This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jtbobwaysf (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 31 March 2021 (→Origin of virus: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:07, 31 March 2021 by Jtbobwaysf (talk | contribs) (→Origin of virus: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 3 days  |
|topic= not specified. Available options:
 | Want to add new information about COVID-19? Most often, it should not go here. Please consider choosing the most appropriate article, for example:
|
 | WikiProject COVID-19 consensus
WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 pandemic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 3 days |
|
|
Template:Bad page for beginners
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as:] item
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
The virus is typically spread during close contact and via respiratory droplets produced when people cough or sneeze. Respiratory droplets may be produced during breathing but the virus is not considered airborne. It may also spread when one touches a contaminated surface and then their face. It is most contagious when people are symptomatic, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear.(RfC March 2020) 02. Superseded by #7 The infobox should feature a per capita count map most prominently, and a total count by country map secondarily. (RfC March 2020) 03. Obsolete The article should not use
{{Current}} at the top. (March 2020)
04. Do not include a sentence in the lead section noting comparisons to World War II. (March 2020)
05. CancelledInclude subsections covering the domestic responses of Italy, China, Iran, the United States, and South Korea. Do not include individual subsections for France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan. (RfC March 2020) Include a short subsection on Sweden focusing on the policy controversy. (May 2020)
Subsequently overturned by editing and recognized as obsolete. (July 2024) 06. Obsolete There is a 30 day moratorium on move requests until 26 April 2020. (March 2020)07. There is no consensus that the infobox should feature a confirmed cases count map most prominently, and a deaths count map secondarily. (May 2020)
08. Superseded by #16 The clause on xenophobia in the lead section should read...and there have been incidents of xenophobia and discrimination against Chinese people and against those perceived as being Chinese or as being from areas with high infection rates.(RfC April 2020) 09. Cancelled
Supersedes #1. The first several sentences of the lead section's second paragraph should state The virus is mainly spread during close contact and by small droplets produced when those infected cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets may also be produced during breathing; however, they rapidly fall to the ground or surfaces and are not generally spread through the air over large distances. People may also become infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their face. The virus can survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. Coronavirus is most contagious during the first three days after onset of symptoms, although spread may be possible before symptoms appear and in later stages of the disease.
(April 2020)
Notes
- Close contact is defined as 1 metres (3 feet) by the WHO and 2 metres (6 feet) by the CDC.
- An uncovered cough can travel up to 8.2 metres (27 feet).
010. The article title is COVID-19 pandemic. The title of related pages should follow this scheme as well. (RM April 2020, RM August 2020)
011. The lead section should use Wuhan, China
to describe the virus's origin, without mentioning Hubei or otherwise further describing Wuhan. (April 2020)
first identifiedand
December 2019. (May 2020) 013. Superseded by #15 File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should be used as the visual element of the misinformation section, with the caption
U.S. president Donald Trump suggested at a press briefing on 23 April that disinfectant injections or exposure to ultraviolet light might help treat COVID-19. There is no evidence that either could be a viable method. (1:05 min)(May 2020, June 2020) 014. Overturned Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article. (RfC May 2020) This result was overturned at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, as there is consensus that there is no consensus to include or exclude the lab leak theory. (RfC May 2024)
015. Supersedes #13. File:President Donald Trump suggests measures to treat COVID-19 during Coronavirus Task Force press briefing.webm should not be used as the visual element of the misinformation section. (RfC November 2020)
016. Supersedes #8. Incidents of xenophobia and discrimination are considered WP:UNDUE for a full sentence in the lead. (RfC January 2021)
017. Only include one photograph in the infobox. There is no clear consensus that File:COVID-19 Nurse (cropped).jpg should be that one photograph. (May 2021)
018. Superseded by #19 The first sentence is.jpg){kind=link}
The COVID-19 pandemic, also known as the coronavirus pandemic, is a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).(August 2021, RfC October 2023)
019. Supersedes #12 and #18. The first sentence is The global COVID-19 pandemic (also known as the coronavirus pandemic), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began with an outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019.
(June 2024)
Origin of virus
Following edit (see copy below) was recently added - but then reverted - is the edit (or equivalent) worth adding - or not? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
"On 26 March 2021, former CDC Chief Robert Redfield claimed that the Covid-19 virus "more likely than any alternative" leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China in September 2019. WHO had earlier claimed that this possibility was "unlikely"."
