Talk:Western African Ebola epidemic

World Map is inconsistent

I feel that the world map is presenting data in a misleading way: national and subnational levels are mixed up. While it seems that you want to relate to the geographical distribution in the US by coloring on subnational level, all the other countries are coloured on national levels. So it looks like Svalbard is affected (which is wrong) while Alaska is not affected (which is right). Coloring Mali and Senegal as countries makes the whole of Westafrika look affected (an area, which is bigger than the three core countries together), while in fact there is only a single case in the very western corner in Mali and one single case in the capital of Senegal. I propose to stick to national levels only for all countries (including the US) to show which country is affected. If you want to show a geographical distribution, it is more appropiate to colour all countries at subnational Level. If you are only interested in the US, it might be more appropriate to create a seperate map for the US only in a section covering the US only. Semiliki (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Jimmy Wales added a good reason why it should stay the way it is, too. Also, when I generated the map, I was asked to do state level instead of national level for the US. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the reason? ZeLonewolf (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] <-- I believe that's what he's referencing. But I think Wales commented on something else as well.Snd0 (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Just checked the reference: In fact Jimbo Wales didn't give a YES or NO answer. The reason he stated was that press coverage even in British papers reported the states instead of the nations. I feel, though, that most of the press over here in Europe is actually focussing on towns, which would be even more adequate. The problem is that the map is not consistent and you have to add exceptions only 'because it looks weird': you already removed French Guyana and Alaska - so while you are at it, you should remove Svalbard, the Northern territories of Mali, Ireland and so on for the same reasons. Where do you stop? If you want to avoid discussions about that, you have to take a decision whether you want a political or a spatial representation. BTW: Hope your exams go well. Semiliki (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think map should stay as is--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I support Semiliki; I raised this earlier, but since majority of people editing this article are from the US, most were bias and against it. The present map is just inappropriate! It's only gonna cause confusion for readers. Whatever is worth doing is worth doing well! It's either the map is presented on national levels or sub-nationals....this kinda inconsistency is just unacceptable. check how the spanish wikipedia presented its map here File:Mapamundi epidemia de ébola de 2014 - ES.png. This is how an appropriate map for the outbreak should look like. There's can't be any acceptable reason why US should be presented separately. Ofcourse another Map can be created for US to give the specific locations; but for the world map, the US as a country should be coloured.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As is, it's annoying to non-Americans. 154.20.88.158 (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lol... what an assumption.. As a Non-American, it does not annoy me.. In fact as an African the map is quite appropriate, and does not 'Confuse me'... Gremlinsa (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

According to your map-legend there is ebola in Georgia - any source for that? - Semiliki (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact that is a medivaced case/s to one of the Biocontainment units... Sources are in the Refs....Gremlinsa (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Semiliki is distinguishing Georgia (U.S. state) from Georgia (country), and the Georgia link above goes to the country, where no Ebola and no medivacking has been reported. I think the implication is that the legend should say "Georgia, U.S.", presumably driven by an anti-U.S. centrism agenda. But Georgia is already in a list of U.S. states, then and now, and the blue area on the map clarifies that it means Georgia in the U.S. Art LaPella (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Right!! that does add a wrench.. perhaps we will need to add (USA) next to each state in the text.. Gremlinsa (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

On the Main Page, where they bend over backwards too far to accommodate this complaint, they say things like "the U.S. state of Texas" but not "the UK county of Kent", although U.S. states are consistently bigger and more populous than UK counties. However, there are more obscure pages that should be globalized, for instance saying "biggest in the country" without naming the country anywhere. I think the existing article is as good a solution as any. Art LaPella (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the Timeline Section

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

---

The timeline section has multiple problems. First, it contains an indiscriminate collection of data, which violates WP:NOT. It is based on one source and is WP:OR because of the attempt to synthesize a chronological progression and a series of graphs based on these periodic WHO reports. Lastly, the tone and style of the section is way out of whack with the rest of the article.

The goal of the timeline section is to characterize the numeric progression of the disease, but it has turned into an academic exercise of sorts.

I propose to remove the section; in its place, let's cite secondary-source research that describes the progression of the disease, for example [2] and move it inline into the appropriate places in the main article. Lastly, as several have already pointed out, as the WHO revises its numbers, they're actually going DOWN in some cases which makes the raw table that much more inappropriate in this article. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:DISCRIMINATE, the section is a discriminate collection, and thus not in violation of Wiki policy. As explained in earlier sections, I and others disagree that it is WP:OR for reasons explained in the RfC above.

The cited secondary source would be no improvement. It appears to be a one-off chart that was produced for its article, it is already out-of-date, and there is nothing to suggest that it would be kept up-to-date. Additionally, the cited source exhibits exactly the same artefacts that are objected to but makes no effort to explain those artefacts, other than by providing a disclaimer at the very end of its article which makes it clear that it is no better than what currently exists. -- Kirbett (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Liberia numbers have not been updated in days for one, but the big massive drop came in Sierra leone who drop a lot of suspected cases and only report on lab confirmed death. This Inconsistencies is only temporary for now. the head of WHO Africa was replaced in the week and i believe Unmeer is going to take a leading role in reporting. Hoping this will solve the problem in future reports. BrianGroen (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

While its 100% true that the data is a mess its still best available collection of this data anywhere. Any other part of the article can be found somewhere else, this cannot. That pretty much makes Timeline section most valuable part of this article. While the epidemic is ongoing there is not going to be a better collection of this data. While situation keeps developing this section should be kept as is. Once researchers have a chance to look back at the event and compile better chronology, contents of this section can be replaced.89.235.226.134 (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so I think it's kinda inappropriate for us to be treating this as something that is being updated day to day as if it were live coverage. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this is true, and following this convention we enter information that is of long-term interest. And the numbers are an important fact. But would it be better if we give only old values here? For me Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is also a source of encyclopedic information, that readers search for because they need it. And many readers need this information now and not in a year when the epidemic may be over. And some graphics for instance are of high relevance for some readers, so why delete them? I for instance do not react when I see a linear plot of cases. Even if it grows heavily. And then I see a linear plot with a linear line on it, and I understand geometrical growth, and I am shocked. The reason that I am active here is the logarithmic plot of cases that showed a straight line in mid september. The same is with the rate graphs, many readers may not understand it. People like me are trained not to care so much on absolute case numbers. But when I see a graph where 0.16 % of all liberian people are reported ill with Ebola, I think "1 out of 625 people". And as it is not possible to display all relevant information in a single graph, we are forced to make more. Malanoqa (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. According to Wikipedia is not a newspaper, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage . WP:NOTNEWS identifies particular types of newspaper content (such as Journalism) that should be avoided, but I don't see any category in WP:NOTNEWS that would exclude the timeline section of the article.

Given the billions being spent on this epidemic, this event must be one of the, if not the, most extensively reported, monitored, and analyzed epidemics in human history. This makes it uniquely deserving of documenting as it progresses. Just because this event is long running does not mean that efforts should not be made to keep the documenting of it up-to-date. After all, it was presumably considered quite appropriate to maintain up-to-date documentation on other long-running events as they progressed - such as the Olympics, or the Scottish Referendum Campaign, for example. The public interest in and demand for information about the Ebola epidemic is intense, at the moment, exactly because the event is current. That interest and demand will wane once the epidemic is over. It seems to me that it is quite appropriate for the wiki to strive to cater to that public interest while that demand for information is at its most intense. -- Kirbett (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Would you provide me both the day-to-day data and the best available data? Especially after the epidemic is over this, and discussion of the difference between the two, will be of interest to me. Sphere1952 (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am hugely in support of removing this section. I can't see any way for it to become anything other than a collection of unparsed, likely OR, hard-to-read graphs and charts. After the discussion about the charts, I thought maybe if I generated a prose version of the section that would alleviate a lot of concerns, but it was clear that there was no way to do that. From a purely editorial perspective I think it should be removed, even if it technically doesn't violate any policies (about which there is much concern). 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The data is the best available, and there is a section which clearly explains its limitations (thanks, Greenbe and BrianGroen!). In the absence of better data, it's the basis which WHO, UMEER and other agencies are using to direct resources. The data table, so far as I know, is unique and a valuable resource for anyone researching the out break. The graphs, wahtever their limitations, show the trend clearly. Robertpedley (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing the chart will only make WHO information harder to find. There is no substitute for this information. People are using to track the limit of our knowledge about the virus; Jimbo posted on this talk page to say that he himself had done so. I see it as a valuable addition to the article. Shii (tock) 22:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

oppose it might be best to wait for a couple of "sitreps" to come out, see if numerical stability reestablishes itself. We don't really have another true source other than WHO , if it continues to be eratic, then a radical change might be needed.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• A number of you have argued that the section can be kept because "it's not available anywhere else". If it's not available anywhere else, it's WP:OR. ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not OR, it's WHO information. Shii (tock) 04:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose for similar reasons as those given above, and many thanks to the editors that have worked so hard to bring us this information. Gandydancer (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The Liberian numbers and Sierra Leone numbers are a bit in a a disarray at the moment, but this will be corrected in due course. Our stats are used by a lot of newspapers etc. I don't see any reason to drop it now. We have more coverage and page views as the CDC or WHO at the moment . on the 15 October we had 15 Million page views. the cdc had 200 thousand views on that day.BrianGroen (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely it's obvious that the information is available elsewhere, because it's all attributed. What is the case is that the information is not necessarily easily accessible or easily digestible - as Eric Morecambe would say "all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right places". One of the Wiki's great strengths, applicable to thousands of its topics, is the way it can pull together information from a multiplicity of sources into a single article, and this is what is not available anywhere else -- Kirbett (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I have written my position at length in the archives, feel free to go back. My only new comment about not being a newspaper is that this is exactly the kind of information you would never find in a newspaper or the online equivalent of that medium. Those publications tend to sensationalize a headline that either implies "we're all going to die" or "it's not that bad compared to xyz" and then throws out one or two spurious "facts" to support that position. Yes I'm generalizing, but I think people will get my drift. We're putting out the best, cross-checked information available, with suitable restraint and explanation. Thanks to all for the incredible effort this is not easy data to curate.Greenbe (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I would not come here if the timeline section were removed. Removing it, and any arguments in favor of removing it are a disservice to Wikipedia. The people proposing removal need to rethink just what Wikipedia is. However, the explanation of this data is very unclear. I cannot tell from the explanation if the graphs and numbers, once plotted, will change over time. Sphere1952 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

WHO quote

"The Ebola epidemic ravaging parts of West Africa is the most severe acute public health emergency seen in modern times."

I'm pretty sure this means that this is the most severe "acute public health emergency", but I was wondering if there might be some sort of suitable Wikilink we might include there which explains to readers what an "acute public health emergency" is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Good question - perhaps you have been wondering why the other African diseases that kill many, many thousands, malaria for example, are not just as much of an emergency? I've wondered the same thing. I guess we only pay attention to what's in the news...and what could affect others around the world as well?... Gandydancer (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Titanium Dragon himself answered what he was really asking with this edit. There are some cool things I could say about malaria, but I think all of them would be considered off topic. Art LaPella (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The original WHO quote has a second sentence that explains how it is meant: "Never before in recorded history has a biosafety level four pathogen infected so many people so quickly, over such a broad geographical area, for so long." I like the anti-sensationalist objectivity so I've been bold and added it. Stupid girl (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

correct me if im wrong, but recorded history has been going on for some time.....the 1 "Black Death"(bubonic plague).... " Black Death arrived in Europe by sea in October 1347 when 12 Genoese trading ships docked at the Sicilian port of Messina after a long journey through the Black Sea. The people who gathered on the docks to greet the ships were met with a horrifying surprise: Most of the sailors aboard the ships were dead, and those who were still alive were gravely ill. They were overcome with fever, unable to keep food down and delirious from pain. Strangest of all, they were covered in mysterious black boils that oozed blood and pus and gave their illness its name: the “Black Death.” The Sicilian authorities hastily ordered the fleet of “death ships” out of the harbor, but it was too late: Over the next five years, the mysterious Black Death would kill more than 20 million people in Europe–almost one-third of the continent’s population. Even before the “death ships” pulled into port at Messina, many Europeans had heard rumors about a “Great Pestilence” that was carving a deadly path across the trade routes of the Near and Far East. (Early in the 1340s, the disease had struck China, India, Persia, Syria and Egypt.) However, they were scarcely equipped for the horrible reality of the Black Death. “In men and women alike,” the Italian poet Giovanni Boccaccio wrote, “at the beginning of the malady, certain swellings, either on the groin or under the armpits…waxed to the bigness of a common apple, others to the size of an egg, some more and some less, and these the vulgar named plague-boils.” Blood and pus seeped out of these strange swellings, which were followed by a host of other unpleasant symptoms–fever, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, terrible aches and pains–and then, in short order, death. The Black Death was terrifyingly, indiscriminately contagious: “the mere touching of the clothes,” wrote Boccaccio, “appeared to itself to communicate the malady to the toucher.” The disease was also terrifyingly efficient. People who were perfectly healthy when they went to bed at night could be dead by morning"[3] and 2 "Spanish Influenza"...."the influenza or flu pandemic of 1918 to 1919, the deadliest in modern history, infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide–about one-third of the planet’s population at the time–and killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million victims. More than 25 percent of the U.S. population became sick, and some 675,000 Americans died during the pandemic. The 1918 flu was first observed in Europe, the U.S. and parts of Asia before swiftly spreading around the world. Surprisingly, many flu victims were young, otherwise healthy adults. At the time, there were no effective drugs or vaccines to treat this killer flu strain or prevent its spread. In the U.S., citizens were ordered to wear masks, and schools, theaters and other public places were shuttered. Researchers later discovered what made the 1918 pandemic so deadly: In many victims, the influenza virus had invaded their One unusual aspect of the 1918 flu was that it struck down many previously healthy, young people–a group normally resistant to this type of infectious illness–including a number of World War I (1914-18) servicemen. In fact, journalist Gina Kolata has reported that more U.S. soldiers died from the 1918 flu than were killed in battle during the war. Forty percent of the U.S. Navy was hit with the flu, while 36 percent of the Army became ill, notes Kolata in her book on the subject.Although the death toll attributed to the 1918 flu is often estimated at 20 million to 50 million victims worldwide, other estimates run as high as 100 million victims. The exact numbers are impossible to know due to a lack of medical record-keeping in many places. What is known, however, is that few locations were immune to the 1918 flu–in America, victims ranged from residents of major cities to those of remote Alaskan communities."[4] ..........certainly infected, spread across and killed a significant part of their respective populations when each occurred (Biolevel safety measures, just didn't exist....both certainly would have qualified).This, of course, doesn't minimalize the devastation the west Africa Ebola epidemic has done.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mid-Importance?

Is there a reason why this article is Mid-Importance on WikiProject Viruses, but Ebola Outbreak in the US (or something like that) is High-Importance? Thanks, 72.224.172.14 (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

it could be "high-importance", but we need consensus to do so--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this scale [[5]], for the virus "mid" seems reasonable to me. Gandydancer (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the scale again, the example for TOP is Ebola!!! I think that should make this article the the same?? Gremlinsa (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Article about ebola virus itself should be top in virus, but this is an outbreak of evd - not top. mid is fine. 70.100.20.88 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

New Mali outbreak

Mali should be 4 and 3 now rather than 3-2, as two more have died and a doctor is sick.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We will have to wait to see how WHO classes the Guinean's case and death, for now 3 - 2 stands.. as the body was even shipped back to Guinea.... Agreed consensus here is to follow the Published numbers from WHO(and respective gov health ministries), and not from the media....Gremlinsa (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's properly sourced, it's fine to include. We do not rely on single sources in Wikipedia and WHO lags other sources in providing information. ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Different sources have different info on this... At best, the info is consistent with a nurse that died from ebola, however many make no mention of the infected doctor. also info regarding when the Guinean died is vague (Late october), and when the nurse died is missing.. best to wait for WHO report, posibly tomorrow or friday....Gremlinsa (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC) More info been released... the Second Index case .. "traditional Muslim healer in his 50s" admitted to Pasteur Clinic late 25 October, infected the nurse who was admitted on Sat 8 November, and died Tuesday 11 November. however Still very little on the Doctor previously mentioned.. Gremlinsa (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

as per the latest "sitrep" the situation in Mali seems to be worse, [6] there are now 4 deaths, whatsmore 70 people are now quarantined [7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Could someone correct the picture?

In the picture in the "Countries with medically evacuated cases" section, it is written:
"Local transmissions - no deaths: Texas, Spain"
"Initial cases - deaths: Texas, Mali"
"Initial cases - no deaths: New York"
"Medically evacuated cases - no deaths: Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland, United Kingdom, France, Norway, Switzerland"
Texas, New York, Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland are countries?!?
188.37.81.120 (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact the picture is correct, if you look at underlying data.. then also the USA is broken up into individual states as per Jimbo wales comment made here. This has been discussed in length and it depicts the ongoing outbreak as per consensus among the numerous editors.. Gremlinsa (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just my fears, the map is confusing the readers. Maybe taking it down would be best.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is filled up with double standards whenever United States is involved. I am not even going to try to give reasons why the map is inappropriate, because the minds of the major editors of this article are made up concerning this issue. If it were to be Russia or China they will not do the same. Jimbo Wales is the creator of Wikipedia and I appreciate him for that, but that does not imply that he is always right. Reasons like UK media houses are reporting it as states is very laughable. In most part of the world, all we know is that Ebola has entered the US, the same way it got to Nigeria. The population of Nigeria is by far greater than most African countries, but it is never used as a pointer in African illustrations to designate states. I don't really care about the map, but including it using reasons like size and the reportage by UK media houses is so inept! Darreg (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the map is perfectly fine and correct. But, yes, it's a bit strange... notice that not only the US, but Australia, Brazil, and Canada are split up as well. This only seems correct if you're going by land area, but then Russian and China should be divided into regions as well. Snd0 (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The GIS data I'm using for state level doesn't just limit to the US. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

maybe , it could be explained why there is a difference in some countries (ie US, Brazil) in contrast to other countries?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You are saying that the "size rule" is not limited to US, because the US is involved and there is a need to bend the rules in the favour of US. There should be consistency in everything here, the map on the french Wikipedia considers all of the US and not just the affected states. It is disrrespectful and a slap to the face of all other soverign nations in the map to say that a state in the US is equivalent to our motherland. Whether a country or state is as big as the whole earth or as small as Tahiti, it does not change the fact that a country will always remain a country and a state will remain a state. If it were to be United Kingdom, it would have been ok by me because England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland do have a leval of autonomy that even FIFA recognizes but definitely not states in the United States. There is no diffrerence between the autonomy of Rivers State and that of Texas. States in Nigeria do make laws like US, in implementing federalism. This shows the mindset of most americans and how they view other smaller countries because of their size and power. Most media houses were also reporting the Nigeria case as Portharcourt and Lagos so that cancels the claim on reportage. Why is this happening in only the English Wikipedia? Mo dupe fun Jesu pe China ma ni agbara ju america lo nisin #LargestEconomyTinz. If I am cautioned for personal attacks masope koni dafun awon americanas to wa ninu ibi bai. "continues sipping my zobo".Darreg (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, actually I have never liked that comparatively huge map. This article is about an outbreak of Ebola disease in Africa and why on earth should a few cases of Ebola patients that were transferred to other countries for treatment have the largest map, while hundreds upon hundreds of people in Africa are dying? Our other illustrations, photos, etc., IMO help a person to visualize the outbreak. IMO, this map does little of that and I'd like to see it removed. All that it does, IMO, is to make a few individuals more "special" than others - so special that they were part of the few lucky ones that were evacuated so that they could get better medical care. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Brian, Gandy, Ozzie and Robert have been maintaining this article for months now. Their opinion needs to be put into consideration in-order not to discourage them from the great work they are doing, that is why it gladdens my heart that one of the top updaters of this article is also not satisfied with the the world map. Darreg (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Darreg, don't forget Art, our excellent copy editor who shapes our grammar up and helps to present a professional-looking article. But it's actually best to not single anybody out because naming leaves plenty of others out - including IPs who have made some very good suggestions as well. Anyway, about the map, you or Jamie could set up a poll I guess. I'd certainly come out strongly against including it or at least changing it. Gandydancer (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mali new cases

Sorry all if i may be jumping the gun, but events seem to be developing in Mali.. Im not sure if the young girl or the woman are the same person, will correct if this is not the case. greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

New Mali case of girl confirmed [8] "Meanwhile, a hospital spokesman in Bamako, Mali's capital, confirmed Thursday that a girl has become the fourth suspected Ebola victim there."

"Anthony Banbury, the head of the U.N. mission fighting Ebola in West Africa, told the U.N. General Assembly that one of the men who died had visited three medical clinics. The body of the man, who Banbury called a local leader, was then brought back to his village "where traditional burial rites were performed, potentially exposing many more people."

Adama Traore, spokesman at Gabriel Toure Hospital, said Thursday that a young girl tested positive before dying from Ebola this week. It was not immediately clear if, or how, she may have come into contact with the other victims."

Should this go in the Mali section..BrianGroen (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Case is now confirmed by Mali Health Ministry and added in..BrianGroen (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

over 200 contacts[9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Fat fingers/ Face slap moment...

in this edit i meant to acctualy put WP:AGF and not ASF... Sorry...Gremlinsa (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

recent instability of the lead

The lead has recently become unstable. There have been edits to change the wording from "several countries" to listing the three major countries, to add Mali, to remove Mali (saying the deaths in Mali do not yet represent an "epidemic"), etc. The lead formerly called the US and the Spain cases "imported cases", but this wording has now been added for Senegal and Nigeria as well. And so on. The lead is long already and we need to be sure that it is kept as short as possible while to the point. I am going to revert to the stable version and ask that editors discuss changes before going ahead with them This is an important and widely read article right now, and the lead wording must be something that we can all agree with. Gandydancer (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

'Agreed the lede in it's current state has been stable.. Thanks for fixing the lede edits that i missed..Gremlinsa (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the current wording is contradictory: "currently ongoing in several<!--using number of countries experiencing the epidemic is better than using ambiguous adjectives--> [[West Africa]]n countries." So make up your minds. Art LaPella (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Plus what Art LaPella has already pointed out, the lead as it stands is ambiguous. West Africa consists of 17 countries, writing "several" makes it look like about 15 countries are experiencing the outbreak. I think since people have different ways on how that should be written, the lead can just be paraphrased to exempt "several", "certain", "three" or whatever. Then again, to present a neutral point of view, you either point out the other countries who had much publicized imported cases, or just remove mentions of imported cases.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please get consensus before making changes to the opening of the lead which has been very long-standing and seen as a good opening by many article readers and editors. The first sentence, "As of 2014, the most widespread epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in history is currently ongoing in several West African countries", is IMO, fine. It has, in the past, been only slightly different, using either certain or several, which are both adequate with the next few sentences naming the particular countries. Other editors may prefer Jamie Tubers version, but to avoid edit warring please first get consensus. (I removed the hidden note that I missed when I returned the wording to the long standing version.) Gandydancer (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Does "hidden note" mean the "using number of countries..." note? Jamie Tubers removed it, not Gandydancer. Gandydancer's undo actually re-added that note, thus restoring the contradiction. Art LaPella (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just to be clearer - I think this version of the lead is best. Since some users here noted that lead is getting too bulky, this version reduces it a bit. Another advantage is; there'd be no need for any one to disagree with adjectives being used because the phrase will be out, and readers can conclude for themselves after reading the first paragraph of lead. If you guys think the mention of the imported cases is unnecessary, then I have no problem with it being removed from ALL the countries (US and Spain inclusive). Infact, every other country with Ebola cases outside the three worst hit countries had publicized imported initial case....so maybe we can just write a sentence to that effect at the end of the paragraph? That's better than the lopsidedness.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not see where it reduces the first para at all. ' You propose that the article open with this sentence: In December 2013, an epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) started in Guinea, and has since spread to Liberia and Sierra Leone.[10] In the first place, West Africa is not even mentioned. Secondly, "several" is better wording because your version does not mention Mali and to a lesser extent, since there is presently no further transmission ongoing, Senegal and Nigeria. Thirdly, "currently ongoing" and "most widespread in history" is significant information which is present in the long-standing version's opening sentence.

You also use the date December 2013. This has been discussed and it was decided that since the WHO did not declare the outbreak until 2014, we would use that date rather than 2013.

