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

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)

   Did you mean to put that in the 'oppose'? Xclamation point 15:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

   This is about eventually moving it to that title when it gets there. Rootology didn't necessarily say it was there now. I think most of the opposers misunderstood this. hmwithτ 21:06, 2 May 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)
11. There are no problems with the current title, but there are potential issues of sensationalism if we jump the gun and make a move too early. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
12. We need to wait until this reaches level 6... once it does it will classify as a pandemic... DeSalvionjr _Talk ^Contribs 19:20, 4 May 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.124.126 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The NCBI tool searches Genbank, and on Genbank the sequences are labeled by the species in which they were found. The 2009 outbreak sequences were found in humans, not in swine, and there is no evidence of zoonosis of this strain from swine to humans. Also, most influenza virus found in swine is widely believed to be derived from virus circulating in humans. --Una Smith (talk) 01:08, 2 May 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)

Abandoning the name Swine Flu

[3] 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.

Agree - Wiki of all places should use the standardized name first and then the "slang" term.

 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)

 Disagree - Not until spammers start referring to it as N1H1 ;) --Wikiqueb (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. hmwithτ 13:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Agree - Go with WHO name of Influenza A(H1N1) virus. Fanra (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Egypt has two main conditions which led to the decision to slaughter the pigs 1-pigs are not bred in farms but they just live between piles of garbage, so if one gets infected it would be difficult to know or too late not as in as in case of Alberta Canada where Canadian officials say pigs in the province of Alberta have been infected with the new swine flu virus and are under quarantine. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZVkRqV2uZVim0TRk5R1ZBfovTCAD97UDDC2

2-egypt is already struggling with avian flue which is there for about 3 years now and the pigs play the middle ground between avian and human flu allowing the virus to change from avian to another virus which can pass to human easily or even to change to a human to human transferable virus Sonatasameh (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree Swine flu refers to any flu endemic in swine (pigs) H1N1 refers specifically to the strain we are talking about... Government organizations are trying to phase the name H1N1 in to replace swine flu and referring to it as H1N1 will help them do this... DeSalvionjr _Talk ^Contribs 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

H1N1 is not a specific name of the virus causing this outbreak, any more than swine flu is. For example there was a different H1N1 virus casuing seasonal flu outbreaks last season. Also it's not our role to help government organisations phase out any name. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:01, 3 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). [4]--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)
4. Actually, there are a lot of exceptions to "common name". 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) 15:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
5. The name of this flu is A(H1N1) and several media outlets have already started using that name 1, 2 or 3. This Wikipedia article should follow suit.--Dabackgammonator (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Why can't we just call the article "the 2009 A(H1N1) "swine" flu outbreak". The official name should come first and have redirects from the slang terms- which is all they are now. Imagine if everyone were calling this the joe mamma flu...should wiki use that?
7. Change name to match WHO -Influenza A(H1N1) virus-. We can have plenty of redirect pages to guide people there and the article intro can mention the "alternate" names. Fanra (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
8. The WHO name is as official and the name "swine flu" is indirectly killing pigs worldwide.--Amore Mio (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
9. As I noted below, MOS:MED should trump WP:COMMONNAME here. Heart attack is myocardial infarction in Wikipedia, Legionnaire's Disease is Legionellosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease is Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, etc. And MOS:MED specifically gives an example of WHO guidelines as something to be followed in disease nomenclature. As it currently stands, the name seems to be in violation of the Medical Style Guide.66.30.15.98 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Government agencies want to phase in the term H1N1 as it is more specific than "Swine Flu" Changing the article name to refer to it as H1N1 would help their efforts in replacing swine flu with H1N1 DeSalvionjr _Talk ^Contribs 21:58, 3 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)

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)

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)

Everyone on google news is still calling it swine flu so a name change is inappropriate. http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&q=flu .   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:26, 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)

This ALMOST sounds like a zombie outbreak... 11:26, 4 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)

Can you explain please?F (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename article to 2009 influenza A (H1N1) outbreak

As of Thursday April 30th the WHO has officially ceased referring to this outbreak as "swine flu." This follows on the heels of Egypt's ill conceived decision to cull their swine. The A(H1N1) outbreak is not even transmitted by swine, but has a human to human transmission as well as containing avian and human influenza DNA. It may be a bit late in the game, but I think that Wikipedia should follow international convention in this matter and more appropriately rename the article "2009 influenza A (H1N1) outbreak"

The WHO site link is below and although it uses 'swineflu' in the address there is no longer any mention of it on their page and a statement declaring all future references to be to the A(H1N1) outbreak.

