Wikipedia

Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2/Archive 2

< Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Cowrider in topic New WHO Report
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Why shouldn't more recent facts be added?

Latest comment: 3 years ago44 comments8 people in discussion

Moxy, you removed my recent addition with no explanation, implying you were going to bring the reason to the talkpage, but I do not see anything here. Can please give the reason for removing this reliably sourced addition of new facts rom later reports. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Pls join the ongoing talk about this on the talk page.--Moxy-  16:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Moxy, which talkpage and which thread are you referring to please? I don't see a thread on this page, other than the frozen food one and the Biden one, that has had any activity for more than a week, and nothing before then other than dating back to before the sources I used for the facts I added were published. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry this junk is being talked about at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#Survey. Best not add academic openness as a means of implying acceptance.--Moxy-  21:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Moxy, that's nothing to do with this article. Consensus, or otherwise, on what's acceptable there has no weight here. Perhaps you'd self revert as there is no apparent supportable explanation for removing that content from this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Junk misleading edit.....your free to ask others to get involved. But posting that scientists are open to new evidence isn't the same as it being relevant or viable. Scientists don't speak in absolutes.--Moxy-  21:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Moxy, please explain what you mean, and how it supports the removal of relevant and reliably sourced new facts. Currently the article is out of date, it says the WHO ruled out this hypothesis. That is no longer the case, and needs to be corrected. The facts I added corrected that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia not being a newspaper, should be a summary of the best sources and present official body statements, etc. Balancing the WHO report results with individual quotes about uncertaintly, results in WP:GEVAL. Moreover, when we read the proposed sources they are not about refuting the WHO report, more about reporting on some details and opinions. —PaleoNeonate – 23:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, as I said above, this is not about opinions, it's about new facts, so 'balancing' and GEVAL are not relevant. The new facts are in addition to, and supplement, the current ones. Why do you think new information should be ignored? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. This is meant to be an article about "investigation". It should not become a coatrack for the lab leak story. Wikipedia deals in knowledge, not factoids. Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, yes, it's an article about the investigations, and coverage of this investigation is included in it. Which is why your characterisation of the addition of factual updates about this investigation as "coatracking", and the new facts as factoids, sounds to me to be closer to not being interested in improving the article than to making the content more accurate for the readers. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
What "new facts" are supposedly in this interview?
I notice, e.g., that the interview is cited to support a claim that, according to Tedros, the lab leak hypothesis "had not been ruled out and required further study", but I find nothing in the cited source that supports the Further research is needed claim at all. Tedros is quoted in that source as saying only that "All hypotheses are on the table". This aligns with "had not been ruled out" [completely – something that still has a 0.00001% chance of being true "has not been ruled out"], but it does not say anything about this idea requiring further study. Tedros says nothing either way, and the person who was interviewed seems to be discouraging it. They obviously aren't planning any further research in that direction, even though they can't ban other groups (e.g., the Chinese government) from doing so.
For the second sentence, this isn't "new facts" to anyone who knew anything about this investigation. They sent a team that was equipped and skilled to do certain things (e.g., interpret lab results, understand viral mutation processes) that were understood to be relevant to the scope of the investigation. Since no human can do everything, this means that they sent a team that was not equipped and skilled to do other things (e.g., perform a formal audit of a laboratory, identify bat subspecies at a glance, play softball, bake croissants – we could make a list here that would include ~99% of job skills). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, currently this article says of the WHO 'They said a laboratory origin of COVID-19 was "extremely unlikely" and did not require further investigation.' That is now out of date, and misrepresents the current position. The discussion here is about the addition of two sentences: "Within a few days, further clarification was given, with WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stating that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been ruled out and required further study." and "John Watson, one of the scientists on the WHO team that visited China, explained that it was one of four hypotheses still on the table, but that they had neither the power, resources, or capability to fully investigate it." They are new facts to the article and supported by the reliable sources originally added with them. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@DeFacto, your version claimed that Tedros said that the lab leak hypothesis requires further investigation. I will now list for you every single word actually in the cited source that is attributed to Tedros: "All hypotheses are on the table". That's it: just six words. Please let me know if you see any words in that sentence that look like lab, leak, need, further, research or that would otherwise justify a sentence that Tedros himself actually said that this hypothesis needs further research.
Do you understand why it is impossible (indeed, a violation of both WP:V and BLP) for us to claim here that Tedros said that this hypothesis needs more investigation? If we can agree to that much, then we can talk about whether other, non-Tedros parts of the source say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, what I wrote was They are new facts to the article and supported by the reliable sources originally added with them. Did you check the sources I originally added? This one quotes Ghebreyesus as having said "Having spoken with some members of the team, I wish to confirm that all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis and study". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The words you complain about having removed, linked by you at the top of this section, were: "WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stating that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been ruled out and required further study." The source you complain about having removed, added by you to the article to support this sentence, does not say anything that is even remotely like "Tedros stating that this required further study".
The source that you complain about having removed does talk about this question. It says things like:
  • Q: Was it a mistake to call the lab origin hypothesis “extremely unlikely”?
  • A: No.
At no point does the person being interviewed say that he thinks this "needs" further research. He says that it has not been fully assessed; he says that if anyone were going to do this research, it would not be his team; he says that doing that research would require a full lab audit (=a standardized procedure, not just something invented for the pandemic). However, he never actually says that this is necessary, and he does say that they have very little evidence to support it, that the evidence they acquired during this trip indicates that it's even less likely than what they thought before this trip, and that the current (NB: not final, but the current) view of the scientists is that this is "extremely unlikely", on the five-point scale that they decided to use to rank the hypotheses that they were talking about.
In other words, the current version of the article, in saying that it's extremely unlikely, actually is the correct version, except that we should probably replace our "very unlikely" paraphrase with the exact words that they're using. If you want to push the lab leak story, then the most we could justify right now is adding "As of February 2021" to the sentence, to suggest that this might change in the "extremely unlikely" circumstance that the actually-likely scenarios are disproven. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, the words I added are, as I said, and as you continue to refute, supported by the source I originally supplied. This is beginning to feel like stonewalling. If you are having trouble checking what I said for yourself, here are all the diffs associated with it:
So you see, everything I contributed was fully sourced, and other sources have emerged since then adding their support. A simple search on the quote I included will confirm that. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You've been found out misrepresenting a source, which was unfortunate but - one assumes - a mistake made in your zeal for the lab leak POV. Doubling down on that is taking us into the realm of WP:DE, especially when it is coupled with personal attacks. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, found out misrepresenting a source? Personal attacks? These are all serious accusations and require substantiation. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes: don't put words in Tedros' mouth, and don't accuse good editors of stonewalling you. Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I've shown above how everything I wrote was reliably sourced. Or can you show where it wasn't? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You have been shown (correctly). The WP:IDHT level is now making the needle on my AGF-o-meter start to waver. Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, this is false, we need to figure-out why you are alleging that. I had shown above that what I wrote was supported. Let me reiterate in even more detail. In the first edit I made wrt Ghebreyesus I added this:

On 12 February 2021, the WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stated that the hypothesis that Covid had originated in a laboratory in Wuhan had not been ruled out and required further study.[1].

