Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Titanium Dragon (talk | contribs) at 03:44, 7 October 2014 (→Possible shortage of the production capacity of protective clothing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Western African Ebola epidemic was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 26, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western African Ebola epidemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Guinea / Liberia / Nigeria / Sierra Leone High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Guinea (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Liberia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Nigeria (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Sierra Leone (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Western African Ebola epidemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 days

A news item involving Western African Ebola epidemic was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 March 2014.

A news item involving Western African Ebola epidemic was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 29 June 2014.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about politics of Ebola containment. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about politics of Ebola containment at the Reference desk.

Possibly successful Ebola treatment with Lamivudine

Definitely something to watch for developments, cnn has reported that a doctor has successfully treated 13 out of 15 ebola patients that were given Lamivudine Blacknail (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, getting a pile of headlines at the moment. I'm sure there are 100 faith healers & witch doctors who are also claiming fantastic results. All sorts of reasons why it does not belong here - not good quality evidence being the principle one. Robertpedley (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that Meodipt has added it under "Experimental Treatments". There's also been an announcement by a hospital in Thailand that they have invented a cure but I don't think anyone is taking that seriously either. Robertpedley (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why you feel that this is not a valid "experimental treatment"? Surely the use of an antiviral drug that is already approved for treatment of one viral infection, to treat patients affected by a different virus for which there is no currently accepted treatment, is the very definition of an experimental, "off-label" use of the drug? After all its not like this is some crazy black magic treatment with no logical rationale behind it. If Ebola patients started turning up in droves at hospitals in any Western country you can be sure they would throw at it every antiviral they had on the shelf that might have a chance of success, to see if any of them worked. That is exactly what this doctor has done here, just as he is working in remote West Africa he only had two antiviral drugs at hand, and while acyclovir didn't work it seemed like lamivudine possibly might. This seems every bit as notable and relevant to include as drugs like favipiravir which has only been tested against Ebola in mice, and its only relevance is that Japan has offered to supply favipiravir in case anyone might hypothetically want to try using it in Ebola infected humans at some future stage. Lamivudine on the other hand is already being used in humans right now, and indeed seems to have been given to a lot more people than other experimental treatments like ZMapp. Whether lamivudine is actually effective at treating Ebola is not really relevant to the issue of whether its use is sufficiently notable and encyclopaedic to warrant mentioning in the Misplaced Pages article, and I would argue that it meets both those criteria. While it may be just this one maverick doctor using lamivudine at this stage, it has been widely reported in the media, which is usually a key criteria for notability here. This section is for "Experimental treatments", not merely "Experimental treatments endorsed by the WHO" or "Experimental treatments being developed by Western pharmaceutical companies", and if this experimental treatment meets the inclusion criteria, it should be included in the article. Meodipt (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably worth noting this drug, BCX4430 which is currently in trials funded by NIAID against Ebola and Marburg viruses, and has shown good results in animal models. BCX4430 is you will note, structurally similar to lamivudine and I believe has the same mechanism of action. So it is quite reasonable to suggest lamivudine as a possible treatment, and this article cites NIAID as saying they will be prepared to carry out studies of lamivudine against Ebola as well. I take it that once these studies have been started you will then feel lamivudine is a valid experimental treatment and worthy of being listed in the article, alongside various vaccines and other drugs that are still in pre-clinical studies or Phase I trials at best? Meodipt (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Meodipt - you could use the word "speculative" maybe, but not "experimental" because there is no experiment here. So far as I know, these 15 cases were not confirmed EVD patients. The alleged outcome - 13 out of 15 - is not independently verified and does not qualify for statistical significance. Specialised virologists are not jumping with joy at the news (see final paragraphs here --> ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertpedley (talk • contribs) 10:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi RP Your exception to the anecdotal report of a lamivudine treatment experiment reported with only historical reference to a case fatality rate is excessive. The point is its conduct, and its media reportage from a setting where the case definitions and controls desired in scientific conduct and reportage are lacking is not invalidating of the hypothesis. The reportage here is as relevant as reportage of any other treatment to date. The claims made are not conclusive of efficacy, it is just a media report of a case series worth noting with a statement of its several limitations, just like every other hopeful or 'promising' report with other limitations. Your sarcastic statements "...virologists are not jumping with joy" and "I'm sure there are 100 faith healers & witch doctors..." above are inappropriate. Speak to the issue, and allow due process. BCameron54 11:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

BCameron54 - Directly addressing the issue, this is Anecdotal_evidence, it does not match the criteria of an experiment. I am not aware of any reputable source recommending or evaluating this treatment, so it does not merit inclusion.Robertpedley (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that this is merely anecdotal evidence does not mean that it is not eligible for inclusion in the article. This attempted treatment is notable and has been reported by multiple reliable sources, and this is in itself sufficient grounds that it should be listed. I will emphasise again, it is not relevant for inclusion whether lamivudine actually is effective for treatment of Ebola, and neither is the question of whether a suitably rigorous experimental procedure was followed. I doubt virologists anywhere will be "jumping with joy" until this outbreak is well and truly dealt with, but the several prominent virologists that have been interviewed about this story in various media articles (including the one you cited), have all described these results as "promising" but stated that they will need to be verified with larger groups of patients under more controlled conditions before they can be considered reliable. This may not be an endorsement of the treatment, but it is hardly a scathing rejection of it either. Anyway the point is moot now, as this article cites NIH as saying that they are now investigating lamivudine against Ebola in test tube studies, which means it absolutely meets the criteria you are saying should be required. Unless you don't feel that NIH are a suitably reputable source? Meodipt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

MeodiptYour article actually says "I can't say it's a good idea or bad idea....It's one of those things where you're in a situation where you have no therapy, so you look for things that might be available....National Institutes of Health researchers have tested lamivudine's reaction to Ebola in test tubes. There was no response; but .... researchers will adjust some levels and try it again to see if there's even slight activity against Ebola. If there is ..... NIH would consider going to the trial stage." Sorry, it does not qualify to be described under "experimental treatments" until it progresses to the trial stage. There's a clear line, and lamivudine does not cross it - yet. In the context of the epidemic, what is relevant is those treatments which are being used or may become available in the near future. Other, more speculative therapies can possibly be included in the pages about the virus or the disease, but I don't think they are relevant to this topic yet (I saw ouabain mentioned a few weeks back). I can see you've added BCX4430 to the article, based on a couple of references which are now 6 months old. I don't want to get into personal war about this so I invite other editors to comment on this.Robertpedley (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that there are questions about including this drug in our Experimental treatments section. While this is clearly not the time to insist on rigorous studies and proof, a 16 patient "trial" done only a few days ago does not seem adequate to place this drug in our experimental section, IMO. However I don't consider my personal opinion worth much since it is only based on what seems to make sense to me, rather than knowledge about the issue. I've asked user:WhatamIdoing to take a look at this discussion and I will go along with what she has to say. Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The point is though, that lamivudine is being used in humans right now, while drugs like ZMapp and BCX4430 won't be ready until mid-2015 or early 2016. I must concede after doing some more reading that lamivudine does seem less likely to be the magic bullet it has been claimed to be by the media hype, but if lamivudine treatment for Ebola is ineffective and dangerous then surely this in itself is notable and worthy of comment? Having people falsely believe something to be effective when it is actually not can lead to all sorts of bad outcomes, for instance healthcare workers might take lamivudine prophylactically in the misguided belief that it will protect them from Ebola infection when it actually won't. However RP does make a good point, maybe it would be more appropriate to list more speculative treatments like this under the Ebolavirus or Ebola virus disease page rather than this page about the outbreak, but it does seem more in context to put it on the page about the West African epidemic when it is a treatment being trialled and championed by a West African doctor working in the middle of the outbreak. Anyway yes comment from other editors would definitely be helpful here. Meodipt (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't spent a lot of time looking into this, but based on what I've seen, the most appropriate choice would be a very brief mention in Ebola virus disease#Research. The basic message is "one person says it worked" or "very preliminary testing was begun at the NIH, so far with no success", neither of which are, strictly speaking, "biomedical" claims. This means that you could support it with any high-quality news article like this one. I think that to keep it in perspective, you want to emphasize the uncertainty and even the unlikeliness of this drug proving to be a useful treatment. Ideally, we could keep it to just one sentence (or two short ones), and then we can re-assess in a month or two to see whether even that much is warranted.

To be clear, I believe that this much could be permitted, but I would not mind leaving it out altogether. There's no policy-based mandate for including it. My thinking is more about the likelihood that inexperienced editors will probably keep adding it until we at least mention it, and a passing mention in the other article (which would be the most appropriate article) might make it easier to keep a lid on the speculation, without dampening their enthusiasm for editing Misplaced Pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok I have implemented this as suggested, though Jmh649 already reverted it once on the grounds that all available treatments remain speculative and unproven until officially approved. Anyway you guys have a look and see if you think any further changes are needed. Meodipt (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent splits

I have serious concerns about the splits that have been done is the last few days. They were done without any discussion and IMO, for the most part, they do not represent what should be an acceptable level of accuracy and skillful writing for such an intensely viewed Misplaced Pages subject. They are not uniform in what and how information is presented. For example, the Guinea article has an in-depth section of information about the virus. It has a transmission section that included unsourced information such as Ebola virus has not been shown to be airborne among humans, but it can be transmitted through aerosolization of body fluids, such as when an infected individual sneezes, vomits, or flushes a toilet after use", which I deleted since right now we must be certain to get at least that right. The transmission section has a study on virus transfer between pigs and monkeys, etc.

If it had been up to me I would have deleted these splits and insisted on a consensus-first policy for the article. I've been here since 2006 and have worked on several current, fast-moving articles that eventually were split and I've never seen anything like this. We now have a whole series of articles that are not, IMO, up to snuff, all needing work. I'm sorry if this comes across like a rant, but WP is about working together rather than a decision made by one or two editors. Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There had been some discussion about separate articles. In fact, you yourself have asked another editor to split off the 'responses' section. As for the separate country articles, each individual country is not well represented here at all. They are given short summaries. This means separate articles are needed. This is too big to contain in one article. As for the quality and content of these new articles, eventually they will all be consistent. They've just been created. It takes time. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

just my two cents(A SA saying for input). yes we need spin off as doc james and some other experienced authors suggested where the stub from here can be expanded. but this morning Nigeria was completely removed and just copied over. Yes it is advisable to create more expanded article, but to just point blank delete and only the content over is not per wiki rules. If it is going to be a straight forward copy without expansion the article will be marked for speedy deletion. I did friendly advise the editor there since he is new. Liberia was up for deletion exactly for that reason, but the editor subsequently expanded, although the quality of edit needs serious work on it. But if you create a new article the main still stays here until a consensus is reach to delete if needed. This is wikis rules. ask for deletion or reduction once the new article is up to standard. BrianGroen (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@5DL. Yes, please note that regarding the proposed Response section split there had been discussion and no editor offered any disagreements and then we asked Jytdog to go ahead with it. Sorry for shouting, but that's the way it's supposed to work in these parts: You offer a suggestion, it is discussed, and then you go ahead with it once group approval has been given. Both you and the other editor just went right ahead without discussion and created splits. Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Splitting#How to properly split an article Art LaPella (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer sure seemed on-board. Here are two of his comments.

. . .We are now left with the individual country sections and I'm about ready to agree to separate articles for them. It seems to me that as the epidemic has grown from an "outbreak" to an epidemic, with even a few suggestions of "pandemic" being dropped here and there, the news such as xxx country had this or that happen within it's borders is less important than the overall effort to confront the ever-spreading disease. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(Sounded to me like he was happy to see the articles spin off.)

Well, another maverick split - two down and two to go... I think that we should wait to remove our individual coverage of the affected countries until the new articles are cleaned up. What do other editors think? Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(This sounded like he was happy to see them go and was anxious for the rest to follow.)

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have looked up the word maverick in the dictionary (and taken special note of the synonyms) before you decided that I must have been "happy". At any rate, we can only hope that this does not happen again in the future, and move forward by beginning to do the much-needed work on the new splits. Gandydancer (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Gah. Yes issues. Efforts to repeat the signs and symptoms of Ebola as well as mechanisms of transmission of Ebola in each are occurring.

Should probably be re merged here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just looked at all the articles and they don't all say the same thing. Do you have diffs? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose we re merge these article

All this content 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in Nigeria is here. We appear to be duplicating content for the sack of duplicating. Others of these newly created articles include:

• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone
• 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• YUCK. Strong Support this article is NOT that large. There is no reason to start creating content forks that repeat the same things over and over again and force users to sift through drivel to find the simple facts they seek. - Floydian  _¢ 04:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Clean up : the article is quite large at the moment, and only going to get bigger. while much is duplicated, this needs to be cleaned up, (1)Put ALL relevant info for each of the regions in their own page, so that they are no longer regarded "stubs". (2)Brief explination and link to relevant pages in this one.. (Much like the DRC section).. There is WAY TOO Much to take in on this one page.. (3)these section also need trimming : Virology, Transmission, Prevention, Contact tracing, Travel restrictions and quarantines, Healthcare settings, Treatment, Level of care & Experimental treatments. Most of these are almost WORD 4 WORD from other relevant pages. You cant have everything on one single page, it's just toooooooo much.... Gremlinsa (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support There is and will be a lot of repetition in the main article already, there's no need to then repeat it all again in separate articles. However, considering how long this could last, the current state is unsustainable... I assume certain overly-detailed parts will be trimmed as necessary. 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States and others like it will be overwritten if they aren't deleted, as soon as there's a second case. Snd0 (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support and Clean-Up: All the above stubs are not necessary. I think sections 2-6 could be trimmed as they are covered at Ebola virus disease or Ebola virus.Greg Glover (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree with Greg section 2-6 could be trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, You can't vote re-merge articles that were for the most part, not split off to start with. Also, the have grown to include more then what is one this page. Your using a re-direct to block access to new content. Starstr (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  This appears to be attempts to simply duplicate content here across many other pages. If a split occurs, this is not the content that should be split. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  For the most part they were started as independent, and have also grown. Unfortunately many have copied content back to this page, and some additional content here has also been moved. One of the problems is that this page is getting very large (see previous talk here) and it will only get worse as we get more content about each country. Its not a situation where merge-unmerge is valid, because there is new content on these pages. Starstr (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, this is an inappropriate forum. These articles are already created. The appropriate forum is AfD. Secondly, Doc James isn't showing any diffs that these new articles are duplicates. He appears to be engaged/creating a battleground by blanking and redirecting the new articles and trying to start edit wars on the U.S. article. Nobody is taking that bait. Floydian nom deleted the article on the U.S. That ended soon after with a speedy 'Keep.' The articles are already created. Coming along after the fact is battle behaviour and possibly WP:TEND. And taking an iVote here and not on the article talk pages doesn't make any sense. The content in the new articles wasn't here. In fact, Doc James is going on about having a transmission section on one of the new articles when this article didn't have one until I suggested it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• These "new" articles were shoddily put together such that the picture on the Guinea page refers to Liberia in the caption.

  Check out . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems here is were talking about several articles, and the Nigeria article was indeed a split. That is why I said "..For the most part.." in my comment. That was split off because people were saying this page was too large, and its probably better to handle the Nigeria page separately. Starstr (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Starstr. This article can be put back with fresh content that does not duplicate anything here. In any event, this is still an inappropriate forum for this discussion. A handful of editors on this article cannot decide AfD issues that belong to the wider community. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I forgot that. Pot meet kettle. In any event, this article should be an overview and not attempt to provide in depth coverage on 6 countries. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Your previous comments are like a voice of reason. Starstr (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Strong support These articles were added without any discussion what so ever. Other than the Nigeria article, they do not meet WP's standards for accuracy and IMO they do not meet any standard for what is appropriate for what should be included in an article which is supposedly about a particular country's epidemic coverage. The reason that the Nigeria article actually meets acceptable standards is that it was copied from this article in which multiple editors have worked for several weeks to present accurate and appropriate information.

For some time editors of this article have been aware that the length is excessive and some measures needed to be taken. Through group consensus it was decided to move the Responses section to a new page, and that will hopefully be completed today. If the group decides on a "countries" split as well, I would suggest that all of the countries be placed in the same split article for now. In an article on a subject that is so newsworthy, it is common for editors that are not at all familiar with WP guidelines to add information that is not appropriate, and it takes the established editors many hours a day to continually go through the article sifting through the new edits. We just do not have enough editors with the time to place seven articles on their daily watch list to check for errors, etc.

Keeping in mind that an eventual "country" split would take place, some of the present editors have assumed that the present introduction that includes an overall history of the West Africa outbreak would remain, while the individual coverage sections would constitute the split article or articles. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Support was up for the split in the beginning but in quite honesty the articles are of very poor quality at best. In civility i suggested to one editor who did a reasonable article to work on his wording etc, but was ignored. One article has about five maps each with different areas on each. This could be on one map. Quite frankly they are not up to scratch. References are poorly sited. There are a lot of other issues but in civility i will refrain from mentioning them. Personally i don't want this good article to be link to those. Seriously to the editors do some homework before nominating it for a spin off. I might take a fallout on my opinion here, but even me with my bad English i can do better than that. The split will com but sandbox the article align it properly then nominate for spin off. Quite frankly i will support a WK:AFD if it comes to it now. BrianGroen (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your frankness Brian. In all honesty, I was ready to leave the article this morning as I was not willing to have my Misplaced Pages name connected to such poor articles, so I was ever so happy to see them no longer linked to. I think for me the statement in one article saying that "casual contact" would not spread the disease was the clincher. Many thanks to those that have come out strongly against these articles until they meet our WP standards. Gandydancer (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's safe to say that consensus is emerging. I'd say give this another 24 hours, and unless a strong argument is raised, then go about merging any useful new content into this article, and redirecting those articles to the appropriate subsections of this article. With the responses section split, I think everything should fit in place nicely. - Floydian  _¢ 13:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Support mainly because these articles are all from the same original article, I don't think there's a need for there to be multiple of them when they can all be covered in one page. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose any action to claim this is consensus until this question has been resolved by this RfC: here. The editors did NOT oppose the creation of these articles before they were created. It was only AFTER the fact. Therefore, this issue should best be decided by the wider community. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You have already opposed once and no this is not how it works. There is clear consensus here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed the oppose. Didn't mean to have two. I was responding to Floydian's claim that it was emerging consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Support, there is no reason to create separate articles. There is a growing trend in WP to create more article than needed. This crates redundancy and it is not functional to the objectives of the projects. Would you find separate articles in the Britannica? Well, you know the answer. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose unless the rest of the article is summed up and shortened substantially. It is already very verbose and some sections like the Timeline show numerous redundant graphs that don't add much value. Others like Virology, Transmission, etc sections are mostly repeats of what is already said in the main EVD page. MrPhelps (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The primary discussion here is what should this article contain? IMO it should be about the outbreak of Ebola that started in West Africa. Thus one would discuss the outbreak and the countries that it affects plus organizations responses and economic effects.

There should be one section on "background" that gives a very BRIEF overview of virology / transmission, prevention and treatment concentrating on how they related to this outbreak. These should otherwise be dealt with in other articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate forum. The articles are created. They do not duplicate content. They are not forks. Stop blanking them and redirecting them. That's disruptive to the project. If you think they should be deleted go to the appropriate forum. The AfD board is the appropriate venue for this, not this talk page. It is inappropriate to attempt to delete these articles on this talk page. This is an issue for the wider community. The AfD on the U.S. article was closed as "Keep." Why aren't you nominating the new articles for deletion instead of attempting to do it here? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SW3. Thanks Starstr (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, this is a conent dispute and doesn't belong anywhere else. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy and the discussion can happen anywhere. I will open up an RfC if necessary. The argument that these forks contain new content that is being "blocked" is a fallacious straw man; the content, if it isn't unnecessary coverage, overuse of quotations or news broadcasting, could easily be incorporated into this article. It is rediculous that a single case of Ebola in a country warrants an article, that is WP:NOTNEWS at its finest. As mentioned, a content dispute doesn't belong at AfD per the conditions of AfD regarding redirects, and such content can certainly be discussed back into the parent article. - Floydian  _¢ 15:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it a content dispute? Where are the diffs of disputed content? The Nigeria article content was copied from that article and put here! These are new articles and any decision to delete should be placed at AfD. Especially, given that the AfD you started was closed as Keep after a few hours. This article here should focus on being a good summary of things, it should not attempt to be in-depth as that is simply not possible in an epidemic crossing borders into 6 countries. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL said:The Nigeria article content was copied from that article and put here! That is not correct. Please check back to before the content was moved to a new article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are the diffs of the disputed content. There are better delineations that we can split this article by, and there are many places to trim out excessive trivial details and summarize information into a format that is more easily digested by the many readers of this article. - Floydian  _¢ 16:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One reason we have splits is some people are saying things like ".. thus cutting the length of this article as is urgently needed.." Others are moving content back here and making redirects, and this seems to be where the problem is coming from. Starstr (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Floydian, If you feel the articles should not exist, then follow policy and go to AfD and let the community decide. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What policy? Plus WP:AFD says right at the top to consider an alternatives "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." - Floydian  _¢ 18:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for new chapter - Search for new strategies

I would like to insert a new chapter in 5 Treatment after 5.1 Level of Care. I read mostly about common techniques to isolate patients in special high security treatment facilities. At the end of the chapter Level of Care, the reader is told, that there are thousands of hospital beds missing. I would then like to know, what actions are done to solve this problem. And a natural question is What shall I do, if my hospital does not accept the person I care for?

I propose therefore to add the following chapter:

Search for new strategies

Measures are done to provide support for families that are forced to care for patients at home. An organization send with other supplies, also caregiver kits intended for interim home-based interventions, in cases where infected community members cannot go to an Ebola Treatment Unit or a Community Care Center. These kits include protective clothing, hydration items, medicines, and disinfectant, among other items. It is discussed, whether usual hospitals are no good place to care for Ebola patients as the risk to spread the infections is to high there. Patients should be isolated, so that they cannot spread the infection. The WHO and non profit partners launch a program in Liberia to move infected people out of their homes into Ad Hoc Centers that will provide rudimentary care.

To care for Ebola patients at home is still not advised, but an option following WHO. If home care is choosen, the WHO advises to inform local public health authority and to receive appropiate training and equipment.

References

1. "Ebola Supplies Arrive in Liberia". Samaritan´s Purse. 2 October 2013. Retrieved 3 October 2014.
2. "Are Hospitals Part of the Ebola Problem? Charity Wants New Strategy". NBC NEWS. 15 September 2013. Retrieved 03 October 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. "New effort to fight Ebola in Liberia would move infected patients out of their homes". The Washington Post. 22 September 2014. Retrieved 2 October 2014.
4. "Frequently asked questions on Ebola virus disease". WHO. 8 August 2014. Retrieved 3 October 2014.

Any comments? Is this the right wikipedia article? Are there other articles where this fits better? Is the quality of the text OK, at least for adding it? --Malanoqa (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

as long as its sourced and its not original research, its fine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to throw a monkey wrench into your edits. But what you are proposing is found here in the Ebola virus disease article. Why do we need it repeated in the this article?

Dear Greg Glover, the proposed content is not in the Ebola virus disease article, although Ebola virus disease and this article contain otherwise similar information regarding treatment of Ebola. The chapter I propose describes actions discussed or done to handle this epidemic, which differs substantially from previous Ebola epidemics. If you disagree, please explain in more detail, which content would in your opinion be duplicated.--Malanoqa (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well I think this article should be specific to the outbreak. Treatment should be put in the Ebola virus diseases (EVD) article. From above, I support trimming sections 2-6. I'm not saying not to do the work or opposed to the content. I'm just more amicable that it being placed over in the EVD article. Greg Glover (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I very strongly support adding this information. It is appropriate for this article (rather than the EVD article) because it is a plan to improve care for people who are getting no care at all because the few hospitals that remain open have no available beds left. Furthermore, an unknown number of people are dying because their treatment needs for diseases other than Ebola are not being met, and with hospitals full of Ebola patients, what with such lack of the ability to prevent hospital-acquired infections, they are not unlikely to pick up the virus during their hospital stay. And all this is only going to get worse. Gandydancer (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. The explanation of treatment or lack of treatment, care or lack of care within the context of an outbreak is all the same thing. I think the word “treatment” is being confused with the word “resources”. Because medical treatment is lacking is not reason to reproduce a treatment section found in numerous places here at Misplaced Pages. Remember, the treatment of EVD is a global standard recognized by Misplaced Pages and WHO or the CDC is generally the authority. Greg Glover (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Greg Glover, you say the information of the proposed chapter can be found in numerous places in Misplaced Pages. I failed to find it, please cite the exact places, where this information can be found.--Malanoqa (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I now inserted the chapter into the main article. There where yet no statements, that the proposed chapter contains substantial errors. But it was supposed, that this information should rather be put into the Ebola virus disease article, to prevent duplication. But the articles regarding prevention and treatment are longer in this article, than in Ebola virus disease, so it there is a lot of cleaning still to be done. --Malanoqa (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

MalanoqaI think you have categorised this poorly. "Search for new strategies" is not a subject directly related to the epidemic, and your material doesn't really support the "search" title. You have added new material which is useful - the Samaritan's Purse contributions and the introduction of community care under WHO guidance. Both of these belong in the appropriate part of the "Responses" new page. Community care also deserves a mention under "Healthcare settings" Robertpedley (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley I understand the new "Responses" article as a list, of all institutions, countries, people who support. This chapter does not fit into this. It is not answering the question, "Who helps?", but "What can I do for a patient, if hospitals are closed and ambulance cars are not coming?" And as that, it is strongly related to prevention and to treatment, which are not part of the "Responses" article.--Malanoqa (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert, I just can't see how Responses would be the right section, but I think that your suggestion "Healthcare settings" would be excellent. Malanoga, since your first language is not English, the wording does need some work (as you suggested it would). If Robert agrees with a new placement, would it be OK with you if we fix the wording a little and move it? Gandydancer (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer Do you mean integrating the content into the chapter "Healthcare settings", or integrating only part of it and moving and renaming the proposed chapter? For me it is OK, if you do it.--Malanoqa (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Gandy - Happy with your proposal. In my mind the separate "responses" page should be charting the progress of the various agencies which are deploying equipment and personnel, more than just a list, so some of this material may be duplicated over there. Robertpedley (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert, after reading the refs I could well-see where you were coming from as well. :) But yes, all in all, considering that they better get going on alternate treatment settings over there, it is now well-placed. IMO Jytdog did the difficult job of setting this up quite well (with a few needed changes as we go along), and Healthcare settings is a good place for this and probably more to come in the next few weeks. Malanoga, I pretty much used your wording with a few changes which I assume had to do with translating the German way of using language to the English way. If you want anything changed, let me know. Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer, thank you for improving the wording and doing the move. Thank you, for me it is OK. --Malanoqa (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Nigerian deaths

Should we mention this in this article? If not, is there a place we can include this: Starstr (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 2 Nigerians died and more than 20 were hospitalized when they drank too much salt water after hearing about a hoax cure that it would be a protection from Ebola; the hoax started in August 2014.

I think it is relevant, but I do not know exactly where to place it. I would also like to have a second independent reference given for this. By the way, the first link you gave points to another article, and is not related to your statement.--Malanoqa (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not think that it should be included in the Nigeria article, and I've deleted it several times in the past. Even if two Nigerians actually died from drinking salt water after they saw it on a twitter, which I am not ready to believe until it is better sourced, it is not nearly significant enough for an article which packs their entire episode of the outbreak into just a few paragraphs. If anything, their article needs to be updated with the praise they have received for stopping the transmission so rapidly rather than an old news item about drinking salt water. Gandydancer (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Immune ebola survivors become ebola nurses?

Did this idea ever take off? It would be great to see it referred to in the treatments section if it did. Maybe the Liberians could export their survivors to earn very high pay!

http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2014/10/ebola-survivor-i-senga-omeonga-every-day-i-m-still-thinking-when-was-i-contaminated

"Q: What do you think of the idea of having people who recovered from Ebola help with caring for patients? A: Today we talked to the doctor in charge of ELWA 2, about this idea because there’s an acute shortage of staff. It doesn’t need to be health care workers. Non–health care workers can be trained, and those who recovered can be very helpful as patient assistants. They can give food and water and help the patient. The idea was welcomed but he needed to discuss this with health ministry and see if it’s willing to sponsor that kind of program and hire these people."

Here in Misplaced Pages I would not formulate it that enthusiastic, and "...to export their survivors to earn very high pay!", is a personal opinion you might say on the talk pages, but not in the article. But apart from that, caring Ebola patients by survivors might became important, and I would endorse citing good references for this (Please do not forget to click on the button to enter signature and timestamp).--Malanoqa (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously great if it happens. I've been watching for this for a while, but it's not happening ... I wonder if there are ethical issues? (what if ebola immunity is like the common cold, it doesn't last long?). I think William Pooley (UK nurse, recovered) has expressed a desire to return. Robertpedley (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We have the above quote from Doctor Senga Omeonga, who is also an ebola survivor himself, this should surely be somewhere in Misplaced Pages. Not sure exactly where it should go though.

Sierra Leone death rate is much lower.

Does anyone have any information about the death rate being much lower in Sierra Leone than the other two main countries infected? Just look at the numbers at the bottom of the article. It seems very unusual. Hammerfrog (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hammerfrog that's come up several times under Talk. The answer seems to be that, the SL government is only reporting deaths of lab-confirmed EVD cases - and they don't have enough resources to keep up. WHO is constantly warning of under-reporting.Robertpedley (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hammerfrog firstly interesting nickname.. ok issue regarding Sierra leone, yes they only report confirmed cases as deaths. in essence they under count the death by about a thousand short according to Sylvia Blyden the president executive assistant. but it was reported in her news paper she owns and not officially so can't actually add it.. but the numbers will change again as soon as i have all the respective gov's reports as i have been doing in the past.. SL already not correct as per report .. Kind Regards Brian BrianGroen (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WHO coordination and strategy

Hi guys, I've extracted the outline below from WHO Strategic Action Plan for Ebola Outbreak Response. All of the agencies - e.g. US government & military, MSF etc. - are supposedly following the plan and coordinating so that resources go where most needed. My question - does this table belong on this page, or in the separate "Responses" page? Robertpedley (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Robertpedley (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robertpedley IMO belong in responses...good job...BrianGroen (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brian. Gandydancer (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sierra Leone Updates

Updated numbers are continually available from the Sierra Leone government before they are reported by WHO. The link to the Sierra Leone health department is here: . I understand there is a desire to wait to update the timeline so that it can be tabular, but there's no reason why the infobox at the top can't be updated immediately once new information is available from a WP:RS. 173.69.39.47 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It all being done with good intend, yes we can update daily but it is very time consuming and edits on maps tables etc..This was the outcome of a dispute resolution a while back so we stick to that consensuses. Regards BrianGroen (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I read and re-read the DRN discussion, which I've linked here for convenience: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_98#Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa.23Semi-protected_edit_request_on_28_August_2014. I see no such consensus on timeliness, that discussion revolved around specific data points. I propose that WP:RS case/death totals be posted when available. Yes, this means that the map may be a few days out of date. That's fine, the map is separately dated. That means the table will be a few days out of date, but that's fine, the table is separately dated. This is an ongoing event, data will change rapidly as is becomes available. Misplaced Pages should have the most current reliable information available. The convenience of editors is not a reason to withhold publishing information 173.69.39.47 (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Err..."convenience of editors"...? Brian, you'd better ask for a pay raise :). Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

With full due respect to your proposal I fully understand your reasoning for this, but but it is more practical to keep in alignment. Going to be a bit confusing when we add certain totals in the info box, but the map don't correspond, or the table and adding every new release number as they come along to the timeline is again going to lengthen the article. And quite frankly cause unneeded edits and re edits.. etc. Not disputing WP:RS . The timeline is updated timelessly as it arrive and trust me it is a bit of nightmare. been doing it for a while now..BrianGroen (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I would propose that the table be eliminated, as it is just a collection of statistics per guidance in WPIN. While I agree that the graphs are useful in helping readers understand the chronology, the table IMO just serves to make the article lengthy. This would obviate the issue over table updates which are inaccurate anyways because the dates don't align exactly from country to country. And, with due respect noted to your extensive contributions, your arguments basically boil down to WP:IDL and WP:OWN. Stop blocking legitimate updates that we all agree are WP:RS and allow other editors to participate.. 173.69.39.47 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If the tables are eliminated, the graph will have to be eliminatad too. It is already a hard work to maintain the graph, but without table, I would be forced to maintain also the correct numbers in a private table. That is impossible. With the table, I as every ready can easily compare the graphs with the numbers presented in the table. The table may be removed in a year or so, when there are references available that list all this numbers. But not now, when this numbers are just appearing, and no valid reference keeps such a table publicly available and actual.--Malanoqa (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a news source. It would seem preferable to me to update the table once updated figures are available for all of the countries.Mattojgb (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I find the tables and graphs very helpful and IMO the editors who do the upkeep are doing an excellent job of it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@ip editor go ahead i'm tired of fixing your stuff ups... got better things to doBrianGroen (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Washing the dead

Could we have some detail on the question of who washes their dead? Is this a local religious practice coming out of the animist traditions? Is it Muslim? Is it a local Christian practice? It would seem to be kind of important to understand the details of what seems to be a significant transmission vector. TMLutas (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

that is in fact an interesting question, one gets so wrapped up in the "ebola news" , that one forgets so many important aspects that are related to this event, as the one you just mentioned--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozzie10aaaa,TMLutas Its a standard Muslim tradition. see Islamic_funeral perhaps add the wikilink. it is in a article on wiki. But this mostly apply to Guinea and Sierra Leone . Muslim main religion there 70% plus. Liberia only has 12% Muslims. Greetings Brian BrianGroen (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a world-wide tradition, including every nationality and every religion. Here in our "civilized" part of the world, it is done by strangers in the mortuary. Some mothers regret till the day they die that they were not allowed to hold their dead child. Gandydancer (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC on whether or not to keep these new articles, here.

• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia
• 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Sierra Leone
• 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States

SW3 5DL (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Link to Ebola Guinea Article

The 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea Article contains still less content than is presented here. I therefore removed the link (Main article: 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea). Gruznov inserted it again. But why directing the reader to an article that contains much less content (and especially no new content), then in this article?--Malanoqa (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You can't expect the article to grow with the page blanking and efforts to stop it's development because a handful of editors want to control the entire topic. These are sovereign nations, not a conglomerate of states known as West Africa. This article here should be a good summary of the countries, while focusing on the larger situation. SW3 5DL (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be difficult to add content for guinea, as the main language there is french. But I started to work on the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in Guinea Article, so I now propose not to remove the link.--Malanoqa (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion as an Experimental Treatment

Hi, kind and gentle Wiki editors. THere's a debate about the inclusion if Lamivudine elsewhere on the talk page. Please can you you give your opinion as to what criteria we should apply in this article (which is about the epidemic in West Africa) for inclusion under the heading as an Experimental Treatment? Many thanks. Robertpedley (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the section on experimental treatments should be moved to the main Ebola article and this article should only refer briefly to the use of ZMapp to treat a very limted number of cases. Mattojgb (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Mattojgb - for treatments which are not likely to be approved in the near future, I agree. However WHO has given a specific dispensation for treatments to be used in this emergency which have not gone right through the normal, lengthy Clinical_trial and approval process. I think treatments which fall within this category deserve mention either on this page. Or maybe on the "responses" page.Robertpedley (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Senegal (and Nigeria)

I moved Senegal to "Countries with an initial case or cases" as, as far as I can see, it is in a similar position to the USA - one imported case with no known onward transmission. (The USA is of course "no known onward transmission at the moment" as there at least one case where transmission is suspected.) It should not be in "Countries with former local transmission" as (a) as far as we know there was no local transmission and (b) it isn't "former" yet as the 42 day case-free period hasn't passed. Gandydancer reverted it with a comment that the 42 days haven't passed, so I don't understand why he moved it back to a former cases category.

I don't think Nigeria should be in "Countries with former local transmission" yet as the 42 day period hasn't passed there either.

So what is the rationale for Nigeria and Senegal being where they are? I would place Nigeria back in a "Countries with limited local transmission" category until the 20 October, and Senegal in "Countries with an initial case or cases" until the 14 Oct. Once those periods are completed they can go in a "countries with former outbreaks" category.Saxmund (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I thought I was reverting to the long-standing placements but it seems that I missed a recent change... Sorry, and please revert back to the former placements. Gandydancer (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Change made. Saxmund (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Saudi case?

I see the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/ebola-virus-pandemic-should-be-treated-the-same-way-as-threat-posed-by-nuclear-weapons-security-officials-say-9771219.html is reporting a Saudi case and death. I haven't seen any further report of this, other than earlier in the epidemic when the Saudis had a suspected case that turned out not to be Ebola. Has anyone else got any information on this or is the Independent just wrong? Saxmund (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Saxmund about two months ago , but it was subsequently not a ebola case but as heart condition. Greetings BrianBrianGroen (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

sierra leone

records 121 deaths in a single day,,, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/06/us-health-ebola-leone-idUSKCN0HU0ZT20141006, ..this could be the beginning of a major adjustment in the CFR with regard to Sierra Leone, if so, I wonder if neighboring countries will follow in both cases and fatality numbers. --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Spain

First case now reported in Spain. A nurse who treated one of the missionaries brought back to Spain has tested positive. http://www.lavanguardia.com/salud/20141006/54416808823/enfermera-atendio-misionero-garcia-viejo-contagiada-ebola.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.153.222 (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This now means a title change from "epidemic" to "pandemic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.166.187 (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola confirmed by second test. El País now reporting in more detail. Pax in Alcorcón (state: Madrid). http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/10/06/ciencia/1412611515_352524.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.153.222 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Per BBC tested positive. Not confirmed.

As soon as the WHO or CDC calls this a pandemic we will call it a pandemic. Not before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Appeal to authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.166.187 (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is what we do here. That is what WP:V and WP:NOR requires Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

it need not be called pandemic, but certainly the title is a little "old" at this point, perhaps just "2014 ebola outbreak" or something along those lines--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Would be happy with moving it to 2014 ebola outbreak. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

oppose While it's now on 3 continents, and Spain now has the title of the first infection out side of Africa, the nurse contracted EVD while tending to a EVD patient.. and had a high risk of been infected (as with many of the early responders), It's still not on the streets of Spain.. Pandemic only when announced by WHO or CDC.. as per WP:MOVE no valid reason for the rename exists. Gremlinsa (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

support Regardless of risk, local transmission outside Africa is now a fact. Cases in 3 continents is fact. USA and Spain do not differ from Senegal or Nigeria in any aspect other than that they are not in Africa. Plus nurse at hospital specially selected for evacuated ebola patient should have had ample precuations. as per WP:MOVE Scope of article has changed 84.52.41.9 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

support its about the entire event, and the title should reflect that--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - This is certainly an epidemic so I don't think 'outbreak' is suitable. The disease is undeniably focussed around West Africa, that may change and would support a move if and when. |→ Spaully  22:11, 6 October 2014 (GMT) 22:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

support: but only if the article takes advantage of the new title and refocuses and becomes a better overview. Also, not outbreak. It's an epidemic. Can move it to pandemic if the WHO/CDC call it that. Thanks for the heads up, Ozzie. I left you a reply. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Support: Now we have transmission outside west africa, there's no reason to keep the west africa in the name,it's misinformation. But I also agree that we shouldn't call it pandemic, we have to wait for WHO. ClaudioUEC (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

So are we discussing 2014 ebola epidemic than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to go with that. The year gives it definition rather than sounding generic as an epidemic. And you know the journals and news agencies, etc. will likely tag it like that. And the epidemiologists do date the outbreaks from their start. Might as well add it. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

so we need more votes, please vote either support/oppose.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The CDC calls this the 2014 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa]. If the CDC/WHO call it something else, then we can switch to that. Until then, it needs to keep its current name per our usual naming conventions. Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, this should be called outbreak, not epidemic; the CDC calls it such, and outbreak is the more commonly used name by the press as well (15 million vs 2 million results on Google for the 2014 "ebola outbreak" vs 2014 "ebola epidemic". Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Spanish case

This ref says it is not yet confirmed

We are presenting it like it has been confirmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Unclear how reliable this Spanish source is Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Spanish newspaper El Mundo and all national radios (Radio Nacional de España, Cadena SER, Cope, Ondacero) take the first case as true. 85.53.189.66 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

In last few minutes is confirmed here by BBC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Representants of the Spanish Health Ministery are in Radio Nacional de España (right now) and takes as confirmed the case. 85.53.189.66 (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Second possible case in Spain: http://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/Analizan-posible-enfermera-hospital-Paz_0_310769863.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.36.52.31 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This night, in the most important TV news —Telediario (channel: La 1), Antena 3 Noticias (Antena 3) and Informativos Telecinco (Telecinco)—, this possible second case has not been reported. The first case is true, according to the Ministerio de Sanidad (Ministry of Health). MrCharro (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible shortage of the production capacity of protective clothing

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

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

References

1. "Schutzanzüge werden knapp". DER SPIEGEL (in German). Germany. 6 October 2014. p. 117. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

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

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

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

New table ready for Spain data

I modified the table, it's ready for new data. The format is the same, I just wasn't too sure what the new figures were.

Deleted table here else a whole lot of references are going to follow us..BrianGroen (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody remove the Spain from the table data?

Somebody added the single case to the table showing all cases. The reference they used does not have the Spanish case, and the date is set as the 1st, as opposed to the 6th. This either needs to be removed, or updated correctly. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi AmericanXplorer13 no offence to you.. i would have done this but are now watching from a distance.. Been up keeping this data for a while now , but getting tired of chancing it back just because some editor in his/her brilliance decided to start changing figures because it is not according to wp:rs. so the data/dates are all whacked out.. tried to fix it just to have it reverted.. quite frankly i got better things to do than fixing this the whole time. BrianGroen (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Africa articles
• High-importance Africa articles
• C-Class Guinea articles
• High-importance Guinea articles
• WikiProject Guinea articles
• C-Class Liberia articles
• High-importance Liberia articles
• WikiProject Liberia articles
• C-Class Nigeria articles
• Low-importance Nigeria articles
• WikiProject Nigeria articles
• C-Class Sierra Leone articles
• High-importance Sierra Leone articles
• WikiProject Sierra Leone articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class virus articles
• Mid-importance virus articles
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles