![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hey @ WhatamIdoing: I added back pangolins because it's mentioned in the source with what appears to be equal prominence to bats. Is this outdated? Talpedia ( talk) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I question the use of this source to promote speculations of "increasingly difficult to ignore". It is a type of computer tech magazine that is considered reliable for tech news like computers and video games... — Paleo Neonate – 19:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
little beyond insinuation.) XOR'easter ( talk) 21:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I added an "Origin Scenarios" section, based on the "Classifications" found in Wikipedia's entry on Emerging infectious disease, which is in turn based on a paper by two gentlemen named David M. Morens and Anthony S. Fauci. I thought it would be valuable to have proper classifications of emerging infectious diseases, so that reports of investigations into different origin scenarios aren't conflated with each other. I am unsure why this section was removed instead of improved (it would not have been hard to find the source in the page it linked to). ScrupulousScribe ( talk) 16:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Normchou, I propose to end the "Unkown Origins" with the sentence ending "remain unknown", as many laypeople do not know this as fact. I propose to spin of a new "Origin Scenarios" section directly below (like the one I created here) to posit theoretical origin scenarios, of which there are four (described by Fauci in the above-mentioned paper), or by Chan in this diagram, explained as succinctly as possible, taking into account points from Forich's "Messy Terminology" post on the WIV talk page here. ScrupulousScribe ( talk) 18:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Talpedia, please can you consider estimating probabilities of one origin scenario or mechanism of transmission in a second section on "Origin Scenarios", and not the "Uknown Origins" section itself. I don't think we want to present the presupposition findings of the investigation before its concluded. ScrupulousScribe ( talk) 18:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue.
Given that WP:MEDRS was used as a purported reason for one of the reverts, here is the genuine question of how WP:MEDRS relates to this article. WP:MEDRS itself supports the general sourcing policy, with addition attention paid to medical content. But to what extent is the source-tracing of a virus medical in nature? In my opinion, WP:MEDRS should not be abused in non-medical context within this article. Normchou 💬 19:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.If there is community consensus that this article cannot escape the long arm of WP:MEDRS, then I respectfully accept it. Normchou 💬 20:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
every "scientific" statement about a virus that causes a disease in humans. Also, Wikipedia:Biomedical information itself has not been thoroughly vetted by the community, which I believe further limits its power in terms of "jurisdiction" beyond its normal boundaries. At any rate, I don't think this article will have any information on "how something affects human health". Normchou 💬 03:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
How the first person caught this virus?in the context of this article is semantically more or less equivalent to "Where did the virus that infected the first person come from?"The subject of the article is the virus' origin. It has nothing to do with the first person who got COVID-19, or their body, or their immune system, or their organs, or their cells, or their antibodies, or whatever specious "biomedical aspect" inappropriately imposed, so that as long as someone shouts "Not WP:MEDRS!", it can have the destructive effect of censoring significant viewpoints supported by reliable sources. Normchou 💬 04:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC); edited 04:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC); edited 05:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't everyone know Covid-19 originates with a viral infection? Shouldn't this page be " Investigations into the origin of SARS-CoV-2"? GPinkerton ( talk) 19:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the content that User:Thucydides411 removed:
While it is a known fact that scientists at a lab in Wuhan have conducted ongoing research on coronaviruses, a U.S. official said that the results of the investigation were "inconclusive".
It directly summarizes these two sentences from the RS:
But scientists at a military and a civilian lab in Wuhan, where the virus originated, are known to have conducted ongoing research on coronaviruses, officials say.
Asked about the intelligence on NBC's "TODAY" show, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said, "this is something we've been watching closely now for some time," adding that the results of the investigation are thus far "inconclusive."
Regarding the content they removed:
The hypothesis was one of several possibilities being pursued by the investigators.
It directly summarizes this sentence of the RS they removed:
The theory is one of multiple being pursued by investigators as they attempt to determine the origin of the coronavirus that has resulted in a pandemic and killed hundreds of thousands.
Regarding the content they removed:
The official highlighted the lack of an independent team inside China.
It directly summarizes this sentences from the RS:
"No one's able to stay one way or the other," the official said, highlighting -- as American officials have -- the lack of an independent team on the ground. "We just don't know enough," the official added.
I have not examined the new materials they introduced, but will do it later today. If this kind of WP:SNEAKY behavior continues, I will file a report at ANI to have an uninvolved admin to further scrutinize their conduct.
Normchou 💬 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It directly summarizes these two sentences from the RS. The RS attributes those statements to US officials. The text that I removed said, "While it is a known fact that ...". Note the lack of attribution and the POV language, implying a contradiction ("While") between a supposed known fact and the next claim, that the results of the investigation were inconclusive.
Regarding the content they removed: I replaced this passage, including the preceding sentence, with a single sentence that more succinctly summarizes the information, and which includes the fact that the investigation was ordered by Trump administration officials.
adding plausible misinformation to articlesand
mpersonating other users by signing an edit with a different username or IP address. There's no way my edits could plausibly be construed to fall under this policy. Wikipedia policy is very clear that accusations of vandalism should not be made against good faith edits. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 14:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.These two improvements [1] [2] would not have occurred should the original sentence be removed, as you did in your edits. If you think I should accuse you of something else, presumably more serious than subtle vandalism, I am pretty confident I can collect the relevant diffs of your edits and file a report on ANI. So please stop this type of behavior. Normchou 💬 15:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC); edited 15:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The RS attributes those statements to US officials, yet in this edit you introduced [3], you precisely omitted the attribution to US officials. And instead of removing the entire sentence you introduced, I fixed it [4]. Normchou 💬 16:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Normchou: Over at ANI, you accused me of vandalism for, among other things, including the statement that German intelligence had suggested that claims made by the Trump administration might be "misinformation". You pointed out that the CNBC source does not include that word. I went back and saw that it indeed does not. However, the original report in Der Spiegel says it might be a "gezielte Falschmeldung" ("deliberate misinformation"). I used the CNBC article because it's in English. I didn't notice that it doesn't contain this piece of information. Rather than going to ANI to accuse long-time editors of vandalism over trivial issues like this, you can just lay out your objections/concerns on the talk page. You're much more likely to make actual progress on resolving content disputes that way than by making baseless accusations of vandalism. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 00:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It's becoming increasingly clear that this page was created as a WP:POVFORK for conspiracy-theory material that has been rejected elsewhere (e.g., at Wuhan Institute of Virology). The same sourcing standards apply here as elsewhere, and the heavy emphasis on conspiracy theories should be replaced with an emphasis on the actual scientific investigations into the origin of CoVID-19. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This article leans heavily towards the conspiracy theories about the lab leak, but does not emphasize the mainstream scientific view, that the virus spilled over naturally. The mainstream scientific view should be explained and given much more weight in the article. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 09:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Are WP:SECONDARY sources always required. I'm confused in light of this from WP:PRIMARY "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Sloorbeadle ( talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The "U.S. government investigations" section has WP:PROSELINE problems. It should probably be condensed, with less emphasis placed on dates and quotes.
Also, over-quoting can be a really big problem with articles. I've seen this in my work with the Guild of Copy Editors. Keep in mind that quotes are not subject to our normal revising/polishing process (can never have their text changed), can pepper an article with POV statements (since we can state POV with quotes but can't in wiki-voice), and increases mental burden on the reader (quotes tend to be less succinct than summary prose stating the same thing). WP:QUOTEFARM. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The claims were dismissed by analysts;
"Zero details given," noted Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research, rating the statement as "an F";
Mr Pompeo's statement offered little beyond insinuation. I've pointed this skepticism out before at WP:RSN and Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Material was added regarding the preliminary results of the WHO investigation. WHO investigation material should be placed in its respective section and stated in a neutral fashion. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 08:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I just found out about those two brand new articles from the Washington Post [5] and the Daily Telegraph [6] about the possibility that the virus escaped WIV. I wanted to have a conversation to see if they're relevant here, thanks. Feynstein ( talk) 15:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a quote from WaPo, the telegraph is paywalled. "But there is another pathway, also plausible, that must be investigated. That is the possibility of a laboratory accident or leak. It could have involved a virus that was improperly disposed of or perhaps infected a laboratory worker who then passed it to others.
"
Feynstein (
talk) 15:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux, Ralph S Baric, Trevor Bedford, Jesse Bloom, Bruno Canard, Etienne Decroly, Richard H Ebright, Michael B Eisen, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos, Michael Z Lin, Marc Lipsitch, Stuart A Newman, Rasmus Nielsen, Megan J Palmer, Nikolai Petrovsky, Angela Rasmussen and David A Relman – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely. We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list." Holy cow eh? How fringe is it now? XD. You should read the Telegraph's article, pretty good. Feynstein ( talk) 15:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
contradictory and sometimes outright ridiculous conspiracy theories that spread faster than the virus itself: SARS-CoV-2 was the result of a laboratory accident or was intentionally engineered[7]? That Angela Rasmussen? If that's the level of fact-checking being applied, the "source" deserves to be chucked in the bin forthwith. XOR'easter ( talk)16:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a wonderful thread about why we should reject conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. No, we can’t rule out laboratory origin. Yes, we need an unbiased investigation into origins. Just because lab origin is plausible doesn’t mean it’s probable.". Looks like she's pissed at the fact no zoonotic animal was found XD, or she has a bunch of lab money riding on it not being a leak. Who knows. Feynstein ( talk) 16:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list.". It might as well be an opinion piece, but your argument is not the reason why WP:RSOPINION should apply. Feynstein ( talk) 16:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you that misquoting is a problem in science. We'll see if she retracts her name from it in the next few days. I think the story will come out eventually. Feynstein ( talk) 17:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this gets to WAID's concern above. If this article is about "Investigations into the origin of covid-19" (as the current title claims) then the article should focus on investigations (which is how it's currently structured). "Some experts think the virus could have come from WIV" has nothing to do with an investigation so there's not really a place for it here, unless exploring the lab leak hypothesis is an explicit goal of one of the ongoing investigations (I think it might be a goal of the Lancet commission?). Instead, you want an article on Origin of SARS-CoV-2, but so far that exists only as a subsection here. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Several sources have been determined to be primary, suboptimal and pushed on Wikipedia by efforts coordinated on social networks. These must of course be avoided, this includes those from Frontiers Media journals (now at WP:RSN), editorials/opinion sections of newspapers, BioEssays. — Paleo Neonate – 06:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
On February 13 2021, the Biden Administration expressed "deep concerns" about the handling of the WHO report, and called for the release of raw data from early in the epidemic. [8] [9] This should probably be incorporated in the article. Park3r ( talk) 03:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
But the WHO team wasn't allowed to view the raw underlying data on those retrospective studies, which could allow them to conduct their own analysis on how early and how extensively the virus began to spread in China, the team members said."
"They showed us a couple of examples, but that's not the same as doing all of them, which is standard epidemiological investigation," said Dominic Dwyer, an Australian microbiologist on the WHO team. "So then, you know, the interpretation of that data becomes more limited from our point of view, although the other side might see it as being quite good.""
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the U.N. agency hadn't ruled out any hypothesis."
What is the current weight achieved by the frozen food hypothesis: mainstream, minor, tiny, speculation, fringe? Forich ( talk) 20:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Although foodborne transmission has not been fully explored yet, it important to underline that the contaminated cold storage food could serve as a long-range carrier of SARS-CoV-2, presenting a systematic risk of its transmission across the regions and countries via cold chain industries.and
The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via contaminated frozen food and packaging surfaces represents a newer possibility which must be investigated with high attention.In conclusion, I think it is not fringe, and deserves some weight. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I think there may be some confusion creeping in between cold frozen food as a method of general spread vs origins. Bodypilllow ( talk) 12:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
In this NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html about the WHO investigation, one of the WHO team members is quoted as saying that the likelihood of the initial spread to humans via frozen wildlife products is a "very unlikely scenario". Given that this page focuses on the origins (i.e. presumably the initial transfer from reservoir species to humans) rather than subsequent spread between humans, at least that WHO team member is not putting much weight on the theory. Bodypilllow ( talk) 13:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The NYT article also calls the frozen food origin hypothesis a "mantra" of the Chinese government which the Chinese government urged WHO to consider, where the WHO agreed to look but were "skeptical". Bodypilllow ( talk) 13:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Did the virus that caused a worldwide pandemic make the jump to humans via frozen food? That was one hypothesis put forward on 9 February by a joint World Health Organization and Chinese investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
The idea that the coronavirus was carried inside or on the surface of frozen food, which has been advanced by Chinese state media, could place the source of the virus beyond China, from an animal imported from another country.
“I would say it’s extremely, extremely unlikely the virus would have spread through that type of route,” says Lawrence Young at the University of Warwick, UK, who specialises in human virology.
After more than a year since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was declared a global health emergency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continue to underscore that there is no credible evidence of food or food packaging associated with or as a likely source of viral transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing COVID-19." [12]
I think we should be clear thats its a political hypothesis first and a scientific one second because thats what the WP:RS say, as far as science goes this is a long shot but China’s political leadership has decided that this is the horse they want to back. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This whole discussion seems to be an origin/vector hypothesis, but I'm not seeing anything about "an investigation". Did anyone stand up a "Committee to Research Transmission via Cold Chain" yet? How about a "Frozen Food Research Project"? Nope? Then it doesn't belong in this article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I share the concerns expressed above about this article. I have tagged the entire article as violating WP:NPOV, and specifically highlighted this sentence, which I think illustrates the problems:
The "lab leak theory" has become increasingly difficult to ignore in light of the coincidences and circumstantial evidence that continue to accumulate
This sentence is a serious violation of neutrality. It provides WP:GEVAL to a minority viewpoint, rather than treating it like the minority viewpoint that it is. It has a breathless, unencyclopedic WP:TONE that is better suited for an unprofessional podcast. Instead of relying on the highest quality sources (e.g., reputable scholarly review articles) to give WP:DUE weight to various viewpoints, it cites a news article. It also indicates that it's "increasingly difficult to ignore" it on grounds of scientific plausibility (rather than, e.g., because of its political effects), which is another violation of WP:DUE and incompatible with WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS.
There might be a good encyclopedia article to be written on this subject, but this isn't that article, and these aren't those sources.
I think this could be addressed by seriously shortening the article to report, e.g., a simple list of the major investigations that have happened (keeping WP:DUE weight in mind to exclude distantly related, poorly conducted, or "studies" that amount to a politician dictating the results because the US wants to blame China, Russia wants to blame the US, Palestinians want to blame Israel, etc.). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It's true the coronaviruses isolated from pangolins show similarities to both RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2, leading researchers to posit a bat virus and pangolin virus may have swapped genetic material some time ago in a process called recombination, and this may have given rise to the novel coronavirus. This has since been billed as unlikely. [14]
And the pangolin coronavirus data was unusual. Chan and her collaborator Shing Zhan studied the sequences, highlighting a number of inconsistencies between the major studies and questioning missing or unpublished data in a preprint paper posted to bioRxiv [15]. She points to one Nature paper as "dishonest" and says it involves "scientifically unacceptable" practices like publishing samples under different names and the inclusion of deceptive figures. On Nov. 11, Nature added an editors' note [16] to that paper, alerting readers to these concerns. An investigation is ongoing, though the authors have stated these were honest mistakes.
In light of these oddities, and earlier research examining the pangolin coronaviruses, microbiologist Roger Frutos believes the creatures should be "exonerated." Yet, as recently as Jan. 8 [17], the pangolin is still being brokered as a potential starting point in the origins of COVID-19 by Shi Zhengli and other scientists. Any continued focus on the pangolin, Frutos notes, risks misleading investigations into the origins of the disease.
In 2004, two lab workers at the National Institute of Virology in Beijing became ill with pneumonia. They had inadvertently been infected with the SARS coronavirus after "two separate breaches of bio-safety," according to the WHO. The accident resulted in 11 cases and one death, only a year after the SARS outbreak had been contained.
"The second, third, fourth and fifth entries of the original SARS coronavirus into human populations occurred as a laboratory accident," says Richard Ebright, a chemical biologist at Rutgers University who has long had concerns about the safe use of high-level biosafety laboratories.
Shi considered this possibility when she first heard about a new coronavirus spreading in Wuhan, according to an interview given to Scientific American on March 11. [18] Other researchers, too, have contemplated such a scenario.
The task force features 10 researchers, approved by the Chinese government... The most contentious scientist on the team is Peter Daszak. As the head of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit that studies spillover events, Daszak has been a collaborator of over 15 years with the WIV's Shi Zhengli, helping fund research and surveilling bat coronaviruses in China to ascertain how the next pandemic might begin... But Daszak's close relationship with the WIV is also seen by many as a conflict of interest when it comes to the WHO's investigation.
"A lab leak situation could directly threaten all of that," says Sainath Suryanarayanan, a staff scientist at investigative nonprofit US Right To Know looking into the origin story. This should not be taken as evidence of a vast conspiracy spearheaded by Daszak and the Chinese to cover up a lab leak. It merely highlights the conflicts of interest presented by Daszak's inclusion. Under these circumstances, can the investigation hope to find any evidence of a leak? "I have zero confidence left in the WHO team," Chan says.
Normchou 💬 19:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Normchou 💬 20:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: Do you think the POV tag still applies? If so, an update on what should be improved is welcome. Many thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 05:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hmm if I start by reading the "Scope and subject of this article" section below, am I right that the lead should probably be rewritten to specify the scope (generally done for list-style articles although it's probably good here) and that some of the article's body doesn't fit? — Paleo Neonate – 06:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hey @ WhatamIdoing: I added back pangolins because it's mentioned in the source with what appears to be equal prominence to bats. Is this outdated? Talpedia ( talk) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I question the use of this source to promote speculations of "increasingly difficult to ignore". It is a type of computer tech magazine that is considered reliable for tech news like computers and video games... — Paleo Neonate – 19:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
little beyond insinuation.) XOR'easter ( talk) 21:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I added an "Origin Scenarios" section, based on the "Classifications" found in Wikipedia's entry on Emerging infectious disease, which is in turn based on a paper by two gentlemen named David M. Morens and Anthony S. Fauci. I thought it would be valuable to have proper classifications of emerging infectious diseases, so that reports of investigations into different origin scenarios aren't conflated with each other. I am unsure why this section was removed instead of improved (it would not have been hard to find the source in the page it linked to). ScrupulousScribe ( talk) 16:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Normchou, I propose to end the "Unkown Origins" with the sentence ending "remain unknown", as many laypeople do not know this as fact. I propose to spin of a new "Origin Scenarios" section directly below (like the one I created here) to posit theoretical origin scenarios, of which there are four (described by Fauci in the above-mentioned paper), or by Chan in this diagram, explained as succinctly as possible, taking into account points from Forich's "Messy Terminology" post on the WIV talk page here. ScrupulousScribe ( talk) 18:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Talpedia, please can you consider estimating probabilities of one origin scenario or mechanism of transmission in a second section on "Origin Scenarios", and not the "Uknown Origins" section itself. I don't think we want to present the presupposition findings of the investigation before its concluded. ScrupulousScribe ( talk) 18:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue.
Given that WP:MEDRS was used as a purported reason for one of the reverts, here is the genuine question of how WP:MEDRS relates to this article. WP:MEDRS itself supports the general sourcing policy, with addition attention paid to medical content. But to what extent is the source-tracing of a virus medical in nature? In my opinion, WP:MEDRS should not be abused in non-medical context within this article. Normchou 💬 19:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.If there is community consensus that this article cannot escape the long arm of WP:MEDRS, then I respectfully accept it. Normchou 💬 20:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
every "scientific" statement about a virus that causes a disease in humans. Also, Wikipedia:Biomedical information itself has not been thoroughly vetted by the community, which I believe further limits its power in terms of "jurisdiction" beyond its normal boundaries. At any rate, I don't think this article will have any information on "how something affects human health". Normchou 💬 03:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
How the first person caught this virus?in the context of this article is semantically more or less equivalent to "Where did the virus that infected the first person come from?"The subject of the article is the virus' origin. It has nothing to do with the first person who got COVID-19, or their body, or their immune system, or their organs, or their cells, or their antibodies, or whatever specious "biomedical aspect" inappropriately imposed, so that as long as someone shouts "Not WP:MEDRS!", it can have the destructive effect of censoring significant viewpoints supported by reliable sources. Normchou 💬 04:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC); edited 04:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC); edited 05:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't everyone know Covid-19 originates with a viral infection? Shouldn't this page be " Investigations into the origin of SARS-CoV-2"? GPinkerton ( talk) 19:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the content that User:Thucydides411 removed:
While it is a known fact that scientists at a lab in Wuhan have conducted ongoing research on coronaviruses, a U.S. official said that the results of the investigation were "inconclusive".
It directly summarizes these two sentences from the RS:
But scientists at a military and a civilian lab in Wuhan, where the virus originated, are known to have conducted ongoing research on coronaviruses, officials say.
Asked about the intelligence on NBC's "TODAY" show, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said, "this is something we've been watching closely now for some time," adding that the results of the investigation are thus far "inconclusive."
Regarding the content they removed:
The hypothesis was one of several possibilities being pursued by the investigators.
It directly summarizes this sentence of the RS they removed:
The theory is one of multiple being pursued by investigators as they attempt to determine the origin of the coronavirus that has resulted in a pandemic and killed hundreds of thousands.
Regarding the content they removed:
The official highlighted the lack of an independent team inside China.
It directly summarizes this sentences from the RS:
"No one's able to stay one way or the other," the official said, highlighting -- as American officials have -- the lack of an independent team on the ground. "We just don't know enough," the official added.
I have not examined the new materials they introduced, but will do it later today. If this kind of WP:SNEAKY behavior continues, I will file a report at ANI to have an uninvolved admin to further scrutinize their conduct.
Normchou 💬 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It directly summarizes these two sentences from the RS. The RS attributes those statements to US officials. The text that I removed said, "While it is a known fact that ...". Note the lack of attribution and the POV language, implying a contradiction ("While") between a supposed known fact and the next claim, that the results of the investigation were inconclusive.
Regarding the content they removed: I replaced this passage, including the preceding sentence, with a single sentence that more succinctly summarizes the information, and which includes the fact that the investigation was ordered by Trump administration officials.
adding plausible misinformation to articlesand
mpersonating other users by signing an edit with a different username or IP address. There's no way my edits could plausibly be construed to fall under this policy. Wikipedia policy is very clear that accusations of vandalism should not be made against good faith edits. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 14:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.These two improvements [1] [2] would not have occurred should the original sentence be removed, as you did in your edits. If you think I should accuse you of something else, presumably more serious than subtle vandalism, I am pretty confident I can collect the relevant diffs of your edits and file a report on ANI. So please stop this type of behavior. Normchou 💬 15:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC); edited 15:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The RS attributes those statements to US officials, yet in this edit you introduced [3], you precisely omitted the attribution to US officials. And instead of removing the entire sentence you introduced, I fixed it [4]. Normchou 💬 16:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Normchou: Over at ANI, you accused me of vandalism for, among other things, including the statement that German intelligence had suggested that claims made by the Trump administration might be "misinformation". You pointed out that the CNBC source does not include that word. I went back and saw that it indeed does not. However, the original report in Der Spiegel says it might be a "gezielte Falschmeldung" ("deliberate misinformation"). I used the CNBC article because it's in English. I didn't notice that it doesn't contain this piece of information. Rather than going to ANI to accuse long-time editors of vandalism over trivial issues like this, you can just lay out your objections/concerns on the talk page. You're much more likely to make actual progress on resolving content disputes that way than by making baseless accusations of vandalism. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 00:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It's becoming increasingly clear that this page was created as a WP:POVFORK for conspiracy-theory material that has been rejected elsewhere (e.g., at Wuhan Institute of Virology). The same sourcing standards apply here as elsewhere, and the heavy emphasis on conspiracy theories should be replaced with an emphasis on the actual scientific investigations into the origin of CoVID-19. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This article leans heavily towards the conspiracy theories about the lab leak, but does not emphasize the mainstream scientific view, that the virus spilled over naturally. The mainstream scientific view should be explained and given much more weight in the article. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 09:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Are WP:SECONDARY sources always required. I'm confused in light of this from WP:PRIMARY "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Sloorbeadle ( talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The "U.S. government investigations" section has WP:PROSELINE problems. It should probably be condensed, with less emphasis placed on dates and quotes.
Also, over-quoting can be a really big problem with articles. I've seen this in my work with the Guild of Copy Editors. Keep in mind that quotes are not subject to our normal revising/polishing process (can never have their text changed), can pepper an article with POV statements (since we can state POV with quotes but can't in wiki-voice), and increases mental burden on the reader (quotes tend to be less succinct than summary prose stating the same thing). WP:QUOTEFARM. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The claims were dismissed by analysts;
"Zero details given," noted Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research, rating the statement as "an F";
Mr Pompeo's statement offered little beyond insinuation. I've pointed this skepticism out before at WP:RSN and Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Material was added regarding the preliminary results of the WHO investigation. WHO investigation material should be placed in its respective section and stated in a neutral fashion. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 08:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I just found out about those two brand new articles from the Washington Post [5] and the Daily Telegraph [6] about the possibility that the virus escaped WIV. I wanted to have a conversation to see if they're relevant here, thanks. Feynstein ( talk) 15:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's a quote from WaPo, the telegraph is paywalled. "But there is another pathway, also plausible, that must be investigated. That is the possibility of a laboratory accident or leak. It could have involved a virus that was improperly disposed of or perhaps infected a laboratory worker who then passed it to others.
"
Feynstein (
talk) 15:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux, Ralph S Baric, Trevor Bedford, Jesse Bloom, Bruno Canard, Etienne Decroly, Richard H Ebright, Michael B Eisen, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos, Michael Z Lin, Marc Lipsitch, Stuart A Newman, Rasmus Nielsen, Megan J Palmer, Nikolai Petrovsky, Angela Rasmussen and David A Relman – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely. We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list." Holy cow eh? How fringe is it now? XD. You should read the Telegraph's article, pretty good. Feynstein ( talk) 15:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
contradictory and sometimes outright ridiculous conspiracy theories that spread faster than the virus itself: SARS-CoV-2 was the result of a laboratory accident or was intentionally engineered[7]? That Angela Rasmussen? If that's the level of fact-checking being applied, the "source" deserves to be chucked in the bin forthwith. XOR'easter ( talk)16:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a wonderful thread about why we should reject conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. No, we can’t rule out laboratory origin. Yes, we need an unbiased investigation into origins. Just because lab origin is plausible doesn’t mean it’s probable.". Looks like she's pissed at the fact no zoonotic animal was found XD, or she has a bunch of lab money riding on it not being a leak. Who knows. Feynstein ( talk) 16:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list.". It might as well be an opinion piece, but your argument is not the reason why WP:RSOPINION should apply. Feynstein ( talk) 16:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you that misquoting is a problem in science. We'll see if she retracts her name from it in the next few days. I think the story will come out eventually. Feynstein ( talk) 17:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this gets to WAID's concern above. If this article is about "Investigations into the origin of covid-19" (as the current title claims) then the article should focus on investigations (which is how it's currently structured). "Some experts think the virus could have come from WIV" has nothing to do with an investigation so there's not really a place for it here, unless exploring the lab leak hypothesis is an explicit goal of one of the ongoing investigations (I think it might be a goal of the Lancet commission?). Instead, you want an article on Origin of SARS-CoV-2, but so far that exists only as a subsection here. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Several sources have been determined to be primary, suboptimal and pushed on Wikipedia by efforts coordinated on social networks. These must of course be avoided, this includes those from Frontiers Media journals (now at WP:RSN), editorials/opinion sections of newspapers, BioEssays. — Paleo Neonate – 06:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
On February 13 2021, the Biden Administration expressed "deep concerns" about the handling of the WHO report, and called for the release of raw data from early in the epidemic. [8] [9] This should probably be incorporated in the article. Park3r ( talk) 03:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
But the WHO team wasn't allowed to view the raw underlying data on those retrospective studies, which could allow them to conduct their own analysis on how early and how extensively the virus began to spread in China, the team members said."
"They showed us a couple of examples, but that's not the same as doing all of them, which is standard epidemiological investigation," said Dominic Dwyer, an Australian microbiologist on the WHO team. "So then, you know, the interpretation of that data becomes more limited from our point of view, although the other side might see it as being quite good.""
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the U.N. agency hadn't ruled out any hypothesis."
What is the current weight achieved by the frozen food hypothesis: mainstream, minor, tiny, speculation, fringe? Forich ( talk) 20:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Although foodborne transmission has not been fully explored yet, it important to underline that the contaminated cold storage food could serve as a long-range carrier of SARS-CoV-2, presenting a systematic risk of its transmission across the regions and countries via cold chain industries.and
The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via contaminated frozen food and packaging surfaces represents a newer possibility which must be investigated with high attention.In conclusion, I think it is not fringe, and deserves some weight. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I think there may be some confusion creeping in between cold frozen food as a method of general spread vs origins. Bodypilllow ( talk) 12:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
In this NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html about the WHO investigation, one of the WHO team members is quoted as saying that the likelihood of the initial spread to humans via frozen wildlife products is a "very unlikely scenario". Given that this page focuses on the origins (i.e. presumably the initial transfer from reservoir species to humans) rather than subsequent spread between humans, at least that WHO team member is not putting much weight on the theory. Bodypilllow ( talk) 13:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The NYT article also calls the frozen food origin hypothesis a "mantra" of the Chinese government which the Chinese government urged WHO to consider, where the WHO agreed to look but were "skeptical". Bodypilllow ( talk) 13:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Did the virus that caused a worldwide pandemic make the jump to humans via frozen food? That was one hypothesis put forward on 9 February by a joint World Health Organization and Chinese investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
The idea that the coronavirus was carried inside or on the surface of frozen food, which has been advanced by Chinese state media, could place the source of the virus beyond China, from an animal imported from another country.
“I would say it’s extremely, extremely unlikely the virus would have spread through that type of route,” says Lawrence Young at the University of Warwick, UK, who specialises in human virology.
After more than a year since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was declared a global health emergency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continue to underscore that there is no credible evidence of food or food packaging associated with or as a likely source of viral transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing COVID-19." [12]
I think we should be clear thats its a political hypothesis first and a scientific one second because thats what the WP:RS say, as far as science goes this is a long shot but China’s political leadership has decided that this is the horse they want to back. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This whole discussion seems to be an origin/vector hypothesis, but I'm not seeing anything about "an investigation". Did anyone stand up a "Committee to Research Transmission via Cold Chain" yet? How about a "Frozen Food Research Project"? Nope? Then it doesn't belong in this article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I share the concerns expressed above about this article. I have tagged the entire article as violating WP:NPOV, and specifically highlighted this sentence, which I think illustrates the problems:
The "lab leak theory" has become increasingly difficult to ignore in light of the coincidences and circumstantial evidence that continue to accumulate
This sentence is a serious violation of neutrality. It provides WP:GEVAL to a minority viewpoint, rather than treating it like the minority viewpoint that it is. It has a breathless, unencyclopedic WP:TONE that is better suited for an unprofessional podcast. Instead of relying on the highest quality sources (e.g., reputable scholarly review articles) to give WP:DUE weight to various viewpoints, it cites a news article. It also indicates that it's "increasingly difficult to ignore" it on grounds of scientific plausibility (rather than, e.g., because of its political effects), which is another violation of WP:DUE and incompatible with WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS.
There might be a good encyclopedia article to be written on this subject, but this isn't that article, and these aren't those sources.
I think this could be addressed by seriously shortening the article to report, e.g., a simple list of the major investigations that have happened (keeping WP:DUE weight in mind to exclude distantly related, poorly conducted, or "studies" that amount to a politician dictating the results because the US wants to blame China, Russia wants to blame the US, Palestinians want to blame Israel, etc.). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
It's true the coronaviruses isolated from pangolins show similarities to both RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2, leading researchers to posit a bat virus and pangolin virus may have swapped genetic material some time ago in a process called recombination, and this may have given rise to the novel coronavirus. This has since been billed as unlikely. [14]
And the pangolin coronavirus data was unusual. Chan and her collaborator Shing Zhan studied the sequences, highlighting a number of inconsistencies between the major studies and questioning missing or unpublished data in a preprint paper posted to bioRxiv [15]. She points to one Nature paper as "dishonest" and says it involves "scientifically unacceptable" practices like publishing samples under different names and the inclusion of deceptive figures. On Nov. 11, Nature added an editors' note [16] to that paper, alerting readers to these concerns. An investigation is ongoing, though the authors have stated these were honest mistakes.
In light of these oddities, and earlier research examining the pangolin coronaviruses, microbiologist Roger Frutos believes the creatures should be "exonerated." Yet, as recently as Jan. 8 [17], the pangolin is still being brokered as a potential starting point in the origins of COVID-19 by Shi Zhengli and other scientists. Any continued focus on the pangolin, Frutos notes, risks misleading investigations into the origins of the disease.
In 2004, two lab workers at the National Institute of Virology in Beijing became ill with pneumonia. They had inadvertently been infected with the SARS coronavirus after "two separate breaches of bio-safety," according to the WHO. The accident resulted in 11 cases and one death, only a year after the SARS outbreak had been contained.
"The second, third, fourth and fifth entries of the original SARS coronavirus into human populations occurred as a laboratory accident," says Richard Ebright, a chemical biologist at Rutgers University who has long had concerns about the safe use of high-level biosafety laboratories.
Shi considered this possibility when she first heard about a new coronavirus spreading in Wuhan, according to an interview given to Scientific American on March 11. [18] Other researchers, too, have contemplated such a scenario.
The task force features 10 researchers, approved by the Chinese government... The most contentious scientist on the team is Peter Daszak. As the head of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit that studies spillover events, Daszak has been a collaborator of over 15 years with the WIV's Shi Zhengli, helping fund research and surveilling bat coronaviruses in China to ascertain how the next pandemic might begin... But Daszak's close relationship with the WIV is also seen by many as a conflict of interest when it comes to the WHO's investigation.
"A lab leak situation could directly threaten all of that," says Sainath Suryanarayanan, a staff scientist at investigative nonprofit US Right To Know looking into the origin story. This should not be taken as evidence of a vast conspiracy spearheaded by Daszak and the Chinese to cover up a lab leak. It merely highlights the conflicts of interest presented by Daszak's inclusion. Under these circumstances, can the investigation hope to find any evidence of a leak? "I have zero confidence left in the WHO team," Chan says.
Normchou 💬 19:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Normchou 💬 20:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: Do you think the POV tag still applies? If so, an update on what should be improved is welcome. Many thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 05:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Hmm if I start by reading the "Scope and subject of this article" section below, am I right that the lead should probably be rewritten to specify the scope (generally done for list-style articles although it's probably good here) and that some of the article's body doesn't fit? — Paleo Neonate – 06:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)