Talk:Western African Ebola virus epidemic/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Cases by country is too wide

The table is now too wide for some browser windows. Perhaps Nigeria, Senegal, United States, Spain should have their own table? Shii (tock) 17:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Every one of these appears to have so far contained their outbreak, with no evidence of widespread spreading of disease. Hopefully all of them should get the WHO all-clear in a couple of months. Massive kudos to Nigeria for having controlled the most dangerous of all of these. -- Impsswoon (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed as well. How about grouping them in one column "other countries"?Voorlandt (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

'delete the table'. The table is just an indiscriminate collection of data at this point (See: Wikipedia is Not). As the outbreak continues to expand, it will get more awkward to deal with. The raw data is simply not encyclopedic. No other disease outbreak article on Wikipedia has raw data on day-by-day disease spread. See other Ebola outbreaks, H1N1, etc. (some listed here: Outbreak on Wikipedia. 173.69.39.47 (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as we have no other reliable source for this information, the table is required to make and to maintain the graphics.--Malanoqa (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree the table is necessary, the outbreak is after all a current event and it shows how it has progressed. Once it is over, it can be deleted, we will then have analysis of the probable actual casualty figures to add. the problem is the figures we have from WHO and the countries concerned are a long way from reality. Presenting them in a table gives a false impression of accuracy - however I am not sure what can be done about this Saxmund (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Move the timeline to the new 2014_Ebola_virus_disease_epidemic_timeline article created above. That should keep things manageable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.39.47 (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what it's there for... kencf0618 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Navigation template

I've created {{Ebola virus disease epidemic}} as a navigation template similar to the one used in religious article series, and inserted it into each of the articles involved (aside from Ebola virus disease). Some adjustments to the articles and their See also sections may be required now to clean them up to MOS standards. Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice job! I'd add it to the disease article as well - if they don't like it they can just delete it. :) Gandydancer (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

I have begun a timeline article, starting appropriately enough with the index case: 2014_Ebola_virus_disease_epidemic_timeline. À la the 2009 flu pandemic timeline, there is a lot of data to sequence and parse. Have at it! kencf0618 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of good timeline summaries on the web which you could look at for a start. This one from Reuters, one from MSF. Sexy infographic from Australia. WHO's version of events - partial - is on slide 5 here. Good luck. Robertpedley (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. The CDC links have gone to partially blank pages, so these links shall be very helpful. kencf0618 (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Lots more to do, but I've completed the initial chunk. Again, have at it! kencf0618 (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Very helpful and well done. Gandydancer (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Local Transmission USA

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29587803 The map needs updating... 81.97.162.165 (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Another case is suspected in Massachusetts, USA Guns&Coffee (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a big problem that can be helped via this article: making it clear how people can help stop ebola

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.

---

People I know and people all over the web are willing to donate if it is made very easy for them. I've also encountered dozens of people online who are confused on how they can go about volunteering their time in one way or another to help stop ebola.

It probably isn't standard to include such info in a wikipedia article, but this is for the sake of humanity and the sake of Africa. The window of opportunity is closing, and we need as much resources as possible to minimize death.

I propose include a section in the article which makes it SUPER clear how readers of wikipedia can donate their time and/or money to help stop ebola. This wikipedia page is getting a lot of traffic from the right kinds of people, and is on the front page of hundreds of google searches. Let's put that to use! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsskill (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You recognize "it probably isn't standard to include such info in a Wikipedia article". As Wikipedia:PROMOTION puts it, "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." So that would be a major change to how all of Wikipedia works, not just one article. One reason Wikipedia gets "a lot of traffic from the right kinds of people" is that you can read an article like Cancer (which kills more people than Ebola) that isn't full of pleas to donate. So such a change would need to be approved throughout Wikipedia, not just here. As you also recognize ("SUPER clear ..."), we already provide links to groups like Doctors Without Borders. Art LaPella (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That raises an interesting question, Art LaPella: Are you more concerned about maximizing resources for this ebola outbreak or the possibility of Wikipedia's reputation being nominally damaged by making an exception to Wikipedia's Promotion etiquette? The reason I posted this proposal is because I already answered this question for myself, and chose to former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsskill (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to promote causes on Wikipedia articles, it should be the causes discussed on my user page :-) My main point was just to explain the political facts of life at Wikipedia, since you are apparently new. I'm pretty sure that ain't gonna fly, even if I joined you. Art LaPella (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As this article is documenting a current event I think it would be appropriate to provide information on how to avoid Ebola and also how to donate to aid agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.166.187 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTPROMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You'd make more headway by trying to convince someone with an extremely popular Twitter feed to tweet some information about Ebola. Twitter is very popular in Nigeria (and of course in the US)... though less so in Liberia and coastal W.Africa. This article gets an order of magnitude (or 2) less views than popular singers', actors' accounts. Snd0 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A little bit of canvassing from Reddit Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 17:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. If a major agency such as the WHO or CDC publish statements discussing how to prevent the spread of Ebola, we could possibly mention that and include a link. But Wikipedia doesn't raise money for random charities, because sorting the legitimate ones from the scams would be too much effort and risk, and even if we went with a rule of "only notable charities" it'd still allow too much slacktivism (which does not help). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm tired of this lets donate all our money to 3rd world countries bullcrap. Yeah, its sad but what has Africa done to the billions of dollars we give them each year? Also Africa hasnt given us anything in return except: West Nile, AIDS, and now Ebola.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this discussion has now drifted sufficiently far from discussing the article that it can be closed and archived. Doing so now. -- The Anome (talk) 17:48, 13 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.

Braintree, MA

Another case might have come in Braintree, Mass. USA. Guns&Coffee (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, the local medical authorities seem to be saying that this is a likely false alarm, but they are still going to be keeping the patient in isolation, just in case. See [1]. -- The Anome (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Exponential Function

I am wondering if it makes sense to include the link ( http://dc.hu/~boldi/ebola/ ) to the "simple" exponential function. I view this as information which does not add much to the discourse and serves only to excite and seems more of a vain exercise. I cannot dispute or prove the math, but the quality of the link seems dubious. It appears to be a non-professional link from an irrelevant source. That seems to be enough of a reason to remove it. Please consider this a vote to remove the link; if someone else agrees, please remove the link. Thanks! Jpittman (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

'Support' removal. The math there is simple and not exactly wrong. But this is not a reputable source or reseach. If someone wants to see big numbers they can do their own "how long till zombie apocalypse" calculation.89.235.232.161 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed as WP:CRYSTAL. The "zombie apocalypse" stuff in the linked page also seems to me to be a questionable attempt at humor regarding the situation. -- The Anome (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It certainly does not make a good link, per WPCIRCULAR. However I did read of a doubling time of 34.8 days.... "expanding exponentially, with a doubling period of 34.8 days" here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC).

Doctors Without Borders

Médecins Sans Frontières is most commonly known in the US and Canada as Doctors Without Borders, which is simply a translation of the name from French to English. Given that their English-language website calls it Doctors Without Borders, it seems a bit silly not to follow their lead. I have taken the liberty of changing their name throughout the article to their name in English. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed on here earlier, and as in most countries other than the US it is known as Médecins Sans Frontières, because this article is (mostly) about countries in West Africa, not North America, and uses British English (in the UK we call them MSF) that we would use the French name. Unfortunately I'm going out shortly so don't have time to find a link to an archived discussion. Saxmund (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Titanium Dragon, i'm definitely against this change. They were Médecins Sans Frontières everywhere since 1972 and the letters MSF (not DWB) are recognised worldwide. They partially rebranded a couple of years ago *only* to improve their presence in the US (Canada is part french-speaking, don't forget). Robertpedley (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

They localize their name into all major languages; their official website says that they are called Doctors Without Borders in English, and it says so not only in the US, but also in the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, and India, according to their own websites. The other language Wikis all localize their name as well. Per WP:EN, we should be using the name of the organization in English, because this is the English Wikipedia, and that is the name of the organization in English. It is the same reason that Germany is called Germany on the English Wikipedia and es:Estados Unidos is the name of the United States of America on the Spanish language Wiki. Their UK webpage has Doctors Without Borders on it, right up there at the top. They use the abbreviation MSF. On the articles on their UK website, they use both names, and avoid using the full French name, instead using the abbreviation. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"their official website says that they are called Doctors Without Borders in English" Citation please. The website clearly shows the name Medecins sans Frontieres above the English name, and they use MSF as the abbreviation throughout. It is pretty clear that MSF is the primary name. Saxmund (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, most of the websites are "msf.org" or similar, and the masthead has the French name *above* the English. The Wiki page Doctors Without Borders redirects to Médecins Sans Frontières. I think the French name is regarded by MSF themselves as primary, and all the others are secondary.Robertpedley (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Titanium Dragon. The organization uses their name in English in seven countries including America and the UK. This is the English Wiki. It is appropriate to use the name that Americans and the other English speaking countries recognize, as per Wiki policy. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

SW3, from your moniker I guess you are British, as that is a postcode in South West London. What do you mean by "It is appropriate to use the name that... the other English speaking countries recognize"? When was the last time you heard MSF called by anything other than the French name on British TV news or saw it called anything else in the British press? In the UK at least it is commonly called by the French name. Saxmund (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Saxmund, you're right. The BBC say it. I know I've heard ITV say Doctors without Borders. I'll check youtube. Bound to be something there.SW3 5DL (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Channel 4 News uses MSF as well, not sure about ITV and Sky. Saxmund (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

ITV Doctors without Borders. And remember, nobody actually says Médecins Sans Frontières in normal conversation. They say MSF. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if people use the abbreviation MSF they are referring to the full name Medecins sans Frontieres.Saxmund (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Google Ngram comparison Art LaPella (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(This graph, which is mostly of English language books, shows that Médecins Sans Frontières remains more common than Doctors Without Borders.) Shii (tock) 17:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Shii..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a weird discussion. Where are the majority of page views of this English article coming from? If it's the US, then it should be Doctors Without Borders. The average American reader would see "Medecins sans Frontieres" and say "Oh, the Spanish are such humanitarians"... Snd0 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion that concluded that British English should be used, as in two of the countries affected (Sierra Leone and Nigeria), they use British English. See article header. In the UK, we commonly use the French name, it seems reasonable that in an article written in British English we should use the British convention. It is an article about an international event, which is mostly taking place in West Africa. It seems to me that the internationally recognised name of MSF should be used. By all means use DWB on the page about the outbreak in the US. I am not sure the origin of page views is relevant - we would use British English about an event in the UK even if for some reason the majority of page views came from the USA. Saxmund (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the reasons given by Saxmund and also note that our own Wikipedia uses the term Médecins Sans Frontières. This is also the term used at all of their websites, sometimes with a translation listed below their title. Gandydancer (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Article Name - Email from WHO

After emailing the writer for the office of the director at the World Health Organization, I received the following reply when asking about their naming conventions.

Dear Alex,
I am the WHO Director-General’s writer. Our vocabulary is as follows. We refer to the Ebola “epidemic” in parts of West Africa. I am afraid some people think West Africa is the name of a country. That’s why we nearly always say “parts of West Africa”. (Not all of West Africa is infected, of course). When we refer to Ebola virus disease in individual countries with multiple
cases, we talk about Ebola “outbreaks”.  The cases in the US and Spain are “imported” cases, provided the number of additional cases remains very small. On 20 July, Lagos, Nigeria had its first case brought in by an infected air traveller from Liberia. The virus spread fairly quickly to infect at least 19 people, most of whom were health care staff treating the index case. We then referred to the Ebola “outbreak” in Nigeria.
Hope this helps. If not, please get back to me. Let us all hope the number of Ebola cases in the US stays very small. This is truly a horrific disease.
 
Mary Kay Kindhauser
Writer/Policy Analyst
Office of the Director-General
World Health Organization

Upon reading the email, now how should we name the article? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Inclines me to think that the current form is probably fine, especially if it's in line with published WP:RSs. "Ebola virus epidemic in parts of West Africa" would be more accurate, but less succinct. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ian. Our first line reads: "An epidemic of Ebola virus disease (EVD) is ongoing in certain West African countries". Gandydancer (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the letter with line layout fixed:

Dear Alex,

I am the WHO Director-General’s writer. Our vocabulary is as follows. We refer to the Ebola “epidemic” in parts of West Africa. I am afraid some people think West Africa is the name of a country. That’s why we nearly always say “parts of West Africa”. (Not all of West Africa is infected, of course). When we refer to Ebola virus disease in individual countries with multiple cases, we talk about Ebola “outbreaks”.

The cases in the US and Spain are “imported” cases, provided the number of additional cases remains very small. On 20 July, Lagos, Nigeria had its first case brought in by an infected air traveller from Liberia. The virus spread fairly quickly to infect at least 19 people, most of whom were health care staff treating the index case. We then referred to the Ebola “outbreak” in Nigeria.

Hope this helps. If not, please get back to me. Let us all hope the number of Ebola cases in the US stays very small. This is truly a horrific disease.

Mary Kay Kindhauser
Writer/Policy Analyst
Office of the Director-General
World Health Organization

Excellent work, by the way. Thank you for this. -- The Anome (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible shortage of the production capacity of protective clothing

The important german weekly magazine Der Spiegel, wrote today, that the demand for protective clothing raised so much, that there is now the threat that it will come to a shortage due to limited production capacity (This cloth can be used only once). They refer to the DuPont sales manager Albrecht Gerland and also to the the Dutch company Imres. But I have only a german reference that points in the moment only to the written source. I guess there will be soon further articles available in the internet, as Der Spiegel is one of the most influential german magazine.

Where to put this in the article? Does someone has further information to this? Or is it still to early to be put in the article?

References

--Malanoqa (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There's been talk of this for a while, but no firm evidence. I don't know where these things are made, but I hope the global biomedical manufacturing business is capable of ramping up production! Robertpedley (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, we shouldn't include this in the article. It is not Wikipedia's place to speculate about the future. This sounds very speculative to me; if there is an actual shortage, we can report it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the WP:CRYSTAL concern,but the fact that the cloth only gets used once could justify mention or explanation, either here or in Ebola disease or some similar article. JonRichfield (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I found a further article. It is planned to develop new and different protection clothing.

References

--Malanoqa (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is another article on the matter. http://www.npr.org/2014/10/07/354230895/ebola-protective-suits-are-in-short-supply As engineer working in manufacturing I can see this being a real problem, if manufacturing capacity runs out there is no way no how anyone is going to increase it faster than ebola is spreading. Want a PPE automated manufacturing line, sure, does delivery date of 2017 work for you? 84.52.41.9 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Malanoqa The Seattle Times article doesn't mention shortages, but it's an interesting summary of possible improvements in equipment & diagnosis. And the NPR article cites temporary regional shortages, it's speculative about a possible global shortage, so I'm with Titanium Dragon on this. One to watch, I think. Robertpedley (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley I am watching this, and I agree with you, it is to speculative to put it into the article now. Thanks to all who provided references and helpfull thougths.--Malanoqa (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO, I would not be too concerned about "speculative" - we have numerous speculative statements already, including those from the WHO, MSF, the CDC, etc., who speculate that the numbers are not correct, that the epidemic will dramatically worsen, etc. When speculation is based on sound present information its worth a mention, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think about this--Malanoqa (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I now added a text about protective clothing at the end of the chapter healthcare settings. Shortage is not mentioned, as this is speculative. But the increasing demands and the need to have better clothing, more suitable for the hot climate in West Africa. Thank you for your feedback and also to Gandydancer who helped me to improve the first draft on my talk page.--Malanoqa (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion re merge

This article has been tagged with this suggestion:

It has been suggested that this article be merged with Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia, Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone, Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea, 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak, Ebola virus disease cases in Spain, Thomas Eric Duncan and Patrick Sawyer to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa.

The editor did not open a discussion with any info re his/her suggestions on how this could be done and I believe it needs to be discussed - the tag can be added if there is any support at all, which seems very highly unlikely to me. Perhaps the editor that added the tag could open the discussion? Gandydancer (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this is ill-advised, to say the least. This is a large and complex event, with many different parts each of which are notable events in their own right. If we merge them all into a single article, it will either be impossible to treat any of the valid sub-topics adequately, or this article will become so long that it will be necessary to re-factor it into multiple articles, with one main article summarizing the entire situation: which is what we have now.

Since its proposer hasn't bothered to give their own rationale for the merge here, I'm going to remove the template now. -- Impsswoon (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The articles where a remerge is proposed are of a different quality. I propose to discuss merging for specific articles. Especially for articles where there is nearto new additional content and only very few editors are working and watching.--Malanoqa (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me: Discussing these merge proposals on a case-by-case basis is the right way to go. -- Impsswoon (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The merge tag did point at a discussion, which (rather confusingly) was at Talk:2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak#RfC. However, I think that discussion has run its course, and should probably be closed. There was certainly no consensus for a merge. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reason - Sorry for that. My reasoning was because I was called to participate in the RfC, which had a question on remerging the articles. In addition, there was apparently a section here on merging them together. So, I thought that a merge tag was needed, though I guess I goofed it up. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, with an ongoing merge discussion, all the affected articles should have had merge tags. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

cdc asks to HOLD boston patient

http://www.necn.com/news/health/CDC-Asks-Maine-Hospital-to-Hold-Patient-279050261.html.. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Worth keeping an eye on, but not yet confirmed as Ebola, and currently regarded as low-risk. -- The Anome (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Original location or current location

I noticed that the counting is not consistent. In Madrid one patient died and another one was infected, the sidebar says 1/0 in Spain so only the new infected are counted. For Germany 1/1 is noted even though the patient came from Liberia. --89.245.16.216 (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola casualty update

Does anyone have a problem with the inclusion of the casualty in Germany, in the infobox? It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 14:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It was a medically evacuated case, so it does not go in the box. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

List of organizations providing aid?

I think it would be good to have a section which lists the key players providing aid in the field: US military, MSF, UNICEF, Direct Relief, etc, with a brief description of what they have been doing.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsskill (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The section we have now is Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Responses, which links to the more detailed article Responses to the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Art LaPella (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Missed that. Thanks for pointing that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.220.192 (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Map Projection

Which map projection would everyone rather use?

• 
  OpenLayers LonLat Projection
• 
  Winkel Tripel Projection

Also, if you guys want a different projection not listed, I'll generate it and use it instead. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely the Winkel. Equatorial projection worked well with Africa, but with the cases spreading to northern latitudes, the existing projection distorts east-west distances exponentially towards the poles. The Winkel provides a projection that shows most countries in the shapes we identify with them. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: redundant space.

At the end of the "Transmission" section, the text says:

In Sierra Leone, the typical training period for the use of such safety equipment lasts approximately 12 days. ^[140]

There is an extraneous space between the period and the <ref>; please delete it. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014

The WHO has stated that the rate of infection may reach 10,000 cases a day: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/14/who-new-ebola-cases-world-health-organisation Amnorvend (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Amnorvend and the editor that added it to the article. I feel that it is important enough to add to the lead, which I did. Gandydancer (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually didn't see this request. I added it because I had personally heard about it in the news. --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014

There are 4 cases of Ebola in the USA, not 2. 174.31.240.53 (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is definition, not references; cases like Ashoka Mukpo are "in the USA" but the sources we use attribute him to Liberia, so this article doesn't count him. Art LaPella (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes requested

Following the recent protection of the article due to vandalism, I went ahead and requested pending changes be enacted. Three edit requests in the span of 2 hours show me this article is too current for semi-protection to not become even more of a burden on editors than vandalism. If enacted, IPs can continue to edit as normal, and editors may approve or deny those changes with only a couple of clicks. Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I requested it a few days ago, but it was denied. Good luck friend. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't aware. Certainly it seems more appropriate than semi-protection though. Easier to revert vandalism than deal with edit requests haha. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

11 October numbers,

Two governments have not reported confirmed so can't update that now..Reports are per ocha for Guinea, who and Sierra Leone and Lberia. USA as per news. Will update confirmed. Sl dearth toll still suspect..BrianGroen (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I noticed for some reason the october 8 case/fatality (table), references are not in place,(are they being changed),,?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa i am looking into it , will see what pans out. in the archives i have link a post to gross under reporting.. SL was at once stage only reporting confirmed deaths, but i think they are trying to correct now, so it will fluctuate. greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) OIh ja sorry i did not do 8 sept numberrs but will have rference up, so numbers might vary slightly.17:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brian, why do we keep Senegal and Nigeria on the totals chart? Gandydancer (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandy good question...Is it still relevant .. Perhaps we put it to rfc..BrianGroen (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

While the number of cases and deaths seems to be updated regularly, the header still calls these the "MARCH 2014" numbers. Can someone change that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiJeigh (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi PiJeigh the lead states as of March since WHO started reporting. WHO only reported figures from then. The tables and info box. have the latest date . BrianGroen (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi PiJeigh my bad error p[ick up by other editor and fixed.. thanks for pointing it out.. BrianGroen (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa 8 Oct sorted. I added reference for 8 OCT date , but notice WHO date was wrong Only 8 OCT for SL. Fix to 7 Oct with 7 Oct figures for SL as per gov.. Excuse "ass" reference in history should read "add" reference. Typo of worst kind LOL Regards BrianBrianGroen (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Permission to change the map

I feel that since the African Governments have slowed down their reporting, and their numbers are not accurate anymore, would anybody have a problem with replacing the main map of Africa with the global map showing all Ebola cases from this outbreak?

This one.

Let me know what you guys think. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, if anybody speaks a language other than English, and speaks it fluently, please add a description in your language to the map on the right, and please describe what each color means, since the colors are in English on the map. Thanks! AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

map change is good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, please don't do this: it would give the misleading impression of a global epidemic, ie. a pandemic, which is not what is happening. Mass infection of the general population in the thousands (ie. epidemic infection) is still limited to Africa: the cases elsewhere are tiny numbers of imported cases, confined to medevac patients who caught the disease in Africa and secondary infections of medical personnel. For more information on terminology, please see the advice on language from the WHO higher up this page. Many people are reading our coverage of this event: we should not make the situation appear any more alarming than it actually is. -- Impsswoon (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I know the language from above, I was the one who contacted them. The language is not changing, we're just showing people where the virus is. We are telling them, on the map, what each color means. The current map is not doing this. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your help with the WHO advice, but I still think the global map is misleading, as it gives the (unintentional) impression that Texas and Spain are somehow Ebola zones: with the exception of a couple of rooms in each country, they are not, and the average person can currently go about their lives without worrying about infection.

Moreover, red is a much more visible color than black, and the unaware reader might even get the impression that they are more infected than West Africa. Perhaps we should be using black for the presence of imported cases, and red for active epidemic infection? -- Impsswoon (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So, for example, instead of going

blue, purple, yellow, orange, red, brown, black,

in order of seriousness, we should go:

black, blue, purple, brown, yellow, orange, red

instead, snd also use green for Senegal (and soon Nigeria, on the 20th), where they are Ebola-free?-- Impsswoon (talk)

I am keeping black as widespread. Black is a sign of death, Europe didn't call it the Red Death. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I will also change Senegal to be Ebola-free once the WHO declares it as such. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The world map is good and serves a useful purpose in showing where the virus has spread, though I agree with Impsswoon that for the moment the West Africa map should remain at the top. If this does become a pandemic then of course the world map should be the primary focus. |→ Spaully ^τ 21:28, 15 October 2014 (GMT)

Agree with Spaully,AmericanXplorer13 world map is excellent idea and can be moved up if the situation changes. Colors are fine ..BrianGroen (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Update map

Please change Germany from blue to purple as according to this. Thanks. [Soffredo] 13:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Should all of Germany be purple, or should it be blue and purple? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

All purple; purple supersedes blue here 81.97.162.165 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Can this be changed? [Soffredo] 01:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The color needs to be changed to just purple. You can't have deaths and no deaths at the same time. TL565 (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

two-year-old Emile was bitten by one of the fruit bats

Hi, I don't want to get into an edit war about this. The statement has only appeared in the Guardian, so I wrote to their "Corrections & Clarifications" editor as follows:-

Dear Reader's editor,

The article by Clar Ni Chonghaile ( http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/09/ebola-guinea-family-west-africa-crisis ) contains the following sentence:

"In December last year, near the village of Meliandou in southern Guinea, two-year-old Emile was bitten by one of the fruit bats that fly through west Africa’s skies, often gathering at dusk to roost in trees."

I have checked the most reliable sources I can find, namely

1. New England Journal of Medecine ( http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1404505#t=article )

2. World Health Organisation ( http://who.int/csr/disease/ebola/ebola-6-months/guinea/en/ )

Neither of these reliable sources contains any reference to a bite from a bat; indeed a number of possible sources of the infection are mentioned.

In view of the attention this subject is getting at the moment, I'd be grateful if you could publish the source of your report of a bat bite, or alternatively correct the article.

Many thanks

I'll let you know if I get a reply. Robertpedley (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

With such a dramatic claim, we definitely need multiple reliable sources. Thank you for chasing the sources on this. -- The Anome (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have heard of this too, but I'm pretty sure the only people who definitely know are all dead. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That was quick! official reply from The Guardian -

Thank you for your email. We have now amended the article to say that the two-year-old child may have come into contact with a bat, rather than that he was bitten by a bat.

Best wishes Barbara Harper

Robertpedley (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work Robertpedley (why are you still in red btw?)

I found an email address of Clar Ni Chonghaile here[2]

I will try to email her. --Dernier Siècle (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting story. Numerous news reports from around August 23 carry the Leendertz study claim, "A toddler's chance encounter with one infected bat in Guinea led to west Africa's present epidemic". That study has yet to be published, which seems odd. The Guardian first published the "single bat" theory on Aug 23 and made the same suggestion in a second article published on Oct 9. But in the following two stories one reads something quite different:

• [3] - August 11 - "Leendertz thinks one bad bush meat carcass may have sparked the current epidemic."

• [4] - August 20 - "In the wake of this study's publication, Fabian Leendertz, an epidemiologist and disease ecologist at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, led a 17-member team to Guinea. He hoped to conclusively identify a strong animal-to-human transferrable - a process called zoonosis - strain of the virus the in the local fauna. The study's results remain unpublished, but the researcher did reveal to Science News that they didn't find anything compelling.

"We were still three months late," Leendertz added. "Many things may have changed in the meantime." It may simply be that disease carriers had already moved away from the area, with migration and unrelated environmental changes causing the outbreak's true culprits to wander away before the research team showed up."

Seems odd, doesn't it? Gandydancer (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Original WHO / MSF teams visited the area in March (viz NEJM article) Doubtful that a second visit by a different team would pick up better information, especially as the immediate family of case zero are dead. Robertpedley (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

They were likely all on the same team. The WHO recruits epidemiologists, and other scientists, from all over. When they aren't carrying out an assignment for WHO, they are working at their usual lab/university/institute. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

10/15 Updated Numbers

Country	Cases	Deaths	Date	Source
Guinea	1,472	843	Oct 12	WHO [5]
Liberia	4,241	2,458	Oct 11	Liberia Ministry of Health [6]
Sierra Leone	3,296	1,198	Oct 13	Sierra Leone Health Ministry [7]
Nigeria	20	8		WHO
Senegal	1	0		WHO
Spain	1	0		WHO
USA	3	1		WHO / Media Reports
Total	9,034	4,508

ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi ZeLonewolf fixed Guinea just typo 1472 no change in numbers .. Sl is as per this report [8] same as who . Reported site above is for 13 OCt. Liberia is 4249 as per report and not 4241, same as who.. kind regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ps ZeLonewolf thanks for fixing my typo, but some how it did not safe . Glad some body check on faults.. You know the old saying no one can check his own work.. Kind regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Avoid Americanizing perspective

Since well over 2,000 people have died from Ebola in Liberia, and only one in the United States, we need to avoid letting this article be overwhelmed by the American perspective. We need more coverage of the issues in Liberia, Sierre Leone and Guinea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi John Pack Lambert agree fully relevant info to Africa here in us stub but but main info in USA -- greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Full details about the U.S. situation, while important, belong in the U.S. sub-article, not here. -- Impsswoon (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Update map colors

Germany should be purple, not striped blue/purple. Otherwise, we'd make Nigera both shades of red since not everyone had died. [Soffredo] 11:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Updated numbers from Sierra Leone

Please change the case/death count in the lead from Sierra Leone Ministry of Health[9] to Cases:3,252 Deaths: 1,183

I'm going to wait until we get a report from the WHO. Their numbers contradict themselves at the top and in the table. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a summary of what I can find for the most up to date reports. I was able to get very close to the numbers listed in the article. No need to wait for stale reports from the WHO when you can get the same data direct from the health ministries. The only one of the 3 countries that I can't find a direct source for is Guinea, which doesn't even appear to have a government web site.

Country	Cases	Deaths	Date	Source
Guinea	1350	778	Oct 10	WHO [10]
Liberia	4241	2458	Oct 11	Liberia Ministry of Health [11]
Sierra Leone	3296	1198	Oct 14	Sierra Leone Health Ministry [12]
Nigeria	20	8		WHO
Senegal	1	0		WHO
Spain	1	0		WHO
USA	2	1		WHO / Media Reports
Total	8911	4443
WHO Media Report	nearly 9000	4447[13]		Sky News

ZeLonewolf (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear ZeLonewolf, it appears that the Government Website for Guinea changed from http://www.guinee.gov.gn/ to http://www.presidence.gov.gn/ . But I have failed to find an official source for that. Nonetheless I changed the link in the Guinea Article. Looks like it is required to ask the people who should know this directly. The most actual situation report by the government of Guinea I found, is from september and published on http://www.presidence.gov.gn/ . Malanoqa (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi ZeLonewolf,AmericanXplorer13,Malanoqa I have updated to 11 October. Guinea numbers are find ocha. [14] But i update to one date inline Throws confusion out of line.. This case 11 October (news reports for Usa) Kind regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

BrianGroen, it is a good idea to mention us in the talk. I already started to prepare the graphics for 11 October. But I would like to wait a bit until I replace the graphs. Are the values now already stable enough to change the graphs? Malanoqa (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Malanoqa 11 October is stable you can use it..Kind regards BrianGroen (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi BrianGroen, the WHO report from 15 October is available. I will upload the graphics soon. Kind regards (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Malanoqa Yip my luck will update my side just check sl is for 11 sept according to report but is per gov number for 12 sept..BrianGroen (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi ZeLonewolf,AmericanXplorer13,Malanoqa and BrianGroen

You can find Guinea figures for each day on this website. (OMS is WHO in french) Ebola : point de situation au 16 octobre 2014 --Dernier Siècle (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dernier Siècle appreciate it... greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dernier Siècle it is good you found this Source for Guinea Malanoqa (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

References

We have a massive range of references ion this article.. Some items hasve three references to the same news.. It's good practice to reduce this. hence long reducing references list BrianGroen (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, far too many. I had posted a plea to editors, which has already moved into archives, to try to cite the original reports with good names and look for duplications before adding more. |→ Spaully ^τ 17:41, 15 October 2014 (GMT)

can some of the other editors help me remove outdated links . not pointing to source. BrianGroen (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Global perspective

I read somewhere recently (having trouble finding it) that by December it is more likely than not every country in the world will have at least 1 Ebola case. Even if it's only half the countries, it still presents a problem for how to organize the Wikipedia articles. Currently we have separate articles for each country, which is fine I guess but doesn't really present a top-level landing page for the pandemic. Since this is a global pandemic, it really needs a top-level 2013-present global Ebola virus pandemic article. This article can remain to focus on the West African portion. Thoughts? -- GreenC 18:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

When we get to that point, organize the articles by continent, then address the countries there. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean dozens of country or region-level articles about the pandemic and no central place to discuss it as a whole. -- GreenC 21:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Cumulative totals discrepancy

The United States shows a cumulative total of 3/1 in the summary, indicating there are 3 cases total and 1 fatality. If we look at Nigeria, it shows 20 cases total. However, in the details section, Nigeria at one point had 22 cases. We need to rectify this to be accurate across all countries to fully come up with either a cumulative total or a current total. If cumulative, Nigeria needs at least 22 cases. If current, the United States needs 2 cases and 1 fatality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsbound2024 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The extra Nigerian cases will be suspected cases that turned out to be negative. there is a small amount of inconsistency, in that suspected cases outside West Africa are not added to the table until they have tested positive for Ebola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxmund (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Cases flux as death to other disease are drop from the table later... BrianGroen (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed when reading a number of papers on the epidemiology that the definition of "case" varies from paper to paper. Usually they try to define it clearly at the top. Sometimes they include suspected along with probable and confirmed, sometimes not. But even the precise clinical definition of "probable" varies over time so differences can be subtle. If we are going to have this much real-time data, it is probably a good idea to have a succinct "case" definition with a little clinical info (or reference) at the top and then asterisk all the entries where data is not fully available according to the definition (eg suspected not reported or different definition). All data categories are subject to downward revision over time. That being said, awesome effort on the table Greenbe (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014

I am requesting to update the # of cases for the USA to 3 (from 2) for 12 Oct 2014, as we have 3 Ebola confirmed cases as of the 12th of which one ended deadly: cases: 2 Nurses + Initial Patient Deaths: Initial Patient

Replace: | 12 Oct 2014 || 8,997 || 4,485 || +1.4% || 1,472 || 843 || 4,249 || 2,458|| 3,252 || 1,183 || 20 || 8 || 1 || 0 || 2 || 1 || 1 || 0 ||

With: | 12 Oct 2014 || 8,997 || 4,485 || +1.4% || 1,472 || 843 || 4,249 || 2,458|| 3,252 || 1,183 || 20 || 8 || 1 || 0 || 3 || 1 || 1 || 0 ||

We wait for the WHO report to come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanXplorer13 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Timeline are reported by who,cdc or ocha or goverments, no news paper reports.is mentioned in infobox. Malanoqa (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Graphics with note regarding Liberia

I actualized the four graphics with country data. It is now very obvious that the values for Liberia grow much slower. I therefore added in a box the following statement:

Due to WHO, the decline in the numbers for Liberia is unlikely to be genuine. It rather reflects a deterioration in the ability of overwhelmed responders to record accurate epidemiological data. (WHO: Ebola Response Roadmap Situation Report 8 October 2014)

This is the same note which I inserted some time ago in the graphic with weekly new cases for Liberia, see Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia. Ideas how to improve? Malanoqa (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malanoqa (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Believe note would read better if it said,"According to WHO", rather than "Due to WHO."Jaerik (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jaerik, I will correct this tomorow. Malanoqa (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Good job. I think a clearly visible disclaimer like that is a good idea. Snd0 (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Countries with widespread transmission

In the Sierra Leone subsection of the section Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Countries with widespread transmission, the fifth paragraph begins:

"On 25 September, the government added three more districts to the "isolation" regime in an effort to contain the spread."

When I saw

the "isolation" regime"

I paused. I had not seen a previous reference to that. I searched and did not find one. Before mentioning "the 'isolation' regime", the regime needs to be explained (I also wonder whether "regime" is the best word to use). CorinneSD (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne. The ref was no longer available and besides this is no longer of much importance anyway. I deleted the info. Gandydancer (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Countries with local transmission

The second paragraph of the "United States" subsection in Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Countries with local transmission needs to be updated. The nurses have already been transferred. I could change the verbs, but I don't have the references to back up the changes. CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I added a ref and updated the verbs. Gandydancer (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Healthcare workers contracting ebolavirus

We need a section OR an article on healthcare works contracting ebolavirus while serving the patients who had previously been infected by or contaminated by the ebolavirus. This might help, but it needs mucho work... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Healthcare_workers_contracting_ebola MaynardClark (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi MaynardClark it is covered under Deaths of healthcare workers under prevention but the list is now over 400 long... so we only cover numbers here ... going to be a massive section if wee add every case..

By 12 October, the WHO reported 427 workers had been infected and 236 had died. Liberia has been especially hard hit with almost half the total cases (201 with 95 deaths) reported. Sierra Leone registered 129 cases with 96 fatalities, thus indicating a death toll of 73.6% in Sierra Leone. Guinea reported 76 infected cases with 34 deaths. In Nigeria 11 healthcare workers were also infected and 5 deaths were recorded. One infected case in Spain was reported, as well as two in the United States

Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Table errors

I've been out of this for a long time, but totals don't seem to match for 3 days:

                         Cases      Deaths
                         tab  sum   tab  sum
Bad data for 2014-09-10: 4846 4848; 2375 2376
Bad data for 2014-09-07: 4366 4391; 2177 2177
Bad data for 2014-09-03: 4001 4001; 2089 2059

I don't have time to look at it further right now. Glrx (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Glrx .. Thanks for spotting . fix it.. I think it was changed between reports from who to governments and total were not re-tallied.. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

14 October totals

Note 14 October totals may change as soon as i get libeeria numbers . Currently 13 October . Will then update confirmed cases...Greetings Brian Malanoqa (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there is a problem with Liberia numbers and may be a problem till the strike is resolved by some workers. Got numbers for 14 October does not look right. will stick with WHO report for now..Noe new cases reported on 14 Oct, bit odd for me BrianGroen (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2014

Omitted word in the contact tracing section:

"This is a massive ongoing effort to volunteers and health ..."

I believe this should be

"This is a massive ongoing effort to TRAIN volunteers and health

oldrider (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

All set Motoma (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

why are Doctors Thomas Frieden and Anthony Stephen Fauci not mentioned anywhere in this article?

they have been very deeply involved in this 2014 crisis and situation, and both testified in the United States Congressional hearing on the Ebola crisis (on October 16th 2014). Why is there zero mention of these two doctors, Dr Frieden and Dr Fauci, in this article? Arguably there should be, at least something. Given their heavy involvement in this matter. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gabby Merger agree will see what i can do tomorrow... Night time buy me..greetings Brian. BrianGroen (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

For now, Frieden is already mentioned at Ebola virus outbreak in the United States. Art LaPella (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, Art, but Frieden should be mentioned somewhere in this article too. And Dr Fauci also, who is not even in the "United States" article. Fauci has been in interviews galore regarding this, is a well-established immunologist etc, and testified in the Congressional hearing today regarding this. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, they should not. The article, as of now, is about the West African outbreak. Yours is an American perspective.

Zezen (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your position, Zezen, is that it forgets that the "American perspective" STEMS from the West African situation, since the spread of the disease ORIGINATED from West Africa to begin with. Plus the fact that this is a GLOBAL WORLD...and with speedy travel and communications, etc, every nation is in some way inter-connected. The "American perspective" is not from some isolated thing out of nowhere. But from the outbreak in West Africa, in the first place. Duncan came from West Africa, somehow got to America, and infected a few others in America. It's all related. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles about various aspects of Ebola. This specific article is about the epidemic in three West African countries, Gabby Merger, which involves roughly 10,000 cases. Those two physicians certainly deserve to be mentioned in our coverage of the (as yet) very small Texas outbreak, but how, precisely, are they significant to the story of the main West African epidemic? Should we also mention the leading public health physicians in the several other countries in Europe and elsewhere, that have a handful of Ebola cases, in this article about West Africa? If so, why? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Support sorry personal opinions of "American perspective" aside, these two doctors were the main reason we have a massive influx of US help in Africa, and defiantly deserve a mention..BrianGroen (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Gabby and Brian. Gandydancer (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that mention of Drs. Fauci and Frieden is appropriate here, but mention should be confined to the specifics about their efforts in West Africa. Any info on them wrt the U.S. outbreak belongs on that article.

Will get on it, let me just do research on their African input. Any USA info i will add there...BrianGroen (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do mention fAUCI AND fRIEDEN. But not to bame drop integrate it into the text. Yes they are big players in the African scene, they meet WP:NOTWikidgood (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

1) Americanization. 2) Plenty of other guys working hard in Uk, France, Geneva etc to mobilise support. 3) This page is obout the epidemic, not the doctors, not the political lobbyists, not the drug companies. Fauci & Freeden, if they are worth their salt, would agree. Robertpedley (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Robert. They should at least have PASSING mention somewhere in this article. America and the UN are the MAIN entities helping out in West Africa. More than France or Switzerland. The UK is the only other country that comes close. So Brits should be mentioned here too. England, America, and the United Nations. It's a global thing, and there's heavy involvement. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede way too long no need for so many statistics

People reading this are not statisticians and epidemiologists. Please trim the lede and not so much math thanbks. Wikidgood (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have suggested that the "laboratory confirmed cases" info is not needed in the lead (leaving only "cases/deaths") but gained no comments. I'll suggest it again. Other than that, the lead seems appropriate to me. Gandydancer (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandy, agree we can remove confirmed cases/deaths(numbers are not reliable) in the lead. will add it timeline later today... just popping to hospital for steroids..BrianGroen (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree lead needs trimming ... as do a few other sections. On holiday at the moment, might get time in a couple of daysRobertpedley (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC).

I don't think that the lead is at all too long, but I do think that it needs some work. Gandydancer (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Healthcare workers contracting ebolavirus

We need a section OR an article on healthcare works contracting ebolavirus while serving the patients who had previously been infected by or contaminated by the ebolavirus. This might help, but it needs mucho work... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Healthcare_workers_contracting_ebola MaynardClark (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi MaynardClark it is covered under Deaths of healthcare workers under prevention but the list is now over 400 long... so we only cover numbers here ... going to be a massive section if wee add every case..

By 12 October, the WHO reported 427 workers had been infected and 236 had died. Liberia has been especially hard hit with almost half the total cases (201 with 95 deaths) reported. Sierra Leone registered 129 cases with 96 fatalities, thus indicating a death toll of 73.6% in Sierra Leone. Guinea reported 76 infected cases with 34 deaths. In Nigeria 11 healthcare workers were also infected and 5 deaths were recorded. One infected case in Spain was reported, as well as two in the United States

Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Table errors

I've been out of this for a long time, but totals don't seem to match for 3 days:

                         Cases      Deaths
                         tab  sum   tab  sum
Bad data for 2014-09-10: 4846 4848; 2375 2376
Bad data for 2014-09-07: 4366 4391; 2177 2177
Bad data for 2014-09-03: 4001 4001; 2089 2059

I don't have time to look at it further right now. Glrx (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Glrx .. Thanks for spotting . fix it.. I think it was changed between reports from who to governments and total were not re-tallied.. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

14 October totals

Note 14 October totals may change as soon as i get libeeria numbers . Currently 13 October . Will then update confirmed cases...Greetings Brian Malanoqa (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there is a problem with Liberia numbers and may be a problem till the strike is resolved by some workers. Got numbers for 14 October does not look right. will stick with WHO report for now..Noe new cases reported on 14 Oct, bit odd for me BrianGroen (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2014

Omitted word in the contact tracing section:

"This is a massive ongoing effort to volunteers and health ..."

I believe this should be

"This is a massive ongoing effort to TRAIN volunteers and health

oldrider (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

All set Motoma (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede way too long no need for so many statistics

People reading this are not statisticians and epidemiologists. Please trim the lede and not so much math thanbks. Wikidgood (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have suggested that the "laboratory confirmed cases" info is not needed in the lead (leaving only "cases/deaths") but gained no comments. I'll suggest it again. Other than that, the lead seems appropriate to me. Gandydancer (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandy, agree we can remove confirmed cases/deaths(numbers are not reliable) in the lead. will add it timeline later today... just popping to hospital for steroids..BrianGroen (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree lead needs trimming ... as do a few other sections. On holiday at the moment, might get time in a couple of daysRobertpedley (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC).

I don't think that the lead is at all too long, but I do think that it needs some work. Gandydancer (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Survivors

The articles does not say how many are surviving this epidemic. From the data seen so far, it appears that many are surviving in the midst of the epidemic. How many can we expect will survive? What differentiates the population of survivors from the population which succumbs? Does this result from partial or complete immunity? Does it result from better care?Fconaway (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

HI Fconaway survival rates are not reported timelessly and are therefor not added..workers doing the reports are swamp, and plus there are numerous anoucounted numbeers.. i.e in Sierra Leone there are over 1000 missing , presumed dead as per Sylvia Blyden executive PA to the president. I guess we will have to assume that 30 % do survive this. ... Guinea are a bit lacks on survival rates as well. Greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fconaway, the article cites a case survival rate of 71%, for hospitalized person, the survival rate was better (65%), but that is only found in the reference. Unknown is how many people become ill after being in contact with Ebola, but it is supposed, that not everyone becomes ill. Sorry for not giving references to this. I also know of no scientific study that says, that survivors are immune (for a longer time). I hope there will be soon something I can use as reference. Generally people are not equal, so there is always a chance, that a person is not susceptible to an infection. That is for me the best argument against all this cloning. But in the moment our information is incomplete and we may have years to wait for studies have profound informations that explains what happens. Malanoqa (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The article says "The epidemic has caused significant mortality, with a case fatality rate (CFR) reported as 71%." Does this imply a survival rate of 29%?Fconaway (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Healthcare settings

The last sentence in the section Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#Healthcare settings contains the phrase "Ad Hoc Centers".

(a) If British or former-British-colony English is used in this article, shouldn't "Centers" be spelled "Centres"?

(b) Since the phrase is capitalized, it sounds like a series of WHO-administered centers that all bear that name. If so, I think the centers should be introduced and explained here. They haven't been mentioned before this. I don't think the presence of a reference to a source article is sufficient. If these centers are not so official as that, then the phrase should not be capitalized. CorinneSD (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi CorinneSD, I changed to lower case letters like in the reference. I have no good argument for not using centre other than that I like center more. Thanks, Malanoqa (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Malanoqa, and for changing the phrase to lower-case. Regarding the spelling of the word, unless one is writing a new article from scratch, one's personal preference should not be the guiding principle. If you read WP:ENGVAR, you will see the guidelines for how to determine which style of spelling ought to be used. I believe this article is predominantly written in British English, or the style of English used in the former British colonies in Africa such as Nigeria, which is similar to British English. (One can determine the style by searching for words such as "honor/honour", "color/colour", "neighbor/neighbour", and "center/centre".) One ought not, of course, change the spelling of the official name of an organization. In comments one writes on talk pages, one can use whatever spelling one prefers. CorinneSD (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi CorinneSD, you are right, now centres, thanks Malanoqa (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

World Map is inconsistent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHO quote

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

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

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

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

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

correct me if im wrong, but recorded history has been going on for some time.....the 1 "Black Death"(bubonic plague).... " Black Death arrived in Europe by sea in October 1347 when 12 Genoese trading ships docked at the Sicilian port of Messina after a long journey through the Black Sea. The people who gathered on the docks to greet the ships were met with a horrifying surprise: Most of the sailors aboard the ships were dead, and those who were still alive were gravely ill. They were overcome with fever, unable to keep food down and delirious from pain. Strangest of all, they were covered in mysterious black boils that oozed blood and pus and gave their illness its name: the “Black Death.” The Sicilian authorities hastily ordered the fleet of “death ships” out of the harbor, but it was too late: Over the next five years, the mysterious Black Death would kill more than 20 million people in Europe–almost one-third of the continent’s population. Even before the “death ships” pulled into port at Messina, many Europeans had heard rumors about a “Great Pestilence” that was carving a deadly path across the trade routes of the Near and Far East. (Early in the 1340s, the disease had struck China, India, Persia, Syria and Egypt.) However, they were scarcely equipped for the horrible reality of the Black Death. “In men and women alike,” the Italian poet Giovanni Boccaccio wrote, “at the beginning of the malady, certain swellings, either on the groin or under the armpits…waxed to the bigness of a common apple, others to the size of an egg, some more and some less, and these the vulgar named plague-boils.” Blood and pus seeped out of these strange swellings, which were followed by a host of other unpleasant symptoms–fever, chills, vomiting, diarrhea, terrible aches and pains–and then, in short order, death. The Black Death was terrifyingly, indiscriminately contagious: “the mere touching of the clothes,” wrote Boccaccio, “appeared to itself to communicate the malady to the toucher.” The disease was also terrifyingly efficient. People who were perfectly healthy when they went to bed at night could be dead by morning"[16] and 2 "Spanish Influenza"...."the influenza or flu pandemic of 1918 to 1919, the deadliest in modern history, infected an estimated 500 million people worldwide–about one-third of the planet’s population at the time–and killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million victims. More than 25 percent of the U.S. population became sick, and some 675,000 Americans died during the pandemic. The 1918 flu was first observed in Europe, the U.S. and parts of Asia before swiftly spreading around the world. Surprisingly, many flu victims were young, otherwise healthy adults. At the time, there were no effective drugs or vaccines to treat this killer flu strain or prevent its spread. In the U.S., citizens were ordered to wear masks, and schools, theaters and other public places were shuttered. Researchers later discovered what made the 1918 pandemic so deadly: In many victims, the influenza virus had invaded their One unusual aspect of the 1918 flu was that it struck down many previously healthy, young people–a group normally resistant to this type of infectious illness–including a number of World War I (1914-18) servicemen. In fact, journalist Gina Kolata has reported that more U.S. soldiers died from the 1918 flu than were killed in battle during the war. Forty percent of the U.S. Navy was hit with the flu, while 36 percent of the Army became ill, notes Kolata in her book on the subject.Although the death toll attributed to the 1918 flu is often estimated at 20 million to 50 million victims worldwide, other estimates run as high as 100 million victims. The exact numbers are impossible to know due to a lack of medical record-keeping in many places. What is known, however, is that few locations were immune to the 1918 flu–in America, victims ranged from residents of major cities to those of remote Alaskan communities."[17] ..........certainly infected, spread across and killed a significant part of their respective populations when each occurred (Biolevel safety measures, just didn't exist....both certainly would have qualified).This, of course, doesn't minimalize the devastation the west Africa Ebola epidemic has done.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fat fingers/ Face slap moment...

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

Talk section disappeared?

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

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

Mali new cases

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

New Mali case of girl confirmed [18] "Meanwhile, a hospital spokesman in Bamako, Mali's capital, confirmed Thursday that a girl has become the fourth suspected Ebola victim there."

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

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

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

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

over 200 contacts[19]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Could someone correct the picture?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Mali outbreak

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

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

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

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

as per the latest "sitrep" the situation in Mali seems to be worse, [20] there are now 4 deaths, whatsmore 70 people are now quarantined [21]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Latest WHO report

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

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

Hi The Anome the official Ebola reports are released here [22] and is still down to bandwidth exceeds...greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As wich as Mali which are released here [23]BrianGroen (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Condensing the article

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

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

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

"Ebola" vs. "EVD"

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

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

Martin Salia is dead

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

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

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

Mali "suspect" cases jump to 38

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

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

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

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

Their document directory is probably easier to navigate (especially for non-French speakers): [25] Snd0 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

It's working for me as of a minute ago. Based on the modification times, they were updating things when you checked(?). (This is their most recent sitrep [26].) It looks like they're releasing one every day.. but, yeah, not sure if it's actually "released," or if they accidentally left it open. Snd0 (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

For what is worth, the internal Mali report dated Nov. 5 [27] already had 32 suspect cases and 8 suspect deaths (which were subsequently dropped), so I'm not sure that going to 38 suspect cases actually qualifies a jump. Rather it appears the WHO reports [28] have routinely been omitting the Mali suspect cases. Maybe there is some disagreement about what counts a suspect case? Dragons flight (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

recent instability of the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vaderzlk11

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

case or not in India?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sierra Leone death number off?

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

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

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

"uncategorized" cases would probably add approx. 1,750 cases if you do CFR of 50%, and therefore bring it in-line with the CFR of Liberia and Guinea , IMO (I could be wrong) "In her column, Blyden responds to the latest numbers from Sierra Leone's Health Ministry, which announced the new death toll as 973 nationwide out of 3,156 cases. She argues that "the reality is more like 2,200 deaths (70%)," but any of these are reported as missing individuals, not dead patients. The latest tally included 1,549 "uncategorized" cases-- individuals who were not currently interned at a hospital, officially dead, or cured of the disease and released." "Blyden notes that, perhaps, the government is attempting to mask the depth of its inadequacy in responding to the Ebola crisis, but she notes that transparency is key. "Even United Nations WHO is now openly admitting it made gross bungles in managing this crisis," she writes, "So why is Government of Sierra Leone behaving as if it is inconceivable for them to correct the erroneous numbers? Why are authorities in Sierra Leone continuing to give us under reported deaths numbers? Why?" "Blyden appeals to the people of Sierra Leone to call for greater government transparency. "For God's sake," she writes, "how long will citizens continue to unquestionably accept the under-reported nature of the catastrophe unfolding on Sierra Leone? Ebola cannot be fought on a Platform of LIES." She adds that, as Africans, they have an especial duty to be true to the dead: "Moreover, we are Africans. The spirits of the dead need to be appeased and the minimum we can do is to acknowledge that those who died, have died." And continues "Sierra Leone is not the only nation with significant problems in keeping reliable Ebola death tallies. In Liberia, accusations are flying that the government's tally of Ebola cases and deaths are both wildly inaccurate, though not just because the government is having difficulty keeping up. In many cases, the stigma that Ebola carries leads family members to hide relatives to are believed to carry the virus, rather than bring them to a hospital or other medical facility. Other families have been known to attack medical personnel who try to give their relatives care."[29] Dr. Sylvia Blyden was born in Sierra Leone is a journalist, political commentator, newspaper publisher. There are many more articles like this, perhaps in the face of a CFR that is so obviously non-objective , the death tally should have an asterisk.. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I'd agree that there are many articles that discuss how inaccurate the ebola cases/death data is, and most of it is convincing. But how in the dark we are is a bit troublesome, especially when you see statements like these from the CDC director [30]. When he says that he believes interventions are working and are the cause of the decreased rate of cases/deaths, it makes us ask the question "do we believe the officials or the people on the ground in W. Africa?"

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

let's try those on the ground in w. Africa and see what they have to say, "JENEWONDE, Liberia — A schoolteacher brought his sick daughter from Liberia's capital to this small town of 300 people. Soon he and his entire family were dead and buried in the forest nearby, along with an increasing number of residents. The community of Jenewonde has become a new hotspot for the Ebola outbreak in Liberia. With cases on the decline in the capital, officials must now turn their attention to hard-to-reach places where the disease is flaring. Jenewonde, in Grand Cape Mount County near the border with Sierra Leone , has reportedly lost about 10 percent of its population to Ebola since late September. Markets and farms nearby have been abandoned. Momo Sheriff, who lost his son to Ebola, said there is no health care in the community. No clinics could be seen along the road into town. "If the government does not take action, everybody will die in this town," Sheriff told an Associated Press journalist. "We are burying two dead bodies today. We don't know who it will be tomorrow. Every day we have to cry."[31] This is in direct contradiction to the "rosy picture" many organizations ( CDC) paints. But there is one reality, their still dying,,,,,,, alot, (btw I forgot to mention its dated Nov. 21..today ) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Removal of redlinks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sister projects error

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

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

Material removed

I've just removed these sentences:

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

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

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

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

Mid-Importance?

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

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

Looking at this scale [[32]], for the virus "mid" seems reasonable to me. Gandydancer (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Linked to the imam

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

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

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

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

World Map needs update - Italy..

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

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

Simplifying the world map

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

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

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

New jump in Liberia numbers in one day.

Between Nov 23[33] and Nov 24 [34]Liberia reported 1152 new deaths, mainly in Montserado with about 795 new deaths in that day. Just a before hand warning BrianGroen (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The Jump in deaths was a accidental adage of 1000 deaths not related to Ebola... [35] and will be removed in the next report... Gremlinsa (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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