Talk:Origin of COVID-19

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


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)

Lab leak theory sources[edit]

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

Treeshrews source is not accurate[edit]

I am a microbiologist who has published on the origins of COVID-19. Apologies I am not familiar with the editing conventions of Wikipedia. I just have a suggestion to improve this paper. The citation to "treeshrews" should be removed. Here is my rationale:

1. In general, the paper being being cited for this claim is complete gibberish. The methodology used to reach the "treeshrew" claim is completely unsupported, and has never before been used in any context to identify the past hosts of a virus. It also simply makes no biological sense.

2. No other published works on COVID-19 have discussed "treeshrews" as a plausible intermediate host.

3. The journal the paper is published in has a impact factor <1.

4. The authors of the paper and not virologists and have not published prior on viral immunology.

I just wanted to bring this consideration to the attention of wikipedia editors. 69.250.21.91 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a poor source. Excised. Thanks! Bon courage (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

risk assessment[edit]

A recent UNSW paper [5] gives the lab leak theory a higher propability than the Zoonosis. But this article is unserviceable, so I drop it here. Alexpl (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 into Origin of COVID-19[edit]

It is not clear whether this article was created as a proper WP:CFORK of that article or whether it can only function as a WP:POVFORK. Depending on the outcome of that determination, either a merge back to the main article or a proper summary of this article at the main article ought to be completed. jps (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid duplication, please concentrate discussion at Talk:COVID-19_zoonosis_theories#CFORK_or_POVFORK? Sennalen (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring archived discussion as it is clear this discussion was never concluded. TarnishedPathtalk 11:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @ජපස, @Sennalen, @DFlhb, @MisterWizzy, @Aquillion, @Bon courage, @Generalrelative and @Novem Linguae as editors who were all involved in the previous merge discussion at Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19#CFORK or POVFORK? which was not concluded. TarnishedPathtalk 11:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am now completely confused as to what is meant to happen next. Probably nothing, as anything will provoke argument about what's meant to happen next. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge discussions can perhaps take longer than the time allowed in AfD. I'm in the process of pinging everyone that was in that discussion also. Let's see where the discussion goes. TarnishedPathtalk 12:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @AndyTheGrump, @HandThatFeeds, @Graham Beards, @Tewdar, @Jaredroach, @DanielRigal, @Thinker78, @SchroCat, @XMcan, @Palpable and @Sirfurboy as edtiors that were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. Apologies if I've doubled up on anyone or missed anyone.
  • The recent AFD reached no consensus. That doesn't actually bar us from a merge discussion - a no-consensus outcome on something important ideally means we keep working at it until we can reach a consensus of some sort in one way or another, and by my reading that was very close to a successful merge anyway - but we should think about the objections and ideas raised there, on both sides, and try to figure out what to do. One thing that occurs to me is that this article probably shouldn't link to that one per WP:ONEWAY. Another thing that occurs to me is that people may have been influenced by the sheert size of Zoonotic origins of COVID-19, which I'm not sure the sources actually justify. It might be worth going over that article and trimming more weakly-sourced things, or things that require WP:MEDRS sourcing and don't have it. Removing opinions cited to non-experts would also help get a clearer view of what's actually salvageable there, which might help convince people that a merge is feasible. It's also worth pointing out that the closer said that arguments here have not been based on policy which suggests, to me, that they felt that both the "merge" and "keep" arguments were not policy-based (something I find a bit surprising); this suggests to me that a merge discussion with stronger arguments would probably pass because the arguments against merging weren't policy-compliant. --Aquillion (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does anyone doubt that this is really a content dispute? I assumed that's what the comment about arguments not based on policy referred to. - Palpable (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another option is to merge Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 into Zoonosis. It is worthwhile taking a look at all Wikipedia articles that contain the word "Zoonosis" to get a sense of how this issue is handled for other diseases. For example, there is no article for "Zoonotic origins of Flu". There is, however, an article Feline zoonosis. Therefore we could also consider creating an article Bat zoonosis, and seeding it with the material from Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. Taking another tack, we can examine what Wikipedia articles are of the form, "Origin of ____". There are not very many, none about diseases (other than the one in question), most about human populations. So we may not want to feed the beast by adding to Origin of COVID-19. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19, exploring parallels with the Origin of Life article. Jaredroach (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge as proposed. The merge should be reversed. Zoonotic origins is the primary article here that explains the origin of the virus, and the Origin of Covid article is about investigations, which is background history, or perhaps a related sub article. But Zoonotic origins answers the question "where did COVID come from". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page to Origin of SARS-CoV-2 ?[edit]

The page title has a category error. This is an article about the virus' origin (as it says in the first sentence), not the "origin" of the disease. Everybody knows the disease is originated by infection with the virus. Bon courage (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_COVID-19&oldid=1218875176"