Jump to content

Talk:Ebola virus cases in the United States/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

RfC

Closing as no consensus defaulting to keep. The reasons for this rather odd outcome are here with my reasoning outlined here. Happy to discuss if required, ideally at my talk page. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

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

Issue The problem with this RfC is its creator has worded it in non neutral fashion and thus we are going to need to have another one. The question is "should we keep these three article separate Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone or should we merge them back into Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa were the material can be discussed in the context of the outbreak generally"
They also left out that a discussion on this was already occurring on another page Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Propose_we_re_merge_these_article. As it was not going in their favor they have moved it to another venue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING at its worst. The ongoing discussion wasn't going in the favour of this editor, so they came to this location and started an RfC with a loaded question. I'm not even participating in this joke. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
No, not at all. The RfC notice was posted on the main article talk page here and

here.

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

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

No, not at all. Only two of the editors chosen at random have responded, JBarta and Silvo 1973, and both have voted "Merge." As for the editors who participated at the AfD, they voted keep, just as they did at the AfD. I didn't choose them. They chose themselves when you chose to open the question to the wider community with an AfD discussion. Including them in the notice is allowed and appropriate. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I'd let the editors at the West Africa article decide for West African countries, which are smaller and close together. This one is fine. --Light show (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, most educational and encyclopedic. Plenty of coverage in numerous secondary sources sustained over time. — Cirt (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • KEEP - No reason why we can not have all of these articles (the West Africa article can cover the broader epidemic, and the individual country articles can cover the epidemic in a more localized context). Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • keep its a good article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. This epidemic of Ebola virus is one of the most significant human events in world history. Each of these individual countries deserves to have their own coverage. Plenty out there to fill all these pages. The other article is already too large as it is. These new articles only need time and work to grow. Just like all articles on WP. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Re-merge/merge the West African ones per here [1]. A bunch are duplication of content. The West African countries were all covered very well in the previous articles. This just makes things less manageable. Keep the US one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I support keeping these articles. There are a lot reasons, and one of them is that they contain material not covered or appropriate to cover in the other articles. Starstr (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep – These will be appropriate content forks because Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa is too big. At about 165 KB, even at this trimmed size (Art LaPella split part of the article to Responses to the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa today), the article will take an average person a long time to read in full. (Slightly off-topic: most articles top out at 50 KB of prose, but this article has about 125 KB of prose, amounting to about 19.25 single-spaced pages in a very large-dimensioned book.) Now all we need to do is expand the forked articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep – I think these are separate topics and should have separate, if related, articles. Miqrogroove (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge the three African articles into Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. The U.S. case(s) article can remain separate because the scenario in the U.S. is quite different than in West Africa. In Africa it's essentially the same thing going on with geography being the only real difference. If I recall, Nigeria and the D.R. Congo also have possible ebola cases. Are we going to want separate articles for those as well? One of Wikipedia's problems (IMO) is too much fragmentation. There's nothing wrong with a substantial and cohesive article on a topic. If after that substantial and cohesive article shows merit for some intelligent division, then we might discuss it. But let's not do it just for the sake of doing it. – JBarta (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Per foregoing remarks. Also, geography might or might not be the main difference, but it does not follow that it is the only material difference. Which sections and detailed materials should be put into which articles and with what degree of detail and repetition are different matters. See discussion below. (apologies for accidental omission of signature that now follows) JonRichfield (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge The virus epidemic has been fairly similar in those West African countries and separating in different articles duplicates content. Keeping separates articles might also be detrimental to the correct description of the events. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Leave it a while This discussion can be had after the epidemic is over, & the articles have reached some sort of "final" size. Johnbod (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep This epidemic is not going to be over soon, or limited to the four countries with articles right now. Consider Wikipedia coverage of Aids or SARS and do likewise now.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep As I noted on the U.S. Ebola AfD page and other talk pages, The Main article is getting way too big and also out of hand. With the length of time of this outbreak, and still uncertain outcome, There is bound to be much more that will need to be included.. IMO, each country's page should have a BLOW by BLOW of daily report's, Gov response, Incoming AID, Infections & Deaths. While the main page has a summary of all area's, including total's & maps. Then also the main article covers overall details like how and why EVD spread across the borders... Gremlinsa (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Each country will have its own unique reactions to the virus that are highly noteworthy. For example, Liberia has its infamous quarantines of entire poor neighborhoods, and the U.S. has its abundance of resources. And if you think the reactions are different now, just you wait until news starts coming out regarding ethical issues in blood donation. Can survivors direct donations of their blood/serum to family members, or for profit? Will they be forced to "donate" repeatedly, used as agricultural resources to generate thousands of units of immune serum for cash export to wealthier countries? Or will countries leave thousands of people to die without trying to prevent it? Assuming this epidemic continues to spread, and especially if transfusion is truly effective, we're going to see some drastic developments in medical ethics, for better or worse. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, merge United States. Guinea's article is pretty lame right now but it is probably reasonable to write about each country's response as its own article and have the overall article as an overall overview of major events. Guinea's page needs to be revised, and all three need to have their introductions revised a bit to better link back to the original article/be more descriptive. The US response probably doesn't warrant its own article at this time, nor does Spain, Nigeria, or Senegal, but they might in the future. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above. tharsaile (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep There should be a brief summary on the main page but a more indepth article on the outbreak in each country. Handling of the outbreak is very different between Sierra Leone, Liberia or even Guinea and the articles themselves should be expanded to include more of the individual events occurring in the nations without cluttering the main overview. Kactusotp (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Avoiding duplication of content is indeed a good argument. However the individual country articles appear to be sufficiently Notable in themselves and they appear to contain marginal but sufficient content not contained in the West_Africa article. Furthermore my Wikipedia search turned up at minimum 76 Wikipedia articles titled "HIV/AIDS in (country or region)". Given the high profile of Ebola I think the current set of articles is reasonable. Alsee (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep this and all the other child articles of Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. And how is it that an editor can propose merging eight separate articles, when only one of them carries a "merge" tag? There seems to be a serious abuse of process here (not to mention canvassing and other problems). -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

Yes, it was, and closed as KEEP Per WP:SNOW but the editors over at Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa are now opposing the new articles. This article here has already survived the AfD as your link points out, but despite that, they're still opposed to it, as well as the other articles. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally I usually don't mind large articles, as long as they are coherent and can best be dealt with as single logical units, but
  • Firstly,once an article is even a fraction as large as Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, its very size unfavourably affects its usefulness. One has to dig to find things, even if the TOC is well-designed at the start, and in practice, the way the article develops, and the speed at which it develops, make it very difficult, not to mention expensive, to keep the TOC useful
  • A zoonotic epidemic (comparatively novel yet!) on a sub-continental scale, with intercontinental implications, necessarily has multifarious ramifications. It comprises topics ranging from biology and logistics to history and politics. Such topics cannot be discussed in isolation, but also cannot be discussed in detail in combination without quality, comprehensibility and usefulness suffering. Each topic becomes noise to any reader looking for something else, and trying to relate it to all the parallel topics often causes distortion as well as distraction. This epidemic already suffers from those problems. Even the LEDE of the main article is unmanageable for heaven's sake!
  • It may look very impressive to have all the material in one humungous article, but it is far more efficient, effective and useful in a complex of topics on this scale, to write the main topic on a summary basis, the summary carefully concentrating on the logical structure, and linking symmetrically to each subtopic in context. The reader can choose his own path without losing perspective, and without confusion and time-wasting wading through extraneous material.
  • At least one respondent says that "Keeping separate articles might also be detrimental to the correct description of the events" and no doubt that could be argued, perhaps on the basis that differing and unreconciled accounts might appear in different articles. However, as long as each account is required to meet the same standards, no verifiable inaccuracy should result, and in fact the risks of inaccurate or misleading reporting due to editorial misunderstanding or bias in a single mega-article would be greater and harder to avoid or correct. For example different histories might well develop in different regions, and to reconcile them into a single account would positively invite misleading impressions and bias.
  • Cramming topics into a single article on grounds such as that the "only real difference" is geographical would fall foul,not only of the foregoing points, but also that geographical differences are in many ways crucial to everything from evolution to politics, languages, mores, containment and local wars. Combining say, the situation in Congo with that in Senegal (never mind minor outlying districts like Texas) ignores distances on the same scale as the width of the USA (some 4000 km), and regions of vast ethnic and international differences and frictions. For our purposes that is more than difference enough.
  • Now, that is bad enough, but cramming the discussions of different situations into one, not only will cause inevitable confusion, but apparent repetitiveness, masking real differences. By putting each topic into its own article and linking them sensibly, we permit each its own due in its own context, plus its full significance in the perspective of the combined summary article.
  • Let's face it, this is not a small topic even if it doesn't grow, and what I say is "Watch this space!" JonRichfield (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

It has nothing to do with sovereignty, and the fact that it took place in multiple countries is utterly irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not the best presentation of this material is or would make more sense in a single article or across multiple articles; we only really break things up by country when it is logical to do so. For example, Spanish Flu does not have a million country-specific pages despite affecting virtually every country on the planet. The real question is whether or not there is too much material to cover in the main article, and whether it would make more sense to break things up. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I think its almost unanimously felt that the article should be split. The question is posed in a loaded way and should be asking how the article should be split. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break

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

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

SW#'s comment make sense. The epidemic in West Africa should be covered in one single article and the epidemic in the USA with a separate one. This would more efficient and would avoid redundancy. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks User:Silvio1973 that is what the proposal to re merge the individual articles for the African countries back into the main article means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

This is a joke

WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:CANVASsing has taken place, the RfC features a loaded question, and I believe this should be disregarded for the fucking joke that it is. An ongoing discussion at the main article was about to close in the disfavour of SW3 5DL, so he just happened to open up the RfC on this talk page (what a coincidence)... and lo and behold, leaves notes on the talk pages of JUST the editors who have supported his position.AfD[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] But hey! Lo and behold, I did not get a notice, DocJames did not get a notice, GandyDancer did not get a notice, nor did any of the participants at the older discussion who were in favour of merging the content. No link was provided to that older discussion, as if this editor was intent on keeping that information and the points raised out of the picture. Can an uninvolved admin please close this discussion and nullify it for such brazen disregard for our rules? - Floydian τ ¢ 20:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

here

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

You left notes on specific editors talk pages who you felt would support your position. Now I find this, where you are persuading an editor to change their vote. The two editors who didn't agree with you I feel are two random editors, but the rest speaks for itself. You did not leave a note on the talk page of anyone from Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa who had at that point indicated a stance opposite yours. You blatantly cherry picked editors to support you and now you're actually going to try and defend that action? As for the last point regarding starting an AfD without discussion... where are you getting these whacky concepts of how things work... here, there, or anywhere for that matter! - Floydian τ ¢ 21:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Floydian, I understand that you are upset, but you analyzed the discussion between me and SW3 5DL not correctly. I told myself, that I changed my opinion on the limited point of merging the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea article. I told this, and then User SW3 5DL asked me whether I could than also change my vote. This appeared completely OK to me, as it was me who told him that I changed my opinion.--Malanoqa (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

That "policy" doesn't exist. Considering the issue was about placement of content, there wasn't any negative intent in not making it a community discussion. There was no discussion whatsoever into creating the split articles in the first place (actually there was, using a different delineation of splitting out the "responses" section... but then you just went out and made these articles and we're left with a mess of repetition and the need to update a half a dozen articles each time something happens). I am angry that you have no comprehension of our rules and just spurt out a bunch of nonsense to try and appear like you do. I am mad that you specifically contacted several editors who support your position and none of the editors who didn't. Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This is one of the most impressive cases of canvassing I have seen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jmh649,Floydian and i.p editor. I fully agree and support all three of you on this. This canvasing from SW3 5DL is blatant/ misleading and a complete disregard ofwiki rules. BrianGroen (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Just for reference, the question posed should have been more along the lines of How should the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article be split? Individual country articles or summary style section spin-outs where sections become too long and detail-oriented?. The current question establishes a negative connotation of "should we delete this information or keep it?" - Floydian τ ¢ 17:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm in total agreement with Floydian, Brian, Doc James and the IP editor. Now we have the aftermath to deal with... With no previous discussion, as I try to cleanup the splits I have no guidelines on what should be included - should a dog study done almost 15 years ago (and is in the disease article) be included in the Liberia article? Should a detailed viral study be included? I could go on and on. Other than the US article, all of these new articles need extensive cleaning up. In some cases this may mean deleting large parts of the present articles. Who wants to be the one to do all this deletion when an inexperienced author has clearly worked very hard on the article? This could have all been prevented if WP guidelines on splits was followed in the first place. This has been an example of Wikipedia at its worst. Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a joke/Prior comments not objecting to splitting articles

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

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

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

Comment

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

Please note that I will continue to revert all non-admin closures. It is especially irritating that 5W3 tried to close this, more bullshittery but not an eyelash blinked. This whole RfC was a farce regardless and I will be opening a new one within hours of this one being closed, presenting the question in the proper way. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Floydian: Is there any reason a non-admin shouldn't close it? I have no comment on its closure either way, but in most cases, anyone can close an RFC, presuming they're not involved. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The issue has been rather controversial and solid accusations have been leveled against the creator of it which should simultaneously be investigated. The whole RfC has been a farce in my and several other editor's opinions and it shouldn't simply get swept under the rug. There is a discussion regarding these issues going at WP:AN#Request for RfC closure/Update: closure reverted - Floydian τ ¢ 03:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Purplewowies, no, there's no reason this can't be closed by a non-admin. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=630328462#Close_of_a_stale_RFC SW3 5DL (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd seen the ANI report (it's what led me here), though I hadn't seen the close request... and argh, I see the sentiments of both sides (typical RFC procedure on SW3's side, worries about some parts that need looking in to by Floydian). (I'm sure I'd have a more firmly to one side or the other stance, but these days I'm a busy tired person and have done only ineffective skimming of the topic itself... sigh). - Purplewowies (talk) 06:11, 20 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.

Patient in New York City Tests Positive for Ebola

  • Santora, Marc (October 23, 2014). "Patient in New York City Tests Positive for Ebola". The New York Times. Retrieved October 24, 2014.
  • Glenza, Jessica (October 23, 2014). "Doctor tests positive for Ebola at New York hospital". The Guardian. Retrieved October 24, 2014.
  • Chicago Tribune staff (October 23, 2014). "Ebola test positive for New York City doctor". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved October 23, 2014.

These sources might be helpful to use to update the article. — Cirt (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Cirt. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
No worries, good luck updating the article, — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
SW3 5DL, the map graphic in the infobox will need changing, as will the infobox itself. — Cirt (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Cirt, I was just thinking the same thing. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Doctor Isolated at New York City Hospital Tests Positive for Ebola

Dr. Craig Allen Spencer has tested Positive for Ebola and is Isolated in a New York City Hospital

Please update the Ebola virus disease in the United States article. Thank you. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755

Updated accordingly. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Map update needed

Can someone please update the map to indicate a new case in New York City? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I oppose this misuse of mapping which gives a wrong and ridiculous graphic impression, which some could see as a "hot zone" indicator. As long as cases are contained and isolated, a neutral map is best. --Light show (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the map and the main page. -- Veggies (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Veggies. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

image

Light show, is there a particular reason you've removed the image of Dallas, Texas? here? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Answered below with a question. --Light show (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's best if the images are kept to the right. I know I've mentioned this before, but it does distract when the images are put to the left as readers of English move from left to right in reading, as you are aware. Placing images to the left isn't really artistic as some might think. It just breaks up copy. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Dallas photo

The Dallas skyline from the Trinity River Greenbelt Park

Does anyone know of any reason not to include this photo in the article, or any photo of Dallas, for that matter? I don't think there's anything wrong with including a photo of the city, but I'd like to hear from others, thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you think it's a good lead image for the top of an article about Ebola virus disease? --Light show (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a good generic photo of the Dallas skyline. If you can find a better one, then feel free to add it. But I don't see any point in deleting it with the edit summary, "removing pretty scenic picture." SW3 5DL (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This image does not belong on this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
And why should it not be there? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It is just a city skyline. This article is not about Dallas. It is not related to the topic really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Better obtain a photo of Ebola virus or researchers in a lab. IMO, a pic of Dallas is out of topic. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, BatteryIncluded. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree that this photo does not add anything to the article. Arzel (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not there anymore. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs to write up a section on the new outbreak in Dr Craig

More information needed on the new recent case from of this virus. Can a new seperate section be written up on the new developements of the NYC doctor from MSF? Thanks Kirothereaper (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As more information becomes available in reliable sources, that can be done. Epicgenius made an epic effort last night at getting the new information about Dr. Spencer into the article. It's the last para in the lede. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
A detailed synopsis is at Ebola virus disease in the United States#Craig Spencer, which is at the bottom of the "Cases in U.S. health care workers returning from West Africa" section. Should I move that to a real section? – Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I think so. I believe the Spencer case should be at the same "level" as Thomas Eric Duncan, because both contracted Ebola in Africa and were diagnosed in the US. The other "health care workers returning from West Africa" were diagnosed in Africa and were transported to the USA under hermetic conditions for treatment; they were never out in public in the USA like Spencer and Duncan were. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I've split the sections. Epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Looks good now. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Eric Duncan

This article survived an AfD and has active editors who've expanded it. Much of that content there is also here, and I'm wondering what others think about beginning to reduce the content here and moving it to his article? What elements would be best to keep here, and what can move off? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Looks like much of the Duncan section and part of the 2 Nurses section can be split. Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It was great when it he was the only one and the material being added was relevant, but with the outcome and now the issue of the family being troubled, that section could grow beyond the scope of the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Quarantine map

Whoever put in the quarantine map, great job, thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ebola_virus_cases_in_the_United_States/Archive_6&oldid=1142365788"