Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Origin of SARS-CoV-2|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghurs

The mainstream scientific view of the origins of SARS-CoV-2

This article leans heavily towards the conspiracy theories about the lab leak, but does not emphasize the mainstream scientific view, that the virus spilled over naturally. The mainstream scientific view should be explained and given much more weight in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that this is the mainstream opinion. The mainstream opinion is likely closer to that it *probably* spilled from animals, perhaps due close contact between people are animals but further research is required. I agree it would be good to have some scientific literature on the piece Talpedia (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about documenting the investigations taking place. I don't understand why you removed details relating to US government investigations and replaced it with "US government claims", and counterclaims, covered by sources from last year. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I included a more complete description of the claims made by the Trump administration. I actually included more information about the actual investigations being conducted by US intelligence, as opposed to claims made by Trump and Pompeo. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And why did you remove the section about how the investigations were formally initiated? Who wants to hear about what Trump in the very opening of a section about US government proceedings which had nothing to do with him? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's poorly sourced, and not obviously DUE. The only source given is a PDF of a letter from the White House to the NAS, which is a primary source. Is there any secondary coverage of this letter? -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear you about the primary source. But shouldn't this section be focused on the investigation activities of the US government, as opposed to all the "he says and she says" of the virus origins as it is now? The way the section read before was just chronicling known investigation activities, and while I agree that it said more about investigations into lab leak, that is only because there weren't a lot of statements about investigating other origin scenarios (because the US doesn't have access to the WIV or HSWM to do that). The US approach has been quite skewed towards alternative scenarios, and it will be hard for this article not to reflect that. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Relying on primary sourcing is a form of original research. You're deciding which part of which primary documents to include (for example, you didn't include the part of the letter that asks the scientists to look into an HIV-related conspiracy theory). Unless there are secondary sources, this material has to go. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't so familier with the WP:PRIMARY policy and I thought the White House website would naturally be a good reference for a letter they put out. Please can you advise on content changes or on better sources, keeping within the focus of this page; which is investigations taking place by different national and international governments and organisations? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY sources are what are needed. But if this material is just based on primary sources, then it should be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Mainstream" is mainstream because there is sufficient reliable and verifiable sources to support it, not because what one thinks is "mainstream". I object to a lot of what User:Thucydides411 did in their editorial decisions. In particular, instead of adding new "mainstream" sources and content, they deleted large chunks of texts and reliable sources they deemed "not mainstream". I would like to remind them of WP:NPOV, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCENSORED regarding any future edits they make. Normchou ^💬 15:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Keep in mind, this is also a political controversy. Therefore, removing something that Pompeo said just because that was Pompeo is wrong. The official views by US government are obviously important. If these views will change in a future on that matter (I doubt), then it can be corrected. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are WP:SECONDARY sources always required. I'm confused in light of this from WP:PRIMARY "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Sloorbeadle (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

All articles are supposed to be WP:Based upon WP:Independent and secondary sources (which are not the same thing). Primary sources can be used to add a few details, but they should be used carefully (e.g., if the source says "Paul Politician said this", do not turn that into "Paul Politician said this important thing" or "Paul Politician was correct when he said this"), and they should not be used to contradict stronger types of sources. For example, if a major scientific report says something, then editors would not cite a political magazine to say that the scientists are wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Origin Scenarios

I added an "Origin Scenarios" section, based on the "Classifications" found in Wikipedia's entry on Emerging infectious disease, which is in turn based on a paper by two gentlemen named David M. Morens and Anthony S. Fauci. I thought it would be valuable to have proper classifications of emerging infectious diseases, so that reports of investigations into different origin scenarios aren't conflated with each other. I am unsure why this section was removed instead of improved (it would not have been hard to find the source in the page it linked to). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed it because it was entirely unsourced. Its relevance here is also questionable. This article should be about the scientific investigations into the origin of the virus, but instead, it focuses almost entirely on conspiracy theories. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The four classifications of emerging infectious diseases, which can be sourced in the paper I link to above, defines origin scenarios (which the investigations will presumably investigate). I am not sure what you mean about conspiracy theories. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Normchou, I propose to end the "Unkown Origins" with the sentence ending "remain unknown", as many laypeople do not know this as fact. I propose to spin of a new "Origin Scenarios" section directly below (like the one I created here) to posit theoretical origin scenarios, of which there are four (described by Fauci in the above-mentioned paper), or by Chan in this diagram, explained as succinctly as possible, taking into account points from Forich's "Messy Terminology" post on the WIV talk page here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently none of these theories are supported by unequivocally convincing evidence, so I think they should be kept as is under the "unknown origin" section without being unduly represented elsewhere. Once more evidence from reliable sources comes out, we can discuss about re-arranging the content. Normchou ^💬 18:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

They aren't so much "theories" as they are "scenarios", which serve to explain how infectious diseases immerge. "Newly emerging infectious diseases" would be better than "natural accident", as it better describes the process of zoonosis. The second classification of "Re-emerging infectious diseases" talks to the allegations being made by Chinese MFA spokeswoman Hua Chunying that Covid-19 possibilty originating elsewhere in the world at an earlier date. The "Deliberately emerging infectious diseases" scenario was alleged by the likes of Li-Meng Yan, which have largely been discredited. The "Accidentally emerging infectious diseases" would be the more scientifically accurate than "laboratory accident", or possible escape of a laboratory animal, or improper disposal of waste, etc. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Talpedia, please can you consider estimating probabilities of one origin scenario or mechanism of transmission in a second section on "Origin Scenarios", and not the "Uknown Origins" section itself. I don't think we want to present the presupposition findings of the investigation before its concluded. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... I think we should give WP:DUE weight to the current scientific consensus on sources early on in the article... and what gets written in systematic reviews is kind of consensus. Talpedia (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but I am just talking about a matter of style. I think its best to first establish that the origins of the virus are unknown, and then to get into its evolutionary history, the identity and provenance of its most recent ancestors, and the place, time, and mechanism of transmission of the first human infection (Zoonotic or otherwise).

Also, I would say there is a scientific consensus on the virus originating in bats, so I think "agreed" would be better than "appears". There is still some debate over origins in Pangolins, so "appears" is better there. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that the consensus is that originated in bats, the consensus is that we don't really know but probably bats - I sort of think that scientific knowledge includes uncertainty. We could move the consensenus into the lead and add some context for style. This could fix the flow... Talpedia (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Talpedia: According to PMID 32945405 (a review), it is certainly of bat origin. To quote:

The genomic and bioinformatic analyses of the aforementioned studies, as well as the results of previous studies, confirm that the virus originated in bats and this way put an end to all conspiracy theories regarding this issue.

I don't think any reliable source now demurs from that view on viral origin, does it? Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The source used to cite the sentence does: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32724171/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32920565/ I picked that source out of the reviews you identified on another page as the "most relevant one" - I didn't like the fact that the review you quote here was more broad ("social...") but perhaps it has other things going for it. Like being more recent. Talpedia (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, PMID 32724171 is a primary source and shouldn't be used - especially when on-point secondary sourcing is available. Alexbrn (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, I used the wrong URL above (fixed). Yup that's a primary source that someone added for the *bat* rather than pangolin origin I think. It should be replaced with a secodary source. I commented on this (a little vaguely) here, and just edited this comment to be less vague. Talpedia (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

POVFORK

It's becoming increasingly clear that this page was created as a WP:POVFORK for conspiracy-theory material that has been rejected elsewhere (e.g., at Wuhan Institute of Virology). The same sourcing standards apply here as elsewhere, and the heavy emphasis on conspiracy theories should be replaced with an emphasis on the actual scientific investigations into the origin of CoVID-19. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Disagree Per WP:POVFORK, the accusation of "POV fork" should only be done under extreme circumstances such as persistent disruptive editing, unless the accusing editors themselves are prone to POV-based judgements. Normchou ^💬 16:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion on Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology and Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic has not reached a consensus, and I see that you have been asked by Forich on your talk page to help shortlist MEDRS/RS sources. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. This is clearly not a content work of Wuhan Institute of Virology because it is covering political matters on investigation, not just the institute. Further, this material might detract from the page on covid 19 which should probably be more medical in focus and less to do with investigation and current affairs. I would be more open to the argument that this might be a fork of sections on the covid page.

I think the material should be augmented with more scientific material. Talpedia (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The concern about povfork is valid because some previous attempts obviously were. This article has a better scope and enjoyed more scrutiny, in its current state I wouldn't consider it an unambiguous point-of-view fork. To help, the lead should probably include a statement about the current state of research and maybe a mention about conspiracy theories while leaving those outside of the article's scope (it has its own article). —PaleoNeonate – 02:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that instead of getting into the conspiracy theories in the lead, it would be better to have an "origin scenarios" section below the "origins" section, so as to fully encompass all possibilities in the scope of scientific investigation. The two main conspiracy theories that have been propagated relate to biowarfare, as proposed in a paper by Li-Meng Yan, which has been picked apart and disproven, and HIV inserts, as proposed in a paper by Luc Montagnier, who retracted it. Within the scope of science, there are really only three scenarios that can be investigated (nifty diagram here), while allegations of biowarfare can only be investigated by a UN agency similar to that of the IAEA, which currently doesn't exist, though it may very well come come up later this year at the Ninth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories now mentioned although outside of the article scope with a see-also link to the misinformation article, —PaleoNeonate – 02:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting sources and drama

• Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology contains a detailed discussion on some sources that might be relevant here.
• It also contains a bunch of drama if you should decide it is necessary to be more concerned in the properties of editors than the content of the article. Something that should, I feel, be done sparingly. Talpedia (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Major POV problems

I share the concerns expressed above about this article. I have tagged the entire article as violating WP:NPOV, and specifically highlighted this sentence, which I think illustrates the problems:

The "lab leak theory" has become increasingly difficult to ignore in light of the coincidences and circumstantial evidence that continue to accumulate

This sentence is a serious violation of neutrality. It provides WP:GEVAL to a minority viewpoint, rather than treating it like the minority viewpoint that it is. It has a breathless, unencyclopedic WP:TONE that is better suited for an unprofessional podcast. Instead of relying on the highest quality sources (e.g., reputable scholarly review articles) to give WP:DUE weight to various viewpoints, it cites a news article. It also indicates that it's "increasingly difficult to ignore" it on grounds of scientific plausibility (rather than, e.g., because of its political effects), which is another violation of WP:DUE and incompatible with WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS.

There might be a good encyclopedia article to be written on this subject, but this isn't that article, and these aren't those sources.

I think this could be addressed by seriously shortening the article to report, e.g., a simple list of the major investigations that have happened (keeping WP:DUE weight in mind to exclude distantly related, poorly conducted, or "studies" that amount to a politician dictating the results because the US wants to blame China, Russia wants to blame the US, Palestinians want to blame Israel, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't help but agree. My proposal (above) is to simply lay out the four different origin scenarios that are presumably being investigated, as per Emerging_infectious_disease#Classification (see Fauci paper as source there), and lay off on the running commentary a to which scenario is more likely or plausible than the other. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should just revert back to your early version, which did not have such serious problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Its harder to strip off content at this stage. I am mainly concerned about the removal of the removal of "Origin Scenarios", because now "Unknown Origins" has become a dump. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not see POV problems as serious you have described. If you actually read the "news article" it provides quite some useful information regarding this minority view which can be easily sourced using the provided links and Google (scholar) search. For example:

It's true the coronaviruses isolated from pangolins show similarities to both RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2, leading researchers to posit a bat virus and pangolin virus may have swapped genetic material some time ago in a process called recombination, and this may have given rise to the novel coronavirus. This has since been billed as unlikely. [1]

...

And the pangolin coronavirus data was unusual. Chan and her collaborator Shing Zhan studied the sequences, highlighting a number of inconsistencies between the major studies and questioning missing or unpublished data in a preprint paper posted to bioRxiv [2]. She points to one Nature paper as "dishonest" and says it involves "scientifically unacceptable" practices like publishing samples under different names and the inclusion of deceptive figures. On Nov. 11, Nature added an editors' note [3] to that paper, alerting readers to these concerns. An investigation is ongoing, though the authors have stated these were honest mistakes.

...

In light of these oddities, and earlier research examining the pangolin coronaviruses, microbiologist Roger Frutos believes the creatures should be "exonerated." Yet, as recently as Jan. 8 [4], the pangolin is still being brokered as a potential starting point in the origins of COVID-19 by Shi Zhengli and other scientists. Any continued focus on the pangolin, Frutos notes, risks misleading investigations into the origins of the disease.

...

