![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Unsure which actually supports the content in question:
"Studies of this and prior outbreaks have found Zika infection during pregnancy to be associated with early pregnancy loss and other pregnancy problems. [1] [2] [3] [4] [3]" —from this version of the article
It appears one that the text these three refs were behind was simply removed and two other refs added in front of it. Unable to verify which of the two new repeats refs support the "pregnancy loss" bit.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
11:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Is not a sufficient source. We have better sources so really no need to use it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Which refs supports this as asked above? Also why do we have 5 references? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What is this reference supporting exactly? [2] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Looks like some cutting and pasting of references got this good and messed up. My apologies, and sorry that you spent time on this instead of other things the article needs!
I think the goal of the original sentence was an overreach, I think also on my part, because the 'earlier outbreak' study [1] did not include pregnancy loss. My source for pregnancy loss and other problems is the CDC, which writes "Increasing epidemiologic, clinical, laboratory, and pathologic evidence supports a link between Zika virus infection during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, including pregnancy loss, microcephaly, and brain and eye abnormalities" [2] which cites five sources. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
So, I think a sentence like "Studies of this outbreak have found Zika infection during pregnancy to be associated with pregnancy loss and other pregnancy problems." is supported. We could add that a study of a prior outbreak found an association with microcephaly. Thoughts?
References
- Chris vLS ( talk) 02:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Zika virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A new source of information has been provided to prove a link between Zika virus outbreak and microcephaly. Please update statement linked to reference 9 to show confirmation of link between Zika virus outbreak and microcephaly as of 4/13/2016. Source: CDC http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0413-zika-microcephaly.html updated and accessed 4/13/2016. The CDC's source referenced was the newest New England Journal of Medicine.
Thank you, unamigosuave Unamigosuave ( talk) 22:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed the following statement from the end of the blood-transfusion paragraph:
Since January 2014 nucleic acid testing of blood donors has been implemented in French Polynesia to prevent unintended transmission.
Neither of the references cited ( [3] and [4]) support that statement, as far as I can tell. I'd be grateful if someone more familiar with medical language would check those references, especially the first one. — Gorthian ( talk) 16:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
doi:10.1056/NEJMra1602113 JFW | T@lk 10:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ J994m454: I appreciate the work and references you've put into the "culture" section; however, I feel that since this article is about the virus itself, that this content should really be moved to the article about the ongoing epidemic. Take a look at dengue virus and see what it covers, as an example. No, we don't know nearly as much about Zika–yet–but we will eventually. Something that helps me figure out what to put in which article: I picture myself in the future, maybe five or ten years on, and I read (and edit) the article as if it were documenting the past. It helps with perspective. — Gorthian ( talk) 05:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The content below was added here
First, should these "society and culture" matter be covered here, or in Zika fever, or in 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic? I am thinking the latter.
Second, the content below has a few issues:
Text from article
|
---|
Travel has not yet been banned or restricted as a result of Zika. However, the CDC has released a travel notice informing travelers on how to practice enhanced precautions [1]. These precautions include: visiting with your healthcare provider, purchasing travel health and medical evacuation insurance, packing a travel health kit, constant monitoring of the US Department of State travel warnings and alerts, enrolling in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) [2], and leaving a copy of all of your travel documentation and travel plans with someone from your home country. These precautions are intended for women planning to become pregnant or are already expecting. This is because of the high risk of the child being born with microcephaly. However, men should be cautious as well because Zika has proven to be sexually transmitted and subsequently can lead to dangerous pregnancies as well. The decision to warn people instead of ban travel is primarily due to the virus being mosquito-transmitted and not contagious through exterior human contact. It is assumed that people who do decide to travel to already Zika-confirmed locations will take the necessary precautions to avoid infection. These countries are continuously targeted as vacation hotspots because of their inviting climates and beautiful geography. Many of these vacation countries are less developed [3] and depend on the tourism industry to build capital. This ultimately causes an issue when travelers avoid these locations, out of fear of becoming infected with Zika. The 2016 Summer Olympics, which are being held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, are facing such struggles. The most recent, and current, outbreak of Zika was found in Brazil early last year and has since only caused more global anxiety. Since the confirmation of the outbreak and the nearing Olympic games, Rio de Janeiro has been worried about the possible cancellation of their expected 480,000 tourists. [4] In fact, Rio has spent close to $1 trillion dollars on new stadiums and hotels in preparation of the predicted influx of sports fans. [5] And in the unfortunate event of the Olympics being cancelled or relocated, Brazil would not only lose all of the potential revenue from tourism but the investments made years in advance, as well.
