Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

edit

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Reply

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

Link to Wikipedia article "Infodemic"

edit

The reader may find it helpful to refer to the Wikipedia article on 'Infodemic'. Please include the link if you agree. WikiAuthor1234567890 (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

" to stoke anti-China sentiments, and has led to increased anti-Asian activity on social media and in the real world.

edit

The following discussion 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.


How exactly are the claims that the virus escaped froma a laboratory in China or whatever is meant to spark anti chinese sentiment? How do you people make this connections? 46.97.169.192 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The content you quote is referenced to newspaper articles. They are linked in the footnotes so you can read about the details. The "connection" is not made by made Wikipedia editors. We merely reflect what reliable sources state. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Consider that the official assertion of every US govt and media organization was based on the notion that the Chinese eat rancid wild animal meat from filthy street markets. 1) Is this not very popularly understood to be the most common American stereotype of the Chinese? 2) How is this much different from the AIDS monkey idea?
OP is absolutely right that it defies basic deductive reasoning to claim that the lab leak theory is bigoted and inciting of violence while the former is perfectly acceptable for polite society. It's fine to keep the sources in there, but the language used seems to suggest their assertions as empirical fact when they were pure opinion based on an orthodoxy that was only ever speculative at best and utter nonsense at worst. The paragraph in which the sources are used needs to be stated as dealing with opinion. 2601:246:4A80:FE0:D51A:B88D:80AA:E4B9 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
See PMID:37697176 for some knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10120873/
It's almost like different people hold different views of subjective issues (even doctors!!!). 2600:1008:B044:87A1:35C8:593C:DB7E:C80 (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Umm, that source analyses the "stigmatizing narratives" and "demonstrate[s] the phenomenology of race-based stress and trauma experienced by Asian individuals" and then goes on to consider the mental health implications. So yeah, I think everybody agrees the lab leak nonsense had racist inputs and caused racist outputs. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking at who repeatedly made those comments reinforces that view. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yup. See also cat eating migrants. Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 13 October 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.

This page needs a section for items once considered misinformation, but are now known to be true.

edit

The history and evolution of misinformation items, especially as they were revealed to be facts, is relevant and should be covered. 76.121.65.204 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a post full of nothing. You've provided no specific edits nor reliable sources to support them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cope 2A11:3:500:0:0:0:0:D201 (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply