Talk:Polio/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Requested move 23 October 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - strong arguments for both, but WP:AT and WP:NCMED hold sway here. The suggestion to revist NCMED on issues like this is however a good one. Mike Cline (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Poliomyelitis → Polio – Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Polio" is far more commonly used than "Poliomyelitis". for example, see this Google Trends graph. Thus I believe this article should be moved to the common name of Polio. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 01:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; while "poliomyelitis" is more correct, "polio" is the common name for the article title. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Change to strong oppose per RexxS's points. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support, common name, and consistent with the page Polio vaccine. Randy Kryn 23:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Use Commonly Recognizable Names WP:RECOGNIZABLE Naolae (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it is best to use the correct term rather than a shorthand for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Either works for me. WP:MEDMOS supports the use of the full name, but the shortened version is more common. If it were up to me, I'd have to flip a coin to decide, and thus I'd probably leave it where it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• support per WP:RECOGNIZABLE--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• oppose-- medical/scientific topic so may as well use the full term. Not paying by the letter. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: COMMONNAME is actually part of WP:AT, which acknowledges the exceptions for "Topic-specific naming conventions for article titles" (the box on the right). For medical articles, the agreed article title naming convention is at WP:NCMED and states: "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, common name. Tackling polio is a political and a social problem, more than a medical one. After a vaccine sees light of day, the medical part is done. The formidable challenge was to overcome resistance from mindsets across large swathes of populations. And these ran into millions. To actually get the vaccine into the bodies of children has taken years, nay decades of international, governmental and non-governmental effort and pain. Another reason is, there are more laymen among wikipedia readers than trained medical ones. I take support of the excellent news feature I just added as a source to the 'Society and Culture' section. And it this section which editors should focus on, as I just reasoned in my opening line. SourceOhWatch (स्रोतः उवाच) (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  Tackling polio is indeed a political and social problem, but this article is 95% focussed on the medical aspects of poliomyelitis. I'm sure sure your reasoning applies well to the article on Polio vaccine. As expected, that article, which concentrates much less on the medical issues, uses the common name in its title. But it's not good reasoning to argue that a medical article, especially a Featured Article such as this one, ought not to use the medical name because it ought to deal with socio-political topics, not medical ones. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Let's please stick to the appropriate medical and scientific terminology here, thanks. — Cirt (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support move to polio "Polio" will not be understood to mean anything other than "poliomylitis". Simplifying to commonnames works best when no confusion can result, and this that sort of case. Using technical names is helpful when the technical name can provide clarity, but no one is asserting here that any additional clarity will come from using a technical name in the title.

The text of the article itself uses the term "polio" and not usually "poliomylitis". The clear language preferred by Wikipedia's editors is appropriate for the title in this case.

I agree with SourceOhWatch (SrotahaUvacha) - polio is not a problem for any physician's practice, but is instead a social problem, and should be named to meet the needs of layman readers as the majority stakeholders in this content. Rexx does have a good counterpoint that the article contains a lot of technical medical content, but I still think enough of this article is outside the interest of medicine to justify use of a layman term. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Your make a good point, Lane, about the lack of ambiguity in the term 'polio' (in contrast to the usual example of 'heart attack' versus 'myocardial infarction'). Our guidance at WP:NCMED is based on discussions and a consensus dating from 2004 - is it time to revisit that guidance and make allowances for the sort of nuances you're bringing forward here? --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

References

---

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.

Please correct typo in third sentence

"sore throat". Why does this article need protection?2604:2000:71E7:8D00:4D50:36DE:8FF6:7554 (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The intro...

Goes like this:

Poliomyelitis, often called polio or infantile paralysis, is an infectious disease caused by the poliovirus. Approximately 90% to 95% of infections cause no symptoms. Another 5 to 10% of people have minor symptoms such as: fever, headache, vomiting, diarrhea, neck stiffness and pains in the arms and legs.

That's not right. The fact that many people have minor symptoms or have no symptoms at all is not essential to the basic description of the illness. It is (or was) known and significant for its major debilitating effects and lethality. The intro should not begin with what is effectively a footnote. GregorB (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean this is wrong "Poliomyelitis, often called polio or infantile paralysis, is an infectious disease caused by the poliovirus."?

Are you mean that this is wrong "Approximately 90% to 95% of infections cause no symptoms. Another 5 to 10% of people have minor symptoms such as: fever, headache, vomiting, diarrhea, neck stiffness and pains in the arms and legs."?

The latter is supported by the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/polio.pdf but I agree needs to be adjusted as the prior content was based on the 2009 rather than 2015 version of the Pink Book. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As I explained above, by saying "that's not right", I did not mean "that's untrue" - I meant "starting the intro with a red herring is not right". Still isn't, especially not in a featured article on a fairly important topic. GregorB (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

How is saying that most causes of infection do not result in symptoms not important? This explains why immunization is so important as one could catch it from one of the many potential asymptomatic carries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As I already said, it is not what the illness is known or notable for, nor it is its defining characteristic. I'm not necessarily saying that this fact should be omitted from the intro entirely, but it's definitely not for the second sentence of the article. WP:INTRO says (emphasis mine):

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

Starting with rather ephemeral - if true - facts about the disease, before really major facts about the disease are listed, tends to confuse the readers, especially those who know why this illness is (or was) important and expect it right in the article's opening sentences. GregorB (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

We often write the lead in the same order as the body of the text. Thus definition followed by signs and symptoms of the disease. Second paragraph deals with cause and transmission and diagnosis. Third prevention and treatment. Fourth history, society and culture.

The symptoms of a disease is part of the major facts about it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

In fact, that was my impression too: that the article content was simply transplanted into the intro, in the original order. This sometimes works - and sometimes it doesn't. The intro is not simply a linear, condensed rehashing of the article's content, it has a different logic. What I'm saying is that its current organization violates WP:INTRO, as quoted above. GregorB (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of the text. I do not see it as violating WP:INTRO. I guess we disagree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be fairly hard to argue, especially knowing what poliomyelitis is notable for (note IANAD!), that the intro does not violate the bolded sentence from WP:INTRO quoted above. Anyway, I leave it up to editors and readers to decide... GregorB (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the intro, but that's not to say we couldn't improve it. I think GregorB's point is that even though polio is now a mostly historical disease, lay people know about it because it caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in the twentieth century and was greatly feared by the general populace even in modern countries in pre-vaccine days. That is, a bit of historical context would be good before discussing the liklihood of specific manifestations if one is infected in 2015. Our current intro with information in the current order is "recentism", which may be expected in most medical articles but is perhaps misplaced here. - Nunh-huh 04:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The disease still occurs. And yes we often do emphasis disease content rather than historical content. Many lay people know about it in the countries where it still occurs because of the campaigns that are working to eradicate the disease. We are a global encyclopedia and not just for people from the USA. I agree that when the disease is eradicated we should change the layout of the article and the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware that the disease still occurs. And I am familiar with the ongoing effort to eliminate it. And I am aware as well that we are a global encyclopedia. For you to suggest otherwise seems disingenuous. Strawmen aside, the only difference between my position and yours is that you are downplaying the progress made thus far, and wish to continue to do so until actual elimination occurs. This seems to me to be unreasonable. Polio today is a far cry from polio in the past (and not only in the U.S., as you suggest), and not stating so at the outset is a textbook example of burying the lede. - Nunh-huh 10:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead is written to reflect the body of the text. It also follows the ordering of the body of the text. There is nothing wrong with this. We do it for 100s of disease related articles.

I am not sure if you are trying to eliminate a discussion of symptoms from the lead or not? But if that is your goal I oppose it. The disease still occurrs in countries were 100s of millions of people live. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I am trying to suggest that a brief discussion of the historical importance of the disease precede the breakdown-of-symptoms-by-percentage-of-occurence within the lede. An edited version of the current fourth paragraph of the lede, moved up to follow the current first sentence, for example, would improve the introduction. - Nunh-huh 04:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO it is useful to both readers and editors to have the lead in a consistent format for specific article types. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO it is useful to state the importance of a subject before delving into its minutiae. And it is also my opinion that articles should take the form needed logically rather than conform to an arbitrary format. This article should be for someone who wants to learn about polio, and written for him, not for someone who wants to compare various Wikipedia disease articles. I think it's quite odd that the thing we apparently feel will most enhance our readers' understanding of polio (after we've informed them it's a viral infectious disease) is that there are no symptoms (none of which we've named, at that point) in 70% of cases. - Nunh-huh 08:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes we have presented the most common rather than the most serious symptoms first. I have switched it around so that the most serious are first which does get across the importance of the efforts to eliminate the disease better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Much better IMO. GregorB (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly less ridiculous. - Nunh-huh 09:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2015

I'm taking issue with the statement "Before the 20th century, polio infections were rarely seen in infants before six months of age", this requires more clarification and the statement itself is too vague. The paragraph cites as its informational source an article for the World Health Organisation authored by Dr. Susan Robertson (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/58891/3/WHO_EPI_GEN_93.16_mod6.pdf)

I have read the entire article and it does does not make any statements of this kind. Rather, Dr. Robertson draws distinctions between sub-clinical infection rates in infants and clinical infections, those being the cause of poliomyelitis paralysis, and describes OPV programs and their effectiveness in eradicating clinical poliomyelitis infections throughout populations. The article also mentions infection rates tracked from significant outbreaks in several countries:

"The majority of wild poliovirus infections are asymptomatic. A type 1 polio outbreak in 1948 allowed direct assessment of the number of subclinical infections for each paralytic case using results of serological tests and virus isolations from stools (Melnick & Ledinko 1953) (Table 1). In a total population of more than 80 000 persons aged 0 to 20 years, fewer than 1% developed paralysis. About one-quarter of children aged 0 to 14 years were infected subclinically, with somewhat higher rates in younger children. Among children aged 1 to 14 years, about 100 were subclinically infected for each paralytic case; among infants, about 200 were subclinitally infected for each paralytic case" -WHO/EPI/GEN/93.16, pp.1-2

There is no data from the article to suggest that "polio infections were rarely seen in infants before six months of age", and there certainly were infections of polio in infants and children before the 20th Century, but these infections were sporadic and did not constitute a "polio plague", the first of which occurred in 1894.

Additionally, there was no way of detecting the presence of poliomyelitis viral material prior to the 20thC. Perhaps the paragraph could be restructured into a more appropriate synopsis of Dr. Robertson's source material which is entitled "The Immunological Basis for Immunization" not "The History of Polio".

From a source on the History of Polio (http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/polio), this statement is a more accurate description of the content this paragraph outlines:

"Indeed, many scientists think that advances in hygiene paradoxically led to an increased incidence of polio. The theory is that in the past, infants were exposed to polio, mainly through contaminated water supplies, at a very young age. Infants’ immune systems, aided by maternal antibodies still circulating in their blood, could quickly defeat poliovirus and then develop lasting immunity to it. However, better sanitary conditions meant that exposure to polio was delayed until later in life, on average, when a child had lost maternal protection and was also more vulnerable to the most severe form of the disease."

It is my belief that this first sentence of the article requires editing and expansion for greater clarity and precision. The opening sentence of the paragraph probably ought to read something like this:

"Before the 20th Century, clinical infections of poliomyelitis virus causing paralysis were uncommonly seen in infants under six months of age. Prior to the 20th Century, lower standards of sanitation meant infants suffered constant exposure to the virus through contaminated water supplies, but maternal antibodies (provided largely through breastfeeding) allowed natural immunities to overcome infection in the vast majority of population. At the turn of the 20th Century, the prevailing theory holds that the overall purification of water supplies led to a lack of viral exposure until much later ages for the majority of the population, leading to epidemic outbreaks of the most severe form of the virus, which causes clinical poliomyelitis paralysis. The first of these outbreaks is recorded as beginning in 6/17/1894 (in the United States, Rutland County, Vermont)."

And probably ought to reference as its source the "History of Polio" from www.historyofvaccines.org as above. Qwiddity (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That there were apparently less cases of the paralytic polio in the XIX-th century may be explained by many causes:

1. The cases of paralytic polio were never specifically looked for to begin with. Even now this is a problem and there even exists a target for the flaccid paralysis detection among children during polio surveillance (I think around 10 per 100,000 children per year)
2. The flaccid paralysis is harder to detect in babies and they recover better than adults.
3. The child mortality was very high and susceptible children may have died from other causes before developing of any polio symptoms.

Concluding, the so called sanitation hypothesis, though popular, is unproven. Ruslik_Zero 04:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Eteethan(talk) 21:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Obvious contradiction requiring correction

The following cannot be right:

"These efforts have reduced the number of annual diagnosed cases by 99.9%; from an estimated 350,000 cases in 1988 to a low of 483 cases in 2001, after which it has remained at a level of about 1,000 - 2000 cases per year.[80][81] In 2015, cases decreased to 94.[77][82] "

It could not have remained at a level of about 1,000 - 2000 cases per year and have decreased to 94.

The number 94 is not about 1,000 to 2,000.

If it decreased to 94, then it has not remained at about 1,000 to 2,000.

71.109.145.178 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Please make the following gramatical correction to the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lede.

Please change:

"Years after recovery post-polio syndrome may occur, with a slow development of muscle weakness similar to what the person had during the initial infection."

to the gramatically correct

"Years after recovery post-polio syndrome may occur, with a slow development of muscle weakness similar to that which the person had during the initial infection.

