Talk:Ebola/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Correct pronounciation?

I have only heard it said as "ee-bowl-a," but I now have heard several people, all British say "eb(like in ebony)-O-la" with the accent on the second syllable 4.143.234.188 (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)eric


I'm also english but I've never heard the latter pronounciation: I've usually heard a cross between the two, with the ee from the first but the "oh" sound from the second: ee-bo-la. Perhaps consulting a dictionary would clear up the issue. Giftiger Wunsch (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed statement from fever section

"Ebola is a very deadly virus and will wipe out everyone in it's path" as given the previous sentence explained that the virus is deadly it's pretty fatuous. 163.1.176.253 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If the previous sentence explained that it was deadly, there's no real need for a dramatisation to be added. The information should be impartial and factual, rather than an exaggeration. "Wipe out everyone in its path" doesn't seem particularly appropriate, and how would you qualify 'its path'? Giftiger Wunsch (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Treatment and Vaccines

I have updated the treatment and vaccines section. The antisense treatment described by Warfield et al. (PMOs) has been moved to the treatment section. In the vaccine section I have tried to point out that there are two vaccine systems successful in non human primates (Adenovirus based by Sullivan, Nabel et al. and VSV based by Jones, Feldmann, Geisbert et al.).

I have another question about the treatment section: I can not find any reference in scientific literature about the Garcinia kola extract. Does anybody know where this comes from, and if not, should that be removed? --Sperber 05:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I was wondering about that too. The full paragraph before I edited it looked like this:
In 1999, Maurice Iwu announced at the International Botanical Congress that a fruit extract of Garcinia kola, a West African tree long used by local traditional healers for other illnesses, stopped Ebola virus replication in lab tests. It is a treatment however, not a vaccine.
If you cannot find any literature or sources supporting this then by all means, remove it from the main page and place it on the talk page here so future editors can try to reference it. Cheers, -- Serephine ♠ talk - 05:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have looked into it, and actually found a BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/411030.stm) about this treatment. However, there is no scientific paper about it, despite the initial finding being seven years old and the fact that Maurice Iwu seems to be still rather actively publishing in this area. Also, there are a lot of other treatments against EBOV that work in cell culture, but fail to show an effect in animals or have so far only been shown effective in rodent models, which are not listed in the treatment section. I have, therefore, deleted the sentence about Garcinia kola. --Sperber 02:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In the treatment section it says "blood serum from Ebola survivors has been shown to be ineffective in treating the virus" but the reference cited for this section makes no mention of this. Anyone know a source for this? --99.236.28.45 (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Natural Host?

I believed there was a news article indicating that a species of bat in caves in the hot spot for Ebola seemed to be carriers without showing symptoms. Shouldn't this be updated? 192.28.2.42 17:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Numerous news articles cited three species of fruit bats as being the natural host of Ebola, and they were shown to posses the virus without symptoms. This was in late 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.28.55 (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be growing evidence for several species of fruit bats to be a natural reservoir of Ebola, though it is unclear if othere species are involved in the transmission of Ebola to primates. See Allison Groseth, Heinz Feldmann, James E. Strong, The ecology of Ebola virus, Trends in MicrobiologyVolume 15, Issue 9, , September 2007, Pages 408-416. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TD0-4PF0X75-1/2/453f2b3dc880e3c4dd4781c94718bc4d) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.181.206 (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Confliction?

"Six of the Reston primate handlers tested positive (two due to previous exposure) for the virus, and exhibited severe flu-like symptoms... No human illness has resulted from any of these outbreaks."

Is the second quote referring to the latter outbreaks or is it plainly wrong, since it contradicts the first quote? Anyone with information on this please correct.--nunocordeiro 04:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The people infected with REBOV showed no disease symptoms at all; however, in laboratory tests it could be shown that they developed antibodies against REBOV, and from the blood of one of them virus could be reisolated, thus proving that they had were infected with REBOV. I have, therefore, deleted the part about flu-like symptoms. --sperber 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fiction vs Non-Fiction

I have edited out the "fiction" section and changed it to "non-fiction". Richard Preston's The Hot Zone was put in non-fiction sections of bookstores because it was published as non-fiction. It was supported by an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant: the Sloan foundation does not support fiction and apparently was satisfied enough with RP to give him another grant.

"... In 2002, Richard Preston published The Demon in the Freezer, a bestseller about the first major bioterror event in the U.S. and the government's ongoing efforts to protect against smallpox and other potential bioweapons. Demon is Preston's first nonfiction book since the The Hot Zone, also supported by the Foundation." http://www.sloan.org/programs/edu_public.shtml

Googling any of the significant names ("Nancy Jaax", "Gerald Jaax", "Peter Jahrling"--add "Ebola" and "Reston" to reduce results) in The Hot Zone will lead to authorative articles (CNN, *.edu, etc.) supporting the book.

The author of the "fiction" section seems to have felt that Preston over-dramatized. I have found no evidence to support that. While The Hot Zone suffers the usual faults of popular non-fiction books, it seems no worse than Blackhawk Down or All the President's Men, to name just two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.200.34 (talk)

Disambiguation argument

This is not a valid use for a disambiguation page. Ebola virus is a redirect to Ebola haemorrhagic fever and the most commonly used name for the river is Ebola River ? therefore at most, the river would go into a ?see also? or ?terms that have ?Ebola? as part of their name? section. That only leaves one valid item for this disambiguation page ? meaning a redirect is the best thing to do. With that said, please see my comment in talk:Ebola haemorrhagic fever about a possible move of content here. --maveric149

I have to disagree with you too, mav. The virus was named after the river. The river's name is Ebola, and the virus' name is Ebola. Sounds like a disambiguation page to me. --Stephen Gilbert
The river is known as the Ebola river in English and not simply Ebola so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

Using Anon's logic the American river should be listed at [[American]] because the river has American in its name -- this is not what disambiguation pages are for. However, the disease and the virus are both simply known as Ebola and therefore it makes sense to have that material here. Ebola River is linked in sentence two of paragraph two, BTW. --maveric149

I have changed the page back from having been made a disambiguation page. Whether the river is called 'Ebola' or 'Ebola River' is not really an important point in my opinion - the Disambiguation page says that one can use a disambiguation block if one meaning of the term is much more important than the others. I think this is clearly such a case. Andre Engels

Removed copyvio section on new vaccine

Removed section on new vaccine, which is a copyvio of the following Washington Post article: [1] Wikiti 22:53, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Music as well

There is a section for fiction on this page but no section for related music. Can't write about Ebola without mentioning "Ebola Reston" by the band Grotus.155.178.180.5 13:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well go right ahead and put it in then ;-) -- Serephine ♠ talk - 05:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

General cleanup needed.

I'm putting the cleanup tag back on here. Several major issues with this page:

1. The 'Bioterrorism' section is almost entirely concerned with fictional works. These need to be added to the fiction section, but not just copied and pasted.

2. The neutrality tags seem less necessary now, and could probably be removed, but there are still a few areas where things could be worded differently. These areas suggest a strong dislike for the entertainment media's use of Ebola as a plot point, rather than simply pointing out the differences between fact and fiction.

3. The entire myths section could probably have some formatting changed, and be added to the fiction section under a subheading.

4. Even if the above changes were made, the sheer about of words on the topic of fictional references to Ebola is enormous, and should be trimmed down.

5. Heading and subheading styles are inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodeosmurf (talk • contribs)

I'll improve this a bit if I have time. Right now I'm kind of busy. Please sign name with tildes next time a comment is posted. - Freddie 23:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ebolavirus" or "Ebola virus"?

A commentator wrote to info-en writes to comment on the spelling of "ebolavirus":

[A]ccording to my infectious diseases reference book, "ebolavirus" (as on your pages) is incorrect. The correct reference should be: Ebola virus. Two words. It's not listed in the book, but I would guess that the correct way to reference an individual virus would be -- Reston Ebola virus. My reference book doesn't show Ebola virus as one word at all.

My reference book is: Stedman's Organisms and Infectious Disease Words. Stedman's books are routinely used as medical references and known for their accuracy. - Kelly Martin (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, I've changed them all back to ebolavirus when used in a taxonomic context, as per world authority International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. This is the naming convention currently recognised, you may want to check the publish date of your text. Anything before about 1995 can get very outdated in virology. Cheers, -- Serephine ♠ talk - 02:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The size of the virus is listed at two completely diiferent lengths. One sentence says the average the length of 80nm and the next sentece says 1000 nm is typical. These are vastly different measurements. Can we get the correct length and have this cleaned up?

EBOV particles have a thread-like shape (like a very long cylinder). The average diameter of an EBOV particle is 80nm, the average length is about 1000nm. I have changed the sentences and tried to make this more clear. --Sperber 14:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted article

I deleted two or three lines about a supposed case of ebola in London on May 19, 2006:

"A potential outbreak occurred on May 19, 2006 when a woman traveling from Africa to London complained initially of flu-like symptoms. On the flight she began vomiting and later died from symptoms similar to Ebola. An autopsy to determine true cause of death is currently being performed."

It then links to this article. The "newspaper" that the paragraph quoted is a tabloid, and no other news outlets, to my knowledge, picked up the story (feel free to prove me wrong). Seems like a hoax to me. Cathryn 08:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I searched online, a few sources which seem credible have run the story: [British Nursing News Online]... I will reinstate the paragraph ☺ -- Serephine ♠ talk - 05:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Linnaean Classification?

Why is it that the various strains of Ebola are not referred to by their Linnaean classification?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandefor (talk • contribs)

Linnaean taxonomy is for living things. Viruses are not alive. --Eyrian 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's heavily contested. There isn't a scientific consensus on the matter yet, and they do have Linnaean classifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandefor (talk • contribs)
Moot points, please see the Wikiproject Viruses project to find the standards for Wikipedian virus classification -- Serephine ♠ talk - 05:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The Linnaean classification is based on the work and life of Carolus Linnaeus. Therefore, if one would name a virus without seeking consensus from the linnaean pupils, one should actually append ones own name.Highlander

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Ebola/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

This article shows promise but needs to be improved in two ways before being passed. First, the language is a bit awkward. Because the topic is technical, it must struggle to balance the need for technical jargon with readability for the the general reader. It is not quite there on the readability side. Second, it is important to fully document the details of these kind of topics. Most of the article has yet to be documented. Please work on the article and bring it back. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientific data on proteins loses the reader

I consider myself reasonably literate and science-savvy however I find the technical jargon around the areas of proteins and glycoproteins just makes me lose interest. There does not seem to be any laypersons description of what all of that means. Suggest information gets rewritten from an educational POV (meaning year 12) rather than from a biochemistry Scientist's POV. Otherwise I love this article! --Read-write-services 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Response: I think that both should be used. I would hate to see the scientific information pulled, but perhaps a general statement of what is what should be included afterward. On the other hand, being exposed to concepts you don't understand is an opportunity to learn more. If there are wiki links for proteins and glycoproteins (most likely) the reader can go to those links for a general description of what those are. ~Kiru

Reason for contradiction tag

The "Ebola as a Weapon" section contains the following statement:

"Ebola shows potential as a biological weapon because of its lethality but due to its short incubation period it may be more difficult to spread since it may kill its victim before it has a chance to be transmitted." However, shortly afterwards, the "Cultural impact" section says:

"One pervasive myth follows that the virus kills so fast that it has little time to spread. Victims die very soon after contact with the virus. In reality, the incubation time is usually about a week. The average time from onset of early symptoms to death varies in the range 3-21 days, with a mean of 10.1."

--Redeagle688 21:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

the speed thing is caused by movies, to speed up movies Markthemac 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as viruses go, that IS quick. I am removing the contradict tag. ViridaeTalk 13:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The two sections are still confusing at best. One section says that it is more difficult to spread due to the short incubation period, the other says thats its a myth that it has little time to spread. While they don't quite directly contradict each other, they're pretty close. Could definately do with being more clearly explained, especially as many readers aren't likely to know whether a week is "quick" or not. Jasonisme 12:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Rotavirus and Noroviruses that cause GI infections can be as short as 48 hours. Same goes for the cold. That is extremely rapid, because they are transmitted by the fastest routes, respiratory and faecal-oral. For acute blood-borne diseases, which ebola falls into, incubation can typically range from 7-21 days, with Hepatitis capable of incubating for up to 8 weeks or so. So taking that into account, ebola can be pretty rapid. -- Permafrost 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling 'mistakes'

All too often, various corrections have been made regarding the rectification of perceived spelling 'mistakes'. The article is equally contributed to by many different people, not just Americans. The spelling of words such as "diarrhoea" or the american version, "diarrhea" needs to be left as is. Either we need to maintain spelling as all American-English or all English. Maybe even a combination of the two. Constant correction/recorrection of "misspelled words" is becoming tiresome as the correct version is correct for a few countries, while incorrect for others. Same with "hemorrhagic" versus "haemorrhagic". As this is a worldwide effort, I feel that we should go with the majority of readers language-the English version. The links to the World health Organisation's factsheets (and I'm sure they know how it SHOULD be spelled), shows the spelling to be "haemorrhagic"-the English version. Does anyone want to discuss this further? --Read-write-services 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for the BE spelling, however the sheer amount of people coming along and changing the spelling 'mistake' back to AE makes it tiresome to police this. Says I, who had to add a message informing editors to Golgi body that the article was in BE and to be kept that way. Sheesh. -- Serephine ♠ talk - 07:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't change the existing spelling in an attempt to make the article more global. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this. --Eyrian 10:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Contradiction

