1403:, and the 10th is about another Lancet letter that said the opposite (that scientists should still consider the lab leak theory). Going to the second page, the first results is a Daily Mail (which isn't allowed to be used as a source on Knowledge) article about this letter, there a video about this letter a little further down, there are four results about about the letter refuting this one, and the rest are about unrelated letters (including the Gaza letter mentioned above). I'm not seeing any evidence that this letter is the primary topic. --
629:
837:
selon des correspondances obtenues par l’ONG US Right to Know (USRTK), en vertu de la loi américaine sur l’accès aux données, le texte en question a en réalité été rédigé par le zoologue Peter Daszak, qui n’apparaît que plus loin dans l’ordre des auteurs (les Anglo-Saxons parlent d’authorship). « Peter Daszak a rédigé le premier jet du texte et l’a amené jusqu’à la publication, confirme M. Calisher, dans un courriel au Monde. Les auteurs ont été listés de manière alphabétique. Peter, et non moi, est l’“auteur correspondant”. »
396:
368:
406:
619:
591:
733:
179:
528:
510:
158:
189:
284:
263:
116:
64:
695:
605:
22:
1827:
letter is a product of science (correspondence) and therefore the LOWI can advise about science integrity about the in the
Netherlands working virologists. As a result of this , a Dutch signer declared that he was undependent for signing the letter and also declared that he , by signing the letter, did not exclude the lab leak of Sars Cov 2 (see website LOWI 2022-09) -
476:
78:
53:
382:
294:
1364:
EDIT: Many of the comments below have convinced me. I still think "Lancet letter" is a good title given that no other letters are notable enough with enough RS coverage to require their own article. However, there still likely needs to be disambiguation given that there are many other notable letters
836:
Le chercheur désigné comme premier auteur et « auteur correspondant » (corresponding author, en anglais) – censé avoir rédigé la première version du texte, selon les règles de l’édition scientifique – est le microbiologiste
Charles Calisher, professeur émérite à l’université d’Etat du Colorado. Mais,
1724:
Firefangledfeathers said we're supposed to discount headlines because they lie to grab attention and often does not match what is written in it's article's body. I assumed the article stated the same as the headline, and if we weren't going to say definitively that there was a conflict as stated in
787:
author writes a draft. Such as with cases where everyone listed is a professor or of relatively equal standing. The first author is often the most junior in such cases, and generally tasked with editing, collating, and spearheading the effort. I think the way this is described is pretty misleading.
1826:
The author with the most attention has clearly caused a conflict of interest.The question rise :How is the
Science integrity of the other signers of the Lancet Letter(19-2-2020)? In the Netherlands has The LOWI (Landelijk orgaan wetenschappelijke integritei) decided (LOWI advice 2021-15) that the
1443:
or support alternative move. "Lancet letter" doesn't appear to be a commonly used name by itself -- it is almost always in the context of "the Lancet letter about COVID-19" or "the letter published in the Lancet discussing X", or others along those lines. As a result, the new name would just
1011:
It is not a universal that all biology papers are ordered by contribution. Indeed, Calisher himself has said this one was ordered alphabetically. I would tell you that is often the case for editorials like this which are not research publications, where most authors are on equal footing,
1141:
You tagged Ahecht in this, did you intend to tag me? My edit, the second of those two, (switching revealed to confirmed) is supported by the source. I would not support you reverting either edit, as I see they are improvements to the NPOV of the section, making it less sensationalist.
983:
The context in which I said this is biomedical was as a response to the above claim that academic lead authorship in high energy physics, mathematics, and economics is alphabet based. Clearly this falls into biology where lead authorship is not alphabet based, and this is a matter of
1164:
at going another step to phrase it as 'according to' to hopefully get even closer to the style guides, and perhaps reduce the run-on nature of the sentence. Probably more room to improve the "their hands should not be seen on it" sentence (is this a quote, or should we avoid a
1635:
Should we remove source #29 titled "Under-fire Lancet admits conflict of interest on lab-leak letter" from Times Higher
Education? Is that a RS? Are we allowed to say something different than a RS even if they might have read the Lancet's statements differently than us?