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html Ibrmrn (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

H1N1

The official name is now influenza A (H1N1). Who thinks the name of the article should be changed? Use agree or disagree marks!--Ken Durham (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree--Ken Durham (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree No need to punish swines or the people who depend on pigs to make a living.Ht686rg90 (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The name of the article will be the common name. The common name is still "swine flu". If it changes, we'll rename the article. Until then, hmwithτ 13:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are a lot of exceptions to that rule. Like neutrality and ambigouity. Following common name should not conflict with other more specific Wikipedia:Naming conventions which are more important. One example, the article influenza, not "flu".Ht686rg90 (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another very important example which should be a precedent. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 and Transmission and infection of H5N1. Not "Bird flu".Ht686rg90 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Authorities are NOT calling this the swine flu. Change the article title and discussion to reflect correct name. Grantmidnight (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak is preferable since it is by far the most accurate name. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree -- However I also think we should wait for the flu to be declared a pandemic by WHO. Then, as it has been suggested by other people, the article could be renamed to 2009 flu (or influenza) pandemic, which will be by far the most common and easy to understand name. Cochonfou (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree I think we should change it NOW and then later switch outbreak to pandemic IF the WHO changes the status. There is no legitimate reason to think that it will definitely be declared a pandemic. How much longer are we going to discuss this? Ibrmrn (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - Not until John Q. Public starts calling it H1N1. Xclamation point 22:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree - per my answer to: "Who is South Korea's neighbor to the north?" --PigFlu Oink (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME. No matter how much this is re-asked, the answer remains the same. Also, remember WP:NOTAVOTE. Oren0 (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree You can't get the virus from eating, raising, buying, selling, or even touching a pig. It was labeled swine flu because of a virus that actually occurred in 1918, where both pigs and people apparently, back then, got sick.SOURCE Since many people see this page, it could also be affecting Pork Sales. It's better that we call it by its official name.Qwertluis (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree : DisagreeI think that we should stick with the common name, but I think the common name among official sources is becoming H1N1 Influenza A (but I'm fine with just H1N1). John Q public calls influenza 'flu' and all tissue paper 'Kleenex' that doesn't mean those should be the article names. If we redirect from swine flu and include an explanation of naming discrepancies in the first paragraph I think that would be the most accurate. --Hdstubbs (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I just changed my vote from agree to disagree based on the point made by the IP user below.

 Disagree per Xclamation point. People aren't saying "H1N1", just as no-one says "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson". ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 DisagreeInteresting to consider a quote from wikipedia article [Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H1N1#Russian Flu] "The more recent Russian flu was a 1977–1978 flu epidemic caused by strain Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)." The common name in this example is Russian Flu, the accurate name is not H1N1 but "Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)". The name game seems to mature into a distinctive common name such as "Russian Flu" and a technically specific name based on the scientific naming protocol such as "Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)". H1N1 does not fit into either name type - people, media just are not using a technical name like H1N1 and the technical types want a specific name like "Influenza A/USSR/90/77 (H1N1)". Its clear that alot of editors see a need to make changes to the name of the article so support efforts to dig into the naming issues. Suggest saying something like "common names for the new flu are swine flu, mexican flu, ..." and also say the technical name for the new flu strain is "Influenza A/Mexico City/90/77 (H1N1)" see [Influenza_A_virus#Variants and subtypes]"Variants are identified and named according to the isolate that they are like and thus are presumed to share lineage (example Fujian flu virus like); according to their typical host (example Human flu virus); according to their subtype (example H3N2); and according to their deadliness (example LP). So a flu from a virus similar to the isolate A/Fujian/411/2002(H3N2) is called Fujian flu, human flu, and H3N2 flu." [ note again the pattern of a couple common names and an extended specific technical name]. The article is doing well tracking the common names used to name the new flu and somewhere out there is a medical reference that would give us the extended specific technical name. So disagree because H1N1 is not a very good common name and H1N1 is not a very good extended specific technical name. However definitely think that all the talk about the name is getting at something, there might be something more going on - perhaps says something about the way it is taking time for cdc types to get a handle on the new flu, or perhaps something about the way the media deals with the start of an outbreak, it could say something about the hype, frenzy and political lobbying effects - all things that are starting to become more clearly stated in the article. So disagree as H1N1 just is not accurate either commonly or scientifically and suggest get some more references like "A/California/09/2009(H1N1)-like" especially the Mexico City isolate. Mainly suggest keep up the good work tracking the common names, relative useage and when/if the most common name changes from "swine flu" then see about doing the name changes and adding redirects etc as per all the wiki rules and editor consensus etc. And finally with all the editing interest in the name there could be another paragraph or reference somewhere for the article, maybe along the lines of other flu/diseases that had naming history/controversy - maybe we will be able to reference that these type of naming issues are typical of these type of influenza outbreaks, that is to say maybe naming conflicts are part of a big outbreak because of how fast and widespread its outbreak is [no original research here eh ;) ]. [oops, so much more name talk, sigh, looks like I've got the name bug as well, new name flu?, sorry :) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.169 (talk • contribs)

 Disagree Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, WP:NOTAVOTE. per Oren0 (talk) however because of how much this is re-asked, keep reasking, check also the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOTAVOTE etc for some interesting discussion, what would an encylopedia have as a name for this article? - perhaps we don't know yet, perhaps the answer to this naming issue only comes over time as we see what the common useage is, so maybe there is a legitimate question as to what to call a "news" type article that keeps changing, however for now seems "swine flu" but because this is a "news" type article whose subject is dynamic and changing perhaps we will have to keep thinking about how to name this article - perhaps for news type articles it should be expected that there will be more than one obvious name?, redirects help of course. maybe it does not matter what we call the article as long as it is a major common name, we have redirects/listings of the major common names in the article and generally cover any naming issues in the article - so that logic says that the naming is pretty much ok, the article is ok the way it is, any new major common names can be added with redirects. Note that it does not matter that someone official says to change new flu name[to wikipedia], it matters what name is actually used and what name is most commonly used. After all the hubbub and hoopla is over editors can look back and see a better name, of course leaving open to some big twist or turn in the new flu story that might argue for a major name change. So in sum seems like the editors have got this pretty right so far so disagree with name change for now but leaving it open to significant evidence that common name useage has changed.

Agree - chg to 2009 H1N1 flu and redirect for Mexican flu / Swine flu -- Fernvale (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Feds drop 'swine flu,' for 'H1N1 flu' President Obama and U.S. health officials referred to the new strain as "H1N1 flu." Concerned that the term "swine flu" is hurting pork sales, U.S. Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack and trade officials have also switched to "H1N1."

 Note: Medical topics tend to have medical names on Wikipedia. For example "Heart attack" is a redirect to Myocardial infarction, "Crib death" is Sudden infant death syndrome, "Cat scratch fever" is Cat-scratch disease(!), "Polio" is Poliomyelitis, and of course, "Mongolism" is a redirect to Down syndrome. For most of these the common name's Google hits outnumber the medical name by the millions. Resurr Section (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How is this for neutral? (following the lead of Prince here) We should call it: "The influenza formerly known as swine flu." :DBFritzen (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - WHO calls it A(H1N1). So should we. The popular names can be listed in the lede, and set up as redirects. We're an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. We should go by what the most reliable sources say. I am sure that any medical journal articles will now use A(H1N1), not "swine flu". Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Considering that swine flu can redirect to A(H1N1) flu, I agree with using the official source, which I consider it to be the World Health Organization. GaussianCopula (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME - perhaps this will change as time goes on, and the situation should be monitored. But right now this IS swine flu. Virtually any media organization can be used as a source for that. The WHO may be a health organization, but they are far from being an authority on what words human beings choose to use in their daily lives. 208.103.249.128 (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree Swine flu is now the commonly accepted name, so should continue to be used for the time being. We could rename it "2009 flu pandemic" (if we get to pandemic levels) as the Spanish flu epidemic is called 1918 flu pandemic here on wiki. I'd suggest that the article is renamed "2009 flu pandemic" is we reach level 6 magnius (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Question: Neutral   Where is the list of medical articles that call this h1n1 flu?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree Want to help the pigs from getting slaughtered.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree - chg to 2009 H1N1 flu and redirect for Mexican flu / Swine flu ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 18:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree everyone refers it as swine flu. I don't care what WHO says. Raysonho (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME --Tocino 20:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree to a move to 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak/2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Official name and "swine flu" is, IIRC, discouraged in widespread discourse because of the panic that could ensue regarding pigs. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree per WP:COMMONNAME --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree any redirects will take care of ensuring John Q Public will get to the information they are seeking, and the article will be using the officially designated name rather than perpetuating the common yet incorrect term. Flipper9 (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree This seems pretty clear cut to me, guys. Either we keep it as is, with an extremely misleading, unscientific name for an article relating to a disease that *has* an official scientific name, or we change the title to use the proper scientific name. Is the article for Mononucleosis entitled "Kissing Disease"? No. The common name is not always the correct one to use in an encyclopedia. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree Government agencies want to phase in H1N1 and no longer use Swine Flu to refer to it. Changing swine flu to H1N1 in the article name would help their efforts in doing so...

Agree The media has stopped referring to this as the swine flu. So should we. 76.192.144.118 (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Really? [5] [6] --Tocino 03:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As of this signing I count 16 agree and 12 disagree. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak would be a more encylopedic and more accurate name even though the authorities in the UK are still calling it "swine flu" [7]. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to move the article because I think there is a rough consensus, trending towards agree, and the recent news stories have mostly flipped over to H1N1. We should follow them. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, hard to decide what to move it to. The disease article is Influenza A virus subtype H1N1. Looking at 1918 flu pandemic I am wondering if this article should be 2009 flu outbreak. That way we can sidestep the issue of what type of flu. Everyone will understand what we are talking about and a title like 2009 Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 outbreak is painful to type. How do folks feel about 2009 flu outbreak (eventually to be changed to 2009 flu pandemic if things get that far). This would match what we already have for 1918. Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support 2009 flu outbreak (eventually to be changed to 2009 flu pandemic). This avoids confusion with H1N1 seasonal flu, is supported by 1918 flu pandemic and covers us if the virus reassorts and becomes a HxNx pandemic. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps wait for it to be classes a pandemic, then move to 2009 influenza pandemic (or 2009 flu pandemic). No need to be hasty on this one, it seems it will be declared as such before long and redirects negate most of the effects of a name change anyway. |→ Spaully^₪† 01:17, 5 May 2009 (GMT)

Voting is evil

Please discuss rather than vote. Voting is evil. hmwithτ 21:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree Raysonho (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

!vote. Xclamation point 23:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's already been discussed at length, and is pretty simple...either you are for the change, or for perpetuating falsehoods. Take your pick, otherwise without consensus, an edit war will ensue. Flipper9 (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Something that should be pointed out

The Manual of Style with regard to medicine, if it's not already been pointed out. The naming conventions state:

The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term (common, unscientific, and/or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded.

This is the textbook definition. "Swine flu" has been superseded as the scientific name, at least with regards to WHO. Whether it's H1N1 or H1N1(A) is debatable, but given the MOS, we shouldn't have it at "swine flu" anymore. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• As the guideline (and for that matter me, above) point out, heart attack (18,100,000 Google hits) redirects to myocardial infarction (4,650,000 Google hits). There is no doubt that the MOS:MED guideline would have this article at a more medical name than "swine flu". The question is, what is the exact name? I feel that once that name has been made absolutely clear, including spacing and punctuation, this article should be so named. By then this frenzy over this non-pandemic should have died down. If it becomes a pandemic, I would support a name chance to 2009 flu pandemic as magnius suggests above. That name will only be a problem if there is a second flu pandemic this year. Resurr Section (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• This is the most clearly stated Wikipedia policy on this subject, and this advice should be followed immediately. As pointed out, heart attack is myocardial infarction in Wikipedia, Legionnaire's Disease is Legionellosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease is Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, etc. For all the voting nonsense and the citation of WP:COMMONNAME, it seems to be superseded in every other article by the MOS:MED guideline. The MOS:MED guideline even *specifically* states that WHO guidelines are an example of a source to follow for names of diseases. Come on, Wikipedia -- follow your own policies and change this now. 66.30.15.98 (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Wikipedia, follow your own policies and LEAVE IT AS IS. The virus may be the same old one which has caused concern as in previous outbreaks, but this IS the 2009 Swine Flu Outbreak, and thats how it will be commonly know 20 years from now just as it is today. And with all due respect to the not-a-vote lobby, this is the same tired policy/weak excuse which is trotted out when people want something change in contrary to consensus or when consensus has yet to be reached. Take the time to *read* the votes and you will see there is substantive discussion attached to those yeas and nays. Personally I dont understand why this has to be so political. The virus is H1N1 or whatever. There is already an article about that - H1N1. But that is not what this article is about. This article is about the current outbreak which everyone recognizes as Swine Flu. That's just the way it is and no wikipedia policy is going to change that. The origin of the name and it basis in truth is irrelevant. If name is misleading then add a sentence to the into explaining the origin of the name - this is wikipedia and YOU can do it yourself. Just because the WHO decides to use different terminology in their own press releases and the american's new messiah also calls it so to appease the pork lobby does not change facts. The korean war was officially call a 'police action' by the self-proclaimed authorities, but that doesn't mean we bow to the political winds and use such names for wikipedia titles. Read the comments, acknowledge the lack of consensus, be professional, and leave the title alone until the dust settles. 208.103.249.128 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• How can you be sure that's what it's going to be in twenty years? That's speculative. On the other hand, it is a fact that the official name for this is just the influenza A(H1N1) outbreak. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies 208.103... I did not intend to be unprofessional. If anything, I think your response is an unnecessary escalation and actually more unprofessional than my original post unintentially was. I actually did read the comments in the voting before posting, as I read this entire talk page (and most of the archives). I also read the various Wikipedia policies that were cited, and MOS:MED seems most relevant. I apologize if I was slightly too strong in suggesting the change happen sooner rather than later, but it appears that most of the votes above that you cite where given before any mention of MOS:MED. I therefore assumed that they were unaware of that information and urged prompt reconsideration. I did not, as you did, assume that they simply ignored information and discussion. Is there anything that I said that said otherwise? And, by the way, if we went by your standard about how it will commonly be known 20 years from now, we should retitle the AIDS article as Gay-related immune deficiency, as it was originally known. I'm not trying to be funny; I'm just following the logic. Again, I apologize for any misunderstandings, but I am saddened that you felt the need to escalate, particularly if you feel so strongly that policies are in your favor already. You might have another perspective on this question if you were a pork farmer. But hey, I'm happy to have cheaper pork to buy for the next few months, so I guess there's another benefit for some of us at least. And not that anecdotal data matters anymore than voting in Wikipedia policy, but on my campus, all official references to the virus are H1N1, and "swine flu" seems to have become something of a jocular way to refer to it, since everyone knows it's technically wrong. 66.30.15.98 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Has the common name changed?

I've been hearing less and less people actually call it "swine flu". This may no longer be the "common name". Surprisingly, I've heard students around my university actually calling it H1N1 influenza A, while discussing it. This may slowly be becoming the most common name, among informed people, at least. I've only heard "swine flu" used recently when joking about it. This is all WP:OR, of course, as a judgment of a common name would have to be. Thoughts? hmwithτ 16:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• 2009 swine flu outbreak - It is wrong to refer as Swine flu which mean for mammals related flu, should be either 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak or 2009 flu outbreak and redirect for Mexican flu, the human flu disease can spread easily from person to person now, not pig to person.
• 1918 flu pandemic => Pandemic flu is virulent human flu that causes a global pandemic, of serious illness. Because there is little natural immunity, the disease can spread easily from person to person.♦

Flu Terms Defined - http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/ -- Fernvale (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

By that logic it is wrong to refer to the 1918 flu pandemic as such because the virus affects people and does not infect whole numbers or dates in the 20th century. Venus flytraps do not originate on venus, nor do they catch flies on venus - it is just a name. The name of this pandemic, like it or not, is Swine Flu. It doesn't matter what the WHO or Obama or pig advocacy groups call it - that is just the name we're stuck with. Lets not stand on a soapbox for the WHO. 208.103.249.128 (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Terms come and go all the time, based on whether they're appropriate. WHO have renamed it because the old name isn't particularly appopriate anymore. But who cares, really, seeing as we have a negro in the White House, who beat a cripple and the mother of a mongoloid. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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" [8][9]. That's a sourced, official name from those that track the sequences available for testing. Flipper9 (talk) 14:15, 4 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 [[10]][[11]]. 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. please do not fracture the conversation, but instead make any comments 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)

About "debate over name"

Why sould «Henry Niman of Recombinomics»'s opinion - note the red links - should be weighted against that of the World Health Organization, World Organization for Animal Health, and several governments? Not that it should not, I don't know, but why should I, a reader, care about what Mr. Niman says? - Nabla (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

He is notable enough to be quoted in that Yahoo News/Associated Press Science article that is cited. Some readers don't regard the World Health Organization as worth listening to either. Wikipedia just tries to present a balanced neutral point of view with referenced facts. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious why some readers will consider WHO worth listening to - it is a UN organization - and it acceptable that some don't, for sure. But the question remains, why should any reader consider Mr. Niman's opinion worth any weight at all? Again, I am not saying it is not worthy, I am saying the article makes no effort to say why his opinion is worth anything. Why Henry Niman but not Richard Webby and/or Edwin D. Kilbourne, quoted with the same opinion in the same source? - Nabla (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, if a reliable source thinks it's worth quoting him, that's enough for us. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Niman specialises in studying virus genomes. "[H]e developed the flu monoclonal antibody, which is widely used throughout the pharmaceutical, biotech, and research industries in epitope tagging techniques."[12] Seems like a good qualification to me. Rmhermen (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm not expressing myself properly, as you (both) insist in replying to what I am not askin, instead reply to what I don't ask...

I am not contesting Nimam as a source (yes if the press uses him, we can too).

I am asking two things:

1. How will the readers know how to weight his opinion (I presume Niman is not worlwide famous)

That up to the readers, it's not our resonsibility - we just try and write a balanced article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Why Niman and not any of the other "many experts"?

His quote helps to make a balanced article maybe? --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to him, as useless. The claimm that "many" scientists have that opinion gains no more weight with that. - Nabla (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"1. How will the readers know how to weight his opinion (I presume Niman is not worlwide famous)"

That up to the readers, it's not our resonsibility - we just try and write a balanced article.

"2. Why Niman and not any of the other 'many experts'?"

His quote helps to make a balanced article maybe? --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"it's not our resonsibility"... I wonder why, then, we even try to write and source any articles at all... we may leave it to readers to find it themselves, after all it is all sourced and thus all already available on the web.

"His quote helps to make a balanced article maybe?". No, saying many disagree helps to make a balanced article, quoting one 'random' individual out of that many gives undue weight to him.

But whatever... - Nabla (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps attributing the piece to its AP author will be an acceptable compromise? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To me too. Thanks! - Nabla (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it. Removing the quotation from a molecular virologist who specializes in tracking mutations including of influenza but happens to disagree with the WHO for a vaguely worded reference to an AP pool reporter? Not NPOV to me. Rmhermen (talk) 20:11, 4 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)

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"	as of May 4, 2009	985	26	2.6%	260	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)

92%

A Detroit newspaper claiming that "...92% of the 109 U.S. infections came without travel to affected areas, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported." [13] I can't find any other source carrying that claim. Is this more media misinterpretation? Rmhermen (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone backing up that number. But I do see this: As of 2,May NYC Health Of all the cases in NYC (then 62), there is only one case not known to be associated with the outbreaks either in Mexico or the St. Francis Preparatory school in Queens. St. Francis had a number of students recently return from Mexico. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As an added benefit, using neither name saves us from arguing about which name is better. If we get a second notable flu outbreak in 2009, we can figure out how to name them at that time. Cross that bridge when we get to it. Right now, this is the only one, so the title is utterly clear and correct. Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you move the article? We haven't reached a consensus yet. Pleas do not move articles around without checking the talk page for discussions on the topic.D^rew S^mith 22:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think his comment above was misplaced in the discussion page. It was a mistake on his part regarding the indefinite move restriction placed on the page, and was corrected by another admin. Flipper9 (talk) 22:41, 4 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)

U.K. update

27 are ill in the U.K. now, including victims in Gloucestershire, Merseyside, Dulwich, Redditch and Oxfordshire. [14]!--86.29.246.3 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Swine Influenza" or "Swine Flu" (A/H1N1-2009)

The virus was initially DETECTED in Mexico... Not originated in Mexico.

Also this virus is a MUTATION of the euro-asiatic influenza virus already knew years ago and from which Mexico never had cases of infection... i mean the virus scientifically named as "Influenza A virus subtype H1N1", responsible for the 1918 flu pandemic, that killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide (A/H1N1-1918).

Now, if you refer to the "swine flu" (A/H1N1-2009) as "mexican flu"... also there are many people who refer to it as "American flu" (refering to USA) or "North American Flu" (refering to the region of North America) or "A/California/2009" or "hog flu" or "pig flu"... so add these too or just refer to it as "swine flu".--. 18:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OyashiroSama (talk • contribs)

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)

• 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)
• Oppose; agree with Flipper9. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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)