![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
MOS:SAY is unambiguous that we should not use loaded language like "speculate".
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.
Therefore, this revert [1] by USER:Bon courage should be undone. Adoring nanny ( talk)
has led to speculation that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from the Wuhan lab. it's also what's been stable here for years: [4] since at least May 2021: [5].And what our WP:BESTSOURCES and experts say, e.g.: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Every single one of these uses "speculation" to describe the support for the lab leak theory, and many go on to say it is without any substantive evidence. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Adoring nanny ( talk) 09:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.
In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. This is actually not the case for scientific writing, where precision of word choice is much more important than avoiding repetition: [16] [17] [18] [19]Scientific (and other technical) writing is exactly what is not meant by "
some types of writing" here. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
On what basisFamiliarity with the writing of scientists. The knowledge that when scientists write "speculate", they mean "speculate" and not "oh no, I have used the word 'said' too much, I must replace it by something else even if that something else has a different connotation that does not fit here".
Is there a further policy documentIt's not policy, only an essay, but here is one: WP:CIR. More specifically, this part:
the ability to read sources and assess their reliability, including the reliability of the wording. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Extra care is needed with more loaded terms.Blindly replacing all those terms by "say" everywhere is not "extra care". Checking the sources, as Shibbolethink did, is extra care. Even if those people did "say" it actually happened, which is in doubt, if many others call that "speculating" that is the word that should be used. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This sentence is more neutral and accurately reflects the current state of knowledge about the COVID-19 lab leak theory. Infinity Knight ( talk) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)"Some scientists and politicians have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may have accidentally leaked from a laboratory, but this theory lacks supporting evidence."
using words like "speculate" can still be problematicand
using words like "speculate" is problematic? People have essentially tried to explain that difference and why this is one of the cases where is is not problematic. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.All common things for one side of a debate to suggest about the other. Adoring nanny ( talk) 08:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the type of case where it is problematic.You have given no valid reason for that claim. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
has been proposed [..], even if there is currently no definitive proof to support itis the very definition of speculation. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
According to what was discussed on this page, it is an article YES that should include information about the research done by the United States Congress and the Committee on Health. Armando AZ ( talk) 05:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
This is WP:BLUE. It also gets straight to the heart of the issue. The issue is not their nationality per se. It's the fact that they can be arrested for saying the wrong thing. For example, there are plenty of issues with Li-Meng Yan, but the fact that she is a Chinese national is not one of them. I am not going to edit war over the section titles, but I suggest changing them back. Adoring nanny ( talk) 10:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't create a new heading that duplicates an existing heading
Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed
Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.
We use this article [20] as a source. Every single author lists an affiliation that indicates they are under the physical control of Xi Jinping and the CCP. In particular, they can be "held accountable" if they publish the wrong thing. [21] The article's position is that Covid is natural, which is also the CCP's position. Effectively, we are rejecting LL because that is the CCP position. That's not a valid reason. Adoring nanny ( talk) 03:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
pretty sure we don't want to use "academic" sources when the authors could have their organs sold to the highest bidder if they say the wrong thing
This one [23]. Of the authors, all but Edward C. Holmes list affiliations that suggest they can be arrested on the order of Xi Jinping. Adoring nanny ( talk) 04:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
RaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan. I think in normal academic writing one would have to cite it for a discussion of RmYN02, but WP has a screwed up way of looking at sources. I think follow MEDRS per BC, or at least use the work the way MEDRS compliant sources use it. fiveby( zero) 15:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
It's a paper on RmYN02, but the article cites it forRaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan.
the underlying data, and Supplementary Table 4 has:
All the raw sequencing data and genomes have been uploaded onto the GISAID. But thought the issue was the sequencing data was uploaded but not shared?
In the current version of the article it says this "RaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan, located roughly 1,300 km (810 mi) away from Wuhan, and there are relatively few bat coronaviruses from Hubei province.". Now to me that doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's 1300 km from Wuhan to a random point in the Yunnan region that is in the cited source, but since we know RaTG13 came from a mine in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County, why not take the distance to that? Then it is 1500 km if you go from center of Wuhan city to the center of Mojiang Hani Autonomous County. It's even a bit further if you go from center of Wuhan city to the believed cave location, however I'm not sure there are good sources indicating the coordinates of the cave or if that's just leaked? Anyways, even just adjusting it to Mojiang County instead of Yunnan would make it vastly more accurate (1500 km instead of 1300). Is it okay if I make this change, and if so what source should I cite? I'm quite new to Wikipedia. Also if someone else wants to make the change that's fine too
https://i.imgur.com/JOL4Lra.png screenshot showing distance from Wuhan City center to center of Mojiang Hani Autonomous County
2001:9B1:37FF:AA00:7C7C:8F75:2CE7:B9A3 (
talk)
01:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently the article states "The earliest human cases of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in Wuhan, but the index case remains unknown. RaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan,[4][47] located roughly 1,300 km (810 mi) away from Wuhan,[48] and there are relatively few bat coronaviruses from Hubei province.[49]"
This is a bad description. While yes it is true that it is 1300 km from Wuhan to a random point in Yunnan province (see source 48), we know that RaTG13 was sampled from a mine outside Tongguan in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County in Yunnan province. This is closer to 1510 to 1520 km away (see this link). I ask that the text be changed from "in Yunnan, located roughly 1,300 km (810 mi) away from Wuhan," to something like "in a mine outside Tongguan, Yunnan, located roughly 1,500 km (930 miles) away from Wuhan,". The source that I think should be cited is this link or some other source that is suitable. Thank you. 2001:9B1:37FF:AA00:DDF1:40E9:A340:909A ( talk) 19:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The earliest indication of Covid-19 is from Spain in March 2019, 9 months before the Wuhan outbreak.
[1] 142.51.218.83 ( talk) 09:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The opening paragraph ends with "This theory is not supported by evidence." and cites Holmes et al. I believe that this presents a one-sided view of the topic and over-simplifies the arguments from the 'lab leak' proponents. To balance this better, I request two edits:
1. add a citation to the recently unclassified report from the US director of national intelligence. This is the only credible write-up for the "lab leak" that I know of, even though it basically dismisses all of the concerns that favor the 'lab leak' hypothesis (unfortunately, without explaining why two agencies favor that hypothesis).
2. I would edit the first paragraph to finish with: "Some scientists and politicians have speculated, based on concerns about potential biosecurity risks at the Wuhan virology laboratories, that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory. This theory is not supported by virological or epidemiological evidence relating to SARS-CoV-2 or the initial outbreak." (added text in bold).
I propose these changes because the 'lab leak' advocates have collected a large amount of evidence relating to the activities occurring at the Wuhan virology laboratories (both WIV and Wuhan CDC), and they believe that this demonstrates that the inherent risk of laboratory escape greatly exceeds the risk of an infection from the exotic animal trade, such that epidemiological and virological evidence is unnecessary. I think this article would be more balanced if it acknowledged the evidence collected in that respect. AdamChrisR ( talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Moved by editor MaterialWorks. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 → Origin of COVID-19 – Per WP:CONCISE. "Investigations into the..." is superfluous. Or more accurately, the article presents possible scenarios too, not just details of the investigations. The subject is the (mysterious) origin, not the investigations. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 01:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 19:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Should a recently published review article [1] in The New York Times by science writer David Quammen detailing the latest information about the Origin of COVID-19 be added in some way to the main WikiArticle about the Origin of COVID-19? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Has this article been covered in this wikipedia article? https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a Unredacted NIH Emails Show Efforts to Rule Out Lab Origin of Covid https://theintercept.com/2023/01/19/covid-origin-nih-emails/ Amirreza-Astro21 ( talk) 17:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
|
Why is this article called “Origin of COVID-19” and not “Origin of SARS-CoV-2”? Since this article is about the origin of the virus, not the disease it causes. 68.35.40.98 ( talk) 19:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Interested editors are invited to be involved. TarnishedPath talk 23:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I invite your attention to COVID-19 zoonosis theories for proofreading and editing. Sennalen ( talk) 18:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the Cell study citation (Holmes et al), that's linked near the head of the article as justification for the claim of natural origin: isn't that study now considered seriously flawed? e.g. It states: "There is no data to suggest that the WIV—or any other laboratory—were working on SARS-CoV-2, or any virus close enough to be the progenitor, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic." (Holmes et al., The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review, 16/9/21) As I understand it, that's now known to be wildly mistaken. e.g.: 'What really went on inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid erupted' The Times, 25 July 2023. (For those without a subscription, the uncitable Daily Mail has some of that information here: [25]).
The US Director of National Intelligence 2020-2021, John Ratcliffe, in an interview broadcast today confirmed what he has previously stated: "I listened to folks like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who said that the mutations of the virus were totally consistent with a jump from animals to humans. What I found was, that there wasn't any intelligence that supported that; nor was there any scientific data we could find." [26] In the light of this, should not either that citation be replaced, or acknowledgement of its flaws made? MisterWizzy ( talk) 13:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a request for enforcement regarding editor behavior concerning COVID-19 origins at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ජපස Sennalen ( talk) 22:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Origin of COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page and its child pages need updating: Laboratory incident
Here is my suggestion for edits and the corresponding citations for it.
. . . Scientists from WIV had previously collected SARS-related coronaviruses from bats in the wild, and allegations that they also performed undisclosed risky work on such viruses are central to some versions of the idea.[84][85] Some versions, particularly those alleging genome engineering, are based on misinformation or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.[86][87][88]
In February and March 2023, the US government confirmed that in fact the most likely cause for the coronavirus was indeed the Wuhan lab. This fact was confirmed first with public statements from the Department of Energy, which oversees all activity of national labs including work in partnership with other entities outside the United States. [1].
Just a few days later in March of 2023, and with greater confidence, the FBI also confirmed the most likely cause for the origin of COVID-19 was the Wuhan lab. FBI Director Wray stated further that the work on this virus was intended for biological weapons development and "precisely what that capability was designed for". [2] 67ray ( talk) 16:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
References
Whether this topic is controversial or not, my changes are simple reporting of facts. They are not opinion, nor speculation, nor editorial in any sense nor anything comparable. There is no logical reason for excluding this information from the wikipedia page. To do so is simply putting one's head in the sand and failing to give free access to the sum of all human knowledge. It is as simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67ray ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
Shadow311 (
talk)
15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 has been nominated at Articles for Deletion. Interested editors may participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. TarnishedPath talk 09:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Today I stumbled on a theory about the covid origin by Dr Tom Jefferson, from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at Oxford University. It is about the covid virus being dormant and cosmopolitan distributed that became widespread pathogenic because of unknown triggers. These triggers may have been favourable environmental conditions. [1] Anyone has more information about this? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
References
I am a microbiologist who has published on the origins of COVID-19. Apologies I am not familiar with the editing conventions of Wikipedia. I just have a suggestion to improve this paper. The citation to "treeshrews" should be removed. Here is my rationale:
1. In general, the paper being being cited for this claim is complete gibberish. The methodology used to reach the "treeshrew" claim is completely unsupported, and has never before been used in any context to identify the past hosts of a virus. It also simply makes no biological sense.
2. No other published works on COVID-19 have discussed "treeshrews" as a plausible intermediate host.
3. The journal the paper is published in has a impact factor <1.
4. The authors of the paper and not virologists and have not published prior on viral immunology.
I just wanted to bring this consideration to the attention of wikipedia editors. 69.250.21.91 ( talk) 17:52, 15 January 2024 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
MOS:SAY is unambiguous that we should not use loaded language like "speculate".
