Misplaced Pages

Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:03, 27 November 2023 editSennalen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,089 edits →First sentences: new sectionTag: New topic← 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, Rollbackers22,422 edits Closing requested move; not moved using rmCloser 
(178 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)
::If you think that COVID-19 lab leak theory is a "parallel" page, I think you need to clarify. ''That'' page is one that talks about a set of distinct minority reports and conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID-19. This page is about how COVID-19 formed in animals. There is not a strong comparison to be made between the two, in my estimation.
::I think what you are missing is the ] approach. In the instance where information is not present in higher-level articles, it is often better to start there lest you run into POV-fork situations. Given some of the rhetorical approaches you are proposing here, I would argue that you are minimally at risk of running into this problem which is why merging back may be better. We can always spin-out later.
::] (]) 19:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
:::That's a method for dealing with an existing article with a length or due weight problem, but it's not a mandatory process for article creation. We could bulk copy this article into the middle of a different article to create the problems that necessitate SPINOUT, but it would be less trouble to address your concerns about rhetorical approach ''in situ''. ] (]) 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


== Requested move 14 December 2024 ==
== First sentences ==


<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 -->
I'm open to revisions, but there are two considerations that should take overriding priority:
:''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.''
# ] should be followed.

# The origin of Covid-19 is unknown. A scientific consensus about what is likely, plausible, or parsimonious is not sufficient to say that something is the origin in wikivoice without qualifiers.
The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> '']'' 🎄 ] — ] 🎄 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 20:03, 27 November 2023 (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)

Latest revision as of 16:33, 21 December 2024

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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCOVID-19 Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisaster management Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconViruses Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMolecular Biology: Genetics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconEvolutionary biology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMicrobiology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


On 14 December 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory. The result of the discussion was not moved.

US Congress report

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: 17:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath 01:57, 15 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. TarnishedPath 14:24, 15 December 2024 (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.

Merger discussion

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)
Categories: