![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Several times when I have tried to add info using a WHO special page such as a news release I do my source but it ends up with the weekly report instead. Today I put new info in the lead using this WHO source [1] but did not get the site I wanted. Could someone fix this for me? Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
A photo showing Uveitis has been added and I'd like some feedback. I don't think that it adds to the article and should be removed. Thoughts?
There could be a brief mention of how witch doctors and homeopaths actually caused significant harm during the Ebola epidemic.
Examples:
Hope this suggestion is helpful,
— Cirt ( talk) 22:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Apart from Mail on-line, why is there relatively little questioning of this media-driven story? While it was said that this disease was likely to become a dangerous 'world-wide outbreak' - Ebola is now all but over. Given this, media outlets might admit that this story was over-blown. And, with the latest facts, is it not clear that this was a Scare Story all along? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.110.67 ( talk) 14:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
According to certain media and information outlets, this outbreak was about to sweep the world - killing untold millions. And yet, and as it turned out, The United Kingdom had a limited local case of ONE! Hardly matches up to the 1918 flu outbreak.
Ebola: The Outbreak Of A Scare Story - might not that make a more honest Section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.148.217 ( talk) 14:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The WHO has just confirmed that Guinea has reached the end of a 42-day waiting period, and is now declared Ebola-free. [2] I've updated the article accordingly. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
When we first began working on this article so many months ago some of us were left to wonder why it was taking the WHO so long to announce the ongoing epidemic. We were not surprised to learn that it was political for the most part. They have me wondering again with their United Nations December statement "Apart from the original chain of transmission, there were 10 new small outbreaks between March and November, apparently due to the re-emergence of a persistent virus from survivors." [3]
Where are the suddenly getting this idea? This does not at all match the facts of the epidemic that I've been following. Here's an old article from the Guinea spike in cases:
May 19, 2015: DAKAR, Senegal — Only days after declaring the lowest number of new Ebola cases in Guinea and Sierra Leone this year, officials at the World Health Organization said Tuesday that there had been a nearly fourfold increase during the most recent week of reporting, to about 35 new cases....As recently as the week of March 15, there were 95 new cases in Guinea alone. [4]
As we know, at least two of the new cases, the pregnant mother and the 15-year-old boy, do seem to be the result of people that were somehow carrying the virus but had not shown symptoms for several months. But all the new cases since March? Where are they getting this from? It just does not seem to match the facts at all... Gandydancer ( talk) 01:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I've cut the width of the map in the top infobox to 400px, from the previous 500px. While the infobox image looked great on my huge high-res desktop monitor at 500px, it's too wide for the many common narrower devices which only have a notional 960px logical pixel width. I think 400px works well as a compromise between the two. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The intro has five paragraphs. It should be reduced to no more than four or three. The topic is too recent to qualify as complicated. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
George Ho..so what did you have in mind, in regards to the lede?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently hours after it was announced that Ebola outbreak was no more, someone has died from Ebola in Sierra Leone.
Should any further information be added? Adog104 Talk to me 03:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps one way of thinking about this would be that the new case is an outbreak of Ebola, but not part of an epidemic: one of the "small outbreaks" that WHO predicted earlier, as now seem to have a reservoir of Ebola virus in humans in a way that we never have (knowingly) had before. These small outbreaks could presumably go on for months (or years?) to come, but I would imagine that as long as the high level of surveillance and public health response is kept up throughout the region, they would be unlikely to re-launch an epidemic. Given this, the point at which the epidemic ends, and the continuing new era of "small outbreaks" begins, must necessarily be arbitrary.
In the absence of the epidemic being declared back on again, we probably need an "Aftermath" section in this article to cover all this. Let's wait to see what WP:RS say. -- The Anome ( talk) 08:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The Anome should the map color Sierra Leone be changed?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
[8] latest March 2, WHO...next WHO update should be the last on March 17-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"According to Marzi et al., VSV-EBOV vaccine trial against EBOV-Makona strain is inadequate." While deciding whether to add "a" before "VSV-EBOV vaccine trial", I realized I don't know what this sentence means. Does it mean the vaccine is inadequate? Does is mean the trial is inadequate, and more trials are needed? Neither conclusion seems justified by the study's abstract, which emphasizes the vaccine's success and its apparent suitability for humans. Art LaPella ( talk) 15:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN. Relisting shortly with correction. larryv ( talk) 06:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa →
2013–2016 West African Ebola virus epidemic – Our
naming conventions for health incidents and outbreaks prescribe a "when/where/what" format for article titles; I don't see a good reason to buck that trend here.
larryv (
talk)
06:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to West African Ebola virus epidemic, which fits more with our standard naming practices and wasn't objected to. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa →
2013–16 West African Ebola virus epidemic – Our
naming conventions for health incidents and outbreaks prescribe a "when/where/what" format for article titles; I don't see a good reason to buck that trend here.
larryv (
talk)
06:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
On the title again, it includes the location, which is per the naming convention. On the current Zika outbreak article, the decision was not to include the location (the Americas) but leave it open I guess because the outbreak is still going on and everybody (esp the media) seems to think it will expand and become global (I think that's the rationale). During Ebola, that was also the hype but you decided to call it "West African" Ebola. Why? I'm wondering if the Zika article should also express the location of the historically distinct geography of this event, and if it goes global, treat that event as another article? juanTamad ( talk) 01:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Not a word about all the US military medical facilities in west africa that were put in place _before_ the outbreak? How come? It's a known fact that was reported throughout the media, albeit not in the headlines. And no, this is no mere banal "conspiracy theory": Ebola was a long since and well KNOWN threat, and expected to break out again, so I cannot for the life of me understand why you are all in complete denial about this. Why on earth would it be "dangerous" to concede and inform the public on this obvious fact?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.246.11 ( talk • contribs)
[17] interesting article...IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I've clarified some language that could have been taken to mean that the WHO had declared the epidemic to be finally over. They haven't: it's only the Sierra Leone flare-up that's been declared over. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks like there's a new flare-up in Guinea, so that needs to be reflected in the article with things like updating the map, infobox, etc. -- The Anome ( talk) 10:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
6-Year-Old Child with Severe Ebola Virus Disease... in an Ebola Treatment Center in Guinea [19].-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The introduction of this article had become extremely long, to the point of becoming a mini-article in itself, and starting to develop its own internal sub-introduction. I've now split it along the lines of the structure it was already developing: the first part is now a much shorter three-paragraph intro, and the second is now a new "overview" section, which introduces in more detail the topics which are then expanded on at length in the rest of the article. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
West African Ebola virus epidemic →
West African Ebola outbreak 2013-2016 – I think that at this point we can assign a clear ending date, as a single case doesn't really constitute an "epidemic." Also, the current title includes the word epidemic, which implies a relatively large scope, which this doesn't really meet in my opinion. Yes, some cases made it out into Europe, the United States, and elsewhere, but hardly enough to be called an epidemic. For this reason, I think that "outbreak" is more appropriate. Furthermore, I don't see why the word "virus" needs to be included. Ebola is a virus, not any other form of pathogen, so there is little need for it to be included. Finally, I believe that it is necessary to include dates because there have been outbreaks in the past and there will likely be outbreaks in the future. For the sake of clarity, I think that this move is necessary. Thanks,
Gluons12 (
talk)
19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC).
Oppose without doing a proper WP:RM request. The Med project should be notified too. Poor arguments: it was easily large enough to be called an "epidemic", though there may be a case for "outbreak". I don't understand the argument against "virus". Johnbod ( talk) 13:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose any major changes that you suggest. They have all already been discussed at length - please check the archives for information. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
oppose per reasons given above-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - it was an epidemic caused by Ebola virus. A case can be made for a move to "West African Ebola hemorrhagic fever epidemic 2013–2016". Graham Beards ( talk) 22:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose this specific name, but I would support a slightly rearranged version. I didn't comb too heavily through the previous move discussions on this page so I'm sure all of this has been considered, but I'm not sure if there's some broadly-accepted naming convention for outbreaks here. The first two outbreaks that came to mind are located at 1918 flu pandemic and 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak. So if <Date> <Location (if applicable)> <Disease> <Descriptor> is the general format that makes us happy, then I'd go with 2013-2016 West Africa ebola epidemic (though I think "outbreak" would be just as appropriate, perhaps that would be the more commonly-used term and therefore more appropriate for us. Also I realize that Ebola virus disease or Ebola hemorrhagic fever might be more correct, but I would hazard the suggestion that "Ebola" is appropriate as the disease descriptor in common English, just as "flu" was sufficient). Ajpolino ( talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
To further support my advocacy for "outbreak" instead of "epidemic", I say that Wikipedia:COMMONNAME states that "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." The World Health Organization calls it an "outbreak," and WHO is cited very often in the references section. Thank you for considering this, Gluons12 ( talk) 23:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
When the outbreak was ongoing it made sense to show the current status as was done with this map, but now that the outbreak is well and truly over, does it make sense to continue showing a 'current' map with no widespread outbreak, no limited outbreak, and no isolated cases? I would think it would be better to replace this with a map giving the historical perspective - which countries fell into these categories during the outbreak. A map showing the situation after it was all over seems much less informative. 50.37.100.83 ( talk) 10:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
When the outbreak was ongoing it made sense to show the current status as was done with this map, but now that the outbreak is well and truly over, does it make sense to continue showing a 'current' map with no widespread outbreak, no limited outbreak, and no isolated cases? I would think it would be better to replace this with a map giving the historical perspective - which countries fell into these categories during the outbreak. A map showing the situation after it was all over seems much less informative. 50.37.100.83 ( talk) 10:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ed's,
I feel that the WHO emergency move on August 11, 2014 to permit the use of colloidal silver was a landmark move in both the history of medical experimentation with colloidal silver, and in the history of the West African Ebola epidemic of 2014. It is potentially too important a detail to be leaving out of the known history intentionally. Can it be constructively re-included in the article in a way that preserves the topic's integrity?````lgc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 12:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2014/ebola-ethical-review-summary/en/
(Decision made by WHO on August 11 of that year and reported the following day) 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 12:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc
Hi Ian,
Being new, I was hoping for a less caustic reception, per Wiki policy?
Here is documentation that silver was included in the allowed protocol: a West African news agency quoting the Sierra Leone Minister of Information saying that silver was a major part of the intervention:
http://www.thenewdawnliberia.com/politics/10347-sierra-leone-tells-nano-silver-success-story
I have written to Gregory Hartl this morning, the media contact for the WHO panel that convened 8/11/14, to specifically ask him to verify that silver was among the approved "compassionate use" protocols, to corroborate the assertion by the Sierra Leone Minister of Information that it was.
I realize that you must have all sorts of people "pushing quakery" on Wikipedia, but please maintain an open mind that silver with its known broad-spectrum anti-microbial properties may have played an important emergency role in helping to curb the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone, and if so, should be included in the timeline, even if only as a passing footnote. I do agree with you though that it's a leap to credit the unapproved drug entirely with staunching the outbreak of that year - there were also improvements in sanitation that played an important role. 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 13:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc
Hi Ian, As mentioned above, I've written the WHO directly this morning - please kindly give them a chance to respond.
Is it customary to list the editorial staff of a news periodical as part of a citation? I didn't see a space for that in the automated citation helper that popped up. Is listing the editorial staff done for all periodicals uniformly, or just for certain ones?
Here is the listing for the editorial staff of The New Dawn: Staff listing
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Mr. Othello B. Garblah Managing Editor Email: o.garblah@thenewdawnliberia.com
E. J. Nathaniel Daygbor
News Editor Email: e.daygbor@thenewdawnliberia.com
The New Dawn news agency in Liberia states that they are quoting an interview of Sierra Leone Minister of Information Alpha Kanu in a primary interview by The Star Africa, a Sierra Leone news periodical.
I have also written the editor of the New Dawn this morning for the verification which you asked for, using my public pen name, which is Richard Robert Book (when I sign LGC on Wikipedia, I am using the initials of my own Christian name):
Dear Mr. Garblah,
In attempting to add a note about the importance of colloidal silver to the Wikipedia timeline of events leading up to the ending of the Ebola outbreak of 2014, I have quoted your article "Sierra Leone Tells Nano-Silver Success Story" in editing a Wikipedia article on the topic. An editor of Wikipedia, Mr. Ian Thompson, has publicly accused your newspaper, on Wikipedia, of making up the story. I believe that he is mistaken, and promised him that I'd write and ask you to verify that Mr. Alpha Kanu, the Sierra Leone Minister of Information at the time, was indeed interviewed by The Star Africa newspaper in Sierra Leone, which The New Dawn then quoted.
Please forgive the offensive nature of Mr. Thompson's tone - I believe that he is just trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia in good faith, and means no harm.
Thank you very kindly, Richard Robert Book rbook62@gmail.com 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 14:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 14:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ian, The WHO is a medical source. If colloidal silver is not mentioned by name on the August 12, 2014 press release of the August 11 emergency session (and none of the protocols appear to me mentioned by name), then a list of approved non-tested drugs may exist that can be accessed. I have re-written Mr. Hartlg, the public relations officer for the WHO emergency panel, and followed-up by asking him to give us a publicly accessible link to a list of un-trialled drugs that were permitted under that decision. 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 15:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc
Hi Ian, Perhaps you missed my note, above, that I was writing to ask for a clickable link to documents that could be accessed by the public?
I've also written to the Minister of Health and Sanitation in Sierra Leone, Dr. Samuel Kargbo, for any links to public electronic information that can be accessed by everyone. 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 15:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc
P.S. Ian, I think it's very important not to throw around loose language like "cured", such as you have above. Scientifically speaking, we can compare before and after mortality rates as the CDC has done and demonstrate an improvement, but we would not want to speak of a "cure," as the virus could easily be suppressed one day and then mutate the next. Please note that I have use such words as "curbed" and "staunched" and used them only in this less formal chat - words that should suggest containment of ongoing battles, such as the outbreak of 2014, and not the final victory in a larger "war" on the Ebola virus. 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 18:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
On May 11, 2017, the Ministry of Health of the Democratic Republic of the Congo notified international public health agencies of a cluster of suspected cases of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in the province of Bas Uélé. The report mentions 9 cases, including two deaths, with a third death reported on May 12. Testing of samples was conducted by the Institut National de Recherche Biomedicale (INRB) in Kinshasa, with one sample testing positive for Ebola Zaire by RT-PCR. The Ministry has deployed a team to the site to investigate further.
I tried to add this myself but was reverted for some unknown reason.
[22] 59.101.244.227 ( talk) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
|}
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
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.
Possible GA Article Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations(w/ consensus) | Type | Article review/book/NIH,WHO |
---|---|---|
Proposed article/book/site | jour. |
|
Added | ||
Pending |
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:27, 1 June 2016 (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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
Several times when I have tried to add info using a WHO special page such as a news release I do my source but it ends up with the weekly report instead. Today I put new info in the lead using this WHO source [1] but did not get the site I wanted. Could someone fix this for me? Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
A photo showing Uveitis has been added and I'd like some feedback. I don't think that it adds to the article and should be removed. Thoughts?
There could be a brief mention of how witch doctors and homeopaths actually caused significant harm during the Ebola epidemic.
Examples:
Hope this suggestion is helpful,
— Cirt ( talk) 22:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Apart from Mail on-line, why is there relatively little questioning of this media-driven story? While it was said that this disease was likely to become a dangerous 'world-wide outbreak' - Ebola is now all but over. Given this, media outlets might admit that this story was over-blown. And, with the latest facts, is it not clear that this was a Scare Story all along? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.110.67 ( talk) 14:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
According to certain media and information outlets, this outbreak was about to sweep the world - killing untold millions. And yet, and as it turned out, The United Kingdom had a limited local case of ONE! Hardly matches up to the 1918 flu outbreak.
Ebola: The Outbreak Of A Scare Story - might not that make a more honest Section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.148.217 ( talk) 14:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The WHO has just confirmed that Guinea has reached the end of a 42-day waiting period, and is now declared Ebola-free. [2] I've updated the article accordingly. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
When we first began working on this article so many months ago some of us were left to wonder why it was taking the WHO so long to announce the ongoing epidemic. We were not surprised to learn that it was political for the most part. They have me wondering again with their United Nations December statement "Apart from the original chain of transmission, there were 10 new small outbreaks between March and November, apparently due to the re-emergence of a persistent virus from survivors." [3]
Where are the suddenly getting this idea? This does not at all match the facts of the epidemic that I've been following. Here's an old article from the Guinea spike in cases:
May 19, 2015: DAKAR, Senegal — Only days after declaring the lowest number of new Ebola cases in Guinea and Sierra Leone this year, officials at the World Health Organization said Tuesday that there had been a nearly fourfold increase during the most recent week of reporting, to about 35 new cases....As recently as the week of March 15, there were 95 new cases in Guinea alone. [4]
As we know, at least two of the new cases, the pregnant mother and the 15-year-old boy, do seem to be the result of people that were somehow carrying the virus but had not shown symptoms for several months. But all the new cases since March? Where are they getting this from? It just does not seem to match the facts at all... Gandydancer ( talk) 01:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I've cut the width of the map in the top infobox to 400px, from the previous 500px. While the infobox image looked great on my huge high-res desktop monitor at 500px, it's too wide for the many common narrower devices which only have a notional 960px logical pixel width. I think 400px works well as a compromise between the two. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The intro has five paragraphs. It should be reduced to no more than four or three. The topic is too recent to qualify as complicated. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
George Ho..so what did you have in mind, in regards to the lede?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently hours after it was announced that Ebola outbreak was no more, someone has died from Ebola in Sierra Leone.
