From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Measles 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 10, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
June 9, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Measles:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : *Recent outbreaks
  • Expand : *Prognosis
  • Update : *Epidemiology
    • Recent outbreaks

Infectivity period[edit]

Can we discuss please the infectivity period? The article says:

"and infectivity lasts from two to four days prior, until two to five days following the onset of the rash (i.e. four to nine days infectivity in total) [2]"

while the source that was cited says:

"The infection has an average incubation period of 10-12 days (range 7-18 days) and infectivity lasts from 4 days before the rash of measles appears until 4 days after it disappears.[3]"

which I think is quite different to what the article days. The source "[3]" adds nothing new to this in my view.

I find all kinds of differing answers on this in the net and I think it would be great to get a definitive answer.

As I am not knowledgeable in this area myself, it would be great if experts could have a look.


Jaeljojo (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

with no one having answered I took the liberty to include both beliefs in the article. Happy to discuss Jaeljojo (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on this, but if you have lingering questions, please as people at WT:MED to comment. Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thanks, will do Jaeljojo (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Outbreaks[edit]

Is Sydney the capital of Australia? "In November 2011, an outbreak was reported in Sydney, the capital city of Australia with at least 12 reported cases.[76]"? I'm pretty sure it's Canberra [1] (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Capital of NSW, or major city. Nice place. Midgley (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the New Zealand herald, online Sunday 21 April 2013, "Suspected measles death in UK sparks wave of vaccinations". More at: Kdarwish1 (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I know this section is already flagged for clean-up, but I wanted to point out that the following statement is false/misleading: "Vaccination is not mandatory in Europe, in contrast to the United States and many Latin American countries, where children must be vaccinated before they enter school" (end of paragraph 9). Although most parents in the U.S. do immunize their children, it is not actually a law. K.Grey (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The 'Recent Outbreaks' section suffers from major WP:RECENTism. The disease plagued humanity for at least thousands of years, but the largest part of the article is about minor outbreaks after the period where it was any threat at at. This section is basically a trivia section, and I suspect only really exists at its size because this information is easily accessible on the internet without any real work. The sections on its history and how it came to be virtually eradicated needs to be greatly expandsed. (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


"There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria."[edit]

Actually, there are not. Midgley (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've provided a couple of examples for potential improvement in new sections on this talk page. Additionally, a lot of the recent outbreaks listed have not had followups that discuss the outbreaks as if they have already passed.
In August 2011, an outbreak in New Zealand has seen 94 confirmed cases in Auckland alone. - This right here is an example of what I am talking about. "Has seen" implies the outbreak as still currently occurring, and the article sourced comes from the time period of the outbreak, so more recent sources are needed for some of these.
It also might not be needed (or notable) to include smaller outbreaks of <50 or <100 people as these small outbreaks occur in even the most developed countries every now and then. Or at least these smaller outbreaks should be merged into paragraphs. ComfyKem (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Outdated graphs[edit]

There are four epidemiological graphs on the Measles page: two showing measles incidence before and after vaccine introduction, one showing vaccine uptake in every country and another showing the disability-adjusted life year (DALY) for every country. All of these seem to be outdated by a few years, but the two that necessitate newer statistics are the vaccine uptake graph and the disability-adjusted life year graph. The DALY graph is showing 2002 stats and the vac rate graph is showing 2007 stats, yet the year we are in appears to be 2013(and the Measles Initiative has done a lot of work in recent years), and as such, more up-to-date graphs are needed. I believe the WHO provides these stats, so could someone update them or explain how to? ComfyKem (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Merging sections[edit]

Should the evolution and genotype sections be merged into the cause section as subsections? Cause is discussing the virus, yet the article as a whole is centered around the disease. Diseases don't evolve or have genotypes, but viruses do. ComfyKem (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

These sections IMHO should be moved to a new article on the Measles virus rather than being included in this article. The split between the virology of a disease and the clinical features of a disease is fairly standard on WP at this point. This arrangement is a lot easier to work with.DrMicro (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


