Misplaced Pages

Talk:Biosafety level: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:15, 10 December 2016 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Biosafety level/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:37, 1 March 2024 edit undoPolinet68 (talk | contribs)4 edits AI upscaled image: new sectionTag: New topic 
(31 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:




{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |class=B |importance=high}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Microbiology|class=B|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Medicine |importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Microbiology|importance=high}}
}}
{{annual readership|scale=log}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
Line 13: Line 12:
|archive = Talk:Biosafety level/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Biosafety level/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{press|title=Coronavirus: Is there any evidence for lab release theory?|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52318539|author=Paul Rincon|org=]|date=April 16, 2020|quote=Misplaced Pages lists over 50 around the world but there is no authoritative list.}}


== Listing BSL-3 Sites == == Listing BSL-3 Sites ==
Line 18: Line 18:
Surely it is a fool's errand to include a list of BLS-3 labs, given that the start of this section indicates that there are over 1000 in the US alone. Why not make the list of facilities only those with BSL-4 facilities? This would be an actually possible task and would may resolve the factual inaccuracy complaint. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 2012-08-24T14:29:56‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> Surely it is a fool's errand to include a list of BLS-3 labs, given that the start of this section indicates that there are over 1000 in the US alone. Why not make the list of facilities only those with BSL-4 facilities? This would be an actually possible task and would may resolve the factual inaccuracy complaint. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 2012-08-24T14:29:56‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


I agree. This list would go on forever. BSL-3 labs are much too common to list. ] (]) 12:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
== Troubled by unreferenced entries in tables ==

{{agree|I agree too.}} After the COVID pandemic there was a boom of BLS-2 labs upgrading to BLS-3 in Brazil, it doesn't seem to make much sense to list it all. —] (]) 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

== Plagiarism in the ] section ==

This section had blatant plagiarism. We cannot directly copy/paste what a report says like that. We must, instead, summarize and paraphrase. And where we quote, we must use quotation marks, and restrict ourselves to as little direct quotation as possible. Misplaced Pages is not simply a repository for quotes about stuff. An encyclopedia is much more than that. The relevant guideline is ].--] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

== New(ish) source and more ==

is the most recent source I found about the number of high-containment biological laboratories (roughly meaning BSL-3 and BSL-4). It looks reliable, but mostly based on older sources that this article is already using (guess it can still be useful for finding other sources or filling up the BSL-4 list). The sentence about the USA Today report seems a bit misleading (in 2015 it was well known that there were far more than 200 BSL-3 facilities, their locaton/identity is what wasn't public or easy to find; 's the original artice, which may be a better source than the current one; the sentence about the GAO report also uses the verb "identify", but that's a number likely closer to the actual total number and the report doesn't disclose their location; the above linked more recent source uses 1,643, that looks like 1,362 with DSAT + 281 with APHIS, it's based on a slightly newer, but not much different GAO report, probably a lower estimate, not sure if some laboratories figure in both counts). Not sure what to do with this, so I'll just drop the links and leave eventual edits to other editors. ] (]) 21:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


== Orphaned references in ] ==
I recently handled an OTRS request in which we were asked to remove an entry from the table. I noted that the entry had no reference so I removed it. I note that many other entries are not supported by references.


I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
This is not exactly a benign list like a list of notable people in a town. It is my opinion that we should not have entries in this list that are not supported by reliable sources. Does anyone disagree?


<b>Reference named "feldman07":</b><ul>
I am not a regular editor of this page and do not have the time to sort through it. Unless there is a good reason for violating the normal guidelines that material included should be referenced, I urge someone to go through and remove all of the entries in the tables that are not referenced. If they happen to be correct they can be added with references.--]] 15:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
<li>From ]: {{cite journal |doi=10.1086/520539 |title=Dedication: Jim Orzechowski (1944–2003) and Michael Kiley (1942–2004) |year=2007 |last1=Feldmann |first1=Heinz |last2=Geisbert |first2=Thomas |last3=Kawaoka |first3=Yoshihiro |last4=Johnson |first4=Karl M. |journal=The Journal of Infectious Diseases |volume=196 |pages=S127–S128 }}</li>
:Hm. Yes good point. I'll start going through some of them. I'll post here the ones that I can't find reference for so that if someone knows better they can more easily add it back! ] (]) 20:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
<li>From ]: {{cite journal |doi=10.1086/520539}}</li>
*], ], ], ]. Did some digging and couldn't find anything definitive. It's listed in on ] but no source is given here which made me fear this article may have been where they found that information. The website notes that they have "high containment laboratories registered and approved by the Department of Agriculture and The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator" but I couldn't find any record of whether or not those laboratories were indeed BSL-4. They do have some contact info, so if anyone is interested perhaps they could call or email and get a definitive answer. Also saw a reference to a Queensland Health BSL-4 lab but it's not clear if it's the Virology lab in particular they're referring to, or where they found that information. So at this point, I'm taking it off the list, but I left all this stuff here in case anyone wants to pick up the trail! Good luck! ] (]) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
</ul>
*University of Queensland - Sir Albert Sakzewski Virus Research Centre (SASVRC) Royal Women's Hospital Brisbane P3 (BL3),], ], ]. I'm not sure if the note at the end of this one means it has BSL-3 space but not BSL-4 space. Regardless, I couldn't find any source to back up inclusion on the list. doesn't mention any work specifically done at BSL-4, nor is the lab mentioned in from ] or the mentioned above. So I'm stumped at this point. Removing the entry from the list for now. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can intercede ] (]) 03:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*], ], ]. Me again. Ok I can't find anything about BSL-4 space here. has nothing on the topic. I saw the lab mentioned but the capability of the lab is not mentioned. There's a few recent papers listed on the institution's but none of them would obviously require BSL-4 space that I know of. So I'm stumped. Removing it from the list for now. ] (]) 05:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
*Hi all, me again. I've been picking my way through the table over the last few weeks (sorry for all the edits). For the two Romanian BSL-4s listed (Cantacuzino Microbiological Research Institute and "Dr. Carol Davila" Central Military Hospital) the refs given ( and ) don't seem to say anything about these places having BSL-4s. I looked around and couldn't find anything (except a mention somewhere that a military BSL-4 lab near Bucharest is going to be constructed soon). However, I did find which, at the top of pg40, mentions the Cantacuzino and another lab as diagnostic labs, but notes that "there are no facilities BSL4 ". That's the best I could find so I've deleted both entries for now. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can find a reference and add them back. Cheers! ] (]) 00:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
{{done}} ] (]) 02:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. <small>Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs.</small> ]] 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
== Rationale Section? ==


== AI upscaled image ==
Hi all! The Rationale section here appears to mostly just restate the material in the lead and add some new (unreferenced) material. Any thoughts? If no one chimes in opposed I'll try to merge the two and find references for the new stuff. Let me know what you think! Thanks! ] (]) 19:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


]
== Out of curiosity... ==


It seems as if in 2022 user Fargoh replaced the image in this article with a version that was upscaled using AI, attributing it as "Improvement of quality and resolution". The upscaled version features some artifacts telling of neural network-generated and "improved" imagery. Is there any reason for the higher resolution version to be kept or should the change be reverted? ] (]) 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
...why not put samples in an isolated "box" and use robotic arms to handle the lab equipment? The box and equipment might be made of a self-disinfecting material to minimize risk of infection.
03:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)] (]) ] (]) 03:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:37, 1 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biosafety level article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMedicine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMicrobiology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Listing BSL-3 Sites

Surely it is a fool's errand to include a list of BLS-3 labs, given that the start of this section indicates that there are over 1000 in the US alone. Why not make the list of facilities only those with BSL-4 facilities? This would be an actually possible task and would may resolve the factual inaccuracy complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.51.113 (talkcontribs) 2012-08-24T14:29:56‎

I agree. This list would go on forever. BSL-3 labs are much too common to list. Artur The Third (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree too. After the COVID pandemic there was a boom of BLS-2 labs upgrading to BLS-3 in Brazil, it doesn't seem to make much sense to list it all. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism in the Safety Concerns section

This section had blatant plagiarism. We cannot directly copy/paste what a report says like that. We must, instead, summarize and paraphrase. And where we quote, we must use quotation marks, and restrict ourselves to as little direct quotation as possible. Misplaced Pages is not simply a repository for quotes about stuff. An encyclopedia is much more than that. The relevant guideline is Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism.--Shibbolethink 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

New(ish) source and more

This is the most recent source I found about the number of high-containment biological laboratories (roughly meaning BSL-3 and BSL-4). It looks reliable, but mostly based on older sources that this article is already using (guess it can still be useful for finding other sources or filling up the BSL-4 list). The sentence about the USA Today report seems a bit misleading (in 2015 it was well known that there were far more than 200 BSL-3 facilities, their locaton/identity is what wasn't public or easy to find; here's the original artice, which may be a better source than the current one; the sentence about the GAO report also uses the verb "identify", but that's a number likely closer to the actual total number and the report doesn't disclose their location; the above linked more recent source uses 1,643, that looks like 1,362 with DSAT + 281 with APHIS, it's based on a slightly newer, but not much different GAO report, probably a lower estimate, not sure if some laboratories figure in both counts). Not sure what to do with this, so I'll just drop the links and leave eventual edits to other editors. 109.119.248.146 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Biosafety level

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Biosafety level's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "feldman07":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

AI upscaled image

It seems as if in 2022 user Fargoh replaced the image in this article with a version that was upscaled using AI, attributing it as "Improvement of quality and resolution". The upscaled version features some artifacts telling of neural network-generated and "improved" imagery. Is there any reason for the higher resolution version to be kept or should the change be reverted? Polinet68 (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Categories: