From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Poliomyelitis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 22, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 6, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
November 18, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Translation / Neurology (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Viruses (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Disability (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Poliomyelitis is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  Quality: FA-Class
 ???  Importance: not yet rated

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2016[edit]

Please change

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


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

(delete the word "has")


"has remained" means that it still remains there, which is false, because the level 2015 was below 100. (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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


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 (talkcontribs) 00:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


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)

Broken Link[edit]

Correction needed for link on Reference #39: Wording is correct, but the URL needs to be changed to [1] 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)

2015 Case counts a few short[edit]

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. (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik_Zero 20:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)