Should any further information be added? Adog104 Talk to me 03:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps one way of thinking about this would be that the new case is an outbreak of Ebola, but not part of an epidemic: one of the "small outbreaks" that WHO predicted earlier, as now seem to have a reservoir of Ebola virus in humans in a way that we never have (knowingly) had before. These small outbreaks could presumably go on for months (or years?) to come, but I would imagine that as long as the high level of surveillance and public health response is kept up throughout the region, they would be unlikely to re-launch an epidemic. Given this, the point at which the epidemic ends, and the continuing new era of "small outbreaks" begins, must necessarily be arbitrary.
In the absence of the epidemic being declared back on again, we probably need an "Aftermath" section in this article to cover all this. Let's wait to see what WP:RS say. -- The Anome ( talk) 08:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The Anome should the map color Sierra Leone be changed?-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 11:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
[8] latest March 2, WHO...next WHO update should be the last on March 17-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 23:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"According to Marzi et al., VSV-EBOV vaccine trial against EBOV-Makona strain is inadequate." While deciding whether to add "a" before "VSV-EBOV vaccine trial", I realized I don't know what this sentence means. Does it mean the vaccine is inadequate? Does is mean the trial is inadequate, and more trials are needed? Neither conclusion seems justified by the study's abstract, which emphasizes the vaccine's success and its apparent suitability for humans. Art LaPella ( talk) 15:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN. Relisting shortly with correction. larryv ( talk) 06:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa →
2013–2016 West African Ebola virus epidemic – Our
naming conventions for health incidents and outbreaks prescribe a "when/where/what" format for article titles; I don't see a good reason to buck that trend here.
larryv (
talk)
06:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to West African Ebola virus epidemic, which fits more with our standard naming practices and wasn't objected to. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa →
2013–16 West African Ebola virus epidemic – Our
naming conventions for health incidents and outbreaks prescribe a "when/where/what" format for article titles; I don't see a good reason to buck that trend here.
larryv (
talk)
06:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
On the title again, it includes the location, which is per the naming convention. On the current Zika outbreak article, the decision was not to include the location (the Americas) but leave it open I guess because the outbreak is still going on and everybody (esp the media) seems to think it will expand and become global (I think that's the rationale). During Ebola, that was also the hype but you decided to call it "West African" Ebola. Why? I'm wondering if the Zika article should also express the location of the historically distinct geography of this event, and if it goes global, treat that event as another article? juanTamad ( talk) 01:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Not a word about all the US military medical facilities in west africa that were put in place _before_ the outbreak? How come? It's a known fact that was reported throughout the media, albeit not in the headlines. And no, this is no mere banal "conspiracy theory": Ebola was a long since and well KNOWN threat, and expected to break out again, so I cannot for the life of me understand why you are all in complete denial about this. Why on earth would it be "dangerous" to concede and inform the public on this obvious fact?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.246.11 ( talk • contribs)
[17] interesting article...IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I've clarified some language that could have been taken to mean that the WHO had declared the epidemic to be finally over. They haven't: it's only the Sierra Leone flare-up that's been declared over. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks like there's a new flare-up in Guinea, so that needs to be reflected in the article with things like updating the map, infobox, etc. -- The Anome ( talk) 10:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
6-Year-Old Child with Severe Ebola Virus Disease... in an Ebola Treatment Center in Guinea [19].-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The introduction of this article had become extremely long, to the point of becoming a mini-article in itself, and starting to develop its own internal sub-introduction. I've now split it along the lines of the structure it was already developing: the first part is now a much shorter three-paragraph intro, and the second is now a new "overview" section, which introduces in more detail the topics which are then expanded on at length in the rest of the article. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
West African Ebola virus epidemic →
West African Ebola outbreak 2013-2016 – I think that at this point we can assign a clear ending date, as a single case doesn't really constitute an "epidemic." Also, the current title includes the word epidemic, which implies a relatively large scope, which this doesn't really meet in my opinion. Yes, some cases made it out into Europe, the United States, and elsewhere, but hardly enough to be called an epidemic. For this reason, I think that "outbreak" is more appropriate. Furthermore, I don't see why the word "virus" needs to be included. Ebola is a virus, not any other form of pathogen, so there is little need for it to be included. Finally, I believe that it is necessary to include dates because there have been outbreaks in the past and there will likely be outbreaks in the future. For the sake of clarity, I think that this move is necessary. Thanks,
Gluons12 (
talk)
19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC).
Oppose without doing a proper WP:RM request. The Med project should be notified too. Poor arguments: it was easily large enough to be called an "epidemic", though there may be a case for "outbreak". I don't understand the argument against "virus". Johnbod ( talk) 13:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose any major changes that you suggest. They have all already been discussed at length - please check the archives for information. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
oppose per reasons given above-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - it was an epidemic caused by Ebola virus. A case can be made for a move to "West African Ebola hemorrhagic fever epidemic 2013–2016". Graham Beards ( talk) 22:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose this specific name, but I would support a slightly rearranged version. I didn't comb too heavily through the previous move discussions on this page so I'm sure all of this has been considered, but I'm not sure if there's some broadly-accepted naming convention for outbreaks here. The first two outbreaks that came to mind are located at 1918 flu pandemic and 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak. So if <Date> <Location (if applicable)> <Disease> <Descriptor> is the general format that makes us happy, then I'd go with 2013-2016 West Africa ebola epidemic (though I think "outbreak" would be just as appropriate, perhaps that would be the more commonly-used term and therefore more appropriate for us. Also I realize that Ebola virus disease or Ebola hemorrhagic fever might be more correct, but I would hazard the suggestion that "Ebola" is appropriate as the disease descriptor in common English, just as "flu" was sufficient). Ajpolino ( talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
To further support my advocacy for "outbreak" instead of "epidemic", I say that Wikipedia:COMMONNAME states that "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." The World Health Organization calls it an "outbreak," and WHO is cited very often in the references section. Thank you for considering this, Gluons12 ( talk) 23:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
When the outbreak was ongoing it made sense to show the current status as was done with this map, but now that the outbreak is well and truly over, does it make sense to continue showing a 'current' map with no widespread outbreak, no limited outbreak, and no isolated cases? I would think it would be better to replace this with a map giving the historical perspective - which countries fell into these categories during the outbreak. A map showing the situation after it was all over seems much less informative. 50.37.100.83 ( talk) 10:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
When the outbreak was ongoing it made sense to show the current status as was done with this map, but now that the outbreak is well and truly over, does it make sense to continue showing a 'current' map with no widespread outbreak, no limited outbreak, and no isolated cases? I would think it would be better to replace this with a map giving the historical perspective - which countries fell into these categories during the outbreak. A map showing the situation after it was all over seems much less informative. 50.37.100.83 ( talk) 10:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ed's,
I feel that the WHO emergency move on August 11, 2014 to permit the use of colloidal silver was a landmark move in both the history of medical experimentation with colloidal silver, and in the history of the West African Ebola epidemic of 2014. It is potentially too important a detail to be leaving out of the known history intentionally. Can it be constructively re-included in the article in a way that preserves the topic's integrity?````lgc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 12:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2014/ebola-ethical-review-summary/en/
(Decision made by WHO on August 11 of that year and reported the following day) 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 12:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc
Hi Ian,
Being new, I was hoping for a less caustic reception, per Wiki policy?
Here is documentation that silver was included in the allowed protocol: a West African news agency quoting the Sierra Leone Minister of Information saying that silver was a major part of the intervention:
http://www.thenewdawnliberia.com/politics/10347-sierra-leone-tells-nano-silver-success-story
I have written to Gregory Hartl this morning, the media contact for the WHO panel that convened 8/11/14, to specifically ask him to verify that silver was among the approved "compassionate use" protocols, to corroborate the assertion by the Sierra Leone Minister of Information that it was.
I realize that you must have all sorts of people "pushing quakery" on Wikipedia, but please maintain an open mind that silver with its known broad-spectrum anti-microbial properties may have played an important emergency role in helping to curb the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone, and if so, should be included in the timeline, even if only as a passing footnote. I do agree with you though that it's a leap to credit the unapproved drug entirely with staunching the outbreak of that year - there were also improvements in sanitation that played an important role. 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 13:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc
Hi Ian, As mentioned above, I've written the WHO directly this morning - please kindly give them a chance to respond.
Is it customary to list the editorial staff of a news periodical as part of a citation? I didn't see a space for that in the automated citation helper that popped up. Is listing the editorial staff done for all periodicals uniformly, or just for certain ones?
Here is the listing for the editorial staff of The New Dawn: Staff listing
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Mr. Othello B. Garblah Managing Editor Email: o.garblah@thenewdawnliberia.com
E. J. Nathaniel Daygbor
News Editor Email: e.daygbor@thenewdawnliberia.com
The New Dawn news agency in Liberia states that they are quoting an interview of Sierra Leone Minister of Information Alpha Kanu in a primary interview by The Star Africa, a Sierra Leone news periodical.
I have also written the editor of the New Dawn this morning for the verification which you asked for, using my public pen name, which is Richard Robert Book (when I sign LGC on Wikipedia, I am using the initials of my own Christian name):
Dear Mr. Garblah,
In attempting to add a note about the importance of colloidal silver to the Wikipedia timeline of events leading up to the ending of the Ebola outbreak of 2014, I have quoted your article "Sierra Leone Tells Nano-Silver Success Story" in editing a Wikipedia article on the topic. An editor of Wikipedia, Mr. Ian Thompson, has publicly accused your newspaper, on Wikipedia, of making up the story. I believe that he is mistaken, and promised him that I'd write and ask you to verify that Mr. Alpha Kanu, the Sierra Leone Minister of Information at the time, was indeed interviewed by The Star Africa newspaper in Sierra Leone, which The New Dawn then quoted.
Please forgive the offensive nature of Mr. Thompson's tone - I believe that he is just trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia in good faith, and means no harm.
Thank you very kindly, Richard Robert Book rbook62@gmail.com 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 14:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 14:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ian, The WHO is a medical source. If colloidal silver is not mentioned by name on the August 12, 2014 press release of the August 11 emergency session (and none of the protocols appear to me mentioned by name), then a list of approved non-tested drugs may exist that can be accessed. I have re-written Mr. Hartlg, the public relations officer for the WHO emergency panel, and followed-up by asking him to give us a publicly accessible link to a list of un-trialled drugs that were permitted under that decision. 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 15:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc
Hi Ian, Perhaps you missed my note, above, that I was writing to ask for a clickable link to documents that could be accessed by the public?
I've also written to the Minister of Health and Sanitation in Sierra Leone, Dr. Samuel Kargbo, for any links to public electronic information that can be accessed by everyone. 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 15:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc
P.S. Ian, I think it's very important not to throw around loose language like "cured", such as you have above. Scientifically speaking, we can compare before and after mortality rates as the CDC has done and demonstrate an improvement, but we would not want to speak of a "cure," as the virus could easily be suppressed one day and then mutate the next. Please note that I have use such words as "curbed" and "staunched" and used them only in this less formal chat - words that should suggest containment of ongoing battles, such as the outbreak of 2014, and not the final victory in a larger "war" on the Ebola virus. 108.36.223.40 ( talk) 18:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)lgc
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
On May 11, 2017, the Ministry of Health of the Democratic Republic of the Congo notified international public health agencies of a cluster of suspected cases of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in the province of Bas Uélé. The report mentions 9 cases, including two deaths, with a third death reported on May 12. Testing of samples was conducted by the Institut National de Recherche Biomedicale (INRB) in Kinshasa, with one sample testing positive for Ebola Zaire by RT-PCR. The Ministry has deployed a team to the site to investigate further.
I tried to add this myself but was reverted for some unknown reason.
[22] 59.101.244.227 ( talk) 12:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
|}
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on West African Ebola virus epidemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
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.
Possible GA Article Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations(w/ consensus) | Type | Article review/book/NIH,WHO |
---|---|---|
Proposed article/book/site | jour. |
|
Added | ||
Pending |
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 19:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)