Talk:Scientists report two life-saving treatments for Ebola

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I've left the link to the NYTimes article in the sources for now, just for reference. The plan is for one of us, probably but not necessarily me, to replace it with a more accessible source when one becomes available. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

How did they make the drug[edit]

It is not clear to me how did they make the drug, and which six (?) drugs have been tested. I think that the story might benefit from someone reading into it deeper than I could, and spelling this out more clearly. Perhaps just putting paragraphs 4, 5, 6 to be straight after the first one would already help. Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The article already contains information on how the drugs were made. It happens to contain all the information about this that was in the source articles. Adding more detail would require running down an additional source, which may not exist. Feel free to attempt it if you have the time and energy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Phrase twice[edit]

The 'Swahili phrase' thing is mentioned twice, I think this is not intentional. --Gryllida (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice catch. Fixed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Context about Ebola[edit]

Context about "what is Ebola" is missing, potentially a nice to have at the end. --Gryllida (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd classify this as "would be nice" as well. The sources didn't happen to include this information, but other sources that do probably do exist. Go ahead if you want. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


They tested 499 patients in total, how many of them were for each of the drugs? How quickly did the recovery occur? --Gryllida (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This information is not available in the source material. Adding more detail would require running down an additional source, which may not exist. Feel free to do so if you truly think it necessary.
Because this is a field study that has only just ended—because it's about getting emergency treatment to people in an epidemic—it is highly unlikely that any study on it has yet been published, like in the other science articles I've drafted. If there had, Science would have had a link or other reference to it per their usual practice. We can expect the paper describing this study to appear in a couple of months. It should contain all the fine, specific details of the sort that I would usually put in a Wikinews science article, but right now we're dealing with preliminary, almost emergency announcements. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You know how, most of the time, scientists keep their findings a secret until publication day because they're worried about getting scooped by their competition? These scientists are more worried about people dying than about getting scooped. They'll publish all the details when they can, but they're getting what they think is the important information out to the world now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
This story has several atypical features. They stopped the trial partway through; it took me a few moments of thought to see the (as far as I saw) unspoken explanation, that in this situation, negative indications in this study = more people dead. (Which would have been a nice point to bring out, btw, though it could be a neat trick to finesse.) They used the best disappointment they'd previously found as the control on this study. And they'd set up infrastructure to let them widely deploy the drugs that look good without waiting till their trials are completed. --Pi zero (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


"Under real-world conditions, as many as 70% of people infected with Ebola usually die" is being difficult, can this be clarified? Where does this data come from? --Gryllida (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The source does not say. Feel free to look at it more closely if you wish or remove the line as you see fit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
An unattributed claim like that shouldn't have found its way into the article. If it can't be traced further than the news source that reported it, and it's to be said at all, it has to be attributed to the news source that reported it (and no, we don't much like to do that; so the question is whether leaving it out would be worse than attributing it to the news source). --Pi zero (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You and I disagree on that, then. Do whatever you want to the statement. I'm not going to revert you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
When you say things like that (and you do fairly often fall back on something of the sort), you come across as if you don't care about the quality of the articles you write. Perhaps that isn't how you feel, but it is how you come across.

What most concerns me is that you not repeat the mistake in future articles. If you don't avoid the mistake in future, you make yourself a liability to the project. --Pi zero (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You and I do not agree about whether this proposed change increases or decreases article quality. The Guardian is a reliable source for this 70% figure, and it's cited appropriately, so as far as I'm concerned we're good.
I am not willing to make changes to the article that I think make it worse, but this is a collaborative project and accepting that other people will make changes is part of the deal. This is a small matter and the article is still good with or without this line.
I'm not going to edit war with you, but you haven't convinced me that you're not making a mistake, either, and I have no obligation to obey you just because. If you want the change made, go ahead and make it, but no I'm not going to do it for you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You've failed to grok the principle behind attribution. --Pi zero (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Disagreeing with you does not mean I don't understand, Pi zero. If you really feel strongly about this, perhaps your essay, WN:ATTRIBUTION, could use an update. You know I read it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
We're in agreement that that page could use improvement. It was created rather atypically hastily as a sort of temporary stopgap, because we clearly needed something to refer people to; I've been aware for a long time it could use improvement, but editing it has been more typically slow-as-molasses. Some of the points in it may be better covered WN:NEUTRAL.

I've observed a recurrent pattern in which you underestimate the depth of the disagreement; which implies both that there's more to it than you perceive, and that the underestimation is itself part of the misunderstanding. --Pi zero (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Froggy, once again being a horse's ass. He just doesn't know how to pick his battles wisely. You know, Froggy, there is always just something horsey about the way you word things. I had to learn (a long time ago here) to NOT take things personally. EVERY FREAKING THING is an ego challenge to you. "Change it if you want. I won't revert it." -- is a horsey've been told this MULTIPLE TIMES. For someone who writes fairly well and (admittedly) works pretty hard here, your presence can be AWFULLY disruptive at times. --Bddpaux (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bddpaux: Let's not needlessly escalate the bickering. The issue has already been addressed in the article. --SVTCobra 17:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I've added a WHO source which seems a little more "mathematical" about its statistics and replaced it with a range and average. --SVTCobra 14:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The WHO content is better than the Guardian content, SVT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Bddpaux, how would you like me to express the idea that I am not willing to make a suggested change but won't revert it either? When someone makes a suggestion that you think is a mildly bad idea but not an article-breaker, what do you do about it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4500913 [Passed][edit]