Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Action plan
[edit]I think everyone agrees Origin of Covid-19 should be better. I didn't write this to fulfill that mission. I thought that would have been too bold - but it seems like no one is going to trust any attempt at a spinout anyway unless it's a package deal with the parent. I could remix this material into something built from the start to be a draft for the parent. I trust that if I do that, we can talk about any concerns people have with weight or secondary sources without going ham deleting everything? Sennalen (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- All non-WP:MEDRS (used for WP:BMI) needs to be removed as a initial cleanup. This action is ogoing. Bon courage (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm talking about deleting things on the future draft. If there is a problem in draft space it should be tagged for fixing, not deleted. Sennalen (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Given its current state, I do not have a strong opinion about what to do with this article during work on the parent. Delete, draftify, leave it alone - all acceptable. I have my original saved to disk. Sennalen (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- If the article had been a nice summary of the relevant MEDRS that would have been great. I still think there's potential for something like that (after merge) to be part of a nice restructuring across the COVID 'origin' articles which will improve things. Bon courage (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Selective pressure on the nsp1 gene needs a review article in your opinion,[1] but a phase III trial saying juice cures covid "seems fine"?[2] Sennalen (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- As an example of an unproven method, but yikes! on closer inspection that was not clear there. Tidied-up ... thanks! Bon courage (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Selective pressure on the nsp1 gene needs a review article in your opinion,[1] but a phase III trial saying juice cures covid "seems fine"?[2] Sennalen (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- If the article had been a nice summary of the relevant MEDRS that would have been great. I still think there's potential for something like that (after merge) to be part of a nice restructuring across the COVID 'origin' articles which will improve things. Bon courage (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- So you can see the sausage being made, it's at User:Sennalen/sandbox/CovidOrigin starting with a bibliography. This would be a good time to look them over and see if any seem fatally unusable for any possible claim. As a reminder, the scope is expanding to be larger than this articles', and as a consequence the space for lab leak will be larger than it is here in an article specifically about zoonosis. That is not evidence of any secret agenda. Sennalen (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Have you considered instead that it might be more informative and useful for the reader to discuss virology, epidemiology, evolution and emergence without such an emphasis on the proximal origin? SARS-CoV-2 puts "Reservoir and origin" ahead of "Virology" and seems to jump right to proximal origins. COVID-19 looks pretty unorganized and the "History" section dives right into proximal origin. COVID-19 pandemic#Epidemiology jumps right from proximal origin to case counts. There are of course many papers that directly address proximal origin, but many of the papers and sources cited for the scattered "lab leak vs zoonosis" content do not. They give as background or introduction some content related to coronavirus emergence, zoonosis and proximal origin of COVID-19 but then move on to the purpose of the paper. Editors then pick and choose from these some wording or point they want to make about the proximal origin and seemingly ignore the rest. For instance i found "The past, current and future epidemiological dynamic of SARS-CoV-2" useful and informative (it's only cited 23 times so i don't know how important it is.) Likewise i thought some of the content here could be useful for a more generic introduction to the epidemiology which could put the proximal origin within its proper perspective.
- Of the now three articles dealing with origins and lab leak, and the other scattered content, all seem to mangle the use and concept of 'zoonosis', never tell me why it was important to identify reservoirs and i think really lack the background required for the reader to understand the content. It would be nice if at least one began with and focused on epidemiology rather than the politics. I think some of the content here could have been useful for doing that. fiveby(zero) 17:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
US Congress report
[edit]Be aware that the US Congress has issued a report claiming that COVID-19 originated in a lab. They came to this conclusion by... accusing scientists of lying to cover it up & cited a New York Times op-ed instead.
So how to handle the disproportionate amount of evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the committee didn't like? By acting like it doesn't exist. "By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced," the report argues. Instead, it devotes page after page to suggesting that one of the key publications that laid out the evidence for a natural origin was the result of a plot among a handful of researchers who wanted to suppress the idea of a lab leak. Subsequent papers describing more extensive evidence appear to have been ignored.
Meanwhile, since there's little scientific evidence favoring a lab leak, the committee favorably cites an op-ed published in The New York Times.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/12/congressional-republicans-conclude-sars-cov-2-originated-in-a-lab-leak/ — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 14 December 2024
[edit]
It has been proposed in this section that Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 be renamed and moved to COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 → COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory – While zoonotic origin is the favored theory of some scientists, it has not been proven. 85.206.30.170 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Oppose. Seems like a fringe-y idea. I don't think anybody sensible (per sources) thinks it's not of zoonotic origin. Bon courage (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is it proven or is it a theory? How do we split those two things? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Alternate move to Potential zoonotic origins of COVID-19 (or Possible zoonotic origins of COVID-19). "Theory" makes it sound like it's tremendously up for debate, but it's also not 99.99% confirmed on the same level as, say, global warming or the Earth orbiting the Sun, and the title ought to reflect that. Insisting that it is simply inflames the debate further. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- How do you feel about "plausible" ? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 01:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose along with Bon courage I think the suggested target is WP:FRINGEy. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that the origin was zoonotic and therefore we should go with the weight of reliable sources. TarnishedPathtalk 11:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would you support a merge into Origins of COVID-19 as suggested below? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- We've had that discussion twice and it lead to no consensus each time. TarnishedPathtalk 01:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do you support or oppose it? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I supported it in both discussions I was involved in, initiating one of them. There was a another discussion prior to the two I was involved in which arrived at consensus for merge, but then went stale. TarnishedPathtalk 06:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is not so much the decision, but that the merge will require a lot of very tedious reference reconcilation/reworking. Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes that too. TarnishedPathtalk 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is not so much the decision, but that the merge will require a lot of very tedious reference reconcilation/reworking. Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I supported it in both discussions I was involved in, initiating one of them. There was a another discussion prior to the two I was involved in which arrived at consensus for merge, but then went stale. TarnishedPathtalk 06:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do you support or oppose it? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- We've had that discussion twice and it lead to no consensus each time. TarnishedPathtalk 01:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would you support a merge into Origins of COVID-19 as suggested below? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above. "It's just a theory!" is a common denialist trope. The overwhelming consensus among research scientists is that the virus is naturally evolved, and we should not be renaming this article to soften that stance. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do we need two separate articles explaining that it is zoonotic? How do you feel about a merge? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- A merge would likely be the best option, but that's a different discussion entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do we need two separate articles explaining that it is zoonotic? How do you feel about a merge? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Microbiology, WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Viruses, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics, WikiProject Molecular Biology, and WikiProject Disaster management have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose The science experts all agree that SARS-CoV-2 was localized to the Hunan Seafood Wholesale Market where it likely spread from animals to humans. There are no other scientific explanations that account for the data. All versions of the Covid-19 lab leak theory are conspiracy theories that should continue to be solidly debunked on Wikipedia. Genome42 (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to support a RfC to clearly label the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- COVID-19 lab leak theory is the most appropriate place to discuss that. TarnishedPathtalk 01:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to support a RfC to clearly label the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The only name change that makes sense would be to Origins of COVID-19. That is, this should be the primary topic. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia and this is the mainstream view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- That article already exists. Should we merge? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- That was what I suggested in the AfD in March, yes. But making that happen... that is the challenge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- That article already exists. Should we merge? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Is this redundant with Origin of SARS-CoV-2?
[edit]Origin of SARS-CoV-2 is an article. It has "zoonotic hypothesis" as the NPOV for the article. Are these therefore not the same article? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- The decision has already been taken to merge. It just needs somebody with the time/patience/expertise to do it, while respecting WP:CITEREF for the target article. Bon courage (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class COVID-19 articles
- Mid-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- Low-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class virus articles
- Mid-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles
- B-Class Molecular Biology articles
- Low-importance Molecular Biology articles
- B-Class Genetics articles
- Low-importance Genetics articles
- WikiProject Genetics articles
- All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
- B-Class Evolutionary biology articles
- Mid-importance Evolutionary biology articles
- WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
- B-Class Microbiology articles
- Mid-importance Microbiology articles
- WikiProject Microbiology articles
- Requested moves