In 2004, two lab workers at the National Institute of Virology in Beijing became ill with pneumonia. They had inadvertently been infected with the SARS coronavirus after "two separate breaches of bio-safety," according to the WHO. The accident resulted in 11 cases and one death, only a year after the SARS outbreak had been contained.

...

"The second, third, fourth and fifth entries of the original SARS coronavirus into human populations occurred as a laboratory accident," says Richard Ebright, a chemical biologist at Rutgers University who has long had concerns about the safe use of high-level biosafety laboratories.

...

Shi considered this possibility when she first heard about a new coronavirus spreading in Wuhan, according to an interview given to Scientific American on March 11. [5] Other researchers, too, have contemplated such a scenario.

...

The task force features 10 researchers, approved by the Chinese government... The most contentious scientist on the team is Peter Daszak. As the head of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit that studies spillover events, Daszak has been a collaborator of over 15 years with the WIV's Shi Zhengli, helping fund research and surveilling bat coronaviruses in China to ascertain how the next pandemic might begin... But Daszak's close relationship with the WIV is also seen by many as a conflict of interest when it comes to the WHO's investigation.

...

"A lab leak situation could directly threaten all of that," says Sainath Suryanarayanan, a staff scientist at investigative nonprofit US Right To Know looking into the origin story. This should not be taken as evidence of a vast conspiracy spearheaded by Daszak and the Chinese to cover up a lab leak. It merely highlights the conflicts of interest presented by Daszak's inclusion. Under these circumstances, can the investigation hope to find any evidence of a leak? "I have zero confidence left in the WHO team," Chan says.

...

Normchou ^💬 19:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you are extrapolating well beyond what those quotations say. Consider, e.g., the quotation that "The second, third, fourth and fifth entries of the original SARS coronavirus into human populations occurred as a laboratory accident."

Does that tell you anything about the origin of the first SARS outbreak? No.

Does the origin of any SARS outbreak tell you anything about the origin of COVID-19 outbreak? No.

And yet you seem to be quoting these as if that will convince us that since a different pre-existing natural virus infected a lab worker and then spread to the general population, then this new virus must also have come from a lab accident.

That is exactly as illogical as believing that HIV was produced in a lab just because some lab workers were later infected while handling contaminated materials. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've made a mistake by making this into one about how specific arguments should or should not be made within a topic, which I have no interest in. My comment is only intended to address your WP:NPOV concern, which is about representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Normchou ^💬 20:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

None of this is from "reliable sources on a topic", and none of this represents "significant views" about the science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but that's only your opinion. I encourage other editors to read the article [6], click on the links to the research papers and other reliable sources provided in the article, and make their own judgments regarding the purported POV issue. Normchou ^💬 05:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: Do you think the POV tag still applies? If so, an update on what should be improved is welcome. Many thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate, I have tried to get through the whole article tonight, so I could answer your question with a clean conscience, but I haven't made it even half way. Given the discussions on this page, I would be surprised if we have achieved WP:Due weight in the US government section. (I'm sorry that it took me over a week to get back to you; please ping me if you need a quicker response.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not urgent of course, always a work in progress, —PaleoNeonate – 10:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate, it's still a mess. I've removed a whole lot of "Politician got his name in the paper", and there's probably still more. Also, I'm pretty sure that half of what I pulled has been removed before, which suggests that some people are desperately trying to get these talking points into some Wikipedia article, and they don't seem to be deterred by unimportant details, such as the fact that 'U.S. State Department published a "fact sheet"' is not "an investigation".

I'm going to take a break. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm if I start by reading the "Scope and subject of this article" section below, am I right that the lead should probably be rewritten to specify the scope (generally done for list-style articles although it's probably good here) and that some of the article's body doesn't fit? —PaleoNeonate – 06:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Pangolins

Hey @WhatamIdoing: I added back pangolins because it's mentioned in the source with what appears to be equal prominence to bats. Is this outdated? Talpedia (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe that it's outdated, but we should check a better source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with mentioning pangolins, but then one must also include other refs which say that the intermediate hosts probably were not pangolins or that the intermediate host is actually unknown.My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I found this source in Talk:Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#Shortlist this list that User:Alexbrn wrote earlier this month. There might be something more recent there.... Talpedia (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The current source for pangolins vs bats (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32724171/) is a primary source with a bunch of genetics. It would be better if we could get a secondary source. edit: Talpedia (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Given that WP:MEDRS was used as a purported reason for one of the reverts, here is the genuine question of how WP:MEDRS relates to this article. WP:MEDRS itself supports the general sourcing policy, with addition attention paid to medical content. But to what extent is the source-tracing of a virus medical in nature? In my opinion, WP:MEDRS should not be abused in non-medical context within this article. Normchou ^💬 19:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Normchou, MEDRS applies to every "scientific" statement about a virus that causes a disease in humans. So, for example, MEDRS applies when deciding whether the virus originated in bats vs pangolins vs some other way, but MEDRS does not apply when deciding which people traveled to which countries on which dates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not see what you've described in WP:MEDRS, which says it deals with "all biomedical information", not "every 'scientific' statement about a virus that causes a disease in humans". Wikipedia:Biomedical information gives more context but I see no mention of "a virus that causes a disease in humans". There are a lot of other perspectives, both scientific and non-scientific, in the investigation into the source of a virus, whether it can directly cause a human disease or not. Normchou ^💬 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS covers biomedical information, and editors can, and do, treat "scientific" information about viruses that infect humans as being biomedical information. If you would like, I can start a quick RFC for you, but after hanging out with Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine for the last 14 years, and writing Wikipedia:Biomedical information myself, I already know what the result will be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I would rather discuss the issue at hand instead of highlighting my "tenure" and "contributions" to give the impression of being an "authority" on Wikipedia, which I am not and never intend to be so. I alluded to Wikipedia:Biomedical information because it is a reference I find useful, but I am also fully aware of its caveat that This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. If there is community consensus that this article cannot escape the long arm of WP:MEDRS, then I respectfully accept it. Normchou ^💬 20:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia:Biomedical information, something like virus (including evolution of viruses) or water would not be covered, however any information on how they affect human health would be covered. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Agree This is much more reasonable than every "scientific" statement about a virus that causes a disease in humans. Also, Wikipedia:Biomedical information itself has not been thoroughly vetted by the community, which I believe further limits its power in terms of "jurisdiction" beyond its normal boundaries. At any rate, I don't think this article will have any information on "how something affects human health". Normchou ^💬 03:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  That page says, under the section heading "What is biomedical information?", that this type of content is covered by MEDRS:

  Biomedical research

  Information about clinical trials or other types of biomedical research that address the above entries or allow conclusions to be made about them.

  I wonder why you think that lab research into the origin of a virus is not "biomedical research" that addresses the entry above labeled "Attributes of a disease or condition" (specifically "how it is caught", since we are talking about how the first person caught this virus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think what you've suggested above is highly misleading. We are not here to talk about the biological and physiological characteristics and mechanisms of the viral infection process in the first person who got COVID-19. How the first person caught this virus? in the context of this article is semantically more or less equivalent to "Where did the virus that infected the first person come from?"The subject of the article is the virus' origin. It has nothing to do with the first person who got COVID-19, or their body, or their immune system, or their organs, or their cells, or their antibodies, or whatever specious "biomedical aspect" inappropriately imposed, so that as long as someone shouts "Not WP:MEDRS!", it can have the destructive effect of censoring significant viewpoints supported by reliable sources. Normchou ^💬 04:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC); edited 04:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC); edited 05:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think one should simply follow WP:RS and use common sense. For example, something like that or that or that I think would be OK to source that we do not know who was "patient zero" (arguably, an epidemiology question). My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

CNET

I question the use of this source to promote speculations of "increasingly difficult to ignore". It is a type of computer tech magazine that is considered reliable for tech news like computers and video games... —PaleoNeonate – 19:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this must be rephrased. Too POV-ish. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We should probably not be using a computer magazine as a source in this article at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if the origin of a disease somehow weren't a scientific question, I wouldn't be going to get my news about it from people whose latest story is "HBO subscribers: Watch Wonder Woman 1984 for free with HBO Max before it leaves Jan. 24". XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I had a search for "better" sources related to this. I was wondering whether "polling" or "politics" journals might be good sources. A lot of the material seems to be about "conspiracy theories" which isn't exactly useful for this. We are interested in promience separate of whether something is a conspiracy or not and "prominence amongst people who matter". Talpedia (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that it depends upon how you conceptualize the subject of the article. My impression from looking at the early versions is that the idea was to make a list of significant research projects, rather than to describe the results of those studies and the scientific consensus. If I've understood the goal, then this is more like a "List of major grants to study COVID's origins" than "Conspiracy theories about COVID's origins" or "Scientific consensus about the origins of SARS-CoV-2" article.

What's clear to me is that much of what's on the page right now needs to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. A "list of major grants and projects" type of article would be justifiable, I think, and statements about the existence of a project and who's involved with it are easier to source than scientific hypotheses. The current text seems rather far from that and needs a lot of work. (For example, it takes the State Department's accusations at face value, when the best secondary sources so far available cast doubt upon their significance, calling them little beyond insinuation.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim was "difficult to ignore". If most people thought that this needed investigating (polling) or most "important people" (e.g. scientists, doctors, politicians) felt that it needed to be investignted then this claim becomes quite technical. Grants are another way of measuring what people care about. The claim as it stands seems to mostly be the impression of the author of the quote rather than something that is objective, even in a loose sense. This sort of claim about "public mood" seems to turn up a bit in history Talpedia (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the above thread is very confusing and unconstructive, because no one is really discussing the actual CNET source: the content, the viewpoints, the links to research papers and other reliable sources, etc. I encourage other editors who have a genuine interest in improving this article to read the sources and make their judgments. Normchou ^💬 05:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This was specific to this material that used a suboptimal source to make a questionable claim. The source appears to have been reintroduced albeit not to support the same sentence. —PaleoNeonate – 08:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Scope and subject of this article

There have been several comments in different sections above, so I'd like to have a single discussion here:

What is this article about?

My best guess at the moment is that this article

1. includes an overview of the major research programs and projects by governments (and the World Health Organization) that are entirely or primarily dedicated to identifying the origin of the virus
   • For example, "The Foo Department of Ruritania opened an investigation into viral DNA in pangolins in Octember 2020".
   • However, it should exclude most details, e.g., the exact date on which a project was formally commissioned.
   • However, it should exclude all "minor" research projects and all projects that provide some information about its origin as a byproduct of research intended for some other, non-origin-related purpose (e.g., if research on a vaccine happens to provide some bit of information that is relevant to origin-focused research)
2. includes (or will, eventually) a very brief statement about the results (if any) from those research programs
   • For example, "They published a paper claiming that pangolins have DNA".
   • Most of the content should not be scientific. Most of content should be about politics and bureaucracies.
3. includes a brief background statement about the current dominant theory (sourced to MEDRS sources)
   • For example, "As of January 2021, the virus that causes COVID-19 is believed to have originated in bats and spread to humans through natural means in late 2019"
   • Could also include links to {{see also|Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Origin misinformation}} and {{see also|Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin}}
4. excludes all private research programs (e.g., research projects at pharmaceutical companies, projects funded by grants from private foundations)
5. excludes all conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus
6. excludes everything that politicians say about the origin of the virus
   • unless it is something that doesn't even hint at a scientific claim, e.g. "Paul Politician said that this million-dollar taxpayer-funded research program would help struggling Ruritania's biotech sector"
7. excludes almost everything else that The Internet has to say about the origin of the virus
8. excludes all theories that aren't the primary focus of a major government-sponsored research program or project
   • For example, if there are no major government-sponsored research programs or projects investigating pangolins (or cell phone towers, or lab accidents, or whatever else might be on the list), then we don't mention the pangolins in this article.

