Talk:SARS-CoV-2

Repeated addition of "China Virus"

Half of Symphony Regalia's contributions to Wikipedia now consist of adding "China Virus" to this article in different forms. WP:POVNAMING requires that a "name is widely used in reliable sources"; the sources added here are reliable, but none of them calls the virus by this name. They simply use it as shorthand in titles. China virus does not even redirect here (nor should it) and this is not a common name for this virus. The addition is a description, not a name; in some of the sources added, "China" is just part of a chain of adjectives, and "China" is only adjacent to "virus" because it describes the place discussed in the article ("China virus death toll"). In my view, this is like saying we should add "Chinese food" as an alternate title at Fried rice or, say, add "Gent superstar" as an alternate title at Jonathan David on the basis of a headline that says Ajax among clubs interested in Gent superstar.

The edits ([5] [6]) also involve removing the naming section, including the information on WHO sometimes calling this "the COVID-19 virus" and (conveniently) the explanation of why the WHO deprecates names that involve places, or why it was ICTV that chose the strain name. Now, I think there was always some idea that the naming section would be temporary, but the removal in this fashion looks to me to be counterproductive. The new version of the introduction says the virus is called "China Virus", doesn't explain what the ICTV is, and says nothing about WHO usage. I have reverted using a chain of more and more descriptive summaries ("unnecessary to amplify further deprecated names", "rare, derogatory, does not redirect here, and deprecated by WHO as a place-based name; unnecessary and unproductive to amplify", "Cite does not even verify the addition; it is used in the title as shorthand for "a virus in China", not as a name for the virus, and is never used in the article body. And yes, we do care about WP:POVNAMING. The added *descriptive* title is rare and unnecessary (105 Ghits)") to no effect, so other opinions on this would be appreciated. Dekimasuよ! 01:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: "China Virus" does not appear at all in 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak or Coronavirus disease 2019. It appears once at Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak as a phrase that was called out by the consul general of China in Vancouver when it appeared in a Canadian newspaper headline. The editor of that newspaper explicitly stated that calling the virus by that name in an article title "was a way to geographically locate the origin of the virus". He further stated "I have certainly spoken with and heard from many people who felt the words 'China virus' in a headline could encourage racism against the community, and so for that, I do apologize. It was certainly not our intention to do that or to give the virus a new name." Dekimasuよ! 02:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I added "China Virus" to the collection of informal names, because it is an informal name that is used to refer to the topic, and encyclopedias are supposed to include this information. It is used as a shorthand in titles because that is what a lot of people search for. In other words the existence of it as shorthand in the title of multiple reliable major sources, is direct evidence of the fact that many people use that specific phrase when looking for information on the topic. Furthermore, it is not only used as shorthand. In the Washington Post source, the title of the article is What's being done to limit the spread of the China Virus?. I understand that the name may bother dekimasu and possibly others, but it is a name that is used, and removing relevant information from an article because an editor does not like it is, from my understanding, both a dereliction of duty and the definition of editor bias. For instance the article for the novel And Then There Were None has an extremely derogatory alternative name, but the article includes it because the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information and not interpret it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Just because you have cherry picked a handful of examples that use the term does not mean the term is widely used. Out of hundreds of articles on this outbreak you have cited less than half a dozen. Some of these are using the term not as "China virus" but as part of a sentence. You talk good game for somebody with less than 10 edits across your entire account history. "Dereliction of duty"? Give a break. what's next, proclaiming yourself persecuted like Gallileo? Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It's been used by Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. Additionally I've witnessed many, many, many, many people use this term informally on all varieties of internet platforms. If the article is going to mention names used informally, which it should so that people can find it, it should mention all them that are relevant. It is indeed a dereliction of duty and editor bias to remove relevant information from an article just because an editor does not like it, just as it is bias when your argument is based around the amount of edits someone has rather than the substance of what they are saying. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The plural of anecdote is not data. Just because people use term online does not mean it is worthy of inclusion in a encyclopedic article viewed by tens of thousands of people daily. For instance I see loads of people on reddit call racoons "trash pandas", is this name mentioned anywhere in the wikipedia article on raccons? No. The term "Trash Panda" redirects to the article, but there is no reference to the term anywhere in the article, as it isn't notable enought to include. Thousands of people of chinese descent are being racially abused and in some cases physically assaulted because of the outbreak. The term "China virus" is incredibly generic, Wuhan virus is at least more specific. Why is including this term in the article so important to you that you feel the need to repeatedly add it back in after it is removed? Why do you feel the need to push this issue when you have less than 20 edits to your name as an editor? You are repeatedly adding content to the article despite the fact that 2 editors disagree with you, engaging in WP:edit warring. In content disputes the burden of justification generally falls on those who are adding the content, and you have failed to prove your case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all Chinese is not a race. It is a nationality, and anyone of any race can be Chinese. Such an antiquated view erases Black Chinese, White Chinese, the Uighur Chinese in Xinjiang, and so on. Second of all introducing social reasons at all as justification for removing relevant information from an encyclopedia article is a clear sign that you are biased on this topic, in that you are viewing it through an emotional lens. "China Virus" meets the same criteria that "Wuhan Virus" does, and as mentioned earlier removing relevant information from an article because an editor does not like it is, from my understanding, both a dereliction of duty and the definition of editor bias. You're essentially making the argument that we should engage in social activism from the editing chair of Wikipedia to censor information that might be considered harmful, even when it is relevant. Whether some people consider the term offensive or not has nothing to do with if it qualifies for mention or not, and since it is used so widely it clearly does. No one is making the suggestion to re-name the article, but to simply include it in the single sentence that includes the other commonly used informal names. Such an extreme objection to a widely used and well-sourced variation does not seem reasonable to me. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The criteria for inclusion is not "all names used informally". Coverage is expected to be balanced, and the term you are adding is rare. See WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." No one here has been removing anything on the sole basis of not liking it. The fact that you are continuing to add the same name to the article despite objections from multiple editors shows that, as presumably a new editor, you might benefit from reviewing Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:BRDD. We have taken out the more detailed naming section to which you objected, but you have now added "China Virus" [sic] at least five times despite explanations as to why sources showing the phrase are using it as a description, not a name, and only rarely. This is edit warring. Dekimasuよ! 05:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The term I'm adding is not rare though. It is extremely common; in fact it is so common that you yourself cited an instance of a major Canadian newspaper using it, apology or not. It being used as a descriptive name in title of multiple major reliable sources still indicates that it is what many people call the virus, and as mentioned prior it is not only used descriptively. In the Washington Post source, the title of the article is What's being done to limit the spread of the China Virus?. You've also mentioned social concern as justification for not including the name, and I don't believe that is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, otherwise editors would be able to arbitrarily censor politically sensitive articles. I've reviewed Wikipedia:Consensus and it mentions that consensus should be reached while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If someone can show why the name does not belong without mentioning stigma or personal opinion I will be in agreement, but how things appear now it's a valid informal name with reliable sources, just like "Wuhan Virus" is. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Why again to do you feel the need to push your views on this particular article when you seem to have absolutely no desire to edit the rest of the encyclopedia? Why is this so important to you that after having the content repeatedly removed from the article you add it again and again? Is the artice significantly improved by the addition of this name? Not really. I don't understand why you repeatedly feel the need to add it. The chinese government has condemned the use of the phrase. Wikipedia's content is supposed to be neutral and encyclopedic in tone. Would the term "China virus" be used in a Brittanica article on SARS-COV-2? Probably not. "I don't believe that is in line with Wikipedia guidelines," says the editor with less than 30 edits. I think the term can be included in wikipedia if you provide better evidence that the term has signifcant use colloquially, but it shouldn't be in this article, it should really be included in Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, where I think it fits better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You mentioning edit count again in a judgmental fashion, I believe, only showcases that you are biased and are avoiding arguments of substance. Including a reliably sourced phrase is not "pushing my views", but rather improving the article and making it more representative. It is precisely because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that it is not supposed to exclude pertinent information based on whether it is positive or not. The views of the Chinese government, which of course is an organization that is not neutral in any sense of the word, should not influence what is allowed on Wikipedia. Such a suggestion is preposterous and contrary to the entire purpose of Wikipedia. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think removing the informal names section entirely is best, as the "Wuhan Coronavirus" name has fallen into disuse as the virus has become a global pandemic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing both phrases, when both are valid and used, simply because you don't like one of them but cannot find a good reason to disqualify only one of them, seems like tendentious editing. This degrades the user experience because people who use those names now will be unable to find the article. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not actually how finding articles works, but the stated reason "fallen into disuse" is clearly different from your characterization "don't like". Wuhan virus and Wuhan coronavirus still redirect to this article. Dekimasuよ! 05:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The name(s) have not fallen into disuse, and his stated justification for assuming so is factually incorrect. As it stands 85% of cases are currently in China. Also, I was referring to people using search engines. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You have not presented any evidence that "China Virus" is common. "Common" is not the same as "I can find cases of it on the internet." Try going to Google, putting in the search string ("China virus" -"China's virus"), and going to the last page of results. I get under 120 total Google hits, or 196 in Google News–this might even be considered surprisingly low, but then the phrase uses substandard grammar. How many do you get? These are overwhelmingly either false positives or headlines that are honing in on a location and an article topic–that is, describing the article contents, not naming something "China Virus". I pointed this out above in the example of the headline "Ajax among clubs interested in Gent superstar". That headline is not creating the new name Gent superstar by inserting it in the headline. The first actual hit I see that refers to what you are adding here is from the Bangkok Post: "China virus cases drop as foreign fears rise". This is a reference to where virus cases are emerging, not an attempt to describe "cases of the China Virus". The second I get is a Nikkei article about South Korea that reads, "The 'hate China virus' could end up being as harmful as the epidemic that is threatening to put a crimp on the nation's economy." Next is an ABC News story, "Mainland China virus cases rise again after earlier decline." In no sense is the story calling this coronavirus "China virus". The Washington Post article is behind a paywall, so I can't see it. But I have no reason to think it's any different. And it doesn't employ caps in the strange way you are attributing to it.

You have now added this at least six times, even though no one has agreed with your position. You have been warned, by an editor not taking part in this discussion, that this represents edit warring and can result in being blocked from editing. It seems that you believe this represents taking a stand against censorship, but what you are really doing is not listening and rehashing. It is important for all of us at Wikipedia to be supportive of new editors, but since you are not working on anything else, there is a thin line here between Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only. I suggest that you try to contribute to the encyclopedia in other productive ways so that you do not end up the subject of a preventative block. Dekimasuよ! 03:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Although it is extremely common, I'd like to point out that the phrase "China Virus" does not have to be common (which can be hard to quantify as informal terms by definition do not show up on formal internet articles very often) to qualify for mention as an informal name. Rather, it has to be informal and it has to have reliable sources. It is, and it does. I've presented just as much credible evidence, and in fact even more, as there is for "Wuhan Virus". It's been used by Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. And yes the Washington Post article does use it as "China Virus", and this should be apparent to anyone as the paywall does not prevent the viewing of the title.

Two people does not constitute a consensus, the only other person here disagreeing with me is actively involved in the editing, has made arguments centered around personal social views/the approval of the Chinese government/edit counts indicating that he/she is extraordinary biased in regards to this topic, and seemingly neither of you have provided any reason according to the guidelines as to why the name is being censored. Yes I am aware that it has stigma, and no the encyclopedia including it is not an endorsement. If you are insinuating that you are threatening to ban me for following the guidelines and engaging in a proper open discussion, then I'd like to point out that edit warring works in both directions, and that I welcome others to review this case. Once again if someone can show why the name does not belong without mentioning stigma or personal opinion I will be in agreement, but how things appear now it's a valid informal name with reliable sources, just like "Wuhan Virus" is. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to "ban you". I have given you actionable advice, and so far it looks like you are not interested in following up on prevalence on Google, addressing the idea that there is a difference between a description and a name, discussing WP:PROPORTION, or working in other areas. As far as who is edit warring: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject may be informative. It is good that you are engaging in discussion. Engaging in discussion does not justify reinserting the same text a half dozen times while the discussion is ongoing, when you know the addition is still being opposed by other editors. Dekimasuよ! 05:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I followed up on most of those in my prior response, and both of you have yet to inform me which guideline was used to justify the arbitrary removal of reliably sourced information concerning the virus. As far as I'm concerned you and the other editor simply do not like those names and thus want them gone even though they are reliably sourced, but is not that the definition of editor bias? This question is not in bad faith. I'd also like to point out that engaging in discussion does not justify removing reliably sourced information a half dozen times while the discussion is ongoing. There should be no reason to remove reliably sourced information from an encyclopedia article as long as it is reliably sourced and in the proper context, which it was. I'm well aware that I'm going to be the one who ends up blocked though, because Wikipedia is not actually about who is being fair and who is being biased, but rather is about who has the most friends. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The list is specifically of points that you have not addressed. I am confused as to why you are readding “China Virus” repeatedly when you know you have not convinced anyone of the validity of your argument. The idea that there is such a name has not been established, and I have given logical evidence to the contrary. Even were the name established to be in circulation at some level, it is not the case that all cited statements are valid inclusions. I gave you the example of WP:PROPORTION, but another one is the idea that “Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information” (WP:NOT). Rather than violate WP:3RR on purpose for little benefit, you could have attempted to address some of these issues, or you could just slow down and not try to right great wrongs (the great wrong of censorship, I assume, although that is not what is taking place here). Dekimasuよ! 10:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I have addressed those points though, and ignoring the rebuttals does not change that. It wasn't that it was being repeatedly re-added, but rather than it was being repeatedly removed (despite being reliably sourced) for political reasons. WP:PROPORTION was already in effect here, because there was only one sentence on it, and “Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information” (WP:NOT) does not apply here as that concerns things like numerical data and lyric databases; in other words collections of information out of context, while the two names were of course in the proper context of the introduction to an article, with independent sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No, the original point has never been addressed: "WP:POVNAMING requires that a 'name is widely used in reliable sources'; the sources added here are reliable, but none of them calls the virus by this name. They simply use it as shorthand in titles. ... The addition is a description, not a name; in some of the sources added, 'China' is just part of a chain of adjectives, and 'China' is only adjacent to 'virus' because it describes the place discussed in the article." I subsequently also asked you to discuss the relative prevalence of the name, which is different from presenting individual examples of it. You have not done that either. Anyway, here is an example of the evidence you could have given, from Google Trends: in the last 90 days, the phrase "China virus" is said to have received roughly 1/50 the searches of "coronavirus" in South Africa, India, and New Zealand. (This is actually a higher value than I would have expected!) In all other countries it is 1/100 or less. WP:NOTEVERYTHING certainly does apply here. The first sentence of the section on not being an indiscriminate collection of information explains that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Now, it must be kept in mind that the existence of the term as a prevalent name has not been established as being true here. But in either event the idea that the phrase "China virus" (not "China Virus") has been used in a small number of newspaper titles is not proportionally one of the most important thing to convey to readers. If you really think you addressed these points, then please summarize your argument again, because I do not understand what you are trying to argue here. Dekimasuよ! 15:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I did directly address that multiple times. In the Washington Post source, the title of the article is What's being done to limit the spread of the China Virus?. I addressed "relative prevalence" as well in that anything included in the title is consider extremely important in relation to the editorial content. It being used as a descriptive name in title of multiple major reliable sources still indicates that it is what many people call the virus, as search engines give priority to the text in article titles and the publications know this. Google Trends shows relative traffic, not absolute traffic. Considering that "coronavirus" is used globally among over 8 billion people, 1/50th or 1/100th of that relative traffic still means that many millions of people use the term. The case for arbitrarily removing Wuhan Virus is even weaker I believe, as it is even more popular of a term. Entire countries use the term. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"1/100 or less" is, I think, the measure for anything below 1/100. That is, 0 would also come back as "<1%". Please feel free to link to any actual numerical results you find. Dekimasuよ! 03:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Having a decent edit count implies experience and investment in the content of the encyclopedia. Almost all of your edits have to do with the controversy, and nothing else. How can you proclaim to speak with authority on the content and purpose of wikipedia when you have barely edited it, against people who have been here for years and have made thousands of edits? Tens of thousands of people read this article every day, what makes you think that your opinion is more valid than any other person? I was once in a similar position to yourself as a suspicious new user nearly three years ago now, and people distrusted me then, but I was reasonable and explained myself and then people listened to me. You are showing no desire to seek concensus or come to any sort of compromise, but repeatedly re-add the content to the article against the opinion of multiple contributors, as if some invisible "will of the people" agrees with you. The reason I am terse with you is that arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall, you repeat the same claims over and over again in spite of evidence to the contrary that you don't address in the hope that your persistance will eventually force us to give in and that the content will be included, as often happens in wikipedia discussions, plus the fact that you repeatedly add the content back to the article as if your opinion is the only one that matters, which is extremely rude. The informal names already link to the article as redirects, so it isn't exactly hard for people to find the article using these names. Please desist from re-adding the content to the article while we have this discussion, as you may be blocked for doing so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation. Insisting that people without decent edit counts must lack those qualities is of course logically flawed and in many cases incorrect. It also seems you are implying that your opinion is more important than others because you registered your account earlier, which is of course a very problematic way of thinking to have, and also highlights the substantial bias I've been talking about. Indeed, you are showing no desire to seek consensus or come to any sort of compromise at all. The content has only been added back because it is reliably sourced and did not violate any guidelines, but was removed due to what seems to be personal editor bias. Which brings me to the point: seemingly neither of you have provided any reason according to the guidelines as to why the name is being censored. Once again if someone can show why the name does not belong without mentioning stigma or personal opinion I will be in agreement, but how things appear now it's a valid informal name with reliable sources, just like "Wuhan Virus" is. Please desist from removing properly sourced content from the article while we have this discussion, as you may be blocked for doing so. That includes the reliably sourced "Wuhan Virus", which was present by other editors long before this discussion started and is not even the topic. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there was a great deal of compromise with your position: your removal of the naming section was accepted (note that you did not object to the removal of reliable sources there). Your idea that some nicknames should not receive more focus than others is what resulted in the removal of the other geographic names, at a time when that removal was finally appropriate, considering that the name has now been "SARS-CoV-2" for as long as it was under the provisional name "2019-nCoV" or was simply in a state where there was no single widely-accepted name. The only part of your edits that was strenuously objected to was the idea that this coronavirus is often called "China Virus", and you gave only weak anecdotal evidence in support of your position, such as cramped-for-space newspaper headlines of articles that never use the phrase in the body, and with no evidence of widespread use in other reliable sources–particularly the sorts of reliable sources that are favored here, generally WP:MEDRS. Dekimasuよ! 10:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The name section was only removed because it was redundantly restating the naming information in the now censored 3rd paragraph of the introduction, and was added after. The idea that some nicknames should receive more focus than other is contrary to WP:NPOV because it introduces an avenue for editor bias. Names that have achieved notability (something the average person has heard of) and are included in reliable sources should not be removed without good reason. The Chinese government does not comment on names that people don't use. Furthermore, the evidence for "China Virus" was not anecdotal. Multiple major reliable sources including Reuters, Washington Post, ABC News, Aljazeera, Canadian newspapers, among others is anything but anecdotal. And the evidence for "Wuhan Virus" was solid as well, in that it was already accepted by you so you're contradicting yourself now. The real reason that "Wuhan Virus" was suddenly removed, despite being a name that millions of people actively use to find help, is because you could not find a valid reason to remove the other reliably sourced name from the article that you happen to personally dislike, so you're deciding to attempt to skirt the rules by throwing them out all together. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Body text is supposed to repeat and expand upon information introduced in the lede. That is how articles are written here. It remains the case that none of the sources you have presented used "China virus" in body text, and none of them used it in any way different from my earlier example of "Gent superstar". I do not have a particular "personal dislike" for the phrase "China virus", beyond the fact that it is vague, rare, and unnecessary. But your attempt to paint all removals as unacceptably moralistic is also imprudent. We are expected to maintain a neutral point of view. That does not mean that Wikipedia is some sort of exercise in detached antihumanism where we prove our disinterestedness by affecting a lack of concern for the implications of our edits. Dekimasuよ! 14:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but there is a fine line between "expanding upon" and restating redundantly. If anything, now that the paragraph has been removed, the name section should be added back with this information to help users find the article from search engines, and to be more complete. I do believe you have a personal dislike for the name and that it was your primary motivation for opposing the inclusion. Otherwise why would you mention social issues at the beginning of this discussion? In regards to detacted antihumanism, simply listing reliably-sourced informal names is a far cry from that. To quote Wikipedia is not censored: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia". The article for the novel And Then There Were None has an extremely derogatory alternative name, but the article includes it because the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information and not interpret it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

