Jump to content

Talk:Ebola

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.88.197.74 (talk) at 15:34, 27 February 2021 (→How Ebola virus disables the body's immune defenses: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeEbola was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 7, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 4, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 30, 2010, and August 5, 2012.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 27, 2020.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Vital article

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aced 24 (article contribs).

Virus Disease vs. Hemorrhagic Fever?

Does anyone know the reason why the World Health Organization renamed the disease from "Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever" to "Ebola Virus Disease"? Is it a new trend of disease nomenclature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanVoyager (talk • contribs) 09:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it very often doesn't cause haemorrhaging. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of diarrhea

Why was the spelling change of diarrhea, from "diarrhoea," reverted? Our article spells it "diarrhea," and the two articles should be consistent with each other. The link presently goes to a redirect page, when it should go directly to the article. If no explanation is given, this change will be redone. Thank you. -Jordgette [talk] 18:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:diarrhoea is the British spelling. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's guideline on British English? What counts is that the rest of this article uses British English, not some American English in the Diarrhea article. The guideline is the result of long, heated debates in the past and won't be changed without the consensus of hundreds of editors. Art LaPella (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double standard categories of Ebola compared to Corona virus

Can someone please tell me why on our Ebola article, we are allowed to stigmatise Africa with categories like: Category:Health in Africa, Category:West African Ebola virus epidemic (with even its own article Western African Ebola virus epidemic and related articles, template and cats i.e Template:Filoviridae (see oubreaks nav section, which include UK and USA mind you, both under the parent cats: Category:West African Ebola virus epidemic and Category:Ebola), Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa timeline, Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea, Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone, Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia, Ebola virus disease in Nigeria, Ebola virus disease in Mali, and 2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak), yet on our Coronavirus article, no controversial naming or categorisations are done? If we can minimise the "stigmatisation" of China/Asia by not naming/linking the COVID-19 to China (as per WHO'S guidelines), and understanably so, why do we feel we have the right not to apply the same rules for Africa?2A02:C7F:AC31:400:2095:84DC:9738:9510 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides issues related to the fact I'm less politically correct than you:
For one thing, the name "West African Ebola virus epidemic", whose name has been endlessly debated and changed for many reasons but not that reason, needs to be distinguished from other Ebola epidemics in Central Africa. The most easily identified difference is that it's further west, so the title is geographical. There were a few cases in other places, mostly medical personnel who got infected and brought the disease home. But almost all of the epidemic was in West Africa.
Why do we have articles like Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea? For the same reason we have articles like Ebola virus cases in the United States, Ebola virus disease in the United Kingdom, Ebola virus disease in Spain, ...
Why are there no controversial names for coronavirus articles? You mean like COVID-19 in the United States, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Italy, COVID-19 in the UK ... ?
The names "China virus", "Wuhan virus", "Wu Flu" etc. are controversial, but to draw a comparison you would have to use a name like "African Ebola", rather than just using place names for places that had Ebola outbreaks. Come to think of it, "Ebola" is like "Wuhan virus", because it's named after the Ebola River in Africa. But Ebola is the only name for it. Art LaPella (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Ebola outbreak: Dr Jean-Jacques Muyembe and Dr Peter Piot contributions during the epidemic

8.1 Zaïre 2nd paragraph, line 4 to 8 and 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence read like this:

"The initial response was led by Congolese doctors, including Jean-Jacques Muyembe-Tamfum, one of the discoverers of Ebola. Muyembe took a blood sample from a Belgian nun; this sample would eventually be used by Peter Piot to identify the previously unknown Ebola virus.[156] Muyembe was also the first scientist to come into direct contact with the disease and survive.[157] Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including Piot, co-discoverer of Ebola, later arrived to assess the effects of the outbreak, observing that "the whole region was in panic."[158][159][160] Piot concluded that Belgian nuns had inadvertently started the epidemic by giving unnecessary vitamin injections to pregnant women without sterilizing the syringes and needles. "

All of this above is complete fiction and should be removed. The version most of the actors in that first Ebola epidemic agreed on(Drs Jean-Jacques Muyembe and Peter Piot included) was published in 2016, in the Journal of Infectious Diseases <ref Discovery and Description of Ebola Zaire Virus in 1976 and Relevance to the West African Epidemic During 2013–2016 https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiw207>

According to that article: -Dr Muyembe is not one of the discoverers of Ebola, although he was one of the first on the ground, he actually suspected it was typhoid fever and didn't take any preventive measures to secure the area and stop the spread of the disease. -The blood sample he collected was not sent to Dr Peter Piot in Antwerp,nor was it the one used to identify the new virus. -Dr Peter Piot was just a junior member of the Antwerp Institute of Tropical Medicine (ITM) team that received the sample sent by Dr Courteille from Ngaliema Hospital in Kinshasa. Wim Jacob, an electron microscopist at ITM was the first to observe a Marburg-like virus.The team couldn't tell the difference. -Dr Ngoyi Mushola is the first scientist to come in direct contact with the disease and survive.He was also the first to describe it. - Researchers from CDC were the first to "identify and recognized it was a new virus" in a convalescent blood sample collected by Dr Krubwa and his team (Drs Raffier and Ruppol) - Dr Peter Piot was not a part of that CDC team and thus couldn't be called co-discoverer of Ebola. - Dr Piot went to Zaïre as a junior member of the ITM team sent to take part to the International Commission set up by the Government of Zaïre with WHO guidance and help. As such, he "recorded clinical and epidemiological information that was incorporated into the final International Commission report" and not much more. His role in the control of this epidemic is way overblown.Claude dunia (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error in describing vaccine

The current version, in the section about vaccines, states this:

"An Ebola vaccine, rVSV-ZEBOV, was approved in the United States in December 2019.[8] It appears to be fully effective after ten days of being given.[8] "

To be accurate, the grammar of the second sentence should be changed to this:

"It appears to be 100% effective ten days after being given. [8]"

By saying "100%" the sentence is more precise, and consistent with the referenced article [8]. "Fully effective" means it reaches its maximum effectiveness, but with some vaccines that is not 100% effectiveness. By changing the word order at the end, it makes the meaning correct. As currently written, it means that the vaccine is given ten times over ten days.

It may help to include an additional phrase, such as this:

"It is administered in one dose, and a study showed it to be 100% effective ten days after being given. [8]"

Tamarinera (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that changing the word order would make it more natural English. I'll let someone like User:Ozzie10aaaa make a medical judgment. Art LaPella (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Art, though it may "sound" better...IMO its saying the same thing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that "ten days after being given" sounds better than "after ten days of being given", in the sense that the former is how we Americans talk.
If you meant "fully effective" means the same as "100% effective", Tamarinera's objection is medical, so I didn't express an opinion on it (I'm a finance guy). Art LaPella (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now fixed the syntax issue, while leaving the medical definition of effectiveness to Tamarinera and Ozzie. Art LaPella (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 25 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved buidhe 22:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Ebola virus disease → Ebola – More common name. Nothing conflicts with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A doubt may people searching for Ebola are looking for the river. The outbreaks are subpages of the disease article and the virus links clearly from here. IMO this is the primary topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding to "Recovery and death" section of article

Hello. I thought that it might be a good idea to add some more information to the recovery topic of EVD. Particularly, I was looking to add this sentence to that section: "It is recommended that survivors of EVD wear condoms for at least twelve months after initial infection or until their semen tests negative for Ebola virus on two separate occasions [2]." Do you all think this could be a beneficial add to the article? Aced 24 (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

initial capital

It's no more a proper noun than smallpox, so it's ebola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.147.153 (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's named after the proper noun Ebola River, so it's capitalized like Alzheimer's disease or Spanish flu. Art LaPella (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

The Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever is spelled as "Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever". Due to this, it is not hyperlinked. MarkyMark1223 (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

{{Ebola affects}}
{{Ebola Africa}}
{{Ebola Uganda and DR Congo}}

This article is very useful to all communities where Ebola-affected. And helps medical workers too as well as researchers in this field. Galinnya (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This doesn't seem to be an edit request. Please use edit request templates only when you wish to request changes to a protected article. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How Ebola virus disables the body's immune defenses

Reference to a recent discovery:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191024141225.htm

172.88.197.74 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ebola&oldid=1009251036"