Talk:2009 swine flu pandemic

See also: Template talk:2009 swine flu outbreak table, File talk:H1N1 map.svg, Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak by country, and Talk:2009 swine flu outbreak timeline

Smithfield Farms from Virginia in Veracruz

It is not Smithfield Farms the one who has to say they are not the cause of the problem, OMS should confirm that. Because in 1985, Smithfield Farms received what was, at the time, the most expensive fine in history – $12.6 million – for violating the US Clean Water Act at its pig facilities near the Pagan River in Smithfield, Virginia , but when NAFTA came into effect 1994, Smithfield Farms moved its harmful practices to Veracruz, Mexico so that it could evade the tougher US regulators. Reporter Jeff Teitz reported in 2006 on the conditions in Smithfield’s US facilities: " Pigs are artificially inseminated and injected with antibiotics to bear the sicknesses they have. They are fed and delivered of their piglets in cages so small they cannot turn around. The temperature inside hog houses is often hotter than ninety degrees. There is no sunlight, straw, fresh air or earth. The air, saturated almost to the point of precipitation with gases from shit and chemicals became lethal and pigs start dying."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters

Consider what happens when such forms of massive pork production move to unregulated territory where Mexican authorities allow wealthy interests to do business without adequate oversight. What happen when a lagoon is near, filled with all that shit and flies transport their sicknesses to the people.

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/04/28/index.php?section=opinion&article=020a1pol&partner=rss http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters

Perhaps this should have its own article? Oliana (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on Smithfield Foods and Intensive pig farming. It might be worth an article but I suspect there isn't enough information available yet. Smartse (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence on the eariest origins of this swine flu. I have read that this is a mix of human, avian and swine varieties of flu.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Did the contaminated water from Smithfield's operations cause any sickness in Virginia?Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to 2009 swine flu pandemic

WHO director Margaret Chan refers to it as such: [1]

For the first time in history, we can track the evolution of a pandemic in real-time.

WHO will be tracking the pandemic at the epidemiological, clinical, and virological levels.

The biggest question, right now, is this: how severe will the pandemic be, especially now at the start?

JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - should be 2009 flu pandemic as per 1918 flu pandemic. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If the WHO is now labeling this a pandemic, then we have to as well. Subjective severity or where it ends up doesn't matter, and is WP:OR. Note that I protected ALL of these articles earlier against non-admin moves as possible vandal targets. Once we have confirmation and broad consensus, any admin can move these--I just did all the ones linked off off the outbreak template which needs renaming then as well. We have a LOT of valid redirects here as well--all of them will need to be redone. Since (as ever with these articles) this is time sensitive and literally is a black and white binary decision, let's just poll and do this efficiently. rootology (C)(T) 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Support renaming these articles to -pandemic per the WHO

1. Per the WHO, use 2009 flu pandemic as the top-level naming structure going forward once the WHO begins calling it a pandemic in public documents/statements. If/when the WHO calls it a pandemic, it's 100% not sensationalism for us to do so as well. rootology (C)(T) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. Once WHO officially calls it one, it is one. Move when needed. hmwithτ 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
3. When it gets to level 6 on the WHO scale then move. I don't think it's there yet.  GARDEN  21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Opposed, and why

1. Not at WHO level 6 yet: which most closely matches the deifintion of a Pandemic --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
2. No yet. No sensationalism please. Yug (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Not yet. Just because WHO uses the term does not mean that it is the Common Name per our policies. Rmhermen (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Not yet. Margaret Chan is referring to the 'coming Pandemic'. Phase 5 represents an imminent Pandemic, but not one in progress. It is not yet a Pandemic and the WHO is not advertising it as such. Addendum: And what, dare I ask, is wrong with calling it an 'outbreak' or 'epidemic' anyway? Both are blatantly more applicable. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
5. It's not of sufficient scale in two WHO regions yet. http://www.who.int/about/regions/en/index.html kencf0618 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia follows the health authorities, who have not moved it to level 6 yet, and reliable news media. We should not strive to be tabloid journalists. Edison (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   WHO called it a pandemic. See the beginning of this section, or this link. I'm about to be bold and move it. hmwithτ 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   too bold. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   I know, I wasn't being totally serious, but I don't understand why people don't want to move it. WHO is the ultimate authority on this, not Wikipedians or our opinions, per WP:OR. hmwithτ 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   Beware ultimate authorities. The WHO statement when they updated to 5 was for nations to get ready for a pandemic. The WHO always assumes that each outbreak will reach pandmic because that is how they operate. Its better for them to be safe than sorry. But WP operates diffrently, we wait until things 'are' rather than 'might be' or 'will be'.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm aware of how Wikipedia operates. My point is that when it's called a pandemic by WHO, we should move it. Most people are opposing based on the fact that they don't think it is one yet. However, if you read the first supporting vote (by Rootology), this poll is simply saying that it should eventually be moved there when WHO calls it a pandemic... not necessarily that it should be moved now. hmwithτ 13:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Not yet. While it is clear that the WHO is anticipating a pandemic, and that we are watching the likely evolution of one, we are not there yet. When and if the WHO goes to phase 6, I will support renaming this and all related articles. Wine Guy Talk 00:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
8. According to the WHO guidlines, set forth by who, this is not a pandemic yet. As wikipedians we are supposed to only post verifiable facts. Also, for the dabate as to "swine flu" or "H1N1". Swine Flu is the common name. As wikipedians, we are supposed to use the common namesDrew R. Smith (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
9. No, let's avoid sensationalism. Also WP:CRYSTAL. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Too early to conclude it is a pandemic. Move if/when this is confirmed by the WHO. Barnaby dawson (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Support removing "swine" from the page name

The statement by the World Organization for Animal Health that this strain has not been isolated from swine anywhere[2] persuades me that it is not swine influenza. Rather, it is human influenza that has acquired elements of avian and swine influenza. Also, given that at the time of discovery the strain was already in circulation in both Mexico and the US, I am in favor of calling it 2009 North American flu outbreak. --Una Smith (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been numerous comments from doctors on television and print (I'd honestly Google them up but there are dozens+) is that it is from swine. I've seen comments almost daily from such animal activist type groups. If the WHO (and WHO > WOAH) calls it swine flu, so should we. rootology (C)(T) 03:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Spanish flu didn't originate in Spain either, but that is still what it's most commonly called. And I agree with T too, that if the WHO calls it swine flu, then we should too. --Cessator (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand the WHO is calling it Influenza A(H1N1) --Jay Yang (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let's change the name. WHO has changed it, and clearly after Egypt it's obvious "Swine Flu" is just causing a lot of misunderstandings out there. I think it's time we follow suit. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

However people are calling it swine flu and that is the headline that people will look under.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I should have said article people are looking for. I was preoccupied with other things and did not edit sufficiently. However, I have come up with an argument for keeping the "swine" in the name. The article is at Battle of Bunker Hill even though it was fought at Breed's Hill. The issue is not accuracy, but common usage.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently people is calling it swine influneza, but in textbooks it will be called novel human influenza. Therefore we should follow WHO naming right now, in order to prevent future problems.Konegistiger (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A NCBI blast search of the genomes sequenced so far by the CDC and WHO labs, the large majority of similar sequences are swine influenza A genomes. WHO wants this influenza renamed not for scientific reasons but for political ones. The sequences for the 8 genes 6 show most simalarity to swine flu one to a virus found in ducks and one in a human from Wisconsin in 2003. The two non swine sequences are anotated as being similar to swine sequences.

Japan name?

I hear Japan was calling it the 'North American Flu' or something. Should they be at the top as an alternate name with the others? Lemniwinks (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't list all the names people call it, only the most common ones to help people find the article and avoid confusion. Actually I think the four names there is too many already. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to create a bunch of redirects though. That way, everyone who wants to find this article can. hmwithτ 22:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The redirect talk page should contain an explanation, otherwise it may be deleted at WP:RFD, if the term isn't in this article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there would be consensus to delete a redirect to this article based on a noncontroversial alternative name. A talk page clarification would help though. hmwithτ 13:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Panic vs Facts

Shouldn't this article include (mayhap I have yet to see it) the normal death toll of influenza? From WHO:

In annual influenza epidemics 5-15% of the population are affected with upper respiratory tract infections. Hospitalization and deaths mainly occur in high-risk groups (elderly, chronically ill). Although difficult to assess, these annual epidemics are thought to result in between three and five million cases of severe illness and between 250 000 and 500 000 deaths every year around the world. Most deaths currently associated with influenza in industrialized countries occur among the elderly over 65 years of age.

So, 250 000/ 365 = 685 500 000/ 365 = 1370. So, according to statistics, between 685 to 1,370 people die from influenza every day.... is this really all that different. Shouldn't we put forth the "disclaimer" that strains of influenza cause X amount of deaths every year/ or day at the top of the article in order to put this into perspective? BFritzen (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you seems to be right for now. Now, my grand mother should be a little affraid by the common flu, and not by this far-away swine flu. I noticed that a noticeable part of 'suspected cases' then switch to 'no, it was nothing'. It seems that the 'suspected cases' also include people who got the common flu in mexico.

The only thing we are currently sure is that this is a new strain. We can't say yet if this strain is contagious, or very virulent (deathly), etc. since we don't know the number of people affected. That may be 10.000, with 7.000 asymptomatic, 3000 with symptomes, and 150 death. If such, then that's almost a common flu. Medics are worry, but frankly, we haven't yet enough data to say 'this is dangerous'. We don't know, and this is the terrible side of the story, currently. Yug (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea!--201.153.40.28 (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A good idea, but we don't do disclamers. We don't engage in sensationlism; but we don't purposly try to stop it from happening elsewhere. Just write a good informational article and let the panic blow over. People will wake up next week and realize they're not dead. I got killed by the ozone hole, killer bees, global warming, sars, bird flu, Miley Cyrus, monkey pox, and watching that video tape of the Ring.... each time I got better. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We know it is both contagious and virulent, and since it is a new strain, it will most probably infect a large proportion of the world's population. There is no reason to panic, but there is reason for serious concern. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not any more or less virulent and contagious as the "regular" flu. There is no way of knowing that right now.BFritzen (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually since its flu the infection part may well become unverifiable or may not even be relevant. Most people that have mild flu never even know it, mistake it for something else, or don't seek medical treatment. The WHO has already stated on swine flu that the majority of the people infected recovered without medical treatment. Unless CDC or WHO releases estimates the actual number of infected (and therefore the mortality rate) will likely be unknown.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a disclaimer per se but I did include the WHO quote to give unbiased perspective, just straight forward. I "block text"ed it in order to have it stand out a bit, but I think that it only adds to what we are trying to accomplish. Reading those first paragraphs (as a current event) may prove to be unintentional sensationalism (and only because it is current). I think the paragraph I added puts perspective. Oh and to continue on your train of thought: do we pile the bodies next to all the AIDS and SARS victims? I remember when AIDS was first talked about and the sensationalism that made us think bodies would be lining the street, "The new Black Plague" they called it. (I am not making fun of the victims just our ability to sensationalize.) BFritzen (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Prior influenza season section has already had these statistics for a number of days, and supplies context effectively as the first section. Wikipedia articles make little allowance for the level of excitement or firmness of opinion in readers. (Editors are another matter…) Intros need to concisely include the significance of the topic, which currently in this case comes from the warnings of major health authorities, the actions of various countries, and the wide media coverage. --Zigger «º» 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe move those stats up then. It is relevant to an article including the term FLU (as short for influenza). Wiki does make little allowance for excitement and therefore this tempers said excitement.BFritzen (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I did move them and it reads better, flows nicely. BFritzen (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This detailed background quote seems too large for the intro, mispositioned, and now no longer covered in the initial section. Can you it summarise it and place it closer to the facts that you think need the context? (I have no idea which part of the intro, if any, has people so concerned.) --Zigger «º» 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Chan quote, as it's about "a pandemic", and so not specific enough for this intro. The quote being deliberately alarmist but out of context also wasn't good. It may have a place elsewhere in this or another article. Was that the concerning part of the intro for others? --Zigger «º» 05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the background flu data from the intro to the first section again. --Zigger «º» 05:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Wiki guidelines you need consensus. I understand that you think this has to do with NPOV. It is the point of Wiki to provide such information as users need. There is no reason to edit my contributions. It is NPOV balance, which is acceptable. Also, the info that you reverted isn't attributed to WHO in article, rather the only mention is of the CDC. If you don't like that quotes are block texted, then change that, but you can't do a revert and blank contributions made by others. I would revert this had you done it to someone else. There is no reason not to include global statistics on influenza. Further, the CDC paragraph reads better without the WHO reference in it. BFritzen (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I couldn't copy-edit the quote because those who raised the issues in this talk-section had not explained what it was in the intro that concerned them. I asked & waited. I made an assumption (the out-of-context Chan quote) and checked here and waited. I reverted your changes and explained (poorly) on your talk page that I removed the Chan quote to restore "impartial tone", and I felt that this was a better approach than "balance". Again, what is it about the intro that you feel requires balancing data in that location? --Zigger «º» 12:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you have only skimmed this section of the talk page? There is no problem with the content and adding information on Influenza as it impacts the world adds balance to the article. Since this is a current event, the introduction by itself leads to unintentional sensationalism. We don't want that. I have no problem with the Chan quote being changed. But my addition is completely relevant to this article. To have it included in the "Prior year" section really doesn't make sense because A) it is an annual statistic, B) it is from the WHO and not the CDC though that section only refers to the CDC, and C) The "Prior" section reads better without that aside. The section is about the previous flu season (in the USA) and nothing else. If you have an objection to part of an article, you probably should start a new topic and ask if it should be nixed. As such, I included this new topic with the idea of adding for balance. In this case, other users agreed because given the current context (it is a current event) it should be included. Further, the purpose of wikipedia is to inform, not alarm. These are the reasons for inclusion fo the quote from the WHO. Taken in context of the current situation, the mention of this particular strain of flu seizing headlines, wikipedia's popularity, and people's wish to be informed, the paragraph about annual flu statistics is included to balance that of the 1st paragraphs in the introduction. Read by themselves, they reiterate much of the media hype, even though factually based. They state simple facts as does my contribution. BFritzen (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved the quote to the middle of the introduction and (right after the explanation that it is a new virus). So it is sort here is the new virus. Here is what the old virus does. We don't know what the new virus does and here is what is going on. I think it helps the readability. Hdstubbs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

All this panic is senseless.Its far more likely to gain in alottery, than to die of this flu.Agre22 (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

New map

See "Alaska included as confirmed death?" for relevent discussion. I will begin working on a new map now, seeing as there were no objections. I will post the finished product in a new section before adding it to the article.Drew R. Smith (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it an infected county map? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the map is infected. ;-P BFritzen (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the map just supposed to indicate the country? I mean, if you're going to remove Alaska, will you also remove Montana? What abut Siberia and Svalbard? And what about New Zealand, are we sure the confirmed cases are on both the North and the South Island? --Cessator (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The confirmed cases in NZ are 4 or 11 students (depending on what you mean by confirmed) from the same school and therefore all in Auckland, part of a group that visited Mexico recently together. Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, so if one was going to remove Alaska, then one should also remove the South Island. And then one should also change a lot of other things. Best to leave it alone on the world map, I say. --Cessator (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the South Island cf the North Island is comparable to Alaska cf the rest of the continential US Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Alaska vs. the lower 48 states is similar to North Island Vs. South Island, in both cases you are showing the disease throughout non-contiguous areas that makes it look like a contiguous zone. On the other hand, I think the best analogy is if the disease hits France do we show French Guiana on the infected area of the map. If your answer to the question is negative, than you should in all consistency support removing Alaska from the map. I support removing South Island, Alaska and any other non-contiguous area, including excluding Corsica if France does get effected. I mean, the Free Corsica movement does have more sway that Free Alask. Along the same lines if Angola is infected, remove Cabinda. However, if Georgia is infected, keep in Abkazia and South Ossetia. The question is not, are the areas sufficiently politically district, but does showing them create a false sense of inclusion. For the same reason do not include the area around Kalingrad if Russia is infected unless there is an infection there, and reversably if there is an infection there do not highlight the rest of Russia. It may not be the best rule, but I think it will work in all cases.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If we just invade Canada or just 'bus some ill people up to Vancover for medical treatment' then we could bridge that unsightly gap. Or we could just accept that sometimes we all get blamed for a few bad apples. If the world map bothers you so much, just look at the North American one. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The world map doesn't bother me. I'm saying, let's not remove parts of countries. --Cessator (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the point is moot. The map turned out to be a pain in the arse, and I eventually gave up. What I was going to do is divide the largest countries i.e. america, russia, and china, along pre-existing political boundaries to make it a little easier. For the U.S. that would have been every state getting its own infection status. Not sure how russia and china would have worked, dont know the boundaries there. But as I said, it's a moot point, and I couldn't even get america to work that way. I was trying to modify the map using the window program paint, but the states boundaries are just too complex for that. maybe someone with some programming knowledge could giv it a more "sophisticated" attempt.Drew R. Smith (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You could ask the guys updating the US map how they do it... (File:H1N1 USA Map.svg) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Given this article's global focus, the granularity of the map is ipso facto national. As the epidemic continues, smaller political units shall receive their own articles, subsections, and maps. There are already several maps down to the state/province and county level. (How often have you seen a map of the states of Mexico, or the provinces of Spain?) If the epidemic gets really bad, I suppose we'll have large-scale maps with the granularity of ZIP Codes. kencf0618 (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Shortly after that the "pig flu google map" app will come out for the Iphone. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I fully expect people to twitter their deaths. kencf0618 (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Although technically not a strain of swine influenza..."

The second sentence of the lead currently reads that the outbreak is not swine flu, but it is my understanding that in fact the flu is a mixture of several virii viruses and is at least partially swine. Is this correct and if so should this sentence be modified? Oren0 (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The plural of virus is neither viri nor virii, nor even vira nor virora. It is quite simply viruses, irrespective of context. [[3]] --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the ECDC is calling it Novel Influenza A(H1N1), which is more accurate than anything else I have heard.BFritzen (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question though. One issue is what the page should be named; that has been discussed ad nauseum. The second question is whether it is correct to say that the outbreak is not swine flu, when in fact it partially is (as I understand it, obviously I'm no expert as I can't even pluralize 'virus' correctly). Oren0 (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That does answer it. It is really a new strain of H1N1 (which is found in every source we seem to be using.) It is also novel (read: new/ different) and it is influenza. This is very important if you think you are getting the right vaccine! Vaccines will be labeled with the strain they are used to fight. BFritzen (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

