Talk:Western African Ebola epidemic

Spain

Page name and scope

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First case now reported in Spain. A nurse who treated one of the missionaries brought back to Spain has tested positive. http://www.lavanguardia.com/salud/20141006/54416808823/enfermera-atendio-misionero-garcia-viejo-contagiada-ebola.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.153.222 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This now means a title change from "epidemic" to "pandemic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.166.187 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola confirmed by second test. El País now reporting in more detail. Pax in Alcorcón (state: Madrid). http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/06/ciencia/1412611515_352524.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.153.222 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Per BBC [1] tested positive. Not confirmed.

As soon as the WHO or CDC calls this a pandemic we will call it a pandemic. Not before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Appeal to authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.166.187 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is what we do here. That is what WP:V and WP:NOR requires Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

it need not be called pandemic, but certainly the title is a little "old" at this point, perhaps just "2014 ebola outbreak" or something along those lines--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Would be happy with moving it to 2014 ebola outbreak. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

oppose While it's now on 3 continents, and Spain now has the title of the first infection out side of Africa, the nurse contracted EVD while tending to a EVD patient.. and had a high risk of been infected (as with many of the early responders), It's still not on the streets of Spain.. Pandemic only when announced by WHO or CDC.. as per WP:MOVE no valid reason for the rename exists. Gremlinsa (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

support Regardless of risk, local transmission outside Africa is now a fact. Cases in 3 continents is fact. USA and Spain do not differ from Senegal or Nigeria in any aspect other than that they are not in Africa. Plus nurse at hospital specially selected for evacuated ebola patient should have had ample precuations. as per WP:MOVE Scope of article has changed 84.52.41.9 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

support its about the entire event, and the title should reflect that--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - This is certainly an epidemic so I don't think 'outbreak' is suitable. The disease is undeniably focussed around West Africa, that may change and would support a move if and when. |→ Spaully ^τ 22:11, 6 October 2014 (GMT) 22:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

support: but only if the article takes advantage of the new title and refocuses and becomes a better overview. Also, not outbreak. It's an epidemic. Can move it to pandemic if the WHO/CDC call it that. Thanks for the heads up, Ozzie. I left you a reply. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Support: Now we have transmission outside west africa, there's no reason to keep the west africa in the name,it's misinformation. But I also agree that we shouldn't call it pandemic, we have to wait for WHO. ClaudioUEC (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So are we discussing 2014 ebola epidemic than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to go with that. The year gives it definition rather than sounding generic as an epidemic. And you know the journals and news agencies, etc. will likely tag it like that. And the epidemiologists do date the outbreaks from their start. Might as well add it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Support: I would have voted for leaving it alone for now until the situation/topic/terminology debate settled down, but "Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa" is such a lousy name that the chance to improve it now seems a good idea, if a bit belated. "2014 Ebola epidemic" seems reasonable to me though I would hardly get excited if someone called it "2014 Ebola outbreak" instead; that is the sort of problem we can deal with by means of redirections. I see that someone else is arguing on the grounds of COMMONNAME, which is a really eccentric example of appeal to a widely unsoundly invoked and poorly defined principle, so we need not worry about that. But exactly which cases appeared in which countries need hardly matter. It is already a globally significant event and cumbering the name with "West Africa", when much of the situation is developing in central Africa, and when the precise location is barely relevant, simply muddies the water. "2014 Ebola (epidemic or outbreak)" would suit me.

Strongly oppose. The CDC calls this the 2014 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa]. If the CDC/WHO call it something else, then we can switch to that. Until then, it needs to keep its current name per our usual naming conventions. Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, this should be called outbreak, not epidemic; the CDC calls it such, and outbreak is the more commonly used name by the press as well (15 million vs 2 million results on Google for the 2014 "ebola outbreak" vs 2014 "ebola epidemic". Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose not a pandemic. And low and behold we have new editors here being summoned by the ring leader of the US Ebola page. SW3 5DL or the (Personal attack removed) he/she are.41.13.120.135 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep the criticism constructive please. Art LaPella (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose not a pandemic. Until WHO calls it s\o then we change...agree with Art LaPella keep civility, but bearing in mind i cannot help to agree with the Ip editor here. Yes the comment is rude and does not belong but SW3 5DL actions drumming up support is clearly visible on the US PageBrianGroen (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: If an article name change is to be discussed, it should be properly set up in a separate section rather than under this "Spain" section. Gandydancer (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but given that we haven't really been given any good reason to change the name yet other than "people elsewhere got sick" (but not very many), I think this discussion is premature anyway. Once the CDC or WHO start calling it something else, we can consider changing the name, but generally we go with the official/common name of things, and on both counts this appears to be in the right place for the moment. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I strongly discourage the discussion as well. Gandydancer (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I support continued discussion and the move (already done) from outbreak to epidemic, which is supported by the WHO; I created a subjection so now this is under #Page name and scope. I do think Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa is no longer optimal and should move. Perhaps to Ebola virus epidemic, Ebola virus epidemic (2013-2014) or Ebola virus epidemic (2013-present)? The editors of the Observer are calling it a pandemic: "The scary truth of the Ebola pandemic...", but that's an exception to the norm. It does make sense to remove "... in West Africa", since it's been confirmed that a nurse has contracted EVD in Spain. I think that's preferable to lots of overlap, or a new Ebola virus epidemic outside West Africa (2013-present). The main (IMO), most popular article is still Ebola virus disease.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 18:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

so we need more votes, please vote either support/oppose.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

your continued input is welcomed.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works anyway. People talk about voting, but it is ultimately about consensus, which is rather different and why people note the reasons and rationale. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish that was in fact as true in practice as it is in written policy.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean, we should follow WP:NOTDEMOCRACY? --Malanoqa (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel that this article and its current outlook has seemingly been hijacked by people unfamiliar with WP:MEDMOS and Wikipedia in general. Yee haw! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you find something constructive to say? Please AGF; see here. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• This page was read by 40,000 people yesterday, even more impressive is Ebola virus disease, see http://stats.grok.se/ (now 250,000 views per day). I wonder how many of us, where ever before active on a Wikipedia article over a current and frightening event like this? So I think, it is quite natural, that many of us (like me) have to learn how to collaborate in such a situation. --Malanoqa (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spanish case

This ref says it is not yet confirmed [2] [3]

We are presenting it like it has been confirmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Unclear how reliable this Spanish source is [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Spanish newspaper El Mundo and all national radios (Radio Nacional de España, Cadena SER, Cope, Ondacero) take the first case as true. 85.53.189.66 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

In last few minutes is confirmed here by BBC [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Representants of the Spanish Health Ministery are in Radio Nacional de España (right now) and takes as confirmed the case. 85.53.189.66 (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

From the updated BBC article [6], in the video they mention she last had contact on the 26th when the missionary died, she went on leave on the 27th, felt ill on the 30th but did not come into the hospital until the 5th. That seems like there was a large windows where she would have been contagious, would that be something of value to add to the section? She was taken by ambulance to one hospital and then moved, so staff that came in contact with her have been put under observation. Kactusotp (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Second possible case in Spain: http://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/Analizan-posible-enfermera-hospital-Paz_0_310769863.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.36.52.31 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This night, in the most important TV news —Telediario (channel: La 1), Antena 3 Noticias (Antena 3) and Informativos Telecinco (Telecinco)—, this possible second case has not been reported. The first case is true, according to the Ministerio de Sanidad (Ministry of Health). MrCharro (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The second possible case has tested negative for Ebola: http://ecodiario.eleconomista.es/flash/noticias/6138763/10/14/La-otra-enfermera-ingresada-en-el-Carlos-III-da-negativo-en-la-prueba-del-ebola.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.Kku8avQaC1veQW4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.36.52.31 (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible shortage of the production capacity of protective clothing

The important german weekly magazine Der Spiegel, wrote today, that the demand for protective clothing raised so much, that there is now the threat that it will come to a shortage due to limited production capacity (This cloth can be used only once). They refer to the DuPont sales manager Albrecht Gerland and also to the the Dutch company Imres. But I have only a german reference that points in the moment only to the written source. I guess there will be soon further articles available in the internet, as Der Spiegel is one of the most influential german magazine.

Where to put this in the article? Does someone has further information to this? Or is it still to early to be put in the article?

References

--Malanoqa (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's been talk of this for a while, but no firm evidence. I don't know where these things are made, but I hope the global biomedical manufacturing business is capable of ramping up production! Robertpedley (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, we shouldn't include this in the article. It is not Wikipedia's place to speculate about the future. This sounds very speculative to me; if there is an actual shortage, we can report it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the WP:CRYSTAL concern,but the fact that the cloth only gets used once could justify mention or explanation, either here or in Ebola disease or some similar article. JonRichfield (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I found a further article. It is planned to develop new and different protection clothing.

References

--Malanoqa (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is another article on the matter. http://www.npr.org/2014/10/07/354230895/ebola-protective-suits-are-in-short-supply As engineer working in manufacturing I can see this being a real problem, if manufacturing capacity runs out there is no way no how anyone is going to increase it faster than ebola is spreading. Want a PPE automated manufacturing line, sure, does delivery date of 2017 work for you? 84.52.41.9 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Malanoqa The Seattle Times article doesn't mention shortages, but it's an interesting summary of possible improvements in equipment & diagnosis. And the NPR article cites temporary regional shortages, it's speculative about a possible global shortage, so I'm with Titanium Dragon on this. One to watch, I think. Robertpedley (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley I am watching this, and I agree with you, it is to speculative to put it into the article now. Thanks to all who provided references and helpfull thougths.--Malanoqa (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO, I would not be too concerned about "speculative" - we have numerous speculative statements already, including those from the WHO, MSF, the CDC, etc., who speculate that the numbers are not correct, that the epidemic will dramatically worsen, etc. When speculation is based on sound present information its worth a mention, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think about this--Malanoqa (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

New Map

Seeing as somebody went and replaced the West Africa map with a map of the world in a PNG format, I went ahead and changed it into an SVG format so it'll be much easier to change and reupload. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice work and it certainly has a place in the article. I wonder however whether the West African map is still more appropriate for the top of the article. This epidemic is still really about West Africa, which may of course change, but switching to a world map because of a handful of exported cases and one local case seems to me to give undue weight to western national concerns. Comments anyone? |→ Spaully ^τ 07:18, 8 October 2014 (GMT) 07:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very nice map but I strongly agree with your statement re its placement. Perhaps it is just an emotional reaction, but it does give the impression that the few patients outside of the most heavily effected countries are as important as the thousands that are dying in Africa. I'd like to see the two maps switch places. Gandydancer (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think DR Congo should be removed from the map because it's not related to the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa 90.227.25.67 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

excellent map.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

One thing that does stick out on the current map is that the United States is split into states, even though it is a country. Even if this was how it should be presented, why is Great Britain displayed as a single country? - And why is there cases of ebola on the Canary Islands but not Hawaii? Notelitten (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

While there is no perfect answer, I think it does make sense to show the US as states and Europe as countries/nations for the simple reason that most reporting on the issue in the English press (even UK press) is making the distinction by reporting things that are happening in different states. The US is really big, and some individual states (including Alaska, which by itself is bigger than any European country) are quite big. I don't want to go near the political question of the UK being 4 countries in union.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

150.165.144.87 (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC) French Guyana is blue colored as having an ebola case, probably because it was considered as a french territory. I suggest to exclude French Guyana from this map because it may induce someone to think that there is a first Ebola case in South America, setting up unbased concern [User:Alex].

Give me a few hours guys, I have 4 exams throughout this week. I'll get those territories removed as soon as I get the shapefiles to regenerate the maps. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the DRC without delay. Gandydancer (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated the map with the most recent and accurate version. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Why is it that only the states affected in the United States are highlighted, while the whole of Senegal and Nigeria (in which both countries had only one affected state) are highlighted? I don't get this. It's either you highlight by states for the whole map, or highlight by Countries for whole the map. Why this double standards for a single map? You guys will just end up confusing the readers. Whatever happened to consistency and standards?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Go look at the response the creator of Wikipedia left a few lines up. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa → 2014 Ebola virus epidemic – With the Spanish case the virus is no longer confined to just West Africa. The key words in the proposed new title are "Ebola virus epidemic" Sources agree that this is the case here. It is true that the virus started in West Africa but in the recent two months has spread worldwide in terms of effects that aren't confined to cases. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - We have discussed this multiple times. I think we should wait and see what the WHO uses for their naming conventions, and then modify accordingly. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• The WHO is using "Ebola outbreak" [7], do you think it should be called an outbreak then? I found the usage of the wording epidemic here: [8]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am currently in touch with my media contact at the WHO to discuss their position. Depending on the response, I might change my vote. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, somewhat - My first thought upon seeing the new image by AmericanXplorer (good job by the way) was "this title doesn't fit anymore." However, most likely this move will have to wait until there are more cases outside of West Africa to get support. Snd0 (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME and we also take direction from important sources. WHO calls it the 2014 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa. If WHO starts calling it something different, then we can change the name. Over 99% of the cases have been in West Africa, so I wouldn't hold your breath. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. As per arguments made above and I feel that to change the title, and therefore to a degree the focus, of the article based on a handful of exported cases and one local transmission gives undue weight to Western national concerns. |→ Spaully ^τ 07:24, 8 October 2014 (GMT) 07:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Nearly all the cases are in West Africa and the others are people who were in West Africa and went somewhere else. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, at this stage No sustained or widespread transmission anywhere outside of West Africa as yet. Meodipt (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - same reasons as AmericanXplorer13, Spaully and Titanium Dragon given above. Robertpedley (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - for Much the same reasons as i've noted previously. The epidemic is in West Africa with ~0.027% of cases of infection (2 of 7500) outside of West Africa. Additionally, these Africa countries are Crying for AID, Spain and America are not. The focus of the epidemic is on Africa, and as such the focus stays.. If WHO/CDC switches focus to world wide, then the focus of the article can change... Gremlinsa (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support this title serves no one, and is out of touch with the reality of the situation--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I voted support in the straw poll earlier, but it might soon need a broader name, like 2014 Ebola virus pandemic, per WHO/CDC. But well done to the nominator, Knowledgekid87. An RfC on this will get the best results. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose We should follow reliable sources on this, not our own opinions or analysis. If WHO/CDC change their usage, so should we; but until they do, this article should stay at its current address. -- Impsswoon (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support: since the outbreak has passed the west african region.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, for two reasons. 1: The name need to make it clear it's not about the outbreak in DR Congo. 2: The outbreak is not limited to the year 2014. It started in 2013 and will keep going in 2015. 90.227.25.67 (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Poor name: 1) The epidemic is likely to become a pandemic shortly. 2) "Ebola virus" is a redundancy (I really hate the current title for that reason. 3) I do think 2014 should be in the title, because while the outbreak began in 2013, the massive spread occurred almost entirely within this year.--Froglich (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support because there appears to have been local transmission outside of West Africa now. 72.224.172.14 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline lists nothing for spain but includes spain

Spain has at least two cases now with the two nurses. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neukenjezelf (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Until we have a reputable source confirming this, we leave Spain at one case. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we are in some danger of inconsistency & dual standards here. In West Africa, cases are recorded as "suspected" and then the numbers revert if they are found out not to be Ebola - see Senegal where the number of cases went up to 3 for a period and then back down to 1. Should we not treat developed countries the same, record suspected cases and then remove them if found not to be ebola? Saxmund (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an element of racism to apply different standards. Add the Spainiard or there will be reporting of racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.16.108 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I presume you probably meant appearance of racism (if not, please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). Art LaPella (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We are, mainly, relying on data from WHO. There have been a number of "possible" cases which tested negative, whereas in Africa, undertesting is more of an issue. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Top line of table

The current top line of the table lists the date of these numbers as 8 October 2014. But these are the same numbers that were previously (a few days ago) already here, listed as being from 1 October 2014. For people like me who are using these numbers to maintain my own spreadsheet and growth model (something I am manifestly unqualified to do but which I find helpful in understanding the unfolding of the story) this change suddenly makes it look like new cases are hardly being found at all. I'm not sure how this happened or why at various times, numbers in the table have changed. I generally just trust in your great wisdom and adjust my tables accordingly but this one is a bit too jarring so I had to ask.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, the WHO just released a new report earlier this morning, but did not mention anything about the death in the US or the infection in Spain. I just got back from classes, so I will go through and make sure the WHO's numbers align with the table data. We are having problems, however, with people modifying data where they think they should. We're having a difficult enough time dealing with vandalism. We are trying to keep it as up to date as possible. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion - for a time I was updating the Swine flu pandemic table which initially was somewhat similar to this one. We had that as a Template and transcluded it in the article. This helped significantly with users aiming to be helpful or otherwise by changing numbers inadvertently messing up the table. |→ Spaully ^τ 22:07, 8 October 2014 (GMT) 22:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I added a note to the table for Spain last time - my recommendation would be to add in a comment in the cells which people are likely to edit with a reminder that this is WHO data; I think that will stop most of them from messing with it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea and if that doesn't work then probably the template idea is "security through obscurity" enough. Although of course it's a shame if we make it hard for helpful people to help. Again, I want to thank everyone for all the incredible work on this article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be a shame to make it hard for "helpful people" to help, but it is a much worse shame when editors such as Brian, who was always willing to edit using our Wikipedia consensus methods of article building, finally grows so weary of "helpful people" that he throws in the towel. Gandydancer (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

agreed

the date changed, but the NUMBERS didn't change. ??!! in addition, why isn't the spanish case recorded anymore?

Because the data is from October 5th. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline Irregularities

We are getting to a very interesting position in this outbreak. As the virus spreads, countries are having more difficulty keeping track of numbers. Reports from members of the Liberian government say the country is on the verge of collapse. Giving out reports is the last thing on their mind. Sierra Leone hasn't put out a new sitrep since September. We are using the numbers from the WHO reports, but we do not know the numbers between the report release dates. This causes problems when we put down the single case in the US and Spain. We would add those to the table, but we are not sure what the other countries have in terms of case numbers, mainly because the reports are a few days old by then. How should we go about handling this? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Very informative paragraph from the new WHO report:

"The past week has seen a continuation of recent trends: the situation in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone continues to deteriorate, with widespread and persistent transmission of EVD. Problems with data gathering in Liberia continue. It should be emphasized that the reported fall in the number of new cases in Liberia over the past three weeks is unlikely to be genuine. Rather, it reflects a deterioration in the ability of overwhelmed responders to record accurate epidemiological data. It is clear from field reports and first responders that EVD cases are being under-reported from several key locations, and laboratory data that have not yet been integrated into official estimates indicate an increase in the number of new cases in Liberia. There is no evidence that the EVD epidemic in West Africa is being brought under control, though there is evidence of a decline in incidence in the districts of Lofa in Liberia, and Kailahun and Kenema in Sierra Leone."

Something summarizing this would probably benefit the Timeline section, as a casual glance at the table/graphs may erroneously lead one to believe that the outbreak is coming under control, especially if combined with statements supporting that misrepresentation being made by the President and VP of Liberia (sorry, I don't have the sources to hand but can provide if someone thinks it is important). 18.127.7.26 (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Just looking at the graphs would make one think that the situation is coming under control, but it all makes sense that this is from the collapse of multiple states. A disease you can not monitor is the scariest disease. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. The numbers in the table don’t reflect the reality at all: Sierra Leone is only reporting 879 deaths out of 2789 cases. The 68% survival looks impressive but nobody on the ground believes that number at all. Liberia reported a decline in the rate of new transmissions and the government is making optimistic predictions about controlling the disease. But they also introduced new rules to stife the media [9]. Reading between the lines, Liberia’s leaders are obviously desperate to install a sense of calm and optimism while the situation deteriorates around them. Grmagne (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What should we do? Do we stop all numbers at the end of September and make a note stating that with the collapse of various government entities, the numbers are no longer accurate and will not be portrayed as such? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the numbers should stop being reported, since there have been articles published for a while now indicating that we essentially have no idea how bad the epidemic is [10][11][12]. Maybe the table should be very clearly labeled as verbatim WHO numbers with a note referencing sources that say they're near-meaningless? Snd0 (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the article should include the numbers. Given the increasing uncertainty over different government sources to use several and add them together is increasingly original research in my view - how can we justify the totals from different sources with any authority? As such I would support Snd0s suggestion of using the WHO figures only and then discussing the lack of certainty. |→ Spaully ^τ 21:59, 8 October 2014 (GMT) 21:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added greater than or equal to numbers to all of the Liberian data for the last three weeks (from September 14th to October 5th) per WHO's note that it these numbers are especially likely to be adjusted upwards. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Prognosis" section

Looking at the content, this section has very little to do with the dictionary definition of prognosis. I propose renaming it to "Outlook" or "Outbreak statistics". This would provide a logical place for a short paragraph about the difficulty of collecting reliable statistical data in areas with historically poor infrastructure and low literacy ( <50% mostly), compounded by the current collapse of whatever health/government systems previously existed. Your thoughts please? Robertpedley (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert I agree. I am aware that in this case "prognosis" is being used in the medical sense, which actually means "outlook", but for the average reader of this article the dictionary definition would come to mind and it may not be the right term to use. Of the two you suggest I'd choose "Outlook", but perhaps others have a better idea. Gandydancer (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Popular Culture -- Remove or include all popular culture references

This epidemic has gone beyond West African disco, rap, and pop music. Makes the entire article reek of a bias or agenda. If you want to keep it, you need all popular cultural references which at this point would be voumes. It is irrelevant. Always was, and even more so now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.244.104 (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never liked that section and would just love to see it go... Gandydancer (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I have deleted it. I didn't feel any of the information needed to stay in the article but I would suggest if editors wanted to include such information it should go in the relevant country sections. |→ Spaully ^τ 08:01, 9 October 2014 (GMT) 08:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree, Infact the Popular Culture should be in the individual country pages... Perhaps I'll edit them into there.. Gremlinsa (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree, to me it does not fit here. I think it is a good idea to put some of this in other articles. --Malanoqa (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Robertpedley (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Placement of maps

I feel pretty strongly that the old map which features the West African countries should be placed above the new world map. If the WHO would change the definition of this epidemic to pandemic, then I agree with the present placement. This is nothing against the new map - I think its great - I just feel that it should be the lower and smaller map. Gandydancer (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I feel strongly about this also. The world map is very good but placing it at the top gives undue weight to the few evacuated cases.

There were no objections above so I have swapped the maps back. If people disagree lets talk about it. |→ Spaully ^τ 16:13, 9 October 2014 (GMT) 16:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about info to be included in splits

We've never discussed what information should be included in the country splits. Presently they include topics such as virology, transmission, symptoms, etc. In my experience with splits, they are specific and do not again address background issues but rather stick right to the subject. I'd like to start working on some of the splits but I'd like some guidelines about what the group thinks should belong in them. Gandydancer (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If your referring to the individual Country pages. They should contain detailed info specific to each country, statements released by respective ministries, Local happenings, border closing's, Quarantine's, Economic impact, etc.. Some editors have already started on that.. Gremlinsa (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gandydancer and Gremlinsa. If I click on Ebola Guinea, I want to know more about what is going on Guinea. I do not want to read a recapitulation of the Disease itself. There was an idea to use cloned text, but this text should be short, maybe we place this text to be copied into the Ebola Disease Article. The article about Ebola Disease is viewed a few hundred thousand times a day. So there will be a good review of this. Or we remove this completely unless it is really related to the country. --Malanoqa (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It appears that editors would like the splits to contain info pertinent to the country itself rather than basic disease information that is included here or in the Ebola disease article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Malanoqa, I tried to begin work on the Guinea article today, clearly stating that it was a work in progress, but user SW3, who has not visited the article since Oct. 6, ignored the fact that I was just starting my work and deleted both of my edits while I was working on them. I had hoped that I could work on the lead and the history and you could work on the more recent additions. I've been an editor for quite a few years, but this is the worst example of blatant refusal to use consensus for article construction that I've ever seen. I'm not going to waste any more of my time and patience to work on the article splits that this editor made. Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Split Spain out into separate page.

While I'm not currently proposing to do this, the issue will be raised soon, and before a maverick splits it and another 'Argument' starts, lets start a discussion on at what point will this occur.

• The situation in Spain is starting reach critical point, with allot of news coverage on many issues that are not related to the outbreak in WA..
• This section is eventually going to expand to the point where it may bloat this page.
• There are already other country pages related to this central Outbreak, setting the president. no matter it has raise much contention, they do have a place, and so too will a Spanish page..

These are my thoughts.. ^{I'm not calling for the page so please no maverick page creation} Gremlinsa (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Gremlinsa - There's already a very big page here, no need to replicate an English version IMO. The transmission in Spain deserves cover in this page, but let's try to keep it concise and relevant. It seems likely there will be a couple more cases before the containment begins to cut in. Robertpedley (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Right thanks for that, perhaps a link to it in the Spain section so that we do not have a editor split it out because he/she did not know there is one already (granted in Spanish).. Gremlinsa (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree: an Ebola in Spain article would seem reasonable, and the dog story (see below) could go there too. -- Impsswoon (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Dog

What relevance has the dog in Spain to the outbreak in Africa? Razorflame has reverted my deletion, so let's try for a consensus. Robertpedley (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would argue none. I think it is of minor relevance to a specific article on ebola in Spain if and when one exists. |→ Spaully ^τ 11:57, 9 October 2014 (GMT) 11:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing info from Wiki on EVD from these two pages :Ebola virus disease and Natural reservoir, there is a genuine threat that dogs can be a natural reservoir for the virus and thus continue infecting others over a longer term.. The issue is also note worthy because of the national outrage of this one dog, as well as the international reporting of the issue, ABC News, NY Times, BBC, The Guardian, News 24, Primedia. need i say more? Gremlinsa (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be significantly reduced in length. I don't see that we need so much detail about online/social media.Mattojgb (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why should I bother sourcing and adding/editing on this page... I put some good time into that little piece, so that a MAVRICK editor can just wipe it out, because they feel it does not belong.. Have your EDIT WAR with out me... Cheers Gremlinsa (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The dog story might belong in a sub-article about the situation in Spain, as an indication of how insanely sentimental we are about animals in the West. From the perspective of this article, the dog's fate is too small a detail to report. If you'd like to add it to a specific Ebola in Spain sub-article, I think it would be fine there. Your work on this story remains intact in this article's history, and you should easily be above to recover it from an earlier version of the article. -- Impsswoon (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO the info re the dog was very appropriate for this article, though not in so much detail. On a side note, there really is only one study done almost 10 years ago (pretty ancient as far as studies go), that only speculated that dogs may be the source of infections for the outbreaks in which the original source was never found. Since no further studies were ever done, it can be assumed that other researchers did not take that suggestion very seriously. IMO, that the Spanish government euthanized the dog with next to no scientific evidence that it could spread the disease, is unconscionable. Why not quarantine the dog if they had any concerns? And not only that, it shows no appreciation for the health worker who was willing to put her own life on the line to assist with helping to care for Ebola patients. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: When I glance through the talk page each morning I start at the bottom and move up...thus I was not aware that there had already been a decision to start a new Spain article where this info could be placed. Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've put the dog stuff in 2014 Ebola virus disease cases in Spain. I'm still staggered by people's concern for the dog in the midst of all of this. Would they really risk a chance of the dog infecting people? -- Impsswoon (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm still staggered by the belief that the implication made in one study that did not even draw comment from any other science researchers is enough to make some people conclude that the dog may infect humans. BTW, I note that the WHO, the CDC, and MSF have not once suggested that the many dogs that must be running around in Africa should all be euthanized as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.. I feel better now. While my previous comment about dogs been a possible EVD carrier might have sounded like personal belief, in fact it is not. I'm an avid animal lover with half a zoo at home.. The story is significant in the way that Spain is going way beyond all logic to try and contain EVD, almost to alarmist preportions.. Gremlinsa (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Alarmist" is a good word. There's a lot of hysteria generally, now that the outbreak is spilling out of Africa, kids getting banned from school (here in the UK) and stuff like that. Keep a cool head! Robertpedley (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

the Spanish health ministry has isolated quite a few individuals, but it may just be safety--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

New graph with reported cases per week

In the WHO reports there are graphs that display the number of cases per week. As the growth is leveling off in Liberia (Following WHO due to a failure to report correctly), I think we should also include graphs with cases per week. This make the situation more clear. The graph with new cases per day on the other hand shows a lot of artificial fluctuation. I made one for the three countries with many cases and and a single for Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. I placed the latter already on the relevant country articles. This graphs are probably problematic as the WHO says it updates the historic number regularly. We do not. I also have only the numbers in this article, so I had to interpolate some of them, to display new cases per week.

We should also, like WHO add more explanations and comments to the graphs. Some trends may be genuine following WHO, other like the recent decrease in Liberia is due to WHO not genuine, but rather caused by the inability to report cases correctly.

The reported weekly cases of Ebola in West Africa as listed on Wikipedia Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, some values are interpolated.

--Malanoqa (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the uncertainty about the figures, anything that can be done to simplify and update their presentation seems good to me. It's really concerning that the apparent decline in growth in Liberia might not be evidence of the disease being coming under control, but of the Liberian health and statistics gathering infrastructure collapsing, rendering official statistics meaningless as the disease goes out of control. - Impsswoon (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought to add a remark for Liberia, that the decline is due to WHO caused by "a deterioration in the ability of overwhelmed responders to record accurate epidemiological data" and not genuine.--Malanoqa (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I added the remark on the graph for Liberia and on the graph for all countries now.--Malanoqa (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could find some way of indicating that the Liberian data for the last few weeks is dubious, and concentrate on just graphing the figures for each country individually until better figures are available for Liberia? -- Impsswoon (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So maybe we add only a graph with the total number of new cases per week to this article? I attach this now also.

The reported weekly cases of Ebola in West Africa as listed on Wikipedia Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, some values are interpolated.

.

--Malanoqa (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I added now the graph with the total number of new cases per week to the article.--Malanoqa (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed the graph until the label can be corrected. The within-image subtitle said "per day" while the data is per week. (non-registered user) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.74.56.80 (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I still have to learn to see this tiny things. Especially because it is so difficult to correct for other editors. Thanks for remarking!--Malanoqa (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Uncertainty in Liberian Numbers

@Impsswoon: @Malanoqa: I took the liberty of note of the uncertainty in the notes/data and the timeline header. I was thinking we might want to add an asterix next to the questionable numbers as well, as they were noted as especially questionable. Thoughts? Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I just went ahead and added ≥ before the numbers for the last three weeks from Liberia per the WHO report. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

24.99.34.20 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Goran THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! for including Weekly Cases graph. In my opinion that is the most useful information of all. It gives the insight into the actual state of the epidemics, rather than total number of cases, since dead or recovered victims do not contribute to further spread. I like the top graph better (multicolored, for separate countries) rather that the one with cumulative thick black bars.

Paris

Sky News just reported that French media are saying 60 people quarantined North of Paris as four people suspected of having the symptoms of Ebola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.166.187 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a false alarm. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

New deaths

Western African Ebola epidemic

Situation map of the outbreak in West Africa
Date	December 2013 – present
Casualties
Reported Cases / Deaths (as of 5 October 2014) Total: 8,035 / 3,866 Liberia: 3,924 / 2,210 (as of 5 October 2014) Sierra Leone: 2,789 / 879 (as of 5 October 2014) Guinea: 1,298 / 768 (as of 5 October 2014) Nigeria: 20 / 8 (as of 5 October 2014) Senegal: 1 / 0 (as of 5 October 2014) United States: 1 / 2 (as of 8 October 2014) Spain: 1 / 0 (as of 8 October 2014) See notes for 1 October on Timeline Section

References

UK case is med-evac case, same with Germany, Australia is suspected, Macedonia is suspected, and DR Congo is not part of this outbreak. Please remove those until we have confirmed cases, but definitely watch Macedonia, it might be interesting. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Effectively contained medevac cases are definitely not outbreaks. -- Impsswoon (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It was Congo Brazaville, not the DR Congo.90.244.94.220 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your changes may soon be needed, but for the moment we are only including WHO figures + confirmed cases or deaths developed in each country. That's why I just reverted your changes. The Macedonia one looks most likely to fulfil those criteria but I've not yet seen a source with much detail or authority. I would suggest keeping it as a dry run in Talk for the moment to avoid any edit warring. |→ Spaully ^τ 18:11, 9 October 2014 (GMT) 18:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So the other deaths are a world media hoax.90.244.94.220 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The other deaths have not been confirmed as Ebola. If they have been confirmed from Ebola, some of them are not part of this outbreak. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

UK national dead in Macedonia other ill?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11152489/Ebola-crisis-British-man-dies-of-disease-in-Macedonia.html second man with symptoms. No testresults, but seems to be based on official statement. 84.52.30.183 (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Macedonia looks worrying.[13] Let's hope it's a false alarm. Still, this is a good example of doing it right on the part of the Macedonian and UK authorities -- better to have a certain amount of pro-active overreaction early on than risk an index case getting through. -- Impsswoon (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Might have to start thinking of countries affected over time graph at this rate of countries being added.84.52.30.183 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's premature, but it might be worth it eventually. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ebola-outbreak-man-with-ebola-symptoms-dies-in-macedonia-1.2794023.. should this prove true a article that is separate and deals with those countries outside of west Africa should be created with its map and unique title --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola-like symptoms, but there are other diseases with similar symptoms. Until there's a positive blood test, it's not Ebola. -- Impsswoon (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

More accurately: it is not our place to speculate per WP:CRYSTAL and other policy. Until it has been confirmed, it won't be included. There have been a lot of false scares. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Perversely, false alarms like this are a not a bad thing: they're a good sign we're getting the balance right: Type I errors are better than Type II errors in this case, and because of the nature of the receiver operating curve, we'll be getting lots of them if we keep vigilant. -- Impsswoon (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree from the standpoint of public health, but we shouldn't be including them in article space. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Title Change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How about "2014 Ebola Crisis"? News media are now calling it that and it sidesteps the debate on whether or not it is now a pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.166.187 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's not escalate things: until WHO etc. change their terminology, we shouldn't either. There's no indication of anything other than sporadic outbreaks anywhere other than the core West African countries. Providing other countries can keep their R₀ < 1, it should burn itself out in those countries. -- Impsswoon (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a pandemic to me. Can we have a vote on new title of 2014 Ebola Crisis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.166.187 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so keen to retitle the article? Wikipedia is not an exercise in tabloid journalism. -- Impsswoon (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not an historical article it is a current event and this current event is a crisis.

The WHO is currently discussing what to call this outbreak and my contact will email me back with a name. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant what the WHO call it. I would agree however that it's about time we discussed what it has become, as it's now moved outside of West Africa. However, those calling for "pandemic" or "crisis" need to get a grip right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's epidemic in West Africa, and 99%+ of all infections remain there. What we have elsewhere are sporadic outbreaks that -- so far -- are being caught in time before they get out of control. -- Impsswoon (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If WHO changes what they call it, likely press outlets will follow suit. But we shouldn't change names preemptively; it isn't our job to anticipate things like this. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is Not Yet -- When the name is updated, it will probably (I would hope) be something like "2014 Ebola Pandemic". (Since "Ebola virus" is a redundancy, I oppose the inclusion of the word virus in this title as well as any future one.) "Crisis" is also a crappy weasel label.--Froglich (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would hope it never gets that far. But I agree, if it gets out of control on more than one continent, the next stage beyond epidemic is indeed pandemic. -- Impsswoon (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changing the Title from Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa to "2014 Ebola Virus Epidemic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that the title of this page should be change from "Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa" to the "2014 Ebola Virus epidemic" as there is cases being reported in North America, Europe and West Africa. There is also a new possible case in Macedonia. This outbreak of Ebola is now not only in West Africa, but now affecting several countries and WHO regions around the Globe. [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efuture2 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - We have discussed this multiple times a day for the past few days. Over 99% of the reports are in Africa. We are leaving the title the way as is until we have an actual widespread epidemic on another continent. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is Not Yet -- When the name is updated, it will probably (I would hope) be something like "2014 Ebola Pandemic". (Since "Ebola virus" is a redundancy, I oppose the inclusion of the word virus in this title as well as any future one.)--Froglich (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus isn't redundant, the WHO refers to it as the Ebola Virus Disease. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ebola virus disease" is a redundancy is the same way that "Spanish influenza virus disease" would also be one. Neither "virus" (because that is rendered moot by "Ebola") nor "disease" (rendered moot by "epidemic" or "pandemic") should be in the title.--Froglich (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australia: false alarm

It looks like the suspected case in Australia was a false alarm: not Ebola. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2786033/BREAKING-NEWS-Woman-observation-ebola-Queensland-hospital.html (Sorry about the Daily Fail link, but even the Fail is probably a WP:RS on this hard-news topic, if not on others.) -- Impsswoon (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Two possible cases in Macedonia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See here and [here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ebola/11152472/Briton-dies-of-Ebola-in-Macedonia-live.html]. However, someone is quoted for saying "We understand Ebola to be unlikely as the cause of death but are will continue to work with partners to investigate". [Soffredo] 02:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References - duplication

The references in this article are a mess of duplication (I've found one quadruplication!) and redundancy. This is plea to editors to please:

• Look for existing references for your information
• Try to find the press release or scientific paper behind the news articles and reference that
• Add a meaningful name to the reference to allow others to use it

WP:CS is the guideline, it is a bit long but good. If anyone feels like pruning the extras with me that would be great also, I imagine that at least 25% of the current references can be consolidated. |→ Spaully ^τ 08:15, 10 October 2014 (GMT)

Apologies, I'm guilty of at least one of these. It's very difficult with such a long article ..... and if you hold up the edit while looking for duplication then it comes back with an edit conflict. Robertpedley (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there a bot which could automate this?? Robertpedley (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This bot did that, among other things. Art LaPella (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Rehashed Popular Culture..

Well i took what was had of the popular culture and started to expand it a little under a different title.. (for the individual countries) It's still far from complete but is currently sitting on my page here - Other_Works_derived_from_the_Ebola_crisis while i work on it.. Mull it over and let me know if its looking better... Gremlinsa (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You've done your research! I don't think "popular culture" belongs in this page though - maybe the individual country pages. Not sure I like the idea of Myths at all - I don't think these fit the definition of a myth, more like a rumor. A bit like false alarms, hoaxes, crank cures and so on it doesn't have a place. Robertpedley (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Breaking Francois outbreak

musulman plague in Paris, please mise à jour, confirmé — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.16.108 (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of any reliable source which says that the Ebola epidemic is spreading among Muslims in France. -- JRSpriggs 71.178.163.106 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Individual country articles

Thanks to everybody who has worked so hard to develop the new articles. The response by the wider community has been very helpful in developing them as their own unique pages. Now that they are established, it might be better to start using the talk pages there to discuss content on them, rather than coming here. Also, it would be better to expand on the epidemic in those countries and add details and specific circumstances unique to their health infrastructures, rather than simply cutting and pasting old content from here. For example, the ledes of these articles should be allowed to refer to the epidemic in those countries rather than simply being an overview of the entire epidemic. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Handling graphs that make the virus look like it's being defeated

When we look at some of the graphs, we see that they have been made with the data used from our table. As we look at more WHO reports, we see that these values are no longer accurate as governments in West Africa begin to collapse. Should we try to avoid extending these graphs? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of it will be (and may already be) intentional underreporting [15]. One option could be to post the CDC's numbers/graphs that correct for underreporting [16]. There could be problems with that, though... Yeah, either stop extending the graphs or, in bold, "we know this data is wrong (possibly very much so), but here it is anyway." Snd0 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a few things we can do:

1. Show ranges of uncertainty. That is to say, WHO is saying that these are more or less minimum numbers, and saying that there may be some multiple of that many cases (2.5x). So, we can take the graphs and do that whole "range" thing that folks do sometimes, where we take the lower bound and the upper bound and indicate that the region is where the "true" case-load lies.
2. Change from a solid line to a dotted or hashed line.
3. And yes, make a disclaimer that the numbers are likely to be inaccurate.

Or we could simply, you know, not include the graphs at all because they're misleading. If the graphs are known to be inaccurate per a RS, I don't know that they lend any value to the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In any case we are starting to get too many graphs. I count 7 or 8 to represent the same data? The bottom ones are hardest to read and in my opinion can go. Voorlandt (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Voorlandt please specify more exactly which graphs you mean. What is on the bottom line is dynamically determined by the browser and depends on the window size.--Malanoqa (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think about removing death from the graphics with different countries. For having graphs with linear and semilog scale I see good arguments. The same is for graphs with absolute number and rate = cases / "total population of the country".--Malanoqa (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Its lousy data and has been so for a long time, but its best there is. Underreporting factors are SWAG(Scientific Wild Ass Guess) at best and while they might be noted somewhere they wont actually improve data quality. Keep the graphs as is just make it clear the data is bad. Getting rid of graphs is eqvivalent to disregarding the data completely. 89.235.232.161 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

bubonic plague, Spanish influenza, ebola

from the opening paragraphs of this very article,, "Never before in recorded history has a biosafety level four pathogen infected so many people so quickly, over such a broad geographical area, for so long." would it be prudent (as Ebola nears the 10,000 cases plateau) to make some passing reference to the two aforementioned infections ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

References

I would say yes--Malanoqa (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No. This is a quote and the other two are not from the modern era where we were able to measure what was a BSL 4 disease and what wasn't. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly it is a bit silly to quote in the first place, as it doesn't really mean what people think it means. If we had eradicated influenza outside of the lab, it would likely be classed as a biosafety level four pathogen. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

but we did not, and any such conclusion is hypothetical--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Doctors Without Borders

Médecins Sans Frontières is most commonly known in the US and Canada as Doctors Without Borders, which is simply a translation of the name from French to English. Given that their English-language website calls it Doctors Without Borders, it seems a bit silly not to follow their lead. I have taken the liberty of changing their name throughout the article to their name in English. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed on here earlier, and as in most countries other than the US it is known as Médecins Sans Frontières, because this article is (mostly) about countries in West Africa, not North America, and uses British English (in the UK we call them MSF) that we would use the French name. Unfortunately I'm going out shortly so don't have time to find a link to an archived discussion. Saxmund (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Titanium Dragon, i'm definitely against this change. They were Médecins Sans Frontières everywhere since 1972 and the letters MSF (not DWB) are recognised worldwide. They partially rebranded a couple of years ago *only* to improve their presence in the US (Canada is part french-speaking, don't forget). Robertpedley (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

