Talk:Ebola

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Ebola is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
Wikipedia CD Selection Ebola is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been cleaned up by WikiProject Viruses, which aims to improve Wikipedia's organisation of virus articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page to view a list of open tasks.
Viruses WikiProject This article is within the scope of the Viruses WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and organize articles about biological viruses on Wikipedia. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is has been assigned a top-importance to the Viruses WikiProject.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.


Please keep this page clean and sign all posts with ~~~~

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.179.200.34 (talk • contribs).

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Linnaen Classification?

Why is it that the various strains of Ebola are not referred to by their Linnaen classification?—The preceding unsigned comment was 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 Linnaen classifications. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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 Linnaen classification is based on the work and life of Carolus Linnaeus. Therefore, if one would name a virus without seeking consensus from the linnean pupils, one should actually append ones own name.Highlander

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Ebola 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/b/o/Talk%7EEbola_a731.html"