Talk:Western African Ebola epidemic/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Western African Ebola epidemic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Duplication

In the "Country" section we have these headings, which appear to be mutually exclusive

9 Response by country
9.1 Countries with active local transmission
9.2 Countries with suspected or non-transmissive cases
9.3 Other countries and economic regions

However some countries appear in more than one category - examples US and UK. Does this matter? Robertpedley (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Countries that have "imported" infected individuals through medical evacuations should really be in a different category from those with suspected / non-transmissive cases; in one case, lack of transmission is largely luck, in the other, it's the unsurprising result of effective high-grade biosafety precautions being taken, and the risk of transmission was almost zero. -- The Anome (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi all i think our article should read like this. The Anome,Robertpedley,Gandydancer

9 Cases by other countries.
9.1 Countries with active local transmission
9.2 Countries with suspected or non-transmissive cases
9.3 Countries with imported cases - UK Us and other imported cases should be here

Separates the Countries with cases better in the article

10 Response by organisations and countries.
10.1 Other countries and economic regions--This should be in here then
10.2 World Health Organization
10.3 US Centers for Disease Control
10.4 Médecins Sans Frontières
10.5 Samaritan's Purse
10.6 World Food Program
10.7 World Bank Group
10.8 Private and foundation donations

I know it looks like a big edit but is might be worth it to read better.Just my opinion.BrianGroen (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If only I had time. The biocontained cases were hot news a few weeks ago, I think in another 2 or 3 weeks we'll be able to reduce them to a couple of sentences & move them down. It would make sense - the US Government response to the crisis has been shaped in part by hostile public reaction to the 4 (so far) imported cases. Robertpedley (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I could move it just want to see if i have a majority vote on it. Regards BrianGroen (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being a little dense, but I am having a hard time envisioning the changes you suggest. I'm all for making the change and then we can go from there... BTW, at one point I did some changing of the way things were listed and it was shortly changed back. Rethinking it, I think the editor that changed it back was correct. So I say, go for it - it can take forever to wait for consensus on some things. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Anome,Robertpedley,Gandydancer Took the bold step hope imm not in the hot waterBrianGroen (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BrianGroen. Was working on fixing typos in your title but got interrupted in my tracks by Gandydancer who reverted the changes I was working on before I was done - even though my changes were going along the lines of the discussion here. Anyhow... F Camp (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi F Camp sorry re typos. my official language is Afrikaans and i'm partially sighted due to a dreaded disease called multiple Sclerosis. Hoe i manage to write and publish two books still is still a mystery to me. Luckily i had a good copy right editor.BrianGroen (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, not a problem at all BrianGroen! We're all bound to make typos sometimes! I just noticed that because my edits were partially undone by Gandydancer, the whole section about foundations is gone. I'll let Gandydancer finish off the job of undoing my edits. F Camp (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit removed the entire foundations section, which is still missing. But the edit summary says it was only about subheadings. Art LaPella (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes Art LaPella, it is correct that I tried to move the foundation section to a different, more logical subheading. I was in the middle of moving it but the prompt reversal of some but not all of my edits while I was working on the article has left the article without the important part about the foundations' response. I apologise for the confusion. I was hoping Gandydancer would quickly fix the situation; I do not wish to be appear to be messing with this section again before it has been clarified that I was simply trying to improve the article using by 1) fixing typos in the subheadings and 2) working towards implementing suggestions that had been made on this Talk page. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

added foundations back.. hope it is in the right placeBrianGroen (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. Note to F Camp re changing order of foundations/organizations: Your suggestions re using alphabetical order were discussed but did not gain consensus. I, for one, strongly disagreed. As for your other changes, please note that Brian explained his intentions and asked for input before he implemented them. IMO, it would have been best if you would have done the same. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gandy for explaining your move. My changes were misinterpreted, however: I did not reorganise by alphabetical order, but by type, as this makes clear and as had been discussed and agreed upon when I first brought up the issue (although speaking of 'consensus' might be overkill, since we had very limited input from the wider community). I did drop my point about failure to keep a NPOV in your preferred order because of the apparent lack of interest from the community. I thus refrained from changing the order of organisations within type today. It just so happened that MSF and Samaritans were already alphabetically ordered, as were the foundations. With regards to the issue you raise, I shall be more forthcoming in the future before making changes, even though I honestly felt those were sufficiently minor to not bring about any backlash. F Camp (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer,F Camp i'm partly to blame i just sorted it a bit more in relevance..BrianGroen (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BrianGroen. Maybe we could add "Response by" before foundations, so as to keep closer to the other subheadings? F Camp (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

F Camp done.. good suggestion BrianGroen (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

F Camp, thanks for your explanation and your correct note on "alphabetical" changes - I now realize that you were editing in a manner that seemed reasonable to you. I can imagine that I might have done the same in similar circumstances. Plus, Brian seems to have solved the foundation/individual problem as well. All's well that ends well! Gandydancer (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Gandydancer. F Camp (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Would it be ok with everyone if I fixed the capitalisation to remove capital O in "Organisations" and capital F in "Foundations" in the subheadings? And also, can we agree that "Countries with imported suspected or non-transmissive cases" should instead read "Countries with imported, suspected and/or non-transmissive cases" since cases can both be imported AND non-transmissive? F Camp (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

F Camp fine with me ThanksBrianGroen (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, done! F Camp (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Very confused, BrianGroen. You seem to have reverted the changes you said you agreed with?? F Camp (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry F Camp my bad. I thought capitalization not lower case. In any case seem somebody whack out all our changes of yesterday. BrianGroen (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

All responses should be grouped together under a responses heading, by country or organization can than occur under that. Have changed before noticing this discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

New Case numbers

After scouring the respective governments i am able to obtain only numbers for 11 Sept for Liberia and 13 Sept for Sierra leone and Sept for Guinea. so please be patient hoping to get numbers later today or in the course of tomorrow. Also expecting OCHA as soon as Liberia reports again. Will keep my eye out for it. i have placed an RSS feed on the pages. But expect another staggering increas.BrianGroen (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the numbers up-to-date, Brian. Snd0 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

where can we see sept 11, and sept 13 for their respective countries,,,,,,--65.8.188.239 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC) See section 10 September Numbers on this page .. the links are posted there. Regards BrianGroen (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Brian

This document has what appear to be official WHO numbers from country SITREPS for 10 September 2014. It also has some very useful additional information including cases and deaths among health care workers. It includes cases and deaths for DR Congo. The numbers differ a little from those used in the timeline table. Rather than muddly the waters I'll let someone else make the judgement on whether to use these. Galerita (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

13 sept Numbers incorrect.

Please note that Liberia numbers on 13 Sept is incorrect. Liberia numbers are for 11 Sept. and not 13 Sept.BrianGroen (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

|- | 13 Sep 2014 || 5,072 || 2,459 || 936 || 595 || 2,527 || 1,349 || 1,586 || 507 || 22 || 8 || 1 || 0 || https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/GUINEA_EBOLA_SITREP%20N%20151%20DU%2014%20SEPTEMBRE_2014.pdf https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/Liberia%20Ebola%20SitRep%20119%20Sept%2011%2C%202014_0.pdf- this report is for 11 Sept and not 13 sept https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/Ebola-Situation-Report_Vol-108_0.pdf https://wca.humanitarianresponse.info/en/system/files/documents/files/SITREP-SENEGAL-13Sep-2014.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianGroen (talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I just felt is was important that we upload factually correct numbers for Liberia as they carry the bulk of the case numbers. BrianGroen (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

New WHO numbers: [1]. Can't find them on the WHO website though. Snd0 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest 13 September Number.

Sorry Galerita please note this section on the report.

"1. COUNTRIES WITH WIDESPREAD AND INTENSE TRANSMISSION

4963 (probable, confirmed and suspected; see Annex 1) cases and 2453 deaths have been reported in the current outbreak of Ebola virus disease as at 13 September 2014 by the Ministries of Health of Guinea and Sierra Leone, and as at 9 September by the Ministry of Health of Liberia." [2]BrianGroen (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest chart now seems to be using Liberia's situation report 121, but for Sept 13th should use report 123 (http://www.mohsw.gov.lr/documents/Liberia%20Ebola%20SitRep%20123Sept%2015,%202014.pdf) which has a total cases of 2804/1481 18.127.7.26 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That report is for 15 Sept and not 13 sept. Regardes BrianGroen (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC) My mistake; links on the parent site are mixed up and clicking on the report for the 13th gave me the report for the 15th. Sorry. 18.127.7.26 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

All good, mistakes is human to make a complete stuff up you need a computer...lol. Believe me i make a lot.BrianGroen (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Whole page rip to pieces and not as per previous discussion.

Gandydancer,F Camp It seems that the whole article has been re arranged yesterday. Thoughts any one..BrianGroen (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The previous version had issues [3]

Why a section called "Containment efforts" and than a separate section right below it called "Complications in containment efforts". The second should be a subsection of the first.

We than had one section for "Fatality rate" and than a second section for "Projected casualties and deaths" also should be put together.

We than had three sections dealing with stats around the outbreak. "Development of the outbreak", "Countries with active or imported cases" and "Timeline of the outbreak". One in the beginning of the article, one in the middle of the article and one at the end of the article. I am wondering if this section should go first? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc James i'm a it confused now. We had a discussion on this. See talk [4] where a consensus was reach and the article was changed. Agreed certain section as you mentioned above carry merit. It's just the article as it reads now cause far a lengthy scroll to get to relevant section.BrianGroen (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Which section is most relevant and do you feel should go first? I would support the epidemiology section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Doc, we are using consensus for making major decisions for this article. For people that want to see an Ebola medical article they can go to the medical page. This article is meant more for people that are interested in the progress of the disease in Africa and general information - for instance, to start with Virology makes no sense for this article. I am going to make a few reverts back to the previous agreed-upon version.Gandydancer (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Should keep the epidemiology together. Happy to see it first as I agree it is most relevant for an outbreak related article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Doc, I can hardly say this strongly enough. Editors on this page are over-worked as it is. Now you have done more moving things around without consensus. Please stop doing it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe some of the article is better now, and should be open to more change, good work Doc James!,,,,,--65.8.188.239 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Doc James is an excellent and very experienced medical editor. The article is now more in line with our other medical articles and I think it now reads very well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc James just glad i did not need to redo everything... Took a whole day yesterday... Thanks Greetings BrianGroen (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc James just glad i did not need to redo everything... Took a whole day yesterday... Thanks Greetings and please excuse my rant.BrianGroen (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

17 September Responses edit

Please discuss such a major change as in the Responses reorganization first. I reverted it till we have a chance to discuss it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I reorganized the "Responses" section because a number of items were out of place or proper sequence or had redundant information. I reorganized the section into three subsections containing (1) Responses by international organizations, (2) National responses, and (3) Responses by charitable organizations, foundations and individuals. I placed items within each subsection in alphabetical order in accordance with the order that some (but not all) subsections within the "Responses" section had previously been placed. I placed in chronological order all of the information within each item.

