Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Washing the dead

Could we have some detail on the question of who washes their dead? Is this a local religious practice coming out of the animist traditions? Is it Muslim? Is it a local Christian practice? It would seem to be kind of important to understand the details of what seems to be a significant transmission vector. TMLutas (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

that is in fact an interesting question, one gets so wrapped up in the "ebola news" , that one forgets so many important aspects that are related to this event, as the one you just mentioned--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa,TMLutas Its a standard Muslim tradition. see Islamic_funeral perhaps add the wikilink. it is in a article on wiki. But this mostly apply to Guinea and Sierra Leone . Muslim main religion there 70% plus. Liberia only has 12% Muslims. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a world-wide tradition, including every nationality and every religion. Here in our "civilized" part of the world, it is done by strangers in the mortuary. Some mothers regret till the day they die that they were not allowed to hold their dead child. Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WHO coordination and strategy

Hi guys, I've extracted the outline below from WHO Strategic Action Plan for Ebola Outbreak Response. All of the agencies - e.g. US government & military, MSF etc. - are supposedly following the plan and coordinating so that resources go where most needed. My question - does this table belong on this page, or in the separate "Responses" page? Robertpedley (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

{{smalldivA. Immediate actions to support the three EVD affected countries 1 Urgently strengthen the field response Output 1: A local response team is in place in each “hot spot” Output 2: Provision of field logistical support including Personal Protective Equipment supply and local laboratory facilities capacity Output 3: Provision of care to patients with effective infection prevention and control in health care settings Output 4: Chains of transmission broken through active surveillance, case investigation, contact tracing and follow-up Output 5: Public relations and reputation management, social mobilization, and risk communications strengthened 2. Coordinate the outbreak response 2.1. Manage the WHO Sub-regional Ebola Operations Coordination Centre Output 1: Field coordination, collaboration and operational management of the outbreak response strengthened Output 2: Cross-border coordination strengthened 2.2. WHO's leadership and coordination of EVD outbreak response strengthened at all levels Output 1: Logistics management systems strengthened to support response activities Output 2: Disease-related and other content-based expert support provided for risk assessment and expert networks mobilized Output 3: Global communication and information provided Output 4: External relations strengthened Output 5: Clinical support strengthened Output 6: Development of new medical treatments and interventions against EVD advanced B. Preparedness in countries at-risk Output 1: Preparedness plans activated and tested Output 2: Active surveillance strengthened Output 3: Laboratory diagnostic capacity strengthened Output 4: Public information and social mobilization enhanced Output 5: Case management and infection prevention and control capacities strengthened }}

Robertpedley (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robertpedley IMO belong in responses...good job...BrianGroen (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brian. Gandydancer (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC on whether or not to keep these new articles, here.

• 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

SW3 5DL (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Senegal (and Nigeria)

I moved Senegal to "Countries with an initial case or cases" as, as far as I can see, it is in a similar position to the USA - one imported case with no known onward transmission. (The USA is of course "no known onward transmission at the moment" as there at least one case where transmission is suspected.) It should not be in "Countries with former local transmission" as (a) as far as we know there was no local transmission and (b) it isn't "former" yet as the 42 day case-free period hasn't passed. Gandydancer reverted it with a comment that the 42 days haven't passed, so I don't understand why he moved it back to a former cases category.

I don't think Nigeria should be in "Countries with former local transmission" yet as the 42 day period hasn't passed there either.

So what is the rationale for Nigeria and Senegal being where they are? I would place Nigeria back in a "Countries with limited local transmission" category until the 20 October, and Senegal in "Countries with an initial case or cases" until the 14 Oct. Once those periods are completed they can go in a "countries with former outbreaks" category.Saxmund (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I thought I was reverting to the long-standing placements but it seems that I missed a recent change... Sorry, and please revert back to the former placements. Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Change made. Saxmund (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Saudi case?

I see the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/ebola-virus-pandemic-should-be-treated-the-same-way-as-threat-posed-by-nuclear-weapons-security-officials-say-9771219.html is reporting a Saudi case and death. I haven't seen any further report of this, other than earlier in the epidemic when the Saudis had a suspected case that turned out not to be Ebola. Has anyone else got any information on this or is the Independent just wrong? Saxmund (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Saxmund about two months ago , but it was subsequently not a ebola case but as heart condition. Greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to Ebola Guinea Article

The 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea Article contains still less content than is presented here. I therefore removed the link (Main article: 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea). Gruznov inserted it again. But why directing the reader to an article that contains much less content (and especially no new content), then in this article?--Malanoqa (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You can't expect the article to grow with the page blanking and efforts to stop it's development because a handful of editors want to control the entire topic. These are sovereign nations, not a conglomerate of states known as West Africa. This article here should be a good summary of the countries, while focusing on the larger situation. SW3 5DL (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be difficult to add content for guinea, as the main language there is french. But I started to work on the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea Article, so I now propose not to remove the link.--Malanoqa (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

sierra leone

records 121 deaths in a single day,,, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/06/us-health-ebola-leone-idUSKCN0HU0ZT20141006, ..this could be the beginning of a major adjustment in the CFR with regard to Sierra Leone, if so, I wonder if neighboring countries will follow in both cases and fatality numbers. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion as an Experimental Treatment

