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

Article name

One more Name Change.

Hello,

Just suggesting another name change. As the WHO is now calling the disease by it's Scientific name Influenza A(N1H1) to avoid confusion with pigs, should the title not be change to 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) Outbreak? Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Read all the past name change proposals. Let me put it simply. When you searched for the article, did you search for Influenza A(N1H1), or swine flu? Most people would search for swine flu, because that is what most people call it. That is how we name articles here. By their common name.D^rew S^mith 12:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually Drew, this is a great idea! <sarcasm> I can't believe no one thought of it before!?!!</sarcasm> I suggest we discuss this ad nauseum.BFritzen (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, BFritzen. Sarcasm gets us nowhere in this debate. hmwithτ 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

When you want info on heart attack do you search for heart attack or do you search for Myocardial infarction? We name medical articles by their medical names not by their common name.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not move the article to the proper name, and then redirect from the common name to the proper name? It would then allow both the common name to be used for "common-man searches", and would also reflect the official name? Why the resistance and insistence on perpetuating an incorrect name? Flipper9 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the prior discussion above there seems now to be a majority support for changing the name. Regarding "common name", there are a lot of exceptions to the "common name" rule. Like neutrality and ambigouity. Following common name should not conflict with other more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions which are more important. To quote "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name". One example, the article influenza, not "flu". Another very important example which should be a precedent. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1, Transmission and infection of H5N1, and Global spread of H5N1. Not "Bird flu".Ht686rg90 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

An important difference with bird flu is that unlike H5N1, H1N1 is also found as regular seasonal flu, so something like Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 would not be suitable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In that line of thinking, so is "Swine Flu"...it is a generic category to refer to a group of particular strains of influenza virus. While the common man calls it "Swine Flu" or "Pig Flu", there is little gained by perpetuating the common-man term in an encyclopedia article other than to list those common names that are used and ensure that the proper redirects are in place to ensure the "common man" or anyone else can find the appropriate article. Flipper9 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think of it as Wikipedia being "educational", informing the public about what is considered correct about a topic and presenting facts as best that we know them. The WHO wanted the name change because of the slaughter of pigs and the erroneous public perception that pigs and pig meat will give them the flu. Perpetuation of a name that many sources are using seems to be the wrong course. I do agree that there is a lot of confusion, even amongst the "official sources". I wish they'd standardize the name like other virus strains used in flu vaccines, such as "A/Brisbane/59/2007 (H1N1)" (part of the current flu vaccine in N-America), but there is no source that I know of that's come up with such a specific name (if someone could find that, it'd be great). I'd just stick with what the WHO designates it as the official name, and then list and redirect all of the varied common names currently in use or sadly we'll just have to wait until one official name is found. Flipper9 (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the prior discussion above there seems now to be a majority support for changing the name. The only summary I've seen is in one section that said there were 16 editors in favor of changing the name, and 12 opposed. That's a majority, but not the desired "rough consensus" for a change. And it's not clear that the editors in favor of a name change agree as to what that name change would be.

It would be very helpful if someone wanting a change were to put together a subpage that including links to all the talk page sections (including those archived) where the name change had been discussed), and listed the editors in favor and opposed to such a change. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a vote. As WP:COMMONNAME is superseded by MOS:MED, it may be prudent to discount any COMMONNAME-based opposition. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't just discount any argument you disagree with. At this time, the name used by the preponderance of reliable sources is still swine flu and that should still be the name IMO. Regardless of how you stack-rank naming guidelines, common sense trumps them all. Oren0 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no common sense. "Common sense" is really only used as an argument when people don't have any others left. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Diving through Pubmed and Genebank, they entitle sequences for the various strains sequenced from this viral outbreak, they are using the term "2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak" [1][2]. That's a sourced, official name from those that track the sequences available for testing. Flipper9 (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. All it would take is a page move and a redirect.--gordonrox24 (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that not everyone agrees on the correct name for this page. Thus it could just be moved back and forth forever. Besides causing unnecessary confusion, this would break dozens of redirects as double redirects don't work properly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move

This requested move is for the page to be moved to 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak

I think the time has come to change the name to something like 2008 H1N1 Influenza A Outbreak. What does everyone else think? Hdstubbs (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with "2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak", with trigger finger on pandemic. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for goodness sakes, could someone make this change, please? It's really a misleading title. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes; please change article title and official name to "2009 H1N1 Influenza Outbreak" per MOS:MED and [[3]][[4]]. I'll do it unless somebody objects with clear reasoning that Wikipedia guidelines should be ignored. Flipper9 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree as well, it was originally at "2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak" but I put up a reqested move to have it moved to the current title, because, at the time, it was the common name (per WP:COMMONAME). I agree it should be moved back, that the common name has changed, WHO and media sources are usings N1H1 now, when at the time of the last move, it was opposite. - Epson291 (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article is discussed extensively above over the last few days. Please do not fracture the conversation, but instead make any comments above. see the archives linked to above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the author of this section is trying to break the conversation into something more targeted and fresher. The argument is already fractured, and hard to follow above. Flipper9 (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was doing, is was for the specific request of having it moved to "2009 H1N1 flu outbreak," which automatically links to "Requested Move" at the top of the page through the "Move" template. - Epson291 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The common name is swine flu. we use common names per wikipedias naming conventions that you should have read when you joined wikipedia. Following the simple math equation of if a = b and b = c then a = c, this means we should use swine flu. Sorry if this sounds like biting, but I'm tired of seeing the topic come up. D^rew S^mith 20:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than being uncivil, there is a good argument to make that H1N1 is now the common name. Other than the WHO, "H1N1" beats Swine flu in a Google News test, 696,021,627 to 268,012,009. - Epson291 (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the points put forth by another editor, which I agree with, is that MOS:MED supersedes WP:NAME in the case of medical articles with regards to naming conventions. Flipper9 (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, use the common name, what's wrong with the common name? It's what everyone knows it by. chandler ··· 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Common names should be used, but in the case of medical articles, MOS:MED says we should use the scientific name instead. My question would be more generally, why have Wikipedia Policies at all if we just have to invoke WP:IAR whenever it's convenient? Flipper9 (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone moved the article to "2009 flu outbreak" which is even more confusing and inaccurate, since there are outbreaks of flu all the time in one year and is non-specific. I'd suggest that "2009 H1N1 Influenza Outbreak" is more scientific per PUBMED, GeneBank, and other sources tasked with identifying and naming the virus at hand. Flipper9 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I did the move. See 1918 flu pandemic. Notice how that article is named? How many other notable 2009 flu outbreaks were there? Zero. This is the only one that has an article. When this gets upgraded to pandemic, the title can then be 2009 flu pandemic. How many flu pandemics are we expecting this year? One. Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the argument, this was an inappropriate use of administrative privileges. The move protecion was imposed to prevent such unilateral actions. --Zigger «º» 20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree; while there wasn't an exact consensus on what name to move to, the name "2009 Flu Outbreak" wasn't one of them that stuck out from my reading. Flipper9 (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I moved the archives too. hmwithτ 21:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are seasonal outbreaks of H1N1 influenza not connected to this current outbreak. At least the new title does not confuse by attempting to be overly accuarate.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"2009 H1N1 Influenza Outbreak" Does not sepcify what strain of H1N1 this is. As H1N1 outbreaks occur every season, without specficity the name "2009 H1N1 Influenza Outbreak" violates MOS:MED andWP:NAME. The proper name of the disease per WHO ICD-10 standards is 'H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3' --PigFlu Oink (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Then call the article "2009 H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3 Outbreak", I agree. As it stands right now, this article covers all outbreaks of influenza in the year 2009 if you call it "2009 Flu Outbreak", which includes all strains. There are outbreaks all the time. Flipper9 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Does adding "pandemic" instead of "outbreak" solve your concern? hmwithτ 20:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No; because it's not a pandemic yet. In 1918, which is long since passed, it's clear that you are referring to the one big pandemic that occurred back then. It's like hurricane naming long ago, like the "Great Hurricane of 1918" or whatever. A title of "2009 Flu Outbreak" or "2009 Flu Pandemic" is way too generic. Even "2009 Swine Flu Outbreak" is better than something non-specific. With "2009 Flu Outbreak" that could refer to outbreaks of "regular" flu in January, or H1N1 "swine flu" today. Flipper9 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to just say flu, as long as the swine flu names redirect here, and there's still a redirect on the actual swine flu article. People should be able to find this just fine. hmwithτ 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This argument is equally valid for any arbitrary name. And using the 1918 article as the ruling precedent was highly selective as most other epidemic articles and mentions use different naming conventions. --Zigger «º» 22:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the new name as it is too ambiguous and I don't think the move was done through consensus either. We should change it back. --Tocino 22:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just want to point out that no matter what the article is titled, accessibility won't be an issue since all the common and colloquial names (such as 2009 swine flu) will redirect to the page. My suggestion for the article's title is "2009 Influenza A H1N1 Epidemic" --Davidkazuhiro (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Which would be fine except 98% of all flu is A H1N1. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So call the article "2009 H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3 Outbreak" (as per PigFluOink's suggestion) which would be perfectly in-line with MOS:MED. Flipper9 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe 2009 H1NA can be considered within WP:COMMONAME, see the Google test above for instance. - Epson291 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• My take on this is that this article is more regarding an event than something medical, so commonname should take precedent. Although I set the move protection over the initial dispute, I would prefer another admin to close this. –xeno ^talk 00:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

suggest keep article name using "swine flu" agreeing with comment in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Treatment_of_contradictory_naming_conventions that common name WP:NAME takes precedence over medical name WP:MEDMOS especially in this case

  * WP:NAME says to favor easily recognized names for general audiences over vocabulary of specialists.
  * WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions says exactly the opposite - to favor specilist vocabulary over commonly used names.

My personal view on this is that WP:NC (this policy) takes precedence, since it represents community-wide consensus, and that other specialized naming conventions should be changed to recognize this. Often, with specialized projects, there IS no easily recognized name; millions of kinds of flora/fauna/fungus/disease/insert specialized topic here are not commonly known, and thus the "most commonly used name" is the one used by experts in the field. So the majority of the time, the MEDMOS naming conventions are probably correct. However, all naming conventions should contain an exception that if a particular subject is known to the general public by a name different than what experts call it, and this name is widely known, then the layman's term should be favored over the expert's. So, I would disagree with the example given at the top of the MEDMOS naming conventions: Myocardial infarction should redirect to Heart attack, not the other way around. WP:Naming conventions is policy, while all of the WP:MOS pages are just guidelines.--Aervanath (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 209.17.145.53 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that the Beatles White Album redirects to The Beatles (album). Will we accept your personal view and rename it? Do you really think that an encyclopedia should continue to promote ignorance? I use the word “ignorance” very precisely; it means that a person knows the truth, but ignores it. It is unlike stupidity or innocence, which are blame free; ignorance is willful and ugly. Nothing good can come from it, only evil. Resurr Section (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu or H1N1 article naming debate - am starting to be persuaded by those arguing for H1N1 - like User:Resurr Section above and the others scattered over the following naming pages but currently still leaning toward "swine flu" at the moment after trying to digess (phew) all the discussion on these types of article naming conflicts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Naming_conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak/Archive_4#Article_Name_-_ask_for_clarification_of_naming_conventions_from_naming_talk_pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Treatment_of_contradictory_naming_conventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_11#Rename_proposal_.28was_merge_proposal.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak#Article_name - some great ideas in the various places ( including rewriting and coalesing(sp) naming guidance into one article) for example protopolicy from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_12 Section "Basic principle" Choose a title that most readers of the article would expect to be used by the encyclopedia that we aspire to be. Section "Values" Subsection "Accuracy" Why it is important that a title not be strictly incorrect. Example: gravitation not gravity, because in strictly scientific terms the latter is an incorrect title. Subsection "Precision" Why precision is important; why it should not be overdone. Subsection "Ambiguity"Explanation of why ambiguity should be avoided; explanation of the role of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Subsection "Bias"Explanation of why titles should avoid bias; bias pitfalls and how to avoid them. Explanation of special cases; such as the inevitable bias in using a national variety of English, and how it is handled by WP:ENGVAR. Subsection "Consistency"Explanation of why it is advantageous to use consistent titles across a block of articles; Subsection "Accessibility"The importance of using titles that are as accessible as possible, preferably because they are in common use and highly recognisable in the real world; Section "Striking the right balance"General comments on the ways in which these values can conflict. Advice on how to balance them; discussion of the role of specific naming conventions in recommending the right mix for a specific field. Mention that even within a field, the balance will vary from article to article; for example, for basic maths topics accessibility is more important than precision, but for highly advanced maths topics precision is more important than accessibility. - and a few comments back into the fray

- am starting to be persuaded by those arguing for H1N1
- the proto policy "Striking the right balance" seems to tilt in favour of "swine flu" because it is a topic of such wide ranging common interest but that might be changing

- the point that because so many sites are echoing wikipedia that the "Google Test" is being biased is something to consider as to how true echoing bias is in the "swine flu" case - it does not look like we will have clear guidance from WP policy pages as it appears to be an active discussion with some good work to do before a rewrite of the naming conventions and article name conflicts pages (the same issue is outstanding in a number of places [science/precision vs common useage/what wikipedia is trying to do...] - it appears that the editors of this article will basically have to "Choose a title that most readers of the article would expect to be used by the encyclopedia that we aspire to be" to quote a protopolicy that may be part of future guidance. - there is alot of good arguement but basically it seems that the title should be protected and not changed without good concensus especially from those who have done so much work keeping the article accurate and uptodate - as to what is the current name useage some media seem to be using H1N1 as the proper name and other media (CBC [canada]) are using "Swine Flu" so it looks like there are becoming two common names - as one of the mob I apologize for getting wikitis about the article name - encourage vigourous discussion about the name as it helps people learn more about what wikipedia is really about, the naming issue cuts deep - after all that, would for the moment suggest stay with "Swine Flu" but as suggested review regularly (in a week, then a month) or whenever its clear a name change is needed...209.17.145.134 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Title Change

Change the title word outbreak to epidemic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.113.153 (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Name Change to 2009 H1N1 outbreak

I propose changing the article name to 2009 H1N1 outbreak. The term swine flu is outdated and not used anymore by the US government, WHO, etc, as it has been proven not to only relate to pigs, so to reflect that change, I propose moving to 2009 H1N1 outbreak. Ideas? Messiisking (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose-Kieran4 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Another day, another move proposal (or are they semi-daily by now?). Per WP:COMMONNAME and the fact that nearly all media and many governments governments are still using this name most commonly. H1N1 is too vague as it also describes this year's seasonal flu. Oren0 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - because we shouldn't follow Wikipedia policy, other than WP:IAR. "Swine Flu" is what the common man uses, and that's how it should be represented in Wikipedia. Who cares what scientists or health organizations use? I prefer what they use on the evening news. Flipper9 (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Because they know what they're talking about. Financial crisis of 2007–2009 isn't at Credit crunch. And believe me, if I had a pound for every time I heard that phrase, I'd be worth more than my house (which, admittedly, is not a hard feat these days) Sceptre ^(talk) 01:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  while my sarcastic comment was inappropriate, it doesn't matter anyways. This vote will devolve into fights over no voting, some people citing policy, people citing WP:IAR, people all over the place. This won't get resolved until the mob leaves the article, and cooler-heads prevail. Flipper9 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support; MOS:MED (which overrides WP:COMMONNAME) says that the current official names for medicine articles should be used. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Treatment_of_contradictory_naming_conventions 
    with arguement that the deciding factor is what name ordinary readers would use
    which would argue that WP:COMMONNAME overrides MOS:MED in widely known topics

209.17.145.53 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How about renaming "myocardial infarction" to "heart attack" then. Go propose it be moved in order to better disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Resurr Section (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose; agree with Flipper9. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Flipper. Grsz¹¹ 01:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support News sources, such as NBC and CNN in the US are referring to it as H1N1, along with the World Health Organization. Insisting on a quaint and folksy term is unencyclopedic. Encyclopedias use scientific terminology. This usage is in accordance with MOS:MED. Edison (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as (1) H1N1 is too vauge and (2) the actual name is too cumbersome and is still being debated among health organizations. (3) This article records the event not the disease. North Korea is in reality the DPRK, but everyone knows it as North Korea including wikipedia. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Opposeper WP:COMMONNAME.D^rew S^mith 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  COMMONNAME only applies if "other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions" don't contradict the common name. MOS:MED is one of them. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Comment There is no need to vote. MOS:MED must be followed. Eventually the article will have to be renamed. Resurr Section (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  You can talk policy until you are blue in the face, but so many people follow WP:IAR] that policy is pointless when you have so many editors with differences. Flipper9 (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: What we actually has is a legitimate disagreement about which policy is more relevant, not a clear cut case that one or the other is better. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not most of the voters. Most just refer to COMMONNAME without knowing about (or failing to acknowledge) the exception in COMMONNAME for "accepted naming conventions" of which MOSMED is surely one. Resurr Section (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; people fail to realize that this article is under the Wikipedia Medical Articles project, which attempts to apply concepts that are commonsense in the medical and scientific field. [WP:COMMON] is more broad to apply to all articles on wikipedia, but [MOS:MED] apply more specific guidelines. Also, there are more stringent levels of evidence in the medical world (such as peer-review, meta-analysis), as opposed to generic topics where published opinion and any-article-will-do philosophy prevails. If people wish this article to be under WikiProject Medicine or other scientific projects, then I suggest that they try to adhere to it's policies. If they wish this article to just be an article about the outbreak as a "news story", then stop saying it's a medical article. Otherwise the reader might think that higher standards are in play. In either case [WP:IAR] trumps all policies, and mob rule continues. Flipper9 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• super strong oppose - primarily because it is silly to keep creating new sections every 12-24 hours with hopes of ignoring previous lack of consensus. Continue to debate above, or give at least give it some time before making the same suggestion yet again, please. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The debate is changing as people learn more about the policy and with the passage of time, only the most stubborn "internet warriors" who can't bear to lose an argument will be left. Resurr Section (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It is ridiculous to make everyone restate their opinion every 12 hours. Please see WP:There is no deadline and re-raise the issue when it hasn't been debated extensively for several days straight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• SUPPORT - I understand the reasoning of the common name but as it has been pointed out there is obvious consensus in the wikipedia community to name scientific articles after their scientific name and not their common name. AND the common name is changing. On Google news about half the articles call it swine flu and the other half call it H1N1.--62.69.130.82 (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the common name is changing. More and more people are knowledgeable and calling it H1N1 influenza A. I think that the page should be renamed when/if consensus shows that something else has become the common name. hmwithτ 06:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Please see this Google Trends graph for the terms "swine flu" and "H1N1" over the last 30 days. You will note the crossover in Google News. Overall usage still favors "swine flu" but it is trending downwards. Resurr Section (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment: Why this in factual true, it is quite deceptive. A crossover in news articles did occur. However, in searches the "downtrend" is due entirely to less overall searches (H1N1 is also trending down slightly). Furthermore, the difference between the too is quite substantial and that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (based on trends). --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Swine flu is far more specific to this outbreak, as well as common usage. H1N1 could refer to countless other strains, including many seasonal flu strains and the strain that caused the 1918 pandemic. This is not like H5N1 which can be understood to mean highly pathogenic H5N1 or "bird flu" because H5N1 does not typically infect humans. There was only one 2009 swine flu outbreak, as far as I know. - cyclosarin (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Considering that people are using "swine" flu as a false logical premise to slaughter animals and ban food imports, I feel it is the duty of Wikipedia to not cause undo alarm or promulgate a false nomenclature. Considering the present virus is a combination of swine, avian and human flu strains, the scientifically accurate "H1N1" is the only appropriate name to call it. While we can refer to the "swine" flu as a common parlance, it would be more specific and accurate to call it "H1N1." --Petercorless (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment wikipedia's only duty is to be a great encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not here to save animals or keep people from doing stupid stupid things. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment That may have been the rationale of the WHO, but it is their job to tell people how they should respond. Wikipedia just reports the facts. Of course there's no reason not to discuss the name debate, evidence of transmission or advice given by 3rd party sources such as WHO in the article. - cyclosarin (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Update image

Hi. Please update the image with the following:

Change to red

• PR China (either just Hong Kong or the entire country
• Portugal (http://economico.sapo.pt/noticias/portuguesa-infectada-com-virus-da-gripe-a_9516.html) Marco SOusa (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Change to orange

• Malaysia

Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a great difference between whole China and China Hong Kong okay? Please stop doing this, it is quite threatening to the zh-wiki users --Ryusakura (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, please at least paint Hong Kong in red. Anyone with a good knowledge of geography and the correct software should be able to do that. ~AH1^(TCU) 19:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's also a difference between the whole of France and a few localised outbreaks, and there's a difference between the whole of the UK and outbreaks in a few towns. Perhaps we should just do dots? Is that what you're suggesting? --79.65.74.154 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but they really are basically different countries. It is a little like making France red when French Guiana has a confirmed case of swine flu. Hong Kong and China are not the same place. Same governments, technically, completely separate societies, passports, and healthcare systems. In tracking an epidemic a case in China means something very different from a case in Hong Kong. --62.69.130.82 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comparison chart

A chart I put together for some quick perspective and comparison. Feel free to revise or expand. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Chart of pandemics
Epidemics (avail. data)	Year	People infected	Deaths	Mortality %	Death rate/10,000	Data sources
Spanish flu (worldwide est)	1918-19	500 million	50 million	10%	1000	CDC
Asian flu (U.S.)	1957	45 million	70,000	.16%	16
Hong Kong flu (U.S.)	1968-69	50 million	33,000	.07%	7
Avian flu (worldwide)	1990-today	421	257	61%	6100
SARS (worldwide)	2002-03	8,096	774	9.6%	960
General flu (U.S.)	yearly average	50 million	36,000	.08%	8	CNN
Swine flu (worldwide) [confirmed deaths/confirmed infections]	as of 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)	1767	31	1.8%	180	WHO

I like this alot. I think we should make a historical context section and place it after the introduction. It would go over previous pandemics and outbreaks prior to this one. What does everyone think?--Hdstubbs (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I put it in with Pandemic concern section. If someone wants to write some text to put it in better context that would be lovely. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Many people compare it to 1918 pandemic of H1N1 variant. H comes from hemagluttenin and N comes from neuroaminidase (sp?). I BLASTed most recent HA and NA sequences against their 1918 counterparts from 3 strains mentioned in flu database at NCBI. Neuroaminidase has 83% nucleotide sequence identity and hemogluttenin has 81% to their counterparts. That is pretty low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.217.67 (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is pointless having both "Mortality %" and "Death rate/1,000". One should be dropped but I'm not sure which one. Nurg (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It may seem pointless, seeing as the numbers are extremely similar, and they say basically the same thing. But keep in mind, we're not just writing for educated, or even semi-educated people. We're writing for everyone, and the 30yr old man from South Africa with a 2nd grade education won't understand percentages. (Not being racist, just an example. And yes, I know the odds of my example even seeing the page, but it was an example.)D^rew S^mith 11:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. In the English Wikipedia we are writing for people with reasonable literacy and numeracy skills. In the Simple English Wikipedia we write for the man with a 2nd grade education. Nurg (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What about having just Death Rate %? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh, good point. But that still doesnt mean everyone is good with math.D^rew S^mith 12:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't ban the use of numbers on account of the fact that some people are innumerate. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the last column and renamed Mortality % as Death Rate % -- Pontificalibus (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I need to point out that you need references for all of the numbers in this table, and all conclusions about mortality. And the numbers for "Swine Flu" cannot reference a Wikipedia article as a source, otherwise you would violate WP:OR. I would think that a simple mortality calculation from a single source would be acceptable under WP:OR, however. Nice Table; I think it'd make a great contribution as long as sourced properly. Flipper9 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

For the version modified and used in the article, there's a big problem I see. Since the available figures include worldwide or U.S. totals, the other columns makes less sense as a comparison tool unless there is some ratio column with it, such as % or /1,000. I added both here since there was plenty of room. Some people are used to seeing stats as a % (i.e. investors) and others like the per thousand (i.e. crime rates.) In fact, the reason I added "(avail. data)" was because I only found accurate data for that demographic, although other estimates may be still be available.

It would also be easy to add another column as a place to include one or more source links to avoid OR issues. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a colum for sources to see how it might look. Note that the sources can easily be changed and other sources can be added, since the column will just expand to fit (but abbreviate the source name if possible.) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This analysis seems to be a case of synthesis, with numerators and denominators from different sources. There is little accuracy or consistency in the number of "cases" since only the most ill come to be included. Mild cases resolve at home with chicken soup and no medical attention. The fatality rates for some varieties are absurd original rsearch. Edison (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Edison (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the figures have come from verifiable sources and there was no mixing of sources in doing stats. I'll work on adding these to the new column. The only question I have is whether we should include non-influenza pandemics. If so, then polio and SARS would stay, and we should add some others, like smallpox, another viral disease. If the chart ends up including most pandemics of all sorts we might want to add it to the Pandemics article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OR#Routine_calculations: "Routine calculations: This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived."

Division is less simple than addition, but is still taught at primary school level in most countries AFAIK. So if there are sources either for the numerator and denominator (the two things to be divided) separately, or else for the result of the division, and if we wikipedian editors can agree on the result of the division in the former case, then either should be acceptable according to WP:OR, i.e. this is not considered an original "synthesis". Boud (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Edison, your removal of Polio from the article chart gives more importance to the questions above. Especially since Polio is a viral infection which was transmitted in a similar way to influenza. But Bubonic plague, which you cited as comparably irrelevant, was a bacterial infection transmitted by flea bites. In any case, SARS is listed, which was not an influenza, so the editors should decide what the chart is for: i.e. influenza pandemics, virus pandemics, or all pandemics. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can define what the criteria for the table are, we can determine if polio belongs. Edison (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the basic consept of the chart is very good given resent events.--86.29.255.77 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of chart

There needs to be consensus here as to what diseases or epidemics, from what era, belong in the table. If it is a chart of "Pandemics" then remove the present H1N1 outbreak, since the WHO has not classified it as a "pandemic." It is still one step below pandemic in their criteria. Were the others all officially pandemics, like the 1918 flu? Or were outbreaks arbitrarily added? Otherwise it is an arbitrary and indiscriminate collection of information. The 1976 swine flu epidemic could also be included, since it may have similarities to this one in type of infection, and was highly publicized at the time, with 40,000,000 in the U.S. getting emergency vsccinations, resulting in 25 deaths from the vaccine side effects compared to 1 death from the flu. Is it certain that polio is spread exactly life influenza? Edison (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody went ahead and removed the current outbreak from the chart, which I subsequently reverted because, regardless of whether this is the end of the world or just a case of the sniffles, it is the subject of this article and therefore should be included in the table so that one can see a comparison, that is the reason for the table being there. RaseaC (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at the table in the article; and unfortunately most of the numbers are not found in the sources being cited. Can someone take a look at the table and sources and either add appropriate references or remove the table altogether. Also note that using the US seasonal flu rate statistic does not make much sense, unless one is citing other US-only figures too (which can be considerable different than the worldwide figures; see for example the US statistics for the 1918 Spanish flu in Johnson NPAS, Mueller J. Updating the accounts: global mortality of the 1918–1920 "Spanish" influenza pandemic. Bull Hist Med. 2002;76:105–15). Finally, I didn't find a source using the term "death rate" - is this backed up by any epidemiological sources ? Abecedare (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The demographic of each epidemic was in parentheses next to the name to define what the totals were for. But as of the last revision, the Hong Kong and Asian flu show only U.S. totals, while the Spanish flu shows worldwide totals, yet there is no way for the user to know that.

Some sources: Seasonal flu, CDC; Asian flu Globalsecurity.org (see top right for others) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked the sources included in the chart previously (this version), but the numbers in the table were not supported by the included citations. I corrected one citation (the wrong GlobalSecurity page was linked), and removed other references that failed verification. See the individual edit-summaries I left, for each change I made. I am pretty sure that some of these are citable, and that is the reason I only tagged the unreferenced rows/entries, instead of deleting the table.

Secondly: It doesn't make sense to mis worldwide and US-only statistics, since that is an apples-to-orange comparison (see the paper I link above). If we don't have worldwide stats for a particular pandemic, we should just include it in the table. Abecedare (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Globalsecurity.org (i.e. Hong Kong flu) and find the CDC site too disorganized. A search on their site for "Hong Kong flu," for instance, brings back too much extraneous information unrelated to this well-known pandemic. In fact, comparing the two web sites, I feel that we're lucky to have a private organization that nicely put this information together. But as for having either all U.S. or all worldwide data, while that would be great, doesn't look too available. Flu case stats in the U.S. are estimates, so you can imagine how wild the estimates would be for the world, where there are numerous cities with over 20 million people, hence the earlier demographic notation for each epidemic.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with using WHO, CDC or GlobalSecurity as the source for the table as long as (1) we use the same source for each row (i.e, don't mix and match numbers), (2) use global stats only.

You are absolutely right about all these numbers being gross estimates; I have looked for references for the 1918 flu pandemic in some details and have found reliable sources for 20, 40, 50, upto 100 million deaths, and 1/3rd, 1/2, upto 97% of world population (~1.5Billion) for the number of infections. You can imagine how widely we can make the mortality numbers vary, if we pick and choose. The case is even worse during this early stage of the swine flu outbreak. For example, see this Washington Post article, which says, "It may be that Mexico already has had hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of cases -- all but the most serious hidden in the "noise" of background illness in a crowded population." You can imagine what that would do to our "mortality rate" calculation, which may well be off by three-orders of magnitude!

In short, we should be very conservative in quoting hard figures without providing context, and err on the side of not including information, rather than providing risk incorrect/incomplete information just because it is convenient to find or calculate, and looks interesting to us laypersons. (From your past edits, I know that we don't really disagree on this). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2009(UTC)

Is a U.S. chart valuable?

Continued idea from the last comment above by Abecedare:

It seems we have a catch-22 situation, as you say to "use global stats only" but agree that global stats are either unavailable or unreliable. That may leave only one option: a chart for U.S. only. I guess it would still be for pandemics (and maybe epidemics) but the title would state it was U.S. data only and the data is both available and verifiable. Any thoughts on this? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The US stats may be worth adding to the US article. I am busy IRL over the next two days, but after that I can try searching the medical literature for worldwide stats. - when millions die, surely someone keeps a record (however rough it may be) Abecedare (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncertainties on the mortality/ death rate - sanity check

The historical epidemics infected millions and killed at least tens of thousands, so the fractional random error from Poisson statistics alone can in principle be as low as 0.01 (since 0.01 = sqrt(1/10000)). The relatively recent ones with several hundred deaths also have fractional errors that are not too high for a popular level encyclopedia. There could be other sources of random error and certainly there are systematic errors that epidemiologists know about. But let's ignore those and just consider the Poisson error.

Template:2009_swine_flu_outbreak_table gives 31 confirmed deaths out of 1767 confirmed cases, which gives 1.8% (no longer 2.6%). The minimum fractional error (as i said, disregarding all the caveats about homogeneity of the samples, data collection in different countries, reporting biases, etc. etc.) is 1/sqrt(31) \approx 0.18. So the figure would be (as of 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)) 1.8%$\pm$0.3%. So stating it without an error (for this encyclopedia) is probably not absurd.

However, we should at least put a footnote clarifying the calculation, such as "Global confirmed deaths/global confirmed infections", in which case it should be OK without qualifying as OR, since we are definining exactly what is calculated. BTW, i am not recommending adding uncertainty (error) estimates, since those are calculations beyond "routine calculation". They should come from epidemiologists. Boud (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We can (on this talk page!) compare the "confirmed" rate to the "suspected" rate.

Confirmed deaths/confirmed infections gives 31/1767 = 0.018 = 1.8 +- 0.3 %

Suspected deaths/confirmed infections gives (31+101)/(1767+4112) = 0.022 +- (31+101)/(1767+4112) / sqrt(31+101) = 0.002.

So we have confirmed 1.8% +- 0.3% vs suspected 2.2% +- 0.2%. These are consistent with each other within the error bars. i'm not sure we (as wikipedians) should do anything about it, but the fact that they're consistent suggests that the "confirmed" numbers are probably not overly conservative and that the suspected numbers (as presently counted on the wikipedia template page) are probably not wildly wrong.

What would be interesting is the degree to which speed of treatment, secondary complications, etc. etc. affect this. Which is probably why epidemiologists are saying that nothing serious can yet be said about the future spread of the epidemic. Boud (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC), minor corrections Boud (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the chart. Maybe it belongs on a Pandemics page and can be referenced in this article? I'd agree that it is not OR so long as it cites its sources and, I suggest, it should give ranges if there are historically widely different statistics and well-established estimates. For instance, it might cite a high-low range for certain incident or death rates. --Petercorless (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Data sources

Going over some sources, the total infected numbers were apparently arrived at by taking a percentage estimate of the population, U.S. or world. That's why the three in the chart are around 50 million for the U.S. But there is no confirmed number of cases since most people don't report their flu. However, the total deaths were consistent among all sources. The one I'd recommend looking at is Globalsecurity.org which also has a ton of other useful material, including the current outbreak. In any case, we need to consider whether the mortality rates are accurate enough to put on a chart like this, especially in an encyclopedia. I personally don't think so. It's probably best to just include confirmed totals. And it's true that since the current outbreak is not officially a "pandemic," some footnote should be added. We could even add the 1976 Swine flu "scare," since it never became a pandemic but is of historical mention due to the 40 million vaccinations.

A modified chart without absolute figures. Feel free to modify it for other ideas. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Chart of pandemics
Epidemics (avail. data)	Year	People infected	Deaths	Mortality rate	Data sources
Spanish flu (worldwide est)	1918-19	500 million	50 million		CDC
Asian flu (U.S.)	1957	45 million	70,000		Globalsecurity.org
Hong Kong flu (U.S.)	1968-69	50 million	33,000		Globalsecurity.org
Avian flu (worldwide)	1990-today	421	257		Globalsecurity.org
Seasonal flu (U.S.)	yearly average	50 million	36,000	.08%	CNN
Swine flu (worldwide) [confirmed deaths/confirmed infections]	as of 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)	1767	31	1.8%	WHO

I really like the table but I think the death rate section is inaccurate. We should only use this information if it comes from a research or health care professional. I think it is WAY too early to tell what the death rate is and 1.8% is very high. That is twice the mortality rate of ordinary influenza and there is no evidence of that. --Hdstubbs (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, even though we can all do math, on something as important as mortality rate we should source that figure, based on its scaryness and the likely underreporting of minor infections at this time.--PigFlu Oink (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Probable, Suspected Numbers

What the heck does it mean when there is a negative number of cases? Common sense would indicate that the confirmed case count will be a smaller number than the probably or suspected numbers. After all, weren't the patients who were confirmed suspected and likely to be infected? Now the chart has negative numbers. What in the world does that mean? I think an explanation of what the numbers in the chart mean is needed. Victor Engel (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the "-" was meant to be that there was no available data? i.e. that the cited source doesn't reveal that specific data point. Flipper9 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. May I suggest some symbol other than a hyphen? It looks too much like negative numbers in my opinion. Victor Engel (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and change the symbol. Any suggestions? Note that on the discussion page for the table template (it's separate from this discussion page for the main article) it was suggested that "---" be used, or maybe use "--" or something else? Flipper9 (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I will let someone else do it, since this page has high visibility, and I'm not even sure how the template works. Victor Engel (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The second death in the US should be dropped from the table. "Health officials stopped short of saying that swine flu caused the woman's death. State health department spokeswoman Carrie Williams said the woman had "chronic underlying health conditions" but wouldn't give any more details." The lady had swine flu but had chronic health issues aswell. It has been blown up, by the media, again, to make it look like it killed her. 90% of people I talk to are sick and tired of this media over hype on swine flu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

U.K. update

27 are ill in the U.K. now, including victims in Gloucestershire, Merseyside, Dulwich, Redditch and Oxfordshire. [5]!--86.29.246.3 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

North African update

So Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco and Egypt have prepared for the worst and are screening any on coming from Mexico. Egypt has also seen riots over the resent pig culling- [6] / [7] / [8]!

The Egyptian health ministry said on Thursday "That the decision to cull quarter of a million pigs was not a measure against swine flu but a general health measure." "[9]"--86.29.248.49 (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well of course they say that now. Egyptians never like looking like complete morons. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the Egyptians never like looking like complete, hysterical, morons!--86.29.248.49 (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See- [10]

[11]--86.25.55.164 (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cuban update

Cuba is scared of it to- [12]

Portuguese update

Another Portuguese bloke has fallen ill now- [13]

Bloke? --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oriental update

4 South Koreans are still being tested for the v ioruse [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] and Thailand is checking out all air passengers arriving from Mexico.

Chinese/Hong Kong/Macau update

China’s Inner Mongolia region has some cases of Swine flu now! China has also banned pork imports from the U.S.A. and Mexico [17]! Hong Kong has quarantined 300 people in a hotel [18], [19], [20]! China has gagged nosy reporters in the infested regions our side Hong Kong and Macau[21]! 34 Chinese are now dead [22], [23], [24]

Mongolian update

‘’Mongolia is Swine flu free! [25], [ http://events.berkeley.edu/], [ http://ukinmongolia.fco.gov.uk/en/help-for-british-nationals/travel-advice/swine-flu] !!! Sadly, ’’ Bird flu is in parts of the country [[26]].

New Zealand update

‘’1st confirmed human victim!![27]!’’

An N.H.S. help line

Seek help here-[28]!

video attached

In this video, Dr. Joe Bresee, with CDC's Influenza Division, describes the symptoms of swine flu and warning signs to look for that indicate the need for urgent medical attention.
See also: See this video with subtitles in YouTube

• • cough* Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer, please change the video caption so it concurs with Wikipedia policy. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.86.231 (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't giving advice. The CDC is. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

the caption reads as it tells the user what to do, advice. --200.106.22.152 (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ext links

Why was the timeline removed from External links? It's not against RS as every event appears to be sourced, either a local news source, university/college website, or something like LATimes/NYTimes/AP. It was a good source to quickly ctrl+f through, and it's also listed on DMOZ GTNz (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Its also in the template. Which makes it internal navigation, not an external link. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant http://trancy.net, not the internal GTNz (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Name?

I read the source of the information about "scientific name" of the new flu strain and I really could not search any "California" within this page. Also there were described a "vaccine" from South Hemisphere; and as everybody knows I began in the North Hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedleypanama (talk • contribs) 03:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Should suspect cases (sub)column be dropped from main table?

Are we at the point where the suspected cases column is being meaningless? Should it be dropped?

Please see discussion at table page and comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talk • contribs)

Antibiotic vs. antiviral drugs

My purpose to remove the use of antibiotics for "dual infection" is to reduce confusion and not foment the popular misconception of using abtibiotics to treat viral infections. I am aware that the "dual infection" mentioned in this article implicitly referred to bacterial pneumoniae + flu virus, however, one can not expect a casual reader to know that or to understand that the word pneumoniae could be a pathology or a bacteria, especially without the article explaining this and while the article is focused on a virus. If somebody feels the compelling need to compare treatments of viral pneumonia with a bacterial pneumonia, Fungal pneumonia, Parasitic pneumonia co-infection, please explain so in the apropriate section or article and remark that the use of antibiotics by itself is not effective against any virus, especially the H1N1. Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Page move RFC

Xeno has confirmed that their indefinite page move protection is there to prevent page move vandalism to a high visibility page.[29] We are free to move the page if there is a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to 2009 flu epidemic

I propose to move the page to 2009 flu epidemic. This title is concise, accurate and cannot be conflated with any other article. It also mirrors the style of 1918 flu pandemic. If a pandemic is declared in 2009, we can do a second move to 2009 flu pandemic. This article is about a social phenomenon, not just a medical condition. Therefore, I think we should use common terminology, rather than medical terminology. However, I think we should avoid "swine flu" in the title because that is scientifically inaccurate. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

First you guys must decide if the title is about the virus (H1N1) OR the disease (influenza A). BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. I agree with every single point Jehochman made. hmwithτ 14:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. I agree that the current title is less than accurate, and, as others have pointed out earlier, is unencyclopedic. Clinging to an inaccurate "common name" is ultimately not a good precedent. While Jehochman's proposal isn't as precise as some of the proposed medical-oriented titles, it is in line with other similar "event" articles, and an improvement to the current title. So, I support the move as proposed.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Doesn't sound as commonplace, and is consistent with other articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This article falls under the Wikiproject Medicine and Wikiproject Viruses which uses MOS:MED for naming conventions as policy. The 1918 article is called that for historical reasons, just like "The Great Hurricane of 1938" has an historical name rather than a proper name. We must follow the MOS:MED policy regarding the name of the article if it's going to be under these Wikiprojects, or call it whatever you want if it's just a news article. As for the proposed name, there many flu epidemics in the year 2009, and every year. There are also pandemics as well. If you want to make a general article called "2009 flu epidemic" then go ahead, and then list links to articles for every flu epidemic that occurs in 2009...which will be many. This article is about a specific strain of H1N1 virus. Flipper9 (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hello. Wikiprojects don't own articles and don't get to pre-empt community policies with their own policies. Jehochman ^Talk 14:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Comment: So relevant guidelines such as MOS:MED are meaningless and should be ignored when an article is considered a part of a Wikiproject? I don't see the reasoning clearly. If it was simply a news article about how the media and various governments involved reacted to the epidemic, I could see that. But it's being written as a medically-related and science-related article. Flipper9 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   This is not strictly a medical article. Contrast: Influenza A virus subtype H1N1. Why do we have two articles? One is a medical article, the other is a social phenomenon. Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Well the only thing I can say is that that article is about the generic "Influenza A H1N1" virus sub-types, and this article is about the specific "2009 Influenza A (H1N1) virus" that is part of this particular outbreak or more specifically along MOS:MED guidelines would be "2009 H1N1/Influenza/A/B96.3 Outbreak" with appropriate redirects and disambiguation pages to route "swine flu outbreak" and other terms. Perhaps we need to move all of the science and medically related content of this article over to a new article, and just leave the news and reaction to the epidemic bits in this article as a reflection of the reaction to the outbreak? Flipper9 (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2. (no entity) Does this mean you expect everyone who commented and "voted" in #Article name for this same issue to do so all over again or are you going to count all those opinions above first?—Teahot (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Jehochman yesterday unilaterally changed the article name to what he is proposing above, against prior discussions and development of a consensus. He is just trying to get people to re-vote again rather than reading the prior consensus. Since only an administrator can rename/move the page, I'd think they'd want to have a more oganized and shorter list of consensus/opposition that is easier for them. Flipper9 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   (out of sequence threaded reply) If someone hasn't mentioned it already, please take a look at wp:agf. You seem to be assuming the worst possible intentions from others, and I think you're missing the actual ulterior motive of most of us here: to improve the project. It's a goal I'm sure you share, but assuming bad faith makes it more difficult for you and for all of us.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I apologize if I made any apparent accusation. I've been blocked and tag teamed by various editors here and on sub-templates of this page for trying to ensure that various vetted policies for scientific articles are followed (re: naming and sourcing) are followed as well as made edits myself, and have been accused point-blank of bad-faith by several (re: see comments made in table template) editors here, so I know that page quite well and I do assume good faith. I'm just describing to Teahot this history of yesterday's admin-move of the page against prior discussions and lack of consensus(as challenged by other users as well). I'm not passing judgment, just stating what happened and that with such a fractured discussion over the topic, it's easier to just have one organized discussion. Flipper9 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I can definitely see that you're genuinely concerned about this article and I hope we can all come to a consensus on how best to address the name. I do agree with you that it's important the discussion be centralized and organized, and hopefully that will be the case this time.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   N In which case I agree with ThaddeusB, there's no harm in waiting a week and then asking for a vote rather than asking for a vote every 12 hours which seems an awful waste of time by ignoring the value of earlier discussions and expecting all editors to tediously duplicate the same points all over again.—Teahot (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'd have to agree as well as, referring to the prior discussion and this one, consensus is a long way off anyways. Flipper9 (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

3. This is really boring. The common-name (that used by a lot of governments, most media outlets, and the majority of ordinary human beings) is swine flu. end of. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. In favour of "2009 Influenza A(H1N1) epidemic". Sceptre ^(talk) 17:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hey, Will. :) Question: Okay, but is the suggested name better than the name now? No one's saying it can't be moved again later. I know that this idea isn't your first choice, but again: is 2009 flu outbreak better than 2009 swine flu outbreak? If you think it's not, then keeps your vote. I'm just trying to figure out how many people don't favor the new name change because they like what is currently here, and how many dislike it because they think there's another, better name out there. hmwithτ 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not particularly fussy; I'd support anything which has "H1N1" and "influenza" in the title. But just "flu epidemic" is a bit ambiguous for the current year. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose - 2009 flue epidemic is too ambiguous. The title needs a descriptive word before the word "flu". Swine flu is more common than H1N1 flu, so we should stick with the current title. And I agree with the Voting is Evil people. This is getting tedious. --Tocino 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   What article could this be confused with? I am interested to know so that a better proposal can be crafted. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose at this time. WP:DEADLINE; we can afford to wait until the world's terminology has stabilized. It may very well stabilize to "2009 swine flu panic". --Alvestrand (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose again and again and again. Asking such a question so often is likely to build less consensus rather than more. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose - I like this name better than most accept 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) Epidemic), but I agree that we should wait one week. Currently the media seems about fifty fifty between H1N1 and Swine flu and the medical community still doesn't have a consensus on a name (at least not one that has been brought to my attention). So I say we wait until things calm down a bit and try to come to a consensus. --Hdstubbs (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Too ambiguous, per Tocino, and the current title still seems to reflect the most common usage. The H1N1 alternative may be misleading; see below. Try again in a week. -- Avenue (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil

1. PLEASE STOP RE-ASKING THE SAME QUESTION EVERY 12 HOURS!! There is no consensus to move at this time, and constantly making everyone (on both sides) restate their position is a tremendous waste of time. Wait a week and then ask again!--ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps whomever set the auto-archive bot to 12 hours could either turn it off or have it autoarchive based on size or a longer time period? Might help keeping new sections from popping up every 12 hours. Nobody reads archived discussion, especially when they get as long as this topic has. Flipper9 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Someone manually archived (part of) the old discussion. The bot would not have done so on its own since conversation was still ongoing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes although I'm firmly against renaming the article, the use of archiving is the most undemocratic and evil method used to stifle debate on Wikipedia. Senior members having hijacked a topic love that tool.--Wikiqueb (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Changed autoarchive to 5 days.—Teahot (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   5 days is way too long. This page gets out of control very quickly, size-wise. No one is reaching the discussions at the beginning of this page either, as it comes up multiple times a day. hmwithτ 14:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   See also Wikipedia:There is no deadline --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Hash out a name and stick with it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

If someone posts an unnecessary extra section, WP:TALK would encourage you to prune it or move it under the early section, so long as the discussion is preserved. If Jehochman has no substantial objection, perhaps that should occur here?—Teahot (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The prior discussions are fragmented severely. I am hoping to get everything together in one place. Furthermore, events have changed rapidly since the earlier discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How about changing the bot to 24 hours? Things are slowing down here compared to the start of the article. Flipper9 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 I could do 24 hours. I doubt it will start getting out of control. If it does, it can always be changed back. 5 days was just a big change with no discussion. hmwithτ 15:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't edit the bot, so there is no (edit conflict) with me. I have only commented and suggested a change, not made one. Flipper9 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Edit conflict" means the user tried to put something here at the same time as someone else and got an edit conflict error message. Sometimes people use it to explain why their point doesn't follow the natural flow of the conversation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought it was one of those 3-conflicts WP:3RR and you are blocked from the discussion tactics. Flipper9 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, NP. I just saw a had an EC. I didn't look if it was a comment before mine (must have been somewhere else on the page). I usually just put it there to be safe. If you click on the (edit conflict) link, it explains it further. hmwithτ 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is already at 24h. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical context

I added a section on historical context to talk about the cyclical nature of influenza pandemics and how this has lead to an increased level of alertness on the part of public health officials. It's a little rough but I think its necessary to put this outbreak in context. Please read it and make it better.--Hdstubbs (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Treatment & Prevention - Vitamin D

It should be noted that many people have suggested vitamin D as both treatment and prevention for this and other types of influenza (see http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/science/research/vitamin-d-and-influenza.shtml and http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8826 and http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller27.html and http://www.naturalnews.com/024982.html and http://journals.cambridge.org/action/login;jsessionid=C971FC31034D3FECE9F481FD109C6D2D.tomcat1 I can only wonder why none of this is mentioned in the article under prevention and treatment. 201.230.106.3 (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

These don't appear to be reliable sources. The only reliable reference I could find (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16959053?) only indicates that a deficiency of vitamin D may lead to a greater rate of influenza infections. This is no surprise that unhealthy people are more likely to suffer from flu. I could find no evidence that even suggested that vitamin D may be a suitable medication to combat influenza infection. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not the goal of WP to dish out medical advice. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

New Case in Guatemala

The map should be updated for El Salvador and Guatemala.[30] (in Spanish)--Vrysxy ¡Californication! 22:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

H3N2 detection along with H1N1

http://www.promedmail.org/pls/otn/f?p=2400:1001:2365278416456707::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,77349 Influenza A(H1N1) worldwide - 11: coincident H3N2 variation

British Columbia CDC has found some BC residents who have traveled to Mexico to have both A/H1N1 and a recently mutated form of H3N2 (see promed link).

The suggestion is that the presence of both viruses might explain the difference in Mexican and non-Mexican mortality rates. As such referring to it just as the H1N1 influenza might not be correct. 151.194.17.27 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting.D^rew S^mith 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting and yet another argument against the h1n1 name. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, it is an argument *against* keeping this under "swine" flu, since we need this sort of precision to define what people are suffering from. --Petercorless (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dam. I wrote this big response about how it had nothing to do with it, common name, blah blah blah, and then realised I was getting into the same name changing crap I decided to stay out of. Seriously I'm really glad they put a lock on the name. Seeing the same discussion over and over and over again was getting really tiring.D^rew S^mith 03:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical chart

I deleted swine flu from this table earlier because there are no active epidemiological studies for the infection rates and death rates of swine flu. Media reports and passive detection methodologies are not a replacement for such data. By including swine flu in this table we imply that we have as good a handle on this data as we have on 20th century pandemics. A qualifier of 'early data' is not enough and is in addition seriously misleading. The data we have to date is almost totally useless compared to that we have for the 20th century pandemics. I have deleted swine flu again from the table. Please do not add a swine flu line again without a properly conducted epidemiological study to back up the figures we give (and a formal announcement of a pandemic). (Also note that swine flu has not been declared a pandemic and did not occur in the 20th century so should not be included in a table who's title is 20th century flu pandemics). When/If a study is carried out and swine flu added as a line the table would need to be renamed. Barnaby dawson (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic flu

An influenza pandemic is an epidemic of an influenza virus that spreads on a worldwide scale and infects a large proportion of the human population. In contrast to the regular seasonal epidemics of influenza, these pandemics occur irregularly, with the 1918 Spanish flu the most serious pandemic in recent history. Pandemics can cause high levels of mortality, with the Spanish influenza estimated as being responsible for the deaths of over 50 million people. There have been about three influenza pandemics in each century for the last 300 years. The most recent ones were the Asian Flu in 1957 and the Hong Kong Flu in 1968.--86.25.55.164 (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)