Talk:Ebola virus cases in the United States/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 9

Article structure needs work

I think the article needs some better organization. I'll try rearranging, and maybe trimming some redundant material, minutiae or overcitations, now that many are dated. Feel free to fix or discuss any problem edits. --Light show (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree -- one thing I think it needs is to have 'public concerns' moved out from under 'Government Response.' I'd suggest 'Public concerns' should be its own section and include a subsection on incidents of hysteria. valereee (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Light show, please discuss your changes in the structure of the article before revising it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No consensus for edits

I do not agree at all with the edits made by Light Show. He has totally changed this from an article about an outbreak into what appears to be a politicized article. I'm going to restore the previous edits as they had consensus and were stable. This is the R in BRD. We can then decide here on what changes to the article should take place. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You mean these [1]? I rather think they are an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
You also reverted a section I was working on and which wasn't a major change, just a minor reorganization to allow for additional incidents of public concerns and take public concerns out from under government response. I'm going to go ahead and put those back in unless there's some objection to that. valereee (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll restore that now. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and agreed on leaving school closings in government response section valereee (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Doc James, I don't consider people transported to U.S. to treat ebola as an outbreak in the U.S. Two different subjects. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't appear the "rejection of students" bit is relevant. The school is saying that they didn't reject the students for that reason. Also, this article is about the outbreak of a virus and the efforts to contain it. As Daniel Cardenas notes above, the treatment of citizens transported to back to the U.S. from West Africa might not really belong here either. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The article referenced in this section says that this school is saying they -did- reject the students for that reason -- ? valereee (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Aye, saw that. Fixed it. Shortened it for due weight. The gist of it is what's relevant, as there will be other concerns to add in that section. It will become top-heavy without trimming. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The evacuation content was in the article before. I guess it could be removed. Background is a bad heading to start an article with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:58, 18 October 2014(UTC)

Maybe it's time to move it off to, I hate to say this, it's own article. Starting off with background gives the reader context. That's why I moved the Africa bits way back when to the bottom of the article. Then another editor removed it altogether. This is only about the outbreak of the virus in America. What do you think about these social bits with the student applications, etc. I don't think they are relevant at this time. It's starting to read like the Daily Mail. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom. Might be better to move it to a separate article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of the edits, which mostly arranged sections for better context and chronology, which were explained with a rationale, were "massive." The 1st sentence above, claiming this somehow "changed this from an article about an 'outbreak' into what appears to be a politicized article," is both unexplained and itself, against consensus. It's against consensus because for 3 days there has been a request to rename the article with a ratio of 2 to 1 in support, with 20 different editors commenting in some way. In a subsequent section, one editor has declared the term "outbreak" to be non-neutral and controversial.

IMO, from all of the previous comments on this talk page, the only one that actually appears to politicize the article is this one:

The CDC has no credibility. They also told a symptomatic nurse she could fly on a commercial airliner. They also said America was prepared for the Ebola virus. Their protocols have failed. They are politicized because they depend entirely on U.S. government funding. Guess who holds the purse strings and is heading into mid-term elections in 2 weeks. That website by the way, is probably staffed by the same person who told Amber Vinson it was okay to get on that aircraft.

The structure before all the new changes today can be seen here for reference. As for the suggestion that the evacuated "cases" be removed from this article, that would likewise go against the current consensus, which considers the article is about U.S. cases, and not an "outbreak." --Light show (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would say there is no consensus on this being an outbreak or not. From the comments above and in the section below, it looks like there may be consensus building to split off the evacuated cases. Xqxf (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to Light show. No offense was intended. Wrt the U.S. medical evac cases, no one has split it off into a new article. It was simply a suggestion. I opened a new thread to see how others feel about that. Wrt to this being an outbreak or not, I agree with Xqxf, I just looked over the comments on the page move, and there's no real consensus for that. Might have to come up with another title suggestion. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course I'm not offended, but I am embarrassed. Looking at the article structure now, after a sudden flurry of edits by various contributors earlier today, all I'll add is that the article is now about 50% worse than before I began revising it. The TOC before was very disorganized, but fixable. So I took what was already there and rearranged some of the sections for better context and chronology. After the handiwork of various editors, the new TOC structure and organization is a mess, IMO. Brief topics, many just trivia, have been made into sections. Sentences without any context have been made into sections. Sections have been sliced and diced into subsections with no rhyme or reason, and unrelated to the main section they're within. There are now about 75% more sections, mostly useless divisions. So I'm embarrassed at the current quality. Need examples? Just say how many. --Light show (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Family refutes some claims

Regarding the story about Thomas Eric Duncan helping Marthelene Williams, editors should note that in an October 14, 2014 op-ed piece for the Dallas Morning News, Duncan's nephew said, "And while the stories of my uncle helping a pregnant woman with Ebola are courageous, Thomas Eric personally told me that never happened. Like hundreds of thousands of West Africans, carefully avoiding Ebola was part of my uncle’s daily life." Thus, refuting the veracity of the Williams story and, by inference, claims that he lied to airport officials about recent exposure to the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtha25 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that refutes the widespread media coverage of it. However, it should perhaps be noted that the family denies the story. Geogene (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Why would Williams's family and Duncan's neighbors fabricate such a story? --Light show (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Good question. Sounds dodgy given that Duncan's family want to pursue a lawsuit. And note as well, that Duncan spoke English and could have told the ER doctor that he was from Liberia where the Ebola virus epidemic was taking place. Instead he told the doctor he was from Africa. He didn't really give the doctor any reason to suspect Ebola. They always say if there is one person on the earth you should never lie to, it's your doctor. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Duncan told the ER he was coming from Liberia, and the doctors had access to that information (it's also not very likely a medical professional would just accept "Africa" as a location without asking for more specifics). See http://time.com/3465993/ebola-dallas-hospital/ . This is the first I've heard that Weeks denied the story, so I added that. However, I don't consider this editorial conclusive. It could easily be a miscommunication (Duncan reportedly said at he thought she was having a miscarriage, not sick with Ebola) or bad editing by the newspaper. Superm401 - Talk 05:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hospital guidelines and training - rewrite?

I believe much of this section is written too closely to the wording of the sources. I am not sure if it needs to be removed immediately so am asking for second opinions. Ward20 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that, too. We need to be careful of copyright vio. It needs to be rewritten. Do you want to do it? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm stretched kind of thin in real life and will be traveling without computer access too, so it would be good if someone else jumped in here. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to, but my schedule is impossible currently. If we could use the CDC information, even verbatim would be no problem, as it's open for all usage.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I have rewritten some of the section to fix most of this, [2] since it did look like a lot of it was copied and pasted, and I think it would've needed to be removed otherwise. Feel free to edit my changes further, and the sections I didn't change may need to be checked further. Xqxf (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

suspension of visas vs. travel bans?

Under efforts at containment -- should we differentiate between those calling for suspending issuance of visas to those from affected countries vs. those calling for travel bans to/from affected countries? It seems like these are two different things. Although I think the CDC/WHO are saying that both are counterproductive to containment, so maybe the point is moot? valereee (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Should the "Medical evacuations from West Africa" section spin off to a separate article?

It has been suggested that this section become its own article. Thoughts? SW3 5DL (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes some sense. The scope of current title doesn't include those, and they are pretty much unrelated to Duncan and associated cases. The containment efforts really aren't about the medically evacuated cases, other than some some background on the hospitals that are being used for both sets of cases. We could consider a title change to something like "Ebola virus in the United States in 2014" to properly include those cases, but we have enough title problems as it is... Xqxf (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I wonder what article title to cover these non outbreak topics:
  • Rejection of student admissions
  • Speaking invitations withdrawn
  • Medical evacuations to the U.S.
I'm thinking Ebola U.S. and Ebola outbreak is just a sub article of that one. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The public reactions section added in by Valeree, makes sense to me in that the U.S. public has been reacting since the healthcare workers were brought back to America for treatment back in August. Now it seems, since Duncan's diagnosis, people are saying close the borders, stop travel, etc. That's relevant, although it must be kept within due weight. Obviously, editors are divided about what to title the article. Perhaps a third title option would help settle the matter. What do both of you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Those should maybe stay in Responses to the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa and be summarized here (with a hatnote link in the section)...assuming we remove the medical evacuation. I would be happy if we had a third title option. My suggestion is above, but I'm not very tied to it. Maybe "Ebola virus incidents in the United States" or a similar neutral acronym for "outbreak". (Lots of media are using "crisis", but that is even more hysterical than outbreak.) Better ideas? Xqxf (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Xqxf, I had the same thought about using the word 'crisis' and also came to the same conclusion. Although, I don't think 'outbreak' is hysterical, not like 'epidemic,' or worse, 'pandemic.' SW3 5DL (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Right, I meant "outbreak" is perceived to be hysterical by some... I am still in favor of splitting the medical section, but maybe instead we should merge them into an article covering the other medically evacuated cases from Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Countries_with_medically_evacuated_cases. Or maybe they should just be summarized into List of Ebola patients (though I've already noted possible systemic bias in an edit summary there, and sticking in details on a bunch of US Ebola patients might not be great.) Xqxf (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Xqxf Hmmm. . .I like the idea of a list. That would be efficient and a good reference. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No - in fact, with few exceptions, we shouldn't be covering individuals like this. There will be more and more and it will just become a meaningless pile of trivia to compile all of them. More importantly, there's no reason they don't fit in the current country articles. Stop tangling the web further with more spinout forks. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Texas Hospital image

If anybody has the time, it might be a good idea to find a free image of the Texas hospital. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll contact the volunteer Wikipedia photographers in Dallas. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@SW3 5DL: Hi there, I'm one of the wikipedians that BlueAg09 contacted to try and get a photo of the Hospital. Unfortunately the Emergency wing is cordoned off with Police officers and News media giving the random public a hard time. The request for a photo came just after sunset and All I was able to get in the fading light was [3]. I won't even bother attempting to submit this for consideration because it's not even close to being reasonable. I don't think the Emergency Wing is a good choice as it's not the facade of the building that most people associate with the hospital complex. I'll go back Sunday and try go get a similar vantage point during the daytime (I already have 12 hrs of items booked tomorrow). Hasteur (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur, well done, you. Don't worry about the ER. Just a general front of the hospital shot would be brilliant. And it sounds easier for you. Hats off to you for going to the trouble. And thanks to BlueAg09 for contacting you. I look forward to your photos. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Requestors (BlueAg09—SW3 5DL): Taken with Android Tablet Taken with iPhone5 Both of these were taken this morning. Your choice about which one you'd prefer to use. Enjoy Hasteur (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Hasteur. I was looking forward to hearing from you all day. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move to "Ebola virus cases in the U.S."

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

The result of the move request was: Closed at request of opener. Current move request is still open. Xqxf (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Ebola virus outbreak in the United States → Ebola virus cases in the U.S. – Consensus to rename. Light show (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Oppose RfC There is an RfC on this topic already ongoing. This RfC should be closed while the existing RfC is ongoing. Arzel (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess I misunderstood the process, after the last move was undone. Feel free to close. --Light show (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nav box

When editing, take care not to delete the nav box. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Page move by admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • An admin has moved the page to Ebola virus cases in the United States. I say let it stand. End the controversy and edit the article. I hope others will feel the same. Apparently it is from a request by the editor who opened the page move discussion back on Oct 15. The admin was lead to believe it was a non-controversial move. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it was the original title anyway. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I saw a "please revert undiscussed move" request in [4] and obeyed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Anthony, the editor should not have done that as he was well aware that moving the page was controversial. Also, he did not inform editors here that he'd done that. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's fine with me. Now we can get back to editing the article. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the move discussion should be allowed to complete; my objection to "cases" has been made above, so I won't repeat it here. My primary objection is that this has been moved as "uncontroversial" via a simple move request, with the discussion still open. @Anthony Appleyard: Did you mean to mark this move as "uncontroversial", or did you support the reasoning made in the move request that the previous title was too controversial? Xqxf (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. With 20 editors or more having chimed in, and supporting a move with 2 to 1 in favor, the controversial aspect is secondary. Why are a few editors so gung-ho to call the two U.S. nurse cases an "outbreak" when there have been no cites supporting it, with most saying it was not an outbreak? --Light show (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per established policy. WP:RS is the appropriate policy here, and WP:RS are not calling it an outbreak. If consensus among WP:RS ever starts calling it an outbreak, we should too. Until then, not. -- The Anome (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We're not re-arguing this again here Zad68 01:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Not an outbreak. valereee (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion is above There was no consensus for the move thus the move back is not controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not really the issue at all I'm afraid. Firstly, Anthony Appleyard says he moved the page because of a request that said the move was not controversial, yet he doesn't move the page to the one the editor had designated. Secondly, why would an admin make a move without first checking the talk page? The active RM discussion is hard to miss, as is the contention about keeping the article in the first place, as that RfC clearly shows. There's never really been any discussion on the title until the RM above which clearly shows no consensus yet. What Anthony has done is wrong, although, AGF, he simply made a mistake. Yet, as soon as he was made aware of the controversy, he should have moved it back. I was hoping it could slide by, but there is opposition, so that means we've got to wait out the RM discussion. Anthony will have to move the page back. We've got to get this right now or the contention will continue and erode the editing on the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion here

Xqxf, the admin said he saw a request and acted on it. It doesn't appear he looked at the talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

History of the page moves

Best as I can tell, this is the history of the title changes for this article:

  • Created on 1 October as Ebola virus in Dallas, Texas
  • Moved on 2 October to Ebola virus case in the United States
  • Moved on 2 October to 2014 Ebola virus case in the United States
  • Moved on 3 October to 2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States
  • Moved on 12 October to Ebola virus cases in the United States
  • Moved on 12 October to Ebola virus disease cases in the United States
  • Moved on 12 October to 2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak (first time "outbreak" was used since creation)
  • Moved on 13 October to Ebola virus outbreak in the United States
  • Rename to "outbreak" questioned 15 October at WT:MED
  • Rename to "outbreak" challenged on 15 October with a Requested Move here on the Talk page, discussion started
  • Notification on 17 October at WP:AN requesting move
  • Rename to "cases" requested on 17 October at WP:RM as "no consensus was established" for the "outbreak" name
  • Moved on 18 October to Ebola virus cases in the United States

It's pretty clear, the article was created without "outbreak", it has support with "case[s]", and there was a timely challenge to "outbreak" soon after it was made. It was correct and uncontroversial for an admin to restore the previous consensus name "cases" because there was no clear consensus established for "outbreak" after it was challenged. Zad68 01:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you define uncontroversial? There are 10 votes above for outbreak about 50% of the votes. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD someone boldly makes a change. Another person moves it back. Than discussion is supposed to occur until their is majority support. As the article was originally at "cases" it is reasonable to move it back to "cases". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. . .I'm wondering how Anthony Appleyard just came up with that on his own never having edited here. Especially as the request on the move page was for another title. Also, Zad68, all due respect but you cannot say, "We're not arguing this again," and expect that puts paid to it. If this is going to be an issue, then we can let the page move discussion continue, and since Anthony Appleyard's move was without consensus, he'll have to revert himself. I don't care one way or the other, but if this going to continue to be an issue, then we have to keep working to find consensus. And it can't come just because a few admins decide to take matters into their own hands. Not even Jimbo Wales can do that, or so I'm told. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
SW, by writing "We're not re-arguing this again here" I mean that we need to avoid duplicating the RM discussion happening above. I didn't mean that the discussion is over, and that the same editors involved in the RM discussion can't also decide whether Anthony's evaluation of the situation was correct. Zad68 03:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, good to know then. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is a little... unusual for an admin to move a page while an RM discussion is in progress. -- 120.23.75.47 (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought it odd, as well, especially as that particular title is not part of the RM discussion. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done I have moved it back. I saw a move request in the uncontroversials section of Wikipedia:Requested moves, and obeyed it. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
      • [[User:Anthony Appleyard the article should really be restored to the original name as their was never any consensus for the first move. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Which is "the original name" in the long list of moves hereinabove? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Was previously "Ebola virus disease cases in the United States" Doc James (talk
      • No, the original name was Ebola virus in Dallas Texas, and then Ebola virus cases in Dallas Texas. · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, you cant restore it to Ebola virus in Dallas Texas. Doc James is wrong. You've got to revert your move. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Doc, What do you think about have a main U.S. article and a sub article about the outbreak? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not seeing reliable sources calling it an outbreak yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
CNN and Obama said no serious outbreak, implying it is a minor outbreak. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Leave it as is. The RM discussion above will take care of the next move. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is here [5]. There is a list of which names have been used above. The most recent move to "2014 United States Ebola virus outbreak" never had consensus and has been disputed since. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Which is why there's an active discussion about it, but still no consensus. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"Ebola virus cases in the United States," the most recent one, is probably the best. The consensus from RM above was 12 support, 8 oppose, replacing the unsourced term, "outbreak." --Light show (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
You know, it doesn't have to say United States. In epidemiology the location is local, not national. When there was an hantavirus outbreak in the Four Corners section of the U.S. it was called, Four Corners hantavirus outbreak. Not to put a fly in the ointment, but technically, if it's not crossed state lines, it's really best to say Dallas Texas. What do you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
All of the other W. Africa articles you made were national. National is logical and consistent. And I'd keep the year off. Plus, there are multiple states handling cases now. --Light show (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I also don't think Dallas makes sense, since even if we remove the medical evacuees as we're discussing above, Vinson's travel to Ohio is relevant. As for the current title, trying to count votes from above isn't that useful...the move discussion will finish in a couple more days, and we can continue to discuss other alternate titles. Xqxf (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Xqxf, It was just a suggestion in a moment of exhaustion trying to fathom the storm swirling around this article. The title seems a case of the Emperor's Clothes. I agree, the discussion needs to continue. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Many people live outside the USA and are not familiar with USA placenames, except names of states. I had to look in Wikipedia to find what the USA Four Corners is. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I was born, educated and raised in the US and had to look up the link you kindly provided. I live in the "tri-state area", which means nothing whatsoever unless you know which tree states are adjacent in my somewhat rectangular state. Something driven home to me when watching news from a network in a state far from me that used the very same term for their region. I'll add in some, from that experience and lack of knowledge at the time, as I was new in-country, when reference was made to the empty quarter. I later learned of how harsh it was from some scientific misadventures, where there was massive loss of equipment, on several expeditions and only once was the rather large objective found. Regional things one has to look up. As an example, just yesterday, I had to look up a region in Australia. A "whispered" thought echoing about was Canberra region, which was somewhat correct (it's more wider than that, but correct, but hanged if I could point out Canberra on a map, other than south Continent.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Basis for current title still does not exist

There have already been numerous discussions above, with a consensus of 13 14 to 8 to get rid of the erroneous and unsourced word "outbreak." One editor accurately calls its use non-neutral and controversial. The title was fixed for a few hours, but immediately attacked by an editor and is now back to "outbreak."

The editors promoting this misuse rely on synth, with rationales such as, "The WHO defines an outbreak this way:"; " What else do you call it when an infectious disease newly emerges?"; "While most mainstream sources aren't calling it an outbreak yet, Wikipedia should use accurate scientific definitions"; and from the primary editor pushing the word, "The CDC has said they are expecting more cases. They probably will list it as such," while also declaring that "the CDC has no credibility." No one has provided any cites or source for misnaming the article. Yet it's still misnamed. Why? --Light show (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus. The number of people supporting an issue does not determine consensus, which will be determined by whomever closes the discussion. There is a process for moving pages, which is being followed. There's no need to keep fragmenting the discussion down to here; the moving admin performed a technical move, then undid it because that type of move isn't intended for controversial issues. (It wouldn't be unreasonable for an uninvolved editor to close this entire page move section, as the move is undone and move discussion is ongoing.) Xqxf (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The last title that had consensus and WP:RS support was "cases". The original move from "cases" to "outbreak" was challenged, and "outbreak" never had consensus established. WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is policy, says

In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.

The move to "outbreak" needs to be undone pending resolution of discussion. Zad68 02:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If you are going to argue the article title has been stable "for a long time", it was stable at 6 days with "outbreak". It included "cases" for 9 days, and "case" for 1 additional day. I say that in that case, "outbreak" was stable, with plenty of time to raise an objection past opening a new move request. If you want to argue that it was never stable, then the title used by the first major contributor when it ceased being a stub was Ebola virus in Dallas, Texas, which is not a great title. Xqxf (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC
The last title that nobody had any serious objections to was "cases". Zad 68 02:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The circumstances of the outbreak are different than when the situation started; there was no reason to object before the second case was confirmed. Lack of objections at the time doesn't mean there is a lack of objections now. (Perhaps the policy you pasted is so specific for that reason.) Xqxf (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Xqxf, That's an excellent point that really hasn't been talked about. When I created the article, there was only Mr. Duncan. And that being the case, I titled it Ebola virus case in Dallas Texas. Which is not suitable now. Then when the first nurse became infected, I changed it to Ebola virus cases in the United States. Things aren't as simple as they're sometimes been made out to be. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Medical evacuation services section

I've deleted this section as the medical services described didn't seem to really pertain to the U.S. and these cases specifically. Also, the second paragraph there, [6] didn't seem to go with that section. It seemed to be about Dr. Fauci making a comment at the congressional hearing. Does anyone have an objection on that? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought the medevac services pertained to the US because the companies serve people who've purchased travelers' insurance, and because it seemed another example of reaction/possible overreaction by NGOs. I'm open to discussion! valereee (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The insurance bit is interesting, but it would be better if there was an example of a U.S. traveler being turned away. Because there are so many things that have changed as a result of reactions to the virus being in America. We really can't include all. On the second paragraph, you're right it didn't seem to go with that section. I'll have to track that down and ask the editor to explain that. On the insurance, if there's an actual case of someone being turned away, that would be fine. What do you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Editors here are more or less involved in this discussion on ANI. here. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ebola_virus_cases_in_the_United_States/Archive_4&oldid=1083512070"