Hi, kind and gentle Wiki editors. THere's a debate about the inclusion if Lamivudine elsewhere on the talk page. Please can you you give your opinion as to what criteria we should apply in this article (which is about the epidemic in West Africa) for inclusion under the heading as an Experimental Treatment? Many thanks. Robertpedley (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the section on experimental treatments should be moved to the main Ebola article and this article should only refer briefly to the use of ZMapp to treat a very limted number of cases. Mattojgb (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Mattojgb - for treatments which are not likely to be approved in the near future, I agree. However WHO has given a specific dispensation for treatments to be used in this emergency which have not gone right through the normal, lengthy Clinical_trial and approval process. I think treatments which fall within this category deserve mention either on this page. Or maybe on the "responses" page.Robertpedley (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

New table ready for Spain data

I modified the table, it's ready for new data. The format is the same, I just wasn't too sure what the new figures were.

Deleted table here else a whole lot of references are going to follow us..BrianGroen (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sierra Leone Updates

Updated numbers are continually available from the Sierra Leone government before they are reported by WHO. The link to the Sierra Leone health department is here: [1]. I understand there is a desire to wait to update the timeline so that it can be tabular, but there's no reason why the infobox at the top can't be updated immediately once new information is available from a WP:RS. 173.69.39.47 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It all being done with good intend, yes we can update daily but it is very time consuming and edits on maps tables etc..This was the outcome of a dispute resolution a while back so we stick to that consensuses. Regards BrianGroen (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I read and re-read the DRN discussion, which I've linked here for convenience: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_98#Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa.23Semi-protected_edit_request_on_28_August_2014. I see no such consensus on timeliness, that discussion revolved around specific data points. I propose that WP:RS case/death totals be posted when available. Yes, this means that the map may be a few days out of date. That's fine, the map is separately dated. That means the table will be a few days out of date, but that's fine, the table is separately dated. This is an ongoing event, data will change rapidly as is becomes available. Wikipedia should have the most current reliable information available. The convenience of editors is not a reason to withhold publishing information 173.69.39.47 (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Err..."convenience of editors"...? Brian, you'd better ask for a pay raise :). Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

With full due respect to your proposal I fully understand your reasoning for this, but but it is more practical to keep in alignment. Going to be a bit confusing when we add certain totals in the info box, but the map don't correspond, or the table and adding every new release number as they come along to the timeline is again going to lengthen the article. And quite frankly cause unneeded edits and re edits.. etc. Not disputing WP:RS . The timeline is updated timelessly as it arrive and trust me it is a bit of nightmare. been doing it for a while now..BrianGroen (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I would propose that the table be eliminated, as it is just a collection of statistics per guidance in WPIN. While I agree that the graphs are useful in helping readers understand the chronology, the table IMO just serves to make the article lengthy. This would obviate the issue over table updates which are inaccurate anyways because the dates don't align exactly from country to country. And, with due respect noted to your extensive contributions, your arguments basically boil down to WP:IDL and WP:OWN. Stop blocking legitimate updates that we all agree are WP:RS and allow other editors to participate.. 173.69.39.47 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If the tables are eliminated, the graph will have to be eliminatad too. It is already a hard work to maintain the graph, but without table, I would be forced to maintain also the correct numbers in a private table. That is impossible. With the table, I as every ready can easily compare the graphs with the numbers presented in the table. The table may be removed in a year or so, when there are references available that list all this numbers. But not now, when this numbers are just appearing, and no valid reference keeps such a table publicly available and actual.--Malanoqa (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news source. It would seem preferable to me to update the table once updated figures are available for all of the countries.Mattojgb (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I find the tables and graphs very helpful and IMO the editors who do the upkeep are doing an excellent job of it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@ip editor go ahead i'm tired of fixing your stuff ups... got better things to doBrianGroen (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody remove the Spain from the table data?

Somebody added the single case to the table showing all cases. The reference they used does not have the Spanish case, and the date is set as the 1st, as opposed to the 6th. This either needs to be removed, or updated correctly. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi AmericanXplorer13 no offence to you.. i would have done this but are now watching from a distance.. Been up keeping this data for a while now , but getting tired of chancing it back just because some editor in his/her brilliance decided to start changing figures because it is not according to wp:rs. so the data/dates are all whacked out.. tried to fix it just to have it reverted.. quite frankly i got better things to do than fixing this the whole time. BrianGroen (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand. There's a reason why I don't make changes on the page without first coming here. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I added a note to the table so that (hopefully) people stop doing it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Question?? Medivaced deaths..

