Jump to content

Talk:Ebola virus cases in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.98.54.238 (talk) at 18:29, 6 November 2014 (→‎Nurse in Maine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Page move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved back to "stable" title per consensus. If the situation changes, a further move to a suitable alternative can be discussed as and when required.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Ebola virus disease in the United States → Ebola virus cases in the United States – Discussion here shows continuing issues SW3 5DL (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title here should match the titles of all the Ebola articles including Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea, Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone, etc. There's no reason for this article to be any different other than the use of the word 'cases.' Ebola virus cases in the United States is the most stable, accurate, and neutral title. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support sure, with how the article content has been developing. It's not what I thought the article was supposed to be but I guess a more general article can be done elsewhere. Zad68 16:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-proposal: Ebola in the United States. Clear. Unambiguous. Concise. Precise. --Born2cycle ☎ 16:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire intro is wrong if you do not treat the hatnote as part of the intro, there have been cases of Ebola (Ebola Reston, or Reston Virus) previously in the United States, and zoological cases of Ebola Virus Disease in the United States in the 20th century. If we do not add "2014" to the article name, then the article should be expanded to cover the zoological cases as well. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know where this idea comes from that titles have to precisely convey the WP:SCOPE of an article. It's nonsense. Our titles don't do that. They can't do that. Article leads do that. The scope of an article entitled "Ebola in the United States" may or may not be limited to 2014, may or may not include zoological cases, may or may not include Ebola Reston, etc. It's all good. Title and scope are not so entwined. The title should be clear and recognizable - the decision about article scope is obviously related but is largely separate. --В²C ☎ 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "cases" is much more accurate and precise than "disease." The word "disease" also implies that we might be discussing previous research that 's taken place in the US. "Cases" makes it clear that we're just talking about this current Ebola scare. Onefireuser (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. Much more accurate and precise than 'disease.' Dr. Mike (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but also support the alternate Ebola in the United States Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, contains information such as quarantines and philanthropic efforts which don't belong under the heading "cases". Support the alternative "Ebola in the United States" for this reason. Siuenti (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed because there can be no "cases" of "Ebola virus", because the latter is not a condition. "Ebola" and "Ebola virus disease" are synonyms recognized and used by WHO and CDC; if the proposal began with one of those, or "Ebola virus infection", the syntax would make sense. BTW, the term "disease" is accurate, because it applied to the people in the USA who have been infected with Ebolavirus; "disease" does not imply "epidemic". -- Scray (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral How about Ebola cases in the United States? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

@Born2cycle and В²C:, that's too vague and would only compound the problem, but thanks for the suggestion. I believe it was suggested way back when the article was created. Ebola virus cases in the United States is accurate and neutral. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vague? What else could "Ebola in the United States" reasonably mean other than "Ebola virus cases in the United States"? --В²C ☎ 17:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use of the term "cases" makes the title more precise, since Ebola alone is defined as a disease, but up until a month ago was only a disease in Africa. Adding the word "cases" implies that it is not endemic or a recognized disease in the U.S., since it is restricted to a few isolated cases, which makes it more precise and accurate. --Light show (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Append: However, the word "virus" may not be needed, since Ebola is a virus. --Light show (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what else could "Ebola in the United States" reasonably refer to other than cases of the Ebola virus disease in the United States? To claim a need for precision, you must identify what else you believe the allegedly imprecise title may reasonably mean. --В²C ☎ 19:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you think since "Ebola in the United States" could refer to an Ebola endemic in the US, or it being a "recognized disease" in the US, it's a problem? That's the epitome of unnecessary precision. Since we don't have articles about those more precise topics, there is no need to make this one precise enough to distinguish from them. --В²C ☎ 19:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, didn't you mean to say "infer" instead of "refer," which have totally different meanings? What I wrote meant "infer." As for articles about those precise topics, this article is mostly about those very topics, primarily devoted to cases. To infer that some isolated cases warrants it being a "U.S. disease" might be the epitome of an unnecessary generality. The CDC rightly calls TB a "disease", while describing "cases" of Ebola in the U.S. --Light show (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we had to make our titles so precise that they could not infer anything else if taken out of context, well, we'd be doing nothing but renaming all of our titles. You're basing your argument on a requirement for WP article titles that does not exist. --В²C ☎ 20:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is Ebola in the U.S. different from Ebola anywhere else? No. An article with that title would seem too general, implying it's about the disease. But the article is about specific instances, namely some "cases" in the U.S. Per guidelines: Titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article,. --Light show (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, an article entitled Ebola would be a general article about the disease. An article with the title Ebola in the United States would be about the disease in the United States. If there are only handful of cases, then it's about that. If there are more than it's accordingly more general. But the title is appropriate either way. The title of the article should not depend on how many cases there are. Should we have a table set up that specifies the title based on how many Ebola cases there are? That's just silly. --В²C ☎ 21:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ebola virus disease (EVD) is the formal term for the pathogen. Sources: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/ , http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/ 06:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Both those sources use the word "Ebola" without the word "virus" about as often as with the word "virus", so that distinction is too subtle for me. Art LaPella (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind if it was either "Ebola in the United States," or "Ebola virus disease in the United States," since it goes beyond just the cases into vaccines -- which, by definition, are *not* given to cases, but are given to *prevent* cases. Just so long as the misleadingly narrow "Ebola cases in the United States" is not the final title of the article. Petercorless (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

State by State?

Has any thought been given to splitting the article up based on State, maybe structured like the main 'Ebola outbreak in West Africa' article? 72.224.172.14 (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its needed yet as the number of cases is small, but if there are more significant outbreaks, it may be useful in the future. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. 72.224.172.14 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current tag

I'd just remove this, but I don't want to have the jackals on me for disruption or some BS, so I'll bring it here and see if anyone can justify the inclusion of this tag. It's meant for instances where articles are being rapidly expanded as information just becomes available. This is not the case here. Thoughts? - Floydian τ ¢ 18:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, already been removed as it should be. Maybe we should start an RfC about whether or not to have it? </sarcasm> - Floydian τ ¢ 20:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scope?

What is the scope of this article? It seems to be "anything about the 2014 outbreak of Ebola that has anything to do with the United States". The first paragraph is:

There have been four cases of Ebola virus disease (EVD) diagnosed in the United States to date. Although first described in Africa in 1976, EVD in humans was never seen in America until 2014.

I do not think this is a definition: for one thing, it's not reversible. We should have a definition, if at all possible. See WP:BEGIN.

Can you think of a scope that covers all of these sections?

  1. The four cases diagnosed in the US.
  2. Medical evacuations to the US. [These are not diagnosed in the US. Maybe the title should be changed to "EVD on American soil"?]
  3. Containment in the US. [With this, maybe "Ebola virus (symptomatic or not) in the US".]
  4. Treatment. This seems to be drugs and vaccines being developed in the US without any record of the work that WHO is doing in Switzerland and other places. These experiments are a lot closer to success that the US. Shouldn't this be moved to Ebola virus disease?
  5. Philanthropic efforts. Only of American donors.
  6. Operation United Assistance. Work done in Africa by Americans.

Can you think of anything other than "anything about the 2014 outbreak of Ebola that has anything to do with the United States" or "United States efforts in dealing with Ebola" that covers all of these?

Perhaps we could do it by steps. What about splitting the Containment section into its own article "Containment of Ebola in the US"?

--RoyGoldsmith (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we're currently experiencing is not really an epidemic or even an outbreak, but a "scare." In that context I feel that this article is really about the "2014 Ebola Scare in the United States." Given that as our topic, it makes sense that medical evacs to the US should be included (because they could theoretically transmit the illness to others here). Containment in the US should obviously be included as well. A short section on treatment makes sense because that is an important part of containing the scare. Philanthropic efforts and OUA may also deserve very brief mention here because they are part of the way that we are attempting to contain the scare by keeping Ebola "over there." Onefireuser (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Onefireuser: If we want to have an article named "2014 Ebola Scare in the United States" we must gather enough reliable sources (about fear to Ebola in the US) to be notable. If not, this is original research and must be deleted. We cannot use one name to stand for (wink, wink) another. I guess what I'm really asking is what was the scope of this article when it was approved for notability and has it changed significantly since then? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@RoyGoldsmith: I wasn't involved in the early stages of working on this article and so I'm not sure what was initially notable about it. At this time, it does seem that the occurrence of the disease in the US and all the various aspects of the response can merit its own article (ie this article). I'm not sure what the best term for what we're experiencing is. (See the above discussion about changing the title.) It does meet the WHO definition of an "outbreak." However, using the term outbreak--even if technically correct--seems misleading. I guess what I'm saying is that I also don't know what other editors consider the scope of the article to be. I think the current scope is reasonable (if we are talking about the 2014 Ebola "excitement"), but I'm sure a narrower scope would be reasonable too. Onefireuser (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-proposal: How about the United States in the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic? This is a far reach from the suggested titles above, but it's mostly true since the epidemic did not reach the U.S., it is the U.S. that is combating the epidemic. Although this is a lame proposal, it covers the U.S. involvement and the cases of the disease at once. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ebola virus is not endemic to the United States. Ebola virus has come to the United States as a result of travelers but it has not spread as it did in Sierra Leone, Liberia, et al. So far the only cases of transmitted virus while in the United States were the nurses who cared for the first diagnosed patient, Thomas Duncan. The article covers the cases, the reaction of state and federal government to treat and contain the virus, as well as important information on treatment and vaccine development. It includes a section on public concerns. Creating an article to focus only on the 'fears' in the U.S. might be problematic. What's wrong with people being afraid of something that causes death in 70% of it's victims, is poorly understood by the CDC as evidenced by their ever changing stance on transmission, and for which there is no vaccine, but there are expensive treatments if you're lucky enough to have the same blood type as Dr. Brantly and nurse Writebol? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple scopes:
  1. The four cases diagnosed in the U.S.
  2. The six medevac cases to the U.S.
  3. The mass public hysteria of Ebola in the U.S.
  4. What is being done by the U.S. to stop Ebola
That is what I am basically explaining in my previous comment. Again, I don't endorse the title I proposed, as there may be a better name, Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, Why suggest a title you don't endorse? SW3 5DL (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: I endorsed it before. I don't know what to endorse now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One way to clarify the scope of the article is to start with a clean slate and just answer 6 key questions: who, what, where, when, how and why. Briefly, here are some ideas. Who: The people who contracted Ebola and were eventually treated in the U.S. What: Cases, a few quickly isolated and contained, as opposed to an "outbreak" of uncontained cases. Where: In the U.S., cities or states or hospitals included. When: Beginning in 2014. How: Evacuated cases, unrecognized Duncan case, which infected his nurses. And Why: Because this was a new and unexpected situation for which we were unprepared.
Since Ebola is a disease and nothing but a disease, having "Ebola disease" in the title is redundant. What's unique and why a separate article wisely started by SW3 is fine is that Ebola in the U.S., so far, has been limited to a few contained "cases," which could be made clearer per the suggested title. --Light show (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Light show re: the use of 'disease.' And note also, it's an imported virus, it's not an endemic virus, like chicken pox and measles. No cases in America would ever occur without the virus first breaking out in Africa where it is endemic. To date, only two cases have resulted from direct transmission on U.S. soil and those were nurses caring for Thomas Duncan, the first case brought to the U.S. As President Obama has said, an epidemic of Ebola virus is not expected in the United States. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Light show: Ebola does not necessarily mean the disease; see Ebola virus disease vs. Ebola virus vs. Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Also, if we take our scope to be "The people who contracted Ebola and were eventually treated in the U.S." then all talk about Kaci Hickox should be eliminated -- as of right now, she has not contracted Ebola nor has she been treated for Ebola in the US. If you want to keep all of the sections in the article then you must come up with a fairly short (a paragraph? two at most?) description that summarizes all the material in the article AND a really short phrase for the article title.
How about "Response to the Ebola virus in the United States"? I think this covers all the sections we currently have. Leaving out the word "disease" makes it clear that we are also talking about the containment measures and the fear.
Being bold, I've changed the hatnote and first paragraph. If this is OK, we might start thinking about moving the article title to something involving the word "Response" (with a redirect from the current title). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, but I reverted since that's a major change that needs consensus. Consider starting a talk section about this with a rationale. --Light show (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current scope of the article as measured by body text is 55% about the individual cases. The other 45% is mostly about topics resulting from those U.S. cases. Light show (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Light show: Sorry but I thought this was a talk section about defining and possibly renaming the article. BTW, I agree with you. We should have one article on "Cases of Ebola in the US" and others on other topics; for example, Operation United Assistance, Treatment and Vaccines.
I was only responding to the initial question for this section, "What is the scope of this article?" --Light show (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ebola as article's scope and/or definition

This talk section is specifically about changing the hatnote from "This article is about Ebola virus disease diagnosed in humans in the United States" to "This article is about the response in the United States to the West African Ebola virus" and adding "There have been various responses to this, ranging from patient recovery to public fear." to the first paragraph.

More generally, this is about coming up with an overall concept of what this article is about; things that should be included and things that should not. How will we separate ourselves from Ebola virus disease, Ebola virus and Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa in order to differentiate us from a content fork?

I think the current thrust of this article is things that Americans do to combat the West African strain of Ebola that was identified in 2014 and to protect themselves. You can already see that we have a possible problem: are we talking about the US combatting Ebola or protecting the homeland? If both, do we have one term that describes both? The only thing that I can come up with is Response (of the US to the current strain of Ebola). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that the hatnote should be changed as soon as possible, since it's misleading at present. The response of the USA overseas doesn't fit under the current title, not being "in the United States", so it should either be detailed in the responses article or the title should be changed. Siuenti (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see only 1.5% of the current text, 100 words, that specifically covers U.S. efforts in Africa. Rephrasing the hatnote to focus on that aspect would be inaccurate and probably confuse anyone who read it when they next saw the TOC. In any case, why not offer your thoughts about this at the Page move section above? --Light show (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a medical article about cases of a non-endemic virus brought into the country by travelers as well as cases of American health care workers brought in for treatment. It has multiple scopes. Wrt the efforts of the U.S. government to contain the virus overseas, as President Obama has explained on numerous occasions, in order to stop the virus from becoming an epidemic here, we must stop it in Africa. The U.S. article is about the cases of the virus that have been imported into the U.S. and the efforts of the U.S. health infrastructures on the federal and state level to contain and treat those cases. Ebola virus is not endemic to the United States and it never will be because the natural reservoir of Ebola virus is the fruit bat. There are no megabats in the United States, only microbats with rabies virus and a rare hantavirus. Anything that relates to the efforts to treat and contain the Ebola virus brought into the U.S. such as mandatory quarantines, airport screenings, school closings, concerns of the public, all belong in this article. These are all the common efforts with the outbreak of any contagious pathogen. The best title as most editors with backgrounds in virology recognize, is Ebola virus cases in the United States. That covers the travelers and the returning the health care workers and all the attendant efforts that go along with treating them and preventing the spread of the virus. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would most of you support changing the hatnote from "This article is about Ebola virus disease diagnosed in humans in the United States" to "This article is about Ebola virus cases in humans in the United States"? Obviously we are dealing with more than just cases diagnosed in the US, for example, the section on Cases of U.S. health care workers evacuated from West Africa. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would also support as more accurate. It was also be nice if the 2nd sentence in the hatnote was shortened. And if we keep the 2nd sentence about primates, it's probably not necessary to state "humans" in the first one, since it's implied. --Light show (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Light show, Maybe you could go ahead and rewrite that. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola Threat in Oregon

"Oregon Woman Hospitalized For Possible Ebola Infection" from the Huffington Post. Please add this information to the article. Please add new Information to World Map and United States Map. Sherwood, Courtney (31 October 2014). "Oregon Woman Hospitalized For Possible Ebola Infection". Huffington Post. Portland, Oregon. Retrieved 31 October 2014. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755[reply]

Not confirmed, yet. Need to wait until test comes up positive. -- Veggies (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Veggies. If we put merely possible cases (not confirmed) into the article, it would sink under the weight of people's imagined maladies. Too many people jump to the false conclusion that they have somehow been infected. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback on this matter Veggies and JRSpriggs! I appreciate it!
@CookieMonster755: You could set up a list-type article; e.g., List of all Ebola cases in the United States. That might be valuable to someone. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? That's what this article is. If more cases continue to come along, the individuals will no longer be notable. A list article would also not include potential cases, only confirmed. per WP:CRYSTALBALL - Floydian τ ¢ 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse in Maine

The paragraph mentioning the nurse in Maine, Kaci Hickox, seems to have grown quite large. I'm wondering if it might be best, since she's past the quarantine period anyway, to reduce this per due weight to a simple paragraph that mentions: 1) she was the first person to come under the new quarantine, she tested negative, returned to Maine, subsequently was not required to be under a mandatory quarantine because she wasn't symptomatic. Any opinions? If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and reduce it, but I would like input from others on what is most important to keep. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, ethical issues are involved with the quanrantine, public safety, rights of the individual over the right to safety of the remaining population, etc. These (presumed, widely-held public) rights are often contravened, even by the use of private motor vehicles, airplanes, the decisions on the nature of industry and the infrastructure, etc., but the rights of privilege usually override the more basic rights to safety and noninjury of the majority (as the majorities in less industrialized nations who are impacted by first world decisions on coal and other fossil fuel use), the a social result of all this may be the insistence upon private privilege at all costs. Perhaps some link to a top-quality discussion of that ethical topic would be suitable. MaynardClark (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there was court action necessitates a longer entry. How long that is, once the legal action was completed is up to the editors here, but it most certainly should be mentioned. It fills the gap for future readers, who may be unacquainted with the knee jerk and political maneuvering that occurred during the panic phase of the "outbreak".76.98.54.238 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ebola_virus_cases_in_the_United_States&oldid=632722363"