This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Origin of SARS-CoV-2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
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. |
There have been attempts to
recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "
request for comment", a
third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." ( RfC, December 2021)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Last updated by Julian Brown ( talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
] · |
---|
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID |
|
] · |
---|
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION. |
|
] · |
---|
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution! |
|
References
A recent UNSW paper [5] gives the lab leak theory a higher propability than the Zoonosis. But this article is unserviceable, so I drop it here. Alexpl ( talk) 15:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
It is not clear whether this article was created as a proper WP:CFORK of that article or whether it can only function as a WP:POVFORK. Depending on the outcome of that determination, either a merge back to the main article or a proper summary of this article at the main article ought to be completed. jps ( talk) 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
arguments here have not been based on policywhich suggests, to me, that they felt that both the "merge" and "keep" arguments were not policy-based (something I find a bit surprising); this suggests to me that a merge discussion with stronger arguments would probably pass because the arguments against merging weren't policy-compliant. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The page title has a category error. This is an article about the virus' origin (as it says in the first sentence), not the "origin" of the disease. Everybody knows the disease is originated by infection with the virus. Bon courage ( talk) 06:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The article in its current form displays a clear bias.
The introduction paragraph is formulated to imply the zoonotic origin is scientific evidence and other hypotheses a product of conspiracy or fiction.
The zoonotic origin is a deduction based on the article of Andersen et al., 2020. It contains deductions based on comparative analyses, but they do not represent factual evidence. Fact: "We prove that ...", Comparative Analysis: "Based on previous data we assess it is unlikely that ..."
That article should be put on the bigger picture that is recently arising, on how a segment of the research community (represented Dr. Daszak) tried to cover up the role of Wuhan's lab coronavirus research and rush to declare that China is not guilty. Those are not conspiracies anymore https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01305-z and even Nature accepts it.
In light of the recent development, it seems foolish to still "blindly" believe in the integrity of the virus-research scientific community, at a time when it is crystal clear (echoed by Nature, US Senate, etc.) that the scientific community had been compromised. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:3CE9:EAD1:8168:834A ( talk) 09:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Origin of SARS-CoV-2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
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. |
There have been attempts to
recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "
request for comment", a
third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." ( RfC, December 2021)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Last updated by Julian Brown ( talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
] · |
---|
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID |
|
] · |
---|
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION. |
|
] · |
---|
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution! |
|
References
A recent UNSW paper [5] gives the lab leak theory a higher propability than the Zoonosis. But this article is unserviceable, so I drop it here. Alexpl ( talk) 15:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
It is not clear whether this article was created as a proper WP:CFORK of that article or whether it can only function as a WP:POVFORK. Depending on the outcome of that determination, either a merge back to the main article or a proper summary of this article at the main article ought to be completed. jps ( talk) 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
arguments here have not been based on policywhich suggests, to me, that they felt that both the "merge" and "keep" arguments were not policy-based (something I find a bit surprising); this suggests to me that a merge discussion with stronger arguments would probably pass because the arguments against merging weren't policy-compliant. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The page title has a category error. This is an article about the virus' origin (as it says in the first sentence), not the "origin" of the disease. Everybody knows the disease is originated by infection with the virus. Bon courage ( talk) 06:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The article in its current form displays a clear bias.
The introduction paragraph is formulated to imply the zoonotic origin is scientific evidence and other hypotheses a product of conspiracy or fiction.
The zoonotic origin is a deduction based on the article of Andersen et al., 2020. It contains deductions based on comparative analyses, but they do not represent factual evidence. Fact: "We prove that ...", Comparative Analysis: "Based on previous data we assess it is unlikely that ..."
That article should be put on the bigger picture that is recently arising, on how a segment of the research community (represented Dr. Daszak) tried to cover up the role of Wuhan's lab coronavirus research and rush to declare that China is not guilty. Those are not conspiracies anymore https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01305-z and even Nature accepts it.
In light of the recent development, it seems foolish to still "blindly" believe in the integrity of the virus-research scientific community, at a time when it is crystal clear (echoed by Nature, US Senate, etc.) that the scientific community had been compromised. 2A02:810D:B5BF:F0AD:3CE9:EAD1:8168:834A ( talk) 09:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)