Talk:Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine/Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gam-COVID-Vac.jpg

Article NPOV violation - this vaccine is anti-Russian propaganda
This article compares porely compared to other vaccine articles, and has clear anti-Russian slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.204.144 (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "... has clear anti-Russian slant" Where?--Renat (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

New template for the article
Recently I created a new template for the article Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology. You may want to add it.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added it, and also moved some things around as well as added their logo to it (hope you don't mind, feel free to edit it or undo if you disagree with what I did). Do note that by including in the "state" parameter you can make it display by default if it's the only navbox (or collapsible table) on the page. I also moved the noinclude open tag to the last line of the template (the }} line) as that prevents extra lines if another template is placed below it on transclusion. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thank you. --Александр Мотин (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

About.com
Is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP), yet seems to be taking root in this article, which seems to be veering towards being a propaganda relay again ... Alexbrn (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The semi-protection expired, so it became a target again. I've restored the semi-protection which should eliminate the edit-warring. Somebody will need to go through today's removals of sourced content and return it. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please give the link to the article in question. It could be a flawed translation of words said in Russian language, and Russian is hard to translate into English. Uchyotka (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind. "About.com" currently redirects to "dotdash.com" promo-site. I'm 99.99999% sure it's unrelated to the subject. Uchyotka (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind. "About.com" currently redirects to "dotdash.com" promo-site. I'm 99.99999% sure it's unrelated to the subject. Uchyotka (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Contraindications
Shall I translate instruction for use from Russian PDF ? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * that site uses an outdated security configuration. That's normally a red flag for anything we want to use as a reliable source (no pun intended). --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

General sanctions
As an uninvolved administrator, I am placing the following restriction under the authority of General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019: It is important for ensuring the accuracy of our medical-related content that the standards set in Identifying reliable sources (medicine) are met in all edits. --RexxS (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors are prohibited from adding biomedical content without WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in this article.
 * Why do you think that this President Putin's quote is a medical advice according to WP:MEDRS?--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because when someone removed it, you re-added it with the statement that Also this Putin's claim tells about temporary side effects for human health after vaccination. This is Putin giving medical information which he is not qualified to do. As it is, the quote box is pretty much a medical anecdote about his daughter. Natureium (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * According to WP:MEDDEF it is a general information about side effects of his daughter after vaccination. What do you mean by "a medical anecdote"?--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He means just that. Anecdotes are not appropriate sources for medical claims in Wikipedia. This also applies to things like single case reports that don’t have any other studies to back them up. Further, the inclusion of the anecdote is not necessary to the article - it does not provide any useful encyclopedic information (who cares about his daughter’s side effects or lack thereof?) to the reader. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you confirm or deny the opposing editors' statement that President Putin's qoutation is a "medical anecdote" or medical advice? I haven't seen either of these. Also I don't see that he said something like "this vaccine is fully safe". On the contrary, President Putin said that his daughter had side effects and that "The main thing is to ensure unconditional safety and effectiveness of this vaccine in the future". Moreover, to my opinion, this quotation is of encyclopedic interest. What do you think?--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that Putin's story about his daughter is just an anecdote and completely unusable to support any generalised claim about the vaccine. We simply cannot extrapolate one report of minor side-effects to state that a particular intervention is safe, nor can we use a bland statement unqualified because we know there was considerable reaction to it. The quotation is of interest, because of who made it, but we need secondary sources discussing it – in other words, if we are going to use it, we need to put it into the context of what experts had to say about it. Something like "Famous person A stated X, but experts B and C explained that it meant Y and Z." Even then, we really need to discuss it here and reach a consensus on the wording to use, because it is currently disputed. I hope that makes sense. --RexxS (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your viewpoint. Duly noted.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Article NPOV violation - this vaccine is Russian propaganda
The Russian vaccine announced today as "approved and registered" (only in Russia by political leaders) is unscientific propaganda, and should not be mentioned in any article until there is international scientific acceptance of evidence that it is safe and effective, upon which its clinical trials assessment would first be published in a prominent European or American medical journal, and later would receive a multinational license after international scientific scrutiny and approval. Zefr (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Some "statements" of the nonexistence of the Russian vaccine is a someone's propaganda who lives in a country with reduced scientific potential.--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly russophobic hysteria, zefr finds all sources in Russian unreliable and "propaganda". How pathetic.--User:Tomcat7 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The vaccine, effective or not, is popular right now, so it deserves its own article. However, there is no publicized scientific literature, so it should be referred to as a "claimed" vaccine and not actual one yet. Vimirilios (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Show the science for safety and efficacy in a Phase III trial. Every non-Russian world scientific organization is asking for the evidence. Zefr (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I accept the validity of your point that a scientific report has to be published with the results from the clinical trials but it doesn't deny the existence of the vaccine nor it justifies the qualification of 'Russian propaganda'. The truth is that this vaccine exists, which is well documented in reliable sources, hence the article merits an article. Moreover, more than one billion doses from it have reportedly been already demanded. I don't like to think that this translates to 'one billion victims of the Russian propaganda'. If so, it's really pathetic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Until there are scientifically-approved, peer-reviewed papers published about the efficacy, mode of action, and clinical trials published with concrete numbers and hard evidence, this "so-called" vaccine must be attributed only as an allegation by the Russian president and the Gemalya institute. In the medical field, we do not accept politician's televised announcements as medical data or proof of an acceptable medicine. "However", I agree the Vaccine deserves a separate article, but it "must" only be discussed and attributed as an "allegation" or as a "proposed vaccine still under medical confirmation of effectiveness", otherwise the article is put up as a piece of political propaganda or company advertising, clearly violating Wikipedia protocol. The Article should also mention the fact that the company/state still have not published the requested scientific analysis/data and that it's only registered by the Russian government as of editing this, and not approved by the FDA or any other medical institution, pending further scientific proof. Thank you. --Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm confused. They are promoting this as though it's a product ready to market, but they also way they've **starting** phase III trials. There are already multiple COVID vaccines in phase III trials. This is not a big deal. Natureium (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, they plan to introduce a vaccine with mediocre efficacy in order to replace other drugs that are typically used as a remedy and, at the same time, proceed with the research on developing a better vaccine that would replace the previous one. After several iterations, the process would end with the optimal vaccine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wow, that's um... a rather unsafe and disturbing strategy. Natureium (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

In the main top banner under Legal Status, I believe it would be more neutral and factual to add (in Russia) and maybe (by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation) so as not to give the impression to the regular reader that it's widely registered or even accepted outside Russia. --Dr.EbrahimSaadawi (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, the vaccine was used for the propaganda. Even the name of the vaccine, "Sputnik" is already propaganda. But if it physically exists and has been widely debated in secondary RS, then the info about it should be included, I think. On the other hand, do we have strong (MEDRS) publications describing this vaccine and results of its testing? If we do not, then anyone can reasonably argue this is just a propaganda stunt and therefore belongs to page Russian propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Description
Would you be so kind to check this interview of the head of Gamaleya Research Institute? I think there is a lot of useful information about the vaccine which may be added to the "Description" section: youtu.be/dztIAGfQEOI?t=1397 What do you think? --Александр Мотин (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a transcript of another interview to Vesti channel: https://minzdrav.gov.ru/news/2020/05/18/13979-aleksandr-gintsburg-rasskazal-v-intervyu-telekanalu-rossiya-1-o-hode-razrabotki-vaktsiny-ot-koronavirusa It is quite interesting.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did independent secondary reliable sources cover these so that text can be written based on those (and cite them)? It's also possible to use a primary source for minor non-controversial and non-self-serving claims (WP:ABOUTSELF), but basing articles or important summaries on such more generally, could result in text that reads like a press release.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I responded above. Yes, this is an interesting interview, but we need MEDRS sources about testing the vaccine. Otherwise, no one will believe it works. One US official said they would not test it even on monkey. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So, I quickly fixed a few things. Anyone is welcome to improve this further. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Vaccine candidate vs real vaccine
When does a vaccine candidate become a real vaccine?--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * When a majority of reliable medical sources consider it a vaccine, as opposed to an "unproven" or "candidate" or "potential". It being approved in one country - especially a country known for dubious science/backroom deals/propaganda - does not make it a proven "real" vaccine. I support, however, changing "vaccine candidate" to "unproven vaccine" - it's less ambiguous. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If it exists, it's real. I don't believe there is any doubt about about the reality of Gam-COVID-Vac, nor that it's a candidate vaccine (as are another 200+ others). What is crucial for readers' understanding is that, so far, Gam-COVID-Vac is not proven to be effective or safe. It may well turn out to be so, but without solid data reported in quality secondary sources, we may be misleading our readership by implication, if we use the unqualified term "vaccine" right now.
 * What distinguishes Gam-COVID-Vac from other as-yet-unproven vaccines is that Russia has approved it for use, and that certainly is a significant point that should be discussed and put into context. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A vaccine candidate becomes a licensed vaccine when its test results in humans have been published under international peer-review in reputable journals, then reviewed and approved by a multinational board, such as the World Health Organization, which then facilitates licensing the new vaccine for international distribution to coordinate vaccinations in a pandemic. 84-94% of vaccine candidates fail before or within Phase III trials: "The average vaccine, taken from the preclinical phase, requires a development timeline of 10.71 years and has a market entry probability of 6%. Zefr (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the vaccine is fully consistent with the legislative requirements of Russia and even is being produced, then why is it called a vaccine candidate? If you want to mention that the vaccine is not licensed by WHO then what is the problem? --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By definition, a vaccine is intended to prevent an infectious viral disease, which spreads across national borders (pandemic). If a vaccine is licensed in only one country (without international acceptance of safety and efficacy), it is unproven to - and unlicensed by - the world scientific community and by the WHO which is the coordinator for assessing vaccine performance against specific diseases in pandemics. Zefr (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. Russia's description is fringe/propaganda, at odds with the view of independent science. Wikipedia likes the latter, and rejects the former. For the same reason we don't pretend that traditional Chinese medicine (embraced by the Chinese governemt) is anything other than pseudoscience; same for Ayurveda (embraced by the Indian government). See WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Licensed = prequalified? --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Licensed = prequalified? --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mass vaccination will start in about a month
According to Gamaleya Institute --Александр Мотин (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They say they "may/might" (not "will") do it, apparently without completing phase III (which is expected to take 4-6 months according to the same ref/person). So, it is better wait until they will actually use the vaccine before completing the testing. If they do it, then it might produce a lot of interesting results, including many people getting sick even after the vaccination. How many, etc. When such results will be published in RS (preferably in English), then they should be included to this page, I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that whether someone likes it or not, it is an encyclopedic fact for the "History" or "Development" sections when vaccination will really start.--Александр Мотин (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * And according to the most recents media reports, vaccination of medical professionals may start in parallel with the phase III of post-registration trials in about 7–10 days --Александр Мотин (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an unusual approach no one else takes. Well, I think that allowing people to choose vaccination soon after end of phase II is generally a good idea, given how deadly this disease is. Personally, I would be very happy to use any vaccine that passed phase II in the USA for myself right now because the benefits would significantly outweight any risks in my view, even though the probability of infection is relatively low with my lifestyle. But I would not take this particular vaccine. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is getting off topic, but if your current risk is low, getting injected with an unproven vaccine is risky, for the reasons set out in this Nature piece. Alexbrn (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is indeed getting off-topic, but although COVID-19 is a lot more deadly than seasonal flu, for example, it is nowhere near as fatal as many other viral diseases. If you're under 70, the infection fatality rate is likely below 0.1%, and the risk of an unproven vaccine is likely to be considerably higher. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to strongly disagree, but (a) for someone with a pre-existing condition this is much higher (and no one knows exactly the number), and (b) are you saying that mortality rate from a vaccine which passed phase II "likely to be considerably higher than than 0.1%"? Said who? According to MEDRS the numbers for existing vaccines are by orders of magnitude smaller . As far as I know, there was indeed the Cutter incident, which called “…one of the worst pharmaceutical disasters in US history” when 5 children died directly from the faulty party of 120,000 doses of polio vaccine that contained live polio virus. That was a part of the program to eradicate the virus in the whole world. But again, the mortality numbers were much smaller than you say. This is vaccine, not a common drug like seroquel.  My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's okay to disagree because we're both just speculating. (a) Many people with pre-existing conditions are not aware of it: heart or respiratory conditions and obesity are on a spectrum; diabetes and cancer are commonly undiagnosed. Not only do we not know the numeric risk factor, we don't know whether a particular individual has a condition. (b) I am indeed saying that a new vaccine passing Stage II has an unknown safety factor and it's likely to be significant (who knows?). If that were otherwise, why would anybody ever do Stage III trials? Think about how many candidates fail at this stage, and here's a quick quote to consider: "At the other end of the spectrum are adenovirus vaccines, Petrovsky says. These have failed to control virus replication in animal models. In addition, they can cause high levels of side effects in humans, including dangerous fevers. In brief: nobody knows. --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They do phase III trials mostly to check efficacy of the vaccine in real life conditions and different populations. Obviously, this is very important, and especially when there is a large number of competing vaccines. Safety may depend on the type of the vaccine, and I think one should be especially careful with mRNA vaccines. But OK, I think we are done here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please observe MOS:INDENTMIX It's an accessibility requirement.
 * Most Phase III trials start with Phase II being completed on hundreds of subjects. When Phase II trials are concluded with only 76 subjects, all bets are off. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Speaking Russian, ru:А был ли мальчик? (Was there a boy?) meaning "Was there a vaccine?". My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * However, here is the most relevant question about it: What percentage of vaccines has failed historically during the phase III? The assumption by default seems that almost all trials fail. But what are the actual numbers? Obviously, common drugs fail very frequently during clinical trials, but vaccines can be a special case. I quickly found a few examples of failure, , but they do not really give the answer. It appears that most failures at phase III had happen with  vaccines against HIV or cancer  which are a lot more challenging targets than COVID-19. My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I just noticed a reference right on this page that answers exactly this question: . This is only ~7% (!) for a typical non-industry sponsored Phase III after phase II trial. However, per your notice above, that would be a lower probability for this Russian vaccine - I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not "vaccination"; more a publicity stunt, per our sensible sources. Alexbrn (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, this will not negate the fact.--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL applies. A fact is only a fact when it happens. Nevertheless, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Please read all of the policy carefully, and take special note of "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place". I expect proposed changes to be discussed here on talk before editing. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I know it. So I wasn't even going to ask someone to add it now before this happens in coming weeks. But when production began on 14 August 2020 and first 15,5k doses of the vaccine were produced, the opposing editors refused to add this fact (see section above). Why? --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, according to WP:MEDRS, "all biomedical information must be based...". The corresponding page Biomedical information tells that "Commercial or business information" (where this claim belongs to) is not biomedical information. So, there is no really any reason to not include this info. It is very clearly on the subject of the page. That would just require an attribution: "according to ..". Checking "TASS" in Reliable sources/Perennial sources shows that it can be used for such statements. My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody has suggested it was a biomedical claim. As I've already pointed out, the reason why it's not suitable for inclusion is outlined at the policy WP:What Wikipedia is not . I'll quote it, as the link I gave last time was obviously insufficient: So we can report the reception that the announcement received, but we can't take the producing company's word for it that the product is what they assert. --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Motin was talking about this material he included. Why on the Earth it could be regarded as a "crystal ball"? That all have happen already on August 14 (as Motin said just above), according to a couple of refs, one of which is not even "Russian". My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No he wasn't. Look at the time stamps and . I replied to his comment And according to the most recents media reports, vaccination of medical professionals may start in parallel with the phase III of post-registration trials in about 7–10 days. You can see that the title of this section is "Mass vaccination will start in about a month", so surely you can't be telling me that CRYSTAL doesn't apply? --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In this thread Motin started from one subject (the title), but then switched to another subject, related to the first (that one). He said this very clearly (But when production began on 14 August 2020 and first 15,5k doses of the vaccine were produced, the opposing editors refused to add this fact  (see section above). Why? Obviously, the CRYSTAL does not apply here.). You probably did not understand because he gave link to a Russian language source. But whatever. I do not care if this info is going to be included. I only responded to comment/question by Motin (not to your comment) above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Production
Production has started according to the claim of the Russian Ministry of Health. I would be grateful for adding this information --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Any reliable secondary sources discussing this? Alexbrn (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is a current event and the information is about started production without any editor's interpretation. --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I will also be grateful for adding "GamEvac-Combi" to the "See also" section--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Don't want "editor's interpretation". Do want reliable secondary sources. See WP:NOTNEWS. Alexbrn (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS: " news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics " So, what's wrong?--Александр Мотин (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cherry-picking words out of policy does not help understand policy. Alexbrn (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you heard about WP:PRIMARY? " A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge ". Whether secondary sources are discussing it or not, this will not change the essence.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * More cherry picked policy! Articles must be based on secondary sources and while there are some legitimate uses for primary sources, we need some indication of WP:DUE weight. Wikipedia is not here to provide a newsy flow of Russian government talking points. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * DUE weight for the fact that production has started? Were there any precedents, for example, when someone opposed to writing about the date of death of a notable person according to WP:DUE rule? It is tommyrot. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The section in the article is called "Development". Why I cannot add this information about further progress on this topic? Why do you think it's normal to withhold this encyclopedic information from readers?--Александр Мотин (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * First, it's source is from Russia, so is part of the propaganda effort. Second, it's unreliable and cannot be verified by a WP:RS source that actually witnessed production. Third, it's a trivial news item, WP:NOTNEWS. Zefr (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Please explain it to me as if I were ethnic Russian.

I think "trivial news" goes first and the "its from Russia" + "actually witnessed production" parts form one thing, "show me some Natur-grade proofs please".

I remember how wonky and misleading the article on binaural beats was in 2009, so I agree with you on "please keep Wikipedia clean" part.

Uchyotka (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Vacciene Candidate
I was about to resolve an edit describing if the vaccine is still a candidate that could've been an edit war by providing additional sources but the outcome has not been productive. Here are some sources that describe whether if the vaccine is still a candidate. Nightvour (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's just say the whole 3rd stage is all about testee guys.

If Russia somehow gets a bunch of young men willing to take the vacc- erm, take the sample, Russia will, basically, win "the race against the crown".

Uchyotka (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

>has not been productive

Isn't it "inconclusive"? You remind me of 2009, when "binaural beats" were sold to people, and Wikipedia's wording "may be associated with" was quite misleading. Uchyotka (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology
Editors interested in this article may also want to revise the related content at Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology. I saw a similar claim about the absence of side effects that I currently reworded but it should be assessed. Any potent vaccine can have side effects (or they don't trigger the immune response either). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 21:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That was a very good notion: claim on "absence of side effects" is a claim so bold it's just... scary. Uchyotka (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Responses

 * I don't think that you had sufficient ground to remove this text since it is still a "response" of the head of the RDIF. Please explain in more detail.--Александр Мотин (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Any secondary sources discussing this? Basically this is a fringe theory ("this vaccine is only being criticised because other countries are envious of Russian supremacy") and would need some context before being aired on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think his thoughts were confirmed by the the Russian Minister of Health. "Western colleagues, who can sense the competitive advantage of the Russian drug (vaccine), are trying to express some opinions that are completely unjustified in our view."--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is there is no "competitive advantage" to an incompletely-tested vaccine, except in the world of propaganda. A more neutral look at the dangers of this might be appropriate to use. Alexbrn (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This qoutation was correctly attributed and well sourced and it is not presented as WP:TRUTH. According to WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"--Александр Мотин (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GEVAL fringe ideas such as this are not used except with rational framing context. We are not an echo-chamber for political propaganda. Alexbrn (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. So why then Bloomberg cites this "political propaganda" and lots of other outlets? Is Bloomberg a Russian propaganda edition in the US? According to WP:LABEL these value-laden labels are contentious opinions and must be avoided. --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg is not Wikipedia. We have WP:PAGs to ensure high-quality encyclopedic coverage of topics. Alexbrn (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And your contentious opinion is not Bloomberg (WP:RS). I have nothing more to say.--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with User:Alexbrn that we should not be giving undue weight to Russian sources for information regarding this vaccine - Russian sources are the definition of biased when it comes to this, and even if those Russian sources are quoted by Bloomberg that does not change the fact that it is propaganda that Wikipedia does not need to quote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the Russia-related article the Russian sources are UNDUE? Interesting... --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Using Russia-related sources to spread propaganda viewpoints over the wide response condemning this vaccine from the international community, and attempting to pass them as WP:RS when it's a quote from a government official, not Bloomberg's voice, yes. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, per WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. If sources appear discussing/analyzing the Russian propaganda, that could be useful. But we're not going to showcase it without such framing. We are meant to base our article on secondary sources in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is WP:RSN for this purpose but not someone's contentious opinion.--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And I agree that we should preferably use secondary sources when they appear.--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not an opinion. It is a fact that even the Bloomberg article, which is a WP:RS, is only quoting the Russian official - which himself is not a RS. An unreliable source does not suddenly become reliable in general by being quoted in a reliable source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of reliability, but neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Neutrality" interspersed with anti-Russian propaganda. I see... Alright, see you in a week.--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You heard of WP:DUE? You're sinking to Zefr's level here. Miasma Eternal TALK 10:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm not, since I'm against unreasonable and value-laden labels as I said above. And as you can see I'm totally fine with criticism in the article and I'm not calling it propaganda. --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

>Any secondary sources discussing this? Basically this is a fringe theory ("this vaccine is only being criticised because other countries are envious of Russian supremacy") and would need some context before being aired on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe you actually were asced to openly list, if
 * the vaccide is undertested
 * the logistics are undisclosed
 * etc.
 * and so on.

It's not 2015, and I am not whipping out "Flat Earth has a huge ice wall. Prove me otherwise" flashcard.
 * In fact, flat earth sophists were low-key asking for sustainable proofs of Earth's roundness, and that's it. Stamping derogatory labels on a flat-earther wouldn't prove "the point"; showing him night skies' panorama would work better. Same concept here: show him some more successful candidates, that's it.

Oh, and by the way. Since we're talking of flat vs spherical Earth in context of Russian something-something:

In reality, Russia is 2 times smaller than Mercator Projection makes it look like, it's not that resources-driven as one would imagine.Uchyotka (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of a source, lack of understanding German
I've just had to correct a misrepresentation of a source for the second time.

The Deutsches Ärzteblatt source does not support the sentence: The source states that the BMG (Bundesgesundheitsministerium = Federal Health Authority) made that criticism:
 * Peter Liese, a member of the European Parliament (MEP), who criticises among other issues, the lack of publication of data or articles in peer reviewed journals.

The quote from Peter Liese was a comment about the vaccine candidate being behind six other projects in its testing: This is not acceptable behaviour in an article under GS. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Cool. Which 6 projects? Uchyotka (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * you should ask Peter Liese that question as it was his claim. Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge, the current state of vaccine testing is summarised at our article COVID-19 vaccine . It should put this vaccine candidate in context and give some idea of why its completed testing phase with 76 subjects is considered by some to be Phase I, rather than Phase II. --RexxS (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear user:RexxS, please note my more detailed content response is included below. Just in short on one of your errors: There is no spokesperson of the BMG. What this means, is that an answer of the BMG was given on a request by the Ärzteblatt. This could have been an email, a telephone call by any official, a personal meeting, a letter, whatsoever.. etc. No person is mentioned. The spokesperson is your invention. !! Please stop edit warring, and destroying text based on wrong accusations, etc. Please correct your text yourself, I will not engage in any edit fight with you. Just discussion. Everybody should have the chance to correct his/heerrors themseleves. I hope you agree, do you?

- Response moved from user page to here:

So,what kind of proofs you would like to see?
So, assume there is a wikipeditor, who legit has "the proofs" the subject does/doesn't form immune reaction.

What kind of traits would scare you from accepting it's "WP:MEDRS"-compliant?

¤Can't really promise the "it's from Russia, so it's propaganda effort" part compliance: in Soviet Russia, not propaganda was part of training, but provision of training sometimes would result in "for success in propaganda of technique X" on a chemical plant.

OFFTOP: ''Chemical plant's (re)training program would be valued as "propaganda", can you believe it? I still have some of those plaques somewhere in my family's safe'' Feel free to ask why it even happened. Uchyotka (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

>the subject does/doesn't form immune reaction

Or, even better -- it was/wasn't tested not 69, but, let's say, *itsover9000* times. How would I post it? Uchyotka (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * MEDRS source says it has met all testing standard and works.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe some "rushed" editor broke it away. Can you please repost it? Uchyotka (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Scientific assessment"
Since when does a lawyer become a vaccine scientist? A cleaner who wokrs for that association is also a scientist? --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I right that this so called "national research organization", as you said, is just a lobbyist of the Western pharmaceutical companies in Russia ? Just show me any Russian national company in that list on their site? AstraZeneca maybe is the Russian national company or Bayer? Pfizer? P.S. AstraZeneca is developing its own vaccine. So it would be strange if this lobbyist association, funded by them, advertised the Russian vaccine, wouldn't it? --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I right that you use claims of a lawyer of this "national research organization" for propaganda purposes only instead of trully scientific claims?--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Two words: Citation needed. Please enjoy a nice illustration of the situation. “It's ridiculous,” says Svetlana Zavidova, a lawyer who heads the Association of Clinical Research Organizations in Russia. “I feel only shame for our country.” Zavidova, who has worked on clinical trials for 20 years and anticipated the approval, yesterday sent an appeal to the Ministry of Health to postpone registering the vaccine until proper efficacy trials are completed. I believe this whole excerpt is a great illustration, compared to simpletonish, vastly desinformating, too abrupt, SMS-like, even, claim "an X says "I feel Y for Z"". Uchyotka (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To unravel my point: although I agree with Alexender on the very irrelevance of "I feel shame for our country" comment (once it's a comment on said person's behalf, not company's); I would like to see the press-release where such a comment was made: aside from "Citation Needed" claim; if the spokeperson's speech on company's behalf was aimed solely on alarming people "taking experimental vacc' = bad", it could pass as relevant. Anyay, I am out to Propaganda article's talk page:) Uchyotka (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked for a ref, and found out the "I feel shame..." excerpt here is not exactly anonymous:

Revert?
I do believe the sentence Furthermore, that's not a review - that's a "news" - which is not a peer reviewed part of the Lancet journal. This shows again you have no concept of how to identify MEDRS and are flat out lying about sources to try and make them acceptable. can be divided in 2 claims, where each contradicts to its counterpart. No need to comment; please try and avoid the mix of claims with different connotations, such as "don't understand" and "flat out lying"; there the latter ought to be replaced with its synonym of different connotation, giving false information, which avoids the connotation of purposefulness. I would expect such person as Motin to react with comparing the connotations, rather than the facts you listed to him; due to being outraged, maybe offended. Uchyotka (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should explain this in detail . What do mean by saying that my edits are "POV edits"? My edits are well sourced and encyclopedic. For instance, why do you think that The Lancet is an unacceptable source for this article? --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , how many times do you need it explained to you? MEDRS says explicitly we prefer secondary sources like systematic reviews and meta analyses, not single studies, and especially not "commentary" like you claim. We also are not going to just remove the word "candidate" based on one single source, at least not without consensus here. You continue to make edits contrary to MEDRS after having it explained to you by multiple people, including one administrator (RexxS) above. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * p.s. - I'll also note that you are engaging in tendentious editing here with your biased and fluffy section title here, and by ignoring the explanations you were given above on this very talk page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What's wrong, for instance, with this encyclopedic fact from The Lancet's review ? Am I right that you just don't like it? --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's propaganda - it is you attempting to push your POV by only mentioning that while not mentioning the fact that this "approval" is conditional, it is temporary, and is not based on full data. It's not that I don't like it - it's that it's not an encyclopedic fact and you're cherry-picking sources/words to try and push it in to the article. Furthermore, that's not a review - that's a "news" - which is not a peer reviewed part of the Lancet journal. This shows again you have no concept of how to identify MEDRS and are flat out lying about sources to try and make them acceptable. As Alexbrn said, I'm done trying here - we will see the AN thread play out and then hopefully finally get some peace and quiet to actually work on making this article better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that "Russia became the first country in the world to approve a vaccine against COVID-19" is a biomedical claim and needs MEDRS according to WP:MEDDEF? Just some reliable sources for you:
 * *"Becoming the first country in the world to approve a vaccine was a matter of national prestige" (The Washington Post #1)
 * *"On Aug 11, 2020, Russia became the first country in the world to approve a vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)." (The Lancet)
 * *"Last month Russia became the first country in the world to approve a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2." (Radio France Internationale)
 * *"Russia became the first country in the world to approve a COVID-19 vaccine in August after licensing a shot that had only been tested in several dozen people." (The Washington Post #2)
 * How many WP:RS do you need, ? P.S. When I said "review" I didn't mean a peer-review. just a comment. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * . You have a bad case of WP:IDHT. I'm not responding further. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, thank you for this notion: Alexender didn't even comment my Russian comment to him, why MEDRS is supposed to be applied to bio-med articles. Uchyotka (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, Motin surname doesn't even seem to be a common Russian surname; it seems to be a reference to "Moti" buns from the traditional cuisine of Japan. Uchyotka (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not for a stand-up comedy :-) --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Are the editors covering "the vaccine candidate" per se or the scandal over the speedy introduction? Proposal: split
I do believe the editors of this article have to "balance" between the coverage on Gam-COVID-Vac's ongoing development and on the coverage on the scandalous introduction. To avoid such a blend, I want to propose creating separate article on "the Sputnik-V controversy".

In fact the headline which says "Russia became the first country in the world to approve a COVID-19 vaccine in August after licensing a shot that had only been tested in several dozen people." is something not just about vaccines, but its about the usage/abuse of those, the modus operandi MidZdrav utilized (disregarding any haphazardly occuring consequence over the blue ribbon of 1st place) by licenzing it temporarily.
 * I've just noticed this article is "Low-importance Disaster management articles"; I do believe the article on managing by temporarily allowing hardly even tested vaccine candidate... deserves own title. "Sputnik-V summer 2020 scandal", maybe? Uchyotka (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose any split of the article, because it meets none of the conditions for WP:SPLIT, especially as the proposal would potentially create a WP:POVFORK. The article currently is only 7182 characters of readable prose – far too small to be a candidate for splitting. --RexxS (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, the WP:POVFORK was something I didn't think of. I abandon my proposal. Uchyotka (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources in Gam-COVID-Vac, threats on my unser page
Dear user:ReXX... I corrected your errors too. There was no spokesperson, the only person mentioned was the MEP in the article. I introduced his name. The organ of the German Medical Association is not "a newspaper". Please stay polite, we both are improving the text. We both made errors. You should also aknowledge yours. My initial text was not wrong at all. After your edit of my sentences there were more factual errors, I corrected them in a rush. I am sorry for that second move.

Please refrain from hostile, and wrong accusations, on my user page. Your native language is not German, as I see from your BABEL entry. Mine is. The quoted article is in German.

And please we must discuss content issues on the talk page of the subject page, not on user pages. Mutual accusations of misbehaviour are not constructive, they tend to be intimidating. There is a Wiki code of conduct on trying to intimidate users on their first edit on an article. I will stop replying on our user pages. I urge you to follow my example.

KR from Central Europe FrankBierFarmer (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC) ---end of quote from user page-- FrankBierFarmer (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear user ReXXS, to be precise: I mean the acutal sentence in the text, "improved" by you:

" It quotes a Federal Ministry of Health spokesperson's criticism of the lack of publication of data or articles in peer reviewed journals.[9]"

Please be so kind to correct the text, not supported by your own arguments and qoutations copied in German (see above), yourself.

KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My error (singular) was in mistaking a publication ending in "-blatt" for a newspaper. I am grateful for your pointing that out, but it's not really a journal. It's an in-house weekly magazine for medics. You have confused it with Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, which is indeed a peer-reviewed journal.
 * Of course there was a spokesperson. Do you really think that the BMG can speak for itself? The phrase "... erklärte das BMG auf Anfrage" does not mean the institution suddenly developed the power to answer questions without human intervention. What is absolutely certain is that Peter Liese did not make the quote about the lack of publication of data. That was someone speaking on behalf of the BMG, what we call a "spokesperson" in English.
 * Despite your sneering, I can read and write German perfectly well, albeit my spoken German is rusty. But it appears that your ability to understand German is less than mine, as any German speaker will be able to discern that the quote from Liese only concerned how far along the Russian testing has come, and did not say what you thought he said. If you think correcting your mistakes is not an improvement to the article, then you need to learn how Wikipedia works. It is not improved by edit-warriors like yourself re-inserting inaccurate content.
 * You claim "My initial text was not wrong at all." That is pure nonsense and your lack of self-reflection is now a strong concern. Your initial contribution was clearly written to an agenda and inaccurate.
 * If you genuinely think you have a better form of words than "It quotes a Federal Ministry of Health spokesperson's criticism of the lack of publication of data or articles in peer reviewed journals", let's see your version and we can work out what's best. --RexxS (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear user ReXXS, thank you for your cooperative and constructive style now. Yes we shall improve the text, perhaps add even more from other sources, which were present in my Wiki reference, you deleted.

In short, other administrations function different than the UK ones. Our German speaking countries ones, are legally bodies, which can speak, write, answer ... without spokespersons. As I habe been a high ranking Public Health official, legally trained for that purpose, I can tell you, if you are interested. Then we can improve the text, because what is written in the German source has to be taken and translated quite verbatim. Will you believe me, or do you think you now it best, how a German MOH answers to a question?

have a nice sunday evening, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope that my efforts have only ever been to constructively improve Wikipedia. It is regretful that you are unable to see them in the same light. Your original reference was this:
 * I removed the second reference to the German Wikipedia. I'm afraid that on the English Wikipedia, we do not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source. See WP:CIRC. I upgraded your bare url in the first reference to a citation template in line with the rest of the article. See WP:CITEVAR. I strongly recommend that you don't attempt to insert more content sourced to the German Wikipedia.
 * I understand that a difference exists between legal entities in different countries. But this is the English Wikipedia and we are writing for an English-speaking audience, which is why I chose to attribute a BMG spokesperson, rather than the BMG itself. However, the difference is not important, and I wouldn't object to the wording "It quotes the Federal Ministry of Health's criticism of the lack of publication of data or articles in peer reviewed journals." I must make it clear that although we must accurately summarise a source, we are not obliged to do so verbatim; in fact that is discouraged. WP:No original research states:
 * Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible
 * Accuracy is what we strive for, not exactitude. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible
 * Accuracy is what we strive for, not exactitude. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear RexxS, to be accurate I agree is most important. Inventing persons, which are not named, nor indicated, - spokespersons - is inaccurate, at least in my legal frame of reference and science also. The full relevant passage on the answer of the German MOH in the "Deutsche Ärzteblatt" was 2 sentences, not only the one, you cited above. It was: - "Die Zulassung eines Impfstoffs in Europa setzt neben dem Nachweis der pharmazeuti­schen Qualität, hinreichende Erkenntnisse aus klinischen Prüfungen zum Beleg von Wirk­samkeit und Unbedenklichkeit voraus“, erklärte das BMG auf Anfrage.

Die Durchführung von Phase-III-Studien sei hierbei von besonderer Bedeutung. Daten zu Qualität, Wirksamkeit und Unbedenklichkeit des russischen Impfstoffs seien bisher nicht bekannt. "

To summ this up, and not invent persons, which are not supported by the source, my translation proposal is:

The German Federal Ministry of Health replied to the journal´s question on the signficance of the news from Russia with the statement, that the lack of clincial trials data from a phase III study reporting on quality, efficicy and safety are considered as fundatmental shortcomming.[9]

KR,  waiting for your response,

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The German Ministry of Health is an institution and is not capable of literally answering questions. A person answers questions. If a quotation says that the reply came from the BMG, then a person speaking on behalf of the BMG made the reply. In English, we call that person a spokesperson. The original quote you are so obsessed with is called a metaphor, and when I summarised it, I transferred the metaphor into a literal. I did not make anyone up, because some person must have made the response, and I'm now getting rather bored with your deliberate trolling on the matter. Nobody gives a shit about your legal frames of reference.
 * If you prefer a form of words that maintains the metaphor, then that's fine, but please install an English spell-checker before you attempt further editing. Out of some three dozen words, you have managed to misspell five of them, an unacceptable error rate of almost 15%. It would be helpful if you could find an English grammar checker as well, particularly one that will explain to you how defining clauses are not usually separated by a comma. Also please try to use straight apostrophes (journal's), as it's a style convention on the English Wikipedia (MOS:STRAIGHT). --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you prefer a form of words that maintains the metaphor, then that's fine, but please install an English spell-checker before you attempt further editing. Out of some three dozen words, you have managed to misspell five of them, an unacceptable error rate of almost 15%. It would be helpful if you could find an English grammar checker as well, particularly one that will explain to you how defining clauses are not usually separated by a comma. Also please try to use straight apostrophes (journal's), as it's a style convention on the English Wikipedia (MOS:STRAIGHT). --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

-
 * dear User:RexxS.

Sorry for typos, my browswer does not support spell-checking at the moment, hope you will survive the discomfort caused by that on our talk page here.

You declined in quite rude and arrogant form, to learn that other ministeries, in other countries, may work differently than you are used to("nobody gives a shit about your legal frames of reference", you did write ). Why I know it, see our discussion above.

Back to the facts expressed in the sentence of Ärzteblatt and in my translation: No person is mentioned, nor named.

There were most probably some, and not one person, that were involved in the reply. That is expressed - subtly - by the German sentence. If there would have be one spokesperson, the Ärzteblatt would have reported it as such. Please do not forget: your Anglo-American habits, are not world standard (any more). Your mania with spokespersons, is not applicable to all countries. You obviously invented her/him. If all other editors do not care, be it. I find it parochial and unnecessary.

KR, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear User:RexxS, just a short clarification, we should stick to the Wiki defintion what a spokesperson is. A reply by a German speaking ministry most times, is without any such spokesperson involved.

FrankBierFarmer (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Get back under your bridge. I'm not interested in responding to your provocations, nor in explaining again that you don't understand English well enough to be able to contribute to the English Wikipedia. Your original post was riddled with errors such as attributing comments to a person who didn't make them. You latest suggestion has an unacceptable rate of spelling errors, and does nothing to improve the current text. See WP:CIR. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Get back under your bridge. I'm not interested in responding to your provocations, nor in explaining again that you don't understand English well enough to be able to contribute to the English Wikipedia. Your original post was riddled with errors such as attributing comments to a person who didn't make them. You latest suggestion has an unacceptable rate of spelling errors, and does nothing to improve the current text. See WP:CIR. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear RexxS.

We should discuss content on subject talk pages, thats Wiki Policy. You do not reply to my arguments. You avoid to defend your factual wrong text - there was no spokesperson - just by stating "my version is no improvement". You do not address any of my content in the proposed sentences.

Your thinking of transfering a metaphor to a literal - ending in a spokesperson - is just plainly not correct in it´s result. To repeat the central argument in simple words: Do you call a written reply by a team, an answer by a spokesperson?

I am patiently waiting for an answer to that.

Explanations, why you may not know enough about the functionig of a German MOH, are no provocations. And, spelling errors will easily be corrected, after we discussed the content. KR FrankBierFarmer (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

As user RexxS did not reply, I still kept patient. However an important content change to text happened. The Lancet has proven the German Ärzteblatt to be not correct. German Ärztballt just reported from one of 2 study armes of the trial in Moscow. So the came up with halp (38) of the particpants only. Lancet peer-reviewed article shows, it had been 76. I trust The Lancet, a leading British scientific - and world renowed - Journal more, that the German medical chamber an it´s journal. Thus the conensual sentence, whith it´s 38 subjects should not be removed, but just improved, I suggest. FrankBierFarmer (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This section is way too lengthy for a basic grammar misspelling; I think it needs some kind of consultation on both sides of the question. Uchyotka (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course, one would think some smart-aleckery is needed, just like this:

Yet this particular one, "a spokeperson" vs "the spokeperson" question, is astonishing; should we compare "Get back under a bridge" against "Get back under the bridge", one can see the latter brings a different meaning to the "bridge" word: any random/undefined/unspecified bridge is now replaced with the bridge of that very bridge-dweller, that very troll (in the folclore creature'' meaning, not the internet slang one) - you were talking to. In case of spokesmen, similar logic is used: you can say undefined "a spokesman" if the name is unknown, undisclosed.''

But that's not how I should deal with disputes! Instead I would advice both sides to ask a person with a degree on English, labelled either as "linguistics" or as "philology" or something like that. Uchyotka (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The Lancet
Why you removed from "Further reading" this relevant publication in The Lancet about the vaccine?--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of links to unreliable sources, as you should know by now. Alexbrn (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Lancet is not MEDRS RS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What does that even mean? Primary research (which is what was linked) is generally not MEDRS wherever it appears. Alexbrn (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It means since when have we rejected material published in one of the worlds leading peers reviewed journals? We are not using it for any claim, just linking to it, I see no issue.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We reject such material all the time; it's MEDRS 101. We should not link to unverified research in a further reading section. When/if the research is verified by a MEDRS source, it may be appropriate. Alexbrn (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled - WP:MEDRS says under Choosing sources/Biomedical journals "Core general medical journals include ... The Lancet". Seems to me it is a perfectly good source. Rwendland (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a top journal, but "the source" here is not in some amorphous sense the entire journal, but a specific piece of primary research published within it, which is unreliable per MEDRS. If WP:MEDRS seems puzzling on that, the essay WP:WHYMEDRS gives some handy background. For further reading, we're really looking for historically important publications, significant textbooks, or popular science works, and it is best if when adding a journal article it is of a general review type. Alexbrn (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand why this publication in The Lancet cannot be used for "Futher reading" section. Could you explain? --Александр Мотин (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Other than the primary source research article, there's also an independent editorial or commentary published in the Lancet: fgnievinski (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange! I am surprised to see that there is such an objection to the inclusion of that reliable publication in the "further reading" section. Lancet's editors would have OK–ed that publication in their journal on some good grounds only. People should assume good faith in them )) • Мастер Шторм (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. The point is the difference between WP:PRIMARY sources and secondary sources. A study is a primary source. A meta-analysis, which looks at several studies, is a secondary source.
 * Studies are frequently wrong (John Ioannidis says it is most of them), meta-analyses less frequently. That has nothing to do with how good the article's authors are, how prestigious Lancet is, or how thorough its peer review. It is part of how science works: scientists check each other's works until they get it right. Ioannidis himself has said things about COVID which turned out to be wrong.
 * Science is difficult. Making mistakes when doing science is easy. Peer review finds mistakes, but not all of them.
 * If Wikipedia accepted primary sources, its articles would contain a heap of bullshit. It would say that acupuncture and homeopathy work, for example. The proponents of those do faulty studies all the time, which are "evidence" that those things work. When the secondary sources look at those studies, they find them to be either crap from the start, or statistical flukes, or, most of the time, both. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And why did The Lancet publish this "wrong study" since it is a very reputable journal? Then we should exclude The Lancet from MEDRS, right? --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. This is beginning to like like either a WP:CIR issue, or trolling. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You'd better revert these edits about this Lancet's publication. One must be consistent. Because exactly this does seem to be trolling. --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say it was a wrong study. You are talking nonsense. Lancet publishes primary and secondary studies, and we use the secondary ones, not the primary ones. Why don't you just read the rules, starting with WP:PRIMARY, then WP:MEDRS, instead of asking me to explain them to you?
 * I explicitly said, "That has nothing to do with [..] how prestigious Lancet is", and still you say things like that? I am very close to being extremely snarky with you, so if your reading and arguing skills do not improve rapidly, I will probably not respond to your next contribution because I do not want to be banned for honesty. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And why these edits were not reverted if you so honest?--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Alexbrn,

The Lancet is not a lab itself, but a publishing agency.

Therefore, I vote for inclusion of this article by The Lancet, and believe your claim on primary research is invalid. Uchyotka (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not a lab. It is not a "publishing agency". It is a journal. We don't decide things by vote - see WP:NOTVOTE. On the other hand, as it says at the top of this page, discretionary sanctions are in effect for this article which explicitly prohibit the addition of biomedical content sources to non-WP:MEDRS sources. Any editors trying this stunt again can expect to get sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you was supposed to deliver a link WikiEdu's tutorial, which discourages "use of a single study" when it comes to biohealth-topics. You do say the same this tutorial says; however, if you took into account the fact the existence of such thing as; quoting

you would make yourself more persuading by making illustrative claims. In place where I live, rejection by a certain "big book of rules" rather than particular rule is a gesture of despice, rather than a neutral practice Uchyotka (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the restrictions applying to this article, and make sure you thoroughly understand the difference between primary and secondary sources before attempting to edit it further. All biomedical claims must be supported by secondary sources, and this article has a page=specific restriction to that effect. You will have no excuse in future for breaching that restriction. --RexxS (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I admit this part is something I didn't take care of. ALSO, let's say I didn't exactly wanted to vote for/against, rathe than to attract your attention. In fact, I am this very kind of person who sometimes needs things to be explained "in layman terms"; in fact in Russian, sounding overly official is... let's say, "a technique". Uchyotka (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

---
 * So The Lancet is a piece of bullshit ? --Александр Мотин (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are aware of the difference between primary and secondary sources. You are aware of the restriction on this article: "Editors are prohibited from adding biomedical content without WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in this article." Yet you have the nerve to edit-war a primary study into the article. I do not believe you should be editing with such disregard for the policies and guidelines, and I'm now taking steps to ensure that you won't be. --RexxS (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I really do support recent changes made by to the article. This clearly illustrates my opponents' lack of understanding that the information from The Lancet about trials should be in the article.--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear co-editors, despite the majority decision to keep my text, and despite thanking user:Zefr on the main Covid-19 vaccine site for his edits, he just has reduced my 3 contributions here in substance!

That is unacceptable behaviour, to do it without discussion again, or without informing me upfront (see history and talk here). What does it help to dilute the publications main finding in The Lancet? To shield the English speaking Wiki audience, and most possible of other languages too (just looked at the respective Italian site, whole passages there are copied from the English text) from the full "reality"?

Should they not know, what the key messages are in the Lancet? No, they should not, User:Zefr thinks, and applies his scissors. However, I am happy that even in the comparable German Wiki page, and of course in the German speaking Media, the fuller reality is observable for the greater public.

What is your motive to notoriously shorten the possible Russian success/progress (and perhaps great failure in full transperency) dear User:Zefr? Can´t you wait for other editors to comment first? Are you the official Censor for the Covid-19 Vaccine pages? Please refrain from erasing without discussing, against at least 2 voices. E.g. (Александр Мотин) Shall I start to count, how often you did such erasure/biased shortenings, on this page alone? I agree with balanced shortening, but biased shortening is unacceptable to Wiki standards, or not?

KR, a surprised but educated gaze from Central Europe over to the US, FrankBierFarmer (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are just another WP:IDHT user, like Alexander.
 * I see no reason to use WP:IDHT against FBF, dear "anonymous editor". Uchyotka (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Read WP:MEDRS. We do not quote primary studies directly. Instead, we let experts read them, let them get a fuller picture of the whole situation, and let them write secondary literature. Then we quote that. This way, the data is filtered through the heads of competent people who know which parts of which study are important, dubious, or reliable, and not through the heads of random rookies who happen to have Wikipedia accounts, who do not know how to read a study, who focus on the wrong parts, and reach wrong conclusions.
 * If you want to change the way Wikipedia works, this is the wrong place. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is better, but you will fail to change a modus operandi that works pretty well. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Merely the fact that the results were published in The Lancet is not a medical claim. Hence no MEDRS sources are required, and even the Lancet itself is a strong source. Moreover, the publication has become already a matter of controversy as described in secondary RS - see this section. Is this info due on the page? Yes, obviously. The first publication of results obtained on phase 1/2 is obviously important. So, yes, please include the info about the publication. For the same reason please include info about the subsequent controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the "Merely the fact that the results were published in The Lancet is not a medical claim" part, the controversy is something I am not supposed to handle.Uchyotka (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is now all included on the page (see ref 23), and I think it was done correctly. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"Guinea pig"
Is it vandalism or what? He called himself "Guinea pig"? If not, this violates NPOV.--Александр Мотин (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not vandalism. While the source does not specify "guinea pig", the source quotes Mr. Duerte as saying When the vaccine arrives, I will have myself injected in public. Experiment on me first, that’s fine with me. To claim he will be "experimented on" and that would happen "first" is a meaning of "guinea pig" in English. Nevertheless, I agree that it is very unclear so I have edited it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not vandalism, and there is no neutrality problem. You apparently are not familiar with the common American epithet. To quote the Guinea pig article: "Biological experimentation on domestic guinea pigs has been carried out since the 17th century. The animals were used so frequently as model organisms in the 19th and 20th centuries that the epithet guinea pig came into use to describe a human test subject." JustinTime55 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Said better than I did - but at the same time I see nor reason to use an epithet when it can be more appropriately expressed by just saying he offered to be injected first. I can see how it may be considered editorializing to extrapolate agreeing to be injected first to agreeing to be experimented on. Hence my edit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, was quicker to understand what I meant --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Without reading the cited source, I assumed he actually said "guinea pig", but looking at it, I see this is not true, therefore we probably should avoid putting it in the article. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While I don't think there's a problem with using "guinea pig" in common English, it's easy to formulate it differently and it may be a good idea if the term is not familiar to outsiders, considering that the English Wikipedia has an international audience. The expression is not currently used in the article at the time I posted this, — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly thought that in English Wikipedia, editors are more demanding of a neutral point of view --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The way we ensure NPOV is by insisting on using only the highest quality secondary sources for our medical content. --RexxS (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that "world's first" is also a common American epithet? But for some reason, some editors here consider it normal to call the president of the country a "Guinea pig" in the article but at the same time they call Western media reports about the world's first approved vaccine (currently in production) a propaganda. This is surreal.--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing insulting about calling anyone a "Guinea pig" in English. It means nothing more that someone who is being used to try out something. The phrase "world's first" is common in all varieties of English, but it means something that is the first in the World. When applied to a medical intervention, English readers would have the expectation that we were talking about an treatment that had some proven effectiveness and been shown to be safe. Gam-COVID-Vac clearly doesn't meet that expectation, so reliable sources are not using the phrase, other than to refer to the intention of Russia to use it. --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Before pulling the plug, could you just confirm that what called the president of the country in the English Wikipedia's article a "Guinea pig" is completely in line with WP rules? --Александр Мотин (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A Google search for Duerte "guinea pig" gives a lot of results. Everybody from the Moscow Times to the Daily Mail called Duerte a "guinea pig". Honestly, it's completely free of any connotation other than as a test subject. --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A Google search for "world's first vaccine" also gives a lot of results. But the reaction here was quite revealing. And yes, you didn't answer my question, unfortunately.--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did answer your question if you know anything about our content policies. Wikipedia's policy on WP:No original research insists that any potential content has to have published in a reliable source. Both of those phrases can be found in reliable sources, so are potential content. The next policy that has to be considered is WP:Neutral point of view which requires us to report views in proportion to their prominence in the published, reliable sources. So while all the sources for "Duerte guinea pig" agree that he volunteered to have the vaccine tested on him, most of the sources for "world's first vaccine" disagree that Gam-COVID-Vac is the world's first vaccine for COVID-19. You need to look hard at what you're bringing to the table as evidence, because it doesn't support your case. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The claim on "world's first vaccine", however, stands: apparently, MinZdrav issued temporary permission to use it throughout 2020. Uchyotka (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

As for such claims as You apparently are not familiar with the common American epithet. AFAIK, "guinea pig" is an idiom, an epithet used in "newspaper style" of speech, but which is questionable to use in style, which aims for "refined" neutral speech. Uchyotka (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I also consider the very idea of referring to people as something-something pig bad for certain people who belong to certain cultures, e.g. bad beyond basic "calling people "pigs" is a profanity" claim. Uchyotka (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Guinea pig" is a common idiomic term meaning "test subject" in English, used even by respectable sources (e.g. the BBC). It is not an insult. Guinea pigs are not pigs any more than grape nuts are nuts. We could equally well say "test subject" but the love of all that's Holy can we please stop wasting time on this bloody subject: it is completely unimportant, and seems to have arisen because of some people's unfamiliarity with English. This is, after all, an English encyclopedia. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

>but the love of all that's Holy can we please stop wasting time on this bloody subject
 * OK, agreed, let's stop it. I hate this bold "NPOV" claim anyway.
 * I know guinea pigs are actually nice cute fluffles, not "oink-oink" hoofers, so to say.
 * FYI, in Russian, the "pig" part of "guinea pig" is the same; "morskaya svinka", literally "sea piggy", is used in Russian for the animal (although not the idiom; but screw it); the idea is understandable. Uchyotka (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Additional info: I know, I know, "guinea pig" sounds a little bit like "genuine pig", but Wikipedians of XXI century are not to blame IMO; it should be adressed to the ones who popularized it. Uchyotka (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"I feel shame for our country"
Am I right that neutrality for you is letting emotional comments of some nonames ("I feel shame for our country") against vaccine and deleting the statement of the Minister of Health in support ? --Александр Мотин (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that added this noname's comment to the article ("I feel shame for our country") for "greater neutrality"  --Александр Мотин (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Neutrality has gone down the drains ages go! :-) AntonHogervorst (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe such comment was not a direct quote, but a remark. Zefr was notified to refrain from such remarks in the future on his talk page. Uchyotka (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The quote was by Svetlana Zavidova, Executive Director of the Russian Association of Clinical Research Organizations (ACTO), a membership of contract research organizations (CROs), then used as provided in this reputable secondary sourced cited in the article, so meets WP:RS. It is impossible that reliable clinical research on Gam-COVID-Vac - especially if a Phase III trial on tens or hundreds of thousands of Russians is conducted - can be done in Russia without a CRO, i.e., a company having global experience and membership in ACTO. In the running banner on the ACTO home page are the names of many of the world's largest CROs (and client pharmaceutical companies) - IQVIA, Covance, Parexel are among them - evidently having a large presence in Russia, a country attractive for clinical research on COVID-19 because of the high rates of infection at present (4th highest in the world), and the low relative value of the ruble, making clinical research in Russia relatively inexpensive. ACTO's statement regarding conduct of COVID-19 trials during a pandemic is here. Zefr (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice! I will definitely add this over undefined "a spokeperson", thanks! Uchyotka (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way. I have read the discussion on your use of "a spokeperson". AFAIK, undefined form in "a spokeperson" is only correct once said spokeperson wants to remain "anonymous to public", e.g. known to the journalist yet undisclosed in the newspaper (which is not the case, it's known the spokeperson has name and title). Please provide some examples of "a spokeperson" with indefinite "a" article used over "the spokeperson", where a name of said spokeperson would be given. Uchyotka (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Svetlana Zavidova, Executive Director of the Russian Association of Clinical Research Organizations, said, "It's ridiculous, I feel only shame for our country."

There. We know the spokeperson who made this particular quote; it's not the case of "a certain spokeperson" who was not supposed to be disclosed. Uchyotka (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)