Talk:HMPV outbreak in East Asia (2024–present)

Proposal to Update Article Title

@Kencf0618, @Stranger43286, @NorthernStares, @DRWiki1102, @Opnicarter, @I like MG, @Bakhos2010, @Sunuraju, @TouchedWithFire you have been mentioned because of your significant contributions to this article.

I propose renaming the article to reflect the confirmed HMPV cases in India. Since the virus has now spread beyond Northeast Asia, the current title, "HMPV outbreak in Northeast Asia (2024–present)," no longer accurately represents the outbreak's geographical scope.

For instance, "Global HMPV outbreak" could be more inclusive and better reflect the article's evolving content. ― ᱚᱨᱤᱡᱤᱛ ^✉ 14:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Rename: Malaysia and India are not part of Northeast Asia, so it would be wise to revise the name accordingly. But the outbreak still has not been detected cases outside of Asia, so it maybe premature to label it as "global outbreak" already. (Although note that Central Asia and the Middle East are still unaffected). For now, "2024–present HMPV outbreak in Asia" seems appropriate. Simply yes "HMPV outbreak (2024–present) " also seems fine. No need to add location. I like MG (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this DRWiki1102 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

As an update, it has been reported in Central Asia (Kazakhstan) DRWiki1102 (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Rename: Probably should get ahead of the game and entitle it "HMPC outbreak 2024-present". In my estimation it hasn't reached Timeline level yet. If and when it dangerously mutates and/or becomes a PHEIC that's another story. kencf0618 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Rename to a name that fit well! RealStranger43286 (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

HMPV epidemic (2024–prsent) seems a fitting title. RealStranger43286 (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Rename: I really agree with your suggestion. The title Has to be changed. I think that Global HMPV outbreak or 2024 HMPV Outbreak is more inclusive and better reflects the article. As the virus is now a Global outbreak, it is not just currently in Northeast Asia. The article has to be renamed. Opnicarter (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Rename – "HMPV outbreak (2024–present)" possibly sounds good to me Bakhos Let's talk! 15:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose renaming under WP:MEDRS. The current state of the article is nothing like qualifying for a "global outbreak" based on sources acceptable at WP:MEDRS. Nothing in Europe in week 53 of 2024; WHO on 20 Dec 2024 says nothing; the US CDC says nothing. The epidemiology section starts with an unreliable source: WP:NEWSWEEK. Rumours spreading virally on the Internet that exaggerate the current state of reliable information should not be spread on Wikipedia. Boud (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (update Boud (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC))

Rename to HMPV epidemiology (2024–present). Evidence for an outbreak currently looks weak, e.g. Chinese health officials stated that the surge was consistent with overall seasonal trends. Maybe they're lying, but we would need a good source to support a claim that there is in fact an outbreak. However, it's clear that the epidemiology of HMPV is a valid topic, and can be merged back into Human metapneumovirus if the content is too little to justify continuing the split. Boud (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, but there currently is no evidence that this outbreak has spread out of Asia. Naming it to HMPV outbreak in Asia (2024-present) would be a better alternative currently. It definitely should be changed from Northeast Asia. DRWiki1102 (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment What reliable sources say this outbreak is global? For the newer editors, please see WP:COMMOMNAME. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

rename HMPV epidemic (2024–present) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment Have moved the article back from HMPV Pandemic to similar to its original title. As for it being global, is there any evidence that levels are elevated across the world (or even in China really seeing as the health authorities aren’t saying so) outside of usual seasonal trends? HMPV has been in worldwide circulation for decades so cases are going to pop up everywhere, I think having an inaccurate title risks becoming clickbaity. I do question whether this is even worth being an article at present? Doh5678 (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The pandemic name was blatant clickbait, but the East Asia name also doesn't work particularly well since it is in Central Asia. I would recommend the old Asia name. As for this article, the rates in China are higher than normal so this article is fine. A lot of epidemic articles are just higher than usual rates of a certain virus. DRWiki1102 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The main thing about this epidemic page is the higher rate in several Asian countries. DRWiki1102 (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

it could be named "HMPV outbreak in Eurasia (2024–present)" since there has been confirmed cases in countries like ukraine germany portugal and more SzyszaDev (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

or just call it an Epidemic like in the spanish wiki SzyszaDev (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

HMPV has a worldwide prevalence. What's notable is the increase in case numbers in China (although it's far from clear whether there's even anything notable about that). Cases happening elsewhere in the world (India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan) are not necessarily related in any way. I think only places with notable increases should be counted as part of this outbreak, i.e. China and Malaysia, and even then we don't know if those two increases are part of the same outbreak. Ergo, I would describe this as an outbreak in East Asia, or just as an outbreak in China. That said, we should of course follow common usage... but remember this article comes under WP:MEDRS, so we should follow common usage in WP:MEDRS-compliant sources if possible. Bondegezou (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

WHO is the best, MEDRS-compliant source we have and that article describes this as something happening in China. So I would go further and say I prefer a name change to "... in China". Bondegezou (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: WHO mentions it "has not received any reports of unusual outbreak patterns" by Chinese health officials. "The observed increase in respiratory pathogen detections is within the range expected for this time of year during the Northern hemisphere winter." Apparently nothing notable. Just rumours in the social media that created some news coverage, without any indication that it will receive coverage beyond the short news cycle. C messier (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. And the way for this article not to get carried away with social media rumours is for us to try to stick closely to WP:MEDRS. Bondegezou (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

IMHO even the current title [HMPV outbreak in East Asia (2024–present)] suggests that it is something out of the ordinary. HMPV seasonal outbreak/epidemic/rise in East Asia would be better. (WHO mentions seasonal epidemic, ECDC mentions seasonal rise). C messier (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Are others in favour of "HMPV seasonal epidemic in China" or something similar? Bondegezou (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with a title change to HMPV seasonal epidemic in East Asia. DRWiki1102 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Dubious

The statement about "every continent" is likely just sloppy wording by the author. The reviewers quite likely didn't bother complaining because it doesn't affect the main method/results of the paper. As I put in the tag, the references in the source (2, 12, 14, 26, 28, 30, 33, 40, 41, 43, 60, 71, 75, 85, 87, 89, 99, 104, 120) do not state Antarctica in their titles, and the few non-geographical titles mostly refer to children, but there are likely few children in Antarctica. Without a source for saying that HMPV was detected in Antarctica, the words "identified on every continent" should be removed. Even if the words were true, they wouldn't add significant information: if the distribution is worldwide, then it can reasonably be interpreted that it has been identified on all the continents with more people than just a few handfuls of visiting scientists. Boud (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

i agree with you, perhaps its wise to change it into just hMPV had a worldwide distribution. NorthernStares (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

First case in India

The article currently states:

India confirmed its first cases of HMPV in Bengaluru on 6 January 2025. An 8-month-old boy and a 3-month-old girl were diagnosed after experiencing respiratory symptoms.

However, HMPV has been detected previously in India, see doi:10.1099/acmi.0.000829.v4. The Times of India's reporting here is incorrect. The Times of India fails WP:MEDRS. I am thus removing this sentence. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Infobox

I removed and MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma restored three lines from the infobox. I have now tagged these as needing citations. The lines in question relate to:

first_case = Shanghai

first_outbreak = Beijing, China

arrival_date = 16 December 2024 – present

This is not an outbreak of a novel disease. HMPV has been circulating for decades. China has reported an increase in cases. Thus, none of these fields really work. Nor do citations clearly confirm a start date for this as 16 December.

Material has to be verifiable, preferably to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Cases in the West

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma recently added the following:

Cases of the HMPV virus have also been reported in the West, in countries such as Italy and Ukraine.

I removed, but MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma immediately returned the material. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, I would ask you respect WP:BRD. Do not edit war.

The section in question begins:

As of 2006, HMPV had a worldwide distribution.

The material added by MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma does not add anything to this statement. The material says that there have been cases in the West, but we already say the virus has worldwide distribution, so what is added? The opening sentence uses a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. This new text uses 4 citations, none of which satisfy WP:MEDRS. Thus, I suggest MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma's addition be re-removed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

An edit war occurs if you delete information without consulting other people. If only you think that this is wrong information before, of course, you should also consult the other users who edit the page and not delete things at random. This is also a community guideline.- MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, I refer you to WP:BRD. You boldly added content, I reverted your addition. The usual approach is that you then bring the matter here, to the Talk page, to discuss it. It is not generally good etiquette to just re-add your material that another editor has disputed.

There is no expectation that an editor needs to consult with other people before deleting content for a first time: see WP:BOLD.

Moving on from the etiquette, you have not offered a justification for the sentence you added. You are not using sources that meet WP:MEDRS. Your sentence does not add any additional information to the section. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not polite to delete content. If you are on Wikipedia there is no such thing as "for me these contents....", because here everyone's contributions are accepted, and your reasons do not justify any removal, which would be inappropriate. On Wikipedia everyone's contributions are accepted, whether this suits you or not, and it seems to me that before deleting content, you need to ask other users for an opinion if they also consider the removal right, because the personal opinion does not count here. It's about respect for other people's edits, and not deleting content by justifying yourself with "for me", because it may be fine for you, others may not. It is legitimate to reinsert content deleted for no reason, because you have not brought valid reasons. When you bring a source that claims that my edits are not relevant, I will accept it, but only then. Good bye. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've not said "for me" anywhere. The sources you are using do not meet WP:MEDRS. Your sentence does not add anything given earlier text already says the virus has a worldwide distribution. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Check the changes you have made to the page, on reasons you have always entered " I don't see...", "I don't think..." etc. Precisely, for YOU these contents are not worthy of being on Wikipedia. For others maybe NO. And I certainly don't have to insert content based on what you think is worthy of being here. It is a page that talks about the virus and all the information that talks about the virus and is TRUSTED SOURCES can be entered unless a valid reason is cited why they should not be here. Since other users have not deleted my edits I don't see what is so difficult to understand. When you bring sources that say that the ones I brought are false, only then can you say that I have inserted invalid content. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"I don't think..." etc. is just a polite way of wording something. I am not saying my edits have any special value. We are all equal here as editors.

For articles on medical topics, we have a higher standard of what counts as a reliable source that we try to meet. This is described at WP:MEDRS. The sources you have given do not meet the criteria in WP:MEDRS.

The other reason given for not including your sentence is that it repeats what has already been said.

Hopefully, further editors will be able to weigh in with their views soon. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

1. Il Messaggero is one of the most important Italian newspapers famous for its reliability in all the content it brings, so the motivation you brought makes no sense. La Stampa is another very reliable Italian newspaper, they both carry verified and reliable content, and as an Italian I know them both well. So what excuse is that of the unreliability of newspapers? We are not talking about cheap magazines, but nationally famous newspapers.

2. As I said, it is obvious that we can all participate, but on the other hand there seems to be a contradiction in rejecting my edits just because the sources are not what you consider the most authoritative (after you said that my edits are not verified). So I don't understand your reasoning here. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It is better to add the announcement of the national public health organisation. Even the most reputable newspapers may omit information beacuse they may be too technical. HMPV is a common respiratory virus that experiences seasonal rises every winter. Are the cases in Italy and Ukraine related with the outbreak/seasonal rise in Asia? The articles mention nothing about that. C messier (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, have you read WP:MEDRS? I believe it makes clear why even prestigious newspapers like Il Messaggero do not meet the criteria. I do not know how to explain my reasoning any better. Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. MEDRS are needed mentioning a connection between the East Asia seasonal outbreak and Western cases. Eg. in Greece it was widely reported that an elderly had HMPV that he had contacted from a relative who had travelled in China, but the local Public Health Organisation announced that it doesn't appear to be connected, it isn't even confirmed it is a case of HMPV (and also it wouldn't the first case in the country this season). C messier (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Notability

Apparently every public health organisation that has issued an announcement mentions there is nothing out of the ordinary about the 2024-25 HMPV. WHO mentions "The observed increase in respiratory pathogen detections is within the range expected for this time of year during the Northern hemisphere winter. [...] WHO is in contact with Chinese health officials and has not received any reports of unusual outbreak patterns.". Indian Ministry of Health reported no surge of respiratory disease. ECDC mentions "the current epidemiological situation in China reflects a seasonal rise in respiratory infections caused by common respiratory pathogens and does not pose any specific concern for the EU/EEA."

A burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable (Wikipedia:PERSISTENCE). C messier (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd support a redirect to Human_metapneumovirus#2024–2025_outbreak. Bondegezou (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)