The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
All information added to this article must be supported by reliable sources (further information at WP:MEDRS) and presented from a neutral point of view. You must check this talk page before adding early detections of SARS-CoV-2 or making any major edits to see if the content you wish to edit has been discussed there or is under discussion.
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.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Reference 9 and 10 are the same article, only 10 is using the full article of 9, and they credit them at the beginning. By citing different sources with the same origin, it will diminish the quality of this work. The lack of subsequent confirmation of these allegations also suggests more caution should be used in the sentence "As early as the second week of November 2019" e.g. "It has been alleged that as early..."
As early as the second week of November 2019, contrary to the denial of the Pentagon, the American National Center for Medical Intelligence shared intelligence based on "monitoring of internal Chinese communications" that warned US allies, Israel, and NATO of a potential novel coronavirus pandemic coming out of Wuhan; then-president Trump downplayed the threat of the novel coronavirus.[4][5]
There are multiple problems here. First of all, the two references are to Common Dreams and Salon. Salon is yellow at RSP, and Common Dreams is not mentioned but likely worse than yellow. I would suggest instead basing it on sources that are clearly WP:RS. Here is one.[1] Secondly, I per WP:WIKIVOICE we should not take sides on disputed information. Instead, we should describe the controversy. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which implies that a sample of Spanish Sewage from March 2019 later tested positive for sars-cov2. Probably this just means a false positive or a contaminated sample of some kind; however, since the report on this is famous, does at least a sentence or two about the report (and its debunking, if there has been one) belong in the early origins section here? Mccartneyac (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of many bits of fizzled research about COVID/origins, too obscure to be mentioned much even in debunking sources. I don't think there's any encyclopedic value to it. Bon courage (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
