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.
# 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 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.
] (]) 20:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
] (]) 20:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
:A blanket declaration like (2) is essentially an antiscience, post-modernist POV that, like, nothing can really ever be known, dude. That more-or-less matches a ] POV. Is that your intention? Because, for example, we know a lot of facts about the origin of COVID-19, so it is manifestly false to say its "origin" (inasmuch as one can identify "origin" as a precise term) is "unknown. ] (]) 20:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This 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
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 SARS-CoV-2 and Origin of Covid-19 can refer to in WP:SUMMARY style. This should especially be an improvement on the situation where the COVID-19 lab leak theory 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 WP:MEDPOP 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 WP:NPOV, WP:MEDASSESS, and WP:DESCF throughout the COVID-19 topic area and open scientific questions in general. Sennalen (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
CFORK or POVFORK?
This article does not look to me to be a properly executed WP:CFORK and instead seems to be closer to a WP:POVFORK. I encourage discussion of the issues outlined here and at the relevant thread on WP:FTN to address this matter. I will refrain from posting AfD until this is worked out, but that is another option, of course. jps (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a WP:DETAIL companion to Origin of Covid-19. There is long-standing precedent for this kind of treatment, in the form of the parallel page: COVID-19 lab leak theory. 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 WP:SUMMARY style. Per WP:SYNC 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. Sennalen (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2023 (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 WP:SPINOUT 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.
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. Sennalen (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
First sentences
I'm open to revisions, but there are two considerations that should take overriding priority:
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.
A blanket declaration like (2) is essentially an antiscience, post-modernist POV that, like, nothing can really ever be known, dude. That more-or-less matches a WP:PROFRINGE POV. Is that your intention? Because, for example, we know a lot of facts about the origin of COVID-19, so it is manifestly false to say its "origin" (inasmuch as one can identify "origin" as a precise term) is "unknown. jps (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}