Talk:Social history of viruses/Archive 1

Title
Very interesting read! I'm wondering if this article would be more appropriately titled "History of virology"? I'd expect a history of viruses article to have more discussion on phylogenetic relationships between different types of viruses, viral evolution, more discussion of genetic reassortments in pandemic influenza viruses, virus origins (eg. like in this paper), etc. Thoughts? Sasata (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all many thanks. My eyesight was giving up, so I decided to take a break and when I got back I saw that you had worked your magic on the article. I thought long and hard about "History of virology", but then I realised that I would have to include viral epidemiology, discoveries in viral pathogenesis, viral structure and so on. It would be too much I think although adding more on their origins would be appropriate. Yes a phylogentic tree would be great and would tell part of the story in a nutshell. Clearly, the article is far from finished – I only started it a few days ago. I also agree that it would be nice to discuss evolutionary mechanisms, but I am testing myself to see just how much jargon I can keep out. I'll probably added an "evolution" section soon. I have been putting it off because the word is a magnet for idiots. Thanks again for you help. I'll read the paper. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. I can't at the moment it is "Access restricted", which means a trip to the University Library is called for :-) Graham Colm (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me know if I can be of any assistance, I find this area fascinating. One of my first "real" jobs was determining phage titers in a virology lab; although the actual work was tedious, the science behind it was not :) Sasata (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sasata, I will take up your offer, (too late, you've offered now) :-) Perhaps you could help with the tree. Most ones just show relatively recent events. We need one that goes back much further. BTW I intend to take this all the way to FA, so your advice is going to precious. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll dig into the literature this weekend and see what I can come up with. Sasata (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Sas Graham Colm (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Graham! Check out this paper: Paleovirology—Modern Consequences of Ancient Viruses, it's quite relevant to the "Evolution" or "Viruses in prehistory" sections of this article. Plus, it's open access, so you could use the diagrams they have. Some looking around has convinced me that there's enough information out there to take Paleovirology all the way to FA status. I see that this article is expanding nicely&mdash;I'll read it again in a few days and see if I can catch any fresh typos :) Sasata (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, this looks really useful! Just what we needed. I'll make good use of it :-) Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Virology has a section History of virology. That section (with the better title) needs to be correlated with this article, of which it should be a summary, with the hatnote I've added there, redirecting readers here for more information.
 * Let me suggest the title Human history of viruses.--Wetman (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for the input, but I don't think that's good idea. As I have written above, I had originally intended to call the article "History of virology", that is the history of the study of viruses. In one way this was too restrictive because virology is only just over 100 years old. On the other hand, it would be a massive undertaking and have to cover the histories of subjects such as viral epidemiology, viral epizoology, plant virology, medical virology and so on. I think the current title is OK for this short introductory offering. Graham Colm (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To do
I think foot and mouth disease and possibly canine parvovirus deserve a mention. And maybe avian influenza. Perhaps a short Viruses of animals section is needed? Graham Colm (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

21st century?
The article currently mentions only those discovered up to the late 20th century, and nothing after that. We did have notable virus discoveries in the new millenium, such as SARS coronavirus. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks this a good good question. It was a concious decision to stop there. I haven't mentioned human bocavirus either for example. I think it's too soon to write objectively about these "new" viruses. Coronavirus was discovered decades ago, the SARS coronovirus seems to be a rogue variant. It hasn't been a problem since 2003 it seems. Graham Colm (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Having thought about this, I have added references to SARs and nipah virus and the threat of emerging and re-emerging viruses. Graham Colm (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Review by Colin
This is up to your usual high standard, Graham. I'm making notes as I read though. Colin°Talk 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Colin, I will address all your comments. Please forgive me if I don't respond here immediately. But I am paying attention :-) Graham Colm (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Origins
Colin°Talk 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "and that some viral proteins pre-date the divergence of life and thus the last universal common ancestor. It is now thought that viruses existed before the emergence of modern cells" This is repeated in the third paragraph, where the historical-thought/current-thought is explained fully.
 * "on the origins of viruses:" should that colon be followed by several sentences?
 * "they infect all forms of life and they are the most abundant biological entity on Earth". Neither of these two statements are relevant to their origins. We could make global boasts about humans too and we're pretty recent.
 * "Studies using molecular methods" I wonder if "Studies at the molecular level" would be better rather than leaving the reader wondering what those "methods" were.
 * "have revealed surprising relationships" in what way are they surprising? Should we be surprised that there are "relationships between viruses that infect organisms from the three domains of life"? Need such relationships imply an origin prior (or as ancient as) the three domains of life (is that what's being implied)? Couldn't a recent infectious organism adapt to infect all three domains of life?
 * I notice that Virus has a more complete Origins section than this article. Shouldn't it be the other way round? In particular, the other article discusses whether viruses have a common origin or have evolved numerous times, and the impact that prions have on thoughts about origins. BTW: I don't think that "Main article: Virus" is correct usage here.
 * I deliberately made the Origins shorter to avoid some of the more technical stuff. I don't think the prion stuff helps that much. I reluctantly kept it in virus following a review. Much less is known about them and not enough to support what is known about the origins of viruses. But, a sentence on multiple origins of viruses might be needed. Graham Colm (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Evolution
Colin°Talk 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Viruses are everywhere and it has been estimated that there are 1031 viruses on earth. Most of these are bacteriophages found in the oceans." These facts aren't relevant to evolution.
 * "Although some species of viruses are ancient, many are relatively new and have only recently evolved from earlier species." This is repeated later as "thousands of species of modern viruses have evolved from less numerous ancient species" and "new viruses are constantly emerging".
 * "Viruses do not form fossils," is repeated as "Although viruses do not form real fossils".
 * I think this section is a little muddled. There are two stories here: how we study viral evolution (lack of fossils, DNA analysis/sequencing, human genome acting as a living database) and how viruses evolve (changes in their DNA or RNA, the particular aspects wrt RNA, genetic shift). Could these be separated out and perhaps begin with the study-evolution part and then discuss the how-evolve part. For example, beginning with "Viruses do not form fossils" is a good start IMO as it gets the reader thinking "well how do we study the evolution?".
 * Could you say a bit more about the "other methods" of studying evolution? I'm sure the "human genome is a living database" is not the only aspect worth discussing in any detail.
 * Most living things evolve so slowly that it is easy to disbelieve it happens at all (!) Could you give some examples of viruses that haven't evolved quickly and some that evolve very quickly. For example, there's a new flu every year (is that right?).


 * Thanks for this Colin. I have made changes to the article accordingly. If you disagree with them, I am happy to put in a more work of course. Graham Colm (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Early Modern Period

 * "The disease reached Australia in 1789". This doesn't seem to fit in the paragraph and the sentence it is in, which is otherwise all about Europe. Could we combine all the Europe info into one set of sentences. Then what to do with Australia? What about the rest of the far east? If we can say something about the far east, we could combine that with Australia to produce something that doesn't stick out so much. Colin°Talk 19:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved "Australia" down and added a little more info. Sadly, my sources haven't got much more to add. If I can find out a little more on the Australian history I will add it later - I'll see what I can dig up. Thanks, Colin. Graham Colm (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Title again
I have re-read Dorothy Crawfords' The Invisible Enemy – A Natural History of Viruses (ISBN 978-0-19-856481-2) which was first published in 2000. Although better written, many of her themes are mirrored in our article. In her book, she discusses the nature of viruses, their discovery, the work of Jenner Pasteur and Beijerinck – although there is little on the origins and evolution. This has led me to think that an interim solution to the problem with the scope of the article might be to rename it Natural history of viruses. Thoughts? Graham Colm (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe... how are you defining natural history? Sasata (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question, the study of their origins, evolution, life cycles, behaviour, habitat and control? Graham Colm (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right to me. You know, much of this meta-organization would be easier if you were to simultaneously work on a History of virology article :) You already have enough information in this one to give it a solid start! Sasata (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How would an article 'Natural history of viruses' be different from an article 'History of virology'? Emw (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter would trace the history of virology as a science. Most of the "Pioneers" section from here would be transferred there (and expanded); pieces from other sections could be transferred (and expanded) as well. The natural history would discuss viruses in the way Graham defined, while avoiding emphasis on historical developments. Yes, the balance would be tricky, but doable with proper planning beforehand. Sasata (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, tricky but it can be done. The planning will probably take more time than the writing, which is why I want to do the initial work in my user space. Graham Colm (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a promising plan. And I agree that renaming this article 'Natural history of viruses' would better convey this article's focus.  Emw (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear Colin's thoughts before making the change since he has taken an interest in the development of the two articles. Graham Colm (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Viruses covered
Wondering how it was decided what viruses would be covered? Having worked on Dengue fever recently I see it has only been given cursory mention even though it is the second most important tropical disease after malaria thus the first most important tropical virus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * James, hi. The honest answer is I decided, but you are right of course. I am still working on the article. If you have any sources on the history of dengue, I would be very interested to read them. At the moment, I am considering combining dengue, in way I haven't worked out yet, with yellow fever. As Colin has pointed out, quite rightly, this article should be about the viruses rather than the virology. I could right loads about dengue – I caught it in India – but I have to discipline myself and adhere to the historical aspects of the infection and not write stuff that belongs in Dengue fever. Any further thoughts would be very welcome. I feel I might have bitten off more than I can chew in attempting this synopsis. Graham Colm (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a bunch of stuff on google books including and .  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this James. Graham Colm (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * PS. I have already got number two and I have just ordered number one, which looks like it has other useful info. Thanks again. Graham Colm (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Another look
I'm having another read through this revised article. Notes as I go..