See WP:GRATUITOUS. "A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Whether the material in question is considered offensive or not, it has not been established that its inclusion makes the article more informative in any substantial fashion. I would mention WP:PROPORTION again here, but it is clear that we simply have different views on the proportional importance of the fact in this context. That's what makes consensus important in these types of discussions. At the moment, it still appears clear to me that consensus does not favor addition of the term. Although only three editors have engaged in most of the discussion here, the other comments we do have are generally against inclusion. Dekimasuよ! 03:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No one has made the argument that material should be included simply because it's offensive, but plenty of people have made the argument that material should be excluded because it is offensive. Verily so, and while I am assuming good faith, your initial summary mentioned it being "derogative" as a reason for non-inclusion. It also seems consensus has changed a bit since then. I believe the sources and the notable people using this term to refer to the virus, ultimately speaks for itself. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that overall consensus has changed despite the appearance of a few new voices below. The answer to this claim about my summaries was responded to on March 7, a few paragraphs below, in a message even older than the 16-day-old post you are replying to here. "No, my first reversion said unnecessary to amplify further deprecated names. The name is deprecated by the WHO. One of the WHO's reasons is that it is derogatory. Therefore, my second reversion said rare, derogatory, does not redirect here, and deprecated by WHO as a place-based name; unnecessary and unproductive to amplify." I was not the source of the claim that it was derogatory. I understand how the second edit summary could be read that way. But I explained it to you weeks ago. We all assume good faith, but you have been warned or blocked by more than five administrators for tendentiousness here. I suggest dropping the stick. Dekimasuよ! 01:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Symphony Regalia is now engaging in personal attacks using edit summaries. For the record, 1) I am not "colluding" with Hemiauchenia; I do not think we have ever interacted outside of the context of this article. 2) No one is engaging in "censorship" here. 3) The idea that the virus might be called "China Virus" by someone does not represent "information sensitive to the Chinese government". There is no grounds for accusing any editors here of having political purposes. This is an article on an organism, not a political topic. I do not now and never have had any association with the Chinese government. 4) The edit summary claims that Symphony Regalia is not the only one (!) in violation of 3RR here, but Hemiauchenia is not in violation of 3RR here. I did not even report Symphony Regalia's fourth addition of the same text in 8 hours, but now we're at a fifth addition, and it does not appear that the editor has any intention of desisting from violating the 3RR, so intervention appears to be needed. It's unfortunate that Symphony Regalia has decided to go down the path of falling on a sword ("I'm well aware that I'm going to be the one who ends up blocked though, because Wikipedia is not actually about who is being fair and who is being biased, but rather is about who has the most friends"). Dekimasuよ! 10:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I checked out his claims that the term is being widely used online, on twitter it seems to be used maybe a dozen times an hour?, which when compared with the coronavirus traffic as a whole is really insignificant, so Symphony Regalia's reasoning doesn't hold up at all.Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

When you revealed that you believe that the name should be removed because the Chinese government disapproves of it, that was an implicit admission from you that the name is indeed used, as the Chinese government itself would have no reason to comment on something that isn't seeing wide use. Furthermore, Twitter is not representative of the general internet. For example people outside of the millennial generation are extremely unlikely to use Twitter, so your reasoning doesn't hold up at all. The term qualifies for inclusion because it has been used by multiple major reliable sources, including Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others. Excluding these terms because some editors dislike them for political reasons, seems very strange to me and sounds like something we should be avoiding. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting that we are trying to censor the article on behalf of the chinese government as you have accused me of in edit summaries is hilarious and quite frankly pure conspiratard and you know it. If 12 tweets an hour on twitter are using it (slightly under half by bots), then what's the chances that it is a widely used term? You have completely failed to make your case outside of anecdotes and innuendo. The fact that you are so entitled that you think that your edit deserves to be seen and read by tens of thousands (~60,000 daily views as of yesterday) of people is quite frankly ludicrous. The fact is that three editors have now disagree with you, so you can't just proclaim that it's just us who are biased. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned, Twitter is not representative of the general internet. For example people outside of the millennial generation are extremely unlikely to use Twitter, so your reasoning doesn't hold up at all. Multiple major reliable sources including Reuters, Washington Post, ABC News, Aljazeera, Canadian newspapers, among others is anything but anecdotal. And the evidence for "Wuhan Virus" was solid as well, in that it was already accepted by everyone. The real reason that "Wuhan Virus" was suddenly removed without reason, despite being a name that millions of people actively use to find help, is because you could not find a valid reason to remove the other reliably sourced name from the article that you happen to personally dislike, so you're deciding to attempt to skirt the rules by throwing them out all together. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your friend has engaged in at least 4 (!) personal attacks using edit summaries, and you've completely failed to mention this at every stage which is more evidence of the fact that you are transparently biased and engaging in favoritism, in a campaign to censor information that personally bothers you. If we look back at the first edit summary you used when you removed said name, you gave the reason that said name is "derogatory" which means you were seeing it through the lenses of social issues, and having an emotional response which to me indicates bias. The article is of course not on an political topic, but naming is inherently political. 1) There is additional evidence that suggests that you two know each other. 2) If the arbitrary removal of long standing reliably sourced information for reasons of personal editor dislike is not censorship, then what is? 3) In general there would be no grounds for accusing editors of political bias, but when you came to this talk page one of the first things you mentioned, in regards to censoring these terms, was social issues. This indicates that you are politically biased. 4) Not only that but you've cited the approval of the consul general of China in Vancouver, and Hemiauchenia has directly cited the approval of the Chinese government. In other words you've both directly cited the approval of the Chinese government as rational to remove reliably sourced information. The views of the Chinese government, which of course is an organization that is not neutral in any sense of the word, should not influence what is allowed on Wikipedia. Such a suggestion is preposterous and contrary to the entire purpose of Wikipedia. This is extremely concerning to me. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

This is getting to be a Gish gallop. No, my first reversion said unnecessary to amplify further deprecated names. The name is deprecated by the WHO. One of the WHO's reasons is that it is derogatory. Therefore, my second reversion said rare, derogatory, does not redirect here, and deprecated by WHO as a place-based name; unnecessary and unproductive to amplify. All of those things are still true. In writing any article, it is important to determine what the most essential facts about the topic are and present them to the reader. This is an article about a virus. It had a section about why certain names are favored over others, but you deleted that section. If the way the virus has been officially named is not one of the most important things to present to the reader, then it certainly isn't important to present the reader with evidence that a variety of vague or misleading names have been used from time to time. There is still a redirect to this article from Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus. But the name is very rare, becoming rarer, and there are arguments that the virus did not come from Wuhan or from the seafood market. Now, you can look into the archives to see places I have specifically criticized some of the data coming out of China that seems to be biased on behalf of the government in some way. For example, I argued against removing the sentences linking the seafood market to the virus at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2/Archive 4#Discussion of a source. The study I am arguing against including (for now) in the section below argues that the S and L types changed in frequency because of the "effectiveness" of the response of the Chinese government; the way it is described in that article strikes me as irregular, which is one my qualms with it. But in the end, you are attributing a variety of qualities to me that are not the case: I do not "dislike" the term, I do not know Hemiauchenia, I do not have political bias in favor of China, and you are unwilling to accept my statements to the contrary.

Ah, I see I have not yet responded directly to point #4. First, do me a favor, and I really mean this. Read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-01-27/Community view and find my addition, and then see if I seem to be biased in favor of the Chinese government.

Next, I did not "cite the approval of the consul general of China in Vancouver". I pointed out the only other place on Wikipedia where the term "China virus" is used to apply to this virus, and that is the place. The specific point that I made about the article was that the editor of the very paper that used the phrase said it was not used as "a name". But in either event, naming the virus after a place name would be deprecated no matter what place the virus arose in. I would be arguing against the name "Taiwan virus" if the virus arose in Taiwan. I would be arguing against the name "Symphony Regalia virus" if someone tried to name the virus after you. Now, if everyone called that, it would be a different story. But four or six news headlines do not rise to the level of a name that requires coverage in an article. Dekimasuよ! 14:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A virus by any other name is just as deadly. Months from now, nobody is going to care if the virus was called "Wuhan Coronavirus" or "China virus" or "Trump virus". The virus has spread all over the world, such that China is even banning travel from Italy (and other countries) to protect its own Chinese citizens from the outbreak. If anything, the media is mostly calling SARS-CoV-2 informally as "the coronavirus" if not "the COVID-19 virus". If you want to list all the names this virus has been called in "reputable" news and publications, get your own page. — Hasdi Bravo • 17:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. We go by WP:RS, not by normative bodies. The WP:RS CNA and NDTV, which have been arbitrarily deleted, call the virus the Wuhan Virus. This name may appear undesirable to some editors, but if that's what the sources call it, it is a core Wikipedia policy that we go by the sources. Right now the "Wuhan Virus" moniker has been added down the page, which is questionable, but, whatever. The name should be bolded to meet Wikipedia's policy. XavierItzm (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Although I reinstated the older paragraph, usage of "Wuhan virus" and "Wuhan coronavirus" spiked briefly in the last week of January when infections were almost entirely confined to China. It was also used in coverage at that time–at a time when there was no established name for the virus beyond "novel coronavirus". Since then, and particularly since the disease and virus were given actual names, it has fallen precipitously to under 1/6 of its original peak, even as overall coverage of the virus has increased exponentially, such that both names barely register as a blip. Even at their peaks, these terms were used less than 5% as much as "coronavirus". As above, existence in sources is not the same as proportional relevance to the article topic. (The CNA source does not use "Wuhan virus" in the text of the article. It is in meta-material on the page. The article itself is from early February. The NDTV article is from January 22. NDTV does not use that name anymore, although it also tends to not be clear on the difference between the virus and the disease.) Dekimasuよ! 06:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it is ridiculous that names still in usage by many people, that are reliably-sourced, can be arbitrarily removed from encyclopedic articles simply because some editors do not personally like them. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not salutary to your position to cast aspersions on "some editors" when they have specifically told you that "personal dislike" is not the concern here. (This also applies to your restoration of a vandal's template on my talk page, a template that entails assuming bad faith on the part of other editors. WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline that editors here are expected to follow so that we can have productive discussion. The short explanation of WP:AGF reads "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives.") Please argue your point, if necessary, without continuing to claim that the motive for others to oppose it is "personal dislike". Dekimasuよ! 04:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Such claims were not arbitrarily, but rather made in regards to editors who invoked social issues, and thus personal politics, as justification for removal. In any case, noted. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The virus has spread throughout the world. This is not the time to call the virus a "China Virus" or criticize those people. This is a time to inform people. Why is this argument continuing? Foxtail286 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It takes a poor command of the English language to believe that the name "China Virus" is in any way is a criticism of a people. China virus simply means it arose zoönotically in China. I, for one, do not like French food. What kind of sad mental gymnastics would it take to say I have anything against France, a country I love, have lived in, and will return to literally a handful of days after it reopens its borders? XavierItzm (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You have a point. Foxtail286 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Careless talk costs lives

This discussion is not just a rarefied moot court debate. Sloppy usage has consequences, which is why the WHO strongly deprecates attaching the name of the location of first report to new pathogens. So see As Coronavirus Spreads, So Does Xenophobia and Anti-Asian Racism (Time Magazine). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion on topics unrelated to article content

The user seems to have no understanding of the nuanced differences between ethnic group and nationality, or have ever met actual chinese people. Considering in one comment previously in this thread he stated that "First of all Chinese is not a race. It is a nationality, and anyone of any race can be Chinese. Such an antiquated view erases Black Chinese, White Chinese, the Uighur Chinese in Xinjiang, and so on." While it is true that chinese is a nationality, 90% of China's population is Han Chinese, an ethnic group, who are widely referred to simply as "Chinese". While I can understand the reference to Uyghurs, who are the "Black Chinese" and "White Chinese" being erased exactly? It strikes me as disingenuous. In a previous edit summary on the page American Born Chinese he states that it is a "contradictory term/misnomer", which again just seems to be pure ignorance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC) I feel it's worth noting the user is now under sockpuppet investigation for trying to intimidate Dekimasu on his talkpage using a sock, despite the fact that Dekimasu is an admin. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Your sock puppet report was immediately closed because it was bogus. Filling bogus reports against someone when you can't support your case here with substance reflects quite poorly, and is indeed a dereliction of duty. This highlights that you are playing dirty, and calls into question your impartiality. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC) It wasn't immediately closed, that was the second case where I tried to go after your account directly. In the first case it was confirmed that the account you were allegedly using to try to intimidate Dekimasu with, Karicodex was indeed confirmed by checkuser as a sockpuppet of Architect_134, a notorious sockpuppeteer. Don't think you're pulling the wool over my eyes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Yes it was, and I have no idea who that is. The fact that you filed two denied bogus reports against me within a span of 20 minutes or so highlights that you may be becoming a bit unhinged. I am indeed having a hearty laugh over you non-ironically accusing me of "conspiritard thinking" earlier in this discussion. Please keep in mind that we can not have a production discussion if you are going to engage in a petty, one-sided harassment campaign against editors that disagree with you. :^) Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Disregard my above statement, Architect_134 is a notorious troll who imitates users that get blocked for edit warring in an attempt to get them further punishment. I can now say you are merely obstinate and not a troll. Also the troll didn't use "deriliction of duty" 0/10. The fact that you left yourself open to be convincingly imitated by a troll is pretty embarassing. I admit I was completely fooled. Why would you revert Dekimasu removing the trolls warning? Did you not think that made you look really suspicious? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC) What would be the point of having this discussion? You obviously have an opnion that is fixed that isn't going to change and other contributors who diagree with you. The answer is that your change will not be implemented and the discussion should end now. I don't see why you are laughing at the conspiratard, as believing that me and Dekimasu are censoring wikipedia on behalf of the Chinese Government is conspiratard. You've obviously closed of your mind after I was rude to you, and are clearly incapable of separating my contempt for you from logical arguments being made by Dekimasu and others. Ultimately if you wanted to make edits to articles without opposition, you wouldn't pick the article with 60,000 views a day, You went in at the deep end and that was your choice. You think that you're entitled to my respect, but you've done nothing to deserve it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, Dekimasu, and Symphony Regalia: I want to participate in this discussion, but looking at what has transpired above, I am afraid to do so. Too dangerous to participate- my account may be threatened if I do so. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative:, It's fine, my main issue it that Symphony doesn't listen to what we are saying at all and talks past us, it's like talking to a brick wall and is not productive at all, theres no use arguing with him. Ultimately if you're willing to listen and change your opinion and have something interesting to say, then I am all ears, no bite. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I wouldn't be afraid to contribute. Hemiauchenia tried (and, of course, utterly failed) to attack and intimidate me with two bogus false reports for disagreeing with him, but I doubt that he will do it again now that he's been exposed. You should be safe. The discussion is very much still ongoing. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand, there was a deliberate troll pretending to be a sockpuppet of you in order for you to get banned. It wasn't false in that sense I wasn't making it up. I was decieved, not that I am particularly sorry about it. In many ways I am impressed by the troll considering how much angst they have stirred for barely any effort, masterful work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If your two bogus reports to intimate me for having an opinion you dislike was a misunderstanding, how about the 5 or 6 times you've personally insulted me? Frankly, it is difficult to take you seriously at all, and you are clearly not here to improve the article. Stop directing comments at me. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative, sorry to hear that. If there is anything I can do, please let me know. As for editor behavior, I would suggest that all involved avoid escalating things unnecessarily. I filed one 3RR report to discourage edit warring here. It's unfortunate that there has been another cycle of 3RR reports and SPIs, but at least the article has been more stable. As far as my talk page is concerned, if I have removed a message, I have seen it; if I didn't file an SPI, there was probably a reason for that too. Dekimasuよ! 03:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Pageview data. Brief spike of "Wuhan coronavirus", now does not register. "Wuhan virus" and "China virus" never registered. People are getting here (or to Coronavirus) fine without them. (During the peak of Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), both the disease and the virus were covered at the same title, and there was a link to the article here from the current events section on the main page; now that only goes to the outbreak.) Dekimasuよ! 06:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

May I humbly suggest we move an itemized list of "widely used names" for SARS-CoV-2 in its own section? While y'all can edit war on that section, the virus is still coming for the rest of us. Perhaps we should focus our energy on the details of the virus and the disease it causes, you know, stuff that might save people? If we survive this pandemic, like in a year or so, maybe we'll have the luxury to argue if names like "Chinese coronavirus" and/or "Chinora-virus" are worthy of inclusion. — Hasdi Bravo • 12:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to expand the names beyond what's there already. That was the upshot of the long discussion above. Before the edit war, I was certainly concentrating on the details of the virus. If there's anything in particular that should be covered that you think is missing, please let us know (maybe in a new talk section instead of here). Dekimasuよ! 13:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the old "other stuff is more important than this" argument. But anyway as Dekimasu says, I thought the consensus was to avoid calling it the "Wuhan coronavirus" and that leaves you free to move on to the other important stuff. Although now I see that Dekimasu also reinserted the text yesterday, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We should be avoiding this, as noted above. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, to be clear, I readded it not because I wanted to, but because it seemed preferable to the additions that were being advocated by another editor as seen at the end of the section just above this one, or in the article edit seen here. If you think it should be removed again, your input is another indication that consensus leans toward removal. Please feel free to undo this edit if you think it's warranted. Dekimasuよ! 14:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is warranted so I have gone ahead and removed the re-addition as you suggest. Although there are a couple of dissenters above, there is consensus here and strong evidence that the name is no longer in general use, and it has been clearly deprecated by the WHO. As such we should not be bolding it or mentioning it, even with a caveat. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The name "Wuhan coronavirus" should certainly be mentioned in the article because it was widely used. It does matter if the WHO, scientists, or individual editors like it or not, it is unencyclopedic to remove it. In fact now in common use it is just called "coronavirus" so that should also be mentioned, even if it needs a qualification to say why that name is inadequate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I also want to add to this that the term has been used by several major US politicians recently, so it is still notable irrespective of partisanship. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The name should only be mentioned in the appropriate context of Trump supporters and their minions/drones using the term. It is not used in any reputable source. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It has been, as was shown by a few editors above. But it is not being used now, except in extremely rare cases. The reasons for this may have something to do with the politics you are alluding to, but the fact that it has fallen out of use is something that has happened outside of Wikipedia. It's not representative of censorship within Wikipedia. At any rate, the question has to return to whether or not to readd the third paragraph of the intro. It is pretty clear that there is consensus against referring to the geographic names in the first sentence of the article. Dekimasuよ! 04:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we need some resolution on the third paragraph question, as Symphony Regalia has twice reinserted the paragraph this morning, citing the pre-existing status quo. I don't know if the leade said Wuhan coronavirus before, but things have moved on since January, when this term was in some limited use, to being rarely used now, which makes it WP:UNDUE to include it as well as flying in the face of WHO guidelines.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing contributed by Symphony Regalia is quite solid. I think the positioning of this name is acceptable, though perhaps it would be better to move it closer to the top. I should add the BBC, generally considered a gold standard WP:RS: Dr Li was seen by many in China as a whistleblower and hero; the man who first highlighted the threat posed by the Wuhan virus outbreak. He himself succumbed to the disease. XavierItzm (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that this sentence could also be parsed as "the man who first highlighted the threat posed by the Wuhan virus outbreak", that is, the outbreak of the virus in Wuhan, which is what Li was combating at the time. In fact it's pretty clear that's the correct interpretation, since "Wuhan virus" is never used elsewhere in the article but "coronavirus" appears 11 times. Dekimasuよ! 11:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the sources added by Symphony Regalia are evidence of use in reliable sources. They are not so much evidence of use by reliable sources, since the outlets themselves are not using these names in them. The actual text of the Fox News article uses "coronavirus" and "new coronavirus", and the text of the NBC News article uses only "the virus" except in the title. "Wuhan coronavirus" is only used in them in reference to direct quotes from politicians. The idea that the BBC might be using the title is helpful in that sense, but I don't think it holds up. Dekimasuよ! 11:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It should be said that the Chinese foreign ministry objects to the expression “Wuhan coronavirus,” as cited by WP:RS CNBC. Aside from yet another source that prints this informal name, the mere fact that there is a cabinet secretariat of a major country making a statement on the subject certainly ensures that the subject meets WP:NOTE, for if the thing were not notable at the highest levels, then it would be not worthy of mention.. XavierItzm (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

As before, there is a difference between a reliable source using the term and a reliable source quoting a politician. This is not an article about politics. The informal names are tangential at best to the clearly delineated topic and scope of the article. There are, in fact, other articles that are about discourse on the pandemic. Thus, here WP:NOTEVERYTHING must still be fulfilled. A major politician calling Namibia "Nambia" does not automatically make "Nambia" worthy of mention in that article. A major comedian getting a large number of people to call a major politician "Drumpf" does not mean that "nickname" should be covered in the lede of that politician's article. One country's opinion of another country's politicians' language is about three levels removed from what this article is about: a virus. Dekimasuよ! 14:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, couldn't have put it better myself. If every time people used a fringe name for something, and it was rejected by a government, we went ahead and put it prominently in our articles, we'd end up with all sorts of nonsense.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Except the latest arguments are against a source (CNBC) currently not in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Your "Namibia" and "Nambia" example is a typo though, and "Drumpf" does indeed redirect to an article that features it in the lede. Additionally I want to point out that not only just people, but major governments across the world use these names for the virus. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

No one is talking about removing redirects. Though it's neither here nor there, "Nambia" was spoken, so it couldn't possibly be a typo. Dekimasuよ! 02:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

I disagree with "China virus" not out of some kind of political correctness but out of accuracy. "China," a gigantic country, wasn't the source of the outbreak; Wuhan specifically was. That was the region, and this has always been the naming convention of diseases, for better or for worse. This is why all (non-PRC owned) original reporting from November-January from WP:RS referred to it as the "Wuhan Coronavirus." This is the spirit of NPOV. Regurgitating what PRC government propaganda wants, well, isn't NPOV. 24.26.218.181 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree on all points except I think that just like Wuhan Virus meets WP:UCRN, China Virus does as well, for many millions of regular people, whether one likes it, or not. Exactly like Spanish flu () and like German measles (). But I won't press the point. XavierItzm (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It's absolutely nothing like those cases, which are the common name used by a majority of English speakers and found frequently in sources. "China virus" and "Wuhan virus" are only used by a tiny minority of people and sources, and the fact that that seemingly includes the President of the US is irrelevant. It's a POV as well as a niche term, and has no place in our article.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are allowed to contain POV material, but it should be mentioned whose POV it is, rather than making it a while article POV with would violate the NPOV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: when I checked last time, "China Virus" was being used around 12 times an hour on twitter, mostly by bots, which when considered against the traffic for the term "coronavirus" is nothing, so to appeal to the crowd of "millions of people" using the term is complete nonsense. I definitely think that Trump's use of the term "Chinese virus" is worthy of inclusion on wikipedia somewhere, just not the article about the virus itself, which largely focuses on technical description. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Twitter is not representative of the general population: «Twitter users are statistically younger, wealthier, and more politically liberal than the general population.» Please do not bring your bubble to Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Having come back and checked, the number has gone up significantly, perhaps it is now 10 times a minute, compared to about 70 times a minute for Coronavirus itself. @XavierItzm: This isn't just some stupid semantic discussion, using the term on wikipedia risks normalising it, and normalising prejudices against chinese people, this isn't a fucking game. Over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chinese_virus, most other contributors are agreeing that the disambiguation page should be kept or redirected to this article, at this point I can't disagree, as the term has significantly picked up in usage to refer to the virus. The problem is is that it validates Symphony Regalia's viewpoint in retrospect, when in fact the answer has changed since the discussion first started, making him look more right than he was initially, and making me look like a pompous jerk in denial, when actually when the discussion started it was not a widely used term, and his position was based on misinterpretation of newspaper article headlines. I still think that the term shouldn't be included withinin the article itself, under WP:DUE, but hopefully the link I provided to this discussion from the AfD will spur other uninvolved contributors to share their opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

An increase in absolute usage is not surprising but also not very informative in and of itself, since overall usage of any reference to coronaviruses is also sure to have increased exponentially. Since this discussion began, several English-speaking countries have gone from basically ignoring the outbreak to being locked down on a large scale. Any string of words related to the virus will have increased in frequency, and is not necessarily indicative of what is a common or proper name for the virus. Dekimasuよ! 16:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Personally it seems just a casual phrase, especially used when the topic was relatively unknown. That the Chinese government prefers not to be associated is a reasonable political stance, but does not alter that the association exists or that casual phrasing happens, nor the point of origin being Wuhan. Will perhaps be better to get a separate section re gathering naming facts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• OK, I have posted what I found in the subsection below for ‘just the facts what RS used the phrase’, from a basic google, and feel free to add any others using it as a virus reference there. Please put ‘just the facts of what RS used the phrase’ there, with links. Observations or discussion here or in some other subthread, thanks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Just the facts of RS that used it

Let’s try to get this away from side discussions and onto one aspect of facts. I think it’s somewhat agreed that the phrase “China virus” or “Chinese virus” is commonly recognized as a naming, and was used by many RS. That seems separate from it being recently debated as maybe too casual or imprecise and perhaps derogatory. But I thought part of the question is whether it factually was used by many RS so here is a subsection for that question. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Previously mentioned was “Reuters, Washington Post, ABC news, Aljazeera, among others”, and unnamed Canadian newspapers. Markbassett (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Googling did find it has recently been used in BBC and , in Bloomberg, in Reuters, in Nature, and others. An ongoing set of articles from BBC used China Virus as the tag. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Markbassett:, This was pointed out in the initial discussions by Dekimasu, their argument (which I agree with) is that the term "China virus" as a syn of SARS-CoV-2 isn't really being used, but that the apparent use of the term is merely the result of contraction in newspaper headlines, and that the term "China virus" or similar is never used in the body of the aricles text. The virus is far more commonly referred to simply as "the coronavirus" and that is probably more worthy of inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Hemiauchenia OFFTOPIC. This area is for resolving whether it factually was used by many RS, common and widespread. Please bear with the google-pasting takes a while. Whether it’s usage is COMMONNAME would be a separate debate. I suggest if you want ‘In text, not as title’ subthread we can pursue that, but facts first, and at the moment the Google is simply to ‘find phrase in many RS’ about the Pandemic, and to resolve whether that is fact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Hemiauchenia more specifically, I am just listing RS usages from a google “the China virus” -racist and pasting links. That’s by specification all this subsection is for. Discussions of what that shows ... would be separate. First, let’s get some facts OK? Markbassett (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the discussion is about whether the use of "China virus" is validly used as a specific synonym for SARS-CoV-2 by the newspaper articles, which I am arguing it is not. Because "China virus" is being used as part of a newspaper headline contraction, and not a specific term, which I think means that the term is not validly used. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Adjectival (contracted) usage is not invalid in itself, and non-adjectival usage does exist in newspaper headlines as I have shown. Such usage has only gone up recently due to the US president. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Googling did find it has recently been in widespread use. BBC, Bloomberg, Reuters, The Guardian, AP News, Washington Post, Nature, WSJ (Wuhan virus), Japan Times, USA Today, LA Times ((China coronavirus)], Daily Wire, Economic Times, Daily Herald, Daily Mail and others that seemed lower-pub press. An ongoing set of articles from BBC used China Virus as the tag, and AP releases under “What’s new in the China virus outbreak” were repeated items. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you are deliberately cherry picking sources from January and February? I promise you we are not going to call this the China virus in any Wikipedia article, so I suggest you move on. This looks an awful lot like POV pushing. - MrX 🖋 20:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If that's what people are calling it, which a lot of people are, then yes we will. An encyclopedia that does not include that information, or worse willfully excludes it, is not meeting it's purpose and is thus unencyclopedic. If anything the insistence that it will not happen looks an awful lot like POV pushing. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:MrX Personal attacks unwelcome. This subsection is to gather where it *is* used, facts for discussion it is under. Conclusions first needs facts of examples - please contribute any timeframe links to the virus you wish, but don’t jump to conclusions. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Unhatting. Hatting leaves the impression that your central point is not being contested, but whether this represents "just the facts of RS that used it" is being actively disputed, so it is not off topic. I understand that you are arriving at the discussion now, but use only in headlines and not in body text was dealt with extensively above. Use as an adjective rather than a name (e.g. "China virus outbreak", which is talking about the location of a virus outbreak, not an outbreak of "China virus") was also discussed there. More than one editor argued that this did not constitute "using it". Dekimasuよ! 22:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and as discussed above not all sources use it as an adjective, and even adjectival usage itself is still indicative to a degree. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Here is Nature, the British multidisciplinary scientific journal:
  A comparison of the SARS and new China virus sequences, published on 16 January, found that they probably bind to the same receptor.
  Markbassett is not wrong to ask to see the sources. XavierItzm (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Add mention of multiple strains

The article should mention the recent findings that support the existence of at least two strains of SARS-CoV-2, termed the "L" and "S" strains. Here is the academic article that discovered the divergence: Tang, Xiaolu; Wu, Changcheng; Li, Xiang; Song, Yuhe; Yao, Xinmin; Wu, Xinkai; Duan, Yuange; Zhang, Hong; Wang, Yirong; Qian, Zhaohui; Cui, Jie; Lu, Jian. "On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2". National Science Review. doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaa036.

Here are some secondary sources documenting this finding:

• Guzman, Joseph (4 March 2020). "The coronavirus could be mutating as scientists claim to have identified a more aggressive strain". TheHill.
• "Coronavirus is mutating. Chinese scientists find second strain". Fortune.

Thanks. 131.128.73.81 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We will have to keep an eye on this one. The claim is out there, yes. However, the "strain" terminology used here is very imprecise/incorrect (SARS-CoV-2 itself is a single strain according to a normal definition), and there has already been quite a bit of criticism of this paper. As you can see from the article, Nextstrain shows a large number of genomes with small differences. This paper seems to be stating that there is a difference in transmissibility on the basis of one small change, but given that there is a good deal of skepticism about this, I think it is best that we wait for actual WP:MEDRS-compliant sources rather than relying upon generalist news sources that may be misinterpreting the results. There may be some arbitrariness in their definitions. My guess is that this will not pan out, but I will stay up to date on it. Dekimasuよ! 15:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Example criticism. Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The criticism isn't about the existence of the S and L types, but their interpretation. I think however we should wait and see if other people agree with their findings. Hzh (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the study authors are the ones who made up the terms "S" and "L". As you say, the reactions are that it is fairly clear that there are multiple lineages, and some are older than others. But this is always true no matter what lineages are in question, in any organism. What the authors are speculating is that the "S" and "L" lineages represent different transmission and "aggressiveness" patterns–that is, they are claiming that one strain is being selected for, and that this indicates that it is less virulent (though they are not using that term). This could be true, or the pattern could be part of random chance. For instance, we wouldn't speculate that people named "Jones" had different characteristics from people named "Smith" because "Smith" has come to be a more common name.

However, this isn't so much the place to be debating the findings among ourselves. As you said, the main question is whether other reliable sources agree with, disagree with, or ignore this study. Dekimasuよ! 14:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree in principle with what has been said already about waiting for a reliable source. Unfortunately there is a fake news item {ok, probably many fake news items] circulating on social media about a "new deadly strain". Do we have any responsibility to counteract this sort of silliness? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a fair point too. In many cases I agree that we do have such a responsibility. But I still think in this case the best option for the time being is to wait for sources to make the important points (either for or against the study) for us. Here, the original study argues that the "new deadly strain" basically went away by mid-January, so if the study does make it into the article, it should not be difficult to counteract that part of the rumor. However, there's only so much that can be done on that front; disputing the claim here is just as likely to be fodder for the rumor mill. I am still unsure where this would even be added to the article. Under taxonomy, even though their argument is not taxonomically sound? Under epidemiology, near the basic reproduction number discussion, even though it's unclear what they actually meant by "aggressive"? I suppose subsuming the S/L discussion into the sentence on basic reproduction number estimates would be possible, but that's close to WP:SYNTH. Dekimasuよ! 15:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Virological has a thread up on this paper in which a team from the University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research suggest retraction, with an actual analysis similar to some of the points given above. They conclude, "Given these flaws, we believe that Tang et al. should retract their paper, as the claims made in it are clearly unfounded and risk spreading dangerous misinformation at a crucial time in the outbreak." (Still not MEDRS.) In the same way we avoided the Indian HIV paper and (to a large extent) the snakes paper, I think this shows it's good that we have avoided this so far. Apparently the authors of the Chinese study are going to engage with the criticism in follow-ups at National Science Review, so hopefully this will become clearer soon and it will also become more evident whether we really need a debunking sentence in the article. Dekimasuよ! 03:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Similar thread from Trevor Bedford (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/University of Washington) with similar criticisms where he writes, "Please consider this thread to be a public peer review of this work." Again, not MEDRS, but helpful for our decision-making process. Excerpt: "Generally, the expectation among virologists is that a random single amino acid change will have little impact on virus behavior. My 'null' model would be that this mutation just happened to occur on an early branch on the tree and any 'impact' is due solely to epidemiology.... Any differences in apparent severity between these two genetic variants are most likely due to sampling of market-associated severe cases in Wuhan and missing the bulk of mild cases in this setting.... In summary, I don't think the strong conclusions of the manuscript are warranted. We will monitor these two genetic variants, but I see no reason to conclude they have important functional significance at this point." Dekimasuよ! 06:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Laboratory research - killed off at 20 deg C?

The Polish Minister of Health Szumowski did an interview of which a text version claims that he said Zwykle mówimy o sezonowości występowania wirusa, ale z tym wirusem mamy pierwszy raz do czynienia. Badania laboratoryjne wskazują, że przy 20 stopniach C. przestaje być aktywny. - roughly: We ordinarily talk about the seasonality of [a/the] virus, but with this virus, it's the first time. Laboratory research shows that at 20 deg C [it] stops being active.

Can anyone find some WP:MEDRS-reliable research giving a similar claim? He could easily have intended to talk about coronaviruses in general (does MERS have a seasonal pattern?) - the linguistic slip between "it/this specific virus" and "a/the virus of this sort in general" is easily missed, especially because in Polish people often leave off the grammatical subject; the listener/reader has to interpret the subject from the context. I'm not going to listen to the whole video to find out, since that wouldn't count as a source anyway. What's important is what info we really know, or whether it's just a reasonable guess that warmer weather will weaken the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2. I've heard (f2f chat) this rumour from other folk sources too. Boud (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Naming Convention

Why is the human syndrome connected to the name of the virus? That just seems illogical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B0ef (talk • contribs) 05:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

See International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses and the first cite in the article. Dekimasuよ! 08:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The official name of the virus is now SARS-CoV-2 For severe acute respiratory syndrome Corona virus-2. Think of this like HIV.

CoViD-19 or COVID-19 is the name of the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Think of this like AIDS the syndrome caused by HIV.

Of Course COVID or more correctly COVID-19 rolls of the tongue more easily than SARS-CoV-2.

Riventree (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to include this information. There is absolutely no consensus that the virus was transmitted by pangolins and the sourcing is poor. DW is not a reputable source and the article contains multiple falsehoods. Cbpoofs (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you are in the right talk section here, but there are many studies listed in the "Reservoir" part of the article that support the wording we have, which does not state as a fact that pangolins are the intermediate reservoir. They include Viruses, Nature, a study out of China, and a study out of Texas. Dekimasuよ! 02:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Pangolins

The article is confusing to the general readers, making a number of statements, including the false one of 99% identity and then the claim that pangolins are involved. It should be made clear independent scientists don't consider these (including the near-identity of the RBD sequence) to be proof that pangolins are the intermediate host. It should not be left to readers to infer what the scientific opinion is. Hzh (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the latest version of the sentence that you have readded is fine. Dekimasuよ! 05:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Asymptomatic spread worse than thought -- needs to be updated urgently

"We now know that asymptomatic transmission likely [plays] an important role in spreading this virus," said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. Osterholm added that it's "absolutely clear" that asymptomatic infection "surely can fuel a pandemic like this in a way that's going to make it very difficult to control." In an article two weeks ago in the New England Journal of Medicine, Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, expressed concern about the spread of the disease by people who haven't yet developed symptoms, or who are only a bit sick. "There is also strong evidence that it can be transmitted by people who are just mildly ill or even presymptomatic. That means COVID-19 will be much harder to contain than the Middle East respiratory syndrome or severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), which were spread much less efficiently and only by symptomatic people," he wrote, using the scientific word for the disease caused by the virus. 'Prolonged, unprotected contact' led to first known person-to-person coronavirus transmission in US, study says Others agree that people without serious symptoms play a substantial role in the spread of the new coronavirus. "Asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic transmission are a major factor in transmission for Covid-19," said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and longtime adviser to the CDC. "They're going to be the drivers of spread in the community." Osterholm urged public officials to be clearer about the way the virus is spread.

Source: https://us.cnn.com/2020/03/14/health/coronavirus-asymptomatic-spread/index.html 73.195.225.148 (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"the best-fitting model has a reporting delay of 9 days from initial infectiousness to confirmation; in contrast line-list data for the same 10–23 January period indicates an average 6.6 day delay from initial manifestation of symptoms to confirmation (17). This discrepancy suggests pre-symptomatic shedding may be typical among documented infections." Source: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/13/science.abb3221 Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

My main qualm with overemphasis on the Science study is that the WHO guidance (and guidance from a large range of other organizations to this point) is based upon direct observation, while the study is a mathematical model. There are other variables that could create the same results, up to and including the presence of a considerable number of symptomatic people who didn't seek or receive medical attention. The study does not distinguish between asymptomatic and mild cases of infection; in fact it simply calls the cases "undocumented" rather than "asymptomatic". When it writes that the "high proportion of undocumented infections, many of whom were likely not severely symptomatic" were involved, it is specifically not making such a claim. Dekimasuよ! 10:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

"Coronavirus patients with mild symptoms are most infectious within a week of contracting the disease but are unlikely to pass the virus on after 10 days, German researchers have revealed. In the study of just nine patients - one of the first to map when people actively transmit the illness to others - scientists found that patients with mild symptoms emit extremely high amounts of the virus at an early stage of their infection. “Peak shedding” - when a person with Covid-19 is most infectious - typically occurs within five days of picking up the disease, and patients emit 1,000 times more virus than during peak shedding of a Sars (severe acute respiratory syndrome) infection. This very high rate helps to explain why the virus has spread so rapidly across the globe." Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/patients-mild-coronavirus-symptoms-may-highly-infectious-study/ Original scientific paper: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.05.20030502v1. Seems to be some debate and this paper is not yet peer-reviewed so treat with caution, but very important if correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.69.100 (talk • contribs)

"Presymptomatic", "asymptomatic", and "exhibiting mild symptoms" are not synonymous, so we have to be even more careful with this. No one has ever implied that people with mild symptoms are incapable of infecting others. Dekimasuよ! 15:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Also note the Italian study in Vo 'Euganeo (report: https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medicina-e-ricerca/2020/03/16/news/coronavirus_studio_il_50-75_dei_casi_a_vo_sono_asintomatici_e_molto_contagiosi-251474302 translated: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.repubblica.it%2Fsalute%2Fmedicina-e-ricerca%2F2020%2F03%2F16%2Fnews%2Fcoronavirus_studio_il_50-75_dei_casi_a_vo_sono_asintomatici_e_molto_contagiosi-251474302%2F), and now being written about in UK press: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/20/eradicated-coronavirus-mass-testing-covid-19-italy-vo. 50–75% of case asymptomatic, and consequent huge underestimates in the absence of mass testing; furthermore: infected, asymptomatic key workers are a significant vector for transmission, so likely need to caveat/challenge '(WHO) indicated that "transmission from asymptomatic cases is likely not a major driver of transmission"' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:290E:AB00:C1BC:6653:88F6:3D5A (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 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: Consensus against moving. I'm WP:SNOW closing this, as the consensus against moving is already very clear and there's no sense in continuing the RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 → COVID-19 virus – Whilst conceding the precedence of the technical name, the common name is endorsed by the WHO, most national governments, and given the amount of clear communication required in this unprecedented outbreak, lets just use it Almaty (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Almaty: please could you provide some evidence for the proposal? Specifically that the organisations you mention above call the virus (as opposed to the disease) by the COVID-19 name? I'm inclined to Oppose this and call for a speedy close, as the name has been argued to death already, but if there's good evidence for a WP:COMMONNAME then please provide it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• New South Wales Health, multiple WHO documents, RCOG in the UK, the list is endless because its an easier name, that is or will become the common name. --Almaty (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose WHO is dumbing down in some of its public usage, presumably because it's worried about the long-term confusion between coronaviruses in general and SARS-CoV-2, but "SARS-CoV-2" is in common usage in many places, by individuals and organisations that dislike ambiguity and consider the world's population to not being completely incapable of learning. It's too early to propose replacing a scientific name by a superfluously repetitive redundant name. Boud (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • How about renaming it to SARS-CoV-2, the name that you used, which seems less cumbersome and more recognizable than the current name? —BarrelProof (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we do the same thing with all the other virus like, Zika virus to ZIKV, Ebola virus to EBOV, Dengue virus to DENV, Chinkungunya virus to CHIKV, Japanese encephalitis virus to JEV, Measles virus to MeV, Varicella Zoster virus to VZV, Mumps virus to MuV, Rubella virus to RuV, Yellow fever virus to YFV, West Nile virus to WNV, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus to SARS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus to MERS-CoV, and etc, we can go on forever with this. —— Hushskyliner (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - continuing like this, we should make this recursive, e.g. the COVID-19-VID virus, the coronavirus-disease-2019 virus-disease virus, or the COVID-19-VID-VID virus. And so on. Boud (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Calling the SARS-CoV-2 as COVID-19 virus is very redundant and repetitive not to mention it's dumbing down the official name of the virus. Does Coronavirus disease 2019 virus sound good to you perhaps we can go on like calling it COVID-19 VID disease virus or even SARS-CoV-2 disease virus. Think of this before finalizing the renaming the virus. Hushskyliner (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the scientific name should be preferred. Searching for COVID already produces the result for the disease so no problem for uninformed users. It would be the same as calling HIV the AIDS virus. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a scientific reason why diseases and their causative agents are differentiated, both in analysis and in name. For instance, it is quite possible that the rapid mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 leads to different strains, which have to be dealt separately in clinical practice, while essentially causing the same disease, COVID-19. Such is already the case with cancer (multiple hundreds of causes, with partially overlapping treatment regimens) and on the viral side, say, the different strains of Influenza A (influenza, sometimes caused by Haemophilus Influenzae, the bacterium, not the virus, at least commensally), HIV (AIDS, which by the way also has rare yet *completely* independent causative factors) and Hepatitis C (at least five different strains to my knowledge, which fail to respond to the same medication; the effective medications for each having widely differing clinical profiles). Diseases and their causative factors are separate things, and shouldn't be mixed together -- which is precisely why we *have* these two different, WHO-sanctioned names here as well. Oh, and the current name also highlights the connetion with the first coronavirus in the family identified. Oh, and rumour tells me there are already two separate strains of *this* *very* *virus* in circulation, with separate lethality rates, so that we quite probably have to have separate pages for them anyways, in the future. Decoy (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boud and Decoy. WP:NOTJARGON, yes, but not to the extent that scientific and officially prescribed names are overwritten. — Goszei (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE. - MrX 🖋 20:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Viral (and bacterial) articles should maintain their full scientific name as the page name to enable differentiation with similar illness or other strains. Additionally the suggested name would only relevant for the disease, not the virus that causes the disease. Clyde1998 (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This is getting plenty of publication in journals and other scientific literature. What they call it, not what ignorant journalists call it, is what matters. The only potentially relevant publications that you mentioned are popular resources from WHO etc., and as Boud notes, they care more about dumbing down for the sake of those whose safety is in danger than they do being scholarly and precise. They're great for advising people how to behave, but not for determining the name that's favoured by reliable sources in the field. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Why? Would like to see lots of sources using this primarily before we move. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The WHO decides disease names, not the names of virus strains, species, or other taxa. The Coronaviridae Study Group of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which handles taxonomy, picked severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and we should go with that. --awkwafaba (📥) 01:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The WHO very, very clearly and explicitly states the official names of the virus and the disease [7]. The virus is "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" abbreviated as SARS-CoV-2, the disease is "coronavirus disease", abbreviated as COVID-19, and there is literally no room for discussion, so I'm not sure why this was even proposed. It's pretty straightforward.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.57.177 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• there will be strong opinions about this, and I recognise the pedant in myself that says we shouldn’t use the non technical name. However, the technical name is very very easily confused with SARS, so we should use what is emerging as the common name. —49.195.179.13 (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

what name?

The following are a couple of references to the term "COVID-19 virus".

• WHO : Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public
• The Guardian : Coronavirus facts: is there a cure and what is the mortality rate of the virus?

As of 11:40 Sunday 15 March 2020 UT a search on google for "covid-19 virus" (with the quotes) gives 253 results

however:

As of 11:42 Sunday 15 March 2020 UT a search on google for "covid-19 coronavirus" (with the quotes) gives 259 results

but some of those are for Covid-19 Coronavirus, some Covid-19 (Coronavirus) and others Covid-19 (Coronavirus 2019)

As of 12:06 Sunday 15 March 2020 UT a search on google for "SARS-CoV-2 virus" (with the quotes) gives 194 results

As of 12:15 Sunday 15 March 2020 UT a search on google for "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (with the quotes) gives 141 results

At about 12:30 the counts had changed to "covid-19 virus" 259; "covid-19 coronavirus" 260; "SARS-CoV-2 virus" 259; "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" 147

My opinion is that there is not yet a clear winner in the popular name stakes. However in their announcement of the official name "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2", the WHO do state 'WHO has begun referring to the virus as “the virus responsible for COVID-19” or “the COVID-19 virus” when communicating with the public.'

On balance I did support the name change.

However more important than the name change is that there should be page redirects from each of the commonly occuring names for the virus.

Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Having read later comments I am now inclined to Oppose. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

References

---

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.

Possible links between COVID-19 and SHC014-CoV

I want to clarify that whether SHC014-CoV has any connection with COVID-19 virus. When I checked about SHC014-CoV in ICTV website, I couldn't get any information regarding it. Abishe (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Reservoir"

This is a term most likely not to be understood in context for general readers - I suggest some sort of 'common' nomenclature be put in parantheses beside the section heading. Links are fine, but there's nothing like having a short description immediately handy.50.111.45.197 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I think i'll add it then Anthropophoca (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

Please change "The first known infections from the SARS-CoV-2 strain were discovered in Wuhan, China.[11] The original source of viral transmission to humans and when the strain became pathogenic remains unclear,[31][32][33][34] but the strain is known to have a natural origin.[34]" to "The first known infections from the SARS-CoV-2 strain were discovered in Wuhan, China.[11] The original source of viral transmission to humans and when the strain became pathogenic remains unclear,[31][32][33][34] but it is most probable that the strain has a natural origin.[34]" because the the article by Andersen KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, et al. does not definitively rule out creation or modification in a laboratory, but rather stresses it is most likely natural and that laboratory scenarios are not likely. The article states, "It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus" and "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible". Am4000 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the first one sounds ok with me, but I have a problem with saying "we do not believe" as this is an Encyclopedia, not doing any original research. However, I don't know the topic well enough to ok the first one though. DarthFlappy (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see my response in the section below. I think the best option is actually to remove the reference to natural origin entirely, which is how the article was until the day before yesterday. There are no reputable reliable scientific sources I am aware of that imply otherwise. Dekimasuよ! 03:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Natural origin

Hello, yesterday night I added information about the natural origin of the virus, based on a recent research publication, but shortly afterwards Dekimasu removed this. I would like to explain the reason for my edit.

1. In this version of the SARS virus article, I read a sentence about the origin of SARS-CoV 2, but it did of course not belong there, so I decided to transfer this to this place.
2. I discovered this article already said, "the strain is known to have a natural origin", but I thought expansion would be helpful, so I did not bluntly copy the text from the other article, but merge both texts.
3. I realized that the source of the transferred text was a summary (in a press release) of the scientific article already mentioned here as a source, but I thought the summary might be more understandable for many readers, so adding this link would still be useful. In other words, I supposed that footnotes can serve as a service for readers desiring more information, but it appears that they are seen as source references here only. (Interestingly, Dekimasu used the same press release source in an earlier edit.) The Wikipedia guideline mentions the possibility of adding a 'lay summary' parameter to the main reference, however, so perhaps I should try that.
4. I thought the finding that the virus has a natural origin is important enough to tell this in a separate sentence, not in a half sentence. Therefore: "The origin is almost certainly natural, not artificial as some rumours held." Mentioning the rumours and discarding them with italics seemed important to me to make very clear those rumours are not true. With the words "almost certainly" I thought I was going in fact a little further than the authors of the Nature article, which used the word "improbable" (but who were more definite in their lead section, saying "Our analyses clearly show ..." there) and gave several reasons to see "Selection during passage" (in cell culture or animal passage) as "unlikely". They concluded "it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin [including inadvertent laboratory release] described here" but "we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible".
   (Of course, conspiracy theories about the virus also lack any credibility because there would be no rationale for such actions, even the most despisable government would not do such a thing because the danger it would form to the government itself. But inadvertent lab releases did happen in the past. Perhaps it comes down to the interpretation of the word 'articial'.)

Bever (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully I can clear this up. First, the same information was added to this article twice in the same day yesterday–because the same editor added the same text both to this article and at the place you found it. When it was added here I changed its location in the article, integrated it into the existing text, then removed the press release 3 minutes later (I did not use the source myself; I removed it as soon as I noticed what it was). The second time, it had already been integrated, so I mostly undid your edit–that is, I treated it as already merged, not a new merge. The source itself was already incorporated into the article, because it had been up on Virological for weeks and we had been using it as a source here. Press releases do not satisfy WP:MEDRS and tend toward the promotional.

In my explanation of removing the "rumors" wording, I noted WP:WIKIVOICE: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." I do not think it is necessary to encourage discussion of conspiracy theories in the article such as rumors that the virus was constructed. No reputable scientific sources I am aware of have ever claimed the virus was constructed, with the exception of a single retracted preprint. This has been discussed previously in the talk page archives and insertion of such rumors was suggested (not by me) as an indication that the article might require extended confirmed protection.

Primarily, unnecessary emphasis on the basically undisputed natural origin of the virus serves to magnify any claims that it is not. For example, we would not add "Contrary to rumor, Queen Elizabeth is not a lizard person" to her article even though there is such a conspiracy theory. To be honest, I think removing the sentence on natural origins would still be the best option, because without such a sentence the origin would be assumed to be natural, particularly given that we state in the lede it was a zoonosis and we have an extended section on the topic at "Reservoir". Dekimasuよ! 02:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"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)

Thanks.

I just wanted to say Thank You to whomever updated the disease name to reflect the fact it is a Strain of the virus that also caused the SARS outbreak. At least we get to read what the MSM refuses to tell the public. It is a Strain of the SARS Virus and traditionally "Covid-19" would be considered a more severe version of SARS and be named accordingly. The WHO refuse to tell the public it is an outbreak of SARS.

Thank you for having the guts to stand up for the truth. This is a SARS virus outbreak. Colliric (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Colliric, this is not the same strain of virus as the SARS virus, albeit very similar. COVID-19 is actually a less severe version of SARS, and the WHO is probably telling the truth. Instead of suspecting international organizations, you might want to do your research first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtail286 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Add HCoV-19 as another name

Since HCoV-19 (human coronavirus 2019) is already listed as a synonym for SARS-CoV-2, shouldn't it be added in the lead paragraph as another name for the coronavirus? In addition, the name HCoV-19 "distinguishes the virus from SARS-CoV and keeps it consistent with the WHO name of the disease it causes, COVID-19."

References

The source cited here is a letter to the editor, not a separate study. If the term is not in widespread use then it shouldn't be included. It is closer to being a taxonomic synonym than being a common name, but as far as I can tell it is basically neither since there's no significant group of scientists that has adopted it. Dekimasuよ! 10:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Editsemiprotected

Please add the Coronavirus disease 2019 portal Portal:Coronavirus disease 2019 to the bottom just below the external links section

Either:

{{portal|Coronavirus disease 2019}}

or

{{portalbar|Coronavirus disease 2019}}

the choice is up to which one you consider looks better. -- 67.70.32.186 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done -

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 🖋 01:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2020

Covid-19 is likely to have originated in a wet market. In a wet market live animals are slaughtered and sold for consumption. The wet markets came about to inhibit starvation of millions of people under communist rule. In the wet markets, of which there are many in the world, cages are stacked one above the other. Animals in the lower cages are often soaked in bodily fluids excreted from animals above them. That is how viruses can jump from one animal to another. If the animal is slaughtered and sold for consumption the virus has an evolutionary opportunity to jump the species barrier. Animal rights advocated oppose such practices. Many viruses that affect humans have their evolutionary origins in animals. Influenza comes from birds and pigs. HIV/AIDS from chimpanzees. Ebola likely came from bats. There is some evidence Covid-19 came from a bat via a pangolin before infecting a human. R A Curtis BSc (BioSc) (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GermanJoe (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Do these classify as WP:RS by any chance? Cloud200 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Large numbers and varieties of these wild game mammals in overcrowded cages and the lack of biosecurity measures in wet markets allowed the jumping of this novel virus from animals to human. (...) Coronaviruses are well known to undergo genetic recombination, which may lead to new genotypes and outbreaks. The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb". Source: Cheng, VC (Oct 2007). "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus as an Agent of Emerging and Reemerging Infection". Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 20(4): 660–94. doi:10.1128/CMR.00023-07.
• "27 (66%) patients had direct exposure to Huanan seafood market (figure 1B). Market exposure was similar between the patients with ICU care (nine [69%]) and those with non-ICU care (18 [64%]". The Lancet [8]
• "Of the 99 patients with 2019-nCoV pneumonia, 49 (49%) had a history of exposure to the Huanan seafood market. (...) Most patients worked at or lived around the local Huanan seafood wholesale market, where live animals were also on sale.". The Lancet [9]
• "In December 2019, there was an outbreak of pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan, Hubei province in China, with an epidemiological link to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market where there was also sale of live animals." International Journal of Infectious Diseases [10]
• "In 2003, Guan et al. isolatedSARS-CoVs from Himalayan palm civets and two other species in a live-animal market in Guangdong,". Wang M, Hu Z. Bats as animal reservoirs for the SARS coronavirus: hypothesis proved after 10 years of virus hunting. Virol Sin 2013; 28: 315–17 [11]
• "China CDC today released more information about environmental sampling in the seafood market at the center of the outbreak, which also sold a variety of live animals, including several wildlife species. Of 585 samples, 33 had evidence of 2019-nCoV, according to Xinhua, China' state news agency.Of the 33 positive samples, 31 were from the market's western zone, where wildlife booths were concentrated, which officials said adds evidence of potential wildlife source." [12]

I was also referring to /Archive 4#Discussion of a source., which eventually resulted in a third editor removing any claims that the virus came from the wet market. We now know there were cases at least as early as November 17, superseding some of the cites listed above, and studies would have to show a connection at that time. Any cites here that predate the existence of this virus are probably not possible to use in support of the idea that the virus came from the wet market. On balance, I am not sure readding material about the wet market is preferable, unless it is information that unquestionably links the origin of the virus to the wet market. Dekimasuよ! 16:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If numerous WP:RS says straight away about "epidemiological link to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market" then this is precisely what should be reported in the article and we cannot exclude that because there were some cases in November, which is simply WP:OR. Note I'm not arguing for saying anything about "origin" but merely stick to what the sources say. Cloud200 (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about OR. I'm talking about later, arguably reliable sources that directly contradicted the claims made in earlier articles. Note that I was basically defending including a reference to the market in the earlier discussion, along with a phrase noting that other sources differ. I am not sure what the upshot of this discussion is, however, since your addition was to an article from 2007 that clearly cannot be evidence for anything related to the current virus strain. What are you suggesting we do? (I would also have turned down the original edit request, but in fact, the request was answered already.) Dekimasuよ! 18:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: #1 (an editor reverting me in order to readd a note that the link to the market was "debunked"), #2 (a different editor removing wet market references with the edit summary "Deleted drama, speculation, and incorrect info about origin"; that stuck, a month ago). Dekimasuよ! 18:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, one thing for sure is that it was in no way "debunked". There's strong evidence that the epidemics escalation started in the Wuhan wet market, it's supported by at least 4 scientific articles and I don't think anyone can argue with this. There's one scientific article that says that the epidemics "could have" been brought to the wet market from outside (with the evidence being circumstantial). And there's this 2007 article that warns that the wet markets will eventually result in yet another (after SARS, MARS etc) outbreak of mutated zoogenic virus. First two claims should be in the article, the last I agree cannot be included here until it's established with confidence that the epidemics did start in the market (but can be included in article on wet markets for example). If you think this makes sense, we can work on exact wording. 20:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)