Does this sound about right to you? User:ScrupulousScribe, I particularly hope to hear your view, since you started this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I just want to reminder everyone of the community policies Adding information to Wikipedia and WP:NOTPERFECT. Imposing ex ante restrictions regarding what can or cannot be added to an article is neither necessary nor in line with the spirit of the project. Other than that, feel free to discuss. Normchou ^💬 03:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC); Edited 03:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It would also be "neither necessary nor in line with the spirit of the project" to take an article written by one editor about government programs and turn it into an article about virus origin stories. If we agree that these are separate subjects, then we do kind of need to figure out which one belongs on this page... WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE is also part of the WP:NPOV policy, —PaleoNeonate – 17:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Dueness is contingent on actual reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint WP:DUE. It is an empirical or "ex post" requirement. Imposing ex ante restricts on what can or cannot appear in an article without seeing the actual RSes has little to do with dueness. Normchou ^💬 17:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Dueness" is dependent upon actual reliable sources about the subject of the article, which necessarily means that we need to know what the subject of the article is. One cannot say that there have been more and better reliable sources written about cancer, and thus all the COVID-related articles are going to talk about cancer instead. We need to decide what the subject of this article is before we can figure out what the actual reliable sources are. If the subject is "what actions governments are taking to discover the origin", then that's different content (with different, mostly non-MEDRS sources) than "where did the virus actually originate". We might need articles on both subjects, but I do not think we will write anything worthwhile so long as different editors have different ideas about what the subject ought to be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, no. A Wikipedia article is in a process of evolution (Wikipedia:Content assessment#Evolution of an article – an example, outreach:Life of an Article), with the boundary of its content also continuously adjusting as new RSes and viewpoints emerge. If an article gets too large, part of it can be moved to other articles or spinned off as separate articles (Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues). It is unrealistic and against the spirit of Wikipedia to suggest that an entire article is unworthy or should stop being improved just because some editors have not reached consensus about some aspect of it. On the other hand, your imaginary all the COVID-related articles are going to talk about cancer scenario is susceptible to being a slippery slope, whereas in reality, article improvement is almost always done in a piecemeal, incremental fashion—as it should be in an evolutionary process—with various checks and balances throughout the process. Normchou ^💬 07:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel like you understand what I'm saying. Yes, the exact boundaries may change over time as new sources and viewpoints emerge, but we're talking about an article that is just a few days old. The likelihood of new sources and viewpoints emerging in the space of a week is basically zero.

I think you have misunderstood the scope of this article. I think you are trying to write Claims about the origins of COVID-19, and that this article's scope is meant to be List of government projects investigating the origin of COVID-19. One of these things is not like the other, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, #4,5,6,7,8 are unacceptable and go against WP:NPOV. All of that should be included. It does not matter if something was publicly or privately funded. It does not matter if something was published "on the Internet" if it qualifies as a WP:RS. No, the claims on political controversies do not need to be "scientific". In addition, if there are notable conspiracy theories or controversies related/about the subject of the page, they must be included on the page. Note the "investigation" in that case is not only science, it may involve journalistic investigations, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk)
  • My very best wishes, I'd like to hear more about this. Are you saying that it's POVish to have separate articles on government actions and private actions? Would you similarly say that an article about the role of the pharmaceutical companies in researching COVID treatments is inherently POVish, and that if we're going to have an article about research, it needs to mix together corporate, charitable, and government research in one massive article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You can not blacklist any privately funded research if the results were reliably published. Why does it matter if the funding was public or private? I do not think anything needs to be separated by the source of funding even within one page. Separating content to different pages is great if done properly, but by the source of funding is not such a way. Placing "theories" to separate pages is fine, but they should be linked and mentioned on this page. More important, all concerns, such as ones by US State Department (rather than "conspiracy theories"), should be listed on this page to explain why the investigation by WHO was needed. My objections was also about an arbitrary exclusion of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that the existence of a substantial funding source is important as it indicates the presence of actual biomedical-type research, rather that speculation by crackpots recycling their causes (e.g., "polio vaccines cause infertility – hey, so do COVID vaccines", "That country is always trying to destroy us – so they invented a virus to destroy us", "Cell phone towers are evil – cell phone towers cause COVID", "The government is trying to take away our freedom – COVID is the latest hoax by which they will justify taking away our freedom", etc.).

I think that the existing of public funding is possibly important because people might genuinely want to know what their taxpayer money is being used for. But the reason that I put that in the list is merely because nearly all of the content on the page is already about government agencies. I was trying to describe what's already happened in the article, not to demand that it be this way or that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, funding by the NIH does not automatically means this is a biomedical research as defined in Wikipedia:Biomedical information. They fund a lot of things, even something which is arguably pseudoscience. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Certainly. But the amount of biomedical research that happens with zero funding is approximately zero. If there is no funding, then there is probably no research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I think that this is a great start to clearly establish the article's scope. In relation to 5 we already have another article, although I think it would be appropiate for the lead or a hatnote to link there from this article. For 6, political statements are often part of journalistic reporting and may go in various other relevant (often regional) article timelines when WP:DUE. —PaleoNeonate – 17:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense, overall; I could probably quibble with this point or that, but that would trend into hair-splitting, and I doubt it would be productive. All the above points are in line with the general principle that we write about things when we have documentation that they are significant in sources reliable enough for the topic, rather than deciding what is important first and then dropping our standards until we have "sources" that talk about it. And it's entirely in accord with policy to draw a line around a subject and say that for organizational purposes, other things are off-topic in a particular article. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I guess this discussion is mostly about defining what is due and not at a high level for the article. Regarding conspiracy theories: Presumably the problem with conspiracy theories is that they generate a lot of "noise" with limited actual research, and therefore have a tendency to gain mindshare and prominence through this, rather than that real concern - this in turn influences the press. This influence may also push into politics. For example, a program might exist to dispell conspiracy theories. I am not sure if excluding conspiracy theories is a stated aim of wikipedia other than WP:Due (see also WP:Fringe). Of course to add to the murk, the label conspiracy theory of conspiracy theorist can be used to political exclude ideas that are true from discourse. I think if the investigators themselves state the aim of a program is to investigate the topic of something that is a conspiracy theory in the technical sense (shared on the internet as a conspiracy and behaving like a conspiracy theory) then we should still mention this fact. We should not arbitrarily exclude content because it happens to be conspiracy theory. That said, the exist of conspiracy theory will create undue attention in the popular press, so I think we should only include this if this is the topic of the investigation itself. E.g. if an aim is to investigate the lab leak then we shouldn't suppress this, but if a popular press piece mentions conspiracy theories in the content of the investigation we should not Talpedia (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Due weight" must be defined by the coverage in RS per WP:NPOV. Google scholar finds almost nothing on the subject of this page. However, search in Google news does produce a lot of hits, even like that (a news article in "Nature"). Hence, this is not a scientific, but mostly a political subject. It the subject of the page was more general, i.e. simply Origin of COVID-19 rather than "investigations" by WHO, journalists, whoever (as long as this is published in RS), that might be partly different. Therefore, the suggestion above (i.e. focusing on MEDRS sources that are sorely lacking) does not make any sense and goes against WP:NPOV. As about your another question, please see Category:Fairy tales, Category:Conspiracy theories, Category:Science fiction, religious subjects, etc. All of them are valid encyclopedic subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

    • "Due weight" must be defined by the coverage in RS per WP:NPOV

      . I guess, but conspiracy theories can render what sources *would* be reliable less likely to be reliable because the "din" of the conspiracy theory distract the author - if something is contentious it is best to "go the science" rather than listen to din. I would prefer to fix this by trying hard to find good sources rather than moving line to exclude sources that would be considered reliable on less contentious topics - but the lack of sources on covid makes this difficult. I agree that at the moment this is mostly a political subject. I guess I meant more how to respond to existence of conspiracy theories surrounding a topic, rather than whether conspiracy theories should be included. Talpedia (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
      • it is best to "go the science". I 100% agree, but I just do not see much on this specific subject. Where is the specific population of bats this virus came from? What was the intermediate host, and how exactly the involvement of this host was scientifically proven? Who was patient zero, and how he/she was found? That must be emphasized on this page. But if there are no scientifically solid answers to these questions, then we only have speculations and political controversies. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I would hope that there is still "scientific" speculation and political theory in the sense that a community try as hard as possible to obtain some sort of truth and opens itself to critique. If this exists, it is to be preferred to newspaper articles in conspiracy-theory-laden topics. Talpedia (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Of course there is WHO paper, but it does not give any answers. Our page COVID-19_pandemic#Background provides a fair description of how little is known. Obviously, there is a significant sequence similarity with other bat viruses, hence no one doubts it did came from bats. So yes, this is a zoonotic disease. But the virus could pass through a lab and even be easily modified in a lab, at least in theory. What gives me a pause are the actions by Chinese government to suppress information and a few other details, some (not all) can be found here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Talpedia, I largely agree with what you're saying. If there is a serious investigation of some sort into the origins of Covid-19 and 5G mobile networks that is being reported in reliable sources that meet WP:RS, then by all means lets find a space somewhere in this article to give it a mention, but I highly doubt that will come about. In the meantime, I think we should focus on the real scientific investigations taking place, and the main scenarios being investigated. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You probably can not comment on article talk pages on subjects covering your topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
      • I think I have been able to avoid talking about the specific subject of the topic I am banned from. I wasn't aware that I couldn't participate on the talk page of this Covid-19 page, so I'll hit the pause button, just in case. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Talpedia, I think 'the problem with conspiracy theories', with respect to this article, is that I believe that the subject of the article is supposed to be major research programs run by actual government agencies, which is usually the opposite of conspiracy theories. It's not that we can't find reliable sources; it's that there aren't any government agencies producing ideas like "the virus was caused by radiation from cell phone towers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing But the investigatory groups do seem to be specifically considering the lab leak hypothesis which is probably a "conspiracy theory" in the technical sense. From the lancet group:

"The possibility of laboratory involvement in the origins of the pandemic should be examined with scientific rigour and thoroughness, and with open scientific collaboration."

. This existence of this prominent conspiracy theory has perhaps influenced their writing and the when *journalists* report on it they might sort of "mixup" science, conspiracy theory and politics. Talpedia (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Talpedia, I'd like to reply by backing up to what @My very best wishes said above:

> Who was patient zero, and how he/she was found? That must be emphasized on this page.

I don't agree that this question must be emphasized on this page. I think that belongs in a different article, which would be called something like Origins of COVID-19. The fact that Origins of COVID-19 doesn't exist, and that some editors want to write about that subject seems to be causing the difficulty here. Some editors seem to be looking at the last half of the title and assuming that everything about the "origins" belongs here, because it's all "investigations", right?

My understanding of this page is that it was created to list the major scientific investigations into the origins of COVID-19. If we decide that the lab leak idea was "investigated" (which is undisputed, I believe?), and that the investigation was "major" (however editors define that, through consensus-oriented, source-based editing and discussion, but I hope the consensus will be "scientific investigation" and not "journalistic investigation"), then this page would describe "the investigation". That description would include, but not be limited to or overly focused upon, any results of that investigation. Thus the Origins of COVID-19 article might say something like "Early in the pandemic, there was unfounded speculation that the virus leaked from a lab; however, subsequent investigation determined that the lab didn't actually have that a copy of that virus in 2019" (or whatever the results of the investigation actually were), but this one would get content that sounds more like "This agency spent $2M flying scientists to China in January to look at this lab". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this should be the main focus of the page, and I agree that conspiracy theories should probably be excluded (even if they are mentioned in articles discussing the investigation). I think if the investigatory groups themselves identify conspiracy theories as something they are investigating then we should probably include that fact however. Talpedia (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If they're investigating the possible conspiracy theory (e.g., the conspiracy theory has some level of scientific and practical plausibility), then yes! But not if the "investigation" is primarily one of law enforcement or journalism (e.g., cell phone towers). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

For clarity: If the WHO announced tomorrow that one of their top 10 research priorities was finding COVID-19's Patient Zero, then I'd argue that we should have a section on ==WHO investigation into patient zero==. But so far, I've not seen any organized projects to identify patient zero, and therefore that content doesn't belong on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment WhatamIdoing, would it be possible for us to use numbering instead of bulleting? You've listed a lot of good points worth considering on their own, and also in relation to each other. For example, I agree with 1.1, but disagree with 1.2, and 1.3 in relation to each other, as many vaccine research papers (like this one) also include a lot of origin research, because its not possible to create a vaccine for a virus without understanding certain aspects of its origins and in particular if/how it has stabilised (as that paper explains in great detail).

Furthermore, I agree with 2.1 but I think 2.2 needs to be clarified, as if it is a scientific research program, then the content should be scientific, and if it is a government organization that made a statement, such as the US gov (which claimed to have a whistleblower), then I don't think the content of the statement needs to be scientific (they can't "out" their source in this case).

I don't agree with 3, and on that note, I don't agree with the editors who removed the "Unknown Origins" section of this article, as there are currently no "dominant" theories as to the origin of the virus, and we need to distinguish between the matter of which species of animal the virus originated from, from the matter of the mechanism of transmission of the first human infection, as while there is a firm scientific consensus on the former (it's bats and pangolins), there is no scientific consensus on the latter (there are several scenarios). I would like for the "Unknown Origins" section to be restored, as it more accurately presents the position of the WHO as stated in its "terms of reference" document for its investigation, and I think it would be more prudent for the weighting of different origin scenarios by their plausibility be moved into an "Origin Scenarios" section below, based on statements made by scientists in reliable sources, but avoiding any language that would indicate there is a clear consensus in the wider scientific community for any given scenario (unless there is indeed such a consensus, which can only be the result of a truly "open scientific investigation" by a truly independent organization, like the World Health Organisation, devoid of the issues it currently has). MEDRS would not be applicable here, as unless there is a truly open scientific investigation by an organisation (like the WHO), or forensic evidence of some sort (like the intermediate host or virus), then no origin scenario can be truly proven (despite what the given MEDRS might claim). Please also read this post from Forich on proper terminology relating to determining the origins of the virus.

I am not sure if I agree or disagree with 4, as like I noted above, most vaccine research includes some origin research, but WP:DUE and WP:RS should apply as to which private organization is worth mentioning for what.

I am not sure if I agree with 5, as I think the two most prolific conspiracy theories ("biowarfare" and "HIV inserts") and their debunkage should be covered in "origin scenarios", so that they are not conflated with other scenarios that may share certain aspects that I can't talk about (topic ban).

I somewhat agree on 5, and I think the comments by Trump and Pompeo should be removed from the article, as they do not speak as to which investigations were made by their administration (likely ongoing) and what their findings were (likely unclear). However, WP:DUE should apply here, and the comments from Iain Duncan Smith (quoted in The Times article above) revealing the contents of a classified virtual meeting held with Matthew Pottinger (about the whistleblower and Potemkin exercise), are worth including.

On 7, do you mean "The Internet" as in user generated content, or also reliable sources? Wired just published a piece on the origins of the virus (you will have to Google it because it's subject of a topic I'm banned from talking about), and I don't think they have a paper edition, so I don't think we should exclude the entire internet.

I'm not sure if I agree on 8, as though I find it unlikely that a real investigation can get underway without government funding, there is always the possibility of an outlier making a relevant discovery worthy of mention, such as Alina Chan's paper, which sparked much of the debate around a topic I am banned from talking about (sorry, but you can Google her paper).

Overall, I agree with your sentiment that this article should have some scope, and when I started it, the intention was to report the findings of the various different investigations taking place, but also to report on the circumstances of the investigations, and any relevant matters relating to the scientific process.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

On 7, I definitely mean "the internet" in a way that excludes high-quality reliable sources that happen to be available on the web. Think Blogosphere, Twitterverse, Internet memes, etc., rather than major news media or academic journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I agree, but doesn't Wikipedia have a policy about UGC anyway? I just checked here, and it says that content from such sites is "generally unacceptable". I wonder if this allows for content in some circumstances. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you can't cite user-generated content directly does not seem to stop editors from hearing about a story on social media, and then searching for sources of low-to-mediocre quality that repeat whatever was said on social media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, are you referring to something in specific? I am pretty open to any changes to be made. I was also wondering what your thoughts were on my replies above. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: this is a good baseline. Above all, there should be much more focus on scientific investigation into the origins of the virus, including the WHO mission. I don't think that the claims made by the Trump administration should be labeled an "investigation", particularly given the reporting about the political nature of the claims (e.g., the NY Times reported that the Trump administration pressured the intelligence agencies to find evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion, and German intelligence told the German government that the Trump administration's claims were likely deliberate misinformation). -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: But no 4 should be subject to some flexibility. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories can go into a separate article if mentioned in a RS. Deb (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Or maybe just take #4 out entirely? If there's an actual scientific research project happening, involving reputable research organizations that aren't government agencies (e.g., Harvard University), then I personally would have no objection to including them. If the page got too long, we could always split it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• support: per Paleoneonate--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• The current focus on investigations is fine, but my preference would be that we broaden the scope to be an article about Origin of SARS-CoV-2 (does such an article already exist? I'm surprised I can't find one). I think the broader topic has more sources available, and would allow us to describe the investigations in their context. That said, if folks feel an article that's part science-focused and part politics/bureaucracy-focused will be a hassle to manage, I'm sympathetic to that idea. Ajpolino (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Ajpolino, that content is currently at Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Reservoir and zoonotic origin, which could be WP:SPLIT to a separate article (especially if it gets bigger). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino, I have proposed that COVID-19 pandemic#History branches into this (currently draft) Emergence of COVID-19 Outbreak. Please discuss at the talk page of the pandemic. Forich (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think the scope and subject of this page will remain a challenge as WHO mission chief Peter Embarek recently tweeted that his study is not an investigation: https://twitter.com/Peterfoodsafety/status/1368322592063557639 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CutePeach (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Content removal

Regarding the content that User:Thucydides411 removed:

While it is a known fact that scientists at a lab in Wuhan have conducted ongoing research on coronaviruses, a U.S. official said that the results of the investigation were "inconclusive".

It directly summarizes these two sentences from the RS:

But scientists at a military and a civilian lab in Wuhan, where the virus originated, are known to have conducted ongoing research on coronaviruses, officials say.

Asked about the intelligence on NBC's "TODAY" show, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said, "this is something we've been watching closely now for some time," adding that the results of the investigation are thus far "inconclusive."

---

Regarding the content they removed:

The hypothesis was one of several possibilities being pursued by the investigators.

It directly summarizes this sentence of the RS they removed:

The theory is one of multiple being pursued by investigators as they attempt to determine the origin of the coronavirus that has resulted in a pandemic and killed hundreds of thousands.

---

Regarding the content they removed:

The official highlighted the lack of an independent team inside China.

It directly summarizes this sentences from the RS:

"No one's able to stay one way or the other," the official said, highlighting -- as American officials have -- the lack of an independent team on the ground. "We just don't know enough," the official added.

I have not examined the new materials they introduced, but will do it later today. If this kind of WP:SNEAKY behavior continues, I will file a report at ANI to have an uninvolved admin to further scrutinize their conduct.

Normchou ^💬 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

It directly summarizes these two sentences from the RS. The RS attributes those statements to US officials. The text that I removed said, "While it is a known fact that ...". Note the lack of attribution and the POV language, implying a contradiction ("While") between a supposed known fact and the next claim, that the results of the investigation were inconclusive.

Regarding the content they removed: I replaced this passage, including the preceding sentence, with a single sentence that more succinctly summarizes the information, and which includes the fact that the investigation was ordered by Trump administration officials.

Normchou, you've accused me on my talk page of vandalism, and here you've accused me of violating WP:SNEAKY. This policy covers behaviors such as adding plausible misinformation to articles and mpersonating other users by signing an edit with a different username or IP address. There's no way my edits could plausibly be construed to fall under this policy. Wikipedia policy is very clear that accusations of vandalism should not be made against good faith edits. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Putting aside accusations of vandalism and ill-faith for a minute, why did you remove what was the first statement by the US government on an official investigation activity, made by the OST on 6 February 2020. As it reads now, the section US Investigation section launches straight into a tirade against a certain theory (which we shall not utter), without making any mention of any US government investigation activity (by that time, even the Chinese gov had barely launched an investigation), and the CIA statements don't seem to based on the results of any investigation. I think the section on US government investigation should stick to the subject of actual US government investigation activities, starting with the OST statement. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Thucydides411, I am accusing you of subtle vandalism because you are reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.These two improvements [7] [8] would not have occurred should the original sentence be removed, as you did in your edits. If you think I should accuse you of something else, presumably more serious than subtle vandalism, I am pretty confident I can collect the relevant diffs of your edits and file a report on ANI. So please stop this type of behavior. Normchou ^💬 15:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC); edited 15:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Normchou: You've been editing Wikipedia for more than 10 years. You know better than to make false accusations of vandalism. Please strike your comments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Thucydides411, I will not strike my comment about a fact. Also, in your above comment, you claimed the reason for the removal of the first sentence was The RS attributes those statements to US officials, yet in this edit you introduced [9], you precisely omitted the attribution to US officials. And instead of removing the entire sentence you introduced, I fixed it [10]. Normchou ^💬 16:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

If you disagree with my edits, you're free to say so, but calling my editing vandalism is not acceptable. Strike your accusations. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Normchou, on Wikipedia, saying that something is vandalism is exactly equivalent to saying that you think the person who did it was actively trying to harm the article. If you want to make that claim, please make it at ANI (and please notify me if you decide to do that). Otherwise, please strike your accusation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Normchou did not notify me, so I'll post the ANI link here for anyone else who might be interested: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Subtle vandalism and a possibly more serious issue of conduct by User:Thucydides411. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The result of this discussion is that Normchou will not be editing COVID-19-related articles for the next three months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Normchou: Over at ANI, you accused me of vandalism for, among other things, including the statement that German intelligence had suggested that claims made by the Trump administration might be "misinformation". You pointed out that the CNBC source does not include that word. I went back and saw that it indeed does not. However, the original report in Der Spiegel says it might be a "gezielte Falschmeldung" ("deliberate misinformation"). I used the CNBC article because it's in English. I didn't notice that it doesn't contain this piece of information. Rather than going to ANI to accuse long-time editors of vandalism over trivial issues like this, you can just lay out your objections/concerns on the talk page. You're much more likely to make actual progress on resolving content disputes that way than by making baseless accusations of vandalism. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

1. There was little indication in your edits that you attributed or intended to attribute it to Der Spiegel, and it constituted a very minor aspect of my accusation anyway. I am more than happy to retract this part if what you've said above is true, and I would still encourage others go to ANI and see for themselves all that you've done with this article together with corroborating diffs. 2. No, the more conducive way would've been for you to first acknowledge my warning Please reach consensus first before removing any well-sourced content before you decided to go ahead with your sneaky little trick. Normchou ^💬 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Normchou, there is no consensus that any of this was "well-sourced content". It is, to quote you, "only your opinion" that it was well-sourced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong title

Doesn't everyone know Covid-19 originates with a viral infection? Shouldn't this page be "Investigations into the origin of SARS-CoV-2"? GPinkerton (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but we should probably figure out whether this article is about "the investigations" or "the origin" before we try to move it (again). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

U.S. government investigations

The "U.S. government investigations" section has WP:PROSELINE problems. It should probably be condensed, with less emphasis placed on dates and quotes.

Also, over-quoting can be a really big problem with articles. I've seen this in my work with the Guild of Copy Editors. Keep in mind that quotes are not subject to our normal revising/polishing process (can never have their text changed), can pepper an article with POV statements (since we can state POV with quotes but can't in wiki-voice), and increases mental burden on the reader (quotes tend to be less succinct than summary prose stating the same thing). WP:QUOTEFARM. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the same thing may apply for the WHO Investigation, and I just saw this statement from WHO Official Michael Ryan who said he isn't going to give continual updates till the investigation is completed. I'm sure he'll give a statement at least when the investigation team comes back from China in a couple of weeks, but the investigation can take years. Given that this is a current event, isn't it normal to add statements as they come out? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS. Granted, this mostly gets ignored during big events - which is why COVID-19 articles are often terrible pile-ups of tedious blow-by-blow accounts of what happened, as it happened. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, articles about big events tend to grow rapidly and without planning, requiring cleanup later. Better to think carefully before adding new things, particularly when the "news" is "there's not going to be real news". XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that these sections aren't in good shape. What I think would be helpful is if someone could identify the actual, discrete projects being undertaken. I'd like to see content that sounds more like "Big Agency started Some Project in Month to research Detail".

I've just boldly removed anything from the ==US== section that didn't look to me like an actual investigation (e.g., that a politician said one thing in one interview and the opposite in another interview on the same day). That left a request from OSTP to NASEM to do something (not exactly an investigation, but close enough?) and the investigations by the US intelligence community (completely non-scientific, but maybe it counts?). I think it's an improvement that moves this article towards objective knowledge instead of "psychological warfare" and political machination. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I was having similar thoughts. Good call. Alexbrn (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with the mass delete. I've put it back, per WP:BRD. Maybe change the section title to US government position or similar, then address each item separately, if needed. Arcturus (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The topic of this article is "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19". Content needs to specific to that. Alexbrn (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I agree with trimming down the section, but I also agree with Arcturus that we should discuss it here, so as to foster cooperation. I agree to removing the paragraph with the statements from Pompeo, as he didn't reference any investigations, or reveal any new information, and only further politicized the issue. However, the paragraph with the statements from Pottinger does reference investigations (US intelligence agencies do have scientific capacity), and it did reveal new information (whistleblower and position on WHO investigation). The USDOS "fact sheet" is highly relevant, providing new information from investigations, including the whistleblower that Pottinger spoke about in his Zoom call with the MPs, and the comment about the WHO investigation is especially relevant as an official US gov position. I also think the Psaki statement is significant, in that it demonstrates that despite the politicization of the issue under the Trump administration, the Biden administration has not disavowed the position of the previous administration. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the "fact sheet" put out by the Trump administration is actually based on any sort of investigation? Do we even know whether this alleged whistleblower actually exists? Yes, intelligence agencies can access scientific expertise, but they can also engage in disinformation. I think this article should be about actual investigations, not about a collection of unsubstantiated claims by various politicians or governments. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The text in dispute also violates NPOV by eliding the skepticism displayed by the most detailed secondary source we have about the "fact sheet": The claims were dismissed by analysts; "Zero details given," noted Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research, rating the statement as "an F"; Mr Pompeo's statement offered little beyond insinuation. I've pointed this skepticism out before at WP:RSN and Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

AIUI the "scientific capacity" of the intelligence agencies has a lot more to do with computer security than, say, DNA studies.

The article made three claims about the fact sheet:

1. that they didn't know how the virus first spread to humans,
2. that some staff at the lab had respiratory infections last autumn (me, too, by the way – does that mean it actually started in the US?), and
3. that the lab had done some research for the Chinese military.

None of these sound like actual investigations to me, and the last item has no stated connection to the subject. You're just supposed to read between the lines, or maybe engage in a little apophenia, and guess that maybe a worldwide pandemic could be a deliberately created bioweapon, because the Chinese military is only going to fund Bad Stuff™. (I wonder what these people would think if they learned that the US military has been a major funder of breast cancer research for decades. Maybe they'd conclude that the US military is trying to cripple the world by making everyone's grandmas die young?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how any of that justifies the removal of content about US government investigations into the origin of COVID-19 from a page about investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Your guess about the CIA's scientific capacity is as good as mine, and their investigations are likely classified, leaving us with very little to cover, other than what is stated by other US gov agencies. We only have the statements from Pottinger due to disclosure by British MPs on the contents of a classified discussion that was held over Zoom, as covered n the Times piece, and that set the stage of the later USDOS statements. For an encyclopedic entry, the US government's statements, particularly in relation to the US government's position on the WHO's investigation, all meet WP:DUE. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Despite the objections of several editors above, you've added largely the same conspiracy theory material as before. This is really unacceptable. Please revert your addition and seek consensus here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:REMOVAL. Consensus should first be reached on reasons to remove content that has already been contributed, especially if it is as well-sourced and relevant as it is in this case. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: ScrupulousScribe has been indefinitely banned from all articles related to COVID-19, and is blocked at the moment for violating that ban. Not pinging banned editors about topics they're not allowed to discuss would be an act of kindness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand the argument about trying to make a point by accumulating a lot of material... —PaleoNeonate – 05:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Fresh new RS sources

Hi! I just found out about those two brand new articles from the Washington Post [11] and the Daily Telegraph [12] about the possibility that the virus escaped WIV. I wanted to have a conversation to see if they're relevant here, thanks. Feynstein (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WaPo, the telegraph is paywalled. "But there is another pathway, also plausible, that must be investigated. That is the possibility of a laboratory accident or leak. It could have involved a virus that was improperly disposed of or perhaps infected a laboratory worker who then passed it to others." Feynstein (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Would need WP:MEDRS for any biomedical claims (e.g. about the origin of the virus), as discussed elsewhere ad nauseam. Alexbrn (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Reference #3 is an opinion piece (says it in the title) => not MEDRS. I thought it didn't require it then but I must be wrong. Here's a quote from the telegraph's "In a significant change from a year ago, a growing number of top experts – including (ordered alphabetically by last name) Drs Francois Balloux, Ralph S Baric, Trevor Bedford, Jesse Bloom, Bruno Canard, Etienne Decroly, Richard H Ebright, Michael B Eisen, Gareth Jones, Filippa Lentzos, Michael Z Lin, Marc Lipsitch, Stuart A Newman, Rasmus Nielsen, Megan J Palmer, Nikolai Petrovsky, Angela Rasmussen and David A Relman – have stated publicly (several in early 2020) that a lab leak remains a plausible scientific hypothesis to be investigated, regardless of how likely or unlikely. We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list." Holy cow eh? How fringe is it now? XD. You should read the Telegraph's article, pretty good. Feynstein (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Angela Rasmussen? The Angela Rasmussen who wrote in Nature about the contradictory and sometimes outright ridiculous conspiracy theories that spread faster than the virus itself: SARS-CoV-2 was the result of a laboratory accident or was intentionally engineered [13]? That Angela Rasmussen? If that's the level of fact-checking being applied, the "source" deserves to be chucked in the bin forthwith. XOR'easter (talk)16:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Yep, she even tweeted it: "This is a wonderful thread about why we should reject conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. No, we can’t rule out laboratory origin. Yes, we need an unbiased investigation into origins. Just because lab origin is plausible doesn’t mean it’s probable.". Looks like she's pissed at the fact no zoonotic animal was found XD, or she has a bunch of lab money riding on it not being a leak. Who knows. Feynstein (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The thread she shared was a criticism of the New York Magazine cover story that hyped up the lab-leak idea. When a scientist calls something physically possible but improbable, they're not endorsing it. It's like saying we can't rule out that a particular UFO was really an alien, but conspiracy theories about the Face on Mars are still conspiracy theories. And including a bunch of people who have made statements of that nature into a list, while omitting the details they go into when they actually explain themselves, might be a way to bulk up an opinion column, but it doesn't actually amount to much at all. WP:RSOPINION applies. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Here let me point out something to you from the article in case you missed it when you read it: "We informed and obtained consent from each expert for their inclusion in this list.". It might as well be an opinion piece, but your argument is not the reason why WP:RSOPINION should apply.Feynstein (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I did see that. First, I've encountered enough instances of people giving consent to be quoted in one thing and ending up quoted in something else that I don't trust statements of that sort. Second, and more importantly, a list of names is just a list of names; an actual scientific review, rather than an opinion column, would provide pointers to actual prior statements, discussing the nuances of each position (logical possibility versus actual probability, etc.), rather than merely piling them up to make a case look superficially good. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that misquoting is a problem in science. We'll see if she retracts her name from it in the next few days. I think the story will come out eventually. Feynstein (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Both of these are WP:RSOPINION anyway, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I just can't believe this argument is going to be re-hashed again. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I won't do it this time I'll let other editors figure out the double standard. Have a good one bud. Find me on my talk page once you read that telegraph article. I don't think it qualifies as an opinion piece, if it is it's not explicitly said so like in WaPo. Tourelou! Feynstein (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As stated on my Talk page, that's just what the UK broadsheets do. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The two authors of the Telegraph opinion piece are Alina Chan, who is known for pushing the lab-leak idea, and Matt Ridley, a journalist and businessman whose past hits include "5 reasons why the coronavirus nightmare may soon be over" (25 July 2020 ... oops). XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that piece hasn't aged well. The first point was right, the last point was (to be generous) half-right, and the other three points were pretty much unadulterated crap. Newimpartial (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a source for the plausibility of the lab-leak hypothesis. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240 Sloorbeadle (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sloorbeadle: Yes but it's not MEDRS because it's a primary source. And someone decided the origin of the virus was requiring MEDRS at some point so now we've been stuck in a limbo for a year because the virus is too young for scientists to release secondary papers (litterature reviews) about probable origins. And of course the CCP being the totalitarian police state that it is, research with local, good quality samples has been shut down and no one has released anything from mainland China, sparking wild conspiracy theories that have now been used in the scientific community to shut down debate on legit lab leak hypothesis. On one side we've got nutjobs talking about secret bioweapon programs for the great reset and on the other we have big wig virologists with clear conflicts of interest regarding funding if it ever was revealed as an accident making suspiciously assertive claims and building up a career destroying cancel culture around the issue. In a nutshell: no progress has been made anywhere and it means here also. Feynstein (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this gets to WAID's concern above. If this article is about "Investigations into the origin of covid-19" (as the current title claims) then the article should focus on investigations (which is how it's currently structured). "Some experts think the virus could have come from WIV" has nothing to do with an investigation so there's not really a place for it here, unless exploring the lab leak hypothesis is an explicit goal of one of the ongoing investigations (I think it might be a goal of the Lancet commission?). Instead, you want an article on Origin of SARS-CoV-2, but so far that exists only as a subsection here. Ajpolino (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The origin of sars-cov-2 article all but rules out the possibility of a laboratory recombination event. That's hardly fair given the current body of evidence. Sloorbeadle (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ajpolino, someone created Draft:Emergence of COVID-19 outbreak. It's possible that this page ("organized research projects") and that page ("Were pangolins involved?") could be merged, but at minimum, if someone wants to argue about whether it's 99% unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 was present in a particular building, or whether it's only 90% unlikely, then I think that draft would be the place to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• These sources are good because the leakage from the lab is not a medical claim, but mostly a political controversy. Medical sources simply do not cover political controversies. Saying that, this is also a conspiracy theory from WP perspective because it was described as such in multiple RS. But again, one does not need WP:MEDRS sources to define it as a conspiracy theory. My very best wishes (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Several sources have been determined to be primary, suboptimal and pushed on Wikipedia by efforts coordinated on social networks. These must of course be avoided, this includes those from Frontiers Media journals (now at WP:RSN), editorials/opinion sections of newspapers, BioEssays. —PaleoNeonate – 06:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary WHO results

Material was added regarding the preliminary results of the WHO investigation. WHO investigation material should be placed in its respective section and stated in a neutral fashion. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the New Indian Express is usable here? There appears to be a small previous RFC resulting in the original Indian Express being considered an acceptable journalistic source, with some negative comments about the New one and the ANI agency at WP:RSN. —PaleoNeonate – 00:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate, https://apnews.com/article/who-coronavirus-experts-learned-in-wuhan-86549d1189f3d174273a26e39d177d05 might be harder to dispute. I particularly recommend using the information in this source to identify and remove existing claims (especially if poorly sourced or outdated) that are probably wrong/probably WP:UNDUE from any article about COVID-19. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know your concern regarding the veracity of the statements in the New Indian Express. I have provided a source to verify the statements. See here. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You have restored some material without having reached consensus here (WP:BRD), I'll let it stand to see what other editors think, —PaleoNeonate – 11:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

If you disagree with the added material, we can remove all the material that has been added over the past two days per BRD. I am fine with how the article reads at the moment. Perhaps, the Chinese and WHO material on cold chain transmission can have its wording improved. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Due weight of Frozen food hypothesis?

What is the current weight achieved by the frozen food hypothesis: mainstream, minor, tiny, speculation, fringe? Forich (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Good question, according to the recent source WhatamIdoing suggested above (https://apnews.com/article/who-coronavirus-experts-learned-in-wuhan-86549d1189f3d174273a26e39d177d05) it may be possible for transmission from frozen products to humans to occur ("left open the possibility"), they then attribute to a virologist that the cold chain itself is not enough as an origins theory (i.e. they still must have been contaminated by an infected organism somewhere recently enough)... My impression is that it remains speculative unless conclusive evidence of earlier infections elsewhere is found, —PaleoNeonate – 06:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems to have been given heavy weight by the WHO team during their briefing here. They say that it is "[similar] and connected" to their #1 most likely hypothesis. I searched PubMed review articles for "frozen food covid", and this January 2021 article is the only article that popped up. Although foodborne transmission has not been fully explored yet, it important to underline that the contaminated cold storage food could serve as a long-range carrier of SARS-CoV-2, presenting a systematic risk of its transmission across the regions and countries via cold chain industries. and The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via contaminated frozen food and packaging surfaces represents a newer possibility which must be investigated with high attention. In conclusion, I think it is not fringe, and deserves some weight. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion creeping in between cold frozen food as a method of general spread vs origins. Bodypilllow (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

In this NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html about the WHO investigation, one of the WHO team members is quoted as saying that the likelihood of the initial spread to humans via frozen wildlife products is a "very unlikely scenario". Given that this page focuses on the origins (i.e. presumably the initial transfer from reservoir species to humans) rather than subsequent spread between humans, at least that WHO team member is not putting much weight on the theory. Bodypilllow (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The NYT article also calls the frozen food origin hypothesis a "mantra" of the Chinese government which the Chinese government urged WHO to consider, where the WHO agreed to look but were "skeptical". Bodypilllow (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with you. Frozen food transmission is China's state media narrative, which the WHO oddly enough seems to be embracing. The virologists based on the following quote appear to be just shaking their heads [14]:

WHO: Did the virus that caused a worldwide pandemic make the jump to humans via frozen food? That was one hypothesis put forward on 9 February by a joint World Health Organization and Chinese investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

China: The idea that the coronavirus was carried inside or on the surface of frozen food, which has been advanced by Chinese state media, could place the source of the virus beyond China, from an animal imported from another country.