That was quickly reverted. The second time I reworded it slightly, adding and citing the same source:

Within a few days, further clarification was given, with WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stating that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been ruled out and required further study.

The cited source says:

Earlier this week, a WHO-led mission in China said it was not looking further into the question of whether the virus escaped from a lab, which it considered highly unlikely.

However, in a press briefing on Friday, director general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said: "Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded.

"Having spoken with some members of the team, I wish to confirm that all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis and study.

"Some of that work may lie outside the remit and scope of this mission.

Where did I put words in any mouths? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Collier, Ian (13 February 2021). "COVID-19: WHO backtracks on dismissing Wuhan lab theory as coronavirus probe continues". Sky News. Retrieved 14 February 2021.
In your edits. This is either WP:CIR or trolling. I will not respond further. Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I'm baffled, and you seem serious, so please assume good faith and take the time to clarify exactly what you mean. I've patiently made a massive effort to fully explain my edits, but I'm not too arrogant to assume I haven't made a blunder here somewhere, but I cannot see where that might be. So if you could just show me where you believe I'm wrong, we should be able to resolve this misunderstanding amicably and move on. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Without commenting on any other aspect of this issue, I'd just like to point out that Sky News is not a reliable source for any contentious claim related to China or CoVID-19. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
If so, that would mean that the statement "everything I wrote was reliably sourced" is technically false, since the sources added to the article would either not be reliable (Sky News), or do not include Tedros saying that Further research is needed (sciencemag.org). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, why? Even if Sky News was unreliable (which we've got no reason to believe), the same quotes are also reported in many other sources, including on the WHO's own website. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thucydides411, who says it's unreliable? What's contentious about these well reported facts? Anyway, the same quotes from Ghebreyesus are on the WHO website,[1] in The Telegraph,[2] Reuters,[3] The Guardian,[4] and others, so you can take your pick. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It's sensationalist Murdoch media that's been aggressively pushing the SARS-CoV-2 lab leak theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thucydides411, would you be happy to use one of the alternative sources shown, reporting the same quotes on the topic of this discussion, being used? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
What content are you proposing? The paragraph in green above explicitly references the lab leak theory, which Tedros did not do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thucydides411, it's moot now as WhatamIdoing has removed the superseded phrase "and did not require further investigation" that needed further clarification. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Small weigh in here, it's not in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Meaning there's no concensus, and if you claim it's unreliable you must show precedent of it being excluded on WP. Or reasonable proof that it is unreliable for the current subject. Feynstein (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Perennial sources is just a guide that lists sources that have been discussed several times at WP:RSN. Editors are still expected to make decisions about reliability of sources outside of RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: Precisely: "Sky News operates under United Kingdom broadcasting regulations which require impartial, unbiased coverage and prevent the channel from being encrypted in the UK. The channel is viewed by some in the media establishment as an impartial and unbiased provider of news." here linking to [5] Feynstein (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
It would be absurd to claim that all UK broadcasters are impartial and unbiased in their coverage of all subjects. All news outlets have biases, and UK broadcasters are no exception. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: Of course, but I have one reference saying they are, what do you have? If we're to judge their bias might as well do it right. Feynstein (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This article from Science is reliable source for the context of the statement by the WHO Director and also concerning the special circumstances of the Who statement /mission at the press conference in Wuhan. Wikipedia should not hide this important information from the int. public, which was also in hundreds of media--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Various statements of the article regarding WHO & origin are outdated and misleading.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of a quote from a MEDRS

Latest comment: 3 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

Hi! Since this is a hot subject I come here first instead of doing it boldly, but i'd like to include a translated version of this quote from a MEDRS article in the origin section. "En l’absence d’éléments probants concernant le dernier intermédiaire animal avant la contamination humaine, certains auteurs suggèrent que ce virus pourrait avoir été fabriqué dans un laboratoire (origine synthétique). Mais ces assertions ont été réfutées par de nombreux spécialistes, notamment sur la base d’études phylogénétiques qui suggèrent deux scénarios prépondérants pour expliquer l’origine du SARS-CoV-2 : (1) l’adaptation chez un animal hôte avant le transfert zoonotique, ou (2) l’adaptation chez l’homme après le transfert zoonotique [11, 17, 18, 22]. D’autres pensent qu’il pourrait s’agir d’un virus de chiroptère qui se serait adapté à d’autres espèces dans des modèles animaux élevés en laboratoire, dont il se serait ensuite échappé. Il est également envisageable que ce virus provienne d’une souche virale cultivée sur des cellules au laboratoire afin d’étudier son potentiel infectieux. Ce virus cultivé se serait progressivement « humanisé » (adapté à l’hôte humain) par sélection des virus les plus aptes à se propager dans ces conditions. Quel que soit le mécanisme présidant à son apparition, il est important de comprendre comment ce virus a passé la barrière d’espèce et est devenu hautement transmissible d’homme à homme, cela afin de se prémunir de nouvelles émergences [23]."[6]. I can do a proper translation but here's a quick DeepL version: "In the absence of evidence for the last animal intermediate before human contamination, some authors suggest that this virus may have been manufactured in a laboratory (synthetic origin). However, these assertions have been refuted by many experts, notably on the basis of phylogenetic studies that suggest two overriding scenarios to explain the origin of CoV-2-SARSS: (1) adaptation in a host animal before zoonotic transfer, or (2) adaptation in humans after zoonotic transfer [11, 17, 18, 22]. Others believe that it could be a chiropteran virus that adapted to other species in laboratory animal models and then escaped from them. It is also conceivable that this virus could be derived from a viral strain grown on cells in the laboratory to study its infectious potential. This cultured virus would have been progressively "humanized" (adapted to the human host) by selecting the viruses most likely to spread under these conditions.Regardless of the mechanism by which it emerged, it is important to understand how this virus crossed the species barrier and became highly transmissible from human to human in order to protect against new emergences [23]. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)". Feynstein (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a good source. Let's stick to reviews (or better) please, and avoid WP:POVSOURCING. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
That is a great source. I just looked at that French article. It is a review and a medical journal. According to the medical project, medical reviews are the top sources on wikipedia. That makes that article a top reliable source. I'm not sure if Alexbrn can read French, since it clearly states that it is a review. Great find. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The publisher/PUBMED classification of the article is "comparative study", not "review". Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
It is so strange that you want to wall away this to top quality review from Wikipedia. I'll assume good faith that you don't know what a comparative study is. Scroll down on the pubmed entry to publication type click comparative study then click on "Search in PubMed". What shows up endless different types of reviews. I also happen to have a professional translation of the journal article; it also calls the article a "Review" in the title. I'm getting concerned that you have something against the French language and French science. I'll assume good faith that you are not a English-language chauvinist. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Ignoring the personal attacks, I'll direct you to the publisher, since your argument is with them. They do publish reviews too: in the same issue, for example, PMID 32821048. Even it it was a review, it's from August and so has been superseded by more recent reviews. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes. You make a great point. They updated the article and provided an English translation, where it clearly states that their article is a review. It's always important for scientists, and of course also medical doctors, to be up-to-date. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"They" did no such thing. The article was published in English in a different journal (which, under its license is easily done). This is a non-MEDLINE indexed journal: so, avoid. Why strain at the leash trying to reach an iffy, slightly old, source when we have solid ones available? Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

In the article abstract it states:

"This article is a translation and update of a French article published in Médecine/Sciences, August/September 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2020123)."[7]

The article is clearly indexed in Pubmed PMID 33558807, where it states it is a Review. It is also dated 4 February 2021. Why do you keep on making me think I'm losing it. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's "in" PUBMED, but that journal is not MEDLINE-indexed, which is a red flag, particularly for any unusual claims. Why not focus on high-quality sources rather than trying to push this one? Alexbrn (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
But, you just provided a PMID identifier above. I'm getting so confused. I'm pretty sure that recent medical reviews are considered the most reliable by the medical project. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
PUBMED (essentially a broad repository which contains a lot of stuff, some of it junk) is not the same as MEDLINE, a bibliographic database which, in practice, indexes a subset of material in PUBMED. Non-inclusion in MEDLINE is an indication that a journal article may not be reliable. We have several MEDLINE-indexed and/or more recent review articles. It would be wrong to try to undercut them with an older/weaker source. Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Wait I'm really confused now, because I just found the article in the European Public Medical Central database. If you wanted to find a French medical journal article, wouldn't you have to use a European database. Obviously, the American doctors wouldn't care about French medical research, since they cannot read French. So, it seems clear that this article is a medical review article that according to the medical project group would be a top reliable source to use. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
PMC is another repository. It's like the above conversation didn't happen. WP:IDHT Alexbrn (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Guest2625, PubMed and its EU mirror are basically Library card catalogs for medical research papers. They list papers in many languages (including abstracts and even the entire contents of the paper, whenever the publishers allow them to do so). Being included is a matter of paperwork, not quality. The contents are not unique and not endorsed by any government or medical agency. "It's in PubMedCentral" is just as meaningless as "You can check it out from your library". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Not everything in PubMedCentral is even medicine. Theoretical physics can end up there, depending on what journal it's published in (a recent example). XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: It's funny because I recall Alexbrn using that very same argument over at WIV talk page[8]. Standards are flexible it seems. Feynstein (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so. The diff you linked gives multiple criteria, including MEDLINE indexing, which it appears is a failure point here. Applying those linked criteria means rejecting the English journal, exactly like Alex is arguing here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
(In case anyone didn't know: MEDLINE is not the same as PubMed.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Pasting my comment on this ref from the misinformation page: I also object to calling this a "review" article. The authors do not limit themselves to discussing other publications' results and analyses; they actively performed their own alignments/PIP calculations and phylogenetic inferences with original scripts (fig. 2) as well as structural analyses and proffer their own novel conclusions from those data throughout the article. This is evident by the fact they have a "Materials and Methods" section, which is not something one needs in a literature review (at least outside of clinical trials and other studies with specific inclusion/exclusion criteria). That at least some of their conclusions on the viability of the lab passage scenario rely on primary data they generated (in particular, see the penultimate paragraph of the section "An evolutionary history by fragments") indicates this primary-review hybrid article should not be used to support the passage hypothesis. JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
And this is likely why the original French article was categorized by the (reputable) journal it was published in as a "comparative study" and not a "review". Alexbrn (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the engl. reviewed Version: Sallard, E., Halloy, J., Casane, D. et al. Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review. Environ Chem Lett (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1 Best regards--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I have read this excellent article. It is based on orginal research and we should add a separate passage here. We should also include the research results of the zoonosis hypotheses here. As long as this work is not falsificated, scientifically both hypotheses are considered possible. --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Visa delays

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I have just removed some trivia from the article. It's very easy for Wikipedia articles about current events to turn into a blow-by-blow laundry list of who said and did what on each day, but that's not the goal. The goal is an encyclopedic summary.

And, if you still think that this is critical information, then I remind you that the story about visas requiring approval meant that the WHO's investigation team was delayed by "a few days", and they're charged with investigating a virus that has already been proven to have been in circulation for ~100 times as long as the delay. This is a trivial delay; it might make good talk-show filler, but it is not encyclopedic content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

When I recently audited the article, since it seemed like a solved non-issue I also was tempted to remove it, but was ambivalent and left it. I support the removal, —PaleoNeonate – 10:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me, too. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Yup, good cut. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty non-neutral perspective to me. What exactly is the definition of trivia here? What is the evidence that ratio of delay time to virus circulation time has any kind of importance as a metric? This event was significant enough for the WHO director general to release a statement directly about it, and this article is supposed to be specifically about the investigations per the title. It's hard to see why this is so trivial as to warrant removal, especially for an article which is bound to develop substantially as time goes on. Bodypillow (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's extremely unusual for an account with five edits to know how to evaluate other contributors' level of experience, so perhaps we should say welcome back to Wikipedia?
Wikipedia:Handling trivia might be useful to you. So might Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Alternative account notification, for that matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
If you'd prefer we can stick to debating the substance here rather than making ad hominem attacks / assuming I am not here in good faith. If you believe I am a sockpuppet account can you please make this accusation formally so it can be investigated? I am a long time lurker and new contributor. In any case, a reading of the Handling Trivia page does not support the deletion of this material in my opinion. Trivia is defined by this page as "information that is not important", where it goes on specify that "the criteria for inclusion are complex, because the 'importance' of a fact is subjective. It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers." In this article we are also clearly not dealing with an extensive "trivia section"; thus even if we insist that this information is simply unimportant and thus trivia (which I would dispute vehemently), it can be easily integrated into the discussion of the topic as this page recommends: "Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists." Bodypillow (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Including unimportant details, such as exactly when necessary paperwork happened, has no actual effect on the subject of this article. Just because you "can" bloat an article with trivia does not mean that you "should". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it may have been newsworthy at the time, but WP:NOTNEWS/WP:10YT, there's also nothing extraordinary about preparation for international travel being more difficult during a pandemic... —PaleoNeonate – 02:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Scope and subject of this article

Latest comment: 3 years ago43 comments13 people in discussion

There have been several comments in different sections above, so I'd like to have a single discussion here:

What is this article about?

My best guess at the moment is that this article

  1. includes an overview of the major research programs and projects by governments (and the World Health Organization) that are entirely or primarily dedicated to identifying the origin of the virus
    • For example, "The Foo Department of Ruritania opened an investigation into viral DNA in pangolins in Octember 2020".
    • However, it should exclude most details, e.g., the exact date on which a project was formally commissioned.
    • However, it should exclude all "minor" research projects and all projects that provide some information about its origin as a byproduct of research intended for some other, non-origin-related purpose (e.g., if research on a vaccine happens to provide some bit of information that is relevant to origin-focused research)
  2. includes (or will, eventually) a very brief statement about the results (if any) from those research programs
    • For example, "They published a paper claiming that pangolins have DNA".
    • Most of the content should not be scientific. Most of content should be about politics and bureaucracies.
  3. includes a brief background statement about the current dominant theory (sourced to MEDRS sources)
  4. excludes all private research programs (e.g., research projects at pharmaceutical companies, projects funded by grants from private foundations)
  5. excludes all conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus
  6. excludes everything that politicians say about the origin of the virus
    • unless it is something that doesn't even hint at a scientific claim, e.g. "Paul Politician said that this million-dollar taxpayer-funded research program would help struggling Ruritania's biotech sector"
  7. excludes almost everything else that The Internet has to say about the origin of the virus
  8. excludes all theories that aren't the primary focus of a major government-sponsored research program or project
    • For example, if there are no major government-sponsored research programs or projects investigating pangolins (or cell phone towers, or lab accidents, or whatever else might be on the list), then we don't mention the pangolins in this article.

Does this sound about right to you? User:ScrupulousScribe, I particularly hope to hear your view, since you started this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It would also be "neither necessary nor in line with the spirit of the project" to take an article written by one editor about government programs and turn it into an article about virus origin stories. If we agree that these are separate subjects, then we do kind of need to figure out which one belongs on this page... WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:DUE is also part of the WP:NPOV policy, —PaleoNeonate – 17:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
No. Dueness is contingent on actual reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint WP:DUE. It is an empirical or "ex post" requirement. Imposing ex ante restricts on what can or cannot appear in an article without seeing the actual RSes has little to do with dueness. Normchou 💬 17:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
"Dueness" is dependent upon actual reliable sources about the subject of the article, which necessarily means that we need to know what the subject of the article is. One cannot say that there have been more and better reliable sources written about cancer, and thus all the COVID-related articles are going to talk about cancer instead. We need to decide what the subject of this article is before we can figure out what the actual reliable sources are. If the subject is "what actions governments are taking to discover the origin", then that's different content (with different, mostly non-MEDRS sources) than "where did the virus actually originate". We might need articles on both subjects, but I do not think we will write anything worthwhile so long as different editors have different ideas about what the subject ought to be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, no. A Wikipedia article is in a process of evolution (Wikipedia:Content assessment#Evolution of an article – an example, outreach:Life of an Article), with the boundary of its content also continuously adjusting as new RSes and viewpoints emerge. If an article gets too large, part of it can be moved to other articles or spinned off as separate articles (Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues). It is unrealistic and against the spirit of Wikipedia to suggest that an entire article is unworthy or should stop being improved just because some editors have not reached consensus about some aspect of it. On the other hand, your imaginary all the COVID-related articles are going to talk about cancer scenario is susceptible to being a slippery slope, whereas in reality, article improvement is almost always done in a piecemeal, incremental fashion—as it should be in an evolutionary process—with various checks and balances throughout the process. Normchou 💬 07:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel like you understand what I'm saying. Yes, the exact boundaries may change over time as new sources and viewpoints emerge, but we're talking about an article that is just a few days old. The likelihood of new sources and viewpoints emerging in the space of a week is basically zero.
I think you have misunderstood the scope of this article. I think you are trying to write Claims about the origins of COVID-19, and that this article's scope is meant to be List of government projects investigating the origin of COVID-19. One of these things is not like the other, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No, #4,5,6,7,8 are unacceptable and go against WP:NPOV. All of that should be included. It does not matter if something was publicly or privately funded. It does not matter if something was published "on the Internet" if it qualifies as a WP:RS. No, the claims on political controversies do not need to be "scientific". In addition, if there are notable conspiracy theories or controversies related/about the subject of the page, they must be included on the page. Note the "investigation" in that case is not only science, it may involve journalistic investigations, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk)
    • My very best wishes, I'd like to hear more about this. Are you saying that it's POVish to have separate articles on government actions and private actions? Would you similarly say that an article about the role of the pharmaceutical companies in researching COVID treatments is inherently POVish, and that if we're going to have an article about research, it needs to mix together corporate, charitable, and government research in one massive article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
You can not blacklist any privately funded research if the results were reliably published. Why does it matter if the funding was public or private? I do not think anything needs to be separated by the source of funding even within one page. Separating content to different pages is great if done properly, but by the source of funding is not such a way. Placing "theories" to separate pages is fine, but they should be linked and mentioned on this page. More important, all concerns, such as ones by US State Department (rather than "conspiracy theories"), should be listed on this page to explain why the investigation by WHO was needed. My objections was also about an arbitrary exclusion of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that the existence of a substantial funding source is important as it indicates the presence of actual biomedical-type research, rather that speculation by crackpots recycling their causes (e.g., "polio vaccines cause infertility – hey, so do COVID vaccines", "That country is always trying to destroy us – so they invented a virus to destroy us", "Cell phone towers are evil – cell phone towers cause COVID", "The government is trying to take away our freedom – COVID is the latest hoax by which they will justify taking away our freedom", etc.).
I think that the existing of public funding is possibly important because people might genuinely want to know what their taxpayer money is being used for. But the reason that I put that in the list is merely because nearly all of the content on the page is already about government agencies. I was trying to describe what's already happened in the article, not to demand that it be this way or that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, funding by the NIH does not automatically means this is a biomedical research as defined in Wikipedia:Biomedical information. They fund a lot of things, even something which is arguably pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Certainly. But the amount of biomedical research that happens with zero funding is approximately zero. If there is no funding, then there is probably no research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I think that this is a great start to clearly establish the article's scope. In relation to 5 we already have another article, although I think it would be appropiate for the lead or a hatnote to link there from this article. For 6, political statements are often part of journalistic reporting and may go in various other relevant (often regional) article timelines when WP:DUE. —PaleoNeonate – 17:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Makes sense, overall; I could probably quibble with this point or that, but that would trend into hair-splitting, and I doubt it would be productive. All the above points are in line with the general principle that we write about things when we have documentation that they are significant in sources reliable enough for the topic, rather than deciding what is important first and then dropping our standards until we have "sources" that talk about it. And it's entirely in accord with policy to draw a line around a subject and say that for organizational purposes, other things are off-topic in a particular article. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess this discussion is mostly about defining what is due and not at a high level for the article. Regarding conspiracy theories: Presumably the problem with conspiracy theories is that they generate a lot of "noise" with limited actual research, and therefore have a tendency to gain mindshare and prominence through this, rather than that real concern - this in turn influences the press. This influence may also push into politics. For example, a program might exist to dispell conspiracy theories. I am not sure if excluding conspiracy theories is a stated aim of wikipedia other than WP:Due (see also WP:Fringe). Of course to add to the murk, the label conspiracy theory of conspiracy theorist can be used to political exclude ideas that are true from discourse. I think if the investigators themselves state the aim of a program is to investigate the topic of something that is a conspiracy theory in the technical sense (shared on the internet as a conspiracy and behaving like a conspiracy theory) then we should still mention this fact. We should not arbitrarily exclude content because it happens to be conspiracy theory. That said, the exist of conspiracy theory will create undue attention in the popular press, so I think we should only include this if this is the topic of the investigation itself. E.g. if an aim is to investigate the lab leak then we shouldn't suppress this, but if a popular press piece mentions conspiracy theories in the content of the investigation we should not Talpedia (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    • "Due weight" must be defined by the coverage in RS per WP:NPOV. Google scholar finds almost nothing on the subject of this page. However, search in Google news does produce a lot of hits, even like that (a news article in "Nature"). Hence, this is not a scientific, but mostly a political subject. It the subject of the page was more general, i.e. simply Origin of COVID-19 rather than "investigations" by WHO, journalists, whoever (as long as this is published in RS), that might be partly different. Therefore, the suggestion above (i.e. focusing on MEDRS sources that are sorely lacking) does not make any sense and goes against WP:NPOV. As about your another question, please see Category:Fairy tales, Category:Conspiracy theories, Category:Science fiction, religious subjects, etc. All of them are valid encyclopedic subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

      • "Due weight" must be defined by the coverage in RS per WP:NPOV

        . I guess, but conspiracy theories can render what sources *would* be reliable less likely to be reliable because the "din" of the conspiracy theory distract the author - if something is contentious it is best to "go the science" rather than listen to din. I would prefer to fix this by trying hard to find good sources rather than moving line to exclude sources that would be considered reliable on less contentious topics - but the lack of sources on covid makes this difficult. I agree that at the moment this is mostly a political subject. I guess I meant more how to respond to existence of conspiracy theories surrounding a topic, rather than whether conspiracy theories should be included. Talpedia (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
        • it is best to "go the science". I 100% agree, but I just do not see much on this specific subject. Where is the specific population of bats this virus came from? What was the intermediate host, and how exactly the involvement of this host was scientifically proven? Who was patient zero, and how he/she was found? That must be emphasized on this page. But if there are no scientifically solid answers to these questions, then we only have speculations and political controversies. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
          • I would hope that there is still "scientific" speculation and political theory in the sense that a community try as hard as possible to obtain some sort of truth and opens itself to critique. If this exists, it is to be preferred to newspaper articles in conspiracy-theory-laden topics. Talpedia (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
            • Of course there is WHO paper, but it does not give any answers. Our page COVID-19_pandemic#Background provides a fair description of how little is known. Obviously, there is a significant sequence similarity with other bat viruses, hence no one doubts it did came from bats. So yes, this is a zoonotic disease. But the virus could pass through a lab and even be easily modified in a lab, at least in theory. What gives me a pause are the actions by Chinese government to suppress information and a few other details, some (not all) can be found here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Talpedia, I largely agree with what you're saying. If there is a serious investigation of some sort into the origins of Covid-19 and 5G mobile networks that is being reported in reliable sources that meet WP:RS, then by all means lets find a space somewhere in this article to give it a mention, but I highly doubt that will come about. In the meantime, I think we should focus on the real scientific investigations taking place, and the main scenarios being investigated. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Talpedia, I think 'the problem with conspiracy theories', with respect to this article, is that I believe that the subject of the article is supposed to be major research programs run by actual government agencies, which is usually the opposite of conspiracy theories. It's not that we can't find reliable sources; it's that there aren't any government agencies producing ideas like "the virus was caused by radiation from cell phone towers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing But the investigatory groups do seem to be specifically considering the lab leak hypothesis which is probably a "conspiracy theory" in the technical sense. From the lancet group:

"The possibility of laboratory involvement in the origins of the pandemic should be examined with scientific rigour and thoroughness, and with open scientific collaboration."

. This existence of this prominent conspiracy theory has perhaps influenced their writing and the when *journalists* report on it they might sort of "mixup" science, conspiracy theory and politics. Talpedia (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Talpedia, I'd like to reply by backing up to what @My very best wishes said above:
> Who was patient zero, and how he/she was found? That must be emphasized on this page.
I don't agree that this question must be emphasized on this page. I think that belongs in a different article, which would be called something like Origins of COVID-19. The fact that Origins of COVID-19 doesn't exist, and that some editors want to write about that subject seems to be causing the difficulty here. Some editors seem to be looking at the last half of the title and assuming that everything about the "origins" belongs here, because it's all "investigations", right?
My understanding of this page is that it was created to list the major scientific investigations into the origins of COVID-19. If we decide that the lab leak idea was "investigated" (which is undisputed, I believe?), and that the investigation was "major" (however editors define that, through consensus-oriented, source-based editing and discussion, but I hope the consensus will be "scientific investigation" and not "journalistic investigation"), then this page would describe "the investigation". That description would include, but not be limited to or overly focused upon, any results of that investigation. Thus the Origins of COVID-19 article might say something like "Early in the pandemic, there was unfounded speculation that the virus leaked from a lab; however, subsequent investigation determined that the lab didn't actually have that a copy of that virus in 2019" (or whatever the results of the investigation actually were), but this one would get content that sounds more like "This agency spent $2M flying scientists to China in January to look at this lab". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this should be the main focus of the page, and I agree that conspiracy theories should probably be excluded (even if they are mentioned in articles discussing the investigation). I think if the investigatory groups themselves identify conspiracy theories as something they are investigating then we should probably include that fact however. Talpedia (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
If they're investigating the possible conspiracy theory (e.g., the conspiracy theory has some level of scientific and practical plausibility), then yes! But not if the "investigation" is primarily one of law enforcement or journalism (e.g., cell phone towers). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
For clarity: If the WHO announced tomorrow that one of their top 10 research priorities was finding COVID-19's Patient Zero, then I'd argue that we should have a section on ==WHO investigation into patient zero==. But so far, I've not seen any organized projects to identify patient zero, and therefore that content doesn't belong on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment WhatamIdoing, would it be possible for us to use numbering instead of bulleting? You've listed a lot of good points worth considering on their own, and also in relation to each other. For example, I agree with 1.1, but disagree with 1.2, and 1.3 in relation to each other, as many vaccine research papers (like this one) also include a lot of origin research, because its not possible to create a vaccine for a virus without understanding certain aspects of its origins and in particular if/how it has stabilised (as that paper explains in great detail).
Furthermore, I agree with 2.1 but I think 2.2 needs to be clarified, as if it is a scientific research program, then the content should be scientific, and if it is a government organization that made a statement, such as the US gov (which claimed to have a whistleblower), then I don't think the content of the statement needs to be scientific (they can't "out" their source in this case).
I don't agree with 3, and on that note, I don't agree with the editors who removed the "Unknown Origins" section of this article, as there are currently no "dominant" theories as to the origin of the virus, and we need to distinguish between the matter of which species of animal the virus originated from, from the matter of the mechanism of transmission of the first human infection, as while there is a firm scientific consensus on the former (it's bats and pangolins), there is no scientific consensus on the latter (there are several scenarios). I would like for the "Unknown Origins" section to be restored, as it more accurately presents the position of the WHO as stated in its "terms of reference" document for its investigation, and I think it would be more prudent for the weighting of different origin scenarios by their plausibility be moved into an "Origin Scenarios" section below, based on statements made by scientists in reliable sources, but avoiding any language that would indicate there is a clear consensus in the wider scientific community for any given scenario (unless there is indeed such a consensus, which can only be the result of a truly "open scientific investigation" by a truly independent organization, like the World Health Organisation, devoid of the issues it currently has). MEDRS would not be applicable here, as unless there is a truly open scientific investigation by an organisation (like the WHO), or forensic evidence of some sort (like the intermediate host or virus), then no origin scenario can be truly proven (despite what the given MEDRS might claim). Please also read this post from Forich on proper terminology relating to determining the origins of the virus.
I am not sure if I agree or disagree with 4, as like I noted above, most vaccine research includes some origin research, but WP:DUE and WP:RS should apply as to which private organization is worth mentioning for what.
I am not sure if I agree with 5, as I think the two most prolific conspiracy theories ("biowarfare" and "HIV inserts") and their debunkage should be covered in "origin scenarios", so that they are not conflated with other scenarios that may share certain aspects that I can't talk about (topic ban).
I somewhat agree on 5, and I think the comments by Trump and Pompeo should be removed from the article, as they do not speak as to which investigations were made by their administration (likely ongoing) and what their findings were (likely unclear). However, WP:DUE should apply here, and the comments from Iain Duncan Smith (quoted in The Times article above) revealing the contents of a classified virtual meeting held with Matthew Pottinger (about the whistleblower and Potemkin exercise), are worth including.
On 7, do you mean "The Internet" as in user generated content, or also reliable sources? Wired just published a piece on the origins of the virus (you will have to Google it because it's subject of a topic I'm banned from talking about), and I don't think they have a paper edition, so I don't think we should exclude the entire internet.
I'm not sure if I agree on 8, as though I find it unlikely that a real investigation can get underway without government funding, there is always the possibility of an outlier making a relevant discovery worthy of mention, such as Alina Chan's paper, which sparked much of the debate around a topic I am banned from talking about (sorry, but you can Google her paper).
Overall, I agree with your sentiment that this article should have some scope, and when I started it, the intention was to report the findings of the various different investigations taking place, but also to report on the circumstances of the investigations, and any relevant matters relating to the scientific process.
ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
On 7, I definitely mean "the internet" in a way that excludes high-quality reliable sources that happen to be available on the web. Think Blogosphere, Twitterverse, Internet memes, etc., rather than major news media or academic journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
In that case, I agree, but doesn't Wikipedia have a policy about UGC anyway? I just checked here, and it says that content from such sites is "generally unacceptable". I wonder if this allows for content in some circumstances. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact that you can't cite user-generated content directly does not seem to stop editors from hearing about a story on social media, and then searching for sources of low-to-mediocre quality that repeat whatever was said on social media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, are you referring to something in specific? I am pretty open to any changes to be made. I was also wondering what your thoughts were on my replies above. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: this is a good baseline. Above all, there should be much more focus on scientific investigation into the origins of the virus, including the WHO mission. I don't think that the claims made by the Trump administration should be labeled an "investigation", particularly given the reporting about the political nature of the claims (e.g., the NY Times reported that the Trump administration pressured the intelligence agencies to find evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion, and German intelligence told the German government that the Trump administration's claims were likely deliberate misinformation). -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: But no 4 should be subject to some flexibility. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories can go into a separate article if mentioned in a RS. Deb (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    Or maybe just take #4 out entirely? If there's an actual scientific research project happening, involving reputable research organizations that aren't government agencies (e.g., Harvard University), then I personally would have no objection to including them. If the page got too long, we could always split it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ajpolino, I have proposed that COVID-19 pandemic#History branches into this (currently draft) Emergence of COVID-19 Outbreak. Please discuss at the talk page of the pandemic. Forich (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think the scope and subject of this page will remain a challenge as WHO mission chief Peter Embarek recently tweeted that his study is not an investigation: https://twitter.com/Peterfoodsafety/status/1368322592063557639 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CutePeach (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Professionalization of the article

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

RandomCanadian: we have a lot of spectacular information about the origins of Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 that's been carefully assembled here at Wikipedia. By transcluding the relevant sections from that article to this one, I actually **learn** a lot about (mostly scientific) investigations into the origins of the virus, and I think readers will as well. I've added some of this material to the lead, and altogether, I think the article is much improved. Thanks for helping with this. -Darouet (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the lead still has an UNDUE sentence about the lab leak theory (if that is what those governments want to investigate, that's their problem, and of course we can mention it in the relevant subsections, but in the lead probably not - especially not given all the disruption we've had to endure due to said theory across many wiki pages). I'll need to find a way to fix the cite errors. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian and Yadsalohcin: Let me know if this [9] is OK. Thanks for your help here! -Darouet (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The lead still needs work though. -Darouet (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Refs seem to be happier now, thanks @RandomCanadian (talk / contribs); -@Darouet (talk): For completeness and clarity(?) I have adjusted the last sentence of the 2nd para- HTH! Yadsalohcin (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both, I think your changes mark a substantial improvement. -Darouet (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Transclusion from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Hi All, per Diannaa's request, though it is obvious to those of you who've been helping, a quick note that these additions originally derive from the article Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. My own copying was then transformed by more competent editors into transclusion (if that's the right term). My goal was to ensure that readers eager to learn about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 would be actually informed about the state of current scientific understanding — and thanks to the hard work over at SARS-CoV-2, I think they now will be. Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Darouet, good work. Forich (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Misleading intro

Latest comment: 3 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

While Ben Embarek has said a lab leak was "extremely unlikely", contrary to the intro, the WHO did not "rule out" a lab leak origin. In fact, Director-General Ghebreyesus explicitly stated, "I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study." The intro to this article is itself misinformation. Anamelesseditor (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Anamelesseditor. I will edit the intro. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead was indeed misleading on many aspects besides this. I've rewritten it entirely to avoid UNDUE weight being given to the usual bollocks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That edit was misleading and I've reverted it. In particular, there is no consensus that what the WHO says is true. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Amongst whom is there no consensus about the WHO? Conspiracy nutjobs? In that case I most certainly dont give an f. Serious MEDRS? Already discussed here and at other pages. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Since I apparently was not clear enough: the lead as it stands is simply unacceptable. It gives undue prominence to misinformation (which has it's own article) and it staggeringly fails to mention the scientific consensus even once. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
To my knowledge Anthony Blinken is not a conspiracy theorist. Is there sourcing to the contrary of which I am unaware? Adoring nanny (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
A US government member who has no qualification in medicine is clearly not a MEDRS, so that means that the political desire to blame China is clearly irrelevant. The issue about MEDRS overwhelmingly describing a natural origin has already been discussed ad nauseum. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
To quote the first 1.5 sentences of WP:MEDRS: Wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information.[1] For this reason, all biomedical information must be . . . . That makes it perfectly clear that the policy does not apply to the lead of this article. The origin of covid-19 is not health information and has no bearing on diagnosis, treatment, prevention, etc. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
"Not related to prevention"... actually, information about the origin of a pathogen is totally relevant to that. Anyway, the common sense consensus across all WP:COVID pages is to avoid misinformation and use the best sources, (WP:BESTSOURCES), which are MEDRS. And these overwhelmingly reject any and all conspiracies and unfounded speculations... If you want to not waste everybody's time, you're definitely better off reading all of the previous discussions here and at related pages. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
So the lead, now that I've fixed the MOS issues; needs A) trimming, slight or more thorough, to reduce the UNDUE of misinformation related stuff (probably also necessary elsewhere in the article) and B) inclusion of details about the current scientific consensus (which is also somewhat lacking, since we only have the conclusions of the WHO investigation - but there are plenty of other peer reviewed studies which we should at least mention).
I've already proposed a solution, but apparently that's unsatisfactory for some reason. If it's about the "current scientific consensus" bit and an irrational objection to the WHO source; we can always copy from COVID-19 pandemic (the main, and best maintained article on the topic), which has

Scientific consensus is that COVID-19 is a zoonotic virus that arose from bats in a natural setting.[20][21][22]

(cited to two Nature publications and a release by the American Association for the Advancement of Science which was also published in a Nature publication - in other words, rock solid MEDRS which make a convincing contrast to the poor non-scientific journalism for the alternative). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Darouet: Sorry if I caused any edit conflict. I've transcluded the sections from the other article instead; as that seemed the better solution to make things consistent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: you did, but no worries, you're right about this. Thank you! -Darouet (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The title of the article is "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19". Therefore, Government investigations should be included, including the in the lead. Additionally, the lead is supposed to summarize the body. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes that is already explicitly included both in the lead and in the body. The rest of this is moot as the article has had a radical makeover and drastic improvement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this. When I read it now the sentence about the leak hypothesis indeed comes out as if the article was mostly about this. On the other hand, it's the idea that seems to still being pushed a lot, apparently for political reasons and as an opportunist attempt to blame. As such, perhaps it's still due, being in the same paragraph that mentions misinformation and conspiracy theories... Despite some claiming it's not a conspiracy theory and only a hypothesis, the main problem is that it remains speculative and that pushing uncertaintly about it involves dismissing or blaming at many levels (i.e. the WHO are a CCP mouthpiece, China knows and hides the truth, WP is also part of a campaign with "mainstream media fake news" to minimize it, are after-all, related conspiracy theories until demonstrated, part of official reports and widely reported as such). —PaleoNeonate – 21:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Scientific consensus on origins

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
The OP is now blocked as a compromised account/WP:BLOCKEVASION. All the replies are in response to that so no need to continue further. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This section in the article should be renamed or removed. There is no scientific consensus on the exact origins of the virus the vector through which it first spread. This section The WHO report gives us four hypotheses but no direct evidence for any of them. The WHO will continue investigating all four of them, conditional on China’s cooperation. Spyreguy (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Either you've failed to read the last two comments in the section above, or you are deliberately ignoring them and many other MEDRS which overwhelmingly agree for a natural origin (which is what the scientific consensus is - precise details notwithstanding). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
User:RandomCanadian, please strike the portions of the above which run afoul of WP:NPA. I agree that there is no consensus about the source. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact; and I have no reason to keep repeating the same arguments (hence my firm request to go read them again). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Consensus needn't be an absolute conclusion. In this case, the scientific consensus is a relative likelihood of several possible explanations. Several other hypothesis having been ruled out by previous work. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is propaganda

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The US, UK, EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, et al. have called for an independent investigation into the origins of COVID-19, noting that the WHO was denied access to raw data. Meanwhile, the director-general of the WHO now says of the lab leak hypothesis:

“The team also visited several laboratories in Wuhan and considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident.

However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions.

Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy.”

And yet, this article and its editors continue to run interference for the CCP and omit any and all nuance about the debate over COVID-19’s origins, going to far as to imply that even a hypothesis the WHO Director-General says should be further investigated is tantamount to a conspiracy theory. The bias is staggering. Anamelesseditor (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Tedros has already been discussed a lot, please see other discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 21:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Nothing you said rebuts what I said. And the director-general’s comments were only part of my argument. Please stop spreading CCP propaganda and adhere to Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. Anamelesseditor (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV are part of the WP:NPOV policy. Please also see WP:FOC and WP:NPA. —PaleoNeonate – 21:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
”Focus on Content”? That’s your reasoning for only allowing CCP-approved language on this page? Lol. Anamelesseditor (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
No, it's his reasoning for admonishing you to focus on content, instead of accusing other editors of sinister motives. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

New WHO Report

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

I would like to add this:

On March 30, 2021, WHO published a joint report of the WHO Mission [1]. The joint team assessed the likelihood of each possible route of transmission as follows: Direct zoonotic transmission is considered a possible to probable route; transmission via an intermediate host is considered a probable to very probable route; transmission through products in the cold/food chain is considered a possible route; transmission through a laboratory accident was considered an extremely unlikely route.

Evidence for each route of transmission could not be found despite intensive investigations; further studies are planned for this purpose. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said presenting the study: "The team also visited several laboratories in Wuhan and considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population through an incident in a laboratory. However, I don't think this assessment was comprehensive enough. More data and studies are needed to reach more solid conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, possibly with additional missions involving special experts, which I am willing to engage"[2].

A joint statement (30.03.2021) on the WHO report by the governments of the United States of America, Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovenia and the United Kingdom called for a transparent and independent analysis and assessment of the causes of the COVID-19 pandemic, free from interference and undue influence, and expressed concerns about the study [3]. In particular, it called for WHO scientific missions to be able to "carry out their work under conditions that provide independent and objective recommendations and findings.

Any comments ? Greetings --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ WHO. Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part. Joint WHO-China Study 14 January-10 February 2021 Joint Report
  2. ^ WHO Director-General's remarks at the Member State Briefing on the report of the international team studying the origins of SARS-CoV-2
  3. ^ U.S. Department of State: Joint Statement on the WHO-Convened COVID-19 Origins Study

Support Forich (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The above is just way too much. Try to sum up each paragraph in one or two short sentences. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Only the single investigation into cause of the most important event in everyone's life for the last year... a couple of sentences should be enough. /sarcasm Talpedia (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
It's only one report; and there are multiple other scientific papers on the matter... There's already a whole subsection about the WHO investigation; Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#World_Health_Organization_investigations. We should seek to combine the coverage of the preliminary report and the final one. As for summarising; I meant that. The above proposal seems to get bogged down into unnecessary details (the name of the countries who made a statement in response to the report; a too long quote from Tedros; a listing of all hypotheses when we can probably just stick with the scientific consensus "natural zoonosis being most likely" - which this report supports). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess. From my perspective the difference is that WHO visited locations and had some political power to force compliance which might allow them to be less theoretical and speculative in their conclusions - though they don't really seem to be.
I agree that adding this section to "Scientific consensus on origins" would be WP:UNDUE and detract from the material. We could add it to the section on the WHO report.
Not sure I like the title there :/ . I guess there are many matters regarding the origins on which there is consensus (e.g. not bioengineering). Could make it sound like there is a consensus where there isn't really one Talpedia (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Here's a conservative Canadian source that gives some perspective: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/whos-covid-19-origin-hunters-defend-controversial-report by mentioning Tedros, the criticism of Tedros who should stand for the results of his team, the difficult political context, that there was no other way than diplomacy and cooperation as would have been the case with any foreign investigation in any country, that some will always ask for more and that right-wing media echo that and other speculations (this reminds me of creationists and "missing links"), etc. —PaleoNeonate – 01:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    More sources which highlight the political aspect of this whole thing are always welcome; from Trump v China to this... Feel free to add an appropriate write-up. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose any addition of text that takes an entire report's conclusion and Tedros' agreement that a lab leak is the "highly unlikely" and the "least likely scenario," and somehow transforms those conclusions into "Tedros and the WHO are very concerned about a lab leak and ask that it be investigated further." -Darouet (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I also have this concern. Particularly the references almost exclusively to the need for further investigation on the lab leak hypothesis, despite this being stated by the WHO Director-General after a need for more raw data, more epidemiological tracing of early cases, and more investigation into the market and food supply (this latter commentary being roughly half of his comments). This report deals in likelihoods, stating that further information is required to make a more concrete determination does not make the least likely possibility any more likely. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, —PaleoNeonate – 19:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
More sources about this; some quoting scientists involved and not-involved in the report: [10] Yet accumulating the data to prove a negative may be extremely difficult. “I don’t think we’ll ever be able to provide enough evidence to convince people who are convinced that it escaped from a lab that it didn’t,” Wertheim says. “Even if you find a virus literally identical to SARS-CoV-2 [in animals] … they could still argue that that virus had previously been found and isolated and brought into a lab and it escaped just the way it was.” ; [11] “We were allowed to ask whatever questions we wanted, and we got answers,” says Daszak, who collaborates with researchers at the Wuhan institute. “The only evidence that people have for a lab leak is that there is a lab in Wuhan,” he adds.. Further MEDRS like [12] [13] completely ignore the lab leak hypothesis; in addition to explicitly denying the lab manipulation one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Expanding on this, the WHO report itself seems to basically mirror this, suggesting there's not particular evidence to suggest this was the source of this event. Only that it's a theoretical possibility for a hypothetical zoonotic event. Although rare, laboratory accidents do happen, and different laboratories around the world are working with bat CoVs. When working in particular with virus cultures, but also with animal inoculations or clinical samples, humans could become infected in laboratories with limited biosafety, poor laboratory management practice, or following negligence. The closest known CoV RaTG13 strain (96.2%) to SARS-CoV-2 detected in bat anal swabs have been sequenced at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. Such moves can be disruptive for the operations of any laboratory. Their follow-up actions as well seem to suggest that unless there's future evidence indicating otherwise, the most important thing they can do is continue to review biosafety protocols in labs (not just WIV). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It's important to state that it was a WHO-China Joint Mission:

  • Comprised of 17 Chinese scientists and 17 international scientists [14](see pg 12). The international scientists were approved by the Chinese government [15](see pg 12)[16]
  • The primary investigations were performed by Chinese scientists. The international team was shown the results of Chinese investigations but were not given access to all of the raw data.[17] Cowrider (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2/Archive_2&oldid=1234250837"