This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Whether the virus "has sometimes been called the 'Wuhan coronavirus'", "is sometimes called the 'Wuhan coronavirus'", or "was sometimes called the 'Wuhan coronavirus'" has been questioned over the last few days. This is another example of a minor point of naming that doesn't much help readers learn about the virus, but I have reinstated the stable version using "has sometimes been called" when editors have switched to either present or past tense. I think there are a few different advantages to this, besides that it is a compromise between the two positions. Most importantly, it reports specifically on what has happened to this point without attempting to prescribe (or proscribe) a particular form in the future. In terms of encyclopedic tone and neutrality, it also does not indicate either approval or disapproval of those who might use the term today, whatever as editors our personal perspectives on that might be. (There was a long discussion above about where and by whom "Wuhan coronavirus" has been used, and I hope we don't need to rehash here whether the term is still being used in reliable sources. The fact is, "has sometimes been called" makes the question basically moot.) Dekimasu よ! 10:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I have re-added bolt to the WP:ALTNAME Wuhan Virus in the lede. China propoganda seeks to repress this altname, but it is widely covered in the press so it stays at wikipedia. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
As for moving around the names, clearly what we have now is suboptimal and there should be a separate section like the one Feminist added. However, since there is a deadlock on what to do with that part of the article, leaving the status quo paragraph in the lede is probably the best option at the moment.Stay well, Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 18:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I started running into articles and presentations by several scientists and institutions referring to the virus as HCoV-19. I believe there some legitimate reasons to do so. However, I am not a virologist, so I will not list the motivations from for the name HCoV-19 unless I find another scientist's opinion piece on this. If you have run into one please post it in a reply here. Shall we create the HCoV-19 page, redirect it to this article, and also refer to HCoV-19 as an alternative name?-- Caner Güçlü talk 17:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
per talk, not widely accepted as an alternative as expected by Synonym (taxonomy). Said discussion is Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2/Archive 5#Add HCoV-19 as another name. That said, would you kindly list said articles and presentations you've run into? That will give us more info to work with. Thank you and stay well, Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs)
The second one does not actually adopt it.Why? It's in the title... Get well soon. Feelthhis ( talk) 13:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
We now have sources for censorship of research in China. Newsweek, FoxNews, TheGuardian, etc Thanks Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
There is an article in cell ( https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(20)30360-2) that shows an in-depth phylogenetic tree of the viral strains. Included are commonly talked about bat strains. To date, it appears to be the most comprehensive data. There are two figures that clearly demonstrate consensus phylogenetics of SARS-CoV-2. Pangolin suborigin with ultimate bat origin. The reason pangolin is called the reservoir host is because the "bat -> pangolin" event happened so long ago, perhaps as far back as the origin of pangolins themselves. Then, there was another event: "pangolin -> bat -> human." Bats were more recently infected by a pangolin coronavirus, secondarily. Pangolin should not be considered an intermediate host because the virus had been well-established within that population for quite some time, evolutionarily speaking.
I had made edits to update this article. They were undone, however. I ask that my edit be reconsidered or at least revised.
Thanks ( Asifwhale ( talk) 19:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)).
conclusion of Zhang et. al 2020 Curr Bio: "whether pangolin species are good candidates for SARS-CoV2 origin is still under debate. Considering the wide spread of SARSr-CoVs in natural reservoirs, such as bats...and pangolins, our findings would be meaningful for finding novel intermediate SARS-CoV-2 hosts". Fixed ref errors.
the reservoir hostis much stronger than, and thus unsupported by, Zhang et al's
a natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2-like CoVs. And the part of the conclusion I quoted in my edit summary does not support the certainty of
SARS-CoV-2 originated from a pangolinin your rewrite. Misreporting the certainty of Zhang et al's conclusions is misleading. It does our readers, the paper's authors, and even ourselves as critical readers and amateur science communicators a great disservice. In such sensitive matters, we must accurately report the strength of the studies' conclusions; this is not the time for exaggeration. If Zhang et al say it is
still under debate, then we cannot report that the virus
originated from a pangolinwithout any qualifiers whatsoever.
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the sentence
However, other research indicates that visitors may have introduced the virus to the market, which then facilitated rapid expansion of the infections.[27][50]
please add
The proposal of a secondary spread in Wuhan is in agreement with a phylogenetic network analysis of 160 early coronavirus genomes sampled from December 2019 until February 2020, which revealed that the predominant Wuhan type "B" (42 out of 44 isolates) is not the ancestral viral type according to a comparison with the bat coronavirus; instead the ancestral type "A" at this early stage was more common in southern China (7 out of 11 isolates). [1] [2]
Note the discussion section in the second source. 31.49.197.27 ( talk) 07:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Relevance of type "A" and "B"? Also, all phylogenetic analyses use bats as the outgroup as they are the source for all SARS-like coronaviruses. I think the sources are at least useful, so I've put them back. @ Asifwhale: what do you think of the original proposed wording above? Thanks again, and stay well. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add: The "viability" in this study is defined as RNA recovery by PCR methods rather than viral culture. A positive nucleic acid test (such as PCR) may not indicate the preservation of the integrity of the viral particles or infectiousness.
after: "Preliminary research indicates that the virus may remain viable on plastic and steel for up to three days, but does not survive on cardboard for more than one day or on copper for more than four hours;[34]" Henryhmo ( talk) 19:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion to establish consensus for using "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" in article titles and "SARS-CoV-2" in article bodies: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Proposed change to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus. -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
According to University of Cambridge scientists, there is a new hypothesis on Sars Covid-2 origin that may trace it as far as september 2019, which, if true, would cast a doubt on Wuhan being the starting place of the pandemic. Please discuss whether this deserves a mention in this entry. -- Forich ( talk) 02:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 19:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Almost the entirety of Symphony Regalia edits on wikipedia since their account creation have revolved around either advocating for or adding the term "China virus" to this article, for which they were blocked for edit warring about two months ago. While the NPOV discussion said that the term should be used in a terminology section, it did not say in what form. Symphony Regalia is relying on a handful of newspaper articles to state that "China virus" is a widely used term for the virus outside donald trump's use of the term "Chinese virus". These handful of sources lend WP:UNDUE weight and I have not been able to find any other sources that use the term like this. They also clearly disguised a direct revert of my edits by using two intermediate edits, which is unacceptable and clearly shows they are clearly in WP:NOTHERE territory. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
To avoid the off-topic discussion in the other section, I'd like to move this here for more visibility and to foster more productive atmosphere solely about the core issue. The NPOV discussion board has recently given consensus that "China virus" is used in sufficient WP:RS and is allowed in the article. Hemiauchenia was originally firmly against inclusion despite usage in WP:RS, and now that NPOV noticeboard has given consensus that it should be in the article, he seems bent on violating that consensus by repeatedly removing primary sources for the term such that only secondary sources about someone using the term remain, which I believe inserts an inappropriate WP:POV. This also violates terminological chronology as the term was used in many primary sources before secondary sources indicate that said person used it. It is appropriate to mention Donald Trump's usage of it, but it should first be mentioned independently of him as it was used independently of him. He also seems to be unaware that many countries in Asia (including China) use "Wuhan virus" and is violating WP:NOR by suggesting it is a "United States thing" with no source to support that claim, in what appears to be an attempt to push the above POV. Symphony Regalia ( talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Your indefatigableness continues to amaze me. The consensus said nothing of the sort, it said neither term should be used in the lead, but may be discussed in the terminology section, not that "China virus" is used by reliable sources and must be included. Your interpretation of how the terminology section should be is an opinion, not objective fact, so I don't see how I have violated the NPOV consensus. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is not a STRAIN. It is a NOVEL coronavirus. Think about what the word means. The "2" at the end of the name does not mean "strain 2," it means SARS Coronavirus 2, the second distinct virus. Read about strain A on the West Coast of US and strain B on East Coast.
Are you going to call strain b of this virus a strain of a strain. Sheesh.
180.183.200.86 (
talk) 10:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Structure of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase from COVID-19 virus.-- Moxy 🍁 03:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
This 3D animation of the virus might be value addition to the article, File:2019-nCoV-coronavirus-3D-wuhan-hubei.webm. I kindly urge editors who are regularly working on the article to add it, if deemed fit. KCVelaga ( talk) 15:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Speedy not moved. There is no substantial reason to believe this discussion will turn out differently than the one a month ago, and letting this play out to know for sure is not worth the editor effort and the disruption from the requested move notice on the page. ( non-admin closure) {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 →
COVID-19 virus – The technical name of the virus the world wants to know about is not the
WP:COMMONNAME The WHO as we state in our text use COVID-19 virus. Google
Covid-19 virus, 28,100,000 results. SARS-COV-2 is higher but it easily easily confused with SARS. It is being promoted by the WHO and the virologists just picked an average name, that makes the general reader go "huh"?.
Almaty (
talk) 16:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Close - As said by Hemiauchenia, OP proposed the exact same move a month ago which was rejected. What has changed? Henry20090 ( talk) 18:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Partial Support, but not in current form I can see how "COVID-19 virus" would help more people find the article, but unfortunately it may encourage people to confuse the disease with the virus. Something like SARS Coronavirus 2 would probably be a better abbreviation that balances readability and accuracy. In any case, given that there were past attempts to keep other common names out of this article, I'm sympathetic to any efforts to improve the accessibility to people who do not necessarily use technical jargon. Symphony Regalia ( talk) 00:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The virological name was picked because 1. The virus was closely related to the SARS virus 2. They were under intense pressure by the WHO to name the virus quickly and to avoid locational names. To be honest "Coronavirus disease 2019" is also a pretty bad and undescriptive name that was solely picked because it was bland and inoffensive. Perhaps @ Graham Beards: can give some of his virological insight? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Whether the virus "has sometimes been called the 'Wuhan coronavirus'", "is sometimes called the 'Wuhan coronavirus'", or "was sometimes called the 'Wuhan coronavirus'" has been questioned over the last few days. This is another example of a minor point of naming that doesn't much help readers learn about the virus, but I have reinstated the stable version using "has sometimes been called" when editors have switched to either present or past tense. I think there are a few different advantages to this, besides that it is a compromise between the two positions. Most importantly, it reports specifically on what has happened to this point without attempting to prescribe (or proscribe) a particular form in the future. In terms of encyclopedic tone and neutrality, it also does not indicate either approval or disapproval of those who might use the term today, whatever as editors our personal perspectives on that might be. (There was a long discussion above about where and by whom "Wuhan coronavirus" has been used, and I hope we don't need to rehash here whether the term is still being used in reliable sources. The fact is, "has sometimes been called" makes the question basically moot.) Dekimasu よ! 10:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I have re-added bolt to the WP:ALTNAME Wuhan Virus in the lede. China propoganda seeks to repress this altname, but it is widely covered in the press so it stays at wikipedia. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
As for moving around the names, clearly what we have now is suboptimal and there should be a separate section like the one Feminist added. However, since there is a deadlock on what to do with that part of the article, leaving the status quo paragraph in the lede is probably the best option at the moment.Stay well, Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 18:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I started running into articles and presentations by several scientists and institutions referring to the virus as HCoV-19. I believe there some legitimate reasons to do so. However, I am not a virologist, so I will not list the motivations from for the name HCoV-19 unless I find another scientist's opinion piece on this. If you have run into one please post it in a reply here. Shall we create the HCoV-19 page, redirect it to this article, and also refer to HCoV-19 as an alternative name?-- Caner Güçlü talk 17:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
per talk, not widely accepted as an alternative as expected by Synonym (taxonomy). Said discussion is Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2/Archive 5#Add HCoV-19 as another name. That said, would you kindly list said articles and presentations you've run into? That will give us more info to work with. Thank you and stay well, Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs)
The second one does not actually adopt it.Why? It's in the title... Get well soon. Feelthhis ( talk) 13:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
We now have sources for censorship of research in China. Newsweek, FoxNews, TheGuardian, etc Thanks Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
There is an article in cell ( https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(20)30360-2) that shows an in-depth phylogenetic tree of the viral strains. Included are commonly talked about bat strains. To date, it appears to be the most comprehensive data. There are two figures that clearly demonstrate consensus phylogenetics of SARS-CoV-2. Pangolin suborigin with ultimate bat origin. The reason pangolin is called the reservoir host is because the "bat -> pangolin" event happened so long ago, perhaps as far back as the origin of pangolins themselves. Then, there was another event: "pangolin -> bat -> human." Bats were more recently infected by a pangolin coronavirus, secondarily. Pangolin should not be considered an intermediate host because the virus had been well-established within that population for quite some time, evolutionarily speaking.
I had made edits to update this article. They were undone, however. I ask that my edit be reconsidered or at least revised.
Thanks ( Asifwhale ( talk) 19:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)).
conclusion of Zhang et. al 2020 Curr Bio: "whether pangolin species are good candidates for SARS-CoV2 origin is still under debate. Considering the wide spread of SARSr-CoVs in natural reservoirs, such as bats...and pangolins, our findings would be meaningful for finding novel intermediate SARS-CoV-2 hosts". Fixed ref errors.
the reservoir hostis much stronger than, and thus unsupported by, Zhang et al's
a natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2-like CoVs. And the part of the conclusion I quoted in my edit summary does not support the certainty of
SARS-CoV-2 originated from a pangolinin your rewrite. Misreporting the certainty of Zhang et al's conclusions is misleading. It does our readers, the paper's authors, and even ourselves as critical readers and amateur science communicators a great disservice. In such sensitive matters, we must accurately report the strength of the studies' conclusions; this is not the time for exaggeration. If Zhang et al say it is
still under debate, then we cannot report that the virus
originated from a pangolinwithout any qualifiers whatsoever.
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the sentence
However, other research indicates that visitors may have introduced the virus to the market, which then facilitated rapid expansion of the infections.[27][50]
please add
The proposal of a secondary spread in Wuhan is in agreement with a phylogenetic network analysis of 160 early coronavirus genomes sampled from December 2019 until February 2020, which revealed that the predominant Wuhan type "B" (42 out of 44 isolates) is not the ancestral viral type according to a comparison with the bat coronavirus; instead the ancestral type "A" at this early stage was more common in southern China (7 out of 11 isolates). [1] [2]
Note the discussion section in the second source. 31.49.197.27 ( talk) 07:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Relevance of type "A" and "B"? Also, all phylogenetic analyses use bats as the outgroup as they are the source for all SARS-like coronaviruses. I think the sources are at least useful, so I've put them back. @ Asifwhale: what do you think of the original proposed wording above? Thanks again, and stay well. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add: The "viability" in this study is defined as RNA recovery by PCR methods rather than viral culture. A positive nucleic acid test (such as PCR) may not indicate the preservation of the integrity of the viral particles or infectiousness.
after: "Preliminary research indicates that the virus may remain viable on plastic and steel for up to three days, but does not survive on cardboard for more than one day or on copper for more than four hours;[34]" Henryhmo ( talk) 19:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion to establish consensus for using "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" in article titles and "SARS-CoV-2" in article bodies: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Proposed change to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Current consensus. -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
According to University of Cambridge scientists, there is a new hypothesis on Sars Covid-2 origin that may trace it as far as september 2019, which, if true, would cast a doubt on Wuhan being the starting place of the pandemic. Please discuss whether this deserves a mention in this entry. -- Forich ( talk) 02:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 19:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Almost the entirety of Symphony Regalia edits on wikipedia since their account creation have revolved around either advocating for or adding the term "China virus" to this article, for which they were blocked for edit warring about two months ago. While the NPOV discussion said that the term should be used in a terminology section, it did not say in what form. Symphony Regalia is relying on a handful of newspaper articles to state that "China virus" is a widely used term for the virus outside donald trump's use of the term "Chinese virus". These handful of sources lend WP:UNDUE weight and I have not been able to find any other sources that use the term like this. They also clearly disguised a direct revert of my edits by using two intermediate edits, which is unacceptable and clearly shows they are clearly in WP:NOTHERE territory. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
To avoid the off-topic discussion in the other section, I'd like to move this here for more visibility and to foster more productive atmosphere solely about the core issue. The NPOV discussion board has recently given consensus that "China virus" is used in sufficient WP:RS and is allowed in the article. Hemiauchenia was originally firmly against inclusion despite usage in WP:RS, and now that NPOV noticeboard has given consensus that it should be in the article, he seems bent on violating that consensus by repeatedly removing primary sources for the term such that only secondary sources about someone using the term remain, which I believe inserts an inappropriate WP:POV. This also violates terminological chronology as the term was used in many primary sources before secondary sources indicate that said person used it. It is appropriate to mention Donald Trump's usage of it, but it should first be mentioned independently of him as it was used independently of him. He also seems to be unaware that many countries in Asia (including China) use "Wuhan virus" and is violating WP:NOR by suggesting it is a "United States thing" with no source to support that claim, in what appears to be an attempt to push the above POV. Symphony Regalia ( talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Your indefatigableness continues to amaze me. The consensus said nothing of the sort, it said neither term should be used in the lead, but may be discussed in the terminology section, not that "China virus" is used by reliable sources and must be included. Your interpretation of how the terminology section should be is an opinion, not objective fact, so I don't see how I have violated the NPOV consensus. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is not a STRAIN. It is a NOVEL coronavirus. Think about what the word means. The "2" at the end of the name does not mean "strain 2," it means SARS Coronavirus 2, the second distinct virus. Read about strain A on the West Coast of US and strain B on East Coast.
Are you going to call strain b of this virus a strain of a strain. Sheesh.
180.183.200.86 (
talk) 10:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Structure of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase from COVID-19 virus.-- Moxy 🍁 03:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
This 3D animation of the virus might be value addition to the article, File:2019-nCoV-coronavirus-3D-wuhan-hubei.webm. I kindly urge editors who are regularly working on the article to add it, if deemed fit. KCVelaga ( talk) 15:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Speedy not moved. There is no substantial reason to believe this discussion will turn out differently than the one a month ago, and letting this play out to know for sure is not worth the editor effort and the disruption from the requested move notice on the page. ( non-admin closure) {{u| Sdkb}} talk 22:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 →
COVID-19 virus – The technical name of the virus the world wants to know about is not the
WP:COMMONNAME The WHO as we state in our text use COVID-19 virus. Google
Covid-19 virus, 28,100,000 results. SARS-COV-2 is higher but it easily easily confused with SARS. It is being promoted by the WHO and the virologists just picked an average name, that makes the general reader go "huh"?.
Almaty (
talk) 16:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Close - As said by Hemiauchenia, OP proposed the exact same move a month ago which was rejected. What has changed? Henry20090 ( talk) 18:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Partial Support, but not in current form I can see how "COVID-19 virus" would help more people find the article, but unfortunately it may encourage people to confuse the disease with the virus. Something like SARS Coronavirus 2 would probably be a better abbreviation that balances readability and accuracy. In any case, given that there were past attempts to keep other common names out of this article, I'm sympathetic to any efforts to improve the accessibility to people who do not necessarily use technical jargon. Symphony Regalia ( talk) 00:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The virological name was picked because 1. The virus was closely related to the SARS virus 2. They were under intense pressure by the WHO to name the virus quickly and to avoid locational names. To be honest "Coronavirus disease 2019" is also a pretty bad and undescriptive name that was solely picked because it was bland and inoffensive. Perhaps @ Graham Beards: can give some of his virological insight? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)