Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

COVID-19 Mid‑importance

	COVID-19 portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Viruses Mid‑importance

	Viruses portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: Genetics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 14 December 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory. The result of the discussion was not moved.

US Congress report

Be aware that the US Congress has issued a report claiming that COVID-19 originated in a lab. They came to this conclusion by... accusing scientists of lying to cover it up & cited a New York Times op-ed instead.

So how to handle the disproportionate amount of evidence in favor of a hypothesis that the committee didn't like? By acting like it doesn't exist. "By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin, it would have already surfaced," the report argues. Instead, it devotes page after page to suggesting that one of the key publications that laid out the evidence for a natural origin was the result of a plot among a handful of researchers who wanted to suppress the idea of a lab leak. Subsequent papers describing more extensive evidence appear to have been ignored.
Meanwhile, since there's little scientific evidence favoring a lab leak, the committee favorably cites an op-ed published in The New York Times.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/12/congressional-republicans-conclude-sars-cov-2-originated-in-a-lab-leak/ — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 December 2024

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 16:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 → COVID-19 zoonotic origin theory – While zoonotic origin is the favored theory of some scientists, it has not been proven. 85.206.30.170 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Oppose. Seems like a fringe-y idea. I don't think anybody sensible (per sources) thinks it's not of zoonotic origin. Bon courage (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it proven or is it a theory? How do we split those two things? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate move to Potential zoonotic origins of COVID-19 (or Possible zoonotic origins of COVID-19). "Theory" makes it sound like it's tremendously up for debate, but it's also not 99.99% confirmed on the same level as, say, global warming or the Earth orbiting the Sun, and the title ought to reflect that. Insisting that it is simply inflames the debate further. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about "plausible" ? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject COVID-19 has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 01:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose along with Bon courage I think the suggested target is WP:FRINGEy. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that the origin was zoonotic and therefore we should go with the weight of reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 11:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you support a merge into Origins of COVID-19 as suggested below? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've had that discussion twice and it lead to no consensus each time. TarnishedPath^talk 01:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support or oppose it? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I supported it in both discussions I was involved in, initiating one of them. There was a another discussion prior to the two I was involved in which arrived at consensus for merge, but then went stale. TarnishedPath^talk 06:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not so much the decision, but that the merge will require a lot of very tedious reference reconcilation/reworking. Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that too. TarnishedPath^talk 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. "It's just a theory!" is a common denialist trope. The overwhelming consensus among research scientists is that the virus is naturally evolved, and we should not be renaming this article to soften that stance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need two separate articles explaining that it is zoonotic? How do you feel about a merge? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge would likely be the best option, but that's a different discussion entirely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Microbiology, WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Viruses, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics, WikiProject Molecular Biology, and WikiProject Disaster management have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose The science experts all agree that SARS-CoV-2 was localized to the Hunan Seafood Wholesale Market where it likely spread from animals to humans. There are no other scientific explanations that account for the data. All versions of the Covid-19 lab leak theory are conspiracy theories that should continue to be solidly debunked on Wikipedia. Genome42 (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to support a RfC to clearly label the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COVID-19 lab leak theory is the most appropriate place to discuss that. TarnishedPath^talk 01:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only name change that makes sense would be to Origins of COVID-19. That is, this should be the primary topic. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia and this is the mainstream view. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article already exists. Should we merge? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I suggested in the AfD in March, yes. But making that happen... that is the challenge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2024 (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.

Merger discussion

Origin of SARS-CoV-2 is an article. It has "zoonotic hypothesis" as the NPOV for the article. Are these therefore not the same article? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The decision has already been taken to merge. It just needs somebody with the time/patience/expertise to do it, while respecting WP:CITEREF for the target article. Bon courage (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]