Talk:Ebola virus cases in the United States/Archive 5

Is the current map useful?
I don't feel that the current map at the top of the page is useful, and I wondered if others agreed. The map shows the locations of Ebola patients diagnosed in the US, but only by state. Which means it's a map showing one state. I feel that this information is most easily conveyed with the simple statement, "US cases have been diagnosed only in Texas." If cases are diagnosed in other states, it would make sense to show them on a map. Or if we expanded the purpose of the map to also show the locations where medically evacuated cases were treated, that would make sense as well. But, as it stands, I don't see the purpose in having a map of the USA that identifies a single state as the one to have a particular characteristic. --DavidK93 (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There's been discussion to add the evacuated cases to the map. At the moment, nobody seems to have the time to do the work on it. If you'd like a go at it, I'm sure it will be appreciated all around. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The map is not only 'not useful', it is positively misleading. It seems to imply that Ebola is to be found all over Texas, and that the virus is somehow confined by the state borders. It needs to go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. A while back I added a neutral U.S. map without any states highlighted, but it got reverted. Of course, not only the map is misleading, but so is the title, and much of the article. --Light show (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @SW3, Per your note, I'll add the neutral map if you no longer feel that highlighting evacuated case locations is necessary. --Light show (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not concerned with highlighting. I'm more concerned with the current map being misleading to the reader, as per Andy. Your map seems to be neutral to me, but others might not agree. That's why I think, if you're willing to have a go, you should do it. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Much better, Light show. I like that one. Liked it before. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry. The whole thing looks absurd now. So Texas highlighted is misleading, but a generic map of the lower 48 (with Alaska and Hawaii nowhere to be seen) is somehow more informative?? Can you lead me through that logic? How does the map inform the reader about anything? On the other pages regarding the outbreak, the respective states are highlighted, even if the virus is not "found all over." --  Veggies  ( talk ) 13:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Veggies, thanks for commenting. The map issue is not settled at all that I can see, so if you'd like a go at it, I'm sure everybody here would appreciate it. We've gone to the one by Light show because it seems to work better than the one with Texas singled out in red. So, by all means, have a go. All efforts are appreciated. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the map pinpointing just Dallas, for as long as there are no transmissions elsewhere; it provides much better, more precise information than just showing all of Texas, especially since the location of Dallas within Texas is less obvious to the average reader. If transmission occurs anywhere else in the US, well, we'll figure out what to do then. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, but the article (I think) deals with the Ebola outbreak as regards the Unites States, meaning a broader scope than just the index case in Dallas. --  Veggies  ( talk ) 18:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)