- My opinion is that this is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a theory by one person, which hasn't as far as I know been corroborated or backed up by any other sources. This article does not go into great detail about the investigations into the origin, and to include just one theory alongside the claim that the WHO had "previously said it was unlikely" could make readers think this is already the mainstream view. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- The first summary item on the Bloomberg article is key: this is not a widely held view. At a minimum the article text needs to point this out explicitly. See: WP:FRINGE. The added text gave the impression only that this authoritative figure has changed their mind, which while perhaps notable still needs proper context to indicate that it remains a minority opinion. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, WP:MEDRS is needed for anything lab leak related. The armchair speculations of a former CDC director are not peer-reviewed, and in my opinion and are not MEDRS. As a reminder, MEDRS is review articles in medical journals, medical textbooks, or official statements from national and international medical bodies. The lab leak idea has been discussed ad nauseum on some other pages, especially on Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, where there is an RFC in progress. A summary of my views can be found at User:Novem Linguae/Essays/There was no lab leak. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is absolutely not appropriate for this article, and is the definition of WP:FRINGE, not to mention that given how long this article is any one person's opinion is almost always WP:UNDUE weight. From a person who held political positions, and whose authority in the actual medical/virology field is best described as "less than nonexistent", this is useless. Furthermore, while it may be conceivable to believe that while in his position at the CDC he may have had access to information to make such a determination, there is absolutely no reason to believe that 2 months after he left that position he is in any place to comment on that. I'm quite surprised that this was even considered for addition by someone. Note that I don't think all information about "lab leak theory" requires MEDRS - epidemiology (i.e. population statistics) is not "biomedical information" - it is statistical information. That being said, I do think it requires good sourcing as it's a red flag claim, and any information about how specific people were infected early on would require MEDRS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Berchanhimez: - Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree with you - perhaps former CDC Director Robert R. Redfield may have been privy to some undisclosed, not (yet) peer-reviewed, but nonetheless significant informations, as a result of his time as CDC Director (and was presenting his thinking more for scientific reasons than otherwise) - this notion greatly influenced my reasoning for adding the edit to the article in the first place - and later - to initiate this talk-page discussion with others - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, yes, but note that I also said he may have had - past tense. After he left that post, any authoritativeness he had with it left and he reverted to being a "normal person" - and his claims here should be treated just as had any other normal person made them - as fringe views that do not merit mention in this article. I disagree with User:RandomCanadian below that this is the "same discussion between multiple pages" - it makes sense that it would be more appropriate for one of the two other pages listed (in order, most appropriate in "misinformation", possibly slightly appropriate in the "investigations" article, and wholly inappropriate here) as they are subpages of this one thus can cover more details that are inappropriate for the main article - see summary style. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Drbogdan,
perhaps former CDC Director Robert R. Redfield may have been privy to some undisclosed, not (yet) peer-reviewed, but nonetheless significant informations, as a result of his time as CDC Director
is not an acceptable rationale for including the quote. It's pure speculation. Please reread WP:FRINGE to also understand why the sentence you wrote above would be inappropriate regardless. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Berchanhimez: - Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree with you - perhaps former CDC Director Robert R. Redfield may have been privy to some undisclosed, not (yet) peer-reviewed, but nonetheless significant informations, as a result of his time as CDC Director (and was presenting his thinking more for scientific reasons than otherwise) - this notion greatly influenced my reasoning for adding the edit to the article in the first place - and later - to initiate this talk-page discussion with others - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
*(unfortunately even though it is the CDC former director) I would have to agree with the editors above...until there is something official, NO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- God! Why, oh why must we always have the same discussion between multiple pages? See Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Origin_of_virus and Talk:COVID-19_misinformation#Former_Trump_official_promoting_lab_leak_misinformation (I tried to add it to the later article, since that is where misinformation goes, but then got reverted so...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- And to opine clearly, I think that if this goes anywhere, it is on the misinformation article. Anywhere else and it is inappropriate use of a non-MEDRS and undue (and even on that article, it might be hard fitting both the statements and the rebuttals - from the much more respectable Fauci - without taking too much space). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- INCLUDE This content is appropriate for the article, doesn't require MEDRS, and we dont have to say in wikivoice where teh origin is (obviously unknown). Using the quote with attribution is WP:DUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree. Without any evidence it is opinion and WP:FRINGE and therefore WP:UNDUE MartinezMD (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- Jtbobwaysf From WP:DUE
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.