This article referring to Ebola Reston states that "Six of the Reston primate handlers tested positive for the virus, two due to previous exposure."

However the specific Reston article states that "However, four of the Reston primate handlers tested positive for antibodies to the virus, suggesting that they had been infected but were asymptomatic." Richard Preston's book The Hot Zone also only states that four people showed signs of the virus in their blood. Does anyone have any knowledge of these two people from "previous exposure."? 70.21.157.163 00:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if this is a bit late (being a year on), but I think the other two handlers handled previous shipments of apes forwarded from the station off Lake Victoria, but the primates were not a problem for them at the time - maybe due to the asymptomatic nature of the virus, or the apes were already put down during experimentation. -- Permafrost 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I re-wrote the following paragraph of this article as I found it was not written appropriately. It simply read like an assignment paper that was written by an elementary school student:

"The main limitation on the spread of an Ebola outbreak is the speed with which it kills its victims. In the initial outbreaks, by the time epidemiologists arrived, the entire community (village, rural hospital) had been infected, and most of those infected had died. The foreign doctors made few friends by banning traditional funeral preparations and ordering all dead bodies to be burned immediately, but they also saved few lives, because everyone around them was obviously dying. If ebola mutates to spread more quickly, incubate more quickly, and kill more slowly, it could spread across continents, decimating Europe as the Black Death once did. Instead, what happens is this: one infected person enters a village or hospital, becomes ill, and infects others. Within a few weeks, the entire group is infected and most are dead. The virus can't spread any further, because there are no new people to infect. The outbreak burns itself out, like a fireplace with only a few logs. "

I removed some of the unnecessary information that did not belong in that section of the article, such as the fact that "doctors made few friends by banning traditional funeral preparations and ordering all dead bodies to be burned immediately" (This should be cited if it is to be used in the article). The following is the re-written paragraph:

"Ebola is limited on a global scale due to its difficulty in spreading by airborne transmission and the period of time that the virus can use a living and contagious victim to spread compared to other infectious diseases. In isolated settings such as a quarantined hospital or a remote village, most victims are infected shortly after the first case of infection is present. In addition, the quick onset of symptoms from the time the disease becomes contagious in an individual makes it easy to identify sick individuals and limits an individual's ability to spread the disease by traveling. Although bodies of the deceased are still infectious, doctors implemented measures to properly dispose of dead bodies in spite of some traditional local burial rituals. "

Link fixes

Hello, This afternoon I "fixed" a link that has bothered me for ages, the biosafety level 4 link went to biosafety, but not to the actual levels. Also, the bioterrorism catergory A was not a direct link to catergory A. Does anyone object to this? cheers --Read-write-services 03:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebola Photos

Hi guys, I have found some public domain ebola pictures, high resolution, including electron micrographs of the virus and pictures during several out breaks. Go to http://phil.cdc.gov/phil/quicksearch.asp and type ebola in the search box. Perhaps someone more technical could import these pictures to Wikipedia?--Hontogaichiban 03:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I updated the main electron micrograph picture so we now are using a public domain version, but with 123 images listed under a search of "ebola", I'm not sure which other ones you'd suggest we add. If you'll post the image ID numbers here, I'll do the work for you. Tijuana Brass 23:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Micrographs need distance scales. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC).

Myths creeping into the article

Some serious problem with edits remain:

Characterization of the virus as airborne or causing bleeding in normal circumstances, Strong, dramatic language, especially with regards to symptoms, transmission, and dangers to humanity at large, Uncited speculation as to why Ebola has not yet become an epidemic, Original research in general

On the other hand, this is becoming a much better article by the week.

--Mark_08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.192.122 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ebola rendered harmless in lab

Just thought I would post this link to a news article about the Ebola virus, in case it is useful to the article. From the article:

American researchers say they have developed a safe version of the ebola virus so that it can be studied more easily.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/22/2144081.htm -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 11:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Webhat (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen one article for an ebola vaccine which has been successful in "non-human primates" which they are attempting to make it work on humans. [2] Brian Pearson (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a vaccine for this virus created in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.67.55 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a mistake?

