File talk:3D medical animation coronavirus structure.jpg

Image caption

I've started this discussion following a request at help desk.[1] @Awkwafaba: @Guest2625: Please discuss here the reasons for your recent edits so that you can reach consensus. Thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guest2625 and From Hill To Shore: I can find no information from the source of this image stating that it is an Embecovirus. The best I could find what that it is SARS-CoV-2. If someone has a link at ScientificIllustrations.com or the CDC that shows the image and states otherwise, please provide that information. --Awkwafaba (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

When you follow the source links [2] and [3], this description is not given. There is no description given at all. I have no idea why it is labelled as the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The individual who labeled it as such is not aware that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't have the haemagglutinin esterase (HE) protein. It is not ok to have such an error on such a high use image.

The correct description can be found by looking at the two reference given in the corrected description below:

This is a 3D medical animation of a coronavirus of the genus Betacoronavirus (group 2), subgenus Embecovirus (subgroup A), derived from a CDC released image. It explains the ultrastructural morphology of Embecoviruses. This virus has four surface proteins E,S,M & HE labelled in the image. The S protein gives the crown-like appearance, for which the virus is named. The cross-section shows the inner components of the virus.

The descriptor will need to be changed to simply a virus, while this conversation is going on. We can all agree that that is a virus. --Guest2625 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guest2625: again you say "corrected." You cannot add your own description and call it "corrected." Neither of those references you post use the image in question, so how can they say what the image is? They can only say what the image is not, in a case where a mistake is made by the artist. However, ScientificIllustrations does have the image labeled on their site, at the link I added to the commons description. That's where it says "3D medical animation still shot showing 2019 novel Coronavirus Structure". If you find evidence that this is not a suitable image for the SARS-CoV-2 article, that does not make it suitable for an Embecovirus article. It means it should not be used. --Awkwafaba (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Awkwafaba: Read the source that was provided. That this diagram is not a SARS-CoV-2 virus is clearly indicated in that paper. I'll quote another sentence from the paper:

"The presence of HE genes exclusively in members of Betacoronavirus subgroup A, but not members of Betacoronavirus subgroup B, C and D suggested that the recombination had probably occurred in the ancestor of members of Betacoronavirus subgroup A, after diverging from the ancestor of other subgroups of Betacoronavirus."

Now look at figure 2 in that paper. SARSr-CoV is in the group Betacoronavirus subgroup B. The common's image has the HE protein depicted therefore it is not SARSr-CoV-2. This is basic logic on the level of 1 + 1 = 2. If you're going to have a discussion about the taxonomy of viruses, you need to be able to read such a basic paper. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guest2625: As I said, just because you think it is not SARS-CoV-2 does not mean that it is an embecovirus. All you are arguing for is its removal from pages about SARS-CoV-2. This image was illustrated by humans, it is not a photograph where an objective answer can be found. And if indeed it is not SARS-CoV-2 then its provenance is in question. @Manu5: can you tell us which page at the CDC this is actually sourced from? I wouldn't think that they would misrepresent the image.

@Awkwafaba: In the above bolded argument, it's been established that the image is not a SARS-CoV-2 virus, because the image contains the haemagglutinin esterase (HE) protein.

Above image has HE protein ==> image not SARS-CoV-2 virus

To continue with the proof that this image is a coronavirus in the genus Betacoronavirus subgroup B (where subgroup B is definitionally the same as subgenus en:Embecovirus), let's compare the above image with the image given in the second reference which is of a coronavirus. The reference image and the above image are analogous; therefore, the above image is a coronavirus.

Above image analogous to reference image ==> image a coronavirus

Because the image above of an unknown coronavirus has a haemagglutinin esterase (HE) protein, according to the statements in the first quote, the image above is, therefore, a coronavirus of the genus Betacoronavirus subgroup A. Lastly, definitionally subgroup A is equivalent to subgenus en:Embecovirus.

Therefore, the image above is an image of a coronavirus from the genus Betacoronavirus, subgenus Embecovirus

Above image of a coronavirus has HE protein ==> image a coronanvirus from the genus Betacoronavirus, subgenus Embecovirus

That is the very basic 1 + 1 = 2 statement that the sky is blue, and that the caption I have placed on the image is correct. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Guest2625: Please read en:Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material for why you cannot use this "1+1=2" line of reasoning. Specifically look at the sentence: "If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." You cannot add things up, that is synthesis. Note that this is totally different from en:Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, which is when you don't need to make a citation at all. Seeing as you made two, I don't think this is the case at all. --Awkwafaba (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References