How does this strike everyone? --  Veggies  ( talk ) 18:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I like your user page idea of just having a flag. Geographical details within the U.S. aren't really significant anymore, unlike horse and buggy days. --Light show (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What? Since when has geography been irrelevant? Why do you like abstract symbols and non-detail so much? --  Veggies  ( talk ) 19:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the multi-color dot map is better, not with the current article title at "outbreak". "Outbreak" talks about occurrence of disease in a people in a place over a period of time.  The patients at the other medical centers did not have their occurrence happen in the United States, they were outside the country, and so can't be said to be part of a US-based "outbreak".  If the title were moved to "cases" or "disease" we could use the map.   19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If we are going to use that reasoning, we may need additional dot colors if it is moved to a title with "disease" and no year: one for animal EVD cases with asymptomatic human infections, one for animal EVD cases without human infections. (I think it's okay to be a little flexible while the title is sorted out, if it improves the map consistent with the current article...) Xqxf (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Veggies and Xqxf, We can't have disease in the title. That is going to become problematic five seconds after the page move. Go on over to Zad68's talk page. He's thinking to move the page back to the consensus title Ebola virus cases in the United States. He's going to drop a note over at ANI. So weigh in there. But it will end it. and then we can fix the map to reflect 'cases,' without the monkey Reston ebola transmissions, as they aren't human cases. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Veggies, I really like that map. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Duncan
I'm wondering if we should move the aftermath of Thomas Duncan's death to his article Thomas Eric Duncan. Since his death, the only news that would be relevant here would be information about the course of his illness, contacts who might have contracted the virus from him, etc. The bits about any lawsuit might be best handled by that article. Because, as you can image, an subsequent lawsuit will generate a lot of copy and it would be undue here. But I don't want to move anything to his article unless editors here are comfortable with that. Please comment if you've the time. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the AfD was keep, I think it's reasonable to move any Duncan-specific material that doesn't duplicate this article. As for what I think is relevant to this article (so should be left on this article and kept transcluded)...the first paragraph in Reactions should stay here. (Meaning visible on both articles.) I would say we should also keep that Duncan's family called his treatment "incompetent". I'd say the racially motivated stuff isn't as relevant (but can be kept here since it's part of the quote), since there is no evidence of racial bias affecting his treatment. However, there is evidence of incompetent treatment, so it seems relevant to keep that in this article. The threat of legal action can be entirely moved to Duncan's article since it doesn't affect the outbreak. The first statement by the hospital on Duncan's care should remain, as their supposed "high level of attention and care" resulted in the two nurses becoming infected, so their comments are notable. The second "ghost town" statement might be okay for this article, but could also go on Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas. Xqxf (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds about right. Comments about the care are relevant here. Also, we could drop quotes and paraphrase the gist of what was said. Quotes end up sometimes inviting more quotes to counteract. Can easily become problematic. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and it would be better to find an actual RS commenting on the conditions of the hospital and quality of Duncan's care. Jesse Jackson is not a medical expert, and his quotes may be better suited for Duncan's article entirely if replaced with better neutral commentary. The quote of the family simply calling the hospital "incompetent" is okay, but the hospital's reply could be edited down or summarized here. Xqxf (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Jesse Jackson bits really ought to go off and they do need a rewrite for neutrality. Our focus is the medical outcomes. And the family saying the hospital is incompetent is appropriate, along with the hospital's reply for here. That all fits here. I wondered why the hospital had not sent Duncan off to Emory in Atlanta, but he may have been too ill by then for travel. I looked for any comments about that, but didn't find them. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, on the actual conditions of the hospital, that would be excellent if we could find RS for that. I was curious how many hours did the nurses' shift last? Did they rotate in and out of caring for him? It sounds like the hospital asked the staff to volunteer to care for him. Information like that would be great for the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Structural changes suggested
In the last paragraph of this section above, I noted some problems. I can give examples if necessary. Does anyone agree? --Light show (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This got tied up in the titling arguments unfortunately. I agree there are some structural issues that need to be resolved, though it may be best to wait until the close of the move request and any subsequent move before we rearrange things too much given that there was a prior dispute over the structuring. Your ToC is a bit more readable, but may need some changes to satisfy other editors and match the current article. Xqxf (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Amber Joy Vinson
In the section Ebola virus outbreak in the United States, the order of events seems to be way out of chronological order. Is there any particular reason for that? What's wrong with telling events in the order in which they happened? CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is probably due to editors adding stuff in as it popped up in the news, when the article was more busy. I think people would be happy to see it reordered properly. Xqxf (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll work on this section tomorrow. CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about the lead
At the end of the lead, the last sentence ends, "no other confirmed cases of locally transmitted Ebola virus infection have yet been reported in the U.S." Since this is the first mention of the country in the article, does anyone have any objection to changing "U.S." to "United States", just here?

Also, the second paragraph in the section Ebola virus outbreak in the United States starts by describing what happened on September 15, 2014, with a pregnant woman friend. Even though the title of the section is "Thomas Eric Duncan in Liberia", it follows a paragraph saying Duncan had quit his job on September 4, ending with this sentence:


 * "Duncan was traveling on a visa when he made his first trip to the U.S. to reunite with his estranged teenage son and the boy's mother, Louise Troh, who had been his girlfriend in Liberia,"

which kind of suggests -- in the narrative -- that he had already left Liberia.

I think it should be mentioned, just for the sake of clarity, that what was occurring at the beginning of the second paragraph was in Liberia. CorinneSD (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Instead of "In Liberia", can we say "In Monrovia"? CorinneSD (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I put "In Liberia". If it really was in Monrovia, that can be changed to "In Monrovia". CorinneSD (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I made the lead change along with adding a useful wikilink, and the other changes you've suggested don't seem controversial. Xqxf (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Xqxf: I don't want to change "In Liberia" to "In Monrovia" unless I am sure that it was really in Monrovia. Can you confirm this event (Duncan accompanying a woman in a taxi to a hospital) occurred in Monrovia?


 * I saw your edits. I wonder why you changed "she" to Vinson, twice. I think that in both instances it is clear that "she" refers to "Vinson". In many WP articles I see "he" used often, when it is not ambiguous. Do you object to pronouns? CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not in general, though those bothered me in passing and usage seemed more consistent with the rest of the section. There are certainly places where "Vinson" can be changed to "she", and you can do the same with the two I changed if you feel it best. Xqxf (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thanks. Did you see my other question, just above "I saw your edits"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that. The accompanying reference confirms that the transport by taxi occurred in Monrovia. (The girlfriend is uncertain enough to just be "Liberia", though.) He appears to have worked in Monrovia as well, though you may have to find a better source for that. Xqxf (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Eric Duncan in Liberia
The first sentence of the second paragraph in the section Ebola virus outbreak in the United States reads:


 * "On September 15, 2014, the family of pregnant Ebola patient Marthalene Williams were unable to summon an ambulance to transfer Williams to the hospital."

It is clear right from the beginning of this article that the article is written in American English. In American English, the word "family" is singular. (See "The family was turned away" later in the same paragraph.) Thus, it should read,


 * ...the family of pregnant Ebola patient Marthalene Williams was unable to summon an ambulance... OR:


 * ...family members of pregnant Ebola patient Marthalene Williams were unable to summon an ambulance.

American editors on WP are careful to follow British English style when the article is written predominantly in that style, so when the article is written in American English style, we ought to be consistent. Which of the two versions do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for noticing those inconsistencies. I prefer British English but as this is an article about America, we should probably go with the American. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, here's the guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Need for consistency in spelling
There is a section in this article headed "Monitoring of other health care workers". I have seen "healthcare", usually in the phrase "healthcare workers", spelled as one word. I even changed one instance where it had been spelled as two words to one word just because I had seen it most often spelled as two words. Is "healthcare" an accepted spelling for the adjective? Perhaps it is accepted as a noun but not yet for an adjective. We need to decide this so that this article and at least the other articles on Ebola are all consistent. I looked up both "healthcare" and "health care" on Wiktionary and both are listed as alternate spellings for the other, but both have only the noun listed. "Health care workers" or "Healthcare workers". I don't know, but the former looks better to me. Any thoughts? CorinneSD (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one of those things that can go either way. I think 'health care workers' looks better. I don't see why it would need to be a compound word. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Ngram (American English) agrees. Art LaPella (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking that up, Art. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

which articles need help the most?
I don't have much time to edit on a daily basis but I'd like to contribute something. If someone could let me know which of the articles need editors the most, I'd be happy to help. Miguel Pena (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with move discussion

 * 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.

Yesterday, an admin moved the page to Ebola virus cases in the United States. He based that on the RM nominator's multiple requests at the page move noticeboards on October 15 and again on October 17. The RM nominator did not link to the very active discussion he'd started here in his move requests to those admins. So the admin moving the page believed it was an uncontroversial move. Since then, discussion has centered on the stable title version of the article which was "Ebola virus cases in the United States."

This evening, an editor tried to open an RM discussion on that, but it was closed because of the active RM by the original nominator. I understand what the editor meant in doing that. He was simply trying to clarify this situation. Which is why I'm posting this now. He's right. This must get sorted, because now we've got a quandary on our hands.

This is because, the RM nominator apparently did not do any research on the article title. He wants to move the page to Ebola virus disease in the United States. But that title has never had consensus anymore than the use of outbreak has had consensus. So what should we do? My original thought, once the admin had moved the page back to Ebola virus cases in the United States was to keep it and be done with it. And I opened a thread to that end and ivoted my support. However, two editors disagreed. That meant we had to put an end to what I, and maybe a few others, thought was a lucky break for us to end the title problem once and for all.

It looks like when the RM discussion is completed the page will move to Ebola virus disease in the United States. Now, without interferring with the current RM discussion, will the editors here be satisfied with that, or will this likely lead to another page move discussion to go back to Ebola virus cases in the United States?

If people aren't going to be happy, we need to get this sorted now, so that no more time is wasted on this. I'd like editors to comment here, and please don't argue with each other, just post a comment so we can see where we're at on this. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Disease" should work. Even with no cases, the title will still fit the subject. You can have an article about past disease cases in the U.S. without active cases. --Light show (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per another discussion, the word "cases" is more neutral and will not imply that Ebola disease is common, so it's best to include "cases." --Light show (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Ebola virus disease cases in the United States' or 'Ebola virus cases in the United States' both work for me. Neither sounds hysterical to me and both sound neutral.  'Ebola virus cases in the United States' sounds marginally the more neutral.  valereee (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't like either title, but maybe my reasoning will be helpful... Ebola virus cases in the United States: it's not really accurate to describe someone as having a case of a virus, rather than a case of the disease caused by it (or a case of infection by the virus.) It is also doesn't quite cover the spread and mitigation efforts surrounding the outbreak, and should be focused on the individual cases. Ebola virus disease cases in the United States avoids the first problem, but is too broad in what it covers. Here's what I think each of the titles suggests the article should cover:
 * Ebola virus outbreak in the United States - This covers the importation to and transmission of Ebola virus in the US (Duncan and the nurses), including the overall mitigation effort. Medical evacuees should be summarized more. It can also covers the effects of the West African epidemic on the US.
 * Ebola virus disease cases in the United States - This is a broad overview of Ebola virus disease cases in the US, and would start off by describing the 1980s and 1990s cases of EVD in monkeys in the US before describing the three recent cases and the evacuees. Mitigation/response information should be summarized and split, as the article is primarily about the EVD cases.
 * Ebola virus disease in the United States - Similar to above, but can include more mitigation information. Also needs additional background on vaccine R&D and similar EVD-related topics in the US.
 * Ebola virus cases in the United States - An article about physical suitcases of Ebola virus that are located somewhere in the US. Past that, has similar problems as the previous two, in that it covers the individual cases but not the mitigation efforts. No longer needs to include the monkeys at least, as they had Reston virus, and doesn't need to include as much on vaccines/etc.
 * Ebola virus in the United States - Includes mitigation efforts better, but vague and doesn't really say what Ebola virus is doing in the US. Needs to cover vaccines/etc.
 * Ebola virus in the United States in 2014 - A little more relevant to the current outbreak than the above, but still pretty vague.
 * That said, if the RM ends up at "disease" but there is clear consensus here for a specific version ("Ebola virus cases" or "Ebola virus disease cases"), I think a move without a full RM would be reasonable. Since I don't like either "disease" or "cases", consider me neutral on which is better. Xqxf (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

, a sincere thank you for opening this discussion, to try to get this resolved even if it means with an article title you don't seem to prefer. What the current article move history (see above) and policy (WP:NOCONSENSUS) support is restoring the last uncontested name, Ebola virus disease cases in the United States. From there, my preference is for Ebola virus disease in the United States. With that scope, the article can cover the current activity plus history. My second preference would be for an article title with "cases". Those are both far better supported per best-available reliable sourcing and WP:COMMONNAME than "outbreak" in any form, which has only very weak support. 15:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, we know it's a disease, which is caused by a virus. So I'd keep it simple and suggest Ebola cases in the United States. The lead sentence in the article would have a link to Ebola virus disease and state that the first case was in 2014. --Light show (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You know that just might work. People do call it Ebola. And the fact that it causes hemorrhagic illness has been completely lost by all the articles about the epidemic. So using 'disease' seems like an invitation to another RM discussion. We should ask Xqxf. He doesn't like either virus or disease. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ebola cases in the United States is a synonym for Ebola virus disease cases in the United States...it implies the monkey cases are included, etc, which I'd personally prefer to avoid. I think we should avoid the ambiguous colloquial term "Ebola" and stick with either "Ebola virus" or "Ebola virus disease", depending on what we want the title to mean. Including a year also shouldn't be ruled out, since it can make a title with "disease" no longer too overly broad. Xqxf (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. So what exactly do you think it should be titled? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Reston issue can be solved quite easily by having a hatnote at the top of the article that states "For the Reston Ebolavirus cases in Virginia, see Reston virus" -  Floydian  τ ¢  17:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Just pointing out that, although I am closing the move request above with a move, I have also read this section. Dekimasu よ! 21:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added some redirect/hatnote clarifications per the discussion here. Dekimasu よ! 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Archiving this section; if a further move discussion is necessary (I hope it won't be), please create a new move request. Dekimasu よ! 22:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

travelers quarantined
Six in quarantine in Connecticut as U.S. steps up Ebola checks Where would this go in the article?


 * Rmhermen, you could put it in the 'containment efforts' section here. Also, be sure and sign your posts. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)