Jump to content

Talk:Western African Ebola epidemic/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Ref help please

Several times when I have tried to add info using a WHO special page such as a news release I do my source but it ends up with the weekly report instead. Today I put new info in the lead using this WHO source [1] but did not get the site I wanted. Could someone fix this for me? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No ideas? There's always the Help Desk. Art LaPella (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Gandydancer, when I follow that link it goes to a page entitled "An emergency within an emergency: caring for Ebola survivors". Is that not what you wanted? Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
She presumably means the reference presently labeled [31] at the end of the article's introduction, which has exactly the same URL (replacing it with this one shows no change) but goes to a different page because it uses a cite template. Art LaPella (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion: This situation may be helped by preemptively archiving all hyperlinks with the Wayback Machine from Internet Archive. Some advice on how to do this at link and Help:Using the Wayback Machine. This way, you can try to assure yourself that, in the future, you'll be less likely to get {{dead link}} in the article. :) Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Uveitis photo

A photo showing Uveitis has been added and I'd like some feedback. I don't think that it adds to the article and should be removed. Thoughts?

just remove,(not an issue) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy and quacks created actual harm during medical treatment of Ebola

There could be a brief mention of how witch doctors and homeopaths actually caused significant harm during the Ebola epidemic.

  1. These are not examples of sources for the article, itself, rather just to show you on the talk page that this was a real serious problem, in the middle of an epidemic, to have people peddling various types of non-scientific fraud.
  2. It could be added to the article to correct the historical record and serve as a warning that certain people crop up to take advantage of dangerous situations to peddle quackery.

Examples:

  • Freeman, Colin (30 July 2014). "Ebola outbreak: fight against disease hampered by belief in witchcraft, warns British doctor". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 August 2015. Retrieved 12 October 2015.
  • Rafaeli, JS (26 November 2014). "Some Idiots Flew to Liberia to 'Cure' Ebola Patients with Homeopathy". Vice. Archived from the original on 27 September 2015. Retrieved 12 October 2015.

Hope this suggestion is helpful,

— Cirt (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This was certainly quite big at the time. One witch doctor ended up killing quite a lot of people, if I recall correctly. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I remember that also, I'll try to research and find some sources on that. — Cirt (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Please use more respect when referring to people of different cultures than your own. The woman was a "tribal healer", not a "witch doctor". If I remember the circumstances correctly, she cared for patients very early in the epidemic before it was even known what we were dealing with. She contracted Ebola and died and a large funeral was held in which many of the woman who washed and cared for her body became infected. She did not "kill" anyone. Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Lack of Independent Questioning

Apart from Mail on-line, why is there relatively little questioning of this media-driven story? While it was said that this disease was likely to become a dangerous 'world-wide outbreak' - Ebola is now all but over. Given this, media outlets might admit that this story was over-blown. And, with the latest facts, is it not clear that this was a Scare Story all along? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.110.67 (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he's the guy who has previously promoted Pravda, so independence works both ways. Art LaPella (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The main danger was the disease spreading other similarly poor countries, rather than developed nations which could keep it under control. In any case, counterfactuals are difficult to prove or disprove. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

World-Wide Outbreak Of Ebola?

According to certain media and information outlets, this outbreak was about to sweep the world - killing untold millions. And yet, and as it turned out, The United Kingdom had a limited local case of ONE! Hardly matches up to the 1918 flu outbreak.

Ebola: The Outbreak Of A Scare Story - might not that make a more honest Section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.148.217 (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

no , not really--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Guinea declared Ebola-free

The WHO has just confirmed that Guinea has reached the end of a 42-day waiting period, and is now declared Ebola-free.[2] I've updated the article accordingly. -- The Anome (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

great edits, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering...

When we first began working on this article so many months ago some of us were left to wonder why it was taking the WHO so long to announce the ongoing epidemic. We were not surprised to learn that it was political for the most part. They have me wondering again with their United Nations December statement "Apart from the original chain of transmission, there were 10 new small outbreaks between March and November, apparently due to the re-emergence of a persistent virus from survivors." [3]

Where are the suddenly getting this idea? This does not at all match the facts of the epidemic that I've been following. Here's an old article from the Guinea spike in cases:

May 19, 2015: DAKAR, Senegal — Only days after declaring the lowest number of new Ebola cases in Guinea and Sierra Leone this year, officials at the World Health Organization said Tuesday that there had been a nearly fourfold increase during the most recent week of reporting, to about 35 new cases....As recently as the week of March 15, there were 95 new cases in Guinea alone. [4]