It says, under "Epidemiology", that "In sub-Saharan Africa, mortality is 10%." This is far excessive. Since there are 3-2 × 107 cases worldwide per year, and only 139,000 are fatal, and a very large portion (perhaps 40%) in sub-Saharan Africa, there is no way mortality can be anywhere near 10%. The reports I've read of outbreaks in sub-Saharan Africa suggest a mortality of more like 1%, sometimes less.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've reworded it to what the source actually states. ComfyKem (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fatality rate of (otherwise) healthy individuals in first world countries is not given as a separate category. It lists infection rates in USA and then lists global fatality rate - giving the impression that this rate applies to the USA. This would appear to be deliberately misleading. Whatdoctor — Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


I recently saw two sections where it said, "This section does not cite any references or sources." However, I no longer see this, or any other notice indicating lack of proper citations. Did these sections get removed, or were citations added?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The two sections in question that had no references were titled Diagnosis and Genotypes. I have since provided sources for the diagnosis section, and the genotype section has been moved to the article Measles virus. ComfyKem (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I see instances where no citations are offered but should be however because the page is protected, I can't edit it to suggest a citation. Measles.

barkway ([[User talk:barkway|talk]]) 11:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Barkway: Where do citations need to be added? I can add them. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Anywhere a statement of fact, or a statement of statistics was used. The first and more obvious I saw was in the 2nd paragraph, after both the 1st and 2nd sentences. Paraphrasing here rather than copying lots of text: statement that vaccine is effective, and then the statistic about 75%...between 2011 and 2013.... Barkway (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My mistake-Correction - In 2nd paragraph after the image of the child with the rash. Barkway (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)barkway Barkway (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I will go through and add citations where they appear neccacary. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Fatality rate confused with Mortality rate[edit]

It states the fatality rate as x in 1000, this is the mortality rate. Because the article confuses these two types of rates the figures given need reviewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference (and please give a reference)? - Embram (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Move complications[edit]

The subsection “Complications” should probably be moved from “Signs and symptoms” to “Prognosis”. Do you agree?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I do agree, but the current parts of Prognosis would have to be rewritten so as not to provide repetitive information. The "risk factors for complications" in the Cause section may need to be moved as well. ComfyKem (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


Under “Prognosis”, it says, “The vast majority of patients survive measles, though in some cases complications may occur, which may include bronchitis, and – in about 1 in 100,000 cases – panencephalitis, which is usually fatal.” (Citation deleted.) I wrote the 100,000 as 105, but it was reverted. Do you think the 105 form should be restored? I prefer 105 because it is more concise; I don't believe in using 6 or 7 characters to write what can be written in 3.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

In a non technical page like this the exponential notation is not productive. Many people are not comfortable with the notation and it may even be mistaken for a reference if it is in-line resulting in a person reading it as 10 instead of 100000 Using thousands commas is also not ideal because there is no way to determine except from context if they are an indication of 0.001 accuracy assumption instead of hinting at 100'000. I would suggest using 100000 as this is what it is and is universally understood by a reader from any country or educational background. Use in a formula or table in an engineering or scientific page would make sense.
Idyllic press (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Medical science? Besides, counting zeros is very imprecise (compare 100000 to 1000000). (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The comma is very helpful and with it there is not an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Disease that can be eliminated[edit]

Measles is a disease that can be eliminated and even eradicated. There are a few criteria that it fulfils to be entitled for elimination. It does not have any reservoir. There are a few other reasons. I think the list needs to be incorporated into this article. DiptanshuTalk 08:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Infection cases[edit]

There are a couple more years of US infection rates out from the CDC, but they are not terribly interesting (140, 71, 63, 220, 55, 187 for 2008-2013, respectively; this is roughly in line with the late nineties / early noughties). The current year has over 400 so far, though. I am thinking to wait until the 2014 rates are official before updating the relevant image, but I could do a provisional chart if people are interested. Relatedly, I am planning to do a version without text to facilitate use on other projects. Is there anything else people would like to see in this image? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


It would be nice to see statistics on the new outbreak going on that apparently started in Disneyland, especially the rate of infection among the vaccinated and un-vaccinated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not really relevant to the article. & the entire recent outbreaks section reads like a newspaper, so it has to be rewritten. ComfyKem (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly sure how a renewed epidemic possibly caused by reduced MMR use would not be relevant to the article. -- (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There are better ways to write about that other than creating a newspaper format in the recent outbreaks section. As stated before, that section needs to be rewritten. ComfyKem (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


