Talk:RaTG13
Add topicLatest comment: 2 months ago by Tony Schountz in topic Culture of RaTG13
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RaTG13 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to COVID-19. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus
- (RfC, February 2021): There is
no consensus as to whether the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a "conspiracy theory" or if it is a "minority, but scientific viewpoint". There is no rough consensus to create a separate section/subsection from the other theories related to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
- There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021):
How a disease spreads, what changes its likelihood to spread and mutation information are, I believe, biomedical (or chemical) information. But who created something or where it was created is historical information.
[...]Sources for information of any kind should be reliable, and due weight should be given in all cases. A minority viewpoint or theory should not be presented as an absolute truth, swamp scientific consensus or drown out leading scientific theories.
- In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
- The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021)
- The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
- The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
- (RfC, December 2021):
Should the article include the sentence They have dismissed the theory based in part on Shi's emailed answers. See this revision for an example.
[...]Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... - it is obvious that there is clear consensus against including this.
- (RFC, October 2023):
There is a consensus against mentioning that the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy announced in 2023 that they favor the lab leak theory in the lead of this article.
The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)- In the article COVID-19 lab leak theory there is
no consensus to retain "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism" in the lead. Neither, however, is there a consensus to remove it from the lead.
(RFC, December 2024).
Lab leak theory sources
[edit]
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
[] · |
|---|
| For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID |
|
[] · |
|---|
| For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION. |
|
Culture of RaTG13
[edit]Present text: In 2020, Shi and her group retested the serum samples from the miners for SARS-CoV-2. The samples tested negative.[7]
Suggested addition: In 2020, Shi and her group retested the serum samples from the miners for SARS-CoV-2. The samples tested negative.[7] In 2020, Shi stated that her group had neither isolated nor cultured RaTG13. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.222.179 (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done And how is that relevant to the topic at hand, which is not the studies done by the team but this particular virus strain? The explicit denial of the conspiracy theories about COVID is not necessary here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- For sure, the phrase "Shi Zhengli and her group isolated 293 different coronaviruses" should be changed to "Shi Zhengli and her group detected 293 different coronaviruses." In virology, an isolate is the infectious viron and they certainly did not isolate any of these 293 viruses. All they have are sequence data, not the virus. And there is no infectious clone of RaTG13, either. Tony Schountz (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Please edit: Incorrect use of the term "isolate"
[edit]The article currently incorrectly states: "between 2012 and 2015, Shi Zhengli and her group isolated 293 different coronaviruses".
They wrote: "From these samples, we detected 293 highly diverse coronaviruses, of which 284 were designated alphacoronaviruses and 9 were designated betacoronaviruses on the basis of partial RdRp sequences."
In virology, "isolated" suggests that they cultured the virus, which is not what they did. Instead, they amplified a small piece of DNA from the environmental sample. Even using general English, the term "isolated" is not accurate -- they did not separate the virus from the rest of the sample. This mistake could be important, since it suggests that they have hundreds of viable viruses in their collection. Please use the term 'detected'. AdamChrisR (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I came here to make the same comment, "isolated" is very misleading and it should be "detected RNA from 293 highly diverse ...". They obtained sequence data, not live virus. We don't have to take the word of the WIV researchers either. These viruses are very hard to culture and no one with any experience would think they had managed to recover 293 different viable strains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpxB fan (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
- C-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/28 December 2020
- Accepted AfC submissions
- C-Class virus articles
- Low-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles
- C-Class COVID-19 articles
- Low-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- Low-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class mammal articles
- Low-importance mammal articles
- WikiProject Mammals articles