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
Line 164: Line 164:
:::::::::::::Thanks [[Special:Contributions/2601:602:8200:4A10:B091:6793:4010:A50D|2601:602:8200:4A10:B091:6793:4010:A50D]] ([[User talk:2601:602:8200:4A10:B091:6793:4010:A50D|talk]]) 05:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Thanks [[Special:Contributions/2601:602:8200:4A10:B091:6793:4010:A50D|2601:602:8200:4A10:B091:6793:4010:A50D]] ([[User talk:2601:602:8200:4A10:B091:6793:4010:A50D|talk]]) 05:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The synthesis of the discussion above, and specifically Shibbolethink's comment "None of the sources you have provided disagree with the sources I provided, as I stated above. A lack of an absolute scientific consensus and the majority of scientists believing x is the most likely are not mutually exclusive." suggest that the proper NPOV thing to do is include both statements - that a majority of scientists believe in natural origins and that there is no scientific consensus ruling out the lab leak - in the lede, properly cited. So I went ahead and made a bold edit to this effect. --[[User:skeptical scientist|skeptical scientist]] ([[User talk:skeptical scientist|talk]]) 19:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The synthesis of the discussion above, and specifically Shibbolethink's comment "None of the sources you have provided disagree with the sources I provided, as I stated above. A lack of an absolute scientific consensus and the majority of scientists believing x is the most likely are not mutually exclusive." suggest that the proper NPOV thing to do is include both statements - that a majority of scientists believe in natural origins and that there is no scientific consensus ruling out the lab leak - in the lede, properly cited. So I went ahead and made a bold edit to this effect. --[[User:skeptical scientist|skeptical scientist]] ([[User talk:skeptical scientist|talk]]) 19:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::::{{outdent|6}} Disagree with your bold edit. It goes much farther beyond what this discussion was about, and introduces more content and sources in a way that is not compatible with any consensus I could find here. For several reasons, this edit is objectionable:
::::::::#It foregoes consensus building and inserts 4k of material that others had already reverted to restore your preferred version. Don't do that.
::::::::#it doesn't appropriately summarize the sources, instead using synthesizing ([[WP:SYNTH]]) your own interpretation from what several sources say.
::::::::#This is also visible in [[WP:HOWEVER]]. It puts several statements in conjunction with one another that draw a conclusion based on something not present in the ''reliable'' sources.
::::::::#It cites several unreliable sources (e.g. the ''Lancet'' commission) which experts in these fields don't find credible or reliable. We have had many talk page discussions about this. Ditto with relying heavily on news sources and other opinions instead of secondary review articles. Don't reinvent the wheel, read the archives. Read [[WP:MEDASSESS]].
:::::::: —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 20:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I saw an illustration of the problem with reliable sources that is kind of difficult to tackle. Many times they are not really independent but use some circular referencing that form a giant loop. The video may have a conspiratorial theme but it illustrates the issue nevertheless. Elon Musk published [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1662667558539886592 the video] in his timeline. Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 04:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I saw an illustration of the problem with reliable sources that is kind of difficult to tackle. Many times they are not really independent but use some circular referencing that form a giant loop. The video may have a conspiratorial theme but it illustrates the issue nevertheless. Elon Musk published [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1662667558539886592 the video] in his timeline. Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 04:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
::::::::<sarcasm>Oooh, you found a big problem with reliable sources. Let's change the rules, let's only use unreliable sources instead.</sarcasm>
::::::::<sarcasm>Oooh, you found a big problem with reliable sources. Let's change the rules, let's only use unreliable sources instead.</sarcasm>

Revision as of 20:05, 22 June 2023




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

What's the source for the claim - "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis"

I couldn't find any document that supports this claim. I might have missed it. Could someone please provide the source? Thank you. 2601:602:8200:4A10:2D3E:3045:4133:8F56 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the very first two references. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have searched for the term "scientists" in those articles but could not find that claim. Could you please point me to the relevant section of those sources that support this claim? 2601:602:8200:4A10:2D3E:3045:4133:8F56 (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The scientists are the authors of those studies. Both conclude the emergence likely resulted from natural zoonosis. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But how does that establish that "most scientists" believe their conclusions? 2601:602:8200:4A10:2D3E:3045:4133:8F56 (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we're not here to educate you on how peer acceptance of papers published in scientific journals works. ValarianB (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have a valid point, per wp:v we can't say most unless we have a source that says so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid summary of the content per WP:MEDSCI and WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two papers a majority does not make. It needs rewriting. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot not to like about the phrase, but i think it is actually watering down what could be said. If it were put in terms of evidence instead of belief we could probably state outright rather than attributing to "most scientists". If the text went directly to the scope of the article "lab related" vs "wildlife trade" instead of the fuzzy obscuring "natural zoonosis" it would probably be clearer for the reader. Anyway we shouldn't count papers to determine some kind of scientific consensus, but look to the best. fiveby(zero) 15:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then do so, lets reflect what our article says. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Say "the theory is highly controversial; the scientific consensus is that the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis, similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history.". Remove the cites (as they are not needed, this is the lede). Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is no merit at all to this watering-down and catering to conspiracy theorists. ValarianB (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about catering to anyone, it's about potraying information correctly. There is no scientific consensus on the origins of Covid and the article's claim is untrue. The right thing would be to fix it. 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change "scientific consensus" to "assumption" and it's perfect. Sennalen (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scientific consensus apart from "we don't know what happened yet". As the WHO says, "all theories remain on the table". PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the total number of scientists anywhere is approximately 4. Sennalen (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God, give it a break. There's plenty of sources that say "most scientists". [5] [6] They're secondary sources that reference studies like the ones we use in the article. I expect better from you, Slatersteven. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are lots of sources that say this.
However, they almost all say something like "whilst most scientists believe the virus most likely spilled over naturally from animals, others believe it's more likely the virus leaked from a lab". I think we should use language along these lines, rather than excluding the second part for no good reason. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do say the second part, in various places throughout the article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes sorry, it is indeed stated that way later in the lead. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The objection was the sources we were using did not say it (they did not), so I suggested rewording it. That would include putting in sources that say it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: Okay, that's what OP was asking for. Sennalen (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support adding these sources to the content, especially if it resolves this whole section's underlying disagreement. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no scientific consensus on when exactly the virus first infected humans, hence, there is no consensus among the scientific community that they agree with the conclusions of Pekar et al since these authors make particularly strong claims about when Sars2 entered humans.
Jesse Bloom, Sudhir Kumar, Sergei Pond are credible scientists who have published peer review articles that disagree with those conclusions. Hence, the claim that there is a scientific consensus is not correct.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/12/5211/6353034?login=false
https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/10/2719/6553661 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the peer review process means any published article has majority recognition or support, you yourself have very little understanding of the process. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is asserting that here, as far as I can tell. Instead, we are following what WP:MEDSCI tells us. Multiple independent peer-reviewed secondary review papers published in high impact prominent journals from recognized experts in the field, shows there is widespread agreement. The particular "majority" wording is from a variety of other sources described in this section. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MEDSCI also points to WHO for determining scientific consensus and WHO have been very clear that all possibilities are on the table. This clearly shows that a respectable body like WHO doesn't believe there is a consensus so the article is in disagreement with WP:MEDSCI
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/03/03/all-covid-origin-theories-including-lab-leak-on-the-table-who-director-says/?sh=119739a66f70 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the most authoritative statement from the WHO so far is that the lab leak is "extremely unlikely" and that zoonosis is the most likely origin scenario. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. That's not the official position of the WHO. That was the conclusion of a study convened jointly by China and WHO. WHO's position immediately after the report was to thank the team for their work but as far as WHO was concerned all scenarios remain on the table which means that there is no scientific consensus that Sars2 has a natural origin.
https://www.who.int/news/item/30-03-2021-who-calls-for-further-studies-data-on-origin-of-sars-cov-2-virus-reiterates-that-all-hypotheses-remain-open 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all scenarios remain on the table which means that there is no scientific consensus that Sars2 has a natural origin.
The second part of this sentence is not an immediate conclusion from the first part.
"All scenarios are possible" is not mutually exclusive with "There is a scientific consensus that zoonosis is the most likely origin"
(the underlined part is extremely important to understanding this point.)
If you disagree on that fundamental point, then I honestly truly have no idea what to tell you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the wordings of the report to be the official stance of the WHO. It's not. WHO has never said that the scientific consensus is natural origin.
There's no scientific consensus even on when the virus first infected humans, hence, there is no consensus among the scientific community that they agree with the conclusions of Pekar et al since these authors make particularly strong claims about when Sars2 entered humans.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/12/5211/6353034?login=false
https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/10/2719/6553661
These are peer reviewed articles by highly cited authors that differ in conclusion to the article you are claiming is the scientific consensus. This is simply not true. Hence, I request those in charge to please change the wording. 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the specific point of whether it's ok to say "most scientists believe the virus spilled over through zoonosis", I think it's fine. Wikipedia:RS/AC says you need an RS to directly state this, which we have. Whether or not they're justified in saying this is irrelevant for the purposes of this article, unless another RS disputes it.
  • However, the IP editor is correct that there is no consensus on the origin of the virus. A consensus means 'broad agreement' which quite obviously does not exist. There is, in fact, widespread disagreement. A majority-minority split is not automatically a consensus. The only consensus, as per the WHO, is that "we don't know". More generally, our article should reflect this. At the moment it does not, it treats the hypothesis as a fringe conspiracy theory.
PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article's claim that most scientists believe that has no source to back it and hence should be removed. 2601:602:8200:4A10:3DE6:F1C5:C284:307E (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I remember, that wording came from a discussion between me and Shibbolethink. This was a couple of years ago, and the source was something pretty strong, possibly a news article in Nature. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that's right, from Amy Maxmen. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter whose opinion it was. To establish "most" and state it matter of factly you would have to have a survey proving as much. Otherwise, the language you're looking for would be something to the effect of "according to some person named Amy Maxmen, most scientists..."--2600:1700:B020:1490:5D2:3A79:23F9:E614 (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASSERT. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have zero sources which say a majority of scientists do not believe the zoonosis is the most likely explanation, and quite a few which say that a majority believe it is. Why would we attribute this?
When even people like Jesse Bloom haven't disputed that they're an outlier? When no RSes are saying anything to the contrary? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it violates WP:NPOV - "Avoid stating opinions as facts." 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources stating otherwise. I hope these would convince the editors that there is no scientific consensus on the origins of SARS-CoV-2.
"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2"
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2215826119
"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01585-9/fulltext 2601:602:8200:4A10:D0C:2207:53A3:55BB (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This thread reminds me of the controversy about spinach being a high source of iron when in fact it is high in beta carotene. The mix up happened precisely in a misquote.[1] Therefore, I think "most" ideally should be a quantifiable number in reliable sources, for example, polls. Otherwise, how do they reach the conclusion that most think that way? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By looking at the published literature. If 99 papers say X and 98 papers say Y the scientific consensus is X. In this case it is not even slightly that close (more like 100 to 1). Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That could also reflect simply the editorial decisions to exclude other studies. Besides, that may count as original research. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the editorial decisions to exclude other studies are part of what causes this to be an accurate reflection of scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC. Editorial boards and editorial judgment are part of why these sources are considered the best available WP:RSes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSes: "Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."
Doesn't the current version violate this since the claim is not backed by any source? 2601:602:8200:4A10:48B9:9523:61E9:57C5 (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As has been described multiple times above, there indeed are many multiple sources which support the statement:
  • most scientists suspect a zoonotic spillover in which the virus transferred from bats, or through an intermediate animal, to humans — the same way the SARS and MERS coronaviruses originated. FactCheck.org
  • The zoonotic hypothesis hinges on the idea that the virus spilled over from animals to humans, either directly through a bat, or through some other intermediary animal. Most scientists say that this is the likely origin, given that 75% of all emerging diseases have jumped from animals into humans. CNN
  • Individuals may learn about the origins of COVID-19 through exposure to stories that communicate either what most scientists believe (i.e., zoonotic transmission) or through exposure to conspiratorial claims (e.g., the virus was created in a research laboratory in China). "Framing the Origins of COVID-19" published in Science Communication and published as part of the SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection.
  • The default answer for most scientists has been that the virus, SARS-CoV-2, probably made the jump to humans from bats, if it was a direct spillover — or, more likely, through one or more intermediate mammals. NBC
  • The most controversial hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is also the one that most scientists agree is the least likely: that the virus somehow leaked out of a laboratory in Wuhan where researchers study bat coronaviruses. National Geographic
  • The leading theory now backed by most scientists is that the virus arose in wild bats and found its way into animals (perhaps via a pangolin or a civet cat) sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan. Prospect Magazine
  • Most scientists studying the origins of COVID-19 have concluded that the SARS-CoV-2 virus probably evolved naturally and infected humans via incidental contact with a wild or domesticated animal. GenEng News
  • Questions have been raised about whether the virus could have leaked from a laboratory studying related viruses in Wuhan – a scenario most scientists...feel is less likely than a natural spillover. SCMP
  • There continues to be no evidence at all for the conspiracy theory that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was developed as some kind of bioweapon, and most scientists believe that the majority of available evidence indicates the virus jumped from animal to human. New York magazine
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are opinions and I can easily provide opinions that differ from this point of view. If you are sharing opinions WP:NPOV clearly states - "Avoid stating opinions as facts."
Here are alternate opinions from WP:RS which contradict that.
"Prof van der Merwe believes that scientists had used articles in The Lancet and Nature Medicine to create a “false impression” that a natural spillover origin was scientific consensus." The Telegraph
"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation." The Lancet
"There is no scientific consensus on how the virus originated, but researchers believe it could have originated naturally or from an accident in a lab." Politifact
"While Worobey et al. (and their companion paper by Pekar et al. [41]) may dispute these findings, no scientific consensus can yet be presumed." Commentary in ASM mBio
"To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else." Reason
If you are stating opinions, please say so in the article as it is violating both WP:NOPV ("Avoid stating opinions as facts.") and WP:RS ("Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.") 2601:602:8200:4A10:48B9:9523:61E9:57C5 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are assessments made by WP:RSes. Not opinions. None of the sources you have provided disagree with the sources I provided, as I stated above. A lack of an absolute scientific consensus and the majority of scientists believing x is the most likely are not mutually exclusive.
At this point, I don't think this conversation is very productive, so I'm gonna stop replying. Have a nice day. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please cite exactly what methodology is used to make the assessment and why is it not an opinion? 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are claiming to say "majority of scientists believe x", it should be fairly easy to provide a primary source that confirms this statement. I have yet to see anything close to this. Whatever you have linked are opinions/assessments based on absolutely no primary source to verify that statement. So it makes no sense to mention unverifiable statements in the article. 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been given nine reliable sources that confirm what our article says. The correct way to counter those is to collect about as many reliable sources that say the opposite, not to claim that those nine are all "just opinions". You are clearly grasping at straws and wasting everybody's time, and it is obvious that you will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then at least cite the correct sources in the article? The current citation points to two articles none of which back the claim. Please point it to one or multiple of the nince sources instead. 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 08:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 2601:602:8200:4A10:B091:6793:4010:A50D (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The synthesis of the discussion above, and specifically Shibbolethink's comment "None of the sources you have provided disagree with the sources I provided, as I stated above. A lack of an absolute scientific consensus and the majority of scientists believing x is the most likely are not mutually exclusive." suggest that the proper NPOV thing to do is include both statements - that a majority of scientists believe in natural origins and that there is no scientific consensus ruling out the lab leak - in the lede, properly cited. So I went ahead and made a bold edit to this effect. --skeptical scientist (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with your bold edit. It goes much farther beyond what this discussion was about, and introduces more content and sources in a way that is not compatible with any consensus I could find here. For several reasons, this edit is objectionable:
  1. It foregoes consensus building and inserts 4k of material that others had already reverted to restore your preferred version. Don't do that.
  2. it doesn't appropriately summarize the sources, instead using synthesizing (WP:SYNTH) your own interpretation from what several sources say.
  3. This is also visible in WP:HOWEVER. It puts several statements in conjunction with one another that draw a conclusion based on something not present in the reliable sources.
  4. It cites several unreliable sources (e.g. the Lancet commission) which experts in these fields don't find credible or reliable. We have had many talk page discussions about this. Ditto with relying heavily on news sources and other opinions instead of secondary review articles. Don't reinvent the wheel, read the archives. Read WP:MEDASSESS.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw an illustration of the problem with reliable sources that is kind of difficult to tackle. Many times they are not really independent but use some circular referencing that form a giant loop. The video may have a conspiratorial theme but it illustrates the issue nevertheless. Elon Musk published the video in his timeline. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>Oooh, you found a big problem with reliable sources. Let's change the rules, let's only use unreliable sources instead.</sarcasm>
Your fallacy is called special pleading. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, news media attacked the lab leak theory after a letter was published in The Lancet by scientists who had worked in some capacity with the Wuhan Lab and failed to disclose it, among other conflicts of interest.
Filippa Lentzos, codirector of the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College, London, "“Some of the scientists in this area very quickly closed ranks.” She added, “There were people that did not talk about this, because they feared for their careers. They feared for their grants.”"

"“It’s very clear at this time that the term ‘conspiracy theory’ is a useful term for defaming an idea you disagree with,” says Ebright [professor of molecular biology at Rutgers University ], referring to scientists and journalists who have wielded the term."

"The Lancet letter ultimately helped to guide almost a year of reporting, as journalists helped to amplify Daszak’s message and to silence scientific and public debate."

"By the end of 2020, just a handful of journalists had dared to seriously discuss the possibility of a lab leak."[2]

So again, how reliable are the reliable sources in this case is an open question.
Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge as published in reliable sources. It is not interested in The Truth™. If you want that, there are other bits of the Web that are suitable. Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you analyze my comment it is about how reliable are those sources. Are they truly independent from each other. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Thacker's reporting on this (and other topics) has been widely criticized as unreliable:
  • For background, Thacker was fired from the journal Environmental Science & Technology for showing an anti-industry bias....Thacker has also promoted 5g conspiracy theories....Steven Novella
  • I was reluctant to write any more about The BMJ and its descent into bad journalism, one of its editors amplifying antivaccine misinformation, and its publishing of outright conspiracy theories by a hack journalist, but unfortunately its editors leave me little choice...The article follows a familiar format for disinformation. Very definitive and serious accusations are leveled very early in the article, followed much later in the article by “facts” that do not actually substantiate such definitive and serious allegations. David Gorski and reposted further by Genetic Literacy Project
  • The article was by investigative journalist turned anti-GMO muckraking crank Paul Thacker and was titled “Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial“. It’s an article that, since its publication last Tuesday, has been widely cited and shared by a wide variety of antivaxxers in order to portray the clinical trial of the Pfizer vaccine that led to its emergency use authorization (EUA) in the US as hopelessly corrupt. Science Based Medicine
  • Community blog PLOS Biologue has pulled a post by journalists Charles Seife and Paul Thacker that argued in favor of public scrutiny of scientists’ behavior (including emails), following heavy criticism, including from a group and scientist mentioned in the post. Their reasoning: The post was “not consistent with at least the spirit and intent of our community guidelines.” Retraction Watch
  • That canine breed comes up frequently in descriptions of Thacker, a former investigative reporter. His tenaciousness, however, hasn't always been well received. Three years ago, Thacker was fired from Environmental Science & Technology, a publication of the American Chemical Society (ACS), based in Washington DC, which represents academic and industrial chemists. He had written a series of exposés that a senior ACS official claimed showed an anti-industry bias. Nature
  • As Thacker later revealed in SEJournal (PDF), the piece got him summarily canned. A.C.S.'s editor-in-chief, Rudy Baum, would go on to call the Weinberg piece a "hatchet job" Vanity Fair
  • However, several vaccine experts familiar with COVID vaccine clinical trials questioned the article's accuracy, and advised people not to believe it outright. "It's all this sort of vague kind of hand waving; I have no idea whether any of this is true, nor do you," Paul Offit, MD, of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and a member of the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, told MedPage Today. "That The BMJ published it doesn't make it any more true," Offit, who formerly sat on CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, added. "If this whistleblower believes that they have a whistle to blow, then blow it. And then let's have the company respond." MedPageToday
Not exactly the prime example of a person we want to rely on for matters of fact. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was not aware of such criticism but certainly it's not surprising. A gadfly making waves criticizing an industry probably will face backlash. I notice we go back to the conspiracy theory attack theme in some of the sources. If the lab leak was considered a conspiracy theory and now even government organizations back it, I am skeptical of sources with new claims of something being a conspiracy theory.
Also, "anti-industry bias". Should we just accept pro-industry bias? Getting fired for such bias seems to be like the actions taken against whistleblowers. Muckracking crank? A blog removal?
The Vanity Fair source is dated 2008, even before Thacker was writing for Scientific American and listed a Fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.[3]
Thacker is listed as one of the winners of the 2021 British Journalism Awards, with work on for instance, "Covid-19: How independent were the US and British vaccine advisory committees?". The judges said: “This was expertly researched and written journalism on a subject of huge national importance.”[4]
The Guardian states in it also receiving the awards, they are "celebration of the best public interest journalism produced for a UK audience, recognising great journalism that is revelatory and has an impact."[5]
I think he has detractors as expected from a critic exposing wrongdoing but he also has solid credentials. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"solid credentials" is an exaggeration. On wikipedia, we prefer scientific/scholarly sources and assessments to journalistic ones. The alternative is WikiNews — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet your reference is Vanity Fair. Are you joking? Besides, the issue about wrongdoing in scientific circles is more relevant to journalistic investigations not scientific journals. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are given seven sources, six of which are scientists in various venues and one of which is Vanity Fair. Your response is And yet your reference is Vanity Fair. Why should anybody take you seriously? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor is arguing for scientific/scholarly sources, why provide Vanity Fair as one of the sources? And again, the issue about wrongdoing in scientific circles is more relevant to journalistic investigations not scientific journals. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

What scientists think (again)

In almost all the points in this article, I see a bias towards zoonosis theory. This is despite WP:RS conflicting with those arguments. So when two WP:RS conflict with each other, why is only one view mentioned and not the other?

Just as an example, some reliable sources say "most scientists believe natural origin" whereas though not a direct disagreement but still there are reliable sources that offer a more balanced view like "There is no scientific consensus". So how is it decided that one of these statements ends up in the article and the other doesn't? Doesn't WP:NPOV explicitly state: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means 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." So isn't the lack of scientific consensus a significant view that should be mentioned? 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia doesn't balance relevant scientists against conspiracy theorists, pundits and cranks. In my understanding even the LL's are now saying it was zoonosis, but "in the lab". Bon courage (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the reliable sources aren't as biased as some editors around here.
The claim "There is no scientific consensus" is from reliable sources and should be added to the article.
"Prof van der Merwe believes that scientists had used articles in The Lancet and Nature Medicine to create a “false impression” that a natural spillover origin was scientific consensus." The Telegraph
"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation." The Lancet
"There is no scientific consensus on how the virus originated, but researchers believe it could have originated naturally or from an accident in a lab." Politifact
"While Worobey et al. (and their companion paper by Pekar et al. [41]) may dispute these findings, no scientific consensus can yet be presumed." Commentary in ASM mBio
"To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else." Reason
Why cherry pick? Are you here to portray the actual info or spread your own one-sided propaganda? 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See thread above on this exact question. Bon courage (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring my point. The thread above was for inclusion of the claim "Most scientists believe in natural origin".
This thread is about the non-inclusion of the claim "There is no scientific consensus".
Both statements are from multiple reliable sources but clearly you are picking only one of them. Why not mention the fact that there is no scientific consensus as it is a significant point? 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same point: what the article says about "what scientists think". Terrible sources like the Telegraph or Sachs' stuff in the Lancet report aren't useful either. Bon courage (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same point though. Scientific consensus and what most scientists think are two separate but significant topics in their own right. Telegraph and The Lancet are both in WP:RS, aren't they? Wikipedia should convey what RS say without editorializing. This is basic WP:NPOV.
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means 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." 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, the sources you've posted are not reliable for this claim. The Telegraph is not considered reliable for scientific/political claims like this (see WP:RSP). That Lancet piece is from an independent commission that was not headed by recognized experts on viruses, biosafety, or incident investigation. It is not recognized as an authority on any of these things. The statement was not peer reviewed, or editorially reviewed. PolitiFact is not considered particularly reliable for scientific claims. Scientific journal articles are more reliable, especially those that are peer reviewed and published in topic-relevant journals edited by recognized experts. The commentary from mBio was not peer reviewed, and is a PRIMARY source. It is only reliable for that person's opinion, not useful for determining something in wiki-voice. Reason is not considered reliable for matters of science. We prefer secondary, peer-reviewed, independent scholarly reviews from experts in the field, published in topic-relevant journals (e.g. The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review). — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage Sounds like you favor the zoonosis theory. The ip is talking about reliable sources and you start talking about unmentioned conspiracy theories and cranks. Even if you hate it, the lab leak theory is no longer considered a conspiracy theory nor fringe, therefore it needs to be properly balanced according to Wikipedia guidance. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try WP:NOTYOU? I'm not a virologist so I have no idea, and even if I were it wouldn't matter. We follow what the WP:BESTSOURCES say and no, they don't say it was a Chinese bioweapon, made in Fort Detrick, or whatever. The most RS allows is that some kind of LL is possible, if unlikely, and that there is no evidence for it whereas there is some for zoonosis. Anything beyond that is into the WP:FRINGE. When/if RS changes, this article can. Bon courage (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again. Who mentioned Chinese bioweapons? Can you quote and tell me the name of the editor who said that? Because I can't find it. We are talking about the lab leak theory which even some US government agencies say is more likely than zoonosis. I haven't done a meta-analysis to see what's the proportion of reliable sources that lean towards zoonosis or towards a lab accident. Because according to the reliable sources I have read, both scenarios are possible.
The debate was politicized and such is reflected in this talk page as well. Some editors are vociferously against the lab leak theory because of Trump or Republicans in America, reliable sources or NPOV out the window. Others may have undisclosed conflicts of interest. Others for some reason or another simply prefer one theory over the other. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact on another article an editor has been arguing[7] that the Chinese bioweapon thing is an 'accepted theory', and it's a topic we discuss in this very article, so an intrinsic part of LL for many LL proponents (see also e.g. PMID:34345925). It is absolutely not your job to a "meta-analysis" of sources. We have WP:RS for that, and they tell us what most scientists think and what the scientific consensus is (i.e. probably zoonosis). You are going personal again and if that continues this may need admin attention. The assumption that editors here are pursuing a political agenda is particularly insulting and wrong (hint: not everybody is American; I know I'm not). Editors are here to reflect accepted knowledge as published in reliable sources and not to push their ideas. Assuming that is basic to Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. To say in the same contribution The debate was politicized and such is reflected in this talk page as well and the lab leak theory which even some US government agencies say is more likely than zoonosis is hypocritical. Why would anybody care about the government of one specific country? Only if one wants to politicize the question. Lab leak is the dernier cri among politicians of the United States and China because they are accusing each other of conspiracies; in most other places in the world nobody gives a shit about it. As Bon courage says, this is about what scientists think. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the statement "There is no scientific consensus" would be a valuable addition to the article. Many readers will be coming to the article with that exact question in mind, and a simple, concise statement in the lede of the article should be available. 219.88.179.61 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced to a review such as this one perhaps, or something more recent. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9420317/ 219.88.179.61 (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point I am trying to make is that there is no scientific consensus and multiple reliable sources are reporting it (despite your flawed assessment that they are all not reliable).
I agree that there are some papers that present evidence for zoonosis but that doesn't make it a consensus. When multiple reliable sources are saying there's no scientific consensus why are you not reporting that as is Wikipedia's policy to report what reliable sources say? Your claim of "most scientists believe zoonosis" is also not based on primary source but on the "assessments" made by reliable sources. Then why can't you apply the same yardstick when reliable sources are making the assessment that there is no scientific consensus?
Regarding your comments about the reliability of the sources, the Lancet Commission includes multiple reliable scientists with differing views, so your opinion about the reliability of who heads it is purely subjective. I am sure had they arrived at zoonosis you would be more than happy to include them in the article. Labelling anyone who doesn't parrot your propaganda as unreliable and using that to censor the opposing viewpoints is not official Wikipedia policy.
The letter in mBio is also a reliable source because not anyone can publish a commentary. Although not peer reviewed, it still needs to be approved by the editorial team. When similar pieces say "most scientists believe" it becomes 'assessment' but when they say "no scientific consensus" you are labelling them as 'opinions'.
You routinely cite political sources as reliable sources when it suits your agenda but bring up the "they aren't reliable for scientific claims" card whenever the claim doesn't suit your agenda.
You are an extremely biased editor here and I am surprised others are oblivious to your blatant bias in this topic. To me your actions are not a surprise because of your background in virology, work with BSL3 pathogens and funding from NIH. Since the outcome of Covid origins investigation directly impacts your professional life and since you have received fundings from the same institute that was funding gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, you have a massive and relatively less talked about conflict of interest in this debate. I urge the editors of Wikipedia to strongly reconsider @Shibbolethink's editorial power over this article. 2601:602:8200:4A10:7AD8:FAAD:4F75:D61B (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make personal comments about other users on article talk pages, where they are off-topic. What you've done here is cast WP:ASPERSIONS, again, a blockable offense. My professional career, which now has nothing to do with virology (I work on brain tumors), will be completely unaffected by the outcome of the origins investigations. Please remember to assume good faith of other editors in discussions like this, or you risk being blocked.
