| Revision as of 15:42, 22 February 2021 editBakkster Man (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,264 edits →Reservoir and zoonotic origin subsection← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:41, 22 February 2021 edit undoHemiauchenia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users59,419 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile editNext edit → | ||
| Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
| :::This source would meet the ] guidelines, as a peer-reviewed secondary source, reviewing the general state of understanding of SARS-CoV-1. But I'm still missing what from this review you want to include in this article. Because at the end of the day, it's about a different virus. You mention the categories and the performing a word count to determine the relative prominence of the various categories, but there's two problems with this. First, this is just one possible structure that this set of authors chose, by no means a definitive one (and arguably, the volume of text for a scientific review versus an encyclopedic article might not match anyway). Second, wikipedia already has some suggestions in the manual of style (]) that would be the first place I'd suggest looking for this kind of nominal structure. | :::This source would meet the ] guidelines, as a peer-reviewed secondary source, reviewing the general state of understanding of SARS-CoV-1. But I'm still missing what from this review you want to include in this article. Because at the end of the day, it's about a different virus. You mention the categories and the performing a word count to determine the relative prominence of the various categories, but there's two problems with this. First, this is just one possible structure that this set of authors chose, by no means a definitive one (and arguably, the volume of text for a scientific review versus an encyclopedic article might not match anyway). Second, wikipedia already has some suggestions in the manual of style (]) that would be the first place I'd suggest looking for this kind of nominal structure. | ||
| :::So again, '''what specific information about SARS-CoV-2 related to animal reservoirs and zoonosis do you think this article is missing, and why does the current article structure make their addition inappropriate?''' ] (]) 15:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC) | :::So again, '''what specific information about SARS-CoV-2 related to animal reservoirs and zoonosis do you think this article is missing, and why does the current article structure make their addition inappropriate?''' ] (]) 15:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :::: Forich's almost sole purpose on Misplaced Pages over the past year has been to push for the credibility of the "lab leak" conspiracy theory, which is probably what he is trying to do here. I don't see why we should restructure the entire article around the the structure of a particular research paper anyway. ] (]) 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:41, 22 February 2021
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SARS-CoV-2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
|topic= not specified. Available options:
 | WikiProject COVID-19 consensus
WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page. |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about SARS-CoV-2.
|
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SARS-CoV-2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
Highlighted open discussions
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
01. There is consensus that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of the article. The terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. (April 2020)
Early Italian virus detection
The sentence on Epidemiology that I added is based on a report in an Italian daily newspaper and the British Journal of Dermatology which is ahead of print. Are edits supposed to be coming ONLY from systematic reviews? If not, the requirement of an authoritative biomedical source is met.
See my edit: "A University of Milan study has found the virus in the skin tissue of a dermatosis patient, who was asymptomatic, in November 2019.<ref>Gianotti R, Barberis M, Fellegara G, Galván-Casas C, Gianotti E. COVID-19 related dermatosis in November 2019. Could this case be Italy's patient zero? Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jan 7. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19804. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33410129.</ref. " Church of the Rain (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- ^ FQ staff. (11 January 2021). "Covid, "a zero patient in Italy as early as November 2019". The study of the State University of Milan". il Fatto Quotidiano Retrieved 11 January 2021.
- Such claims need WP:MEDRS. A newspaper's not that. And PMID 33410129 is a "research letter", not a review article (or better) that would be a good enough source. Alexbrn (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- A research letter in a highly respected journal is good enough because it presents an alternative to the accepted epidemiological understanding in an ongoing public health crisis. Due weight should be given to such an alternative view. This Misplaced Pages article on the virus has 23 non-biomedical references and I assume the balance are review articles? Probably not. Scientific reporting publishes research letters because they have scientific and social purpose. For the merits of various forms of research see BMC Medical Research Methodology. I argue this article would not suffer from this research letter reference. Church of the Rain (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- No it's not, it has been questioned by other scientists, and as the review you have linked to even concludes "Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context." Unless the claims have been taken seriously by the wider virological community, it shouldn't be included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- A research letter in a highly respected journal is good enough because it presents an alternative to the accepted epidemiological understanding in an ongoing public health crisis. Due weight should be given to such an alternative view. This Misplaced Pages article on the virus has 23 non-biomedical references and I assume the balance are review articles? Probably not. Scientific reporting publishes research letters because they have scientific and social purpose. For the merits of various forms of research see BMC Medical Research Methodology. I argue this article would not suffer from this research letter reference. Church of the Rain (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Biomedical information needs to supported by WP:MEDRS, and there are general sanctions for this topic area to reinforce that requirement (OP is now aware). There is really nothing more to be said. Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am suggesting a sentence indicating a minority view that the virus was present earlier than originally thought. The following article has been cited almost one hundred times in the biomedical literature. See here. Also another one here.. The WP:GS/COVID19 sanction does prohibit "preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources" which I understand, but note that systematic reviews only account for .6 % of scientific reporting on this topic. The Misplaced Pages readers don't expect a textbook though they do look for a current understanding of medical topics. Church of the Rain (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Then they are going to be disappointed. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a news-site. Our medical articles summarise published, accepted knowledge, not fringe conspiracy theories and misinformation. Requiring the best quality secondary sources is our principal means to guarantee that. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I could see an argument that this may not be an entirely fringe view, though I agree we should really wait for the WHO's review or other peer review of this study (which, as has been pointed out, depended on an in-house serological test which could have produced false positives and caused this result) to decide it has merit rather than merely being faulty. That said, I think this research paper is perhaps more credible and makes a less lofty claim. Specifically, that the virus may have been detected in Italy in early December. But again, should wait for at least peer review and preferably secondary sourcing. More broadly, can we properly source a claim that the virus may have spread outside China before 2020? Should it even go in this article? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- There seems to be increasing evidence that the virus might have been circulating before Jan 2020. However I would also suggest patience on this topic. At the moment the evidence available is not very solid and independent analysis by the WHO of some of the results is ongoing. Confirmation of this would radically change the history of the virus so we should be careful before publishing misleading information. We should apply the most stringent sourcing standards. I think we could add to the article that there have been reports of earlier cases which are being investigated. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's a reasonable solution, a non-biomedical claim that investigation into possible earlier transmission outside of China is ongoing. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- There seems to be increasing evidence that the virus might have been circulating before Jan 2020. However I would also suggest patience on this topic. At the moment the evidence available is not very solid and independent analysis by the WHO of some of the results is ongoing. Confirmation of this would radically change the history of the virus so we should be careful before publishing misleading information. We should apply the most stringent sourcing standards. I think we could add to the article that there have been reports of earlier cases which are being investigated. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I could see an argument that this may not be an entirely fringe view, though I agree we should really wait for the WHO's review or other peer review of this study (which, as has been pointed out, depended on an in-house serological test which could have produced false positives and caused this result) to decide it has merit rather than merely being faulty. That said, I think this research paper is perhaps more credible and makes a less lofty claim. Specifically, that the virus may have been detected in Italy in early December. But again, should wait for at least peer review and preferably secondary sourcing. More broadly, can we properly source a claim that the virus may have spread outside China before 2020? Should it even go in this article? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Then they are going to be disappointed. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a news-site. Our medical articles summarise published, accepted knowledge, not fringe conspiracy theories and misinformation. Requiring the best quality secondary sources is our principal means to guarantee that. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am suggesting a sentence indicating a minority view that the virus was present earlier than originally thought. The following article has been cited almost one hundred times in the biomedical literature. See here. Also another one here.. The WP:GS/COVID19 sanction does prohibit "preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources" which I understand, but note that systematic reviews only account for .6 % of scientific reporting on this topic. The Misplaced Pages readers don't expect a textbook though they do look for a current understanding of medical topics. Church of the Rain (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
misplaced link
what's the link between the clinical definition of a virus and the "See also: Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic § Terminology" ?? it s a shame to include politics on a general definition. Trump administration "communication" if at least it was "course of action", it could have an interest, but here it is just a partisan move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.208.11.146 (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- If you could, what would you change? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure this is as much misplaced as much as out of date and/or the wrong link. For a time, this was a significant source of confusing and outdated terminology in the US, both in not following WHO guidelines for names which avoid locations in their name to avoid xenophobia, and silliness like referring to it as "Wuhan flu" when it's not even an influenza. But now, post-administration, perhaps there's a better clearinghouse of bad terminology that can be linked instead (at the end of the section, ideally, instead of the top)? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- The section was the result of a compromise between the persistent pov-pushing editor Symphony Regalia and other editors (including myself) around this time last year. What they were proposing was even worse, that the article should have the "China virus" as an alternate name in the lead of the article. Given that Trump is now firmly in the rear view window and that the pov-pusher hasn't been active in half a year I think it can probably be removed if there is concensus to do so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Structural biology section
I think this section could be improved regarding membrane fusion. After ACE2 attachment there are two methods of membrane fusion. Either TMPRSS2 cleaves S2' and exposes the fusion peptide and membrane fusion occurs at the cell surface, or the virion is taken up into an endosome and cathepsin cleaves S2' triggering membrane fusion in the cytoplasm.
Here is a nice description from the podcast This Week in Virology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-YyM-0CHZU&t=570 and their previous episode also has a lot of discussion of the spike protein and attachment/fusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9S28_5AqUA
Here are links to the papers referenced in the show notes linked to in the video descriptions: https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009212 and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32075877/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.79.43 (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Bumping so the bot doesn't archive this before I get a chance to think about this. Nice to see TWIV show up. Haven't listened to it; heard good things about it: even if it isn't WP:MEDRS, it might point us to some, which would help. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
SARSCOV2 Isolation and prove as pathogen causing COVID
I think this should be stressed more in the article. Are their any journal article that can support both isolation and cause as pathogen causing COVID-symptoms? --105.4.4.112 (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
extended confirmed minor edit request
I think the following line should have its wording changed to specify that it is according to the WHO.
> All available evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural animal origin and is not genetically engineered.
Perhaps someone else can shed some light on this for me, but I would assume that statements like "all available evidence" without stating the source of the claim would violate some sort of style guide in basically any instance.
Alternatively, we could say something like "widely agreed upon" and include sources from other organizations.
--Thesowismine (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Reservoir and zoonotic origin subsection
Currently, the information about the reservoir and zoonotic origin is included as a subsection of "Virology". This is a limiting classification, given that:
- Reservoirs do belong to a virology section
- Zoonotic origins have many ramifications that do not belong to a virology section
For example, epidemiological, veterinary and zoological investigations, and forensic sampling are the disciplines that contribute the most to scientific understanding of zoonotic origins, which is supplemented by virology.
I propose that we create a new section called "Origin and evolutionary history" and that we migrate most if not all of the information currently located in the reservoir and zoonotic origin subsection. Forich (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Could you expand on your two main points? Particularly, why doesn't a discussion of reservoirs belong underneath a virology sub-heading, and what are examples of zoonotic ramifications which don't fit as part of virology? Ideally some example sources that the information you think should be added but doesn't fit the current article structure might be helpful for understanding the need for the structural change.
- If we added an "Origin and evolutionary history" category (not under "Virology"?), would it just include the resevoir and zoonotic discussion, or would it envelop the "phylogenics and taxonomy" and "variants" sections? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If you do so, could I kindly ask you please check that the text accurately summarizes the sources and that the sources comply with WP:MEDRS? I've tried fixing both issues multiple times, but Asifwhale kept reverting despite talk page discussions. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit war or fall afoul of the general sanctions. Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Based on this source from an epidemiological journal, the structure used to report on a virus such as SARS-CoV-1 (which is a good reference since many year have passed since its outbreak, so it would more closely resemble an enciclopedic treatment) is the following:
- 1) Introduction
- 2) Taxonomy and virology of SARS-CoV
- 3) Viral life cycle
- 4) Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus
- 5) Epidemiological characteristics
- 6) Clinical features
- 7) Histopathological changes of SARS
- 8) Pathogenesis, immune response, and host susceptibility
- 9) Laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV infection
- 10) Clinical management and antivirals
- 11) Infection control and laboratory safety
- 12) Passive immunization and development of a SARS-CoV vaccine
- 13) Animal models and animals susceptible to SARS-CoV
- 14) Should we be ready for the reemergence of SARS?
- I hereby ask if this source is an appropiate MEDRS (there has been heated edit discussions in other pages suggesting the mandatory use of MEDRS to source information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2). If the source is ok, we can easily provide a weight analysis, based on count of words or paragraphs, for each of the 14 sections, in order to have an idea of the appropiate length of the origin section (in this case it is section 4: "Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus)". Forich (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- This source would meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines, as a peer-reviewed secondary source, reviewing the general state of understanding of SARS-CoV-1. But I'm still missing what from this review you want to include in this article. Because at the end of the day, it's about a different virus. You mention the categories and the performing a word count to determine the relative prominence of the various categories, but there's two problems with this. First, this is just one possible structure that this set of authors chose, by no means a definitive one (and arguably, the volume of text for a scientific review versus an encyclopedic article might not match anyway). Second, wikipedia already has some suggestions in the manual of style (WP:MEDORDER) that would be the first place I'd suggest looking for this kind of nominal structure.
- So again, what specific information about SARS-CoV-2 related to animal reservoirs and zoonosis do you think this article is missing, and why does the current article structure make their addition inappropriate? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I hereby ask if this source is an appropiate MEDRS (there has been heated edit discussions in other pages suggesting the mandatory use of MEDRS to source information on the origin of SARS-CoV-2). If the source is ok, we can easily provide a weight analysis, based on count of words or paragraphs, for each of the 14 sections, in order to have an idea of the appropiate length of the origin section (in this case it is section 4: "Sequence of the SARS epidemic and molecular evolution of the virus)". Forich (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Forich's almost sole purpose on Misplaced Pages over the past year has been to push for the credibility of the "lab leak" conspiracy theory, which is probably what he is trying to do here. I don't see why we should restructure the entire article around the the structure of a particular research paper anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Molecular Biology articles
- Top-importance Molecular Biology articles
- All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
- B-Class COVID-19 articles
- Top-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- Top-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Top-importance medicine articles
- B-Class emergency medicine and EMS articles
- Top-importance emergency medicine and EMS articles
- Emergency medicine and EMS task force articles
- B-Class society and medicine articles
- High-importance society and medicine articles
- Society and medicine task force articles
- B-Class pulmonology articles
- High-importance pulmonology articles
- Pulmonology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class virus articles
- Top-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press