| Revision as of 18:46, 27 November 2023 editSennalen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,089 edits →CFORK or POVFORK?: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:33, 21 December 2024 edit undoCremastra (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,428 edits Closing requested move; not moved using rmCloser |
| (181 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk page header}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|covid}} |
|
{{Talk page header|archive_age=180|archive_units=days|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
|
|
{{Old AfD multi |date=9 March 2024 |result='''no consensus''' |page=Zoonotic origins of COVID-19}} |
| ⚫ |
{{Ds/talk notice|covid|brief}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |1= |
|
{{WikiProject COVID-19 |importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject COVID-19 |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Viruses |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Molecular Biology |importance=Low |genetics=yes |genetics-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Microbiology |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual Readership}} |
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
|
|archiveprefix=Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19/Archive |
|
|
|age=2160 |
|
|
|header={{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchsize=150000 |
|
|
|minkeepthreads=3 |
|
|
|numberstart=1 |
|
|
|format= %%i |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=14 December 2024|destination=COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1264176162#Requested move 14 December 2024}} |
|
== Page created == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== US Congress report == |
|
A page dedicated to zoonotic theories seemed neccessary to give attention to the full breadth and depth of the subject. This aims at a deeper level of detail, which more general articles like ] and ] can refer to in ] style. This should especially be an improvement on the situation where the ] is the only article with scope to discuss the evidence for zoonosis in detail. This article is carried almost entirely by scientific peer-reviewed journals. Significant non-scientific viewpoints have been raised in a brief addendum. This contrasts with most other articles in the topic area, where ] and even less qualified sources have been relied on for core facts and framing. I hope that this article will serve as a positive example for good practices around ], ], and ] throughout the COVID-19 topic area and open scientific questions in general. ] (]) 18:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
== CFORK or POVFORK? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>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.<br> |
|
This article does not look to me to be a properly executed ] and instead seems to be closer to a ]. I encourage discussion of the issues outlined here and at the relevant thread on ] to address this matter. I will refrain from posting AfD until this is worked out, but that is another option, of course. ] (]) 16:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Meanwhile, since there's little scientific evidence favoring a lab leak, the committee favorably cites an op-ed published in The New York Times.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/12/congressional-republicans-conclude-sars-cov-2-originated-in-a-lab-leak/ |
|
:This is a ] companion to ]. There is long-standing precedent for this kind of treatment, in the form of the parallel page: ]. It is not appropriate for a minority view to have a detailed treatment and the majority view not to. A link and summary should be integrated into the parent page, following ] style. Per ] it is appropriate to add material at child articles before parent articles. It is not a POV fork, because it is written from a neutral point of view and does not deviate in any significant way from the views described in the parent page. The parent article text should be updated in due course with extracts from this, more detailed and up-to-date, treatment. ] (]) 18:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
— <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 17:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 14 December 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] '''after''' discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> '']'' 🎄 ] — ] 🎄 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory}} – While zoonotic origin is the favored theory of some scientists, it has not been proven. ] (]) 15:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
*Oppose. Seems like a fringe-y idea. I don't think anybody sensible (per sources) thinks it's not of zoonotic origin. ] (]) 16:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Is it proven or is it a theory? How do we split those two things? ] (]) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Alternate move''' to ] (or ]). "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. ] (]) 17:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:How do you feel about "plausible" ? ] (]) 06:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' along with Bon courage I think the suggested target is ]y. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that the origin was zoonotic and therefore we should go with the weight of reliable sources. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Would you support a merge into Origins of COVID-19 as suggested below? ] (]) 18:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::We've had that discussion twice and it lead to no consensus each time. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Do you support or oppose it? ] (]) 05:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::I supported it in both ] I was involved in, initiating ]. There was a ] which arrived at consensus for merge, but then went stale. '']''<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::Yes that too. '']''<sup>]</sup> 06:33, 19 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. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 14:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Do we need two separate articles explaining that it is zoonotic? How do you feel about a merge? ] (]) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::A merge would likely be the best option, but that's a different discussion entirely. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 19:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:<small>Note: ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] have been notified of this discussion. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
*'''Strongly Oppose''' The science experts all agree that SARS-CoV-2 was localized to the ] where it likely spread from animals to humans. There are no other scientific explanations that account for the data. All versions of the ] are conspiracy theories that should continue to be solidly debunked on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 18:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::] is the most appropriate place to discuss that. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' The only name change that makes sense would be to ]. That is, this should be the primary topic. Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopaedia and this is the mainstream view. ] (]) 20:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:That article already exists. Should we merge? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Merger discussion== |
|
|
|
|
|
] is an article. It has "zoonotic hypothesis" as the NPOV for the article. Are these therefore not the same article? ] (]) 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 ] for the target article. ] (]) 09:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
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.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
