Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia

@Starstr please check you 29 Sept number incorrect. No figures for 29 september. Those figures are for 23 Sept . CDC and who gets their numbers from Liberian goverment .. Latest figures here. [1] If we want to integrate the article we need the figures correct as well. Note: not criticism just info to help your article

3635 cases deaths 1986 confirmed 1084/888-- greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

They were updated to the 29th, that is what I meant. It was the figures for the 23 updated to the 29th, so it can be confusing. Thanks for checking this. Starstr (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted it is a new topic that expands on the summary in the main page. --Starstr (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It looks like the editor didn't really read through this article at all. It appears he just assumed it was a duplicate of Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. I don't think it will be a problem from here on. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup duplication of content all over the place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Once the new article was started content was copied from here to the main page. In addition, some content has now also been moved from that page here since it has been separate for several days now. Thanks. Starstr (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs Up.

Just a quick thumbs up and well done to all editors on this article.. Shaping up nicely.. Gremlinsa (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Effective deletion by re-direct

This was not a split and has new content, so by re-directing it blocks access to the new material. Starstr (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC on whether or not to keep this article, along with the other new ones here. The includes this one and:

• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone
• 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States

SW3 5DL (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Pig/dog viral transfer information in article

I am removing the following information:

Ebola virus has not been shown to be airborne among humans, but it can be transmitted through aerosolization of body fluids, such as when an infected individual sneezes, vomits, or flushes a toilet after use. Ebola virus has been shown to be airborne in pig infections.[8] In many cases care-givers are infected as they take care of the sick in their own homes.[9]

The term "airborne" here is a medically defined term that implies a disease that can remain in the air for long periods.[10] However, this does not exclude droplet transmission, where small droplets pass through the air to infect by droplet contact but do not remain in the air for long periods.[11]

In the first place, it is far too detailed for this article. Secondly it may not even be appropriate for any Ebola article. While it is well-documented that Ebola may be spread by droplets, as from a sneeze or cough, the pig/monkey study applies to pigs and monkeys, is a single study, and even at that has been criticized by another study. This article is supposed to be about the disease in this particular country, not about single viral transfer studies. Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Starstr has questioned my removal of this info on my talk page. IMO the news sources do not meet RS guidelines - if this is questioned it could be brought to the RS help page to clarify. Re the study, I worked on the updates for the Ebola disease article and as such I am familiar with this study. I did include it since so little study has been done, and as far as I could find this is the only study related to dog contracting the disease. This is the copy I used:

Dogs in some parts of Africa scavenge for their food and it is known that they sometimes eat infected animals and the corpses of humans. Although they remain asymptomatic, a 2005 survey of dogs during an EBOV outbreak found that over 31.8% showed a seroprevalence for EBOV.[cite journal | author = Allela L, Boury O, Pouillot R, Délicat A, Yaba P, Kumulungui B, Rouquet P, Gonzalez JP, Leroy EM | title = Ebola virus antibody prevalence in dogs and human risk | journal = Emerging Infect. Dis. | volume = 11 | issue = 3 | pages = 385–90 | year = 2005 | pmid = 15757552 | pmc = 3298261 | doi = 10.3201/eid1103.040981 ]

Generally a single study, especially such an old study, is not considered medically significant. However, this copy has stood the test of time and remains in the article. This does not, however, suggest that it is appropriate for either this article or the article that this is a split from. Comments such as this require a much wider background so that the reader may better understand the context. Starstr, don't be discouraged when copy such as this is deleted - when I first started editing medical articles - and I have a medical background - almost everything I added was deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture

The Popular culture section was removed from the EVD in WA page, and it is only fitting to reinsert it in the individual country pages, The items were transposed over, however the section will require expansion into what is specific to each region/country.. ^{I'm placing this identical notice on all 3 country pages} Gremlinsa (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is more fitting to remove it per WP:TRIVIA. It's also fitting to discuss this on one page instead of three. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 11:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This been the only page to retain the Popular culture section, I'm updating it to a reworked Other Works derived from the Ebola crisis Gremlinsa (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Article needs serious work.

This article is in a sate of dis-array. it needs serious work. Sources are poorly cited, no names to source material and some gossip pages. Not enough info on countries Ebola crisis, but more on country it self.. 14 out of fifteen districts stated but only twelve named.. add a map for this. No latest case load numbers. Lot of one line edits.. different clinics stated under one name.(check Island clinic.) In general article is in bad shape.. Shames WP..41.13.80.14 (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

i.e: On 30 September 2014 a person was discovered in a Texas hospital who contracted Ebola in Liberia and traveled to the United States.[17] (see 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States) should read "On 30 September 2014 a patient was hospitalized in a Texas hospital after it was discovered that he contracted Ebola in Liberia and traveled to the United States." makes better sense.. he was not discovered i.e they did not find him laying in hospital but he check in and it was discovered that he was exposed to Ebola. Wording41.13.80.14 (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

All of us make mistakes. Your own "correction", for instance, states that Duncan was hospitalized on September 30. He was actually hospitalized on September 28 (see Thomas Eric Duncan#Treatment and death). September 30 is when he was found positive for Ebola. I could compose a similar speech about "shame", but I'd rather just go fix the sentence (he was neither "discovered" nor "hospitalized" on September 30). As for the rest of the list, yeah, I've wondered about some things like the 14 districts. But in general, if you think something is wrong, please either fix it, or ask us about it. More diplomatically. Art LaPella (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Art Art LaPella i agree with you on that, but various editors tried in the past only to have their additions reverted..BrianGroen (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to start to clean these articles up but every time I begin I am just positively bewildered with what is involved. IMO our main article group of editors is responsible for these splits and I would like to put a note on the main article talk page to that effect, but apparently the consensus is to not discuss them on that page... Hoping to interest one of the other long-term editors, since it seems that any new edits will need at least some support, I left a note on his page, but he ignored it. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It's considered politically incorrect to say a specific "group of editors is responsible" for an article (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). It's considered OK to discuss problems at an article at the relevant Wikiprojects, which are listed at the top of this talk page. Art LaPella (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm just very sick of what happens when I try to edit these split articles. If I had just stepped in out of the blue and said that it would be one thing, but I would think that by now, after the many hours that I have put into this work, that I would not be criticized by you Art. I dislike drama and controversy very much and I will use my efforts elsewhere. Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That reaction was a complete surprise. I thought I was just pointing you in the direction you wanted to go, to get more attention. Art LaPella (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The ownership policy needs work. I find it disheartening that I am comparable to a fly by IP on the articles that I have spent countless hours researching the ins and outs, countless weeks photographing places and data, and countless months writing and editing. This whole time I have pointed to you as the resident expert on the topic, as the one who will ultimately be left with this pile of crap to deal with and therefore te one who should be consulted prior to major changes; alas, that went in the dumps. I hope the odd nag at you by other editors doesn't disillusion you from your thankless efforts :) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)