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.
Therefore, this revert [1] by USER:Bon courage should be undone. Adoring nanny ( talk)
has led to speculation that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from the Wuhan lab. it's also what's been stable here for years: [4] since at least May 2021: [5].And what our WP:BESTSOURCES and experts say, e.g.: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Every single one of these uses "speculation" to describe the support for the lab leak theory, and many go on to say it is without any substantive evidence. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Adoring nanny ( talk) 09:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.
In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. This is actually not the case for scientific writing, where precision of word choice is much more important than avoiding repetition: [16] [17] [18] [19]Scientific (and other technical) writing is exactly what is not meant by "
some types of writing" here. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
On what basisFamiliarity with the writing of scientists. The knowledge that when scientists write "speculate", they mean "speculate" and not "oh no, I have used the word 'said' too much, I must replace it by something else even if that something else has a different connotation that does not fit here".
Is there a further policy documentIt's not policy, only an essay, but here is one: WP:CIR. More specifically, this part:
the ability to read sources and assess their reliability, including the reliability of the wording. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Extra care is needed with more loaded terms.Blindly replacing all those terms by "say" everywhere is not "extra care". Checking the sources, as Shibbolethink did, is extra care. Even if those people did "say" it actually happened, which is in doubt, if many others call that "speculating" that is the word that should be used. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
This sentence is more neutral and accurately reflects the current state of knowledge about the COVID-19 lab leak theory. Infinity Knight ( talk) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)"Some scientists and politicians have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may have accidentally leaked from a laboratory, but this theory lacks supporting evidence."
using words like "speculate" can still be problematicand
using words like "speculate" is problematic? People have essentially tried to explain that difference and why this is one of the cases where is is not problematic. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.All common things for one side of a debate to suggest about the other. Adoring nanny ( talk) 08:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the type of case where it is problematic.You have given no valid reason for that claim. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
has been proposed [..], even if there is currently no definitive proof to support itis the very definition of speculation. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 10:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
According to what was discussed on this page, it is an article YES that should include information about the research done by the United States Congress and the Committee on Health. Armando AZ ( talk) 05:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
This is WP:BLUE. It also gets straight to the heart of the issue. The issue is not their nationality per se. It's the fact that they can be arrested for saying the wrong thing. For example, there are plenty of issues with Li-Meng Yan, but the fact that she is a Chinese national is not one of them. I am not going to edit war over the section titles, but I suggest changing them back. Adoring nanny ( talk) 10:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't create a new heading that duplicates an existing heading
Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed
Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.
We use this article [20] as a source. Every single author lists an affiliation that indicates they are under the physical control of Xi Jinping and the CCP. In particular, they can be "held accountable" if they publish the wrong thing. [21] The article's position is that Covid is natural, which is also the CCP's position. Effectively, we are rejecting LL because that is the CCP position. That's not a valid reason. Adoring nanny ( talk) 03:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
pretty sure we don't want to use "academic" sources when the authors could have their organs sold to the highest bidder if they say the wrong thing
This one [23]. Of the authors, all but Edward C. Holmes list affiliations that suggest they can be arrested on the order of Xi Jinping. Adoring nanny ( talk) 04:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
RaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan. I think in normal academic writing one would have to cite it for a discussion of RmYN02, but WP has a screwed up way of looking at sources. I think follow MEDRS per BC, or at least use the work the way MEDRS compliant sources use it. fiveby( zero) 15:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
It's a paper on RmYN02, but the article cites it forRaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan.
the underlying data, and Supplementary Table 4 has:
All the raw sequencing data and genomes have been uploaded onto the GISAID. But thought the issue was the sequencing data was uploaded but not shared?
In the current version of the article it says this "RaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan, located roughly 1,300 km (810 mi) away from Wuhan, and there are relatively few bat coronaviruses from Hubei province.". Now to me that doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's 1300 km from Wuhan to a random point in the Yunnan region that is in the cited source, but since we know RaTG13 came from a mine in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County, why not take the distance to that? Then it is 1500 km if you go from center of Wuhan city to the center of Mojiang Hani Autonomous County. It's even a bit further if you go from center of Wuhan city to the believed cave location, however I'm not sure there are good sources indicating the coordinates of the cave or if that's just leaked? Anyways, even just adjusting it to Mojiang County instead of Yunnan would make it vastly more accurate (1500 km instead of 1300). Is it okay if I make this change, and if so what source should I cite? I'm quite new to Wikipedia. Also if someone else wants to make the change that's fine too
https://i.imgur.com/JOL4Lra.png screenshot showing distance from Wuhan City center to center of Mojiang Hani Autonomous County
2001:9B1:37FF:AA00:7C7C:8F75:2CE7:B9A3 (
talk)
01:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently the article states "The earliest human cases of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in Wuhan, but the index case remains unknown. RaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan,[4][47] located roughly 1,300 km (810 mi) away from Wuhan,[48] and there are relatively few bat coronaviruses from Hubei province.[49]"
This is a bad description. While yes it is true that it is 1300 km from Wuhan to a random point in Yunnan province (see source 48), we know that RaTG13 was sampled from a mine outside Tongguan in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County in Yunnan province. This is closer to 1510 to 1520 km away (see this link). I ask that the text be changed from "in Yunnan, located roughly 1,300 km (810 mi) away from Wuhan," to something like "in a mine outside Tongguan, Yunnan, located roughly 1,500 km (930 miles) away from Wuhan,". The source that I think should be cited is this link or some other source that is suitable. Thank you. 2001:9B1:37FF:AA00:DDF1:40E9:A340:909A ( talk) 19:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The earliest indication of Covid-19 is from Spain in March 2019, 9 months before the Wuhan outbreak.
[1] 142.51.218.83 ( talk) 09:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The opening paragraph ends with "This theory is not supported by evidence." and cites Holmes et al. I believe that this presents a one-sided view of the topic and over-simplifies the arguments from the 'lab leak' proponents. To balance this better, I request two edits:
1. add a citation to the recently unclassified report from the US director of national intelligence. This is the only credible write-up for the "lab leak" that I know of, even though it basically dismisses all of the concerns that favor the 'lab leak' hypothesis (unfortunately, without explaining why two agencies favor that hypothesis).
2. I would edit the first paragraph to finish with: "Some scientists and politicians have speculated, based on concerns about potential biosecurity risks at the Wuhan virology laboratories, that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory. This theory is not supported by virological or epidemiological evidence relating to SARS-CoV-2 or the initial outbreak." (added text in bold).
I propose these changes because the 'lab leak' advocates have collected a large amount of evidence relating to the activities occurring at the Wuhan virology laboratories (both WIV and Wuhan CDC), and they believe that this demonstrates that the inherent risk of laboratory escape greatly exceeds the risk of an infection from the exotic animal trade, such that epidemiological and virological evidence is unnecessary. I think this article would be more balanced if it acknowledged the evidence collected in that respect. AdamChrisR ( talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Moved by editor MaterialWorks. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 → Origin of COVID-19 – Per WP:CONCISE. "Investigations into the..." is superfluous. Or more accurately, the article presents possible scenarios too, not just details of the investigations. The subject is the (mysterious) origin, not the investigations. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 01:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 19:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Should a recently published review article [1] in The New York Times by science writer David Quammen detailing the latest information about the Origin of COVID-19 be added in some way to the main WikiArticle about the Origin of COVID-19? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
References
Drbogdan ( talk) 12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Has this article been covered in this wikipedia article? https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a Unredacted NIH Emails Show Efforts to Rule Out Lab Origin of Covid https://theintercept.com/2023/01/19/covid-origin-nih-emails/ Amirreza-Astro21 ( talk) 17:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
|
Why is this article called “Origin of COVID-19” and not “Origin of SARS-CoV-2”? Since this article is about the origin of the virus, not the disease it causes. 68.35.40.98 ( talk) 19:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Interested editors are invited to be involved. TarnishedPath talk 23:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I invite your attention to COVID-19 zoonosis theories for proofreading and editing. Sennalen ( talk) 18:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the Cell study citation (Holmes et al), that's linked near the head of the article as justification for the claim of natural origin: isn't that study now considered seriously flawed? e.g. It states: "There is no data to suggest that the WIV—or any other laboratory—were working on SARS-CoV-2, or any virus close enough to be the progenitor, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic." (Holmes et al., The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review, 16/9/21) As I understand it, that's now known to be wildly mistaken. e.g.: 'What really went on inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid erupted' The Times, 25 July 2023. (For those without a subscription, the uncitable Daily Mail has some of that information here: [25]).
The US Director of National Intelligence 2020-2021, John Ratcliffe, in an interview broadcast today confirmed what he has previously stated: "I listened to folks like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who said that the mutations of the virus were totally consistent with a jump from animals to humans. What I found was, that there wasn't any intelligence that supported that; nor was there any scientific data we could find." [26] In the light of this, should not either that citation be replaced, or acknowledgement of its flaws made? MisterWizzy ( talk) 13:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a request for enforcement regarding editor behavior concerning COVID-19 origins at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ජපස Sennalen ( talk) 22:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Origin of COVID-19 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page and its child pages need updating: Laboratory incident
Here is my suggestion for edits and the corresponding citations for it.
. . . Scientists from WIV had previously collected SARS-related coronaviruses from bats in the wild, and allegations that they also performed undisclosed risky work on such viruses are central to some versions of the idea.[84][85] Some versions, particularly those alleging genome engineering, are based on misinformation or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.[86][87][88]
In February and March 2023, the US government confirmed that in fact the most likely cause for the coronavirus was indeed the Wuhan lab. This fact was confirmed first with public statements from the Department of Energy, which oversees all activity of national labs including work in partnership with other entities outside the United States. [1].
Just a few days later in March of 2023, and with greater confidence, the FBI also confirmed the most likely cause for the origin of COVID-19 was the Wuhan lab. FBI Director Wray stated further that the work on this virus was intended for biological weapons development and "precisely what that capability was designed for". [2] 67ray ( talk) 16:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
References
Whether this topic is controversial or not, my changes are simple reporting of facts. They are not opinion, nor speculation, nor editorial in any sense nor anything comparable. There is no logical reason for excluding this information from the wikipedia page. To do so is simply putting one's head in the sand and failing to give free access to the sum of all human knowledge. It is as simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67ray ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit extended-protected}}
template.
Shadow311 (
talk)
15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 has been nominated at Articles for Deletion. Interested editors may participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. TarnishedPath talk 09:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Today I stumbled on a theory about the covid origin by Dr Tom Jefferson, from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at Oxford University. It is about the covid virus being dormant and cosmopolitan distributed that became widespread pathogenic because of unknown triggers. These triggers may have been favourable environmental conditions. [1] Anyone has more information about this? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
References
I am a microbiologist who has published on the origins of COVID-19. Apologies I am not familiar with the editing conventions of Wikipedia. I just have a suggestion to improve this paper. The citation to "treeshrews" should be removed. Here is my rationale:
1. In general, the paper being being cited for this claim is complete gibberish. The methodology used to reach the "treeshrew" claim is completely unsupported, and has never before been used in any context to identify the past hosts of a virus. It also simply makes no biological sense.
2. No other published works on COVID-19 have discussed "treeshrews" as a plausible intermediate host.
3. The journal the paper is published in has a impact factor <1.
4. The authors of the paper and not virologists and have not published prior on viral immunology.
I just wanted to bring this consideration to the attention of wikipedia editors. 69.250.21.91 ( talk) 17:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)