Talk:Ebola

Edit warrior please chill.

You can revert if you contend that the assertions are dubious or factually inaccurate but you cannot insist that the only WP:RS has to be CDC or WHO as they are usually the last to report. BTW this is not in regard to an edit I made. If you have other bases to revert then fire away but this RS issue is poorly supported by the edit comment. Please document basis for reversion you may ultimately prevail but a cavalier whine about RS does not cut it. Wikidgood (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

not responding to this bad faith discussion. if you want to start over, i would be happy to talk. please note that reverting new content based on insufficient sourcing is perfectly fine per verify; the right thing to do for someone who wants to retain the content is to open a good faith discussion. the wrong thing is to edit war and re-revert. that is edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You are again violating WP policy.WP:AGF rules. You have no basis to impute bad faith. You are also edit warring having ignored this open thread and relying upon edit comments. Do not accuse other editors of bad faith. I noticed, when posting to your Talk Page, you have been warned not once but TWICE in recent weeks for edit warring and also you created a section all about (what you think) are "Bad Faith Editors". However passionate you may be as a "Clinton Democrat" you would do well to follow his examply by being cool, calm and collected rather than accusatory and vindictive. Seriously, Clinton is a good role model and since you trumpet your admiration of the man, and I too like him, you might think about adopting his style of approaching humanitarian concerns such as the Ebola situation. Wikidgood (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You reverted (another editors' not my) cited edit. You seem to be suggesting that the Voice of America is not a Reliable Source. Frankly, it is a news source which is vetted by high quality professionals who are government employess at the GS-9 through GS-14 level. Ultimately they are responsible to the State Department, I believe, which would make them as credible as the CDC now wouldn't it? HOWEVER on issues such as the Ukraine border conflict, where they are RS, their statements are subject to HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY in that there is a State Department agenda in that venue. But with regard to Ebola, they have no more or less of an agenda than HHS. Anyway the burden is on you to make your case. THis seems like a legit story and there is another RS. These are RS for facts such as this hospital said that and that doctor said this. They are not RS for facts of viral mutagenicity gene expression etc. Common sense. Please repair the deletionist damage youhave done by placing a summary of this topic wherever you feel it is appropriate thanks, http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/social/435516/siriraj-claims-breakthrough-antibody-treatment-could-cure-ebola Wikidgood (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

i have no interest in continuing this discussion with you. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If youintend to assert unilateral control over Wikipedia content you will have to engage in discussion of your edits. As it stands two editors have weighed in, myself and the original editor, and you refuse to articulate a critique of the material and instead have alleged bad faith and made three reverts. You are at risk of a suspension. So, is this your way of agreeing to allow the content into the article? It appears to be the case that you are not willing to defend your thesis that the material should not go into the article and that you surrender the field to those who would like to see this development in the article. There may be other onjections, or other editors who either agree with your poorly defended RS issue,so I will refrain from inserting the material at this time so that others can weigh in. However, since you seem to have given up your crusade to exclude this material and there are two of us whobelieve it should go into the article, I will unilaterally edit the material back in if there is no further controversy and if my fact checking upholds the material. In the future, please do not make edits you are not willing to discuss.

Restoring the deleted material: Nuts and Bolts

Here is what was deleted. My impression is that it is too long and should be reduced to a line or two until there is more to go on. But this is not some kind of hoax and the information should be available to those who rely on WP for information. −

Researchers at Mahidol University in Thailand claim to have developed an antibody-based treatment for Ebola using synthesized fragments of the virus. However while it is claimed to have been successfully tested against less virulent related viruses, they admitted it has not been tested against Ebola itself as Thailand does not have a BSL-4 facility capable of safely conducting research on Ebolaviruses. Scientists from the WHO and NIH have offered to test the treatment against live Ebola virus in suitable laboratories in the USA, but emphasized that even if successful it would take quite some time for testing and development to the point that the treatment can be trialled in humans.

− So hopefully the editor who originally deleted will see fit to buff the above text up and reinsert it into the article OR provide a better rationale for perhaps relocating it into a subpage of some kind. ThanksWikidgood (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

New refs version in progress

Researchers at Mahidol University in Thailand have developed an antibody-based treatment for Ebola using synthesized fragments of the virus. However while it is claimed to have been successfully tested against less virulent related viruses, they admitted it has not been tested against Ebola itself as Thailand does not have a BSL-4 facility capable of safely conducting research on Ebolaviruses. Scientists from the WHO and NIH have offered to test the treatment against live Ebola virus in suitable laboratories in the USA, but emphasized that even if successful it would take quite some time for testing and development to the point that the treatment can be trialled in humans.

Wikidgood (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

let me be clear. I edit health/medicine topics quite a bit and deploy the guideline for health/medical content, WP:MEDRS, every day when I edit. I also use and follow BRD every day. You seem unaware that MEDRS exists, and to ignore BRD. As I wrote in my first response above, I find your approach to discussion to violate WP:AGF and to be uncivil in word and tone. I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who is simultaneously aggressive and ignorant. really. no. interest. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes we seriously need better sources. We should never be using the popular press for research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Do me a favor and refrain from speculation as to what I do and do not know and stick to the Wikipedia rules including WP:AGF. I am fully aware of WP:MEDRS and hope you are aware that WP guidelines function as an entirety. You have never argued WP:NOT on this material had you done so you would be more convincing. As it stands you seem to arrogate to yourself a unilateral right of ownership over this page as well as HIV/AIDS and do not believe either in consensus building. Eventually there may be a page on the history of the epidemic. In my opinion the material about the Thai research probably should be moved to a page of that nature when it developes and be reduced for a brief presentation with a section of this article side by side with ZMApp and other treatments. You, not I, have chosen to engage in personal attack and I notice you have been previously templated by other users for edit warring. No one is advocating, as you state, using "popular press for reseatch". WIkipedia is not for research. It is not a matter of establishing what is true and not true about the efficacy of treatments. There is a historical fact reported by CNN and Voice of America that a respected medical professional at a major third world hospital is hoping to bring a vaccine to clinical trials. You unilaterally deleted the entry and seem to think that there is a need for the CDC or the WHO to issue a press release before the material meets RS. But what you demand is actually WP:RS and what you are requiring is either primary sources or alternatively for us to wait around a couple of years for a tertiary source. So there you have it. You are violating numerous Wikipedia policies and think you own this page and HIV/AIDS.

CWikidgood (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use the article Talk page to discuss editors. Regarding the proposed Thai content, I disagree with the proposed and suggest maybe a brief one sentence mention like "they're working on it, not going to be available any time soon," sourced to CNN, in the Research section after the mention of the Russian efforts. Zad68 04:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wikidgood: I'm the first to agree that MEDRS, especially as it is actually used, is an overbearing and unreasonable guideline that has been used to destroy many interesting research leads in thousands of articles. That said, this is not the right hill to die on. I took the guy's name, Wanpen Chaicumpa, and searched Google News, sorted by date, came up with four items. And in most of those items, the tone was standoffish, using words like 'claim' or putting 'antibody' in quotes. Based on the lack of links for his name (but presence for others) at [1] I don't think he has a lab website, and the news reports don't cite any primary source (MEDRS people hate those but they're my gold standard) where I could start to figure out the details of the scheme - not even a statement it was presented at a conference. To be sure, he probably has something cool and he probably is collaborating trying to get it developed, but at this point it is still a very, very, VERY minor bit of news about a research direction that has not seen a real in vitro test. It doesn't deserve a paragraph, and to be honest, I don't think it even deserves a mention yet. Wnt (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

References

This should be added after

"proper disposal of the dead through cremation or burial.[1][4]"

The efficacy of proper protective gear and its disposal after use, and constant decontamination of one's hands and equipment was demonstrated by Fatu Kekula, a 22-year-old Liberian nursing student in August 2014. Ms Kekula singlehandedly treated four family members who had acquired the virus, using nothing more than disposable raincoats, plastic garbage bags and rain boots and a makeshift isolation unit. Her mother, father and sister survived; her 14-year-old cousin did not. reference: http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-in-liberia-woman-fight-ebola-20141005-story.html.

This young woman's story was not widely publicized though it should be. Where other medical workers have been stuffing themselves into very costly level-4 biohazard suits which may have given some of them a false sense of security, this woman's ingenuity, and her success, should be more widely told. It demonstrates that one can be effective without access to high-tech equipment, as long as one remains acutely aware of the threat.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.37.69 (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As inspiring as this is, anecdotes aren't really evidence. For all we know there could be dozens, even hundreds of Liberians who, having relatives turned away from treatment centers, made makeshift efforts ... and we only hear about one who lived. It is also possible that she was simply immune to the virus by some happy genetic accident, or was exposed to some related variant in the past and survived the infection. So we can't go beyond what this source presents the story as -- an inspiring story. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Reston cross-reactivity

Using human serum samples [2] and monoclonal antibodies [3] there seems to be substantial (though only partial) cross-reactivity between Ebola Reston and Ebola Zaire. This interests me in that I wonder whether, in a near doomsday scenario, Ebola Reston could be used as a quick and dirty "vaccine" (as per cowpox). But I suspect that I might encounter some resistance in citing the two studies above without some more secondary publication to icebreak for them; can someone point me toward one? Wnt (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If someone is studying this possibility and it is mentioned in a secondary source we could mention it in the research section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen one so far, though this is just maddeningly suggestive. Wnt (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

naming: EVD vs. EHF (Ebola virus disease vs. Ebola hemorrhagic fever)

Hey Doc, could you provide a source or more details? I didn't check the CDC site initially but I have now browsed it for ~20 mins. I see no sign that they are continuing to support the EHF name. The CDC explicitly says "previously known as Ebola hemorrhagic fever" and nearly everywhere else on the site uses EVD/Ebola virus disease, including the navigation breadcrumbs and the <h1>/<h2> elements. The only exception is the page <title>s. But I imagine those are leftover because someone didn't know how to update them, not because they wanted to leave it like that. (see diffs: added formerly removed formerly) --Jeremyb (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This ref say EHF [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

So how do we decide who to go with? My gut says that site just didn't get around to updating yet. (i.e. if we called them and asked whether they intended to be inconsistent they might fix it...) --Jeremyb (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is another reference stating the WHO and other groups prefer "Ebola virus disease": [5] I think the current wording with EHF in parentheses is appropriate. Xqxf (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. The CDC changed from calling it Ebola hemorrhagic fever on September 6 [6] to Ebola (and Ebola virus disease) by September 24 [7]. Most of the references I have seen for "hemorrhagic fever" are older ones. Xqxf (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm somewhat new to medicine articles. I had a brief look at WP:MEDRS. Does CDC have some special status here? (this is the overall, international disease article, not the US cases article) --Jeremyb (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree that "Ebola virus disease" is the prefered term. EHF is still however used per lots of major sites [8]

This is similar to the situation with "sexually transmitted infection" and "sexually transmitted disease". STI is prefer while STD is still extensively used.

As both EHF and EVD are still being used IMO we should just mention the main one first in the lead as we do right now. We could mention that EHF is less prefered in the society and culture section but I do not think this is important enough for the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for hat-link modest expansion to include the epidemic.

I think that the majority of surfers/readers who are consulting WP regarding Ebola are primarily concerned about the outbreak rather than the pathology. It only makes sense to include a link at the top, what we call the hatlink, which both directs readers to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and also informs them that there is in fact a page on that topic. People who are interested in virology per se, who are probably more knowledgable and sophisticated readers anyway, are well served by the link in the very first part of the lede. But for whatever reason the immediate lede does not discuss the current two outbreaks in Africa and so many peopkle who are primarily concerned with the epidemics are sent down a blind alley, or at least a dark alleyway of pathology studies when in fact they were seeking basic epidemiology...this doesn't seem right and the vague generality of the existing hatlink does little to clarify the matter Even more knowledgable surfers may overlook the hatlink to the disambiguation page thinking it is all about the Ebola River and pop music which by now we have all heard about regarding Ebola outreach and education. In fact, the very most sophisticated readers who know WIkipedia may, as do I, hate being diverted to disambiguation pages, so I think this makes the case for adding to the hat link reference to [Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa]. Problem is that I am having a bad day with a quirky wireless connection and odd browser behaviour and I can't quite see it through to make the edit right now so if someone knows how to edit the hatlink please be bold and make this commonsense edit for the good of all, thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the majority are interested about the disease in general. We do not use hatlinks like this. The 4th paragraph of the lead does discuss the outbreak and links to the article on it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see #Disambiguation above why we don't do this (WP:RELATED). This is also touched on at Talk:Ebola (disambiguation). Saying that, it's interesting that we don't seem to be consistent - Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 has a hatnote to the pandemic. Widefox; talk 09:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the issue at influenza. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good work. Widefox; talk 19:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not a "fix" it is a unilateralist imposition now onto another page I would suggest that other page establishes a precedent for my proposal. Hatlinks frequently link to two different alternative topics. I find it difficult to fathom why you would oppose a simple navigation aid like this. I don't see how it is that you claim hatlinks are not used that way. Many of them are.

A vague reference to an earlier discussion does not give you leave to apply that no to a different page. What you did is harmful to the whole process on WP because yuou are taking a suggestion I made for an edit, finding exactly onesupporter to outvote without further discussion, and then going out onto WIkipedia and applying the opposite approasch to what I had suggested. This onto a page that was set upin the suggested manner.

In other words, if I try to DISCUSS with you, at the first chance to outvote me you will then proceed not onkly to rejection the suggestion I have made but you will then unilaterally impose your preference on other pages which did not have the discussion.

It seems that you have thus invented a new for of edit warring. Please stop your oppositionalism. It seems now if I make even a suggestion rather than an edit you will go out onto mainspace looking for articles on which you can apply the exact opposite of what I had discussed.

Please don't do that again. It is in my opinion disruptive editing and destabilizes WP:AGF. Wikidgood (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It may seem counterintuitive, but it is neither unilateral (I agree with it, as shown above and at several discussions linked above), and it is explicitly follows the guideline (as detailed above). As such, it's best to gain consensus for overriding it. Widefox; talk 10:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Proof of the pudding: how minimalist hatlinks confuse readers

This proves my point. The Frieden page links here inadvetantly when it means to klink to the epidemic, and the problem will go on foreve. An ordinary dual site hatlink is indicated.Wikidgood (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Basic English

So the question is should we be using basic English in the lead? While we are supposed to be writing for a general audience, so my position is yes. We can use more complicated terms in the body of the text but the lead should at least be keep as simple as reasonably possible with links to the more complicated terms. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Not every article needs to target a general audience, but this one clearly does. That doesn't mean that the whole article has to be non-technical, but it does mean that it should start at a level that would be comprehensible to a smart 12-year old.--Srleffler (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think the article lead (in all medical articles frankly) should be in basic English. Since this article is being read by an enormous audience, the ability of the audience to comprehend what is written should be among our highest priorities. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The current lead seems ok. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. Gandydancer (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, but not to the point of talking down to people or turning this intoSimple English Wikipedia. I agree that the lede is NOW in good shape, after having won passive consensus that people who understand the term external bleeding can be expected to understand the term internal bkeeding. I had a bit of push back on that, but "bleeding inside the body" was so awkward and contrived and condescending I am glad you like it the way it is now. Just because it is an encyclopedia does not mean it has to use wrethced Enclish. Wikidgood (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong subject heading "International spread"

The heading "International spread" is erroneous, unless you believe that Africa is a country. Liberia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Nigeria were also affected by "international spread" from Guinea. A better heading would be "Intercontinental spread". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.79.115 (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014

Under signs and symptoms, text is as follows: The time between exposure to the virus and the development of symptoms of the disease is usually 2 to 21 days.[1][9] Estimates based on mathematical models predict that around 5% of cases may take greater than 21 days to develop.[10]

I would like to recommend a different wording of the last sentence: The PLoS Current Outbreaks study indicates that the probability of exceeding the quarantine period is up to 12% (range 0.1%-12%). They state that "21 days may not be sufficiently protective to public health", and their mathematical model suggests a quarantine time of up to 31 days.[10]

CellbioPhD (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What wording are you suggesting exactly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

We were going by "The WHO Response Team17 has just published an incubation time distribution based on the first 9 months of the West Africa outbreak (total of 4010 confirmed and probable cases with usable data). They reported a mean incubation period of 11.4 days with an upper 95th percentile of 21 days — and they were able to fit the data to a gamma distribution." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear CellbioPhD I have commented on this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa please look over there for the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbe (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a better photo for page top?

I think we can do better than a poorly lit photo with dire need for color correction On my monitor it has wa too much bklue. How depressing. Wikidgood (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Virology Section

The Virology section immediately starts with:

"They contain single-strand, non-infectious RNA genomes"

But, what are "they". Presumably the "they" are viruses, but the English is poor. This needs rewriting. 194.176.105.141 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Michael and I am a student at Western University, Ontario, and am currently completing my BSc degree with Honors Specialization in Genetics. I would like to take some time to add some additional information on the genetics of the ebola virus, in conjunction with this "virology" subheading. This information will be more of a general overview, all taken from appropriate secondary sources, mainly consisting of books from Western University's Virology collection found within our libraries. I feel there is large amounts of important genetic based information missing from this page and I am hoping to somewhat improve that. Please let me know if anyone is imposed to me doing so. This will be monitored and evaluated by my professor. Miacocca (talk · contribs)

Ebola in us

will ebola kill most of the us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.171.217 (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

up to now ebola outbreak has arrived at chetumal and mexico and many believe that it has reached guatemala.åĈÒŖŊשקףעןןמ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junway690 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. No. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus predicted by Dr.Kamal hasan in his film "Dasavatharam" in 2008

Ebola virus predicted by Dr.Kamal hasan in his film "Dasavatharam" in 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.183.245.194 (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Kamal Haasan playing George Bush? Dasavatharam is a unique film, no doubt. Its idea of crossing Marburg virus with Ebola is certainly doable, and might result in a worse strain, with some trial and error. However, the present outbreak does not have Marburg sequence and falls neatly enough into the Ebola "species"; there is no obvious reason to suspect foul play in its emergence. We don't presently have an "Ebola virus disease in popular culture" section (many may say that's a mercy, though we ought to house such data somewhere) but in any case this movie, using a more diverged strain, would go somewhere else. Wnt (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 outbreak -> 2013–2014

The "2014" outbreak started in 2013 (as correctly detailed at List of Ebola outbreaks, so we should refrain from using "2014 outbreak", the epidemic may be 2013 or 2014 I don't know. Our timeline in Epidemiology here is sectioned "1995 to 2013", then "2014 West African outbreak". Suggest simple rename "1995 to 2012" (luckily previous one stopped in 2012), and then "2013 to 2014 West African outbreak" for the current (large) outbreak. Widefox; talk 10:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It was only in 2014 that the outbreak was reported / detected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, how much emphasis do we put on the reported/detected date, rather than the date it was traced back to? I can understand it both ways, certainly in terms of "epidemic" more than "outbreak" but we should at least be consistent, if not accurate across the list and here. Looking into my dark crystal ball, we're close to rolling this into 2015 too where it won't be 2014 and a range will be needed anyhow. I've fixed the previous section range to 2012 so at least we don't have to list it there too. Widefox; talk 17:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Estimates based on mathematical models

Shouldn't that read "One mathematical model predicted...."? It's just one study in PLoS Current Outbreaks http://currents.plos.org/outbreaks/article/on-the-quarantine-period-for-ebola-virus/ I couldn't find any comment on it. It hasn't been listed in PubMed yet.

In fact, it's a WP:MEDRS primary source. Should it go into the article at all?

Interesting though it may be. --Nbauman (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Though about just removing it. A lot of popular press picked up on this. Thus may not be a bad idea to touch on it anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe good in the research section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Dogs

We discuss lower in the article [9] thus removed "Although infected dogs may remain asymptomatic, which may have implications for preventing and controlling human outbreaks, EBOV appears to infect humans only in specific, but unknown, conditions.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Dogs / references

The popular press and primary sources are not good as references. Secondary sources and statements from national and international bodies are much better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is quite clear that the CNN report I added is QUOTING a CDC spokesperson. That would seem to meet your threshold or do you actually have some other unstated metric? FeatherPluma (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a high quality secondary source [10]. This is popular press which we should not be using for medical content per WP:MEDRS.

While respecting your opinion, I disagree. With respect, the policy you reference doesn't say they are "not good as references" in a monolithic way. What it says explicitly is "As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and general reliable sources guidelines." In this case, one element I added QUOTED the CDC. The other element QUOTED the CEO of the AVMA. That said, I do much prefer the PMID review you replaced with. But perhaps you might want to take stock of the embarrassing fact that despite the epidemic outbreak, I earlier removed the UNCITED rubbish in Wikipedia that EBOV is (still) diagnosed by exclusion (which is inconsistent with the entire strategy of setting up rapid turn around lab facilities in West Africa). This WAS reasonable before the outbreak (Positive and negative predictive values) but IMO it's outright crazy presently. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We should be using the CDC directly not CNN. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You may have read more CDC releases than I have. If so, when you get your hands on it, we can replace the cited CDC spokesperson's quote because I understand what you are saying. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I will see what I can pull together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, when citing websites, can you use the following template please? {{cite web |url= |title= |last1= |first1= |last2= |first2= |date= |website= |publisher= |accessdate=}} Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"Also?" Do you mean for THIS article could I please use the reference style that's established for THIS particular article? Sure, I'd typically be 100% fine with that. Because, yes, if you asked, I'd confirm I knew to do that. Except I think you are "also" bringing very substantial and completely INAPPROPRIATE pressure for me to stand down on the busy issue of substance in play by PUSHING this issue of FORM at this point. Despite being cloaked in a soft cloth, it's coming over to me as pressure to stop editing on the substance, in order to spend (immediate?) time on the form. You have considerable experience here and can very easily check that I spend enormous effort on typesetting references to the established style within individual articles. Your timing and the "also" are coming over to me as obsequious criticism of the content I was working on collaboratively with another editor, and, as such, I perceive it as abuse. So terribly sorry, but at this time I'm upset by you and I don't want to typeset any references. I have other life projects to multitask. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've thought a bit more about how I experienced things today. I think I ought to emphatically and apologetically withdraw any personal comment to other editor(s), but I'd like to emphasize why I am extremely frustrated by what happenens. What actually irks me is I've noticed this as a pattern. What I think likely happens is that an editor starts work on an article, and the wiki system flags the article watchers, who arrive "simultaneously and independently", and then the watching editors both (worst case scenario - all) "come at" the article and start to address the first person. And by not thinking of how it will come across, the second watcher skewers the original contributor in a two pronged thrust. This comes over as abuse, and the flurry of edits causes wiki conflicts that lock out the system. I think the solution is a recommendation to give the process / editing system some space if the original editor and the first watcher are making headway, which in my experience is usually the case. Otherwise, people (not me, lots of people) are going to be overwhelmed and driven away, even if they are good at multitasking. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia pages referenced by the press

On October 26, 2014, Wikipedia's Ebola virus disease page received a highly favorable write-up by The New York Times. I have accordingly added this entry to Categories: Wikipedia pages referenced by the press. Kudos to all the editors who contributed to creating and maintaining this outstanding article. JohnValeron (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia took over the internet some time ago. It is why it is so important to keep it accurate; people trust us, sometimes rather blindly. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that on 3 October, Dr. Shane Speights of St. Bernards Medical Center was rather more critical of this article in a KAIT/ABC News report. He complained in particular about citations to press sources. (Dr. Speights said doctors never cite newspaper articles, rather journal articles and studies. "So even on Ebola, just in this quick review here, we found this is not referenced correctly," he said. "They try to cite it but they can't verify all of those. You're talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of entries in Wikipedia. There's no way that humans can sit down, go through all of those and verify that information with any significant accuracy.") And indeed, some key medical information in this article is currently sourced to the New York Times (ironically). Source added to talk page header. Andreas JN466 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note WP:MEDRS#Popular press. Such sourcing is against Wikipedia's own guideline. There should really be a note at the top of this article directing people to reliable websites like the CDC first: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/index.html Andreas JN466 00:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

link to translation in Bambara

I added [[bm:Ebola virisi bana]] but it's not showing up. Can someone make sure the link appears? Guaka (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion to edit transmission guidlines

An addition should be made that says though ebola is generally not transmitted via the air, any aerosol-generating procedures (e.g., intubation, bronchoscopy, suctioning) require the addition of a full face respirator or powered air purifying respirator. AMMedStudent (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

References

More discussion of disease progression / prognosis

Right now, the weakest part of this article is probably the short "prognosis" section. It gives a little bit of vague information about death rates, and discusses some of the long-term problems that can occur, but there are many other things that could be added.

For example, the prognosis section provides almost no information on the timeline of the disease. My understanding is that from the first fever to either death or the end of the acute infection is typically 4-10 days (mean 7.5 in current outbreak [11]) and only rarely more than two weeks, not including the longer period of recuperation that may be needed to deal with the effects of the virus. In addition, as I understand it, the virus generally presents with fever that is almost always followed a day or two later by GI symptoms (e.g. diarrhea / vomiting), which is followed by hemorrhagic symptoms in a minority of cases. We should be able to document the typical progression and give information on how often different major symptoms occur. Medscape gives one such summary of major symptoms [12]. We also say little about the immediate cause(s) of death due to Ebola. As I understand it, the immediate cause of death is often dehydration or low blood volume, though organ failure and other causes can occur. Obviously, we need to use sources to accurately document the details, but there have been many Ebola case studies published including some reviews, and right now very few details about the disease's progression have made it into our discussion of prognosis. We could also include the impact of supportive care or other treatments to the extent one can find sources discussing such things. (It probably isn't an accident that most cases treated outside Africa have survived, though that evidence might be a bit too anecdotal at the moment.)

As a minor point, I would also mention that main outbreak article cites the 70% CFR reported by the WHO team writing in NEJM in October [13] rather than the 50% we presently state (based curiously enough on a WHO website as updated in September). Dragons flight (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Added a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Melatonin? Comment

In this edit my removal was reverted. I don't consider the cited reference adequate for the claim, which has not been studied in vitro or in vivo. That the author is an internist (as stated in the reversion's edit summary) carries no weight. -- Scray (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree. There does not appear to be research supporting these conclusions. A strange paper indeed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times: Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information

• Cohen, Noam (October 26, 2014). "Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information". The New York Times. Retrieved October 28, 2014.

Might be a useful source for use in this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article, but I do not think Wikipedia's coverage of the disease is relevant enough to the disease itself to merit any mention in the article. Or was there another piece of information in the source that you thought could be included? VQuakr (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Linking to the ongoing out above the start of the lead

This was discussed here [14]. There is no consensus at this point. We link to the outbreak in the 4th paragraph of the lead and in the epidemiology section.

I see linking it their as problematic for a number of reasons. What happens for the next outbreak? Or when this outbreak is over? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The "discussed here" example offered above concerns the disambiguation page, not this article.--Froglich (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What would happen? Well, we certainly would not have to mail out recent updates to everybody that had bought our encyclopedia. We would just remove it and Presto! - problem solved. I have brought this up before in the case of other articles where a disease suddenly became newsworthy, but have been soundly voted down. It would be refreshing to see a change, but I'm not holding my breath. It seems odd to me that we have agreed to change our choices of wording to take the level of reading comprehension of our readers into consideration, but refuse to make any changes that may help to lead them to the information that they are seeking. Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The reticence to having redirects or links to the outbreak article from this one has been the most odd case I have seen during my time on Wikipedia (which I'll stipulate hasn't been that long, but I nonetheless). Sure: there's a link at the bottom of the fourth fat lead paragraph under a wall of text in the 27th sentence of the article and representing the 39th "blue link"-- as if someone quickly trying to find the current outbreak article (after having entered "Ebola" as a search term and been redirected here) is going to wade through all that before giving up in frustration). The 39th link? Uhm, *no*. I'm changing it back.--Froglich (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and articles shouldn't have time-sensitive hatnotes. Zad68 19:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to actually READ that, and understand why you have misconstrued what WP:NOTNEWS actually means. The first sentence you'll see there is "See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)", with the main body of the piece concerning material which is not notable. So, is this ongoing outbreak a notable event? If you think not, by your own logic you should attempt to AfD the outbreak article right now.--Froglich (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an improper use of the lede. The lead should say "Ebola" redirects here. For other uses, see Ebola (disambiguation). There is a summary in the body with a wikilink to the main article. See Ebola virus disease#2013 to 2014 West African outbreak. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: My previous edit caused the disambiguation link to disappear. It's now been fixed.--Froglich (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also a wikilink in the lede: "The largest outbreak to date is the ongoing epidemic in West Africa, which is centered in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.[7][8][9]" Too many wikilinks is a violation of WP:OVERLINK. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above (see sentence beginning "The reticence..."), the lede is so lengthy that any particular link to another article is difficult to find amongst the clutter if you're a new arrival.--Froglich (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK only allows one link in the lede and it is a distraction to link to another article at the top.

There is an entire section in the body titled in bold black 2013 to 2014 West African outbreak with a wikilink to "Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa". QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1) WP:OVERLINK does not preclude hatnotes.

2) The bold section is halfway down the article far out of sight. In fact, the entire TOC is off-screen on a standard 15" laptop display with one's browser zoomed to full-screen. Such is far from ideal.--Froglich (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Second request for hat-link expansion

(Most recent discussion's last comment here.) Propose:

"Ebola" redirects here. For other uses, see Ebola (disambiguation). For the ongoing outbreak, see Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa.

--Froglich (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose We already link to it in the lead and in the body of the text. We are not a news source and this is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS does not mean what you think it means (people really need to go there and bone up). I.e, it should not be construed as arguing that Wikipedia should refrain from commenting on obviously notable ongoing events.--Froglich (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Request fails twofold due to WP:RECENTISM: 1. Factually "For the ongoing outbreak" - there's two ongoing outbreaks Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, 2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak 2. fails WP:10YT already - see 1. Widefox; talk 02:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1) So there's an tiny outbreak confined to the jungles of the Congo, and then there's the other one which is five orders of magnitude larger and which is presently the collective world's #1 topic of conversation and likely to remain so for quite some time. No comparison whatsoever.

2) WR:RECENT expressly concerns main article content, not hatnote links to other temporal articles (the creation of which WP:RECENT specifically recommends (e.g., the west Africa outbreak article being just such an example).--Froglich (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Good, we agree there's two outbreaks: the hatnote is factually misleading

2. "expressly" Where? It says "edits" - others disagree with your interpretation - WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENT apply. Widefox; talk 20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Snow Oppose per previous consensus and reasoning based on WP:RELATED (see previous discussions above and at the dab). WP:DEADHORSE / WP:SNOW . Take up overturning RELATED there not here. Widefox; talk 01:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Such expanded hats are in common, widespread, normal usage across the encyclopedia, and indeed the whole point of redirect6 templating is to easily enable them. As far as consensus is concerned, over the course of this request and the previous one, I'm seeing only two editors on this TP come out in opposition to an IMO perfectly reasonable link to the outbreak article in the hat (rather than having it buried under a wall of text). Meanwhile, no less than three were in support today (as I see from the editing history). Therefore, I do not judge that you have consensus. (Regards the reversions by other editors earlier today, they were in hindsight reasonable since improper template formulation was dropping the disambiguation link).--Froglich (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion of the merits (or incorrect implementation in other articles) of the guideline WP:RELATED should be taken up there, not here. A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS wouldn't change anything. Widefox; talk 04:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Regards WP:RELATED, go there, then go all the way to the top of the page. The second sentence of Wikipedia:Hatnote (of which WP:Related is a direct to one small section) reads: "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking." -- Yes, that's exactly what they're for, and so in the spirit of Wikipedia to step around arbitrarily-worded bureaucratese, I shall continue advocating helping readers to locate a different article they might be seeking. --Froglich (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RELATED is one section of WP:HAT, but it is also the section that is most relevant. There are a multitude of ways to link between articles, and a reader can click on the link in the text of the lede, click twice through the disambiguation page, or click from the hatnote in the "2014 spread outside of Africa". This is plenty of accessibility. If you disagree, there are multiple dispute resolution methods available to you that are preferable to edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is edit warring at the present time.--Froglich (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet to see any proposal based on policy/guideline, without one this seems WP:DEADHORSE. Widefox; talk 20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong support It is just a matter of common sense. Many people are concerned about the current outbreak situation and probably should read both this article, both, and perhaps the article about the virus itself. But clearly the addition of two or three words linking to the outbreak article is a very minimal addition which aids reader navigtion. I proposed this and provided an example of a link, one from the Tom Frieden article, which inadvertantly linked here when it obviously was concerned with Dr,. Frieden's work on the epidemic. The CDC is not the NIAID and his work on the epidemic containment and control is quite distinct from the work of scientists at NIH and its grantees who work on the virus and clinical trials as opposed to those who work on a retail clinical level. I cannot fathom the intensity with which two allied editors resist the addition of a few words which will vastly simplify reader choice and ability to use Wikipedia as a resource. In fairness I will withold further speculation as this thread escaped my notice and apparently has been running hot with suggestions that the minority position is some kind of dead-horse-whipper but I think that similarly unflattering metaphors could well be suggested for the obverse position. And I will remind you that the setup on AIDS was previously set up with disambiguating hatlinkage which was destroyed by one of the above editors after, and apparently spurred by, my simple request for the hatlink on this article. That was done unilaterally despite my obvious opposition, and is not consistent with WP etiquette and WP:AGF because one is thereby assserting page ownership and virally spreading one's own preference in direct opposition to the thread of discussion. Again, just my initial perception as I don't have time now to review this entire thread. Be assured, the horse whipping is not done until the Ebola crisis has been laid to rest, and anyone engaging in obstructionism is harming rather than helping PWE. "Do No Harm". Wikidgood (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making comments about editors - comment on content instead. Commonsense for a newspaper yes - see WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. The desire to provide a hatnote to "the ongoing outbreak" is seemingly well intentioned but in fact is WP:RECENTISM which already fails WP:10YT - there's "two ongoing outbreaks" (as I detailed above 1.). Look over the list of outbreaks, are you proposing we track the latest one (RECENTISM), the ongoing one (RECENTISM), the largest one ever (this one right?) (BALANCE), the US cases one (SYSTEMIC BIAS), etc. Are there examples where WP does that? Take at random Plane crash - should it have a hatnote to the latest one? All these suggestions fail 10YT. We'd have to adjust the hatnotes all the time to track the latest/largest one. Yes the West Africa article is in high demand, but hatnotes are explicitly not meant to do this per WP:RELATED. That is the consensus. Rolling out that consensus on other articles is explicitly the opposite of unilateralism. Hatnotes aren't nav templates etc. Repeating requests against the consensus in RELATED isn't helpful (it is disruption and WP:DEADHORSE - pls take it up at HATNOTE not here) and distracts from constructive suggestions, for instance, placing the nav template higher and ensuring it's included on all the articles (which it isn't). As discussed on the dab, the reality is spelt out that 90% of readers actually find this article not from using the Ebola redirect, but most likely from Google. That stat undermines the motivation behind this suggestion. Portraying the consensus here and in RELATED as just two editors isn't a fair assessment - see the editors here and at the dab. To quote WP:LEGITHAT (which is similar to RELATED) "This is a typical and highly improper misuse of disambiguating hatnotes. Instead, the information belongs in the body of the article, or in the articles about the book, or in a separate article about names, or all three places. Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself" Widefox; talk 01:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wikidgood: I fixed the link at Tom Frieden, which you of course could have just done yourself. We already link to the West Africa outbreak article in multiple places. We could add to the hatnote, but by your reasoning why stop there? The permutations of the number and prominence of links between the articles is nearly limitless. This is why we have guidelines on the subject, and the guideline directs us to exclude related articles from the hatnote. VQuakr (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

New Proposal: Mention current outbreak in the first paragraph

I made this edit as a compromise of sorts. It moves the link to the ongoing epidemic from the end of the fourth paragraph to the end of the first so that it is more prominent and somewhat easier for visitors to find. Dragons flight (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The epidemiology is dealt with in the 4th paragraph. Thus returned their. We are an encyclopedia and this is not the article about the outbreak. We do not need to become a newspaper.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, we are here to be useful to our readers. Some attention to what they are likely to be looking for is appropriate. In your obsession with NOTNEWS you seem to want to deemphasize a major part of Ebola's story, which is the present outbreak. Dragons flight (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Doc James so kindly reverted, let me formally propose that a link to the current epidemic page should be part of the first paragraph of this article. As mentioned above, I made an edit to suggest how that could be done, but I'm not wedded to any particular phrasing, and alternatives are welcome. I do think though that burying any reference of the present epidemic until the fourth paragraph is making it unnecessarily hard for readers to find information on what many people reading about Ebola are likely to be looking for. In the example edit, I left the newsy cases / death information where is was (in the fourth paragraph), but simply saying that the current outbreak is the largest ever is likely to be true for a very long time (maybe even forever, if we are very lucky). For good or ill the present outbreak is huge part of the story of EVD, and I disagree with waiting so long to mention it in the lead. (I also think the high mortality rate is one of the defining aspects of the disease and deserves a more prominent position in the lead, but that is perhaps an argument for later.) Dragons flight (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - as worded/implemented. It's covered in the lede already. No introducing an artificial constraint on the article - both the motivation WP:RECENTISM / WP:NEWSPAPER and the implementation - we shouldn't look for workarounds just because WP:RELATED doesn't assist. We're set up as an encyclopedia not newspaper for a reason, and I fully support Doc James's effort to keep this article true to that aim. The Main Page links it. Of course, if it's natural to have a link higher up all the better.

• Complimentary suggestion we're missing the nav template {{Infobox event}} {{Ebola virus disease epidemic}} (as on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and all the other articles linked in it) - any objection to putting it under the infobox? Will that satisfy? Widefox; talk 13:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nav templates go at the bottom of articles not in the lead. So yes objection to putting it under the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I've corrected my imprecision. Options (in my preferred order): 1. put it in the relevant section 2. at the top after the infobox 3. not include it at all 4. other (such as creating a nav template or expanding the current infobox) Widefox; talk 20:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Ebola virus disease → Ebola – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Shortening the name will not cause any confusion - we already have the redirect. I believe the current title is based on ICD-10, but we don't do that for other common names such as Cancer, Strokes or AIDS. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree, per WP:COMMONNAME an article title has to be unambiguous, and "Ebola" could be talking about Ebola River, Ebola virus (the disease-causing agent) or the disease itself. Ebola is already a redirect here. Suggested move doesn't work. Zad68 19:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Disagree, reasons as above. The redirect is already sufficient to deal with the common case of linking Ebola. -- The Anome (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Disagree, because the word ebola is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly agree. Ebola is by far the most common term for the infection caused by the ebola virus. In addition to universal use by journalists, it's also more common in scientific literature. Compare recent Google Scholar results: 576 hits for "ebola is" and only 41 for "ebola virus disease is". Examples include:
  • The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1999: "In 1989, Ebola surprised us once more when it appeared in monkeys imported into a Reston, Virginia, primate facility"
  • International Journal of Cardiology, 2014: "Ebola is representing a growing threat but some cardiovascular drugs could have a promising role in its treatment."
  • New England Journal of Medicine, 2009: "Almost like an IgE-mediated histamine release, there is an immediate flooding of fear, even if the illness — like Ebola — is infinitely less likely to cause death than, say, a run-in with the Second Avenue bus."
  • Nature, 2003: "The bushmeat trade is threatening their populations near towns, while Ebola is killing almost every animal in some remote areas."
  • Annals of Internal Medicine, 2014: "If transmission of Ebola is effectively interrupted with the use of barrier protection, why are so many health care workers in the current outbreak being infected, particularly this late in the epidemic?"
  • Science, 2001: "And because these illnesses are chronic, scientists have to confront frustrating questions about cause and effect that don't come up with acute illnesses like Ebola or the mumps."
  • The Lancet, 1983: "Patients with severe viral infections such as Lassa or Ebola may be denied adequate laboratory investigations because of justifiable fears among laboratory staff."
  • Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 2005: "the devastating impacts of diseases like Ebola on both human and wildlife communities"
  • British Medical Journal, 2003: "Lassa fever presents with symptoms and signs indistinguishable from those of febrile illnesses such as malaria and other viral haemorrhagic fevers such as Ebola."

Yes, other articles that might conceivably be titled Ebola, but that's no reason not to use the term when it has a clear most common use. The fact that those other articles already have other names, and that Ebola already redirects here only supports this.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• You can of course pick a selection of sources to support your view, just as you can pick ones that don't. The redirect argument doesn't seem to carry any weight, because it could be made for the redirect in either direction, couldn't it? The specificity/ambiguity issue remains unaddressed. Zad68 22:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have updated my comment to clarify that "ebola" is more common in scientific literature. My point about the redirect is that it addresses the ambiguity issue: "Ebola" already redirects here, so it can't be that ambiguous.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • More to the point, because Ebola already redirects here, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue is resolved. --В²C ☎ 23:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The methodology for the stats isn't very strong - "Ebola is" may also match virus articles, and I wouldn't restrict to using the article "is", either. Widefox; talk 14:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support -- For the same reason we go with Influenza or Malaria instead of "Influenza virus disease" or "Malaria parasite infection".--Froglich (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So why not "flu" then? Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. ("Flu" is a layman's contraction for the four-syllable "influenza"; no such in-widespread-use contraction exists for Ebola)--Froglich (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Flu would be the commonname, so that example doesn't support that proposition as pointed out by Johnbod. Widefox; talk 01:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I beg to differ. The original point has not been refuted, to wit, the precedent that we do not go with "Influenza virus disease" or "Malaria parasite infection". The argument is not an interpretation of WP:COMMONAME taken to an extreme to include slangy contractions. The apposite analogue is Influenza Viral Disease (IVD) is to Ebola Viral Disease is to Ebola. To interject the comment suggesting that the analogue consists of the contraction "flu" is inapposite, as if the proposition had been to Move/Rename this article "Eb" or "Ola". Wikidgood (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that a single bad example doesn't invalidate the point, but both examples fail: 1. bad examples: a) "Flu" is an alternative title (bolded in the lede) but "Influenza virus disease" isn't. As such, Johnbod's point is valid, unanswered and not a non-sequitur. b) Malaria has no bolded alt name 2. Proposition is a false dichotomy. 1. and 2. refute it. Widefox; talk 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. That Ebola already redirects here is probably the best possible argument that any potential ambiguity is minimal. As PRIMARYTOPIC states, it is sufficient that a predominant usage exists. We don't require that all possible usages are unambiguous (e.g. Apple is a fruit, even though some people presumably want Apple Inc. when searching for apples). Use the common name. Dragons flight (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  P.S. I might be open to arguments that Ebola should be a disambiguation page, but if we are going to treat "Ebola" as synonymous with "Ebola virus disease" anyway, then I consider "Ebola virus disease" to be an unnecessarily formal title in the same way that Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is an unnecessarily formal way of saying Mother Teresa. Dragons flight (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC is a red-herring - see my comments below. Should Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart be moved to Mozart? The naming convention is stopping it. Widefox; talk 14:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The subject deserves a proper, precise title, per normal policy. I notice the first in the list above is titled "An Introduction to Ebola: The Virus and the Disease"! The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1999. I haven't bothered to look at the others. In a specialist context, and in general press coverage at the moment, plain "Ebola" is enough, and may unfortunately remain so, but I don't think it has been in general coverage until the last few months. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we then have "Influenza virus disease" under the same rationale? I don't think so, and no other disease which has entered common usage has such a long and arguably redundant title name on Wikipedia.--Froglich (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

See the 3rd comment above on that. You picked a poor example for your case there. Johnbod/Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Ebola virus and Ebolavirus are complications, but in the end I think it's correct that Ebola redirects here to the article about the disease, because this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Given that, this article should be moved to Ebola per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA (natural, concise, recognizable), as well as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 23:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment We have primary topic redirects all the time. PRIMARYTOPIC is not about article naming per se, but yes it's the primary topic for the ambiguous term "Ebola", which doesn't change whatever the article is named - a tangential issue. Per that, there should be no weight for arguments based on PRIMARYTOPIC or the criterion for selecting primary topics (likelihood, longevity). Widefox; talk 02:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • PRIMARYTOPIC is relevant here as a counter to the argument that "Ebola" should not be the title due to ambiguity with other uses of that term, which is the main argument in opposition as near as I can tell. --В²C ☎ 16:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We are free to name it either Ebola virus disease or Ebola, and the primary topic for "Ebola" is unchanged, so PRIMARYTOPIC is irrelevant. The reason why we don't just move Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to Mozart (over the primary topic redirect) is naming convention. The reason why Mozart redirects is PRIMARYTOPIC. PRIMARYTOPIC =/= naming convention. Disambiguation should be considered but not primarytopic, being somewhat tangential/secondary to it. WP:NATURAL helps - "If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies." Widefox; talk 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all that you say, but you're not addressing what I said. Yes, the reason we don't move Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to Mozart is naming conventions. But what's the reason to not move Ebola virus disease to Ebola? The reason to stay at Ebola virus disease is not naming conventions. The only reason given to not move, as far as I can tell, is that "Ebola" is alleged to be ambiguous. The counter to that is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 17:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as PRIMARYTOPIC is irrelevant, we come back to the topic: (See my !vote) per (controversial) exception to COMMONNAME in WP:MOSAT which allows names per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Article_titles "Diseases—The World Health Organization, International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)." - exactly the reason given by Doc James when he moved this from Ebola to the current name years ago. Widefox; talk 20:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's your argument. But many in opposition here are arguing ambiguity, and PRIMARYTOPIC is relevant as a counter to that argument.

As to your argument, WHO calls it Ebola (http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/en/). So does the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/). And that's in the article titles and content, not just the URLs. --В²C ☎ 22:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The webpage titles on those examples are "WHO | Ebola virus disease" [15] "Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever | CDC"[16]. All these valid alternative names are covered in the article. Widefox; talk 01:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, at best that shows the name is not being made up out of whole cloth, but it's hardly sufficient usage to form a basis using it as a title here. --В²C ☎ 06:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is, PRIMARYTOPIC as a counter argument is weak as it's a secondary issue that we already adequately manage with a redirect. It's a conflation of two tangential issues. We wouldn't move Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart because of the naming convention irrespective of any primary topic for "Mozart" (or likewise "Amadeus") - so as an argument (or counter argument) it has no weight here - ambiguity yes, PRIMARYTOPIC per se no. The usefulness of "Ebola" ending up where the reader most likely wants to, is an independent issue to that destination's name.

It seems that there's a formal name, a former name, and a less formal shortened ambiguous one even in those two examples, which makes me change my vote from Weak Disagree to Disagree. It's more similar to "flu" vs "influenza" than I realised. Widefox; talk 08:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

First, please stop refactoring my comments - I put in the new paragraph symbol, <p>, purposefully, to break up my comment into, you know, paragraphs, that cover separate points.

Tell all the people who are opposing this move on the basis that the proposed title is too ambiguous that it's a secondary issue. Even you're citing "ambiguous" in this very comment of yours! PRIMARYTOPIC remains relevant counter to the "it's ambiguous" argument: ambiguity is irrelevant when the topic in question is primary for the title in question.

It might be less formal, but it's most commonly used in reliable relevant sources; that's what matters most to choosing article titles on Wikipedia. --В²C ☎ 17:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My refactor [17] 1. fixed the markup by removing the unmatched bold that I presumed was a remnant from a switch from highlighting with bold to "{{highlight}}" Was that correct? or did you intend to use two different methods of emphasis for a url and make me wonder why "en" was bold? 2. While fixing that, instead of changing <p> to <p/> I made a typo and did </p>. (<p> is valid HTML but invalid XHTML and breaks XML parsing which I use for debugging, whereas <p/> is valid for both) My intention was not to disable the paragraph break, which was by error and I apologise.

My point is WP:PRECISION and WP:NATURAL should primarily guide us, with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC secondarily - just saying we can move it to Ebola doesn't mean that we should similar to Mozart. All the proponents here saying users expect it at Ebola based on flawed stats and PRIMARYTOPIC criterion are looking solely at the secondary issue, and solely considering PRIMARYTOPIC. We use primary topic redirects a lot, and that's no argument to move articles over the redirect per se (argument or counterargument). We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Widefox; talk 11:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment ICD 10 used EVD [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• support per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm sure there are fringe cases where the common name is not widespread and the medical term is as well known but this is not one of them, the common name is very widely used. The stats for the redirect are off the charts for a redirect. Clearly large numbers of readers expect to find the page there already.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope - most readers (90%) aren't using the redirect according to the discussion of the stats at Talk:Ebola (disambiguation) - we think they land here from Google. Anyhow, stats are a consideration for the tangential issue of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which is not in question for "Ebola". See my comment above about how we commonly use primary topic redirects - e.g. Mozart, HP and that's a tangential issue to article naming. Widefox; talk 02:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Disagree per exception to COMMONNAME in WP:MOSAT. Arguably Ebola is not precise enough per WP:PRECISION, as we have Ebola virus(es) / disease / river. Use of the higher bar WP:MEDRS should at least be considered for the commonname in sources. Widefox; talk 01:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC) We have a choice of a more formal full name or a more informal shorthand name (that is ambiguous with the virus and river). It doesn't seem as informal as "flu" in Influenza vs flu but there's nothing to gain from using the more shorthand/informal one, at the expense of ambiguity. The current arrangement is just right for that. For me, it is clear that a sizable amount of supporters are using primarytopic as a counter to the ambiguity. As I believe that's an invalid argument - the naming convention prevents Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart being moved to Mozart and per the MOSAT naming convention the full name is preferred, so that's strengthened my !vote. We shall revisit this exact issue when there's the next flu pandemic. Widefox; talk 08:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Disagree it isn't quite the common name as many people use "ebola virus disease" with "ebola" used as an abbreviation. Also note what ICD 10 uses. I don't have strong feelings though and would not lose any sleep should this move request succeed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support The disease is called "Ebola" commonly and the virus is "Ebola virus". As our Ebola river article points out, the local name of that river isn't even "Ebola" - the latter is a French corruption of the local name "Legbala". I don't think the current name is bad (hence my weak support), but "Ebola" is the common name for the disease and the term is used for little else. -- Scray (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Many people confuse Ebola virus disease, ebolavirus, and Ebola virus, which all have their own Wikipedia articles and are distinct concepts. Moving this article to "Ebola" would increase that confusion, and for this reason, this article should not be moved.

Most people when they search for "Ebola" want information about the disease, and that is why Ebola should redirect here and not to Ebola (disambiguation), but still, the redirect is in place to meet audience demand and not because the terms are equivalent. There are times in health articles in which it is reasonable to use a technical term for a title rather than a common term. "Heart attack" is a similar case because that term can mean several things, but the term redirects to Myocardial infarction here. Wikipedia has no article on AIDS, but does have one titled with the technical term HIV/AIDS and even uses that term in article space often in preference to just AIDS.

Wikipedia has a commitment to accuracy, and in the past, has promoted greater accuracy at the expense of using technical terms rather than common names when the use of a common name is likely to lead to confusion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bluerasberry, this is a much better explanation of the WP:PRECISION problem I was trying to get at in my response. Zad68 13:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Second that. Johnbod/Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well said. In practical terms, the move doesn't do much - we have a redirect and a primary topic. Widefox; talk 20:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose move per Zad68, there's nothing wrong with the current title (which is used by the WHO and CDC [19] [20]) and moving it to "Ebola" would be too ambiguous. Jinkinson talk to me 16:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been very pleased with the naming schemes that Wikipedia English has used for the articles under the broad topic of 'Ebola". I think that they do a great job being true to both science/medical references, popular culture, and the general reader. I agree with all of Blue Rasberry's comments, too. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Qualified support per WP:COMMONAME provided there is a tripartite or quadravalent hatlink alerting readers that there are in fact three articles on medical Ebola aside from the others, which are of limited interest.There is currently a rather contentious debate about the hatlink, which for some unfathomable reason a couple of individuals are apparently dead set on preventing. Unfortunately, if there is not a decent hatlink or some other navigational aid then the proposed move will only make things worse for the lay reader, who may be plowing through several paragraphs or even the entire article without realizing that they really should be reading the other article. Thus, if there is not hatlinkage, my support becomes a reluctant Forced oppose. As another editor above put it, "Many people confuse Ebola virus disease, ebolavirus, and Ebola virus, which all have their own Wikipedia articles and are distinct concepts" and without hatlinkage navigational assist the problem festers.Wikidgood (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. An abbreviated name for a concept may be commonly used in the context of a conversation or news item where the context (hopefully) resolves the ambiguity. This does not justify its use in an encyclopaedia (especially not a title, which has little context), where clarity and precision have priority over convenience.Layzeeboi (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jinkinson, Zad69 and Sydney Poore. We aren't summarizing lay sources and should be using their terminology, the CDC and WHO are the best resources we have. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 01:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per CDC and WHO convention and ICD-10 nomenclature. Moreover, "Ebola" is too ambiguous. AlphaEta 01:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, because if you (and others) consider the usage by CDC (also here in their Q&A) and WHO the leading usage is "Ebola" not "Ebola virus disease". This, in part, is a basis for my (weak) support above. -- Scray (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point. The CDC and WHO pages you linked do use both terms interchangeably. However, even if we agree that the CDC and WHO vary in their terminology, the problem of ambiguity remains. I agree with the others above who point out that "Ebola" could informally refer to the disease, the etiological agent, the genus to which it belongs, other species within that genus, or even the river for which the virus is named. In my opinion, this makes the current, unambiguous title a better option. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 03:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per everyone above - We have Ebola river as well as an Ebola band, Personally I think the current titles fine .–Davey2010 • (talk) 04:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support "Ebola" is most accessible, and most appropriate per the evidence provided by Neil P. Quinn and others. The disease clearly is the primary topic for just "Ebola", and the other topics are dealt with by Ebola (disambiguation), as they should be; the band and river are irrelevant to whether this page shoud be moved. —innotata 16:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no reason for change. Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Lyme vs Lyme disease. Guinea vs Guinea worm. St. Louis vs St. Louis encephalitis. Influenza and malaria are not named after places, so they aren't good examples to follow. Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point and I'm sure there's more examples Ross River (Queensland) vs Ross River fever, Congo River vs Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever, Barmah Forest virus vs Barmah Forest, (Bhopal vs Bhopal disaster). Worth contemplating systemic bias (and RECENTISM) in the desire to name it just Ebola. We'd never contemplate it even if Ross River fever was killing thousands, or similarly for the River Thames or Hudson River s. Widefox; talk 11:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - and not at all impressed by the length/edit repetition of some of the support !votes here, which are missing the basic WP:AT point of user utility and clarity. An "extra" click of the mouse (which evidently isn't "extra" since pipelinking prevents it) is much better than wasting 15 minutes of someone's time by making the decision for them about which Ebola article they really want. Particularly as this is a moving target and current news item this is exactly the worst time to be taking choice out of the hand of the reader. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Clear-cut WP:COMMONNAME as analysed by Neil P.Quinn and others above, coupled with WP:CONCISE. As far as disambig is concerned WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly applies. As seems to be the case in these sorts of move, there is sometimes an undercurrent amongst opposes of not liking WP:COMMONNAME as a policy. But we have it, and, having read all the oppose comments, I haven't seen any which provide a justification for not applying it in the way Neil P. Quinn suggests. DeCausa (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the accepted scientific name. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Point of fact, for what it's worth Britannica is titled "Ebola (disease)" "Ebola, in full Ebola virus disease, formerly called Ebola hemorrhagic fever, "[21] Widefox; talk 10:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola (disease) is a reasonable option, and remains preferable to the current title per WP:CONCISE. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect created  Done. Widefox; talk 10:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDICINE notified

FYI I notified WP:MEDICINE about this discussion here. Zad68 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

you all are idiots half of this information is invalid could you please remove it before you give to many peoplle false information 108.40.3.138 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What information is invalid exactly? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Questionably optimistic lethality-rate phrasing

The fourth paragraph of the lede begins: "No specific treatment for the virus is available. Efforts to help those who are infected are supportive; they include giving either oral rehydration therapy (slightly sweetened and salty water to drink) or intravenous fluids as well as treating symptoms. This supportive care improves outcomes. The disease has a high risk of death, killing between 25 percent and 90 percent of those infected with the virus, with an average mortality rate of 50 percent."

I would also note that in the two previous EBOV outbreaks in which # of cases exceeded 300, that CFR was over 80%. Therefore, I think the article should distinguish between more and less lethal viral strains, as the currently depicted numbers appear derived from inclusion of statistically small outbreak (i.e., those more easily dealt with by medical care) as well as numbers from the more lenient BDBV and SUDV strains. Taking out just the one Uganda BDBV outbreak causes the low end of lethality to jump from 25% into the fortieth percentiles (thus also skewing up the average mortality to well above 50%). For EBOV, the lowest CFR for any triple-digit outbreak is 79%--Froglich (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This are the numbers given by WHO and thus IMO we should stick with them for the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with using those numbers, but the sentence is virtually repeated in the prognosis section, and certainly there, and probably in the lead, needs more explanation - different outbreaks (in WHO ref), different strains (not in WHO but not hard to ref I'm sure). The prognosis section could generally do with careful expansion. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

John, I agree, however I have never seen a RS that explains this. If you can find one, that would be great. Gandydancer (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight for news article

• Allyson Pollock, Ebola: A Disease of Extraordinary Poverty, The Real News Network

I'm not sure about this content from a news article. This is way too long and the source may not be reliable for the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The content is not new - people have been saying poverty, illiteracy & poor infrastructure contribute to spread since March. It's an interview, not a citable article, and it's about the particular circumstances in West Africa. We've covered this topic pretty thoroughly in the West Africa page already. Robertpedley (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree it is undue weight here. We already discuss in other sections and this is specifically about the 2014 outbreak and if anywhere would be their not here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This content is much too long and is from a single source. If we add more to article it need to be from a global collective or body who puts the issue into a worldwide context. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Spreads Like Flu?

Ebola Spread Like Flu? Is this true? QuackGuru (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In short, no. Plenty of material on this page about transmission, with good references. Robertpedley (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/pdf/infections-spread-by-air-or-droplets.pdf The CDC says it does spread by droplets. QuackGuru (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

CDC have taken that link down (see timestamp). I guess they must have been watching! I'm sure that if you fill up a spray bottle with EBOV in suspension and aim it in someone's face, you could cause infection. But in answer to your question - "ebola spreads like flu - is it true" - not true. Robertpedley (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's getting a lot of press. This is a reasonably good rebuttal [22] Robertpedley (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Much better. [23] Robertpedley (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Prognosis in the lead

We have had the discussion regarding how to present prognosis before regarding other health issues. User:Dragons flight has again added it to the first paragraph here. Some are against having it in the lead at all. I am of the opinion that a fair compromise is to have it in the 4th paragraph along with epidemiology which was were it was before. Part of the reason is that the mortality is not simply 50% but varies based on supportive treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it varies with supportive treatment, and also substantially with the strain of virus. That said, the high mortality rate is one of the defining characteristics of EVD, and I believe it should be highlighted more than it was. Giving an average mortality (or perhaps a range of mortalities) seems like a reasonable approach to me. The previous language "Death, if it occurs, ..." was ridiculously non-specific on this point, and is essentially saying that death occurs in more than 0% and less than 100% of cases. I certainly think we can find a way to be more precise than that when we introduce death as a possible (and in fact, frequent) outcome. Dragons flight (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps worth considering that the media (in the UK at least) seems to mention it routinely. I would guess that high mortality wouldn't be a shock to many, given the general circumstances and concern. 109.153.156.71 (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't look to the popular press to guide us on this. Zad68 03:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I do see the WHO's site puts the death rate as Fact #3 on their fact sheet, so it should get weight, but as was pointed out a flat number won't do, I don't think, so I added that the rate can vary widely. Zad68 03:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

EBOV: doubled abbreviation

The article presently uses the abbreviation EBOV to refer to both Ebola viruses as a group and to the Zaire Ebola virus in particular. There are a several places where this makes the meaning unclear. I realize that both acronyms are used by various references, but we probably shouldn't use the same acronym different ways in a single article.

I would suggest that references that are specific to Zaire EBOV be abbreviated as ZEBOV, as seen at sources such as [24][25][26], and the abbreviation EBOV be restricted to cases where discussion of all Ebola viruses is intended. Dragons flight (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dragons flight, thanks for bringing this up because I have long seen this problem but never quite knew how to go about fixing it. When I first started working on these Ebola articles I spent a lot of time trying to learn about the viruses, how to properly label them, when to use italics and caps, etc., only to find that the more I read the more confused I got. Becoming desperate and concerned that I was becoming senile, I actually got out a pencil and paper and wrote it down, only to find that a different source had something different. Wikipedia was no help either since even in the same article there seemed to be differences in the way things were explained, to say nothing of how the various studies I read were using the terms. The WHO, the CDC, and the Canada site you suggest are all different. If you look at our article, Ebolavirus, the genus lists the 5 species, Zaire ebolavirus, etc. But then further down it says: The five characterised members of the Ebolavirus genus are:

Ebola virus (EBOV) Formerly known as "Zaire virus" or "Zaire ebolavirus"... AFAIK, this is presently not correct. Presently all 5 of the species, including the Ebola species, are called xxx ebolavirus , for example Sudan ebolavirus, Zaire ebolavirus, etc. From there on to the individual virus in each species: The common name for the single virus in each of these species is Ebola virus (formerly Zaire ebolavirus), Sudan virus (formerly Sudan ebolavirus), etc.

So, it seems to me that using the old terminology of ZEBOV is not correct. We should stick with Ebola virus (EBOV) which means the individual virus in the species Zaire ebolavirus. But we need to somehow fix the instances in which EBOV is used to indicate all five of the species. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, isn't the quoted section of ebolavirus just wrong? The section cites the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. The specific citation is now a dead link, but if I look at their current taxonomy [27] it gives:

Genus: Ebolavirus (5 Species)

Species: Bundibugyo ebolavirus

Species: Reston ebolavirus

Species: Sudan ebolavirus

Species: Tai Forest ebolavirus

Species: Zaire ebolavirus

I would assume those are the five official names at present. No "formerly known" as far as I can tell. Also, it appears that you are the one who edited ebolavirus recently [28]. So I think you just got this wrong. In casual usage it would not be uncommon to conflate all Ebola viruses with Zaire ebolavirus, but that is not correct from a formal scientific perspective. Dragons flight (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I edited Ebolavirus to restore the "Zaire ebolavirus" species designation. Dragons flight (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that you are wrong. There is currently no virus called a Zaire virus. There is a virus called an Ebola virus. It is the only virus in the Zaire ebolavirus species. Gandydancer (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you are pretty obviously wrong (bordering on silly actually), but for the sake of argument what evidence would you care to cite? For the record, in microbiology genetically distinct individuals within a species are generally termed strains. At least 50 strains of Ebolaviruses are known, roughly 30 of which belong to the Zaire ebolavirus species. Individual strains have uninteresting names like "Kissidougou-C15", "Luebo43", and "Reston09-A". This paper, for example, provides a phylogeny based on 24 of these strains [29]. There is no formal subspecies or strain of Zaire ebolavirus called simply "Ebola virus" for the obvious reason that this would be confusing. I can only assume that your confusion stems for people imprecisely using terminology in a variety of contexts. Dragons flight (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

PS. Many authors use the abbreviation EBOV for the Zaire ebolavirus, mainly for historical reason, but that shouldn't be misunderstood to suggest that "Ebola virus" is in any way the proper name for the Zaire ebolavirus. Dragons flight (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I found a long article [30] discussing Ebola nomenclature, the conflicts between names as used and as recommended. The article recommended creating a subcategory within "Species: Zaire ebolavirus" labeled "Virus: Ebola virus" for the type strain of Zaire ebolavirus (as well as corresponding ranks for other type strains). In 2011, ICTV explicitly rejected that proposal (2010.010bV) as creating a subdesignation "Virus: Ebola virus" was not within their authority (i.e. outside the normal taxonomic ranking system). It was mentioned again in a later proposal (2012.005a-dV), but that seems to have been resolved without acting on the suggested "Virus" designation.

So, I guess some researchers do recommend "Ebola virus" as a distinct name, but the international body charged with establishing nomenclature does not. Dragons flight (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this. That said it is clearly incorrect to say that name of "Zaire ebolavirus" was changed to "Ebola virus". It wasn't, and even if the proposal mentioned above had been accepted the name wouldn't have been changed, rather a new subdivision would have been created. Dragons flight (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you have called my opinions silly while I had hoped for a conversation, I will keep this as short as I can. I did not say that Zaire ebolavirus has been changed - it has not and it is still the name of the species. However the one virus in that species is Ebola virus. There are not strains of the species - there are strains of the virus. For instance, consider Marburgvirus which contains a single species, Marburg marburgvirus, but has two individual viruses, Marburg virus and Ravn virus. If you are speaking of different strains, would you say strains of the species or strains of the individual viruses? I believe that you are wrong in the changes that you have been making. Gandydancer (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for suggesting you were silly, and I think I understand where you are coming from now. However, in a previous edit, you did replace a species name with the proposed Virus name [31] in a list explicitly labeled as the five species. I can understand if that's not what you intended or if you have since changed your understanding. With respect to Ravn and Marburg, you are presumably again using Kuhn et al. ICTV doesn't recognize those names either. More generally, ICTV doesn't officially assign any names below the level of species and there is no international organization that does. When one gets below species level even the labels used are varied. For many viruses there are no defined groupings below species at all, aside from individual strains. In other cases, there are groups labeled as "subtypes" (e.g. Influenza A virus and HIV-1), or "subspecies", or "variants" (e.g. variola major / minor), and often the label descriptions are used interchangeably. I'd never seen "Virus" implied as a taxonomic rank before, though Kuhn et al. clearly does that. In fact, my google-fu can't find any other examples of authors trying to define a "Virus" taxonomic rank. Do you have other examples? Arguably we could use the Kuhn et al. language, and focus on the proposed subspecies, though as they seem to not distinguish themselves meaningfully from the species, I'm not clear what advantage that would have. The main difference would appear to be whether we talk in terms of the international recognized (but inconsistently used) "Zaire ebolavirus" species or whether we talk in terms of the proposed, but never formally adopted, "Virus: Ebola virus". Personally, I think discussing "Ebola virus" as a term of art within the Zaire ebolavirus species is going to be very confusing to the typical reader, especially when we are also likely to discuss other Ebolaviruses (i.e. the genera). Dragons flight (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said already, I did a lot of reading in my attempt to sort things out, but if had known then what I know now, that I had entered very dangerous waters when I made that edit, I would definitely not have done so. It is unfortunate that I did not leave a source because it would make it easier to figure out where I got what I thought at the time was a reliable source. On the other hand, reading this makes it easier for me to understand what may have happened:

Five to eight years have passed since the introduction of the names Cote d'Ivoire ebolavirus [sic], Reston ebolavirus, Sudan ebolavirus, and Zaire ebolavirus for the members of the four recognized ebolavirus species. Instead of using these names, the overwhelming majority of publications refer to “Ebola virus” instead of Zaire ebolavirus (Table 6), a preference that is also followed by the public press. The remainder of the viruses are usually referred to as Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast/Taï Forest, Reston, and Sudan in the context of “Ebola virus.” Worse, in the few cases in which the recommended names were used, they almost invariably were confused with species names (virus names italicized), an error that is understandable because discernment of the identically spelled taxa, a violation of ICVCN Article 3 Rule III:-3.24, requires a thorough grasp of the difference between species and viruses [26]. Introducing the name “Zaire ebolavirus” was a mistake, as it contradicts ICVCN Article 2.1 (described above). Here, we rectify this situation by recommending that the traditional virus name (“Ebola virus”) be used. Retrospectively, the virus nomenclature in most published articles will then be correct. Likewise, press articles, which almost invariably refer to “Ebola virus,” and usually with that term aim at referring to the virus that is currently officially named “Zaire ebolavirus,” will be correct retrospectively and prospectively. As the traditional names are different from the species names, confusing species and virus names will be much more difficult, even in the absence of taxonomic education.[32] Yikes! How's that for confusing?

So, back to what to do now. I think that we should not use EBOV when we are referring to all 5 Ebola species. I think that we agree there? As for the virus causing the present epidemics, I trust this source which says Ebola virus (EBOV; formerly Zaire ebolavirus), one of five ebolaviruses, is a lethal human pathogen, causing Ebola virus disease (EVD)... [33] and a September 2014 source states:

Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fever are caused by members of the genera Ebolavirus and Marburgvirus, respectively, in the family Filoviridae. The names of these viruses have undergone several taxonomic changes since they were first discovered, including new changes officially accepted in 2013. Currently, the genus Ebolavirus contains five recognized viral species: Zaire ebolavirus, Sudan ebolavirus, Taï Forest ebolavirus (formerly Cote d’Ivoire ebolavirus), Reston ebolavirus and Bundibugyo ebolavirus. The common name for the single virus in each of these species is Ebola virus (formerly Zaire ebolavirus), Sudan virus (formerly Sudan ebolavirus), Tai Forest virus (formerly Cote d’Ivoire ebolavirus), Reston virus (formerly Reston ebolavirus) and Bundibugyo virus. page 1 here: [34]

You said, "I think discussing "Ebola virus" as a term of art within the Zaire ebolavirus species is going to be very confusing to the typical reader...". I don't see how we can get around that since it (EBOV) is the term most often used, nor do I see it to be confusing. Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

I'm logged in as TrueBlueLou -- don't know why I cannot edit this page. Anyway, someone please consider changing the ICD-9-CM code from 065.8 to 078.89

This is per this information: “It turns out there are two different codes that can be assigned to Ebola virus disease in ICD-9 depending on the way Ebola is located in the ICD-9 Alphabetic Index. First, index Infection→virus→Ebola to locate code 065.8, Other specified arthropod—borne hemorrhagic fever. Second, index Infection→Ebola to find code 078.89, Other specified diseases due to viruses. Upon a request for clarification from AHIMA, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has confirmed that the correct ICD-9-CM code is 078.89. This helps to clear up confusion about which ICD-9-CM code should be assigned today. Just like code 065.8 lacks the specificity to clearly identify Ebola as discussed in my last blog, so does code 078.89! In ICD-10, however, code A98.4, Ebola virus disease, will allow for unequivocal identification of this deadly disease.” Here is the source for the entire article” http://3mhealthinformation.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/follow-up-august-coding-challenge-on-ebola/.

TrueBlueLou (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I correct in my interpretation that a specific code for "Ebola" doesn't currently exist in the ICD-9-CM? AlphaEta 02:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

AE as far as I can tell, yes, according to this and this there's no specific entry for EVD in ICD-9, there's 2 "rollup" entries under which EVD might fit but nothing specific to EVD. I can't even see strong support for one over the other between them. The blog author Sue Belley works for 3M's coding services but I can't necessarily say that makes her blog the final authority. But reading around I see support for 078.89 and not 065.8 so given the lack of anything better I'll make the change. Zad68 03:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

2013 West Africa outbreak date contradiction

For the index case in Ebola virus disease#2013_to_2014_West_African_outbreak, we use the date 28 December 2013 which is supported by the WHO source [35] but the other source uses 6 December 2013.[36] In Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Outbreak and 2014 Ebola virus disease epidemic timeline#December 2013 we use the 6 December 2013 date per the sources there. Which is it, or do we quote both dates? Widefox; talk 12:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a good point. This from the NY Times says "Patient Zero ... died on Dec. 6" 2013, which appears to have picked it up from this article from the NEJM, which says "the suspected first case of the outbreak was a 2-year-old child who died in Meliandou in Guéckédou prefecture on December 6, 2013." However the NEJM article goes on to say "A second investigation confirmed the origin of the outbreak in Meliandou but revealed a somewhat different timing of the early events (including the death of Patient S1 at the end of December and the deaths of Patients S2, S3, and S4 in January)." -- so (once again) a popular press article (the NYTimes) is probably oversimplifying it. This from the WHO says "Onset 26/12/13 - Died 28/12/13". I think we should just say "December 2013" and not try to put a date on it, because the date within December doesn't appear well-established. Zad68 13:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit done. Zad68 13:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Other two articles  Done,  Done. Widefox; talk 22:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Craig Spencer's name

Is there any reason why Craig Spencer isn't named as the New York City doctor who got infected? --Nbauman (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Symptomes

Maybe interesting: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1411680 192.38.121.229 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)