Talk:Social history of viruses/Archive 1

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—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

• "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.

Colin°^Talk 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

• "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?).

Colin°^Talk 09:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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 [1] and [2]. 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 [3], 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)

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 PMID 17623783 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 PMID 15617321 (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?

Colin°^Talk 22:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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. ( PMID 17901212 ) cited in Smallpox, has been superseded by a 2010 review article by Hughes et al. (PMID 19833230). I have swapped PMID 17623783 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, PMID 15617321, 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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Social history of viruses/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Axl (talk · contribs) 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I shall review the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

From "In prehistory", paragraph 1: "In humans, this acquired immunity is only passed down to offspring temporarily." The qualification "In humans" implies that acquired immunity may be passed permanently in non-humans. Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. I have made this clearer by deleting "In Humans" to make it connect better from the previous sentence. Graham Colm (talk)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The same sentence: "In humans, this acquired immunity is only passed down to offspring temporarily through breast milk and the antibodies, which cross the placenta from the mother's blood to the unborn child's." I believe that breast milk contains IgA (i.e. antibodies), which are the mechanism of transfer of immunity. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and maternal IgG crosses the placenta. I have tried to make this clearer, but I don't think we need to name the classes of antibodies (IgG, IgD, IgA, IgM) here. Graham Colm (talk)

Sure, I agree. What I meant was that the initial wording stated that antibodies pass the placenta, but made no reference to antibodies in breast milk. Thank you for clarifying the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "Humans have lived with herpes virus infections since humans first came into being." Would it be reasonable to link "herpes virus" to "herpes simplex virus"? The page "Herpes virus" is a disambiguation page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have linked it to herpesviridae because I am referring to CMV, EBV, VZV as well as HSV here. Graham Colm (talk)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "The virus passed to us from other mammals more than 80 million years ago." Anatomically modern humans arose about 200,000 years ago. More ancient archaic Homo sapiens arose about 500,000 years ago. I don't think that our 80-million-year old ancestors can really be equated with "us". Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How about "them" Graham Colm (talk)

"Them" implies "humans". I don't think that they really were humans 80 million years ago. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I have changed this to "The viruses first infected mammals more than 80 mya." Graham Colm (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

While the current text is certainly accurate, its meaning is different to the implication of the initial wording. The initial wording implied that other mammals were already infected, and passed the infection to the ancestors of modern humans 80 million years ago. From that implication, it is arguably self-evident that mammals must have become infected some time prior to 80 mya. The current text gives no indication of when the viruses passed to (the ancestors of) humans. Was it your intention to change the meaning? What exactly does the reference say? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The reference says, "Ancient viruses, like the herpes family, inhabited our evolutionary predecessors from the dawn of civilisation and were passed on when mammals evolved some 80 million years ago. Back then they were probably aggressive beasts, but over time they have co-evolved with us to reach a state of mutual tolerance. Now almost the whole human population is infected without being aware of it." Graham Colm (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, it is a little vague. How about "These viruses first infected the ancestors of modern humans over 80 million years ago." Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. I have used this. Thank you. Graham Colm (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "But there is no reason to doubt that early hominids suffered from colds, 'flu and diarrhoea caused by viruses just as humans do today." How about: "However it is likely that early hominids suffered from colds, influenza and diarrhoea caused by viruses just as humans do today." Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I prefer the original. Graham Colm (talk)

Well, I think that reads more like an essay rather than using encyclopedic tone. Also, "'flu" is a colloquial abbreviation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes on reflection, it does read like an essay. I have changed it to "Records of these milder virus infections are understandably rare but it is likely that early hominids suffered from colds, influenza and diarrhoea caused by viruses just as humans do today.", Graham Colm (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

From "In prehistory", paragraph 4: "It is the younger viruses that cause epidemics and pandemics – and it is those that history records." How about: "Younger viruses cause epidemics and pandemics – and it is these that history records." (Actually I'm not sure that "younger" is the right word.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

By "younger" I mean more recently evolved. Perhaps it is better spelled out as such. Graham Colm (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adjusting the text. Actually my main concern was removing the definite article. I have deleted "The" from the start of the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In "In prehistory", paragraph 3, could you add a reference to the last part of the paragraph please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have added one. Graham Colm (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

From "In antiquity", paragraph 2: "The close similarities between measles virus, canine distemper virus, and rinderpest virus...", would it be reasonable to link "canine distemper virus" to "Canine distemper"? "Canine distemper virus" redirects to "Canine distemper". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had a link in previous version, in a section I moved to Viral evolution. Graham Colm (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

From "In antiquity", paragraph 2: "The measles virus appears to have fully diverged from the then-widespread rinderpest virus by the 11th and 12th centuries." This should be either "by the 11th century" or "during the 11th and 12th centuries". If it had diverged before the 11th century, obviously it must have diverged before the 12th century. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The source says "between the 11th and 12th centuries" so I have changed this to, "The measles virus appears to have fully diverged from the then-widespread rinderpest virus by the 12th century." Graham Colm (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

From "In antiquity", paragraph 3: "In more recent times, measles has become extinct on remote islands with populations of fewer than 500,000 people." I wonder if this should be "extirpated" rather than "extinct"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have changed this as you have suggested and I have linked it because it is not a commonly understood term. Graham Colm (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

From "In antiquity", last paragraph: "The plant, later identified as Eupatorium lindleyanum, is often infected with Tomato yellow leaf curl virus." Should "Tomato" have a lower case "T"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted.Graham Colm (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Middle Ages", paragraph 2: "The average life expectancy during the Middle Ages was 35 years and 60% of children died before the age of 16, many of them during their first 6 years of life. Among the plethora of diseases common at the time were influenza, measles, and smallpox." It is unclear if these three diseases were a major cause of childhood death. I expect that smallpox was a major cause, while measles was not. I am unsure about influenza. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to be precise because historical records with regards to causes of disease are not reliable. According to Oldstone, measles and smallpox were not easily distinguishable at the time. It was not until the 17th century, when Syndenham defined measles as a separate clinical entity, that the two infections were recorded separately. According to Dobson, the London Bills of Mortality recorded deaths from measles every year from 1629, and "it was a disease to be feared". Although she says the virus only accounted for a fraction of childhood deaths. This article [4] says "In the British Isles, 49 ‘plagues’ of uncertain nature, but probably including measles, struck between 526 and 1087." It also comments on the similarities to smallpox, "During antiquity, measles was almost certainly confused with smallpox and not clearly differentiated from the latter before the 10th century." Although the population was smaller in the middle ages, and measles thrives in dense populations, at the time, at least in Europe, many people lived in crowded towns, where "walls served as a defense against possible attack but also meant that fires and diseases tended to be contained within the walls to the detriment of the inhabitants". [5]. I think it is safe to say that measles contributed to childhood deaths, but I don't say that it was a major cause of death, I wrote that it was "among the plethora of diseases common at the time". Graham Colm (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough. However the article does not actually say that measles, influenza and smallpox caused childhood death. There is only a vague implication by the juxtaposition of two sentences. Would it be reasonable to state: "Among the plethora of diseases that caused childhood death were measles, influenza and smallpox."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for changing this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Middle Ages", last paragraph: "The resulting loss of cattle caused famine and starvation." "Famine" and "starvation" seem to be redundant. Perhaps just "famine"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Graham Colm (talk)

From "Early modern period", paragraph 3: "Sydenham had been a soldier and fought for the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War." I don't think that this is relevant. Perhaps delete it? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, it probably more relevant to say that he was a great physician. Graham Colm (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A general comment about the article's title and scope: the opening sentence says: "The social history of viruses describes the economic and cultural influence of viruses and viral infections on human history." Yet most of the article does not describe "economic and cultural influence of viruses". I realize that historical information is mostly unavailable, not least because of the difficulty in distinguishing the different diseases. Despite this, the section "In prehistory" (and parts of other sections) describe the influence of human culture on viruses, rather than the other way around. In the late 20th century, HIV/AIDS had a profound impact on the gay community, leading to cultural changes: use of condoms and possibly a reduction in promiscuity. There was also a lesser impact on the IV drug user community. HIV and viral hepatitis led to a change in the way medical blood products are handled.

Please see my comment below. With regard to HIV and the hepatitis viruses, these are valid points that need to be covered. Graham Colm (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The page "History of viruses" redirects to this article. I wonder if this article would be better titled "History of viruses"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion on the title of the article. A tour of the page's history might be illuminating. Here's a synopsis. I conceived this contribution as an extension of the history section in "my" FA Virus, which I felt wanting but the length of that article precluded a longer section. My earlier versions were called History of viruses but I changed the title on January 7 – and created the redirect – after comments on the article's Talk Page and at the withdrawn FAC. I have moved substantial sections to History of virology, Viral evolution and Animal virus. I feel limited by the constraints of WP:Title. I chose the current title after Quinn's "A social history of influenza", which has a similar theme and scope. Although something along the lines of Oldstone's "Viruses, plagues and history" might be more apt. I suppose I could use "Viruses in history", but it sounds a little vague and would be difficult to define in the Lead. I am open to suggestions, but I don't want to go around in circles. Graham Colm (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Early modern period", paragraph 4: "It was probably influenza, although we cannot be sure, because records from the time when medicine was not a science can be unreliable." The latter part of the sentence seems to be unnecessary. It would be sufficient to say "It was probably influenza." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but I need to check current theories on the Great Sweat. Graham Colm (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

In "Early modern period", could you add a reference to the last part of paragraph 4 please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This is essentially self-evident, but I will add a reference. Graham Colm (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Early modern period", paragraph 5: "References to influenza infections date from the late 15th and early 16th centuries, but infections almost certainly occurred long before then. The first that was reliably recorded began in Malta in July 1580, and swept across Europe, Africa, and Asia." I presume that the infection from Malta was a pandemic rather than a general influenza infection? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, by definition. Should I say "The first that was reliably recorded was a pandemic that began in Malta"? Graham Colm (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Was this really the first reliable recording of influenza infection? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't find where I read that it started in Malta, so I have deleted this. All my sources agree that the 1580 pandemic was the first to be reliably recorded. Quinn says it was, "the first pandemic that is recorded with any real reliability" (p. 59). Potter says, "The outbreak of 1557 was possibly a pandemic; but the first influenza pandemic agreed by all authors occurred in 1580". I have expand the salient section to make this clearer. Graham Colm (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am happy with the current wording. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Early modern period", paragraph 5: "The first pandemic that was reliably recorded began in July 1580.... More than a century passed before the three pandemics of the 18th century." If the first pandemic was in 1580 and the next was in the 18th century, it is obvious that more than a century passed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the redundancy. Graham Colm (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Early modern period", paragraph 5: "The pandemic began in November 1781 in the East Indies." Is the East Indies the same as (modern) India? Would it be reasonable to add "(India)" in the sentence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

At the time, I think the term included parts of Malaysia. This aside, sources vary on the country of origin. The consensus seems to be China, so I have changed it to this. I originally wrote Esst Indies because in Quinn (p.72) it says "...several accounts from different parts of the East Indies, mention a disorder similar in symptoms, prevailed in those parts in the months of October and November 1781". Graham Colm (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Early modern period", paragraph 6: "the army of Pánfilo de Narváez (1478–1528), who followed Hernán Cortés (1495–1587) from Cuba." I don't think that the dates of birth and death are helpful. Perhaps delete them? Also, I believe that the dates quoted for Hernán Cortés are inaccurate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the dates. I only put them in to remind the readers the where they were in the "timeline". Graham Colm (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Early modern period", paragraph 6: "In the 150 years that followed 1492." I presume that 1492 is relevant because of Columbus' discovery? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I have made this clear in the text. Graham Colm (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Early modern period", paragraph 8: "Further epidemics of the disease occurred in the North Americas." I have not heard the phrase "the North Americas" before. Should this be just "North America"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry a mutated revision of an earlier phrase. Now corrected. Graham Colm (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In "Discovery of vaccination", paragraph 1, I would like to see more information about variolation in Istanbul. Also, I think that there is too much detail about Lady Montagu. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Variolation did not originate in Istanbul and this was not the only country which had this tradition at the time. It was practiced in places as far apart as Wales and West Africa. The method of inoculation was different; the Chinese preferred insufflation and had elaborate blow pipes made of silver. Cotton plugs that had been impregnated with pus were also pushed up the nostrils. These methods were first described in Chinese books in the sixteenth century, and it is possible but not provable that practice started in China. So I can't add much about its use in Istanbul except in was a local practice. None of my sources say how common it was or how effective it was there, but the mortality of rate of variolation has been estimated at around 2% (compared to around 30-40% for smallpox). Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that. In that case, there is more to be added to the article about variolation—where it originated and where it was practised. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added a link to Inoculation, which gives more details about the practice. Graham Colm (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

What details given about her ladyship do you consider superfluous? Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Years of birth & death, aristocrat, writer, two weeks after arrival, brother died of smallpox, ordered Charles Maitland. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to remove her dates, since there is a main article about her. But I think the four sentences in question are important to show her motivation, dynamism, determination and forward-thinking. I want to avoid describing her as just the a wife of a politician. Graham Colm (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Discovery of vaccination", paragraph 3: "The boy was James Phipps (1788–1853)." This sentence appears as a stand-alone statement, as though it is important of itself. Perhaps combine it with the subsequent sentence: "The boy (James Phipps) survived the experimental inoculation with cowpox virus and suffered only a mild fever." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have combined this with the following sentence. Graham Colm (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Discovery of vaccination", last paragraph: "As a result, for the first time in twenty years, there was a severe outbreak of smallpox in Gloucester in 1895." That would make the preceding outbreak well after the introduction of the 1853 Vaccination Act. Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 1853 Vaccination Act did not eradicate smallpox; it helped to control it. There was a lack of compliance, as there is with vaccines today. The Act made provision for parents to withold the vaccine from their children and many did. As I have said in the article, "Compulsory vaccination was not well received and following protests the Anti Vaccination League and the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League formed." So unpopular was the legislation, the subsequent Acts of 1867, 71, 73,85, 98 and 1907 increasingly bowed to public opinion and by 1948 vaccination became voluntary. Graham Colm (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Discovery of vaccination", subsection "Louis Pasteur and rabies", paragraph 1 states "the disease has been known for over 4000 years" and "The disease has been known since antiquity", which seem to be repetitive. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was. I have deleted the repetition. Graham Colm (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Discovery of vaccination", subsection "Louis Pasteur and rabies", paragraph 3: "A bricklayer had defended the boy from the dog with an iron bar." I don't see why this is relevant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It illustrates how vicious the attack was. Most readers will not have seen a rabid dog "in action". In the so called furious form of the disease, rabid dogs loose all fear of humans and will attack and bite every moving object around them. The inclusion of this fact shows that the dog had the furious form as opposed to dumb form. It took a strong man, a bricklayer, with a heavy weapon to stop the dog's attacking. Presumably, the bricklayer hit the dog several times with the bar, but my source does not provide further details Graham Colm (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

From "Discovery of vaccination", subsection "Louis Pasteur and rabies", last paragraph: "Little was known about the cause of the disease until 1903 when Adelchi Negri (1876–1912) first saw microscopic lesions in the brains of rabid animals now called Negri bodies." I presume that the lesions were called Negri bodies, rather than the brains or the animals? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I have rearranged the sentence. Graham Colm (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

From "20th century", paragraph 1: "the term "filterable virus" was coined to describe them." Is this a misnomer? "Unfilterable virus" would make more sense. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Try a Google search for "filterable virus". Graham Colm (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. The definition just seems counter-intuitive to me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Smallpox eradication", last paragraph: "The eradication campaign was not without casualties." I don't think that the sentence has encyclopedic tone. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Borderline, IMHO. But I am open to suggestions on how to recast this. Graham Colm (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps combine it with the subsequent sentence: "The eradication campaign led to the death of Janet Parker..."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Graham Colm (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Measles", paragraph 3: "In the US, by the mid-1970s the incidence of measles had fallen by 90 percent. This reduction was achieved by a mass vaccination programme that was known as "make measles a memory"." Perhaps re-order the statements to declare the programme first, followed by the fall in incidence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have changed this to: "By the mid-1970s, following a mass vaccination programme that was known as "make measles a memory", the incidence of measles in the US had fallen by 90 percent." Per your suggestion. Graham Colm (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Measles", last paragraph: "The use of the vaccine is not without risk, and its use has been controversial." Is this referring to Andrew Wakefield? In any case, I believe that the MMR vaccine controversy is relevant to this article, and there should be a couple of sentences about it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was alluding to the scandal and the very low risk of encephalitis. Crawford (2000) has some useful background, and I'll see what reliable sources are available for Wakefield. I think you are right to say a couple of sentences is all that is needed here. Thank you for the suggestion. Graham Colm (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of MMR, I think that the article should mention that mumps and rubella (and chickenpox) have vaccines available, even if there isn't a full discussion of the diseases. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I was considering a section on rubella. The social implications of infections in pregnancy were important. Mumps and chickenpox are worthy of a quick mention, but not much I think. Graham Colm (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I am hoping for just a single sentence stating that these vaccines exist, perhaps in the introductory part of "20th and 21st centuries". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Measles", last paragraph: "Measles remains a public health problem in Japan, where it is now endemic and a National Measles Elimination Plan was established in December 2007, with a view to eliminating the disease from the country by 2012." Can we have an update on this please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to make sense of this,[6] and I will update the article in due course. Graham Colm (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of a definitive statement, perhaps just delete "by 2012"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", last paragraph: "In 2003, the largest virus by far, mimivirus was discovered to infect amoebae." Megavirus chilensis is now the largest known virus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know but I have been waiting for the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses to formally recognise the genus. Since they are dragging their heals, I have updated the sentence. Graham Colm (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. However I am not convinced that Megavirus is the largest "by far". The capsid of Mimivirus is 400 nm across while that of Megavirus chilensis is 440 nm across. Indeed the reference states that the capsid of Megavirus is "slightly larger in diameter [than Mimivirus]". Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The "by far" should have been deleted with the previous edit. It's gone now. Graham Colm (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", paragraph 1, perhaps put the information about the 1950s after the information about 1916–17? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have split the paragraph instead. I think a mini Lead is useful in this section. Graham Colm (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", paragraph 1: "The disease was not confined to the US, as many other industrialised countries were affected at the same time." The first half of the sentence is redundant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was, thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", paragraph 3: "Why a disease that is caused by a virus that is passed from person to person by the faecal-oral route, and only naturally infects humans, became a problem during times of improved sanitation and increasing affluence is a paradox." Can this sentence be simplified please? Perhaps split it into two? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have adjusted the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Poliomyelitis", last paragraph, perhaps put the murders of vaccinators in Pakistan/Nigeria before the murder of a police officer? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Done as suggested, thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "AIDS", paragraph 1: "It is now a pandemic, and an estimated 38.6 million people now live with the disease worldwide." Is this the disease (AIDS) or the virus (HIV)? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have updated and clarified these facts. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have adjusted the formatting. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In the same paragraph, there is a discrepancy between that number (38.6 million) and the numbers quoted later: "As of 2010, over 40 million people have been infected and more than 25 million of them have died from AIDS-related diseases." Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

See reply above. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The same paragraph duplicates the statement that 25 million have died from AIDS. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

See reply above. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "AIDS", paragraph 1: "When, in 1981 a scientific article was published that reported the deaths of five young gay men." Although it is implied from the context, perhaps explicitly state that these men were subsequently believed to have died from AIDS? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree and done. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "AIDS", paragraph 2: "This led the World Health Assembly to pass a 1987 resolution." Was this really a "resolution"? Or just a statement? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The source (Weeks) says "resolution". Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Influenza", paragraph 1: "The last pandemic of the 19th century occurred in 1899 and resulted in the deaths of 250,000 people in Europe alone." Use of the word "alone" implies that many deaths occurred outside Europe. If there is no information about the number of deaths outside Europe, perhaps delete the word "alone"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted "alone". Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Influenza", last paragraph: "More than 30 years passed until the next pandemic in 2009." "More than 30 years" seems to be redundant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed redundancy. 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review this article. I appreciate these and further comments; they are most helpful. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Influenza", last paragraph, hasn't improved medical care since the 1918 pandemic helped to reduce the death tolls of subsequent pandemics? Also, wasn't the close crowding of soldiers in trenches at the end of WWI a factor? Sick soldiers were typically transported by train to hospitals well behind the trenches, while mildly ill soldiers remained at the front, spreading the infection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The strain of the virus that caused the pandemic is considered to be the main reason for the high mortality. That's why there is so much interest in reconstructing it by PCR from tissue. (See: Taubenberger JK, Baltimore D, Doherty PC, Markel H, Morens DM, Webster RG, Wilson IA (2012). "Reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus: unexpected rewards from the past". mBio. 3 (5). doi:10.1128/mBio.00201-12. PMC 3448162. PMID 22967978.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)). Influenza virus was not isolated until the 1930s and no samples of the 1918 strain exist. The molecular biology of the renconstructed virus is helping to solve the mystery of its virulence, but I don't think we have a clear-cut answer yet (which would probably be beyond the scope of this article in any case). Your point about the trenches of WW1 is interesting, but very Eurocentric. The infection killed 50 million people worldwide. Trench warfare does not explain how the virus "spread over the whole of [China] like a tidal wave". (Barry p. 172) Or, how "in Sidney it sickened 30% of the population" (ibid) and so on and so forth. With regard to improved medical care, healthcare services cannot cope with pandemics as all subsequent pandemics have shown (including the 2009 one). I doubt very much if improved healthcare can offer any explantion as to why the 1918 pandemic was so lethal. Graham Colm (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I accept your points, except regarding healthcare. I think it likely that improving healthcare since 1918 has been a contributory factor (but of course not the only factor) to reducing subsequent death tolls. Of course, this is just my opinion. Anyway, with your detailed explanation, I am happy to keep the article text as it is. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Yellow fever, dengue and other arboviruses", paragraph 1: "There are more than 500 species of arboviruses, but in the 1930s only three were known to cause disease in humans: yellow fever, dengue and Pappataci fever." Should "yellow fever" and "dengue" also have wikilinks? Should "dengue" properly be called "dengue fever"? Use of the word "dengue" alone to describe the disease seems to be colloquial. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added links to dengue fever, dengue virus and yellow fever. Graham Colm (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Yellow fever, dengue and other arboviruses", paragraph 2: "In 1905, the last major epidemic occurred in the US." This sentence implies that the last major epidemic was in 1905. Perhaps it should read "In 1905, the last major epidemic in the US occurred."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I have rearranged the salient sentence. Graham Colm (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Hepatitis viruses": "The diseases caused by hepatitis viruses were all recognised before the viruses were discovered." How helpful is this statement? Are there (human) diseases where the virus was discovered before the disease was described? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that phrase was not helpful at all. I have deleted it. Graham Colm (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Hepatitis viruses", it is worth mentioning that transmission of hepatitis B & C (and HIV) in blood product transfusion has led to a change in the way that blood products are handled. It may also be worth mentioning that used sharp medical instruments (needles, etc.) are carefully disposed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph on this.Graham Colm (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is an excellent summary. (I have adjusted the last sentence.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Epizootics", paragraph 1: "Viral diseases of livestock can be devastating both to farmers and the wider community as the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the UK in 2001 has shown." Should "outbreaks" really be plural? (If so, the sentence should end "have shown.") Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the 's'. Graham Colm (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Epizootics", paragraph 2: "in 1994 the Global Rinderpest Eradication Programme was launched by the Food and Agriculture Organization with the aim of global eradication by 2010." Any update on this? If not, perhaps delete "by 2010". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have updated this by adding the 2011 announcement. Graham Colm (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", paragraph 2: "In Ghana by 1977, the mealybug-transmitted cacao swollen root badnavirus caused the loss of 162 million cacao trees." Over what period of time were these 162 million trees lost? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Between 1936 and 1977. I have given the range and added a second supporting citation. Graham Colm (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)×

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", last paragraph: "The citrus tristeza closterovirus (CTV) was introduced to South America from Africa between 1926 and 1930." Wikipedia has the article "Citrus tristeza virus". Would it be reasonable to change "closterovirus" to "virus" and add a wikilink? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it would, thanks. I hadn't see that article before – it needs a little work, but it's a useful contribution, and an excellent link for here. Graham Colm (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", last paragraph: "By 1950, more than 6 million citrus trees had been destroyed in Brazil." I am not sure what "destroyed" means in this context. Were these trees killed by the virus? Or were the trees killed by farmers in an attempt to prevent spread of the disease? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The virus is very destructive. I have changed the sentence to: "By 1950, more than 6 million citrus trees had been killed by the virus in São Paulo, Brazil." Graham Colm (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

From "20th and 21st centuries", subsection "Agriculture", last paragraph: "CTV and citrus trees probably coevolved for centuries in their original countries." Do citrus trees really evolve over a period of centuries? (I accept that viruses, with their fast life cycles, may well evolve over this time period.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The source says, "Adapted to replicate in phloem cells of a few species within the family Rutaceae and to transmission by a few aphid species, CTV and citrus probably coevolved for centuries at the site of origin of citrus plants." But I agree that it was probably many centuries. Actually, citrus tristeza virus evolves slowly compared to other RNA viruses (see: Silva G, Marques N, Nolasco G (2012). "The evolutionary rate of citrus tristeza virus ranks among the rates of the slowest RNA viruses". The Journal of General Virology. 93 (Pt 2): 419–29. doi:10.1099/vir.0.036574-0. PMID 22071513. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)). Domesticated plants evolve more quickly than their wild-type counterparts, although this is probably by human selection rather than natural selection. This book has some interesting information on this with regard to citrus: Iqrar A. Khan (26 November 2007). Citrus Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology. CABI. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84593-193-3. But it's beyond the scope of this article. Graham Colm (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's leave the current text as it is. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Emerging viruses", subsection "West Nile virus": "An increasing frequency of epidemics and enzootics (in horses) began in 1996." Should "enzootics" be "epizootics"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was a silly mistake, thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Emerging viruses", subsection "West Nile virus": "In the US, mosquitoes carry the highest amounts of virus in late summer, and the rate of the disease increases in late August to early September." Perhaps "prevalence" rather than "rate"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have changed it to "incidence". I was trying to avoid the use of "prevalence" or "incidence" because these terms have distinct meanings in epidemiology. Graham Colm (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

While use of the word "incidence" is technically correct, incidence is usually considered per year, and this could be confusing when considering a period of one or two months. Perhaps change it to "number of cases of the disease increase"? This would also be easier for lay people to understand. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have adopted this suggestion. Graham Colm (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 2: "They are the most abundant species on Earth." "Species"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The definition of viral species is explained here.[7] (Click on "Look inside). If you are concerned about the (somewhat pointless) living versus non-living philosophical debate, I could use the expression "biological entities". Graham Colm (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My concern is not the distinction between living & non-living. Rather it is the categorization of viruses as "a species". In the same way, I would object to a statement that declares: "Animals are the most active species on Earth." The group "Animals" is not a species. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. And thank you for reminding me (who should know better) how diverse viruses are. Well, we can't use "life-forms" because that will open a can of worms. So shall we go for "biological entities"? Or can you think of a better way around the problem? Graham Colm (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

While I have no problem with describing viruses as "biological entities", to describe them as "more abundant" than other biological entities implies that there are other categories of biological entities. Without a formal definition of "biological entities" and categories within that group, it is difficult to compare these categories.

Perhaps something along the lines of: "Viruses are more numerous than animals, plants, fungi, protists & bacteria combined." However it does look a little clumsy. What exactly does the reference (Zimmer) say? Later in the paragraph, viruses are noted to be 15 times more numerous than bacteria and archaea in the ocean, so the former statement about abundance may be superfluous anyway. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best just to delete the salient statement. I can't see a solution to this problem without over icing the cake.Graham Colm (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 2: "Viruses... help maintain the ecological balance of different species of marine blue-green algae, and thus adequate oxygen production for all other life on Earth." Do plants require oxygen production from blue-green algae? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Plants, their roots in particular, need oxygen. Have you ever drowned a house plant? I have. For less anecdotal evidence see page 366 here: George N. Agrios (25 January 2005). Plant Pathology. Academic Press. p. 366. ISBN 978-0-08-047378-9. And page 190 here: Stephen G. Pallardy (20 July 2010). Physiology of Woody Plants. Academic Press. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-08-056871-3. Even the obligate anerobic bacteria require the coexistance aerobic organisms. It can be argued that some extremophiles may not require oxygen, but much of the carbon that reaches the bottom of the oceans comes from microbes killed by viruses. But we are entering the realm of angels on pinheads. Graham Colm (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that you are aware of plants that don't have roots (mosses). In general though, I accept your statement. Of course the reason that modern organisms "require" oxygen is because they have evolved in an oxygen-rich environment, and it is advantageous to utilize the oxygen. If the atmosphere remained low in oxygen as in the precambrian, organisms would have evolved differently.

But it didn't and they didn't. Graham Colm (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The implication of the original statement is that life couldn't exist on Earth without the presence of these algae/oxygen-regulating viruses. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, how would you feel about deleting the word "all"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It rather defuses the statement, but it's a good compromise, so I will remove the contentious "all". Graham Colm (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 3: "The use of bacteriophages to control bacteria was first described by Russian scientists in the 1950s and 1960s." The Wikipedia articles "Bacteriophage" and "Phage therapy" describe the Eliava Institute. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

...and both provide no sources. Actually I think the full details of this do not belong in this article but in "my" companion contribution History of virology. Anyhow, Zimmer (p.37) mentions the Institute, so I can add this if you consider it important. Graham Colm (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The reference given is to a 1997 BBC Horizon documentary: "Phage – the virus that cures". I raise the issue not because I expect full details of the Eliava Institute in this article, but because the Eliava Institute is alleged to have conducted phage therapy research in the 1920s & '30s. It is a direct contradiction to this article's statement: "The use of bacteriophages to control bacteria was first described by Russian scientists in the 1950s and 1960s." (Indeed it is also alleged that Eli Lilly conducted phage therapy research in the 1940s in the USA.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The first Russian clinical trial – it was massive, over 30,769 children were recruited – was conducted by the institute in 1963. But the results were not released to the West by the Soviets until 1989. Before this they had been experimenting with page therapy, particularly on soldiers during World War II, since 1923. But I could change the sentence to "Bacteriophages were first used to control bacteria by Russian scientists in the 1920s and a large clinical trial was conducted by them in 1963. I can source this to Zimmer p. 37. To complicate the matter further, there is a French report from 1921 (Bruynoghe R, Maisin J. Essais de thérapeutique au moyen du bacteriophage. C R Soc Biol. 1921;85:1120–1121) which describes the use of bacteriophages to treat staphylococcal infections. So we might want to say "Bacteriophages were first used to control bacteria in the 1920s and a large clinical trial was conducted by Russian scientists in 1963." I can source the French study to: Sulakvelidze A, Alavidze Z, Morris JG (2001). "Bacteriophage therapy". Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 45 (3): 649–59. doi:10.1128/AAC.45.3.649-659.2001. PMC 90351. PMID 11181338. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Graham Colm (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Friendly viruses", paragraph 4: "Most of this DNA is no longer functional, and a few sequences might occasionally cause harm, but the remainder seem to be harmless." This statement implies three categories of ancient retroviral DNA: "no longer functional", "occasionally cause harm", and "harmless". Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is probably true, but as these "categories" are not formally recognised, I have shortened the sentence. Graham Colm (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. (If they were indeed intended to be three separate categories, the distinction between "harmless" and "no longer functional" was unclear to me.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Friendly viruses", last paragraph: "The debate as to whether viruses are alive continues. In 2000, they were officially declared as non-living by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, but the debate continues." Apart from the duplication with the statement, I am unconvinced that this is relevant to "Friendly viruses". Indeed the categorization of whether viruses are alive or non-living has little to do with "the economic and cultural influence of viruses and viral infections on human history", which is supposed to be the scope of this article. Perhaps just delete the statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was seeking a satisfying conclusion. Clearly this one does not work. I have changed the last sentence to "Viruses have transferred important genes to plants. About 10 percent of all current photosynthesis uses genes that have been transferred to plants by viruses." Graham Colm (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Summary

We have resolved almost all of my concerns above. There are a few outstanding points where Graham Colm has disagreed with me. (These are points that I haven't struck out.) Graham Colm has considered each point on its own merit. In general, I am happy to regard these unresolved points as simple editorial disagreement rather than anything more significant (i.e. something that might prevent GA status).

However I have an ongoing concern about the title of the article. I do not believe that the article's title matches the content. If, for example, I saw an article called "Social history of gorillas", I would not expect it to be about the economic and cultural influence of gorillas on human history. Obviously viruses do not have the capacity to be sociable with one another (at least not in the everyday meaning of the word), leaving the meaning of the current title somewhat mysterious.

A more accurate title might be "Economic and cultural influence of viruses". This implicitly refers to the effect on human societies. Anyway, this is a debate that would benefit from a wider consensus view.

Regarding the GA criteria:-

1. The article is well-written. The text reads nicely and flows smoothly.
2. The article is verifiable, with references used throughout. A few references are somewhat old, but that's okay.
3. The whole topic is covered, without excessive detail.
4. The article is neutral in tone.
5. There is no edit war.
6. A nice selection of pictures illustrate the article. All pictures have free licenses, and are linked from Wikimedia Commons.

I am awarding GA status. My thanks and congratulations to Graham Colm. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Axl, thank you for this review, the copyediting and the important suggestions you have made. Most appreciated. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2013 (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.[8] 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)