Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

"Say" or "Speculate"

MOS:SAY is unambiguous that we should not use loaded language like "speculate".

Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, showed, or revealed something can imply it is true, instead of simply conveying the fact that it was said. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.

Therefore, this revert [1] by USER:Bon courage should be undone. Adoring nanny (talk)

It doesn't say they should not be used, but used with extra care. Wikipedia using offhandly "said" for the speculation would be coy to the point of POV. Hence what we have is carefully worded for NPOV, which is not negotiable (and certainly not subservient to a misunderstanding about a mere style guide). Bon courage (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the FBI, for example, they have "assessed"[2]. I don't propose using that term, either. But if we are following the precedent you propose, it would fit right in. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Not precedent, NPOV. We're nice and clear that speculation (without evidence) is just that. Bon courage (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Which sources call it speculation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Shibbolethink: for apparently reading my mind. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Speculation implies empty gossip; but these are claims made by scientists, not bloggers. The correct word is "conjectured" (defined by OED as "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information"), which fits far better than either "said" or "speculated". DFlhb (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is quite wrong. Entire books have been written about scientific speculation.[3] Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. Thanks, Bon courage. I'll buy that and read it. DFlhb (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Speculation is the correct term here. It's what's been stable at COVID-19 lab leak theory: has led to speculation that SARS-CoV-2 could have escaped from the Wuhan lab.

  it's also what's been stable here for years: [4] since at least May 2021: [5].

  And what our WP:BESTSOURCES and experts say, e.g.: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Every single one of these uses "speculation" to describe the support for the lab leak theory, and many go on to say it is without any substantive evidence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  But according to the policy, use of other words by the sources is not a reason to use them on Wikipedia:

  In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications.

  Adoring nanny (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  What "policy"? You're bungling with a style guide. Bon courage (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Those are mainly scientific sources, and they obviously use words that make due implications; they are not "some types of writing". --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  I search WP:SAY in vain for a statement that scientific writing is not a type of writing, or that it does not apply to scientific writing. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think you may be glossing over the substantive point Hob Gadling made. What WP:SAY actually says is: In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. This is actually not the case for scientific writing, where precision of word choice is much more important than avoiding repetition: [16][17][18][19]

  Scientific (and other technical) writing is exactly what is not meant by "some types of writing" here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  On what basis do you know what is or is not meant by "some types of writing"? Is there a further policy document I should be aware of? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  On what basis Familiarity with the writing of scientists. The knowledge that when scientists write "speculate", they mean "speculate" and not "oh no, I have used the word 'said' too much, I must replace it by something else even if that something else has a different connotation that does not fit here".

  Is there a further policy document It's not policy, only an essay, but here is one: WP:CIR. More specifically, this part: the ability to read sources and assess their reliability, including the reliability of the wording. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  I would add that, despite being an essay, repeated WP:CIR situations, including reading sources to ones own benefit and rarely to the benefit of another viewpoint, is a common description of WP:IDHT, and an extremely common reason for users to get blocked on this site. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Say" is the right word to use here. The scientists and others that stand behind the lab-leak aren't speculating on it, they are saying it is true, but importantly our sentence continues on past that to point out this view is not entertained in a majority position, which from the stance we have repeated said here, appropriately delegates the lab-leak theory to a fringe-like opinion. But the people implied by this sentence are "saying" the lab-leak is true. --Masem (t) 16:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Err, are any scientists saying it "is true"? Really? Bon courage (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think the most common minority opinion among actual experts (not obscure fungal geneticists or toxicologists) is that it is "as likely" as zoonosis. Not that it is "more likely." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah and "it is true" (whatever "it" is) is only said by charlatans surely? Bon courage (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:SAY, as quoted above: Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. Blindly replacing all those terms by "say" everywhere is not "extra care". Checking the sources, as Shibbolethink did, is extra care. Even if those people did "say" it actually happened, which is in doubt, if many others call that "speculating" that is the word that should be used. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Scientists have speculated about lab origins in the same sense they have speculated about zoonotic origins. That is to say, it is plausible, unproven, and under active investigation. I think the word is appropriate in both cases, though I don't think a case can be made against "say". There are serious NPOV issues on this page, but this isn't one of them. Sennalen (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• It is appropriate to follow the guidelines outlined in the Manual of Style (MOS) of Wikipedia. According to MOS:SAY, "speculate" is considered a loaded word that implies unfounded, unreliable, or baseless ideas. Instead, it is recommended to use neutral language to describe the views of scientists and politicians, such as "have suggested" or "have proposed." In this case, a more appropriate sentence could be:

  "Some scientists and politicians have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may have accidentally leaked from a laboratory, but this theory lacks supporting evidence."

  This sentence is more neutral and accurately reflects the current state of knowledge about the COVID-19 lab leak theory. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  No. "Neutral" means mirroring sources. They say speculate, so Wikipedia follows. That is the careful and correct path which avoids watering down the speculative nature of LL. Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

While it is true that Wikipedia aims to mirror sources and accurately represent the views of scientists and politicians, using words like "speculate" can still be problematic. As mentioned earlier, "speculate" is a loaded word that can imply that the theory lacks credibility or is baseless, even if this is not the intention. This can create a bias against the theory, even if there is evidence to support it.

The goal of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is to present information objectively and without bias. While it is important to accurately represent the views of sources, it is equally important to avoid loaded language that can influence the reader's perception of the information presented. Using neutral language, such as "have suggested" or "have proposed," can help maintain a neutral tone and accurately represent the views of sources without implying credibility or lack thereof. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It does "lack credibility and is baseless" which is no doubt why scientists use the words they do. It's not for Wikipedia editors try try and spin it different. Stick to the sources. Bon courage (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight see: WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality is not purely dependent upon "neutral tone" and "without bias." It's fairly representing the proportionality of views and wordings described in sources. "Suggested" is clearly better than "said" but it's basically equivalent to "speculated", except it's kinder to the viewpoint than our sources actually are.

If there is consensus in support of "suggested", that's clearly better than something more falsely balanced. But it's not ideally weighted from my perspective. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between using words like "speculate" can still be problematic and using words like "speculate" is problematic? People have essentially tried to explain that difference and why this is one of the cases where is is not problematic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the type of case where it is problematic. Per the policy: To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable. All common things for one side of a debate to suggest about the other. Adoring nanny (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the type of case where it is problematic. You have given no valid reason for that claim. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that there can be a difference between using words like "speculate" and "is problematic," and that it is important to consider the context and nuance of the situation when making these distinctions.

In the case of the COVID-19 lab leak theory, it is a valid scientific hypothesis that has been proposed by reputable scientists and experts, even if there is currently no definitive proof to support it. Therefore, using language that accurately reflects the views of these scientists and experts, such as "have suggested" or "have proposed," is a neutral and unbiased approach to representing the COVID-19 lab leak theory.

While some may argue that using the word "speculate" is problematic because it implies a lack of credibility or scientific rigor, it is important to recognize that scientific hypotheses often start as speculation and are then tested through rigorous experimentation and analysis. In this case, the COVID-19 lab leak theory is a valid scientific hypothesis that should not be dismissed out of hand simply because it is currently unproven.

Ultimately, the goal of Wikipedia is to provide accurate and unbiased information to its readers. By using language that accurately reflects the proportionality of views and wordings described in sources, we can achieve this goal and avoid creating any unintentional biases or misconceptions. In the case of the COVID-19 lab leak theory, using language such as "have suggested" or "have proposed" is a neutral and appropriate approach. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

has been proposed [..], even if there is currently no definitive proof to support it is the very definition of speculation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, all I'm seeing is OR wanting to take us away from the sources. Bon courage (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

While some scientists and politicians have proposed the theory, it has not been definitively proven, and there are other possible explanations for the origin of the virus. It's important for Wikipedia to accurately represent the views of reliable sources, even if those views are not definitive or fully supported by evidence. At the same time, it's also important to avoid promoting original research or unsupported claims.

If there are concerns about the use of the word "speculate" in the article, it may be worth discussing alternative phrasing that accurately reflects the state of the evidence while avoiding loaded language. However, any changes should be based on a careful review of the sources and a consensus among editors, rather than individual opinions or interpretations. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh? That just sounds like a chatbot. Bon courage (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and there's more. DFlhb (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Outdated

According to what was discussed on this page, it is an article YES that should include information about the research done by the United States Congress and the Committee on Health. Armando AZ (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The text "Some scientists and politicians have speculated that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory. This theory is not supported by evidence" is supported in a 2021 source. A lot has happened since then...

It is even less neutral and more biased than the leak theory article. Armando AZ (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Literally in the article, investigations carried out by China are given more relevance than investigations carried out by the US and British intelligence services. Armando AZ (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

At least here something should be mentioned about the American and British investigations. Armando AZ (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Section headings on this talk page re: CCP

This is WP:BLUE. It also gets straight to the heart of the issue. The issue is not their nationality per se. It's the fact that they can be arrested for saying the wrong thing. For example, there are plenty of issues with Li-Meng Yan, but the fact that she is a Chinese national is not one of them. I am not going to edit war over the section titles, but I suggest changing them back. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The main source backing that sentence is Holmes, who is not plausibly under the control of the CCP. Sennalen (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:TALKHEADER:

• Don't create a new heading that duplicates an existing heading
• Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed
• Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.

Your talk headers run afoul of all three of these recommendations. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Academic source authored by Chinese nationals

We use this article[20] as a source. Every single author lists an affiliation that indicates they are under the physical control of Xi Jinping and the CCP. In particular, they can be "held accountable" if they publish the wrong thing.[21] The article's position is that Covid is natural, which is also the CCP's position. Effectively, we are rejecting LL because that is the CCP position. That's not a valid reason. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a commonplace claim so a superstrength source is not needed. However this source is weak & redundant; removed. Bon courage (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, pretty sure we don't want to use "academic" sources when the authors could have their organs sold to the highest bidder if they say the wrong thing. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

pretty sure we don't want to use "academic" sources when the authors could have their organs sold to the highest bidder if they say the wrong thing
This is borderline offensive. Wikipedia is not the place to perpetuate Sinophobic misinformation ([22]) that is wholly and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You ran an entire RfC about this topic at WP:RSN, which did not find consensus in favor of your position. Coming here and creating multiple talk page sections about it is not going to go much farther.

I think it's fine to remove redundant citations. But there still is no consensus here that we should remove papers simply because they were authored by Chinese nationals. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus not to use Chinese research for surprising claims about TCM, so I'd have thought similar considerations apply here. We've no need to anyway. For mundane claims I don't see a problem. Bon courage (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

With TCM, I think it depends on the journal and context. A chinese-authored review co-authored by Edzard Ernst and published in The Lancet would probably still be reliable, for instance. Simply having Chinese authors does not disqualify, even then iirc. It's chinese-language journals, in-universe editorial boards, and low quality studies which are the overall issue with TCM. Similar to the in-universe sources for, say Waldorf education and biodynamic agriculture.

In this case, we would obviously prefer secondary sources to any primary source, but I see no reason why a secondary review authored by some Chinese nationals, peer-reviewed by various experts, and published in a well-respected international journal, would be disqualified.

If it meets the MEDRS or WP:BESTSOURCES/WP:SOURCETYPES standards in multiple ways, I don't think being authored by a Chinese national author would mean it's unreliable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Ernst would never be Chinese research since his stuff never comes out of a Chinese institution. I take this "institutional origin" as being the test of what "nationality" research has. Unfortunately in the past some editors have focussed on people, or even what the author's name sounds like. Bon courage (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say the other aspect of this is what the Chinese Government's actual position is on these issues. The CCP supports the efficacy of TCM pretty much unanimously on a political level. But, for the origins question, they don't support a Chinese origin at all. They don't support a wet market origin. They don't support a zoonotic origin in China. So why would there be incentive for Chinese institutional authors to publish evidence or reviews supporting these? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Because the only alternative taken seriously outside of China is LL. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Second source (Zhou et al)

This one [23]. Of the authors, all but Edward C. Holmes list affiliations that suggest they can be arrested on the order of Xi Jinping. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not WP:MEDRS and also redundant. Is there some rule that you need to mention Xi Jinping in every comment you make? Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus to deprecate such sources, and it appears it is your personal opinion that they are "subject to CCP control" and therefore can't be trusted to be verified by peer review. The consensus on wikipedia is that peer-reviewed journal articles are more reliable than their authors, due to the editorial, peer-, and post-publication review processes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Should be more than just peer review required tho. It's a paper on RmYN02, but the article cites it for RaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan. I think in normal academic writing one would have to cite it for a discussion of RmYN02, but WP has a screwed up way of looking at sources. I think follow MEDRS per BC, or at least use the work the way MEDRS compliant sources use it. fiveby(zero) 15:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a paper on RmYN02, but the article cites it for RaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan.
It actually use to be about multiple viruses, from what I recall. But has deteriorated over time.

I would agree there are probably better sources for that, but I'm arguing more about the principles of this situation. I agree better sources in this specific instance likely do exist. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, thought that was over and not even worth discussing. By the way, anything new in the long awaited "Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan Seafood Market" from yesterday? Nature news says they released the underlying data, and Supplementary Table 4 has: All the raw sequencing data and genomes have been uploaded onto the GISAID. But thought the issue was the sequencing data was uploaded but not shared? Anyway probably some updated is needed, this article and Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market still say nothing has been shared. fiveby(zero) 22:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Two main takeaways from Liu, Gao, et al.:

1. Lineage A samples were not associated with any wild animals, only humans and livestock.
2. Sewage from the surrounding area collected under the market and was lousy with covid

A couple of news sources are drawing the obvious conclusions, but Nature and the NYT seem to be running with, "but the raccoon dogs!" Sennalen (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Can't tell if they shared the "...raw sequencing files from all samples, and the accompanying metadata" or not from the news reports. fiveby(zero) 00:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Adjusting the distance measurement from Wuhan to RATG13 sample location

In the current version of the article it says this "RaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan, located roughly 1,300 km (810 mi) away from Wuhan, and there are relatively few bat coronaviruses from Hubei province.". Now to me that doesn't make much sense. Yes, it's 1300 km from Wuhan to a random point in the Yunnan region that is in the cited source, but since we know RaTG13 came from a mine in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County, why not take the distance to that? Then it is 1500 km if you go from center of Wuhan city to the center of Mojiang Hani Autonomous County. It's even a bit further if you go from center of Wuhan city to the believed cave location, however I'm not sure there are good sources indicating the coordinates of the cave or if that's just leaked? Anyways, even just adjusting it to Mojiang County instead of Yunnan would make it vastly more accurate (1500 km instead of 1300). Is it okay if I make this change, and if so what source should I cite? I'm quite new to Wikipedia. Also if someone else wants to make the change that's fine too

https://i.imgur.com/JOL4Lra.png screenshot showing distance from Wuhan City center to center of Mojiang Hani Autonomous County 2001:9B1:37FF:AA00:7C7C:8F75:2CE7:B9A3 (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

Currently the article states "The earliest human cases of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in Wuhan, but the index case remains unknown. RaTG13 was sampled from bats in Yunnan,[4][47] located roughly 1,300 km (810 mi) away from Wuhan,[48] and there are relatively few bat coronaviruses from Hubei province.[49]"

This is a bad description. While yes it is true that it is 1300 km from Wuhan to a random point in Yunnan province (see source 48), we know that RaTG13 was sampled from a mine outside Tongguan in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County in Yunnan province. This is closer to 1510 to 1520 km away (see this link). I ask that the text be changed from "in Yunnan, located roughly 1,300 km (810 mi) away from Wuhan," to something like "in a mine outside Tongguan, Yunnan, located roughly 1,500 km (930 miles) away from Wuhan,". The source that I think should be cited is this link or some other source that is suitable. Thank you. 2001:9B1:37FF:AA00:DDF1:40E9:A340:909A (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2023

The earliest indication of Covid-19 is from Spain in March 2019, 9 months before the Wuhan outbreak.

142.51.218.83 (talk) 09:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Even though Reuters is normally a reliable source, they wrote this article based off a study, and single studies are not reliable, especially for a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim like this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request : acknowledging the lab-leak evidence

The opening paragraph ends with "This theory is not supported by evidence." and cites Holmes et al. I believe that this presents a one-sided view of the topic and over-simplifies the arguments from the 'lab leak' proponents. To balance this better, I request two edits:

1. add a citation to the recently unclassified report from the US director of national intelligence. This is the only credible write-up for the "lab leak" that I know of, even though it basically dismisses all of the concerns that favor the 'lab leak' hypothesis (unfortunately, without explaining why two agencies favor that hypothesis).

2. I would edit the first paragraph to finish with: "Some scientists and politicians have speculated, based on concerns about potential biosecurity risks at the Wuhan virology laboratories, that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory. This theory is not supported by virological or epidemiological evidence relating to SARS-CoV-2 or the initial outbreak." (added text in bold).

I propose these changes because the 'lab leak' advocates have collected a large amount of evidence relating to the activities occurring at the Wuhan virology laboratories (both WIV and Wuhan CDC), and they believe that this demonstrates that the inherent risk of laboratory escape greatly exceeds the risk of an infection from the exotic animal trade, such that epidemiological and virological evidence is unnecessary. I think this article would be more balanced if it acknowledged the evidence collected in that respect. AdamChrisR (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a tricky topic that fools a lot of people because some non-scientists such as governments, newspapers, and pundits say one thing, and scientists say another. If you read virology and epidemiology review articles in credible scientific journals, the lab leak theory is not taken seriously, and zoonosis is highly favored. Here on Wikipedia, academic sources are considered better than non-academic sources, so that's what we go with. For example, what does the Department of Energy know about the origin of coronaviruses? Why should we listen to them? It's a completely non-expert opinion. Hope this helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The department of energy has multiple large biology-focused groups. Their microbiology and pathogen work includes a team at Argonne National Laboratory, a team at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Joint Genome Institute and probably others. Other Federal have relevant capabilities that you may not expect based on the primary area of focus (e.g. pathogen forensics at FBI, DOD).

The focus on "credible scientific journals" basically excludes any investigation of Wuhan lab administration, since an administrative/journalistic/intelligence report would not get into a scientific journal as primary information, even in the extreme case that the lab were found to have been working with the virus prior to the outbreak (I'm not saying there's any reason to believe they were, just thinking about how such a revelation would be published). We cannot treat scientific journals as the only credible source. That is exactly what would lead readers to think that we're excluding the lab escape hypothesis out of hand, because the lab escape hypothesis necessarily depends on journalist/criminal-style investigations for evidence. My point is that people are using different kinds of evidence to assess this, and we should not present epi/vir evidence as the only kind of evidence, even though it is the most direct form of evidence on the origins of the virus . AdamChrisR (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggest the following addition: " In March 2020, a globally-publicised scientific paper was published, The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2, which dismissed suggestions that the pandemic originated in a laboratory. However, messages and emails later subpoenaed by the U.S. Congress 'Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic' indicated that "Before, during and even after the publication of their paper, they [the paper's authors] worried privately that Covid-19 was caused by a laboratory escape, perhaps even of a genetically engineered virus." Citation would be: Matt Ridley, Alina Chan, 'The Covid Lab-Leak Deception', Wall Street Journal, 26 July 2023; [24] MisterWizzy (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved by editor MaterialWorks. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 → Origin of COVID-19 – Per WP:CONCISE. "Investigations into the..." is superfluous. Or more accurately, the article presents possible scenarios too, not just details of the investigations. The subject is the (mysterious) origin, not the investigations. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 01:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Viruses has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Disaster management has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed title seems fine. WP:CONCISE. This is also similar to some other shortening we've done in the COVID-19 topic area, such as renaming Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic to COVID-19 misinformation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. – Treetoes023 (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support --Fourmidable (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Wracking ^talk! 16:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. - Sigsjak (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral. The change makes sense for the article as it stands. However, since the investigations continue to be an ongoing (and widening) political issue, does changing the name imply that this aspect will be de-emphasized? AdamChrisR (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2023 (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.

Related NYT (7/26/2023) article worth adding?

Should a recently published review article in The New York Times by science writer David Quammen detailing the latest information about the Origin of COVID-19 be added in some way to the main WikiArticle about the Origin of COVID-19? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Drbogdan (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic, Energy Department Now Says

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Has this article been covered in this wikipedia article? https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a Unredacted NIH Emails Show Efforts to Rule Out Lab Origin of Covid https://theintercept.com/2023/01/19/covid-origin-nih-emails/ Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC) I'm suggesting this sentence in the first paragraph be changed: "Some scientists and politicians have speculated that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory. This theory is not supported by evidence." there obviously is evidence, even if not definitive proof, stated by DOE that covid origins are lab related. Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC) especially given the source for this sentence is NIH, which is a primary source. Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Wall Street Journal is not a reliable source for scientific subjects. I don't know about Intercept. Anyway, I cannot find any place in the Intercept piece which refers to such evidence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC) is intercept reliable for science? Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC) This should not be included. Andre🚐 18:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC) is intercept reliable for science? Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Not particularly, no. it is not peer reviewed, has no editors or journalists who are experts in these fields, etc. It is not widely regarded as reliable for science. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC) if they make a claim that certain scientists are lying about a disease based on for example emails received via FOIA, do they need to be medical experts? Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC) It sounds like fringe conspiracy stuff, so, probably not good to include. Andre🚐 18:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC) just because it sounds like it? have you looked at the evidence they have presented? Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) That's not really how it works on Wikipedia Andre🚐 22:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC) what do you mean? how is this related to the question I asked? Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia works by referencing peer-reviewed scientific journal article reviews written by experts with PhDs and MDs when discussing scientific/medical topics. The Intercept is none of these things. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC) do they need to be medical experts? They need to be widely regarded as some type of relevant expert or reliable journalistic outlet with regards to this topic. (And even then, scientific venues trump journalistic ones). The Intercept is none of these things. It has no reliability bona fides when it comes to matters of science or medicine. Most of all, WP:ECREE applies. When discussing controversial topics and ideas, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. And this doesn't cut it. It would be more reliably sourced if more reliable outlets covered it. As far as I can tell, this has no coverage in the so-called "sources of record" AKA national newspapers, scholarly summaries, etc. THAT lack of coverage is what makes it FRINGE. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC) thank you for your explanation. I concur. Amirreza-Astro21 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC) I agree with your original sentiment though - the sentence "This theory is not supported by evidence" sounds too cut and dried. The idea of a lab leak is really not that extraordinary. It doesn't require anything miraculous and there have been many examples of lab leaks before see e.g. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity_incidents. Therefore the lab leak theory and the zoonotic theory both stand as reasonable hypotheses. In the absence of other information, many scientists felt the zoonotic theory was the most probable but over time the evidence has begun to look increasingly weak while the lab leak theory has gained traction, largely because of a number of features of the virus and how it initially spread among humans have proved increasingly difficult to explain with the zoonotic theory. Julian Brown (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC) That is the information you have, and your conclusion from it. For Wikipedia, those are all useless, see WP:OR. Instead, we use the information and conclusions in WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Article name

Why is this article called “Origin of COVID-19” and not “Origin of SARS-CoV-2”? Since this article is about the origin of the virus, not the disease it causes. 68.35.40.98 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Andre🚐 23:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Request_for_comment

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Interested editors are invited to be involved. TarnishedPath^talk 23:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 zoonosis theories

I invite your attention to COVID-19 zoonosis theories for proofreading and editing. Sennalen (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Key citation flawed?

Regarding the Cell study citation (Holmes et al), that's linked near the head of the article as justification for the claim of natural origin: isn't that study now considered seriously flawed? e.g. It states: "There is no data to suggest that the WIV—or any other laboratory—were working on SARS-CoV-2, or any virus close enough to be the progenitor, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic." (Holmes et al., The Origins of SARS-CoV-2: A Critical Review, 16/9/21) As I understand it, that's now known to be wildly mistaken. e.g.: 'What really went on inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid erupted' The Times, 25 July 2023. (For those without a subscription, the uncitable Daily Mail has some of that information here: [25]).

The US Director of National Intelligence 2020-2021, John Ratcliffe, in an interview broadcast today confirmed what he has previously stated: "I listened to folks like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who said that the mutations of the virus were totally consistent with a jump from animals to humans. What I found was, that there wasn't any intelligence that supported that; nor was there any scientific data we could find."[26] In the light of this, should not either that citation be replaced, or acknowledgement of its flaws made? MisterWizzy (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a strong WP:MEDRS; amateur assessments and the WP:DAILYMAIL are not suitable for use on biomedical matters. Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If you can't contribute by providing a better source, or a considered reply, kindly spare us the reductive arrogant flippancy, including the dismissal of The Times. The Daily Mail link was only provided, as a courtesy for those not able to access some of the information behind The Times paywall – as you well know. MisterWizzy (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't need a "better source". PMID:34480864 is a review article in a gold-standard journal. Pretty much the top of sourcing tree. It has not been retracted or subject to any expression of concern. Such sources are not to be undercut by middle-brow newspaper froth. Bon courage (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's very uncommon for the Lancet to retract articles, even when they become out of date, as this one has. 'The Times' article is the product of a long investigation – as you'd know if you'd bothered to read it. Bon chance. MisterWizzy (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not in The Lancet. If it's "become out of date" it should be possible to provide another gold standard peer-reviewed source, from actual scientists, saying so. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Cell. A replacement gold standard citation would be perfectly lovely. Instead of idly flicking piss, perhaps you might apply yourself to the task. MisterWizzy (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So far as I am aware subsequent quality sourcing (e.g. PMID:37782853) is aligned with, and has built on, the science in this paper. Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Request

There is a request for enforcement regarding editor behavior concerning COVID-19 origins at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ජපස Sennalen (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

This page and its child pages need updating: Laboratory incident

Here is my suggestion for edits and the corresponding citations for it.

. . . Scientists from WIV had previously collected SARS-related coronaviruses from bats in the wild, and allegations that they also performed undisclosed risky work on such viruses are central to some versions of the idea.[84][85] Some versions, particularly those alleging genome engineering, are based on misinformation or misrepresentations of scientific evidence.[86][87][88]

In February and March 2023, the US government confirmed that in fact the most likely cause for the coronavirus was indeed the Wuhan lab. This fact was confirmed first with public statements from the Department of Energy, which oversees all activity of national labs including work in partnership with other entities outside the United States..

Just a few days later in March of 2023, and with greater confidence, the FBI also confirmed the most likely cause for the origin of COVID-19 was the Wuhan lab. FBI Director Wray stated further that the work on this virus was intended for biological weapons development and "precisely what that capability was designed for". 67ray (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Please get consensus for controversial edits before requesting they be implemented. The statement "the US government confirmed that in fact the most likely cause for the coronavirus was indeed the Wuhan lab" is unsourced and untrue. Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I propose the following to replace the paragraph beginning "In February and March 2023. . . " The balance of my suggested edit should remain as submitted and unchanged.

In February 2023, the US Department of Energy confirmed that in fact the most likely cause for the coronavirus was indeed the Wuhan lab. This fact was confirmed first with public statements from the Department of Energy, which oversees all activity of national labs including work in partnership with other entities outside the United States.(1) 67ray (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Again this is a contentious topic and a controversial edit. You should get consensus to implement the change first, likely through creating a new header on this talk page. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Whether this topic is controversial or not, my changes are simple reporting of facts. They are not opinion, nor speculation, nor editorial in any sense nor anything comparable. There is no logical reason for excluding this information from the wikipedia page. To do so is simply putting one's head in the sand and failing to give free access to the sum of all human knowledge. It is as simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67ray (talk • contribs) 21:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 has been nominated at Articles for Deletion. Interested editors may participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. TarnishedPath^talk 09:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Origin theory: globally dormant virus

Today I stumbled on a theory about the covid origin by Dr Tom Jefferson, from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at Oxford University. It is about the covid virus being dormant and cosmopolitan distributed that became widespread pathogenic because of unknown triggers. These triggers may have been favourable environmental conditions. Anyone has more information about this? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

References

So far as I know all these early 'COVID found in European sewage before 2020' reports have gained no scientific acceptance. In any event, good WP:MEDRS would be required. Bon courage (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It's seems the statements where based on a, still even now, in preprint article. Given the possibility of false positives with PCR testing, it will probably never get published. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Treeshrews source is not accurate

I am a microbiologist who has published on the origins of COVID-19. Apologies I am not familiar with the editing conventions of Wikipedia. I just have a suggestion to improve this paper. The citation to "treeshrews" should be removed. Here is my rationale:

1. In general, the paper being being cited for this claim is complete gibberish. The methodology used to reach the "treeshrew" claim is completely unsupported, and has never before been used in any context to identify the past hosts of a virus. It also simply makes no biological sense.

2. No other published works on COVID-19 have discussed "treeshrews" as a plausible intermediate host.

3. The journal the paper is published in has a impact factor <1.

4. The authors of the paper and not virologists and have not published prior on viral immunology.

I just wanted to bring this consideration to the attention of wikipedia editors. 69.250.21.91 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed a poor source. Excised. Thanks! Bon courage (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

risk assessment

A recent UNSW paper [27] gives the lab leak theory a higher propability than the Zoonosis. But this article is unserviceable, so I drop it here. Alexpl (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)