![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
It has been suggested that this section become its own article. Thoughts? SW3 5DL ( talk) 14:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
*'''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.When editing, take care not to delete the nav box. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 06:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)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)
Best as I can tell, this is the history of the title changes for this article:
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.
Zad
68
01:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
The move to "outbreak" needs to be undone pending resolution of discussion.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.
Zad
68
02:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
Editors here are more or less involved in this discussion on ANI. here. SW3 5DL ( talk) 14:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
It has been suggested that this section become its own article. Thoughts? SW3 5DL ( talk) 14:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
*'''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.When editing, take care not to delete the nav box. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 06:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)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)
Best as I can tell, this is the history of the title changes for this article:
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.
Zad
68
01:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
The move to "outbreak" needs to be undone pending resolution of discussion.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.
Zad
68
02:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
Editors here are more or less involved in this discussion on ANI. here. SW3 5DL ( talk) 14:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)