Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:51, 19 October 2014

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 October 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ebola virus cases in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Viruses C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Thomas Eric Duncan page were merged into Ebola virus cases in the United States. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should we keep these newly created separate country articles about the Ebola epidemic, and allow them to continue to develop, or delete/redirect now to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa?

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

Issue The problem with this RfC is its creator has worded it in non neutral fashion and thus we are going to need to have another one. The question is "should we keep these three article separate Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone or should we merge them back into Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa were the material can be discussed in the context of the outbreak generally"

They also left out that a discussion on this was already occurring on another page Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Propose_we_re_merge_these_article. As it was not going in their favor they have moved it to another venue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not the real issue at all. The real issue is inclusion of the wider community. Your discussion was not inclusive as it was limited to the talk of that article, and you did not put links to it on the affected article talk pages. You were having a merge discussion, yet you failed to put merge tags on the affected articles. This means the active editors on the affected articles were not included. Also, you iVoted here before you suddenly decided that this RfC question is wrong. You want another RfC? Why didn't you open your discussion to the community with an RfC? Or at least, merge tags? Why no notification to the active editors on the affected articles?

The community can be assured that the question is well formed as the comments at Doc James' discussion were used to formulate it. Note also, before that discussion was opened, Doc James blanked all the pages and redirected them. He was reverted. He then opened his discussion. Soon after that discussion was started, Floydian blanked the pages of all the articles, and Floydian initiated this AfD here: Keep per WP:SNOW. All of this was done without any discussion on the talk pages of the affected articles so that active editors there could give their opinion.

That is why this question has been opened to include the wider community. This is a valid, well formed RfC. Whatever the community decides on this question, that is what should be done. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING at its worst. The ongoing discussion wasn't going in the favour of this editor, so they came to this location and started an RfC with a loaded question. I'm not even participating in this joke. - Floydian  _¢ 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all. The RfC notice was posted on the main article talk page here and

here.

All RfC rules on publicizing the RfC whilst waiting on bot have been followed. The RfC was posted at the Village Pump here, on the talk pages of 10 editors chosen at random from the Feedback Service List, per the RfC rules, and editors from the AfD were notified, per the rules. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not the part that says "Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased." - Floydian  _¢ 21:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all. Only two of the editors chosen at random have responded, JBarta and Silvo 1973, and both have voted "Merge." As for the editors who participated at the AfD, they voted keep, just as they did at the AfD. I didn't choose them. They chose themselves when you chose to open the question to the wider community with an AfD discussion. Including them in the notice is allowed and appropriate. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral: I'd let the editors at the West Africa article decide for West African countries, which are smaller and close together. This one is fine. --Light show (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, most educational and encyclopedic. Plenty of coverage in numerous secondary sources sustained over time. — Cirt (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• KEEP - No reason why we can not have all of these articles (the West Africa article can cover the broader epidemic, and the individual country articles can cover the epidemic in a more localized context). Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• keep its a good article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. This epidemic of Ebola virus is one of the most significant human events in world history. Each of these individual countries deserves to have their own coverage. Plenty out there to fill all these pages. The other article is already too large as it is. These new articles only need time and work to grow. Just like all articles on WP. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Re-merge/merge the West African ones per here . A bunch are duplication of content. The West African countries were all covered very well in the previous articles. This just makes things less manageable. Keep the US one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep I support keeping these articles. There are a lot reasons, and one of them is that they contain material not covered or appropriate to cover in the other articles. Starstr (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep – These will be appropriate content forks because Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa is too big. At about 165 KB, even at this trimmed size (Art LaPella split part of the article to Responses to the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa today), the article will take an average person a long time to read in full. (Slightly off-topic: most articles top out at 50 KB of prose, but this article has about 125 KB of prose, amounting to about 19.25 single-spaced pages in a very large-dimensioned book.) Now all we need to do is expand the forked articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep – I think these are separate topics and should have separate, if related, articles. Miqrogroove (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Merge the three African articles into Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. The U.S. case(s) article can remain separate because the scenario in the U.S. is quite different than in West Africa. In Africa it's essentially the same thing going on with geography being the only real difference. If I recall, Nigeria and the D.R. Congo also have possible ebola cases. Are we going to want separate articles for those as well? One of Misplaced Pages's problems (IMO) is too much fragmentation. There's nothing wrong with a substantial and cohesive article on a topic. If after that substantial and cohesive article shows merit for some intelligent division, then we might discuss it. But let's not do it just for the sake of doing it. – JBarta (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Guinea Keep: Very few information about Ebola in Guinea, I started to write there(Changed my opinion from merge to stay).--Malanoqa (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sections on Epidemiology, Virology, Treatment - (I deleted my statement)--Malanoqa (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Per foregoing remarks. Also, geography might or might not be the main difference, but it does not follow that it is the only material difference. Which sections and detailed materials should be put into which articles and with what degree of detail and repetition are different matters. See discussion below. (apologies for accidental omission of signature that now follows) JonRichfield (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Merge The virus epidemic has been fairly similar in those West African countries and separating in different articles duplicates content. Keeping separates articles might also be detrimental to the correct description of the events. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Leave it a while This discussion can be had after the epidemic is over, & the articles have reached some sort of "final" size. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep This epidemic is not going to be over soon, or limited to the four countries with articles right now. Consider Misplaced Pages coverage of Aids or SARS and do likewise now.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep As I noted on the U.S. Ebola AfD page and other talk pages, The Main article is getting way too big and also out of hand. With the length of time of this outbreak, and still uncertain outcome, There is bound to be much more that will need to be included.. IMO, each country's page should have a BLOW by BLOW of daily report's, Gov response, Incoming AID, Infections & Deaths. While the main page has a summary of all area's, including total's & maps. Then also the main article covers overall details like how and why EVD spread across the borders... Gremlinsa (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Each country will have its own unique reactions to the virus that are highly noteworthy. For example, Liberia has its infamous quarantines of entire poor neighborhoods, and the U.S. has its abundance of resources. And if you think the reactions are different now, just you wait until news starts coming out regarding ethical issues in blood donation. Can survivors direct donations of their blood/serum to family members, or for profit? Will they be forced to "donate" repeatedly, used as agricultural resources to generate thousands of units of immune serum for cash export to wealthier countries? Or will countries leave thousands of people to die without trying to prevent it? Assuming this epidemic continues to spread, and especially if transfusion is truly effective, we're going to see some drastic developments in medical ethics, for better or worse. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, merge United States. Guinea's article is pretty lame right now but it is probably reasonable to write about each country's response as its own article and have the overall article as an overall overview of major events. Guinea's page needs to be revised, and all three need to have their introductions revised a bit to better link back to the original article/be more descriptive. The US response probably doesn't warrant its own article at this time, nor does Spain, Nigeria, or Senegal, but they might in the future. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above. tharsaile (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep There should be a brief summary on the main page but a more indepth article on the outbreak in each country. Handling of the outbreak is very different between Sierra Leone, Liberia or even Guinea and the articles themselves should be expanded to include more of the individual events occurring in the nations without cluttering the main overview. Kactusotp (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Avoiding duplication of content is indeed a good argument. However the individual country articles appear to be sufficiently Notable in themselves and they appear to contain marginal but sufficient content not contained in the West_Africa article. Furthermore my Misplaced Pages search turned up at minimum 76 Misplaced Pages articles titled "HIV/AIDS in (country or region)". Given the high profile of Ebola I think the current set of articles is reasonable. Alsee (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep this and all the other child articles of Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. And how is it that an editor can propose merging eight separate articles, when only one of them carries a "merge" tag? There seems to be a serious abuse of process here (not to mention canvassing and other problems). -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• DELETE THIS AND START OVER There is no Ebola "outbreak" in the United States. The disease is rare in the USA, and to declare otherwise is a HOAX. The neutrality of this article is not possible with alarmist language used right at the start in the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.109.199 (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • POV-pushing troll? Apparently so. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Dthomsen8 Yes I am looking at the SARS outbreak. We have an article on the disease Severe acute respiratory syndrome and than we have an article on the spread Timeline of the SARS outbreak. We do not have articles on each country involved that I can find. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't this issue already covered here for this article? --Light show (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was, and closed as KEEP Per WP:SNOW but the editors over at Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa are now opposing the new articles. This article here has already survived the AfD as your link points out, but despite that, they're still opposed to it, as well as the other articles. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I usually don't mind large articles, as long as they are coherent and can best be dealt with as single logical units, but

• Firstly,once an article is even a fraction as large as Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, its very size unfavourably affects its usefulness. One has to dig to find things, even if the TOC is well-designed at the start, and in practice, the way the article develops, and the speed at which it develops, make it very difficult, not to mention expensive, to keep the TOC useful
• A zoonotic epidemic (comparatively novel yet!) on a sub-continental scale, with intercontinental implications, necessarily has multifarious ramifications. It comprises topics ranging from biology and logistics to history and politics. Such topics cannot be discussed in isolation, but also cannot be discussed in detail in combination without quality, comprehensibility and usefulness suffering. Each topic becomes noise to any reader looking for something else, and trying to relate it to all the parallel topics often causes distortion as well as distraction. This epidemic already suffers from those problems. Even the LEDE of the main article is unmanageable for heaven's sake!
• It may look very impressive to have all the material in one humungous article, but it is far more efficient, effective and useful in a complex of topics on this scale, to write the main topic on a summary basis, the summary carefully concentrating on the logical structure, and linking symmetrically to each subtopic in context. The reader can choose his own path without losing perspective, and without confusion and time-wasting wading through extraneous material.
• At least one respondent says that "Keeping separate articles might also be detrimental to the correct description of the events" and no doubt that could be argued, perhaps on the basis that differing and unreconciled accounts might appear in different articles. However, as long as each account is required to meet the same standards, no verifiable inaccuracy should result, and in fact the risks of inaccurate or misleading reporting due to editorial misunderstanding or bias in a single mega-article would be greater and harder to avoid or correct. For example different histories might well develop in different regions, and to reconcile them into a single account would positively invite misleading impressions and bias.
• Cramming topics into a single article on grounds such as that the "only real difference" is geographical would fall foul,not only of the foregoing points, but also that geographical differences are in many ways crucial to everything from evolution to politics, languages, mores, containment and local wars. Combining say, the situation in Congo with that in Senegal (never mind minor outlying districts like Texas) ignores distances on the same scale as the width of the USA (some 4000 km), and regions of vast ethnic and international differences and frictions. For our purposes that is more than difference enough.
• Now, that is bad enough, but cramming the discussions of different situations into one, not only will cause inevitable confusion, but apparent repetitiveness, masking real differences. By putting each topic into its own article and linking them sensibly, we permit each its own due in its own context, plus its full significance in the perspective of the combined summary article.
• Let's face it, this is not a small topic even if it doesn't grow, and what I say is "Watch this space!" JonRichfield (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well said. And keep in mind if this were a developed nation zone, 2014 Ebola epidemic in Western Europe, or 2014 Ebola epidemic in the U.K., believe me, there would be separate country articles. France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Island. So why is there such an objection to separate country articles in a developing country? I don't understand the refusal to recognize their sovereignty. And not to mention, being separate governments, they've all dealt with this epidemic in their own way. It's an encyclopedia, and we've got multiple articles on Catholicism, Islam, World War II, Christianity, Slavery, viruses, diseases, so it just doesn't make sense to claim there can't be multiple articles, imho. We've got about a dozen articles on the Virgin Mary alone. Not saying all these articles aren't important, mind you, but why are these country articles here different then? Why not just let them stand and contribute to their improvement. We want to encourage readers here, afterall. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with sovereignty, and the fact that it took place in multiple countries is utterly irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not the best presentation of this material is or would make more sense in a single article or across multiple articles; we only really break things up by country when it is logical to do so. For example, Spanish Flu does not have a million country-specific pages despite affecting virtually every country on the planet. The real question is whether or not there is too much material to cover in the main article, and whether it would make more sense to break things up. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I think its almost unanimously felt that the article should be split. The question is posed in a loaded way and should be asking how the article should be split. - Floydian  _¢ 19:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break

The outbreak in West Africa is dealt with properly here Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. What is suggested is taking each individual country out of its proper context. This would be like creating an article for each country flu occurs in in the United States. While ignoring the overall article on the topic. Thus we the discussion here Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Propose_we_re_merge_these_article the majority support merging the content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That analogy doesn't hold up. This is Ebola. An emerging virus that has broken out of it's confines in the rainforest in a developing country to touch the first world. But now you mention it, an article on the flu in the United States would be a good idea. The management and containment in America is very different than other countries. You can't put the baby back in the womb. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

SW#'s comment make sense. The epidemic in West Africa should be covered in one single article and the epidemic in the USA with a separate one. This would more efficient and would avoid redundancy. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Silvio1973 that is what the proposal to re merge the individual articles for the African countries back into the main article means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that your proposal on the main article wants all these newly created articles deleted/merged. In that discussion, you had did not include the wider community. You did not open an RfC, you did not open a merge discussion and tag the article so arriving editors would be attracted to it. You kept it small and another editor, who tag teamed with you in disrupting this article, wanted to quickly close it. This is an issue that requires the wider community. This topic does not belong to a few editors on one article. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The way of presenting the information we have certainly does fall into the hands of an editor like GandyDancer who has taken the time to build these articles. The fragmentation of that information doesn't require a "wider community input". Is it just by chance that you decided not to open the RfC at the article where the discussion of merging was taking place, or was that because you didn't want the wider community to see the points raised in that/those discussions? - Floydian  _¢ 20:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a joke

WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:CANVASsing has taken place, the RfC features a loaded question, and I believe this should be disregarded for the fucking joke that it is. An ongoing discussion at the main article was about to close in the disfavour of SW3 5DL, so he just happened to open up the RfC on this talk page (what a coincidence)... and lo and behold, leaves notes on the talk pages of JUST the editors who have supported his position.AfD But hey! Lo and behold, I did not get a notice, DocJames did not get a notice, GandyDancer did not get a notice, nor did any of the participants at the older discussion who were in favour of merging the content. No link was provided to that older discussion, as if this editor was intent on keeping that information and the points raised out of the picture. Can an uninvolved admin please close this discussion and nullify it for such brazen disregard for our rules? - Floydian  _¢ 20:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I posted the RFC notice on the main article talk page and at the discussion section. I left notes according to the RfC rules whilst waiting on the bot. And if you notice, there are editors who responded JBarta and Silvio1973 who do not agree with me. Secondly, I left a note on the main article talk page at the discussion there. You said, you were going to close that discussion as delete/merge if nobody objected. I said I didn't agree. There's no conspiracy here. This is not a loaded question. It is taken from your own discussions. And might I remind you, you are the one who nominated this article here for AfD. And you did that without any prior talk page discussion. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• AfD by Floydian here
• RfC notice posted on main article talk page here
• Floydian announces there is emerging consensus and is going to close as delete/merge unless anyone opposes here
• I opposed and posted link to RfC

here

• Other editor aware here

SW3 5DL (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You left notes on specific editors talk pages who you felt would support your position. Now I find this, where you are persuading an editor to change their vote. The two editors who didn't agree with you I feel are two random editors, but the rest speaks for itself. You did not leave a note on the talk page of anyone from Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa who had at that point indicated a stance opposite yours. You blatantly cherry picked editors to support you and now you're actually going to try and defend that action? As for the last point regarding starting an AfD without discussion... where are you getting these whacky concepts of how things work... here, there, or anywhere for that matter! - Floydian  _¢ 21:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Floydian, I understand that you are upset, but you analyzed the discussion between me and SW3 5DL not correctly. I told myself, that I changed my opinion on the limited point of merging the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea article. I told this, and then User SW3 5DL asked me whether I could than also change my vote. This appeared completely OK to me, as it was me who told him that I changed my opinion.--Malanoqa (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Floydian, I did not do that. I left a note on the talk page of the main article at the unpublicized discussion you were having where you said you saw an emerging consensus and were going to close in 24 hours, here and I posted on the main article talk page in a section entitled, RfC here. You see, none of you were following the policy of WP which is to post an RfC. Instead, you kept this discussion amongst yourselves. Not even a merge tag anywhere. You are angry that the wider community is involved now and they don't agree with you. WP is not a secret organization. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That "policy" doesn't exist. Considering the issue was about placement of content, there wasn't any negative intent in not making it a community discussion. There was no discussion whatsoever into creating the split articles in the first place (actually there was, using a different delineation of splitting out the "responses" section... but then you just went out and made these articles and we're left with a mess of repetition and the need to update a half a dozen articles each time something happens). I am angry that you have no comprehension of our rules and just spurt out a bunch of nonsense to try and appear like you do. I am mad that you specifically contacted several editors who support your position and none of the editors who didn't. Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. - Floydian  _¢ 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the most impressive cases of canvassing I have seen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649,Floydian and i.p editor. I fully agree and support all three of you on this. This canvasing from SW3 5DL is blatant/ misleading and a complete disregard ofwiki rules. BrianGroen (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just for reference, the question posed should have been more along the lines of How should the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article be split? Individual country articles or summary style section spin-outs where sections become too long and detail-oriented?. The current question establishes a negative connotation of "should we delete this information or keep it?" - Floydian  _¢ 17:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with Floydian, Brian, Doc James and the IP editor. Now we have the aftermath to deal with... With no previous discussion, as I try to cleanup the splits I have no guidelines on what should be included - should a dog study done almost 15 years ago (and is in the disease article) be included in the Liberia article? Should a detailed viral study be included? I could go on and on. Other than the US article, all of these new articles need extensive cleaning up. In some cases this may mean deleting large parts of the present articles. Who wants to be the one to do all this deletion when an inexperienced author has clearly worked very hard on the article? This could have all been prevented if WP guidelines on splits was followed in the first place. This has been an example of Misplaced Pages at its worst. Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a joke/Prior comments not objecting to splitting articles

• We are now left with the individual country sections and I'm about ready to agree to separate articles for them. It seems to me that as the epidemic has grown from an "outbreak" to an epidemic, with even a few suggestions of "pandemic" being dropped here and there, the news such as xxx country had this or that happen within it's borders is less important than the overall effort to confront the ever-spreading disease. Thoughts?

• Well, another maverick split - two down and two to go... I think that we should wait to remove our individual coverage of the affected countries until the new articles are cleaned up. What do other editors think?
• discussing a new article which was later created.
• Suggestion for condensing the article.
• 2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak was split off, as well.

SW3 5DL (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The DRC outbreak is a different outbreak I believe, which is why it got an article. This is a single outbreak that has hit several countries, with much of the information outside of responses and tallies being info that applies to the outbreak at large. There isn't a good case for delineating a split by the countries involved, because there is nothing outside of political borders that separate what's happening in Nigeria from Liberia. It's better to split out sections that are overburdened; this way the main article covers the major facts, and those deeper details can be investigated if a reader so wishes. Instead, we now have a bunch of articles that fragment the information about an outbreak into individual countries, thus making it harder to update, to expand into a good article, and to keep consistency. There is a better solution to dealing with this, but you're taking it as an attack against you when it's not. - Floydian  _¢ 23:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Putting comment here so the bot won't archive it. Epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Epicgenius (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment

I see that the merge tag has been removed from Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Shouldn't this discussion perhaps be closed? And shouldn't any further discussion about maintaining the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa be done at Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa? -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I will continue to revert all non-admin closures. It is especially irritating that 5W3 tried to close this, more bullshittery but not an eyelash blinked. This whole RfC was a farce regardless and I will be opening a new one within hours of this one being closed, presenting the question in the proper way. - Floydian  _¢ 19:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up Duncan section

There was a lot of repeated information in the section about Duncan, and quite a bit of outdated information. I cleaned it up a bit. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Reads much better now. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Please come here and discuss this on the talk page. This section is full of cruft and garbage and suffers from undue weight and WP:RECENT issues. I slimmed down this section several days ago because it is giving WP:UNDUE weight to to this stuff, and most of it does not belong here. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A detailed prognosis is necessary for the reader to understand. The section does not need to be trimmed. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It contains a number of extraneous details, it contains a bunch of garbage which doesn't need to be there, it talks about stuff which it doesn't need to, it goes into too much detail about the tracking and gives WP:UNDUE weight to some specific instances (such as the homeless man)... this is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Article Title: Does this define an Outbreak?

At this point in time, Ebola does not constitute an outbreak in the US. Should the article be named Ebola in the US or Ebola Cases in the US, or Ebola Virus in the United States? Outbreak(n): the sudden or violent start of something unwelcome, such as war, disease, etc. So this isn't an outbreak at all. Yet... EoRdE6 (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that something like "Ebola virus disease in the United States" would do for the time being. But would that make the article harder for readers to find? Geogene (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. It is an outbreak - "the occurrence of more cases than expected" . Prior to this year Ebola has not caused clinical disease in the US source Definitely more than expected. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Has the CDC declared it an outbreak or epidemic? Geogene (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Two related cases = an outbreak. The WHO stated in an email to an editor who posted it on the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa talk page, that in West Africa they call it an epidemic, in the individual countries they call it an outbreak. It is an outbreak of a virus. The virus enters the human. It is the reaction/interaction of the human's immune system with the virus that results in the disease. So it's not an outbreak of disease, it's an outbreak of a virus. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Are sources calling it an outbreak? Geogene (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Not medically reliable sources. An outbreak is defined as an ongoing event, and at this point in time neither Spain nor the USA are experiencing a continuously unfolding event. - Floydian  _¢ 19:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as readers will be able to find the article, I think we should go with the sources. Geogene (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

See Outbreak. Ebola virus is not endemic to the United States, therefore, no outbreak of the Ebola virus is expected here. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So why would we define it as one? They are imported cases, and until a chain of transmission becomes established in those countries, there is no "outbreak", just initial cases. - Floydian  _¢ 20:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

See WHO here. A chain of transmission? I don't understand this: They are imported cases, and until a chain of transmission becomes established in those countries, there is no "outbreak", just initial cases. Well, I could be wrong, but it looks to me like an infected individual entered the United States with a zoonotic virus, developed an infection from that virus, transmitted that virus to another person in the United States, that person has now developed the same zoonotic infection, I'd say that's an outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's an introduction. Hence the use of that term by the WHO. The link you provided says it may constitute an outbreak in those cases, but it's synthesis to apply that to the US ebola cases. The title should be updated to be in line with the spanish article, as that is descriptive, and more time need to be focussed on improving the content and not on the semantics of the title. - Floydian  _¢ 20:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have RS that says it's an "introduction?" Also, well done on the nav box. We'd been needing that. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this is an outbreak. Nigeria's case is an outbreak. These are 2 cases in the U.S., like in Spain. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

For the U.S., the word "case(s)" seems to be used most by sources. A recent example NY Times article uses the word "case(s)" 10 times, but used the word "outbreak" only once, in a question: "Is the U.S. Prepared for an Ebola Outbreak?" --Light show (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Might be good to read this diff here to understand what an outbreak is. This is well said and might help. There's also a epidemiology source provided. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A similar article yesterday, this one quoting Obama, John MCain and the CDC, differentiated the words: "A widespread outbreak is extremely unlikely in the United States. But individual or isolated cases were possible, hence the need for the CDC to be ready." As for the nurse, "The new case is fanning the fears of those who think the government is not doing enough to prevent an Ebola outbreak in the United States." The case(s) exist today, while "outbreak" is generally referring to a potential future event, it seems. --Light show (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The future event would be a . . . widespread outbreak. . . The CDC did not say, this does not represent an outbreak of the Ebola virus. They said they think a widespread outbreak is unlikely. They are acknowledging that this is an outbreak by saying that. They also said that Ebola virus would not come to America, and here it is. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

CDC Chief, more cases likely. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As yet, there appears to be no source which has called the case(s) in the U.S. an "outbreak". Quite the opposite: as yesterday's NY Times wrote in its editorial: "the risk that the Ebola virus might cause outbreaks in this country remains small," which is similar to quotes above. I also agree with what an African editorial wrote, "No Need for Sensationalism". It's not great that "two-thirds of Americans are worried about possible widespread epidemic in U.S.". People may fear an outbreak, but the term is currently unsupported, only inferred. --Light show (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Per the lack of consensus here and at WT:MED to use the word outbreak in the title, I will attempt to move the article to something very similar, descriptive, and generic: Ebola virus disease in the United States. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nav box/Democratic Republic of the Congo

The WHO says the outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not related to the West Africa epidemic. It is mentioned in the nav box. Should we state in the nav box that it is not related in some fashion, or perhaps delete mention of it from the nav box altogether? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's under "related" as opposed to "affected countries" for that reason... though perhaps related does suggest the outbreaks are... well... related! Would "See also" be appropriate? I put it in the nav box because it is commonly referenced by the media and its helpful for reader navigation. - Floydian  _¢ 21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Floydian, I think it's a great thing you did making that box as it's a huge help to the reader. Having it on all the articles is really helping bring order to these articles. Since the media is referring to the DRC epidemic, then maybe say 'unrelated' and keep it in the Nav box? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Third person tests positive in Dallas

The third person diagnosed, a second health care worker, has tested positive for Ebola. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Put into isolation within 90 minutes. They are expecting more cases. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/second-texas-health-care-worker-tests-positive-for-ebola/. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nurses tell of conditions at Dallas Hospital

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792457/Ebola-patient-cared-70-hospital-staffers.html

Sounds like they were given only standard Universal precautions gear which is not adequate to deal with Ebola virus. They had exposed skin and there's a claim that a supervisor told them they didn't need to wear masks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the nurses union the hospital did not have the necessary full coverage protective gear for Ebola workers and the nurses were forced to wear what was available. This is like using Level 1 or 2 lab resources to handle Level 4 organisms - of course it was inadequate. Not only that but the hospital administration made no effort to immediately obtain and supply the proper gear to the staff before the patient went into the stage of the disease where fecal matter and vomitus proliferated.

CDC funding has been reduced over the past 20 or so years (by penny pinching Tea Party? Republicans? who don't see a need for anything but riot gear?) to the point that there is no stockpiling of biohazard protective gear in strategic locations around the nation, nor are there enough people trained in the use of that gear. Additionally, it was pretty obvious back in August that the epidemic was not going to be contained and would go intercontinental within a month or 3 due to someone (lying about exposure) getting on a plane out of Africa. That should have been a wake-up call to hospital epidemiology management everywhere.

--Mccainre (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Ebola virus cases in the United States be renamed and moved to Ebola virus disease in the United States. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Ebola virus outbreak in the United States → Ebola virus disease in the United States – Discussion shows no consensus to use the word "outbreak" in the title. This title is more descriptive, generic, and accurate. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Definition of an outbreak by the World Health Organization .A disease outbreak is the occurrence of cases of disease in excess of what would normally be expected in a defined community, geographical area or season. An outbreak may occur in a restricted geographical area, or may extend over several countries. It may last for a few days or weeks, or for several years.A single case of a communicable disease long absent from a population, or caused by an agent (e.g. bacterium or virus) not previously recognized in that community or area, or the emergence of a previously unknown disease, may also constitute an outbreak and should be reported and investigated.

• Support. There has been no outbreak of Ebola virus disease in the United States. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The WHO would be surprised to hear that. Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the patients would be, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Per discussion above, ie., NY Times editorial 10/13: "the risk that the Ebola virus might cause outbreaks in this country remains small." Other experts concur, that an outbreak can be "prevented,", with Peter Hotez describing ways (10/15) to prevent one. WP should best stick with conservative phrasing.--Light show (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Append: When asked if the recent Ebola cases in Dallas should be considered an "outbreak," The White House said "No." (10/15) --Light show (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should use WP:MEDRS rather than the NYT. Gandydancer (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Could the article still include suggestions by experts such as Hotez, about the "keys to preventing a large scale outbreak," with its current title? Also, this RS section is relevant. --Light show (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps...though best for the main article? What part of RS are you talking about? In my experience, in this case the WHO would trump everyone else. Gandydancer (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Synth, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Some who oppose have used explanations such as: "The WHO defines an outbreak this way:"; " What else do you call it when an infectious disease newly emerges?"; "While most mainstream sources aren't calling it an outbreak yet, Misplaced Pages should use accurate scientific definitions"; and, "The CDC has said they are expecting more cases. They probably will list it as such." In any case, I believe the CDC trumps WHO in the U.S. --Light show (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I missed that. Where does the CDC say that it's not an "outbreak"? Gandydancer (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed they said that. You're the second opposer to imply that unless the CDC specifically says "it's not an outbreak," then we should assume it is. --Light show (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Light Show, WRT Hotez, and "keys to preventing a large scale outbreak," it is an outbreak now. They are saying the want to prevent a "large scale" or "widespread" outbreak. There's literally a huge difference there. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. The CDC, Obama and some experts, do refer to preventing a "widespread," or "serious" or "large scale" outbreak. Although there's probably no source, I think that clearly implies this is still a "local outbreak," namely among the two nurses, and mainly relevant to a particular hospital. Using the word "outbreak" in the title implies that it is uncontained and more "widespread." If and when the majority of sources use the term "outbreak" then we can add it back. There are some journalists who will see our use of the word in the title and wrongly assume it's based on solid facts, when it's still speculative. --Light show (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Light Show, that's not how it works. The word 'outbreak' in the title makes it clear that there has been an outbreak of the Ebola virus in the United States. The American sources are all starting to use the term outbreak. CBS news, CNN, etc. The title meets the WHO definition of an outbreak above. No, the CDC does not trump here. They've not put a foot right yet in this outbreak. In addition, all these page moves have caused an awful disruption to the article and to readers using search engines. Now you're claiming we should move the page because you define outbreak differently than the WHO does. You then state you want to move it back again when you are satisfied that this is an outbreak as you would define it. No, sorry, I can't sign on for that. We cannot keep disrupting this page for that. It's an outbreak. It meets the definition of an outbreak as put forth by the World Health Organization, an organization that's been getting it right since this outbreak began with a 2 year-old in Guinea. The CDC, not so much. And that's the last bit I'll say on the matter. The community can decide this. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why WHO's definition is the main focus here. First, the CDC's opinions or definitions by all measures would be more significant in the U.S. than WHO's, a UN organization. The CDC budget is 300% larger. They are U.S. based. They have consistently, from day one, been leading the research into Ebola. The CDC, during the first outbreak in 1976 in Zaire, had already isolated the virus, and were on their way to Zaire with multiple doctors and 17 boxes of gear to stop the the epidemic. They stopped in Geneva on the way to meet with WHO, and found that WHO was barely aware that an epidemic was even taking place. Hello? The team set up by Ebola's co-discoverer, Peter Piot, a Belgian doctor, were CDC people. I don't think he even mentions WHO in his chapter about that epidemic. WHO would not trump the CDC for the U.S. --Light show (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. For now, per my comments in the discussion above. Make sure that there are appropriate redirects. "Ebola virus disease" won't be the Google term most readers will use Geogene (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The WHO defines an outbreak this way: . The New York Times opinion piece is not based on epidemiology science like the WHO definition is. Personal opinion that this is not an outbreak, is not reason enough to move this page again. The page has been moved too many times. In addition, this is not an outbreak of disease. It is an outbreak of the Ebola virus that is transmitted to an individual. When the virus enters that person's body, it interacts with the immune system. This creates the disease in that person, who then is able to transmit the virus to others. Also, American reliable news sources are starting to call it an outbreak here. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, though I suggest we harmonize with the Spanish article title. Either by adding "cases" here or removing it from that title. According to this email from the WHO, the situation in the US and Spain is referred to as an "introduction". - Floydian  _¢ 18:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The thing is Floydian, an office worker may say that in an email, but in actuality that is not what the WHO is calling the outbreak in Senegal, with only one case. See here: Gandydancer (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not an outbreak. This is not an outbreak. This is not an outbreak. Oops, this is an outbreak. What else do you call it when an infectious disease newly emerges in an area? Medical services & authorities are trying to contain the outbreak, or at least I hope so. But we keep exercising in semantic denial. Stupid girl (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Based on the epidemiologic definition of an outbreak, yes, this is an outbreak. However, the CDC has not listed it on their Current Outbreak list. I'm on the fence on this one. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The CDC has said they are expecting more cases. They probably will list it as such. All these pages moves are disruptive. Waiting might be best to see if more cases are reported. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support move

The CDC defines the situation in the United States as being one of: "cases" , specifically "travel associated cases" .

The WHO are of a similar stance .

Vague definitions and lay-opinion pieces are irrelevant when compared to what major international health organizations actually are saying.

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That is what they were saying on September 30th, two weeks ago, before the nurses became ill. And use of the Ebola virus outbreak is appropriate according to the WHO definition of an outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. We need to use conformity in all of our Ebola articles. We are using the WHO. According to the WHO this is an outbreak. Even the Senegal outbreak, with only one case, is considered an outbreak by the WHO. As SW3 5DL notes above, this subject has already been discussed at length in the main article. Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support: The WHO definition says (emphasis added): "A single case of a communicable disease long absent from a population, or caused by an agent (e.g. bacterium or virus) not previously recognized in that community or area, or the emergence of a previously unknown disease, may also constitute an outbreak and should be reported and investigated." WHO is not specifically calling the U.S. situation an outbreak that I can find. The CDC is still, as of today, referring to it as "Cases of Ebola Diagnosed in the United States". —Torchiest _edits 20:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, how do you explain the fact that the WHO is calling the one Senegal case an outbreak? Gandydancer (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, how to explain that, and also, Torchiest, there's not been "only one case in a population where it has been long absent," there's been 3 in a population where it has never existed before. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

We're Misplaced Pages, we don't need to explain it. We need to report what the reliable sources are saying. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Most of the positions that have been given--including both pro and con--appear to be based on original research on whether it is or isn't an "outbreak" yet. I'm not going to question that most everyone else knows more about this than I do. But is it in line with normal policy? already voted above Geogene (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that SW3 5DL and I are using OR. Please explain. Gandydancer (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of the definition, and the decision on whether it should apply to this instance, is original research. SW3 5DL actually got it backwards by saying Personal opinion that this is not an outbreak, is not reason enough to move this page again. Actually the more conservative wording is that it's not an "outbreak", and it's SW3 5DL's personal opinion that it is an outbreak; however that editor also cited sources that are now calling it an outbreak, and I find that a valid argument. But the 19:37 comment is more OR. Your argument was for conformity and an appeal to the WHO, and so valid. Anyone else I should criticize? The one immediately below looks likely. Geogene (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrt the definition, it's really not my personal opinion. Here is a diff where Gandydancer explains it very well on the main article talk page. here. He looked it up and there's a source there as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an opinion/OR that the present conditions meet the stated definition. That's not to say that the opinion/OR is wrong, it's just that I'd rather WP be the last and not one of the first places to call it that, since it has a ring of sensationalism to it. Until last weekend it wasn't technically an outbreak by the definition you gave. Why was this article already calling it that by then? Geogene (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose While most mainstream sources aren't calling it an outbreak yet, Misplaced Pages should use accurate scientific definitions. User:SW3 5DL and User:Gandydancer are correct here. The lead defines that this "outbreak" is very limited in size, so readers will not be confused by the terminology. (We can put a note in the lead if needed.) For the second part of the issue ("ebola virus disease" as proposed vs "ebola virus" as currently used), the issue is not just that people have Ebola virus disease in the US now, but that other people may have Ebola virus without having yet developed Ebola virus disease, and the overall situation is to deal with the containment of the outbreak of Ebola virus. The article deals with that overall containment effort, not just the patients diagnosed with Ebola virus disease. Xqxf (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to stick with the mainstream sources, usually. The second point is a good one. I proposed "ebola virus disease" above and think this is a good reason to take "disease" out of it. Geogene (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC reports Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said it might take time to deal with the outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Huffington Post: Obama cut CDC funding years before outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

CNN Ebola up to speed on the outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

These are poor sources to use to make a WP:COMMONAME argument here. HuffPo carries a decidedly political slant and that article is using "outbreak" in response to mid-year politicking by a political group. The CNN article is using "outbreak" in a global context, not specific to America. The one use of the word "outbreak" in the USA section is only related to the same politicking. The BBC article that quotes Rawlings and uses the word "outbreak" appears to be an outlier, there are plenty more articles covering the same story that don't use the word "outbreak", . Zad68 02:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree, but editors here are using American news sources and back up their 'support' of the move. The WHO definition is best. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear... I did read the WHO definition of "outbreak" but it'd cross the line into WP:OR to take their definition and apply it to the situation ourselves. We've got plenty of reliable sources to use, there's no reason to have to do that. In fact, there is this from the WHO, the "WHO: Ebola Response Roadmap Situation Report" that describes what's happening in the USA as "cases"; they reserve the word "outbreak" for other areas. The specific wording the WHO uses for the situation in the USA is: "COUNTRIES WITH AN INITIAL CASE OR CASES, OR WITH LOCALIZED TRANSMISSION", see page 9. Zad68 04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

But this requires more of what you call original research: "Cases" doesn't include "localized transmission" to cover the full scope, but you've arbitrarily decided to exclude that part. And a name like "Ebola virus disease cases and localized transmission in the United States" is a little unwieldy, when "outbreak" is a simple synonym for that. Xqxf (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem because this requested move discussion isn't contemplating a target of "cases" but rather the more general "disease". And certainly the WHO's document doesn't support the case for keeping this article at "outbreak", which is the direction of your argument. The WHO's document does not at all support your assertion that "outbreak" is a "simple synonym" for "cases and localized transmission". Zad68 12:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support move. While what's happening in Africa is an "outbreak," the best-quality sources characterize what's happening in America as "cases." In this the CDC is careful not to apply the word "outbreak" to the 2 cases of infection that have happened in the US. Looking at the sober news sources like the ones from the AFP, Reuters,
• Oppose, because it's actually cases, it should be Ebola virus cases in the United States. It's not an outbreak, but the "disease" appendix to the page title is not consistent with other articles' naming, and the article is also about the cases, not the disease itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...generally I think of people having cases of Ebola virus disease (or Ebola virus infection before that), not cases of Ebola virus itself. In addition to being slightly inaccurate, I think this has the same problem as "disease" as far as focusing on the individuals still. (It also makes me think the article is about physical cases filled with vials of Ebola virus. :) Xqxf (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Disease" is better than "cases" because there's only been 2 reported cases of infection in the USA (so far), it'd be rather limiting to the scope of the article. "Diseases" is more general can would allow the article to cover more ground. Zad68 04:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

But duplication is not wanted. We want the article to cover the outbreak of the virus, not the disease. How did the virus get here, how was it managed, how is it spreading. That's the focus. As for the disease, Ebola virus disease handles that. This is the outbreak, just like the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa is about the epidemic there. We don't repeat their content. Items that migrated from there have been eventually eliminated here. Plus we've now got a nav box to handle the other outbreak articles so the reader can link easily to those, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Among other issues already listed, Ebola virus disease in the United States would have to include the Reston virus monkeys in Virginia and Texas in 1990, which is too broad. Xqxf (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong at all with covering those topics in a Ebola virus disease in the United States article, would not be too broad. There's no requirement that we have an article that covers only the activity that has happened in the past week or two. Zad68 12:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Xqxf. I wouldn't recommend such an article as it sounds like a content WP:FORK. If it were at AfD, editors would likely say redirect to Ebola virus disease as it already covers that. However, an article about the outbreak in the U.S. can be a stand alone article as the topic is unique. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the proposed title means we need to cover Reston virus... Though I still think adding "cases" (which includes how the virus got here and the effects of it... don't need to be that specific to the title) is better and harmonizes it with the Spanish title. - Floydian  _¢ 16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Floydian, the thing about going back to cases is that it suggests only the medical workers evacuated to the U.S. We're past that now since Duncan got here. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Principles of Epidemiology, source used for definition of epidemics, defines outbreak as follows: "Synonymous with epidemic. Sometimes the preferred word, as it may escape sensationalism associated with the word epidemic. Alternatively, a localized as opposed to generalized epidemic". Two cases of ebola (not counting the one who contracted it in Liberia) is not an outbreak, but reflection of current media hysterics and is not objective. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment are we expanding this article to cover all cases of Ebola disease in the United States, and not just those related to the 2014 West African outbreak? There was an Ebola Reston zoological oubtreak of Ebola virus disease in the United States a few decades ago, as well as several other zoological cases of disease -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. per above until sources are calling these cases an outbreak. CDC says Oct 15 "Ebola is not spread through casual contact; therefore, the risk of an outbreak in the U.S. is very low." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Whether There's an Ebola Outbreak in the U.S. Depends on the Definition of 'Outbreak suggests not calling it an "outbreak" is politically motivated to some extent. Some other sources calling it an "outbreak" now, amongst others: . The Independent article specifically talks about preventing "any wider outbreak" in the U.S. Xqxf (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Agree with Xqxf. Keep the politics out of the medicine. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't really see the problem with the use of the word "outbreak". The WHO has called it an outbreak. When the two nurses contracted the disease, it broke containment. The proposed wording is vague and non-descriptive to the wording of the article. If the article really reflected the proposed wording it would start off with the cases of Ebola which were not detected in the US and begin with the individuals which were transferred to the US for treatment. The wording of the lead fits with the more specific word of "outbreak". If anything the title could be expanded to include the year to differentiate against future possible outbreaks. The CDC and the WH are certainly treating it like an outbreak even if they are wanting to not call it that for optics as they are specifically talking about containment of the disease. If there were no outbreak, there would not be talk of containment and control of spread. I think some editors are hung up on the number of cases. I don't see why this is a political issue, and whether it is called an outbreak or not is not going to change the perception that people have of what is going on. Arzel (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  I have been asking but no one has provided a link to where the WHO calls the cases in the USA an outbreak. Can you provide this link please. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because there is none. The rationale is based on OR, as noted above and below by those who oppose calling the cases "cases." --Light show (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - seems WHO in their "Disease outbreak news" Notice of 1 October 2014 refers to "Ebola virus disease – United States of America" at the following => http://www.who.int/csr/don/01-october-2014-ebola/en/ - hope this helps. Drbogdan (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

When you look right at what the WHO says constitutes an outbreak and refuse to believe it, there is not much that one can do to convince you. According to the WHO an outbreak is the occurrence of cases in excess of what would normally be expected in a defined community, area or season and it may occur in just one country or several. Our article Disease outbreak says the same thing. Furthermore, as I have pointed out, the WHO refers to the Senegal outbreak with only one case as an outbreak. For my part, I'll be ready to change my position when someone explains to me why they are calling Senegal an outbreak and would not use the same term for the disease here in the US. Gandydancer (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The outbreak took place in four adjoining W. African countries, the starting point and main focus, which is why there is an article correctly named Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, as opposed to Ebola virus disease cases in Spain. --Light show (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay User:Gandydancer so you are saying that you are basing this on a definition of an "outbreak" by WHO which includes the word "may", does not refer to the United States and does not refer to Ebola? Sorry but this looks like WP:OR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Ebola outbreak has crept into the US. States that a major outbreak is unlikely, read as an outbreak none the less. The WHO also called the single case in Senegal an outbreak, agree with Gandydancer's position regarding Senegal. Arzel (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support This isn't an outbreak. It's an occurrence. valereee (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. An outbreak by any other name is still an outbreak. Senegal is an example. Why is U.S. wanting to be different? Miguel Pena (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Two (or three or four) healthcare workers getting infected on the job does not constitute an outbreak. Until something like this begins to spiral out of control, I don't think the alarming phrase of "outbreak" should be used. Jwhester (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The disease has broken out here in the U.S. I understand different people have different definitions for the word. It matches wiktionary and who first definitions. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. While two cases of a rare disease that was not expected to spread does constitute an outbreak in technical terms, it's expected to be fully contained at the current time. This now is more of a case of, let's revisit the question if there are four more cases that are outside of the contact groups.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment to the admin who unilaterally made the change, based upon a request. Every organization has a change management process, as does Misplaced Pages. The process was not followed. Had I, when I was an administrator of various networks and systems made such a change upon request and not checked if change management processes were adhered to first, I'd be written up on the first event and looking for a new job on the second. Change management is that big a deal, for without it, chaos ensues, with changes and reversions occurring as fast as the system can nearly process.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Technically we are on safe ground with "outbreak". Outbreak is supposed to be the neutral, unloaded term to say that the disease occured in a new place. "Outbreak" became politically loaded because the US government tries to project calmth by deliberately not calling it "outbreak". Some media go along with this, others don't. We Wikipedians can follow the US government's lead if we want to, but it's nothing wrong with calling it like it is either. Regarding the WHO: You can, and did, cite WHO's current usage for both sides of the argument. That's because WHO primarily uses another distinction between localized transmission, like US, and wide-spread transmission. Neither of them they call outbreak. They use the term outbreak occasionally to distinguish between this (West African) Ebola outbreak and the other one in DR Congo. Since WHO's scope is global, this makes sense. The DR Congo outbreak is a separate one, while the US cases are clearly linked to the West African outbreak. <sarcasm>Since Misplaced Pages's scope is US American, we might go along with CDC and call this "Dallas Presbyterian breach of protocol".</sarcasm> The technically most correct term would be something like "United States cases of the West African Ebola virus epidemic". This would be unwieldy, geographically inconsistent, and everybody wants to avoid the debate about "pandemic" as long as possible. Therefore, "United States cases of Ebola virus" is good, and "United States outbreak of Ebola virus" is even better because when you read the article its focus is on the ongoing containment efforts, and not on the cases. If you look around further on the WHO site: There is a Disease Outbreak News list. On this list, "Ebola virus disease - United States" is indicated on Oct 1st with the Duncan case. This is also listed under "Outbreaks and emergencies" on the WHO country profile "United States of America". Stupid girl (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support As Jwhester says above, a few healthcare workers getting infected on the job does not constitute an outbreak, and the term "outbreak" is not being used by either medical organizations or (with rare exceptions) by major news organizations. Calling it an outbreak when it is not yet one is alarmist, and does not help readers or Misplaced Pages's own reputation for impartiality: Misplaced Pages exists to report facts, not to create them. -- The Anome (talk) 6:19 am, Today (UTC−5)

Family refutes some claims

Regarding the story about Thomas Eric Duncan helping Marthelene Williams, editors should note that in an October 14, 2014 op-ed piece for the Dallas Morning News, Duncan's nephew said, "And while the stories of my uncle helping a pregnant woman with Ebola are courageous, Thomas Eric personally told me that never happened. Like hundreds of thousands of West Africans, carefully avoiding Ebola was part of my uncle’s daily life." Thus, refuting the veracity of the Williams story and, by inference, claims that he lied to airport officials about recent exposure to the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtha25 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that refutes the widespread media coverage of it. However, it should perhaps be noted that the family denies the story. Geogene (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would Williams's family and Duncan's neighbors fabricate such a story? --Light show (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Sounds dodgy given that Duncan's family want to pursue a lawsuit. And note as well, that Duncan spoke English and could have told the ER doctor that he was from Liberia where the Ebola virus epidemic was taking place. Instead he told the doctor he was from Africa. He didn't really give the doctor any reason to suspect Ebola. They always say if there is one person on the earth you should never lie to, it's your doctor. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Duncan told the ER he was coming from Liberia, and the doctors had access to that information (it's also not very likely a medical professional would just accept "Africa" as a location without asking for more specifics). See http://time.com/3465993/ebola-dallas-hospital/ . This is the first I've heard that Weeks denied the story, so I added that. However, I don't consider this editorial conclusive. It could easily be a miscommunication (Duncan reportedly said at he thought she was having a miscarriage, not sick with Ebola) or bad editing by the newspaper. Superm401 - Talk 05:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Vinson called CDC before boarding plane

Apparently, CBS news is reporting that Amber Vinson called the CDC to report a low grade fever of 99.5 before boarding the plane and the CDC told her it was okay to board. See here. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As the source puts it: CBS News Medical Correspondent Dr. John LaPook reports that Vinson called the CDC several times before boarding the plane concerned about her fever and was told she was OK to board. Given that Frieden is still saying she shouldn't have flown, let's get other sources. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Depends on who she spoke to on the phone, but the CDC says the threshold temperature is 100.4. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the primary controversy is that people potentially exposed to ebola aren't supposed to be flying, e.g. . Geogene (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem might be that the CDC is telling the health care workers to report a temp of 100.4, but they aren't also cautioning that a trend of a rising temperature should tell the health care worker to shelter in place. Keeping a chart of daily temperature at designated times of the day, and showing a rising trend should alert the healthcare worker to a likely infection. Every person's temperature fluctuates during the day. Early in the morning on first rising, is considered the most accurate. Later in the day, some rise is normally expected, but a trend showing an increase at any point, especially first thing in the morning, is notable. In addition, females will have a slightly elevated temperature during ovulation so that must be factored in. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

SOFT SELL

This article reads like pro-Obama propaganda. There is no mention of the many notable people who are calling for the suspension of incoming travel from infected countries. Surely that's material to this discussion !!!! 98.118.62.140 (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Heavy POV, or just trolling? – Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Both. —Gaff 23:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nina Pham

They are apparently sending her to Bethesda, Maryland. Epicgenius (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fauci

Thanks for moving that to a better spot. But the statement there reads On October 16 2014, in a United States Congressional hearing regarding the Ebola virus crisis, Dr Fauci, as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), testified and warned that they were still some distance from producing sufficient quantities for widespread trials. Sufficient quantities of what? Visas? It can still probably fit somewhere in the article. Geogene (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Obviously I've never used that template before, sorry. Geogene (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Why not move it or modify it then, instead of totally whole-sale removing and dissing? Just curious. No real valid reason to whole-sale remove. That's disrespectful and against WP policy and drift and recommendation. Which is MODIFY, don't totally delete. Just because you don't like what Fauci said, or find it so irrelevant, doesn't really mean that it is. It's all regarding the American situation here. Not sure what the big hang-up and problem is here, with this. Fauci has been in interviews and hearings regarding the United States outbreak... Your rationale for removing is not really valid. And you disrespected my hard work and addition for no valid reason. Stop edit-warring please. (Also if you notice, another editor restored part of the Fauci matter in a different part of the article. So if your issue is WHAT PART of the article it is in, then why didn't you maybe do that? Move it, instead of totally RE-move it?) Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it would be nice if people would stop telling me why I do things, especially since they're usually wrong. There are several problems with your addition (1) it has nothing to do with Nina Pham, and you dropped it right in the middle of section (2) Fauci is quoted without any context. There is no information content in his statements, as they are placed here. (3) I don't know why these two different topics are being lumped together simply because Fauci made those statements. Geogene (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Which is why I also said that if it's a matter of it not being really in the best or the right spot or place IN the article, then there may be a valid point with THAT. But then I said, that if it's that (and it looks like you may have a point with that), then why not simply move the paragraph or statements, rather than totally whole-sale removing? Modify the situation, instead of deleting. (Also, btw, to your comment on my page, I never break 3RR, ever, and I'm NOT really a "new user".) Anyway, if the statement should be moved, as it may very well need to be, then why not do that, or work on it. Because one thing I will not budge from is the fact that Fauci's positions or statements belongs in this article at least somewhere. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Because that's your responsibility. Have a nice day. Geogene (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that the problem hasn't been fixed. I'm not going to re-revert. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not entirely true. It's NOT JUST "my responsibility"...because WP policy is for ANY editor, other editor, to NOT remove necessarily, but to MODIFY OR MOVE or whatever else may be needed or may be better. To put it solely on me, the initial editor, is NOT what Misplaced Pages recommendation actually. But in general. But anyway, I already (a while ago already) moved the paragraph to a better place. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Geogene (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hysteria

This page does not conform to Misplaced Pages standards in that the coverage is not balanced. There have been 5 confirmed cases here in the US. Will you also be making a page about the flu and all the people who die annually? Why not? If 5 people equals an outbreak then flu deaths are way underhyped.

You make a valid point, but coverage in WP is in proportion to coverage in reliable sources. Currently, it's just about wall to wall coverage of ebola out there. We're doing well that the US article is so short as it is. Geogene (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Where are cases 4 and 5? We're not counting the medevac cases, are we? Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola has a much higher chance of killing me in the coming year than flu.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless you are in one of the affected West African countries, flu has a far higher likelihood of killing you than Ebola. Influenza causes 250 - 500k worldwide deaths most years (25 - 50k in the U.S.) To answer the unsigned IP editor, there are some articles like 2013–14 flu season and sections like Influenza_vaccine#2014-2015_Northern_Hemisphere_influenza_season (and southern hemisphere.) If there are sources covering other flu seasons, then articles can be created. Xqxf (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that simple. Flu risk depends on age and health, and Ebola probability depends on what you think the probability of the most hysterical fears is (a pandemic comparable to the Black Death). Wasn't that long ago they told us Texas couldn't happen either, but it did. Art LaPella (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It happens always with articles about recent events, which mostly reference the media (just count the references to CNN, ABC, NBC, USA Today, Fox News, NYT etc.) Until studies about this subject are written and published as scientific articles, pages about news will remain a collection of claims purported by the media. So if the media are hysterical, so will the article be. The only way to be objective is to wait until the hysteria subsides and then clean it up. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

>flu has a far higher ...

No. I'm a healthy adult. The typical yearly flu kills those who are weak, such as the very old. Flu has close to zero chance of killing me this coming year. In fact because of flu vaccine, I haven't been affected by flu in 10 years. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Very good on you for getting your flu vaccine, but until there is a universal flu vaccine, there are still concerns as Wzrd1 states below. (But we're veering into WP:NOTFORUM.) Xqxf (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree administrator help is urgently needed here to edit this Ebola entry on Misplaced Pages. There is currently no Ebola "outbreak" in the United States, and declared as such is a HOAX. The disease is still quite rare. Definition of "outbreak" is a violent and sudden start. You are encouraging hysteria with this title, and the neutrality of the information as presented is highly questionable.

Maybe what we really need is a checkuser. And 97.123.109.199 remember to sign your posts, like the one above. Or alternatively, you could log in with your account. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll give more credibility to signed comments. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Daniel.Cardenas, you're as wrong as imaginable as to deaths from influenza. It isn't only the "weak" and elderly, the Spanish Influenza pandemic preferentially killed healthy and strong people, other epidemics did so at lower numbers. Do read about the cytokine storm. Now, for further homework, I present for your reading displeasure, outbreak. For rare diseases that are not expected to spread, two can be enough to qualify as an outbreak. In this case, the US Ebola outbreak is likely contained. It's been fortunate that only two are confirmed and so far, the family the index case was living with has so far showed no signs of infection. Hence, it's more now of a lessons learned event. Protective garments are only as effective as adherence to protocol. Perform the steps of the protocol incorrectly, one might as well have walked into the room naked and treated the patient. The worst part is, from my own experience in using protective clothing and correctly removing them and from training others, it's nearly impossible to properly learn from a quick and informal training session. Remove your gloves incorrectly, you've contaminated your hands. Remove your eyeshield/faceshield with your gloves on, you've contaminated your head. Remove your gown wrong, you can contaminate a lot of yourself. Fail to wash your hands after leaving the "hot zone", any miniscule contamination is essentially guaranteed to receive a free ride into your mouth, nose or eyes.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Map question

Would anyone be interested in making a map with the biocontainment centers labelled in their respective states? Something like this would be helpful, especially for readers not all that familiar with the individual states in America. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-neutral and controversial title, asking for admin help

I started the move discussion above simply because I couldn't move the article myself. Why shouldn't an admin immediately move this article back to the previous title at least? The current title never had a good rationale or consensus, because as the LA Times said yesterday: this is all far from an outbreak. I'm tagging the article as non-neutral and I'll post at WP:AN for some admin attention. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently no Ebola "outbreak" in the United States, and declared as such is a HOAX. The disease is still quite rare. Definition of "outbreak" is a violent and sudden start. You are encouraging hysteria with this title, and the neutrality of the information as presented is highly questionable. 97.123.109.199 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.109.199 (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The word "outbreak" is at least well-intentioned, and I wish there were as much attention to the text as there is for the title. Art LaPella (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about moving it is above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It will be a sad day for Misplaced Pages when we decide to use the LA Times to make our decisions rather than the WHO. According to the WHO, we now have an outbreak of EVD in the US. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The sad day is here. A few disruptive editors, and one who is socking at the moment, are politicizing this article. Somebody has really been working the back channels in the last 24 hours. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not seeing where WHO calls the US situation an outbreak. I see this but it is not refering to the US, Ebola and uses the word may. Is their another? You provide something from WHO or the CDC and I will change my position.

CDC says Oct 15 "Ebola is not spread through casual contact; therefore, the risk of an outbreak in the U.S. is very low." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The CDC has no credibility. They also told a symptomatic nurse she could fly on a commercial airliner. They also said America was prepared for the Ebola virus. Their protocols have failed. They are politicized because they depend entirely on U.S. government funding. Guess who holds the purse strings and is heading into mid-term elections in 2 weeks. That website by the way, is probably staffed by the same person who told Amber Vinson it was okay to get on that aircraft. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In this outbreak, they might have no credibility, but they have been trusted in numerous other cases. The CDC were not totally prepared at the time of Duncan's arrival. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Today authors in JAMA used the terms "West African epidemic" and "the Dallas cases". Yes, it implies we might have an outbreak by saying "but a large outbreak in the United States, with its advanced health system, is unlikely"—but how is us reaching that conclusion ourselves (WP:OR), without reliable medical sources saying so, appropriate? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"No credibility?" The U.S. has just two sick nurses from treating a visitor from W. Africa, which has 9,000 cases. However, the "World Health Organisation (WHO) admits botching response to Ebola outbreak". --Light show (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, Biosthmors is totally correct. The only rationale as yet stated for allowing the word "outbreak" to stay is because a UN organization, the WHO, has their own definition of what an outbreak is and a few editors have decided to interpret that definition, which is a form of synthesis, and not allowed per guidelines. In keeping the word as part of the title, unfortunately, it also overrides U.S.reliable sources, including the CDC and the U.S. government, with an implied bias for the UN's book definition. Yet WHO is not involved in the U.S. cases, is not cited relevant to U.S. cases, and has not even called the U.S. cases an "outbreak." The White House stated clearly two days ago, "there is no outbreak". --Light show (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The WH has said a lot about Ebola and has been wrong a lot. Arzel (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, weigh in here. Some editors want to move the page from outbreak to disease because the WH said it wasn't an outbreak. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What a politician calls something matters little, what a medical professional and especially in this instance, what an epidemiologist calls it is what actually matters. On a purely technical point, it is an outbreak. It's a rare disease and it was not expected to spread, especially in a health care environment. That said, the point is moot, as it's unlikely that there will be more uncontained cases.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Czar

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/17/politics/ebola-czar-ron-klain/

SW3 5DL (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Texas Hospital image

If anybody has the time, it might be a good idea to find a free image of the Texas hospital. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll contact the volunteer Misplaced Pages photographers in Dallas. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: Hi there, I'm one of the wikipedians that BlueAg09 contacted to try and get a photo of the Hospital. Unfortunately the Emergency wing is cordoned off with Police officers and News media giving the random public a hard time. The request for a photo came just after sunset and All I was able to get in the fading light was . I won't even bother attempting to submit this for consideration because it's not even close to being reasonable. I don't think the Emergency Wing is a good choice as it's not the facade of the building that most people associate with the hospital complex. I'll go back Sunday and try go get a similar vantage point during the daytime (I already have 12 hrs of items booked tomorrow). Hasteur (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, well done, you. Don't worry about the ER. Just a general front of the hospital shot would be brilliant. And it sounds easier for you. Hats off to you for going to the trouble. And thanks to BlueAg09 for contacting you. I look forward to your photos. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Monitoring Other Health Workers" (cruise ship)

It's better not to mention the cruise ship episode until it's confirmed that the person has ebola. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

here's a link to that Victor Grigas (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I know that potential references for it exist. That does not mean it belongs in the article because if it's not ebola it doesn't have lasting notability. It's probably not ebola; there are no symptoms of ebola, and the last potential contact with the virus was 19 days ago. We can't put every scare in the article. If it does turn out to be ebola, that content will still be available in the page history. Geogene (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not an "outbreak" as yet

The infection in the United States has so far been limited to medvac'd patients and their immediate health worker carers, and has not made its way into the general population. Given the WHO criteria on the West African outbreak talk page, this does not make it an "outbreak" yet. I propose that we rename the article Ebola virus cases in the United States to match this. -- Impsswoon (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There's an open comment section on that above. Geogene (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Article structure needs work

I think the article needs some better organization. I'll try rearranging, and maybe trimming some redundant material, minutiae or overcitations, now that many are dated. Feel free to fix or discuss any problem edits. --Light show (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree -- one thing I think it needs is to have 'public concerns' moved out from under 'Government Response.' I'd suggest 'Public concerns' should be its own section and include a subsection on incidents of hysteria. valereee (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Light show, please discuss your changes in the structure of the article before revising it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No consensus for massive edits

I do not agree at all with the edits made by Light Show. He has totally changed this from an article about an outbreak into what appears to be a politicized article. I'm going to restore the previous edits as they had consensus and were stable. This is the R in BRD. We can then decide here on what changes to the article should take place. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean these ? I rather think they are an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You also reverted a section I was working on and which wasn't a major change, just a minor reorganization to allow for additional incidents of public concerns and take public concerns out from under government response. I'm going to go ahead and put those back in unless there's some objection to that. valereee (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll restore that now. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and agreed on leaving school closings in government response section valereee (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James, I don't consider people transported to U.S. to treat ebola as an outbreak in the U.S. Two different subjects. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear the "rejection of students" bit is relevant. The school is saying that they didn't reject the students for that reason. Also, this article is about the outbreak of a virus and the efforts to contain it. As Daniel Cardenas notes above, the treatment of citizens transported to back to the U.S. from West Africa might not really belong here either. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The article referenced in this section says that this school is saying they -did- reject the students for that reason -- ? valereee (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye, saw that. Fixed it. Shortened it for due weight. The gist of it is what's relevant, as there will be other concerns to add in that section. It will become top-heavy without trimming. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The evacuation content was in the article before. I guess it could be removed. Background is a bad heading to start an article with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:58, 18 October 2014(UTC)

Maybe it's time to move it off to, I hate to say this, it's own article. Starting off with background gives the reader context. That's why I moved the Africa bits way back when to the bottom of the article. Then another editor removed it altogether. This is only about the outbreak of the virus in America. What do you think about these social bits with the student applications, etc. I don't think they are relevant at this time. It's starting to read like the Daily Mail. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom. Might be better to move it to a separate article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of the edits, which mostly arranged sections for better context and chronology, which were explained with a rationale, were "massive." The 1st sentence above, claiming this somehow "changed this from an article about an 'outbreak' into what appears to be a politicized article," is both unexplained and itself, against consensus. It's against consensus because for 3 days there has been a request to rename the article with a ratio of 2 to 1 in support, with 20 different editors commenting in some way. In a subsequent section, one editor has declared the term "outbreak" to be non-neutral and controversial.

IMO, from all of the previous comments on this talk page, the only one that actually appears to politicize the article is this one:

The CDC has no credibility. They also told a symptomatic nurse she could fly on a commercial airliner. They also said America was prepared for the Ebola virus. Their protocols have failed. They are politicized because they depend entirely on U.S. government funding. Guess who holds the purse strings and is heading into mid-term elections in 2 weeks. That website by the way, is probably staffed by the same person who told Amber Vinson it was okay to get on that aircraft.

The structure before all the new changes today can be seen here for reference. As for the suggestion that the evacuated "cases" be removed from this article, that would likewise go against the current consensus, which considers the article is about U.S. cases, and not an "outbreak." --Light show (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would say there is no consensus on this being an outbreak or not. From the comments above and in the section below, it looks like there may be consensus building to split off the evacuated cases. Xqxf (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to Light show. No offense was intended. Wrt the U.S. medical evac cases, no one has split it off into a new article. It was simply a suggestion. I opened a new thread to see how others feel about that. Wrt to this being an outbreak or not, I agree with Xqxf, I just looked over the comments on the page move, and there's no real consensus for that. Might have to come up with another title suggestion. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I'm not offended, but I am embarrassed. Looking at the article structure now, after a sudden flurry of edits by various contributors earlier today, all I'll add is that the article is now about 50% worse than before I began revising it. The TOC before was very disorganized, but fixable. So I took what was already there and rearranged some of the sections for better context and chronology. After the handiwork of various editors, the new TOC structure and organization is a mess, IMO. Brief topics, many just trivia, have been made into sections. Sentences without any context have been made into sections. Sections have been sliced and diced into subsections with no rhyme or reason, and unrelated to the main section they're within. There are now about 75% more sections, mostly useless divisions. So I'm embarrassed at the current quality. Need examples? Just say how many. --Light show (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Should the "Medical evacuations from West Africa" section spin off to a separate article?

It has been suggested that this section become its own article. Thoughts? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes some sense. The scope of current title doesn't include those, and they are pretty much unrelated to Duncan and associated cases. The containment efforts really aren't about the medically evacuated cases, other than some some background on the hospitals that are being used for both sets of cases. We could consider a title change to something like "Ebola virus in the United States in 2014" to properly include those cases, but we have enough title problems as it is... Xqxf (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I wonder what article title to cover these non outbreak topics:

• Rejection of student admissions
• Speaking invitations withdrawn
• Medical evacuations to the U.S.

I'm thinking Ebola U.S. and Ebola outbreak is just a sub article of that one. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The public reactions section added in by Valeree, makes sense to me in that the U.S. public has been reacting since the healthcare workers were brought back to America for treatment back in August. Now it seems, since Duncan's diagnosis, people are saying close the borders, stop travel, etc. That's relevant, although it must be kept within due weight. Obviously, editors are divided about what to title the article. Perhaps a third title option would help settle the matter. What do both of you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Those should maybe stay in Responses to the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and be summarized here (with a hatnote link in the section)...assuming we remove the medical evacuation. I would be happy if we had a third title option. My suggestion is above, but I'm not very tied to it. Maybe "Ebola virus incidents in the United States" or a similar neutral acronym for "outbreak". (Lots of media are using "crisis", but that is even more hysterical than outbreak.) Better ideas? Xqxf (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Xqxf, I had the same thought about using the word 'crisis' and also came to the same conclusion. Although, I don't think 'outbreak' is hysterical, not like 'epidemic,' or worse, 'pandemic.' SW3 5DL (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, I meant "outbreak" is perceived to be hysterical by some... I am still in favor of splitting the medical section, but maybe instead we should merge them into an article covering the other medically evacuated cases from Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Countries_with_medically_evacuated_cases. Or maybe they should just be summarized into List of Ebola patients (though I've already noted possible systemic bias in an edit summary there, and sticking in details on a bunch of US Ebola patients might not be great.) Xqxf (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Xqxf Hmmm. . .I like the idea of a list. That would be efficient and a good reference. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hospital guidelines and training - rewrite?

I believe much of this section is written too closely to the wording of the sources. I am not sure if it needs to be removed immediately so am asking for second opinions. Ward20 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that, too. We need to be careful of copyright vio. It needs to be rewritten. Do you want to do it? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm stretched kind of thin in real life and will be traveling without computer access too, so it would be good if someone else jumped in here. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to, but my schedule is impossible currently. If we could use the CDC information, even verbatim would be no problem, as it's open for all usage.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten some of the section to fix most of this, since it did look like a lot of it was copied and pasted, and I think it would've needed to be removed otherwise. Feel free to edit my changes further, and the sections I didn't change may need to be checked further. Xqxf (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Page move by admin

• An admin has moved the page to Ebola virus cases in the United States. I say let it stand. End the controversy and edit the article. I hope others will feel the same. Apparently it is from a request by the editor who opened the page move discussion back on Oct 15. The admin was lead to believe it was a non-controversial move. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it was the original title anyway. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• I saw a "please revert undiscussed move" request in and obeyed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Anthony, the editor should not have done that as he was well aware that moving the page was controversial. Also, he did not inform editors here that he'd done that. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. It's fine with me. Now we can get back to editing the article. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the move discussion should be allowed to complete; my objection to "cases" has been made above, so I won't repeat it here. My primary objection is that this has been moved as "uncontroversial" via a simple move request, with the discussion still open. @Anthony Appleyard: Did you mean to mark this move as "uncontroversial", or did you support the reasoning made in the move request that the previous title was too controversial? Xqxf (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. With 20 editors or more having chimed in, and supporting a move with 2 to 1 in favor, the controversial aspect is secondary. Why are a few editors so gung-ho to call the two U.S. nurse cases an "outbreak" when there have been no cites supporting it, with most saying it was not an outbreak? --Light show (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per established policy. WP:RS is the appropriate policy here, and WP:RS are not calling it an outbreak. If consensus among WP:RS ever starts calling it an outbreak, we should too. Until then, not. -- The Anome (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• We're not re-arguing this again here Zad68 01:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Not an outbreak. valereee (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Discussion is above There was no consensus for the move thus the move back is not controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Not really the issue at all I'm afraid. Firstly, Anthony Appleyard says he moved the page because of a request that said the move was not controversial, yet he doesn't move the page to the one the editor had designated. Secondly, why would an admin make a move without first checking the talk page? The active RM discussion is hard to miss, as is the contention about keeping the article in the first place, as that RfC clearly shows. There's never really been any discussion on the title until the RM above which clearly shows no consensus yet. What Anthony has done is wrong, although, AGF, he simply made a mistake. Yet, as soon as he was made aware of the controversy, he should have moved it back. I was hoping it could slide by, but there is opposition, so that means we've got to wait out the RM discussion. Anthony will have to move the page back. We've got to get this right now or the contention will continue and erode the editing on the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion here

Xqxf, the admin said he saw a request and acted on it. It doesn't appear he looked at the talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

History of the page moves

Best as I can tell, this is the history of the title changes for this article:

• Created on 1 October as Ebola virus in Dallas, Texas
• Moved on 2 October to Ebola virus case in the United States
• Moved on 2 October to 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States
• Moved on 3 October to 2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States
• Moved on 12 October to Ebola virus cases in the United States
• Moved on 12 October to Ebola virus disease cases in the United States
• Moved on 12 October to 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak (first time "outbreak" was used since creation)
• Moved on 13 October to Ebola virus outbreak in the United States
• Rename to "outbreak" questioned 15 October at WT:MED
• Rename to "outbreak" challenged on 15 October with a Requested Move here on the Talk page, discussion started
• Notification on 17 October at WP:AN requesting move
• Rename to "cases" requested on 17 October at WP:RM as "no consensus was established" for the "outbreak" name
• Moved on 18 October to Ebola virus cases in the United States

It's pretty clear, the article was created without "outbreak", it has support with "case", and there was a timely challenge to "outbreak" soon after it was made. It was correct and uncontroversial for an admin to restore the previous consensus name "cases" because there was no clear consensus established for "outbreak" after it was challenged. Zad68 01:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you define uncontroversial? There are 10 votes above for outbreak about 50% of the votes. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD someone boldly makes a change. Another person moves it back. Than discussion is supposed to occur until their is majority support. As the article was originally at "cases" it is reasonable to move it back to "cases". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. . .I'm wondering how Anthony Appleyard just came up with that on his own never having edited here. Especially as the request on the move page was for another title. Also, Zad68, all due respect but you cannot say, "We're not arguing this again," and expect that puts paid to it. If this is going to be an issue, then we can let the page move discussion continue, and since Anthony Appleyard's move was without consensus, he'll have to revert himself. I don't care one way or the other, but if this going to continue to be an issue, then we have to keep working to find consensus. And it can't come just because a few admins decide to take matters into their own hands. Not even Jimbo Wales can do that, or so I'm told. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

SW, by writing "We're not re-arguing this again here" I mean that we need to avoid duplicating the RM discussion happening above. I didn't mean that the discussion is over, and that the same editors involved in the RM discussion can't also decide whether Anthony's evaluation of the situation was correct. Zad68 03:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good to know then. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. It is a little... unusual for an admin to move a page while an RM discussion is in progress. -- 120.23.75.47 (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought it odd, as well, especially as that particular title is not part of the RM discussion. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done I have moved it back. I saw a move request in the uncontroversials section of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, and obeyed it. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Which is "the original name" in the long list of moves hereinabove? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Was previously "Ebola virus disease cases in the United States" Doc James (talk
    • No, the original name was Ebola virus in Dallas Texas, and then Ebola virus cases in Dallas Texas. · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• No, you cant restore it to Ebola virus in Dallas Texas. Doc James is wrong. You've got to revert your move. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Doc, What do you think about have a main U.S. article and a sub article about the outbreak? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not seeing reliable sources calling it an outbreak yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

CNN and Obama said no serious outbreak, implying it is a minor outbreak. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• This page is currently at Ebola virus outbreak in the United States. Which of the many names listed above, do you want me to move it to, please? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Leave it as is. The RM discussion above will take care of the next move. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is here . There is a list of which names have been used above. The most recent move to "2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak" never had consensus and has been disputed since. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is why there's an active discussion about it, but still no consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ebola virus cases in the United States," the most recent one, is probably the best. The consensus from RM above was 12 support, 8 oppose, replacing the unsourced term, "outbreak." --Light show (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, it doesn't have to say United States. In epidemiology the location is local, not national. When there was an hantavirus outbreak in the Four Corners section of the U.S. it was called, Four Corners hantavirus outbreak. Not to put a fly in the ointment, but technically, if it's not crossed state lines, it's really best to say Dallas Texas. What do you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

All of the other W. Africa articles you made were national. National is logical and consistent. And I'd keep the year off. Plus, there are multiple states handling cases now. --Light show (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I also don't think Dallas makes sense, since even if we remove the medical evacuees as we're discussing above, Vinson's travel to Ohio is relevant. As for the current title, trying to count votes from above isn't that useful...the move discussion will finish in a couple more days, and we can continue to discuss other alternate titles. Xqxf (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Xqxf, It was just a suggestion in a moment of exhaustion trying to fathom the storm swirling around this article. The title seems a case of the Emperor's Clothes. I agree, the discussion needs to continue. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Many people live outside the USA and are not familiar with USA placenames, except names of states. I had to look in Misplaced Pages to find what the USA Four Corners is. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I was born, educated and raised in the US and had to look up the link you kindly provided. I live in the "tri-state area", which means nothing whatsoever unless you know which tree states are adjacent in my somewhat rectangular state. Something driven home to me when watching news from a network in a state far from me that used the very same term for their region. I'll add in some, from that experience and lack of knowledge at the time, as I was new in-country, when reference was made to the empty quarter. I later learned of how harsh it was from some scientific misadventures, where there was massive loss of equipment, on several expeditions and only once was the rather large objective found. Regional things one has to look up. As an example, just yesterday, I had to look up a region in Australia. A "whispered" thought echoing about was Canberra region, which was somewhat correct (it's more wider than that, but correct, but hanged if I could point out Canberra on a map, other than south Continent.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

suspension of visas vs. travel bans?

Under efforts at containment -- should we differentiate between those calling for suspending issuance of visas to those from affected countries vs. those calling for travel bans to/from affected countries? It seems like these are two different things. Although I think the CDC/WHO are saying that both are counterproductive to containment, so maybe the point is moot? valereee (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• C-Class virus articles
• Low-importance virus articles
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Requested moves