Virologist: “I would say it’s extremely, extremely unlikely the virus would have spread through that type of route,” says Lawrence Young at the University of Warwick, UK, who specialises in human virology.

These snippets are very confusing. I think something needs to be added to the article. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned. If the Chinese government is correct does that mean we will need to start wiping down our frozen pizza boxes before unpacking them? I think other people might also start to get concerned about their frozen food from the grocery store. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, Is your source a MEDRS? Many editors have proposed the idea that any scientific hypothesis requires a mention in at least a couple of MEDRS. And it has to be a mention that supports the theory, it is not enough if the MEDRS says that the hypothesis can not be ruled out, according to what many editors have proposed regarding other hypothesis. Forich (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Forich, the WHO is MEDRS. The journal article is a PubMed review from Environmental Science and Pollution Research (international). I guess you could argue that environmental science is not related enough to virology and epidemiology, so that one is debatable. Since posting those two though, I have changed my mind about the frozen food hypothesis. I have now seen enough evidence that it is my personal belief that USA wants the origin to be something that gives China maximum responsibility for the pandemic (lab leak), and China wants the origin to be something that gives China minimum responsibility for the pandemic (imported frozen food), and both are using their massive platforms to promulgate their preferred version of events. At this point, in my opinion, the most likely and most neutral origin hypothesis (random, natural spillover from horseshoe bats in China) is probably the correct one. Hard to write articles on hunches though. This whole subject area desperately needs scientists to release definitive journal articles on the subject, to start debunking these POV's, biases, and misinformation being pushed by governments. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Most WHO material is *not* MEDRS. Per WP:MEDRS "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much anything published by the WHO can be acceptable under MEDRS. (There's a difference between "acceptable" and "ideal". Much of what we say about MEDRS is referring to what MEDRS calls "ideal sources". The ideal is not the minimum standard.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The US government has stated now:

"After more than a year since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was declared a global health emergency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continue to underscore that there is no credible evidence of food or food packaging associated with or as a likely source of viral transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus causing COVID-19."[15]

Is the US government a reliable source? They seem to be always contradicting the Chinese government and the WHO. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

In my experience consuming international news on this topic, the ranking of official national sources according to alleged anti-China rethoric is:

• 1) Australia
• 2) India
• 3) Taiwan
• 4) United States
• 5) UK and Arab World

The outlets that in my opinion handle the news the most NPOV on this matter seem to be Reuters and AP. We can then triangulate national sources by this rule:

• Claims from these countries regarding Covid-19 that are favorable to China are most likely true
• Other claims require being repeated at Reuters, AP to pass the NPOV test. Forich (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with you that Reuters and AP are the best reliable sources. However, in the case of the US CDC it is considered more reliable according to the medical project on wikipedia. This would mean that there is no credible evidence for cold chain transmission. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

China CDC says there is evidence (both by tracing the outbreaks back to people who work in the cold chain and by finding contaminated cold-chain products) that a number of later outbreaks in China were caused by cold-chain transmission. They've published a paper about the September 2020 outbreak in Qingdao: [16]. That doesn't say much about the original outbreak in Wuhan, but it does say that China CDC views cold-chain transmission as a possibility, and has done research into it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we should be clear thats its a political hypothesis first and a scientific one second because thats what the WP:RS say, as far as science goes this is a long shot but China’s political leadership has decided that this is the horse they want to back. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately, WP:MEDRS has an explicit subpolicy on how to counter bias. We can follow it by using secondary sources that denounce the bias, which will make the facts come cleaner. Forich (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems to be an origin/vector hypothesis, but I'm not seeing anything about "an investigation". Did anyone stand up a "Committee to Research Transmission via Cold Chain" yet? How about a "Frozen Food Research Project"? Nope? Then it doesn't belong in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the whole premise of this talk subsection being "Is there due weight on X hypothesis?" seems to be a bit of scope creep from the article topic which is supposed to be the investigations into the origins, not the substance of the origins themselves. The editors pursuing this are mostly quite experienced wiki editors as well which makes it more odd to me. Bodypillow (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Biden Administration "deep concerns" about WHO report handling

On February 13 2021, the Biden Administration expressed "deep concerns" about the handling of the WHO report, and called for the release of raw data from early in the epidemic. [17][18] This should probably be incorporated in the article. Park3r (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This material should be added. I think in the WHO part since below I have quotes from the Wall Street Journal from a WHO member. Looks like he was disappointed. I don't understand why the Chinese government didn't give the raw data.[19]

"But the WHO team wasn't allowed to view the raw underlying data on those retrospective studies, which could allow them to conduct their own analysis on how early and how extensively the virus began to spread in China, the team members said."

""They showed us a couple of examples, but that's not the same as doing all of them, which is standard epidemiological investigation," said Dominic Dwyer, an Australian microbiologist on the WHO team. "So then, you know, the interpretation of that data becomes more limited from our point of view, although the other side might see it as being quite good.""

Oh and then there was this confusing snippet from that article:

"WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the U.N. agency hadn't ruled out any hypothesis."

I really do think we need to update this article to make it more accurate. This is a Covid-19 article we can't have incorrect information in it. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The State Department of the United States has been accused many times of having a republican bias in their statements about the investigations on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Republicans were accused many times of being anti-chinese, and of pushing unfounded accusations on the World Health Organization. We should be careful then of using them as sources for Wikipedia, specially regarding scientific topics in which they are not competent. Forich (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The statement and comments were made by Jake Sullivan who is the National Security Adviser, not part of the State Department. According to his bio, he was heavily involved in both Obama and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaigns, and was Hillary Clinton's adviser, before becoming an adviser to Obama and Biden. Hardly fits the profile of a Republican operative. Regardless, that shouldn't factor into whether this is included in the article.Park3r (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you miss the change in administrations? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure this should be about US administration. Here is most recent publication which briefly mention WHO findings (the virus probably circulated in China long before December 2019, and no one knows where it came from). It is also significant that Chinese government denied them access to specimens. This is a clear indication they are hiding something, possibly even leak of the virus from the lab, or who knows what (see here, for example), but the WHO team was unable to complete the proper investigation, due to the denied access to data. My very best wishes (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with others that the State Department is biased on this issue. And there are RS's saying the Trump Administration was one of the biggest promoters of COVID-19 misinformation in the world. With that said though, I don't mind mentioning US government, Trump administration, Biden administration, and State Department statements in this article (because this article is a good place for them). But, I would like them to all have secondary sources (not interviews, press releases, State Department website, White House website, which are primary sources). And I'd also like to not cite the primary source at all. Preferring secondary sources avoids problems with WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I'd also like to see us move away from quotations (WP:QUOTEFARM) and towards summary style. And I still remain quite concerned about WP:PROSELINE problems in this article. Once some time elapses, all of these paragraphs starting with "On Jan 1" "On Feb 22" etc. will probably need to be copy edited to remove their dates and re-focused on a concise summary of the issues. And we should also start including some secondary sources that don't just regurgitate what the State Department and White House said, but their critical analysis of it, and how it fits into the overall story, which will get clearer with time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me remind all you guys, that editors recently argued against using US intelligence as a source, because of an alleged Trump association. For example, User Hemiauchenia said that the US-government's criticism of China was due in large part to "cover for the failure [of Trump's administration]". See the diff here. Forich (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Why shouldn't more recent facts be added?

Moxy, you removed my recent addition with no explanation, implying you were going to bring the reason to the talkpage, but I do not see anything here. Can please give the reason for removing this reliably sourced addition of new facts rom later reports. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Pls join the ongoing talk about this on the talk page.--Moxy- 16:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Moxy, which talkpage and which thread are you referring to please? I don't see a thread on this page, other than the frozen food one and the Biden one, that has had any activity for more than a week, and nothing before then other than dating back to before the sources I used for the facts I added were published. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry this junk is being talked about at Talk:COVID-19 misinformation#Survey. Best not add academic openness as a means of implying acceptance.--Moxy- 21:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Moxy, that's nothing to do with this article. Consensus, or otherwise, on what's acceptable there has no weight here. Perhaps you'd self revert as there is no apparent supportable explanation for removing that content from this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Junk misleading edit.....your free to ask others to get involved. But posting that scientists are open to new evidence isn't the same as it being relevant or viable. Scientists don't speak in absolutes.--Moxy- 21:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Moxy, please explain what you mean, and how it supports the removal of relevant and reliably sourced new facts. Currently the article is out of date, it says the WHO ruled out this hypothesis. That is no longer the case, and needs to be corrected. The facts I added corrected that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think there's been good consensus how to treat the various WHO pronouncements over at the Misinformation article; something similar would be good here. Alexbrn (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, are you supporting the inclusion of the newer facts here, or opposed to their addition for some reason? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Support, but in the same way as at the misinformation article (i.e. clarifying that the hypothesis is now considered more unlikely than before, as a result of the investigation). Alexbrn (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, please explain why you think the new facts as I added them, and as supported by reliable sources, should not be added. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia not being a newspaper, should be a summary of the best sources and present official body statements, etc. Balancing the WHO report results with individual quotes about uncertaintly, results in WP:GEVAL. Moreover, when we read the proposed sources they are not about refuting the WHO report, more about reporting on some details and opinions. —PaleoNeonate – 23:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, as I said above, this is not about opinions, it's about new facts, so 'balancing' and GEVAL are not relevant. The new facts are in addition to, and supplement, the current ones. Why do you think new information should be ignored? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. This is meant to be an article about "investigation". It should not become a coatrack for the lab leak story. Wikipedia deals in knowledge, not factoids. Alexbrn (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, yes, it's an article about the investigations, and coverage of this investigation is included in it. Which is why your characterisation of the addition of factual updates about this investigation as "coatracking", and the new facts as factoids, sounds to me to be closer to not being interested in improving the article than to making the content more accurate for the readers. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

What "new facts" are supposedly in this interview?

I notice, e.g., that the interview is cited to support a claim that, according to Tedros, the lab leak hypothesis "had not been ruled out and required further study", but I find nothing in the cited source that supports the Further research is needed claim at all. Tedros is quoted in that source as saying only that "All hypotheses are on the table". This aligns with "had not been ruled out" [completely – something that still has a 0.00001% chance of being true "has not been ruled out"], but it does not say anything about this idea requiring further study. Tedros says nothing either way, and the person who was interviewed seems to be discouraging it. They obviously aren't planning any further research in that direction, even though they can't ban other groups (e.g., the Chinese government) from doing so.

For the second sentence, this isn't "new facts" to anyone who knew anything about this investigation. They sent a team that was equipped and skilled to do certain things (e.g., interpret lab results, understand viral mutation processes) that were understood to be relevant to the scope of the investigation. Since no human can do everything, this means that they sent a team that was not equipped and skilled to do other things (e.g., perform a formal audit of a laboratory, identify bat subspecies at a glance, play softball, bake croissants – we could make a list here that would include ~99% of job skills). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, currently this article says of the WHO 'They said a laboratory origin of COVID-19 was "extremely unlikely" and did not require further investigation.' That is now out of date, and misrepresents the current position. The discussion here is about the addition of two sentences: "Within a few days, further clarification was given, with WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stating that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been ruled out and required further study." and "John Watson, one of the scientists on the WHO team that visited China, explained that it was one of four hypotheses still on the table, but that they had neither the power, resources, or capability to fully investigate it." They are new facts to the article and supported by the reliable sources originally added with them. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto, your version claimed that Tedros said that the lab leak hypothesis requires further investigation. I will now list for you every single word actually in the cited source that is attributed to Tedros: "All hypotheses are on the table". That's it: just six words. Please let me know if you see any words in that sentence that look like lab, leak, need, further, research or that would otherwise justify a sentence that Tedros himself actually said that this hypothesis needs further research.

Do you understand why it is impossible (indeed, a violation of both WP:V and BLP) for us to claim here that Tedros said that this hypothesis needs more investigation? If we can agree to that much, then we can talk about whether other, non-Tedros parts of the source say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, what I wrote was They are new facts to the article and supported by the reliable sources originally added with them. Did you check the sources I originally added? This one quotes Ghebreyesus as having said "Having spoken with some members of the team, I wish to confirm that all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis and study". -- DeFacto (talk). 16:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The words you complain about having removed, linked by you at the top of this section, were: "WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stating that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been ruled out and required further study." The source you complain about having removed, added by you to the article to support this sentence, does not say anything that is even remotely like "Tedros stating that this required further study".

The source that you complain about having removed does talk about this question. It says things like:

• Q: Was it a mistake to call the lab origin hypothesis “extremely unlikely”?
• A: No.

At no point does the person being interviewed say that he thinks this "needs" further research. He says that it has not been fully assessed; he says that if anyone were going to do this research, it would not be his team; he says that doing that research would require a full lab audit (=a standardized procedure, not just something invented for the pandemic). However, he never actually says that this is necessary, and he does say that they have very little evidence to support it, that the evidence they acquired during this trip indicates that it's even less likely than what they thought before this trip, and that the current (NB: not final, but the current) view of the scientists is that this is "extremely unlikely", on the five-point scale that they decided to use to rank the hypotheses that they were talking about.

In other words, the current version of the article, in saying that it's extremely unlikely, actually is the correct version, except that we should probably replace our "very unlikely" paraphrase with the exact words that they're using. If you want to push the lab leak story, then the most we could justify right now is adding "As of February 2021" to the sentence, to suggest that this might change in the "extremely unlikely" circumstance that the actually-likely scenarios are disproven. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the words I added are, as I said, and as you continue to refute, supported by the source I originally supplied. This is beginning to feel like stonewalling. If you are having trouble checking what I said for yourself, here are all the diffs associated with it:

• I added this with supporting ref
• It was removed without a reason
• I added it again and the other new fact from another team member, both with supporting and complimentary refs
• The reference supporting the first fact was removed with the claim that it was unreliable
• My remaining contribution was removed as falsebalance
• I restored it, refuting the false reasoning for its removal
• My contribution was removed with no reasoning

So you see, everything I contributed was fully sourced, and other sources have emerged since then adding their support. A simple search on the quote I included will confirm that. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You've been found out misrepresenting a source, which was unfortunate but - one assumes - a mistake made in your zeal for the lab leak POV. Doubling down on that is taking us into the realm of WP:DE, especially when it is coupled with personal attacks. Alexbrn (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, found out misrepresenting a source? Personal attacks? These are all serious accusations and require substantiation. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes: don't put words in Tedros' mouth, and don't accuse good editors of stonewalling you. Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I've shown above how everything I wrote was reliably sourced. Or can you show where it wasn't? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You have been shown (correctly). The WP:IDHT level is now making the needle on my AGF-o-meter start to waver. Alexbrn (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, this is false, we need to figure-out why you are alleging that. I had shown above that what I wrote was supported. Let me reiterate in even more detail. In the first edit I made wrt Ghebreyesus I added this:

On 12 February 2021, the WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stated that the hypothesis that Covid had originated in a laboratory in Wuhan had not been ruled out and required further study..

That was quickly reverted. The second time I reworded it slightly, adding and citing the same source:

Within a few days, further clarification was given, with WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stating that the accidental laboratory leak hypothesis had not been ruled out and required further study.

The cited source says:

Earlier this week, a WHO-led mission in China said it was not looking further into the question of whether the virus escaped from a lab, which it considered highly unlikely.

However, in a press briefing on Friday, director general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said: "Some questions have been raised as to whether some hypotheses have been discarded.

"Having spoken with some members of the team, I wish to confirm that all hypotheses remain open and require further analysis and study.

"Some of that work may lie outside the remit and scope of this mission.

Where did I put words in any mouths? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

In your edits. This is either WP:CIR or trolling. I will not respond further. Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I'm baffled, and you seem serious, so please assume good faith and take the time to clarify exactly what you mean. I've patiently made a massive effort to fully explain my edits, but I'm not too arrogant to assume I haven't made a blunder here somewhere, but I cannot see where that might be. So if you could just show me where you believe I'm wrong, we should be able to resolve this misunderstanding amicably and move on. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Without commenting on any other aspect of this issue, I'd just like to point out that Sky News is not a reliable source for any contentious claim related to China or CoVID-19. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If so, that would mean that the statement "everything I wrote was reliably sourced" is technically false, since the sources added to the article would either not be reliable (Sky News), or do not include Tedros saying that Further research is needed (sciencemag.org). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, why? Even if Sky News was unreliable (which we've got no reason to believe), the same quotes are also reported in many other sources, including on the WHO's own website. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, who says it's unreliable? What's contentious about these well reported facts? Anyway, the same quotes from Ghebreyesus are on the WHO website,[20] in The Telegraph,[21] Reuters,[22] The Guardian,[23] and others, so you can take your pick. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's sensationalist Murdoch media that's been aggressively pushing the SARS-CoV-2 lab leak theory. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, would you be happy to use one of the alternative sources shown, reporting the same quotes on the topic of this discussion, being used? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What content are you proposing? The paragraph in green above explicitly references the lab leak theory, which Tedros did not do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, it's moot now as WhatamIdoing has removed the superseded phrase "and did not require further investigation" that needed further clarification. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Small weigh in here, it's not in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Meaning there's no concensus, and if you claim it's unreliable you must show precedent of it being excluded on WP. Or reasonable proof that it is unreliable for the current subject. Feynstein (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Perennial sources is just a guide that lists sources that have been discussed several times at WP:RSN. Editors are still expected to make decisions about reliability of sources outside of RSN. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Precisely: "Sky News operates under United Kingdom broadcasting regulations which require impartial, unbiased coverage and prevent the channel from being encrypted in the UK. The channel is viewed by some in the media establishment as an impartial and unbiased provider of news." here linking to [24] Feynstein (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be absurd to claim that all UK broadcasters are impartial and unbiased in their coverage of all subjects. All news outlets have biases, and UK broadcasters are no exception. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Of course, but I have one reference saying they are, what do you have? If we're to judge their bias might as well do it right. Feynstein (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This article from Science is reliable source for the context of the statement by the WHO Director and also concerning the special circumstances of the Who statement /mission at the press conference in Wuhan. Wikipedia should not hide this important information from the int. public, which was also in hundreds of media--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Various statements of the article regarding WHO & origin are outdated and misleading.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of a quote from a MEDRS

Hi! Since this is a hot subject I come here first instead of doing it boldly, but i'd like to include a translated version of this quote from a MEDRS article in the origin section. "En l’absence d’éléments probants concernant le dernier intermédiaire animal avant la contamination humaine, certains auteurs suggèrent que ce virus pourrait avoir été fabriqué dans un laboratoire (origine synthétique). Mais ces assertions ont été réfutées par de nombreux spécialistes, notamment sur la base d’études phylogénétiques qui suggèrent deux scénarios prépondérants pour expliquer l’origine du SARS-CoV-2 : (1) l’adaptation chez un animal hôte avant le transfert zoonotique, ou (2) l’adaptation chez l’homme après le transfert zoonotique [11, 17, 18, 22]. D’autres pensent qu’il pourrait s’agir d’un virus de chiroptère qui se serait adapté à d’autres espèces dans des modèles animaux élevés en laboratoire, dont il se serait ensuite échappé. Il est également envisageable que ce virus provienne d’une souche virale cultivée sur des cellules au laboratoire afin d’étudier son potentiel infectieux. Ce virus cultivé se serait progressivement « humanisé » (adapté à l’hôte humain) par sélection des virus les plus aptes à se propager dans ces conditions. Quel que soit le mécanisme présidant à son apparition, il est important de comprendre comment ce virus a passé la barrière d’espèce et est devenu hautement transmissible d’homme à homme, cela afin de se prémunir de nouvelles émergences [23]."[25]. I can do a proper translation but here's a quick DeepL version: "In the absence of evidence for the last animal intermediate before human contamination, some authors suggest that this virus may have been manufactured in a laboratory (synthetic origin). However, these assertions have been refuted by many experts, notably on the basis of phylogenetic studies that suggest two overriding scenarios to explain the origin of CoV-2-SARSS: (1) adaptation in a host animal before zoonotic transfer, or (2) adaptation in humans after zoonotic transfer [11, 17, 18, 22]. Others believe that it could be a chiropteran virus that adapted to other species in laboratory animal models and then escaped from them. It is also conceivable that this virus could be derived from a viral strain grown on cells in the laboratory to study its infectious potential. This cultured virus would have been progressively "humanized" (adapted to the human host) by selecting the viruses most likely to spread under these conditions.Regardless of the mechanism by which it emerged, it is important to understand how this virus crossed the species barrier and became highly transmissible from human to human in order to protect against new emergences [23]. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)". Feynstein (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a good source. Let's stick to reviews (or better) please, and avoid WP:POVSOURCING. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a great source. I just looked at that French article. It is a review and a medical journal. According to the medical project, medical reviews are the top sources on wikipedia. That makes that article a top reliable source. I'm not sure if Alexbrn can read French, since it clearly states that it is a review. Great find. --Guest2625 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The publisher/PUBMED classification of the article is "comparative study", not "review". Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It is so strange that you want to wall away this to top quality review from Wikipedia. I'll assume good faith that you don't know what a comparative study is. Scroll down on the pubmed entry to publication type click comparative study then click on "Search in PubMed". What shows up endless different types of reviews. I also happen to have a professional translation of the journal article; it also calls the article a "Review" in the title. I'm getting concerned that you have something against the French language and French science. I'll assume good faith that you are not a English-language chauvinist. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attacks, I'll direct you to the publisher, since your argument is with them. They do publish reviews too: in the same issue, for example, PMID 32821048. Even it it was a review, it's from August and so has been superseded by more recent reviews. Alexbrn (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. You make a great point. They updated the article and provided an English translation, where it clearly states that their article is a review. It's always important for scientists, and of course also medical doctors, to be up-to-date. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"They" did no such thing. The article was published in English in a different journal (which, under its license is easily done). This is a non-MEDLINE indexed journal: so, avoid. Why strain at the leash trying to reach an iffy, slightly old, source when we have solid ones available? Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

In the article abstract it states:

"This article is a translation and update of a French article published in Médecine/Sciences, August/September 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2020123)."[26]

The article is clearly indexed in Pubmed PMID 33558807, where it states it is a Review. It is also dated 4 February 2021. Why do you keep on making me think I'm losing it. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's "in" PUBMED, but that journal is not MEDLINE-indexed, which is a red flag, particularly for any unusual claims. Why not focus on high-quality sources rather than trying to push this one? Alexbrn (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

But, you just provided a PMID identifier above. I'm getting so confused. I'm pretty sure that recent medical reviews are considered the most reliable by the medical project. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

PUBMED (essentially a broad repository which contains a lot of stuff, some of it junk) is not the same as MEDLINE, a bibliographic database which, in practice, indexes a subset of material in PUBMED. Non-inclusion in MEDLINE is an indication that a journal article may not be reliable. We have several MEDLINE-indexed and/or more recent review articles. It would be wrong to try to undercut them with an older/weaker source. Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait I'm really confused now, because I just found the article in the European Public Medical Central database. If you wanted to find a French medical journal article, wouldn't you have to use a European database. Obviously, the American doctors wouldn't care about French medical research, since they cannot read French. So, it seems clear that this article is a medical review article that according to the medical project group would be a top reliable source to use. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

PMC is another repository. It's like the above conversation didn't happen. WP:IDHT Alexbrn (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Guest2625, PubMed and its EU mirror are basically Library card catalogs for medical research papers. They list papers in many languages (including abstracts and even the entire contents of the paper, whenever the publishers allow them to do so). Being included is a matter of paperwork, not quality. The contents are not unique and not endorsed by any government or medical agency. "It's in PubMedCentral" is just as meaningless as "You can check it out from your library". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Not everything in PubMedCentral is even medicine. Theoretical physics can end up there, depending on what journal it's published in (a recent example). XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It's funny because I recall Alexbrn using that very same argument over at WIV talk page[27]. Standards are flexible it seems. Feynstein (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. The diff you linked gives multiple criteria, including MEDLINE indexing, which it appears is a failure point here. Applying those linked criteria means rejecting the English journal, exactly like Alex is arguing here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

(In case anyone didn't know: MEDLINE is not the same as PubMed.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Pasting my comment on this ref from the misinformation page: I also object to calling this a "review" article. The authors do not limit themselves to discussing other publications' results and analyses; they actively performed their own alignments/PIP calculations and phylogenetic inferences with original scripts (fig. 2) as well as structural analyses and proffer their own novel conclusions from those data throughout the article. This is evident by the fact they have a "Materials and Methods" section, which is not something one needs in a literature review (at least outside of clinical trials and other studies with specific inclusion/exclusion criteria). That at least some of their conclusions on the viability of the lab passage scenario rely on primary data they generated (in particular, see the penultimate paragraph of the section "An evolutionary history by fragments") indicates this primary-review hybrid article should not be used to support the passage hypothesis. JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

And this is likely why the original French article was categorized by the (reputable) journal it was published in as a "comparative study" and not a "review". Alexbrn (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the engl. reviewed Version: Sallard, E., Halloy, J., Casane, D. et al. Tracing the origins of SARS-COV-2 in coronavirus phylogenies: a review. Environ Chem Lett (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1 Best regards--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I have read this excellent article. It is based on orginal research and we should add a separate passage here. We should also include the research results of the zoonosis hypotheses here. As long as this work is not falsificated, scientifically both hypotheses are considered possible. --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Visa delays

I have just removed some trivia from the article. It's very easy for Wikipedia articles about current events to turn into a blow-by-blow laundry list of who said and did what on each day, but that's not the goal. The goal is an encyclopedic summary.

And, if you still think that this is critical information, then I remind you that the story about visas requiring approval meant that the WHO's investigation team was delayed by "a few days", and they're charged with investigating a virus that has already been proven to have been in circulation for ~100 times as long as the delay. This is a trivial delay; it might make good talk-show filler, but it is not encyclopedic content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

When I recently audited the article, since it seemed like a solved non-issue I also was tempted to remove it, but was ambivalent and left it. I support the removal, —PaleoNeonate – 10:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me, too. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup, good cut. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty non-neutral perspective to me. What exactly is the definition of trivia here? What is the evidence that ratio of delay time to virus circulation time has any kind of importance as a metric? This event was significant enough for the WHO director general to release a statement directly about it, and this article is supposed to be specifically about the investigations per the title. It's hard to see why this is so trivial as to warrant removal, especially for an article which is bound to develop substantially as time goes on. Bodypillow (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's extremely unusual for an account with five edits to know how to evaluate other contributors' level of experience, so perhaps we should say welcome back to Wikipedia?

Wikipedia:Handling trivia might be useful to you. So might Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Alternative account notification, for that matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If you'd prefer we can stick to debating the substance here rather than making ad hominem attacks / assuming I am not here in good faith. If you believe I am a sockpuppet account can you please make this accusation formally so it can be investigated? I am a long time lurker and new contributor. In any case, a reading of the Handling Trivia page does not support the deletion of this material in my opinion. Trivia is defined by this page as "information that is not important", where it goes on specify that "the criteria for inclusion are complex, because the 'importance' of a fact is subjective. It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers." In this article we are also clearly not dealing with an extensive "trivia section"; thus even if we insist that this information is simply unimportant and thus trivia (which I would dispute vehemently), it can be easily integrated into the discussion of the topic as this page recommends: "Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists." Bodypillow (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Including unimportant details, such as exactly when necessary paperwork happened, has no actual effect on the subject of this article. Just because you "can" bloat an article with trivia does not mean that you "should". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it may have been newsworthy at the time, but WP:NOTNEWS/WP:10YT, there's also nothing extraordinary about preparation for international travel being more difficult during a pandemic... —PaleoNeonate – 02:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Article should mention the WHO's history of supporting Chinese statements right up front

Multiple press reports in first-class sources say that the WHO has supported the Chinese Government's version of events about the pandemic.[28][29][30]. The portion of the article about the WHO's investigation needs to make that clear, right up front. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS needs to be avoided, as do dubious sources like twitter. Checking the first source given, it quotes a scientist as saying "It seems the WHO team and their Chinese collaborators are taking a measured approach, weighing the available data appropriately and talking to the right people". Perhaps that would be something to mirror? Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing dubious about citing Twitter for saying that the WHO said something the WHO said on its Twitter account, particularly when the Atlantic source cites the same tweet. I am not proposing citing that tweet in the article directly, and my original addition did not. However, I believe the tweet does show, succinctly and irrefutably, why the WHO cannot be treated as an authority without discussing, right up front, their history of misleading the world about the pandemic. About the Nature article, the key point is the one they make right up front in their article -- that the WHO team is echoing what the Chinese media and government say. I have no objections to taking additional material from that Nature article. But our emphasis should be the same as theirs. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The WHO have verified what China have been saying, seems to be the message. You set out what you "believe" but we need to follow sources without twisting them to editors' beliefs. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

How did we go, in less than an hour, from "the WHO's history of supporting Chinese statements" to "their history of misleading the world"? This makes no sense at all, unless you believe that the Chinese government is lying. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

We can include something like "According to Kathy Gilsinan, reporter from The Atlantic, the portraying of some aspects of the pandemic by the WHO shows a vulnerability in accuracy that stems from the unedited information misinformation it receives from countries with a history of opacity". The question is if this is the best entry to include such a specific statement, and if so, if including it gives it due weight. If this vulnerability is widely acknowledged in RS, I support inclusion. Forich (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Still seems like WP:UNDUE cherry picking. Who cares what this journalist thinks? And why not "pick" her statement that "The WHO has also shown, however, that it can walk the line between the need for cooperation and information-sharing from member states and the need to hold them accountable for mistakes"? Besides, this is not specific to "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19", which is meant to be the topic of this article. The whole thing savours of tiresome political point-making. Alexbrn (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Since when is receiving "unedited information" considered a problem in scientific circles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is two more sources discussing the issue in depth, this time form the NYT. [31][32]. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

On the investigation itself, the first source is quite good on how outlandish conspiracy theories in the US have complicated things because they sow distrust, but I'm not seeing support for the POV of your previous edits. As the second source says, the WHO is in part a diplomatic organisation so tends to be ... diplomatic. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, I meant to say "misinformation" but by mistake I confused "information that has not been fact checked" with the term "unedited information", sorry. I striked the word above. Forich (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we start appropiate steps to examine whether WP:MEDRS#Bias applies to WHO and its investigations into the origin of SARS-CoV-2. For example, based on the sources above from NYTimes, can we conclude to there being clear COI because China finances the WHO? Moreover, it is not relevant what we think, but are reliable secondary sources calling out the WHO investigations biased? Forich (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair to point out that the bias can come from outside China, too. CGTN is calling out bias in the way international media reports on the WHO mission. Video link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forich (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

CGTN is not a reliable source. This whole conversation is bizarre. The WHO is an international membership organization funded largely by the world's richer nation states. Wikipedia should report what they say and not sleuth around trying to work up some kind of counter-narrative from weak sources. If there are other good sources on "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" we can report those too - something about the delicate intersection of health facts and political considerations faced by the WHO could be useful. The original push to try and put some kind of warning text in the lede implying that the WHO can't be trusted because China is just WP:PROFRINGE conspiracy theorising. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Forich, I've summarized some sources below. the common theme appears to be that there is a COI between the WHO and china. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of a Conflict of interest there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

For example, the statement The W.H.O., by design, is beholden to its member countries . . . is sourcing for a conflict of interest. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The WHO is beholden to all of its member countries, not just China. I see no claim that the WHO has a COI with China that it doesn't also have with all of the other members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Another specific example of a WHO inacurracy: It was wrong for Dr. Tedros to publicly praised both Mr. Xi and China’s pneumonia surveillance system, and to declare that the timing of calling an emergency was not late [33]. Whether this inaccuracy was a simple flop or a systematic derivation from COI, is unclear. Before any editor call me out for doing cherry-picking, a caveat: this is a simple process of extracting quotes and facts from sources, and putting them here for discussion, of course we need to include a balanced examination of the reliability of the sources that portrays with NPOV the narrative. Forich (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The latest sources about the WHO's current statements, show that it does not support the frozen food chain transmission as the origin, so those arguments trying to cast doubt on the WHO appear to be self-defeating (this article is also not a news report timeline). One of the cited sources above explains its journalist's concern: "Still, the findings announced Tuesday gave Beijing a public relations win as it comes under attack from officials in the United States and elsewhere for its initial efforts to conceal the outbreak." Even if this was true, since there's no evidence of malpractice, what value does it have other than to push the idea that the WHO must be wrong or not trustable? —PaleoNeonate – 08:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that's the point? Especially if you're an American with no real knowledge of medicine, the WHO is just one of those agencies that you can't control and that might do something that affects your life (like recommending against international travel right after you paid for a vacation) without seeming to provide you personally with much direct benefit. You don't see the benefits that they provide you, because incidents like "cute kid didn't infect you with measles when you went to Disney World" is invisible. A lot of Americans assume that the WHO is not trustworthy, just like a lot of Americans look at incidents like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study or the 1976 swine flu outbreak and decide that US medical institutions aren't trustworthy. We shouldn't let these personal fears affect the overall article.

Also, if you don't know anything about medicine, then you don't know just how common it is to have someone in the hospital with pneumonia and not know what the pathogen is. If you know about this, then you would say, "Okay, you think they declared an emergency too late. When would you have declared it, based on only the information you had at that time? And how often would your timing result in false-positive lockdowns in your own country?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

One more example of disinformation from China transmitted by the WHO, this time during a 2020 press conferences, from [34]: According to an opinion piece by biologist Richard Ebright published on The Telegraph, Chinese influence on the WHO is exemplified by the response that a WHO executive, Bruce Aylward, gave in 2020 when he failed to answer a journalist’s question about Taiwan’s efficient response to the virus, "first claiming not to have heard the question, then apparently cutting off the connection, and then, when it was restored, responding 'Well, we've already talked about China.'". Forich (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Below is a list of sources. Others should feel free to add to it.

• Biden Admin. concerns about WHO: We have deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of the COVID-19 investigation were communicated and questions about the process used to reach them.[35]
• Reuters article about the Biden Admin. concerns: [36]
• NYT: The W.H.O., by design, is beholden to its member countries and has long struck a diplomatic tone in dealing with the Chinese government, which is notoriously resistant to outside scrutiny.[37]
• NYT again, about a previous WHO investigation into the source of Covid: What the team members did not know was that they would not be allowed to investigate the source at all. Despite Dr. Ryan’s pronouncements, and over the advice of its emergency committee, the organization’s leadership had quietly negotiated terms that sidelined its own experts. They would not question China’s initial response or even visit the live-animal market in the city of Wuhan where the outbreak seemed to have originated.[38]
• The Atlantic, entire article about the WHO's pattern of repeating Chinese claims, regardless of whether or not said claims are true, including the WHO tweet: Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus.[39]

Adoring nanny (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• * NYT, "Some scientists question WHO inquiry into the coronavirus pandemic [40] Forich (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of these are bad. For example: The NYT article from last November says that the outbreak seemed to originate (note their use of the past tense) in a live-animal market. We already know that the virus was in circulation in multiple parts of that city before it was spread in that location. So why would you actually go there to investigate? Maybe the journalists wanted a nice photo-op, showing the scientists staring thoughtfully at a fish seller? Maybe that newspaper (NB: not the WHO, but The New York Times) wanted to push China's story about the virus maybe originating in wild animals in a neighboring country and reaching China via imported food? There's no scientific point to going there, so they didn't. Why is this supposed to be a problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, sure, here is also recent article in Politico [41]. It says, for example, that Chinese scientists "had created a new model for studying SARS-CoV-2 by creating mice with human-like lung characteristics by using the CRISPR gene-editing technology to give the mice lung cells with the human ACE2 receptor" "well before the coronavirus outbreak—research they hadn’t disclosed and continued not to admit to". Personally, I have no idea if this is true, but definitely something to think about. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Telegraph (Opinion), "The World Health Organization's appeasement of China has made another..." [42] Forich (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Wall Street Journal, "How the WHO's hunt for COVID's origins stumbled in China" [43] Forich (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Could we avoid having to base our coverage of scientific investigations on popular press pieces? If the veto over scientists had an impact, besides being a mere ad hominem used to insinuate that the investigation is somehow deficient, that would be a great addition. But the simple news-facty sounding sentence doesn't add much otherwise. Additionally, uncritically giving opinions ("that the investigation was not full or impartial") in Wikivoice fails NPOV; and if it's only given by the WSJ piece (a US newspapers, reliable for news, but leaning to the right; with the usual caution for opinions), it's UNDUE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Misleading intro

While Ben Embarek has said a lab leak was "extremely unlikely", contrary to the intro, the WHO did not "rule out" a lab leak origin. In fact, Director-General Ghebreyesus explicitly stated, "I want to clarify that all hypotheses remain open and require further study." The intro to this article is itself misinformation. Anamelesseditor (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Anamelesseditor. I will edit the intro. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead was indeed misleading on many aspects besides this. I've rewritten it entirely to avoid UNDUE weight being given to the usual bollocks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That edit was misleading and I've reverted it. In particular, there is no consensus that what the WHO says is true. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)