This page says the book is nonfiction, but the author's entry says it is often mistaken to be nonfiction.

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

I haven't checked this article in a long time, but apparently someone improved it. Thanks! Freddie 04:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

__________

I removed the following paragraph because the same information is discussed in the ebola article where it is more appropriately suited. The scope of this article is The Hot Zone book.

Thefool 22:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well as The Hot Zone, numerous other books concerning Ebola have acted to bring a distant virus into the consiousness of the public. Ebola, as well as smallpox and avian flu, is thought to be a veritable candidate for the "doomsday virus," which would have the potential to destroy civilization as we know it. Novels such as Clancy's Executive Orders and Paulson's The Transall Saga feature Ebola as a major threat to humanity. Despite this concept, as of yet, human Ebola cases have been localized in Africa, and have not spread widely. However, such viruses are known to mutate radically, therefore, it has yet to be seen if these fears are justified.

I removed this paragraph because it is an outdated controversy with unnamed sources.

Thefool 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been controversy involving this book, with critics accusing Preston of dramatizing and exaggerating the effects of an Ebola infection, as well as embellishing facts with his own imagination. There are those who say that Preston's book is meant to be a pseudo documentary, much like Michael Crichton's The Andromeda Strain, but was added to the "nonfiction" section in bookstores and libraries by accident. Defenders of the book assert that Preston, as a journalist, is not likely to have attempted to pass fiction off as nonfiction. Additionally, news agencies such as CNN (see links below) have endorsed this work as nonfiction, albeit with dramatizations added.

• Comment: The biggest problems with this paragraph are that it's clumsily written and needs to be better sourced. Controversy doesn't become "outdated" just because it's no longer covered in the media. If we only include good reviews of the book, we're viewing it through rose-colored glasses, which isn't exactly a neutral POV. -- MisterHand 23:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Re-reading the article, I don't see the book as having been given a rosy "thumb's up" review. The book is a notable work and therefore it has been duly noted as such. I use the term "outdated controversy" because over a decade ago a few critics thought the book was fiction and they were wrong. Even if the sources were named, they were still wrong. I question the importance of such information. Thefool 07:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it gives important historical information about the reception of the book when it was originally published. -- MisterHand 03:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea. It is reworked and sources added. Thefool 20:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]