Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reverted
Tag: Reverted
Line 104: Line 104:
<i>Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2but only on SARS-CoV in published and openly displayed international collaborations (Cohen, 2020). Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2</i>[[User:Adoring nanny|Adoring nanny]] ([[User talk:Adoring nanny|talk]]) 21:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
<i>Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2but only on SARS-CoV in published and openly displayed international collaborations (Cohen, 2020). Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2</i>[[User:Adoring nanny|Adoring nanny]] ([[User talk:Adoring nanny|talk]]) 21:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
:No, your disliking one sentence from a NCBI source is not adequate reason to remove. Your quote is selective and not representative of the entire source, either. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
:No, your disliking one sentence from a NCBI source is not adequate reason to remove. Your quote is selective and not representative of the entire source, either. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
::I would add that this particular "logic", if one wants to use that term, appears to be a pattern for Frutos.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8490156/] <i>WIV staff members have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 and were reported negative (Cohen, 2020).</i> The Cohen source Frutos is referring to is this one [https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.369.6503.487]. Therefore, the logic Frutos is using amounts to "Shi said that all WIV staff and students tested negative. Therefore, all WIV staff and students tested negative." [[User:Adoring nanny|Adoring nanny]] ([[User talk:Adoring nanny|talk]]) 01:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:30, 24 December 2021



Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

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

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


Lab leak theory sources

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

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

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

References

Reference ideas

The following references may be useful for improving this article. This list is limited to high-quality sources not yet included in the article. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Note: Several of these sources, and many others, are in the Lab leak theory sources box at the top of this Talk page, hidden under the color-coded tabs. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More likely than not.

From today’s Telegraph “Last week, molecular biologist Alina Chan told Parliament’s Science and Technology Select Committee that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the Covid pandemic initially came from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. ‘We all agree there was a critical event at the [Wuhan] wet market that was a superspreader event caused by humans,’ she said. ‘But there is no evidence pointing to a natural animal origin of the virus at that market.’ There is also nothing to suggest that it was anything other than accidental.”

As the consensus changes the tone of our article is increasingly out of step with the new mainstream. We’ll need a major rewrite, I suggest focusing on the substance of the article rather than the (interesting as it is) history and politics which got us here.

Just my opinion. Springnuts (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

uhmmmmmmmm Alina Chan has felt this way for a very long time. But it is not the consensus opinion of the scientific community. She most certainly does not speak for the scientific consensus. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scientific consensus that there was a natural origin or a lab leak, so the consensus can be described as "we don't know"...I don't think "the natural origin hypothesis is most likely" being a majority opinion among experts constitutes what we would traditionally deem a scientific consensus. If Alina's position is "we don't know", it seems like it's congruent with the current unrefuted scientific "consensus"...which actually remains "we don't know". 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support a major rewrite. The old scientific consensus (the majority viewpoint of scientists towards this topic) was clear enough: if the US stops "fomenting" tensions by promoting this theory, the Chinese government may be more forthcoming. That consensus no longer exists. Even Pulitzer winner Michael Hiltzik is reduced to arguing that Chan is wrong because China is secretive about all things. –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's... not an accurate summary of that article. Regardless, Alina Chan certainly isn't a good source for what is mainstream. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All that remains is an argument ... Why don’t we know more about the work at the Wuhan Institute, unless the Chinese government is hiding its guilt? ... Basing a conspiracy theory on government secrecy is a dead end. The Chinese are secretive about all things...

says Hiltzik. Our article has been promoting a contrary viewpoint: Some virologists and public health experts ... said that a "hostile" and "divisive" focus on the WIV ... would cause Chinese scientists and authorities to share less ... data. Our article may be out of date. –Dervorguilla (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific consensus is not about politics. it's about the origins of the virus. I have seen no policy statements or reasonable articulations of the scientific opinion that prognosticate how to handle international relations. That would be inappropriate for scientists to say, as there are no data to back it up. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Data" is plural, your welcome. 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're (you are)... Muphry's law is in full effect, as always. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was a lighthearted joke because I hate to be "that guy", so I put in the most embarrassing type of typo while pointing out that one...I see that error ("the data says...") EVERYWHERE, in extremely reputable sources, it's crazy; that said, I'm very prone to typos/grammatical mistakes and so Murphys law would most certainly apply. 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point is that the scientific consensus is no longer solid; but our article is written as if it was, so we lack appropriate balance.

The political reasons why the theory was by some propounded and by others rejected should not be as prominent as they are: the scientific arguments should displace them. Springnuts (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what source are you using to say that the scientific consensus has changed? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on the Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 says investigations may take years, and the results could be inconclusive. If this is true, then we should not declare a scientific consensus on natural origins from of a single review article, and we should be mindful of the data the the authors of that review article say is required for Origin tracing (ref 1). LondonIP (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You demolish the straw man you set up effectively, but I very specifically did not say that the scientific consensus has changed. But it is no longer solid, and the shifts are all one way. So to answer the question you did not ask; we should reflect fairly the increasing weight of those who previously were firmly of the opinion that this was a nonsense theory who are changing their minds. This from the Guarniad (!) for example way back in June [[5]]. If you wish to exclude all non-scientific sources from this article then could split into two articles: one on the raw science; one on the psychology and politics - which are fascinating in their own right. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about a shift in scientific consensus, but have provided exactly zero sourcing for that and instead link an opinion piece in the Guardian (!) as if that were relevant. So, what sources are you using to draw the conclusion that there has been a shift? VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would describe it as a shift in scientists' opinions. There is no scientific consensus, as that will take many years to form. The shift began with the DARPA proposal leak by DRASTIC, and the comments from Alexander Kekulé and Simon Wain-Hobson, mentioned here. Chan et al in MBE and Graner et al in Cell mark a continued shift. LondonIP (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) DRASTIC are not scientists, nor are they a credible or reliable source (for Wikipedia or otherwise), and what else you say seems to be WP:OR 2) A few people (like Chan), who have not actually significantly changed their position on this since the beginning, repeating their views once more does not indicate a shift in others 3) the link you provide to an article in Cell is actually the recent review by Holmes et al., which, oh irony!, if anything, shows there has been no shift in high quality scientific publications (the ones we should be basing our articles on). I am not at all convinced that a comment (was it subject to editorial/peer-review? doesn't seem likely at all; seems more like a WP:PRIMARY source for the opinion of its authors) on that by some other researchers is appropriate counter-balance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you at least be content for the article to acknowledge and reflect the systemic bias against the theory; eg (from the Telegraph again): Angus Dalgleish, a professor of Oncology and vaccine researcher at St George’s Hospital in Tooting says that journals refused to consider a paper he wrote last year observing that the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 - the virus which causes Covid 19 - showed signs of man-made genetic sequences. What made it especially difficult, he says, was that the man-made theory had been expounded by Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump’s Secretary of State. “No scientist was willing to get into bed and agree with Trump,” Dalgleish says. In other words, what ought to be an objective process - a journal assessing the quality of science, aided by a peer-review process - was subverted by partisan politics.”? This might indicate the desirability of splitting the article as indicated above into “pure” science and the political/psychological side which I would be grateful for views on. Springnuts (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Dalgleish's opinion on why his paper was rejected isn't worth mentioning, whether or not it's uncritically parroted in the Telegraph. Maybe the paper's nonacceptance has more to do with it being outside of his discipline (oncology) that it does with its political alignment, and maybe Dalgleish's right-wing political aspirations make him susceptible to interpreting this sort of thing as persecution of the right. No, splitting the article is not a good idea. It's not long enough to merit a content fork, and even if it were, splitting along that line would be a constant POVFORK headache. VQuakr (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
E pur si muove. I’m done. Springnuts (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More Quadros than Galilei, and if you really think there's any parallel here between yourself and the latter then maybe you're not in the right headspace to be editing in this subject area right now. Getting rejected from a journal with a 4% acceptance rate isn't evidence of something untoward. VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China's refusal to be transparent is akin to refusing a breathalyzer, how do we incorporate this into the article

I think the Chinese Govt behavior amid the investigation of this theory is not covered well here. This is a fact--they've been extremely opaque. Silence is not an admission of guilt, but it's well-established in many systems of law that, upon there being probable cause that there was malfeasance (like that someone was driving under the influence), refusing a test is oftentimes a de facto admission of guilt, and will result in a conviction. By basically engaging in a massive cover-up by not releasing evidence that could prove or disprove the lab leak theory (where is the database that was taken offline? etc.), the chinese government engaged in behavior that can be seen as an admission of guilt. What sort of source would be appropriate for this feature of the lab leak theory? I know we would like to avoid quoting individuals like Alina Chan or other hardline/self-published advocates, even if they're quoted somewhere reliable and secondary, but this isn't scientific, it's a legal/psychology dimension. I'm just unsure what would be appropriate to quote. Science journals? NPR? AP? That Vanity Fair piece? This is an international incident and what type of source is considered impartial when judging the behavior of a major government?... 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 05:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this is reported on by reliable scientific sources (who do not seem to entertain the lack of evidence as evidence of malfeasance), it remains not relevant to the scientific aspect of this article. Of course, the political controversy caused by the lack of transparency by Chinese authorities should (and to some extant, already is, although it might need an update/expansion) be covered based on the usual sources for politics (newspapers, and when/if they are covering this, appropriate academic journals). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are going about this the wrong way. The way to write wikipedia articles is to find sources about the topic, and then summarize what they say. Not to have a conclusion, and then find sources which agree with that conclusion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I just would like to know before I make a proposal. Thanks! 2600:1012:B05C:5B3B:41BD:391:8E95:9CDE (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"What type of source is considered impartial when judging the behavior of a major government?" It looks like these sources are generally regarded as trustworthy and impartial: Reuters, AP*, PBS*, BBC, and WSJ*. (* News section only; Politics, Opinion, or Fact Check sections may be more partisan.)
See Jurkowitz et al, Pew Research Center, "Trust, Distrust, and Awareness of News Sources"; and various media-bias charts. –Dervorguilla (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of two sources that draw this obvious connection.[6][7] It is absolutely not enough. What we can and should do is document China's non-cooperation, but not in this article. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frutos source

This source [8] states that the lab leak theory is wrong based on a statement by Shi Zhengli that all workers at the WIV tested negative. That's akin to stating that the theory is wrong because Shi said so. Therefore, I've removed it. Scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology denied having carried out engineering and gain of function experiments on SARS-CoV-2but only on SARS-CoV in published and openly displayed international collaborations (Cohen, 2020). Altogether, these elements indicate that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a man-made origin of SARS-CoV-2Adoring nanny (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, your disliking one sentence from a NCBI source is not adequate reason to remove. Your quote is selective and not representative of the entire source, either. VQuakr (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that this particular "logic", if one wants to use that term, appears to be a pattern for Frutos.[9] WIV staff members have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 and were reported negative (Cohen, 2020). The Cohen source Frutos is referring to is this one [10]. Therefore, the logic Frutos is using amounts to "Shi said that all WIV staff and students tested negative. Therefore, all WIV staff and students tested negative." Adoring nanny (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1061797216"