Redfield's statement doesn't change that this remains a tiny minority opinion. WP:DUE specifically says that just because an opinion can be sourced and meets other sourcing criteria, it needn't be included in articles where it would be given an inappropriate level of attention and credibility, as this would. The page already links to COVID-19 misinformation, that is sufficient unless something drastic changes. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf: Scientists are in near universal agreement that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural, and that the outbreak did not begin in the WIV. Redfield's statement is at odds with that scientific consensus, but it's not surprising as a political statement coming out of the Trump administration. We shouldn't be giving it credence here at Misplaced Pages. -Darouet (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Clearly local consensus here won't override an RFC, this I agree with, but it doesn't prohibit discussion which is common prior to another RFC. And a prior RFC would have little to no bearing on this more recent news. I would suggest running another RFC. The assertion that a former director of the CDC Dr. Robert R. Redfield is not qualified to speak on the subject, and/or his opinion is fringe, is absurd. Or are we talking about different people? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The assertion that a former director of the CDC Dr. Robert R. Redfield... his opinion is fringe, is absurd.
- Jtbobwaysf. It's not absurd. One person's opinion, stated as an opinion, does not mean the opinion isn't fringe. No matter how preeminent such a person was at the time, fringe is defined by preeminence. There is no argument whether or not the idea is fringe, both sources given at the top unequivpcally state the idea is fringe. If there's an argument to be made, it's in presenting the idea in the article with suitable language describing it appropriately as a fringe belief. If you want to propose an alternate wording that meets the WP:FRINGE guidelines, please do so. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)- The professional opinion of a medical doctor who happens to be the former CDC director I would suspect will get due weight in an article, as the commentator is the very definition of an expert even if the theory he is putting forth is not yet mainstream. Please suggest your disclaimer and then we can run an RFC to go over it if we cant come to a compromise here. This is a DUE weight issue, not fringe. Sometimes these political articles (or in this case political claims) can have no comprise without RFC. We will see what happens here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I look at the due weight issue from the opposite perspective. While Dr. Redfield is obviously one of the most prominent to espouse this opinion, which would make him a clear candidate if the theory gets a mention in this article as exemplar of the view, his prominence was precisely why I disagreed with the original text. Particularly, that the following sentence
WHO had earlier claimed that this possibility was "unlikely"
gives the impression of Redfield's statement somehow being more up to date or superseding the WHO's analysis (and the scientific consensus according to both cited sources). This is in addition to being a somewhat substantial portion of the two paragraphs in the first section of this article, which again referring to WP:UNDUE hits most of the descriptions:Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery.
Near the top of the primary article is not the place to include something like this, it's the very definition of undue weight. - Regarding WP:FRINGE I think it's worth pointing out, fringe doesn't necessarily mean pseudoscience. It can fit more along the lines of
Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective.
If we're going to reference Redfield's statements, a much better location would be in Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin, where it would add context to the 5th paragraph of this section which already references this belief, in a way that fulfills this WP:DUE criteriaIf a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
. Another suitable location is COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab leak story. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I look at the due weight issue from the opposite perspective. While Dr. Redfield is obviously one of the most prominent to espouse this opinion, which would make him a clear candidate if the theory gets a mention in this article as exemplar of the view, his prominence was precisely why I disagreed with the original text. Particularly, that the following sentence
- The professional opinion of a medical doctor who happens to be the former CDC director I would suspect will get due weight in an article, as the commentator is the very definition of an expert even if the theory he is putting forth is not yet mainstream. Please suggest your disclaimer and then we can run an RFC to go over it if we cant come to a compromise here. This is a DUE weight issue, not fringe. Sometimes these political articles (or in this case political claims) can have no comprise without RFC. We will see what happens here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Clearly local consensus here won't override an RFC, this I agree with, but it doesn't prohibit discussion which is common prior to another RFC. And a prior RFC would have little to no bearing on this more recent news. I would suggest running another RFC. The assertion that a former director of the CDC Dr. Robert R. Redfield is not qualified to speak on the subject, and/or his opinion is fringe, is absurd. Or are we talking about different people? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Jtbobwaysf From WP:DUE
- Note that this kind of thing was previously subject to an RfC; and the consensus (noted in the "current consensus" thread at the top) was not to include any mention of the lab leak theory, because it is too WP:FRINGE. An opinion of a non-medical expert is even more so. This does not go in; unless you're arguing that the previous RfC needs revisiting (it does not). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- We have several ultra-strong peer-reviewed, scholarly, secondary publications on this. There is no need to hold an RfC because of an individual's comment. Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
FWIW - latest "official" news from WHO re the origin of the virus has now been reported - and suggests the source of the virus is "likely" animals, and that the lab leak source is “extremely unlikely”, although "some scientists say that is an important question to explore" - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, in light of this, can you see why your original wording was problematic? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Bakkster Man: and others - Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - whatever "WP:CONSENSUS" finally decides is *entirely* ok with me - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @Drbogdan:, @Jtbobwaysf:, @Ozzie10aaaa:, @RandomCanadian: et al. I have made the following edits that I'd like to bring to people's attention:
- Added the formal WHO report's conclusions (excluding the "extremely unlikely" lab leak, per current RfC) to this page, under COVID-19 pandemic#2019 where details of zoonosis are discussed
- Added the formal WHO report's conclusions (excluding the "extremely unlikely" lab leak) to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin, where there is a more detailed section on zoonosis
- Added to Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin alongside existing discussion of the engineered original conspiracy, the comments by Dr. Robert R. Redfield alongside the WHO's official conclusion contradicting that opinion
- The latter is likely to be the most controversial, but I think it fits the WP:FRINGE guidelines for mentioning
Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community... put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective
, and WP:UNDUE which states thatIf a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
. I'd like to see 1-2 additional adherents added to that location if possible, to further fulfill that latter criteria. I'm not sure I'd call this a compromise, rather a jumping off point to refocus the discussion on a location I consider more likely to reach consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
WHO orders further investigation
on the other hand it was reported today 30 March...."The head of the World Health Organization called for further investigation into whether the novel coronavirus first leaked from a laboratory, in remarks to the press on Tuesday."--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here's a direct link to the WHO Director-General's statement, as referenced in that article. Of note, the complete list of additional investigations he mentions, in order, are as follows:
- Full access to raw data
- Earliest human cases and clusters
- Source of the Huanan market contamination
- Trace the animals sold at markets in and around Wuhan
- Range of potential animal hosts and intermediaries
- Role of animal markets
- Full analysis of the trade in animals and products
- Possible food chain contamination
- Role of farmed wild animals
- Possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident
- Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions
- We have not yet found the source of the virus, and we must continue to follow the science and leave no stone unturned as we do.
- So this remains a case of WP:UNDUE IMO, half of the Director-General's statements were regarding animal intermediaries and the market itself, with the laboratory hypothesis being mentioned last. I'm concerned with the phrasing above (though being the National Review, I'm not exactly surprised) being solely about that last significant category of investigation called for, not the multiple primary hypotheses given more weight and priority in the statement. Not to mention, none of this counters the current assessment of likelihood, only that more investigation is required to reduce the set of viable hypothesis to a single one. Until something turns up that suggests the scientific consensus has changed the lab leak remains "the least likely hypothesis", in other words WP:FRINGE. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- given todays news Im not so certain anymore--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- "Today's news" meaning the WHO Director-General's statement, or the partisan reporting by National Review? I think the plain text of the WHO statement makes clear what's WP:DUE and what's WP:UNDUE, so you're going to need to clarify. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- the former --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Any particular reason you characterized it the way you did, rather than "The WHO called for further investigation into the earliest human cases and clusters of COVID-19 with full access to the raw data"? Or "The WHO called for further investigation into the range of potential animal hosts and intermediaries for COVID-19, including the role of farmed wild animals and possible food chain contamination"? Or even "The WHO called for further investigation to identify with certainty the source of the COVID-19 virus, stating they must leave no stone unturned in the investigation"? Because the answer to that question will lead to the answer of whether making particular reference to the lab leak hypothesis is DUE or UNDUE. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- its the lead sentence...time, Im afraid, will indicate where the viral origin was--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- You said you based your opinion on the WHO statement itself, but again referred to the headline of an article in the National Review (direct link, instead of redirect, for transparency). As I laid out above, the National Review's retelling is quite clearly biased when compared with the WHO statement. That's the part I'm struggling to reconcile. If you want to make the argument that the lab leak story is WP:DUE here (let alone not WP:FRINGE), you need to do it using the bare WHO text or another secondary source, not using a biased tertiary source. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- At the risk of being told I'm out of line, I think both of you (Bakkster Man and Ozzie) are looking to the same end goal. That being said, before either of you comment further, I think you may wish to read my explanation of why this isn't what people seem to think it is. Remember that we aren't just a collection of quotes/statements from others - we curate them based on editorial decisions (primarily WP:DUE), and as such, it's important to review the context in which the WHO made their statements. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's possible, but that's why I wanted to pull the discussion back away from the NRO commentary (which we shouldn't base due/undue weight decisions on), and stick with the WHO statement alone (and, as you say, the context in which it's made). I do think your analysis is more likely than not true (though equally inappropriate to place in the article), and is part of why if we were to include these statements in the article I'd want to see us focus primarily on the greater access to data and animal trade aspects. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- At the risk of being told I'm out of line, I think both of you (Bakkster Man and Ozzie) are looking to the same end goal. That being said, before either of you comment further, I think you may wish to read my explanation of why this isn't what people seem to think it is. Remember that we aren't just a collection of quotes/statements from others - we curate them based on editorial decisions (primarily WP:DUE), and as such, it's important to review the context in which the WHO made their statements. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- You said you based your opinion on the WHO statement itself, but again referred to the headline of an article in the National Review (direct link, instead of redirect, for transparency). As I laid out above, the National Review's retelling is quite clearly biased when compared with the WHO statement. That's the part I'm struggling to reconcile. If you want to make the argument that the lab leak story is WP:DUE here (let alone not WP:FRINGE), you need to do it using the bare WHO text or another secondary source, not using a biased tertiary source. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- its the lead sentence...time, Im afraid, will indicate where the viral origin was--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Any particular reason you characterized it the way you did, rather than "The WHO called for further investigation into the earliest human cases and clusters of COVID-19 with full access to the raw data"? Or "The WHO called for further investigation into the range of potential animal hosts and intermediaries for COVID-19, including the role of farmed wild animals and possible food chain contamination"? Or even "The WHO called for further investigation to identify with certainty the source of the COVID-19 virus, stating they must leave no stone unturned in the investigation"? Because the answer to that question will lead to the answer of whether making particular reference to the lab leak hypothesis is DUE or UNDUE. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- the former --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- "Today's news" meaning the WHO Director-General's statement, or the partisan reporting by National Review? I think the plain text of the WHO statement makes clear what's WP:DUE and what's WP:UNDUE, so you're going to need to clarify. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- given todays news Im not so certain anymore--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Something needing "further research" does not necessarily mean "we believe this is a viable outcome of the investigation". In this case, as is made clear by the full statements by the director-general and others, it means "we need to find conclusive proof it's not a laboratory leak before people will stop spreading this conspiracy". We have the editorial judgement to make as to whether this is WP:DUE or not, and that judgement must be based on the totality of the information - not just one statement without looking at the context in which it was made. The WHO does not believe the lab leak theory to be viable - it simply won't come out and say it wasn't until there is hard data to conclusively prove it was something else - because if they come out before that data exists, they'll be complained about as "covering it up". So no, the WHO does not believe the theory, nor are they giving credibility to it by simply saying "we keep investigating". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- So now we have a WHO party as well as a former director of CDC? Did the intel community in Australia also make this claim a few months ago (hence the start of the political spat between China and Auz). Misplaced Pages doesnt just censor the other opinions and include only the mainstream, this is wiki101 basics. Are there any other notable orgs or people making this lab claim? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's inaccurate to label the opposition in this discussion 'censorship'. The arguments above all tend to focus on whether this minority opinion is would be given due weight or not, particularly on this article, with the originally proposed wording, and in the opening section. It's a very significant leap from 'consensus not to mention the lab leak theory at all' to 'discuss it in a place of prominence on this article'. Not that this consensus can't change, but that it will need a solid policy rationale based on a change in reliable source information. As I proposed above, one location I feel this information could be included where it has a much better argument for being WP:DUE by not being given undue prominence is Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin, contrary to wanting to 'censor' said theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- We arent talking about the lede are we? I certainly wasnt advocating for lede inclusion at this point in time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's inaccurate to label the opposition in this discussion 'censorship'. The arguments above all tend to focus on whether this minority opinion is would be given due weight or not, particularly on this article, with the originally proposed wording, and in the opening section. It's a very significant leap from 'consensus not to mention the lab leak theory at all' to 'discuss it in a place of prominence on this article'. Not that this consensus can't change, but that it will need a solid policy rationale based on a change in reliable source information. As I proposed above, one location I feel this information could be included where it has a much better argument for being WP:DUE by not being given undue prominence is Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin, contrary to wanting to 'censor' said theory. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
References
- Wingrove, Josh (26 March 2021). "Former CDC Chief Says He Thinks Coronavirus Came From Wuhan Lab". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 26 March 2021.
- Forgey, Quint (26 March 2021). "Trump CDC chief: Coronavirus 'escaped' from Chinese lab - The World Health Organization has concluded that theory is "extremely unlikely."". Politico. Retrieved 26 March 2021.
- Associated Press (29 March 2021). "WHO report says animals likely source of Covid - The findings offer little new insight into how the virus began to spread around the globe and many questions remain unanswered". Politico. Retrieved 29 March 2021.
- Hernández, Javier C.; Gorman, James (29 March 2021). "Virus Origins Remain Unclear in W.H.O.-China Inquiry - Far more work is needed to understand how the pandemic began, the report says, but it is not clear that Beijing will cooperate. "We may never find the true origins," an expert said". The New York Times. Retrieved 29 March 2021.
- "WHO Head Calls for Further Probe of COVID Lab-Leak Theory". www.msn.com. Retrieved 30 March 2021.
- "WHO Director-General's remarks at the Member State Briefing on the report of the international team studying the origins of SARS-CoV-2". www.who.int. Retrieved 30 March 2021.
Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Source Likely via bats and pangolins"
Change the word "likely" to "possibly"? HelpfulPi (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- HelpfulPi. Thanks for your edit request. I checked the scientific literature, and recent articles have been saying that the intermediate host is "unknown", so I removed pangolin entirely. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Request for comment: Corrupted Blood Incident
At the start of the pandemic I had included a link to the corrupted blood incident in the see also section, which was removed about 2 hours after I added it and at the time I decided that rather than arguing for its inclusion i'd simply let it lie. Now, however, a growing body of proof indicates that the virtual pandemic experienced in the MMORPG world of warcraft is being put to use during the Covid-19 outbreak ( etc). My question then is given that the is increasingly being seen as part of the COVID-19 response should some mention of this appear in the article? In lew of the above links, and in the absence of any consensus point to that effect, I'm looking to get a feel on the community's position on this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello friend. My first impression is that the COVID-19 pandemic article is big and has hundreds of child articles, so my inclination would be to only put the most important and relevant things here. Would this be a good fit for one of the child articles? Just my opinion though. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- The first step will be, as always, to attempt to gather reliable sources that support all major points of view here (ex: in this case reliable sources that make such comparisons). Even then, barring an extremely high number of RS making the comparison, it's likely to be better fit in a child article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Improvements to Prevention section.
There are a great deal of government sources, that suggest that some chemicals, or other, can help prevent this virus, or reduce the severity of the virus.
Vitamin D?, Vitamin C?, Zinc, and even Garlic.
Keep up the great work in presenting the many different truths that exist in this world !!! Your work is very important, and remember 'NOTHING' is perfect, there is always room for improvements, and clarifications, for some of us have different understandings of truths.
Hope to include these non=pharmaceutical options.
- Covered at COVID-19 misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Vitamin D is covered, with the proper secondary sources and accurate guidance (Vit. D deficiency increases risk, but Vit. D itself is not a treatment or prevention) in COVID-19#Healthy diet and lifestyle. You'll need to provide reliable sources which meet the WP:MEDRS guidelines before these other options can be considered for inclusion. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class COVID-19 articles
- Top-importance COVID-19 articles
- WikiProject COVID-19 articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- High-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of High-importance
- C-Class Chinese history articles
- High-importance Chinese history articles
- WikiProject Chinese history articles
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class Disaster management articles
- Top-importance Disaster management articles
- C-Class medicine articles
- Top-importance medicine articles
- C-Class pulmonology articles
- Low-importance pulmonology articles
- Pulmonology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- C-Class virus articles
- Top-importance virus articles
- WikiProject Viruses articles
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Wuhan
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists