Talk:Rabbit hemorrhagic disease

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Viruses Mid‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus was copied or moved into Rabbit haemorrhagic disease with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Article creation

Hey--

Researched and put together the article "Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease" for English Class. I am looking for some constructive feedback or discussion. Please, feel free! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisakauth (talk • contribs) 04:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems well organized, however a couple of the referenced external links seem to need attention, such as this one: [1] and this one: [2] and this one seems to be an advertisment page: [3]. Thank you for your contribution to wikipedia. Bugguyak (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still interested in feedback? My main suggestion would be to provide those tagged sentences with citations. Let me know if you need any help or anything. delldot talk 02:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading info on NZ release

Resolved

– Article has been edited to make clearer what happened.

Would just like to note, all the stuff about RHD as a biological control is quite misleading. It was not approved for release in New Zealand because of fears that the virus would jump species and infect native animals, in particular the kiwi. However, a group of southland farmers smuggled some of the virus into the country and released it into the wild. They did a rather poor job of dispersing the virus and were pretty short-sighted about the whole business, but they're still considered to be one of the most successful bioterrorist groups worldwide (lol!). I'd edit the article to be more accurate, but my time is quite limited at the moment and it looks like this page is due for a merge and rewrite anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.111.93 (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-contradictory, unsourced paragraph

This paragraph is self-contradictory:

Maternal antibodies such as immunoglobulin G (IgG), which are readily transmitted to the young across the placenta, may explain why very young rabbits are resistant to RHD.^{[citation needed]} Some scientists also believe that the immature immune system of a young rabbit cannot produce the number of chemicals needed to initiate clotting in order to kill.^{[citation needed]} Rabbits may develop immunity against other strains of the RHD virus, while others may endure persistent infections. The immunity does not survive through the next generation, leaving open the possibility of further outbreaks in the population.

Either mothers do pass on immunity, or they don't. They can't both pass it on and not pass it on at the same time. Passing it on seems to be indicated, since the NZ population has developed an immunity. It's possible that there's a genetic immunity being passed on, and an immunological one not being passed on, but we need sources that say so. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rabbit haemorrhagic disease. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140415081441/http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Food-and-Agriculture/RCDFactsheet.aspx to http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Food-and-Agriculture/RCDFactsheet.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RHDV2

A German newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung, recently told that RHDV2 is ways more agressive than RHDV1 and is also able to infect hares. There is information about prograss in vaccination development as well. Sorry, I've only German reference as follows: [4] (online article may be charged). Could you find a better one? Ernsts (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating information

Hi folks, I'm a rabbit veterinarian in the U.S. I updated the page with new information on an outbreak in a veterinary clinic in New York. I will also be going through other paragraphs and updating information as needed. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns about my content. Thanks! Rabbit Vet (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to change the spelling on the page's title? I would like to change it to "rabbit hemorrhagic disease", which is the more common spelling and that used by the majority of the international veterinary literature.

Requested move 25 April 2020

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 7 May 2020. The result of the move review was no consensus – endorsed (default).

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, with WP:RETAIN being superseded by the fact that the name of the virus is "Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus". (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit haemorrhagic disease → ? – I would like to change the title of this article to "rabbit hemorrhagic disease", which is the more common spelling and that used by the majority of the international veterinary literature. Only the UK uses the spelling "haemorrhagic". I got a technical error when I tried to move it myself, saying a page of that name already exists. I don't know how to resolve this conflict, and would appreciate your help! Rabbit Vet (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:RETAIN, "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another." The title Rabbit hemorrhagic disease is a redirect targetting this article already. 94.21.253.28 (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAMES and others. The e spelling returns more results on PubMed and about 4 times as many results on Google. Also, it is already standard on Wikipedia to use the e spelling over the ae for article names, see "Category: Hemorrhagic fevers" and the numerous articles in the category, so the name should have been changed a long time ago. The official name of the virus uses the e spelling as well, so that should be taken into consideration. I disagree with invoking WP:RETAIN in this instance as it seems inappropriate since this article's current name is seemingly out of line with standard practice in and out of Wikipedia. Essentially, consensus has already emerged for some time to use the e spelling, it just hasn't been applied to this article yet. Velayinosu (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that since the virus's official name uses the e spelling and correct usage requires the e spelling for the virus, usage of ae would create inconsistent spelling throughout the article. This arguably means that WP:RETAIN isn't even applicable for this article, but as long as spelling inconsistencies exist then there will likely continue to be back and forth edits regarding the spelling. So in my opinion changing to e spelling will also help to prevent edit warring. Velayinosu (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:RETAIN. Furthermore, I tried to search for "RHD rabbits" on Google, and subsequently I found more results showing the "ae" spelling, although this matters little. Obviously, WP:RETAIN would apply in the same way for Category:Hemorrhagic fevers: if the category was created with "e" spelling, it must keep that style even though all individual pages show the "ae" spelling.--3knolls (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The scientific name of the virus that causes the disease is Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus. The scientific names of viruses are regulated by the ICTV. See here; the spelling of the scientific name is not optional. We could choose to spell the name of the disease differently from the virus, but this would look odd – to me at least. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus - Agree with Peter and the ICTV. The disease is a de facto common name for the species of virus. --awkwafaba (📥) 15:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What are we even discussing? Ae or e? This is madness... Firestar464 (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 29 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.