86.153.133.193 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016

Please change

it has remained at a level of about 1,000 - 2000 cases per year for a number of years

to

it remained at a level of about 1,000 - 2000 cases per year for a number of years

(delete the word "has")

because

"has remained" means that it still remains there, which is false, because the level 2015 was below 100.

71.109.147.203 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

We are a group of students working on the sociocultural aspects of disease. These are a few of our suggested additions for the page. We do not have authorized permission to edit ourselves because this is a protected page. -University of Kansas students.

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative:

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative is a program funded by international governments, the World Health Organization (WHO), Rotary International, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevents, and UNICEF with the goal of eliminating polio worldwide. The program was launched in 1988 (Callaway 2012). In 2012, the program was revitalized to eradicate polio in the last three major strongholds: Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Global spending was increased by $2.2 billion (Callaway 2012). The GPEI and specifically WHO have been accused of false optimism and rhetoric regarding the time frame of total eradication of polio. It has always been known that door-to-door campaigns in countries with political unrest would be difficult, but WHO continued to make light of the situation, at one point stating “ Global eradication could be achieved as early as 1995” (Closser 2012). The GPEI is still working towards their goal of eliminating polio worldwide (Callaway 2012). Total eradication of polio will provide immense economic benefits; it has been estimated that the eradication of polio will save countries roughly 40 to 50 billion dollars (WHO).

Eradication of Polio in India:

India was one of the last stronghold countries when it came to eradicating polio. In 2000 there were media reports in India that the vaccine used in the earliest round of vaccinations had killed three children (Ember 2003). This lead to a cultural resistance toward vaccination, as parents were afraid that immunization would cause the death of their child (Ember 2003), increasing the eradication difficulty already caused by India’s immense population and widespread poverty.

To combat these difficulties, the Indian government and WHO combined efforts to create the National Polio Surveillance Project (NPSP) (Chaturvedi 2008). By deploying specially trained officers in mobile units, the NPSP actively monitored and reported polio symptoms, collected data, and analyzed the otherwise passive or skeptical population. With help from additional initiatives such as National Immunization Days (NID), held twice a year by a reported 2 million local and outside volunteers India was able to claim full eradication in January of 2011 (Krishna 2014). To ensure there are no longer re-emerging cases of polio in India, the government created the Pulse Polio program, which provides immunization to all citizens under the age of five years old by utilizing social mobilization in local areas (Sharma 2015).

Though successful in eradicating polio, India continues to struggle with a cultural stigma towards those debilitated by the poliovirus, often in defects related to paralysis. Culturally embedded religious views regarding karma and the Hindu caste system cause mass discrimination and marginalization of those with disabilities (Chaturvedi, 2008). As the polio virus was once so widespread in India, disabilities and the resulting stigma are unfortunately common, with experts estimating four million people are currently living in India with the effects of polio (Krishnan 2014).

Similarities Between Countries Still Affected by Polio:

Despite the global aim of eradication, three countries are still affected by polio and recognized by WHO as such – Nigeria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. These countries all possess weak health infrastructure and public education. More specific causes, most of them cultural in nature, can be pinpointed as well. The current occurrence of polio in Pakistan and Afghanistan can be explained by the ban on vaccination (Peckham, 2016) placed by the Taliban in 2012. This ban was enforced due to both the Islamic condemnation of immunization and as backlash against the CIA capture of Osama bin Laden in 2011, a Western operation hidden under the cover of a door-to- door Polio vaccination campaign in Pakistan (Peckham, 2016). Communities were already wary of vaccination campaigns due to lack of public health education, and bin Laden’s assassination only increased community distrust and sometimes violent non-cooperation. Eradication efforts in Nigeria continue to suffer due to rumors that have circulated about the vaccination process. In 2003, a WHO polio vaccination program was halted when various Nigerian doctors and politicians publicly claimed that the vaccine carried the risk of AIDS contraction, cancer, and infertility. This reinforced the community rumors caused by lack of education and understanding regarding the disease, often combined with religious opposition (Reinsvold 2010).

Polio cases have also been reported in Syria, beginning in 2013 and directly coinciding with the Syrian Civil War. Conflict zones are especially vulnerable to the spread of disease, but the eradication of Polio in other conflict areas (such as Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo) provides a hopeful future outlook (Peckham, 2016). — Preceding unsigned comment added by M608b375 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Broken Link

Correction needed for link on Reference #39: Wording is correct, but the URL needs to be changed to [5] The Lincolnshire Post-Polio Library is now on the newer site: Polio Survivors Network.OB93 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks OB Tobus (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Refs

For medical content we reference every sentence. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Really? Where does it say that?