Near the end of the "Transmission" section:

"Ebola is unlikely to develop(sometimes) into a pandemic..."

I don't understand that "(sometimes)". 86.149.133.204 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You could image that "(at some time)" is what is meant, but even that doesn't really add anything to the article. It looks like an edit that missed reversion because of a subsequent edit. I've removed it. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Removed this bit of garbage:

"It has occasionaly been known to cause toyboyitis in females and any owner of an XX chromosone set should report to their nearest physician immediatley if they have sexual desires for those whom are younger than them, this can often be the first sign of this fatal disease"

Reasoning- I can't find anything about Ebola causing anything called "toyboyitis" in females.

GRLant1 (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, whenever you find vandalism like that, don't forget to place a quick template on their userpage to help keep track of whoever is vandalizing. ChyranandChloe (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've looked into it and think I've figured out how to do it (identify the culprit and leave the note). Thanks for taking care of it for me this time. GRLant1 (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Recovery of Victims?

This may be outside the purview of a wikipedia virus article, but, with a fatality rate of 50-90% plus moderate to severe hemorrhaging (making it extraordinarily deadly), might it be appropriate to include the worst survivable condition can a human body be left in?

Along with that question, what percentage of 1st stage (my shorthand terminology) symptomatic persons survive (high fever (at least 38.8°C; 101.8°F), severe headache, muscle, joint, or abdominal pain, severe weakness and exhaustion, sore throat, nausea, and dizziness), & what percentage 2nd stage symptomatic persons (diarrhea, dark or bloody feces, vomiting blood, red eyes due to distension and hemorrhage of sclerotic arterioles, petechia, maculopapular rash, and purpura)?

I mean, someone who only shows 1st stage symptoms before recovering seems to be mild in comparison to 2nd stage symptoms, with which it's easy to assume much more damage to the body. wbm (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


Subtypes → Species

In a hidden comment within Subtypes, it states Ebola has "subtypes," not "species", with the most likely reference leading to New subtype of Ebola suspected in Uganda - USA Today. I am challenging this under WP:RS, that USA Today is not an authoritative or reliable source. Ebolavirus is a genus of viruses, where as: Zaïre ebolavirus, Sudan ebolavirus, and so forth are its species. Its species ones who have serotypes/subtypes. The National Center for Biotechnology Information provides the following for verification [3]. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing senationalism

Lead

Has been reduced to "Ebola first emerged in 1976 in Zaire. It remained largely obscure until 1989 with the outbreak in Reston, Virginia." The citations for this paragraph flows from the section "History". "hidden deep in the African jungles" fails to contain precise language expected within a medical-related article. Likewise the sentence "it turned out to be a mutation[...]" is not found in its source Level 4: Virus Hunters of the CDC ISBN 9780760712085. Reston ebolavirus is thought of to either be a new filovirus of Asian origin since outbreaks of Zaire or Sudan ebolavirus has never been recorded in that region. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Clasifications

[4] In the first subsection "Zaire virus" it states "severe vomiting (the black vomit, a "coffee ground" vomitus, containing an intense concentration of virus particles), and bleeding from the nose, mouth, anus and all other bodily orifices." Only 59% of patients suffer from vomiting and patients do not bleed out of every opening in their body. They usually die from shock long before that.[5] Verify the second paragraph in "Sudan ebolavirus". ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 prose and copyedit log

  • Removed content that was non-essential and unverified in the following version[6]. Some of which may be potentially inaccurate. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing the External links

Overviews


Outbreaks

Life Cycle

Infectivity

The "External links" is too easily prone link farming. Historically this section have either been used to "vouch" for the article (which is now accomplished by "References") or to provide a means to expand the reader's knowledge. Both these functions can be accomplished through the "References" section. Furthermore WP:MEDMOS, the manuel of style for medical related articles, discourages the External links. Items are displayed above and should be used as references withing the article if applicable. Database on Ebola from the ICTVdB are already implemented. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be misreading or misinterpreting WP:MEDMOS - it does not say "don't have external links".
The second sentence of MEDMOS is, in fact, "Large disease-related organisations and government health departments sometimes produce web pages containing substantial information that would be of interest to readers wishing to further study the topic."
If you feel that these links would better serve the article by being references - by all means, migrate them. Deleting them en masse appears to me to be damaging the article rather than improving it.
I have reverted the change and put the links back in. Please do not edit war over removing them. Moving them is fine - removing is problematic.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I stated that WP:MEDMOS "discourages the External links"[7]; "don't have external links" is a direct misquotation. If you are going to revert before carefully reading the discussion, I am in a position to state that you are interloping "without sufficient discussion" (WP:EW) with the extension of quoting "out of context" (WP:CIVIL). You've been registered for three years, you're on a higher standard.

More than half the links are PMID or DOI, these are scientific publications better applicable as references than as a link farm at the end of the article. I have already in several cases reintegrated them. For example the link to the ICTV has already been integrated into "Classifications", the PMIDs and DOIs are next, and likewise links to related organizations such as ViralZone are in progress. This is not a deletion "en mass".

Look I understand what you're doing is good faith. You're right. The EL is useful and deleting them en mass is certainly objectable. I have this planned out. However, I'll do it slowly, one link at a time until the section is dissolved. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of Wikipedia's administrators and one of the ones who does a lot of the civility warnings. I wrote the current best practices essay on how to leave polite civility warnings for actual abusive users...
I may not have been as polite as humanly possible, but I don't believe I violated either the spirit or letter of any of our policy, nor insulted or attacked you in my response. I did not intend to cause you any distress or upset - however, if you took offense, I apologize for that. You probably should get more familiar with community standards and policy enforcement around here if you're going to quote the policies, though.
In terms of cleanups of the article - if you move or migrate references, so no information is lost, you will see no objections from me. We always appreciate anyone who wants to help improve articles like that...
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I needed some rest. WP:CIVIL was because I was reading too quickly, and WP:EW was because the previous user who reverted didn't take it to discussion while my mind skipped that I was actually in a discussion. I'm familiar. Applying policy consistent with how they were meant to be applied is more precisely called is called original intent, standards and norms often refers to common law as to written down policies and guidelines, and policy enforcement is the process by which they are applied and not necessarily how. The reason why I moved the External links to the discussion was so that I don't loose information. Here I usually vet the links before they're moved back or reintegrated. I'm using the "avoid if possible" in WP:MEDMOS in the section "Diseases/disorders/syndromes"[8]. Ebola or rather Ebola hemorrhagic fever is a disease, making it more precisely applicable. This is compounded with the poor link quality making it applicable to pieces of WP:EL. Viral articles sometimes place those "large disease-related organizations" in an infobox (e.g. {{Infobox disease}}), which eliminates some that could be in the EL. You don't need to speak in "we" so much as "it is appreciated"; it sounds exclusionary. ChyranandChloe (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"cube" epidemic

In section on "History", subsection "Emergence", end of the first paragraph-- there is a reference to a "cube epidemic". As near as I can tell, there is no such thing.

I think the writer (original or subsequent editor) made a mistake here and was trying to refer to "incurable", "global" or some other related word. The sentence can stand alone without a modifier ("cube"); additionally a global epidemic would be a "pandemic" (just semantics).

I would suggest changing that immediately-- otherwise, it is a great article.

Chemischer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemischer (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's taken care of. Thanks. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote the section "Pathogenesis"

Rewrote the section "Pathogenesis", kind of just skimmed through the secreted glycoprotein (sGP) or full-length transmembrane form; how it interferes with the immune system is that that protien allows the virus to binds with the neutrophils through the Fcγ receptor III. This is my understanding at least. I'm not used to reading so much into virology. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Incubation period

Symptoms The incubation period ranges from 2–21 days, although it is generally 5–18 days,[40] although Bundibugyo ebolavirus may be more than twice as long at 42 days.[41]

should read simply: Symptoms The incubation period ranges from 2–21 days, although it is generally 5–18 days.[40]

Ref.41 refers to the ending of the Ebola-Zaire 2007 outbreak in the DRC, and says ambiguously: "End of Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 17 February 2009 -- The Ministry of Health of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has on 16 February 2009 declared the end of the Ebola epidemic in the Mweka and Luebo health zones in the Province of Kasai Occidental . The last person to be infected by the virus died on 1 January 2009. This is more than double the maximum incubation period (42 days) for Ebola."

What that means is that 1 Jan. to 16 Feb. is 46 days, which is more than 42 days, which is twice the max. inc. period of 21 days. And it has nothing to do with Bundibugyo ebolavirus. Woodall9669 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

broken doi

There is a number, but the link doesn't work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola#cite_note-32

Please fix, thanks. 75.4.18.242 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

New viral pathogenesis diagram

Hi there,
I have created a new diagram showing the pathogenesis of Ebola.
I'm not a virologist so I though that before I upload the new version, I would check if anyone had any suggestions to modify or improve the image.
Thanks
Ben
--T4taylor (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

New diagram
  • Hi there Ben, it's a nice picture, except doesn't replication take place in the nucleus, due to genetic manipulation? you have it within the cytoplasm. I could be wrong, however, just check for accuracy. Cheers Read-write-services (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Just realised it is an RNA virus, therefore replication takes place in the cytoplasm-sorry, my mistake. Read-write-services (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I think you're right about the virus replicating in the cytoplasm. Thanks for checking.
I'm going to leave the diagram here for a few more days for comment and then move it to the main article. --T4taylor (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have changed the image to a thumbnail, to show how it will appear in the article. I think it needs more contrast and larger text. Ideally the text should be legible without readers having to click on the image. Graham Colm (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Graham. Thanks for changing the image to a thumbnail and for your suggestions for this and the viral replication diagram. I will try to improve the contrast on both images. Regarding the text size/thumbnail issue - I fully accept your point. However, I think it would be difficult to retain all of the information in the diagram whilst making the text large enough to read in such a small thumbnail.
If you look at images by some of Wikipedia's most highly regarded illustrators (e.g. LadyofHats) you can see that there are almost no detailed scientific diagrams with text that is readable at the thumbnail scale. I don’t want to shut-down the debate on this issue so if you have any suggestions for incorporating larger text with high information content I'd be happy to work them into the diagram.
Best wishes,
Ben --T4taylor (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Ben, thumbnail images can be made bigger if required, (see here). And, for images that do not have tons of text, like the example above, I see no reason why the text cannot be made legible when viewed at a smaller scale. Graham Colm (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. (1) Damage to the liver (hepatocytes) reduces synthesis of clotting factors and (2) deregulation of endothelial integrins together leads to hypovolemic shock. The diagram seems to miss the first part.
  2. "Cell death and cytokine release causes cytopathic effects" doesn't sound quite right: cell damage or exposure to viral particles may cause the release of cytokines, which are the signaling molecules for fever and inflammation. Probably shortened to "Cell damage and viral exposure releases cytokines, which signal fever and inflamation." Cut cytopathic effects (deterioration of cellular functions), this probably belongs in the next part of the diagram.
  3. "Endothelial cell disruption and death results in vascular leakage and hypovolemic shock" doesn't sound quite right. In my opinion it should be broken into two parts: (1) "Endothelial cell damage, cytopathic effects, and release of cytokines leads to reduction of endothelial integrins;" (2) "Reduction of integrins leads to endothelial detachment, which combined with lack of clotting leads to vascular instability." Vascular instability may lead to hypovomic shock, you realize that the individual may recover without going into shock. "Vascular instability" by itself should be enough.
  4. I agree with Graham Colm, text is too small. It must be hard for you to fit it all in, but it looks good. Good job. My opinion is to do a panoramic like Adobe#Adobe wall construction, that should give you enough room while keeping the text size legible and content complete.
I'm assuming you've already read Sullivan et al., which is where the current diagram seems to be taken from. Fisher-Hoch et al. delves into clotting. The new diagram looks more aesthetic. 98.202.45.254 (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear All,

Thanks for your useful feedback regarding the Ebola pathogenesis diagram. I'm hesitant to increase the text size on the existing diagram. My reason is that text that is large enough to read on the thumbnail looks far too big and clunky when viewed at the proper size.

Changing the image to a panorama, as suggested by the above user, could be a good solution to making the text more legible at the thumbnail scale. However, the current layout of the diagram doesn't lend itself well to the panoramic format.

A possible workaround could be to split the diagram up and have the lower blood vessel part as a panorama and to show the viral replication and cell disruption diagrams separately.

This would allow the text to be easier to read without looking too large on the full-size diagram and allow us to create two new diagrams showing the viral replication cycle and cytopathic effects in detail.

I think these three diagrams together would really improve the Ebola article and help explain the replication and pathogenesis of the virus in a clear and accessible way.

Anyone have any thoughts on this suggestion?

Best regards,

Ben

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ebola/Archive_1&oldid=1136687397"