I recognize that there are many ways to organize a section. I consider the reorganized section to be a logical one that is consistent with the organization of some parts of the existing section and with other sections within the article. Corker1 (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please revert your changes until you get consensus. I have many problems with the changes you made. I reverted your first change but was unable to revert the following two. You must work with the editing group rather than do these changes on your own. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to reorganize the section in any way that you or a consensus wishes. I will not make any further changes to the organization of this article. Corker1 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I like the break down into international, national and charities. Among international organizations I would put the WHO first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This editor believes in alphabetical order. Further, the WHO and a couple of others are actually the only international foundations. What about MSF based in France but does work worldwide, same for a few others. The CDC has been entirely omitted, where does it go? This is why changes should be discussed first rather than ignore previous group discussion. The stable editors here who watch over the article are becoming weary of always doing so much catchup work. Gandydancer (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

CDC is under US. Being an arm of the US government I see that as appropriate. MSF is an international organization with chapters all over the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is an old version, IMO much better. A lot of discussion has been put into these decisions and unless there is prior agreement, they should not be changed. [5] Gandydancer (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

that doesn't make it better, "WHO" should go first,,,,,,,,--65.8.188.239 (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been first till the recent reorganization. I put it back and added the CDC which was lost in the shuffle. Also, MSF was deleted due to a copy vio and I put it back with rewording. They are doing an outstanding job and have been very verbal about their dissatisfaction with the international response and could use more copy. Gandydancer (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated casualty numbers from WHO

WHO just released a new sitrep for September 18, are we still waiting to confirm the numbers, or should we update the cases for the 18th with the information from the sitrep? [6] AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi AmericanXplorer13 check date on report for 18 SEptember... Timeline should read 14 September as per report see section overview on report. Like i said in my post above i am distancing myself from these totals. A quick clance i can already see a problem with SL again. eleborated enough on this issue to waste my time trying to correlate numbers.BrianGroen (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

More Duplication

I've made a few edits to the "Subsequent Spread" section in order to highlight the method of travel/transmission, where known, to each of the 5 countries. However much of the same material appears in the next section "Countries with active transmission". Not sure how to avoid this. Robertpedley (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that in the past but it seems to me that there was a wider space between the two at that time, and it seemed to me that it would be ok since there is a lot to absorb in this article. Should we wait and see what others think? Gandydancer (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I remember what happened. At one time we had 2 sections, the second one being about the subsequent spread. and the larger section with longer versions farther down. Then Brian divided it into the separate sections for each country. But then Doc changed the positions of the larger individual countries and we ended up with what we've got. Clear as mud? :) So, at any rate I agree we need to do something. Should we just eliminate the shorter ones after being sure that the longer ones include any pertinent info? Gandydancer (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO subsequent spread should be combined into initial outbreak our the nations with local transmission. No strong feelings though. We should keep the content together IMO though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a trial solution and kept the small country sections but put them together for a nutshell version of the subsequent spread, and then followed with the quite lengthy more detailed accounts of the countries affected. How is that? Gandydancer (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Robertpedley (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of graph

I've removed three week moving average graph: mere smoothing does not help data visualization, the unsmoothed graph (shown here) is sufficient. If the drop in the last week's data points is an artifact caused by recency, then the graph should consistently leave out the last week's data instead of smoothing over it. If it isn't an artifact, then it's good news, and we should see it. But the fact that it's across all the countries at once makes me suspect that it may be a reporting artifact. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

After attempting to re-create the un-smoothed graph myself, I've now removed even the unsmoothed version from the page. The combination of noisy data and irregular sampling makes this very difficult to generate a meaningful chart: readers can get a better picture of what's going on by looking at the changes in slope in the cumulative graphs. I will upload a cumulative chart shortly, to show what I mean. -- The Anome (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are two new cumulative-by-country graphs:

-- The Anome (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Much better than the unsmoothed graph. I'm not sure that the log plot wouldn't be better without the inclusion of Senegal and Nigeria, though. --Aflafla1 (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is it better not to use smoothened data? One of the problems regarding the graphs on the page is that they include noise which is a function of the reporting of cases rather than the incidence of cases, clearly different districts update the WHO with reports on 3,4, and 5 day cycles, smoothend data allows this noise to be extracted from the data, the cost associated is that there is a lag in how quickly the chart responds to new figures, but given that the disease has a 2 - 3 week infection cycle, changes which occur within that time frame are unlikely to be secular in nature

It is highly in appropriate to use a logarithmic scale where no geometric progression is occurring, if we look at a breakdown of the outbreak by country, only in Liberia and Sierra Leone is there a progression that is geometric, given the wide disparity in case counts it is not useful, particularly when what is important in an outbreak is not how many have been infected, but how many people are currently infectious, and how many of them have been recently infected. There is no way of us getting data on how many are infectious, but counts of recent incidents of infection are useful, and they do show that Guinea for example is doing a much better job at containment than Liberia.

Secondly, and more broadly we should only be using logarithmic scales when it is necessary, the number of people who understand what a logarithmic scale is (never mind how to read one) is in the low percentiles, the median reader of this article will have no clue what they are looking at. They will have a couple of questions that they'll want answered: 1) Where is it happening? 2) Where is it getting worse? 3) Where is it under control?

Graphs are a useful way of letting people who are not comfortable with reading tables of numbers get a sense as to what is going on, the graphs attached to this article don't do that, what they will show is that the epidemic has gone pandemic, if it comes to that, and if it comes to that, then perhaps a logarithmic scale will be useful. But at the moment it seems like people are letting a tendency to catastophise get in the way of clarity.

Its bad, but this epidemic has not gotten that bad, it isn't a pandemic

Around the world there'll be political flunkies pulling together briefing notes for their political masters which will affect policy decisions, like how and where to give resources to combat this epidemic. We can give them something useful, but we have to apply the grandma test, if your grandmother couldn't figure out what the graph means, then it isn't useful Connees (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC) it clouds the meaning of the graph

Linear graph is useful to show the history, log graph indicates the trend. Both have their place. Personally I look at the log graph.

to improve the log graph, you should exclude data points near the beginning of the outbreak where n is less than 50 (add a note!) Robertpedley (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm in full support of having the country totals separated, especially on a log graph. (Yellow is a bit harder to see but not a huge problem and I can also see that excluding early points might help to avoid confusion).

Differences between Guinea and Liberia are important but since they are close to straight lines on a log graph I submit that both are geometric growth. I wonder if the difference is active containment or passive containment due to cultural and social differences. (I don't know that part of the world). Does anyone know of research on this topic? (I realize this is not the kind of speculation to put on the main page but big implications for public health and a link to applicable research could be very helpful).

On the matter of understandable graphs:

I suspect that those who reach these graphs have some understanding. (It is already a long page).
For those of us who do understand log graphs, they are very helpful.
For those who do not understand log graphs perhaps there could be a link to the appropriate area of mathematics? See Logarithmic_scale
It seems worthwhile putting up what 'we' in the wiki community can contribute as the various graphs might help someone to see things differently. (I don't know but perhaps a case for flexibility during an active crisis?).:: --Cjacooper (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Connees - your maths isn't quite correct. If the one has a function which is the *sum* of several geometric and arithmetic progressions, then the dominant function is the geometric (exponential) function. The fact that the line is basically exactly straight when graphed on log axis indicates it is an exponential function. "Highly inappropriate" is exceptionally strong language to use. It is an unchecked growth function, which by nature is geometric in progression, particularly as transmission seems to be (tragically) unchecked. How could it ever be polynomial? Winehoney (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The first indication that the outbreak is coming under control will be a flattening of the one or all of the log lines. Hopefully soon, now that various countries have promised to mobilise some serious assets to the region. Robertpedley (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(Wrote somthing then realised it was rubbish) Robertpedley (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

14 Sept wrong totals in table

Note: Sl and LR numbers are incorrect on WHO report

Liberia as at 14 Sept 2,720/1, 461 and not 2,710/1,459 see report by Liberia [7]
Sierra Leone as at 14 Sept 1,655/516 and not 1,673/562 see report [8]

BrianGroen (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Article title/RfC

What should this article's title be? The convention in epidemiology is to name outbreaks/epidemics with the 1) Year of the initial outbreak, 2) the location of the outbreak and 3) the name of the virus. This format is supported by MEDMOS. Article titles should be based on what is accepted in the scientific community and is reflected in the scientific literature here for example (see first line of article) and at the Centers for Disease Control.

Should we:

1) Keep the current title "Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa"

OR

2) Move the page to "2014 West Africa Ebola virus epidemic" ? 20:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please indicate support for either #1 or #2 below:

Support #2. Best to go with what is accepted scientific practice per MEDMOS. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Support #2. In spite of all the spittle and ink in the "discussion" below, I see no substantial problem with "2014 West Africa Ebola virus epidemic". The question is not really whether the actual outbreak was in 2013 or even earlier in some bat a few centuries ago. We need a title that is a label that distinguishes this outbreak, and a given date is a good label; if someone is confused about whether this outbreak is the one he seeks, he can settle any doubt by taking a quick look. Plus I cannot imagine why people imagine that this is to be the first, last, or only "Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa". If we call it that, then what titles are we to adopt for the epidemics of 2019, 2027, and the huge epidemic 1n 2042? I suppose we could call that one the "Great Ebola Epidemic", but that still strains our creativity in naming articles on the other epidemics. In case anyone insists that the first word in the title should be "Ebola" or "Epidemic" or "West", let him add those as redirs or even a disambiguation page. JonRichfield (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC is malformed. Firstly, it presents a false dilemma, as there are many possible article titles other than those two (and, in fact, several have been suggested). Secondly, instead of using neutral wording, you reiterated your rationale (with no mention of the counter-arguments raised previously).
As discussed above, Wikipedia is not an epidemiological journal. Per Wikipedia:Article titles, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." As no other Ebola virus epidemic has occurred in West Africa, appending "2014" to the title is superfluous. No such disambiguation is needed.
I also noted that the current title's structure is clearer (because "West Africa Ebola virus epidemic" could be misinterpreted as a reference to an epidemic involving a virus called "West Africa Ebola"). Such ambiguity is easily avoidable, and "the convention in epidemiology" isn't a valid reason to tolerate it here. —David Levy 21:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Close please - We just came to a consensus regarding the article title 9 days ago, and now you want an rfc to change it back or keep it the same? No thanks. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: 1) There's been no real consensus on the title. The RfC is the best way to do that. 2) The RfC is not 'malformed' as it offers what is accepted scientific practice in naming outbreaks. 3) There shouldn't be any confusion as to the name of the virus as the ICTV has established the accepted nomenclature which WP follows in all virus articles. 4) As far as saying, "There's no other Ebola outbreak" therefore, "use of 2014 is superfluous" makes absolutely no sense. The whole point of using dates is to mark when the outbreak occurred. There will be other outbreaks in future and what then if the 2014 outbreak has not been dated? Who is going to go back and add in the date? Best to get off on the right foot from the start. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that this will continue into 2015 at this point. There's no sign of stopping soon based on the latest numbers over the past month. 2014 is superfluous in this case, since no other outbreak has occurred in West Africa. The title can always be revisited when another outbreak occurs in the future (assuming this one doesn't end with a cure or vaccine). Also, for the reasons given above / in the first move, it's best if number 2 was changed to 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, to avoid confusing the name as an outbreak of "West Africa Ebola virus disease" - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it extends into 2015. It's the year the outbreak starts that matters, that's the identifier. That is how the scientific literature will refer to it. The title 'Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa' was decided by one editor as his personal preference. It was not by consensus, and it is not based on any WP policy or scientific sources. In addition, WP titles says that where there is controversy over a title, the title should go back to what it was before the controversy. It was 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak. It can say 'epidemic' but it should go back to the correct format. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

To SW3 5DL - The first instance of the current outbreak was believed to be in December 2013 (not recognised as Ebola until 4 months later). Maybe best to put this discussion on hold until the outbreak is over? I vote for option 1 Robertpedley (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley - Yes I'm aware of the earliest case, however, the literature is calling it the 2014 outbreak. The lede can mention the earliest case. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You just stated that "it's the year the outbreak starts that matters". Now that yet another factual inaccuracy has been brought to your attention, you've backpedaled. You seem to be inventing these supposed rules (with the goal of pointing to your preferred title) as you go along. —David Levy 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The title 'Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa' was decided by one editor as his personal preference.

Some degree of misunderstanding occurred, but similar titles were discussed, and the current title has since received support (including mine, despite my previous suggestion of a different title).

It was not by consensus, and it is not based on any WP policy or scientific sources.

It's based on the article titles policy and numerous reliable sources identifying the article's subject as the first Ebola epidemic in West Africa.

In addition, WP titles says that where there is controversy over a title, the title should go back to what it was before the controversy.

The "controversy" currently revolves around your complaints. "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity." —David Levy 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The RfC is not 'malformed' as it offers what is accepted scientific practice in naming outbreaks.

Firstly, along with several other claims (all of which turned out to be original research comprising your personal opinions and/or flat-out incorrect statements of fact), you've made an uncorroborated declaration and expected us to accept it.

As evidence, you've provided links to two articles from reliable sources, both of which contain descriptions with contradictory formats. The first refers to the "2014 West African Ebola virus outbreak" and the "West African 2014 Ebola Outbreak". The second refers to the "2014 West Africa Outbreak", the "2014 Ebola outbreak", and the "2014 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa". Neither page contains the phrase "2014 West Africa Ebola", let alone the full construct that you advocate using as the article's title.

Secondly, even if it is the accepted scientific practice in describing outbreaks, we aren't bound by that. Again, Wikipedia isn't a scientific journal. We rely on our article titles policy and Manual of Style for guidance. (You've cited MEDMOS, but a description of an event is very different from the name of a disease or drug.) We certainly can consider outside literature, but we don't blindly defer to it on the basis that [x authority] knows best. What makes sense in the context of a specialist publication isn't necessarily the most practical solution for a generalist encyclopedia.

Thirdly, an RfC statement is supposed to summarize the issue in a neutral manner (explaining any relevant disagreement without taking sides). Yours describes the aforementioned epidemiological convention (represented as an undisputed matter of fact), followed by the assertion that "article titles should be based on what is accepted in the scientific community and is reflected in the scientific literature". This is your position in the dispute, presented in isolation (with no acknowledgment of dissenting views) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. Do you seriously not see how that's non-neutral?

As far as saying, "There's no other Ebola outbreak" therefore, "use of 2014 is superfluous" makes absolutely no sense.

You needn't agree with the pratice, but you surely can understand the logic behind it.

The whole point of using dates is to mark when the outbreak occurred.

At Wikipedia, we include such information (a year, month and year, or the complete date) in an article's title is to distinguish the event from others that the title otherwise would describe. Unless and until West Africa experiences a second Ebola epidemic, no such disambiguation is called for.

There will be other outbreaks in future and what then if the 2014 outbreak has not been dated?

We'll append the date if and when that occurs, as is standard practice.

Who is going to go back and add in the date?

One or more Wikipedia editors. That's how Wikipedia works. —David Levy 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

David Levy You've not made one policy based argument for keeping the title you choose because you thought it 'sounded better.' Instead, you've made offensive, condescending comments and are exhibiting WP:BATTLE and WP:OWN behaviour. The literature supports the move that will include the date. Stop taking it so personally. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You've not made one policy based argument

Did you overlook my multiple mentions of our article titles policy?

for keeping the title you choose because you thought it 'sounded better.'

I neither chose the current title nor argued that it should be retained because it sounds better (or anything of the sort). I'm baffled as to why you would attribute such a statement to me.

Instead, you've made offensive, condescending comments and are exhibiting WP:BATTLE

By expressing disagreement with you and contesting your incorrect and inconsistent claims?

and WP:OWN behaviour.

By supporting a title selected instead of the one that I suggested?

The literature supports the move that will include the date.

The literature that you cited, containing multiple descriptions (but not the one that you advocate we use)?

Stop taking it so personally.

I assure you that I don't. Given your perception that I'm attacking you, I suggest that you follow your own advice. —David Levy 23:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Including the date is unnecessary disambiguation, and speculation about future outbreaks is WP:CRYSTAL. We don't preemptively disambiguate articles, we disambiguate them when disambiguation is needed. It isn't. The present title is WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 13:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Support current title: I'm adding my voice to what appears to be a near-consensus: the location and the name of the pathogen are sufficient. It's speculative per WP:CRYSTAL to include the date because we don't know the future course of this outbreak. In other words, HIV should never have been called "1981 New York City immune disease epidemic." Also, an article name that starts with the name of the virus is clearer and easier to find (yes, it can be redirected, but it needn't be). Roches (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Average new cases per day should be a log graph also.

If we assume the number of cases is an exponential function, then the first derivative (new cases per day) should also be an exponential function.

Therefore, it makes sense to similarly graph "new cases per day" on a log axis.

The graphs are great btw, I check them often, but I just wanted to add this small comment. Winehoney (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Winehoney there's been some discussion about this under other "talk" headings. Some of it may have been archived - I'm not sure how to find that. Rest assured that the graph wizards have tried it and ruled it out. Thanks, by the way. Robertpedley (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Health Workers and Journos murdered in Guinea.

Can some one please add this to the article. [9]. I have retracted myself contributing to this article but this is of significant importance. BrianGroen (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

FoxNews reported this, too - BREAKING NEWS: AT LEAST 8 DEAD IN ATTACK ON EBOLA HEALTH TEAM IN GUINEA HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

pretty horrific. who would be willing to stay there as a health worker after this? not me, and I'm sorta brave. I added some copy on it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Dubious

Hi talk there was a lenghty discussion about incorrect numbers and was discussed in a DRN as well. Since 26 August the WHO has reported the wrong death toll in the their report. This fault is carried forward in all WHO reports. BrianGroen (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I answered there :

Yes I saw the case numbers for Liberia are for the 9 september cause it's clearly indicated in the WHO document. That's why I can understand you want to put more up-to-date datas (even if I think it's not a very good thing) but for Sierra Leone it is not indicated anywhere. And it's only your own opinion that's a wrongness.(not mine for example).

It can be a matter of disputed borders, or of date : the Sierra Leone situation report reckons the cumulative deaths since 23 May 2014 only.[10]

I really think you have to contact WHO, if you want to dispute their datas. Cause we need references, solid and reliable references.

--Dernier Siècle (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So are these numbers looking like an underestimate? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, Dernier Siècle there is an updated sitrep for Sierra Leone here. [11] AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

AmericanXplorer13, Dernier Siècle,Galerita The reports are updated as per government reports that goes to WHO from the respective health departments. Here is the link to 13 Sept Report on SL [12] clearly indicating the figures for SL at 1603/511. My figures are not based on original research but on the reports cited by the governments. See footnote on WHO report. "Data reported are based on official information reported by Ministries of Health." There was a lengthy discussion on the reports which eventually led to a Dispute resolution(DRN). The results of this discussion and DRN(Dispute resolution by wikipedia) is we will base our reports on the WHO reports, but where there are clear inconsistencies we will revert to respective government reports. The DRN was closed with a consensus that we will correlate with government reports to get the best figures out there. This is not original research but cited sourced from a reliable source. WHO is swamped with worked and we tried to contact them by email but to date no response. BrianGroen (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Just an additional discussion about 26 August. This issue is not of interest anymore as WHO have repaired there errors on a later reportBrianGroen (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello BrianGroen

I'm sorry but I don't see any consensus on this specific point. Furthermore a consensus that breaks rules and even WP:FIVEPILLARS is not an acceptable consensus.

As you can see on the Sierra Leone MoH Facebook page, these figures are disputed [13]

We must contact WHO [14] or the office of the WHO Representative in Sierra Leone [15].

And for this moment these figures are dubious. --Dernier Siècle (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dernier Siècle the talk started in on 28 August and then 10 Sept, all of them now archived. Trust me i would not not have taken this route if it was not cleared by a DRN volunteer. I have tried to contact WHO on their contact page back then, but to date no response. But i'm all for stepping away from this issue but the heat will then come down on you if the numbers is not changed as per DRN and discussion resolution. Less work for me to correlate and update the numbers. [16] suggest you contact Blehair,Gandydancer kind regards Brian. BrianGroen (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I only find this thing in the archives on this specific point Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa/Archive_2#sierra_leone_death_count

--Dernier Siècle (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blehair,Gandydancer stepping away from this issue. With all due respect is was discussed in length before. Not going down that route again just because a new editor does not agree. A consensus was reached and i cannot see that this should now change since a different editor came into play. Noted the reports date and press release numbers substantially. WHO uses the sit-reps by the governments and as discussed before these figures will be correlated with respective government reports. See difference in press release and official report for two dates. Sit-rep the one WHO use [17] 1603/511 and press release dated 14 sept [18] 1,454/463. Also on Facebook scroll to date 14 Sept.[19] as stated by Dernier Siècle. Press release is not specific as to which date. Q: since when is Facebook used as a source? Regards BrianGroen (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see why the exact numbers matter, as they are continually being eclipsed by higher totals as the epidemic continues. Simply agree that these numbers represent a minimum, and the the real extent of the outbreak is almost certainly much higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.243.74 (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dernier Siècle It matters to statisticians and doing the graphs. See archive [20] and [21] . But as i'm am all for avoiding conflict so i'd rather step awayBrianGroen (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This issue seems to be going round in circles. First there was criticism of WHO numbers as inaccurate and being an admitted secondary source. Now some people seem to wish to rely only on WHO numbers as being a reliable source. I support the consensus previously reached and felt BrianGroen was doing an admiral job. Perhaps it would help if the figures in the table were suitably annotated so that the dates for the figures were clear. Mattojgb (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not followed the numbers problem at all and as such can't make an intelligent suggestion, but we must not lose Brian! But it seems that he should not have to post about this over and over as it can get to be just too time consuming and take all the joy out of contributing. Brian, there is a place to post to ask for help from editors not connected to this article, but who are good with selected topics. Perhaps they could come up with a way to handle this. Would that be a good idea? Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Check date on report for 18 SEptember... Timeline should read 14 September as per report see section overview on report. Like i said in my post above i am distancing myself from these totals. A quick glance i can already see a problem with SL again. eleborated enough on this issue to waste my time trying to correlate numbers.BrianGroen (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@BrianGroen the solution is to find(with a reliable source) why there is this gap between WHO figures and SL-MoHS figures.

By the way, for the SL-MoHS press release you have to add up yourself confirmed,probable and suspected cases/deaths to obtain totals. --Dernier Siècle (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dernier Siècle like i said yesterday a consensus was reached to use the respective government reports and correlate it wit WHO. Therefor i'm walking away from this problem. It took days to prepare the previous timeline Note i double check all my figures with OCHA, UNDP as well as Iris and they are inline with my past figures. Not going to waste my time and energy on this further. BrianGroen (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dernier Siècle i have adde up the total on the press release. Death = 511 as per my my figures. Cases adds up to 1593 as per press release, but in Kailahun in the press release the figure is 518. Note Kailahun is 528 in the official report and not 518 as the press release. hence totals are 1593 in press release. Correct this by Kailahun diffrence of 10 gives you 1603. Hence Sl figures is 1603/511 my figures the ones you call dubious. New figure 18 September similar problems. Cheers. I takes a massive effort to check all the numbers and quit frankly if you want to cite it as dubious then go ahead. im out of here. BrianGroen (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted 13 September dubious numbers.- see talk time line problems [22]BrianGroen (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"Pandemic" rename

I think the recent rename was premature. Pandemic usually requires multiple continents, and I haven't seen the WHO (or other reliable sources) calling it that yet. Please revert. --99of9 (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Renaming this a "pandemic" without a reliable source is hyperbolic and contrary to keeping the article informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSBr (talk • contribs) 08:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh heck, this must be the 4th or 5th rename so far. I though we had reached a consensus (see above). A please from the ehart - please stop changing the name, it makes it difficult for search engines to index the page and it messes up the traffic statistics. Is it possible to protect?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpedley (talk • contribs) 09:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree: moving it to call it a "pandemic" was a bad idea, and I've let the editor in question know this. Since, as you say, there's a consensus here for the current name, I've now move-protected it for one month. -- The Anome (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Great Robertpedley (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the nest of redirects created by that move has now been sorted as well. I've speedy-deleted the "pandemic" redirect itself, as it was both recently created and implausible, thus meeting the speedy deletion criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You guys are all wrong about this on multiple levels: 1) the present name is a hideous clunker. 2) the spread and distribution of the disease already satisfies the definition of "pandemic" (note: it is not necessary for a pandemic to be global -- the Ancient Greeks certainly didn't have any capacity to verify such when they coined the term; if the presently affected area were transposed over the Mediterranean, it would cover half the known world of Greek Antiquity). 3) The disease is out-of-control and accelerating exponentially, with half of all known cases in the last month; the death rate is now up to 200/day when it was only 100/day last week. With the WHO already predicting 20,000 deaths eventually (and that number almost immediately regarded as optimist), I submit that responsible agencies are already supplying far more "hysteria" than a mere name change would impart. 4) It would have killed no one here to toss "ebola pandemic" into Google instead of just assuming a lack of RS. In summation, you are going to have to rename this article very shortly anyway. (If you think it's a rat-race now in west-Africa, just wait until the Hajj begins next month.)--Froglich (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

All very interesting, but at this rate, we'll have to protect the page from the many unsupported rogue moves. Please suggest page moves here or at WP:RM, and we'll see how it goes. In the meantime, thanks for your enthusiasm. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Such processes are generally glacial; and this is a swiftly-developing topic. Instead, let's try to reach consensus here:

I submit that take the current name is a poor one and that virtually any other name is less unwieldy.
I submit that 2014 Ebola pandemic is more concise, accurate, and informative.--Froglich (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Why is the current name "poor"? It's an epidemic of the Ebola virus that has struck West Africa hard. Why is this a poor description? Why would you need a year in your new proposed title, are there any other Ebola pandemics? Do you have evidence to support that the COMMONNAME of this news item includes "pandemic" in generality? In the meantime, your enthusiasm is certainly exciting. (PS, try Googling your terms.) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

IMO any article title regarding a historical event with six words in it is a clunker. The spread of the disease already satisfies the definition of pandemic (and certainly will going forward). Regards "commonname" problems; it should be the mission of an encyclopedia to educate the layman, not cater to "definition-drift" in language. Regards placing the year in the title, now that EV is well-established across a vast and still-expanding region, there are likely to be subsequent outbreaks in the future, and attendant subsequent Wikipedia articles will be best delineated by year. For the time being, would you object to "2014 Ebola epidemic"? (This hedges a bet that the disease halts its presently inexorable spread.) "2014 Ebola outbreak" is another possibility, but "outbreak" is a less-desirable and non-technical term.--Froglich (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps you should read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS! Either way, don't try to move the article unilaterally again, you need consensus and currently, you absolutely don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I just say I was trying to reach consensus? That's what I'm doing here: attempting to convince you why the suggested renaming is superior.--Froglich (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I for one disagree. A simple search will reveal that "Ebola pandemic" is not the common name for this outbreak. Your suggestion is clearly inferior to the current name I'm afraid, as yet you have nothing substantive to demonstrate why your preferred name would be better (other than your own personal opinion). But thanks for your enthusiasm. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see my "For the time being..." offer above. We're not talking about pandemics anymore.--Froglich (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer is "no", no need to move it. It's now been protected as a result of the ongoing stupidity. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We'll see who's "stupid" in a couple weeks. Say, are you aware that Prof John Edmunds, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and on-site in Monrovia, is now predicting that Ebola will infect "the majority" of the population of Liberia? Given a (generous) lethality of 50%, that means he's predicting over one million people will die of this disease in just Liberia. But hey: I'm @#&*% stupid, so don't listen to anything coming from me, OK, Tiger? Jeez.... --Froglich (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the constant moving of the article to satisfy personal preference as stupid, nothing else. Your personal interpretation is entirely inaccurate, but unsurprising. (P.S. "Experts" suggested we'd have a Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease pandemic a decade or so ago, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The broadening of your condescension prompts me to doubt the sincerity of your "sorry". Everyone: Understand that as of 11 Sep 2014 there is in play a prediction from an in situ paramount luminary in his field that 25% of the population of an entire nation will croak with a seven-figure death-toll.[23] In light of this, I would like to not-so-gently suggest that the "discordant mob" [24] take a back-seat and leave the article to those with timely expertise in the subject matter. As to CJD, to attempt to make an analogy between dithering over the course of an ailment transmitted by certain avoidable foods (or transfusions) with an ongoing highly virulent infectious plague is a confession of ignorance in the subject-matter. --Froglich (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If/when the epidemic spreads to other continents, then call it a pandemic? Very few would argue that a multi-continent epidemic is not a pandemic. Most non-crackpots will not make projections beyond a few months [25], and even though models have been published that put probabilities on its spread, they're pretty conservative [26]. But wait a little while and see if the models are correct (or even close?). Snd0 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Edmunds isn't a crack-pot; he's with Médecins Sans Frontières at ground-zero. If MSF's estimate that they're recording only one in four actual cases in Liberia is correct, then we're surging past the WHO's prediction of 20,000 cases by the end of this week. The WHO assumed a linear or logarithmic rate of spread when it's gone exponential.[27]. More worrisome, lethality has climbed back up to 70% (Frontline, 9/9).--Froglich (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again you entirely misunderstand my point. There are plenty of actions that can be taken to prevent the spread of Ebola, just as there are plenty of ways to reduce the chances of contracting CJD. Just as in the CJD case, there are usually a couple of people proclaiming the Doomsday scenario, while most others remain realistic. Even those shouting for Doomsday are keen to stress that there's plenty that can be done about. Anyway, this discussion is going nowhere, the article has been protected from being moved and that's a good thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

We'll see about that.--Froglich (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed we will, in the meantime we should put the crystal ball back in the cupboard!! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that pandemic is hyperbolic. I propose "2014 Ebolavirus Epidemic" as a title, it's more concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.166.122 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. "Pandemic" is hyperbolic, at the moment, and WP:CRYSTAL applies. This is a deadly serious matter of life and death for potentially millions of people, not a video game, and Wikipedia is taken seriously enough as an information source by other people for us to have a duty to be cautious in our use of language. If Edmunds is right about it becoming completely uncontrollable -- and let's hope it doesn't get that far -- we can always change the article title as appropriate then. -- The Anome (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Hopefully User:Froglich is reading this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree way to early to call pandemic. Hoping US intervention is quick and decisive before we reach that stage. BrianGroen (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Ebola virus" is redundant. For instance, we don't refer to "Malaria parasite epidemics".--Froglich (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotta admire your determination to change something! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

RM, how old are you? ...oh never mind; the answer will undoubtedly shake my vestigial faith in mankind that anyone else is capable of logically rejoining in a conversation.--Froglich (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, but seriously, you really want something to change in the title don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a restless urge to improve all shat things.--Froglich (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly a restless urge to try to change something once you got started and once you were told to forget it. What next, drop the West? Your fans are waiting with baited breath for the next episode of "Froglich does page move suggestions"! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Timeline problems

I believe that we need to come to an agreement on the manner in which this timeline of data problem is handled. From what I understand, an agreement has already been reached in how we are to calculate the totals and until this changes we have agreed to use that method. Our editors should not have to defend our consensus agreement every time a new editor comes along that does not agree with it. If a new editor wishes they certainly may set up their rationale in a new request that may come to a new agreement, but until then we use what we've got.

I also think that the article data section should be tagged with an explanation of how we are obtaining our totals and asking other editors to do the same - perhaps that alone would discourage editors from adding new figures without understanding the problems we are facing in our reporting of data. Any edits to the data that are not using our agreed upon method should be deleted with a request to use the method that has been reached though our present consensus. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

good idea,,,,--65.8.188.239 (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this article very regularly since May (fantastic work by the way), and from my vantage point every time someone new alters the timeline's structure or values it is mostly a misunderstanding. They look at the numbers, see that they do not match the WHO, and then change them with the best of intentions. Adding an explanation of how the totals are derived is an excellent idea. Thorough (and persistent) editors will see this and at least direct themselves to the talk page. Furthermore, I agree with the previously reached consensus regarding the method to obtain true totals. Kudos to Brian for maintaining the accuracy of the counts. CTL CTL (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So what is the new method for calculating the totals? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi AmericanXplorer13,CTL CTL,Gandydancer 14 September case numbers updated. Deleted 13 Sept numbers. References added to notes below timeline. Used the best data available... If they want to crucify me let them sent the armed horses [28] . hace a great day all. Greetings Berian BrianGroen (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Will have new figures up within a day or so , but already it has whopped by 450 in two countries alone by Wednesday 17th. waiting Guinea figures.. BrianGroen (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi AmericanXplorer13,CTL CTL,Gandydancer i have finally received a response from WHO in a lenghty e mail and yes they do use respective government details. We must please correspond with the governments. I was advised that their numbers may alter slightly from the official government reports as i have been doing. I personally phoned them and yes their numbers may not always be spot on.

"Please note that the requested item was jointly produced with other organization/s outside WHO and/or not originally produced by WHO source." @Dernier Siècle

BrianGroen (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dernier Siècle if the numbers are again marked up with Dubious without discussing it i will request a block on you for editing.( i think i will have the support of the majority of editors here) I went through great length contacting WHO on various items. And secondly how can you call a government website as a unreliable source, that is like saying us.gov is an unreliable source. If you doubt that i have contacted WHO please see section above. [29] also see [30]. I have used proper channels and cited reliable sources on this as per wikipedia rules. The only contribution you made to this article is to mark items as dubious. I have been involved in this article from the beginning stages. Please refrain from it. Discuss first, if you recieve a majority vote then mark as Dubious as per wiki rules. Regards BrianGroen (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello

No it's not my only contribution, I wrote (WHO)figures last days and you deleted them without any explanation.

You still not produce any explanation for this conflict between WHO figures and SL MoHS figures.

Are you stating without any clue that WHO is inventing false ebola deaths and cases for Sierra Leone since many weeks?

We (so you too) must respect the rules, so please read carrefuly WP:RS and WP:MEDRS --Dernier Siècle (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dernier Siècle Yes 13 Sept was deleted as we usually do when the weekly report arrive. WHO release there official roadmap every week as epidemic week ending(current epidemic is 36 for this year.). In the case where it is just an update we remove previous figures as we have done in the past if the update is one day apart. Avoid clutter. Pointless of having reports for two days in a row. The sit-rep takes preference and not the update. I have check your contribs and your only addition to this article was 13 September figures. I am not going to explain this again.In August we saw a jump in SL death tolls that did not correlate with WHO. We then check OCHA number , UNDP and iris. it did not concur with SL numbers stated in WHO report. The next report from WHO the numbers was corrected but the problem popped up again on a new report. Hence a joint decisions was taken to use SL gov numbers. This decisions also applied to all relevant governments. It has been discussed at length and this is a joint decisions not mine alone. If you feel the need to take it further file a DRN. but for now leave numbers stat without remarks or i will request a block on you for this article. and i an confidant i will carry the the support of most contributing editors. BrianGroen (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dernier Siècle WHO is not falsifying reports, all it is there is a problem on the report. HENCE we use SL gov reports and Liberia gov reports. It went to a DRN before. I am following WP:RS using a reliable source. A goverment website is a reliable source as per WP:RS and WP:medmos. Read all the comments all the editors agree with me except you. Refer to DRN if you don't concur, but mark it up again i will request an edit block This is not original work. BrianGroen (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

17 September totals Guinea/Senegal/Nigeria as per OCHA [31] Sierra Leone as per [32] and Lberia as per [33] - Note "confirmed deaths" may vary slightly for Guinea but "Deaths" is correct. BrianGroen (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Dernier Siècle see OCHA [34] reports differnt as WHO this is where we noted the problem a few weeks ago. As you can see there figures differs from WHO but mine is more inline. i dont use just on source to confirm figures. BrianGroen (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

OK BrianGroen I think OCHA is an acceptable third-party source that can be use to confirm Sierra-Leone MoHS figures.

But the discrepancy with WHO that is claiming 562 deaths for Sierra Leone is a problem.And it must be fixed in the coming weeks. --Dernier Siècle (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dernier Siècle i will try to back trace the error but the material has been archived.. Excuse my rants.. Just a bit heated since i spent days trying to find the error.. "Hand of friendship offered.. Kind regards BrianBrianGroen (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

please lets have some wiki-civility,,,,,--65.8.188.239 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Civility restored, sorry partly to blame for it getting heated, but i believe Dernier and i are in agreement.. I will back trace the error in WHO and refer matter to them. BrianGroen (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WHO images

In WHO's latest update on ebola they butcher the infographics into various parts, possibly to prevent their use. I wanted to update some of the images in the article but this just can't be a coincidence. Should I extract the parts of the image and put them together, or what? 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi --Monochrome_Monitor with regards to WHO usage they are protected by the Berne convention on copyright we my not use their material without a proper request. The image may not be altered in any form. So this would be an absolute no no. but do request their permission to use. they take about two weeks to respond.

As far as the Treatment facilities in West Africa i have received confirmation to use the image as a whole and not altered in any way.

Extract from e-mail

"Dear Mr Groenenstein,

Thank you for your enquiry. On behalf of the World Health Organization, we are pleased to grant you permission to reproduce the WHO item detailed in the form below. WHO: Ebola Response Roadmap Situation Report

Please ensure that the original WHO source is appropriately acknowledged with either (i) the appropriate bibliographical reference (including publication title, author, publisher, volume/edition number, page numbers, Copyright notice year) or (ii) in the case of materials published on the WHO web site, publication title, the URL reference and the date accessed.
The material will be reproduced as it was published by WHO and no changes should be made to the content or meaning. Publishers may reformat the material in the style of the publication.
The use of WHO materials should be factual and used in an appropriate context;
The material should not be reproduced for use in association with product marketing or promotional activities. In no event should the WHO information products be used in promotional materials, product brochures, web sites, annual reports, and other commercial or company-sponsored publications for distribution to, and/or non-educational presentations for, either the general public, or pharmacists, doctors, nurses, etc.
There should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific company or products in the (article, book etc.) or in the manner of distribution of the article, book etc.).
The WHO logo and emblem shall not be reproduced.

WHO will not charge any fee for the above permission, however we would like you to please provide me with 1 original hard copy and an electronic file of your final publication for our records, specifically showing where/how WHO material appears and how it is referenced on your product . Please send directly to this address:

Ms Dolores Campanario

World Health Organization Press"

BrianGroen (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi again --Monochrome_Monitor it took two weeks to get permission, but yes i think we can use their images as long as we don't "butcher" them. I have sent a e-mail requesting further use of their images on ebola and sent a hard copy of this to them. I trust they won't object, as long as we use the image as is. And please delete any WHO emblems. We xcan always say "oops" if they turn us down, but i doubt it as long as we keep the image intact. With regards to Lab images we can go ahead i have recieved telephonic confirmation. Hoping to receive an e-mail in a week or so on my new request for using other images. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you see what I was referring to? I use a pdf image extractor and two of the images in the latest roadmap were cut into smaller images, making it impossible to reproduce them without altering the files. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

--Monochrome_Monitor It show up as one my side but if you can get to match closely to the original i think it would be fine, just delete WHO emblem.BrianGroen (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

--Monochrome_MonitorSee this section of email "The material will be reproduced as it was published by WHO and no changes should be made to the content or meaning. Publishers may reformat the material in the style of the publication." I think you are pretty much covered to edit the format as long as you keep the meaning... I would say go ahead. I see your dilemma... Post it as you wanted to. i will again just do a belated request. Kind regards BrianBrianGroen (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

semen infectious 3 Months?!

The article states that the semen is infectious of 3 months after cure. However the provided reference does not support this. In fact no statement is made about the semen. As this is possibly of vital importance I did not act yet. Please falsify and purge from the article or provide substantial reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.113.149 (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Semen in particular isn't so important, but it is a bodily fluid . . . Here are some references for that information [35][36][37]. It's relevant since this could certainly fall under "household contact," a route of transmission. Snd0 (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref says 7 weeks [38] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Men who have recovered from the illness can still spread the virus to their partner through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery. [39] AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The second JID article I gave says the virus was detected in semen 91 days after disease onset, so either the statement could be changed to "7 weeks" or "detectable levels of virus has been found in semen.." and leave it at 3 months. Snd0 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right about the CDC ref. WHO factsheet 103 gives seven weeks for semen. Feel free to edit!! Actually bits of this paragraph look a bit faded, I'll take a proper look at the whole thing tomorrow if I get time Robertpedley (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, have updated the page 93.217.195.118 (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

New semi protect edit request

I have notice an increase in Ip edits stuffing up article- i have requested a new semi protect edit.BrianGroen (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian thank you. Looks like this will happen once a week indefinitely, doesn't it? Robertpedley (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me say this from an IP address: thanks for all the hard work on keeping the page up to date! 83.84.192.79 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Accurate CFR?

Do we have any way of accurately calculating the CFR for each individual country? I think we can for Nigeria and Senegal, with a CFR of 38.1% and 0% respectively, but how do we calculate it when the outbreak is still occurring? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

AmericanXplorer13 Going to be very difficult tried it but to no avail i.e time of contraction to time of demise not on any report. Who placed it at 42 to 66%, but and that is the big one. it is calculated at date of report. I essence time of disease presenting to death could vary by as much as 14 days. i guess we will only know this figure at the end. At on stage when Guinea nearly stop reporting new cases in august it was 66%. However since Guinea has now again increased in numbers the total R% cannot be accurately calculated. BrianGroen (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

One analysis puts it around 60% - see http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showpost.php?p=546729&postcount=20 Another has it at 80-85% - see http://healthmap.org/site/diseasedaily/article/estimating-fatality-2014-west-african-ebola-outbreak-91014 Donners (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You would expect it to change, especially in a disease that hasn't been so successful before. Art LaPella (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

AmericanXplorer13 - sorry, number of cases for Nigeria & Senegal insufficient to achieve statistical significance. SEN case was infected in Guinea anyway. Anecdotally, the people who are running treatment centers are in a position to release accurate CFR stats for the cases they see. None of them have done so yet. Robertpedley (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Plus other factors: S.L. is clearly under-reporting cases (CFR in the 30's), with no beds left for treatment, people are dying at home with others staying home from fear of the treatment centers, S. and N. likely have improved care with so few patients, thus a better DFR... It appears they may never know the true CFR. Gandydancer (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

National Reponses Section

National responses can be categorised as follows:

government pledge of money, materials, or expertise to fight the outbreak
travel restrictions or advisories, either on travellers coming from or going to the region
government prepares quarantine / biocontainment facilities, stockpiles drugs, other preparedness exercises
Nationals of the country are repatriated and treated after having contracted Ebola
Incoming travellers are quarantined amid huge publicity but in the end it's a false alarm. A variant of this is that a recently arrived traveller dies of a heart attack / stroke but it's initially reported as ebola
Ban on imports of meat or agricultural products

The problem is that item 2 and 5 are popping up almost everywhere. There are about 120 nations in the world, this section could become cumbersome after a while. I'm proposing to add a generic header paragraph covering travel restrictions, false alarms, and import restrictions; then cull these from the section. Possible exceptions - countries which border affected areas (Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal) and Saudi Arabia because of the Hajj. Your thoughts please? Robertpedley (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed the same thing. For example here is the first thing one reads in the CDC section:

On 31 July, US health officials from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issued a travel advisory for Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, warning against non-essential travel.[201] By 26 August, the CDC had issued a Level 3 travel warning for Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia and a Level 2 travel warning for Nigeria.[202] The Level 3 warning is the highest that can be issued and will be in place until 27 February 2015. It means that United States residents must avoid nonessential travel to the three countries worst hit by the virus.

Unless someone objects, I think you should go ahead and do that. By the way, we had a news report of the airline closures of flights to the area that one editor offered last time this came up that may be helpful. Gandydancer (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Part done. In progress. Robertpedley (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice job. What would you think of breaking it out into its own section with something like "Travel advisements" (though that may not be the best wording). Gandydancer (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, that took ages. Gandydancer - I don't feel any need, but no objections. My hope is that when some enthusiastic editor from Iceland or the Chagas Islands comes along, they'll spot this first and not try to create a new section unless it's something new and significant. Robertpedley (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You're a step ahead of me - smart thinking. I'm sure glad to see you say it took so long - sometimes I wonder if there is something wrong with me when seemingly simple things can take forever to get done. The upkeep of this fast-moving article is VERY time consuming. Gandydancer (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Imported, exported, introduced

I found on the web all three types of cases. I.E. and Imported Case, exported case, and introduced case. The problem with the first two is they sound intentional and they require a person to have a frame of reference. If you are in the USA the case is imported. If it came from Liberia and you are in Liberia, it is an exported case. I would like to put forward Introduced Case There is no connotation of an intentional transfer. I was starting to do this then stopped when I noted we have an entire paragraph called Imported Cases. I would like to offer the opinion to move that to Introduced Cases.

Technically, Liberia, Sierra Leon, and Nigeria are all imported cases since they got introduced to them and exported from another country. Only DRC and Guinea have "homegrown?" Pbmaise (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Pbmaise - I think the key difference is between

intentional, controlled & contained (e.g. infected health workers to US, UK, France, Germany, Spain)
unintentional & high risk (Nigeria and Senegal, but presumably also Liberia & SL)

If you think you can distinguish these then I'm OK with it. Robertpedley (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Pbmaise Second thoughts - these cases are medevacs / medical evacuation. Title should be "Countries with medically evacuated cases" or similar.Robertpedley (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Handling DR of Congo

Should we add the Democratic Republic of Congo to the map at the top page and keep track of these statistics too? If we decide not, why do we have a DC of Congo section in the page for the West Africa epidemic? What will we do if (when) the virus spreads from DR of Congo to West Africa (or vise versa). Since the viruses are both of the same strand, how would we differentiate which came from where and how it affects our numbers? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi AmericanXplorer13, I don't think DRC is in West Africa, it's Central Africa. It deserves a nod on this page, but that's mainly to clarify that there is no known epidemiological or geographical connection. It's mentioned separately on the List_of_Ebola_outbreaks page. Robertpedley (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Port Harcourt, Nigeria Ebola death case

I donot know why the Port Harcourt incident which involved a doctor who was infected by diplomat who escaped quarantine in Lagos was removed. If there wasn't a reason for removing such sourced content, I will have to add that back. Stanleytux (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stanleytux, i did not removed it but i have the distinct feeling the diplomat were named. As per WP:RS rules reference to a living person may not be added portraying him/her in a negative light, unless there is a good reason. i.e he was found guilty in a court of law of this action. Unfortunately media reports is not a strong enough evidence that he was involved in the incidence in deliberately spreading the disease and he was not yet found guilty in a court of law BrianGroen (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Stanletux, you will need group consensus before you replace that information. I am the one that deleted it with an edit note saying that while it may be a topic of importance to some people in Nigeria, it is not a topic of importance worldwide. I have tried several times in the past to edit that information and have always been reverted with a rather indignant edit summary. There has been an almost odd effort to name names and places, the name of the hotel, for instance. Gandydancer (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@BrianGroen: The report about Ebola death in Port Harcourt has been confirmed by numerous reliable sources including the Health Minister and the WHO. If you think it was too quick adding the diplomat's name to the report, that is not enough reason to remove all the sourced reports as if it never happened. You can restore the report on Port Harcourt back and leave out the diplomat's name from it. The world should not be kept in the darkness about this matter and every place mentioned by reliable sources should be included. If clarity is not appreciated here I might as well talk here without signing my post. Stanleytux (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Stanleytux, do you also use the name TomClement? [40] Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Stanleytux i tend to agree with Gandydancer on this. It may be of interest to Nigerian citizen , but not to the world in general. Also naming the person and the hotel(a company is recognized as an individual organization) and therefor may not be named in a wiki page. Is a direct NO No to wiki rules. Yes the minister of health of Nigeria stated this, but in doing so they opened them self up to a potential lawsuit. The WHO report may have reflected the incidence (but i have not seen any mention on this issue in a WHO report.), but they are covered in this issue as they report what the respective health minister report to them. We cannot in good faith discuss every single case in detail as to what they have done and the subsequent fall out. Tom Sawyer case is worth while mentioning as this is very relevant as to how Ebola entered Nigeria, but any subsequent action i.e his actions in Nigeria have been removed as per wiki's neutral point of view. BrianGroen (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I still stand by what I've previously said. Restore report remove name of diplomat and hotel that's a simple thing to do you know. Wikipedia is based upon reports from reliable sources. I was not the one who reported the Port Harcourt Ebola death, remember? @BrianGroen: you did. After I read the report, I did some research on it and eventually found out more information including the hospital Good Heart Hospital which you mentioned in the report. I created a page for the hospital because I have created a couple of more hospital articles here in the past and linked it to this article. I didn't do anything wrong did I? you mentioned the hospital in your report. The way you guys are going about this it is as if the report was originally produced by me. Stanleytux (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Stanleytux"On August 28, it was confirmed that a Liberian diplomat who had had contact with Patrick Sawyer, died in the city of Port Harcourt, two days before, from the disease. This death brought the total number of deaths from Ebola in Nigeria, to six." this was the original report i did introduced it but i did amend the reference and wording a bit.

This was my subsequent edit. "On August 22 a doctor who treated a Liberian diplomat in a hotel, who had contact with Patrick Sawyer, died in the city of Port Harcourt from the disease. This death brought the total number of deaths from Ebola in Nigeria, to six.The Good Heart Hospital in Rivers State and a unnamed hotel has been shut down. As a result 70 people have been quarantined. ["Breaking: Nigeria Records New Ebola Death In Port Harcourt". SAHARA REPORTERS. 27 August 2014. Retrieved 27 August 2014.]^{[citation needed]}"BrianGroen (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the reason displaying your report, I already read it in the past plus it can be viewed via the page history. Anyways, since this report is sourced and you edited it yourself why all of a sudden everything gets removed when names start popping up. I say this report be restored I donot see anything wrong with it. We can leave out the names of the hotel and diplomat but not act like there wasn't any Ebola death reported in Port Harcourt. If someone who reads wikipedia for information and probably relies on it and couldn't find anything about Ebola in Port Harcourt. The person can assumed the media is not reliable and may inform others that there wasn't any Ebola in the city this misinformation can cause ignorance and alot of damage to the masses. And who will be blamed? us editors. We have to always do our best to report valid and reliable information on Wikipedia, there isn't any need to take out content especially when they are sourced and are of high importance to the world. There are hundreds of expatriates in that city, they could be one of our relations you never know. Stanleytux (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This article must be kept at a reasonable reading length, thus the editors here need to continually go through it and delete less significant information. We've all added plenty of information that was deleted as time went along as part of normal article upkeep. Gandydancer (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Stanleytux using your reasoning where do we end , do we add all the towns regions in all four countries.Imagine that list!! Sorry it sounds hard but it just a basis for reasoning. The article will become a complete cluter of info. at times i becomes nessary to remove inf.. like i did on Sierra leone today. removing redutant info.BrianGroen (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a little info, my daughters uncle works in Guinea in an ebola region, but i did not report the region, knowing full well that he might return as a potential carrierBrianGroen (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC) exposed to Ebola.

besides Lagos is in the article. Port Harcourt is in the Lagos district.BrianGroen (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Port Harcourt in the district of Lagos? since when was that? @BrianGroen: you are going to need to support that statement with a reliable source. FYI, Port Harcourt is just like any city in the United Kingdom or the United States. Saying that Port Harcourt is located in Lagos is just like saying Melbourne is located in Brisbane or that Rio De Janeiro is located in Sao Paulo. If this had happened in the United States every piece of detail will be mentioned like some kind of CIA report. Why can't it be reported the same way in the case of other countries since Wikipedia is assumed to be a worldwide project? Stanleytux (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Stanleytux sorry my mistake Port Harcourt in is in River state as indicated on the map. We have in about 40 + areas in total , cant report on all of them.. will cause enormous clutter.. Refer to a DRN if you are not happy with the this . BTW i am not from the united state but i live in africa..BrianGroen (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with other editors. It's very very good news that the Nigeria outbreak has been contained with just 22 cases, 8 deaths. But Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone have thousands of cases, thousands of deaths; this is where the fight is focussed now and our WP page should reflect that.Robertpedley (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Stanleytux i see your eagerness to have port harcourt mentioned . Checked Port Harcourt page. You are the main editor there. I have added small reference in Nigeria as per latest who report .., Suggestion, why don't you add a section health to port harcourt page.. then you can report it there. BrianGroen (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How can exponential growth stop?

The log-scale graphs need a short section discussing relevance, perhaps: "The log-scale graph is a straight line, this shows that ebola is currently increasing at an exponential rate, if it continues to increase at this exponential rate then the whole human population will have ebola by March 2016". At some time the exponential growth MUST break during the next 2 years (there are not enough humans to go past 2 years), and alternatives for breaks in the exponential growth must be discussed; will it be after suburb/city/country/continent(s) are infected; and when, where, why and how can it be stopped?

Mathematically it is clear: it will stop growing exponentially; what are the options? The time of break of exponential growth is THE crux of global interest for our species in this disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.231.80 (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It generally looks exponential early on but flattens out and declines in a bell-shaped pattern according to Compartmental models in epidemiology - cyclosarin (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think its fine to leave it the way it is. I mean all they are doing is showing that it is growing exponentially. I think a lot of time editors take out anything that seems to imply this could get much worse even if the article is just reporting facts.

That 20,000 figure from the WHO has been up here for weeks and its ridiculous. People just seem to be speculating that this won't affect hundreds of thousands. Why speculate when the exponential growth will end, when we have no idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.255.167 (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

20k was never a serious estimate, just a projection forward a couple of months. Case count doubles every 4-5 weeks. There's a lot about this in the "predictions" section. Feel free to change this if you like! Robertpedley (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Confirmed cases"

I have brought this up before but as conditions worsen, I'm bringing it up again. I question the inclusion of "confirmed cases" info in the lead because the average reader may assume that it is comparatively low because the remaining cases are not Ebola, which is not accurate. From WHO:

There are several points to be considered when interpreting epidemiological data for the EVD outbreak. Many of the deaths attributed to EVD in this outbreak occurred in people who were suspected, but not confirmed, to have died from the disease. EVD cases are only confirmed when a sample tests positive in the laboratory. If samples taken from a body test negative for EVD, that person is no longer counted among EVD deaths and the figures are adjusted accordingly. However, because laboratory services and treatment centres are currently overwhelmed in several countries, the numbers of probable and suspected cases, together with those confirmed, may be a more accurate reflection of case numbers. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is definitely something to deal with. The virus could easily spread faster than healthcare workers can test for Ebola. The suspected cases will rise faster than the confirmed cases. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If I were a sick Liberian, what are my choices? Stand in a very long waiting line bumping into people sicker than I am, or stay home – in which case nobody could possibly count me, much less confirm me? Art LaPella (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As soon as i get the latest totals for Liberia i will separate this issue , and clarify way confirmed cases is low. Gandy has a point it is a bit misleading. So my suggestion is a small paragraph added on this...expecting LB figures sometime today. Just bear in mind the labs are also over run with samples to test. But yes Art agree with you, if they don't have the proper centers to treat and if i was in there shoes i would also rather take my chances at home. Sound harse but id rather die at home than in the blazing hot sun in ques for days hoping to get admitted. Seen numerous photos of people dying in there ques.. BrianGroen (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Difficulty in getting reliable statistical data is mentioned several times. Not sure what else we can do. Robertpedley (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually there have been two edits clarifying this problem last night (U.S. time): [41] [42] Art LaPella (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did Liberia stop?

According to the data table, cases and deaths did not increase by a single digit from Sep 17 to Sep 20 in Liberia. How can that be? Is it a typo, or has the epidemic stopped there so suddenly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.168.226 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Liberian government does not issue updates every day! Robertpedley (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Liberia was late repoting.. Added it today. the report states 21 Sept but figures indicate 20 Sept. Hence treated it as such will update if i receive corrected date. BrianGroen (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sept. 18th WHO Situation Report - Depiction of Last 21 days cases / total cases-quotient

Hello,

i noticed the aforementioned quotient in the recent report, but to be honest - i dont quite get it. What exactly does it tell us? Of course, i understand that you can - to a certain extend - deduce a trend from it. But why do they choose the incubation period as numerator and not a random (e.g. 15) amount of days? I just dont get it, what specific information can be derived from this quotient?

Thank you very much in advance, i appreciate any help here.

PS: I have the feeling that this quotient is really interesting. Should this somehow be added to the article (progressing graph)

--LatinumPulchrum (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey LatinumPulchrum you haven't given enough information here for me to know your source. However there's nothing mysterious about a quotient - check Wiki!! Only 2 stats are important in an epidemic - the basic reproduction number which tells you if it's getting bigger or smaller, and the case fatality rate which tells you how deadly it is. Both are covered in this article; BRN is around 1.5 and CFR is around 50% (both very uncertain, due to difficulty of collecting reliable stats). Taken together these are very bad news indeed. Robertpedley (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting links. But that did not help me at all. I was talking about | page 2, chart at the top of the page. --LatinumPulchrum (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being a bit dim here. Do you mean where it says this?

Cases / Deaths
Total: 5,232 / 2,630
Guinea: 936 / 595 ..... etc

Robertpedley (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

i was refering to this WHO situation report, which was the reference for yesterdays chart update in the article.

The references mixed up, so my previous link did not work...sorry for that --LatinumPulchrum :(talk) 16:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

LatinumPulchrum 21 days seems to be the rough doubling time for this epidemic, if half the infections have occurred during past 21 days that means number of cases has doubled in 21 days and can be expected to double again in next 21 days. If its fewer than half the cases has occurred in that time, then (local)doubling time is longer thus it will probably take longer to double again and vice versa 89.235.235.174 (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Replace top image with SVG version?

Would it be possible for us to use the SVG version of the image at the top? If it needs to be updated, it could be done much easier with an SVG rather than a PNG. Thoughts? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to replace the png with an svg since it's higher resolution and the numbers can be changed much more easily. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi AmericanXplorer13 there is Svg available in coomons File:2014_ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa.svg Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi AmericanXplorer13 [43] BrianGroen (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

20 Sept Numbers.

Hi Dernier Siècle Just check report dates when posting

"1. COUNTRIES WITH WIDESPREAD AND INTENSE TRANSMISSION 5843 (probable, confirmed and suspected; see Annex 2) cases and 2803 deaths have been reported in the current outbreak of EVD as at 20 September 2014 by the Ministry of Health of Guinea, as at 17 September 2014 by the Ministry of Health of Liberia, and as at 19 September 2014 by the Ministry of Health of Sierra Leone (table 1)."

Will update Liberia when i get it. I have updated Sl so long. Kind Regards BrianBrianGroen (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note i will update the lead and main SVG as soon as Liberia release new numbers for 20 SEpt.BrianGroen (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello BrianGroen

Sorry but I don't want to post any first-party primary source figures, I only post third-party secondary source datas.

And CDC published exactly same figures as me on its current main page [44] --Dernier Siècle (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dernier Siècle understandable, but if you read the WHO report correctly you will see they get their numbers from the governments and not own numbers.. CDC just copy government numbers but don't look at dates.(Picked this up in the past) WHO at least state the date. CDC just add it, no dates. It is a nightmare to get all the numbers. I have to look at every report in detail WHO, CDC, OCHA, UNDA and goverments. My numbers correlate with OCHA and gov's and Map Response Kind regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

STOP NOW FREEZE THIS PAGE NOW!!!!!!! Hijack Alert

Seriously listen to me. This entire isssue has been hijacked by those with political interests.

Red alert drum beats.

I pick yesterday's announcement by Nigeria as cutoff date. No more EVD but West still Wants to send troops to help. Are you aware of 2,700 high-calibre arms shipped into Nigeria Feb 2014? Ship name Iron Trader Maybe that is real reason. Maybe not. Again as we know something is afoot.

Gandy Brian freeze page now. Think of us like war reporters. We needed those reporters to bring back photos To study. The record is lost if continuously revised.

Esp. If done so for political ends.

Duplucate page 100% and save two copies.

Rename copy one... 2014 Ebola virus disease initial epidemic outbreak

That page is then semi protected. It is this Snapshot of history we are destroying. By putting every new headline in this page no one has a good Way to review 100 years from now how it all began.

Rename copy two....2014 Ebola virus disease epidemic containment effort We can then purge page. New data here on.

Yes no mention geography. In the past geography was important since they were isolated.

Ebola search on google needs to land on page readers are looking They want to find data about epidemic not disease.

I working on entire page for just the single event of Patrick Sawyer. These is one of the many stories in history we must record.

We are not a ticker tape reporting every second. We can not Confuse possible propoganda.

The page is WORTHLESS to billions of cell phone users. We have to stop this nonsense of sourcing every detail. When and IF a point is obscure okay. But anyone can Google easy to find info on their own

Page three title...hold on.... 2014 Ebola virus disease outbreak: Freeze frame September 23, 2014 This page fully lock. As name implies there can be other dates in future that We freeze for future.

Pbmaise (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Puzzling. All Wikipedia pages are open to editing (although some are restricted to experienced editors, and some are restricted during edit wars), so I can't imagine the page getting "frozen". If you want to save the current version of the page, you are free to make a copy yourself, and Wikipedia also saves a copy in editing history. And if some evil cabal is about to invade the jungle (?!), our best defense against propaganda is to keep our pages open to editing, with strict sourcing requirements. Art LaPella (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

?,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can save a page. I can scan back. But 100 years from now a historian or school child cant. What we wrote thought did in what may very well be a world changing event is important. Today I am jumping up and down waving flags something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Houston we have an issue. Who saw it, what they tried to do, and what they failed to do is important. I want to scare you with the word. Endemic I studied the reports of third term women and babies exposed to Ebola.

Almost all women died giving birth 100% of babies died. If Ebola becomes endemic, and we have no way to prevent babies from being exposed, there may be few of us left. Pbmaise (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The page is not being continually edited "for political ends," it's being continually edited because this outbreak isn't over with and hasn't been completely studied yet, so new information is always coming in. To assert that it's for political purposes is just useless paranoia.

If, 100 years from now, people cannot view the article history, it's probably because the internet has collapsed and Wikipedia has been lost -- no article history, no article.

We are not in control of Google search results, which are somewhat personalized for each user.

We ALWAYS source any information. No source, no inclusion.

While there are an unfortunate amount of people dying from this, your claims that Ebola is going to nearly wipe out the human race are so paranoid I almost have to assume you're trolling.

This talk page is for article improvement, not a place for you to cry that the sky is falling. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And even if a Black Death is coming, this isn't fixing it. Art LaPella (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

???Updating on a ongoing event a political agenda, seriously how do do you come to that conclusion.BrianGroen (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ebola is being used as a political tool in Nigeria, but this article is a political tool for no one. The majority of the arguments/discussions and subsequent edits are about data/sources, as they should be. Snd0 (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Deliberate under-reporting of Ebola deaths

I've added a paragraph on this to the timeline sourced from a recent NYT article "Fresh Graves Point to Undercount of Ebola Toll" The story seems credible and helps to explain why the CFR in Sierra Leone seems anomalously low. If the story develops further it may warrant a separate section.Galerita (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've been thinking of adding something about it to the article for some time now. See for instance this: [45]. There are several editorials at that site as well. I think that Brian was possibly correct to delete the word "deliberate" from the timeline section because that may not be the right place to make such a claim, but I personally believe it to be accurate to use the word deliberate. Let's see what others think. I was thinking a paragraph in the Sierra Leone section might be the place to include the info. Gandydancer (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

See the Ebola editorials here: [46] Gandydancer (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the NYT article that might justify the use of the word "deliberate" here. -- The Anome (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed the word "deliberate" , but yes it clearly indicates what WHO has been saying for weeks "the numbers are vastly under estimated". IMO don't think it is deliberate, WHO and governments are so swamped they can't tally all the numbers. Lack of co-operation results in these kinds of mistakes. Remember we have a massive number of deaths and are definitely underestimated. Some patient do not even reach the treatment center where Ebola is treated, hence any case dying of Ebola symptoms are marked as such by the burial teams removing the bodies from homes, these bodies don't even see a hospital let alone an autopsy to determine case of death.. Whether these numbers are tallied on the report is unlikely if you ask me. IMO opinion it belongs in the Sierra leone section. .BrianGroen (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Map for all Ebola victims

I was thinking about creating a map which showed the countries where each Ebola victim was located. For instance, the United States has 4 victims, Spain had 1, I think Saudi Arabia had 1, etc. I think this is nice information to have, just to see what certain countries are doing with Ebola patients, and where victims are flying. Any thoughts? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry AmericanXplorer13, I don't think a geographical map will add anything of value to this article. What's maybe significant is that the countries who have medevaced their nationals are all in the top dozen or so of rich nations, with sufficient resources to pay for the quarantine flight and high-security isolation units. I think the US estimated $1 million cost for each of their 4 patients. The uncontrolled outbreak is in 3 of the world's poorest nations. But I think this is covered. Robertpedley (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Two possible cases in Europe

Two new cases in Europe.. will wait before i report but on case highly suspicious. Swiss new patient was in contact with family member with ebola. [47]

Italy will wait for lab confirmation. [48] BrianGroen (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like it might be a case. If it is, do we add it to the map similarly to Senegal getting one case added? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

yes it sound definite (Swiss one) AmericanXplorer13 so hopefully we will get the lab result soon.. give about a day then we add if positive. Possible senario article will then become pandemic.. Suggest we hang ten for a day.. BrianGroen (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I was going to throw out some designs for the map if it does become a pandemic, because obviously it would be a bigger map. Any suggestions on the design? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

AmericanXplorer13 I think we will have to cover a complete section i.e use whole page width if it happens. Lets ope not, but i'm afraid to say the inevitable is it is going to happen. The scare are going to turn real the more this disease is not controlled. BrianGroen (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I'll get working on a basic one of the world for when the inevitable happens. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Swiss suspect is clear. Robertpedley (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Countries With Imported Cases and Senegal

Shouldn't Senegal be listed as a country with imported cases, rather than one with local transmission, as no one was infected (to our knowledge) within the borders of the country? Also, I would consider moving Nigeria to a new section now that it is "Ebola-free". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.15 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I also wondered this. If Senegal is on the map, shouldn't Spain and Saudi Arabia, and the United States be on the map as well? AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There's another talk section about the title of this section and use of the word "imported", started by Pbmaise, but it's gone quiet. I'm going to change this to "medically evacuated" Robertpedley (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

HI Robertpedleysounds good to me. Just wondering if the possible swiss case that was not medivac. Still not reported watching for confirmation. Will go under active spread then.[49] greetings BrianGroen (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Swiss case now seems to be negative http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/suspected-ebola-case-in-lausanne/40796430 Saxmund (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

sierra leone

why are sierra leones fatality numbers so low?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Under-reporting. Plenty about this in the article and in other Talk topics. Robertpedley (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa Sierra leone lock-down figures will only be out on Thursday... I expect a huge jump then.BrianGroen (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. thank you.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see update d timeline lead for evidence of under reporting. BrianGroen (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian, the Thursday report doesn't show an increased number of deaths. The CFR is still below 30%. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi AmericanXplorer13 see note above.. Monrovia have note reported any cases and lock-down cases still not released.. I added it to the paragraph above the time line..Think it is going to be a massive increase soon. I monitor all sites that report cases daily no mention of it yet.Greetings Brian.. BrianGroen (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I was looking at this report. [50] AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

AmericanXplorer13 Still not in that one as well. BrianGroen (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nigeria and Senegal

Now that the WHO has stated that both Nigeria and Senegal have both successfully completed the 21-day observation of any person that had contact with an infected person, should we move them to a new category? Gandydancer (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do. "countries in which the disease has been successfully contained" maybe? Robertpedley (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Might be a little premature; the rule of thumb for declaring an outbreak over is twice the incubation period - ie. 42 days. There's already been one false dawn in Nigeria. Donners (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we prune those countries off the timeline table? It would make it a bit more manageable. 173.69.39.47 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And prune off some of the graphs as well. The Anome - your graphs are looking a bit stale! Robertpedley (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Donners (talk - I still think Gandy should go ahead with this edit - I know that Nigerian editors in particular are very keen to reclassify, so it might happen anyway. Maybe qualify the edit by mentioning your reservation - see here, page 9. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/134771/1/roadmapsitrep_24Sept2014_eng.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpedley (talk • contribs) 09:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Welll... I was going about doing just that because I can well imagine that Nigeria or any other country would want to be declared disease free, considering the terrible economic repercussions that they are going through. But going about it, I came across this: [51] (also see Donner's above post) and I'd also run across the WHO's manner of doing their headings into widespread and local, and decided that perhaps we do need to use the 42d period before come right out and call them disease-free. I am still working on Nigeria and will add some of the info from the source I just listed above. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we certainly can't declare a country disease free before WHO does!! Robertpedley (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Archived timeline

BrianGroen (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@BrianGroen: I reverted the reduction. I think the better way to do this is move all the data to a timeline article and have this article just display the graphs. Glrx (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Glrx the idea was to revert it here first then separate it in a article but still keep it bi-weekly on the timeline. But yes i know you did a lot of work in the beginning therefor did not want to wipe it out...Lets keep it for now but open a separate timeline article and only display the last months data here and preceding on monthly basis. This thing is going to become very long.. Regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Glrx i did request permission to do it, but this is your original work and i don't want to just go ahead without consensus.. Especially not on your hard work on this..Greetings BrianGroen (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)

Sorry, but I've been doing other things, and this is the first time I've looked at this article in about a month.

I agree that the timeline information is too dense for the amount of info it provides here. I think a wholesale move is better than trimming, but I'm open to keeping some recent data on this page because it is used in summaries and would get more eyes here.

BTW, my original intention with the checkmark was to have editors enter the data, and then another editor come by and check the data for accuracy. But I never put that in writing anywhere.

We should come up with a name for the timeline article.

Glrx (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry Glrx "Ebola epidemic in West Africa Casualty timeline"...not to worry i check most of the figures and they are spot on.. give or take a margin of error of about 0,05 % i think in latter cases and a date or two perhaps a day out but not enough to whack the line out.. Just thought about it not a brilliant idea to put bit on talk , some BOT will archive it...lol..BrianGroen (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Glrx been thinking about this. instead of moving it, i could build a collapsible table. Thus keeping it on the page but reducing and can be expand with on click. . greetings Brian.. BrianGroen (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Glrx timeline condense with a collapsable table Greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice jobMattojgb (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Splitting of some parts

The article is getting really long. I think it is time to take out some of the content and place in new (sub)articles. For example the tables and graphs with cases and deaths.Nico (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. (See above where it is being discussed.) Gandydancer (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "Responses" could be split as well. Gandydancer (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer timeline condense with a collapsable table Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep the graphs - they're a great way to convey a large amount of information in a small space. Is there any kind of Wiki guideline about the best way to manage a page like this which covers a complex and constantly changing situation? Robertpedley (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to archive the medevac cases as soon as possible, as they have very little relevance to the topic as a whole. Not just yet though. Robertpedley (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robertpedley looked into it i can do something similar with nations greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

WHO epidemiologist

This guy was medevaced to Hamburg, Germany on 27 August - four weeks ago. I can't find any update. Anyone? Robertpedley (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Germany very tight lipped about this. been mentioned in a bulletin a week ago, but no updates..BrianGroen (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Transmission - list of body fluids etc. by Starstr

Various edits by Starstr aim to expand information about the mode of transmission. Opposed because

we have sufficient information about modes of transmission in other sections
detailed mode of transmission is relevant to Ebola Virus Disease page. This page is about the epidemic, which is a different focus

Robertpedley (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Its just a little summary which is really required. The page barely mentioned the word "bodily fluids" before this section was added. Starstr (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Its beyond unreasonable to exclude the very substances causing infection in an article about a disease epidemic. Starstr (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Starstr 5 mentions of fluids before your edit. Robertpedley (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no list of fluids in the article before I added it. Starstr (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley thanks . I support this. We are already trying to trim the article a bit. It is covered under Ebola Virus. BrianGroen (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sweat and tears are not mentioned in those articles either. Starstr (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Starstr, this article is about the outbreak, not the disease. The link to the disease article is provided in the lead. The only subjects that we cover here are things unique to the outbreak. Perhaps if you feel transmission is not being properly addressed you should enter that info at the disease article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Responses section

I very strongly believe that we need to split this section into a separate article with a short summary left here. This section is already very large and is sure to grow, and contributes to the reason that our article now far exceeds the WP guidelines for article length. Please give feedback as I'd like to see this taken care asap. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Tricky. This is essentially a current affairs page, with content that evolves over time. At the moment, the two fastest moving areas are a) the countries with transmission(including timeline) and b) responses by NGO's and governments. I'd like to keep them together. If the article is too long, we should compress or move other bits. Experimental treatments, transmission both properly belong on the EVD page for example. Robertpedley (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I pretty much agree with you. Let's get rid of Experimental treatments and anything re transmission...and the intro to the Treatment section as well (but keep the "Level of care" section). But even still, that will not reduce the article nearly as much as we need to reduce it. I am constantly going over all of the info compressing it, but IMO if we do much more of that we will lose what the article is all about and devote more and more to the extremely lengthy (and bound to grow) Response section, which (other than the international organizations) I doubt is of much interest to most other than what their own country is doing. The last time I looked, the article was more than three times the recommended length. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

HI Gandydancer, Robertpedley before we start deleting i ma busy sandboxing response with a "hide show"... It is within Wiki rules just must see that all browsers i.e smart phone support it.. Similar to what i done on the time line greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Before you go to all that work Brian, please hold off because while it seems like a good idea to me, it is something I have seldom seen done in a case like this. I'm going to ask an editor who did a little work on the article early on to come over and take a look at it and see if he has any suggestions - fresh eyes from an experienced editor can be very valuable. Gandydancer (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gandydancer gives me a bit of gap.. some tricky source codes to add.. will wait fir you then Greetings from Sunny South Africa Brian BrianGroen (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)