Talk:Virology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Virology?

what really is virology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01:10, 19 June 2005 (UTC) (talk)

Study of viri -

...of viruses, as the article states. Ben davison 16:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

yes.. virology is the study of viruses, virus is a type of living thing, not a non-living, how can a virus can spread if they are not living thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.65.11 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject

Pathology

The article states virology is often considered part of microbiology. Yet in many institutions it's part of the pathology section. MrTroy 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fixed now. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Virus

I am thinking about redirecting this article to Virus, any comments? Graham Colm Talk 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Virus Classification Removal

The sub-heading entitled Virus Structure and Classification should be changed to Virus Structure, and the section having to do with the speculative nature of the classification should be eliminated. Sticking to pure science would be preferable so that the reader can obtain information without unproven hypotheses. - KitchM (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


Virus ID: Proposal

I'd like to propose an extended taxonomy template for wiki articles of viruses and viruses families. It is an ID box that systematically describe basic viral properties such as:

  • Class, Nucleic acid type, strands, sense, shape, segments: for example "Class V: -ssRNA, 8 segments" for influenza virus
  • Envelope: Enveloped, Naked, Else
  • Shape: Icosahedral, Helical, Else
  • Genome size(bp)
  • size(nm)
  • Number of viral proteins
  • Entry mechanism: Membrane-Fusion, Endocytosis, Else
  • Integration to genome: yes/no
  • Infectious nucleic acid: yes/no
  • Known pathology: yes/no
  • Oncogenesis: yes/no
  • Host domains: Animals, Plants, Fungi, Bacteria
  • Human host: yes/no

I would have all the above present in the ID even if some are unknown, in order to encourage wikipedians to fill them in. Also, a reference link could be given to each such info item. What do you think?

Example of the taxonomy box currently in use:

Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus
Virus classification
Group:
Group VI (ssRNA-RT)
Family:
Retroviridae
Subfamily:
Orthoretrovirinae
Genus:
Gammaretrovirus
Species:
Xenotropic MuLV-related virus

The views in this article are not mainstream—they are medical

I am trying to get the article to mainstream views in virology. The article is utterly confusing two different topics—medical virology with pure virology. The introduction claims that virology is a part of medicine, an utterly false claim, and holds as reference a medical microbiology textbook, not a pure virology textbook. I am trying to fix the article by bringing it mainstream views—in virology. I know my way around virology literature, and a pure virology textbook, and can point out the differences, because, as I thoroughly cited, they are not the same thing.

The article is premised on an utter error. I cited thoroughly it in both basic and medical literature—plus philosophy of medicine, history of medicine, and sociology of medicine—and history of and philosophy of science. I showed the stark contrasts between a medical microbiology textbook's declaration—similarly asserted in a medical journal—versus a pure virology textbook plainly refuting such declarations. I did not fabricate the citations. To assert that my edits not mainstream views, please, cite and explain. Kusername (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree there are problems with this article. There is much that is covered better in Virus, History of virology and History of viruses. But the comments that have been sourced to Nigel Dimmock and his colleagues book do not support writing "medical microbiology has its own views on viruses" and Sir Peter Medawar's famous phrase, "a piece of bad news wrapped in a protein coat" was said very much tongue in cheek. Other sources used are questionable with regard to reliability. To say "In basic virology it is commonly held that viruses hijack cells" is totally untrue. And what is "basic virology"? And to say, "a virology textbook mainly concerns...." is misleading. Which virology textbook is this? I have over fifty here on my shelves and none of them "mainly concern molecular biology" and they are not "exhibiting vast gaps" at all. Please discuss the proposed changes to this article one at time. Wikipedia is a mainstream, conservative encyclopaedia. If you have personal philosophical views on the viruses that you feel the need to express, you are on the wrong website. Graham Colm (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
See 2006 comment. Rich Farmbrough, 08:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC).
I wrote but never finished a response to untangle this utter error [Clarke JN et al, "The paradoxical reliance on allopathic medicine and positivist science among skeptical audiences", Soc Sci Med, 2007 Jan;64(1):164-73]. It takes a mountain to fall of those of medical faith to cease trying to rule biology with medicine [McCormick J, "Scientific medicine—fact or fiction? The contribution of science to medicine", Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract, 2001 Jul;(80):3–6]. That my edits were reverted with the claim that the statement that medical microbiology has its own view of viruses—different from the view of pure virology—needs citation is quite a confession of medical opinion trying to rule the natural world. Which medical microbiology textbook covers nonpathogenic human viruses, nonhuman animal viruses, bacterial viruses, amoebae viruses, and plant viruses?
Under the pathology department is clinical virology ["Clinical virology", Dept of Pathology, Stanford School of Medicine, 2011]. Its Wikipedia page is empty but is where most of the nearsighted, absolute, and misleading claims on pathology of viral disease—now in this article—belong. Clinical virology is under medical microbiology (applied science), not biology (pure science) [Holtzman E, "Science, philosophy, and society: Some recent books", Int J Health Serv, 1981;11(1):123-49]. If someone disputes that a virology textbook is mostly discussion of molecular biology and immunology, apparently one is unfamiliar with virology (basic or pure science), and has it confused with clinical virology (medical applied science). Kusername (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Virology

I propose changing the definition of Virology as it is stated in the first paragraph so that it goes into detail on the viri- part of Virology. NOjini-NJITWILL (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC) I plan to edit the Virology page so that the definition does not just repeat the root word, but also defines it. --NOjini-NJITWILL (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And what is your proposed definition? And please note the plural of virus is "viruses". My definition would be along the lines, "Virology is the study of viruses, their interaction with their host cells, the environment and the diseases they can cause". But I think the current definition given, "Virology is the study of viruses and virus-like agents: their structure, classification and evolution, their ways to infect and exploit host cells for reproduction, their interaction with host organism physiology and immunity, the diseases they cause, the techniques to isolate and culture them, and their use in research and therapy," is acceptable. Please do not edit the page without discussing proposed changes here first. Graham Colm (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus showed that the oncogene of Rous sarcoma virus is in fact not specific to the virus but is contained in the genome of healthy animals of many species. The oncovirus can switch this pre-existing benign proto-oncogene on, turning it into a true oncogene that causes cancer."

Doublespeak personified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C001:7708:990C:B734:BF50:DBC5 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Virology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing citations

So the ”Virus structure and classification section” seems to be missing citations entirely. Lizbethcoffee (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"phage" not defined

The word phage is used but not defined. I deduced it means virus, but nowhere does the article say that. The word is used under the first picture displayed on the page. N0w8st8s (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)n0w8st8s

It is the short form of bacteriophage. Both forms are used in the article. Graham Beards (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virology/Archive_1&oldid=1094223517"