|Yellow fever was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|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 Yellow fever.
|Yellow fever has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
- 1 older entries
- 2 1793 outbreak
- 3 Yellow Fever Moves into the Caribbean
- 4 Jesse W. Lazear
- 5 Map
- 6 Earlier Historical Evidence of Yellow Fever Epidemics
- 7 Leading cause of women's breast cancer?
- 8 Geography of Yellow Fever
- 9 Revising American outbreaks
- 10 Contagious?
- 11 GA
- 12 life long immunity
- 13 American plague
- 14 Mass vaccinations
- 15 Merging! Hooray!
- 16 Notable citation?
- 17 Yellow Fever
- 18 Yellow Fever as Prototype to Hepatitis C
- 19 Fatality Rate
- 20 Incubation Period
- 21 Injection photo
- 22 Name origin of Yellow Fever
- 23 History: shortcomings
- 24 Alt names
- 25 Something's happened to the text here
The question was asked why I deleted:
[center]:Health Sciences > Medicine > [Infectious Diseases]? > Yellow Fever
from the top of this article. Simple: because that's a classification scheme, and doesn't belong as part of the article itself, which is a fully independent subject. If you want to link to those other subjects, you can do that within the article text itself, or in a "See also" section.
- I could argue that sometimes a surfer is taken to a given page by a search engine local or external and he/she might get some hierarchy perspective on the subject as well as some futher searching tip if the page is not the right one. Kpjas
That's roughly the purpose of RulesToConsider/Establish Context. I just don't think relying on one category scheme is a good way to do that. Back-linking to more general subjects--however many there may be--is better. Certainly you'll want to back-link to "disease" and "virus", and we do that. Maybe also to things like "epidemics" from the historical point of view, or to disease categories other than "infectious" (perhaps "hemorragic"?). Those linked subjects can further back-link to "medicine" or "biology" or whatever other topic they like; and those links can change over time as out thinking on the subjects and their categories change. --LDC
i just finished a paper about the 1793 outbreak that i'm rather proud of and would like to post on wikipedia. it is several pages long, and full of information. i think that it may warrant a separate page rather than being a section here. please visit my talk page and let me know what you think, as the text is too long to post here. anriar
Your page on "Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1793" cites a different number of deaths and a link to "http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/yellowfever.htm" on this page says 2,000 died. Alyson.emery (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yellow Fever Moves into the Caribbean
Yellow fever was an acute infectious disease that was found in tropical Africa and many areas of South America. This virus is found in warm, moist regions. The last outbreak in the United States occurred in New Orleans in 1905. Yellow fever is caused by a virus transmitted by the bite of the female "Aedes aegypti" mosquito, which breeds and survives in stagnant water near humans. One form of the disease called "sylvan" yellow fever, and is transmitted in tropical jungles by other species of mosquitoes that live in the trees of that area. Yellow fever was introduced to the Caribbean by Africans being transported to the islands.
At the end of the 19th cent., yellow fever was highly prevalent in the Caribbean area, and a way of controlling it had to be found. The Panama Canal was being constructed at the time and was at risk for failure. In 1900 it was proved that yellow fever was a mosquito-borne infection. The people succeeded in controlling the disease in the Panama Canal Zone and other areas in that part of the world by taking control of the mosquito populations. They later development an immunizing vaccine and tok strict quarantine measures against unknown vessels coming into the Islands from known or suspected yellow-fever areas. This further aided in the control of the disease.
The disease itself begins suddenly after an incubation period of three to five days. In mild cases only fever and headache may be present. The severe form of the disease commences with fever, chills, bleeding into the skin, rapid heartbeat, headache, back pains, and extreme prostration. Nausea, vomiting, and constipation are common. Jaundice usually appears on the second or third day and at this stage the individual gets an actaully yellow tint to their eyes and skin. After the third day the symptoms tend to go away only to return in the final stage. This stage is more sever then the first, during which there is a tendency to hemorrhage internally and vomit. The patient then lapses into delirium and coma, often followed by death. Although the disease still occurs, it is usually confined to sporadic outbreaks.
Jesse W. Lazear
Would it be useful to include a reference to Jesse W. Lazear in the history section? His sacrifice clinched the connection between yellow fever and the insect vector. I am just a lay person, and it would seem that a cite to this episode plus an article by a knowledgeable person on Lazear would enhance this article and WikiPedia. Bill Jefferys 01:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Earlier Historical Evidence of Yellow Fever Epidemics
Apparently their was a severe Yellow Fever Epidemic in the Sixth Century in Europe. Here are some citations. Most are not appropriate for Wikipedia citation. The first was locked up for subscribers only Oxford Journals!
A Student [User:126.96.36.199|188.8.131.52]] 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Third link doesn't work, and yes, they need more reliable sources, however, there are great resources on Yellow Fever. KP Botany 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Added more links above and changed KP Botany's citation to read "third link." 184.108.40.206 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the likelihood that there were no outbreaks in the historical world from 549 to 1762? While Wikipedia cannot perform original historical research, we can certainly encourage historians to note instances of outbreaks and document them, preferably in credible journals online! We know that bubonic plague has a "repetition rate" and can look for that. Yellow Fever may have had its own cycle time up and down.220.127.116.11 02:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
All medical articles i've seen do not consider any yellow fever outbreak before the 16th century, so the byzantine Episode looks somewhat questionable to me. While current research (in particular genetical analysis) seems to support the theory of yellow fever originating in Africa rather than South America and so making an outbreak in Byzantine not completely impossible, i think the evidence might be to sparse to attribute to yellow fever. Maybe someone who has actually access to the Oxford article, could provide some details in particular on what concrete evidence the claim is based or whether it is just a minor speculation. --Kmhkmh 10:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Further on the Oxford point, Jstor might benefit you folk on this topic. 1.) http://www.jstor.org/pss/651177 and 2.) http://www.jstor.org/pss/2637908
- Also, this might interest you:
- "De elymosinis et bonitate ipsius regis. Ipse autem rex, ut saepe diximus, in elymosinis magnus, in vigiliis atque ieiuniis prumptus erat. Nam tunc ferebatur, Masiliam a luae inguinaria valde vastare et hunc morbum usque ad Lugdunensim vicum Octavum nomine fuisse caeleriter propalatum. Sed rex acsi bonus sacerdus providens remedia, qua cicatrices peccatoris vulgi mederentur, iussit omnem populum ad eclesiam convenire et rogationes summa cum devotione celebrare et nihil aliud in usu vescendi nisi panem ordeacium cum aqua munda adsumi, vigiliisque adesse instanter omnes iobet. Quod eo tempore ita gestum est. Per triduum enim ipsius elimosinis largius solito praecurrentibus, ita de cuncto populo formidabat, ut iam tunc non rex tantum, sed etiam sacerdus Domini putaretur, totam spem suam in Domini miseratione transfundens et in ipso iactans cogitationes, quae ei superveniebant, a quo eas effectui tradi tota fidei integritate putabat. Nam caelebre tunc a fidelibus ferebatur, quod mulier quaedam, cuius filius quartano tibo gravabatur et in strato anxius decubabat, accessit inter turbas populi usque ad tergum regis, abruptisque clam regalis indumenti fimbriis, in aqua posuit filioque bibendum dedit; statimque, restincta febre, sanatus est. Quod non habetur a me dubium, cum ego ipse saepius larvas inergia famulante nomen eius invocantes audieram ac criminum propriorum gesta, virtute ipsius discernente, fatere." --- Gregory of Tours, "Historia Francorum", book 9.
- You can find it in English via "The History of the Franks" 2 volume translation by O. M. Dalton. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
- Additionally, the Irish Annals record instances of a 'yellow fever'. You can find the Annals at the C.E.L.T. Project website. Here are two links to get you started. The term that identifies it explicitly is "buidhe conaill", though with the caveat that, as usual, there is no definitive medical consensus on what specifically is referenced by the term except by inteference. Links: 1.) http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100054/text076.html 2.) http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/G100054/text075.html 3.) jhmas.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/IV/1/5.pdf (this one requires a subscription). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have access to the text of the cited reference (Shrewsbury 1949) and it says explicitly that the Yellow Plague was *not* Yellow fever. Since the reference contradicts the statement in the article, I've removed both for the moment. There must be some more modern scholarship on this. Mhardcastle (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Leading cause of women's breast cancer?
There is a sentence in the article that claims that yellow fever is the leading cause of women's breast cancer. Is this true?
Geography of Yellow Fever
This statement from the Epidemiology section can't be right:
Yellow fever occurs only in Africa, South and Central America, and the Caribbean.
The article specifically mentions Philadelphia and Europe where outbreaks have occurred.
The yellow fever epidemic in Memphis TN in 1878, which killed about 5,000, should be mentioned Cites: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/fever/peopleevents/e_1878.html http://www.cityofmemphis.org/framework.aspx?page=296 and this book http://www.amazon.com/American-Plague-Untold-Epidemic-History/dp/0425212025 The City of Memphis' cite says that the disease "almost destroyed the city." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanksummers (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Revising American outbreaks
I have an interest in arthropod-vectored diseases and do a lot of reading in that area, especially as it relates to history. I even lecture in this area (insects and their effect on history), plus have a 17-page article on "Insects and History" in the 4-volume Encyclopedia of Entomology. I say this not to present myself as an expert on yellow fever, which I am not, but to justify some edits I am making in this article. I have been doing this from home this weekend, but all my reference texts are in my office. When I get the chance over the next week or so, I will be adding citations to support my changes. I just wanted to give a heads up to those who contribute to this article that I fully intend to justify (cite) my edits. Thanks. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I added citations to the changes I made over the weekend, plus deleted two "Further Readings" which I had added weeks ago, but now use as citations, so they now appear in References. I still have citations to add. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I added two novels for young adults on the 1793 Philadelphia epidemic which I recommend to teachers. Fever 1793 is about a young white girl whose mother is a coffeehouse owner and relates her experiences living in Philadelphia at this time and as a yellow fever victim. It is historically accurate and has won numerous awards. The French Physician's Boy takes place during the same period. However, it is the recollections of a young black boy who follows his Dutch master, a medical doctor, from French Surinam to Philadelphia where he is given his freedom. He stays with the doctor and helps him during the epidemic. This is a good story from the side of those doctors who had experience with yellow fever in the Caribbean area and who treated victims of the disease very differently from Dr. Benjamin Rush. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Today I added An American Plague to the references to support text I added to the Philadelphia section. This is a good book oriented to lay people and young adults not interested in a more scientific discussion. I particularly like that it provides many details on the history of the epidemic, the collapse of government, the volunteer committee and its actions (especially the role of the local Afro-Americans), and the results of the disease experience on life in Philadelphia and the United States after the epidemic (such as cleanup of the streets, cesspools, delivery of fresh water to the city, etc.). This book, like Fever 1793, has also won numerous awards and is a good read. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Is yellow fever contagious? And is it a cause of illnesses like pulmonary infections and TB? Please help and give credible answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- This talk page is for discussing the content of the Yellow fever page - not something easily discussed if you have not read it. Your questions suggest that you have not read it, because they are answered quite clearly. Do you have a specific question about the page's content? --Scray (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Do not believe this article meets GA.
- Has no section on how common this condition is (epidemiology)
- needs ordering as per WP:MED
- no section on signs and symptoms.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- The MOS to follow is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Diseases.2Fdisorders.2Fsyndromes. Smartse (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I brought the german version to FA status this fall and the english version is mostly a translation of that one. An early one, though. Still I would like to work a bit more on it before we list it again. Thanks for the advice given here, I see it more or less the same way -- history is way to long and should go to its own article. About the lead - I dont think its terrible but there is way for improvement. Also I would like to add some sections that were made clearer or added during the review and FA process in the german wikipedia. The structure is according to the german MOS but of course we can adjust that (although I believe that the structure makes a lot of sense the way it is right now). I hope that I can work with Smartse on those two sections. Greetings --hroest 07:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that we have made sufficient changes so that the article may be reevaluated. Other opinions? Greetings --hroest 08:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
life long immunity
my sources says, that an infection leads to life long immunity. Please provide a good source that says otherwise if you want to change it. Greetings --hroest 21:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've found a free, online source which also says this is the case which I shall add. Smartse (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I hope we can work together on this one. I corrected your reference and added my old one again -- two are better than one here especially since there seems to be an IP who has a different opinion. Greetings --hroest 07:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
American plague redirects here but I just found Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1793, the main source used in that article is "An American Plague". Should we change the redirect to that article rather than this one, it seems like it would be more specific. Smartse (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm I believe the term refers to the disease in general. Looking at this book which referns to the Memphis outbreak, I do not believe thats it would be a good idea to redirect to the 1793 outbreak. On the other hand I not believe that the term that seems to be mostly used by journalists even belongs into Wikipedia. Greetings --hroest 14:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Good job merging or whatever happened here. From the front page news article, obviously people would want to know about the particulars of the specific vaccination campaign not a link to the Yellow Fever or Vaccination articles... --126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- the news bit describes accurately whats going on and if people want to know more about something specific, like vaccination or yellow fever or Africa, they can read the article about it. there never was and probably never will be an article about this specific vaccination campaign. greetings --hroest 12:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this merits inclusion:
|This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication:
Patel, Neesha. Racialized Sexism in the Lives of Asian American Women. In Cheemba Raghavan, Arlene E. Edwards and Kim Marie Vaz, editors. (2009). Benefiting by Design: Women of Color in Feminist Psychological Research. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1847186508. p. 120
It cites the May 1, 2005 revision of the page  (which is blank for some reason), with regard to the now absent coverage of "yellow fever" as meaning "asian fetish." CSP is perhaps not a notable publisher. Шизомби (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- I hadn't activated the template intentionally because I wasn't sure it merited inclusion, either because of the publisher, or the fact that the content that was being cited is gone, or both. If it does, it belongs at the top of the page. Шизомби (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there are no hard numbers (since many countries do not have a central repository for death statistics), but according to the WHO, roughly 150,000 deaths occurred between 2005 and 2009 (2010 just started). -- MarcoTolo (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yellow Fever as Prototype to Hepatitis C
Layman's question: What does it mean to say that Yellow Fever is prototype to Hepatitis C?
If you look at this article's Yellow Fever image (obtained from the CDC), you see that it is also Corbis' colorized image of Hepatitis C (currently in the first column, 3rd place, blue viruses on a mottled brown/pink background). Within the description is the parenthetical phrase (single strand; yellow fever is prototype).
I take it that Corbis' "Hepatitis C" image is in fact of Yellow Fever alone and its labeling as Hep C is merely an illustrative convention. If I'm wrong however, should mention be made in the article that Yellow Fever has a clinically-established relationship with Hepatitis C? BruceSwanson (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- According to Prototype#Pathology it just means that it is a good example of a virus of it's class. This paper (not free but email me if you want a copy) says "Yellow fever virus is the prototype of the genus Flavivirus (family Flaviviridae) which comprises approximately 70 viruses, most of which are arthropod-borne." Hepatitis C virus, is in the Flaviviridae too. I think it is most likely that Corbis have taken an EM of yellow fever and are saying that it is hep C. They probably look very similar so it isn't a major problem. Smartse (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
So Corbis' image is not Hep C. It's Yellow Fever labeled as Hep C. The Yellow Fever is prototype rather reminds one of a magician explaining one trick by performing another. BruceSwanson (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just like a prototype skeleton is an example of a skeleton of a species rather than all skeletons of a species, so is Yellow Fever an example of a Flavivirus rather than all Flaviviruses. One of many denialist tactics - found in AIDS denialism, Holocaust denialism, creationism, alternative medicine, 9/11 conspiracy theories - is to insist on perfection rather than reasonable and convergent evidence and that any possible doubts automatically disproves the mainstream hypothesis, or counts as evidence to the contrary. Science is a great way to progress in knowledge, but it's not fast, automatically perfect, or always 100% correct. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
My question about Corbis' Yellow Fever/Hep C image has been answered. It was a labeling error. I contacted Corbis and the image once described as Hepatitis C has now been changed to Yellow Fever. Currently you can find it here, in the first file, second rank, blue viruses on a mottled pink/brown background. BruceSwanson (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The article notes that the overall fatality rate is 3% of those infected and that surviving an infection confers life long immunity. However, in many of the outbreaks included in the article the fatality rate is 50% up to 90%. An explanation of this apparent discrepancy would be helpful. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The article states "Yellow fever begins after an incubation period of three to 69 years". I personally know that it is more like 3-7 DAYS, not YEARS (69 years? Really?). I am not an expert and therefore feel uncomfortable about making this change. Can someone with proper knowledge and/or background correct this? Thank you, Caroline (My first edit and Talk Page post.) January 5th, 2012
The Injection photograph included within this article inaccurately represents the yellow fever vaccine administration. The vaccine is provided subcutaneously, injecting it into the fat of the arm instead of into the muscle. This could potentially confuse those who are not properly trained and administering the vaccine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Name origin of Yellow Fever
The article asserts "Yellow fever presents in most cases in humans with fever, chills, anorexia, nausea, muscle pain (with prominent backache) and headache, which generally subsides after several days. In some patients, a toxic phase follows, in which liver damage with <bold>jaundice (inspiring the name of the disease)</bold> can occur and lead to death."
- It appears that both origins of the name are correct.
- "Etymology on-line" notes that "Yellow fever attested from 1748, American English (jaundice is a symptom)."
- Rudy's List of Archaic Medical Terms cites several nineteenth-century sources which claim that (1) Yellow fever was named after the jaundice that it causes, and (2) sailors called the disease "Yellow jack" (where "jack" = flag) because of the flags that were flown at ports where the disease was epidemic. Presumably the flags were yellow to signify the jaundice that the disease causes. Cwkmail (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I expected to find -- but did not find -- accounts of (1) how mosquitoes were recognized to be the carrier / vector of Yellow fever and (2) how Yellow fever was recognized to be a viral disease and subsequently isolated and propagated in vitro.
I wish that there were a way to post within the article a request for such information. (Please don't suggest that I provide that information myself. I'm a layman (and therefore not competent to provide it), my plate is full, and as my "Contributions" page will show, I've done my share of heavy lifting.) Cwkmail (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
"Bronze John" is not by any stretch a common name of this disease, cite or not. I shunted the less common names into a footnote, but if the choice is between bolded placement in the lede or non-inclusion, we should simply omit such antiquities and create "archaic synonym" sections at wiktionary. — LlywelynII 14:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Something's happened to the text here
This phrase makes no sense:
"the enumeration corresponds to the decreased pH induces the fusion of the endosomal membrane with the virus envelope"
It's obvious that the idea is to explain the enumeration, but this is too garbled to do that. I think perhaps some cybermunchkins got to this one. I'm not competent to fix it.