This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

RfC on first sentence on spread of the disease

OPTION 3C HAS A CLEAR CONSENSUS

Closing this discussion as it's grown unwieldly. If anyone objects, feel free to reopen it. But if you want to discuss further revisions I strongly suggest starting a new discussion at the bottom so it can be focused on that. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should the first sentence on spread of the disease in the lead of our article be? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

IAR insert comment

COVID-19 is a new disease and we are still learning how it spreads, the severity of illness it causes, and to what extent it may spread in the United States.^[1]

References

^ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html

The first sentence still makes unsafe claims, and I note the CDC now have a banner on the website cited. I am putting this banner above here because we are currently so unsafe. COVID-19 is a new disease and we are still learning how it spreads, the severity of illness it causes, and to what extent it may spread in the United States. —Almaty (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this invalidates the CDC source. They are basically claiming themselves their text is incomplete with that banner. Other sources should be preferred such as WHO and ECDC. Our current version is really unsafe and we should all be ashamed as long as it's up there. I'm adding a disputed tag since consensus has been lost.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of copying the box to Wikipedia. Carl Fredrik^talk 11:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with both Gtoffoletto & Almaty who have been inserting malformed ((Disputed inline))-templates into the article. I don't think it belongs there, as we have other high quality sources apart from the CDC. I also don't think this talk section belongs here at the top, above what is essentially a hijacked RfC now. Carl Fredrik^talk 11:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t agree that it invalidates the Source, at all. However, we need to somehow come up with a way to insert the qualifiers that everyone has, and not assert things that the ECDC and CDC do not say. The RFC was already very out of hand, and I apologise for my part in that. Until then, I agree that the disputed inline should stay. —Almaty (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the template User:CFCF I used the visual editor template so thanks for cleaning it up. To clarify I think the CDC banner may invalidate the completeness of the information presented below. Or at least suggest that they are working to update it. I would still make sure any statement we include in Wikipedia (especially in the lead) is in line with what the CDC itself is actually saying (currently what we report in the sentence is partial) and what the other reputable sources are saying (WHO and ECDC) which are worded very differently. All 3 sources are reputable and should be taken into account (I would argue the WHO is actually a step above both ECDC and CDC). Until then, I and I think several others in the discussion below believe the statement is misleading, disputed and misrepresents the sources. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Options and voting

Options that have reached consensus to oppose or have been withdrawn have been collapsed. Please see summary for a table of the current situation. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

PLease undo that; the person closing the discussion makes those decisions, not you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Participants in an RfC can determine consensus themselves without a formal close, and as a practical matter I would encourage narrowing down the options as much as possible. For uninvolved or less interested editors, reading through 10+ options is a significant hurdle that makes finding consensus more difficult due to low participation. That said, having thought about doing this a day or two ago, I'm not sure the consensus against is as clear as I'd prefer. It may be worth doing this in two phases, with the one or two most popular options being the focus of a second RfC (for the sake of time, they don't need to run the full 30 days if that's a concern). — Wug·a·po·des 19:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 - Oppose
Option 1 "The virus is believed to spread between people primarily via respiratory droplets produced during coughing." Based on two sources: WHO says "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing." CDC says "The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person .... through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes." Vote ~~Support~~ as we have two excellent sources that support coughing as being important. But prefer version 3 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC) support sources indicate coughing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Support for option #1, given the sources. Unless there are high quality sources to support the uncertainity expressed in the comment below, I feel that option 2 is confusing for readers, especially given both sources highlight coughing as the "main" and "mainly" route of spread. JenOttawa (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose very misleading, you can't positively assert something which, evidenced by this dispute and listed sources, clearly has a large enough degree of doubt. Magna19 (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC) It says "is believed to", so where do you see "positively assert"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose passive voice. This type of sentence should not be used on Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC) we have to use the passive voice if the sources do. Thought to and seems to are both accurate as per the CDC and the ECDC. —Almaty (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose: The WHO says (bold added): "The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets." It would be very misleading to mention coughing and nothing else. This will lead people to think if they avoid people who are coughing, they can otherwise continue to socialize. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC), edited 20:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC) note that the CDC now emphasises close contact over coughing. Based on what is currently known about COVID-19 and what is known about other coronaviruses, spread is thought to occur mostly from person-to-person via respiratory droplets among close contacts. Close contact can occur while caring for a patient, including: being within approximately 6 feet (2 meters) of a patient with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time. That should virtually settle the discussion. —Almaty (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose: I think it has been established that it is a droplet infection so one of the 3s would be more prefurable. — RealFakeKim T 09:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 - Oppose

Option 1

"The virus is believed to spread between people primarily via respiratory droplets produced during coughing."

Based on two sources:

WHO says "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing."

CDC says "The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person .... through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes."

Vote

~~Support~~ as we have two excellent sources that support coughing as being important. But prefer version 3 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
support sources indicate coughing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Support for option #1, given the sources. Unless there are high quality sources to support the uncertainity expressed in the comment below, I feel that option 2 is confusing for readers, especially given both sources highlight coughing as the "main" and "mainly" route of spread. JenOttawa (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose very misleading, you can't positively assert something which, evidenced by this dispute and listed sources, clearly has a large enough degree of doubt. Magna19 (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It says "is believed to", so where do you see "positively assert"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose passive voice. This type of sentence should not be used on Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
we have to use the passive voice if the sources do. Thought to and seems to are both accurate as per the CDC and the ECDC. —Almaty (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: The WHO says (bold added): "The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets." It would be very misleading to mention coughing and nothing else. This will lead people to think if they avoid people who are coughing, they can otherwise continue to socialize. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC), edited 20:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
note that the CDC now emphasises close contact over coughing. Based on what is currently known about COVID-19 and what is known about other coronaviruses, spread is thought to occur mostly from person-to-person via respiratory droplets among close contacts. Close contact can occur while caring for a patient, including: being within approximately 6 feet (2 meters) of a patient with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time. That should virtually settle the discussion. —Almaty (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: I think it has been established that it is a droplet infection so one of the 3s would be more prefurable. — RealFakeKim T 09:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 - Oppose
Option 2 "The virus seems to spread between people mostly via respiratory droplets." based on the same source above from the WHO stating “cough and exhale” in the appropriate section, the CDC stating cough or sneeze and also ECDC stating “cough sneeze or exhale”. Vote Support There is uncertainty here that is not conveyed in the first option. The WHO quote that is quoted above is not in the bulk of their sources, they say cough and exhale, in virtually all of their sources, including in the one selectively quoted above. The CDC very carefully say “Is thought to”, and the ECDC say “seems to”. All three agree respiratory droplets, but not “primarily”, that is WP:SYNTH —-Almaty (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Support In the WHO's Q&A on coroanvirus (COVID-19) it clearly says "coughs or exhales" (my italics), so it would appear that WHO and CDC have a slight disagreement. Saying "respiratory droplets" without further qualification covers both bases. The Parson's Cat (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose The WHO source says "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing." Sure it can spread a lot of ways but the first sentence should talk about what is believed to be the main way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Support Should not word as if respiratory droplets are exclusive to coughing when there are top sources that also state sneezing, as well as simple exhalation (verbal communication). Better to include all bases and stick to the facts than positively assert something which has a big shadow of doubt attached to it. Magna19 (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose Option 3 does the job (typically) for the lead, and doesn't pretend that we know more than we do. There are many ways the virus can spread, and they can't all be explored in the lead. The full extent of methods of transmission should be covered in the body of the article; the lead is a brief summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose use of weasel words "seems to". Seems to whom? Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC) seems to the ECDC and the CDC because they don’t know, and therefore we don’t know. Only the WHO asserts to know which I think is a bit inappropriate... but if the two reliable sources vs the one, we have to include the massive qualifier. —Almaty (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC) "seems to" is a language tool to indicate uncertainty, an English idiom. Similar phrases include "is thought to" and "is believed to". The same can be phrased using more pompous language like "The best scientific evidence suggests", to little or no benefit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose per SandyGeorgia — RealFakeKim T 09:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 - Oppose

Option 2

"The virus seems to spread between people mostly via respiratory droplets."

based on the same source above from the WHO stating “cough and exhale” in the appropriate section, the CDC stating cough or sneeze and also ECDC stating “cough sneeze or exhale”.

Vote

Support There is uncertainty here that is not conveyed in the first option. The WHO quote that is quoted above is not in the bulk of their sources, they say cough and exhale, in virtually all of their sources, including in the one selectively quoted above. The CDC very carefully say “Is thought to”, and the ECDC say “seems to”. All three agree respiratory droplets, but not “primarily”, that is WP:SYNTH —-Almaty (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Support In the WHO's Q&A on coroanvirus (COVID-19) it clearly says "coughs or exhales" (my italics), so it would appear that WHO and CDC have a slight disagreement. Saying "respiratory droplets" without further qualification covers both bases. The Parson's Cat (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose The WHO source says "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing." Sure it can spread a lot of ways but the first sentence should talk about what is believed to be the main way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Support Should not word as if respiratory droplets are exclusive to coughing when there are top sources that also state sneezing, as well as simple exhalation (verbal communication). Better to include all bases and stick to the facts than positively assert something which has a big shadow of doubt attached to it. Magna19 (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Option 3 does the job (typically) for the lead, and doesn't pretend that we know more than we do. There are many ways the virus can spread, and they can't all be explored in the lead. The full extent of methods of transmission should be covered in the body of the article; the lead is a brief summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose use of weasel words "seems to". Seems to whom? Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- seems to the ECDC and the CDC because they don’t know, and therefore we don’t know. Only the WHO asserts to know which I think is a bit inappropriate... but if the two reliable sources vs the one, we have to include the massive qualifier. —Almaty (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- "seems to" is a language tool to indicate uncertainty, an English idiom. Similar phrases include "is thought to" and "is believed to". The same can be phrased using more pompous language like "The best scientific evidence suggests", to little or no benefit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per SandyGeorgia — RealFakeKim T 09:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 3

Option 3a

The virus is typically spread from one person to another via respiratory droplets produced during coughing.

Based on two sources:

WHO says "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing."

CDC says "The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person... Between people who are in close contact with one another, ...through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes."

Vote

Support, don't pretend we know more than we do ... typically does the job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Happy with this aswell. In fact I think User:SandyGeorgia wording is better than what I proposed above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not mine ... I took it from COVID-19, which I was just reading because there is so much content there that needs to come here, and because this article is rife with non-MEDRS sources in the medical content. I don't know why this is happening here when COVID-19 is already worded better in many cases and hope someone (hint, hint) will start importing content from there and removing non-MEDRS sources in medical content from here. We are re-inventing the wheel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

support I like this option, an improvement in clarity over option #2. JenOttawa (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

JenOttawa, typo? This is option #3 :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

strong oppose This is bizarre Mr and bizarrer, Doc James has selectively both the WHO and CDCs full statements. neither say primary method. The CDC said it is secondary: thought to spread mainly from person-to-person... Between people who are in close contact with one another, ...through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes.—Almaty (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose still links droplets to coughing in an exclusive way which would be misleading and inaccurate. Multiple sources including exhalation and sneezing, for the sake of a few more words, why not just include them? Magna19 (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Support this correct summary of what the sources say. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Except that one sources indicates uncertainty and this option does not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  - "typically" indicates uncertainty. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
    - Not really. "typically" indicates distribution or frequency. "It seems X" really is not synonymous with "Typically X". Like, "it seems it's going to rain tomorrow" is not synonymous with "typically it's going to rain tomorrow"; the latter does not even make sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
    - Let's suppose I have a very good knowledge of the means of spread, and I know that in 80% of cases, the spread is of type A, and in 20% cases, the spread is of type B. Then I can say, "typically, the spread is of type A". But if I am uncertain about the distribution, I cannot say "typically" and be positive about it. This is why one source says "The virus is thought to spread mainly ..."; "typically" is actually near-synonymous to "mainly", and the uncertainty expressed in "thought to" is missing in option 3. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
      - I think it is good enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
        why is near enough good enough? You have said this quite a bit in your edit summaries on the issue. “Fine” isn’t “fine” when it isn’t a replication of the source, especially when an inappropriate overemphasis on coughing, solely, could lead to people maintaining distance only when people are coughing. The emphasis has changed, the ECDC says it clearest, the WHO has said the whole time, and you surely can respect that. They are equally reliable sources, so we have to include all their thoughts about the most important thing in the lead for readers without healthcare access all across the world. —Almaty (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
        Typically is good because we know coughed droplets are the main source of spreading. What's uncertain is if there are other, but lesser means. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
        CDC says "thought to [...] mainly [...]" where above I read "we know coughed droplets are the main source", emphasis mine; CDC does not indicate they are positive. I recommend reading carefully the CDC sentence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
        
        you’re right User:Dan Polansky the CDC does not know whether the coughed droplets are the main source. The WHO asserts that it does, for arugably political reasons so the message gets through clearer. Unfortunately, they appear to be backtracking one this. However, they have “bet both ways” I guess by repetitively including “exhale”. Which is unusual —Almaty (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
        
        Many will feel I am arguing semantics, and it may seem so, but the difference is quite important in practical terms. Since, if we think that mode A is the main means of spread but are pretty uncertain, that means that B can be the main means of spread, and that has impact on risk management; in that case, we should heavily mitigate against A but probably also against B since we think it quite possible and not entirely improbable that B is the main means of spread. (Whatever A and B are.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
support per Jehochman --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Support - This option seems to best paraphrase the authoritative sources. - MrX 🖋 19:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment Please consider the full CDC, WHO, and ECDC statements on transmission copied in the discussion section at the end of this thread. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Support - We aim to write clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent prose. Option #3 accomplishes this goal better than any other option. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 04:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Support As a normal person, if I was to read the options 1-6, I think I would like reading 3 the best, just because the other options sounds "iffy" at best, or we are guessing without actually knowing. 16:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorcyho (talk • contribs)

we are guessing without actually knowing in this option. That is the point. That should not be a !vote because it’s proving the other sides case —Almaty (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Support: Sounds like the clearest possible paraphrase of currently-known understanding. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak Support: per Jehochman. Weak becuse 3b is better in my opinion. — RealFakeKim T 09:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Why are we highlighting coughing? If someone with the infection coughs, sneezes, sighs, laughs, speaks or sings in your direction, if they are too close, it can be passed to you. That is why maintaining social distancing is important.
The WHO says (bold added): "The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets." Please read "FAQ: Methods of Disease Transmission" from Mount Sinai Hospital. Droplet contact: "Some diseases can be transferred by infected droplets contacting surfaces of the eye, nose, or mouth. This is referred to as droplet contact transmission. Droplets containing microorganisms can be generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Coughing, sneezing and breathing. Not it is not airborne, but ignoring that it can be transmitted while simply exhaling is depriving people of critical knowledge. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - Gravely misleading. I've tried to propose a better compromise below. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 3b

The virus is typically spread from one person to another via respiratory droplets primarily produced during coughing, but also during sneezing or exhaling.

Support: Gives a better discritption with more ways it spreads. — RealFakeKim T 09:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC) 15:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Pls see doc james talk page as to how intense this discussion has become —Almaty (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Exhalation is covered by close contact in the second sentence. This is NOT airborne, generally, and we should not be presenting it as such. WHO states "Studies to date suggest that the virus that causes COVID-19 is mainly transmitted through contact with respiratory droplets rather than through the air."[1] and than says "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- James, please see the link above from Mount Sinai Hospital, which explains the difference between droplet and airborne transmission. No one is saying this is airborne. That droplets are transferred through exhalation (of course they are) doesn't mean it's airborne. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  - User:SlimVirgin neither the CDC nor the WHO state exhaling as a primary method of spread. They explicitly state other methods "coughing for WHO" and "coughing and sneezing" for CDC together with close contact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    - there is no known primary method of spread user:Doc James. That is your word and your WP:SYNTH. Also why do you keep saying simple breathing? No one thinks the droplets are expelled and cause transmission when inhaling, only exhaling. —Almaty (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
      - Breathing is made up of two parts (inhalation and exhalation). So yes simple breathing out is still not a primary method of spread. Both the CDC and WHO state a primary method. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support - Much more precise than what we currently have --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support DocJames position has advantages like maybe reducing the chances of adding to anxiety by making it seem even more threatening - but on balance, per sources, this seems the best compromise. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support strongly ~Magna19 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
oppose do not agree w/ this one--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 3c

"The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze.^[1]^[2] Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but it is not considered airborne.^[1] It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face.^[1]^[2] It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.^[2]"

Support as a compromise. The discussion of this possibly spreading by breathing out should be grouped with the fact that it is not considered airborne. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support - finally, thank you for compromising. ~ Magna19 (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

small grammar comment: lose the also after 'may' on 2nd sentence so there isn't 'also' twice . ~ Magna19 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

support --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong support — RealFakeKim T 16:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support - I think most of the issues with other proposals were probably trying to say too much in just one sentence. It's an important topic and should be more thoroughly treated to be precise and not mislead.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Precise and explains why wearing face masks (N95 is not required) works.--Reciprocater (Talk) 17:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong support. This basically covers my merge vote a day or two back. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong support, prefer to 3b. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support this maybe best captures the important nuances in the sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
strong SupportI guess the rfc got so problematic cos of a difference in priorities but this is certainly the best way forward and I commend all involved. —Almaty (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on second sentence regarding spread

What do you think the second sentence regarding transmission/spread should be? Following the start of the second paragraph "The virus is typically spread from one person to another via respiratory droplets produced during coughing." - Magna19 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 3ci

"These droplets can also be produced from sneezing and normal exhalation."

Reasoning:

CDC: - "Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes."

WHO: - "The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales."

ECDC: - "The virus seems to be transmitted mainly via respiratory droplets that people sneeze, cough, or exhale."

UpToDate: - "With droplet transmission, virus released in the respiratory secretions when a person with infection coughs, sneezes, or talks"

My opinion is that with all these sources saying these things, it is important to include sneezing and normal exhalation in the second sentence.

Support/Oppose below and please add other options if you deem necessary.

Support. - Magna19 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This is not the primary method. This "normal exhalation" makes it sound like it is airborne which it is not. This belongs in the body of the article. Yes these can produce in smaller numbers via other methods but this is not the main method. IMO the second sentence should be "It may also be spread from touching contaminated surfaces and then touching one's face" The lead is a summary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James I really respect your work. The WHO is reporting this as the primary method in the link above. What more reputable source supports your view? If a COV19 positive person talks normally with you do you think you wouldn't get it? Come on holiday to Milan and you will change idea fast. Would you consider changing your vote? This misleading omission can really damage the world. Especially in the lead. People are dying. Thanks --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gtoffoletto can you provide an exact quote that says simple breathing is a primary method? I am seeing "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Unless it was added after your question, the "exact quotes" are literally directly above. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: Why are you ignoring the quoted excerpts from the WHO and ECDC? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The WHO does NOT in the quotes above state it is mainly from breathing. The ECDC says mainly via respiratory droplets (which we also say), not necessarily that those are from breathing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: Luckily the proposal does not use the word "breathing". Why are you using a strawman argument on this? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah exhalation is breathing out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: Very well. Why are you ignoring the quotes above from the WHO and ECDC? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not. WHO states verbatim "The main way the disease spreads is through respiratory droplets expelled by someone who is coughing." There is a full stop at the end of that sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: You're cherry picking now. That's literally further down from this full quote directly above the part you quoted: People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets. This is why it is important to stay more than 1 meter (3 feet) away from a person who is sick. (emphasis mine) —Locke Cole • t • c 18:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know. I have read that page multiple times. And exhale is in the body of the article as is transmission via stool. In my opinion mentioning close contact in the first / second sentence is better as it does not imply that this is airborne. We need to improve the wording around exhale in the body aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

oppose not primary method--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

See comment above --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per Doc James — RealFakeKim T 15:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Given you use the term 'primary method', this means that clearly, there are other methods. As it stands, the lead gives the impression that coughing is the only means by which these droplets can be produced. This is not true and IMO is misleading. The lead needs to at least give some indication that other methods of droplet formation exist, which can then be expanded upon fully in the body of the article. Fairly surprised that we're even having this debate tbh. Magna19 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

everything in the article should be discussed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

strongly Support. this is Part of the primary Method. The primary method is via close contact, via respiratory droplets, that may be produced by sneezing, coughing, or exhalation. The selective quotations and mis quotations by other editors, as well as effective censoring of the previous discussion on this topic by starting binary RfCs is unconscionable, and unsafe, in no uncertain terms, against all Wikipedia is meant to be. Please see the previous RfC and all previous discussions on this, there are at least 10 editors who support exhalation being listed as part of the primary method. —Almaty (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Almaty, once again I agree. The question is, how is that consensus conveyed into an edit on the article? The answer is that it can't, because it will be changed and argued that consensus hasn't been reached. Then we will have to reach consensus on how we come to consensus, and on and on it goes. I'm starting to think that Wikipedia is no longer about the community or sensible compromise. Magna19 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

strongly Support. The Lead is completely incorrect and misleading. Currently it appears that only coughing produces the required droplets which is clearly not true. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong support. I would actually condense the first sentence and proposed second sentence into one: "The virus is typically spread from one person to another via respiratory droplets produced during coughing, sneezing and normal exhalation.". —Locke Cole • t • c 18:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Merge with first sentence, so that it reads "The virus is typically spread from one person to another via respiratory droplets produced during coughing, sneezing, or exhaling". --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 3cii

"It may also be spread from touching contaminated surfaces and then touching one's face." or "It may also be spread during close contact and from touching contaminated surfaces and then touching one's face."

based on World Health Organization which says "These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth."

Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Doesn't give any indication of alternate ways that droplets are produced, leaving the previous sentence giving the false impression that coughing is the only way. Misleading and inaccurate. All those sources above mention exhalation and sneezing for a reason. Full expansion on alternate ways can be included in body of article, but some indication should be given in the lead. Magna19 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
support as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Support option 1 is of the table so it has to be 2. — RealFakeKim T 15:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@RealFakeKim: And why is option 1 "[off] the table"? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Locke Cole I supported that sentence being added to the first sencence above but the consentious is still for 3a. This is also better for a follow on senctence to the first. — RealFakeKim T 19:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Support I think that option 2 is the best choice based on the sources. JenOttawa (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@JenOttawa: Except it leaves out exhaling as a potential method of spread which both the WHO and ECDC state. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but I understood the question to be about whether it is a primary source of droplets/transmission and should be shared in the second sentence of this paragraph. Thank you for touching base @Locke Cole: JenOttawa (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose/malformed RFC this option should not be relevant in this RFC as it is unrelated to sentence in option 1. It should be included but AFTER the sentence in option 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtoffoletto (talk • contribs) 17:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Magna19 and Gtoffoletto. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong support, building off from my vote at option 1. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 19:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

I do not think it is appropriate to position simple breathing as a major method of spread of this disease. It is not airborne like measles which is often spread by simple breathing. Not one of those sources state breathing is a major mechanism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

the sources say exhaling, not breathing. Close contacts is the CDCs way of clarifying this. —Almaty (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Exhaling is simply breathing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite right. Exhalation is any form of air going out of the lungs. That includes simply breathing (out), but it also includes coughing and sneezing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment The discution on the first sentence of the second paragraph is still on going as new options have poped up. — RealFakeKim T 09:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment this whole discussion is a mess. The phrase "The virus is typically spread from one person to another via respiratory droplets produced during coughing" si gravely incomplete and substantially misleading and must be corrected ASAP. Voting on those sentences has been badly handled. I propose ALL VOTING SHOULD BE URGENTLY RESET. Discussions should be clearly closed. And a new CLEAN RFC should be created to resolve this issue. We are really damaging the world right now. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree. This whole topic discussion is just nonsensical. Magna19 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

tried to reset with my banner proposal below and my IAR above the first RFC. —Almaty (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment MOST of these proliferating RFCs relate to many different COVID articles, and many of them are a poorly designed timesink. Can we not centralize these RFCs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 and solicit help from WhatamIdoing before launching them ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia Totally support this. It's crazy right now. We need some admins to step in and steer this thing. I'm trying to keep formatting readable (e.g collapse sections of RFCs) but I don't have the experience to really do this and help would be appreciated. We should "extinguish" the current RFCs on the page and move on in a more orderly and centralised way. I'm baffled by the apparent lack of admins on those pages. We need experienced editors steering discussion on those crucial pages. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We also need for you to stop trying to admin it. Please uncollapse those sections, and please stop canvassing. I recognize that you are trying to help, but your efforts are actually making things harder. You may not have enough experience to realize these predicaments are common on Wikipedia, we have experienced editors who are helping further the problem, and your efforts to help are paradoxically helping prolong the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello for all the hardworking guys, I do believe coughing and sneezing are the primary ways of transmission. I don't think simply exhalation can spread the virus. If you read acute severe asthma, you will know that even if someone is undergoing severe asthma which is a severely narrowed trachea, one can still breathe. Taken together, I think coughing and speak loundly are the leading transmission paths for respiratory droplets. --Reciprocater (Talk) 16:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Merged the two discutions as they are now linked with proposial 3c. — RealFakeKim T 17:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 4

Option 4a

The virus seems to spread via respiratory droplets, produced during coughing, sneezing or exhaling.

Support as this is the most inclusive way of including all three sources. And there is no clear evidence any way, we have to put all the uncertainty together and defer to all three of the equally authoritative sources —Almaty (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose We should mention the primary way first. Lots of secondary ways. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- doc james, I hate to say it, but we simply do not know the primary way. This is why we have to use the exact wording. —Almaty (talk)
  - I do not care what we as Wikipedians know. I just care that we accurately reflect the sources. And both the CDC and WHO comment on the main / primary way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
    - - yes by I don’t know I mean the sources don’t know. So we don’t know and the encyclopaedia can’t assert. —Almaty (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose "seems". To whom does it seem? Option 3 is better. Alternative words that convey a degree of doubt might be "leading hypothesis" or "current scientific understanding" which convey that this is what the evidence says, but with science there's no final word. The evidence might change. "Typically" is good because it allows that the disease might spread by other means too. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
it seems to and is thought to by the ECDC and the CDC. We can’t assert more than that, based on one line the WHO has said. We have to accurately convey the uncertainty of all three equally reliable sources. —Almaty (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Support based on WHO COVID-19 FAQ (Section "How does COVID-19 spread?"):
The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales.
People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets.
– but I would remove "seems". --Amakuha (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Option 3b is better. — RealFakeKim T 09:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak support, prefer 3b. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak support, prefer 3b. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
oppose per Jehochman--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 4b

The virus spreads between people most often via respiratory droplets, produced during coughing, sneezing or exhaling. ([2])

Can consider without seems to. —Almaty (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I think typicaly is the most sutibale word making 3b better to 4b. — RealFakeKim T 09:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This is NOT generally airborne. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying it is airborne. Our sources use these terms, and considering the WHO is made up of a number of doctors who likely agonized over the wording to use, I would defer to their judgement. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak support, prefer 3b. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak support, prefer 3b. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
oppose --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 5 - Oppose
Option 5 "The virus is typically spread between people via respiratory droplets, primarily produced during coughing." Hi guys. I would argue this is the best compromise based on other options. Links droplets to coughing as a primary method of spread but doesn't close off respiratory droplets to coughing in an exclusive way. Allows for reader to think about the other ways in which droplets are produced (simple exhalation, sneezing) as per sources. Magna19 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC) This is pretty good but not quite there IMO. Why do the WHO and ECDC emphasise exhale so much? They haven’t told us. But they do, we have to include that. —-Almaty (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC) I agree but we have to reach consensus somewhere and this seems to be the best bet. Magna19 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose One "typical / primary" is enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose. Typical does the job; and is typical medical writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC) There is too much ambiguity to only include one "typical/primarily". I would say editors need to compromise to reach consensus, this is how the site works. Magna19 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Far too much ambiguity for just one typical or primary that’s not what the sources say. If you’re going to exclude sneezing and exhaling.... —Almaty (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose per Doc James and SandyGeorgia — RealFakeKim T 09:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 5 - Oppose

Option 5

"The virus is typically spread between people via respiratory droplets, primarily produced during coughing."

Hi guys. I would argue this is the best compromise based on other options. Links droplets to coughing as a primary method of spread but doesn't close off respiratory droplets to coughing in an exclusive way. Allows for reader to think about the other ways in which droplets are produced (simple exhalation, sneezing) as per sources. Magna19 (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty good but not quite there IMO. Why do the WHO and ECDC emphasise exhale so much? They haven’t told us. But they do, we have to include that. —-Almaty (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I agree but we have to reach consensus somewhere and this seems to be the best bet. Magna19 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose One "typical / primary" is enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Typical does the job; and is typical medical writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
There is too much ambiguity to only include one "typical/primarily". I would say editors need to compromise to reach consensus, this is how the site works. Magna19 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Far too much ambiguity for just one typical or primary that’s not what the sources say. If you’re going to exclude sneezing and exhaling.... —Almaty (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Doc James and SandyGeorgia — RealFakeKim T 09:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 6

"Current scientific understanding is that the virus spreads between people via respiratory droplets, primarily produced during coughing, but also during sneezing or exhaling."

Support as a consensusable option until the agencies align. —Almaty (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Support - I'm happy with that, others will think it's too long no doubt. Magna19 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Might be better to change 'exhaling' to 'simple exhalation' given coughing and sneezing are both exhalation. Magna19 (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

re the length it is best to give the seemingly primary method it’s due weight compared to surfaces and asymptomatic which are currently overemphasised in the lead. —Almaty (talk)

Oppose #3 is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
It might be well to make this a sub proposal under Option 3. What about talking? As I navigated through a crowded grocery store this morning I avoided talking and didn't get in between two people who were having a lively chat. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

that is precisely my point User:Jehochman, you’ve become a perfect example how this sentence in the lead will modify peoples behaviour with real world consequences. The overwhelming majority of the WHO sources include exhale, as well as the ECDC. Talking is also exhaling. —-Almaty (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Support based on WHO COVID-19 FAQ (Section "How does COVID-19 spread?"):
The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales.
People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets.
--Amakuha (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose 3b is better. — RealFakeKim T 09:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 7 (Withdrawn)
Option 7 (Withdrawn) ~~“The virus often spreads between people via respiratory droplets, usually produced during coughing.”~~ We had this a few weeks ago, but the double qualifier was removed. The double qualifier is necessary because 1. The droplets is the likely most common mode, it’s possibly airborne and possibly fecal oral and others 2. The droplets are most often coughing, but very commonly they are via sneezing or exhaling. —Almaty (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC) You have now proposed 5 options User:Almaty. This is not really appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC) User:Almaty is compromising and trying to reach consensus, unlike others. Magna19 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC) User:Almaty could think things through more carefully before making proposals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia is for the readers, not the egos of editors. Magna19 (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC) I have thought them through carefully, I’ve been working on this sentence the whole time. And I note that the first option changed mid RfC. Each one I’ve tried and would have a few days until it was changed again, because it’s so difficult. —Almaty (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Nobody is willing to compromise anymore, that's part of the problem. If option 3 goes ahead it will undermine everything that wikipedia is about and mislead thousands of readers on how this thing spreads, which is potentially quite dangerous. Magna19 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Such issues aside, I think it's clearly not helpful to have 8 different options under discussion, in a page as active as this, and where 5 of those came from the same editor, 4 of them in less than 2 hours. This has nothing to do with the "egos of editors" or "nobody is willing to compromise" but that when you have such a confusing discussion when there is so much else to do, most editors are likely to not bother to get involved. I can't comment on how much someone has "thought" about each option, but there should be a better way than coming up with 5 different options. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC) the better way to have the discussion would be to separately discuss 1. Whether to include “coughing sneezing and exhaling” vs “coughing” vs “respiratory droplets.” Then to separately discuss qualifiers. But what’s done is done, the RFC was made in this format, and there is somewhat an early consensus of including two sentences or a combination of options. —Almaty (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC) The point is there was no reason why you needed to make 6 different proposals. It was unnecessary and has likely harmed the discussion since it has reduced the willingness of people to participate. Part of the reason I haven't and won't offer any comment is because this whole thing is too confusing mostly due to your actions. Also I should clarify that it's not just the sheer number of options, or the that they were made by the same person, but the fact that many of them were very similar. A far better method is to make one proposal then take on board any feedback carefully than come up with the best consensus version. Not have to try 6 times. As I also said, maybe in a less active page this would be okay, but in a page as active as this, with so much else to do, it just makes editors think, I can't really be bothered to deal with this crap, and leave it for others. Remember since this is a discussion and not a vote, it's only really fair to consider each option and ideally each comment, before expressing an opinion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Actually I missed that option 2 was also from Almaty. So it's 6 of those came from the same editor, 5 of them in less than 3 hours. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC) the options have all been tried in the last 2-3 weeks in various combinations. So they need to be on the table. I didn’t just pick them off the back of my head. This is the most important sentence, and I can put my opinions on the table , most options are responding to suggestions about compromise and therefore valid —Almaty (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Note : I restored this option and discussion after Nil Einne removed it, as it is a breach of talk page guidelines to unilaterally remove other people's comments. As an outside observer though, it looks like this RFC has multiple issues including options being altered after people have already !voted for them... Participants should avoid doing that because maybe the voters would not approve of the new wording. But also avoid adding numerous extra options that just muddy the waters and threaten the ability of the RfC to produce a good result. — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Support - Again, a fair and reasonable compromise. Magna19 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose Gish gallop style of argument whereby lots of alternatives are proposed that are all essentially the same. Let the original 4 proposals be considered. Once a consensus is reached and the edit is made, there might be new information and then a new discussion might be appropriate. Until then, don't try to get your way by smothering us with alternatives. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC) the reasons for the options are because as stated in the discussion, doc james has tried to combine two separate questions that are both important about arguably the most important sentence in one, see discussion. He has been arguably edit warring with me on this for weeks as i attempt to reach consensus and compromise with him and he goes back to his preferred wording without compromise, despite many many editors bringing it up. It should be investigated. —Almaty (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC) perhaps we have to put a notice on reliable sources noticeboard as to clarify that the CDC, ECDC and WHO are equally reliable sources? You clearly have CDC bias User:Doc James. It has been pointed out by several editors. People should feel empowered to challenge that. —Almaty (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Ah I am happy with the ECDC as a source. And have used it in the article. No idea what you are talking about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC) im not interested in finding diffs User:Doc James but you have removed the ECDC as a source for this specific question on numerous occasions, from both the lead and the body. You’re happy to source them but not for this question, at all. I can only ponder as to why, but perhaps an overemphasis on MEDMOS as opposed to being a reliable replication of the necessary three sources, has led to you to effectively synthesise this whole debate into words esp in the lead that are now incorrect and misleading. Perhaps it’s partially also a dialect of English thing. Please recognise that many many editors disagree with your approach as to this specific question of exhalation, and just back down and let the lead be safe. —Almaty (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC) And many editors also agree with the current wording. And disagree with emphasizing that this is primarily spread by simple breathing. The ECDC does not say it is primarily spread by breathing. I do not understand why you wish to push that? Sure it may be spread by simple breathing but it is not the main way per the sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 7 (Withdrawn)

~~“The virus often spreads between people via respiratory droplets, usually produced during coughing.”~~

We had this a few weeks ago, but the double qualifier was removed. The double qualifier is necessary because 1. The droplets is the likely most common mode, it’s possibly airborne and possibly fecal oral and others 2. The droplets are most often coughing, but very commonly they are via sneezing or exhaling. —Almaty (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You have now proposed 5 options User:Almaty. This is not really appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty is compromising and trying to reach consensus, unlike others. Magna19 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Almaty could think things through more carefully before making proposals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for the readers, not the egos of editors. Magna19 (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I have thought them through carefully, I’ve been working on this sentence the whole time. And I note that the first option changed mid RfC. Each one I’ve tried and would have a few days until it was changed again, because it’s so difficult. —Almaty (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is willing to compromise anymore, that's part of the problem. If option 3 goes ahead it will undermine everything that wikipedia is about and mislead thousands of readers on how this thing spreads, which is potentially quite dangerous. Magna19 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Such issues aside, I think it's clearly not helpful to have 8 different options under discussion, in a page as active as this, and where 5 of those came from the same editor, 4 of them in less than 2 hours. This has nothing to do with the "egos of editors" or "nobody is willing to compromise" but that when you have such a confusing discussion when there is so much else to do, most editors are likely to not bother to get involved. I can't comment on how much someone has "thought" about each option, but there should be a better way than coming up with 5 different options. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

the better way to have the discussion would be to separately discuss 1. Whether to include “coughing sneezing and exhaling” vs “coughing” vs “respiratory droplets.” Then to separately discuss qualifiers. But what’s done is done, the RFC was made in this format, and there is somewhat an early consensus of including two sentences or a combination of options. —Almaty (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The point is there was no reason why you needed to make 6 different proposals. It was unnecessary and has likely harmed the discussion since it has reduced the willingness of people to participate. Part of the reason I haven't and won't offer any comment is because this whole thing is too confusing mostly due to your actions. Also I should clarify that it's not just the sheer number of options, or the that they were made by the same person, but the fact that many of them were very similar. A far better method is to make one proposal then take on board any feedback carefully than come up with the best consensus version. Not have to try 6 times. As I also said, maybe in a less active page this would be okay, but in a page as active as this, with so much else to do, it just makes editors think, I can't really be bothered to deal with this crap, and leave it for others. Remember since this is a discussion and not a vote, it's only really fair to consider each option and ideally each comment, before expressing an opinion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually I missed that option 2 was also from Almaty. So it's 6 of those came from the same editor, 5 of them in less than 3 hours. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

the options have all been tried in the last 2-3 weeks in various combinations. So they need to be on the table. I didn’t just pick them off the back of my head. This is the most important sentence, and I can put my opinions on the table , most options are responding to suggestions about compromise and therefore valid —Almaty (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Note : I restored this option and discussion after Nil Einne removed it, as it is a breach of talk page guidelines to unilaterally remove other people's comments. As an outside observer though, it looks like this RFC has multiple issues including options being altered after people have already !voted for them... Participants should avoid doing that because maybe the voters would not approve of the new wording. But also avoid adding numerous extra options that just muddy the waters and threaten the ability of the RfC to produce a good result. — Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Support - Again, a fair and reasonable compromise. Magna19 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Gish gallop style of argument whereby lots of alternatives are proposed that are all essentially the same. Let the original 4 proposals be considered. Once a consensus is reached and the edit is made, there might be new information and then a new discussion might be appropriate. Until then, don't try to get your way by smothering us with alternatives. Jehochman ^Talk 18:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
the reasons for the options are because as stated in the discussion, doc james has tried to combine two separate questions that are both important about arguably the most important sentence in one, see discussion. He has been arguably edit warring with me on this for weeks as i attempt to reach consensus and compromise with him and he goes back to his preferred wording without compromise, despite many many editors bringing it up. It should be investigated. —Almaty (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
perhaps we have to put a notice on reliable sources noticeboard as to clarify that the CDC, ECDC and WHO are equally reliable sources? You clearly have CDC bias User:Doc James. It has been pointed out by several editors. People should feel empowered to challenge that. —Almaty (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ah I am happy with the ECDC as a source. And have used it in the article. No idea what you are talking about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  - im not interested in finding diffs User:Doc James but you have removed the ECDC as a source for this specific question on numerous occasions, from both the lead and the body. You’re happy to source them but not for this question, at all. I can only ponder as to why, but perhaps an overemphasis on MEDMOS as opposed to being a reliable replication of the necessary three sources, has led to you to effectively synthesise this whole debate into words esp in the lead that are now incorrect and misleading. Perhaps it’s partially also a dialect of English thing. Please recognise that many many editors disagree with your approach as to this specific question of exhalation, and just back down and let the lead be safe. —Almaty (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    - And many editors also agree with the current wording. And disagree with emphasizing that this is primarily spread by simple breathing. The ECDC does not say it is primarily spread by breathing. I do not understand why you wish to push that? Sure it may be spread by simple breathing but it is not the main way per the sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sensible resolution

I'm happy with option 3, so long as the next sentence can add clarification, "These droplets can also be produced from sneezing and normal exhalation" as per the current edit. The sources list sneezing and exhalation too much to do away with them entirely in this important part of the article. Surely this is a sensible resolution? Support/oppose below. Magna19 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. Magna19 (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. Having two sentences is OK. As long as it mentions exhaling (in line with WHO's FAQ). --Amakuha (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Support. Having two sentences is most certainly ok. —Almaty (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose That can go in the body of the text. Just like how it may also spread by stool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

it can’t go in the body of the text, because exhalation is everywhere, apart from one line that you have selectedly quoted in the WHO source. The main method, of droplets involves sneezing and exhalation. And even that is very uncertain, per the agency sources. WHO aren’t conveying the uncertainty for political reasons and simple clear communication , but I disagree with that approach for the encyclopaedia. —Almaty (talk)

I support the removal of the disputed tag whilst the second sentence as worded in the lead remains in. I too read that this is the early consensus of resolving this dispute. —Almaty (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. Having two sentences removes misunderstanding. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James, those against the odd overemphasis on coughing have already compromised on the first sentence, now it is reasonable for you to do same re: second sentence. It's the only sensible way to resolve this. Magna19 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

We can move onto the next RfC regarding the second sentence next. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

no we can’t, it hasnt been closed and there is not clear consensus. Why don’t you budge even slightly? Your actions are unconscionable and have real world effects as shown by Jehochman.—Almaty (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support as the first sentence "The virus is typically spread from one person to another during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced during coughing." In line with this.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Another thought

What do people think about?

"The virus is mainly spread from one person to another during close contact^[a] and via respiratory droplets produced during coughing or sneezing."

Does that address some of the concerns of those who oppose the current wording? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

~~Support~~ we have discussed this extensively with Doc James (see his talk page [4]) and I believe it is more precise and clear given the current available evidence. Close contact (of any kind) with the infected as well as coughed droplets are the main source of transmission. Surface transmission is in the sentence after and the rest (e.g. oro-fecal) can go in the body of the article. I invite editors to express their opinions quickly to rapidly edit the article.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Given the lack of apparent support I have made a more aggressive attempt at compromise below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtoffoletto (talk • contribs) 00:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me Gtoffoletto . Add a 'primarily' before 'produced' and I will happily support. Primary method is close contacts via droplets. Primary production of droplets is coughing, but droplets are not exclusive to coughing. This version of the sentence still exhibits too much exclusivity. Ideally we would be even more clear and give some indication in the lead of other less common ways droplets are produced (sneezing, exhalation) then expand fully in the sub-section, but I realise this isn't going to get consensus so I'm willing to compromise.

Should be:"The virus is mainly spread from one person to another during close contact, and via respiratory droplets primarily produced during coughing." --Magna19 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I proposed a similar edit to User:Doc James and agree with you. I can live with the current version as I think it's a big improvement but I wonder if Doc James would consider editing his proposal a you propose to reach a broader compromise?--Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto , I think any more compromise on our part and the objective is defeated again. I've already compromised more than I should, while the other side hasn't really budged at all. Only one group of editors being sensible here. Magna19 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't understand why there has been this giant fuss over a very simple sentence. At least add "and sneezing". World Health Organization: "The COVID-19 virus spreads primarily through droplets of saliva or discharge from the nose when an infected person coughs or sneezes ..." CDC: "Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes." The "close contact" is because of the transmission of droplets. It isn't "close contact" AND via the transmission of droplets. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV Hi Sarah, unfortunately there's been a giant (and nonsensical) fuss because one group of editors are sensibly trying to reach consensus on correcting quite a major misleading statement, while a select few others are sadly being ferociously stubborn. Magna19 (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The mental gymnastics necessary to reach the conclusion that omitting the very important words "breathe" and "sneeze" are beyond my capabilities. I don't even care if you expand on it to make certain people understand it's not saying it's airborne, but omitting that is morally irresponsible, and against our policy of sticking to our sources and not engaging in original research. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yah I am fine with adding "and sneezing"

I do not think we need both "primarily" and "mainly". One is sufficient and applies to the whole sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Weak Support. Mention of close contact will keep people safe. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I stand behind 3b but this might have to be the compromise. — RealFakeKim T 08:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Compromise of all positions (Withdrawn)
Compromise of all positions (Withdrawn) Discussions are ongoing and we still haven't found a compromise. I have tried to edit Option 3a (with the most positive votes) including comments from the opposition to reach a broader consensus. I think we can all agree on this. (edited from prior version to maximise potential consensus) The virus is mainly spread from one person to another during close contact,^[b] via respiratory droplets primarily produced during coughing and sneezing. ~~Support~~ - this sentence is supported by sources and indisputable and removes all controversy that can be treated in the body of the article. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC) I happily withdraw my proposal and suggest we focus on options such as 3b which are showing more consensus and are more precise. This level of compromise does not appear to be necessary to achieve consensus and may be excessive. Consensus is emerging with more moderate and accurate statements. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Support - best compromise, should hopefully be the solution to this mess. Magna19 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Comment. I would say something like this: "The virus is typically spread from person to person via respiratory droplets from the nose or mouth produced during coughing, sneezing, and other forms of exhalation." SarahSV ^(talk) 01:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Could you first approve this compromise if it is acceptable to you? We can then close this RFP and move to more traditional editing of this sententence to improve it further but if everybody keeps adding their own version we will never get out of this. Let's be pragmatic. The page is still gravely misleading and we are discussing details --Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC) SarahSV , ideally, yes, but been proposed many times. Unfortunately it's not going to get consensus so we'll have to compromise. I would urge a support vote also on the basis that this edit needs making ASAP and this version proposed here is much better. Magna19 (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Except that is not entirely correct. Sources do not support simply breathing as a major method of spread. That is a less common method of spread. Which is why we only put masks on people who are coughing / symptomatic and not on everyone in the ER. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC) they do. They support “cough and exhale” “when in close contact (ie exhaling)” and “coughing sneezing and exhaling” you know this, repeating your assertion is not going to get you anywhere, everyone is looking at the sources. This isn’t for ED physicians, this is for the general public. —Almaty (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose for the same reason I opposed the other proposal directly above. This is original research. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Comment The CDC presents these as two separate clauses so should be an "and" after the ","[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC) @Locke Cole: I agree, but it's either we compromise and get consensus for correcting the misleading bit, or we're stuck with a much worse version. Once consensus has been reached on this, we can then move on to the inclusion of exhalation and sneezing? This way we gradually improve the article. Magna19 (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Have added "sneezing" as sure. Not really sure it is needed though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC) This statement takes into account ECDC (close contact + droplets one coughs or exhales), CDC (mainly close contact + coughed/sneezed droplets), and WHO (sneeze, cough, or exhale droplets + mainly coughing) statements on transmission. One thing is certain: no source only reports what we currently have on the page which is misleading. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC) @Gtoffoletto: Agreed. Sorry to keep so persistent on this, I just think it's really important. The current lead is encouraging every minute the mindset that people can socialise irresponsibly so long as they avoid anyone who coughs. This is not good for real-world transmission. Magna19 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Statement - I'm probably not going to add further comments to this discussion unless it is completely wiped and started again but I will say this: surely this is just silliness now? Amongst the various caveats, RfC and sections to this disorderly mess of a debate, we now have over 10 users supporting the inclusion of "exhalation" and/or "sneezing" to the lead. The consensus was gained for option 3 with a similar number of support votes. So now, the sensible thing to do IMO is take both consensus' and compromise them into a more appropriate lead in line with the sources. It is literally the only way to solve it. It doesn't look likely this will happen, my prediction is that discussion will go on indefinitely whilst the lead remains misleading, but hey, I tried. Magna19 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Oppose. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Compromise of all positions (Withdrawn)

Discussions are ongoing and we still haven't found a compromise. I have tried to edit Option 3a (with the most positive votes) including comments from the opposition to reach a broader consensus. I think we can all agree on this. (edited from prior version to maximise potential consensus)

The virus is mainly spread from one person to another during close contact,^[b] via respiratory droplets primarily produced during coughing and sneezing.

~~Support~~ - this sentence is supported by sources and indisputable and removes all controversy that can be treated in the body of the article. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I happily withdraw my proposal and suggest we focus on options such as 3b which are showing more consensus and are more precise. This level of compromise does not appear to be necessary to achieve consensus and may be excessive. Consensus is emerging with more moderate and accurate statements. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Support - best compromise, should hopefully be the solution to this mess. Magna19 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment. I would say something like this: "The virus is typically spread from person to person via respiratory droplets from the nose or mouth produced during coughing, sneezing, and other forms of exhalation." SarahSV ^(talk) 01:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you first approve this compromise if it is acceptable to you? We can then close this RFP and move to more traditional editing of this sententence to improve it further but if everybody keeps adding their own version we will never get out of this. Let's be pragmatic. The page is still gravely misleading and we are discussing details --Gtoffoletto (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV , ideally, yes, but been proposed many times. Unfortunately it's not going to get consensus so we'll have to compromise. I would urge a support vote also on the basis that this edit needs making ASAP and this version proposed here is much better. Magna19 (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Except that is not entirely correct. Sources do not support simply breathing as a major method of spread. That is a less common method of spread. Which is why we only put masks on people who are coughing / symptomatic and not on everyone in the ER. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

they do. They support “cough and exhale” “when in close contact (ie exhaling)” and “coughing sneezing and exhaling” you know this, repeating your assertion is not going to get you anywhere, everyone is looking at the sources. This isn’t for ED physicians, this is for the general public. —Almaty (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reason I opposed the other proposal directly above. This is original research. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment The CDC presents these as two separate clauses so should be an "and" after the ","[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: I agree, but it's either we compromise and get consensus for correcting the misleading bit, or we're stuck with a much worse version. Once consensus has been reached on this, we can then move on to the inclusion of exhalation and sneezing? This way we gradually improve the article. Magna19 (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Have added "sneezing" as sure. Not really sure it is needed though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This statement takes into account ECDC (close contact + droplets one coughs or exhales), CDC (mainly close contact + coughed/sneezed droplets), and WHO (sneeze, cough, or exhale droplets + mainly coughing) statements on transmission. One thing is certain: no source only reports what we currently have on the page which is misleading. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: Agreed. Sorry to keep so persistent on this, I just think it's really important. The current lead is encouraging every minute the mindset that people can socialise irresponsibly so long as they avoid anyone who coughs. This is not good for real-world transmission. Magna19 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement - I'm probably not going to add further comments to this discussion unless it is completely wiped and started again but I will say this: surely this is just silliness now? Amongst the various caveats, RfC and sections to this disorderly mess of a debate, we now have over 10 users supporting the inclusion of "exhalation" and/or "sneezing" to the lead. The consensus was gained for option 3 with a similar number of support votes. So now, the sensible thing to do IMO is take both consensus' and compromise them into a more appropriate lead in line with the sources. It is literally the only way to solve it. It doesn't look likely this will happen, my prediction is that discussion will go on indefinitely whilst the lead remains misleading, but hey, I tried. Magna19 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Feel free to add further options to the RfC.

respiratory droplets include coughing sneezing and exhaling in general. I wasn’t keen to include it weeks ago because of the confusion with airborne transmission. But they do. We need to divide this RFC somehow to whether we include “coughing sneezing and exhaling” and then we can discuss seems to vs thought to vs other specific qualifiers as a separate thing. —Almaty (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The RfC above is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

yes if we need to use this RfC, we need options, as some may have missed this discussion primarily between ourselves Due to the volume of edits. --49.195.179.13 (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, we could just refer to respiratory droplets transmitted in close contact or list the common transmission routes in order of priority. I just think we should dial back the focus on coughing until more is known, especially given the growing focus on asymptomatic transmission. The CDC, WHO, ECDC, and UpToDate all do a good job of this. I've copied their text below. - Wikmoz (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

~~i support “respiratory droplets transmitted when people are in close contact” —Almaty (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)~~

Health Agency and Leading Publication Examples

CDC: "Based on what is currently known about COVID-19 and what is known about other coronaviruses, spread is thought to occur mostly from person-to-person via respiratory droplets among close contacts. Close contact can occur while caring for a patient, including: being within approximately 6 feet (2 meters) of a patient with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time..."

CDC: "The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person: Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet). Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes."

WHO: "People can catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease can spread from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth which are spread when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets. This is why it is important to stay more than 1 meter (3 feet) away from a person who is sick."

ECDC: "The virus seems to be transmitted mainly via respiratory droplets that people sneeze, cough, or exhale."

UpToDate: "Person-to-person spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is thought to occur mainly via respiratory droplets, resembling the spread of influenza. With droplet transmission, virus released in the respiratory secretions when a person with infection coughs, sneezes, or talks can infect another person if it makes direct contact with the mucous membranes; infection can also occur if a person touches an infected surface and then touches his or her eyes, nose, or mouth. Droplets typically do not travel more than six feet (about two meters) and do not linger in the air; however, in one letter to the editor, SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols under experimental conditions for at least three hours."

we need to focus on correct before clear and consistent, when there is so much ambiguity. We need to make who says the statements clear and where, and cite, and not synthesise, because they differ. This option is synthesis of a WHO’s assertion that they have only made once. The CDC and ECDC do not support that assertion without careful qualifiers, and the use of other words - sneeze and exhale, respectively. Therefore this sentence is not correct per the sources quoted. —Almaty (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I now note that also the CDC has been selectively quoted in this RFC, not just the WHO. The CDC emphasise “ Between people who are in close contact with one another” above coughing. This is roughly equivalent to the WHO’s use of cough and exhale. This selective quoting, of both the CDC and WHO, whilst ignoring the ECDC, to confirm what I can only presume is a preexisting opinion of the editor opening the RFC, should have no place in our encyclopaedia. —Almaty (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Why is sneezing (non-controversial) being removed with exhalation (controversial) Sugarcoils (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sneezing can go in the body IMO. WHO says "coughing" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  - because User:Doc James has American centric bias, he only trusts the CDC, and then only selectively quotes the WHO when it agrees with his preconceived position. He also removes all mention of the ECDC in this debate not just from the lead, but from the body. It should again be investigated. —Almaty (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    - User:Almaty seriously drop the stick. I am happy with WHO, CDC, and ECDC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello for all the hardworking guys, I do believe coughing and sneezing are the primary ways of transmission. I don't think simply exhalation can spread the virus. If you read acute severe asthma, you will know that even if someone is undergoing severe asthma which is a severely narrowed trachea, one can still breathe. Taken together, I think coughing and speak loundly are the leading transmission paths for respiratory droplets. ( Transmission risk from "Speak loud and clear" is secondary to that of coughing. Coughing is the body's reflex to expel the virus. Coughing is of the highest risk.)

Oversimplification --exhalation or any sort of stuffs like that-- of complex problems is not science in my opinion. I suggest the meaning of "speak loud and clear" (This often the case in the outdoor) be integrated into the paraphrase.

--Reciprocater (Talk) 16:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Option 3 has by far majority support. Next we can move on to what the summary of the second sentence should be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
this is not a vote . —Almaty (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

What is your summary? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Doc James what's the criteria for consensus on my 'sensible resolution' section? Magna19 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

my summary is that if this is not brought down to binary options, that there is clear consensus for including exhalation in the first or second sentence, and to not state coughing on its own. There is also clear consensus to include the ECDC as a primary source, and no consensus about qualifiers. —Almaty (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made a table bellow feel free to edit it if i have made any errors.

Option	Support	Oppose	Consensus
1	2	6	Oppose
2	3	5	Oppose
3a	10	6	Disputed
3b	7	2
3c	9	0	Consensus?
4a	5	3
4b	3	1
5	1	6	Oppose
6	5	2
Sensible Resolution	4	1
Another thought	1	4

— RealFakeKim T 09:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but what about the consensus so far for the 'sensible resolution' I proposed? 3-1 in favour of support so far. How many supports required for consensus? Still no answer from @Doc James:.

This RfC is just about the first sentence. Sure we can start the second sentence aswell which is below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Updated I think the table shows that 3a has lost it's consensus. — RealFakeKim T 08:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree no consensus - Should we close out this RFC as no consensus is anywhere near being found and start over? Maybe with a more traditional form of discussion a better proposal can emerge more quickly and we can build consensus on that. I think everyone involved thinks the current phrase in the article is insufficient and misleading but we just can't agree on the improved version. It's a dangerous position since the article is misleading a lot of people into a false sense of security. Time is crucial with this. Wikipedia is failing to provide accurate information right now. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the table and highlighted the more popular options so far. Option 7 withdrawn and "Sensible resolution" added. We might make it if we focus our attention on the leading candidates and close out the rejected ones. Option 3a seems popular but also highly controversial. Options 3b, 6 and sensible resolution seem the most promising and would ask more editors to vote there. Would close out the rest as more negatives than positives. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've also added a disputed tag in the article to reflect that consensus has been lost and that several editors strongly oppose and dispute that sentence --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The tag (with link to this discussion) has also been added on the COVID-19 page as the exact same lead is included in that article. Option 3b is gaining steam? 6 to 1 is the best for/against ratio we have. Is it enough? Maybe a couple? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It definatly has the best ratio but this is very conteravurtial so I with we should hold off. — RealFakeKim T 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 3c has emerged with a 8-0 ratio. Consensus seems clear to me among various "camps" of users. Most of the users in disaccord now agree. Should we get this up? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I made the edit few minutes ago. Well done all. Got there in the end. Magna19 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is as well. Mabye it can be finally closed. — RealFakeKim T 19:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I also support “ The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory dropletsproduced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but it is not considered airborne.” As agreed by me and doc james

Perfect. It looks like we might have a consensus maybe. And I think the current wording is more balanced than what I initially supported. So thank you everyone. An important topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

^ ^a ^b ^c Cite error: The named reference WHO2020QA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Transmission". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 17 March 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020.

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or ((efn)) templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=lower-alpha)) template or ((notelist)) template (see the help page).