Talk:SARS-CoV-2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an

Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to Talk:SARS-CoV-2 without leaving a redirect: per RM on talk page)
)

Template:WikiProject Genetics

WikiProject iconCOVID-19 B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
project's importance scale
.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Emergency / Society / Pulmonology B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconViruses B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highlighted open discussions

Current page-specific consensus

NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, ("prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content except when consensus for the edit exists") changes of the material listed below in this article must be discussed first, and repeated offenses against established consensus may result in administrative action. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page
.

Zoonotic origins

The references provided for the assertion that the virus is of zoonontic origin were from 2020, and the removal of this unequivocal statement was reverted twice based on those old, controversial papers. A recent review in

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202769119 indicates that this view is not the consensus. Leaving out the assertion does not commit to either side. StN (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Do you have a stronger source than the unreviewed opinion article you cited here? Bakkster Man (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Investigate the origins of COVID-19 - PubMed (nih.gov) StN (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33986172/ StN (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33574591/ StN (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An unreviewed letter, and a news posting. Neither are stronger sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted assertions that the virus is of zoonotic origins since there is no consensus about this. I have not proposed an alternative. It is inaccurate to say that there is a consensus. I have cited a paper that indicates there is not a consensus. Please don't change this unless an authoritative paper stating that zoonoses is generally accepted can be cited. StN (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "It has been suggested to be of

Nature. Removing it from the article is unwarranted and contrary to Wikipedia policy. StN (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

No, you've just made that up.
talk) 19:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Made up that virologists like Jesse Bloom and Richard Ebright consider it unsettled, or that reports about this from reputable sources are allowed in Wikipedia articles? StN (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Made up in that it's editorial invention. "One virologist disagreed" would at least be honest, but undue. There are always some fringe guys, don't amp them up.
talk) 19:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Your comment would have some merit if there were a single article that showed evidence of zoonotic origins. There was more than one skeptical virologist who signed on to those letters. I have not advocated any alternative theory in my edits, so the allegation of "fringe" is inapplicable. I don't think you have familiarized yourself with the subject, but you and others are adept at using Wikipedia to keep readers from knowing that this is an unsettled subject among legitimate scientists. StN (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the sources, and stop making stuff up, and we'll make progress.
talk) 19:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
To recount the history of this: I started by removing a sentence that I considered speculative (i.e., making stuff up). It was reverted. I put it back, citing a recent review in one of the most esteemed journals in science, PNAS. I was reverted again with the comment that the people whose review was published by PNAS had no authority. I put it back with other sources of the kind that are cited all the time in Wikipedia. I was reverted again, with threats to be blocked and reporting to Wiki administration. At no time did I propound any fringe theories or any alternatives at all, but cited people raising questions about the zoonotic theory. The SARS virologist Ralph Baric was among these. At no point did I make anything up, which is dishonest of you to claim. If you knew anything about the subject, you would recognize that zoonoses is not established and that even the authors of the 2020 Andersen paper had doubts about it 2 days before they published the assertion that it was the only possibility. That's in the public record. If you knew anything about science, you would realize that claims require evidence and until that's available they remain controversial. Citing reports of doubts by reputable scientists in prime outlets is not indulging in fringe science. I always wonder about the kind of educational background or life experiences that produce reply guys like you, ready with the "nopes" or "stop making things up." Why don't you try to educate yourself and learn what a source is. StN (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think
talk) 20:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Unless you con find sources of similar quality to those listed
here (or even those here, although they may be slightly outdated); then it doesn't matter. I also don't understand why the bollocks about the Andersen et al. emails is still circulating on the misinformation-net. Scientists had initial doubts (expressed via a private email, which is not a reliable source), then they investigated it more thoroughly, and found that those doubts were not backed up by evidence (as the published paper - the actual reliable source - clearly says). Random opinion pieces are nowhere near the level of sourcing required. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The sources cited [refs. 9 and 17] present descriptions of the viral genome, but the suggestions of zoonotic origin are purely speculative. They are both from early 2020. The reliability of the sequence data does not transfer to the speculations about the origin. There is no evidence in those sources about the origins. The statements of uncertainly that I cited are just that, not evidence of an alternative. Anyone not committed to the zoonotic hypothesis would recognize that a statement that "some virologists think that the question is open" is appropriately sourced by a published statement by virologists that they think that the question is open. But we seem to be dealing with ideologues here. StN (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you want to waste other people's time without investing any of your own. The cited sources on the first page I linked (even quoted for your convenience, so you didn't even have to go read the whole papers!) are clear enough and I'm not going to bother repeating what they say. They are also all very much not "from early 2020"... This, from September 2021, is very much recommended reading. the suggestions of zoonotic origin are purely speculative is not to be found in any of them, and appears very much to be your own opinion. Sadly for you, Wikipedia doesn't care about your (or my) opinion. It cares about what is published in reputable
that is not Wikipedia's problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

There is absolutely no conclusion as of yet to the origins of COVID-19. You should not be stated that it zoonotic in origin. Wikiwowie (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think even the remaining "lab leakers" agree on "zoonotic in origin" (though through lab accident rather than in the wild). Or are you saying other ideas are still plausibly entertained in reliable sources?
talk) 07:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You are using "lab leakers" as a pejorative. This is not about people who are 100% sure there was a leak, those people can be safely ignored. The point is that there is still doubt among reasonable people, because there just isn't enough evidence either way.
Despite intensive searching the closest known natural relatives of SARS-CoV-2 lack the furin cleavage site - but there were gain of function research proposals with the explicit intent of adding this feature to other bat viruses, in Wuhan no less. This remains a viable hypothesis, and no reasonable person would consider laboratory gain of function research to be "zoonotic origin", whether it occurred through splicing or just by hosting sick animals together.
The article
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 is much more balanced. It states that the majority of scientists favor a zoonotic origin, without attempting to present the matter as settled. Palpable (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia tends to reflect what scientists think. Relevant sources, as cited, flat-out assert zoonotic origin and elsewhere the bio-engineered scenario is called a conspiracy theory (do we really need to go into that again here?) There's no option but to follow the sources.
talk) 16:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You have a bad habit of equating people who haven't made up their minds with conspiracy theorists. There is more ideology than evidence, on both sides of the debate, and in the absence of a known natural reservoir, the article should not present the matter as settled.
Again,
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 has a pretty balanced view on things. Palpable (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not me, it's the relevant sources. You have a bad habit of personalizing things.
talk) 16:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You're the one throwing around the "consipiracy theorist" and "lab leaker" pejoratives.
The burden of proof for a dogmatic statement is higher than for one that expresses doubt. The sources you consider relevant are not actually that strong.
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 has plenty of relevant sources. Given the lack of strong evidence on either side, attempting to make a definitive statement about the origins is misguided. It is sufficient to say that the majority of scientists favor a zoonotic origin. Palpable (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry what source do you consider "not actually that strong"? In contrast you have produced zero sourcing. Sure, the
talk) 16:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The lead makes the unverified statement "It is of zoonotic origins". This statement is not actually sourced; the subsequent statement that it has close similarity to bat coronaviruses is sourced to an article that refers to a likely spillover from bats. Note that the scientific source uses the word "likely" which has been promoted to certainty in the article text. Shouldn't "likely" be in the article? Palpable (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
quote: "its unprecedented global societal and economic disruptive impact has marked the third zoonotic introduction of a highly pathogenic coronavirus into the human population" [my emphasis]. To repeat: what source is "not actually that strong"?
talk) 17:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The statement in the paper is not as strong as the statement in the article.
If "zoonotic" merely means that the virus was not sequenced from scratch, then sure, it's obviously zoonotic. But you know as well as I do that in the context of SARS-CoV-2 origins, zoonotic implies "without lab involvement" which is by no means settled. Palpable (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion here faithfully mirrors the assertion in the source. Helpfully it glosses "Zoonotic pathogens" as "Animal pathogens that can infect and replicate in humans". Any argument to the contrary would seem to be extreme
talk) 17:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Again with the pejoratives. As you know, there are numerous letters by non-fringe scientists who think the question of lab involvement is still open; you and others seem to think that science doesn't have room for disagreement so you eliminate these opinions from the article.
I think this manufactured certainty weakens Wikipedia's credibility, but obviously you have more time to spend on this than I do. I give up. Palpable (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Letters are not reliable sources for sci/med assertions, and the fact that stuff is published in letters and not peer-reviewed scholarly sources strongly indicates its
talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Dissenting letters from notable scientists are a reliable indication that consensus has not been reached. Despite my best efforts here, it seems that you can't see the difference between confidently asserting a lab leak (conspiracy theory) and expressing uncertainty about a natural origin (waiting for evidence). It sounds like you are not a scientist yourself. Palpable (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think with that further silly personalization, it's best to let you honour your undertaking to "give up".
talk) 18:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Note there has been off-wiki recruiting on this matter.[1] I have added a template at the head of the page accordingly.
    talk) 16:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • New sources support StN and Palpable's proposed changes. Zoonotic origin and lab origin aren't mutually exclusive, as the Wuhan CDC was doing field research with bat viruses. Some scientists (including the WHO) have also raised concerns about experiments done by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, possibly supported by ECA and the NIH. Certainty will only come with China's cooperation with the WHO, according to SAGO report, and secondary sources writing about it [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd think so, but you will be reverted, accused of edit-warring, and ultimately be banned for trying to rectify this. The editors who have taken hold of this page will not accept letters in Science and Nature from prominent virologists who don't agree that the issue is settled to support -- not an alternative hypothesis -- but the factual statement "Not all prominent virologists consider the issue settled." Yes, Wikipedia's credibility is undermined by such maneuvers, but it seems that little can be done about it. StN (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Best to cite the SAGO report [11] directly rather than the press coverage. In particular, page 11 of the report draws a distinction between "origin" and "source" which clarifies that a zoonotic origin does not rule out a lab accident somewhere in the chain.
    That said, some of the fringe crusaders here have gone full battleground. Logical argument is stalled with strawmanning and wikilawyering. You might have more luck with the actual doctors and scientists at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Medicine. - Palpable (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can get to this eventually if no one else does, but I have already been banned twice. If you want to try, I am more than happy to step aside for a while. StN (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Citing WHO reports directly was how we changed the previous 'don't even mention the lab' consensus, so we have precedent there. And I agree, the above is already over the line of battleground and aspersions, if it continues it's likely to end with another ban. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agree. I'd like to see if the stance in the reports is backed up by a change of stance in other sources (is there? I can't find that much, to begin with - 1, from May this year, simply says The subgenus Sarbecovirus of beta-CoVs, such as SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, had spread to humans, most likely via intermediate hosts.). Also agree that That said, some of the fringe crusaders here have gone full battleground. Logical argument is stalled with strawmanning and wikilawyering. is quite over the line. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Considering the fact that the WHO has called the lab leak a possibility, it is completely ridiculous to dismiss it as a fringe minority opinion. Aren't we supposed to trust and cite what the experts have to say? BTW, the article on the COVID-19 disease itself mentions the lab leak as a possibility. X-Editor (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) There's an ongoing talk page discussion and short-cutting it to include text is not productive 2) The change of stance of WHO's latest report does not appear to be reflected by the existing sources 3) We should probably wait to see how exactly this turns out per
WP:NORUSH RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll also note that singling out the lab-leak from the SAGO report seems unhelpful. It doesn't focus solely on that; and in fact, in the nearly 2-page long summary which begins the document, it only dedicates one short paragraph, the following, to the lab-leak:

The SAGO notes that there has not been any new data made available to evaluate the laboratory as a pathway of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population and recommends further investigations into this and all other possible pathways. The SAGO will remain open to any and all scientific evidence that becomes available in the future to allow for comprehensive testing of all reasonable hypotheses.

Thus the recent addition failed both
WP:DUE (when compared to the source it was coming from) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NORUSH is an essay, not a guideline or rule. The SAGO report is also only one report. There is also a difference between adding the lab leak to the lede and adding it to the body of the article. Would you be fine if it was added to the body? X-Editor (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, the best course of action would be consensus through voting. I've started a discussion here regarding that. X-Editor (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE is a better suggestion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I meant to just say consensus. X-Editor (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(
Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 would probably be the correct article to summarise this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I have stayed out of these discussions so far except to object to edit warring, but just a small point: even if this were to be added to the article, I agree that "increasingly active consideration" is not the wording we would use, per
MOS:WTW. Dekimasuよ! 04:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that it isn't the best wording, but another discussion through consensus regarding the lab leak possibility wouldn't hurt. X-Editor (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. I've rewritten the mention in the Investigations article as In June 2022, the WHO released an additional report advocating for more investigations in the various possible pathways of emergence., as per the bit quoted above (and the rest of the initial summary), to avoid a silly-game of
chinese telephone between what the original report is saying and what the news are click-baiting from it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@X-Editor: "most important one" - is it really? It's the last one to be listed, has the least amount of text devoted to it; and basically is not much of a departure from the known stance of the WHO director-general (who said that it was "premature" for the WHO's report to rule out a potential link between a laboratory leak and called on China to provide additional data). We don't need to emphasise stuff which hasn't really changed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair the current wording seems reasonable enough where it is (minor nitpicking about the extra-emphasis final words aside). I'm however very much not sure if we need to copy it to other articles. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why i've started a discussion here, because not all editors seem to agree on the lab leak. Me calling it the most important was a bit stupid, but the wording in the article is fine like you say. X-Editor (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to get hung up on the news coverage. It has been sensationalized, but that should not reflect on the report itself.
Rather than adding more about the lab leak, what about saying less? The current wording lends itself to misinterpretation because it sounds like a "no lab leak" claim. But as the SAGO report states, zoonotic "origin" does not preclude a lab "source". Why not remove the "it is of zoonotic origins" sentence in the current lead and refer all discussion of the origin to the Investigations article?
The article has plenty to say about what the virus actually is without trying to make a short summary of the complicated/uncertain/political origins debate, and that debate is already linked in the next sentence. - Palpable (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable proposal. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of saying less in the lede to discuss more in the origin section and article. I'm not sure we need to make quite so large a cut as to remove the entire sentence. Particularly if the concerns are the words 'zoonotic' and 'origin'. I propose the following change: It is of zoonotic origins and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting it emerged from a bat-borne virus ancestor. This still sets up the following sentence with its link to the Investigations article, and mirrors the language used by SAGO. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that is better than just removing the sentence. - Palpable (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's not even what the SAGO report says, let alone all of the other high-quality RS we have on the matter.

At the present time, currently available epidemiological and sequencing data suggest ancestral strains to SARS-CoV-2 have a zoonotic origin with the closest genetically related viruses being beta coronaviruses, identified in Rhinolophus bats in China in 2013 (96.1%) and Laos in 2020 (96.8%). However, so far neither the virus progenitors nor the natural/intermediate hosts or spill-over event to humans have been identified.

A more legitimate rewriting of the sentence in the lead (taking into account what other sources say) might be Available evidence indicates that the virus is of zoonotic origin, and has close genetic similarity to bat coronaviruses, suggesting a bat-borne viral ancestor. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or heck, even simpler, just replace It is of zoonotic origins [...] with Available evidence indicates that it is of zoonotic origin [...]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah agreed re: "Available evidence." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the SAGO report explains what they mean by "origin" with two full paragraphs on page 11. Without that context, "origin" is easily misinterpreted to mean "immediate parent". - Palpable (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should ideally, as much as possible be written in non-technical, plain English. This applies even more so in the lead, where one would expect that an adequate summary can be made without going into technical distinctions. "Origin", in plain English like in the SAGO report (the explanation given is IMHO very close to the definition given by the Cambridge dict as the thing from which something comes, or the place where it began:), does not mean "immediate parent", else we would be writing this differently. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of this report, the “origin” can be understood as the ancestral host from where the pathogen has evolved.
Surely that implies a distinction between "the context of this report" and plain English. - Palpable (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why must I repeat? Per Cambridge dictionary;

origins [plural] - used to describe the particular way in which something started to exist or someone started their life: The story has obscure origins

Or the other very similar definition of the singular form

the thing from which something comes, or the place where it began:

This seems to me just like researchers being thorough and making clear it is not the "immediate origin" they are referring to. But the current text in the article here is not referring to an immediate origin or to a direct/immediate ancestor, so we should be fine. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's try this another way.
Four people have come to this Talk page recently, objecting that the current text in the lead strongly implies "no lab leak". I can't speak for the other three, but I am a native English speaker and voracious reader with a respectable university degree. You appear to be saying that all three of us have misinterpreted the lead, but at the same time you deny that it lends itself to misinterpretation.
- Palpable (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"no lab leak"; or more accurately "lab leak very unlikely, no or very little evidence to support it, and not seriously considered by most scientists", is the correct interpretation, of both this and other articles and of the sources, so, yeah, there has been no misinterpretation here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There must be a clear distinction between "no lab leak" and "no or very little evidence to support a lab leak". While the second claim is valid, it is just as valid to say that there is no or very little evidence to deny a lab leak. The ability to distinguish between ontology and epistemology should be table stakes for participating in this debate.
If we agree that "it is of zoonotic origin" implies "no lab leak" to many reasonable English speakers, but it clearly means something more nuanced to WHO and other scientific sources, then that phrasing is misleading. It should be removed - or bogged down with a bunch of text clarifying that the technical meaning of "zoonotic origin" does not rule out a lab.
The next revision of the COVID-19 origins consensus should also be more careful about the meaning of "origin". It seems to be causing a great deal of confusion and, as seen above, some people appear to be exploiting this confusion to push the NOLABLEAK POV. - Palpable (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it is just as valid to say that there is no or very little evidence to deny a lab leak. I think that's the textbook example of affirming a disjunct. Something not being proven false does not mean that there is no evidence against it, only that the evidence against it does not allow to make a definitive conclusion on the premises. Both the SAGO report and other sources (the Holmes et al. critical review; other recent sources like the papers I mentioned earlier, for ex. [12]) say that what evidence we do have (as SAGO phrases it, " epidemiological and sequencing data"; the evidence that Sars-COV-2 was circulating outside of China earlier than thought presented in other sources; the fact that the first detected outbreak in Wuhan was not near the lab but likely involved or was amplified by the wildlife market, ...) suggests an origin with no lab involved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reading suggestions. Reading papers is certainly a breath of fresh air after the polemic stench here.
I am not employing the logical fallacy you mention, I'm pointing to a real lack of evidence. 2.5 years later, we are not much closer to the source than RaTG13. Holmes et al provides very persuasive arguments against the virus being engineered, based on a presumably comprehensive knowledge of available techniques. But many of their claims are still based on absence of evidence. If they had complete documentation of the lab's activities, the closed-world assumption would apply making it possible to reason from the absence of evidence. Unfortunately, access to the full evidence has been severely restricted, the open-world assumption applies instead, and any conclusions from lack of evidence must be taken with a grain of salt.
I hope I won't be accused of cherry-picking for pointing out that the conclusion to Holmes et al hedges their position with "the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed". That's what good science communication looks like: uncertainty comes with the territory, and balance is not considered a sign of weakness. But here on Wikipedia, a small clique of non-scientists can use this careful paper to justify accusations like "fringe", "conspiracy theory", "lab-leaker", and "wingnuttery". Have a nice day. - Palpable (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the SAGO source only says that there's no new information that could provide evidence for the leak theory. This means that nothing changed and that the fully natural origin continues to be the most plausible... —PaleoNeonate – 08:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most plausible is not the same as absolutely true. We currently say that "It is of zoonotic origins" which is not the same as saying that a zoonotic origin is the most plausible. Would you support a change to the lede so that it reads something to the effect of Available evidence indicates that it is of zoonotic origin" or most likely of zoonotic origin or something to that effect? Bonewah (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This content has been censored from this article for months. Agree it should be included for NPOV and obviously the FRINGE tag on it is just for the purpose of excluding it. But you will face very active editors who have time to banter this position endlessly attempting to push the local consensus here. You probably should run an RFC if you want it looked again by more mainstream editors. As you point out the broader consensus changes over time in the RS and at wikipedia we will follow that (eventually). There is no requirement that we follow MEDRS on all the articles (such as the pandemic) but this article about the disease I wonder if it will fall towards MEDRS (making it harder to go with mainstream view which probably recognizes that there is a decent chance it came from the lab in China). Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing the lead to read that "Available evidence indicates that it is of zoonotic origin" or most likely of zoonotic origin. If tons of official sources hold open the possibility that it is not of zoonotic origin then so should we. Bonewah (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The SAGO report unpacks "zoonotic origin", saying the natural reservoir of the virus is most likely zoonotic, and on that I don't think there is any disagreement between experts in sources or editors here. On how the virus was introduced to humans (spillover), and if it was a natural occurrence, the report says it is uncertain. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is probably mostly correct on the level of agreement. I picked up on the word 'ancestry' in the SAGO report, since it seems to do a very good job of leaving the spillover and any evolution between the closest ancestral bat virus and the initial lineage sequenced in humans open ended. Whether direct spillover to humans, intermediate spillover through another animal, or a sample collected in a lab, the ultimate ancestry of some bat beta coronavirus seems fundamentally agreed to. I also think it's probably more clear to an average reader that if/when we find that bat virus, it may not be the exact same virus as SARS-CoV-2, just a direct ancestor. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this change. "Available evidence" is the only necessary hedging, and it is precisely what our best available consensus source (the SAGO report) currently says. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this wording. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this wording improves the lead. = Palpable (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 June 2022

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.

The result of the move request was: Moved.

talk) 00:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

There are many good reasons why these pages should be moved to their widely used abbreviations. To start with the obvious, these are their

WP:CONSISTENT, so to address that concern I'm requesting any related pages to be moved as well. This also makes them consistent with COVID-19, SARS, and MERS, all of which were moved following successful RMs with similar arguments (Talk:COVID-19/Archive 17 § Requested move 1 March 2021, Talk:SARS § Requested move 8 December 2021, and Talk:MERS § Requested move 15 December 2021). InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: WikiProject COVID-19 and WikiProject Viruses have been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are for names that are less common than the article title, not the other way round. When a redirect's title is more commonly used than the article's title, then that should be the name of the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just notice in my watchlist, the pages
    WP:TONE indicates. Gah4 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Hmmm. Does the article still start with the whole name? (Especially since that is where
    WP:TONE applies.) If so, then I probably go to Neutral. Gah4 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 → SARS coronavirus 2
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 → SARS coronavirus 1
Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus → SARS-related coronavirus
Middle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus → MERS-related coronavirus
—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SARS-CoV-2&oldid=1095373984"