This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 90 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 prodedures and edit carefully. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WikiProject COVID-19 consensus WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to . |
Moves, mentions, and copied material | |||||||||
|
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 |
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents
current consensus for the articles under the scope of this project. In accordance with
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, ("prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content except when consensus for the edit exists") changes of the material listed below in this article must be discussed first, and repeated offenses against established consensus may result in administrative action. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Current consensus]], item [n]
. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .
1. There is consensus that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of the article. The terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. Discussion permalink
The fact that this page doesn’t even mention the possibility that the virus originated in a lab is baffling, given that there are a number of credible experts who have stated it is plausible, not to mention the U.S. intelligence agencies who’ve concluded it’s probable. The complete omission of this viewpoint calls into question the neutrality and objectivity of the entire article. 68.12.22.29 ( talk) 04:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
most likely of zoonotic originis what the reliable sources say. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue.AncientWalrus ( talk) 18:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The article does discuss origin scenarios:It also doesn't mention non-lab origins. In fact, it makes no suggestion about the origin. It does mention the seafood market, but does not, as the CIA likes to say, confirm or deny such explanations. Some people (but mostly not the article) mention natural origin.
A March 2021 WHO-convened report stated that human spillover via an intermediate animal host was the most likely explanation, with direct spillover from bats next most likely.
Introduction through the food supply chain and the Huanan Seafood Market was considered another possible, but less likely, explanation.
An analysis in November 2021, however, said that the earliest-known case had been misidentified and that the preponderance of early cases linked to the Huanan Market argued for it being the source.
[the theory of a laboratory incident] was not given balanced considerationand further stating:
We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. This letter was discussed in secondary sources, e.g. WSJ.
Saying that "This theory is not supported by evidence." or that "there is zero evidence for it" is objectively false
no evidence exists to support such a notion" [1] and "
there is no good evidence" [2] and "
there's not a single piece of data suggesting" that the lab leak is true. [3] — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Bloom, however, asserts that the evidence for a market origin for the current coronavirus pandemic is not conclusive, and both a laboratory origin and natural spillover should be viewed as possible causes of future pandemics.WaPo (this is from 2023, your first two sources are from 2021). AncientWalrus ( talk) 16:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue
The whole paragraph about putative early detections of SARS-CoV-2 genome fragments in Italy in the autumn of 2019 should be removed. It is entirely based on primary research. While it may appear that the most cited reference is a review, that review article was written by the same authors who did the original research the review is reviewing.
For a topic with such extensive secondary and tertiary coverage in reputable science journalism, such a not-widely cited review does not justify a paragraph in this article.
I already touched on this briefly in the higher up topic
Early origin. Thanks @
Bon courage for getting started on this
here but I think we should go much further by removing it altogether. If at all, it should get a minor mention in the separate origins article.
AncientWalrus (
talk) 12:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Whether identifiable cases appeared earlier than December, 2019, is unknown.in a long article. None of the reports were published in top journals either. The best independent coverage I could find is Wired which closes with
But it’s clear that the evidence so far isn’t the most robust. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” says Jonathan Stoye, a virologist at the Francis Crick Institute. “I’m not convinced that a dodgy piece of data on top of another dodgy piece of data on top of another dodgy piece of data leads one to a firm conclusion.”AncientWalrus ( talk) 13:01, 31 May 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. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath talk 02:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 90 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 prodedures and edit carefully. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WikiProject COVID-19 consensus WikiProject COVID-19 aims to add to and build consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page.
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to . |
Moves, mentions, and copied material | |||||||||
|
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 |
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents
current consensus for the articles under the scope of this project. In accordance with
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, ("prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content except when consensus for the edit exists") changes of the material listed below in this article must be discussed first, and repeated offenses against established consensus may result in administrative action. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Current consensus]], item [n]
. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .
1. There is consensus that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of the article. The terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. Discussion permalink
The fact that this page doesn’t even mention the possibility that the virus originated in a lab is baffling, given that there are a number of credible experts who have stated it is plausible, not to mention the U.S. intelligence agencies who’ve concluded it’s probable. The complete omission of this viewpoint calls into question the neutrality and objectivity of the entire article. 68.12.22.29 ( talk) 04:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
most likely of zoonotic originis what the reliable sources say. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 11:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue.AncientWalrus ( talk) 18:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The article does discuss origin scenarios:It also doesn't mention non-lab origins. In fact, it makes no suggestion about the origin. It does mention the seafood market, but does not, as the CIA likes to say, confirm or deny such explanations. Some people (but mostly not the article) mention natural origin.
A March 2021 WHO-convened report stated that human spillover via an intermediate animal host was the most likely explanation, with direct spillover from bats next most likely.
Introduction through the food supply chain and the Huanan Seafood Market was considered another possible, but less likely, explanation.
An analysis in November 2021, however, said that the earliest-known case had been misidentified and that the preponderance of early cases linked to the Huanan Market argued for it being the source.
[the theory of a laboratory incident] was not given balanced considerationand further stating:
We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. This letter was discussed in secondary sources, e.g. WSJ.
Saying that "This theory is not supported by evidence." or that "there is zero evidence for it" is objectively false
no evidence exists to support such a notion" [1] and "
there is no good evidence" [2] and "
there's not a single piece of data suggesting" that the lab leak is true. [3] — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Bloom, however, asserts that the evidence for a market origin for the current coronavirus pandemic is not conclusive, and both a laboratory origin and natural spillover should be viewed as possible causes of future pandemics.WaPo (this is from 2023, your first two sources are from 2021). AncientWalrus ( talk) 16:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue
The lead states "Available evidence indicates that it is most likely of zoonotic origin," which is untrue
The whole paragraph about putative early detections of SARS-CoV-2 genome fragments in Italy in the autumn of 2019 should be removed. It is entirely based on primary research. While it may appear that the most cited reference is a review, that review article was written by the same authors who did the original research the review is reviewing.
For a topic with such extensive secondary and tertiary coverage in reputable science journalism, such a not-widely cited review does not justify a paragraph in this article.
I already touched on this briefly in the higher up topic
Early origin. Thanks @
Bon courage for getting started on this
here but I think we should go much further by removing it altogether. If at all, it should get a minor mention in the separate origins article.
AncientWalrus (
talk) 12:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Whether identifiable cases appeared earlier than December, 2019, is unknown.in a long article. None of the reports were published in top journals either. The best independent coverage I could find is Wired which closes with
But it’s clear that the evidence so far isn’t the most robust. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” says Jonathan Stoye, a virologist at the Francis Crick Institute. “I’m not convinced that a dodgy piece of data on top of another dodgy piece of data on top of another dodgy piece of data leads one to a firm conclusion.”AncientWalrus ( talk) 13:01, 31 May 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. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath talk 02:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)