This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peter Daszak article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus
- There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
- There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
- In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
- The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
- The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
- The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
- The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "
based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers.
" (RfC, December 2021) - The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
- The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)
Lab leak theory sources
edit
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
[ ] · |
---|
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID |
|
[ ] · |
---|
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION. |
|
[ ] · |
---|
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution! |
|
References
Covid 19 section would benefit from a chronological presentation
editRight now the section has three years intertwined, making it hard to read. If someone could go date by date, instead of prose paragraphs, that would be great.~~~~ Tallard (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
ODNI report
editThe most effectual Bob Cat, though I'm happy to talk through the content issues on including that snippet of the ODNI report in the lead, can we start with a procedural issue? Your re-revert violate the active arbitration enforcement sanction. Per the edit notice and this page's header: "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." Please self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2024
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Incorrect spelling of "he" as "hi" in this portion of the article. "In May 2024, the United States Department of Health and Human Services banned all federal funding for Daszak, saying that hi did not properly monitor research activities" 2601:989:8200:F980:95DC:2606:B653:E3F3 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Ambiguous Context
editRegarding the sentence that starts, "It is stated that "Dr. Daszak, Dr. Fauci, and other health leaders have repeatedly played semantics with..."
The context makes it appear that's from the DHHS report, when in fact it's from the House Oversight Committee. One can't detect the change in source without checking the footnotes. Perhaps the sentence can begin as: "According to the House Oversight Committee...". Thank You. -Anonymous --64.52.139.54 (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just removed it. If re-added, you're correct that the attribution needs to be improved. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- How can you just remove it? Who gave you those rights to shape history to your personal liking? Unacceptable. 2A02:1210:2E1D:2D00:28F4:CFC7:1A49:CDE1 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- It should stay in, as a quote, since definitions really seem to be more important in this complex than they usually are. Alexpl (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- How can you just remove it? Who gave you those rights to shape history to your personal liking? Unacceptable. 2A02:1210:2E1D:2D00:28F4:CFC7:1A49:CDE1 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)