Just something that really got me curious.. While most that were medivaced out to there home countries have recovered, the two Priests from Spain have passed away. Where are those Deaths been tallied into the official death toll. Their initial cases would be tallied into Sierra Leone and Liberia totals, however their deaths would not, a they did not die in the respective countries. and I cant find any source to confirm or deny... Gremlinsa (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The data comes from WHO. However, from what I can tell, they count you as being in your country of origin regardless of where you end up going; they only count cases which are diagnosed in a given country as being from there (for example, the one case in the US was diagnosed in the US; same applies to Senegal). Medivaced folk seem to be counted in their country of origin, not of destination. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of where the data comes from, and also WHO gets the data from the respective countries medical rep., and they get it from the medical teams on the ground. but I've yet to find a source that can confirm the medivaced deaths are been counted at any point in this chain..Gremlinsa (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Page name

I think it's time to change the name to "Ebola virus outbreak 2014", or something along those lines. The current title is no longer acceptable, seeing as there have been cases in the United States and Spain, countries which are in Europe and North America, not West Africa. Andreas11213 (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Already been discussed - see here just a few topics up.. Gremlinsa (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Have the "As of 1 October 2014" either start a paragraph or stand out in the Intro

I check the page daily to see what has changed based on updates to WHO and CDC data. Having the "As of" date not buried in a paragraph helped a lot. Since this page is being used as a pseudo current event reference, being able to quickly see if the situation has been updated was very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.247.219 (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly successful Ebola treatment with Lamivudine

Definitely something to watch for developments, cnn has reported that a doctor has successfully treated 13 out of 15 ebola patients that were given Lamivudine Blacknail (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, getting a pile of headlines at the moment. I'm sure there are 100 faith healers & witch doctors who are also claiming fantastic results. All sorts of reasons why it does not belong here - not good quality evidence being the principle one. Robertpedley (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that Meodipt has added it under "Experimental Treatments". There's also been an announcement by a hospital in Thailand that they have invented a cure[2] but I don't think anyone is taking that seriously either. Robertpedley (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why you feel that this is not a valid "experimental treatment"? Surely the use of an antiviral drug that is already approved for treatment of one viral infection, to treat patients affected by a different virus for which there is no currently accepted treatment, is the very definition of an experimental, "off-label" use of the drug? After all its not like this is some crazy black magic treatment with no logical rationale behind it. If Ebola patients started turning up in droves at hospitals in any Western country you can be sure they would throw at it every antiviral they had on the shelf that might have a chance of success, to see if any of them worked. That is exactly what this doctor has done here, just as he is working in remote West Africa he only had two antiviral drugs at hand, and while acyclovir didn't work it seemed like lamivudine possibly might. This seems every bit as notable and relevant to include as drugs like favipiravir which has only been tested against Ebola in mice, and its only relevance is that Japan has offered to supply favipiravir in case anyone might hypothetically want to try using it in Ebola infected humans at some future stage. Lamivudine on the other hand is already being used in humans right now, and indeed seems to have been given to a lot more people than other experimental treatments like ZMapp. Whether lamivudine is actually effective at treating Ebola is not really relevant to the issue of whether its use is sufficiently notable and encyclopaedic to warrant mentioning in the Wikipedia article, and I would argue that it meets both those criteria. While it may be just this one maverick doctor using lamivudine at this stage, it has been widely reported in the media, which is usually a key criteria for notability here. This section is for "Experimental treatments", not merely "Experimental treatments endorsed by the WHO" or "Experimental treatments being developed by Western pharmaceutical companies", and if this experimental treatment meets the inclusion criteria, it should be included in the article. Meodipt (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably worth noting this drug, BCX4430 which is currently in trials funded by NIAID against Ebola and Marburg viruses, and has shown good results in animal models. BCX4430 is you will note, structurally similar to lamivudine and I believe has the same mechanism of action. So it is quite reasonable to suggest lamivudine as a possible treatment, and this article cites NIAID as saying they will be prepared to carry out studies of lamivudine against Ebola as well. I take it that once these studies have been started you will then feel lamivudine is a valid experimental treatment and worthy of being listed in the article, alongside various vaccines and other drugs that are still in pre-clinical studies or Phase I trials at best? Meodipt (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Meodipt - you could use the word "speculative" maybe, but not "experimental" because there is no experiment here. So far as I know, these 15 cases were not confirmed EVD patients. The alleged outcome - 13 out of 15 - is not independently verified and does not qualify for statistical significance. Specialised virologists are not jumping with joy at the news (see final paragraphs here --> [3]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpedley (talk • contribs) 10:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi RP Your exception to the anecdotal report of a lamivudine treatment experiment reported with only historical reference to a case fatality rate is excessive. The point is its conduct, and its media reportage from a setting where the case definitions and controls desired in scientific conduct and reportage are lacking is not invalidating of the hypothesis. The reportage here is as relevant as reportage of any other treatment to date. The claims made are not conclusive of efficacy, it is just a media report of a case series worth noting with a statement of its several limitations, just like every other hopeful or 'promising' report with other limitations. Your sarcastic statements "...virologists are not jumping with joy" and "I'm sure there are 100 faith healers & witch doctors..." above are inappropriate. Speak to the issue, and allow due process. BCameron54 11:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

BCameron54 - Directly addressing the issue, this is Anecdotal_evidence, it does not match the criteria of an experiment. I am not aware of any reputable source recommending or evaluating this treatment, so it does not merit inclusion.Robertpedley (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this is merely anecdotal evidence does not mean that it is not eligible for inclusion in the article. This attempted treatment is notable and has been reported by multiple reliable sources, and this is in itself sufficient grounds that it should be listed. I will emphasise again, it is not relevant for inclusion whether lamivudine actually is effective for treatment of Ebola, and neither is the question of whether a suitably rigorous experimental procedure was followed. I doubt virologists anywhere will be "jumping with joy" until this outbreak is well and truly dealt with, but the several prominent virologists that have been interviewed about this story in various media articles (including the one you cited), have all described these results as "promising" but stated that they will need to be verified with larger groups of patients under more controlled conditions before they can be considered reliable. This may not be an endorsement of the treatment, but it is hardly a scathing rejection of it either. Anyway the point is moot now, as this article cites NIH as saying that they are now investigating lamivudine against Ebola in test tube studies, which means it absolutely meets the criteria you are saying should be required. Unless you don't feel that NIH are a suitably reputable source? Meodipt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

MeodiptYour article actually says "I can't say it's a good idea or bad idea....It's one of those things where you're in a situation where you have no therapy, so you look for things that might be available....National Institutes of Health researchers have tested lamivudine's reaction to Ebola in test tubes. There was no response; but .... researchers will adjust some levels and try it again to see if there's even slight activity against Ebola. If there is ..... NIH would consider going to the trial stage." Sorry, it does not qualify to be described under "experimental treatments" until it progresses to the trial stage. There's a clear line, and lamivudine does not cross it - yet. In the context of the epidemic, what is relevant is those treatments which are being used or may become available in the near future. Other, more speculative therapies can possibly be included in the pages about the virus or the disease, but I don't think they are relevant to this topic yet (I saw ouabain mentioned a few weeks back). I can see you've added BCX4430 to the article, based on a couple of references which are now 6 months old. I don't want to get into personal war about this so I invite other editors to comment on this.Robertpedley (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there are questions about including this drug in our Experimental treatments section. While this is clearly not the time to insist on rigorous studies and proof, a 16 patient "trial" done only a few days ago does not seem adequate to place this drug in our experimental section, IMO. However I don't consider my personal opinion worth much since it is only based on what seems to make sense to me, rather than knowledge about the issue. I've asked user:WhatamIdoing to take a look at this discussion and I will go along with what she has to say. Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is though, that lamivudine is being used in humans right now, while drugs like ZMapp and BCX4430 won't be ready until mid-2015 or early 2016. I must concede after doing some more reading that lamivudine does seem less likely to be the magic bullet it has been claimed to be by the media hype, but if lamivudine treatment for Ebola is ineffective and dangerous then surely this in itself is notable and worthy of comment? Having people falsely believe something to be effective when it is actually not can lead to all sorts of bad outcomes, for instance healthcare workers might take lamivudine prophylactically in the misguided belief that it will protect them from Ebola infection when it actually won't. However RP does make a good point, maybe it would be more appropriate to list more speculative treatments like this under the Ebolavirus or Ebola virus disease page rather than this page about the outbreak, but it does seem more in context to put it on the page about the West African epidemic when it is a treatment being trialled and championed by a West African doctor working in the middle of the outbreak. Anyway yes comment from other editors would definitely be helpful here. Meodipt (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't spent a lot of time looking into this, but based on what I've seen, the most appropriate choice would be a very brief mention in Ebola virus disease#Research. The basic message is "one person says it worked" or "very preliminary testing was begun at the NIH, so far with no success", neither of which are, strictly speaking, "biomedical" claims. This means that you could support it with any high-quality news article like this one. I think that to keep it in perspective, you want to emphasize the uncertainty and even the unlikeliness of this drug proving to be a useful treatment. Ideally, we could keep it to just one sentence (or two short ones), and then we can re-assess in a month or two to see whether even that much is warranted.

To be clear, I believe that this much could be permitted, but I would not mind leaving it out altogether. There's no policy-based mandate for including it. My thinking is more about the likelihood that inexperienced editors will probably keep adding it until we at least mention it, and a passing mention in the other article (which would be the most appropriate article) might make it easier to keep a lid on the speculation, without dampening their enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok I have implemented this as suggested, though Jmh649 already reverted it once on the grounds that all available treatments remain speculative and unproven until officially approved. Anyway you guys have a look and see if you think any further changes are needed. Meodipt (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

MeodiptTaking up your earlier point, lamivudine is not approved or fast-tracked for emergency Ebola treatment. I have changed the introduction slightly in order to clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpedley (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Immune ebola survivors become ebola nurses?

Did this idea ever take off? It would be great to see it referred to in the treatments section if it did. Maybe the Liberians could export their survivors to earn very high pay!

http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/10/ebola-survivor-i-senga-omeonga-every-day-i-m-still-thinking-when-was-i-contaminated

"Q: What do you think of the idea of having people who recovered from Ebola help with caring for patients? A: Today we talked to the doctor in charge of ELWA 2, about this idea because there’s an acute shortage of staff. It doesn’t need to be health care workers. Non–health care workers can be trained, and those who recovered can be very helpful as patient assistants. They can give food and water and help the patient. The idea was welcomed but he needed to discuss this with health ministry and see if it’s willing to sponsor that kind of program and hire these people."

Here in Wikipedia I would not formulate it that enthusiastic, and "...to export their survivors to earn very high pay!", is a personal opinion you might say on the talk pages, but not in the article. But apart from that, caring Ebola patients by survivors might became important, and I would endorse citing good references for this (Please do not forget to click on the button to enter signature and timestamp).--Malanoqa (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously great if it happens. I've been watching for this for a while, but it's not happening ... I wonder if there are ethical issues? (what if ebola immunity is like the common cold, it doesn't last long?). I think William Pooley (UK nurse, recovered) has expressed a desire to return. Robertpedley (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We have the above quote from Doctor Senga Omeonga, who is also an ebola survivor himself, this should surely be somewhere in Wikipedia. Not sure exactly where it should go though.

Not possible to have enough ebola survivors compared to current infections while epidemic follows geometric progression, because math. 84.52.41.9 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate your calculation, it makes some sense, but this is not the place for original research. Nevertheless if survivors can successfully care for the sick, and that decreases the transmission rate, then the rate of new cases decreases and the number of safe caregivers may quickly become significant in volume. But as I said, this is not the place for speculation/original research ;)

Countries with medically evacuated cases

I would like to move the information in this section to the articles that correspond to the country in which they were infected. Is there any objection? I could leave a one sentence note on this page that lists them. Gandydancer (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Tricky. US medevacs have already been moved to the US page - country of destination - so this would be a change of policy. I think your proposal would split American cases across 3 countries of infection so it's not a tidy solution. If we have to include them I think country of destination is a better way of categorisation, especially in the light of transmission in Spain. I'm not convinced that there is a strong case for these anyway, but they are headline grabbers so other editors will probably bring them back if we try to move or delete. Robertpedley (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

They're certainly notable (and are causing problems in the countries they are being evacuated to) and I think it is more relevant to put them in the destination country than the host country. A note that people were medically evacuated might belong in the country they came from, but the bulk of the information should probably be in the article for the country they were evacuated to, because it is a common link between them. Also, they tend to be more noteworthy as being connected to the country they were evacuated to than from; they're just another patient in Liberia or whatever, but they're the only patient in their country of destination. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Robertpedley and Titanium Dragon's reasoning for putting them with the destination country rather than with the infected country.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 23:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking to reduce the page length, but all good arguments, IMO. So, do you think I should just leave the section alone? Gandydancer (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandy, I don't think it needs surgery. Occasional maintenance to keep the content relevant and compact though. I think part of the aid effort - particularly for the US - is to create one or two high quality treatment centres so that citizens can receive high level of care without the need for repatriation. So medevacs may cease over the next few weeks. Robertpedley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What United States Death?

In the summary box of this article, the United States is listed as having eight cases and one death, according to the WHO Ebola Response Roadmap update citation. But, if you click on the citation link and open the .pdf document, that same Roadmap update lists no deaths. There are also no reported U.S. deaths anywhere in the media. Please update this summary box to reflect the accurate number of cases and deaths in the U.S. Inaccurately reporting a U.S. death could cause even more undue fear and concern, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.41.6 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That was incompletely reverted vandalism. It's fixed now. Art LaPella (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/ebola-us-thomas-eric-duncan.html well there is a death now.84.52.30.59 (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, someone else added it and I noted it as being from October 8th, as the rest of the data is from October 1st. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Death in Senegal?

The table now shows 1 death in Senegal, but I couldn't find it with a Google search or in the citation. This must be a mistake as its been several weeks since that infection, and the total death count on the left doesn't include the Senegal case. Grmagne (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There's so much going on with the WHO releasing a new report, and people wanting to make the change to reflect the death of the US victim. We need to slow down and address how we want to go about displaying this data. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Liberian ambassador says government on verge of collapse

Please add to article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29516663

Thanks. I added it to the Liberia section. Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent splits

I have serious concerns about the splits that have been done is the last few days. They were done without any discussion and IMO, for the most part, they do not represent what should be an acceptable level of accuracy and skillful writing for such an intensely viewed Wikipedia subject. They are not uniform in what and how information is presented. For example, the Guinea article has an in-depth section of information about the virus. It has a transmission section that included unsourced information such as Ebola virus has not been shown to be airborne among humans, but it can be transmitted through aerosolization of body fluids, such as when an infected individual sneezes, vomits, or flushes a toilet after use, which I deleted since right now we must be certain to get at least that right. The transmission section has a study on virus transfer between pigs and monkeys, etc.

If it had been up to me I would have deleted these splits and insisted on a consensus-first policy for the article. I've been here since 2006 and have worked on several current, fast-moving articles that eventually were split and I've never seen anything like this. We now have a whole series of articles that are not, IMO, up to snuff, all needing work. I'm sorry if this comes across like a rant, but WP is about working together rather than a decision made by one or two editors. Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There had been some discussion about separate articles. In fact, you yourself have asked another editor to split off the 'responses' section. As for the separate country articles, each individual country is not well represented here at all. They are given short summaries. This means separate articles are needed. This is too big to contain in one article. As for the quality and content of these new articles, eventually they will all be consistent. They've just been created. It takes time. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

just my two cents(A SA saying for input). yes we need spin off as doc james and some other experienced authors suggested where the stub from here can be expanded. but this morning Nigeria was completely removed and just copied over. Yes it is advisable to create more expanded article, but to just point blank delete and only the content over is not per wiki rules. If it is going to be a straight forward copy without expansion the article will be marked for speedy deletion. I did friendly advise the editor there since he is new. Liberia was up for deletion exactly for that reason, but the editor subsequently expanded, although the quality of edit needs serious work on it. But if you create a new article the main still stays here until a consensus is reach to delete if needed. This is wikis rules. ask for deletion or reduction once the new article is up to standard. BrianGroen (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@5DL. Yes, please note that regarding the proposed Response section split there had been discussion and no editor offered any disagreements and then we asked Jytdog to go ahead with it. Sorry for shouting, but that's the way it's supposed to work in these parts: You offer a suggestion, it is discussed, and then you go ahead with it once group approval has been given. Both you and the other editor just went right ahead without discussion and created splits. Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Splitting#How to properly split an article Art LaPella (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer sure seemed on-board. Here are two of his comments.

. . .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? Gandydancer (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(Sounded to me like he was happy to see the articles spin off.)

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? Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(This sounded like he was happy to see them go and was anxious for the rest to follow.)

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have looked up the word maverick in the dictionary [4] (and taken special note of the synonyms) before you decided that I must have been "happy". At any rate, we can only hope that this does not happen again in the future, and move forward by beginning to do the much-needed work on the new splits. Gandydancer (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Gah. Yes issues. Efforts to repeat the signs and symptoms of Ebola as well as mechanisms of transmission of Ebola in each are occurring.

Should probably be re merged here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just looked at all the articles and they don't all say the same thing. Do you have diffs? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose we re merge these article

All this content 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in Nigeria is here. We appear to be duplicating content for the sack of duplicating. Others of these newly created articles include:

• 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

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support It makes perfect sense plus I don't trust anything Starstr says. He's an (Personal attack removed). --172.56.34.186 (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep the criticism constructive, please. Art LaPella (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• YUCK. Strong Support this article is NOT that large. There is no reason to start creating content forks that repeat the same things over and over again and force users to sift through drivel to find the simple facts they seek. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Clean up : the article is quite large at the moment, and only going to get bigger. while much is duplicated, this needs to be cleaned up, (1)Put ALL relevant info for each of the regions in their own page, so that they are no longer regarded "stubs". (2)Brief explination and link to relevant pages in this one.. (Much like the DRC section).. There is WAY TOO Much to take in on this one page.. (3)these section also need trimming : Virology, Transmission, Prevention, Contact tracing, Travel restrictions and quarantines, Healthcare settings, Treatment, Level of care & Experimental treatments. Most of these are almost WORD 4 WORD from other relevant pages. You cant have everything on one single page, it's just toooooooo much.... Gremlinsa (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support There is and will be a lot of repetition in the main article already, there's no need to then repeat it all again in separate articles. However, considering how long this could last, the current state is unsustainable... I assume certain overly-detailed parts will be trimmed as necessary. 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States and others like it will be overwritten if they aren't deleted, as soon as there's a second case. Snd0 (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support and Clean-Up: All the above stubs are not necessary. I think sections 2-6 could be trimmed as they are covered at Ebola virus disease or Ebola virus.Greg Glover (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree with Greg section 2-6 could be trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, You can't vote re-merge articles that were for the most part, not split off to start with. Also, the have grown to include more then what is one this page. Your using a re-direct to block access to new content. Starstr (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  This appears to be attempts to simply duplicate content here across many other pages. If a split occurs, this is not the content that should be split. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  For the most part they were started as independent, and have also grown. Unfortunately many have copied content back to this page, and some additional content here has also been moved. One of the problems is that this page is getting very large (see previous talk here) and it will only get worse as we get more content about each country. Its not a situation where merge-unmerge is valid, because there is new content on these pages. Starstr (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, this is an inappropriate forum. These articles are already created. The appropriate forum is AfD. Secondly, Doc James isn't showing any diffs that these new articles are duplicates. He appears to be engaged/creating a battleground by blanking and redirecting the new articles and trying to start edit wars on the U.S. article. Nobody is taking that bait. Floydian nom deleted the article on the U.S. That ended soon after with a speedy 'Keep.' The articles are already created. Coming along after the fact is battle behaviour and possibly WP:TEND. And taking an iVote here and not on the article talk pages doesn't make any sense. The content in the new articles wasn't here. In fact, Doc James is going on about having a transmission section on one of the new articles when this article didn't have one until I suggested it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• These "new" articles were shoddily put together such that the picture on the Guinea page refers to Liberia in the caption. [5]

  Check out [Nigeria all of it word for word the same as [6]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems here is were talking about several articles, and the Nigeria article was indeed a split. That is why I said "..For the most part.." in my comment. That was split off because people were saying this page was too large, and its probably better to handle the Nigeria page separately. Starstr (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Starstr. This article can be put back with fresh content that does not duplicate anything here. In any event, this is still an inappropriate forum for this discussion. A handful of editors on this article cannot decide AfD issues that belong to the wider community. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I forgot that. Pot meet kettle. In any event, this article should be an overview and not attempt to provide in depth coverage on 6 countries. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Your previous comments are like a voice of reason. Starstr (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong support These articles were added without any discussion what so ever. Other than the Nigeria article, they do not meet WP's standards for accuracy and IMO they do not meet any standard for what is appropriate for what should be included in an article which is supposedly about a particular country's epidemic coverage. The reason that the Nigeria article actually meets acceptable standards is that it was copied from this article in which multiple editors have worked for several weeks to present accurate and appropriate information.