As for the "imported cases" wording, it has been my impression that editors favored that wording for the Spain and US outbreaks even though technically every initial case other than the ones in Guinea are imported. Gandydancer (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: What about just listing the countries affected? The first sentence in the lead can be written like this: As of 2014, the most widespread epidemic of Ebola virus disease (commonly known as "Ebola") in history is currently ongoing in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea and Mali. Although I don't oppose the current sentence, I feel like people may get the impression that most of West Africa is experiencing the outbreak. The word "several" is subjective and can be interpreted differently. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's more important to say "in West Africa" in the opening sentence. I also don't think that most people consider that "several" could mean "most". As written, the opening sentence says what it is and why it's important (the worst in history). The exact countries follow rather than being lost somewhere farther down in the lead where they might be hard to find. While any wording in the lead might be improved, IMO when it has remained stable for an extended period of time this suggests that most editors/readers are satisfied with it, and this should be taken into consideration when one or two editors are dissatisfied with it. I might add that the illustration is directly to the right where the countries are pictured as well. Gandydancer (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk section disappeared?

I can't seem to find the Talk section Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Graphs_need_updating that is referenced at the head of the RfC on the subject. It doesn't seem to be in the archives. Anyone got any idea what's happened to it? -- Kirbett (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have been moved to a date-specific archive for some reason: Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa/Archive_2014-11. It should probably be manually placed in Archive 6. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 18:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Latest WHO report

Hi guys , tried my best to update the numbers for 11 Nov, but no government has reported suspected cases on this report, and the Liberian website is down due to their bandwidth being exceeded i cant access the numbers. Mali i updated with good news paper reports up to 14 Nov. greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Liberian government website at http://www.emansion.gov.lr/ appears to be back up, as does the Malian government website at http://www.primature.gov.ml/ , albeit rather slowly. -- The Anome (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi The Anome the official Ebola reports are released here [10] and is still down to bandwidth exceeds...greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As wich as Mali which are released here [11]BrianGroen (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Mali "suspect" cases jump to 38

See here.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Раціональне анархіст Is that an officially released document or a temporary working dokument? Can't seem to find a link from their web-site www.sante.gov.ml that leads there. 195.170.185.50 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

[12] mali government medical website.. all ebola reports are released there.. BrianGroen (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Their document directory is probably easier to navigate (especially for non-French speakers): [13] Snd0 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Documents and Directory are blocked now (at least for me ;-) - so maybe it's just a local working directory with internal documents? 195.170.185.50 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It's working for me as of a minute ago. Based on the modification times, they were updating things when you checked(?). (This is their most recent sitrep [14].) It looks like they're releasing one every day.. but, yeah, not sure if it's actually "released," or if they accidentally left it open. Snd0 (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

For what is worth, the internal Mali report dated Nov. 5 [15] already had 32 suspect cases and 8 suspect deaths (which were subsequently dropped), so I'm not sure that going to 38 suspect cases actually qualifies a jump. Rather it appears the WHO reports [16] have routinely been omitting the Mali suspect cases. Maybe there is some disagreement about what counts a suspect case? Dragons flight (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Snd0 helps a lot..HI Dragons flight it seems like all governments are now actually dropping suspected cases... I.e various factorts, airline restrictions, damaging to country image and finances,. So guess we will never actually get the full picture. greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

They are just coming out of the rainy season - so there should be lot's of fever cases because of malaria causing a confusion of symptoms. 195.170.185.50 (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"Ebola" vs. "EVD"

Since this is an encyclopedia aimed at a general readership, I've changed it to refer to EVD either in full as "Ebola virus disease" or by the shorter form "Ebola" throughout, introducing the short form "Ebola" in the introductory paragraph, instead of using the initials "EVD" as the short form. I believe this increases readability without sacrificing correctness, and allows more natural usages such as "Ebola cases" instead of "cases of EVD". -- The Anome (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. When a person is not familiar with so many abbreviations, such as WHO, CDC, MSF, etc., it is hard to keep them all in mind, even though it's easy for us because we've seen them so many times. Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Condensing the article

I'll trim the "Projections" section over the next couple of days. Do you think the Kaci Hickox incident can be removed now? Robertpedley (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Hickox incident was a major story, at least in the United States, for a few weeks. It probably deserves a sentence here at a minimum and a longer discussion in the US sub-article. ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done a great deal of cutting, however, IMO, considering for instance that MSF actually refused money from Australia saying that what was much more needed was health care workers on the ground, this US episode is of much greater importance than just having a few states ignore CDC guidelines for those volunteers returning from Africa. All of the major players here, including the WHO, have made similar statements saying that the best way to prevent the spread is to control the spread in West Africa rather than using quarantines. Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Martin Salia is dead

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ebola-stricken-surgeon-dr-martin-salia-dies-nebraska/story?id=26964778

Time to make Nebraska purple on the map. 65.35.211.212 (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of that map, Texas is in both the "red" and "orange" categories in the text description. It should be listed in only one.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of redlinks

Two editors have now removed the same red links from the Ebola virus epidemic article. I can see that their edits were well-intentioned, but red links like this serve a useful purpose in building the encyclopedia.

Here's why: red links like this serve as a hook to indicate that an article on a topic is missing, and should be created. As government ministries, there is no question that these are article-worthy topics, and the fact that both are involved in the greatest public health crisis in recent history makes them of immediate topical interest.

Gandydancer, in particular, removed these links with the comments:

Mali: no need to alert editors of a need for a Mali health ministry article, furthermore this is confusing to readers

Outbreak: there is no need for Wikipedia to start an article on the health ministry of Guinea, furthermore readers do not understand why some wording is red

This is missing the entire point of Wikipedia. If we don't alert editors about the need to create articles, how will they get written? We have articles on individual burger bars, pop music singles, and even individual Pokemon and other video game characters, and we shouldn't have articles on African health ministries? Why? What makes African countries inferior to other countries, that they should not have articles here on their health ministries? Or, if there's nothing special about these countries, should we perhaps delete all the articles on health ministries everywhere?

The question should be not "why are these links red?" but "why aren't these links blue?", and the best way to turn these from red to blue is to create well-formed stub articles on them.

See WP:REDLINK and WP:STUB for more. -- The Anome (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have now created (very inadequate) stubs on both ministries. If the editors involved still want to delete these links, I'd very much want to hear their explanations as to why. -- The Anome (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you should create a stub unless you intend to fill it with valid material. Also I don't any point in building e.g. english language page about the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in France when there is already a very detailed page in French on fr.wikipedia.org → Bégin Military Teaching Hospital. French readers/editors will regard the French article as the prime source and keep it up to date, they won't waste their time duplicating it into the English page. Chrome users will get an automatic translation - not sure about other browsers, but there's always Google Translate.

is there a WP policy about creating stubs? Robertpedley (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

From the above: See WP:REDLINK and WP:STUB And also: no, of course, you're right, we should only have one article in one language on each topic. Will you start the several million deletion nominations across all Wikipedia editions, or shall I? -- The Anome (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well it says "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." - so an unwanted/unjustified stub would eventually revert to a redlink after a while. I can't see any benefit to the reader in a redlink - even less a link to a stub, it wastes time and reduces the value of WP as a source of information. Any WP article should stand on its own merits; the only motive I can conceive for linking to a stub would be to artificially drive traffic to it. There's some interesting stuff in overlinking such as "Links should be used to help clarify the meaning of linked words" and "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article" which may also be relevant.

And on the question of language versions - live translation is getting so good now that there might be a trend in that direction in a couple of years. We'll see! Robertpedley (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Anome, my main reason for not liking redlinks is that the general reader has no idea why the red lettering has been used. Around the world red is used as an alert color, but when it is being used to alert a handful of Wikipedia editors while the many thousands of readers don't have a clue, it should be used very sparingly, IMO. I can't see that this article is a reasonable place to advertise a need for a health ministry article, if there is one. Gandydancer (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal preferences aside, redlinking is an established Wikipedia practice and Anome's actions are supported by the guidelines. Having said that, there has been recent discussion about whether or not the redlinking guideline should change; perhaps it was on the village pump but I don't have a link handy. It sounds like you may want to contribute to that discussion. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gandy , it might distract a new article reader, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Even though the redlinking policy may change, until it does, we should probably continue to use them. 74.75.5.195 (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Just found this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Write_the_article_first Robertpedley (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

case or not in India?

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/442368/man-tests-positive-ebola-delhi.html Not sure if recovered but still potentially contagious person classifies as a case, but there seems to be one like that in Delhi. This case(or not) probably won't develop into any kind of local outbreak, but there should be a consensus if such individuals are to be counted as cases or not. Potentially they could spread the disease, less so than cases actively sick, but the potential is still there. 89.235.220.1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't be counted as a case, it's already known that the virus is present in semen for several months after recovery. On the other hand the reaction of the Indian authorities is noteworthy IMO, perhaps it could be discussed in the "responses" article. Siuenti (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Three blood test cleared hi, but his semen not.. Been treated but still may be contagious but not sick (Liberian case and not India)... None case in my IMO.. Lets not run away with this... for now.. greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a suspected case somewhere in England today as well. We should stick to the agreed policy - official stats only. Robertpedley (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply to @Siuenti: in the "responses" article it'll need a new heading like "disproportionate panic measures" - there have been a few of them in different countries. I'll let someone else do that. Robertpedley (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Some interesting thoughts though - a) the ETC's give recovered males a packet of condoms and lots of good advice, b) how did they get a semen sample?? Robertpedley (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Vaderzlk11

Can someone undo the edit made by Vaderxlk11? I highly doubt the US has 10,000 cases and 9,000 deaths, so his edits are therefore irrelevant. 24.41.226.211 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I myself am unable to revert it myself anyway, because not only its protected, but I also didn't want to run the risk of backseat modding due to being an anon. 24.41.226.211 (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There is theoretically no backseat or frontseat in Wikipedia. Or more realistically, please make any edit to unprotected pages, when you're fairly sure it is right and will have consensus. Art LaPella (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Thoughtful, careful editors are more than welcome. Robertpedley (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Linking the word "acute"

I have replaced the "acute" link which I feel is appropriate. The link reads, "In medicine, an acute disease is a disease with a rapid onset and/or a short course". This has been discussed awhile back. It is my feeling that while the link is not perfect, it does help to understand why the WHO might call it "the worst" while millions in Africa are dying of other diseases such as malaria. Gandydancer (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Even though EVD can certainly be described as "acute" I am not sure that is the best term for the outbreak/epidemic since it has been ongoing for nearly a year. Perhaps "urgent" would be more suitable.Jaerik (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

But the word is part of a direct quote. Art LaPella (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"acute" should have a link, and is the correct word, IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the full sentence is "The Ebola epidemic ravaging parts of West Africa is the most severe acute public health emergency seen in modern times." The use of the word "acute" here is the broad dictionary definition - "acute : adjective : very serious or dangerous : requiring serious attention or action" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acute). So the sentence can be rephrased as "The Ebola epidemic ravaging parts of West Africa is the most severe public health emergency, requiring serious attention or action, seen in modern times."

The wikilink does not substantiate this meaning of the word. Instead the linked page says "In medicine, an acute disease is a disease with a rapid onset and/or a short course". You can't substitute that definition into the sentence while retaining the original meaning. Even more, the page goes on to say that in the medical context "acute" does not necessarily mean "severe" and it gives a stubbed toe as an illustrative example.

If the sentence had been "Ebola is a acute disease" the link would be technically OK.

Robertpedley (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are correct - It's an acute emergency, not an acute disease. I'll revert my edit. Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason I had added the Wikilink is because they are using it in precisely that medical sense - it is not the most severe medical emergency in general in modern times (that would probably be the HIV pandemic, or possibly the flu), but it is the most severe acute one. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Robertpedley and Gandydancer. Influenza is itself an acute disease. Presumably the quoted party knows this, and thus believes ebola is the more severe - i.e., urgent, or acute in the non-clinical sense - medical emergency of the two. 206.230.179.162 (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sierra Leone death number off?

What is the source for 1,545 dead in SR? SitRips for both the 14th and the 19th are substantially lower.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The totals are from the SR health site as ref next to figures, this one.. and as per all totals .. add confirmed, suspected and probable.. Gremlinsa (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Раціональне анархіст just as Gremlinsa stated above.. SR don't report suspected cases to WHO and this was confirmed by The Presidents executive PA as well. Hence after an extensive rfc it was decided to double check all WHO reports with government reports.. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"uncategorized" cases would probably add approx. 1,750 cases if you do CFR of 50%, and therefore bring it in-line with the CFR of Liberia and Guinea , IMO (I could be wrong) "In her column, Blyden responds to the latest numbers from Sierra Leone's Health Ministry, which announced the new death toll as 973 nationwide out of 3,156 cases. She argues that "the reality is more like 2,200 deaths (70%)," but any of these are reported as missing individuals, not dead patients. The latest tally included 1,549 "uncategorized" cases-- individuals who were not currently interned at a hospital, officially dead, or cured of the disease and released." "Blyden notes that, perhaps, the government is attempting to mask the depth of its inadequacy in responding to the Ebola crisis, but she notes that transparency is key. "Even United Nations WHO is now openly admitting it made gross bungles in managing this crisis," she writes, "So why is Government of Sierra Leone behaving as if it is inconceivable for them to correct the erroneous numbers? Why are authorities in Sierra Leone continuing to give us under reported deaths numbers? Why?" "Blyden appeals to the people of Sierra Leone to call for greater government transparency. "For God's sake," she writes, "how long will citizens continue to unquestionably accept the under-reported nature of the catastrophe unfolding on Sierra Leone? Ebola cannot be fought on a Platform of LIES." She adds that, as Africans, they have an especial duty to be true to the dead: "Moreover, we are Africans. The spirits of the dead need to be appeased and the minimum we can do is to acknowledge that those who died, have died." And continues "Sierra Leone is not the only nation with significant problems in keeping reliable Ebola death tallies. In Liberia, accusations are flying that the government's tally of Ebola cases and deaths are both wildly inaccurate, though not just because the government is having difficulty keeping up. In many cases, the stigma that Ebola carries leads family members to hide relatives to are believed to carry the virus, rather than bring them to a hospital or other medical facility. Other families have been known to attack medical personnel who try to give their relatives care."[17] Dr. Sylvia Blyden was born in Sierra Leone is a journalist, political commentator, newspaper publisher. There are many more articles like this, perhaps in the face of a CFR that is so obviously non-objective , the death tally should have an asterisk.. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well done Ozzie10aaaa you nailed it here. The truth... And for those who want to sweep Sylvia Blyden under the carpet.. She is a very powerful woman and the executive assistant to the president. Or at least last time i checked. BrianGroen (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

coming from you, that means a lot to me,thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that there are many articles that discuss how inaccurate the ebola cases/death data is, and most of it is convincing. But how in the dark we are is a bit troublesome, especially when you see statements like these from the CDC director [18]. When he says that he believes interventions are working and are the cause of the decreased rate of cases/deaths, it makes us ask the question "do we believe the officials or the people on the ground in W. Africa?"

So not only does the cases/deaths tally need an asterisk, but the asterisk needs an asterisk, since the CDC essentially disagrees and are believing the W. African governments' (and therefore the WHO's) assessments...? Snd0 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

let's try those on the ground in w. Africa and see what they have to say, "JENEWONDE, Liberia — A schoolteacher brought his sick daughter from Liberia's capital to this small town of 300 people. Soon he and his entire family were dead and buried in the forest nearby, along with an increasing number of residents. The community of Jenewonde has become a new hotspot for the Ebola outbreak in Liberia. With cases on the decline in the capital, officials must now turn their attention to hard-to-reach places where the disease is flaring. Jenewonde, in Grand Cape Mount County near the border with Sierra Leone , has reportedly lost about 10 percent of its population to Ebola since late September. Markets and farms nearby have been abandoned. Momo Sheriff, who lost his son to Ebola, said there is no health care in the community. No clinics could be seen along the road into town. "If the government does not take action, everybody will die in this town," Sheriff told an Associated Press journalist. "We are burying two dead bodies today. We don't know who it will be tomorrow. Every day we have to cry."[19] This is in direct contradiction to the "rosy picture" many organizations ( CDC) paints. But there is one reality, their still dying,,,,,,, alot, (btw I forgot to mention its dated Nov. 21..today ) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This "...Meanwhile an MSF team is planning to travel to the (Mali) area bordering Guinea, where new cases of Ebola have been detected...." doesn't sound good.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sister projects error

On the sister projects box at the very bottom-right of the article "Find more about ' at Wikipedia's sister projects" is written, instead of "Find more about Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa at Wikipedia's sister projects". Does anyone know how to fix this? JKDw (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Material removed

I've just removed these sentences:

On November 21st, "the FDA announced that it would start developing a stockpile of blood plasma from Ebola survivors." http://www.wired.com/2014/11/feds-stockpiling-ebola-survivors-plasma-treat-future-patients/

(reason - this is relevent to the USA, not to West Africa) - and

On November 7, a group of scientists proposed that "by harnessing antibodies produced by survivors of the deadly outbreak", a cure could come about; this is based on the approach of "passive immunization." "Exclusive: Scientists tell U.S. - find recipe for Ebola cure in survivors' blood". Reuters. Retrieved 9 November 2014.

(reason - I'm not sure how it got here, it's speculative and not relevant to West Africa) Robertpedley (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Linked to the imam

"On Monday 24 November a government statement raised the number of cases in Mali to eight and two deaths. All the cases are linked back to the imam." I changed "two" to "six" to match everything else. But "All the cases are linked back to the imam" is supported by the reference, and contradicted by the article, which says "On 12 November, Mali reported deaths from Ebola in an outbreak which is not connected with the first case in Kayes." So they couldn't all link back to the imam if the latter is true. Art LaPella (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think they referring to all new infections link back to the imam... There are also confirmations that no one in Mali was infected by Fanta Kone, the first case, Both the imam and Fanta are imported source, the rest are then linked back to a source...Gremlinsa (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. was a bit tired when i updated it. BrianGroen (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

According to Reuter's 11/24 piece on the 8th case, the Malian government had not offered details on that patient other than to say that he was in an ETC (and it is not clear where ABC News was getting its information, as they themselves did not indicate in the news piece). Is the only current ETC in Mali the one with the imam contacts?--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

World Map needs update - Italy..

Well Italy now officially has a Ebola Medivac case. news report. The map will need a update again.. Gremlinsa (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at this, but ran into a problem whereby a Wikimedia policy-change apparently implemented on Nov. 20 has made most uploading of .svg files impossible (apparently their animation capability is a security problem in some way). This prevents me from either uploading the changed file outright, or using the "update" feature. Here's a jpeg version. (Since it was experimental, I made some other changes as well, notably to reduce the color-count down to five to reduce the need for micromanaged updating. Got rid of black since it rendered the three affected countries into an indiscernible mass. Note that no country is currently orange - I would distinguish orange from yellow by the presence of unknown index cases, and distinguish red from orange by some arbitrary number of active (not total) cases, say 100. Mali is therefore in danger of becoming orange. I got rid of "striped" colors, and just chose the most important one. For example, Texas is over, so it's green, but month ago it would have been yellow. Also, if a medically-evacuated case infects someone locally, then blue becomes yellow.) --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Handling of "jump" in numbers for Liberia in week 26 October

For 19 October 2014 Liberia reported 4665 cases, on 24 October 6253 cases where reported. In the weekly graphic this caused a peak of about 2500 total cases for the week ending 26 October (Interpolated between 24 October and 30 October).

User Delphi234 (talk) replaced the graphic now with a version, where he replaced the data for the week ending 2 November with a much smaller value and he removed the "peak" for the week ending 26 October 2014:

• 

See the history of this image for my original version. My problem is, that we have no other data to be used as a base for the graphs than the one that are displayed in the tables of this article. I have also no time to ask WHO for corrected historical numbers.

Any opinions on how to handle this graphic and the related graphic with liberian numbers, which is not changed at the time I write this post:

• 

With kind regards, --Malanoqa (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see [[20]] for the discussion on this on my personal talk page on Wikimedia --Malanoqa (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove. It's case in point why this graph does not belong in the article. Graphing of governmental reports does not make sense. ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove both Delphi234 is a sockpuppet of blocked user Apteva so they will not be able to discuss the changes here. As for the graph itself, I'm not sure if either version is useful any longer. At the minimum, it is a demonstration of how graphing "cases reported per week" does not correspond to anything that readers might be interested in, like the growth or decline of the epidemic. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

remove for similar reasons stated above, the point is the graph cant logically absorb the 2500 cases --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk to me talk

User Delphi234 (talk) just told me on my Wikimedia talk page, that the WHO now also publishes the numbers. So the original dispute regarding the peak is solved. I will just base the next versions of the weekly graphs on this official numbers.

My main question was about handling the peak. Not stay or remove. I doubt that we will remove the diagrams with weekly cases, as this kind of graph is commonly used to describe epidemics. Why remove here when WHO uses them?--Malanoqa (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ZeLonewolf removed the weekly graphic from the article 30 hours after I started this talk. Do we really have a consensus here? This chapter is titled "Handling of the jump", not "Remove weekly graphic". So maybe some editors not yet noticed that the removing of this graphic is now discussed here. --Malanoqa (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

How many graphs does this article really need to express the same concept? The entire section is a data dump and needs a major refactor to make it encyclopedic. ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion/crusade a while ago. ZeLonewolf does not like any of the graphs and will jump on any pretext to get rid of them. I would prefer to keep them, including the weekly changes. I've been reading about a new jump in Sierra Leone numbers on a news site and came here looking for the graphs to get an impression how it would fit in the historic sequence. Of course all the numbers are unreliable, partly politically motivated, partly because they are overwhelmed. The numbers reflect the cumulative effect of all these sources of bias. The graphs do a good job to visualize it. And if the growth of the outbreak still is exponential, it will catch up with all the machinations and show up in the graphs rather sooner than later. Stupid girl (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, that the epidemic is still ongoing, and in most cases there are yet no better sources we can cite. The weekly graphics can be found in the WHO report. The best timeline with case numbers (together with references!) is still only to be found here. It will be near to impossible for our readers to find statements together with references outside of scientific articles, so we should do our best here. Wikipedia is still near to the only place in the internet, where all statements are given with reliable sources. And this is more important, than the quality of presentation. Why shall a complex monster like this epidemic be presented in an easy to read and understandable article? I prefer if our readers can decide what they need and what not. And if we remove tables and graphics we make it more difficult to find the information the reader is searching for.

To place the timeline into a separate article does not really help. Most editors can monitor only one or two articles. But not a dozen. We risk, that the quality of informations in this separate articles will decay. Or the time of the editors is blocked with monitoring this separate articles too. I prefer if the editors have more time for improving the content of the article. The fine tuning we can do also later. But our readers need important and relevant content very soon after it is published the first time, because they are faced with the epidemic now. And they need this information for proper action. And helping people to act based on reliable informations is one of the main motivations for writing an encyclopedia.

This is not just a nice text, this is real live. It is an ongoing event where people suffer and no one of us knows the end. If we do our best in providing the readers with reliable and well sourced informations, I can live with imperfections in this article. We have to wait for the end of the epidemic before we can clean it. In the moments the content of many important chapters cannot even be written, because people struggle to get the knowledge first.--Malanoqa (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Malanoqa I think you put it well, "on reliable information", for readers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ditto Malanoqa and Ozzie10aaaa it is rekliable info, and with very few jumps in totals... BrianGroen (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Stupid girl and Malanoqa for your excellent comments. "This will put an end to all of the grumbling", Gandy says as she struggles to not laugh. :) Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Simplifying the world map

I'm noticing that the world map is not being updated very frequently (and it appears that it has not been possible to upload .SVG files Wikimedia since the 20th due to a security policy change). As noted above, here's an new map for discussion. I also have it in .SVG, but can't figure out how to upload it without Wikimedia returning errors.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't have anything with the "active transmission" colour. Is that deliberate? Siuenti (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I feel there should be a color between the widespread, endemic outbreak of, say, Sierra Leone, and the so-far isolated cases outbreak in Mali. If not, then we could eliminate orange and just go with "traffic light" colors, with the addition of blue for medical-evac cases. The main idea is to keep it informative yet simple enough to not require constant fussing over. (Well, that, and being able to upload the dang thing, which I still haven't figured out how to do -- are they any scalable graphic forms which Wikimedia still permits?) Thoughts?--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Epidemic only in three countries

The article first paragraphs implies that the epidemic started in three countries but now is observed in several countries. However, the definition of an epidemic is more than 10 cases per 150 000 people. The epidemic level has only been reached in the three west-african countries where it started. Outside of west-africa, there has been a minor outbreak in Nigeria, but not an epidemy, and it ceased. In other countries there has only been single cases reported.

Experts have started to complain over that the outbirst often is descreibed as an epidemy in many countires, and Wikipedia is one of the channels to be blamed here. I tried to change the article but it was reversed. Mange01 (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is not convincing. Read the Wiki epidemy link again and this source: [21] which our article is using. What may be considered an epidemic for one disease may not carry over for the next. As for Nigeria, etc., they are all part of the epidemic and do not stand alone. Can you give a link that shows which "experts have started to complain..."? Gandydancer (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The current status in the three countries should be emphasized in the first sentences, but okay, it may be expressed in many alternative ways. Examples:

• "epidemic in three countries" [22][23][24]
• "epidemic conditions ...[in] Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone"[25]
• three "countries with widespread transmission", three "previously affected countries" and two "countries with an initial case or cases and/or localized transmission"[26]
• "the three west African nations where the Ebola virus is widespread"[27]
• "In all three countries, [Ebola] transmission remains persistent and widespread, particularly in the capital cities"[28]
• "the current epidemic, hitting primarily three countries, is the worst the world has known" [29][30]
• "the three countries hardest hit by the Ebola outbreak".[31][32]
• "the three nations in West Africa that are struggling with the Ebola outbreak"[33]
• " It is unlikely that a sustained epidemic will occur in the USA"[34]

(An expert was interviewed in Swedish television yesterday, complaining that media presents Ebola as if it was an epidemic in more than three countries. I don't think the weblink to a Swedish news-cast is interesting at english Wikipedia.)Mange01 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably a more convincing argument for changing the language is to just state that 99.8% of the cases have occurred in three countries. Relatively, it's obvious that the other 0.2% of the cases are insignificant (at least currently). But these discussions have previously devolved into arguments over semantics... You'll probably have to provide a WHO/CDC-supported update of the nomenclature with very clear definitions to get support. Snd0 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

the virus has affected more than "3" countries, to state otherwise is not consistent with fact--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The words "affected" and "epidemic" mean different things. See above. Snd0 (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

invariably it (the virus' reach) is wider than Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We all agree that Ebola has "reached" or "affected" Mali, so please address the previous discussion about the word "epidemic". Art LaPella (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

it would be no different than what is mentioned above 1. "The word 'epidemic' is an emotionally charged term. It means different things to different people, and professionals using the term may have an intended meaning quite different from the public's perception of the word. It may also imply different things when translated into other languages. We believe there is a need to define a more understandable official lexicon for``epidemics, particularly when attempting to communicate risk to the population. While recognizing that epidemiologists will continue to use the words ``outbreak and ``epidemic inter-changeably, for risk communication the term ``outbreak should be used according to its standard general dictionary definition as being a more limited type of epidemic. Furthermore, descriptive words should be used to better define the epidemic. The nature of the spread, number of cases, case-fatality, and area affected should be included. Thus, the disease should be described as contagious or non-contagious, with mild, moderate or severe clinical manifestations. The size of the epidemic could be described as small, medium or large, depending on the percentage of the population affected. Finally,the distribution of the epidemic should be classified as widespread or localized. As an example, the West Nile fever epidemic in Israel in 2000 could be described as a medium- sized, relatively widespread epidemic of a non-contagious disease with generally mild to moderate clinical manifestations and a significant death rate only in very elderly people. While this approach will require us to expand our terminology in order to be more specific, it should make risk communication much more effective." [35] and 2. the definition of Epidemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

New jump in Liberia numbers in one day.

Between Nov 23[36] and Nov 24 [37]Liberia reported 1152 new deaths, mainly in Montserado with about 795 new deaths in that day. Just a before hand warning BrianGroen (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

this is being explained as counting previously unrecorded deaaths in that country, not the case that these all died in the last several days.--70.100.20.88 (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

...which is why I continue to point out that maintaining the table is nonsense. ZeLonewolf (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

HI ZeLonewolf (talk The table is being discussed before in length and it was decided to keep the table.. BrianGroen (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware that there is a contingent of editors that insist on using the timeline section as a statistics research project. It's hardly a consensus and reading the section makes it painfully obvious that it's just an unorganized pile of statistics that lacks the tone, style, and flow of an encyclopedia article. ZeLonewolf (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to have taken on a life of its own. Should it be moved into its own article at this point? Perhaps something like Case statistics of the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa? -- Impsswoon (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The Jump in deaths was a accidental adage of 1000 deaths not related to Ebola... [38] and will be removed in the next report... Gremlinsa (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The WHO has dropped all suspected and probable cases in Liberia. In the absence of a government report for the 28 i have to update with WHO report. Hence explaining the drop in death toll in Liberia is difficult to confirm. In order not to be misleading in the timeline i have drop 25 Nov totals from the timeline BrianGroen (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tidying up

Hi everyone, I've tidied up the Experimental Treatments and Sierra Leone sections a bit. Please let me know if this causes any problems. Robertpedley (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oh well, it looks as if all my edits have been reverted without discussion or justification. Dommage. Robertpedley (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved a lot of info to the main articles - maybe best to keep it there rather than this article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline article

As a gentle reminder, the timeline article exists for "daily trivia" type facts. It has not been updated in a few days.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. What with both a timeline and several main articles, there is no reason to add anything but major happenings to this article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Раціональне анархіст The timeline was last updated on 30 Nov as per latest WHO report.. i only received new data today and added it. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Project looking for treatments and cure

Anyone wants to add this: https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org

They have a project where everyone can participate, looking for an Ebola treatment or cure. It's run by the Scripps Research Institute and a scientist who has been working on Ebola for 11 years - http://www.scripps.edu/ollmann-saphire/

It is a way for ordinary people to help.

Whoever you are, please sign your posts by adding four tildes.

I don't think it belongs in the West Africa article. You could try one of the related pages - the EVD page for example - but it's so nebulous that I don't think the editors over there would accept it. Robertpedley (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This now has a Time article dedicated to it http://time.com/3634732/ibm-ebola-cure/ Siuenti (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

3 instances today, so far. Should we ask for protection (PS I don't know how to do it!) Robertpedley (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I would not recommend it— Of the three instances, Cluebot got one, the second was from an autoconfirmed user (so semi protection wouldn't have helped) and the other was reverted immediately anyway. In the same time period there were two good faith IP edits. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Add them to the vandal noticeboard, and they'll be dealt with quick. (I reported an IP yesterday, and it earned a 3mo block within minutes.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Time line and infobox totals

This is a small note to all new editors... Please take note before adding data that the correct date is added to the timeline and the date is to one specific date. I know you all mean well to add the data but it is a tedious process and please read the report for the the correct data... the data on the timeline is the number of cases on that date and not the report date.. i.e the report date is released 10 Dec but the data is for 7 Dec. Thanks all it makes updating the graphs the so much easier and the data is correct. The timeline data is as per who situation reports and not the latest data. The timeline is structured per epidemic week ...The infobox is per latest available data per country and also check the dateBrianGroen (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Everyone please also note that "cases" refers to confirmed cases only, as per an official report. For example, the just-reported American nurse case is not yet confirmed (and even if it were, say by the hospital, we'd still have to wait for the official inclusion to avoid double-counting it). Secondly, a reminder again to the existence of the timeline article, where "daily trivia" is not only more welcome, but the actual primary focus of that page.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Too many CRFs

CRF references are sprinkled throughout the article, and they're mostly different. The latest official numbers (December 10) are 76% in the three outbreak nations and 61% in "hospitalized cases" (it isn't explicitly clear whether "hospitalized" refers to a level of care above the ETCs, but I assume so).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Раціональне анархіст - Thanks, I'll try to take a look at it over the weekend. All the quoted CFR's come from WHO (| Ref 1, | Ref 2) so they are probably subsets of the same data. It'll take some time to sort it out! There was a debate on this page about confidence intervals a couple of months ago & the quoted figures were changed a couple of times I think.Robertpedley (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, I can't track down any published source for the 10 December WHO sitrep so for the time being, no change. I expect they have access to material which has not yet been formally published, so let's wait for a bit. Robertpedley (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

According to the University of Edinburgh there are two potential reasons for problems with CFR's, it says "case fatality rate (CFR) or case fatality risk is a property of an infectious disease in a particular population which states the risk of fatality due to the disease per case. The first thing to note is that it can't be reliably be calculated for an ongoing epidemic by dividing the reported number of deaths due to a disease by the reported number of cases. There are a number of reasons why this will be a poor estimate: Firstly, this doesn't take into account infections that have yet to run their course (ending in recovery or death). If many new cases are being reported, then this will under estimate the CFR. A more reliable estimate can be made if the number of recoveries is also being reported. Secondly, the estimate will be poor if there is a bias in reporting or diagnosis towards severe cases of the disease. This is the case with MERS-CoV in the Middle East where there are many instances of mild or asymptomatic cases (discovered through contact tracing) but most primary cases are only tested if the patients are hospitalized. This will overestimate the CFR. With ebolavirus, bias may occur if patients are being looked after at home and only being hospitalized or recorded if the disease becomes very severe or if the patient dies."[39] I hope this information helps--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Another set of CFR statistics in the latest WHO sitrep.″The case fatality rate in the three intense-transmission countries among all cases for whom a definitive outcome is recorded is 70%. For those patients recorded as hospitalized, the case fatality rate is 60% in each of Guinea and Sierra Leone, and 58% in Liberia.″ Robertpedley (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes...I was going to post about this as well. In the December 11 situation report they used two figures, both 76% and 71%. I only found the 71% figure today after reading the entire report. See here [40] I had not yet seen the 70% figure... Gandydancer (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

So, what should we do? Any ideas on why the WHO jumped around with the figures? I'd guess that the 76% that I added a few days ago should be changed? BTW, I tried and tried to get the ref in correctly but was not able, so someone else should add a new figure. Gandydancer (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Material for the lede

This article "more time needed" contains material which probably deserves to be mentioned in the lede, e.g. The UN Ebola chief said on Thursday it will take several more months before the outbreak in West Africa is under control, an assessment that makes clear the UN's goal of isolating 100 percent of Ebola cases by January 1 won't be met. Dr David Nabarro said there has been “a massive shift” over the last four months in the way affected governments have taken the lead in responding to the epidemic, communities are taking action and the international community has pitched in. I don't normally edit in the lede, (+ I don't have time at the moment) would someone else consider doing this please? Robertpedley (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

interesting read...

there was an earlier Washington Post article on this, but I found this more concise, "the year’s outbreak in west Africa follows that template. A July Washington Post article reported that the three countries hit hardest by the epidemic also have experienced massive deforestation. In Guinea, the rainforest has shrunk to less than a fifth of its original size, and in Liberia, more than half of forests have been sold off to loggers. Sierra Leone has lost a quarter of its wooded land, according to the U.S. Forest Service", [41].....?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a correlation/causation fallacy to me. (AFAIK, all countries in Africa with forests have experienced "massive deforestation" relative to, say, 1950.) Also, the outbreak's index case occurred in a heavily-forested part of Guinea.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

you could be right, however the Washington Post[42] had the same opinion of deforestation, it reads in part, “The increase in Ebola outbreaks since 1994 is frequently associated with drastic changes in forest ecosystems in tropical Africa, wrote researchers in a 2012 study in the Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. Extensive deforestation and human activities in the depth of the forests may have promoted direct or indirect contact between humans and a natural reservoir of the virus. Such a conclusion is particularly troublesome for West Africa, which has never before experienced an Ebola outbreak like this one, and is reported to have one of the world’s highest rates of regional deforestation. The Guinea Rainforest has been ravaged by deforestation...in Liberia, more than half of the forests have been sold off to logging companies, according to the Guardian. And Sierra Leone is “seriously threatened” by deforestation, according to Chatham House’s Illegal Logging Portal."--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that Ozzie has made some good points - he has not suggested that deforestation caused the epidemic, but rather that it may have contributed to it. Keep in mind that researchers are looking for the reasons that this particular outbreak spread so rapidly and, unlike the previous outbreaks, turned from an outbreak into an epidemic. I see no reason to believe that deforestation did not play a part.

Incidentally, thinking back to the beginning of the outbreak and along the lines of why it took so long for anyone to take action, those of us who have been working with this article from the start can well remember how the WHO appeared to be dragging their feet every inch of the way, giving the disease a chance to take hold before any action was started to combat it - not that we could add that to the article since we had no RS for our feelings. So I'd guess that I was not the only editor that felt comfort when the WHO's report admitting mistakes was published, even though they had no intention of admitting them until the emergency had ceased (oh great...). We have added some of that to the article but I have been working through the Time article and as time (no pun intended) permits, I hope to add some of this criticism to the lead as one of the reasons that the outbreak turned into an epidemic. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

well said(better than I would have)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove Graphs from Timeline

Considering that the most recent graphs are more than two weeks out of date, and the majority are almost a month out of date, should these still be represented? I understand the table has been widely debated, and still continues to be updated. Though, with the graphs being left to age, I am not sure their value. Locke411 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I updated now the graphics per country. I also added a weekly graphic where total and values per country are shown. This shows clearly that the majority of cases occurs now in Sierra Leone. I remember a contact person from Liberia saying: "It is a moving target". You build treatment centers, and the epidemic goes to another place. --Malanoqa (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the updated graph(s)! Even those from November 18th have been updated now. Locke411 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Experimental treatments section

As we are all well-aware, our article far exceeds the recommended length. What would other editors think of creating a split that includes the experimental treatments information? Gandydancer (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if a new page is justified. There's a long and detailed section here Ebola_virus_disease#Research covering medications, blood products, and vaccines, while there's another whole page dedicated to just Ebola_vaccine. Maybe some material could be moved across to the other pages, and this page reduced to a bare minimum with pointers to the other pages. Robertpedley (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea Robert. Using my own interest to judge that of most others, all I want to know as far as medications is sort of, "yeah, they're working on different stuff...". I'd certainly want to include the mini lab info that Ozzie added since, if it's working, would be a huge help to be able to judge whether or not an ill person needed isolation or just had some other (of the many that exist in that area) illness. Gandydancer (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

if there is agreement to shorten, compress, do sub-articles and so on it should be done. However there shouldn't be a compromise of quality for quantity ("the article should meet a certain length to therefore...") However you look at it the reason why there is more information is because the virus hasn't stopped, and doesn't seem immediately prone to do so[43] whatever you decide is fine, remember though while we sit comfortably on our PC, these people have to live in it with little end in sight [44]..... merry christmas--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am well aware that the epidemic just goes on and on but I am sick of being the one to mention that that does not mean that our article can go on and on. I do not like being the one to always be complaining and moving stuff out of the article. I'm going to leave the article for now and let others do what they want with it. Gandydancer (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

the only way the article has a shot at "Good Article " status is with you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

WHO figures

Finally the WHO got the figures right for Sierra leone. BrianGroen (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

New CDC Figures as of Dec

There are 1400 cases in the USA that are being monitored according to CDC reported by Sharyl Atkisson Dec 21, 2014 on Fox News, Howard Kutz's Media Buzz program. Sharyl said that these numbers are not reflected on the CDC website. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzeG40o9GVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:9BAB:615C:581F:B991:6BF7 (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Does a youtube video meet WP:RS? 74.75.5.195 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

R₀

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Statistical measures says: "R₀ is estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.5 ... R₀ of 2 means one person infects two individuals, who infect four, 8, 16, 32, 64 – and so on. The R₀ is accumulated over the time when an individual is infectious. For example with HIV, this could be years, but for Ebola, that time is a week." Doctors know enough math to know that the 33rd term of the series 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, ... exceeds the population of the earth. The epidemic started a year ago (which is over 33 weeks) and we aren't all dead yet, so what does everyone else know that I don't know? Art LaPella (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

right, however this would have to be "that" 1 individual over 33 terms- in other words its hypothetical, one individual wont linearly go that far.i'll remove it to be clearer.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed it [45]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe R₀ is the number expected to be infected at the beginning of the outbreak, before any response has been made. Siuenti (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Or more exactly (I think I got this now) basic reproduction number says "... in an otherwise uninfected population". R is expected to change, with or without modern medicine; hence R_t is at time t, and R₀ is at time 0. Art LaPella (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a decent explanation of the statistical measures on the Basic reproduction number page. It doesn't mention R_t so maybe someone with a decent statistical background should add an extra paragraph. However all that's needed in this page is a 2 sentence summary of the West Africa situation, with appropriate links if a readers wants to know more. Robertpedley (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)