Talk:Zoonotic origins of COVID-19

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)

• 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)
• :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)
• 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)
• :How do you feel about "plausible" ? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

• 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)
• :Would you support a merge into Origins of COVID-19 as suggested below? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::We've had that discussion twice and it lead to no consensus each time. TarnishedPath^talk 01:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• :::Do you support or oppose it? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::::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)
• :::::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)
• ::::::Yes that too. TarnishedPath^talk 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• :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)
• ::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)

: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)

• 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)
• :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)
• ::COVID-19 lab leak theory is the most appropriate place to discuss that. TarnishedPath^talk 01:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• :That article already exists. Should we merge? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::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)