Talk:The Hot Zone

Untitled

This page says the book is nonfiction, but the author's entry says it is often mistaken to be nonfiction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.247.180 (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Check out this page on the author's site. It states that "The Hot Zone, a New York Times #1 nonfiction bestseller, has been published in 26 languages and has sold more then 2.5 million copies." The first post on this talk page is unsigned, but give the edit history seems to have been added by 82.81.247.180 --Bcshell 02:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The book is nonfiction.  Richard Preston is a journalist (after this book, however, he seems to have taken a great interest in viruses and bio-terror, but that is beside the fact) who wrote a popular book — a non-fiction book — about viruses (especially ebola). As per Bcshell, the author and everyone else claim this book is nonfiction. -r PS: Save us all some trouble, and learn to read. -=- --savage 09:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess we're moving upwards on the talk page. Do you think we should change it to a nonfiction stub? I like the picture on the book stub though... --Bcshell 18:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

the book hot zone is really good

hi, i was wonderning if anybody has ever read the book the hot zone. it is a nonfiction as it is said in the book. it was quite surprising this incident occured outside washington considring the state is a home to the most famous and important people in the USA. the author composed this book really well i thought before reading the preface that this book was a fiction but it turned out to be a nonfiction which surprised me a lot. i like the author's idea of making photos of locks on the first few covers of the book. it really made me fell as if i was entering the hot zone. thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.184.210 (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo!

I haven't checked this article in a long time, but apparently someone improved it. Thanks! Freddie 04:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ebola in literature

I removed the following paragraph because the same information is discussed in the ebola article where it is more appropriately suited. The scope of this article is The Hot Zone book. Thefool 22:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As well as The Hot Zone, numerous other books concerning Ebola have acted to bring a distant virus into the consiousness of the public. Ebola, as well as smallpox and avian flu, is thought to be a veritable candidate for the "doomsday virus," which would have the potential to destroy civilization as we know it. Novels such as Clancy's Executive Orders and Paulson's The Transall Saga feature Ebola as a major threat to humanity. Despite this concept, as of yet, human Ebola cases have been localized in Africa, and have not spread widely. However, such viruses are known to mutate radically, therefore, it has yet to be seen if these fears are justified.

Unnamed Sources

I removed this paragraph because it is an outdated controversy with unnamed sources. Thefool 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been controversy involving this book, with critics accusing Preston of dramatizing and exaggerating the effects of an Ebola infection, as well as embellishing facts with his own imagination. There are those who say that Preston's book is meant to be a pseudo documentary, much like Michael Crichton's The Andromeda Strain, but was added to the "nonfiction" section in bookstores and libraries by accident. Defenders of the book assert that Preston, as a journalist, is not likely to have attempted to pass fiction off as nonfiction. Additionally, news agencies such as CNN (see links below) have endorsed this work as nonfiction, albeit with dramatizations added.

• Comment: The biggest problems with this paragraph are that it's clumsily written and needs to be better sourced. Controversy doesn't become "outdated" just because it's no longer covered in the media. If we only include good reviews of the book, we're viewing it through rose-colored glasses, which isn't exactly a neutral POV. -- MisterHand 23:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Re-reading the article, I don't see the book as having been given a rosy "thumb's up" review. The book is a notable work and therefore it has been duly noted as such. I use the term "outdated controversy" because over a decade ago a few critics thought the book was fiction and they were wrong. Even if the sources were named, they were still wrong. I question the importance of such information. Thefool 07:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I think it gives important historical information about the reception of the book when it was originally published. -- MisterHand 03:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Good idea. It is reworked and sources added. Thefool 20:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

hey this book is gruesome... but hey it does show that reality is scarier than fiction! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.207.226 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.254.197 (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation for "Bestseller"

Sorry, I'm a longtime reader but noob contributor. I wanted to add the suggested citation for the claim that this book was a bestseller. This NYT Bestsellers List from June 4, 1995 is the oldest list I could find from the NYT that has the book as #1. However, if I go to this PDF from hawes.com, I see that it first appeared as #1 on February 5, 1995. What is the best way to cite this? Hcbowman (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There are several methods under WP:CITE (such as harv, MLA, APA, Templates, and so on), and under WP:Neutrality we can really rate any method over any other method. However, under our manual of style (WP:MOS), we have to remain consistent in our style (there more to it, but it's largely for conflict resolution). For this article we're currently using Templates, with shor footnotes. If its large work such as a book, we place the full citation in the Bibliography subsection and the location from where within the book in the inline. If it's a website or an article, then we cite the whole thing inline. It's a lot to choke down, but this is what it would look like:

'''''The Hot Zone, A Terrifying True Story ''''' is a [[best-selling]]<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E3DA1E39F937A35755C0A963958260
| title = Best Sellers: June 4, 1995
| accessdate =
| accessdaymonth =
| accessmonthday =
| accessyear =
| author =
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| date =
| year =
| month =
| format =
| work =
| publisher =
| location =
| pages =
| language =
| doi =
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| quote =
}}</ref>[...]

Simply fill out as many fields as you can. If you want more information about this this citation template, you can find the documentation here Template:Cite web. If you have further questions feel free to ask at my user talk page, or at the help desk. ChyranandChloe (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary

Could do with a bit of a rewrite, but I haven't read the book. Several odd incidents of comma placement or weird phrasings. A mixture of black and blood? - 203.217.65.222 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Joseph B. McCormick

McCormick should not redirect to this article but should have its own biography. Yes, he is notable. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Outbreak is not loosely based on The Hot Zone

I am pretty sure the the film Outbreak was not based on the book The Hot Zone. Preston does not get any credit and none of the characters from his book appear in the film. The only similarity is that the book and the film are about a deadly viral outbreak in the mainland US.

However, at one point The Hot Zone was a competing film project that was an adaptation from Preston's book and was scheduled to be released in a similar time frame as Outbreak (similar in concept to Michael Bay's Armageddon and Mini Leder's Deep Impact - where two films with a similar plot are released by two competing studios). It was to be directed by Ridley Scott and star Robert Redford and Jodie Foster. Unfortunately, due to budget issues and scheduling problems, the film was shelved despite being in preproduction at the time. My first job out of film school was doing location work for this film. Here is an article outlining the details from the LA Times:

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-18/entertainment/ca-35778_1_ridley-scott

I think this article should be updated to more accurately reflect this information or drop the idea that the film and book are related, other than there was general public interest in stories about deadly pathogens at the time Outbreak was released. Thoughts? 76.65.31.104 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the idea that Outbreak is based on The Hot Zone could be a myth based on confusion with the other movie. The claim is uncited and, perhaps co-incidentally, another contributor just expressed doubt about the same claim at Outbreak (film). This article states "Outbreak was produced in the hopes of beating the film version of ... The Hot Zone ... into theaters", but doesn't say Outbreak is based on The Hot Zone. I think you should just be bold and remove the claim, both here and at Outbreak (film). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The part stating that the film Outbreak is loosely based on the book The Hot Zone has been removed from this article and from the Outbreak article. Thx for your support AJH. 76.65.31.104 (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not unknown in the movie (and play) business for ideas to be stolen. Have been several successful court cases with major studios having to pay up. This happens much less in the book business. That said, I would not add the based on stuff (or even speculate on it) unless there is some RS at least speculating on it. But just because we can't say it in Wiki, doesn't mean there is nothing to it. At a minimum, you can do a "See also" at the bottom of one article to the other, just given the similarity of the topics.TCO (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Did those infected with Ebola Reston become immune to Ebola Zaire?

Since I read the book The Hot Zone in the mid-late 1990's, I noted that Preston did not address the question of whether those few laboratory workers who got infected with Ebola Reston developed some sort of immunity to the other Ebola viruses. The first immunizations, by Edward Jenner in the late 1700's, involved innoculations by cowpox, which was seen to provide immunity to smallpox. Maybe they didn't know, as of the time of Preston's magazine article whether such immunity was conveyed, or as of the time of the book. It may have been that all they needed to do was to take blood from those who had been infected with Reston, and add to that some Ebola Zaire. Presumably, if immunity existed, the antibodies present in that blood would attack the Zaire strain. I find Preston's lack of commentary on this matter to be quite curious. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Explanations for recent deletion of article content

Greetings J M Rice, I would like a more detailed explanation of the rationale behind your proposed deletion of some of the article's content, as we clearly do not see eye to eye on the matter and I don't want to be involved in an ongoing edit dispute. Please elaborate on your recent edit summaries in this section so we can discuss the issues calmly and objectively. Thanks! -BloodDoll (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Calmly and objectively, my summaries are self-explanatory. The "Reception" section is nothing but POV with dead citations or citations to Web pages. Both are NOT encyclopedic and both violate Wiki policy on their face. I left the two by King and Collins because they cited proper sources. If you are going to publish opinion, please let it be opinion of published reviews, not Web pages. You have reverted, keeping the same bogus links. I don't want to have an edit war either, and should you wish to carry on, then I'll let an Admin or committee to decide. Thanks! And a friendly reminder, three reverts get you banned. J M Rice (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@J M Rice- Seeing that you "left the two by King and Collins because they cited proper sources", why would you then delete the two references I just added citing both King's and Collins's quotes?- Gilliam (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake, and thanks for pointing it out. However, instead of just restoring the citations you reverted the section, thus continuing the edit war.J M Rice (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You also reverted to the misinformation that King's quoted blurb refers to the "book". It refers only to the first chapter. J M Rice (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@J M Rice - I disagree with your assessment that your edit summaries are self explanatory. They need to be more fully explained before simply deleting content that might be perfectly fine with better sourcing, alternative wording, etc; the solution in this case might be to simply tag the content you feel in violation or in need of better sourcing, instead of deleting it from the article outright.

I might add that the Wikipedia etiquette here is to keep the disputed content, while a civil discussion of the issues takes place on the talk page; you have instead unilaterally decided to remove article content multiple times, without bothering to try to reach consensus on these edits (even when politely asked!) Please explain your proposed deletions in more detail as I requested; while they are "self-explanatory" to you, they are not necessarily self explanatory to others.

I invite any other interested editors to comment on the proposed deletions and possible course of action other than deleting the content wholesale. -BloodDoll (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Dead citations (citations to dead links) absolutely do not violate Wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:DEADLINK#Keeping_dead_links. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

One more attempt. I remind the Doll that Wiki policy is that unsourced controversial content is subject to QUICK DELETION.

OF COURSE dead links in themselves aren't against Wikipedia policy. POV IS AGAINST Wikipedia policy, unless it is that of a published source and is linked to that source. I have not deleted content "wholesale," but to an entire section of POV without valid citations.

I suggest that the original editor, instead of being offended and reverting, follow his/her own advice and either dispense with POV or find proper citations, like published reviews, sales figures, etc., though it seems to me the editor is merely trying to inject her/his won POV using bogus citations. J M Rice (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep citing Wikipedia policy, but you don't really go into enough detail in your response. WHICH unsourced content do you have issues with? WHICH content do you consider POV and WHY do you consider it POV. Etc. This is the place to discuss specific issues with content, instead of getting into an edit war, but attempting to reach consensus on this talk page is impossible if you just vaguely throw around "bogus sources" and "POV" accusations without actually giving specific examples and explaining your reasoning.

If you are talking about the Reception content being full of POV, well, it is a Reception section, which necessarily discusses the reactions of different reviewers and other commentators to Preston's book. Such reactions are going to be POV one way or another, since reviews are subjective. If you feel that the currently included reviews are unreliable, or that they are too positive towards the book, why not take a look around? We can try to find other reviews that are more critical, to balance it out somewhat. But instead, you tried to delete the entire section and call it POV. That doesn't improve the article at all.

Finally, I personally added in a single ref to Preston's "Crisis in the Hot Zone" article. It seemed appropriate to me to have a ref to the article that apparently formed the basis of this book. The rest of the citations (again, WHICH ones? Why?) that you consider POV and/or bogus, were added awhile ago by someone else. I had nothing to do with them and I don't have a "won POV" agenda here.

So, in conclusion, I request that if you think there are bogus sources, state specifically which ones you consider to be bogus sources. Same for POV sources or content. I am not defending POV or bogus sources here, I am simply requesting that you explain your vaguely summarized edits by specifically citing on this talk page the content you have an issue with, and giving a reason for those assessments. Only then we can have a discussion of the content and what to do about any issues (new sources? rewording? removal of unreliable links? etc.), although your consistently non-AGF attitude might make that difficult indeed. -BloodDoll (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2019

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 section.

Not moved. See rough general agreement below to maintain the status quo and keep this article at its present title. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  17:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The Hot Zone → The Hot Zone (book) – There are eight entries at the Hot zone disambiguation page, with two of those {The Hot Zone (book) and The Hot Zone (TV series)} using the form "The Hot Zone" and the other entries using various other forms. As far as this dab page is concerned, relying on WP:SMALLDETAILS and hatnotes only confuses users. The Hot Zone should redirect to the Hot zone dab page rather than be primary over The Hot Zone (TV series). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  22:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Relist note: Members of both WikiProjects, Books and Medicine, have been notified of this requested move. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  22:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - a clear case where "(The) Hot (Zz)one" is ambiguous without disambiguation. --Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom - no clear primary topic. When in doubt, disambiguate. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Mild Oppose as primary. The book was a best seller and the page still picks up, for now, 1800 hits a day, and likely many more during Ebola outbreaks. If moved both the book and series should be moved to the top of the dis. page so as to ease navigation.Randy Kryn (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - The book is likely the primary topic for "Hot zone" and most definitely for "The Hot Zone". In addition, in most cases I've seen the prefix "the" is sufficient to be recognised as a different topic, for instance, The Who vs. Who, or The Crown vs. Crown -- I don't think it falls under SMALLDETAILS. Daß Wölf 22:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• The Hot Zone (American TV series) which is not even listed in the dab page has almost as much page views as the book, which uses the base name and may in fact be receiving page views for other topics. --Gonnym (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The book is clearly the primary topic in terms of usage and consistantly gets more than 5000 page views per month. Although recent stats suggest that most people are currently looking for the TV series, it should be noted that it hasn't been broadcast yet so we shouldn't read too much into this. PC78 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hot zone has a link to both here and the miniseries adaption. A hatnote at the top here most certainly suffices, regardless of future pageviews. — Wyliepedia @ 21:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• oppose per rationale of last 2 editors above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support disambiguation. Too easily mis-recognised as relating to the habitable zones, or some of the erogenous zones. Barely notable near-orphan (once you cut the navigation template links) commercial topic articles should not be allowed to occupy such common catchy terms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  Do people really go here looking for information about habitable and erogenous zones? I don't see these listed in the Hot zone dab page, nor "hot zone" being mentioned on these two pages. Daß Wölf 04:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter who goes looking for what. People looking for something specific will find it, quickly. Google is highly recommended. Jumping straight to an exact title is not recommended, but not terrible. The problem with putting an obscure recent band at "Hot Zone" is that it is easily mis-recognized as something interesting. People follow interesting looking links. Wikilinks, where titles are the hovertext, list entries, especially category listings that are nearly context-free, and any number of possible downstream uses of Wikipedia. Mis-recognition leads to astonishment, Wikipedia users should not have to be wary of click bait. Also not the zero benefit for any reader looking for the band in having the parenthetical removed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear primary topic for this title, with a hatnote easily clarifying for those who may be looking for a different page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.