Talk:Bolivian hemorrhagic fever
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's medical content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Bolivian hemorrhagic fever.
|WikiProject Viruses||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- "Black typhus" (72 hits)
- "Machupo virus" (6360 hits)
- "Bolivian hemorrhagic fever" (992 hits)
- "Bolivian haemorrhagic fever" (541 hits)
Note that "Machupo virus" is the virus and "Bolivian hemorrhagic fever" is the disease that results from contracting the virus. So should we have separate articles on the virus and the disease? Neutralitytalk 23:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I've removed a 'citation needed' and a 'section needing souces' tag for the sections Bolivian hemorrhagic fever#Symptoms and Bolivian hemorrhagic fever#Prevention, respectively, and with some misgivings placed explicit references to the main article source there.
Actually, there was originally no problem. The problem was (as IMHO all too often) caused by a series of good faith edits, involving one initial minor mistake, and later editors not checking the article history, when dealing with the resulting and somewhat aggravated problems.
A short check of the history (and, for getting a hint, of the Spanish sister article) showed that the article largely is based on one source. That article is just a couple of pages long, and it was a short work to glance it through, and confirm that inter alia the sections Symptoms and Prevention were based on that article. IMHO, there is actually not much use to refer to the source article in just these places (and really no need at all to single out the specific pages in a 4-pages article); but since BloodDoll seemed to ask for source references there, I provided them. If you deem them unnecessary, as just refering to the general bibliography item, you're very welcome to remove them!
Actually, the source article was quoted as the only item in the Bibliography section, until (probably by mistake) that section header was moved down below the source hereby Read-write-services. A few edits later, the now seemingly unmotivated loose item in the references list was "tweaked" here, by replacing the bibliography item with one reference among others. (RDBrown, who 'tweaked', did not notice, or did not choose to address, the now meaningless section header Bibliography.) Finally, a few months ago, while fixing a vandal removal of some sections, BloodDoll noted that they (now) were completely unsourced, and tagged them (probably without going far enough in the history to find the bibliography item).
I've restored the older bibliography item, since the article largely still does seem to depend on that source, and the reference to it; essentially undoing parts of the two quoted edits by Read-write-services and RDBrown.
To calm any fears of the converse, I noted that the factual content largely was brought from that source; but, at least in these two sections, the formulations are not; whence there should not be any copyvio. However, the source partly was more prudent, where our formulations were more absolute, whence I also 'relativized' our text slightly. JoergenB (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)