In the paragraph titled "Recent outbreaks", it begins by identifying a sect of Judaism as "Ultra-Orthodox" I am not Jewish myself, but "Ultra" seems like an offensive prefix to call any religious group. The proper name for this group is Haredi Judaism Intentionally offensive prefixes do not belong on Wikipedia per WP:GFFENSE (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The word "ultra-orthodox" is used in reliable sources including scientific publications. I doubt that it is offensive. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Refering to the Haredi Judaism article: "However the term "ultra-Orthodox" is considered a derogatory slur by the community." Either that sentence has to go, or the usage of "ultra-Orthodox" should be exchanged for a more encyclopedic one.Jcmcc450 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Old graph showing Measles cases 1944-2007 better than none?[edit]

The Measles vaccine article has a graph (worth 1000 words) showing the effect of vaccines. Here's direct link at commons. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It is just for the USA. Have added to the subpage Epidemiology_of_measles#Outbreaks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Legal action on measles virus denial.[edit]

BBC reports: German court orders measles sceptic biologist to pay 100,000 euros on a 2011 bet on proving that ilness is caused by a virus, not a "psychosomatic" condition:

Maybe this news piece could be worked into the "measles" article? The quite large amount of court-imposed fine suggests to merit attention even outside Germany and Europe. 2A01:368:E013:2F:49C:126D:CA13:5B7F (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, it's not a fine. Lanka offered 100,000 euros to anyone submitting proof that measles is caused by a virus. Someone submitted proof, and when Lanka refused to pay, took him to court. The court simply ruled that the proof met Lanka's conditions and he did indeed owe 100K euros. (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, there are reports in the Alt press that this fine was overturned. Example: [1]

I'm not qualified to pass an opinion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Stefan Lanka won the case by the way. Bardens could not actually demonstrate a pure isolate of the so-called measles virus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about anti-vaxxers?[edit]

Why is there no mention of anti-vaccine advocates, the cretinous subhumans who are murdering our kids with their anti-vaccine crap? DudeWithAFeud (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

probably on Vaccine controversies juanTamad (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge Stimson line[edit]

This page should link to that one but I do not see a reason to merge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

merge it into measles, maybe, eliminate Stimson line?. juanTamad (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017[edit]

Michaelpaulstevens (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Society and culture" section refers to the Stefan Lanka court case. It fails to mention Lanka's successful appeal: [2]

I suggest the following edit, to come after the last sentence in this section:

"In February 2016 Stefan Lanka successfully appealed against the ruling. The court's decision was based on Mr Lanka requesting a single piece of work proving, scientifically, that measles is caused by a virus and the diameters of the virus. The applicant (David Barden) had, on the other hand, supplied a number of publications which can only provide proof in their totality. Therefore, the appeal was granted."

Source: [3] Michaelpaulstevens (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure added a sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Vaccine Shedding & Risk[edit]

I saw no mention of post-vaccine risk of exposure to others from vaccine shedding and/or cases of MMR-related disease post-vaccination when there are links to medical discussions of such incidents. Example - Barkway (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)barkway Barkway (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Measles. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Virus shedding[edit]

@Barkway: I'm not sure if this should go here, MMR vaccine might be the place for this. As far as links go, this [1] is a legit scientific publication, but I want to find a source that directly adresses virus shedding, rather that mentioning it tangentially in a case study, as for vaccine associated illness 1 case study alone probably should not be used to source any medical fact, I will look for a better source for this. This source [2] does not meet WP:MEDRS and doesn't talk about virus shedding as it claims the virus doesn't exist. This source [3] also does not say anything about virus shedding or adverse effects of the vaccine, and wikipedia cannot be used as a reference in wikipedia. This [4] is a news article about a lawsuit over whether measles virus exists, so I'm not sure what it has to do with virus shedding? I will look for better sources and try to add mention of virus shedding to either this article or MMR vaccine and like I said, the first source was legit but we need more that a case study. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)