Talk:Social history of viruses

Source for claim that "most viruses are beneficial"? Seems dubious to me
The article claims that "most viruses are beneficial. They drive evolution by transferring genes across species, play important roles in ecosystems and are essential to life"

While viruses certainly play important roles in evolution, it's not fair to say that they are essential to life, or even beneficial. Some viruses may be, but these are exceptions. Viruses consume host resources, and in many cases kill host cells. Can anyone provide evidence to back up the article's claim? If not, I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB60:1011:2006:1899:228F:FCE3:CAD3 (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not a claim, it is fully supported by the citations and it has nothing to do with being "fair". I suggest you read Carl Zimmer's  "A planet of Viruses". Your view of viruses seems very anthropocentric. Graham Beards (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 Pandemic section
I get this is a featured article, but at some point it has to have a section on the pandemic. How do you want it to read? -- occono (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At some point yes. But not now. This is a history article and it should not include current events which are changing everyday. At some point in the future content can added that is supported by reliable sources but analyses of the social impact of the pandemic have yet to be written. At the moment content is best added to the coronavirus-related articles.Graham Beards (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I agree that a mention is appropriate and I have added a paragraph to the SARS section. Perhaps we can consider adding a dedicated covid-19 section when more sources come to light. Graham Beards (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @Graham Beards lol, I think I would've agreed with you on March 16, 2020. Now...slightly diffferent story. Glad to see that this has been updated and there's coverage of COVID-19. Have you considered nominating this for another TFA? It's certainly topical and is (alas) likely to remain so for a while. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Sdkb, TFA can be a pain and with so many conspiracy theorists and idiots around and it is exposure I can live without. I still think it's too early (sadly) to write the history of the pandemic. What do you think? Graham Beards (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We write for readers, so exposure to more of them is good, but still, I understand that view. In that case, the other thing we can do to help people discover this is to make sure it's wikilinked on other pages whenever it's relevant. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk`

"Patients" or "victims"
The style guidelines for medical articles advise against the use of  the word "patient". I chose "victims" because it is more objective than "sufferer" for example. I have reverted a recent edit for this reason. Also describing a person depicted on a stele that's thousands of years old as a "patient" is rather silly in my view.Graham Beards (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oops. Sorry about not seeing this comment before I made some modifications. They also advise against victim. Here's the full quote from MOSMED "suffer".
 * > Choose appropriate words when describing medical conditions and their effects on people. Words like disease, disorder, or affliction are not always appropriate. Independently observed medical signs are not self-reported symptoms. Avoid saying that people "suffer" from or are "victims" of a chronic illness or symptom, which may imply helplessness: identifiers like survivor, affected person or individual with are alternate wordings.
 * I agree that patient isn't good. My reasoning was that patient was better than victim because victim has some pretty unpleasant connotations.
 * So what I've done is tried to rewrite my changes it to not use the word patient. I did make other changes in there. I might have missed one. How about "person with" or survivor? Mason (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Person is the better. Did you tag Dobson as needing a full citation? If so it's already there under Bibliography.Graham Beards (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks for pointing out dobson was in the bibliography. I must have missed it. (AWB can make that stuff harder to see. So I'll have to rethink my workflow for FCN) Mason (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. It might be best to read a Featured Article and check the citation style before plunging in with AWB. I think AWB often causes more issues than it is worth. Graham Beards (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I like your two step approach for featured. I think the problem is that I start reading them after I've already done the MEDMOS change that brought me to the page. And then I keep reading because the article is good... I'll think about it and try a few approaches. (Because obviously I don't want to "not" read the article. )
 * Thanks for all your hard work on these virus articles. They are really excellent! Mason (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)