Jump to content

Talk:SARS-CoV-2/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

"Has been called" / "is called" / "was called"

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 think that as reliable sources have for the most part stopped using this term, it should be kept as largely past tense. Republican senators uttering the term in congress (which seems to be more a political gimmick than anything else) does not constitute usage in secondary reliable sources. As you say though, this isn't a massive deal at all and if we have to mention it in the lead at all (which I still think we shouldn't) then saying it "has been called" isn't terrible. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Sources still do use these terms, and the United States Secretary of State used "Wuhan Virus" at a press conference today. "has been" indeed isn't terrible, but it is a little misleading. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The problem with "has been" is that present perfect tense is used to talk about a finished action or situation, but usage of both terms is ongoing as demonstrated by events throughout this week. "Has been" was never the compromise version, but rather a change by Amakuru because he thought the usage of "is" was, in his own words according to the edit summary, "problematic". This question is in good faith, but can anyone define what "problematic" means? Who determines what is "problematic"? Since the usage of both terms is ongoing, it should be "is sometimes called", that is to say present progressive, as it was originally written, like the rest of the lede. This is perfect because "is sometimes called" both captures that not everyone uses it, and that is ongoing. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I gave examples in my edit summaries: 1) "has been" (present perfect) is not past tense (e.g. "They have been married for 20 years", "He has had the car for a long time"); 2) "has sometimes been" does not limit the thing in question to the past (e.g. "Tiger Woods has sometimes been called the greatest golfer ever" or "The liver isoenzyme has sometimes been called glucokinase" do not mean they will never be called those again). This tense is often used for things like "has sometimes been considered", "has sometimes been called", "has sometimes been used". There is nothing irregular about the form. Dekimasuよ! 10:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The form is valid, but it is inaccurate and is thus grammatically incorrect in this context. "has been referred to as" implies completion. Present perfect is used for actions that started in the past but are now completed. Present progressive ("is") implies that it started in the past and is currently ongoing, which would be correct. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Should add that it is referred to as "the Chinese virus" as well. Particularly by the President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.215.190 (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Dekimasu Could that part of lead just be deleted instead ? Seriously - the history of naming isn’t part of the article so per guideline WP:LEAD shouldn’t have a paragraph in the lead and so not need struggling with what to say. The topic doesn’t seem really about the naming or politics, and the topnote mentions the COVID usage so ... could anything else just be a See Also link? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Support deleting the bottom half of the opening paragraph and if necessary moving to the bottom of the topic in a brief discussion of historical usage as proposed above. - Wikmoz (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Most, if not all Wikipedia articles will list all past and current common names; I don't think I have strenuous objections to "has been called," which can be interpreted as something that began in the past and is perhaps still ongoing, so it might be a good compromise. XavierItzm (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ALTNAME

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)

The way the article is currently doesn't have to do with what China wants or doesn't want (or what other governments want or don't want, etc.). The history of that name has been covered extensively above. It had a brief spike in English-language usage in January, which is why it is here. Perhaps that is equivalent to what you mean by "widely covered in the press", but it is not useful to point to propaganda as grounds for either changing or not changing the article, since that is pretty much a form of claiming that other editors are not acting in good faith. As far as my reversion of your addition of a naming section, it is still possible that there should be a naming section, but it would have to expand upon what's in the lede, not be separate from it entirely. (Also note that you added the information on the virus being contagious and the fact that there is a pandemic to the naming section. It is not clear what criteria you were using for moving things out of the lede.) Dekimasuよ! 10:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Dekimasu: you revered my edit and i readded [1]. Please point to the extensive talk page discussion you refer to in your edit summary. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: hello! You may have noticed that I pointed, in the edit summary for Special:Diff/950756910, to Wikmoz's 22:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC) proposal at #Further discussion above and its ongoing discussion. Dekimasu also replied to #Lede rewrite on 01:39, 2 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)
Please also note that as a general rule, it is best not to reinstate a bold edit and then suggest taking things to talk: see WP:BRD. The reversion is already an invitation to take things to talk (which I did). Rotideypoc41352 has already pointed to most of the talk I was referring to here. If you look at February article revisions, there was a terminology section in the article at that time. Much of the discussion surrounding that took place via edit summaries. Dekimasuよ! 02:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352: barring the POV pushing by China PR department editors (par for the course for these China focused articles), it seems there is consensus to create a section to explore naming, which is what I have done and you mentioned another editor did as well. What i the issue here? In my edits I didn't add this controversial China virus name that is being discussed, and should also be included. We dont exclude content just because it is controversial, in fact the opposite is true, normally controversy lends to additional WP:WEIGHT. Who blanked the terminology section?... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The 'controversy' exists in one country solely because one faction of one political party in that one country has trumped up a trade war for short-term political gain. Wikipedia takes a world-wide view and is not and should not be unduly affected by the internal politics of one country: it may have the largest number of 'English as a mother-tongue' readers but English is the world's most common second language and has a very large world-wide readership. It is WP:UNDUE to give pejorative naming any enhanced airtime: it deserves no more than a minor sub-sub-section near the end of the article. NB that this is a virology article: controversies should certainly be covered in full at an appropriate level when there is a controversy about the virology, not when silly political points are being scored. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

HCoV-19 name is gaining popularity

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)

It might be used as a way to avoid saying "SARS", but it is less descriptive. Vecr (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Caner Güçlü: hello! I have no opinion on the redirect. Others have discussed HCoV-19 as an alternative name. Per Dekimasu's edit summary at Special:Diff/947114617, the article does not mention HCoV-19 because 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)
@Rotideypoc41352:, I'm revisiting them, I'll start giving a list here. Thanks.Caner Güçlü talk 21:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352 and Caner Güçlü: I found this one recognizing and this one adopting it. Those two articles appear to be good sources. Feelthhis (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The second one does not actually adopt it. The published version is here. As previously, I think it is clear the name exists, but it is rare, and would be unproportional for it to be added here. Of course, it can exist as a redirect, and it has already since March 14. By the way, sorry to be away for a bit. I seem to have come down with... something... now, which is preventing me from responding in a timely fashion. Dekimasuよ! 13:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
The one that you linked is an unpublished preprint, which did use the term, but the published version I linked above is titled "Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1". And thank you, hope everyone stays well. Dekimasuよ! 14:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, so the publisher did not accept the term, but the researchers themselves opted to use HCoV-19 as the main term, is that it? Plus the Nature article, I think we have reason to at least mention it in wikipedia, but I understand you don't want it. Feelthhis (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Censorship

We now have sources for censorship of research in China. Newsweek, FoxNews, TheGuardian, etc ThanksJtbobwaysf (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is not surprising, but I'm not sure how it would be incorporated into the article. Right now we have "The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear", and unless there is some indication of particular findings in research that is being/has been censored, there is not much new we can say about the virus based upon it, is there? Dekimasuよ! 10:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
We just cover what is in the press and follow WP:DUE. If this is getting coverage we cover it at face value. Of course we would not WP:SYNTH anything deeper out of it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: I think you can edit and discuss this in the Pandemic and China articles. The China article seems to talk a lot about censorship but from a glance I didn't find any mention to one of your sources so maybe you can start there. Thanks for the sources! *edit*: Now I see this is about the origins of the virus, so I can see it having a place here. Feelthhis (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Feelthhis: this article, as of this comment, on the origins of the virus: likely a bat coronavirus that went through at least one intermediate host before emerging a few weeks before detection. I'm still not sure how we'd incorporate censorship into that. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The provided sources relates to research regarding the origins of the virus. If this research discovered new information or just flat out confirmed the bat hypothesis, shouldn't it be mentioned here? Feelthhis (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Feelthhis: I'm not seeing what you're seeing. What specifically in the news articles do you refer to? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
What I see (from the sources provided) is China censoring a new research article from Wuhan University about the origins of the virus. Feelthhis (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Feelthhis: WP:MEDRS states we have to find the actual paper, then summarize what that paper says. Where do the news pieces mention any particular papers or state what info has been withheld? What I do see is that Fudan and the China University of Geosciences in Wuhan (not to be confused with Wuhan University) took down webpages that said COVID-19 research have to undergo, essentially, political review before publication. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Something along the lines "New research on the origin of the virus has been conducted but it's currently withheld by Chinese government[1][2][3]". I don't think it's absurd to include that in the Reservoir section (just like I don't think it's absurd to mention the HCoV-19 naming, which is used by one of the articles referenced here <ref name="Proximal">). But I understand you don't want it. Feelthhis (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
You misunderstand. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
How would we incorporate the info into this particular article, which is specifically about the biological properties of SARS-CoV-2? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Phylogenetics and zoonotic origin

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)).

 Courtesy diffs: Asifwhale's original edits; Rotideypoc41352's reversion; Asifwhale reinstates the edits, part one; Asifwhale reinstates the edits, part two
Part of my edit summary for reference: 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.
@Asifwhale: hello! Hope you're well. I'm sure you spent time and effort reading the studies, summarizing them, incorporating the information, and citing correctly. I know it's hard to see in light of my edits, but I do appreciate your efforts. I wish I could have kept your hard work, but my understanding of policy, the information I had, and principles of good science communication forced my hand. I will use three questions to explain:
  • What justifies the wholesale removal of other sources, like the WHO's announcement and a Lancet article? I don't see any reliability problems with the other sources. Instead, we ought to summarize what they all say, taking into account of course their methods and the data available to the authors at the time of publication. Something in the vein of: "Initially, we thought X, but later research suggested Y as the more likely case because..."
  • What refs are being reused and what new ones are being introduced? Introducing reference errors make evaluating the sources and any new information added to the articles difficult.
  • What's causing the content dispute? On my end: the reservoir host is 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 pangolin in 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 pangolin without any qualifiers whatsoever.
I looked long and hard at both Zhang et al and your rewrite, and based what I knew, the previous version of the article had correctly summarized Zhang et al's conclusions. I had to remove conflicting information, which happened to be the bulk of your original edits. I did not do so lightly.
If I am unaware of significant additional information, I am more than happy to be informed of such information and reconsider my decision. Please feel free to ask me to clarify parts of my response.
Even if we do not come to an agreement, I hope you have more info on what drove my decisions. Ultimately, we all share the same goal of accurately communicating information about SARS-CoV-2 to our readers. Thanks for bearing with my long response. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we should keep the WHO's announcement and other reliable information. I simply removed it because it seemed to conflict with the most recent studies. I am perfectly ok with “initially, A was proposed, but further research suggests B.” Please do add back anything important that I had removed.
As far as the interpretation of the article in Cell/ 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, camels, and pangolins, our findings would be meaningful for finding novel intermediate SARS-CoV-2 hosts"
Their conclusion was very scientific in nature. MERS is believed to be bat → camel → human but also bat → human may occur. RNA viruses tend to be highly mutagenic. The reason that they question the validity of pangolin as a good candidate for “reservoir host” is simply because of the evolutionary time to consider...
SARS-CoV-2 infects humans. The bat strain RaTG13 is very similar to SARS-CoV-2. That is no coincidence. However, the only way to say that horseshoe bats with RaTG13 are the reservoir host is to demonstrate that RaTG13 can infect human lung epithelial cells (which it most likely can, and there is literature on the binding affinity of the human cell surface receptor to the coronavirus spike protein); therefore, a cycle from bats → humans would be plausible. At this point, it is fairly certain that the bats that transmit RaTG13 are either the reservoir host or the intermediate host (due to the sheer sequence similarity compared to other bat coronaviruses); SARS-CoV-2 evolved from RaTG13 or a viral strain related to RaTG13. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 came directly from anything other than a bat; this is related to the concept of parsimony.
The question is whether there is another animal that is a reservoir host, making the bat an intermediate host. There is no doubt that at one point in evolutionary time that the pangolin coronavirus could infect bats and/or that the bat coronavirus could infect pangolins (see phylogenetic tree); the only question is whether that was recent enough to where the virus can still infect humans after it actively cycles from pangolin → bat → human. Is that an active cycle? That can only be confirmed by either observing it in nature or seeing if human cell cultures can be infected by the pangolin strain (the answer is likely yes due to surface receptor binding).
One of my main points is that the pangolin should not be considered an intermediate host under any circumstance because the bat virus is more closely related to SARS-CoV-2 and thus the bat is more likely to be the intermediate host. The pangolin would be either the reservior host, or the pangolin coronavirus virus would be too evolutionarily distant to be considered relevant in the active disease cycle of SARS-CoV-2. In the latter case, the bat would then be considered the reservior host rather than an intermediate host.
“Conclusively, this study suggests that pangolin species are a natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2-like CoVs.”
Whether that SARS-CoV-2-like CoV from the pangolin is infectious to humans determines whether there is an active cycle of pangolin → bat → human. Thus determining what the definite reservoir host is. It is a little technical. I apologize. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
As a side note, science can never 100% statistically prove anything. There is just supporting evidence and high likelihood events. I am simply presenting the theory behind phylogenetics and evolution.
Thanks, (Asifwhale (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)).

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

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)

 Partly done: didn't find the number of isolates indicated in your comment in the PNAS paper or Cambridge's press release. I took it out instead of sorting through raw data in the supplement because I take a conservative approach when it comes to our original reserach policy. Also trimmed the sentence a bit for conciseness—took the liberty of assuming the main point was that the most common virus type among the Wuhan samples emerged later. Some general notes: a) the first source and the text in the second are licensed under CC-BY 4.0 and b) the relevant comment in the discussion section of the second source is z707's Wednesday, April 15, 2020 8:47 PM coment. Thank you so much for your contributions and stay well! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 Undone: This request has been undone. in Special:Diff/951626117 by Asifwhale with the edit summary: 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

  1. ^ "Phylogenetic network analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes" (PDF). PNAS. 8 April 2020. Retrieved 17 April 2020. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  2. ^ "COVID-19: genetic network analysis provides 'snapshot' of pandemic origins". Cambridge University. 9 April 2020. Retrieved 17 April 2020.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about naming convention

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)

Another Fringe/Minority hypothesis on origin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moved here from top of talk. This article already cites the paper the link mentions; please see #Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:45, 23 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

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)

Symphony Regalia edit warring again over "China virus"

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)

Hemiauchenia conveniently forgets to mention that he was also involved in edit warring, and has been scolded by multiple editors[2] [3][4] for pettiness, hounding, and personal attacks. He also forgets to mention that during his ongoing crusade, he filed a multiple completely bogus SPIs against me, and was reprimanded by an admin for even filing them. This section here with a clearly biased title is his latest attempt to pursue an agenda against me for a perceived slight and for disagreeing with him. I have an interest in this topic, and of course there is nothing wrong with that, but I edit other articles as well. For context he originally attempted to prevent the introduction of term into the article 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 prefacing it with Donald Trump and introducing a clearly inappropriate WP:POV. To do this he has been removing sources from the article that are not about Trump. It was used in reliable sources before and after Donald Trump, and Donald Trump is not the only major figure to have used the term. 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 use "Wuhan virus" and is violating WP:NOR by suggesting it is a "United States thing" with no source to support that claim, in attempt to push the above POV. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't conveniently forget it, this is a discussion about the content of the encyclopedia, not about petty personal feuds and percieved grievances. I don't care that you have a vendetta against me and you see editing as a WP:BATTLEGROUND where you have to "win" the argument to get back at me. This is all WP:OFFTOPIC. The title isn't biased as you were directly reverting my edits without leaving a reverting tag, as is clear by the references I added to the end of unchanged sentences being removed, which is the literal definition of edit warring. An adminstrator said of your behaviour "I have to agree that you are wasting others' time. You also believe that Hemiauchenia filed "two bogus reports to intimate me" This is after you were blocked for 31 hours for edit warring on 5 March. Since that block expired it is hard for me to identify anything useful that you have done." If you think I harassed you then I again reiterate take it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, who will deal with it in a just manner. You did not provide any sources for the claim that "China virus" is a widely used term, the handful of cherry picked sources are effectively anecdotes. I also removed one of the Bill Maher defends sources as a second source on the exact same topic isn't useful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of how you try to rationalize your vendetta against me[5], which other editors have affirmed you are doing, lets discuss the topic at hand. This area was about whether it was used in RS. You were against inclusion in spite of that. Consensus has determined that it is, and that it belongs in the article. Your current attempt to remove primary sources that use it so that only secondary sources about someone using it remain, is clearly an attempt to insert a WP:POV. I suggest you stop trying to interfere with the outcome of the NPOV noticeboard discussion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
A lot of people edit those pages. So no need for fights among 2 users. Just be patient and someone will come up. I have cleaned up the terminology section which was a mess of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. The term is in the article but is a minor issue and should be covered appropriately. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 21:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for pitching in, Gtoffoletto. Outside perspective is good. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Gtoffoletto, I appreciate the effort. It was never my intention to get into an edit war, but suprisingly few editors care about the contents of this article, which recieves far less attention than the disease or the pandemic articles, cheers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
That's surprising to me, I assumed all of these articles were heavily trafficked. I agree with you though Hemiauchenia, the detailed discussion in the article of whether its a Chinese or Wuhan virus is undue at this point, and thanks to you and Gtoffoletto for keeping it down to a sensible passing mention, without labouring the point.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
We are out there! Starting a discussion is a good way of getting more editors involved. Please also remember that the COVID-19 project talk page is a good place to recruit more editors when something is contentious. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 22:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia's Interference with NPOV discussion board results

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)

Consensus was to not include the terms in the lead and possibily include them in a naming history section. We do have that section now but this is clearly not a big issue so it should only be briefly covered. The paragraph is a bit better now. It makes it clear that Wuhan was used initially and unofficially and that China Virus is used by Trump but most sources believe it is inappropriate. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 01:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. The current coverage is probably about right, for what is really a term that never took off, has POV issues of its own, and is barely used at this point - even Trump has given up on it.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
This is common sense. Can you have a strain of a strain? Please prove it's a strain rather than asking me to prove it's not. Negatives are hard to prove. Not impossible, but certainly not easy. Like someone proving they're not married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8956:8fe:38d9:fdf1:8ed0:bdd9 (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Having said that, let's consider this closed until I hear back from CDC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8956:8fe:38d9:fdf1:8ed0:bdd9 (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Second IP edited over comments of the first and deleted the struck out sentence at 04:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC). I have separated their comments out in accordance with our policies on attribution and on editing others' comments and one's own. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Structure of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase from COVID-19 virus

Structure of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase from COVID-19 virus.--Moxy 🍁 03:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

3D animation

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)

Requested move 29 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

You could make a better case that its common name is actually "coronavirus", but of course there are many other coronaviruses, and the move discussion to change the name of the Coronavirus article to "Coronavirus (group of viruses)" was rejected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The consensus of the wikiproject is also to use COVID-19 instead of coronavirus. I think that should reflect here because the general reader knows what the COVID-19 virus is but they may not know what the technical name is per WP:COMMONNAME --Almaty (talk) 22:48, 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)

It is worth noting here that SARS Coronavirus 2 was proposed and subsequently withdrawn after 5 oppose and 0 support by BarrelProof only a few days ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. Someone wants COrona VIrus Disease Virus as the name of an article? Fine as a redirect for readers unfamiliar with the topic per CATCH22 but absolutely not an appropriate name for virology article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The disease is COVID-19. COVID-19 virus is the common name, it doesn't matter if it was originally an acronym. Its a new word now, and the commonest way, in many official documents and communications to refer to the virus, even in medical circles and the WHO. Because the virological name was named so poorly, the public don't call it that. So just follow WP:COMMONNAME --Almaty (talk) 14:46, 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)

I don't think WP:COMMONAME applies here. This virus hasn't really acquired one. The closest I've heard both in clinical practice and by the general public is "the virus", "the coronavirus" and "the corona virus". I have not heard anyone use "covid virus". This virus is very closely related to the virus that causes SARS, both in sequence homology and genome organisation, and I think "severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV 2)" is here to stay. With regard to readers finding the article, we should ensure that we have appropriate redirects in place. I recall those absurd names that were used for HIV in the early days; we should avoid adopting terms perpetrated by the popular press. Graham Beards (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SARS-CoV-2/Archive_7&oldid=1095374000"