Talk:Avian influenza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is supported by WikiProject Veterinary medicine.

This project provides a central approach to Veterinary medicine-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Viruses WikiProject This article is within the scope of the Viruses WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and organize articles about biological viruses on Wikipedia. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is has been assigned a High-importance to the Viruses WikiProject.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] United States

someone has put that the United States has had cases reported on the table in the middle of the article, that is untrue, i did some research when i saw it, there are no cases in the US, and it would have made national news if it had, i even went to the cnn archives, nothing, could someone correct that? im inexperienced and don't want to mess the whole thing up.

I believe you are refering to this act of vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out, even tho it was at H5N1 and not here at Avian flu. WAS 4.250 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Shouldn't this be merged with the page for Influenzavirus A? I see that Bird flu redirects to Avian flu, while Avian influenza redirects to Influenzavirus A. - unsigned

Thanks. That was an oversight, that I've now corrected. WAS 4.250 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Right now, Asian bird flu redirects to H5N1, which seems appropriate to me. But Bird Flu, Bird-flu, Avian Flu, Bird influenza, Chicken flu, Birdflu, Avian bird flu, Avian flu virus redirects to Influenzavirus A. While Bird flu and Avian influenza, redirects to this article, Avian flu. Can we get a consensus on what goes where? --Dodo bird 08:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That was an oversight, that I've now corrected. They now all (except asian bird flu) point to this article. I also fixed the flu template link so the avian flu link goes here. And I fixed the H5N1 template's influenzavirus A link so it says that is what it is (before it said avian flu). Thanks, again. WAS 4.250 12:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Someone has replaced the Avian Flu page with "BIRD FLU WILL KILL US ALL." Clearly vandalism. I'm gonna fix it but just wanted to give a heads up. -141.154.240.102

  • That's actually pretty funny. --67.171.78.155 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No it isn't. It's the standard form of vandalism that occurs thousands of times on Wikipedia pages every day. Reverting generic, everyday vandalism like this does not really require a comment on the talk page. Xezlec (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "avian flu" or "avian flu virus"

I removed the word virus caused the horse, dog and swine flu articles didn't have them. But does avian flu, in the "correct" form, refers to the virus or the diesease? --Dodo bird 21:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Flu" is a disease, not a virus. But people are often inexact when communicating, so while "flu" isn't a virus it is often used to refer to the virus. I did not care to go into all that in every single flu article. WAS 4.250 22:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

So what's the rational for the revert? Did the facts get twisted after my rewrite? I just reworded the main points to make it more understandable(hopefully) and remove the links I find unecessary. --Dodo bird 23:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your rewording made it worse. You deletions are completly unacceptable. They not just a list of links. Read it. WAS 4.250 00:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I do understand that they are not just a list of links(yes! I read before I edit), I just find them unecessary. Look at the current wording of the sentence
So "avian flu", "bird flu", "avian influenza", and "bird influenza" all mean the same thing; but are all used to mean these very different things:
Is the reader supposed to know what that means? The attempt to overexplain doesn't seem to make it clearer. What I did (or thought I did) was to make it clearer. I didn't just delete those links, I worked them into the newer version.If you look at the seven links, three of them("The influenza A viruses", "Influenza A viruses which are adapted to birds" and "Flu from influenza A viruses which are adapted to birds") points to the same article. So avian flu refers to the influenza A. The reader already knows that from the main article tag and the two mention of it in the first paragraph. Having three different terms point to the same article is going to confuse the reader. The other links are found in the article main section and see also section and I would say the wording of the articles give enough "clues" on the usage of the terms. And more detailed explanations for the terms are only a click away. --Dodo bird 16:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand what you deleted. Yes, the reader is expected to understand it. It is clear and plain english and only needs to be taken one word at a time to understand. You might believe you understood what you deleted, but your words above clearly show you don't. WAS 4.250 17:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, this conversation proves we have a clarity issue, so I've started the below vote on what is the clearest way to say what is being said. WAS 4.250 18:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Is the "so avian flu, bird flu etc... means the same thing" statement necessary? Doesn't the opening line "Avian flu (also known as...)" explain exactly that? And are the terms avian flu, bird flu, avian influenza really interchangeble.--Dodo bird 19:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And since the strict meaning of Avian flu means the flu caused by the influenza A virus(already linked as main article), the other meanings are "incorrect" and shouldn't be associated as what Avian flu can mean but left as internal links in the main text. The reader can do his/her own association. -- Dodo bird 19:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just another minor qn. Ignoring the portion I removed, is my reworded text[1] factually correct?--Dodo bird 20:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

All four options don't touch on the point I was trying to make. If we have to keep a similar format, I would make it this way.

The terms avian flu, bird flu, avian influenza, and bird influenza are used interchangably to mean
  • the influenza A virus, influenza A virus adapted to birds, flu caused by the influenza A virus adapted to birds (the technically correct meaning). See influenzavirus A
  • the flu acquired from the influenza A viruses. See influenza
  • the H5N1 strain of the influenza A virus. See H5N1
avian influenza is a more formal version of bird flu, avian flu and bird influenza are mismashes of formal and informal terms. 20061018

I use "See (article)" (which may not be an ideal layout/formatting) so that the first three terms will not have three links pointing to the same article. Transmission and spread of H5N1 would ideally go under "See also". --Dodo bird 19:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a section in the article to clear up what you seem not to be getting since if you aren't getting it, others will be in the same boat. WAS 4.250 21:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
OMFG!!! Do I appear that stupid? Dumbing down of the article is exactly what I don't want. I understand why the terms are interchangeble, I just don't understand why there is a need to state explictly that the various terms can mean this and this and this. And you have not really replied to the points I made so far, other than assuming I'm totally lost. You may be right though.--Dodo bird 21:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I read through the article very carefully a few times and picked out exactly what information was present. As it turns out, there was a lot of repeated statements, and a lot of unnecessary ones along the lines of "<word> can be used to refer to any influenza A virus, but can also be used to refer to the influenza A diseases: bird flu, swine flu, horse flu, or alternatively, any influenza A virus-induced disease caused by viruses including bird flu virus-disease" (where everything after the first comma in that sentence is extraneous and quickly degenerates into complete nonsense). The article is much shorter now but I think it reads much better. I honestly think I did an OK job, but maybe I didn't. I also tried to change the tone a bit to get the point across that this article is about the term itself, not so much scientific info about the disease/virus/whatever. What do you guys think? --JCipriani 00:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Which is more clear? A or B? Linked or not linked? Or C or D (the same choice, but without italics).

[edit] A, not linked

So "avian flu", "bird flu", "avian influenza", and "bird influenza" all mean the same thing; but are all used to mean these very different things:

  • the influenza A viruses
  • the flu acquired from the influenza A viruses
  • influenza A viruses which are adapted to birds
  • flu from influenza A viruses which are adapted to birds (the technically correct meaning)
  • the H5N1 strain of the influenza A virus
  • the H5N1 flu
  • the global spread of H5N1.

[edit] B, linked

So "avian flu", "bird flu", "avian influenza", and "bird influenza" all mean the same thing; but are all used to mean these very different things:

[edit] C, not linked, no italics

So "avian flu", "bird flu", "avian influenza", and "bird influenza" all mean the same thing; but are all used to mean these very different things:

  • the influenza A viruses
  • the flu acquired from the influenza A viruses
  • influenza A viruses which are adapted to birds
  • flu from influenza A viruses which are adapted to birds (the technically correct meaning)
  • the H5N1 strain of the influenza A virus
  • the H5N1 flu
  • the global spread of H5N1.

[edit] D, linked, no italics

So "avian flu", "bird flu", "avian influenza", and "bird influenza" all mean the same thing; but are all used to mean these very different things:

[edit] Votes and comments go here

  • I like all four equally. WAS 4.250 17:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Next sunday at noon (NYNY time; EST) we can declare a winner of the vote. WAS 4.250 18:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • feel free to add comments on altering the wording of the above to make it more clear; such comments won't be part of the vote, but can be very useful and could even be implemented next sunday along with whatever wins this vote. WAS 4.250 18:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Not linked, because most of the links lead to the same page. I prefer no italics. Njál 18:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • While "clear" is good, "useful and clear" is better. Links are useful, and have absolutely no bearing on clarity whatsoever unless you have trouble following blue text as opposed to black (if they confuse you then turn down the blue levels on your monitor ;). Redundant links are not useful, they are just messy, so you may want to follow traditional Wikipedia style and remove all but the first links to any given article. As far as the italics go, I think they are important for the following reason: these pedantic differences, despite common belief, are not interesting. However, assuming that describing such differences actually is important, then making the operative words in each phrase italicized will definitely clear up the finer points that are too subtle for most sane people to understand. I mean that in the most friendly and constructive way possible, though. ;) --JCipriani 00:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bird flu or Avian flu

Why is the page located at 'Avian flu'? In the UK and ROI it's known as 'bird flu.' If 'avian flu' is more common in the US/Canada/Australia/S. Africa etc. could this be noted? Njál 18:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if the contents of this page are at Bird flu or Avian flu or Avian influenza or Bird influenza. Anyone who cares, vote here; and then someone can move it if enough people care one way or the other. WAS 4.250 19:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Avian pretty much means bird, so there's really no diference ~Sushi 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be under the heading "Avian Flu" but rather "Avian Influenza" or "Bird Flu" because avian influenza is the accurate scientific term for the disease and bird flu is the most common name used by the news media and the general public. It should probably be under "Bird Flu" because that is the most simple and common term for the disease. This is a potential plague that could affect billions of poor and illiterate people around the world who simply refer to it as bird flu so there is no reason to confuse them and the general public by insisting that the more complex "avian flu" be used. But some people just want to show off how sophisticated and scientific they are... (added 7 April 2007)

[edit] Current event

As this article's marked as a current event, I think it would benefit from a section on why everyone's panicking about it, or a summary with a 'see H5N1 for more in-depth treatment' link, just to make it clear where that information is. Njál 18:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We already do that with the main article notice at the top and the H5N1 and Flu boxes on the right and actual text in the article itself that links to H5N1 and influenzavirus A. Why isn't that enough? WAS 4.250 20:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't obvious enough for me - I had to come to the talk page to realise there was more under H5N1. Perhaps something like "More information on the current situation can be found under..." right at the top would be handy? Currently the pointer to the other page is halfway down, in the middle of what appears to be a (very) mild rant about the usage of the term. And 'see articles linked...' isn't very helpful - there are 24 articles linked from this article. Obviously, if I had clicked on them all, I would eventually have found the extra coverage - but I was only mildly interested in the first place, and just wanted to know about the current situation. Cammy 21:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please make the minimum change that achieves the objective you seek. In other words, what change can you make that if that is what you had seen, you wouldn't be here with this suggestion. In short : edit the artcile, PLEASE. WAS 4.250 23:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I was slightly hesitant to do so because I have no idea of the most common phrasing of such a pointer (I normally only edit spelling or grammar mistakes) but I guess someone will correct it if necessary. Cammy 23:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your improvement to this article. I am grateful. I need everybody's help to make this the best it can be. Thanks ever so much. (People underestimate the value of their ability to add clarity.) WAS 4.250 02:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pain in the A***?

Avian flu (also known as bird flu or avian influenza) virus refers to a subset of Orthomyxoviridae that creates irrational behaviour in females, making them a pain in the arse

Now corrected.

yet another Matt 10:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inapprorpriate image?

Shouldn't the picture be of a bird quarantine zone or something? The picture is more pediatriciatic (sp?) rather than bird flu ish. - unsigned

The picture is for the template (box) FLU; not just this one article. WAS 4.250 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so next order of business - someone find a better image Jackpot Den 01:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I was originally looking for a picture of a sneeze; but this was the best picture I could find. There is also discussion and two alternative suggestions at the talk page of the template; which is where the discussion for an alternative should be, should someone find one. Also at Template:Flu you can click on the "What links here" link in the toolbox box at the far left to see what articles the image will be appearing in. WAS 4.250 02:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I was also wondering why an article on Avian Flu has a picture of a baby on it. In fact that baby picture is not good even for generic flu articles any more than a picture of vomit is. CGameProgrammer 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this correct?

<<"Flu" is short for "influenza". The two words mean exactly the same thing. No difference in meaning, only a difference in spelling and pronunciation.>>

Are these actually two words? Flu is an abbreviation for influenza, albeit from from the 19th C. Should it be changed to

<<The term "Flu" is an abbreviation of the term "influenza", thus their meanings are identical. No difference in meaning, only a difference in spelling and pronunciation.>> or something similar Tsop 04:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct. My dictionary lists them seperately and says flu is the "shortened form". WAS 4.250 11:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I need some clarification. The article and the talk page are getting extremely confusing.Freddie 23:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically it should read "'Flu" with the apostophe, but no one really cares about that anymore. In the lab where I work, 'Flu is usually used to refer to the disease as it manifests himself ("He's down with the 'Flu," "Those birds have the 'Flu," etc.) and Influenza is used to talk about the microscopic virion itself. It's really up between the sticklers and the conformists.

[edit] This article is complete garbage

I went here expecting to read about Avian Flu. Why is the entire article devoted to the WORDS Avian + Flu? That's idiotic; I've never seen a single article in this or any other encyclopedia that does the same thing! This entire article should be thrown away and replaced with something that actually talks about... ready? ...Avian Flu! Plus the article repeats itself many times and it's just complete garbage. I don't know the wiki tags so I'm not sure how to mark it as something that needs revision. CGameProgrammer 04:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that so many people don't understand what they read or hear. for example what you are looking for may be at H5N1, as is stated at the top of the article. There are many many misconceptions and mistaken terminology useages and even lack of data about this issue. For example, many people want to know about possible treatments for a disease that does not exist right now: pandemic avian flu. WAS 4.250 16:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, people are stupid, but there's no need to make the article match them. If you want to educate people treat them as if they have a brain. This article is repetitive and large chunks of it belong in an article in the wiktionary, such as ""Flu" is short for "influenza". The two words mean exactly the same thing. No difference in meaning, only a difference in spelling and pronunciation. and "Bird" and "avian" used as an adjective in front of either mean exactly the same thing. No difference in meaning, only a difference in spelling and pronunciation.
Since I'm not the kind of person to slash and dash, I'd suggest the following:
Intro Paragraph that specifies that the term avian (or bird) flu (or influenza) represents any disease in birds that is caused by an influenza virus, which would include the current strain of the avian flu that is feared to become transmittable to humans: H5N1.
Second Paragraph: Keep the paragraph on influenza a (because it's the only other paragraph that adds information), but change to: All avian flu is caused by type "A" influenza viruses. All subtypes (but not all strains of all subtypes) of this species are adapted to birds.
There, then the rest of the article could impart information on AVIAN FLU. --Oliana 13:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel "Flu" is short for "influenza" is not needed because you don't need it. 13 year olds read this too. I'm sorry we inadequately communicated that you can find more data on "avian flu" by clicking on a link. WAS 4.250 14:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

WAS, perhaps you should look up what a dictionary is. Word definitions belong in dictionaries, not encyclopedias. This so-called "article" is now even worse than when I last looked at it. Please find ONE other article in the entire Wikipedia that looks as embarrassing as this one, and that is a mere dictionary definition instead of an encyclopedia entry. CGameProgrammer 18:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
What EXACTLY would you add to this article? Not "stuff about A, B, and C" but "Avian flu is ..." you know, don't wave your hands and give me general categories, but what are the actual sententences you think should exist in this article? Can you come up with one? WAS 4.250 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
WAS, I came here to read about avian flu, not write about it. But instead all I read was a very poorly worded dictionary definition, and there is a very well-known rule about what goes in Wiktionary and what goes in Wikipedia. It's a common problem. As for content, Oliana gave some suggestions. CGameProgrammer 22:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you came to Avian flu to read about H5N1 and are pissed off because information about H5N1 is at H5N1 rather than at Avian flu. WAS 4.250 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm pissed off that a dictionary definition is in the Wikipedia instead of the Wiktionary. This article should redirect to H5N1 or be rewritten. CGameProgrammer 17:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You assert without evidence that "a dictionary definition is in the Wikipedia instead of the Wiktionary". Please provide a dictionary that contains for Avian flu what Wikipedia contains for Avian flu. We both know you can't. WAS 4.250 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried to fix the article up a little, but he has a point: there needs to be less linguistics and more science. There's nothing in the article right now except how "avian flu" is defined. There needs to be something on, for example, distinguishing properties or symptoms or treatments (in birds), and so on. --AySz88^-^ 05:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
We have so much information on "Avian flu" that we have dozens of articles on it. It can't all fit into one article. so the data is distributed across several articles. Click on a link to go to one of those many articles. Maybe I should expand the see also section ... WAS 4.250 12:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Then this can be little more than a disambig page. That is fine also. CGameProgrammer 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I also find this article less than useful, it's just a language lesson. Complete with illustrations of "correct" and "incorrect" usage? I've never seen ANY Wikipedia article with such a condescending tone. I would just make the page a disambig/redirect to H5N1. I really can't imagine ANYONE appreciates being told how to "correctly" use the expression "Avian flu". Actually, if ANYONE (besides WAS) actually finds this article useful in its current form, please do speak up.
And not even a good language lesson at that. The author(s) seem to be very bitter about something that has to do with avian flu, but I'm not sure what they are bitter about. As far as what to do with this article, IMHO the current content should be removed entirely and replaced with something along the lines of "avian flu is frequently used to refer to any of the following things:", with a list of links to more useful Wiki articles like Influenza A and the various HxNx articles as well. Now, while it's true that my take on the author is purely subjective, one fact that does remain is that the information present in this article is not useful to somebody who was trying to find out about avian flu, aside from the links it contains. --JCipriani 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
btw, in reference to "I'm sorry you feel "Flu" is short for "influenza" is not needed because you don't need it. 13 year olds read this too." well, I'm 13. I learnt that flu and influenza are the same thing when I wuz 8. On top of that, I'm doing a Social Studies project on the bird flu, came here hoping for some info on it. Not some randomly whacked out English lesson. ~Sushi 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article looks like it was written as a high school term paper, and not a very good one at that. I am a veterinary writer by profession, and this article is a great example of why people shouldn't rely on anything they read in Wikipedia. Go to the OIE, WHO, or CDC websites if you want this kind of general information. By the way, in the following discussion section, it should be "I and another user," not "me and another user." Good grief.

[edit] purple box

Whoever is adding the ugly purple box to the article, please don't. It is redundant - anyone using Wikipedia will know how to click links to other articles. It is also horrendously unusable - black text on purple background is just horrific. At the very least, a better worded, tastefully coloured box is needed, 'though I'd prefer none at all. — ceejayoz talk 15:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It was also way too self referential. You'd almost think whoever added it was fed up with people whining about a lack of information on "Avian flu" in spite of huge amounts on it in the most relevant aricles. And the color! Sheesh. Must be color-blind. WAS 4.250 16:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you (WAS) reverted everything and re-added that box, though I guess that was probably by accident. --AySz88^-^ 06:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I reverted from your version and changed the box to something even more out-of-place; and when I came to my senses and came back to delete the box, it had already been deleted, so I made the above comments making fun of myself. About the color - I am color-blind. WAS 4.250 11:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I was about to say, and now I'm gonna go back and revert you again ... but I went back to read your latest version, and it's an improvement. So, thanks for helping, and please stick around and help some more. For example, me and another user are squaring off at Talk:Influenza concerning the use of quotes; come add your views, please. I'll provide sources for your Doubting Thomas fact request; but its a summary and I know of no single quote covering every detail of my marvelous summary so I'll provide what immediatly comes to mind - a couple of on line books, a source already in the article and a really great breakdown of H5N1's evolution. If you have further accuracy concerns, please don't hesitate to ask. I only wish someone had questioned something I had misunderstood about the H5N1 viral envelope before a virologist did so in print WAS 4.250 11:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry; I was confused by your post and I didn't realize you were the person that made that box. The "citation needed" tag was because I wasn't 100% sure whether "which includes all subtypes of Influenza A viruses" really meant "all subtypes of Influenza A viruses contain such viruses adapted to birds", and wanted to find a source explaining the nuaunces to make sure it was right (but didn't have time to do it right then). I didn't mean that I really doubted whether the statement was factual or not. --AySz88^-^ 21:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] An essay?

Three paragraphs have been inserted, headed "Much Ado about Nothing' and filled with unsubstantated meanderings by "Iqbal Latif". This seems unencyclopedic. --Wetman 06:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We call that vandalism. — ceejayoz talk 16:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

As mentioned (a while) before, this article needs more about the actual flu in birds, especially things like symptoms and treatment. --AySz88\^-^ 13:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

See Transmission and infection of H5N1. WAS 4.250 01:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But that's specific to H5N1, not avian flu in general. --AySz88\^-^ 02:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Avian flu viruses are noninfectious for most species. When they are infectious they are usually nonsymptomatic, so the carrier does not have any disease from it. Thus while infected with an avian flu virus, the animal doesn't have a "flu". Typically, when illness (called "flu") from an avian flu virus does occur, it is the result of an avian flu virus strain adapted to one species spreading to another species (usually from one bird species to another bird species). So far as we know the most common result of this is an illness so minor as to be not worth noticing (and thus little studied). But with the domestication of chickens and turkeys, we have created species subtypes (domesticated poultry) that can catch an avian flu virus adapted to waterfowl and have it rapidly mutate into a form that kills in days over 90% of an entire flock and spread to other flocks and kill 90% of them and can only be stopped by killing every domestic bird in the area. Until H5N1, this was basically the whole story of avian flu so far as anyone knew or cared. Now with H5N1, we have a whole new ballgame with H5N1 inventing new rules as it goes with behaviors never noticed before, and possibly never having occured before. This is evolution right before our eyes. Even the Spanish flu virus did not behave like this. What is worth mentioning about illness from avian flu viruses we have in H5N1 flu, Flu, and the subtype articles (H5N1, HxNy). WAS 4.250 06:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page needs severe cleanup, very unprofessional and heavy use of dramatic phrases / dramatic layout

Just read... "out of the ballpark"?, "from this flock, to this flock, to that flock, until every last domesticated bird is slaughtered". Reading this, it sounds like a drama-ridden panic button... or just a genocide against the avian race. Seriously, this needs to be rephrased, reworded, and made more relevant to what the flu is, rather than a dramatic representation of the crisis... keep it seperate. - unsigned

I apologize. I've read every single source in every one of of our flu and H5N1 articles and I do my best to keep the articles accurate. But good writing will have to come from others though because what you see is the best I know how to do. Cheers. WAS 4.250 00:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick diagnosis of flu strains possible with new microchip test

"The FluChip successfully distinguished among 72 influenza strains--including the H5N1 avian influenza strain--in less than 12 hours."[2]69.6.162.160 03:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

Flu research could use a section on this sort of thing. WAS 4.250 03:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I posted it in the Flu research talk section, but it is not visible for various possible reasons.69.6.162.160 13:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson
Not seeing posted changes is usually about needing to refresh some buffer. I saw it and responded there. WAS 4.250 15:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Bird flu will kill us all"

Bird Flu will Kill us all in 2010 Main articles: H5N1 and H5N1 flu As of 2006, "avian flu" is being commonly used to refer to infection from a particular subtype of Influenza A virus, H5N1, which can cause severe illness in humans who are infected. Currently, this strain is transmitted by contact with infected birds, humans, and it is now considered to be airborne-prone virus. COmputer studies show that at the current rate of contamination from the virus, 80% of the Earth will be affected by 2010 and that the whole population will be wiped out in the following year.

What the hell? No sources cited. No nothing. looks like dramatic vandalism.

--P3on 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avian flu

Avian flu is plagerized in the toronto daily news article Avian Flu Explained published today in its introduction where it says "Avian flu first infected humans in the 1990s, and since then H5N1 has evolved into a flu virus strain that inflects more species than any previously known flu virus strain, is deadlier than any previously known flu virus strain. Avian flu continues to evolve becoming both more widespread and more deadly causing the world's number one expert on avian flu to published an article titled "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population" in American Scientist magazine." It uses key phrases I wrote and have not seen elsewhere in exactly those words. WAS 4.250 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned (no by-line) advertizement ridden Toronto Daily web-article consists of unattributed sentences from the Wikipedia article Avian flu introducing a copy of this from Temple University with Copyright © 2006 VG Systems Consulting Inc at the bottom. Toronto Daily News is one of many websites produced by Moscow Media Group Inc. with offices located in Canada and Russia says this. WAS 4.250 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In respose to an inquiry, the paragraph the above quote plagiarizes is:

"H5N1 has evolved into a flu virus strain that inflects more species than any previously known flu virus strain, is deadlier than any previously known flu virus strain, and continues to evolve becoming both more widespread and more deadly causing the world's number one expert on avian flu to published an article titled "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population" in American Scientist."

"to published" ? Whoops. Gotta fix that. WAS 4.250 07:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at it again and the unsourced Wikipedia paragraph has been removed. I guess they read their reader input after all. WAS 4.250 08:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] UN efforts and H5N1

I havn't heard much of UN post-avian recovery efforts. Am I missing something???

Pretend we do rid a large area of the strain and everything is fine and dandy. Are we forgetting that avian influenza is a compulsively mutating virus??

When land has been rid of cattle, poultry, etc. The virus is still in the soil. A virus needs a host to survive. However, the strain will survive on its own for a while. If cattle are thrown back into the land just to get infected again, why the recovery effort?

Realizing that the virus will survive temporarily within the soil, I think a temporary arrest of that land should be taken. Until the soil is completely clean, recovery measures should not be taken. My question is why am I not hearing about recovery measures??? I know preventative measures are important as well but I believe they are equally important.

Just a thought. :) Lolahothot 02:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bird flu survives forever in very cold areas. Flu viruses mutate every time they reproduce. H5N1 is not going away. No one knows how much damage it will do to human and nonhuman populations. No onw knows what it will mutate into. See flu research and H5N1 clinical trials for action governments are taking. See Social effects of H5N1 and flu pandemic for related information. WAS 4.250 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poposed move → Avian influenza

The current combination of Avian flu is not the most common usage. I'd favour going completely scientific with Avian influenza, but would also prefer Bird flu (c.f Horse flu) over the present status quo.--ZayZayEM 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that Google is omniscient but here are hit counts for the four possible phrases.
    Bird Flu         6,980,000
    Avian Influenza  1,640,000
    Avian Flu        1,620,000
    Bird Influenza      44,100
Contrary to my response to your comment on the flu treatment talk page, here I prefer Bird flu. If we use Avian influenza, do we have to change Dog flu to Canine influenza? —G716 <T·C> 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a note Dog flu is a redirect to Canine influenza.--ZayZayEM 05:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Right! I didn't notice! —G716 <T·C> 05:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

FWIW,

  • MeSH does not have an entry term for Bird flu. The preferred MeSH is Influenza in Birds.
  • US FDA seems to use Avian (Bird) flu.
  • WHO uses Avian Influenza.
  • CDC uses Avian Influenza (Bird Flu)

—G716 <T·C> 05:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I support the move. It sounds more encyclopaedic. Reginmund 02:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference wording

I've done a rather cumbersome rollback to restore a lot of MOS issues I had with this article earlier.

Removal of templates is considered rude without discussion as to why. Please bring any concerns as to why this article doesn't need significant editing to "cleanup", particularly to modify the tone of the article here.

Additionally I had to clean up the external link section again, which in its extended form is almost as long as the article. Wikipedia should not be linking to every single possible available flu resource. That's just ridiculous I originally culled it to the best and foremost avian flu resources available.

I also had to re-fix the in-text references. It is very innapropriate to appraise wikipedia's references in-text. Comments such as

Chapter Two : Avian Influenza by Timm C. Harder and Ortrud Werner from excellent free on-line Book called Influenza Report 2006 which is a medical textbook that provides a comprehensive overview of epidemic and pandemic influenza.

Are very innapropriate. It is very POV (not to mention, unsubstantiated) to call it "excellent", slightly less so to point out "free" (its promotional), and it's totally unnecessary to point out its a "medical textbook" and its content. Please try and follow a standardised referencing system such as Harvard, or wikipedia's Citation templates.

And lastly I had to remove three sections that have already been discussed as unencyclopedic in content on the basis of several parts of WP:NOT. This has been discussed before in several locations on wikipedia.--ZayZayEM 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You prefer your version. I prefer mine. Can we compromise? WAS 4.250 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll compromise on inclusion of H5N1 graph, but not much else. Especially not - reference wording, linkspamming or the three unencyclopedic sections (is their anything else?). As I've mentioned to you the "no one" knows section may have a place as a much simplified version from the single source, or an expanded section that combines further sources - but even then, it likely belongs only on H5N1 related pages, not generic avian flu.--ZayZayEM 02:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Where can we put the "no one knows" (aka "Unanswered questions") subsection? (Note the new added reference. Please read it.) WAS 4.250 04:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I add it to H5N1. WAS 4.250 05:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and tone tags

I removed these tags. This article attempts to describe a complicated concept and is a heck of a lot better than many articles in wikipedia. Regards—G716 <T·C> 02:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Page is much improved since I added those tags. Thx for all your copyediting.--ZayZayEM (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H5N1 picture

I think a picture might be more suitable for the H5N1 section.

A diagram such as that available at Transmission_and_infection_of_H5N1#Transmission or H5N1#Infectivity.

Or alternatively the TEM micrograph of the virus [3]

What do you guys think?--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dablink header

I've had a look through the discussions and can't really find a consensus that the headers were needed.

I think a dablink to H5N1 may be needed, but it still needs to be neutrally/encyclopedically worded.

This article does include the influenzainfobox down the bottom which links to all those other articles on transmission and infection.

Wikipedia does need to be navigatable, but it's also not our responsibility to deal with morons.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

People kept adding stuff to this article that was already in other articles or else if added should go elsewhere. Some recent additions to this article would be better at the spread of H5N1 article for example (that's where we tried to gently nudge all the "today's news" type additions). WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veterinary aspects

As mentioned above in some discussions, a top priority for this article should be how this disease affects birds and poultry, as it is primarily avian disease.

Do chickens sneeze?--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[4] WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Was there some obscure point to that dump of information?--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay is there a reason why on the talk page, rather than expanding the article?--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Because I have such a freaking personality conflict with you that I don't know what else to do. From my point of view, you ask for a glass of water and I point you to a well with drinkable water and you disdainfully suggest that I should have drawn the water for you. You asked a question. I responded to the question with content that I had written on other articles that you could have read if you were interested in learning instead of being interested in telling other people what to do. As you can see I am angry. Please improve this article as you see fit. I have provided data and sources. I will not jump through your hoops and add it to the article only to have you sit in judgement and evaluate it and tell me how to re-edit it. This is the data. Write it your DAMN self. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)