Books Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance

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.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Could do with a bit of a rewrite, but I haven't read the book. Several odd incidents of comma placement or weird phrasings. A mixture of black and blood? - 203.217.65.222 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Sorry, I'm a longtime reader but noob contributor. I wanted to add the suggested citation for the claim that this book was a bestseller. This NYT Bestsellers List from June 4, 1995 is the oldest list I could find from the NYT that has the book as #1. However, if I go to this PDF from hawes.com, I see that it first appeared as #1 on February 5, 1995. What is the best way to cite this? Hcbowman (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several methods under WP:CITE (such as harv, MLA, APA, Templates, and so on), and under WP:Neutrality we can really rate any method over any other method. However, under our manual of style (WP:MOS), we have to remain consistent in our style (there more to it, but it's largely for conflict resolution). For this article we're currently using Templates, with shor footnotes. If its large work such as a book, we place the full citation in the Bibliography subsection and the location from where within the book in the inline. If it's a website or an article, then we cite the whole thing inline. It's a lot to choke down, but this is what it would look like:

'''''The Hot Zone, A Terrifying True Story ''''' is a [[best-selling]]<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E3DA1E39F937A35755C0A963958260
| title = Best Sellers: June 4, 1995
| accessdate =
| accessdaymonth =
| accessmonthday =
| accessyear =
| author =
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| date =
| year =
| month =
| format =
| work =
| publisher =
| location =
| pages =
| language =
| doi =
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| quote =
}}</ref>[...]

Simply fill out as many fields as you can. If you want more information about this this citation template, you can find the documentation here Template:Cite web. If you have further questions feel free to ask at my user talk page, or at the help desk. ChyranandChloe (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCormick should not redirect to this article but should have its own biography. Yes, he is notable. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the the film Outbreak was not based on the book The Hot Zone. Preston does not get any credit and none of the characters from his book appear in the film. The only similarity is that the book and the film are about a deadly viral outbreak in the mainland US.

However, at one point The Hot Zone was a competing film project that was an adaptation from Preston's book and was scheduled to be released in a similar time frame as Outbreak (similar in concept to Michael Bay's Armageddon and Mini Leder's Deep Impact - where two films with a similar plot are released by two competing studios). It was to be directed by Ridley Scott and star Robert Redford and Jodie Foster. Unfortunately, due to budget issues and scheduling problems, the film was shelved despite being in preproduction at the time. My first job out of film school was doing location work for this film. Here is an article outlining the details from the LA Times:

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-18/entertainment/ca-35778_1_ridley-scott

I think this article should be updated to more accurately reflect this information or drop the idea that the film and book are related, other than there was general public interest in stories about deadly pathogens at the time Outbreak was released. Thoughts? 76.65.31.104 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the idea that Outbreak is based on The Hot Zone could be a myth based on confusion with the other movie. The claim is uncited and, perhaps co-incidentally, another contributor just expressed doubt about the same claim at Outbreak (film). This article states "Outbreak was produced in the hopes of beating the film version of ... The Hot Zone ... into theaters", but doesn't say Outbreak is based on The Hot Zone. I think you should just be bold and remove the claim, both here and at Outbreak (film). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The part stating that the film Outbreak is loosely based on the book The Hot Zone has been removed from this article and from the Outbreak article. Thx for your support AJH. 76.65.31.104 (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unknown in the movie (and play) business for ideas to be stolen. Have been several successful court cases with major studios having to pay up. This happens much less in the book business. That said, I would not add the based on stuff (or even speculate on it) unless there is some RS at least speculating on it. But just because we can't say it in Wiki, doesn't mean there is nothing to it. At a minimum, you can do a "See also" at the bottom of one article to the other, just given the similarity of the topics.TCO (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I read the book The Hot Zone in the mid-late 1990's, I noted that Preston did not address the question of whether those few laboratory workers who got infected with Ebola Reston developed some sort of immunity to the other Ebola viruses. The first immunizations, by Edward Jenner in the late 1700's, involved innoculations by cowpox, which was seen to provide immunity to smallpox. Maybe they didn't know, as of the time of Preston's magazine article whether such immunity was conveyed, or as of the time of the book. It may have been that all they needed to do was to take blood from those who had been infected with Reston, and add to that some Ebola Zaire. Presumably, if immunity existed, the antibodies present in that blood would attack the Zaire strain. I find Preston's lack of commentary on this matter to be quite curious. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings J M Rice, I would like a more detailed explanation of the rationale behind your proposed deletion of some of the article's content, as we clearly do not see eye to eye on the matter and I don't want to be involved in an ongoing edit dispute. Please elaborate on your recent edit summaries in this section so we can discuss the issues calmly and objectively. Thanks! -BloodDoll (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calmly and objectively, my summaries are self-explanatory. The "Reception" section is nothing but POV with dead citations or citations to Web pages. Both are NOT encyclopedic and both violate Wiki policy on their face. I left the two by King and Collins because they cited proper sources. If you are going to publish opinion, please let it be opinion of published reviews, not Web pages. You have reverted, keeping the same bogus links. I don't want to have an edit war either, and should you wish to carry on, then I'll let an Admin or committee to decide. Thanks! And a friendly reminder, three reverts get you banned. J M Rice (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@J M Rice- Seeing that you "left the two by King and Collins because they cited proper sources", why would you then delete the two references I just added citing both King's and Collins's quotes?- Gilliam (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@J M Rice - I disagree with your assessment that your edit summaries are self explanatory. They need to be more fully explained before simply deleting content that might be perfectly fine with better sourcing, alternative wording, etc; the solution in this case might be to simply tag the content you feel in violation or in need of better sourcing, instead of deleting it from the article outright.

I might add that the Wikipedia etiquette here is to keep the disputed content, while a civil discussion of the issues takes place on the talk page; you have instead unilaterally decided to remove article content multiple times, without bothering to try to reach consensus on these edits (even when politely asked!) Please explain your proposed deletions in more detail as I requested; while they are "self-explanatory" to you, they are not necessarily self explanatory to others.

I invite any other interested editors to comment on the proposed deletions and possible course of action other than deleting the content wholesale. -BloodDoll (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead citations (citations to dead links) absolutely do not violate Wikipedia policy. Please see Wikipedia:DEADLINK#Keeping_dead_links. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]