Talk:Nasal congestion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Unassessed	rated as Unassessed-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

What actually blocks the breath passage? A swelling of something? --Abdull 17:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can someone point to a source stating that young infants are obligate nose-breathers? I asked my anatomy/physiology teacher about this. She also happens to be a mother, and she said that that was definitely not true, and babies have lots of colds that completely block their nasal passages and they don't have respiratory distress.

Adsims2001 07:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC) : Much of the text in this article appears to be derived from this page. It states in nearly exact words that infants breathe through their noses exclusively, but I cannot prove this true or false. The page is the first google hit for "nasal congestion." Also, remember to sign your discussion page posts with four tildes. (~)

That page looks to have been produced by the US National Library of Medicine and/or National Institutes of Health. As you know, works produced by the US government are public domain and can be used on Wikipedia. But the page ought to be credited as a source/reference... Bloodshedder 03:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link

I would like to add the following link to the external links section. The article discusses the causes and treatments of sinus congestion, referencing recent scientific studies. Additionally, it discusses nasal irrigation, which has been shown to help reduce sinus congestion (references 7 and 8 of the article). Wikipedia links to external pages that contain further research which is accurate and on-topic, and I believe this to be one. Comments? Wjjessen 15:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Any comments regarding the addition of the link above to the external links section? Wjjessen 17:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the same concerns as when I removed it the first time. The information on the page is good, and I like that there are references and there isn't a disagreeable amount of advertising. However, it is information that is either already on the Wikipedia page, or could be included in the page. Specifically, a clause in WP:EL recommends against "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." I'll let the edit stand if you put it back, but I can't guarantee it will stand up to other editors. --Mdwyer 23:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the information is already on the Wikipedia page; the article on Sinus Congestion references nine research articles, two books and one magazine article. In contrast, the Wikipedia page only references a single website. The article contains just as much, if not more information than the only external link listed for Nasal Congestion (Mayo Clinic article on runny nose), which doesn't reference anything. Wjjessen 04:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I'm going to add Sinus Congestion - Causes and treatments reviewed at HighlightHEALTH.com to the external links section. Wjjessen 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)