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

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:58, 29 November 2023 editHob Gadling (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users18,366 edits →Views removed ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:22, 29 November 2023 edit undoSennalen (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,089 edits →First sentences: ReplyTag: Reply Next edit →
Line 81:		Line 81:
	:Can you please tone it down already? 40-50 years is the estimated date for the most recent '''known''' evidence for a zoonotic progenitor. Evidence should take a central role in the scientific process. We are trying to draw the proper distinction between the known zoonotic phylogenetic origin and the unknown proximal origin. This aligns with your desire to assert more clarity where it's justified. ] (]) 18:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)		:Can you please tone it down already? 40-50 years is the estimated date for the most recent '''known''' evidence for a zoonotic progenitor. Evidence should take a central role in the scientific process. We are trying to draw the proper distinction between the known zoonotic phylogenetic origin and the unknown proximal origin. This aligns with your desire to assert more clarity where it's justified. ] (]) 18:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
	::It is all I can to extend ] when you are insisting that 40-50 years is a relevant timeframe for zoonotic progenitor. Are you proposing that this timeframe is when human crossover happened? If not, then what point are you trying to make? ] (]) 18:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)		::It is all I can to extend ] when you are insisting that 40-50 years is a relevant timeframe for zoonotic progenitor. Are you proposing that this timeframe is when human crossover happened? If not, then what point are you trying to make? ] (]) 18:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::Absolutely not. Crossover happened in Q4 2019. The timeframe is for the latest date that we know (rather than reasonably surmise) a bat was infected with a direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. ] (]) 19:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

	== Definition of zoonosis ==		== Definition of zoonosis ==

Revision as of 19:22, 29 November 2023

Skip to table of contents

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1

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.

COVID-19 Unassessed Mid‑importance

	COVID-19 portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page created

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.

jps (talk) 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. Sennalen (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is mandatory at Misplaced Pages. I'm not saying that your approach is wrong. I'm saying it may run into problems. You are free to do with that information what you will. jps (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I support a merge. Origins of COVID-19 has a weight issue, because it gives more space to lab theories, and mainly focuses on a side issue (investigations). And in terms of WP:FRINGE, even a CFORK should be avoided; the majority view (zoonosis) belongs in the main article, not its own article. A merge would fix both of these. DFlhb (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge. A blatant WP:POVFORK, even in its title which implies zoonotic origin is a fact. That alone needs to be changed to something like 'Zoonotic origin of COVID-19 theory', given that both zoonotic and lab leak currently remain propositions, with high-level scientific support on both sides – as the instigator would well know. Gold stamp for sheer rhinoceros brazenness and investment of energy though! MisterWizzy (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@MisterWizzy: As a point of fact, the original title was "COVID-19 zoonosis theories". It was changed unilaterally by jps, who was also the one who requested the merge. Sennalen (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge as an obvious WP:POVFORK of Origin of COVID-19; no credible reason has been presented why this would require a separate article. --Aquillion (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The heart of the article is the molecular details in "processes of host adaptation". That would be overweighted in the parent and need to be spun out again. Going through the motions would be a waste of everyone's time, but not the worst thing that could happen I guess. Merging would give an opportunity to replace a lot of outdated and news RS sources in the parent with up-to-date journal articles given here. Sennalen (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Once the primary research has been filleted-out, there might not be much left. But I'm leaning merge for what is. Bon courage (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

First sentences

I'm open to revisions, but there are two considerations that should take overriding priority:

MOS:FIRST 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.

Sennalen (talk) 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 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)

This is not an abstract debate about the philosophy of science. WP:STICKTOSOURCE There is particular evidence that most people would accept as conclusive proof - namely, an ancestral sequence and/or an infected animal. To date those have not been found, and they may never be found. It is not mandatory that the answer to any question becomes known after a certain amount of effort has been expended on answering it. The language of best sources - like those cited here - is that the origin is believed, suspected, likely, etc., but many of them also say explicity, "unknown." Sennalen (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Footnotes with direct quotes from sources saying precisely these things were on the version prior to your edits in anticipation of precisely this argument. Sennalen (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The arguments you are making categorically do not even comport with the reliable sources you are pretending to represent. There is no source which says anything like (2). jps (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Just looking at the first source that was removed, the quote is: "the proximal phylogenetic origin of SARS-CoV-2 and its mode of introduction into human circulation remain unclear".