With the Zika virus having its most profound effect on the unborn children of pregnant women in Central and South America at the moment, opinions have poured in from religious and political institutions as well as the UN, WHO, and human rights groups. This has resulted in a crossfire of large scale actors pressing the options which they think appropriate. All the while the millions of women who are dealing first hand with Zika, pregnancy, or raising children with microcephaly or other complications related to Zika are for the most part left unheard while more powerful voices take center stage in the news and media. The deputy health minister of El Salvador issued a statement that women should avoid getting pregnant before the year 2018 [6]. The stance can be understood against the backdrop of what is becoming such a widespread health issue. Such a stance is easier talked about than enacted, however. This is particularly true in Central America where the majority of the population is Roman Catholic, and with that, is heavily influenced by the church’s perspectives on birth control and abortion. With the government telling women not to get pregnant while church dogma stigmatizes birth control and abortion, the responsibility of controlling the consequences of Zika are placed entirely on the shoulders of women trapped between culture and structure. The church advocates natural family planning in place of contraception, leaving women to rely on monitoring their bodies in order to avoid sex during times of increased fertility. Under the surface this suggestion is not entirely helpful. It leaves out the fact that sexual violence is a rampant problem in Central America [7]. This reduces the control women have over their own bodies even when closely following church doctrine. Additionally, contraceptives and sex education are sparse or difficult to obtain for Central American women. Adding weight to the issue is the fact that abortion is not only stigmatized, but it is illegal for the most part. While some countries will allow abortion in the cases of sexual assault, risk to mother, or sometimes fetal development issues, others like El Salvador have banned abortion entirely [8]. In a report put together by the Center for Reproductive Rights and Inter-American Dialogue, while acknowledging the difficulty in obtaining accurate statistics, it is estimated that 35,000 clandestine abortions take place in El Salvador alone. Further, El Salvador has in place harsh penalties for those who administer abortions and for the women who have the procedure. Women can be charged with homicide which can result in decades in prison. Even with such harsh penalties in place, this report indicates that large numbers of women are willing to risk having an abortion rather than having a child. While a number of factors could influence this decision, bans on abortion most prominently take a toll on the young, poor, and uneducated women who may have enough trouble taking care of themselves. As many as 70 suicides, mostly adolescents, are reported to have taken place as a result of pregnancy While the pope has suggested that contraceptives might be morally acceptable in the fight against Zika [9], this somewhat vague statement has left many debating whether birth control is permissible at all. Archbishop Bernardito Auza has stated that a diagnosis of microcephaly is not a death sentence and that children born with it should be raised and taken care of just as any other child. This raises the question of what kind of resources are going to be provided for women who do give birth to babies with microcephaly. Human rights groups are asking that restrictions on abortions and contraceptives be socially and legally reduced as a step towards helping women through the difficult process of dealing with Zika, microcephaly, and pregnancy [10]. References
|
- Thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 06:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Dcrjsr: Your edit summary said "added image and ref", but I think you forgot the ref...? — Gorthian ( talk) 20:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
There's a Vaccine section, but other ideas are being pursued. Wolbachia propagation, and killing off all mosquitoes (e.g. with a ' gene drive') are two ideas that the New York Times recently reported hold promise... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/science/zika-virus-moquitoes-microbe.html -- Elvey( t• c) 20:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
doi:10.1128/CMR.00072-15 JFW | T@lk 13:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Lancet Infect Dis doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30010-X JFW | T@lk 10:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I made this edit because the content was too detailed and not encyclopedic anymore - the encyclopedic message is that Zika can be sexually transmitted at least by men. Assembling the person by person story of how we came to understand that Zika can be trasnmitted sexually by stringing together content based on primary sources was also a work of WP:OR or better WP:SYN - we don't do that in WP. That edit was reverted by User:Wnt in this dif with the question "Why would you delete detail on what kinds of transmission when? This seems pretty central.". There is your answer. Jytdog ( talk) 21:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I do not agree with these wholesale deletions of WP:RS content Jytdog has been making, since he came to this page I might add. First it was about mother to child transmission, which is basically empty now, and now it is happening to sexual transmission. A skeleton with undated CDC refs. WP is an encyclopedia and I am all for succinctness, but what is gone is the history of discovery. Unless and UNTIL you have a dated review with the detailed history of discoveries you are not doing readers a favor. I will restore the status quo. you can do better by writing yourself. Please dont delete and revert all the time.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 23:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi BatteryIncluded. I reverted the removal of the Miami area travel advisory from the Zika fever article. The CDC has never issued a travel advisory in the United States before, it's unique and notable, I think. It didn't seem right to not mention at all... But I agree that the section needs work to be an appropriately weighted summary of the outbreak . . . will try to get to tonight. Cheers. Chris vLS ( talk) 23:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
" Zika found to remain in sperm for record six months". BBC News. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 16:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
On a topic so heavily in the news it needs to be updated that there have now been cases in the United States. There are also many studies about Zika and pregnancy. This section is severely lacking considering you can easily find this information from the CDC. For such an important topic one sentence does not cover this well.
There are many acronyms without any description of what they are. These include: RNA, WHO, CDC, FDA, UTMB. Stew2Stew ( talk) 01:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
Abbr}}
, and this organization is almost always referred to as the World Health Organization on first mention by mainstream news organizations (contrast this with "UNICEF" which is rarely given in full). RNA is a toss-up; the general public mostly don't know what it is, only that it has "something" to do with genes, so it is often explained in brief on first mention, but also fairly often not expanded in name and just left as "RNA", and not ambiguous with anything else the public is likely to hear of. It's probably safe to leave it as an acronym here, but linked on first occurrence. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
08:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Unless I missed one, all the acronyms in the article are compliant with MOS:ABBR now (if likely to be unfamiliar or ambiguous, expanded and with a link; if likely to be familiar and not ambiguous, just linked). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that controversy should be added in this article. 1 Seriesphile ( talk · ctb) 06:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not convinced this is needed in the first sentence. It is not the most important thing about the condition. Was at the end of the lead which IMO is better. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Some startling results reported by the CDC. Keep an eye out for the study. — Gorthian ( talk) 02:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I AM A PROUD TRANS MAN AND I JUST LEARNED I WAS PREGNANT LAST WEEK. THERE IS *NO* EXCUSE FOR THE TRANSPHOBIC, BIGOTED, AND HARMFUL MISINFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE. IF I WASN'T THIS INTELLIGENT, PERHAPS I WOULDN'T REALISE THAT I WOULD BE AT RISK IF TRAVELLING TO A COUNTRY WITH A HIGH ZIKA RISK. THIS ARTICLE IS DAMAGING TO PEOPLE WHO CAN BEAR CHILDREN AND I WILL MAKE A HUGE FUSS ABOUT THIS.
Sure. Here is one article that is conclusive proof that gender is a societal construct: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/52379132/GENDER_AS_A_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE.pdf?1490860274=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DGender_As_a_Social_Structure_Theory_Wres.pdf&Expires=1604980908&Signature=P6syLQEFXfhxkSuQlKNQwzDB6uSqFh1o1kbuzVFGo7AqOBto5hKmz4Qcn-nlC1l8CwqXsZaivmKwYzkD7xqUXbvddCyVQBCw44iopmNjqq60Iin-lT7OUaWDZUEI5iUHBb6hocbTKcgkdY60wI~csx47hwagL6H-Zt1ZxlkijeSRFKJEflqPzRHxBfAdTz95aEGPZrnGT0ThjO9mmjaF~kh5I1FnHNhcH~R4oOCH1gLWdMVFXgphfqXXiihAMLXj-HiKV~k-n21CncQpk05CYHlK4Vgo7Tpn840WDWdKynW8nyJPZSL12e9zlNYpDHaG7uGvxn2qDSan0oGDYv07zQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
With Zika rapidly spreading across the world, this article will be shooting into prominence. Hence I feel a need to include some form of protection for it before it is defaced or has hoaxes and half-truths added to it. Jiale8331 ( talk) 11:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The recent edit was reverted:
"Presently, an inexpensive paper screen test developed by MIT exists to screen a person for the Zika virus in less than 3 hours at the price of $1 per test. [1]"
It is mentioned at MIT, Harvard University, and Popular Science Magazine that the previous is correct and accurate. I am seeking others to assist in the repair of this issue, as this information should be on the article page.
-- Twillisjr ( talk) 20:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Unsure which actually supports the content in question:
"Studies of this and prior outbreaks have found Zika infection during pregnancy to be associated with early pregnancy loss and other pregnancy problems. [1] [2] [3] [4] [3]" —from this version of the article
It appears one that the text these three refs were behind was simply removed and two other refs added in front of it. Unable to verify which of the two new repeats refs support the "pregnancy loss" bit.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
11:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Is not a sufficient source. We have better sources so really no need to use it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Which refs supports this as asked above? Also why do we have 5 references? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What is this reference supporting exactly? [2] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Looks like some cutting and pasting of references got this good and messed up. My apologies, and sorry that you spent time on this instead of other things the article needs!
I think the goal of the original sentence was an overreach, I think also on my part, because the 'earlier outbreak' study [1] did not include pregnancy loss. My source for pregnancy loss and other problems is the CDC, which writes "Increasing epidemiologic, clinical, laboratory, and pathologic evidence supports a link between Zika virus infection during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, including pregnancy loss, microcephaly, and brain and eye abnormalities" [2] which cites five sources. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
So, I think a sentence like "Studies of this outbreak have found Zika infection during pregnancy to be associated with pregnancy loss and other pregnancy problems." is supported. We could add that a study of a prior outbreak found an association with microcephaly. Thoughts?
References
- Chris vLS ( talk) 02:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Zika virus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A new source of information has been provided to prove a link between Zika virus outbreak and microcephaly. Please update statement linked to reference 9 to show confirmation of link between Zika virus outbreak and microcephaly as of 4/13/2016. Source: CDC http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0413-zika-microcephaly.html updated and accessed 4/13/2016. The CDC's source referenced was the newest New England Journal of Medicine.
Thank you, unamigosuave Unamigosuave ( talk) 22:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed the following statement from the end of the blood-transfusion paragraph:
Since January 2014 nucleic acid testing of blood donors has been implemented in French Polynesia to prevent unintended transmission.
Neither of the references cited ( [3] and [4]) support that statement, as far as I can tell. I'd be grateful if someone more familiar with medical language would check those references, especially the first one. — Gorthian ( talk) 16:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
doi:10.1056/NEJMra1602113 JFW | T@lk 10:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@ J994m454: I appreciate the work and references you've put into the "culture" section; however, I feel that since this article is about the virus itself, that this content should really be moved to the article about the ongoing epidemic. Take a look at dengue virus and see what it covers, as an example. No, we don't know nearly as much about Zika–yet–but we will eventually. Something that helps me figure out what to put in which article: I picture myself in the future, maybe five or ten years on, and I read (and edit) the article as if it were documenting the past. It helps with perspective. — Gorthian ( talk) 05:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The content below was added here
First, should these "society and culture" matter be covered here, or in Zika fever, or in 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic? I am thinking the latter.
Second, the content below has a few issues:
Text from article
|
---|
Travel has not yet been banned or restricted as a result of Zika. However, the CDC has released a travel notice informing travelers on how to practice enhanced precautions [1]. These precautions include: visiting with your healthcare provider, purchasing travel health and medical evacuation insurance, packing a travel health kit, constant monitoring of the US Department of State travel warnings and alerts, enrolling in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) [2], and leaving a copy of all of your travel documentation and travel plans with someone from your home country. These precautions are intended for women planning to become pregnant or are already expecting. This is because of the high risk of the child being born with microcephaly. However, men should be cautious as well because Zika has proven to be sexually transmitted and subsequently can lead to dangerous pregnancies as well. The decision to warn people instead of ban travel is primarily due to the virus being mosquito-transmitted and not contagious through exterior human contact. It is assumed that people who do decide to travel to already Zika-confirmed locations will take the necessary precautions to avoid infection. These countries are continuously targeted as vacation hotspots because of their inviting climates and beautiful geography. Many of these vacation countries are less developed [3] and depend on the tourism industry to build capital. This ultimately causes an issue when travelers avoid these locations, out of fear of becoming infected with Zika. The 2016 Summer Olympics, which are being held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, are facing such struggles. The most recent, and current, outbreak of Zika was found in Brazil early last year and has since only caused more global anxiety. Since the confirmation of the outbreak and the nearing Olympic games, Rio de Janeiro has been worried about the possible cancellation of their expected 480,000 tourists. [4] In fact, Rio has spent close to $1 trillion dollars on new stadiums and hotels in preparation of the predicted influx of sports fans. [5] And in the unfortunate event of the Olympics being cancelled or relocated, Brazil would not only lose all of the potential revenue from tourism but the investments made years in advance, as well.