 * Origins:
 * The three domains of life. I'm intrigued. Do they infect archaea and fungi? Are there any organisms that escape viruses completely?
 * Hi Colin, yes they do infect fungi, and these viruses are called mycoviruses, and some of the bacteriophages of archaea are known. Your question regarding organisms that do not have there own viruses is a good one. The answer is I don't think there are any. They infect single-celled protozoa, and we know they infect algae, and  seaweed and bacteria. If your were to ask what is the most common viral infection of aardvarks or zebra are, I would have to look them up. But I don't doubt for a nanosecond that they have them. Graham Colm (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Colin°Talk 22:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In prehistory:
 * "The virus, which only infected humans, probably descended from the poxviruses that infected rodents.[33] It is probable that early humans hunted these rodents and some people became infected by the viruses that they carried." The source mentions both camelpox and a pox that infects gerbils. The source seems mainly about the possibility that snakes are an intermediate host (I only scanned it quickly). The smallpox article has other sources on the origin. Is the "hunted rodents" theory sourced to  (can't read by seems to be about monkeypox which isn't one of the poxes that the first source reckons to be closely related to smallpox). From re-reading the first chapter of "The Coming Plague", I'm wondering if the rodent/human mixing is related to the agriculture changes bringing the rodents closer to man and his grain. What ancestors and theories do our best sources offer?
 * Could you be kind and allow me time to think about this? PS. I haven't read "The Coming Plague" but I have ordered a copy of it. Graham Colm (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked into this more closely now, and I think you are right. The 2007 primary paper by Li et al. cited in Smallpox, has been superseded by a 2010 review article by Hughes et al. . I have swapped  for the Hughes reference and have changed the text to "came into contact with these rodents" as I can't find a source that specifically says that they were hunted. The deleted reference was used because it showed the evolutionary relationships of poxviruses of snakes, rodents and humans, but was mainly about transposons and not poxviruses as such. Unfortunately, I don't think we can be that much more precise in our article. The Hughes paper (which is available as a full text) makes it clear that the published dates on the divergence of smallpox virus and the rodent virus vary greatly. For example, the Li paper says 16,000–68,000 years ago—and this is quoted in smallpox. However, the Hughes review claims 3,000–4,000 years ago. Other primary sources give different date ranges. In summary, I think we are accurate in saying rodents were the source of smallpox virus some thousands of years ago and that changes in agricultural practises brought humans and the rodents together. The text might need further tweaking to reflect this. The French monkeypox paper,, is about poxviruses crossing the species barrier. Graham Colm (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article title
I am thinking about renaming the article "Viruses, past, present and future", which is more in keeping with the scope of the article that I am trying to write. Any views on this? Graham Colm (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Suspect that fails WP:TITLE. I'm still confused about what article you are trying to write :-). Would it help to detail the topics you want to write about. Perhaps there's more than one article. There are lots of ways of looking at a subject. Colin°Talk 12:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm trying to write an article that describes the ancient origins of viruses, their past and continuing influence on human history. How we have discovered them and controlled the diseases some cause. And the important role they play in ecology. Whereas Virus is primarily about what viruses are. I want this article to focus on what they have done and continue to do. As you know, quite a lot of the virology has already been despatched to History of virology. I want this article to have a natural beginning, middle and end, so as to make the prose engaging - hence the current structure. Forgive my immodesty, but I think there is a lot of good stuff here, which I would prefer to keep together. But the bloody title is still a problem. Graham Colm (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Absurdity in "Discovery of vaccination" section
There is an absurdity in the section "Discovery of vaccination". It reads "Six men [served] as the subjects of the public experiment [and] one of them, a nineteen-year-old woman..." I suspect someone will need to access the original source of the information (Tucker, p17) to establish the correct story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmspinks (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting this. The source says "prisoners", not "men". Graham Colm (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Killing of polio workers
The polio section ends "As of 2010, outbreaks of infection are still being reported in other countries following importation of polio virus from those regions". Could we mention the assasination of health workers? Something like, "although international polio workers have been assassinated in countries X, Y, and Z, which is hampering progress", perhaps? Biosthmors (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a good point. I'll add some text later probably based on this source. Graham Colm (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR
When this article was started, it used UK English. I think the English variant used should be consistent throughout. --John (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tag, this comment and your copyediting. Where did I slip up, was it "practice"? I always have to stop and think about this word. :-) Graham Colm (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, British English uses "-ise" for the verb, "-ice" for the noun. I didn't get my head fully round it until I lived in the States for a few years. One way to remember it is it's like "advice" and "advise". It's a beautiful article, thank you for your work on it. --John (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead image
Is there a reason for changing the lead image? I much preferred the Japanese print that was there until recently. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed it in response to a comment at the article's Peer Review here. Aside from this, I am very impressed with your work on Portal:Viruses. If you have any further comments or criticisms of this article, perhaps you might want to raise them at the peer review. I would be very pleased to respond to them. Graham Colm (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Post-PR comments
I peer reviewed this article a few months ago, and have been asked to do a final readthrough and add comments if necessary. This does not constitute a complete review, but the following comments may be helpful. I have also tweaked the prose a bit.
 * The lead should be organised into a maximum of four paragraphs, per WP:LEAD (unless there is some specific reason for doing otherwise)
 * From lead: "HIV became the most significant new virus to have emerged in centuries." I wondr if "significant" is the most appropriate word. Maybe "destructive". Also, perhaps "was" rather than "became".
 * From prehistory section: "The transmission of viruses from animals to humans can occur, but such zoonotic infections are rare and subsequent human-to-human transmission is even rarer..." Can you clarify? I thought the nature of viruses was that they depend on human-to-human transmission; if not, how?
 * "understandably rare" → mildly editorializing
 * "In antiquity": unnecessary sequestration of one sentence in parentheses
 * Middle Ages: Links would be useful on Huns and Mongols
 * Early modern period: Title somewhat vague; the text refers to dates as early as 1173, and as recent as 1852. Can the latter really be considered as "early modern"? Possible subdivision of section?
 * An epidemic began in 1508 and lasted until 1556? Surely the description of London ("streets were deserted apart from carts transporting bodies") cannot have applied for 48 years?
 * Link Hispaniola and Columbus. It would be worth a general check-through, to see if further useful wikilinks should be added.
 * Pasteur and rabies: Avoid non-specific time references such as "Today..." Maybe "In the 21st century..."?
 * Also, perhaps remove inconsequential details such as A bricklayer had defended the boy from the dog with an iron bar..."

That covers about the first half of the article - I'll post the remaining comments shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A few more nitpicks - not quite through yet:


 * 20th and 21st centuries: 1st para: "the word is ancient. In Latin it means a "slimy liquid, poison offensive odour or taste", and it first appears in the medical literature in the 18th century to describe a poisonous fluid." Earlier in the article we have Celsius suggesting that "the saliva of infected animals and humans contained a slime or poison – to describe this he used the word 'virus' ". Although these statements are not contradictory, perhaps they could be coordinated by referring in the second statement to Celsius's invention of the word?
 * "present[ing] new challenges" – phrase occurs twice in quick succession.
 * Smallpox eradication: "so it was clear who had the disease and who did not". Last 4 words unnecessary
 * "...by 1970 smallpox was no longer endemic in western Africa, and by 1971 in Brazil". The wording is not quite right; Perhaps: "by 1970 smallpox was no longer endemic in western Africa, nor, by 1971, in Brazil".
 * If "no one seems to know exactly where vaccinia virus came from", how was it obtained in the quantities necessary to eradicate the disease?
 * It can be propagated in laboratories.Graham Colm (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Measles: "biannual" is not a hyphenated word
 * "The current epidemic strain evolved at the beginning of the 20th century – probably between 1908 and 1943" That range goes far beyond "the beginning of the 20th century". I suggest: "in the first part of the 20th century"

Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Last words
 * Poliomyelitis: "These murders were committed by Islamic militants who believe that the eradication campaign is part of a western plot against Muslims." Is there possibly a degree of oversimplification here? However the reasoning is warped, to consider the eradication of a disease as "a plot against Muslims" defies all logic. Is there a more fundamental objection on religious grounds?
 * AIDS: "when then infection is not treated" does not seem to make sense (probably then → the)
 * "It is now a pandemic..." When is "now"?he
 * "By 2007, over 36 million people had HIV or AIDS..." - and earlier: "over 70 million individuals have been infected by the virus". Does that mean that the number of infections has doubled since 2007?
 * Influenza: "completely replaced" – unnecessary adjective.
 * "It may be significant that..." needs to be expressed in less speculative terms. Who has made this suggestion?
 * "The next pandemic was in 2009" – maybe "most recent" rather than "next", and "occurred" rather than "was"?
 * Yellow fever etc: "In 1905, the last major epidemic in the US occurred" better as "The last major epidemic in the US occurred in 1905".
 * Final para of section: four mentions of encephalitis, yet this does not appear in the section title. What is the connection to the heading?
 * Hepatitis viruses: "including" should not occur twice in the same sentence
 * Clumsy wording: "The first virus discovered that could cause hepatitis was hepatitis B virus in the 1960s, which was named after the disease it causes"
 * "Hepatitis A virus was not discovered until 1974" – why not express this positively, e.g. "Hepatitis A virus was  discovered in 1974"?
 * Epizootics: "has shown" in the first paragraph is the wrong tense. Should be past historic: "showed"
 * Links: Tamil Nadu and Kerala
 * Last paragraph of section: "continued to have" → "continue to have"
 * Agriculture: You should probably link "Jordan", to indicate you are referring to the country rather than the river
 * Also, pipe-link Cacao
 * Emerging viruses: "after causing around 8,000 cases and 800 deaths, it had ended" Need to clarify "it"
 * "Beginning in October 2004 and continuing into 2005, the outbreak was the world's worst epidemic of any kind of viral haemorrhagic fever." Are there figures available to illustrate this?

General comment: As I have previously observed, this is a very comprehensive article, written in a generally accessible manner that does not create any real barriers for the intelligent non-specialist reader. Aside from the stylistic blips which I have noted above, there is rather too much use of the conjunction "but", especially as a means of beginning a sentence. This occurs twice in the lead, and probably a dozen more times in the main text. In almost every case the leading "But" can simply be removed, and I would advise that this is done.

Article title: I note that the article's GA reviewer has suggest a change of title to "Economic and cultural influence of viruses". To me, the article seems to be about the impact of viruses on society, rather than "social" or "cultural" influences, though I wasn't particularly confused by the existing title. This is a matter to which Graham, as the principal editor, might wish to give further thought before submitting the article to FAC, but for myself, I would not insist on a change.

That concludes these comments. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Brian, many thanks for taking the time to review the article (again). I agree with your points and will change the wordings accordingly. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I think I have incorporated all these suggestions and corrections, I hope to your satisfaction. Graham Colm (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Zillions
Maybe the term 100 billion trillion is not so useful. There are many readers who do not know that "billion" and "trillion" mean different numbers in different parts of the world. In any case, my mental arithmetic makes ten-to-the-thirty-one ten billion trillion in Pommie notation. So tell me I'm wrong. How about ten million million million million million? Wikipedia has lots of disc space. Actually it's now ten million million million million million and eleven. Some more hatched while I was typing.... Captainbeefart (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)