The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
This 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
This 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
consensus for pages relating to COVID-19. They have so far discussed items listed below. Please discuss proposed improvements to them at the project talk page
For infoboxes on the main articles of countries, use Wuhan, Hubei, China for the origin parameter. (March 2020)
"Social distancing" is generally preferred over "physical distancing". (April 2020, May 2020)
Page title
COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all articles/category pages/etc.(RM April 2020, including the main article itself, RM March 2021).
SARS-CoV-2 (exact capitalisation and punctuation) is the common name of the virus and should be used for the main article's title, as well as in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc. (June 2022, overturning April 2020)
Map
There is no consensus about which color schemes to use, but they should be consistent within articles as much as possible. There is agreement that there should be six levels of shading, plus gray for areas with no instances or no data. (May 2020)
There is no consensus about whether the legend, the date, and other elements should appear in the map image itself. (May 2020)
For map legends, ranges should use fixed round numbers (as opposed to updating dynamically). There is no consensus on what base population to use for per capita maps. (May 2020)
To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.
Omer Benjakob (9 February 2020). "On Wikipedia, a fight is raging over coronavirus disinformation". Wired (magazine). Retrieved 9 February 2020. ... the article about the '2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak' was created on January 5, 2020. Four days later, a new article was spun off from it, dedicated solely to the 'Novel coronavirus' – officially known as 2019-nCoV. Yet another was created in February to detail the symptoms of the respiratory disease caused by the virus.
Mikael Thalen (24 March 2020). "Meet the Wikipedia editors fighting to keep coronavirus pages accurate". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 31 March 2020. Those pages include the Wikipedia article for the virus itself, known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, the disease it causes, COVID-19, and the ongoing global pandemic the coronavirus has caused.
Omer Benjakob (8 April 2020). "Why Wikipedia Is Immune to Coronavirus". Haaretz. Retrieved 10 April 2020. Asked by Haaretz to gauge the merits of the English-language article on the virus, Prof. Nadav Davidovitch, who heads the department of public health at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, said he was 'pleasantly surprised by its quality.'
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
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
.
1. There is consensus that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of the article. The terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. Discussion permalink
An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPathtalk 02:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request for additional admin
Reading the talk threads, it seems to me that editor @Bon courage has disproportionate impact on this talk page. Other editors have commented on the tone used by @Bon courage when speaking to other editors as antagonistic. I agree. It's my suggestion that an additional admin who has not yet contributed would be more helpful for improving this article. The professionalism of @Bon courage, at least on this talk page, seems to be hampered by their ambiguous, unnecessary references to popular opinion, such as in comments like " The hot take on LL at the moment is that it was a ruse sold to the sheeple, and that those who have truly taken the red pill can see LL for the lie it is (as there was no virus)." This type of engagement would not be tolerated in less senior editors or admins, and suggests an abuse of privilege. There are minor editors here trying in earnest to inform the public's encyclopedic search for whether sars-cov-2 and similar viruses may have been tied to laboratory research, a subject which has been given better consideration in the wiki pages covering the earlier SARS outbreaks. We may not like the conclusions the public draws on the information presented, but, for example, if there is a source that can substantiate that any research on sars like viruses was being done on animal vectors in laboratories in Wuhan, that is relevant information and should be provided, if not here then in the pertinent articles. UserSwamp (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if there is a source that can substantiate that any research on sars like viruses was being done on animal vectors in laboratories in Wuhan ← there is none (as reliable sources tell us). This is rather the point. Your arguments seems to be a complaint that evidence is being presented you don't like? Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage, I urge you not to make assumptions about fellow editors' intentions, please. All information is worth evaluating. I am not afraid of any information from any source, whether I previously agreed with any conclusions drawn, because I am confident in my reading comprehension and my own skepticism. This complaint is specifically about elitist tendencies masqueraded as impartiality that are rampant among veteran editors. My quote of yours above was to call attention to the fact that all editors, veteran or other wise, fall subject to letting their personal histories influence their speech to other editors and the way they interact with edits. Anyways, it might calm you down to hear me summarize my understanding of the origin. I believe reports that the wet market in wuhan was the primary location of spread of sars cov 2 in Wuhan. I believe the article published by the Wuhan researchers themselves that sars-cov-2 initially developed in wild bats. I also believe that article's following statement: "Simplot analysis showed that 2019-nCoV was highly similar throughout the genome to RaTG13 (Fig. 1c), with an overall genome sequence identity of 96.2%." I also believe the addendum to that article that states the Wuhan team did bring a field sampled virus, later confirmed to be RaTG13 , back to the Wuhan lab and published that data in 2016. Which means the Lab in Wuhan lab possessed highly related samples of sars viruses. I accept but find it not salient that RatG13 specifically is not sufficiently close enough to be implicated as an ancestor to Sars-cov-2. I do not know, and maybe never will know whether the line of transmission of Sars-cov-2 from wild bat to Wuhan wet market ever included a brief stay as a lab sample at a nearby virology lab. But to assert that encyclopedia readers are not to be trusted with the information that a lab analyzing closely related sars viruses could at some point have been involved with accidental escape is elitist at best. UserSwamp (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about your "intentions". You say you "believe" many things but this is not a
WP:NOTAFORUM so discussion of your personal beliefs is not appropriate. When treating such "beliefs" Wikipedia follows reliable sources like this which goes into detail about RaTG13 conspiracy theories, and has an actual virologist[1] as author. As is stated in the lableak article, "There is no evidence that any laboratory had samples of SARS-CoV-2, or a plausible ancestor virus, prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic".[1]Bon courage (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
When you said "Your arguments seems to be a complaint that evidence is being presented you don't like?", it seemed to me that you were assuming to know what evidence I intend to not like from the get go, i.e., you assume I'm a wacko conspiracy theorist. Please read my use of the phrase "I believe" in the sense of "to find credible." And in that regard, I was trying to show you that I find credible some of the same sources you do, like the ones I listed, and which are used as sources elsewhere in Wikipedia. This talk page is for us to come to a consensus on what language and sources we agree should be used, i.e., what we as a group agree is credible. Finally, yes, I concede that no sources conclude that an ancestor virus to Sars-cov-2 had been reported to have been in possession by the Wuhan lab, or any lab. As you notice, I have not even attempted to make edits on this actual article yet. At some point, what will become relevant in the future on some other Wikipedia article is whether any virology labs are harboring closely related viruses to Sars-cov-2 as well as the track record for lab accidents of those labs. UserSwamp (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All information is worth evaluating Even misinformation? I suspect you need to read
. Under any laboratory escape scenario, SARS-CoV-2 would have to have been present in a laboratory prior to the pandemic, yet no evidence exists to support such a notion and no sequence has been identified that could have served as a precursor.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