For some time editors of this article have been aware that the length is excessive and some measures needed to be taken. Through group consensus it was decided to move the Responses section to a new page, and that will hopefully be completed today. If the group decides on a "countries" split as well, I would suggest that all of the countries be placed in the same split article for now. In an article on a subject that is so newsworthy, it is common for editors that are not at all familiar with WP guidelines to add information that is not appropriate, and it takes the established editors many hours a day to continually go through the article sifting through the new edits. We just do not have enough editors with the time to place seven articles on their daily watch list to check for errors, etc.

Keeping in mind that an eventual "country" split would take place, some of the present editors have assumed that the present introduction that includes an overall history of the West Africa outbreak would remain, while the individual coverage sections would constitute the split article or articles. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Support was up for the split in the beginning but in quite honesty the articles are of very poor quality at best. In civility i suggested to one editor who did a reasonable article to work on his wording etc, but was ignored. One article has about five maps each with different areas on each. This could be on one map. Quite frankly they are not up to scratch. References are poorly sited. There are a lot of other issues but in civility i will refrain from mentioning them. Personally i don't want this good article to be link to those. Seriously to the editors do some homework before nominating it for a spin off. I might take a fallout on my opinion here, but even me with my bad English i can do better than that. The split will com but sandbox the article align it properly then nominate for spin off. Quite frankly i will support a WK:AFD if it comes to it now. BrianGroen (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your frankness Brian. In all honesty, I was ready to leave the article this morning as I was not willing to have my Wikipedia name connected to such poor articles, so I was ever so happy to see them no longer linked to. I think for me the statement in one article saying that "casual contact" would not spread the disease was the clincher. Many thanks to those that have come out strongly against these articles until they meet our WP standards. Gandydancer (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's safe to say that consensus is emerging. I'd say give this another 24 hours, and unless a strong argument is raised, then go about merging any useful new content into this article, and redirecting those articles to the appropriate subsections of this article. With the responses section split, I think everything should fit in place nicely. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Support mainly because these articles are all from the same original article, I don't think there's a need for there to be multiple of them when they can all be covered in one page. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose any action to claim this is consensus until this question has been resolved by this RfC: here. The editors did NOT oppose the creation of these articles before they were created. It was only AFTER the fact. Therefore, this issue should best be decided by the wider community. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You have already opposed once and no this is not how it works. There is clear consensus here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the oppose. Didn't mean to have two. I was responding to Floydian's claim that it was emerging consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Support, there is no reason to create separate articles. There is a growing trend in WP to create more article than needed. This crates redundancy and it is not functional to the objectives of the projects. Would you find separate articles in the Britannica? Well, you know the answer. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose unless the rest of the article is summed up and shortened substantially. It is already very verbose and some sections like the Timeline show numerous redundant graphs that don't add much value. Others like Virology, Transmission, etc sections are mostly repeats of what is already said in the main EVD page. MrPhelps (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The primary discussion here is what should this article contain? IMO it should be about the outbreak of Ebola that started in West Africa. Thus one would discuss the outbreak and the countries that it affects plus organizations responses and economic effects.

There should be one section on "background" that gives a very BRIEF overview of virology / transmission, prevention and treatment concentrating on how they related to this outbreak. These should otherwise be dealt with in other articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate forum. The articles are created. They do not duplicate content. They are not forks. Stop blanking them and redirecting them. That's disruptive to the project. If you think they should be deleted go to the appropriate forum. The AfD board is the appropriate venue for this, not this talk page. It is inappropriate to attempt to delete these articles on this talk page. This is an issue for the wider community. The AfD on the U.S. article was closed as "Keep." Why aren't you nominating the new articles for deletion instead of attempting to do it here? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SW3. Thanks Starstr (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, this is a conent dispute and doesn't belong anywhere else. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the discussion can happen anywhere. I will open up an RfC if necessary. The argument that these forks contain new content that is being "blocked" is a fallacious straw man; the content, if it isn't unnecessary coverage, overuse of quotations or news broadcasting, could easily be incorporated into this article. It is rediculous that a single case of Ebola in a country warrants an article, that is WP:NOTNEWS at its finest. As mentioned, a content dispute doesn't belong at AfD per the conditions of AfD regarding redirects, and such content can certainly be discussed back into the parent article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it a content dispute? Where are the diffs of disputed content? The Nigeria article content was copied from that article and put here! These are new articles and any decision to delete should be placed at AfD. Especially, given that the AfD you started was closed as Keep after a few hours. This article here should focus on being a good summary of things, it should not attempt to be in-depth as that is simply not possible in an epidemic crossing borders into 6 countries. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL said:The Nigeria article content was copied from that article and put here! That is not correct. Please check back to before the content was moved to a new article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are the diffs of the disputed content.[7][8][9][10][11] There are better delineations that we can split this article by, and there are many places to trim out excessive trivial details and summarize information into a format that is more easily digested by the many readers of this article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One reason we have splits is some people are saying things like ".. thus cutting the length of this article as is urgently needed.." Others are moving content back here and making redirects, and this seems to be where the problem is coming from. Starstr (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Floydian, If you feel the articles should not exist, then follow policy and go to AfD and let the community decide. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What policy? Plus WP:AFD says right at the top to consider an alternatives "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

New Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Prognosis" section

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

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

Popular Culture -- Remove or include all popular culture references

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split Spain out into separate page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Placement of maps

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

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

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

Paris

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

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

New deaths

Western African Ebola virus epidemic/Archive 6

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australia: false alarm

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

Spain

Page name and scope

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

---

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

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

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

Per BBC [12] tested positive. Not confirmed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spanish case

This ref says it is not yet confirmed [13] [14]

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

Unclear how reliable this Spanish source is [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

In last few minutes is confirmed here by BBC [16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

From the updated BBC article [17], in the video they mention she last had contact on the 26th when the missionary died, she went on leave on the 27th, felt ill on the 30th but did not come into the hospital until the 5th. That seems like there was a large windows where she would have been contagious, would that be something of value to add to the section? She was taken by ambulance to one hospital and then moved, so staff that came in contact with her have been put under observation. Kactusotp (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Title Change

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline lists nothing for spain but includes spain

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline Irregularities

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

Very informative paragraph from the new WHO report:

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

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

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

I agree as well. The numbers in the table don’t reflect the reality at all: Sierra Leone is only reporting 879 deaths out of 2789 cases. The 68% survival looks impressive but nobody on the ground believes that number at all. Liberia reported a decline in the rate of new transmissions and the government is making optimistic predictions about controlling the disease. But they also introduced new rules to stife the media [http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/liberia-stifles-ebola-media-coverage/]. Reading between the lines, Liberia’s leaders are obviously desperate to install a sense of calm and optimism while the situation deteriorates around them. Grmagne (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure the numbers should stop being reported, since there have been articles published for a while now indicating that we essentially have no idea how bad the epidemic is [18][19][20]. Maybe the table should be very clearly labeled as verbatim WHO numbers with a note referencing sources that say they're near-meaningless? Snd0 (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

I think that the title of this page should be change from "Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa" to the "2014 Ebola Virus epidemic" as there is cases being reported in North America, Europe and West Africa. There is also a new possible case in Macedonia. This outbreak of Ebola is now not only in West Africa, but now affecting several countries and WHO regions around the Globe. [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efuture2 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

UK national dead in Macedonia other ill?

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

Macedonia looks worrying.[22] Let's hope it's a false alarm. Still, this is a good example of doing it right on the part of the Macedonian and UK authorities -- better to have a certain amount of pro-active overreaction early on than risk an index case getting through. -- Impsswoon (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two possible cases in Macedonia

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

---

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

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

References - duplication

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top line of table

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

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

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

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

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

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

agreed

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

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

Question about info to be included in splits

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking Francois outbreak

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

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

Individual country articles

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

New graph with reported cases per week

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

Uncertainty in Liberian Numbers

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

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

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

Rehashed Popular Culture..

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

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

bubonic plague, Spanish influenza, ebola

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

References

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

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

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

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

Monday Marks 42 Days for Senegal

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

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: In light of the requests already propagating and then closed early lower on the talk page, and the fact that the discussion will clearly be unable to show a consensus for a move, I am closing this request a bit early as no consensus to move the page. This can be revisited if and when it becomes necessary, but stability and clarity of scope seems to be the primary concern at the moment. Dekimasuよ! 17:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

• The WHO is using "Ebola outbreak" [23], do you think it should be called an outbreak then? I found the usage of the wording epidemic here: [24]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spanish Dog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ugh, Its just a freaking dog. Its not like the spanish government posted it on youtube. Also it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.252.227 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Some of it will be (and may already be) intentional underreporting [25]. One option could be to post the CDC's numbers/graphs that correct for underreporting [26]. There could be problems with that, though... Yeah, either stop extending the graphs or, in bold, "we know this data is wrong (possibly very much so), but here it is anyway." Snd0 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The four last graphs now replaced with versions without values for death and actualized to October 8th. I can also update the previous graphs to October 8th if requested, but not today (no Time). I hope this makes this graphs now easier to read. I also got the impression, that death values does not add significant informations to the graphs. The question of how to handle the uncertainties of the values is for me still open and not solved.--Malanoqa (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Marburg virus (filoviridae family ,,,,same as Ebola)

would it not be a good idea to mention the Marburg virus death in Congo's neighbor Uganda[27] as it is the same family (filoviridae)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not unless there's a demonstrated connection. Marburg appears in Uganda with some regularity. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

“If we stop the outbreak [of Ebola] in rural DRC and we prevent the outbreak of Marburg in Uganda, that may not be headlines, but it tells us that there is progress and gives us confidence we will be able to control Ebola in West Africa" per newsweek--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This outbreak has nothing to do with Congo, therefore we should leave it out, especially if the virus is Marburg, because Marburg is NOT Ebola. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi , Ozzie10aaaa, I think it's important to keep the focus in this article. Robertpedley (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If there were an article on the Marburg incident, then it would be a valid "See also". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC).