Talk:SHC014-CoV

Original research
Some of the newly added material seems to be WP:Original Research as the articles do not seem to mention the 2015 research into this virus in particular. Perhaps someone can marshall better sources, as there's clearly some connection. I'm tagging this for now. -- Kendrick7talk 18:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I edited this to the only thing the author got right. The rest of it was WP:Original Research speculating on a conspiracy theory that this was a leak from a lab. Unless they can find a verifiable outside source that can connect this virus to SARS-CoV-2, there is no basis for that portion of the article. ComradeScientist (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems that there is an unregistered user who is reverting the deletions. The deleted sections are comprised of WP:Original Research, and is speculative. The claims that this virus was the backbone, or the parental strain have been discounted in peer reviewed literature: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22221751.2020.1733440 ComradeScientist (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I expanded the article a bit to include its a betacoronavirus and location of discovery. However the article is being reverted by people who are invested in the lab leak conspiracy theory. The topic is discussed on the COVID pandemic talk page at length: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#Leaked_from_lab . Unlike those pages, there aren't even fringe news organizations reporting this as the potential parental strain. I will keep deleting any WP:Original Research additions or reversions, but protecting/locking this page may be necessary. Further edited to use previous version that summarized past peer reviewed research well. ComradeScientist (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Comrade. I was keeping an eye on things, but WP:TIND, you know? Edit warring over this might prove to be pointless, but the storm will pass. If the 2015 NIH-to-Wuhan money discussed here ever actually gets tied back to the 2015 NIH-to-Wuhan research (and it probably can) by a reliable source it's probably worth a brief mention. -- Kendrick7talk 21:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw your edits, thank you for helping. As for that source, its better suited for articles on the NIAID, Wuhan Institute of Virology, etc, as no article on any virus on wiki discusses the funding of the projects. Also, most of the research on this specific virus was done prior to 2015, the main article describing the virus was publishedi n 2013. ComradeScientist (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)