Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia/Archive 1

Comment

@Starstr please check you 29 Sept number incorrect. No figures for 29 september. Those figures are for 23 Sept . CDC and who gets their numbers from Liberian goverment .. Latest figures here. [1] If we want to integrate the article we need the figures correct as well. Note: not criticism just info to help your article

3635 cases deaths 1986 confirmed 1084/888-- greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were updated to the 29th, that is what I meant. It was the figures for the 23 updated to the 29th, so it can be confusing. Thanks for checking this. Starstr (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted it is a new topic that expands on the summary in the main page. --Starstr (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It looks like the editor didn't really read through this article at all. It appears he just assumed it was a duplicate of Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. I don't think it will be a problem from here on. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup duplication of content all over the place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once the new article was started content was copied from here to the main page. In addition, some content has now also been moved from that page here since it has been separate for several days now. Thanks. Starstr (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs Up.

Just a quick thumbs up and well done to all editors on this article.. Shaping up nicely.. Gremlinsa (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effective deletion by re-direct

This was not a split and has new content, so by re-directing it blocks access to the new material. Starstr (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

There is an RfC on whether or not to keep this article, along with the other new ones here. The includes this one and:

SW3 5DL (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pig/dog viral transfer information in article

I am removing the following information:

Ebola virus has not been shown to be airborne among humans, but it can be transmitted through aerosolization of body fluids, such as when an infected individual sneezes, vomits, or flushes a toilet after use. Ebola virus has been shown to be airborne in pig infections.[8] In many cases care-givers are infected as they take care of the sick in their own homes.[9]

The term "airborne" here is a medically defined term that implies a disease that can remain in the air for long periods.[10] However, this does not exclude droplet transmission, where small droplets pass through the air to infect by droplet contact but do not remain in the air for long periods.[11]

In the first place, it is far too detailed for this article. Secondly it may not even be appropriate for any Ebola article. While it is well-documented that Ebola may be spread by droplets, as from a sneeze or cough, the pig/monkey study applies to pigs and monkeys, is a single study, and even at that has been criticized by another study. This article is supposed to be about the disease in this particular country, not about single viral transfer studies. Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starstr has questioned my removal of this info on my talk page. IMO the news sources do not meet RS guidelines - if this is questioned it could be brought to the RS help page to clarify. Re the study, I worked on the updates for the Ebola disease article and as such I am familiar with this study. I did include it since so little study has been done, and as far as I could find this is the only study related to dog contracting the disease. This is the copy I used:

Dogs in some parts of Africa scavenge for their food and it is known that they sometimes eat infected animals and the corpses of humans. Although they remain asymptomatic, a 2005 survey of dogs during an EBOV outbreak found that over 31.8% showed a seroprevalence for EBOV.[cite journal | author = Allela L, Boury O, Pouillot R, Délicat A, Yaba P, Kumulungui B, Rouquet P, Gonzalez JP, Leroy EM | title = Ebola virus antibody prevalence in dogs and human risk | journal = Emerging Infect. Dis. | volume = 11 | issue = 3 | pages = 385–90 | year = 2005 | pmid = 15757552 | pmc = 3298261 | doi = 10.3201/eid1103.040981 ]

Generally a single study, especially such an old study, is not considered medically significant. However, this copy has stood the test of time and remains in the article. This does not, however, suggest that it is appropriate for either this article or the article that this is a split from. Comments such as this require a much wider background so that the reader may better understand the context. Starstr, don't be discouraged when copy such as this is deleted - when I first started editing medical articles - and I have a medical background - almost everything I added was deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture

The Popular culture section was removed from the EVD in WA page, and it is only fitting to reinsert it in the individual country pages, The items were transposed over, however the section will require expansion into what is specific to each region/country.. ^{I'm placing this identical notice on all 3 country pages} Gremlinsa (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is more fitting to remove it per WP:TRIVIA. It's also fitting to discuss this on one page instead of three. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 11:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This been the only page to retain the Popular culture section, I'm updating it to a reworked Other Works derived from the Ebola crisis Gremlinsa (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs serious work.

This article is in a sate of dis-array. it needs serious work. Sources are poorly cited, no names to source material and some gossip pages. Not enough info on countries Ebola crisis, but more on country it self.. 14 out of fifteen districts stated but only twelve named.. add a map for this. No latest case load numbers. Lot of one line edits.. different clinics stated under one name.(check Island clinic.) In general article is in bad shape.. Shames WP..41.13.80.14 (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i.e: On 30 September 2014 a person was discovered in a Texas hospital who contracted Ebola in Liberia and traveled to the United States.[17] (see 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States) should read "On 30 September 2014 a patient was hospitalized in a Texas hospital after it was discovered that he contracted Ebola in Liberia and traveled to the United States." makes better sense.. he was not discovered i.e they did not find him laying in hospital but he check in and it was discovered that he was exposed to Ebola. Wording41.13.80.14 (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of us make mistakes. Your own "correction", for instance, states that Duncan was hospitalized on September 30. He was actually hospitalized on September 28 (see Thomas Eric Duncan#Treatment and death). September 30 is when he was found positive for Ebola. I could compose a similar speech about "shame", but I'd rather just go fix the sentence (he was neither "discovered" nor "hospitalized" on September 30). As for the rest of the list, yeah, I've wondered about some things like the 14 districts. But in general, if you think something is wrong, please either fix it, or ask us about it. More diplomatically. Art LaPella (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Art Art LaPella i agree with you on that, but various editors tried in the past only to have their additions reverted..BrianGroen (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start to clean these articles up but every time I begin I am just positively bewildered with what is involved. IMO our main article group of editors is responsible for these splits and I would like to put a note on the main article talk page to that effect, but apparently the consensus is to not discuss them on that page... Hoping to interest one of the other long-term editors, since it seems that any new edits will need at least some support, I left a note on his page, but he ignored it. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's considered politically incorrect to say a specific "group of editors is responsible" for an article (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). It's considered OK to discuss problems at an article at the relevant Wikiprojects, which are listed at the top of this talk page. Art LaPella (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just very sick of what happens when I try to edit these split articles. If I had just stepped in out of the blue and said that it would be one thing, but I would think that by now, after the many hours that I have put into this work, that I would not be criticized by you Art. I dislike drama and controversy very much and I will use my efforts elsewhere. Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That reaction was a complete surprise. I thought I was just pointing you in the direction you wanted to go, to get more attention. Art LaPella (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ownership policy needs work. I find it disheartening that I am comparable to a fly by IP on the articles that I have spent countless hours researching the ins and outs, countless weeks photographing places and data, and countless months writing and editing. This whole time I have pointed to you as the resident expert on the topic, as the one who will ultimately be left with this pile of crap to deal with and therefore te one who should be consulted prior to major changes; alas, that went in the dumps. I hope the odd nag at you by other editors doesn't disillusion you from your thankless efforts :) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images/ Maps removed

I'm listing images i've removed here in case someone wants to return one of them in an appropriate place..

Gremlinsa (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid undated numbers

Hi Guys great work so far but can we please avoid putting undated report numbers? In the October section we have "To date Liberia has 6,525 cases" but it is hard to tell at a glance if that is today, the previous date listed of 19th of October or the 5th of November that appears in the following sentence without checking the reference.

In future can we please do something along the lines of "As of 5th of November, Liberia has 6,525 cases". Beyond that keep up the great work! Kactusotp (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flight of government leaders -rename.

There has been some other governmental issues that have arrived from the Ebola issue and I propose changing this sections title to something more appropriate. either Issues with-in government or Government shortfall's, or any other similar name... Gremlinsa (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With no one commenting otherwise, i've made the name change... _Gremlin ^SA 12:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Culture' sections move to new page..

I've taken on the Ebola culture page (now Cultural effects of the Ebola crisis) and will be migrating some of the Local conspiracy theories and Local works derived from the Ebola crisis into that article, so as to tidy up this side a little... NOTE: i will not be removing them from here completely, but trimming down on some of the excess info, that will be available on the new page. _Gremlin ^SA 12:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New NEWS today, for future editing

Amazingly, the Ebola outbreak has been contained in Liberia, it seems.

Headline-1: Just five Ebola cases left in Liberia, government says

http://news.yahoo.com/just-five-ebola-cases-left-liberia-government-says-073729698.html

QUOTE: "Liberia, once the epicentre of West Africa's deadly Ebola epidemic, has just five remaining confirmed cases of the disease, a senior health official said on Friday, highlighting the country's success in halting new infections. The worst Ebola outbreak on record has killed more than 8,600 people in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. Earlier this year at the height of the outbreak in Liberia, hospitals without beds for new patients were forced to turn away victims and bodies were left in the streets. But a massive international response, including the deployment of hundreds of U.S. troops to build treatment centres, plus a public awareness campaign, contributed to a steep decline in infection rates." -- AstroU (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.[reply]

‘Epidemic’ in Liberia

“The country was officially declared Ebola-free on May 9, 2015, after 42 days of no further cases being recorded”. And yet the MSM had given the impression that Ebola as out-of-control, about to sweep the world and would kill millions. Given this, might not the Ebola article mention something about this fear-casting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.238.134 (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Often discussed elsewhere. The short answer is that such a discussion belongs at Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa or one of its sub-articles, because any opinion on reporting of the epidemic (why the scare quotes? It killed thousands, and it isn't over) isn't restricted to any specific country like Liberia. Art LaPella (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the suffering and number killed, it is still questionable has to whether Ebola should be called an ‘Epidemic’ (check out the 1918 Flu outbreak). As with 'killer Bees' or the 'dangers' of Bird Flu, is not Ebola yet another in a long line of mass-media scare stories?

Also often discussed elsewhere, thousands of deaths ago (including the smaller outbreaks/epidemic/whatever in Nigeria etc.) and also not limited to Liberia. Please see Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (after reviewing previous discussion in the archives) if you want to re-raise this topic again. Art LaPella (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola outbreak in Liberia (and world-wide)

According to Wikipedia, the Black Death resulted in an estimated 75 to 200 million deaths. And then there was the 1918 Flu Pandemic - killed 50 million plus. And yet (according to the World Health Organization and respective governments) there have been just 26,683 suspected cases - resulting in 11,022 deaths. Clearly, such figures put any claims a 'world-wide' outbreak into some kind of context. So, given the latest information, might not the media-driven term 'epidemic' be replaced by the more fitting 'outbreak'?

Or might the title be changed to: 'Media-driven Hysteria in Fear-wrecked Liberia'?

Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion. Reproducing all that debate in the sub-article for each country is a really, really, really bad idea. Art LaPella (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that was then, this is now. While not producing any real agreement, much of the Talk discussion took about six months ago. Now that the limited outbreak is just about over in Liberia - and seems to be under-control elsewhere - is it not time to re-consider whether MSM and internet information out-lets overplayed the Ebola Hysteria in Liberia and 'world-wide'? A case of much heat - but very little light?

P.S: Seems that some folks really should put less effort into persuading 'a majority of fools' into agreeing with them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.106.72 (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For about the fourth time (and perhaps I should just stop responding), I'm not objecting so much to the time, but the place: please take this to Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, where everyone can be heard. Or at least explain why you can't play the Wikipedia game like the rest of us (without at least that much, dismissing the Wikipedia:Consensus as fools is, um, unproductive.) Art LaPella (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Manufactor of Consensus

As with the drawing up the wagons against hostile attacks, some Wikipedia editors put effort into persuading 'a majority of fools' that they are mistaken. Also, while Reaching consensus through discussion is a worth while aim, how often does it happen? Producing more heat that light, does not the Talk page seem more like a Talking shop at times?

Getting back to the topic of Ebola in Liberia, despite all the MSM (and internet) scare stories, it was recently reported that the outbreak in this country is all but over. So, could this article highlight the growing gap between media stories and the hard facts in Liberia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.97.238 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop wasting our time. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, despite being an internet information outlet, MSM and internet-driven scares are a waste of your time?

By the way, just what do you mean by 'our'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.227.71 (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola scare spotlights media’s retreat from science coverage

Hyperbole, misinformation, and conspiracy theories abound. Columbia Journalism Review, Nov/Dec 2014

Hiding of Ebola infected and dead?

And so, by late October, it was reported that “many beds in Liberian Ebola treatment centers were empty due to people no longer reporting suspected Ebola cases to health authorities.” Then again, despite the wish by some in the media to maintain a good scare story, could the simple truth be that the empty beds really are due to the Ebola outbreak ending naturally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.134.235 (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The outbreak has ended in Liberia (but not quite yet further north), after much medical heroics (not "naturally"), so any alleged scare stories have been virtually abandoned. The only question is how to describe what happened last October. "It was reported ..." Here is the report. If we want to describe it any other way, we would need at least a reference as reliable as the reference we're using now. Here is Wikipedia's policy on references. Art LaPella (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to down-play the role of public health services, but there are strong indications that the Ebola outbreak has come to a natural conclusion. That said, are reports of hidden Ebola victims that believable? Clearly, while Wikipedia articles require fair degree of evidence, is there no place within the house rules for reasonable thinking/Practical Reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.58.144 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again, the rest of the world is wrong. I just noticed that 80.44.238.134 in the previous section resembles 80.44.134.235 in this one, so I should leave this problem to others. Art LaPella (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How skillful this has been turned around. For no one is saying that the whole world is wrong - just questioning why certain internet outlets are unwilling to admit their Ebola fear stories might have been over-blown? Come on people, are we really saying that bodies are being hidden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.145.2 (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having being lied to about (sexed-up) stories of hidden WMD in Iraq, are we now to believe claims about hidden bodies in Liberia?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821123100/http://news.yahoo.com/hospital-discuss-discharge-ebola-patients-100148319.html to https://news.yahoo.com/hospital-discuss-discharge-ebola-patients-100148319.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]