As we know, at least two of the new cases, the pregnant mother and the 15-year-old boy, do seem to be the result of people that were somehow carrying the virus but had not shown symptoms for several months. But all the new cases since March? Where are they getting this from? It just does not seem to match the facts at all... Gandydancer (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I won't defend the non-heroes of Srebrenica and the Rwanda Genocide, and I'm more surprised when the UN does something right, considering how isolated it is from taxpayers paying their bills. But I don't see how 10 new outbreaks are impossible. If Ebola can reappear in Liberia, and if it can reappear at least internally for Pauline Cafferkey, then it wouldn't be surprising if it has often happened before, and it wouldn't be surprising that nobody noticed at the time. They were busy with things like cleaning unidentified bodies off the street, so how could they know how recently they were infected? Now they have more time to study such phenomena. I agree they should be linking to a study or something. Art LaPella (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Gandydancer, your right it does not match the facts--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox map width

I've cut the width of the map in the top infobox to 400px, from the previous 500px. While the infobox image looked great on my huge high-res desktop monitor at 500px, it's too wide for the many common narrower devices which only have a notional 960px logical pixel width. I think 400px works well as a compromise between the two. -- The Anome (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Lede

The intro has five paragraphs. It should be reduced to no more than four or three. The topic is too recent to qualify as complicated. --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The WHO has called the epidemic the most severe acute public health emergency seen in modern times. West Africa's economy has been devastated by the epidemic. An as yet unknown number of the people that survived are being found to have severe aftereffects. It has been and remains very severe indeed. Gandydancer (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Even so, a reader might or might not read the whole article (MOS:LEAD). Introducing the reader the topic described by the title should be concise, not too detailed. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
agree w/ Gandydancer--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The epidemic lasted twenty-five months in West Africa. We shouldn't give a reader some unnecessary details in the lede, like too many details about aftermath of the epidemic (e.g. August 2015 paragraph?). George Ho (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
the lede should reflect the article, generally speaking...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
What about attracting readers into reading the whole article? --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You need a lede to the lede. juanTamad (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

George Ho..so what did you have in mind, in regards to the lede?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The topic itself is very recent. It's not Black Death or anything like that. If information is not in the body article, either move it from lede to body, or copy it to body. Also, information less relevant to readers who want to read just the intro should be removed. As for me, I have college work, so I won't be able to edit the intro. You can figure out yourselves. --George Ho (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Not ended? -- new case reported in Sierra Leone

Apparently hours after it was announced that Ebola outbreak was no more, someone has died from Ebola in Sierra Leone.

Should any further information be added? Adog104 Talk to me 03:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think that one case of a death from Ebola really counts as an outbreak--think of it like going back to 'normal', if you will: it takes a lot more than one case of Ebola for it to be considered an outbreak. Ergo, I think that it's unnecessary. Dschslava (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Alrighty, making sure before some WP:CRYSTAL happened. Adog104 Talk to me 04:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
In the past few months, any Ebola at all has been enough to get WHO to restart its 42-day clock until a specific country is supposedly Ebola-free again, although this is the first time all 3 countries have achieved that temporary distinction. So I expect them to undeclare the end. Again. Or at least redeclare the end after another 42 days. Art LaPella (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
So basically, we're playing wait and see. Dschslava (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I would place less emphasis on the announcements, and especially "hopes that the epidemic could be declared over" (I would rather hope that the epidemic actually ends). Art LaPella (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps one way of thinking about this would be that the new case is an outbreak of Ebola, but not part of an epidemic: one of the "small outbreaks" that WHO predicted earlier, as now seem to have a reservoir of Ebola virus in humans in a way that we never have (knowingly) had before. These small outbreaks could presumably go on for months (or years?) to come, but I would imagine that as long as the high level of surveillance and public health response is kept up throughout the region, they would be unlikely to re-launch an epidemic. Given this, the point at which the epidemic ends, and the continuing new era of "small outbreaks" begins, must necessarily be arbitrary.

In the absence of the epidemic being declared back on again, we probably need an "Aftermath" section in this article to cover all this. Let's wait to see what WP:RS say. -- The Anome (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that The Anome puts it very well and has a good plan. Let's wait for a few days till the WHO comes out with a statement and then we can go from there. Gandydancer (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
If reliable sources is the issue, our source doesn't mention anything like "hopes that the epidemic could be declared over". It mentions the 42-day period without claiming anyone is hoping for that arbitrary distinction. Art LaPella (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I've changed the first sentence to read "The most widespread epidemic of Ebola virus disease (commonly known as "Ebola") in history began in Guinea on December 2013 and continued with significant loss of life for over two years until being declared over in January 2016, though the World Health Organization warns that small outbreaks may continue to be reported." I hope to make it plain to editors that are not familiar with the broader information that they should not edit any new reports into our statement or numbers... Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

map

The Anome should the map color Sierra Leone be changed?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Since the WHO seems now to have drawn back from the idea of the epidemic being "over" (see [7]), and even a single non-imported case constitutes an outbreak, yes, that does seem appropriate, and I've done it. -- The Anome (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

update

[8] latest March 2, WHO...next WHO update should be the last on March 17--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Inadequate

"According to Marzi et al., VSV-EBOV vaccine trial against EBOV-Makona strain is inadequate." While deciding whether to add "a" before "VSV-EBOV vaccine trial", I realized I don't know what this sentence means. Does it mean the vaccine is inadequate? Does is mean the trial is inadequate, and more trials are needed? Neither conclusion seems justified by the study's abstract, which emphasizes the vaccine's success and its apparent suitability for humans. Art LaPella (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

so, per [9] According to Marzi et al., VSV-EBOV vaccine trial against EBOV-Makona strain is inadequate.....this from the specific text of the article... Unexpectedly, preclinical efficacy data for this or any other EBOV vaccine currently in phase 1 clinical trials against the current West African EBOV-Makona strain is lacking. Because genetic divergence among known EBOV strains is similar, with about 3% whole-genome divergence ...( raising concerns about the applicability of current experimental intervention strategies, including VSV-EBOV, against the emerged EBOV-Makona strain)...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
"However, analysis of sequence data from May and June 2014 in Sierra Leone suggested a higher mutation rate of EBOV in this ongoing outbreak (9), raising concerns about the applicability of current experimental intervention strategies, including VSV-EBOV, against the emerged EBOV-Makona strain." Compare "According to Marzi et al., VSV-EBOV vaccine trial against EBOV-Makona strain shows some concern about applicability." As I understand it, what showed concern about applicability was neither the earlier nor the current vaccine trials, all successful. It was the 2014 analysis of sequence data which raised the question of whether the vaccine would still work on the virus, because it has mutated. And anyway, that question about mutation is what motivated the study, so I would think the emphasis would be on the vaccine's success in the current study, and anything about concern would be past tense. Also, I don't understand why we use italics as the quote isn't exact.Art LaPella (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I had changed it [10], I will further change it [11](if you read further into the text[12] of the 15 macaque- 3 control,12 tested (1 did die?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
A few comments. IMO this information is getting a little too involved for this article. Perhaps it could go into the research article. A great deal of money is presently going into research and I'd guess we're going to see a lot of studies in the next few months and I think it's a mistake to report on them all here. I also question the addition of treatment options that are being added. I think that they should be added to the main article as they apply to Ebola in general, not just to this Ebola epidemic. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, I gave it an "a" and a "the", whether or not we move it. Art LaPella (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I am going to delete that study per WP:MEDRS which states: " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." IMO we can be somewhat lax when it comes to very new information that is significant but I do not see this study to be of that nature. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2016 (withdrawn)

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

The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN. Relisting shortly with correction. larryv (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa → 2013–2016 West African Ebola virus epidemic – Our naming conventions for health incidents and outbreaks prescribe a "when/where/what" format for article titles; I don't see a good reason to buck that trend here. larryv (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Requested move 26 January 2016

