In the Western Hemisphere, "burrito bowels" and "Vindaloo mudslide" are frequently used euphemisms for the condition. Many other colorful synonyms exist in other regions of the world, some of which have found their way into the arts and literature.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Suitability of prolonged use of antimotility agents

The section titled Antimotility agents observes that

Antimotility agents should not, as a rule, be taken for protracted periods

which is vague in a way, because it doesn't mention why that is. To my knowledge, long term loperamide use limited to therapeutic doses has no significant side-effect. It might so be that prolonged use of antimotility agents in general should be avoided, but I have been unable to find a suitable medical source for that advice. If anyone can add a medical citation, it would be helpful. Knaveknight (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Cyclospora cayetanensis as infectious cause

Hi there. Just found that in Cyclospora cayetanensis article mentions its protozoa as cause factor of traveler's diarrhea. May be it is worth to mention that.

109.206.156.72 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I added some information. Ruslik_Zero 20:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Спасибо! 109.206.156.72 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Loperamide

User:Oreo Priest Ref says

"Despite warnings regarding the safety of antidiarrhoeal agents with bloody diarrhoea or diarrhoea accompanied by fever, the combination with antibiotics is likely to be safe in the setting of mild febrile dysentery and a number of studies have shown the combination to be more efficacious than use of either agent alone.7,18–20 Rapid institution of effective treatment shortens symptoms to 30 hours or less in most people.12 For example, the duration of diarrhoea was significantly (P = 0.0002) shorter following treatment with azithromycin plus loperamide (11 h) than with azithromycin alone (34 h).19"

[4]

This is far from saying that it should not be used in blood diarrhea, just that antibiotics should be included. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)