Talk:Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Proposed Name change

Pneumocystis jirovici has been proposed as a new name for Pneumocystis carinii. There is also interest in re-classifying this organism as a fungus.

Yes the organism is clearly a fungus. Unfortunately there is a common misperception regarding the name, which is not a change. The name Pneumocystis jiroveci, which is now corrected to Pneumocystis jirovecii, was proposed as a new name only for the human form previously identified as Pneumocystis carinii. Not all of Pneumocystis carinii is named Pneumocystis jirovecii. The name Pneumocystis carinii still applies to a rat parasite. Other taxa formerly classified as Pneumocystis carinii are now described as other species, namely P. murina in mice, P. wakefieldiae also in rats, and most recently, P. oryctolagi from rabbits. However, recognition of all of these taxa as species rather than other levels of classification will continue to be debated. Heliocybe 14:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See this article at the Centers for Disease Control website for more on the proposed new name and classification for Pneumocystis carinii.

JWSchmidt 07:16, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is no longer just a proposed change, but Pneumocystis jirovici is now the officially supported name by both the CDC and the WHO. I will rename the article accordingly. See the reference at Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. — Brim 16:24, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad mistake

This nomenclature is not universally accepted, and should probably not be, as well-elucidated in the following...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GVK/is_2_9/ai_98250060

Anonymous editor: that's a letter from two years ago, and even if it were more recent, it wouldn't make anything as clear-cut as you seem to think. First, as it acknowledges, the previous taxonomy of P. carinii never had unanimous consensus among international organizations either - even regarding whether it was a protozoan or a fungus - and yet that didn't stop virtually everyone in medical practice from accepting that it was a fungus and calling it PCP. And in fact, they still call it PCP - with the PC now standing for Pneumocystis instead of P. carinii - addressing the letter-writer's other concern, that the name change would confuse AIDS patients. (I think the authors were really stretching for complaints; they even included a snarky suggestion that "jiroveci" is too hard to pronounce!) Anyway, if you'd like to add a mention of this controversy to our article, go ahead... but it doesn't mean the article isn't still a good description of the current state of the art. ←Hob 22:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "more correctly"?

An anonymous editor wrote[1] "Pneumocystis jiroveci or, more correctly, Pneumocystis jirovecii". This is wrong - there would be a double I if it had been named after someone whose name already ended in I (such as Antonio Carini), but the person's name is Jírovec, so jiroveci is correct. ←Hob 21:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you know who's wrong? Me. ICBN rules say so. Sorry! However, people go on using jiroveci and ICBN hasn't ruled on it, so I updated the article to include both. ←Hob 06:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] history & references

A helpful anonymous editor has added a History section, but I think at least some of that really belongs in the Pneumocystis jiroveci article rather than here - or maybe both. Comments?

Also, we now have a lot of references to articles between 50 and 90 years old, many in languages other than English. I recognize the historical value of these, but I'm not sure they work as references for an English-language encyclopedia article, since most readers here will not be able to use them to verify anything. ←Hob 19:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

--

IMHO the historical material belongs both here and in the Pneumocystis jiroveci article. They describe the history of the recognition of Pneumocystis pneumonia (which is clearly relevent to the article) and also why the organism was thought for many years to be a protozoan despite its unusual antibiotic sensitivies and other features.

Also IMHO the historical references should stay. Firstly because they are the primary sources of this material. The primary sources should alway be provided when they can be identified. Remarking that these may not available to English speaking people is likely to be incorrect. Many readers of Wikipedia are at least bilingual and collectively have access to libraries and other sources. Secondly Google's programme of copying of public domain material from acedemic and other libraries may make many source documents widely available in the near future. Once these are available some will be translated and others can be read with facilities such as babelfish. Finally the suggestion that only primary source documents written in English have any value on the English version of Wikipedia is not even worth commenting on.

Anonymous editor: Saying it's "not even worth commenting on" is of course a comment, and a rather harsh one considering that I haven't deleted anything. I did not say that only English-language references "have any value", but just that they won't be useful for most of our readers, thus they shouldn't be the only reference for important bits of information. This applies to editors too - editors who can't speak German, French, or Czech are unable to verify that the article is describing the content of the references accurately. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. ←Hob 14:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Hob - Fair comment. The 'non comment' does sound a bit harsh but the earlier one did not seem to make a lot of sense. It is a fairly standard proceedure in the academic literature to list the orginal sources - where they can be found. This may or may not be consistent with Wikipedia intentions but IMHO seems a sensible thing to do. Others' milage may differ.
As to every editor being able to verify the content of every listed reference is correctly summaried - well that IMHO assumes a bit much of the average editor. There are a few things I know about but (say) the depths of string theory are currently a bit beyond me. So does this mean that all refs to string theory should be removed? I dont see that working as a policy. To be honest, I dont think this quite is what you meant but that is one possible - if rather extreme - interpretation of what you wrote.
I can get by in five languages (including French) and speak bits of a sixth. Czech isnt one of them (yet). If I come across an on line translation of these papers I will link to it. This maybe sooner than one might expect if Google's project goes ahead. IMHO there might also be some additonal value in posting these refs. It is possible that at least one editor somewhere might have a copy in a back drawer of these papers. If it not on line then thier memory would not be jogged. I for one would love to find the Chagas paper as it seems Chagas - I have read - confused this organism with the trypanosomes that he did discover. Hence the importance of the later papers clearing this confusion up. I have not written this up simply because Im not absolutely sure about the details even if the story is fairly credible.
For what its worth, the editors here - including Hob :-) - have done a very decent job on this organism. Please keep up the good work.
Look, it's not a matter of my personal opinion, it's part of WP consensus which is explained in the link I posted above. It doesn't say you can't use foreign-language sources, it just says it's not a great idea for them to be the only sources. And it has nothing to do with whether the average editor can understand the theory behind them; it's just that if an editor writes something like "P. jiroveci is spontaneously generated from cat fur (Schmo, 1991)" and some other editor claims Dr. Schmo said nothing of the kind, it would be nice to be able to refer the article to clear this up, since none of what we write here is peer-reviewed ahead of time. That's an admittedly silly example but it's the reason for this general principle. ←Hob 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sounds very reasonable. However there does appear to be a small hole in the logic. When doing a history secton, you do want the history: this means the primary documents where possible. As a general principle, what you say does seem like a good idea but pehaps exceptions should be made for odd ball areas like this.
No, it's not really a loophole, because I didn't say to get rid of those sources! I just said it's not a good idea for the only sources to be either (a) non-English-language or (b) fifty years old. Don't get rid of them. Just, if you happen to have another general reference that's newer and/or in English, please add that too. If you don't, someone else eventually will. That's all. ←Hob 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed to rename/move/correct title of page

Being new to Wikipedia I realize I am not as familiar with protocols and methods as I need to be. The current title (name) for this page is incorrect, and therefore I tried to move/rename it but have gone in circles. Being a significant topic I would like to ensure this is done correctly.

The reasons it needs to be changed are several. Firstly, jiroveci is not correct. The species epithet is correctly spelled jirovecii according to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code 2006), the Code that governs fungal names. In fact Pneumocystis jirovecii is cited as an example in Example 8 for Article 45. There is no dispute on this matter. It is a correction under Art. 60.11 from the original spelling as jiroveci under the Zoological Code.

Secondly, PCP originally stood for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. The Pneumocystis working group now recognizes Pneumocystis jirovecii as the correct name for the causal agent for the human form of Pneumocystis, but decided that the acronym PCP could stand for Pneumo-, -cystis pneumonia, rather than change the acronym. It makes no sense to start calling it Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia which would abbreviate as PJP not PCP. Admitedly I do see Pneumocystis 'jiroveci' pneumonia being used in some literature, but it is not sanctioned by the Pneumocystis working group. Therefore, I would like to redirect the incorrectly spelled and perhaps inappropriately named page to a standard Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) named page, and in there explain the history. Thus far I have edited this page but cannot rename it because my attempted move goes in circles.

So I ask your help and advice. Heliocybe 13:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Complex move requests should be posted at Wikipedia:Move requests. -- MarcoTolo 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I have copied the following extended reasoning from WP:RM. --Stemonitis 19:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The proposed moves and mergers are complex. The reasons for the suggested changes are several. To begin with, the spelling of the species epithet “jiroveci” is not correct. The species epithet is correctly spelled with two letters “ii” as “jirovecii” according to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (the latest edition being the Vienna Code 2006). The genus Pneumocystis is a fungal genus, not a protozoan genus, and therefore it is the Botanical Code that governs the spelling of fungal species epithets. In fact “Pneumocystis jirovecii”, spelled this way is specifically cited as an example in Example 8 for Article 45. Therefore, there is no longer any dispute on this matter as has been implied in some discussions. The spelling as “jirovecii” was a correction under Art. 60.11 from the original spelling as “jiroveci” as originally published under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. However, in addition to being spelled incorrectly, there is the larger issue of confusion over the acronym PCP, the identification of the human pathogen as Pneumocystis carinii, and the coining of new terms, and redundancy of information under some names. The least confusing way to index all of the Pneumocystis-related sites on Wikipedia, is to move or merge them under one explanatory site name, and the most neutral to my mind is Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). I have edited the text currently under the name Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia with additional explanation and would like to see the entire content moved to the Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) page as a start. PCP originally stood for Pneumocystis Carinii Pneumonia. However, a professional group, The Pneumocystis working group, now recognizes Pneumocystis jirovecii as the correct name for the causal agent for the human form of Pneumocystis, but decided that the acronym PCP could stand for Pneumo-, -Cystis Pneumonia, rather than change the familiar acronym. Although the phrase name Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia has arisen on the WWW and in some literature, it would abbreviate as PJP not PCP, but this is not recommended by the group. Hence, redirecting Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia to Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) rather than simply correcting the spelling of “jiroveci” is recommended. It follows from this that the name pages Pneumocystis jirovecii and Pneumocystis jiroveci also be redirected. The information on the Pneumocystis jiroveci page is largely, if not totally, redundant and should be merged with the contents under Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) after including contents from Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia under that name. Currently Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) redirects to Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia but this should be reversed, of course. Similarly, currently Pneumocystis carinii redirects to Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia because of the convoluted history of PCP. It should go to Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) as well. Finally, the contents under Pneumocystis page is redundant, except for the species list. That page should also be merged, so that only a single entry is recognized, namely Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) with all of the information on Pneumocystis in humans (for now). I have additional comments if there are questions regarding these changes. Heliocybe 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I completed the moving, redirecting and merging of data from several pages, Pneumocystis jiroveci, Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, Pneumocystis, to Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP). see Talk:Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) Heliocybe 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/n/e/Talk%7EPneumocystis_jiroveci_pneumonia_e6a2.html"