Talk:Ebola virus cases in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Proposed merge with Thomas Eric Duncan

Non-notable person except for the Ebola case. Besides, most info is about how he got Ebola, which can be merged into that case. Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Hda3ku (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The title (of the target article) can be changed to Ebola virus in the United States. It doesn't have to specify one case, as there might be other cases that arise. In any event, the point of the article is the first case of Ebola diagnosed in the United States. The article isn't about him as a person. So I don't see the point of a merge since the information about him is already in the other article. Perhaps what is needed is to delete Thomas Duncan article. But I will say, he is notable as being the first person to ever introduce Ebola virus into the United States. And the epidemic is notable. I think it might be best to wait and see on his article before suggesting any merge or a delete. The situation is still evolving. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and merged the article boldly. Should I undo it? Most all info in there is duplicated in this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No. I admire the bold move. If something comes up with him later, it can always be undone. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I think the article should remain focused on the newly-imported human disease and case(s), not about the virus. The title is actually wrong as it's misleading, IMO. Hope someone can change it back. --Light show (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with bold merge. Non-notable person, currently, during a notable plague outbreak. however, the person may become the 21st century version of Typhoid Mary, Ebola Tom. Geraldshields11 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed

Much of this is duplication of other articles. I think we need to keep it focused. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It still needs to be comprehensive. I'll work on shortening things but I wanted to provide as much information as possible for readers. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the transmission and s/s sections because they are well sourced and relevant to the topic. There's no reason why this information should not be here, especially as there is no reason to believe the reader is going to search out these things on WP. Many readers may well be coming to the U.S case page for this kind of information. The virology section could be easily reduced, but removing huge swaths of the article without prior discussion seems disruptive. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Imagine if we have an article on every disease for every country in which the disease occurs and we repeat all information in all article? What a disaster that would be. No we do not need to repeat everything about transmission and signs and symptoms here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You really need to discuss here first, rather than reverting like that. Removing all that content is disruptive, especially as you've done it again without discussing first. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Trying to duplicate content across many pages is disruptive. This article is specifically about the case of Ebola virus in the United States. It is not about all aspects of Ebola. It is not about Ebola transmission generally. It is not about the virology of Ebola virus. We have pages on all of those. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Anything more than a very brief lead-in to the main virus article, by using a hatnoted synopsis, will cause problems. The goal of a synopsis should be to force people to get the full details by clicking the hatnote. Otherwise, the text and cites to the subject will eventually differ in both articles. Discussing anything about the virus needs to be matched at all times, so splitting up the subject to two articles won't work, IMO. --Light show (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox suggestion

I think a more flexible infobox would work better, so review this sandboxed version as one idea. It allows us to add more defined titles to the figures if necessary. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks really good. -- Veggies (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)\

Yes. Good job, btw. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As of 6 October 2014, the info box looks good. Geraldshields11 (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Article content suggestion

When I wrote the article I included a section on transmission, the virus, and signs and symptoms. Another editor keeps deleting these without discussing first. I'd like to restore at least the transmission section and the signs and symptoms as it seems this new article will attract readers from America who are likely not at all familiar with Ebola virus. Other articles on Ebola do exist, but having at least these two sections seems to me to be informative. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We do not need to repeat the EXACT same information in all the new articles you have created. This article is NOT about the signs and symptoms of Ebola. It is not about the transmission of Ebola. It is about a single case that has occurred in the US. And it was discussed above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way these articles were created without discussion Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Recent_splits Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The idea is WP:BRD. I reverted you. You need to discuss. But instead, you came right back and reverted. That's an edit war. And it is not the exact information as if it were taken whole from another article. I wrote this last night. It's well sourced. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You added. I reverted you. You now need to discuss. Instead you have re added again. Exactly you boldly wrote it last night. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's now how it works. The content was here, you came along and deleted without discussion here and here and here. I reverted you. Read WP:BRD. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, it seems absurd to have an article about the outbreak of an infectious disease and not tell the reader what the signs and symptoms are and how the disease is transmitted. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the outbreak not about the disease. Info about the disease goes on that page. Really we should merge all these articles back into Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please indicate below if you support/oppose retaining the transmission and the signs/symptoms sections

• Support - because the article is about the outbreak of a virus that causes a disease. That means the reader naturally wants to know how it is transmitted? And would also want to know, What are the signs and symptoms? Ebola in America is a first ever occurrence. This article will be an important resource for many readers. It should be comprehensive. Also, it doesn't violate any WP:Policy for them to be here. Many disease/virus/outbreak articles repeat information. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What about Reston virus? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It is covered in the article about Ebola virus disease which we link to. We do not need the same material covered in a whole bunch of articles. We now have like 6 of these article. We do not seed the signs and symptoms and transmission of ebola in 6 additional articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, if sections are shortened to a synopsis or summary of 50-75-words. For the "transmission" section, for example, it could have a hatnote linking to the specific section of the virus article, like so:
  Further information on Ebola transmission: Ebola virus disease § Transmission

I also think that the section called Epidemiology should be changed, as the term is misused for the material there, and should probably be called Background, or something like that. Since this article will be about cases, keeping jargon to a minimum would help most readers. --Light show (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The transmission section I wrote [1] seems to be a good synopsis as is compared to the wall of text on the main article. I'd like to keep it as is for this article since it's already a synopsis. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

On the Epidemiology, you're right. That section should just be about his path from Liberia to America and his diagnosis. The other info could be put in another section. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I too agree with a brief summary of transmission and symptoms, with hatnotes linking to the appropriate sections in the Ebola virus disease article. The summary shouldn't be long, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment, when I wrote the transmission section, I made a special effort to keep it short and visually simple. I'd like to keep that as is. The signs and symptoms can be shortened easily especially since the image I used, also has that information. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean it is important to keep the image of the straw colored fruit bats as they have played a direct role in the US case? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Summary style only. While this article should briefly give an introduction to the virus it should not be a duplicate of the main article. I see no need for multiple section headers for this. I am suspicious that what we know about how the virus is transmitted is going to change, either due to better understanding or evolution, and it should be centrally updated. Wnt (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Please provide a basic summary of the virus, disease, and other relevant history with links to relevant articles. Starstr (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Agree with all suggestions to be brief/summary and provide links to main. I'll work up new sections and post them on a subpage with a link. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to a draft of the suggested transmission section. Feel free to edit as you think best. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a section called "background" that gives this info as well as a bit on virology and signs and symptoms rather than three separate sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Section added per above consensus

I'm adding a section and subsections with brief summaries and hatnotes as noted above. Feel free to fix, rephrase, update or edit as necessary. --Light show (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Main topic of article and potential confusion

I see a few areas of potential confusion by typical readers:

Per the parameters of the article's subject, it refers to the first ever case of Ebola virus disease diagnosed in the United States. If that's the focus, then the name will probably have to be changed, since there are other cases in the U.S. that were diagnosed in Africa, like this one today, who's being flown back here. Also consider if he flew back on his own before showing symptoms, then he would have been a case per the article. Is the geographical location of diagnosis something that warrants an article? Note that three Americans who were infected in Liberia were flown back to the United States and have since recovered. Without giving it a lot of thought, maybe all cases in the U.S., regardless of where they were diagnosed, would make more sense. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The title refers to first diagnosis on U.S. soil. But having a section for the Americans who are being flown back to America for treatment would be a good idea. Also, I think perhaps a section on the problems in Texas with infrastructure. The CDC has always said it's not a problem caring for a patient in America, but I just read a New York Times article about the problems in Dallas with disposing of contaminated linens, and in hiring a firm to clean the patient's apartment.here. Any ideas? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, if other cases are diagnosed in America, then the title can drop the word case, and we can call it 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in the United States. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think to cover all bases we should change "case" to "cases" in the article name, then revise the lead to include all cases in the U.S. regardless of where they were diagnosed. In a history section, we could describe the 1st case diagnosed in the U.S. Other sections could focus on active cases brought to the U.S. And for now, I wouldn't use the word "outbreak" until a number of very reliable sources used it, including the CDC. Ever seen the movie Outbreak? I believe it usually implies a very large number of sudden cases. --Light show (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'm sure readers are wondering about the other Americans. And on the use of the word 'outbreak' we can use it as soon as there is another case diagnosed on U.S. soil. That's an outbreak. I don't think it would become an epidemic unless all/some of the people on the two United Airlines planes get sick. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the page. I'll work on coming up with a section on the other Americans. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Technically "cases" breaks WP:CRYSTAL but by the time we would finish arguing over it there will probably be others anyway. It is possible, however, that multiple cases would not be an outbreak if multiple travellers arrive. And, immediate resolution might also be attained if data on the case medically evacuated to the U.S. is transferred here. Wnt (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I wondered about that too, but it's like you said. By the time we finish arguing, there might be others. In the event of new cases from this patient, we would change the title to include 'outbreak.' If it gets bigger than that then we could move to include 'epidemic.' SW3 5DL (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Section on infrastructure

What about having a section on American infrastructure to handle these cases? There's been alot written about the lack of infrastructure in Africa versus America, and I'm wondering if the reader would find that informative? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think discussion of, and comparisons of, infrastructure would be interesting and of value to understanding the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.190.243 (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd hold off on that topic. Unless a number of reliable sources write some articles about it, we'd probably be engaging in synthesizing facts at this point. In any case, it's really a separate and major topic. --Light show (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot on talk page

Does anyone have time to put up a bot? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

An archive bot? If so, then  Done. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done, Thanks! SW3 5DL (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

American cases diagnosed outside U.S.

We need a new section that discusses the American cases diagnosed outside America. Okay if we get that started? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DC Patient in isolation

I dont have time to edit article now but in DC there seems to be a patient in isolation with suspected Ebola: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/health/ebola-us/ just a heads up to those who can gather sources and have time to make the edits sorry for the informality Hda3ku (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep working on it now. Gosh we are all going to die...  Done EoRdE6 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

EoRdE6, can you also include the other Americans like Dr. Brantley? We can open a new section and put them all there. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, my issue there is in the future there will probably be many more. Can we really keep up with the story of every person? What about a list with links to personal pages? EoRdE6 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

EoRdE6 Good point. So far there are 5 Americans who've been medically evacuated. We can make a summary of each, and then link to their personal pages. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Washington, DC cases were confirmed not to be Ebola. Just update the infobox map if new and confirmed cases pop up. I disagree with personal articles about each Ebola case. 23:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Visa overstay coatrack from Center for Immigration Studies

@Gun Powder Ma: The WP:COATRACK here [2] is that he was a "likely visa overstay". This statement is seemingly based on Liberia having the 5th-highest overstay rate. There may be valid arguments to include (from secondary sources, not sourced to cis.org) about issuing him a visa in the first place, but not vague speculation. Also, the wording you used claimed as fact that he didn't qualify for a visa, when in reality the source is saying that they think he shouldn't have qualified for one. (We should note in general that he was traveling on a valid visa, but sources are unclear on what type of visa it was.) Removed Center for Immigration Studies ref: [3] IRW0 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see below. If you have an issue with the wording, this has no bearing on the fact that the passage is relevant, neutral and factual, and thus should be kept. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment as "likely visa overstay"

Concerning this edit, the Center for Immigration Studies names five factors why the Liberian should not have been granted a visa in the first place. This subject is obviously relevant to the topic, since without Duncan's entry in the US, there could not have been the current ebola crisis. The article is also neutral since the author bases his assessment on five criteria as used by consulate of the US state department, meaning this is a factual analysis.

Concerning this revert, Wikipedia:Coatrack has nothing to do with the topic at hand and has anyway little weight in itself, being merely one of hundreds essays. Referring to some May 2014 article of some Daily Beast is clearly WP:Synthesis, as the WP:NPOV and relevance of Daily Beast has to first established independently, and one website is anyway much too small a base to assess the neutrality of an agency. I thus restore the passage as relevant. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Here the criticism is picked up in the mainstream press: Immigration critic says Liberian ebola patient should not have received U.S. visa Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, The Center for Immigration Studies is infamous for its anti-immigration platform. Add in that the media will attempt "balanced coverage" by reporting anything uttered by nearly anyone, it's still a bit of a dubious addition to the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, there's no need to use CIS as a source when there is secondary coverage as you noted. If included, the CIS needs to be noted as an organization that criticizes immigration. The wording you used is horribly misleading (see above), and where you simple state "specifying five factors why the Liberian had not qualified for a visitor's visa", factually incorrect since he did qualify for a visa. Other misleading wording is the WP:WEASELy claim of five negative factors, as if some well defined conditions were overlooked during the application. In reality, the conditions the CIS uses are: single, unemployed, Liberian (5th-highest overstay rate), recently lived outside of Liberia (supposed weak ties), and has a sister in the US. (Seriously, WTF at that last one. Having a relative living in the US should disqualify you from visiting the US?)

In any case, obviously this source has a strong anti-immigration agenda. Including criticism is fine, but it needs to be clear that this is not some neutral report on some errors in the visa process, as the wording very much made it out to be. If you're mentioning these "five factors", it needs to be stated what they are, but without making the article a WP:UNDUE WP:COATRACK into immigration policy. Please do not readd the misleading wording without proper context. IRW0 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's in the news; we should cover it; we should explain the partisan nature of the source; and I see no obvious harm in listing the factors to make it clear how minor they are. My take on BLP is that we should document well-publicized allegations so we can take them apart. As a near-universal rule, anyone quoting "COATRACK" plans grievous, pointless harm to an article, regardless of the circumstances. Wnt (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: Er, did I misunderstand, or are you saying that I am planning "grievous, pointless harm" to this article? All I'm suggesting is that, rather than list out the five criteria (which may be the best way to cover it), the wording could be simplified to not require that, not that it's necessarily a coatrack, just to avoid WP:UNDUE material if we can. I am fairly certain that is not grievous, pointless harm, but please let me know if I'm incorrect. IRW0 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, maybe my phrase was excessive, but I really don't like the way that essay is typically used. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

To avoid further confusion, here's what I think is an appropriate coverage of the statement. [4] Wnt (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

To map or not to map

As the article now covers all cases in the U.S., we should define the purpose of the lead map. Will it show where cases are diagnosed, as it does now? Will it show where cases are hospitalized, which means all cases brought over from Africa, and may be unrelated to the patient's home? I like lead illustrations, but we need to consider what this one will show and whether it really adds anything. I'm sure Texans aren't excited about seeing their state highlighted in red. --Light show (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

We could have both (i.e. shade states with medically evacuated cases a different color). But most important is to show states where there has been uncontrolled exposure. Puking on the sidewalk = red; transported under medical isolation = something else, or nothing. Wnt (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. Different colors will make it very plain to the reader. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

We need some clear purpose for the map. In a few days, an American photojournalist for NBC is being brought to a special hospital in Nebraska, noted for handling serious infections. What would colorizing Nebraska mean? In the case of Duncan in Texas, had his relatives lived in Chicago, then Illinois would have been highlighted. Also, even if we colorize states for some reason, a state could have more than 1 person mentioned for different reasons, so the colorizing idea stops working. Just because an infected person steps off a plane somewhere isn't reason enough to have a map with highlights, IMO. Probably this map would be safer and neutral to use. --Light show (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it would provide some indication of states with advanced treatment facilities available to accept Ebola patients (and I would not have guessed Nebraska would be one)... but yeah, I think if I were updating the map I wouldn't want to bother, myself. The topo idea is better in theory but in practice it can be simpler just to have editors color states as the news comes in. This is one of these things where whoever actually goes out and does the work ends up making the decision. Wnt (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Lots of "coulds" and "woulds", but no defined purpose yet. I changed to the neutral map. --Light show (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I kinda liked the previous map (with just Texas highlighted), but I think no map would be better than the topo map. It's confusing since the implication it that it'll show "cases" in some fashion, when it just shows topology. (And makes it look like the entire mountainous part of the west has high levels of Ebola.) The previous map showed the location of Texas within the U.S., as we'd do for other large countries with similarly sized divisions for this type of event. As for medically evacuated cases...the WHO has the US at the 1 case in Texas, so maybe we should just follow that source rather than trying to add in other types of cases. (Add: maybe we could put a pin on Dallas rather than all of Texas, but either way, we should identify the location within the U.S.) IRW0 (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There's also a simpler map like this one, if there's a consensus to use it. The colorized map did not show state names, however, and may require updating. Putting pins, colors, circles or arrows on hospital locations would create a "hot zone" mentality for some, which would be very counter-productive. --Light show (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Any map is fine with me (other than the topo for stated reasons), as long as Texas and/or Dallas is highlighted. I don't think a pin on Dallas (the minimum representation) is a "hot zone" mentality; it's encyclopedic that there is Ebola there. IRW0 (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with IRW0, the topo map is confusing but it was placed with good intentions. Lots of readers coming to WP don't necessarily know where individual states are located so the map should have clear state lines. A pin on the Dallas area will help focus that. I don't see any problem with that. The map that was there showed the state of Texas in red. I don't think we need to colour in the states, but pin points might be a good solution. Different colour pinpoints could show cases diagnosed in America and those diagnosed outside America and brought in for treatment. The question then would be, should the pinpoints show where they are being kept for treatment? I say yes on that, since there will be reliable sources on that rather than on their home state. In any event, a map is needed for reader understanding now. So let's please sort this today if possible. In the meantime, it might be good idea to restore the map showing Texas in read. What do you all think? SW3 5DL (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I am also in favor of restoring the map with Texas in red for now, while we discuss what should and shouldn't be marked. (And if someone wants to deal with the syntax to make a pin over Dallas or whatever, go for it.) Add: on things like flu maps [5], the CDC colors in an entire state if there's a single case. So it's somewhat standard practice in the US to do that for disease reporting. IRW0 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the flu, where people are allowed full freedom of movement, even to go to school or work. For a level 4 biohazard infection, people are isolated. As of now, there's only a single confirmed case, in isolation, so using a flu-level map implies the infection is out in the wild where anyone can catch it. Comparing this map to the flu is a weak argument. --Light show (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind the highlighted map, as it's good to have some lead illustration. But the questions above should be dealt with first, since as of now I see no benefit other than graphic interest to highlight states for any reason. This isn't a geography-related issue, like parts of Africa. Patients can easily be transferred anywhere. A new patient from Africa is being brought to Nebraska. Does Nebraska get highlighted? If so, why? If people simply want to know where Nebraska is, they can look at the alternate map with state names, which this one lacks. Highlighting a state for no logical reason has many negatives, IMO, including giving it a not too subtle "hot zone" implication, which would be erroneous. Unless we can show that geography or state is an important factor, now that it's in the U.S., I'd stick with neutral graphics. The article as yet gives the state factor no significance other than that was where his family lived. --Light show (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a humourous sidenote, Texas is highlighted in red on the Texas article :) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Importance

Someone obviously unaware of how importance ratings in the applicable projects work has reverted my regrading of this from high to low-importance. I have re-reverted; any further change should be discussed here first, and I suggest that anyone participating looks at how other epidemic articles are rated and reads WP:RECENT first. Even Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa is only rated mid-importance for Medicine. Let's discuss again if fatalities hit 4 figures, which of course they won't. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod That explains that, but it doesn't explain why you reverted here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That was just carelessness on my part, now corrected. I hadn't even noticed someone else had changed it back already, I'm afraid. Late night editing, apologies all round. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Johnbod: actually it wasn't corrected, but I fixed it just now. Wnt (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, too many diffs. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Need a section for the medically evacuated

There are several cases now that have been evacuated here, and one of those patients, has been readmitted to hospital with a fever. I think it will help readers who might be looking for that here. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, moved from Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Great job. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Post recovery patient management

The WHO web site mentions that an Ebola patient can have detectable virus in their bodily fluids for up to seven weeks after recovery. Worth mentioning? (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs103/en/) 71.243.209.128 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Only if it is relevant in immediate context. In the Ebola virus disease article for example it could fit in very naturally. In the current article only if it is the operative reason that something was done (for example if it was the reason given for setting quarantine limits) or that something significant happened (for example that an outbreak started because of inadequate quarantine limits). JonRichfield (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Vote ..west Africa ebola

hi there is a vote for the article title at "west Africa ebola" its under the spain section.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The link to the vote is here. Thanks Ozzie, SW3 5DL (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional info for the article related to USA's outbreak readiness

I was reading through one of the ref articles and found this interesting gem..

The Nebraska Medical Center is one of only four biocontainment units throughout the United States. There is another unit at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Maryland, one in Missoula, Montana, and a third at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, which is where Dr. Kent Brantley and nurse Nancy Writebol, the first two Americans to catch the disease, were treated.

While this is not enough, there must be much more info like this that should be referable, and will build this article up..Gremlinsa (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Gremlinsa, this will make an excellent addition to the article. Please feel free to open a new section. Or anyone else interested, please add this if you've the time. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Small side bar needed

Would anyone be interested in creating a small sidebar that links the topics like the virus, the disease, all the country articles and the main article, and things like outbreak, epidemic, etc. They've got them on all the multiple Catholic/Islam/Christianity articles and on all the Slavery articles. Nothing too big, and below the map, so as not to obstruct it. Would be a huge help to the reader. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Great idea, and I hope it gets done.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't at present see myself doing it, but it certainly should assist both editors and readers in navigating and editing the complex of topics. At the moment the lumping and overlap of topics in different articles simply is a mess. Back soon. JonRichfield (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is, but then the epidemic itself is simply a mess, so understandable that editors are having to play catch-up. I'll look for someone interested in doing this. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WHO announcement - EU outbreak "inevitable"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ebola-outbreak-husband-of-spanish-nurse-placed-in-quarantine-as-22-contacts-identified-9779682.html

SW3 5DL (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL applies here, and the article headline is very sensationalist; it is basically saying "yeah, some people will probably get sick, but Europe can deal with it". Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye, just thought peeps might like to see the link. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)