They localize their name into all major languages; their official website says that they are called Doctors Without Borders in English, and it says so not only in the US, but also in the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, and India, according to their own websites. The other language Wikis all localize their name as well. Per WP:EN, we should be using the name of the organization in English, because this is the English Wikipedia, and that is the name of the organization in English. It is the same reason that Germany is called Germany on the English Wikipedia and es:Estados Unidos is the name of the United States of America on the Spanish language Wiki. Their UK webpage has Doctors Without Borders on it, right up there at the top. They use the abbreviation MSF. On the articles on their UK website, they use both names, and avoid using the full French name, instead using the abbreviation. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"their official website says that they are called Doctors Without Borders in English" Citation please. The website clearly shows the name Medecins sans Frontieres above the English name, and they use MSF as the abbreviation throughout. It is pretty clear that MSF is the primary name. Saxmund (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, most of the websites are "msf.org" or similar, and the masthead has the French name *above* the English. The Wiki page Doctors Without Borders redirects to Médecins Sans Frontières. I think the French name is regarded by MSF themselves as primary, and all the others are secondary.Robertpedley (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Titanium Dragon. The organization uses their name in English in seven countries including America and the UK. This is the English Wiki. It is appropriate to use the name that Americans and the other English speaking countries recognize, as per Wiki policy. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

SW3, from your moniker I guess you are British, as that is a postcode in South West London. What do you mean by "It is appropriate to use the name that... the other English speaking countries recognize"? When was the last time you heard MSF called by anything other than the French name on British TV news or saw it called anything else in the British press? In the UK at least it is commonly called by the French name. Saxmund (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Saxmund, you're right. The BBC say it. I know I've heard ITV say Doctors without Borders. I'll check youtube. Bound to be something there.SW3 5DL (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Channel 4 News uses MSF as well, not sure about ITV and Sky. Saxmund (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

ITV Doctors without Borders. And remember, nobody actually says Médecins Sans Frontières in normal conversation. They say MSF. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Google Ngram comparison Art LaPella (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(This graph, which is mostly of English language books, shows that Médecins Sans Frontières remains more common than Doctors Without Borders.) Shii (tock) 17:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Shii..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a weird discussion. Where are the majority of page views of this English article coming from? If it's the US, then it should be Doctors Without Borders. The average American reader would see "Medecins sans Frontieres" and say "Oh, the Spanish are such humanitarians"... Snd0 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion that concluded that British English should be used, as in two of the countries affected (Sierra Leone and Nigeria), they use British English. See article header. In the UK, we commonly use the French name, it seems reasonable that in an article written in British English we should use the British convention. It is an article about an international event, which is mostly taking place in West Africa. It seems to me that the internationally recognised name of MSF should be used. By all means use DWB on the page about the outbreak in the US. I am not sure the origin of page views is relevant - we would use British English about an event in the UK even if for some reason the majority of page views came from the USA. Saxmund (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the reasons given by Saxmund and also note that our own Wikipedia uses the term Médecins Sans Frontières. This is also the term used at all of their websites, sometimes with a translation listed below their title. Gandydancer (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

I have begun a timeline article, starting appropriately enough with the index case: 2014_Ebola_virus_disease_epidemic_timeline. À la the 2009 flu pandemic timeline, there is a lot of data to sequence and parse. Have at it! kencf0618 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of good timeline summaries on the web which you could look at for a start. This one from Reuters, one from MSF. Sexy infographic from Australia. WHO's version of events - partial - is on slide 5 here. Good luck. Robertpedley (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. The CDC links have gone to partially blank pages, so these links shall be very helpful. kencf0618 (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Cases by country is too wide

The table is now too wide for some browser windows. Perhaps Nigeria, Senegal, United States, Spain should have their own table? Shii (tock) 17:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Every one of these appears to have so far contained their outbreak, with no evidence of widespread spreading of disease. Hopefully all of them should get the WHO all-clear in a couple of months. Massive kudos to Nigeria for having controlled the most dangerous of all of these. -- Impsswoon (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as well. How about grouping them in one column "other countries"?Voorlandt (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

'delete the table'. The table is just an indiscriminate collection of data at this point (See: Wikipedia is Not). As the outbreak continues to expand, it will get more awkward to deal with. The raw data is simply not encyclopedic. No other disease outbreak article on Wikipedia has raw data on day-by-day disease spread. See other Ebola outbreaks, H1N1, etc. (some listed here: Outbreak on Wikipedia. 173.69.39.47 (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as we have no other reliable source for this information, the table is required to make and to maintain the graphics.--Malanoqa (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree the table is necessary, the outbreak is after all a current event and it shows how it has progressed. Once it is over, it can be deleted, we will then have analysis of the probable actual casualty figures to add. the problem is the figures we have from WHO and the countries concerned are a long way from reality. Presenting them in a table gives a false impression of accuracy - however I am not sure what can be done about this Saxmund (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Local Transmission USA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29587803 The map needs updating... 81.97.162.165 (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Should the French name Médecins Sans Frontières be used or should the English translation Doctors without Borders be used in the article?

Please indicate French or English here:

• The short answer is, of course, English.—John Cline (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• French---Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• French -- The Anome (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• Both (see discussion) Robertpedley (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• French --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion here:

Médecins Sans Frontières seems to be best, it is how they originally are recognized--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, but they also call themselves Doctors without Borders in English speaking countries, because they are without borders. So they don't insist on the French name. They want to be inclusive. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I opposed a blanket change, but I would be happy with a compromise. I propose "Doctors without Borders / Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF)" for the first occurrence and then "MSF" thereafter. Robertpedley (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

UK news sources like the BBC always use Medicines Sans Frontieres - there are two here; two here (although to see one of them, you need to click the "Respirator" link in the "Protective Ebola suit" picture); on here; there are other pages too. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Per the RfC rules publicizing an RfC, I posted at the Village pump and the RS and NPOV noticeboards. I haven't picked editors at random from the Feedback Service list because those three places should be enough whilst waiting on the Bot. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Monday Marks 42 Days for Senegal

When it is officially tomorrow in Senegal, the article should be updated to say that Senegal formerly had an index case, as it will be officially Ebola-free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.15 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)