Talk:Ebola virus cases in the United States/Archive 7

image positions
Can we keep the images on the right for ease of reading? If others have a special reason for wanting to vary the position to the left, please state it here. Otherwise, it seems to disrupt the flow of reading, imo, and keeping things to the right seems standard. On other articles I've worked on, I've seen editors, myself included, who think varying the image positions is somehow more interesting, but other editors found that disruptive. Whatever editors here prefer, is what we should follow. Please indicate your preference so the page can remain consistent. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

discussion
No need for a vote. WP:IMGLOC already specifies that multiple images can be staggered as long as they don't sandwich text. This has the best appearance when done correctly. Check some of my featured articles out for examples. -  Floydian  τ ¢  16:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Floydian, for the policy, but what does it say about an image that is already facing left and is then placed to the left? As here. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That image should be on the right, since it then would face the text to the left. Likewise, the medical tents image should go on the left since they mostly face to the right. -  Floydian  τ ¢  16:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Aye, so I'll go switch those. I don't know who kept reverting back to the left sided left facing view of the airport sign, but I hope they take the time to read this before they revert again. Thanks, Floydian. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

images redux
This image is great, but do we want two images for one section? Especially as it was sandwiching the text, something to be avoided as Floydian pointed out above. I suggest we could decide do we want this image or the one that is in the article now? I left that one because it was the stable image. But either one is fine with me, I just don't think both are needed. But others might feel differently. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

which to keep?
This one or the one in the article now?


 * I'm fine with keeping two images but if it is better to keep only one image for the section, we should pick based on relevance to the text in the article as per WP:MOSIM. The image on the left is directly related to airport screening of arriving passengers in Chicago as mentioned in the text. It also shows the gears used and the manner of how the screening is done. The other image is a blurry image of a poster advising departing passengers to West Africa. The topic of departures is not even mentioned in the article. Z22 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Z22, Looks good now. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sick day rumor
The source claims an anonymous, unnamed source claimed that a bunch of nurses called in sick; the hospital said that this was false. Both are noted in the source. I don't think this belongs in the article as a factual statement, especially an unreservedly factual statement, and The Daily Mail is infamously sensationalist about stuff like this, loving stupid rumors, and frankly there are all kinds of dumb rumors which swirl around stuff like that. If we are going to include it, we need to include inline attribution and note that the hospital denies that it occurred. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

, you're right. The DM does have a sensationalist slant, mostly on their headlines. They were reporting on what the New York Post was saying, so I thought it would be okay to include. Since it was said to be anonymous, I wondered if someone from the hospital staff made an anonymous call to the New York Post tip line. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any other source for this 'sick-out' story? I've checked numerous reports of this, mostly from sources that tend to be not the most reliable, and it's always the same -- just a repeat of the original article and the same statements from the same anonymous source.  Fox is the most reliable, and they're reporting it as 'reported' rather than as fact.  I think we need to pull back on how this is stated unless/until there's a corroborating report that names the source or a report in a really reliable source.  valereee (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail wouldn't be a good source for facts about Ebola unless they were interviewing an expert. I've emailed them before about facts and they assure me that they do fact check items especially as the UK has especially tough libel laws, much harsher than the U.S. That said, regarding the edit about the nurses calling in sick, this is my edit, with the DM as a source.


 * . Someone else came along apparently and inserted, "The hospital denies this." But what the hospital is denying in that new edit is that there is a staff shortage at all. So unless this new source placed there with that edit states clearly that the hospital denies that nurses are calling in sick, then it would need to be changed back to what the hospital is really saying. Otherwise, I'm afraid that's WP:OR. And deleting an edit simply because you don't like it isn't a valid reason. I don't have time at the moment, but I will also help look for other sources. Well done, there Val in searching for that. You're very good at hunting these things down. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That was me who changed it to 'the hospital denied this.' That was what was in the Fox News story -- the hospital denied there WAS a sickout, rather than denying staffing levels were affected by a sickout.  I changed the statements to conform to Fox News' story rather than Daily Mail's because Fox seems like a more reliable source than DM. And, gosh, thanks!  :) valereee (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're reliable as always, well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to remedy title issues
So, we're at Ebola virus disease in the United States. I think this name makes the scope of the article too broad. This article now needs to include the 1989–1996 cases involving monkeys and asymptomatic humans, more background on vaccine research, etc. I feel it's best to keep the article focused on the 2014 incident like it is now. (The hatnote doesn't solve the issue, since articles are supposed to be about what their title is. I think we would need consensus to have the article be about something else.)

I propose we simply drop "disease" for now or replace it with it "cases", moving to Ebola virus in the United States or Ebola virus cases in the United States. This would make it so we don't have to include the Reston virus incidents, and the article can mostly stay like it is now. The first option is close to the original article name of Ebola virus in Dallas, Texas, while the second option seemed supported by a large number of editors and was a previous name as well. (My objections to both are noted in Talk:Ebola virus disease in the United States.)

I'm suggesting this as a straw poll as I'm hoping we don't need a full RM, but I think we need to address the title/content mismatch either with a move or by adding the appropriate content (which I'm happy to do if there's no consensus to move.) Xqxf (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll
Suggested options: Keep current title (Ebola virus disease in the United States), Move to Ebola virus in the United States, or Move to Ebola virus cases in the United States. Move. . .Ebola virus cases in the United States had previous consensus and was stable. . .SW3 5DL (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I support either alternate over the current title. Xqxf (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Move to Ebola virus cases in the United States However, if there were cases prior to 2014 that are outside the scope of this article, then I would vote to Move to Ebola virus cases in the United States in 2014 Jwhester (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't logical to not include the year within the title

Move to Ebola virus cases in the United States. (And my apologies for my apparent inefficient execution of Wiki-rules/procedure/bureaucracy. It seems like this on my talk page describes things well.) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. &#123;&#123;U&#125;&#125;) while signing a reply, thx 14:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep several discussions have happened, the name has been chosen. There is no need for us to cover Reston in this article as it has an article all its own that we can link to with a hatnote, as is standard procedure on thousands of other subjects. -  Floydian  τ ¢  17:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"'Comment'" Since there have been no ebola outbreaks as globally significant as this, reader's won't think about the title in terms of timeliness--that being said, for history's sake, there needs to be an inclusion of the year in the page title (which should not include disease--duh). Whether it's done by moving or simply adding the year to the page title [of 2014] or [2014]. The prominence of the issue, coupled with the fact that the 'epidemic' (for lack of concise term) is covered on a country-to-country basis makes it a notable historical event. The entire article is about events that have unfolded within this year; and if someone can supply an instance of post-resolution title change then there would be no issue. The problem is, there are too many pages covering this topic to condense it all in a single page. As for Ebola's past research/incidents/publicity, that information should be placed within the Ebola page within the appropriate section. This page deals with a SPECIFIC and TIMELY event. Ebola Virus in the United States (2014) or 2014 Ebola Virus in the United States or Ebola Outbreak of 2014: United States Jmlawre2 (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , those are all good points. I've always thought the year should be there. And your suggestion of Ebola virus in the United States 2014 would also eliminate the hatnote about the Reston virus since the year would put paid to that bit. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I agree that it would disambiguate the topic of discussion. That's a good point about the Reston virus, it's irrelevant because this is--albeit ongoing--a singular event within history...At the very least this title, or that of any viral-related page, should under no circumstances use the words "virus disease" in succession. I'm no scientist, but I think if the focus is on the outbreak in the U.S. that the title should reflect that as specifically as possible.Jmlawre2 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Has there ever been an Ebola case in the US before 2014 (like decades ago)? If so, the title may need to clearly indicate the year. The current title and the first sentence in the lead make readers believe that this is the first time in the entire US history to have Ebola patients. Z22 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The CDC has never reported a case of Ebola within the general population of the United States. However, that's not to say that it isn't here--the CDC keeps live cultures of all diseases--or that people have not been controllably infected with Ebola. I don't think it will matter much, though, because when U.S. citizens think Ebola from here on, they are going to think of this incident. In 2014. Jmlawre2 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , That's an excellent point. Americans will see this as such a time. Also, it seems neutral to me. To just put it like that, without the word disease, which seems sensational to me. And as we are naming real persons, I worry about the impression that these people are 'diseased' somehow. What do you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * While I don't think people should be sheltered from the reality that it is a deadly and contageous disease, I've read enough articles and speculations on social and news outlets/sites to see that people are worried and those in closest proximity to those infected are likely to be borderline paniced. So I think that information should be accessable within the context of prevention so they know that, while dangerous, Ebola is easily preventable if proper steps are taken, and that it is treatable if symptoms are spotted and treated. I completely agree with you on neutrality, which requires a level of respect, or at least discretion, for people--and disease carries too great of a negative connotation. It also suggests life-long illness, whereas virus gives the impression of curability and contageousness. It may be a good idea to just cut out both virus and disease out, and title it 2014 Ebola epidemic for the United States. I'm thinking that epidemic is accurate, but the 'for' separates the direct, immediacy from the impression. Likewise, United States during the Ebola Epidemic of 2014 but I still like 2014 Ebola virus in the United States or with the 2014 at the end. The title is going to change once there are no more Ebola patients, so ideally we can find a title that is conducive to describing the event as exactly as possible. What do you think about titling the U.S. outbreak to suggest that Ebola was brought over from Africa?Jmlawre2 (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , You're absolutely right, 'disease' makes it sound permanent. I'd not thought of that. And likely people are thinking 'fatal' when they see "Ebola virus disease." Best to not have that. I'm not sure about a title that would suggest it came from Africa. I think everybody knows where it came from. If we used "West Africa" in the title it would conflict with the article Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. We can't call it an epidemic. I'm with you, I still like 2014 Ebola virus in the United States or with the year at the end. That seems neutral, it has the year so we've not got the Reston virus bit, and we're not being sensational with 'disease.' SW3 5DL (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree with "epidemic" as explicitly not supported by the preponderance of the best-available reliable sourcing, just like "outbreak" wasn't supported. From a common usage point of view, "epidemic" is an even worse fit than "outbreak".  Disagree with adding "2014" as well, it's an unnecessary qualification and it's also unnecessarily limiting to the scope.   01:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep as "disease", the correct name of the disease is "Ebola virus disease", see WHO, CDC, NHS (UK), JAMA patient page. "Ebola virus" is the agent, "Ebola virus disease" is the illness. If anything a rename to just "Ebola virus" would broaden the article scope to include topics such as the presence of virus in labs. 01:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion2

 * It seems unclear why the asymptomatic human cases in the 1990s would be included in the scope of this article under the current title ("Ebola virus disease..."), as no pathology/medical condition/disease was involved in those cases. The hatnote to Reston virus appears to clarify this sufficiently, with or without the comment on asymptomatic human cases. I do not intend to inject myself into this discussion, since I came here only to close the move discussions. That said, I think stability in the title would benefit the article, and I believe the move discussion did show a consensus for the current title. Dekimasu よ! 00:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am basing this on WP:MEDRS sources such as the CDC's Outbreaks Chronology: Ebola Virus Disease, with these cases listed in the "Known Cases and Outbreaks of Ebola Virus Disease", as well as our other articles such as Ebola virus disease with appropriate references for EVD occurring in primates. I honestly think a "no consensus" close with a revert to the previous title would've been more appropriate, but I realize that we do now have consensus for the current title per your close. Xqxf (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dekimasu, you've really hit it on the head, the stability is the thing. But in the RM discussion you closed, thank you again for that, the problem was the RM nominator never bothered to look at the page move history. If he had he would have seen that Ebola virus cases in the United States had consensus and stability. Also, he went to the Admin noticeboard twice on the matter and never linked to the discussion he'd started here. That said, the title still has issues. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't you move it and cause this whole issue in the first place, and now you want to move it back? Pot meet kettle haha. -  Floydian  τ ¢  01:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * page moved from stable consensus version to problematic one. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging from above, it was the use of "outbreak" and not "disease" that caused issue. -  Floydian  τ ¢  22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy close - everything is dealt with, we just handled this. No it doesn't need to include the monkeys, the hatnote handles this just swell. -  Floydian  τ ¢  01:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is titled Ebola virus disease in the United States, therefore it needs to cover that topic. Are you saying that you disagree with the CDC's list of EVD outbreaks? Your original hatnote suggestion above was "For the Reston Ebolavirus cases in Virginia, see Reston virus". I'm not sure if you understand (as the naming is overly confusing), but there's no such thing as a "Reston Ebolavirus case" as a separate thing from an Ebola virus disease case. (Although the colloquial "Ebola virus case" has been proposed, which allows "Reston virus cases" to be a separate thing.) There's only Ebola virus disease, which is caused by both Ebola virus and Reston virus (in primates), and other ebolaviruses such as Sudan virus. If we just include "Ebola virus" without "disease", then we don't need to include the Reston virus instances. Xqxf (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, a hatnote that redirects users to the article covering that topic is suffice. Thats how we do it on thousands of topics. Reston is not Ebola virus disease, which is the resulting disease caused by the virus in humans. -  Floydian  τ ¢  22:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This does not agree with our references and other Ebola articles. Xqxf (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Question How was it even a valid RfC close? The RfC has only been open for a week and discussion was not stale and it was closed as no consensus.  Seems like a violation of the process.  Arzel (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Arzel, Which one are you talking about? The one above or the RM discussion. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The one that Dekimasu closed removing the word "outbreak". Arzel (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The requested move was not closed as no consensus, and requested moves are processed more quickly than Requests for comment. Dekimasu よ! 02:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that RM do move faster, however it was not a stale discussion, and certainly not a non-controversial move. You did not even provide justification for what made you come to the conclusion that there was consensus.  Arzel (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dekimasu, Can you take a look at this here. It would really get things moving forward on the other new articles. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering that a standard RM close is already being questioned, I don't know that having me do more closes here would be helpful. That said, the whole point of the move request process is to determine a title for the article; while consensus can change, I doubt the necessity of initiating another discussion as soon as the old one ends, both in the case of the RM and in the way it seems like any RfC that is closed will result in another RfC. While I don't mean to imply that anyone here is being tendentious, if closing discussions doesn't result in any resolution, then the discussions are not being very successful. Dekimasu よ! 04:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this discussion is in part to resolve the content scope issues caused by the outcome of the move; that question is still unresolved, and unfortunately ties into the title. I don't mean to prolong the title debate, and I'm only suggesting the move to avoid having to make changes to stable content. (And to resolve what is and isn't "EVD in the US", it seems.) Xqxf (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I'd suggest changing the "for" template to an "about" template, at least for the time being. It's designed to explain scope when there are other possible uses for the title, and one specifically is covered by the article. can yield "This page is about human ebola virus cases in the United States. For the primate cases and asymptomatic human infections in quarantine facilities between 1989 and 1996, see Reston virus. For a background of the ongoing outbreak, see Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa." Dekimasu よ! 04:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "This template should not be used unless other topics exist with names very similar to the name of the article it is being used on". Honestly, that doesn't seem like a very good solution, since the other material isn't another topic, it's the same topic. I think your move has had the unintended effect of violating the Article titles policy. Xqxf (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The topic is what we, as editors, decide it is. It's very clearly decided that this is about the human cases. A hatnote to a topic that could share this name is normal and done regularly. No other words are necessary, there is no obligation to cover Reston in this article since it has an article of its own. We need only link readers who may be interested in that subject. -  Floydian  τ ¢  17:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The move was closed after 6 days rather than after being open for a week, though I don't see that as a big deal in this specific case. (I'd rather focus on getting the title accurate.) Xqxf (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Over six days, less than seven, which is fairly standard. After seven full days requests at WP:RM go directly to the backlog, not to a "close now" section. I assume that some of the confusion relates to the fact that the move request was archived already, making it difficult to understand what discussion is being referred to here. Dekimasu よ! 03:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It seemed like it had been longer. I was glad to see it closed. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * How about "West African Ebola virus disease in the United States", if it's unclear? Of course, Ebola virus cases etc. also works; that was my original proposal. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good effort, it covers all bases. When Floydian moved all the new article pages without any discussion/consensus, I moved this one to the outbreak title, which also had no consensus, you then moved it to the Ebola virus outbreak. . .etc., .which also had no consensus. I then asked the admin to lock the page because the page moves are disruptive, breaking links, Google searches were affected, etc. My thought was, just end this disruption. What I should have done was asked the admin to move it back to the Ebola virus cases in the United States. As far as the title you are suggesting, "West African Ebola virus disease. . .etc., it does cover all the bases, but unfortunately it makes it sound like there is a separate virus/disease named that way, and there really isn't. SW3 5DL (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the straw poll
The move discussion didn't really elicit a consensus for the word 'disease' which seems problematic. What the discussion made clear was an objection to the word 'outbreak.' The truly stable version of the title was Ebola virus cases in the United States. This seems to describe exactly the situation in the United States. Therefore, we have choices. We can ask an admin to move the page back to that title and be done with it. We can open another move discussion or even do this as an RfC. What choices seems best? Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary page break
Dekimasu, your closures aren't being challenged in any way. Arzel is just asking a question. I think we were all surprised at the RM closure. It did have another day to go but I don't see anybody protesting that. As far as the RfC here about keeping the new articles, including this one, that should be closed. There is support for the closure and I don't see why you can't do that. Getting that out of the way, will mean that editors will then be encouraged to edit the new articles. And if you want to talk about being tendentious, Doc James and Floydian blanked and redirected the new articles. Then Doc James opened his 'merge' discussion on what they like to call the 'main article' to merge all the articles back to the 'main' including this one, despite the fact he never put up merge tags on the new articles. Next, Floydian comments at that discussion. He then immediately, without any further discussion, opens an AfD here.

But the wider community says Keep. So back to their 'discussion.' Even though the AfD closed as a snow-keep, they still left the article on their list of delete/merge. Then Floydian decides enough time, (approx 36 hours), has passed on their discussion and he plans to close it, unless 'someone objects.' Well, I objected and said so. I opened the RfC above and posted it at that discussion and opened a new thread there. They all saw it and subsequently commented here. The RfC above is valid and should be closed. But Floydian reverted the close by a non-admin. So the non-admin opened a thread on ANI. Floydian accused me of canvassing, but I showed evidence that the RfC rules were followed. SW3 5DL
 * So many processes that you think need to be followed that weren't, because they don't need to be. So many processes that need to be followed that weren't, but you don't think they need to be and that everything is fine. The earlier discussion wasn't valid because no merge tags were placed on the new articles that had like two people watchlisting them? The "community" wasn't consulted? No, just the part of the community editing the Ebola articles, that's all that was necessary. Opening the RfC on a new page and not linking to the prior discussion? Contacting only those who voted keep in the AfD but none of the participants of the earlier discussion .But oh that's ok, because we eventually showed up... after your malformed question that is at the centre of the issue of this RfC, which negatively insinuates that the new material would be deleted and no efforts taken to cover the subject. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You could just nominate all the articles for deletion. You could start another RfC. You could edit the articles to improve them. You could go tell Jimbo Wales. You could open a thread on ANI, You could also bring a request at Arb Com. There are so many things you could do besides just talk endlessly about the same thing without showing any diffs.  That's just a suggestion. I'm not going to bother replying to any more comments like this because this is a pointless waste of everybody's volunteer time. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an ANI thread that you're trying to vote closed (admin noticeboard, not user voteboard), I will be opening another RfC once the current one has closed, Jimbo Wales doesn't have special editing privledges, and ArbCom would be major overescalation. Diffs have been provided, I'm not wasting MY time digging them up again, you can choose to continue to ignore them or you can admit what you did was subverting the existing discussion to get your own way. I don't care either way, as I am seeking administrator intervention on your canvassing regardless. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  17:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Accusing an editor of subverting an RfC seems to me would require you to go now and open your own ANI thread. The ANI thread that is there now was opened by Lithistman to complain about your edit warring over his legitimate closure of the above RfC. So, please do go now and open an ANI thread and bring diffs, that shows SW3 5DL has 'subverted the RfC process and should be blocked and the RfC closed without a true consensus.' Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to forum shop. The whole issue is presented in that thread from both our perspectives and with plenty of diffs and comments from other editors. An uninvolved admin should be able to deal with the situation appropriately. After that, I will open a new properly formatted RfC with an appropriate question to help remedy this situation. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  18:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You've just accused me of deliberately subverting the RfC. But now you say you won't be opening an ANI thread? Which is it? Will there be an ANI complaint brought by you, Floydian, or not? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I already did. Please stop trying to bait me. -  Floydian  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  06:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)