On the second question: I've seen no source that says it is NOT connected to swine in any way. My understanding is that these livestock viruses live in animals then infect humans. It is still the same strain of virus while its in the new host, until it makes some change that then allows it to pass from human to human. That is when it becomes a new strain of virus. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that. The strain is a reassortment of human, avian, and swine strains, and the strain has not been isolated in swine anywhere in the world. Nor has the world animal surveillance network detected any surge in influenza in swine. Swine influenza is influenza endemic in swine, and this strain is not swine influenza. Many people call this strain "swine flu" but it is increasingly apparent that the name is a major source of misunderstanding (countries proposing to slaughter all pigs, countries banning import of pork meat, etc.) and increasingly other names are in use. --Una Smith (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your OR. Please don't add such OR again particularly when it isn't supported by the rest of the article which states that some researchers consider is a strain of swine influenza and this is sourced to a reliable source. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To help allay concerns about the naming in the intro, I've copied the sentence mentioning the name is disputed and then mentioned the other names. I think trying to explain the controversy in the intro will be too much but anyone who thinks they can improve it in non ORry ways are welcome Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not OR; swine influenza is defined (eg, in Merck Veterinary Manual) as influenza endemic in swine. This strain not only is not endemic in swine, it is not known in swine. --Una Smith (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As that source says Merck Veterinary Manual entry on Swine Influenza "Swine influenza is an acute, highly contagious, respiratory disease that results from infection with type A influenza virus."; I'm not exactly sure what your trying to say. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That quote applies to infected pigs, not infected humans. Discussion of infection in humans is mentioned in parentheses. What I am trying to say is simple: this new strain apparently is not swine influenza, but human influenza derived from human, avian, and swine influenza strains. It was called swine flu at first because it was discovered with tests designed to detect swine flu, but as soon as its genome was sequenced it was evident that this new strain is not a swine flu. --Una Smith (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean removal of already documented material. (I believe you are right) but that is not how Wiki works. Further, these are common names and should stay simply because it allows others to understand the etymology of the terms. Further, I think you have something important to add, please do and leave other work untouched until such a time as it is completely (scientifically) refuted. Also, please cite your source. BFritzen (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Update the statistics for New Zealand...

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suspected-swine-flu-cases-rise-104-2691146

16 confirmed. A further 104 are suspected cases with another 111 in quarantine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.128.201 (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A note on the 16 'confirmed' cases. 3 people in NZ have tested positive for swine flu. Another 13 have tested positive for influenza type A, and have been in and infected area (Mexico) or have been in close contact with a confirmed or probable case. These are often referred to as having swine flu, but have never had a definitive test (only influenza type A).

I think for the purposes of the table, it should use the NZ ministry of health statistics of 3 confirmed, 13 probable and 63 suspected ,or perhaps 76 probable and suspected in the ‘other suspected’ column of the table.

The following link may be more authoritative that news websites.

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/mexican-swine-influenza-update-fourteen-300409?Open —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.147.198 (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The new website has the exact same information. It has been updated... 16 confirmed, 111 are probable and 121 are suspected.

Update 15 is now showing 127 cases = 3 confirmed, 13 probable, 111 suspected. The table has been reformatted to be less confusing. Of these 121 are in voluntary quarantine. If I am reading the table correctly, 6 suspected cases in the canterbury area are not in quarantine, presumably because quarantine is voluntary and some people are idiots.130.217.240.32 (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/suspected-swine-flu-cases-rise-104-2691146 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.128.201 (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Um the TVNZ site is rather confused and should be ignored completely (although it doesn't say there are 111 probable but 16 confirmed or probable). There are 3 confirmed, 13 probable and 111 suspected. While I'm normally reluctant to use primary sources, in this case it requires no intepretation or is there a risk of us getting it wrong so it's the best solution. To be fair, the MOH is partly responsbile for the confusion, they didn't initially differentiate between probable and confirmed in their reports but they do now Nil Einne (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a confusion in the news reports on the number of cases in New Zealand between suspected cases of Mexican Swine flu, and people in quarantine. Many of those in quarantine in New Zealand are not ill with any kind of influenza. Quite a few have simply been in close contact with others who have suspicious influenza and are taking Tamiflu and are in voluntary isolation as a precautionary measure. New Zealand is quarantining much more aggressively than most countries. Hawthorn (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Renaming need: Name trouble (3)

Wikipedia have a big naming trouble, wikipedia have 2 articles/names/topics (Swine flu AND 2009 swine flu outbreak), CNN, BBC, etc just have one : Swine flu.

• Swine flu - the page NOT on the current issue got 1.3M hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/swine%20influenza
• 2009 swine flu outbreak - the page about the 2009 outbreak got 417K hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/2009%20swine%20flu%20outbreak

People aren't getting the information they are searching for. A solution is NEED. Yug (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We have a big template direction people to this article in the swine flu article. If people are too stupid to follow it, we probably can't help them. Anyway how do you know people were even interested in this specific outbreak? Maybe the reason they visited the other article is because they came to an encylopaedia expecting info about what swine flu is in general and got it... Also CNN, BBC etc are news sites. We are an encylopaedia. Hence we have an article on swine flu which is distinct from this specific outbreak which some people don't even call or consider swine flu Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't insult others please. Their naivete may contribute to their misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 12:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to be naive. It's another to see a big link directing you to another article and not be able to follow it. Wikipedia is inherently designed to be a site where you have to know how to read and click links. When you can't wikipedia can't help you. Therefore there's no point discussing ways to solve an insolvable problem. In any case, such a discussion should happen at swine flu not here Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for once I agree with Nil Einne. Every page has links, redircts, and other confusing peices out the wazoo(wazoo sold seperately). If you cant follow links, you'll never get anywhere (I wish they made life this way. links are so much easier than road maps).Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I initially went to the other page, but when I saw that the current strain was in this article, I came here. However, I did want a little info on swine flu in general and it worked. The templates work, and we have to remember that although some people think it is the end of the world, it is not, and in five years a general overview of swine flu will be more searched for than the 2009 variety.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

world view

Why is a world view important?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.227.140 (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm... because we live in the world? It is a world encyclopedia? BFritzen (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The section with the Globalize template should probably have a northern hemisphere view rather than global, as that flu season is the subject. Using information mainly about the USA is less useful than regional or Mexican information, as the currently understood original infections and early clusters were in Mexico. The USA statistics are probably indicative so are better than nothing. --Zigger «º» 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that.BFritzen (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If World Health Organisation has declared it a Global pandemic risk, I think World view is important. As you can see on this talk page, some governments already made mistake of declaring "they are safe from it" without any scientific reason. Ilgaz (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nixing WHO Flu Statistics in Intro

I included this and even asked opinion in Facts Vs Fears (or whatever I called it.) Does anyone think this should be removed, kept, or edited? BFritzen (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree to removing it from the intro. It doesn't seem that imnportant in the grand scheme of things Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as grand scheme goes that discussion is in Panic v Facts. We have tidied it up a bit in order to make the intro better, more concise. A removal of it occurred without consensus and I wanted to know if anyone had a direct reason what this should be removed due to "unintentional sensationalism." (Again, see Panic v Facts in the discussion page.) BFritzen (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Greek

el:Νέος ιός γρίπης —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swineinfluenza (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

protection

Not being able to edit the article makes me feel alienated from Wikipedia. Better accept the risk of a few trolls messing up rather than alienate your users. Swineinfluenza (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any changes in particular you would like to make? I would be happy to help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Media Response

Is the response to this by the media something we should consider adding as a new section to the article? The media is giving this a lot press and I think that it might be something worth mentioning. I don't know if there are sources that we can use on the matter, but it's something to look at. My reason being that given the speed at which information can be disseminated in today's world essentially allows for almost everyone to know everything instantly. I think there could be a focus on whether the media is helpful or hurtful (spreading information or spreading panic) and especially its impact on helping people/organizations/governments coordinate their efforts so that the spread can be minimized. I'm having a bit of trouble articulating exactly what I'm thinking, but I think that you get the idea. The media will likely end up playing a big role in this (especially if this turns into a full blown pandemic) so I think that we should give some sort of mention to it here. What do you guys think? Pharmaediting11 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We do have 'media reaction to' articles on other major topics, namely recent Presidential and National Elections. However you may have trouble getting enough sources for a good article if your trying to record assessments of the media response. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but there has to be something out there that is usable per WP guidelines. The media can play a huge role in inciting panic or keeping peace. And if riots happened then I think we would end up with a HUGE section with analysis on the media response. But that's something different for a different time. So far this is the closest thing to a usable source [4]. I have another one also, but it's a blog and I don't think it's usable. I'm putting it up to see what you guys think though [5].Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get some sources & draft up a section. hmwithτ 17:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done 2009 swine flu outbreak#Media response. Feel free to suggest/make any changes, but I feel like it's a good start. hmwithτ 17:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I only skimmed the source quickly just to ensure it wasen't conspiracy bunk. Whoever you are quoteing needs to be named in the article. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead should be <= four paragraphs, currently six five

Per WP:LEAD: "As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." While this is a general guideline, I don't see a compelling reason to exempt this article. Other broader and more important topics (e.g. DNA, Virus) are able to summarize their articles' content in significantly fewer words. Emw2012 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think we can take a sentence from paragraph #2, put in paragraph #4 and elminiate the rest of it. Then put it in a blender so it reads like this:

The 2009 swine flu outbreak is an epidemic that began in April 2009 with a new strain of influenza virus. The new strain is commonly called swine flu, but some parties object to the name and it has also been referred to as Mexican flu,[50] swine-origin influenza,[51] North American influenza,[52] and 2009 H1N1 flu.[50] The outbreak is believed to have started in March 2009.[53] Local outbreaks of an influenza-like illness were first detected in three areas of Mexico, but the virus responsible was not clinically identified as a new strain until April 24, 2009. Following the identification, its presence was soon confirmed in various Mexican states and in Mexico City. Within days, isolated cases (and suspected cases) were identified elsewhere in Mexico, the U.S., and several other Northern Hemisphere countries.

The new strain is an apparent reassortment of four strains of influenza A virus subtype H1N1.[57] Analysis at the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identified the four component strains as one endemic in humans, one endemic in birds, and two endemic in pigs (swine).[57] One swine strain was widespread in the United States, the other in Eurasia.[57] The common human H1N1 influenza virus affects millions of people every year, according to the WHO, "In annual influenza epidemics 5-15% of the population are affected with upper respiratory tract infections...which results in between 250 000 and 500 000 deaths every year around the world. "[58] In industrialized countries most of these deaths occur in those 65 or older.[58]

In late April both the United Nations WHO and the U.S. CDC expressed serious concern about the situation, as it had the potential to become a flu pandemic due to the novelty of the influenza strain, its transmission from human to human, and the unusually high mortality rate in Mexico.[59] On April 25, 2009, the WHO formally determined the situation to be a "public health emergency of international concern", with knowledge lacking in regard to "the clinical features, epidemiology, and virology of reported cases and the appropriate responses".[60] By April 28, the new strain was confirmed to have spread to Spain, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Israel, and the virus was suspected in many other nations, with a total of over 3,000 candidate cases, prompting the World Health Organization (WHO) to change its pandemic alert phase to "Phase 5",[54][55][56] which denotes "widespread human infection" . Governments around the world have expressed concern over this virus and are monitoring the situation closely.

Mexico's schools, universities, and all public events will be closed from April 24, 2009 to May 6, 2009.[61][62] On April 27, 2009, a few schools in the U.S. closed due to confirmed cases in students.[63][64] Two days later the action extended to 18 more U.S. schools as the disease became more widespread in the U.S.,[65][66][67][68][69] the same day the Mexican government ordered a shutdown of all non-essential activities in the government and private sector, amounting to a shutdown of most of the country's economy.[70]

We could probably also ditch the last paragraph entirely as a different option or in addition to what I have suggested above.Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Placing the final paragraph under intiial outbreaks might be a good idea. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BFritzen (talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that placing the final paragraphs under initial outbreaks would be a good idea. Hdstubbs (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 is fine. In fact, it is a consolidation of the old paragraph 6 into that paragraph. If anything is inconsistent, it would be the last paragraph.BFritzen (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only thing that will be useful from Para #2 is the date when WHO moved to Phase 5. In 3 months when we are looking back, I don't think it will be informative for anyone to know what happened on April 28 other than the move to level 5. Also, since it's the intro, those fine details would be better placed elsewhere. And I like the idea of moving para #6 entirely too. I "feels" like it belongs there more than in the intro. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the argument as to why the statistical annual deaths are needed in the intro. The discussion is in PANIC V FACTS. Read that and see the reasoning behind it.BFritzen (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about removing them. I was referring to the part about how on April 28 about 3000 people were infected and a list of suspected countries where the virus was at that time. I don't want to get into the argument that you're referring to at all. I'm just saying that as things are now, I think there is only one sentence from paragraph #2 as it holds now that is actually useful in the intro. After reviewing my proposal from earlier I realized that I mistakenly included the stats that I am talking about removing. I suggest that the intro be edited to read the same as I posted above, except the third paragraph read as follows:

In late April both the United Nations WHO and the U.S. CDC expressed serious concern about the situation, as it had the potential to become a flu pandemic due to the novelty of the influenza strain, its transmission from human to human, and the unusually high mortality rate in Mexico.[59] On April 25, 2009, the WHO formally determined the situation to be a "public health emergency of international concern", with knowledge lacking in regard to "the clinical features, epidemiology, and virology of reported cases and the appropriate responses".[60] By April 28, the World Health Organization (WHO) changed its pandemic alert phase to "Phase 5",[54][55][56] which denotes "widespread human infection". Governments around the world have expressed concern over this virus and are monitoring the situation closely.

Pharmaediting11 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I don't have any qualms about that, sounds good to me. Sorry about the confusion. BFritzen (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. It probably would have helped if I could type right in the first place. What about moving para #6 though (the one about the schools shutting down)? I think that idea got lost in the shuffle. I still think that's a good idea.Pharmaediting11 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think it belongs in the one after "Prior" (forgot the name.) I agree that you should move it.BFritzen (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm running short on time, so I won't be able to do it. But if everyone is OK with it, they can feel free to make the changes I suggested. I'm not too technically inclined with this stuff anyways. It took me ~20 minutes to figure out how to "strike" text. What's the emoticon for a sheepish grin with red cheeks? I think I'd like to insert it here.  :) Pharmaediting11 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead is now 4 paragraphs. The Mexico Schools paragraph was moved to the initial outbreak section. Seems to fit better there.BFritzen (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Farms closer to La Gloria?

The Smithfield/Granjas Carroll operation mentioned in the press is annotated in Google Earth, and clearly visible as a large number of CAFOs near Perote, Veracruz[6], but it is five towns north of La Gloria, Veracruz. There is a CAFO one town west of La Gloria with an obvious sewage lagoon.[7] Interestingly, there is another group of somewhat similar buildings even closer to La Gloria, but these have no sewage lagoon.[8] Since even the Michigan Sierra Club describes CAFOs with drainage tiles running into local streams, it is interesting that these buildings seem to have a wash leading into a dry riverbed which I think flows past La Gloria. Has anyone spotted mention of these closer farms in the Mexican press? Mike Serfas (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed the same thing in Google Maps. Hopefully this will be discussed in the press soon - I haven't seen anything about it so far. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No but I have seen the Smithfield mention over and over again. Blaming the American always plays better in the Mexican press. Has anyone seen anything on where patient zeros's parent/ family worked> --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

NM per this: "Lezana said that none of Édgar's relatives worked near or at the area's industrial hog farms, and that tests of pigs so far have not shown any signs of the virus." --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That same source says though many of the LaGloria residents blame the open pits and sweage runoff but doctors disagree: "Influenza in pigs is a respiratory disease, so there is much less risk associated with pig waste," --PigFlu Oink (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think part of it is that people want to blame the biggest person, so that future law suits have the best chance of getting money. Since Smithfield Farms is the biggest, their operations will be targetted. You won't get any money from suing Javier Hernandez who operates one small farm with 50 pigs. Better to go after the multi-nationals. Beyond this, I think any speculation about the disease originating with pigs is not fully documented at this point.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, Wikipedia

Between this and other efforts like Google's Flu Trends system -- http://www.google.org/flutrends/ -- the Internet is really emerging as a great medium for real-time information exchange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.98.245.197 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you :] Yug (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) -- Grochim (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. kencf0618 (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the article much better. It is much more accurate and tells the facts in a very neutral way (particularly the description of the initial outbreaks. Great work! I like it a lot! Thanks.--201.153.40.28 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sensationalism

The purpose of Wikipedia is for encyclopedic articles, not news articles. I would say IMHO that the news articles referenced are not verifiable information, but fluid information that is likely to change. They are written with less stringent controls as would be published, peer-reviewed articles. A better place for all of this fluid and dynamically and increasingly "speculative" info should be placed in Wikinews, and not Wikipedia. We should be posting only verifiable information, which would include laboratory-confirmed cases and confirmed cause of death due to swine flu. Other information is just not encyclopedic. Flipper9 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC) — Flipper9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Good point. There is some balance here and since info is so new and constantly updated/ evolving, it is very difficult to nail things down, especially since the media is sensationalizing things. Many people are honestly putting up what they consider to be facts and we may find to be erroneous in hindsight. BFritzen (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear about the inappropriate tag I added to the main article: all of the "suspected cases", "probable cases" and "probable deaths" are unverifiable information. Just because a news article says it, that is more speculative information and has no basic in something that can be verified. For example, news articles are regularly updated, retracted, and sometimes based on the flimsiest of evidence. The information gleaned from the popular press IMHO is not verifiable in the strictest sense. Yes; you can lookup the article and see that some guy at a news organization wrote it, but it's not verifiable by any authority. The only verifiable information is confirmed cases of infection and confirmed cases of death. The other columns of possible or probable cases and deaths is not something you would expect to find in an encyclopedia article; but in a dynamically updated news article or site, hence why that unverifiable information should be placed in Wikinews or some other wiki site. Flipper9 (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that we can't verify that "probable deaths" are actually confirmed, that's not our job. Here we can report that the deaths are considered probable by "reliable and published sources". Such sources include the likes of BBC, CNN etc, as is supported by the vast number of wikipedia articles that use these sources in citations. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes; it does matter. We are supposed to include verifiable information in articles in Wikipedia. We should be sourcing the best evidence available; which IMHO is not a vast array of speculative news articles from the popular press. We should be sourcing verifiable information from the CDC, WHO, and various other organizations which are charged with obtaining and publishing this information. The popular press just posts whatever they want on their websites, whether it be unsourced or hearsay...and that shouldn't be the basis of posting information to Wikipedia. Many news stories call a probable case as gleaned from an email sent by somebody at a hospital to someone else. It's not verifiable, and shouldn't be included in the article. Flipper9 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

See Reliable_sources#News_organizations. Of course data cited by news sources deemed to be mere roumours can be removed, but it is established on wikipedia that reputable news organisations are reliable sources. It has been suggested here many times to only use WHO figures, but it is always decided not to beause they do not reflect the current situation accurately due to delay. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course they can be reliable and more up to date if they are porting verifiable facts such as confirmed cases or confirmed deaths. But the information given on unconfirmed cases, suspected cases, and unconfirmed deaths, be definition, is not verifiable. That information must be removed. It is not sourced in the strictest sense as nobody knows if it's truth or not. Someone says we have unverifiable information; how is that sourced? It's not. It may be said in a news article, but it's printed as unverifiable and is thus not verifiable. Flipper9 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here: we are reporting the verifiable fact that these unverified cases exisit. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What is an unverifiable fact? There is no such thing. It's hearsay, original research, unpublished information (and IMHO just because it's said in the news doesn't make it published). It has no place here in Wikipedia. And reporting the news is not the job of Wikipedia...that's Wikinews' job. Flipper9 (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Think of it this way: 2 years from now, after the infection is over-with, we all have immunity to the virus strain, the yearly flu vaccine includes this virus...etc...everything has settled down...what would this article look like? Would it include "probable" or "possible" cases in the table? No; we would be sourcing the article from published articles from peer-reviewed literature, from the WHO, from the CDC, and other major health organizations. We wouldn't be sourcing hearsay from the popular press, unless they were just parroting what the major health organizations were saying. Flipper9 (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

When the WHO and peer-reviewed literature have caught up with the actual facts now as reported in other reliable news sources, then they can be cited in preference. Until then we have to use the most accurate and up-to-date sources available, which tend to be trusted media organisations (often quoting WHO or other government officals). --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A "suspected case", "unconfirmed case", or "unconfirmed death" will never catch up. They are unverifiable information and have no place in this article. If a news organization has an update from the WHO or CDC (or other health organization) that hasn't be published yet, then include it. If some guy on some news network heard that somebody has the sniffles, it's not verifiable even though it's published and can be referenced. Flipper9 (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pontificalibus, this arcicle conforms to wikipolicy, which is relying onr reliable news sources.

RE: Think of it this way: 2 years from now, after the infection is over-with, we all have immunity to the virus strain, the yearly flu vaccine includes this virus...etc...everything has settled down...what would this article look like? Would it include "probable" or "possible" cases in the table? No; we would be sourcing the article from published articles from peer-reviewed literature, from the WHO, from the CDC, and other major health organizations.

This is immaterial, since we are living in 2009, not 2011. By 2011 this article will be radically different. the sources that you are say this article should have, don't exist yet, until they do, we will rely on reliable media sources. Ikip (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that referencing news organizations for the latest verifiable information follows the wikipolocy, in that case you are writing about verifiable information. However, including unverifiable informatino just because CNN or the BBC reports it is contrary to the rule that the content must be verifiable. A suspected or unverified case is just that, not verifiable. Flipper9 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. 76.10.155.49 (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand Wikipedia's policy on verifiable information. We require only that information be verified as coming from reputable sources (such as a news agency). We have never required "verification" that the facts being put forward are true, final, or indisputable. Since the existence of suspected cases can be verified in many reputable sources, that is sufficient for inclusion. The ultimate dispostion of those cases is irrelevant for the purposes of "verification" as the term is used in Wikipedia editing. Dragons flight (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since 206 editors have worked on Template:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table, listing the presummed cases, and you are the first editor to bring this up, I don't think there is any conensus for change. Ikip (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The table at the top of the page is a bit much as it stands now; I would be in favor of relegating all mentions of "possible/probable/suspected cases" to the article text, only having CDC-confirmed deaths/cases in the table. We could have a single section on states which have unconfirmed cases. To me this is a good way to reduce clutter and keep the article length down. The suspected cases may be notable and verifiable, but it seems a bit much to me to have them in the table.-RunningOnBrains 18:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Posted to wrong talk page, sorry.-RunningOnBrains 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Referencing wikipolicy itself, Wikipedia is not a democracy. I am only trying to uphold what Wikipedia is about, even though I might be the only one talking about it. Hence, why I have just added the tag to the article and wanted to bring up a discussion, and didn't just go removing the unverifiable information from the article itself. I am thinking about just removing the unverifiable, because it is unverifiable and against wikipolicy, but wanted to give folks a change to talk about it. I know people have put a lot of hard work into this article, but unverifiable information has no place here. Go place that info in Wikinews or some other wiki. Flipper9 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to find another phrase than "unverifiable information". These references are verified through news organization, and the folks at the template article go to pains to remove unsourced information. Nothing in those tables is against wikipolicy, you haven't quoted any wikipolicy yet. Edits begat edits, so maybe if I stop responding, this section will go away. Ikip (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Flipper, While, I think we all agree with what you are saying, there already was a tag that this article refers to a "Current Event" and as such, the article can change rapidly. I think that is enough of a statement to cover what you two are disputing. Further, DON"T EDIT WAR (Not aimed at FLIPER per se) But I could see one brewing. BFritzen (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the sourced information is hearsay. The suspected cases come from unreliable emails, first-hand discussions with the public, and are not reliable information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources

a lot of the news agencies that are sourced for the flu cases are sourced in other articles (unrelated to the flu outbreak) and accepted as reputable sources, i would think for us to decide when an otherwise reputable source is being sensationalist and when they are reporting facts would be original research Default.XBE (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

While a popular news article (which all of the "suspected" and "unconfirmed" numbers are referenced to) can be reliable, it's only reliable when they are reporting news from an authority in the subject. The purpose of the popular news is to generate articles that get people to read their articles, so they impart sensationalism to get people to read them. They include hearsay, unchecked "facts", and information that is not verifiable. You cannot verify that someone has the swine flu disease (which this article is about) if the data is unverified, i.e. someone thinks that someone has the disease. Suspected cases are not notable, and do not fulfill this criterion for inclusion into Wikipedia. Flipper9 (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a better way to do this. Start a topic on a specific use of a reference (ie Source A claims X amt of deaths, WHO differs." Because, some of the info is changing so fast that as soon as it is written it can become unreliable. I agree about news sources with "What bleeds, leads" being inappropriate for encyclopedic knowledge. AND of course, any statements of such should be well verified and peer reviewed. Look at it this way: We are trying to record history as it is happening. We are going to get stuff wrong. It doesn't mean it can't be corrected. I just think we need to be circumspect about this and focus on one instance at a time. Text sucks at conveying emotion, so it would be best to look for alternate peer reviewed sources that verify the inaccuracies. This shouldn't e hard to do. BFritzen (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mixing two issues here. 1. Suspected or Unconfirmed cases are not noteworthy for this article. 2. References to news articles do not IMHO rise to the level of respected, sourced information. If a news source has facts about verified infections or verified deaths due to swine flu, then that's fine. If a news source reports number of people who might possibly have an infection, or died and we just aren't sure why, then that doesn't rise to the level of noteability and verifiability for the level that Wikipedia must achieve to be considered an encyclopedia. Either way, the suspected and unverified information in the table on this article (and all related country articles) should and must be removed. Flipper9 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just want you to be more specific. There are hundreds of references in this article. What ones and where in the article? It will take considerable time, because if it is CNN or BBC but the news references a verifiable source.... I am in favor of PRIMARY sources only. I don't have a problem with it, I just think it will be a monumental task. BFritzen (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about the suspected cases being impossible to verify. That is like saying that it is impossible to verify that people suspect OJ Simpson committed murder when he wasn't convicted. The verification of the suspicion is the news article that identifies the suspicion. I don't think that having suspected cases is against wikipedia policy at all. It is not impossible to verify that they are suspected. We are using the most reliable source (the news media)available at this time. If you want up the level of verification in the table by using the most reliable source about current suspected cases then I think that is correct, just as we do any piece of information in Wikipedia.

And in the future, the article on the issue, will almost certainly have information regarding the number suspected cases and the perception of suspected cases and how that influenced the event. While, we can't see how it will influence this event, we can (and should) include that the suspected cases exist. Hdstubbs (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it the values of zero that are unverifiable and unreferenced? (This comment could probably be on the table's talk page, but it seems appropriate in this thread.) --Zigger «º» 20:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Zeros are a common value of a no known cases. You can't easily ref that you don't know something. WP knows this and generally accepts 0 without refrences. The refrenced zeros in the US table are for when a case comes back as negative and is sourced. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite Error

In references, can someone please fix?BFritzen (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Happens often, don't worry :-) -- Grochim (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It must have been fixed. hmwithτ 16:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

CDC rolling out test kits to US state health agencies - Mexico just now has testing capability

Per todays webcast: Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Rich Besser, says they have rolled out test kits to NewYork and Califonia: They expect to be able to roll out testing kits to other states on Monday. Prior, testing was only avaliable at CDC headquaters in Atlanta. The new kits are expected to be able to speed up the testing process. Dr Besser also said that Mexico has just now been able to do their own testing. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Swine Flu Resource" Reference

Leads to American Idol's finalist Adam Lamebert's fan site. Another reason behind Wikipedia being nothing more than a synonym for retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.179.74.165 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks for pointing that out. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2 (gah!) It's probably vandalism. I removed the link. Thank you for the heads up. hmwithτ 18:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Abandoning the name Swine Flu

[9] WHO stopped using this term to protect pigs from being slaughtered, like done in Egypt already. Maybe Wikipedia should too? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.179.57 (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In the US, HHS also changed the name, the alternative is a terribly bland name. Ikip (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree It also has one more very important side effect, some religious Muslims and Jews will consider themselves safe as they don't consume "swine" (pork) meat while it has nothing to do with consuming when it comes to human to human transfer period. I am afraid it is a bit late now anyway. Perhaps WHO should educate people on that matter. Better, someone with better English and medical background should add about the consuming pig meat and the illness (which I suspect has nothing to do with each other) to prevent a large scale of population of globe ignoring precautions. It is already being called "Domuz Gribi" (Pig Influenza) in Turkish media and Turkish Wikipedia Wikipedia_TR Ilgaz (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"On April 30, 2009, the World Health Organization called it influenza A(H1N1) [52]". Sorry this does not sound quite right the way its worded. Perhaps "On April 30, 2009, the World Health Organization announced it would be using the scientific term H1N1 influenza A, rather than swine flu." sherpajohn (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The officle name for the swine flu is "The H1N1 Virus" Cheers--Ken Durham (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 500 See WP:COMMONNAME. We use the most common name for article names. However, if the common name for this flu changes, the article can definitely be renamed. hmwithτ 18:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. "--24.87.88.162 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Searching google news for flu, brings up "swine flu", so that appears to still be the common name. http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&q=flu Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - We HAVE TO free the pigs :] Yug (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - The name has been changed even by the WHO now to Influenza H1N1 A or AH1N1.

 Disagree - "Swine Flu" is still the most common name for the outbreak. Let's wait and see if the media at large begin to use the new name first. magnius (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree H1N1 Virus is to officle name.--Ken Durham (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - I'm of a wait-and-see opinion on this one as well. Perhaps H1N1A will catch on, but H5N1 never caught on for bird flu, so I'm going to say probably not. As for Egypt, the pigs are kept for the small christian population and while sad, the numbers are pretty small and inconsequential to a nation that doesn't eat it for religious reasons. No other nations appear on the verge of deciding to cull. aremisasling (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To further explain, see the articles on some animals. We use common names, rather than their actual scientific names. hmwithτ 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - If and when a plurality of media sources adopt the WHO's name (or any other name) then the article should be renamed. Equilibrium007 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - When a common name isn't spreading dangerous misinformation, then sure, I can see just sitting on the sidelines. However, after what Egypt did, I think it's time to do the right thing. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree we write an encylopedia, we have no responsiblity to do the right thing, to protect pigs, to protect egyptans from themselves or to keep Vice President Biden from being an idiot. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. The wikipedia's main mission is to spread knowledge and *not* misinformation. Let's make the change. --24.87.88.162 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides information not knowledge. Knowledge is attained when a reader studies information; combines it with prior experiences, education, other information, and common snese. Wikipedia is not an agent of change; while we try to build a quaility product we are not responsible when people, lacking common sense, misuse it. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - In some European countries, TV news have already changed the way they call the disease from "swine flu" to "influenza A" (probably to keep it short). But this is probably highly region dependent. Cochonfou (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - "Swine Flu" it will be, i cannot change by any directive.Jack007 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I think that the media is moving and I think we should too. Hdstubbs (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - The widely known name is still "Swine Flu". Plus, any other names can simply be added at the beginning of the article. (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I think the most important criterion is that people easily find in wikipedia what they are looking for, and everybody right now is talking about the "swine flu". Having said that, it looks like "2009 alpha flu" is going to be the official name of this thing.Dianelos (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Purely scientific, the word “swine” have no relevant to H1N1 Virus. Tiwonk (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - This strain is a Swine Influenza A (H1N1). It evolved in swine and is different to the common human Influenza A (H1N1) strains. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree In addition to the reasons cited above, President Obama carefully called it "the H1N1 virus."

I suggest using the name "Chimeric Flu" as it is a mixture of avian, human and swine strains. Calling it H1N1 like WHO does is confusing, as there already is a Type A H1N1 going around this year (the one that is Tamiflu resistant). CDC seems to be moving toward H1N1 (2009) which is a bit better as the H1N1 from last season was discovered in a previous year. In a non-politically correct world, it would clearly be called Mexican Flu, since that is where it seems to have originated. Would it be more PC to call it Aztec Flu?

I think the problem is associating this strain with swine as problematic. People are avoiding swine products and that has a negative impact on the economy. Why perpetuate a misnomer. Further, how about a subtitle that says something like "Also known as Influenza AH1N1."???? BFritzen (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Likely the most neutral simple name for the strain would be "2009 H1N1" but, becuase most of the seasonal influenza in 2009 so far has also been subtype H1N1, there is potential to confuse the strain name with the outbreak name. --Una Smith (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The geographic region is the naming convention established for prior flu pandemics. Spanish flu, Hong Kong flu, Fujian flu, and so on. It would be consistent to name this one the 2009 Mexican flu. Otherwise in the historical literature the sequence of names for pandemics throughout history will be inconsistent and confusing if they switch back and forth between geographic labels and medical terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.228.195.206 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Manual archiving time?

The page is getting awfully long again. I know there is a bot that does this, but should we manually archive some in the meantime, like we did before? hmwithτ 18:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Probibly a good idea. Thanks--Ken Durham (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I second if you are referring to the talk page.BFritzen (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton has archived the page. Thanks! hmwithτ 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Does Twitter belong in Media Response???

Since Twitter is a Social Networking/ Micro Blogging Site, does can response on Twitter be considered as Media Response as opposed the Public Response?

I think that there should be a clear line between Media Response and Public response, with Media reponse being limited to the response of the professional journalists, as opposed to reponse of amateur journalists/general public, which should be considered public reponse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanhee920 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The only possible mention of twitter that I feel is applicable should be the CDCs use of it; which again is not a media response. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that it is pretty superfluous information that adds nothing to the article. magnius (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It shows the media's affect on the public. I wrote the section. Feel free to delete it. :) hmwithτ 18:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree--Ken Durham (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been deleted, although should a Public Response section be created, I think this would be well worth adding.Chanhee920 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if the public response is extremely notable. If its only somewhat notable (egyptians make baconbits) it should go onto the 'by country' page. We don't need 192 entries of people took extra day off work. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources. I'd say the public response is notable. hmwithτ 18:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen at least three articles about twitter's uses in this outbreak. This has mostly focused on the use of twitter by CDC, CNN, and other reliable agencies using it to get information out, and also how this reliable information is often lost in the mass of extremely unreliable information. Do you think that counts as relevant? Here are the links: http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/25/swine_flu_twitters_power_to_misinform

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/5236447/Swine-flu-Twitter-used-to-spread-news-around-world.html http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/27/swine.flu.twitter/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdstubbs (talk • contribs) 20:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The information is not precise.

In the cases by country table, It is shown 159 confirmed cases in México., That is very far from the official number.

that number 195 is not supported by the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6189805.ece

"The number of suspected swine flu deaths in Mexico rose again last night to 159"

Note the difference than "suspected" than "confirmed"

The official number is provided by WHO, and Mexico has 26 confirmed

http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_04_29/en/index.html

"29 April 2009 -- The situation continues to evolve rapidly. As of 18:00 GMT, 29 April 2009, nine countries have officially reported 148 cases of swine influenza A/H1N1 infection. The United States Government has reported 91 laboratory confirmed human cases, with one death. Mexico has reported 26 confirmed human cases of infection including seven deaths." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceglez (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that the information is inaccurate? Or did you really mean not precise?

Its difficult to be precise with matters such as this.If you mean inaccurate, then just edit it with what you believe is correct (although I recommend the date updated on your source and the cited source before you do this).Chanhee920 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That edit was my fault. Misread the headline of the source. Infected count has now been fixed --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I expect more out of you! lulz. BFritzen (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A few hours ago the mexican Health Secretary announced that there were 260 confirmed cases. Isn't that offcial information?? The table showed that value a little ago, why did you replace it with 97 again? Rodcontr (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Names

People keep chopping names based on their personal opinions without bothering to research them properly. North American influenza appears to be the most common to go although it appears widely used particularly by pork and food industry source. A Google News search, which I don't particularly like but seems our best option at the moment, reveals the least used term is probably swine-origin influenza which may have been used by the CDC for a while but appears to have been abandoned in favour of 2009 H1N1 flu. If we do want to remove one this is probably the first to go. Either that or we leave it be for now and wait until things settle down. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a reference to an EDIT WAR. Whoever, (And I already know who) is doing this, please STOP AND DESIST. If you have something to contribute do so. If there is something you disagree with, bring it up on the talk page. I have to head home for the day otherwise I would place this on his talk page. Can you link this for me?BFritzen (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is one person responsible? I added North American influenza back twice and I'm pretty sure it was removed by different people each time so I don't know if it's one particular person doing it. Unless you mean me (since I did at it back twice) but I started the discussion so I'm obviously already aware of it :-P Nil Einne (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I did inform the two people of this discussion FYI Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars? Oh no sounds like the global warming article all over again. Perhaps you need some light relief[10]79.79.220.104 (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, IP, that was a nice diversion. Now back to work...LeadSongDog come howl 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed North American influenza once, I didn't realise it had been done multiple times or I wouldn't have done so. I think the intro should only refer to common names for the virus, not proposed names that haven't been widely adopted. The reason I removed originally was that the citation given was to an OIE press release which merely suggested the term might be appropriate. More recent OIE press relases used A/H1N1 influenza. Now I have searched on google news for "North American influenza" usage, most hits are just about proposals to change the name, rather than common use of the name, and for that reason I think it should be removed. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It appeared that the person, again my suspicion will remain nameless, I don't want anyone to feel like an outsider, but I just wanted to fend off a edit war before it started. Also, the edit in question deleted a large amount of information without reason (entered when editing.) I don't always state why I edit, either. However, the materials were documented and before removing verified, documented information, we should have a topic on the talk page to discuss why and how the sitch can be rectified. BFritzen (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed "swine-origin influenza". Firstly, in the citation given it is not called that but "Swine-Origin Influenza A (H1N1)". I can't find anyone calling it "swine-origin influenza". Secondly "Swine-Origin Influenza A (H1N1)" is just a more descriptive form of "Influenza A (H1N1)" which is already listed, and not a seperate name that needs to clog up the first paragraph. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Names were swiped clean, I undid it. BFritzen (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again swiped clean. Again re?undid. BFritzen (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

North American Influenza is not in common use, but it is only a proposed name. I would consider it political maneuvering to give readers the impression that this strain "is known as" North American Influenza, when in fact, only the other three names have gained support for common use. Additionally, the largest region of the North American continent does not have a large number of flu cases during the intial outbreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

time from onset of symptoms to death?

Has anyone seen info on how long victims have lived between the time they first showed symptoms and death? Please add this info if you can find it. ike9898 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard the DHS Secretary say (paraphrasing) 'the incubation peroid is about seven days.' I don't remember enough biology to tell you what that means though. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Mexican Health Ministry, the virus has two incubation periods, each five days long. It means you can be carrying it for ten days before symptoms start to develop (thus the Mexican stoppage of activities). I'll look for the exact source and start work on it. 201.159.133.18 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is correct. The contagious period is 7 days after symptoms appear in adults - possibly up to ten days in children. This is the reason for the ten day period. Rmhermen (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are adding something here that doesn't need to be. A few people are dead because of this strain but it isn't "automatic" death.BFritzen (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Incubation period refers to the time between when you first contract the disease and when you start to exhibit symptoms. Depending on what disease it is you may or may not be contagious during this time. As for flu, I can't exactly remember all the specifics about it. (I knew I should have paid closer attention in virology class this semester) :) Pharmaediting11 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Influenza A(H1N1) --- WHO new name -- we should use this as the article name

30 April 2009 -- From today, WHO will refer to the new influenza virus as influenza A(H1N1). [11]--zayani (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Support Moving this article to 2009 influenza A(H1N1) outbreak

1. The WHO name is as official as it get ... --zayani (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
2. CDC is using Swine Flu as a parenthetical now. CNN is also interspersing H1N1 as the name throughout articles. I'd like to see a space between 'A' and '(H1N1}', though, i.e. 2009 influenza A (H1N1). --Elliskev 19:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

   Well, thats CDC not the WHO, and i think that the article should move to "2009 influenza A(H1N1) outbreak"--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 20:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Based on it being the scientific correct nomenclature, and the WHO advocating the name, I feel it is now appropriate to make the move, however hesitant I was before. The other common and inaccurate names (2009 swine flu, Mexican Flu, Novel flu, North American flu) can be redirects, so everyone will be able to find the article. We should use scientific nomenclature like we do for other diseases, rather than folksy terms. We redirect The clap to Gonorrhea. We use Tuberculosis instead of Consumption. Why should this be different? The use of appropriate scientific or medical nomenclature is part of being an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid. Edison (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Opposed (why?)

1. Per WP:COMMONAME: I know who Julius Caesar is but not Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus --PigFlu Oink (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
2. We should use the common name. H1N1 is endemic in humans and causes about 50% of seasonal flu in humans, so there have been plenty of H1N1 outbreaks this year. The proposed name is not specific enough. Swine flu, at least, is accurate, as it originated in swine, and differentiates it from other influenza viruses. "Swine influenza" is preferable to naming it after countries or regions as these names can be very damaging to the country and can be wrong (the Spanish flu originated in Kansas, for example). --Oldak Quill 21:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
3. There are many extant influenza A(H1N1) strains. This strain is specifically a swine type H1N1 rather than a human type H1N1. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, we are just having a vote about "Abandoning the name Swine Flu" about 3 inches up the page. Can we give it a break for a while? Does anyone ever actually read WP:COMMONAME? --Pontificalibus (talk)

Jesus Christ, relax. It's a discussion about the evolution of the name outside Wikipedia. Did you even actually read the comments? --Elliskev 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:PRECISION. --Una Smith (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Precision? Why? Is there some other "2009 swine flu outbreak" that I should be concerned about? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but there are other influenza A(H1N1) strains infecting humans in 2009.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WHO and CDC are normally aimed at medical professionals and written to their level of education. We should be mindful of Wiki's readership and stick with the commonly-used terms, even when not "technically" accurate. In 2006, a Harvard School of Public Health survey found that only 41% of Americans knew what the term "pandemic flu" meant. Nuff said? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative" -- #Per WP:COMMONAME: --24.87.88.162 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to "move" it to different names with reference to one main article (which should have the most used name)? E.g. "North American influenza" and "Mexican flu" refer to "2009 swine flu outbreak" (just an example!) so that people can find the information they are looking for either way. I mean, that's all about: Finding the info they are looking for. For finding the "right name" of the main article, I prefer to wait and observe a little more how media handles and calls the topic.--201.153.40.28 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. There is a way to do this. At alternative article names a "redirect" can be made to the main article (see Wikipedia:Redirect for details). Basically this works by putting text on an alternative article name such as North American influenza which points at the main article. The redirect text is of the form: #REDIRECT [[2009 swine flu outbreak]] . These are widely used on Wikipedia, and you'll find they already exist for this article (click on the link for North American influenza). --Oldak Quill 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We can redirect anything we want, but that still doesn't solve the great name debate. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Came across this article which might give us another reason to hold off for a while.

"WASHINGTON – No matter what you call it, leading experts say the virus that is scaring the world is pretty much all pig. So while the U.S. government and now the World Health Organization are taking the swine out of "swine flu," the experts who track the genetic heritage of the virus say this: If it is genetically mostly porcine and its parents are pig viruses, it smells like swine flu to them.

"Six of the eight genetic segments of this virus strain are purely swine flu and the other two segments are bird and human, but have lived in swine for the past decade, says Dr. Raul Rabadan, a professor of computational biology at Columbia University."

"Swine flu name change? Flu genes spell pig" (4/30/09)--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive dynamic references

Reminder: Some web pages used as references are frequently updated, especially primary sources, and others are not permanent. These types of URLs are more common in current event articles. The Webcite Consortium [12] is one provider of third-party archiving, and identifies Wikipedia as a Level-2 member.[13] This is a call to archive reference web page content that might otherwise be lost leading to verification problems and incorrect OR challenges/defences. --Zigger «º» 20:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not much a computer nerd. Can you explain this in English? Thanks :)Hdstubbs (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes internet pages die. If you use webcite, it can keep them in memory so we can still read them. If you have a source that dies often (AP or AFP on google news) you should use a webcite thingy. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation! We're also losing older content on this topic from MSNBC.MSN, CDC and WHO. And if the referenced page has "Last updated…" or similar, Webcite it ASAP! --Zigger «º» 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol :) Thanks a lot for the plain English. So how do you use this webcite thingy? Just make sure that we use permanent urls? (Is that right?) What if we can't find them? Hdstubbs (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don;t know how to do the webcite thingy, so I just try to use permanet urls. i.e. "examplenews.com\Swine_Flu\story1234.html" rather than the main headline page "examplenews.com\Swine_Flu\" You can find them most of the time. If you can't: try another source. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a web form at http://www.webcitation.org/archive . At its most basic, it only needs a URL & email address. No confirmation is needed. The Wikipedia "cite" templates have fields called archiveurl and archivedate to hold the result. --Zigger «º» 21:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Probable / confirmed weirdness

How is it possible that confirmed cases are higher than probable? That doesn't make sense to me. Example Canada 34[7] 22[8] Yogiudo (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed cases are seperate from probable. You can't be both. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't confirmed cases just really probable cases? (100% probable, to be specific.) 128.189.250.177 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

NopeChanhee920 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If that were so, then death would be 110%. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So confirmed cases are not probable? I would think confirming them makes them very probable to be actual cases... what's the point of confirming a case if it doesn't increase one's certainty that it is actually a case? 128.189.250.177 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to let you dwell on the definitions of "probable" and "confirmed" for a minute. Then I'm going to ask if your a native english speaker. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Confirmed: person has influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory test confirms presence of this strain.
• Probable: person has ILI and one or more of the following: contact with a confirmed case, recent travel to a location with a community outbreak, residence in a location with a community outbreak.
• Suspected: person has ILI and someone fears it is due to this strain.

These are mutually exclusive categories. As people are tested and found not to have this strain, they are excluded from all 4 categories. Thus, the number of confirmed cases can only grow, but the numbers of probable and suspected cases can (and do) grow and shrink. --Una Smith (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(reply to pigflu oink) Probable = likely to be true. Confirmed = true. The latter implies the first: if X is a true, then X must also be likely to be true (100% likely specifically). (reply to una) Your categorization into the three groups doesn't imply mutual exclusivity. 128.189.250.177 (talk)

Yes but no one says '100% likely': "Later on tonight there will be a 30% chance of rain and a 100% chance of darkness" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22100+percent+likely%22 128.189.250.177 (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Revert vandalism by Hsibley -- under "spread within Mexico", text was changed to read "over 9000" from the previous "over 3000" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.178.157 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be 4000, as the table suggests.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Six Regions of WHO: A Tufte-like Proposal

http://www.who.int/about/regions/en/index.html

The WHO region map is salient, and not only because of the two-region criterion of Phase Six. It would be useful and informative to color-code their map as the epidemic develops in conjunction with the Mollweide projection —some of those nation-states are kind of cramped. And it's a global epidemic —why not use the WHO's global regions? We are using their data, after all! kencf0618 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. However, we (several other users and myself) have all attempted to change the map using various boundaries, and have all run into the same problem. The original maps coding is pretty complicated in how it is updated and most of us don't have the programming knowledge to mess with that, and the boundaries themselves are too complex to simply draw them in.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Pity. I had rather assumed that there was a template somewhere... kencf0618 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote (read this before posting name change ideas)

I propose freezing the name for a few days. Yes, the WHO did say to stop using the term swine flu. But people are still calling it that, and probably will continue calling it that forever. As swine flu is what most people will search for in the search bar, we need the article to be right where they think it will be. Until we can get sources of common people calling it something other than swine flu the name should be stay as it is.

Support

Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets just give it 48 hours to cool off. This whole thing is touching off a big unneeded argument that is sucking up too much space on the page. Lets cool the jets for a while folks and keep our heads on our shoulders. Pharmaediting11 (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

support - this sounds like a good idea, can definitely wait a day or two to see what happens, the setting up of redirects also sound like a good idea - so no matter which of the main names a person uses in the search box they go to the article. The name is being pushed from swine flu and WHO etc might be successful in getting name changed over time. Its good that the main names for the new flu are in the introduction as the many names for the new flu seems to be becoming an aspect of the new flu. Anyway as long as when someone puts "swine flu" or other major common name for the new flu in the search box they come to this article that is what i would suggest is the most important thing, second is what the article is actually called - though of course the effort to get the actual article name to be accurate and precise is good stuff. Sure change the name for the article about new flu if necessary if wiki rules, references and editors follow. Such a hot topic in such a hotly debated article could use a little cooling off [though maybe not on the talk page :) ]. P.S. kudos to all the editors working so hard on this article, its great and readers like me appreciate it even if you may not hear thank yous directly from us very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.209 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Just a comment that keeping the page name consistent with what people will search for in the search bar is not an argument that forces us into keeping this page name, since that issue can be dealt with via a redirect. Sancho 00:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, however it would be a lot simpler to add a redirect to the less likely to be searched for pages. It would be especially helpful for people who have slow internet connections. Redirects nearly double the time it takes for me to get to an intended page.Drew R. Smith (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside NotAvote: I'm Against all polls until we decide which poll we will use. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Troll ??

In March and April 2009, over 9000 cases of suspected swine flu in humans were detected in Mexico and the southwestern United States.

I'm in your article, making up memes? More seriously, the article is locked, and the table above only says ~4000 cases. So... I'm inclined to say that the above quote is a troll. -- Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.49.146 (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick chuckle at that. I'm inclined to change it, but I can't. Looks like vandalism for sure. 64.231.122.126 (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

For the uncooth 'Over 9000' is a played out internet meme: spawned from overuse in DragonBall-Z episodes in reference to a characters power level. Often quoted with shock 'Its over 9000' gained fame when internet users over at 4chan tricked Oprah into saying 'over 9000 penises'. Generally speaking the words over 9000 or 9000+ should be taken as a red flag in any article. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to change the article name.

I believe WHO officially named the disease to "Influenza A (H1N1)". Kadrun (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Yahoo!, WHO renamed the virus to H1N1 influenza A — Σxplicit 01:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The common name (the one people are googling most) is Swine flu. Until the everyman stops saying swine flu, neither will we.Drew R. Smith (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine influenza is getting hammered with page views now. Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 will be next, eh? --Una Smith (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for Wiki to cite the new name and add some redirects, but not use the new name as the official title until the entire medical community, especially in the U.S., hashes it out. This has the telltale signs of a PC war and I don't think we need to get involved yet and take sides - just my opinion. Note the following excerpt from today's NY Times:

"At the organization’s [WHO] news conference on Thursday, its deputy director general, Dr. Keiji Fukuda, dutifully referred to the virus as “H1N1,” slipping up only once. Just two days before, Dr. Fukuda had declared that the new virus was a swine influenza virus, and that the organization had no plans to call it anything other than what it was. . . .

"The name may have changed, but the virus has not. Scientists who have examined its genetic material say that most of it comes from viruses known to infect pigs. But for various reasons, it seems, that is better left unsaid. There were some issues regarding the name swine flu that were brought to the attention of the scientific community,” said Tom Skinner, a spokesman for the disease centers. “Sensitive issues in other parts of the world. Among the issues were cultural ones. And in the United States, Mr. Skinner said, “I think there were issues around the use of the name and its impact on commerce.” New York Times --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another quote:

"Scientifically this is a swine virus," said top virologist Dr. Richard Webby, a researcher at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis. Webby is director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Studies on the Ecology of Influenza Viruses in Lower Animals and Birds. He documented the spread a decade ago of one of the parent viruses of this strain in scientific papers. It's clearly swine," said Henry Niman, president of Recombinomics, a Pittsburgh company that tracks how viruses evolve. "It's a flu virus from a swine, there's no other name to call it." AP News--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Webby also claims "Influenza A viruses are true zoonotic agents with many animal reservoirs" (PMID 17848061). It appears that he conflates "found also in animals" with "originates in animals", which may help to get his papers published but kind of overlooks the huge problem of how to root a phylogenetic tree in the presence of reassortment. --Una Smith (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On the lighter side

Can you imagine a commercial break during the nightly news this coming fall?

"Weather got you down? Suffering from cold sniffles? Or maybe you're coming down with a touch of Influenza A-H-1-N-1). If so, you need a bottle of the new and fast-acting Anti-Influenza-A-H-1-N-1 drug: (fill in with long medical phrase - then add "Extra-strength" to the beginning and "Plus" to the end.) So call your doctor today. You'll be glad you did - and so will we. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu article VS 2009 swine flu outbreak article

	Swine flu	2009 swine flu outbreak
Link is on the Main Page	no	yes
Visits by day	1.3 million wiki visitors/day, the most view, visitor all come here !	0.4 million / day, less than 1/3rd of the visitors come here
Talk page's activity by day	little activity, nobody here, just some wiki-users / day	very active, everybody here, several dozens of wiki-users / day
(Main) Topic	formerly: all strains of influenza in swine since decades. soon: the current 'swine flu' outbreak	formerly: the current 'swine flu' outbreak soon: the current 'swine flu' outbreak
trouble : if we do nothing, the 2 articles are becoming copies. Solution: choice better names to differentiate more clearly the 2 articles.

Yug (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the numbers in a situation like this is misleading. One common scenario is that people search for swine flu, get to that article, see the link to this article, and click it. That will count as a page view for both pages so almost all of the people who come to this page are double-counted. Oren0 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu was on the main page, in the "in the news" section, until editors asked them to remove the link. That can account for a lot of the page views. This too will pass, and I see nothing much we can or should do about it, except watch both articles and remove or relocate tangential information. Also, examine the incoming links. I fixed a bunch of links today that linked to Swine flu but should link to 2009 swine flu outbreak. You too can fix links. --Una Smith (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 swine influenza outbreak

Move to 2009 swine influenza outbreak? -download | sign! 02:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Which symptoms image should we have?

First one. (1). New one. (2)

Since yesterday [14], it seems we have two symptoms images to choose between now, which gives us the advantage to use the one we think fits best. In terms of symptoms, they both say exactly the same. 1 is public domain, while 2, on the other hand, has some rights reserved. 1 looks more realistic, while 2 is more diagram-like. The only other difference is I can see directly is that 2 is taller in order to make the text come out in same size. Are there any other pros and cons, and which one should we have? Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I vote for the first one.--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 04:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Second one: the intent is to show the symptoms in a clear manner to the lay person; not show some creepy looking swede inside-out boy. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Don't discriminate against the inside-outs! I get your point with clear expression though. Still, the more restricted licensing of the second one may be a factor against. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the second one; perhaps someone could color-edit it so that the affected organs match the highlight color of the symptoms pointing to them, for easier reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.197.134 (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the first one. kencf0618 (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the second one. The first one is creepy, to me. I don't like the way his creepy eyes stare out at me when I can see his brain. Hdstubbs (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Does making the brain part more transparent ameliorate the creepy issue? You can compare with previous version. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like either. Do we really need these to begin with? The symptoms of swine flue are identical to the symptoms of a bad strain of seasonal flu; in fact, most of the symptoms, e.g. diarrhea, nausea, lethargy, are common to hundreds of unrelated diseases. Does this chart really offer any useful information? What purpose does it serve? Before editors start spending hours creating worthless charts for all sorts of diseases, we really should have this debate. But if we're going to use a chart, I would prefer using an illustration of a person rather than have someone pose as a model, and in any case, the head should be turned sideways to properly illustrate the nasopharynx and areas of the brain (cerebellum).--98.232.98.144 (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the diagram has an advantage in being able to illustrate details of the nasopharynx and brain. If it also had a plurality of organs tailored to fit into it and be made public domain or a compatible license, then I'd consider using it as standard template.

I do think the diagrams serve the purpose of giving a quick overview of symptoms, especially for all those who just scroll through articles, as well getting the big picture of the symptoms. Due to strict licensing policies, Wikipedia lacks in illustrating all its text. (And the diagrams don't take hours to make; if you can handle a drag-and-drop doll, then you can make a diagram.) Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "name" section

I feel our coverage of the disease name (section 8) should include the reactions or overreactions to the virus that have happened as a result of people erroneously believing (based on only the disease's name) that it is carried by pigs or pig products.

Specifically, two articles that cover this: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/04/30/1915246.aspx http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/30/pork.industry.impact/index.html

The erroneous impacts / reactions include mass killings of livestock and improper bannings of imports from certain countries. It is quite notable and directly tied to the improper naming of the virus as a "swine flu."

a high-resolution png is fine too

sure svg is the standard but some people (like me) who like to be informed dont have a super computer to open a huge svg file, why not use a hi-resolution ong instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.6.195.131 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You can render all SVG images on wikipedia to 2048px wide PNGs, you dont have to open it as the SVG. chandler ··· 08:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to simply follow the WHO daily update source for information?

Why are we relying on other news sources instead of the WHO daily updates to provide updated statistics?

Right here it says... http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_05_01/en/index.html

There are only 156 confirmed cases in Mexico not 312. There are 109 in the USA not 138.

For whatever reason the other countries are correct but why do we keep on inflating the numbers for the US and Mexico?

I don't care if a news source quotes a us or mexican official, the way the news is being carried at the moment makes a lot of the information by the media unreliable. Just consider this headline by the Times Online which is being used as a source for suspected cases. The headline blares "Mexico confirms swine flu toll rises to 159" while the first line in the story says "The number of suspected swine flu deaths in Mexico rose again last night to 159," if this is not enough evidence as to why we should stick exclusively with what WHO and CDC are saying then this article is as pointless as half the news article circulating out there.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6189805.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.230.247 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's annoying, the values go up and down depending on who edited according to what source Just use WHO and stick to it to avoid this confusing and quite amateuristic yo-yo effect Dr-gonzo (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Two points: One you should make this argument on the talk page for the template (the link is at the top of this page) and Two, instead of just using WHO, which is a good source, but shouldn't be the only source, why not make a rule that we only use government agencies for info on lab confirmed cases? 62.69.130.82 (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)