This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the stripes on tulips(examples pictured) that caused tulip mania were probably caused by a virus, but this was unknown to science at the time?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Social history of viruses is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[tree of life#Science|tree of life]] The anchor (#Science) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Source for claim that "most viruses are beneficial"? Seems dubious to me[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. {{u|Sdkb}}talk`
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