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

The result of the move request was: moved to West African Ebola virus epidemic, which fits more with our standard naming practices and wasn't objected to. Jenks24 (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa → 2013–16 West African Ebola virus epidemic – Our naming conventions for health incidents and outbreaks prescribe a "when/where/what" format for article titles; I don't see a good reason to buck that trend here. larryv (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the convention mentioned states "Health incidents should also be titled according to the "where and what", with year added for disambiguation." -- PBS (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Technically yes, but in practice it seems that when/where/what is the most widespread. I don't know if that's intentional or residual. larryv (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • maybe I would prefer other editors to comment first--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there is an equally well known out break in West Africa there is no need to disambiguate again dates. Further if the name were to include years then use full years 2013–2016, this is not paper based (there is no need to save two bytes for bandwidth or for storage). -- PBS (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment why "Ebola virus" rather than "Ebola" could the epidemic have been caused by any other form of Ebola if no why include the word virus? Also what is the common name for this event? I ask because this seems to be a descriptive title rather than the COMMONNAME. If indeed "2013–2016 West African Ebola virus epidemic" is the common name, then move it to that name once evidence has been found to support such a name. -- PBS (talk)
name per [13][14][15]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Very extensive previous title change discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 (5a 5b 5c) 6 7 8 9 10 Art LaPella (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Oy. I admittedly didn't think to search the archives, but someone should have added {{old moves}} to this page. larryv (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. larryv (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thanks to Art LaPella for an extensive list of prior discussions. (Amusingly, he left out the discussion that occurred before this page was moved to its current name.) As per PBS, it seems that there was prior consensus about the year being unnecessary due to the event's singular nature. It's a fine argument, and one that I can buy—I'd have no problem with West African Ebola virus epidemic. larryv (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now What concerns me about this is the assignment of a finish date. While it looks like the worst of the epidemic is over, flare-ups continue, and look likely to do so for some time -- possibly for a very long time to come. In particular, the WHO no longer appears to consider the epidemic to be "over".[16] But yes, as Larryv says above, West African Ebola virus epidemic would be fine, as it's a better fit with our general naming convention than the current title. -- The Anome (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Location in the title

On the title again, it includes the location, which is per the naming convention. On the current Zika outbreak article, the decision was not to include the location (the Americas) but leave it open I guess because the outbreak is still going on and everybody (esp the media) seems to think it will expand and become global (I think that's the rationale). During Ebola, that was also the hype but you decided to call it "West African" Ebola. Why? I'm wondering if the Zika article should also express the location of the historically distinct geography of this event, and if it goes global, treat that event as another article? juanTamad (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

  • You'll find discussions like this one at the bottom of the beige box at the top of this talk page. The case for specifying the location for Zika is less convincing; what location? "Tropics"? "Tropics worldwide"? "American tropics"? "From Mexico to Brazil"? Art LaPella (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
"in the Americas" You see the phrase repeatedly in scientific articles on the outbreak as well as in the media, and the CDC uses it. juanTamad (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC) And, the move review you linked to is conflating the arguments for when and where, just like the Zika review. juanTamad (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

US military medical facilities in west Africa prior to the outbreak and their role in assisting

Not a word about all the US military medical facilities in west africa that were put in place _before_ the outbreak? How come? It's a known fact that was reported throughout the media, albeit not in the headlines. And no, this is no mere banal "conspiracy theory": Ebola was a long since and well KNOWN threat, and expected to break out again, so I cannot for the life of me understand why you are all in complete denial about this. Why on earth would it be "dangerous" to concede and inform the public on this obvious fact?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.246.11 (talk • contribs)

Not known to me. WP:Reliable sources, however, is known to you. Art LaPella (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Science article/ebola

[17] interesting article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Finally over"

I've clarified some language that could have been taken to mean that the WHO had declared the epidemic to be finally over. They haven't: it's only the Sierra Leone flare-up that's been declared over. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

right, there is this [18]However, WHO has not yet declared the outbreak in West Africa over. As we now know, the virus can hide in the bodies of fully recovered survivors for as long as a year.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

New flare-up in Guinea

It looks like there's a new flare-up in Guinea, so that needs to be reflected in the article with things like updating the map, infobox, etc. -- The Anome (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

agree...this is going to take a long time to completely stop--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

interesting article

6-Year-Old Child with Severe Ebola Virus Disease... in an Ebola Treatment Center in Guinea[19].--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Refactoring of introduction

The introduction of this article had become extremely long, to the point of becoming a mini-article in itself, and starting to develop its own internal sub-introduction. I've now split it along the lines of the structure it was already developing: the first part is now a much shorter three-paragraph intro, and the second is now a new "overview" section, which introduces in more detail the topics which are then expanded on at length in the rest of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[20] Brilliant...I had seen the same issue but wasn't sure what to do--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2016

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


West African Ebola virus epidemic → West African Ebola outbreak 2013-2016 – I think that at this point we can assign a clear ending date, as a single case doesn't really constitute an "epidemic." Also, the current title includes the word epidemic, which implies a relatively large scope, which this doesn't really meet in my opinion. Yes, some cases made it out into Europe, the United States, and elsewhere, but hardly enough to be called an epidemic. For this reason, I think that "outbreak" is more appropriate. Furthermore, I don't see why the word "virus" needs to be included. Ebola is a virus, not any other form of pathogen, so there is little need for it to be included. Finally, I believe that it is necessary to include dates because there have been outbreaks in the past and there will likely be outbreaks in the future. For the sake of clarity, I think that this move is necessary. Thanks, Gluons12 (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC).

Frequently asked question, and you didn't mention previous discussion. So please search the top of this talk page for "This page was previously nominated to be moved." And don't forget to click the "show" link for a much longer list. Come back when you've read it all (next year maybe) so you can debate all the other suggestions. Perhaps we should add this paragraph to the list somewhere. Art LaPella (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
In response to the argument that "West African" should be taken out of the name, I will restate what many before have said, and state that virtually all (99%) were in West Africa. Some in the previous discussion have said that having the date in the name is unnecessary because there have been no other outbreaks of equal size. This is true, but there have been smaller ones, and it is possible that there will be more in the future. Finally, some have said that it should be called a "pandemic" or "epidemic" as it is called now. For the same reasons I listed above, as well as the fact that WHO calls it an "outbreak" and not an "epidemic", I believe that this change should be made. Thanks, Gluons12 (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's a link to the previous discussion: request to move page from "Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa" → "2014 Ebola virus epidemic". The bulk of the discussion was on whether the few cases outside of West Africa justified dropping "in West Africa" from the title. The consensus was to not move. Ajpolino (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It is bad form to change a comment after other editors have responded to it.[21]. Graham Beards (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for making that edit. I have moved that statement down a little now. Thank you for mentioning it, I didn't realize it was bad form. Thanks, Gluons12 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

Oppose without doing a proper WP:RM request. The Med project should be notified too. Poor arguments: it was easily large enough to be called an "epidemic", though there may be a case for "outbreak". I don't understand the argument against "virus". Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

To clarify why "virus" should be removed, it is because Ebola makes this word redundant. Ebola is a virus, not a bacteria or anything else.
The Ebola is a river, from which Ebola virus disease takes its name. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. It's a river. (And the singular of "bacteria" is "bacterium".) Graham Beards (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose any major changes that you suggest. They have all already been discussed at length - please check the archives for information. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

oppose per reasons given above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - it was an epidemic caused by Ebola virus. A case can be made for a move to "West African Ebola hemorrhagic fever epidemic 2013–2016".Graham Beards (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose this specific name, but I would support a slightly rearranged version. I didn't comb too heavily through the previous move discussions on this page so I'm sure all of this has been considered, but I'm not sure if there's some broadly-accepted naming convention for outbreaks here. The first two outbreaks that came to mind are located at 1918 flu pandemic and 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak. So if <Date> <Location (if applicable)> <Disease> <Descriptor> is the general format that makes us happy, then I'd go with 2013-2016 West Africa ebola epidemic (though I think "outbreak" would be just as appropriate, perhaps that would be the more commonly-used term and therefore more appropriate for us. Also I realize that Ebola virus disease or Ebola hemorrhagic fever might be more correct, but I would hazard the suggestion that "Ebola" is appropriate as the disease descriptor in common English, just as "flu" was sufficient). Ajpolino (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

To further support my advocacy for "outbreak" instead of "epidemic", I say that Wikipedia:COMMONNAME states that "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." The World Health Organization calls it an "outbreak," and WHO is cited very often in the references section. Thank you for considering this, Gluons12 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

OK, now I am starting to get it... Yes, the WHO calls it an outbreak - I see no reason that we should do differently...? Gandydancer (talk)
It began as an outbreak and went on to become an epidemic. Contemporaneous WHO reports called it an outbreak; it is now regarded as an epidemic. The difference is subtle and the terms are often considered synonyms. Graham Beards (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, I think that I lost my mind for just a moment... I was short on time and sometimes that happens... The WHO is the only one that still calls it an outbreak rather than an epidemic but if I learned anything from this whole experience of working on this article it is that the WHO did a terrible job of handling this outbreak, perhaps even contributing to the fact that it reached epidemic proportions. It is/was an epidemic. Gandydancer (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, without necessarily any prejudice to a better-thought-out idea. The reliable sources general refer to it as an epidemic, and "outbreak" as the WP:NPOV problem of making it sound trivial and easily/quickly contained. The real question here is whether the date needs to be added, which is a matter of whether there were multiple notable epidemics/outrbreaks in the area. If there were not, adding it would be unnecessary disambiguation, and a WP:CONCISE failure. If the date is needed, date ranges are separated by an en dash (–) not a hyphen (-) (see MOS:DASH and MOS:DATE).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

July 2016 map in Epidemiology: Outbreak section

When the outbreak was ongoing it made sense to show the current status as was done with this map, but now that the outbreak is well and truly over, does it make sense to continue showing a 'current' map with no widespread outbreak, no limited outbreak, and no isolated cases? I would think it would be better to replace this with a map giving the historical perspective - which countries fell into these categories during the outbreak. A map showing the situation after it was all over seems much less informative. 50.37.100.83 (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

well it gives the reader (via the image) how far the epidemic affected the globe and therefore important from that perspective...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the map should be restructured like it is in the article - "countries with widespread epidemic", "countries with limited local cases" etc. I agree that the current map is not so useful anymore.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
perhaps more opinions would be useful...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
(same IP as above) I am not suggesting there shouldn't be a map showing the countries that were affected. I am saying that now that it is over and there are no more cases, the current situation - 'Ebola-free after prior cases', is no longer drawing an important distinction, while it overrides the first three categories, widespread, limited local, and isolated, that would be more informative. More information would be conveyed using a map with four useful categories: widespread, limited local, isolated, and medical-evacuation, indicating the condition during the epidemic, as opposed to what is effectively two - medical-evacuation and 'not infected any longer' that is forced on it by it representing the current rather than historical status. For that matter, the same applies to the map in the infobox - there is no longer a benefit to having separate colors to distinguish current from past outbreak countries in west Africa when the whole outbreak is past. This one is easily fixed by just removing the inset with the color key and tweaking the text description. 50.37.116.206 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
To be more specific, I would recommend the following categories in the global map: 1) widespread - Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone; 2) limited - Mali, Nigeria, Texas; 3) isolated - New York, Sardinia, Scotland, Senegal, Spain; 4) medical evacuation - unchanged. 50.37.116.206 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
the article could benefit from your idea(as described I would be supportive of the change)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • One other issue I have with the maps in this article is how there's a mixture of countries and subnational units. For uniformity, there needs to be an agreement on what should be used for the map; Sovereign states or subnational administrative units?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
as in all the U.S. (as opposed to New York, Texas) indicated on the map?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes; also UK, instead of Scotland. Conversely, if we want to use subnationals instead, we have to use Lagos and Rivers, instead of all Nigeria, or just Kayes instead of all of Mali, or just Dakar, instead of all Senegal. On another note; while this makes sense for the countries with local cases, it can become a nightmare for the three countries with widespread outbreak. Hence, I'd suggest just sticking with national boundaries. People who want to get into details can always read more in the appropriate sections. The current jumbled nature of the map is just not right.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
yes, agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

July 2016 map in Epidemiology: Outbreak section

When the outbreak was ongoing it made sense to show the current status as was done with this map, but now that the outbreak is well and truly over, does it make sense to continue showing a 'current' map with no widespread outbreak, no limited outbreak, and no isolated cases? I would think it would be better to replace this with a map giving the historical perspective - which countries fell into these categories during the outbreak. A map showing the situation after it was all over seems much less informative. 50.37.100.83 (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

well it gives the reader (via the image) how far the epidemic affected the globe and therefore important from that perspective...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the map should be restructured like it is in the article - "countries with widespread epidemic", "countries with limited local cases" etc. I agree that the current map is not so useful anymore.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
perhaps more opinions would be useful...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
(same IP as above) I am not suggesting there shouldn't be a map showing the countries that were affected. I am saying that now that it is over and there are no more cases, the current situation - 'Ebola-free after prior cases', is no longer drawing an important distinction, while it overrides the first three categories, widespread, limited local, and isolated, that would be more informative. More information would be conveyed using a map with four useful categories: widespread, limited local, isolated, and medical-evacuation, indicating the condition during the epidemic, as opposed to what is effectively two - medical-evacuation and 'not infected any longer' that is forced on it by it representing the current rather than historical status. For that matter, the same applies to the map in the infobox - there is no longer a benefit to having separate colors to distinguish current from past outbreak countries in west Africa when the whole outbreak is past. This one is easily fixed by just removing the inset with the color key and tweaking the text description. 50.37.116.206 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
To be more specific, I would recommend the following categories in the global map: 1) widespread - Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone; 2) limited - Mali, Nigeria, Texas; 3) isolated - New York, Sardinia, Scotland, Senegal, Spain; 4) medical evacuation - unchanged. 50.37.116.206 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
the article could benefit from your idea(as described I would be supportive of the change)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • One other issue I have with the maps in this article is how there's a mixture of countries and subnational units. For uniformity, there needs to be an agreement on what should be used for the map; Sovereign states or subnational administrative units?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
as in all the U.S. (as opposed to New York, Texas) indicated on the map?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes; also UK, instead of Scotland. Conversely, if we want to use subnationals instead, we have to use Lagos and Rivers, instead of all Nigeria, or just Kayes instead of all of Mali, or just Dakar, instead of all Senegal. On another note; while this makes sense for the countries with local cases, it can become a nightmare for the three countries with widespread outbreak. Hence, I'd suggest just sticking with national boundaries. People who want to get into details can always read more in the appropriate sections. The current jumbled nature of the map is just not right.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
yes, agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Would like to include the WHO's decision of August 11, 2014 to allow colloidal silver

Hi Ed's,

I feel that the WHO emergency move on August 11, 2014 to permit the use of colloidal silver was a landmark move in both the history of medical experimentation with colloidal silver, and in the history of the West African Ebola epidemic of 2014. It is potentially too important a detail to be leaving out of the known history intentionally. Can it be constructively re-included in the article in a way that preserves the topic's integrity?````lgc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.223.40 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Source? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, looking over this, I see that you cited this source to say that the WHO approved the use of colloidal silver, which that source DOES NOT SAY. That gives me little reason to trust you. You then follow with "Within a few months' time, major news agencies reported that the epidemic wave of 2014 had completely subsided" -- as if they were related. The source you cite for that doesn't say that it's because of colloidal silver.
Maybe if you tried being honest with your sources and quit trying to push quackery, we wouldn't revert you. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Source / documentation of August 11, 2014 decision by WHO to permit silver

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2014/ebola-ethical-review-summary/en/

(Decision made by WHO on August 11 of that year and reported the following day)108.36.223.40 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc

That does NOT mention silver anywhere! Did you even read it? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
concur w/ Ian thomson--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Silver included per statement of Sierra Leone Minister of Information

Hi Ian,

Being new, I was hoping for a less caustic reception, per Wiki policy?

Here is documentation that silver was included in the allowed protocol: a West African news agency quoting the Sierra Leone Minister of Information saying that silver was a major part of the intervention:

http://www.thenewdawnliberia.com/politics/10347-sierra-leone-tells-nano-silver-success-story

I have written to Gregory Hartl this morning, the media contact for the WHO panel that convened 8/11/14, to specifically ask him to verify that silver was among the approved "compassionate use" protocols, to corroborate the assertion by the Sierra Leone Minister of Information that it was.

I realize that you must have all sorts of people "pushing quakery" on Wikipedia, but please maintain an open mind that silver with its known broad-spectrum anti-microbial properties may have played an important emergency role in helping to curb the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone, and if so, should be included in the timeline, even if only as a passing footnote. I do agree with you though that it's a leap to credit the unapproved drug entirely with staunching the outbreak of that year - there were also improvements in sanitation that played an important role.108.36.223.40 (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc

Who's Tom? And why don't you have a medical source? And who are the editorial staff for The New Dawn? And what are their sources? They appear to be making up stuff. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi Ian, As mentioned above, I've written the WHO directly this morning - please kindly give them a chance to respond.

Is it customary to list the editorial staff of a news periodical as part of a citation? I didn't see a space for that in the automated citation helper that popped up. Is listing the editorial staff done for all periodicals uniformly, or just for certain ones?

Here is the listing for the editorial staff of The New Dawn: Staff listing

EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT

Mr. Othello B. Garblah Managing Editor Email: o.garblah@thenewdawnliberia.com

E. J. Nathaniel Daygbor

News Editor Email: e.daygbor@thenewdawnliberia.com

The New Dawn news agency in Liberia states that they are quoting an interview of Sierra Leone Minister of Information Alpha Kanu in a primary interview by The Star Africa, a Sierra Leone news periodical.

I have also written the editor of the New Dawn this morning for the verification which you asked for, using my public pen name, which is Richard Robert Book (when I sign LGC on Wikipedia, I am using the initials of my own Christian name):

Dear Mr. Garblah,

In attempting to add a note about the importance of colloidal silver to the Wikipedia timeline of events leading up to the ending of the Ebola outbreak of 2014, I have quoted your article "Sierra Leone Tells Nano-Silver Success Story" in editing a Wikipedia article on the topic. An editor of Wikipedia, Mr. Ian Thompson, has publicly accused your newspaper, on Wikipedia, of making up the story. I believe that he is mistaken, and promised him that I'd write and ask you to verify that Mr. Alpha Kanu, the Sierra Leone Minister of Information at the time, was indeed interviewed by The Star Africa newspaper in Sierra Leone, which The New Dawn then quoted.

Please forgive the offensive nature of Mr. Thompson's tone - I believe that he is just trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia in good faith, and means no harm.

Thank you very kindly, Richard Robert Book rbook62@gmail.com 108.36.223.40 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.223.40 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal correspondence is not a reliable source. We have no idea who the New Dawn is -- as far as we can tell, they're just one guy making up stuff. They claim to be quoting another news source, but there's no evidence that that other news source even exists. And again -- they are not a medical source. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian, The WHO is a medical source. If colloidal silver is not mentioned by name on the August 12, 2014 press release of the August 11 emergency session (and none of the protocols appear to me mentioned by name), then a list of approved non-tested drugs may exist that can be accessed. I have re-written Mr. Hartlg, the public relations officer for the WHO emergency panel, and followed-up by asking him to give us a publicly accessible link to a list of un-trialled drugs that were permitted under that decision. 108.36.223.40 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc

"The WHO is a medical source" -- that does not mention silver, and has not claimed that silver has cured Ebola!
Again, personal correspondence does not matter -- for all we know, you are making up your letters.
You know what? Since you keep saying things that aren't in sources, keep expecting us to just accept your supposed correspondence, I'll do the same: I wrote a letter to every doctor in the world just now, and they said you're lying. According to this WHO page, you're lying. Do you see why we don't allow personal correspondence (i.e. whoever you say you're writing letters to) as a source now? Do you see why we require sources to actually say the thing they're being cited for? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Perhaps you missed my note, above, that I was writing to ask for a clickable link to documents that could be accessed by the public?

I've also written to the Minister of Health and Sanitation in Sierra Leone, Dr. Samuel Kargbo, for any links to public electronic information that can be accessed by everyone.108.36.223.40 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc

P.S. Ian, I think it's very important not to throw around loose language like "cured", such as you have above. Scientifically speaking, we can compare before and after mortality rates as the CDC has done and demonstrate an improvement, but we would not want to speak of a "cure," as the virus could easily be suppressed one day and then mutate the next. Please note that I have use such words as "curbed" and "staunched" and used them only in this less formal chat - words that should suggest containment of ongoing battles, such as the outbreak of 2014, and not the final victory in a larger "war" on the Ebola virus.108.36.223.40 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc

please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. 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:

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

checkY 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) 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

New recent outbreak should be added?

On May 11, 2017, the Ministry of Health of the Democratic Republic of the Congo notified international public health agencies of a cluster of suspected cases of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in the province of Bas Uélé. The report mentions 9 cases, including two deaths, with a third death reported on May 12. Testing of samples was conducted by the Institut National de Recherche Biomedicale (INRB) in Kinshasa, with one sample testing positive for Ebola Zaire by RT-PCR. The Ministry has deployed a team to the site to investigate further.

I tried to add this myself but was reverted for some unknown reason.

[22] 59.101.244.227 (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

should be added to Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola outbreak 2017, as is not related to this outbreak, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Didn't even know that page had been made. Figured it was a continuation of the previous epidemic. Thanks for pointing the way. 59.101.244.227 (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
no problem, happy editing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

|}

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. 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:

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

checkY 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) 06:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

GA (future) nomination

GA process/review

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.

Possible GA ArticleWikipedia:Good_article_nominations(w/ consensus) Type Article review/book/NIH,WHO
Proposed article/book/site jour.
Added
Pending
  • additionally one could add a graph,to the article, which represents the different countries (cases/fatalities) like this (many GA articles use visual/images to further illustrate a point in the article)....

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

discuss

Noted. Will look at it closely. - BroVic (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Art LaPella: Done. Thanks for the heads-up. – BroVic (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I should be done with my copyedit in the next 12 hours or so. I've had a tight schedule and only managed to squeeze some time to get this done. – BroVic (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Art LaPella:Typo fixed. Thanks. – BroVic (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for everything. Art LaPella (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_African_Ebola_epidemic/Archive_11&oldid=1233598163"