Talk:Ebola virus cases in the United States/Archive 3

Nav box/Democratic Republic of the Congo
The WHO says the outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not related to the West Africa epidemic. It is mentioned in the nav box. Should we state in the nav box that it is not related in some fashion, or perhaps delete mention of it from the nav box altogether? SW3 5DL (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's under "related" as opposed to "affected countries" for that reason... though perhaps related does suggest the outbreaks are... well... related! Would "See also" be appropriate? I put it in the nav box because it is commonly referenced by the media and its helpful for reader navigation. -  Floydian  τ ¢  21:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Floydian, I think it's a great thing you did making that box as it's a huge help to the reader. Having it on all the articles is really helping bring order to these articles. Since the media is referring to the DRC epidemic, then maybe say 'unrelated' and keep it in the Nav box? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Third person tests positive in Dallas
The third person diagnosed, a second health care worker, has tested positive for Ebola. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Put into isolation within 90 minutes. They are expecting more cases. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/second-texas-health-care-worker-tests-positive-for-ebola/. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nurses tell of conditions at Dallas Hospital
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792457/Ebola-patient-cared-70-hospital-staffers.html

Sounds like they were given only standard Universal precautions gear which is not adequate to deal with Ebola virus. They had exposed skin and there's a claim that a supervisor told them they didn't need to wear masks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the nurses union the hospital did not have the necessary full coverage protective gear for Ebola workers and the nurses were forced to wear what was available. This is like using Level 1 or 2 lab resources to handle Level 4 organisms - of course it was inadequate. Not only that but the hospital administration made no effort to immediately obtain and supply the proper gear to the staff before the patient went into the stage of the disease where fecal matter and vomitus proliferated.

CDC funding has been reduced over the past 20 or so years (by penny pinching Tea Party? Republicans? who don't see a need for anything but riot gear?) to the point that there is no stockpiling of biohazard protective gear in strategic locations around the nation, nor are there enough people trained in the use of that gear. Additionally, it was pretty obvious back in August that the epidemic was not going to be contained and would go intercontinental within a month or 3 due to someone (lying about exposure) getting on a plane out of Africa. That should have been a wake-up call to hospital epidemiology management everywhere.

--Mccainre (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up Duncan section
There was a lot of repeated information in the section about Duncan, and quite a bit of outdated information. I cleaned it up a bit. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Reads much better now. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please come here and discuss this on the talk page. This section is full of cruft and garbage and suffers from undue weight and WP:RECENT issues. I slimmed down this section several days ago because it is giving WP:UNDUE weight to to this stuff, and most of it does not belong here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A detailed prognosis is necessary for the reader to understand. The section does not need to be trimmed. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It contains a number of extraneous details, it contains a bunch of garbage which doesn't need to be there, it talks about stuff which it doesn't need to, it goes into too much detail about the tracking and gives WP:UNDUE weight to some specific instances (such as the homeless man)... this is an encyclopedia, not a news source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Vinson called CDC before boarding plane
Apparently, CBS news is reporting that Amber Vinson called the CDC to report a low grade fever of 99.5 before boarding the plane and the CDC told her it was okay to board. See here. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As the source puts it: CBS News Medical Correspondent Dr. John LaPook reports that Vinson called the CDC several times before boarding the plane concerned about her fever and was told she was OK to board. Given that Frieden is still saying she shouldn't have flown, let's get other sources. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends on who she spoke to on the phone, but the CDC says the threshold temperature is 100.4. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that the primary controversy is that people potentially exposed to ebola aren't supposed to be flying, e.g. . Geogene (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem might be that the CDC is telling the health care workers to report a temp of 100.4, but they aren't also cautioning that a trend of a rising temperature should tell the health care worker to shelter in place. Keeping a chart of daily temperature at designated times of the day, and showing a rising trend should alert the healthcare worker to a likely infection. Every person's temperature fluctuates during the day. Early in the morning on first rising, is considered the most accurate. Later in the day, some rise is normally expected, but a trend showing an increase at any point, especially first thing in the morning, is notable. In addition, females will have a slightly elevated temperature during ovulation so that must be factored in. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nina Pham
They are apparently sending her to Bethesda, Maryland. Epicgenius (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

SOFT SELL
This article reads like pro-Obama propaganda. There is no mention of the many notable people who are calling for the suspension of incoming travel from infected countries. Surely that's material to this discussion !!!! 98.118.62.140 (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Heavy POV, or just trolling? – Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Both. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 23:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Map question
Would anyone be interested in making a map with the biocontainment centers labelled in their respective states? Something like this would be helpful, especially for readers not all that familiar with the individual states in America. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola Czar
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/17/politics/ebola-czar-ron-klain/

SW3 5DL (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Fauci
Thanks for moving that to a better spot. But the statement there reads On October 16 2014, in a United States Congressional hearing regarding the Ebola virus crisis, Dr Fauci, as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), testified and warned that they were still some distance from producing sufficient quantities for widespread trials.[92] Sufficient quantities of what? Visas? It can still probably fit somewhere in the article. Geogene (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Obviously I've never used that template before, sorry. Geogene (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. Why not move it or modify it then, instead of totally whole-sale removing and dissing?   Just curious.   No real valid reason to whole-sale remove.    That's disrespectful and against WP policy and drift and recommendation. Which is MODIFY, don't totally delete.    Just because you don't like what Fauci said, or find it so irrelevant, doesn't really mean that it is.   It's all regarding the American situation here.   Not sure what the big hang-up and problem is here, with this.  Fauci has been in interviews and hearings regarding the United States outbreak... Your rationale for removing is not really valid.   And you disrespected my hard work and addition for no valid reason.    Stop edit-warring please.   (Also if you notice, another editor restored part of the Fauci matter in a different part of the article.  So if your issue is WHAT PART of the article it is in, then why didn't you maybe do that?   Move it, instead of totally RE-move it?)  Regards.  Gabby Merger (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, it would be nice if people would stop telling me why I do things, especially since they're usually wrong. There are several problems with your addition (1) it has nothing to do with Nina Pham, and you dropped it right in the middle of section (2) Fauci is quoted without any context. There is no information content in his statements, as they are placed here. (3) I don't know why these two different topics are being lumped together simply because Fauci made those statements. Geogene (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Which is why I also said that if it's a matter of it not being really in the best or the right spot or place IN the article, then there may be a valid point with THAT.   But then I said, that if it's that (and it looks like you may have a point with that), then why not simply move the paragraph or statements, rather than totally whole-sale removing?    Modify the situation, instead of deleting.   (Also, btw, to your comment on my page, I never break 3RR, ever, and I'm NOT really a "new user".)   Anyway, if the statement should be moved, as it may very well need to be, then why not do that, or work on it.  Because one thing I will not budge from is the fact that Fauci's positions or statements belongs in this article at least somewhere.   Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Because that's your responsibility. Have a nice day. Geogene (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the problem hasn't been fixed. I'm not going to re-revert. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not entirely true.  It's NOT JUST "my responsibility"...because WP policy is for ANY editor, other editor, to NOT remove necessarily, but to MODIFY OR MOVE or whatever else may be needed or may be better.   To put it solely on me, the initial editor, is NOT what Wikipedia recommendation actually.   But in general.   But anyway, I already (a while ago already) moved the paragraph to a better place. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that. Geogene (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not an "outbreak" as yet
The infection in the United States has so far been limited to medvac'd patients and their immediate health worker carers, and has not made its way into the general population. Given the WHO criteria on the West African outbreak talk page, this does not make it an "outbreak" yet. I propose that we rename the article Ebola virus cases in the United States to match this. -- Impsswoon (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an open comment section on that above. Geogene (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Monitoring Other Health Workers" (cruise ship)
It's better not to mention the cruise ship episode until it's confirmed that the person has ebola. Geogene (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * here's a link to that Victor Grigas (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that potential references for it exist. That does not mean it belongs in the article because if it's not ebola it doesn't have lasting notability. It's probably not ebola; there are no symptoms of ebola, and the last potential contact with the virus was 19 days ago. We can't put every scare in the article. If it does turn out to be ebola, that content will still be available in the page history. Geogene (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hysteria
This page does not conform to Wikipedia standards in that the coverage is not balanced. There have been 5 confirmed cases here in the US. Will you also be making a page about the flu and all the people who die annually? Why not? If 5 people equals an outbreak then flu deaths are way underhyped.
 * You make a valid point, but coverage in WP is in proportion to coverage in reliable sources. Currently, it's just about wall to wall coverage of ebola out there. We're doing well that the US article is so short as it is. Geogene (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are cases 4 and 5? We're not counting the medevac cases, are we? Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ebola has a much higher chance of killing me in the coming year than flu.  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless you are in one of the affected West African countries, flu has a far higher likelihood of killing you than Ebola. Influenza causes 250 - 500k worldwide deaths most years (25 - 50k in the U.S.) To answer the unsigned IP editor, there are some articles like 2013–14 flu season and sections like Influenza_vaccine (and southern hemisphere.) If there are sources covering other flu seasons, then articles can be created. Xqxf (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that simple. Flu risk depends on age and health, and Ebola probability depends on what you think the probability of the most hysterical fears is (a pandemic comparable to the Black Death). Wasn't that long ago they told us Texas couldn't happen either, but it did. Art LaPella (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It happens always with articles about recent events, which mostly reference the media (just count the references to CNN, ABC, NBC, USA Today, Fox News, NYT etc.) Until studies about this subject are written and published as scientific articles, pages about news will remain a collection of claims purported by the media. So if the media are hysterical, so will the article be. The only way to be objective is to wait until the hysteria subsides and then clean it up. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * >flu has a far higher ...
 * No. I'm a healthy adult.  The typical yearly flu kills those who are weak, such as the very old.  Flu has close to zero chance of killing me this coming year.  In fact because of flu vaccine, I haven't been affected by flu in 10 years. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good on you for getting your flu vaccine, but until there is a universal flu vaccine, there are still concerns as Wzrd1 states below. (But we're veering into WP:NOTFORUM.) Xqxf (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree administrator help is urgently needed here to edit this Ebola entry on Wikipedia. There is currently no Ebola "outbreak" in the United States, and declared as such is a HOAX. The disease is still quite rare. Definition of "outbreak" is a violent and sudden start. You are encouraging hysteria with this title, and the neutrality of the information as presented is highly questionable.


 * Maybe what we really need is a checkuser. And 97.123.109.199 remember to sign your posts, like the one above. Or alternatively, you could log in with your account. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll give more credibility to signed comments. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Daniel.Cardenas, you're as wrong as imaginable as to deaths from influenza. It isn't only the "weak" and elderly, the Spanish Influenza pandemic preferentially killed healthy and strong people, other epidemics did so at lower numbers. Do read about the cytokine storm. Now, for further homework, I present for your reading displeasure, outbreak. For rare diseases that are not expected to spread, two can be enough to qualify as an outbreak. In this case, the US Ebola outbreak is likely contained. It's been fortunate that only two are confirmed and so far, the family the index case was living with has so far showed no signs of infection. Hence, it's more now of a lessons learned event. Protective garments are only as effective as adherence to protocol. Perform the steps of the protocol incorrectly, one might as well have walked into the room naked and treated the patient. The worst part is, from my own experience in using protective clothing and correctly removing them and from training others, it's nearly impossible to properly learn from a quick and informal training session. Remove your gloves incorrectly, you've contaminated your hands. Remove your eyeshield/faceshield with your gloves on, you've contaminated your head. Remove your gown wrong, you can contaminate a lot of yourself. Fail to wash your hands after leaving the "hot zone", any miniscule contamination is essentially guaranteed to receive a free ride into your mouth, nose or eyes.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-neutral and controversial title, asking for admin help
I started the move discussion above simply because I couldn't move the article myself. Why shouldn't an admin immediately move this article back to the previous title at least? The current title never had a good rationale or consensus, because as the LA Times said yesterday: this is all far from an outbreak. I'm tagging the article as non-neutral and I'll post at WP:AN for some admin attention. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 11:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently no Ebola "outbreak" in the United States, and declared as such is a HOAX. The disease is still quite rare. Definition of "outbreak" is a violent and sudden start. You are encouraging hysteria with this title, and the neutrality of the information as presented is highly questionable. 97.123.109.199 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.109.199 (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The word "outbreak" is at least well-intentioned, and I wish there were as much attention to the text as there is for the title. Art LaPella (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion about moving it is above. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It will be a sad day for Wikipedia when we decide to use the LA Times to make our decisions rather than the WHO. According to the WHO, we now have an outbreak of EVD in the US.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The sad day is here. A few disruptive editors, and one who is socking at the moment, are politicizing this article. Somebody has really been working the back channels in the last 24 hours. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing where WHO calls the US situation an outbreak. I see this but it is not refering to the US, Ebola and uses the word may. Is their another? You provide something from WHO or the CDC and I will change my position.
 * CDC says Oct 15 "Ebola is not spread through casual contact; therefore, the risk of an outbreak in the U.S. is very low." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

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. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In this outbreak, they might have no credibility, but they have been trusted in numerous other cases. The CDC were not totally prepared at the time of Duncan's arrival. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Today authors in JAMA used the terms "West African epidemic" and "the Dallas cases". Yes, it implies we might have an outbreak by saying "but a large outbreak in the United States, with its advanced health system, is unlikely"—but how is us reaching that conclusion ourselves (WP:OR), without reliable medical sources saying so, appropriate? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 18:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "No credibility?" The U.S. has just two sick nurses from treating a visitor from W. Africa, which has 9,000 cases. However, the "World Health Organisation (WHO) admits botching response to Ebola outbreak". --Light show (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, Biosthmors is totally correct. The only rationale as yet stated for allowing the word "outbreak" to stay is because a UN organization, the WHO, has their own definition of what an outbreak is and a few editors have decided to interpret that definition, which is a form of synthesis, and not allowed per guidelines. In keeping the word as part of the title, unfortunately, it also overrides U.S.reliable sources, including the CDC and the U.S. government, with an implied bias for the UN's book definition. Yet WHO is not involved in the U.S. cases, is not cited relevant to U.S. cases, and has not even called the U.S. cases an "outbreak." The White House stated clearly two days ago, "there is no outbreak". --Light show (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The WH has said a lot about Ebola and has been wrong a lot. Arzel (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Arzel, weigh in here. Some editors want to move the page from outbreak to disease because the WH said it wasn't an outbreak. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What a politician calls something matters little, what a medical professional and especially in this instance, what an epidemiologist calls it is what actually matters. On a purely technical point, it is an outbreak. It's a rare disease and it was not expected to spread, especially in a health care environment. That said, the point is moot, as it's unlikely that there will be more uncontained cases.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move to "Ebola virus disease in the United States"

 * 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: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 22:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus outbreak in the United States → Ebola virus disease in the United States – Discussion shows no consensus to use the word "outbreak" in the title. This title is more descriptive, generic, and accurate. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 16:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Definition of an outbreak by the World Health Organization.


 * Support. There has been no outbreak of Ebola virus disease in the United States. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The WHO would be surprised to hear that. Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the patients would be, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Per discussion above, ie., NY Times editorial 10/13: "the risk that the Ebola virus might cause outbreaks in this country remains small." Other experts concur, that an outbreak can be "prevented,", with Peter Hotez describing ways (10/15) to prevent one. WP should best stick with conservative phrasing.--Light show (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Append: When asked if the recent Ebola cases in Dallas should be considered an "outbreak," The White House said "No." (10/15) --Light show (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we should use WP:MEDRS rather than the NYT. Gandydancer (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Could the article still include suggestions by experts such as Hotez, about the "keys to preventing a large scale outbreak," with its current title? Also, this RS section is relevant. --Light show (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps...though best for the main article? What part of RS are you talking about?  In my experience, in this case the WHO would trump everyone else.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Synth, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Some who oppose have used explanations 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, "The CDC has said they are expecting more cases. They probably will list it as such." In any case, I believe the CDC trumps WHO in the U.S. --Light show (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I missed that. Where does the CDC say that it's not an "outbreak"? Gandydancer (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I never claimed they said that. You're the second opposer to imply that unless the CDC specifically says "it's not an outbreak," then we should assume it is. --Light show (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Light Show, WRT Hotez, and "keys to preventing a large scale outbreak," it is an outbreak now. They are saying the want to prevent a "large scale" or "widespread" outbreak. There's literally a huge difference there. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. The CDC, Obama and some experts, do refer to preventing a "widespread," or "serious" or "large scale" outbreak. Although there's probably no source, I think that clearly implies this is still a "local outbreak," namely among the two nurses, and mainly relevant to a particular hospital. Using the word "outbreak" in the title implies that it is uncontained and more "widespread." If and when the majority of sources use the term "outbreak" then we can add it back. There are some journalists who will see our use of the word in the title and wrongly assume it's based on solid facts, when it's still speculative. --Light show (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Light Show, that's not how it works. The word 'outbreak' in the title makes it clear that there has been an outbreak of the Ebola virus in the United States. The American sources are all starting to use the term outbreak. CBS news, CNN, etc. The title meets the WHO definition of an outbreak above. No, the CDC does not trump here. They've not put a foot right yet in this outbreak. In addition, all these page moves have caused an awful disruption to the article and to readers using search engines. Now you're claiming we should move the page because you define outbreak differently than the WHO does. You then state you want to move it back again when you are satisfied that this is an outbreak as you would define it. No, sorry, I can't sign on for that. We cannot keep disrupting this page for that. It's an outbreak. It meets the definition of an outbreak as put forth by the World Health Organization, an organization that's been getting it right since this outbreak began with a 2 year-old in Guinea. The CDC, not so much. And that's the last bit I'll say on the matter. The community can decide this. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why WHO's definition is the main focus here. First, the CDC's opinions or definitions by all measures would be more significant in the U.S. than WHO's, a UN organization. The CDC budget is 300% larger. They are U.S. based. They have consistently, from day one, been leading the research into Ebola. The CDC, during the first outbreak in 1976 in Zaire, had already isolated the virus, and were on their way to Zaire with multiple doctors and 17 boxes of gear to stop the the epidemic. They stopped in Geneva on the way to meet with WHO, and found that WHO was barely aware that an epidemic was even taking place. Hello? The team set up by Ebola's co-discoverer, Peter Piot, a Belgian doctor, were CDC people. I don't think he even mentions WHO in his chapter about that epidemic. WHO would not trump the CDC for the U.S. --Light show (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. For now, per my comments in the discussion above. Make sure that there are appropriate redirects. "Ebola virus disease" won't be the Google term most readers will use Geogene (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The WHO defines an outbreak this way: . The New York Times opinion piece is not based on epidemiology science like the WHO definition is. Personal opinion that this is not an outbreak, is not reason enough to move this page again. The page has been moved too many times. In addition, this is not an outbreak of disease. It is an outbreak of the Ebola virus that is transmitted to an individual. When the virus enters that person's body, it interacts with the immune system. This creates the disease in that person, who then is able to transmit the virus to others. Also, American reliable news sources are starting to call it an outbreak here. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, though I suggest we harmonize with the Spanish article title. Either by adding "cases" here or removing it from that title. According to this email from the WHO, the situation in the US and Spain is referred to as an "introduction". -  Floydian  τ ¢  18:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The thing is Floydian, an office worker may say that in an email, but in actuality that is not what the WHO is calling the outbreak in Senegal, with only one case. See here:   Gandydancer (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is not an outbreak. This is not an outbreak. This is not an outbreak. Oops, this is an outbreak. What else do you call it when an infectious disease newly emerges in an area? Medical services & authorities are trying to contain the outbreak, or at least I hope so. But we keep exercising in semantic denial. Stupid girl (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Based on the epidemiologic definition of an outbreak, yes, this is an outbreak. However, the CDC has not listed it on their Current Outbreak list. I'm on the fence on this one. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The CDC has said they are expecting more cases. They probably will list it as such. All these pages moves are disruptive. Waiting might be best to see if more cases are reported. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support move
 * The CDC defines the situation in the United States as being one of: "cases", specifically "travel associated cases".
 * The WHO are of a similar stance.
 * Vague definitions and lay-opinion pieces are irrelevant when compared to what major international health organizations actually are saying.
 * -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 19:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what they were saying on September 30th, two weeks ago, before the nurses became ill. And use of the Ebola virus outbreak is appropriate according to the WHO definition of an outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We need to use conformity in all of our Ebola articles.  We are using the WHO.  According to the WHO this is an outbreak.  Even the Senegal outbreak, with only one case, is considered an outbreak by the WHO.  As SW3 5DL notes above, this subject has already been discussed at length in the main article.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: The WHO definition says (emphasis added): "A single case of a communicable disease long absent from a population, or caused by an agent (e.g. bacterium or virus) not previously recognized in that community or area, or the emergence of a previously unknown disease, may also constitute an outbreak and should be reported and investigated." WHO is not specifically calling the U.S. situation an outbreak that I can find. The CDC is still, as of today, referring to it as "Cases of Ebola Diagnosed in the United States". —Torchiest talkedits 20:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, how do you explain the fact that the WHO is calling the one Senegal case an outbreak? Gandydancer (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, how to explain that, and also, Torchiest, there's not been "only one case in a population where it has been long absent," there's been 3 in a population where it has never existed before. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We're Wikipedia, we don't need to explain it. We need to report what the reliable sources are saying. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Most of the positions that have been given--including both pro and con--appear to be based on original research on whether it is or isn't an "outbreak" yet. I'm not going to question that most everyone else knows more about this than I do. But is it in line with normal policy? already voted above Geogene (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get the idea that SW3 5DL and I are using OR. Please explain.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Interpretation of the definition, and the decision on whether it should apply to this instance, is original research. SW3 5DL actually got it backwards by saying Personal opinion that this is not an outbreak, is not reason enough to move this page again. Actually the more conservative wording is that it's not an "outbreak", and it's SW3 5DL's personal opinion that it is an outbreak; however that editor also cited sources that are now calling it an outbreak, and I find that a valid argument. But the 19:37 comment is more OR. Your argument was for conformity and an appeal to the WHO, and so valid. Anyone else I should criticize? The one immediately below looks likely. Geogene (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrt the definition, it's really not my personal opinion. Here is a diff where Gandydancer explains it very well on the main article talk page. here. He looked it up and there's a source there as well. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion/OR that the present conditions meet the stated definition. That's not to say that the opinion/OR is wrong, it's just that I'd rather WP be the last and not one of the first places to call it that, since it has a ring of sensationalism to it. Until last weekend it wasn't technically an outbreak by the definition you gave. Why was this article already calling it that by then? Geogene (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose While most mainstream sources aren't calling it an outbreak yet, Wikipedia should use accurate scientific definitions. User:SW3 5DL and User:Gandydancer are correct here. The lead defines that this "outbreak" is very limited in size, so readers will not be confused by the terminology. (We can put a note in the lead if needed.) For the second part of the issue ("ebola virus disease" as proposed vs "ebola virus" as currently used), the issue is not just that people have Ebola virus disease in the US now, but that other people may have Ebola virus without having yet developed Ebola virus disease, and the overall situation is to deal with the containment of the outbreak of Ebola virus. The article deals with that overall containment effort, not just the patients diagnosed with Ebola virus disease. Xqxf (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to stick with the mainstream sources, usually. The second point is a good one. I proposed "ebola virus disease" above and think this is a good reason to take "disease" out of it. Geogene (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * BBC reports Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings said it might take time to deal with the outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post: Obama cut CDC funding years before outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * CNN Ebola up to speed on the outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * These are poor sources to use to make a WP:COMMONAME argument here. HuffPo carries a decidedly political slant and that article is using "outbreak" in response to mid-year politicking by a political group.  The CNN article is using "outbreak" in a global context, not specific to America.  The one use of the word "outbreak" in the USA section is only related to the same politicking.  The BBC article that quotes Rawlings and uses the word "outbreak" appears to be an outlier, there are plenty more articles covering the same story that don't use the word "outbreak", .   02:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree, but editors here are using American news sources and back up their 'support' of the move. The WHO definition is best. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to hear... I did read the WHO definition of "outbreak" but it'd cross the line into WP:OR to take their definition and apply it to the situation ourselves. We've got plenty of reliable sources to use, there's no reason to have to do that.  In fact, there is this from the WHO, the "WHO: Ebola Response Roadmap Situation Report" that describes what's happening in the USA as "cases"; they reserve the word "outbreak" for other areas.  The specific wording the WHO uses for the situation in the USA is:  "COUNTRIES WITH AN INITIAL CASE OR CASES, OR WITH LOCALIZED TRANSMISSION", see page 9.   04:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But this requires more of what you call original research: "Cases" doesn't include "localized transmission" to cover the full scope, but you've arbitrarily decided to exclude that part. And a name like "Ebola virus disease cases and localized transmission in the United States" is a little unwieldy, when "outbreak" is a simple synonym for that. Xqxf (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a problem because this requested move discussion isn't contemplating a target of "cases" but rather the more general "disease". And certainly the WHO's document doesn't support the case for keeping this article at "outbreak", which is the direction of your argument.  The WHO's document does not at all support your assertion that "outbreak" is a "simple synonym" for "cases and localized transmission".    12:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support move. While what's happening in Africa is an "outbreak," the best-quality sources characterize what's happening in America as "cases."  In this the CDC is careful not to apply the word "outbreak" to the 2 cases of infection that have happened in the US.  Looking at the sober news sources like the ones from the AFP, Reuters, [NY Times.  Interestingly the Reuters article is careful to distinguish between the cases that have happened and the "outbreak" that hasn't (yet), 'In Washington, President Barack Obama said the likelihood of a widespread Ebola outbreak was "very, very low,"' same with the article from the NY Times.  Based on this, per [[WP:COMMONAME]] the article should be renamed.   02:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because it's actually cases, it should be Ebola virus cases in the United States. It's not an outbreak, but the "disease" appendix to the page title is not consistent with other articles' naming, and the article is also about the cases, not the disease itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm...generally I think of people having cases of Ebola virus disease (or Ebola virus infection before that), not cases of Ebola virus itself. In addition to being slightly inaccurate, I think this has the same problem as "disease" as far as focusing on the individuals still. (It also makes me think the article is about physical cases filled with vials of Ebola virus. :) Xqxf (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Disease" is better than "cases" because there's only been 2 reported cases of infection in the USA (so far), it'd be rather limiting to the scope of the article. "Diseases" is more general can would allow the article to cover more ground.   04:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But duplication is not wanted. We want the article to cover the outbreak of the virus, not the disease. How did the virus get here, how was it managed, how is it spreading. That's the focus. As for the disease, Ebola virus disease handles that. This is the outbreak, just like the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa is about the epidemic there. We don't repeat their content. Items that migrated from there have been eventually eliminated here. Plus we've now got a nav box to handle the other outbreak articles so the reader can link easily to those, too. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Among other issues already listed, Ebola virus disease in the United States would have to include the Reston virus monkeys in Virginia and Texas in 1990, which is too broad. Xqxf (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong at all with covering those topics in a Ebola virus disease in the United States article, would not be too broad. There's no requirement that we have an article that covers only the activity that has happened in the past week or two.    12:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xqxf. I wouldn't recommend such an article as it sounds like a content WP:FORK. If it were at AfD, editors would likely say redirect to  Ebola virus disease as it already covers that. However, an article about the outbreak in the U.S. can be a stand alone article as the topic is unique. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the proposed title means we need to cover Reston virus... Though I still think adding "cases" (which includes how the virus got here and the effects of it... don't need to be that specific to the title) is better and harmonizes it with the Spanish title. -  Floydian  τ ¢  16:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Floydian, the thing about going back to cases is that it suggests only the medical workers evacuated to the U.S. We're past that now since Duncan got here. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Principles of Epidemiology, source used for definition of epidemics, defines outbreak as follows: "Synonymous with epidemic. Sometimes the preferred word, as it may escape sensationalism associated with the word epidemic. Alternatively, a localized as opposed to generalized epidemic". Two cases of ebola (not counting the one who contracted it in Liberia) is not an outbreak, but reflection of current media hysterics and is not objective. Adagio Cantabile (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment are we expanding this article to cover all cases of Ebola disease in the United States, and not just those related to the 2014 West African outbreak? There was an Ebola Reston zoological oubtreak of Ebola virus disease in the United States a few decades ago, as well as several other zoological cases of disease -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. per above until sources are calling these cases an outbreak. CDC says Oct 15 "Ebola is not spread through casual contact; therefore, the risk of an outbreak in the U.S. is very low."  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether There's an Ebola Outbreak in the U.S. Depends on the Definition of 'Outbreak suggests not calling it an "outbreak" is politically motivated to some extent. Some other sources calling it an "outbreak" now, amongst others: . The Independent article specifically talks about preventing "any wider outbreak" in the U.S. Xqxf (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree with Xqxf. Keep the politics out of the medicine. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't really see the problem with the use of the word "outbreak".  The WHO has called it an outbreak.  When the two nurses contracted the disease, it broke containment.  The proposed wording is vague and non-descriptive to the wording of the article.  If the article really reflected the proposed wording it would start off with the cases of Ebola which were not detected in the US and begin with the individuals which were transferred to the US for treatment.  The wording of the lead fits with the more specific word of "outbreak".  If anything the title could be expanded to include the year to differentiate against future possible outbreaks.  The CDC and the WH are certainly treating it like an outbreak even if they are wanting to not call it that for optics as they are specifically talking about containment of the disease.  If there were no outbreak, there would not be talk of containment and control of spread.  I think some editors are hung up on the number of cases.  I don't see why this is a political issue, and whether it is called an outbreak or not is not going to change the perception that people have of what is going on.  Arzel (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been asking but no one has provided a link to where the WHO calls the cases in the USA an outbreak. Can you provide this link please. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's because there is none. The rationale is based on OR, as noted above and below by those who oppose calling the cases "cases." --Light show (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW - seems WHO in their "Disease outbreak news" Notice of 1 October 2014 refers to "Ebola virus disease – United States of America" at the following => http://www.who.int/csr/don/01-october-2014-ebola/en/ - hope this helps. Drbogdan (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When you look right at what the WHO says constitutes an outbreak and refuse to believe it, there is not much that one can do to convince you. According to the WHO an outbreak is the occurrence of cases in excess of what would normally be expected in a defined community, area or season and it may occur in just one country or several.  Our article Disease outbreak says the same thing.  Furthermore, as I have pointed out, the WHO refers to the Senegal outbreak with only one case as an outbreak.  For my part, I'll be ready to change my position when someone explains to me why they are calling Senegal an outbreak and would not use the same term for the disease here in the US.  Gandydancer (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The outbreak took place in four adjoining W. African countries, the starting point and main focus, which is why there is an article correctly named Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, as opposed to Ebola virus disease cases in Spain. --Light show (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay User:Gandydancer so you are saying that you are basing this on a definition of an "outbreak" by WHO which includes the word "may", does not refer to the United States and does not refer to Ebola? Sorry but this looks like WP:OR. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)Ebola outbreak has crept into the US. States that a major outbreak is unlikely, read as an outbreak none the less.  The WHO also called the single case in Senegal an outbreak, agree with Gandydancer's position regarding Senegal. Arzel (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support This isn't an outbreak. It's an occurrence.  valereee (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. An outbreak by any other name is still an outbreak. Senegal is an example. Why is U.S. wanting to be different? Miguel Pena (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Two (or three or four) healthcare workers getting infected on the job does not constitute an outbreak. Until something like this begins to spiral out of control, I don't think the alarming phrase of "outbreak" should be used. Jwhester (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The disease has broken out here in the U.S. I understand different people have different definitions for the word.  It matches wiktionary and who first definitions. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment to the admin who unilaterally made the change, based upon a request. Every organization has a change management process, as does Wikipedia. The process was not followed. Had I, when I was an administrator of various networks and systems made such a change upon request and not checked if change management processes were adhered to first, I'd be written up on the first event and looking for a new job on the second. Change management is that big a deal, for without it, chaos ensues, with changes and reversions occurring as fast as the system can nearly process.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. While two cases of a rare disease that was not expected to spread does constitute an outbreak in technical terms, it's expected to be fully contained at the current time. This now is more of a case of, let's revisit the question if there are four more cases that are outside of the contact groups.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Technically we are on safe ground with "outbreak". Outbreak is supposed to be the neutral, unloaded term to say that the disease occured in a new place. "Outbreak" became politically loaded because the US government tries to project calmth by deliberately not calling it "outbreak". Some media go along with this, others don't. We Wikipedians can follow the US government's lead if we want to, but it's nothing wrong with calling it like it is either. Regarding the WHO: You can, and did, cite WHO's current usage for both sides of the argument. That's because WHO primarily uses another distinction between localized transmission, like US, and wide-spread transmission. Neither of them they call outbreak. They use the term outbreak occasionally to distinguish between this (West African) Ebola outbreak and the other one in DR Congo. Since WHO's scope is global, this makes sense. The DR Congo outbreak is a separate one, while the US cases are clearly linked to the West African outbreak. Since Wikipedia's scope is US American, we might go along with CDC and call this "Dallas Presbyterian breach of protocol". The technically most correct term would be something like "United States cases of the West African Ebola virus epidemic". This would be unwieldy, geographically inconsistent, and everybody wants to avoid the debate about "pandemic" as long as possible. Therefore, "United States cases of Ebola virus" is good, and "United States outbreak of Ebola virus" is even better because when you read the article its focus is on the ongoing containment efforts, and not on the cases. If you look around further on the WHO site: There is a Disease Outbreak News list. On this list, "Ebola virus disease - United States" is indicated on Oct 1st with the Duncan case. This is also listed under "Outbreaks and emergencies" on the WHO country profile "United States of America". Stupid girl (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support As Jwhester says above, a few healthcare workers getting infected on the job does not constitute an outbreak, and the term "outbreak" is not being used by either medical organizations or (with rare exceptions) by major news organizations. Calling it an outbreak when it is not yet one is alarmist, and does not help readers or Wikipedia's own reputation for impartiality: Wikipedia exists to report facts, not to create them. -- The Anome (talk) 6:19 am, Today (UTC−5)
 * Support For two reasons.  First, as pointed out, reliable sources are predominantly referring to the current "cases" of Ebola, and are describing an "outbreak" explicitly as something that we must work to prevent, or that can be prevented, or that is not expected--in all cases, that is not occurring right now.  And second, the article currently includes coverage of instances of Ebola patients who were medically evacuated from West Africa and received treatment here with no transmission known to have occur.  These cases are clearly not a part of any outbreak in the United States.  So even if the two medical workers who contracted Ebola in Texas constitute an Ebola outbreak, the article as a whole is not about just that outbreak, but is in fact about all 2014 Ebola cases in the US.  --DavidK93 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Outbreak is WP:POV, given there are only two cases caught here. Change to Ebola in United States.Casprings (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The WHO clearly says may which is conditional mood. It can be called an outbreak, but it does not have to be called an outbreak. The WHO definition leaves the decision open. As a consequence, physicians would now have to decide whether it's an outbreak or not. But before we start discussing the likelyhood of transmission and so on - whatever the outcome of that discussion is would be POV. The majority of reliable sources seem to call it cases, so calling it an outbreak would be POV.--Melody Lavender (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Others have perceived the reluctance to use the term "outbreak" as politically motivated. From my point of view, the desire to use "outbreak" is politically motivated as well. Above I voted against the term, not because of politics but rather as a person who thinks it is premature. It may turn into an outbreak, but it hasn't yet. I think it depends on whether one expects this to get worse. If you expect it to get worse, then you are inclined to call it an outbreak. I do not think that it is inevitable, and I would ask those who support it to consider whether they think history books would look back on this as an outbreak if no one else catches the disease from this original infected man. In addition, I think the word "outbreak" is more loaded a term today because that was the title of a Hollywood disaster movie, so I think it should be used with care. 97.89.139.153 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose If this is not an outbreak now, it soon will be. The epidemic in West Africa is clearly unstoppable &mdash; it will just have to burn itself out. In the mean time, many more people like Thomas Eric Duncan will come to the United States by one route or another, perhaps as illegal immigrants from Mexico. And secondary cases will occur as with Nina Pham and Amber Vinson. So changing the name is pointless, since we would just have to change it back again. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is just a combination of opinion and crystal-ball gazing. —Torchiest talkedits 14:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I would also support "Ebola virus cases in the United States". —Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 14:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Torchiest, you make a good point. One thing that editors should be aware of here is that the last stable version of the article was just that, Ebola virus cases in the United States.The article had no problems with that article title. But then Floydian changed all the titles of all the new articles in one fell swoop. He titled this one "Ebola virus disease cases in the United States," without any consensus. I then changed the title on the U.S. article to 2014 Ebola virus outbreak in the United States. Epicgenius changed that title to what it is now. There's never been any consensus for using the word 'disease' anymore than there was consensus for outbreak. The only consensus, and the most stable version of the article, has always been Ebola virus cases in the United States.  Also, note well, that the nominator of this move discussion has never edited here and has never shown any knowledge of the previous titles. The fact that the stable version had consensus, should be duly noted by the closing admin. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Everyday I see this "outbreak" link in my news page, and I cringe because I think in retrospect everyone will see that this was language pushed for a political end. Most here seem to agree that it is not the right designation, yet the title remains. I suspect the word "outbreak" will be removed, but it seems this won't happen until the political fear-mongering has ceased on this issue and moved onto another. At this point it is practically moot because for all intent and purposes Wikipedia has chosen to describe this as an "outbreak" during the period when the rest of America was freaking out about Ebola and reaching out to Wikipedia for the facts. Not our finest hour, IMHO. Jwhester (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jwhester...get rid of 'outbreak' as hysterical. It's not an outbreak.  It's a couple of cases.  valereee (talk) 19:20, 21 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.