1398:
If you search Google for "Lancet letter", the only result on the first page that is about this letter is this very
Knowledge article. The first 7 results are about completely different letters, the 8th is this article, the 9th is the Knowledge article for
1810:
That makes sense to me, I made the edit. If he had been listed 12th or something I might have disagreed, but I think a change of 1 additional author is imminently reasonable to display the author about which most of the attention has been given.
1033:← This isn't a good argument to omit an attributed claim from Le Monde about the authorship of this letter. Despite the cited instances of alphabetical authorship, it is not at all common in biology and medicine; and not even for editorials.
1064:
This claim could be attributed, but I echo LondonIP's ask for sources supporting the claim that alphabetic isn't the norm in life sciences. Most sources I checked say papers in life sciences are ordered by contribution.
1603:" And then Daszak amended his statement just to describe what the EHA does. He does not describe any of this as competing interest, and leaves it up to the reader to decide that. A subtle but important difference. —
783:. This is actually not true. In high energy physics, mathematics, and economics, for example, all authors are typically listed alphabetically. And, worse, I would say that there are many instances where the
1900:
1758:
1281:. It is my understanding that parenthetical disambiguators should not be used unless there are multiple articles with identical titles. Fine with either, but would like some discussion of it. –
1726:
1697:
1683:
1651:
1637:
1585:
1330:. While parenthetical disambiguation is inappropriate, I don't believe the proposed title is unambiguous, despite not sharing a name with any other article. There have been other letters in
1930:
873:
I think Par Stéphane
Foucart and Chloé Hecketsweiler of Le Monde got it right here and this isn't about quantum physics. Please cite a source for your claim if you think it's a problem.
965:
is that some information is complex and specialized enough that otherwise high-quality sources are no longer reliable. You're the one who invoked biomedical information, which states
89:. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
935:
If you have any source for your claim, in MEDRS or RS, then cite them. WP:MEDRS and WP:BMI aren't carte blanche arguments to delete content sourced to high quality RS like Le Monde.
967:
Generally speaking, such information should be supported by a reputable biomedical source, such as review articles, higher-level medical textbooks, and professional reference works.
571:
1305:
this was moved because the term Lancet letter is supposedly generic but there is no other article called or even known by the name Lancet letter making (COVID-19) unnecessary.--
1478:
has gotten just as much press). None of the sources refer to it as the "Lancet letter", and that name implies it would be an article about the generic concept of a letter in
969:
I tend to feel that the typical placement of authors wouldn't typically be considered BMI, do you agree given that context that this piece of information isn't biomedical?
1757:
Sarah
Knapton at the Telegraph seems to be pushing a POV about the lab leak, often stretching the evidence to match her narative. Can we petition to declare her not a RS?
1087:, Charles Calisher's name is followed by the letter envelope symbol, which usually means "corresponding author". Corresponding authors usually are the leading authors. --
1006:
I think that's an interesting statement to be made universally. There are certainly many instances of alphabetical authorship in
Biology and Medicine. See the following:
1935:
1762:
1855:
1730:
1701:
1687:
1655:
1641:
1589:
1925:
1915:
1739:
I don't know about "Lie". More that headlines often exaggerate or make something mundane into a conflict in order to attract clicks. I would agree, however, that
1247:
675:
1084:
1444:
introduce more ambiguity, given there are other Lancet letters as noted above, without providing a better title for the page that accurately captures usage.--
544:
428:
90:
85:
58:
1470:
per Yaksar. I actually saw this article at AfC and passed on accepting it because I couldn't figure out what the article name should be (especially since
1910:
1895:
1504:
859:" ? Or even the norms of scientific publishing in general? We would not trust a plumbing journal to tell us what the culture is in quantum physics. —
466:
456:
1870:
1183:
Agreed that the "hands should not be seen" part either needs to be put as a quote (if it is) or removed, because it is definitely not wiki-style! —
350:
245:
235:
1920:
535:
515:
1905:
1880:
685:
340:
1885:
1710:
What do you think policy says about that? Do you think you reached consensus for the change in the 8 minutes between your two edits above?
1012:
seniority-wise, and come from a variety of institutions. Similar to how "consensus statement" or "conference committee" authorships work.
1224:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
1940:
1507:
1306:
432:
1890:
316:
211:
1865:
1860:
747:
651:
1875:
1795:
First source (the letter itself): Should we change the parameter "authors=4" to "authors=5"? That would make Daszak visible. --
1085:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200219111912/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/Lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext
419:
373:
1617:
That was broadly my thought going back to the original way we described it. No competing interests declared initially : -->
1850:
1566:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
307:
268:
202:
163:
1007:
63:
1800:
1621:
Lancet published with updated disclosure (no retraction). We can describe that process without making firm conclusions.
1092:
33:
1471:
1080:
642:
596:
140:
1169:?), and I would expect the Daszak addendum be mentioned in this section (as it's referenced in the final sentences).
774:
of an article is usually placed first in the list of authors, which gave the appearance that the lead author of the
711:
650:
related articles on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
492:
1549:
1215:
1132:
1070:
1038:
997:
940:
908:
739:
1050:. If that's how you'd like to have it included, we should be attributing to the original sources if possible. —
1009:
903:. This is a biomedical subject and the source is correct in its definition of lead authorship in this instance.
1581:
1268:
1832:
1584:
wikipedia states that they admitted a conflict of interest. Instead of "alleged" should we say "undeclared"?
1796:
1511:
1503:
per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and Ahecht; a very
Knowledge-self-navel-gazing title for using a widespread correspondence type
1323:
1310:
1291:
1238:
1088:
1816:
1715:
1673:
1626:
1358:
1174:
974:
1576:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)&diff=1072249668&oldid=1072221427
1225:
39:
1545:
1528:
1465:
1357:
letter, as there are no other known "Lancet letters" which have this level of notoriety. This is the
1242:
1128:
1066:
1034:
993:
936:
904:
821:
I don't see where that phrase is used explicitly in the Le Monde piece. Could you provide a quote? —
604:
381:
21:
1828:
1327:
1228:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
989:
767:
1743:
is not a great source for this content and if we have anything better we should use it instead. —
543:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
315:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
210:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1744:
1604:
1431:
1385:
1282:
1184:
1143:
1051:
1017:
985:
922:
878:
860:
846:
822:
812:
789:
405:
395:
367:
917:
If this is a biomedical subject, should we not preference biomedical sources as recommended by
1812:
1711:
1669:
1622:
1580:
Shibbolethink says it should remain an "alleged" conflict of interest to maintain an NPOV. In
1343:
1278:
1258:
1170:
970:
618:
590:
1487:
1448:
1408:
779:
540:
1665:
1524:
1523:. Very obviously needs disambiguating. "Lancet letter" is utterly meaningless without. --
804:
411:
134:
1544:
as Calisher was not even the real lead author. Read the "Lead author" discussion above.
527:
509:
178:
157:
299:
194:
1031:
There are certainly many instances of alphabetical authorship in Biology and Medicine.
1844:
1427:
1166:
962:
918:
874:
842:
808:
743:
1836:
1820:
1804:
1766:
1752:
1734:
1719:
1705:
1691:
1677:
1659:
1645:
1630:
1612:
1593:
1553:
1532:
1515:
1495:
1451:
1435:
1416:
1393:
1347:
1314:
1296:
1262:
1192:
1178:
1151:
1136:
1096:
1074:
1059:
1042:
1025:
1001:
978:
944:
930:
912:
882:
868:
850:
830:
816:
797:
1339:
1253:
1081:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/Lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext
634:
188:
1599:
Who admitted a COI? That's not really what happened... What The Lancet said was: "
1016:
biology and medicine papers are ordered by contribution, but certainly not all. —
1725:
the headline, then we were obviously not going to use a story that states that.
1601:
There may be differences in opinion as to what constitutes a competing interest.
1483:
1445:
1404:
1119:
897:
771:
283:
262:
1400:
1335:
694:
624:
401:
289:
184:
130:
115:
1127:, would it be okay for me to revert them now, or can you do so yourselves?
475:
1157:
424:
1237:
There is no prejudice against a further RM to gauge consensus for, say,
207:
293:
77:
52:
1682:
If we're not going to use a source arnt we supposed to remove it?
647:
312:
1047:
An attributed claim! I don't believe that was the original usage
427:-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to
839:
1664:
These edits could be interpreted as being disruptive to make a
727:
15:
1375:
as the best title suggested so far, with the current title "
693:
474:
114:
738:
On 14 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be
1156:
Agreed that your edit brought the text more in line with
1696:
Sorry was unaware of WP:HEADLINE. I see its been fixed.
1575:
1273:
1161:
1125:
1123:
1048:
901:
125:
1901:
Knowledge requested images of COVID-19-related topics
1336:
The Lancet#Open letter for the people of Gaza (2014)
646:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
539:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
311:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
206:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
807:? The Le Monde article clearly explains this part.
423:, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all
1931:C-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
8:
572:WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide
1482:(as opposed to, say, a published study). --
1122:without any sources supporting your edits,
99:Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation
1214:The following is a closed discussion of a
585:
504:
362:
257:
152:
102:Template:WikiProject Articles for creation
83:This article was reviewed by member(s) of
47:
1083:, and also in the very first WBM capture
1936:Knowledge requested photographs in China
1650:I went ahead and got rid of it. Thanks.
576:for tips on how to improve this article.
1856:AfC submissions by date/31 January 2022
1759:2600:1700:8660:E180:5CEA:F263:C04E:F83A
1619:Lancet allows updated disclosures : -->
1618:allegations of an undisclosed COI : -->
587:
553:Knowledge:WikiProject Academic Journals
506:
364:
259:
154:
49:
19:
1600:
1382:(edited 23:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC))
1030:
966:
856:
855:What expertise does Le Monde have in "
835:
765:
556:Template:WikiProject Academic Journals
1926:Low-importance China-related articles
1916:WikiProject Academic Journal articles
1727:2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9
1698:2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9
1684:2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9
1668:, please refrain if that's the case.
1652:2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9
1638:2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9
1586:2600:8804:6600:45:6C9E:D5C7:82C2:A0E9
7:
1233:The result of the move request was:
857:les règles de l’édition scientifique
640:This article is within the scope of
533:This article is within the scope of
417:This article is within the scope of
305:This article is within the scope of
200:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
1620:Daszak only author to update : -->
14:
1911:C-Class Academic Journal articles
1582:Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)#Addendum
86:WikiProject Articles for creation
1896:Low-importance COVID-19 articles
1562:The discussion above is closed.
731:
702:An editor has requested that an
627:
617:
603:
589:
526:
508:
483:An editor has requested that an
404:
394:
380:
366:
292:
282:
261:
187:
177:
156:
76:
62:
51:
20:
1871:Low-importance science articles
1207:Requested move 14 February 2022
680:This article has been rated as
461:This article has been rated as
345:This article has been rated as
240:This article has been rated as
129:on 31 January 2022 by reviewer
123:This article was accepted from
1921:C-Class China-related articles
1571:"alleged" conflict of interest
1459:Oppose move to "Lancet Letter"
1248:closed by non-admin page mover
441:Knowledge:WikiProject COVID-19
1:
1906:WikiProject COVID-19 articles
1881:Low-importance virus articles
1837:12:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
1767:23:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1753:23:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1735:22:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1720:22:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1706:22:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1692:22:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1678:22:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1660:22:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1646:21:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1631:21:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1613:20:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1594:19:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1554:18:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
1533:14:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
1516:16:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
1496:22:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
1452:20:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
1436:15:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
1417:00:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
1394:09:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
1348:05:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
1315:04:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
1297:03:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
1263:17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
1060:16:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
1043:16:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
1026:22:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
1002:18:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
979:19:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
945:19:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
931:21:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
913:17:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
883:18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
869:22:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
851:02:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
831:02:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
817:02:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
654:and see a list of open tasks.
547:and see a list of open tasks.
536:WikiProject Academic Journals
444:Template:WikiProject COVID-19
325:Knowledge:WikiProject Viruses
319:and see a list of open tasks.
220:Knowledge:WikiProject Science
214:and see a list of open tasks.
1886:WikiProject Viruses articles
798:03:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
328:Template:WikiProject Viruses
223:Template:WikiProject Science
1474:COVID-19 origins letter in
1369:. As such, I would support
1365:to the editor published in
660:Knowledge:WikiProject China
1957:
1941:WikiProject China articles
1821:12:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
1805:06:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
1097:05:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
1075:16:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
686:project's importance scale
663:Template:WikiProject China
467:project's importance scale
351:project's importance scale
246:project's importance scale
1891:C-Class COVID-19 articles
1193:23:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
1179:16:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
1152:16:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
1137:17:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
701:
679:
612:
567:
559:Academic Journal articles
521:
482:
460:
389:
344:
277:
239:
172:
122:
71:
46:
1866:C-Class science articles
1861:Accepted AfC submissions
1564:Please do not modify it.
1377:Lancet letter (COVID-19)
1269:Lancet letter (COVID-19)
1221:Please do not modify it.
900:please self revert this
1876:C-Class virus articles
1379:" as a distant second.
1324:COVID-19 Lancet letter
1320:Support alternate move
1239:COVID-19 Lancet letter
698:
666:China-related articles
479:
431:and to participate in
119:
28:This article is rated
697:
478:
118:
96:Articles for creation
93:for more information.
59:Articles for creation
1851:C-Class AfC articles
420:WikiProject COVID-19
990:Academic dishonesty
961:The whole point of
768:academic authorship
433:project discussions
308:WikiProject Viruses
203:WikiProject Science
986:academic integrity
699:
480:
120:
34:content assessment
1383:
1295:
1251:
758:
757:
726:
725:
722:
721:
718:
717:
643:WikiProject China
584:
583:
580:
579:
550:Academic Journals
541:Academic Journals
516:Academic Journals
503:
502:
499:
498:
447:COVID-19 articles
361:
360:
357:
356:
256:
255:
252:
251:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1948:
1791:minor suggestion
1750:
1747:
1610:
1607:
1492:
1463:Support move to
1413:
1391:
1388:
1381:
1289:
1287:
1276:
1245:
1223:
1190:
1187:
1149:
1146:
1057:
1054:
1023:
1020:
928:
925:
866:
863:
828:
825:
795:
792:
780:Charles Calisher
746:. The result of
735:
734:
728:
714:to this article.
668:
667:
664:
661:
658:
637:
632:
631:
630:
621:
614:
613:
608:
607:
606:
601:
593:
586:
561:
560:
557:
554:
551:
530:
523:
522:
512:
505:
495:to this article.
449:
448:
445:
442:
439:
414:
409:
408:
398:
391:
390:
385:
384:
383:
378:
370:
363:
333:
332:
329:
326:
323:
302:
297:
296:
286:
279:
278:
273:
265:
258:
228:
227:
226:science articles
224:
221:
218:
197:
192:
191:
181:
174:
173:
168:
160:
153:
128:
107:
106:
103:
100:
97:
80:
73:
72:
67:
66:
65:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1956:
1955:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1841:
1840:
1797:Himbeerbläuling
1793:
1748:
1745:
1608:
1605:
1573:
1568:
1567:
1546:ScrumptiousFood
1488:
1466:Calisher et al.
1409:
1389:
1386:
1372:Calisher et al.
1359:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
1283:
1272:
1243:Calisher et al.
1219:
1209:
1188:
1185:
1147:
1144:
1129:ScrumptiousFood
1089:Himbeerbläuling
1067:ScrumptiousFood
1055:
1052:
1035:ScrumptiousFood
1021:
1018:
994:ScrumptiousFood
937:ScrumptiousFood
926:
923:
905:ScrumptiousFood
864:
861:
826:
823:
793:
790:
763:
732:
665:
662:
659:
656:
655:
633:
628:
626:
602:
599:
558:
555:
552:
549:
548:
446:
443:
440:
437:
436:
412:COVID-19 portal
410:
403:
379:
376:
330:
327:
324:
321:
320:
298:
291:
271:
225:
222:
219:
216:
215:
193:
186:
166:
124:
104:
101:
98:
95:
94:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1954:
1952:
1944:
1943:
1938:
1933:
1928:
1923:
1918:
1913:
1908:
1903:
1898:
1893:
1888:
1883:
1878:
1873:
1868:
1863:
1858:
1853:
1843:
1842:
1829:EilertBorchert
1824:
1823:
1792:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1694:
1572:
1569:
1561:
1559:
1557:
1556:
1542:Calisher et al
1535:
1518:
1498:
1490:
1461:, but I would
1455:
1454:
1438:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1411:
1350:
1317:
1266:
1231:
1230:
1216:requested move
1210:
1208:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
762:
759:
756:
755:
748:the discussion
736:
724:
723:
720:
719:
716:
715:
700:
690:
689:
682:Low-importance
678:
672:
671:
669:
652:the discussion
639:
638:
622:
610:
609:
600:Low‑importance
594:
582:
581:
578:
577:
565:
564:
562:
545:the discussion
531:
519:
518:
513:
501:
500:
497:
496:
481:
471:
470:
463:Low-importance
459:
453:
452:
450:
416:
415:
399:
387:
386:
377:Low‑importance
371:
359:
358:
355:
354:
347:Low-importance
343:
337:
336:
334:
331:virus articles
317:the discussion
304:
303:
300:Viruses portal
287:
275:
274:
272:Low‑importance
266:
254:
253:
250:
249:
242:Low-importance
238:
232:
231:
229:
212:the discussion
199:
198:
195:Science portal
182:
170:
169:
167:Low‑importance
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
121:
111:
110:
108:
81:
69:
68:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1953:
1942:
1939:
1937:
1934:
1932:
1929:
1927:
1924:
1922:
1919:
1917:
1914:
1912:
1909:
1907:
1904:
1902:
1899:
1897:
1894:
1892:
1889:
1887:
1884:
1882:
1879:
1877:
1874:
1872:
1869:
1867:
1864:
1862:
1859:
1857:
1854:
1852:
1849:
1848:
1846:
1839:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1790:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1751:
1742:
1741:The Telegraph
1738:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1611:
1602:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1578:
1577:
1570:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1508:65.92.246.142
1505:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1493:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1453:
1450:
1447:
1442:
1439:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1406:
1402:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1392:
1380:
1378:
1374:
1373:
1368:
1362:
1360:
1356:
1351:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1307:65.93.195.118
1304:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1293:
1288:
1286:
1285:Novem Linguae
1280:
1275:
1274:Lancet letter
1270:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1249:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1229:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1212:
1211:
1206:
1194:
1191:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1167:MOS:EUPHEMISM
1163:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1150:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1124:
1121:
1120:Shibbolethink
1118:
1117:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1049:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1015:
1010:
1008:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
982:
981:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
946:
942:
938:
934:
933:
932:
929:
920:
916:
915:
914:
910:
906:
902:
899:
896:
895:
884:
880:
876:
872:
871:
870:
867:
858:
854:
853:
852:
848:
844:
840:
838:
834:
833:
832:
829:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
801:
800:
799:
796:
786:
782:
781:
777:
773:
769:
761:"Lead author"
760:
753:
749:
745:
744:Lancet letter
741:
737:
730:
729:
713:
709:
705:
696:
692:
691:
687:
683:
677:
674:
673:
670:
653:
649:
645:
644:
636:
625:
623:
620:
616:
615:
611:
598:
595:
592:
588:
575:
574:
573:
566:
563:
546:
542:
538:
537:
532:
529:
525:
524:
520:
517:
514:
511:
507:
494:
490:
486:
477:
473:
472:
468:
464:
458:
455:
454:
451:
434:
430:
426:
422:
421:
413:
407:
402:
400:
397:
393:
392:
388:
375:
372:
369:
365:
352:
348:
342:
339:
338:
335:
318:
314:
310:
309:
301:
295:
290:
288:
285:
281:
280:
276:
270:
267:
264:
260:
247:
243:
237:
234:
233:
230:
213:
209:
205:
204:
196:
190:
185:
183:
180:
176:
175:
171:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
139:
136:
132:
127:
117:
113:
112:
109:
92:
88:
87:
82:
79:
75:
74:
70:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1825:
1813:Bakkster Man
1794:
1740:
1712:Bakkster Man
1670:Bakkster Man
1623:Bakkster Man
1579:
1574:
1563:
1558:
1541:
1537:
1520:
1500:
1479:
1475:
1464:
1462:
1458:
1449:(let's chat)
1440:
1423:
1376:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1363:
1354:
1352:
1331:
1328:WP:PRECISION
1319:
1302:
1284:
1267:
1252:
1234:
1232:
1220:
1213:
1171:Bakkster Man
1162:taken a stab
1013:
971:Bakkster Man
784:
775:
764:
751:
707:
703:
681:
641:
635:China portal
570:
569:
534:
488:
484:
462:
418:
346:
306:
241:
201:
137:
105:AfC articles
91:project page
84:
40:WikiProjects
1540:and oppose
1226:move review
803:Isn't this
778:letter was
772:lead author
1845:Categories
1746:Shibboleth
1606:Shibboleth
1525:Necrothesp
1426:per nom.--
1401:The Lancet
1387:Shibboleth
1367:The Lancet
1334:, such as
1332:The Lancet
1279:WP:CONCISE
1235:not moved.
1186:Shibboleth
1145:Shibboleth
1053:Shibboleth
1019:Shibboleth
924:Shibboleth
862:Shibboleth
824:Shibboleth
791:Shibboleth
708:photograph
489:photograph
126:this draft
752:not moved
1666:WP:POINT
1428:Ortizesp
1353:Support
1158:MOS:SAID
875:LondonIP
843:LondonIP
809:LondonIP
805:WP:SYNTH
438:COVID-19
425:COVID-19
374:COVID-19
141:contribs
1424:Support
1340:ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ
1303:Support
1254:Sceptre
1160:. I've
684:on the
465:on the
349:on the
322:Viruses
313:viruses
269:Viruses
244:on the
217:Science
208:Science
164:Science
30:C-class
1538:Oppose
1521:Oppose
1501:Oppose
1484:Ahecht
1480:Lancet
1476:Lancet
1446:Yaksar
1441:Oppose
1405:Ahecht
1355:Lancet
963:WP:BMI
919:WP:BMI
898:Ahecht
776:Lancet
770:, the
36:scale.
740:moved
712:added
704:image
657:China
648:China
597:China
493:added
485:image
131:PK650
1833:talk
1817:talk
1801:talk
1763:talk
1731:talk
1716:talk
1702:talk
1688:talk
1674:talk
1656:talk
1642:talk
1627:talk
1590:talk
1550:talk
1529:talk
1512:talk
1491:PAGE
1489:TALK
1472:this
1432:talk
1412:PAGE
1410:TALK
1326:per
1311:talk
1292:talk
1259:talk
1175:talk
1133:talk
1093:talk
1071:talk
1039:talk
1014:Most
998:talk
988:and
975:talk
941:talk
921:? —
909:talk
879:talk
847:talk
813:talk
785:last
750:was
568:See
429:join
135:talk
1749:ink
1609:ink
1506:--
1390:ink
1322:To
1241:or
1189:ink
1148:ink
1079:In
1056:ink
1022:ink
927:ink
865:ink
827:ink
794:ink
766:In
742:to
710:be
706:or
676:Low
491:be
487:or
457:Low
341:Low
236:Low
1847::
1835:)
1819:)
1803:)
1765:)
1733:)
1718:)
1704:)
1690:)
1676:)
1658:)
1644:)
1629:)
1592:)
1552:)
1531:)
1514:)
1494:)
1434:)
1415:)
1384:—
1346:)
1338:.
1313:)
1277:–
1271:→
1261:)
1218:.
1177:)
1142:—
1135:)
1095:)
1073:)
1041:)
1000:)
992:.
977:)
943:)
911:)
881:)
849:)
841:.
815:)
788:—
143:).
1831:(
1815:(
1799:(
1761:(
1729:(
1714:(
1700:(
1686:(
1672:(
1654:(
1640:(
1625:(
1588:(
1548:(
1527:(
1510:(
1486:(
1430:(
1407:(
1361:.
1344:ᴛ
1342:(
1309:(
1294:)
1290:(
1257:(
1250:)
1246:(
1173:(
1131:(
1091:(
1069:(
1037:(
996:(
973:(
939:(
907:(
877:(
845:(
811:(
754:.
688:.
469:.
435:.
353:.
248:.
138:·
133:(
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