Surely that supports "(2) The origin of Covid-19 is unknown".

I haven't looked at the other sources. - Palpable (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Unclear proximal phylogenetic origin" is not a synonym for "unknown origin". Specificity matters. We aren't here to play creationist-like games of complaining about missing links. We have the general outline of the origin story for this virus. We may not know patient zero and whether there were intermediaries, but we do know a lot about the origin of this virus. To pretend otherwise is fairly close to farcical at this point. jps (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I went back through the papers cited here and looked for anything that looked like a summary statement about the origin of the virus. Several did not, particularly those with a molecular focus. News sources were not included.

There are four sources that describe it as flat out unknown. Five say it "likely" came from animals, or with similar qualifiers. Seven give no indication they considered a non-animal origin but stressed the uncertainty about what animal it could have been. Two seemed very sure it was bats. In general, caution and circumspection go hand in hand with scientific integrity rather than opposing it. I believe this review strongly supports using appropriate qualifiers on summary claims. Sennalen (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A review of sources.
(Bolding is mine) Unknown The origin of SARS-CoV-2, as well as its mode of introduction into the human population, is currently unknown. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, emerged in December 2019. Its origins remain uncertain. The natural or accidental origin of SARS-CoV2 remains an unsolved conundrum. The initial outbreak of human cases of the virus was connected to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, and while related viruses have been found in horseshoe bats and pangolins, their divergence represents decades of evolution leaving the direct origin of the pandemic unknown. Probably animals The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still hotly debated and there is no dispositive proof of whether the virus started its spread after a single or multiple zoonotic events or if the virus ‘escaped’ from a research laboratory through accidental exposure or breach of safety protocols. So far, zoonotic emergence is considered the most likely option by some scientists Great efforts have been undertaken worldwide to trace the origin of SARS-CoV-2, but it remains elusive when and where SARS-CoV-2 originated. The current consensus is that it is extremely unlikely that a lab leak was the source of the pandemic virus . Instead, many studies have supported the view that SARS-CoV-2 had a zoonotic origin and evolved in nature (...) Despite the zoonotic signatures observed in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, it remains unclear how this virus was transmitted from animals to human populations. (...) Bats are common natural hosts for CoVs, supporting that SARS-CoV-2 likely had a bat origin. SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to SARS-CoV, which caused a more limited outbreak in several countries in 2003 (Peiris et al., 2003; Rota et al., 2003); however, several bat- and pangolin-derived viruses are even more closely related to SARS-CoV-2, indicative of a zoonotic origin All previous human coronaviruses have zoonotic origins, as have the vast majority of human viruses. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 bears several signatures of these prior zoonotic events. (...) As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. (...) We contend that although the animal reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 has not been identified and the key species may not have been tested, in contrast to other scenarios there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin. Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated human-animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade. Furin cleavage sites in spike proteins naturally occurred independently for multiple times in coronaviruses. Such feature of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is not necessarily a product of manual intervention, though our observation does not rule out the lab-engineered scenario. Animal but not sure which SARS-CoV-2 was speculated to have originated in bats and then jump to the human population via an intermediate animal host . Although viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2, such as BANAL-20-52 derived from the Malayan horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus malayanus), RaTG13 derived from the intermediate horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus affinis), and Pangolin‐CoV present in Malayan pangolins (Manis avania) have been identified, at present the exact animal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear. Because the question of the original host or animal reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 is unresolved, identifying other animals that are highly susceptible to this virus infection is an important task for pandemic control and prevention. The animal reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 is unknown despite reports of SARS-CoV-2-related viruses in Asian Rhinolophus bats1,2,3,4, including the closest virus from R. affinis, RaTG13 (refs. 5,6), and pangolins7,8,9. The novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that recently emerged in China is thought to have a bat origin, as its closest known relative (BatCoV RaTG13) was described previously in horseshoe bats. The most probable explanation for the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into humans involves zoonotic jumps from as-yet-undetermined, intermediate host animals at the Huanan market Bats are considered as the likely source of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses, as a rich diversity of SARS-related (or SARS-like) viruses have been identified in several bat species. Notably, a bat coronavirus named BatCoV-RaTG13 has been identified as being most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 on a genomic level with a remarkable 96% sequence identity (Zhou et al., 2020b). To date, the direct precursor of SARS-CoV-2 and the involvement of an intermediate host in the emergence of the human virus remain to be identified, and there has been much attention drawn to the origin of the virus. As such, it may be argued that the progenitor of SARS-CoV-1 has never been identified. Although in contrast to the situation for SARS-CoV-2, viral strains with near-perfect whole-genome sequence identity have been isolated from captive Himalayan palm civets (Paguma larvata) and a raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) . These observations led to the hypothesis that a carnivore may have acted as an intermediate host in the jump of SARS-CoV-1 into humans . Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there were suggestions that pangolins (Manis javanica) could have acted as an intermediate host for SARS-CoV-2 . However, current evidence does not indicate that an established reservoir outside of bats may have been required for the host jump into humans (Fig. 2). Certain it's bats The origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be unambiguously traced to horseshoe bats Our analyses, based on public data, provide compelling evidence that during this time window SARS-CoV-2 evolved in a host environment highly similar, if not identical, to other five bat coronaviruses Honorable mention There is no “origin” to SARS-CoV-2 Sennalen (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A review of sources.

(Bolding is mine)

Unknown

The origin of SARS-CoV-2, as well as its mode of introduction into the human population, is currently unknown.
SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, emerged in December 2019. Its origins remain uncertain.
The natural or accidental origin of SARS-CoV2 remains an unsolved conundrum.
The initial outbreak of human cases of the virus was connected to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, and while related viruses have been found in horseshoe bats and pangolins, their divergence represents decades of evolution leaving the direct origin of the pandemic unknown.

Probably animals

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 is still hotly debated and there is no dispositive proof of whether the virus started its spread after a single or multiple zoonotic events or if the virus ‘escaped’ from a research laboratory through accidental exposure or breach of safety protocols. So far, zoonotic emergence is considered the most likely option by some scientists
Great efforts have been undertaken worldwide to trace the origin of SARS-CoV-2, but it remains elusive when and where SARS-CoV-2 originated. The current consensus is that it is extremely unlikely that a lab leak was the source of the pandemic virus . Instead, many studies have supported the view that SARS-CoV-2 had a zoonotic origin and evolved in nature (...) Despite the zoonotic signatures observed in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, it remains unclear how this virus was transmitted from animals to human populations. (...) Bats are common natural hosts for CoVs, supporting that SARS-CoV-2 likely had a bat origin.
SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to SARS-CoV, which caused a more limited outbreak in several countries in 2003 (Peiris et al., 2003; Rota et al., 2003); however, several bat- and pangolin-derived viruses are even more closely related to SARS-CoV-2, indicative of a zoonotic origin
All previous human coronaviruses have zoonotic origins, as have the vast majority of human viruses. The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 bears several signatures of these prior zoonotic events. (...) As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. (...) We contend that although the animal reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 has not been identified and the key species may not have been tested, in contrast to other scenarios there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin. Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated human-animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade.
Furin cleavage sites in spike proteins naturally occurred independently for multiple times in coronaviruses. Such feature of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is not necessarily a product of manual intervention, though our observation does not rule out the lab-engineered scenario.

Animal but not sure which

SARS-CoV-2 was speculated to have originated in bats and then jump to the human population via an intermediate animal host . Although viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2, such as BANAL-20-52 derived from the Malayan horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus malayanus), RaTG13 derived from the intermediate horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus affinis), and Pangolin‐CoV present in Malayan pangolins (Manis avania) have been identified, at present the exact animal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear.
Because the question of the original host or animal reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 is unresolved, identifying other animals that are highly susceptible to this virus infection is an important task for pandemic control and prevention.
The animal reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 is unknown despite reports of SARS-CoV-2-related viruses in Asian Rhinolophus bats1,2,3,4, including the closest virus from R. affinis, RaTG13 (refs. 5,6), and pangolins7,8,9.
The novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that recently emerged in China is thought to have a bat origin, as its closest known relative (BatCoV RaTG13) was described previously in horseshoe bats.
The most probable explanation for the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into humans involves zoonotic jumps from as-yet-undetermined, intermediate host animals at the Huanan market
Bats are considered as the likely source of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 viruses, as a rich diversity of SARS-related (or SARS-like) viruses have been identified in several bat species. Notably, a bat coronavirus named BatCoV-RaTG13 has been identified as being most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 on a genomic level with a remarkable 96% sequence identity (Zhou et al., 2020b). To date, the direct precursor of SARS-CoV-2 and the involvement of an intermediate host in the emergence of the human virus remain to be identified, and there has been much attention drawn to the origin of the virus.
As such, it may be argued that the progenitor of SARS-CoV-1 has never been identified. Although in contrast to the situation for SARS-CoV-2, viral strains with near-perfect whole-genome sequence identity have been isolated from captive Himalayan palm civets (Paguma larvata) and a raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides) . These observations led to the hypothesis that a carnivore may have acted as an intermediate host in the jump of SARS-CoV-1 into humans . Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there were suggestions that pangolins (Manis javanica) could have acted as an intermediate host for SARS-CoV-2 . However, current evidence does not indicate that an established reservoir outside of bats may have been required for the host jump into humans (Fig. 2).

Certain it's bats

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be unambiguously traced to horseshoe bats
Our analyses, based on public data, provide compelling evidence that during this time window SARS-CoV-2 evolved in a host environment highly similar, if not identical, to other five bat coronaviruses

Honorable mention

There is no “origin” to SARS-CoV-2

Sennalen (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The precise origin may be unknown but it's accepted that it's zoonotic, and it is also accepted that some other notions (e.g. bioweaponry, bioengineering, asteroid debris, 5G masts) are conspiracy theories or just nonsense. Content on zoonotic origin should be on just that, and not start sidling up to the FRINGE stuff which is already covered elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Bon courage (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What is concerning about the categorical statements made above as attempted "principles" for editing this content is the way they can be immediately repurposed to allow for WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY. This is not the only time this account has engaged in this kind of rhetoric. Since this is a WP:CTOP, we need to be vigilant about this and if that sort of advocacy continues, we need to ask for help from WP:AE. jps (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you think this and that are "accepted", add the sources that agree with you rather than removing sources that you disagree with. If you do not want to stick to sources because you don't like the points of view contained, that is WP:NOTHERE. Sennalen (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, you have been warned. Continue down this path at your own risk. Your snow job above demonstrates nothing vis-a-vis the attempted railroading of discussion by posting an "uncertainty monster" principle. We're cleaning up the article now. You're welcome to offer higher-quality sources or work with what we've got. jps (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We need to zero in more on Palpable's points on clarifying exactly what we mean by zoonosis, both in article and talk space. There's no disagreement that Covid-19 had a zoonotic progenitor in bats circa 50 years ago. The proximal origin however - exactly where it was before the first human infection, is indeed unknown. There is no scientific consensus or Misplaced Pages consensus that every proposed laboratory origin is a fringe theory, so we should not write as if there is. It may be time for a new RfC if people think that (non)consensus is out of date. Sennalen (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a highly skewed and blinkered summary of the state of knowledge currently. 50 years is an arbitrary and absurd number of years to pick out of thin air, for example. And the obsession with lab leaks is fairly disconfirming. Notice the rhetorical sleight of hand with phrasing like "no scientific consensus or Misplaced Pages consensus that every proposed laboratory origin is a fringe theory". This is not an article about laboratory origin ideas. This is an article about the zoonotic origins of COVID-19. jps (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that any "lab origin" idea that doesn't involve zoonosis is firmly in the crank-o-sphere (i.e. it's "man-made virus" time). All lab leak stuff is (perhaps more mildly) covered by FRINGE in any case. I'm sure I've read something about how the zoonosis-in-the-lab became a fallback position for the LL proponents as their position crumbled. I'll see if I can dig it out ... But in the meantime this is not meant to be an article about "lab leaks". Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

50 years is not out of thin air, it's from Lytras (2022) used in the article. I'm not interested in lab ideas that don't involve zoonosis. The ones that do involve zoonosis are related to zoonosis, clearly. Many respected sources about zoonotic origin, such as Holmes (2021), devote a lot of their attention to it. It's not observing due weight to completely leave it out. Sennalen (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

A 50-year time frame for a LCA analysis for a bat virus and the COVID-19 virus is manifestly not the same as "zoonotic progenitor". That you are pretending it is makes me fairly amazed. WP:CIR is a standard we require for writing. This is not evident from your argument. jps (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you please tone it down already? 40-50 years is the estimated date for the most recent known evidence for a zoonotic progenitor. Evidence should take a central role in the scientific process. We are trying to draw the proper distinction between the known zoonotic phylogenetic origin and the unknown proximal origin. This aligns with your desire to assert more clarity where it's justified. Sennalen (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It is all I can to extend good faith when you are insisting that 40-50 years is a relevant timeframe for zoonotic progenitor. Are you proposing that this timeframe is when human crossover happened? If not, then what point are you trying to make? jps (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Crossover happened in Q4 2019. The timeframe is for the latest date that we know (rather than reasonably surmise) a bat was infected with a direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. Sennalen (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Definition of zoonosis

Zoonosis is an ambiguous term. In colloquial usage, zoonosis is the opposite of lab-leak. But in more technical sources, zoonosis just refers to having a natural ancestor. For example, the SAGO report asserts a zoonotic origin while acknowledging the possibility of a research-related spillover.

This matters because everybody agrees that SARS-CoV-2 originated with a bat virus and therefore had a zoonotic origin at some point. Yet the proximal origin is highly controversial. Confusion around the definition of zoonosis muddies the waters.

It would be best if Misplaced Pages divided the possible origins by spillover location: natural, market, or research-related. But if this article is named for zoonosis, the ambiguous meaning of zoonosis should be clarified in the lede. - Palpable (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of precision and welcome suggestions of better titles. Sennalen (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We are left with the article topic as presented. Thus, I have changed the title of this article to reflect that. jps (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Tobias chop

Yikes. Focusing this much on one source is absurd. Tobias is a self-admitted FOIA advocate, but it seems to me that his bias is apparent from his various arguments. While better than some of the more rabid Lab Leak conspiracy theorists in terms of care of analysis, there is still something reminiscent of Climategate going on here where people are deliberately misinterpreting e-mails between scientists as somehow indicative of a conspiracy. Basically the origin point of a conspiracy theory. The early concerns over certain genomic features have been conclusively put to bed, and this entire thing is a distraction from the subject of this article anyway. Yikes! jps (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it a terrible source for an article apparently about a serious scientific topic. Bon courage (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It is the least biased source I could find on a news event with widespread media attention. Moreover, the event is just a recent capstone on sustained attention to the FOIA release spanning over two years. It is not itself scientific research, but it is significant information contextualizing the research. All of this makes it appropriate for inclusion in the "Views" section, which by its position and framing weights it far less than the scientific record. Sennalen (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's just WP:FRINGE commentary being used to undercut high-quality science, and off-topic to boot. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If that's the least biased source on the news event, then I submit that this news event may not be worthy of inclusion here. jps (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read something on how these emails have been cherry-picked and misunderstood to create more grist to the lableak mill (i.e. They changed their mind! That's not science!). But it's all just side-show froth as far as the main topic of this article is concerned (zoonosis). In general, using a reporter's hot takes to undercut gold-standard MEDRS is not a good look for any Misplaced Pages article. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a hard time imagining why it may be at all relevant. Nothing in the removed text or the source itself seems to add any new information to the zoonotic origins of COVID-19. jps (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Request

There is a request for enforcement regarding editor behavior concerning this page and COVID-19 origins at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ජපස Sennalen (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Cite review articles, don't write them

The more I look at this article, the more it appears to be an attempt to write a journal-esque review article based on selected primary literature. Articles should be based on secondary sources and WP:BMI in particular should normally rely on WP:MEDRS. A heavy trim is in order (and is ongoing). Bon courage (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment. Thanks for sharing your concerns. It was absolutely meant to give the kind of understanding of the topic that a review article would. (The stipulation in WP:NOTJOURNAL is only about avoiding inaccessible jargon.)

A mix of sources was used, including primary, secondary, and reviews. Neither WP:PRIMARY nor WP:MEDPRI is a prohibition on primary sources. Rather, they should be used with caution - e.g., not using them to contextualize other material. Primary sources can provide a deeper layer of verifiability than brief elliptical mentions that are common in secondaries.

The article as originally written mostly conforms to the guidelines. I don't doubt there are things to improve, but the productive way to approach that would have been to WP:PRESERVE, tag, and discuss. A lot of what's there could actually be supported with other existing sources too. Sennalen (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the article as-was "mostly conforms to the guidelines". Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Large swathes of this article are/were completely dependent on unreliable sources. The ONUS would be on you to establish consensus for dubiously-sourced content. Bon courage (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I take our charge seriously when there is problematic content to remove it from public view. WP:ONUS is the relevant principle. If something needs to be restored, there is article history but it is far better to be overly cautious an exclude medical-related material in public-facing articles that is even a little bit questionable. There is WP:NODEADLINE and the upsides far outweigh the downsides when it comes to irresponsibly sourced content. jps (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with your sentiment when it comes to core medical content. Whether there's no deadline for addition or no deadline for deletion turns on whether there's risk of harm. There is real risk of harm in bad information about diagnosis and treatment. No one is going to read a statement here about zinc finger protein and then go stick a bat up their nose. Sennalen (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Letting badly-sourced content hang around is how the encyclopedia deteriorates. And there is more then enough of that sort of thing on COVID topics already. When there's so much decent sourcing on pretty much all things COVID, there's really no need to scrape around for primaries. Bon courage (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I can respect that, but if that's where you're coming from, you should turn the same scathing view on the WP:MEDPOP all over the Covid topics. Sennalen (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

For sure. (Except in the case where for reasons of WP:PARITY it's useful for debunking misinformation, like turbo cancer e.g.) Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, yeah. That is a case where I think Gorski is appropriate. Sennalen (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Commonly heard on Misplaced Pages: "Yes of course SBM is good for debunking all these other things which are obviously bunk, but it's not suitable for ${my pet topic}". Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Not for anything with good coverage in peer-reviewed journals. Sennalen (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Views removed

I think this section was serving mostly as a WP:COATrack for ongoing questions and controversies surrounding the politicization of scientific studies regarding COVID-19 origins. But, crucially, none of the sources really had anything to say about the investigation of zoonotic origins directly. The "anywhere but here" editorial from Science is interesting and relevant to other articles, but not this one. Our focus needs to be on zoonotic origins, not on how geopolitics filters out certain discourse.

Just about the only two points which were even vaguely related were the questions about close relatives of the virus found in wildlife (poorly cited paper criticized in the "anywhere but here" editorial as an object lesson) and the point that the wet market provenance has contributed to certain racist/racialized backlash. I think those points might be integrated in other sections of the article, but they are still somewhat tangential so I think there is no great loss if they are not discussed, necessarily.

Anyway, that's that.

jps (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It's right not to weight societal views too much in comparison to scientific research. Going to zero is certainly not the right answer, though.

There's also some mixed signals here - is the article being pruned of context to just focus on zoonosis, or is it being prepped to merge with the parent? If it's to merge, this stuff about Chinese politics becomes even more important. Origin of Covid-19 currently gives too much credence to the WHO report and the frozen food idea and could use this material. Sennalen (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The removed text with the two narrow exceptions I outlined had nothing to do with "societal views on zoonotic origins". It had to do with societal views on other matters. jps (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"Preparing for a merge" does not mean adding material that does not belong here but, if at all, in the other article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories: