Jump to content

Talk:Peter Daszak

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



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

Covid 19 section would benefit from a chronological presentation

[edit]

Right now the section has three years intertwined, making it hard to read. If someone could go date by date, instead of prose paragraphs, that would be great.~~~~ Tallard (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ODNI report

[edit]

The most effectual Bob Cat, though I'm happy to talk through the content issues on including that snippet of the ODNI report in the lead, can we start with a procedural issue? Your re-revert violate the active arbitration enforcement sanction. Per the edit notice and this page's header: "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page." Please self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2024

[edit]

Incorrect spelling of "he" as "hi" in this portion of the article. "In May 2024, the United States Department of Health and Human Services banned all federal funding for Daszak, saying that hi did not properly monitor research activities" 2601:989:8200:F980:95DC:2606:B653:E3F3 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous Context

[edit]

Regarding the sentence that starts, "It is stated that "Dr. Daszak, Dr. Fauci, and other health leaders have repeatedly played semantics with..."

The context makes it appear that's from the DHHS report, when in fact it's from the House Oversight Committee. One can't detect the change in source without checking the footnotes. Perhaps the sentence can begin as: "According to the House Oversight Committee...". Thank You. -Anonymous --64.52.139.54 (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it. If re-added, you're correct that the attribution needs to be improved. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you just remove it? Who gave you those rights to shape history to your personal liking? Unacceptable. 2A02:1210:2E1D:2D00:28F4:CFC7:1A49:CDE1 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay in, as a quote, since definitions really seem to be more important in this complex than they usually are. Alexpl (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]