WP:CITEKILL says "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill.". There is no mention of an exception for medical content.

WP:When to cite says "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources".. it mentions exceptions for biographies of living people, but not medical content.

WP:MEDMOS, which is specifically about medical content, says "Adding sources to the lead is a reasonable practice but not required as long as the text in question is supported in the body of the article"

You also reverted the entire edit, which contained other updates and improvements to the content, not just the "missing" citations. Given that your reason for reverting seems at first look to be against WP guidelines, I have restored my edits pending further discussion.

Tobus (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:CITEKILL is an essay supporting a particular viewpoint, not a WP guideline. (Indeed, it would be quite strange for Wikipedia, which aspires to contain "the sum of all human knowledge", to adopt a policy minimizing the importance of citations.) WP:When to cite is also an essay and not a WP guideline. WP:MEDMOS, on the other hand, actually is a guideline. All this should be discussed, I think, on the talk page of the article being edited rather than here, no? - Nunh-huh 00:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(Previous relocated here from User_talk:Tobus)

The issue isn't how many sources we have, it's whether we need to have a "[1]" after every fullstop... it doesn't sound like we should from those guidelines (and essay). I haven't deleted any source, just removed unnecessary duplication... in restoring my original edit I've commented out the refs instead of deleting them. Tobus (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD it is perfectly reasonable for this article to have a 4 paragraph lead. You also hide the ref "PinkBook2009" when the next ref was not exactly the same but two sources, therefore it should not be hidden.

I have left the update to 2015 but restored the text to 4 paragraphs. Additionally we also are structuring the leads to match the layout of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The number of paragraphs is not an issue (it's purely about content). I will leave the duplicate citing until others have weighed in.

While the article is obviously high quality, I think the current lead section could be improved in a number ways:

1) The vaccine discussion is spread over two different paragraphs and makes the lead it sounds disjointed. eg we say "Polio has dropped from X to Y" in one paragraph, and then a whole bunch of unrelated stuff before "hopefully eradicated by 2018" in the next. The two ideas are so logically linked they could even be combined into a single "polio has dropped from X to Y and will hopefully be eradicated by 2018". Suggested improvement: All discussion of the vaccine should be moved a single paragraph, ostensibly the "Prevention and Treatment" one. Note that history of the vaccine is detailed in the "Prevention" section of the main article, not the individual "History" and "Society" sections (which only mention the vaccine once, in relation to World Polio Day, with a brief summary of the "Prevention" section)... the "History and Society" section in the lead should reflect this.

One is discussion of the current state of things. The other is a discussion of the predicted future.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

2) It mentions some highly specific events in recent years which are becoming less recent and less relevant every day. It sound a bit like someone has just added the hot topics of the day and they are getting lukewarm. eg we have "Syria 2013", "Nigeria 2015" neither of which particularly standout in the history of Polio... we don't have "Iraq 2013" or "Somalia 2015" for instance, which are equally or even more important in the larger story. Suggested improvement: Leave specific times/places for the rest of the article, only include the most recent global progress in the lead.

Agree that is just needed in the body of the text Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

3) The word "but" after "2018" makes it sound like the vaccination effort is going backward and the goal will likely not be reached. That may have been the case two years ago but with today's data it's highly likely to be achieved. This is the problem with including time/place specific content in the lead as discussed above. Same suggestion as above: no specific times/places in the lead, just the most recent global data - save discussion/yearly progress for the relevant section below.

Sure that can be adjusted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

4) The "not in animals" idea seems out of place. It sounds like it was just tacked on to the "History and Society" paragraph as an afterthought with no connection to the preceding content. I suggest either removing, moving and/or modifying it - if it has to stay it might fit earlier in the "Cause and Diagnosis" section, and maybe rewording to "only in humans" or similar would make it less different to the rest of the text. I note that the idea is expressed in the main body as "PV infects and causes disease in humans alone" and it's in the individual "Cause" section... surely the lead should match this (if it mentions it at all)?

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if there were some context: it becomes much easier to eliminate a disease if it occurs only in humans, as there is no zoonotic reservoir. This should probably be mentioned in context with what is included about elimination efforts. - Nunh-huh 01:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

My original edit addressed all these issues, as well as the excess citing. I would appreciate it if each of my suggestions were given serious consideration, irrespective of the stylistic issues (ie citation/paragraph counts).

Tobus (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

2015 Case counts a few short

Per Poliomyelitis eradication, there were a few more cases detected in Pakistan and Afghanistan at the end of 2015, that weren't counted the when the numbers presented in this article were referenced. Pakistan ended up with 54/2, and Afghanistan 20/0 of WPV/cVDPV, respectively. Please edit the table to reflect that. 50.179.159.178 (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Is it OK for me to spell out the abbreviations in the titles of journals or other parts of references. I think it's tough enough for lay people to understand technical and scientific articles, and it can be off-putting to see things like "NIH" or "Annu Rev Microbiol" that medical or scientific people know but might as well be a foreign language to others. Capital letters should also be used for almost all words in titles of articles. These are two of my general pet peeves and ordinarily I just go ahead and make those changes, but I saw the request for all changes to be discussed. My background is as a medical doctor in infectious diseases, so I might be able to make some content additions, too. (I've never seen a case of polio, but still...) Ira Leviton (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Reoccuring [sic]

Can someone please fix: In 2015 Nigeria had stopped the spread of wild poliovirus but it reoccurred in 2016.[6][7]

It recurred, there is no such word as 'reoccurred'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.137.120.64 (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

French had the first polio vaccine

This should be included in Wikipedia.

FRANCE

The Pasteur Institute stated that an anti-poliomyelitis vaccine, developed by Professor Pierre Lepine would soon be produced in large quantities. (Times, London, April 4, 1955).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.179.7 (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2017

In the Epidemiology section, please replace the map titled "Reported polio cases in 2015" and the table below it with the map and table for 2016, which can be copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis_eradication#2016 47.139.45.248 (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone change the following text:

In 2016 polio affected less than 50 people, down from 350,000 cases in 1988.

To...

In 2016 there were 75 reported cases globally, down from an estimated 350,000 cases in 1988.

The corrected text reflects what the sources say more accurately, and give context to the region (world wide).

Thanks. --24.182.92.247 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done according to [6] there were 37 wild + 5 vaccine derived cases. Ruslik_Zero 13:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the information in the third paragraph so that the facts in the cited webpage(s) and the facts in the article match up.

Here is what the article currently states:

"In 2016, polio affected fewer than 50 people, down from 350,000 cases in 1988."

Neither of the links make the same suggestion. The closest is the WHO webspage, which states specifically:

"Polio cases have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated 350 000 cases then, to 74 reported cases in 2015."

I made a request earlier, which was turned down. However, the extent of my request was apparently not understood. I will break it down to make it more simple (and let's ignore the fact that I incorrectly suggested 2016 instead of 2015, and 75 instead of 74!).

• The facts in the webpage and the article do not match
• The article states "fewer than 50 people" in 2016.
• The webpage states "74 reported cases" in 2015.
• The article states that polio "affected" fewer than fifty people.
• The website states that there were 74 "reported cases".
• The article does not emphasise a scale.
• The webpage infers a global scale.
• On a different page on the website, the figures tally more correctly with the current text in the article. There is no direct link to the data, and it has to be selected from the database. It states that there were 37 wild cases of polio and 5 vaccine-related cases reported.

You can see that there are, as I see it, multiple issues with the sentence - it's not merely about the uncorrelated figures.

This was quite a lot of effort on my part, in order to make a simple correction. Partly because the article is locked, and partly because an editor just rejected the request without understanding it fully. --24.182.92.247 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This happened because initially that sentence contained the number of cases in 2015. It was later changed to one in 2016 without changing the sentence. I corrected the sentence to remove some unwarranted conclusions. In addition, if you want to edit semi-protected articles, you can create an account. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

Please change the sentence "In 2015, cases decreased to 98" to "Cases decreased to 98 in 2015, and further decreased in 2016 to 37 wild cases and 5 circulating vaccine-derived cases." (Exact wording is your option; I just want to add the 2016 numbers because we should have the most recent figures.) 47.139.44.241 (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921235036/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/ to http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

In the Epidemiology section:

1. Where it says "Reported polio cases in 2016[2][5]", please change [2][5] to a reference to https://extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx

2. Where it says "In 2015, cases decreased to 98 and further decreased in 2016 to 37 wild cases and 5 circulating vaccine-derived cases.[80][81]", please add a reference to https://extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx

because...

The Epidemiology section has statistics for dates in 2016 with references to documents from before the period covered by the statistics. This is possibly my fault for previously requesting that the statistics be updated without bothering to check the citations.

The references [2][5] were for a table for an earlier year (not 2016). The current table was copied from the separate eradication article and should have the same reference as it does.

The references [80][81] were for the 2015 part of the sentence. The 2016 part of the sentence was recently added as is based on the same 2016 table and therefore should have the same reference. 47.139.40.250 (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Done as an addition Power~enwiki (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2017

Please add the following (mostly copied from the separate polio eradication article) at the end of the Africa section to reflect recent developments related to cVDPV:

In 2017, it was reported that separate new outbreaks caused by cVDPV2 had occurred in southern and east-central provinces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 47.139.41.108 (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Done – Train2104 (t • c) 17:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Unintended misrepresentation of statistics?

"In those with muscle weakness [...] 15 to 30 percent of adults die." In fact, 100% of them die. Needs rewording. E.g. "...as a result" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.153.211 (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Prevention

Are you sure the polio vaccine is the only way to prevent poliomyelitis? Polio spreads via the fecal-oral route, so you have to eat contaminated food to be infected, right? Doesn't that mean cooking the food can kill the polio virus and therefore prevent infection? ScamsAreHorrible172 (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

edit request

maybe a link to Poliomyelitis eradication could be added to a new 'see also' section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.82.172 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222075237/http://www.polioeradication.org/tabid/167/iid/80/Default.aspx to http://www.polioeradication.org/tabid/167/iid/80/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Poliomyelitis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100427041918/http://textbookofbacteriology.net/themicrobialworld/Polio.html to http://textbookofbacteriology.net/themicrobialworld/Polio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811122404/http://www.ott.zynet.co.uk/polio/lincolnshire/library/gryoung/otapps.html to http://www.ott.zynet.co.uk/polio/lincolnshire/library/gryoung/otapps.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012215404/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?&rid=physmedrehab.table.8357 to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?&rid=physmedrehab.table.8357
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150914022123/http://www.polioeradication.org/mediaroom/newsstories/Circulating-vaccine-derived-poliovirus-in-Mali-/tabid/526/news/1280/Default.aspx to http://www.polioeradication.org/mediaroom/newsstories/Circulating-vaccine-derived-poliovirus-in-Mali-/tabid/526/news/1280/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328073707/http://www.times-herald.com/Local/Four-added-to-Polio-Hall-of-Fame-at-Warm-Springs-589785 to http://www.times-herald.com/Local/Four-added-to-Polio-Hall-of-Fame-at-Warm-Springs-589785

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

2016 cases of polio

In 2016, polio affected 42 people, while there were about 350,000 cases in 1988.

Should read:

In 2016, wild cases of polio affected 37 people, while there were about 350,000 cases in 1988. 5 more cases derived from circulating vaccine-derived cases.

This page cites 37 wild cases of polio and 5 circulating vaccine-derived cases somewhere else, where it lists cases per country.

Bill Gates Foundation also states 37 cases for Polio in his 2017 Annual Letter. Surely the correct figure is the Wild cases, not including Vaccine-derived cases.

Done. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

"In 2015 Nigeria had stopped the spread of wild poliovirus but it reoccurred in 2016." Shouldn't it be "recurred"? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy between 2017 figures in poliomyelitis article and poliomyelitis eradication article

Issue 1:

Poliomyelitis article has a table of "Reported polio cases in 2017" showing 20 wild cases (12 in Afghanistan) and 86 circulating vaccine-derived cases. Poliomyelitis eradication article says "There were 21 reported WPV1 polio cases with onset of paralysis in 2017" and has a table of "Reported polio cases in 2017" showing 21 wild cases (13 in Afghanistan) and 86 circulating vaccine-derived cases.

Don't know whether 20 and 12 or 21 and 13 are the correct figures. https://extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx says 20 and 12. http://polioeradication.org/polio-today/polio-now/this-week/ says 21 and 13.

If possible, find out which is correct and fix the other article. If not possible to determine correct figures, then put both sets of figures ("20 or 21" for global total; "12 or 13" for Afghanistan) in both article and tag them with a note saying that there is a discrepancy between WHO and the other source.

Issue 2:

Article lead gives figures for 2016 but not for 2017. After determining correct figures to use for 2017, please update article lead to include them. 47.139.44.60 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2018

Please change "It is likely that circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus cases will exceed wild-type cases in the near future" to "Circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus cases exceeded wild-type cases for the first time in 2017". (If you wish to include a citation to a source, copy it from the poliomyelitis eradication article.) 47.139.42.119 (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you clarify where in the poliomyelitis eradication article the source for this is? Tornado chaser (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There is no such citation in Poliomyelitis eradication and the current text matches the source given. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

http://polioeradication.org/polio-today/polio-now/this-week/ and https://extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx both say that there were 22 wild cases in 2017 and 91 circulating vaccine-derived cases in 2017. And 91 exceeds 22 by more than a factor of four. So the article should say "Circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus cases EXCEEDED [past tense] wild-type cases in 2017", not "will exceed" [future tense], which implies that it hasn't yet happened, when it already happened in 2017.47.139.40.219 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018

In infobox, change "Frequency 42 people (2016)" to "Frequency 113 people (2017)" and update footnote as well (should match footnote on the "Reported polio cases in 2017" box).

In lead, change "In 2015, cases decreased to 98 and further decreased in 2016 to 37 wild cases and 5 circulating vaccine-derived cases" to "In 2015, cases decreased to 98 and further decreased in 2016 to 37 wild cases and 5 circulating vaccine-derived cases, but increased in 2017 to 22 wild cases and 91 circulating vaccine-derived cases" and update footnote as well (keep existing footnotes and add footnotes found on the "Reported polio cases in 2017" box). 47.139.40.219 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC) 47.139.40.219 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2018

In the Afghanistan and Pakistan section

please change

This is the last remaining region with wild polio cases. Both major sides of the Afghan civil war support polio vaccination[122] and polio rates are declining rapidly in Afghanistan, with 19 cases in 2015[100][117] and 13 in 2016.[123]

In Pakistan there were 53 cases in 2015, the highest number for any country,[100][117] and 20 in 2016.[123]

to

This is the last remaining region with wild polio cases. Both major sides of the Afghan civil war support polio vaccination[122] and polio rates in Afghanistan are low, but no longer declining, with 19 cases in 2015[100][117], 13 in 2016[123], and 14 in in 2017.

In Pakistan, rates are declining rapidly in recent years, with 53 cases in 2015, the highest number for any country,[100][117], 20 in 2016[123], and only 8 in 2017.

Copy cites for both 2017 statistics from the infobox that shows them or from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis_eradication#2017

because 1) Since figures are given for 2015 and 2016, they should also be provided for 2017. 2) The drop in Afghanistan from 2015 to 2017 isn't enough to be called "rapidly declining", and there was actually a slight increase from 2016 to 2017. 3) The Pakistan figures dropped much faster (over 80% in two years) and do legitimately qualify as rapid decline. 47.139.45.52 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please gain consensus for this proposed change. LifeofTau 18:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Factual error: polio is not only in humans

This is my first edit attempt, so I don't know the conventions yet. It's taken an hour I didn't have, so I still need to clean it up.

This article says that polio is found naturally only in humans. That is in the last sentence of one of the early paragraphs, before any sections begin. The statement has a citation to source [1], which was published in 2015.

But polio is well documented in non-human primates in the wild, primarily the great apes but also colobus monkeys. (needs citation)

Jane Goodall observed an outbreak of a polio-like illness in free-ranging chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in 1966. (Goodall, J. 1986. The Chimpanzees of Gombe. Harvard University Press.).

Later, the virus and its effects were confirmed in that population (Morbeck, M.E., A.L. Zihlman, D.R.Sumner, A. Galloway, 1991. Poliomyelitis and skeletal asymmetry in Gombe chimpanzees. Primates January 1991, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 77–91).

Dr_Which --Dr Which (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Another reference

Came across [7] - is this a useful historical reference? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Natural Vectors Exist

I would submit the following (S286, The Biologic Principles of Poliovirus Eradication, Walter R. Dowdle and Maureen E. Birmingham. 1997):

Wherein it states that the virus has been found in the wild in shellfish. Now to be fair they state that the virus occurs as a concentration due to "contaminated" waters. However, it is doubtful that they tested this premise by dosing a closed system with shellfish denizens with a known quantity to test for any signs of reproduction within the shellfish vector. My reasoning for stating this is because in the paper, they do not in fact state that they tested the validity of the premise.

The failure to find something is not proof of the non-existence of the same and only an indication of a scope which was far too limited. So we should not cite as fact a negative argument based upon an incomplete or unsuccessful search. Instead, we should state that a natural vector, that could presumably be tied to a resulting infection to humans has yet to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.108.78 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2019

In the section Epidemiology, please replace the wikitable "Reported polio cases in 2017" with the one for 2018 (including cites, maps, and numerical values). You can copy it from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis_eradication#2018 47.139.41.238 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 13:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)