With the Zika virus having its most profound effect on the unborn children of pregnant women in Central and South America at the moment, opinions have poured in from religious and political institutions as well as the UN, WHO, and human rights groups. This has resulted in a crossfire of large scale actors pressing the options which they think appropriate. All the while the millions of women who are dealing first hand with Zika, pregnancy, or raising children with microcephaly or other complications related to Zika are for the most part left unheard while more powerful voices take center stage in the news and media. The deputy health minister of El Salvador issued a statement that women should avoid getting pregnant before the year 2018 [6]. The stance can be understood against the backdrop of what is becoming such a widespread health issue. Such a stance is easier talked about than enacted, however. This is particularly true in Central America where the majority of the population is Roman Catholic, and with that, is heavily influenced by the church’s perspectives on birth control and abortion. With the government telling women not to get pregnant while church dogma stigmatizes birth control and abortion, the responsibility of controlling the consequences of Zika are placed entirely on the shoulders of women trapped between culture and structure. The church advocates natural family planning in place of contraception, leaving women to rely on monitoring their bodies in order to avoid sex during times of increased fertility. Under the surface this suggestion is not entirely helpful. It leaves out the fact that sexual violence is a rampant problem in Central America [7]. This reduces the control women have over their own bodies even when closely following church doctrine. Additionally, contraceptives and sex education are sparse or difficult to obtain for Central American women. Adding weight to the issue is the fact that abortion is not only stigmatized, but it is illegal for the most part. While some countries will allow abortion in the cases of sexual assault, risk to mother, or sometimes fetal development issues, others like El Salvador have banned abortion entirely [8]. In a report put together by the Center for Reproductive Rights and Inter-American Dialogue, while acknowledging the difficulty in obtaining accurate statistics, it is estimated that 35,000 clandestine abortions take place in El Salvador alone. Further, El Salvador has in place harsh penalties for those who administer abortions and for the women who have the procedure. Women can be charged with homicide which can result in decades in prison. Even with such harsh penalties in place, this report indicates that large numbers of women are willing to risk having an abortion rather than having a child. While a number of factors could influence this decision, bans on abortion most prominently take a toll on the young, poor, and uneducated women who may have enough trouble taking care of themselves. As many as 70 suicides, mostly adolescents, are reported to have taken place as a result of pregnancy While the pope has suggested that contraceptives might be morally acceptable in the fight against Zika [9], this somewhat vague statement has left many debating whether birth control is permissible at all. Archbishop Bernardito Auza has stated that a diagnosis of microcephaly is not a death sentence and that children born with it should be raised and taken care of just as any other child. This raises the question of what kind of resources are going to be provided for women who do give birth to babies with microcephaly. Human rights groups are asking that restrictions on abortions and contraceptives be socially and legally reduced as a step towards helping women through the difficult process of dealing with Zika, microcephaly, and pregnancy [10]. References
|
- Thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 06:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Dcrjsr: Your edit summary said "added image and ref", but I think you forgot the ref...? — Gorthian ( talk) 20:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
There's a Vaccine section, but other ideas are being pursued. Wolbachia propagation, and killing off all mosquitoes (e.g. with a ' gene drive') are two ideas that the New York Times recently reported hold promise... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/science/zika-virus-moquitoes-microbe.html -- Elvey( t• c) 20:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
doi:10.1128/CMR.00072-15 JFW | T@lk 13:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Lancet Infect Dis doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30010-X JFW | T@lk 10:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I made this edit because the content was too detailed and not encyclopedic anymore - the encyclopedic message is that Zika can be sexually transmitted at least by men. Assembling the person by person story of how we came to understand that Zika can be trasnmitted sexually by stringing together content based on primary sources was also a work of WP:OR or better WP:SYN - we don't do that in WP. That edit was reverted by User:Wnt in this dif with the question "Why would you delete detail on what kinds of transmission when? This seems pretty central.". There is your answer. Jytdog ( talk) 21:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I do not agree with these wholesale deletions of WP:RS content Jytdog has been making, since he came to this page I might add. First it was about mother to child transmission, which is basically empty now, and now it is happening to sexual transmission. A skeleton with undated CDC refs. WP is an encyclopedia and I am all for succinctness, but what is gone is the history of discovery. Unless and UNTIL you have a dated review with the detailed history of discoveries you are not doing readers a favor. I will restore the status quo. you can do better by writing yourself. Please dont delete and revert all the time.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 23:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi BatteryIncluded. I reverted the removal of the Miami area travel advisory from the Zika fever article. The CDC has never issued a travel advisory in the United States before, it's unique and notable, I think. It didn't seem right to not mention at all... But I agree that the section needs work to be an appropriately weighted summary of the outbreak . . . will try to get to tonight. Cheers. Chris vLS ( talk) 23:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
" Zika found to remain in sperm for record six months". BBC News. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 16:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
On a topic so heavily in the news it needs to be updated that there have now been cases in the United States. There are also many studies about Zika and pregnancy. This section is severely lacking considering you can easily find this information from the CDC. For such an important topic one sentence does not cover this well.
There are many acronyms without any description of what they are. These include: RNA, WHO, CDC, FDA, UTMB. Stew2Stew ( talk) 01:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
{{
Abbr}}
, and this organization is almost always referred to as the World Health Organization on first mention by mainstream news organizations (contrast this with "UNICEF" which is rarely given in full). RNA is a toss-up; the general public mostly don't know what it is, only that it has "something" to do with genes, so it is often explained in brief on first mention, but also fairly often not expanded in name and just left as "RNA", and not ambiguous with anything else the public is likely to hear of. It's probably safe to leave it as an acronym here, but linked on first occurrence. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
08:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Unless I missed one, all the acronyms in the article are compliant with MOS:ABBR now (if likely to be unfamiliar or ambiguous, expanded and with a link; if likely to be familiar and not ambiguous, just linked). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that controversy should be added in this article. 1 Seriesphile ( talk · ctb) 06:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not convinced this is needed in the first sentence. It is not the most important thing about the condition. Was at the end of the lead which IMO is better. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Some startling results reported by the CDC. Keep an eye out for the study. — Gorthian ( talk) 02:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I AM A PROUD TRANS MAN AND I JUST LEARNED I WAS PREGNANT LAST WEEK. THERE IS *NO* EXCUSE FOR THE TRANSPHOBIC, BIGOTED, AND HARMFUL MISINFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE. IF I WASN'T THIS INTELLIGENT, PERHAPS I WOULDN'T REALISE THAT I WOULD BE AT RISK IF TRAVELLING TO A COUNTRY WITH A HIGH ZIKA RISK. THIS ARTICLE IS DAMAGING TO PEOPLE WHO CAN BEAR CHILDREN AND I WILL MAKE A HUGE FUSS ABOUT THIS.
Sure. Here is one article that is conclusive proof that gender is a societal construct: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/52379132/GENDER_AS_A_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE.pdf?1490860274=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DGender_As_a_Social_Structure_Theory_Wres.pdf&Expires=1604980908&Signature=P6syLQEFXfhxkSuQlKNQwzDB6uSqFh1o1kbuzVFGo7AqOBto5hKmz4Qcn-nlC1l8CwqXsZaivmKwYzkD7xqUXbvddCyVQBCw44iopmNjqq60Iin-lT7OUaWDZUEI5iUHBb6hocbTKcgkdY60wI~csx47hwagL6H-Zt1ZxlkijeSRFKJEflqPzRHxBfAdTz95aEGPZrnGT0ThjO9mmjaF~kh5I1FnHNhcH~R4oOCH1gLWdMVFXgphfqXXiihAMLXj-HiKV~k-n21CncQpk05CYHlK4Vgo7Tpn840WDWdKynW8nyJPZSL12e9zlNYpDHaG7uGvxn2qDSan0oGDYv07zQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
With Zika rapidly spreading across the world, this article will be shooting into prominence. Hence I feel a need to include some form of protection for it before it is defaced or has hoaxes and half-truths added to it. Jiale8331 ( talk) 11:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The recent edit was reverted:
"Presently, an inexpensive paper screen test developed by MIT exists to screen a person for the Zika virus in less than 3 hours at the price of $1 per test. [1]"
It is mentioned at MIT, Harvard University, and Popular Science Magazine that the previous is correct and accurate. I am seeking others to assist in the repair of this issue, as this information should be on the article page.
-- Twillisjr ( talk) 20:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)