I don't believe I advocated here for saying there was a scientific consensus on this, only that most scientists believe the zoonosis is most likely. A statement for which we have excellent scholarly sources to support.
As a general FYI, wikipedia is not a logic competition where we can argue our way into what we want. You have to convince others of your position, not argue them into submission. I don't believe you have consensus in favor of your views here, so continued posting of the same arguments over and over will very likely be perceived as WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding multiple talk page sections about very similar ideas and requests. Users regularly get blocked for this sort of thing (WP:BLUDGEON). If others aren't responding to your concerns or taking up their arguments, the best action is to wait and see.
If a consensus fails to form, the best advice is available at WP:1AM. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before this is a different topic.
"The thread above was for inclusion of the claim "Most scientists believe in natural origin".
This thread is about the non-inclusion of the claim "There is no scientific consensus"."
Please feel free to edit the title of this topic if you feel it would better represent the thread. 2601:602:8200:4A10:148A:A3C0:27A2:E535 (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This review says The analysis of the available publications until July 2021 did not allow drawing definitive conclusions and the most important publications on this topic (Pekar and Worobey) were published after July 2021.
So here are some reviews which actually incorporate that evidence:
  • Rochman, Nash D; Wolf, Yuri I; Koonin, Eugene V (18 July 2022). "Molecular adaptations during viral epidemics". EMBO reports. 23 (8). EMBO. doi:10.15252/embr.202255393. ISSN 1469-221X.:
    • SARS-CoV-2 began circulating among human hosts in Hunan (China) by December 2019, likely following at least two independent zoonotic events. Like the other epidemic Betacoronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 likely originated among bats with at least one, still unidentified, intermediate host mediating zoonosis.
  • Bronzwaer, Stef; Catchpole, Mike; de Coen, Wim; Dingwall, Zoe; Fabbri, Karen; Foltz, Clémence; Ganzleben, Catherine; van Gorcom, Robert; Humphreys, Anthony; Jokelainen, Pikka; Liebana, Ernesto; Rizzi, Valentina; Url, Bernhard (2022). "One Health collaboration with and among EU Agencies – Bridging research and policy". One Health. 15. Elsevier BV: 100464. doi:10.1016/j.onehlt.2022.100464. ISSN 2352-7714.:
    • The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2 – a zoonotic virus, impacting society in all levels, reminded us that silo approaches will not work
  • Li, Qian; Shah, Taif; Wang, Binghui; Qu, Linyu; Wang, Rui; Hou, Yutong; Baloch, Zulqarnain; Xia, Xueshan (6 January 2023). "Cross-species transmission, evolution and zoonotic potential of coronaviruses". Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 12. Frontiers Media SA. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2022.1081370. ISSN 2235-2988.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link):
    • Many of the first COVID-19 patients claimed to have visited an animal market in Wuhan, implying that the virus may have been transmitted to them by animals at the market (Zhou et al., 2020). Although the exact route of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from bat reservoirs to humans is unknown (Lu et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020), recent evidence points to raccoons as the intermediate mammalian host between bats and humans
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the other thread, it's pretty clear that there is no consensus on the virus origins, other than "we don't know". There are numerous RSes (not least the WHO) that back this up. Putting a clear statement in the lead that there isn't consensus would be a good first step towards remedying this article's NPOV issues. For example, something like "WHO director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has called for a new investigation into the virus's origins, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study." PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except it would be howling WP:PROFRINGE without mentioning the likelihood assigned to the various possibilities. Bon courage (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with also saying 'most scientists believe that the lab leak is the more likely of the two scenarios', because that's what the sources say. What I object to is portraying this as a settled matter or portraying the lab leak hypothesis as a racist conspiracy theory. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It mostly is though. Most people are not "scientists". Follow the sources. Bon courage (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Pie is correct that there are two different questions. One relates to whether or not there is a consensus. The other to what most scientists think. The sourcing for what most scientists think remains, I think, in favor of saying that most scientists think it was zoonosis. I recently ran across an NYT article that supports "some" instead of "most" [8], but I think the overall picture continues to support "most".
On the question of whether or not there is a "consensus", I don't think the sourcing supports saying that there is. The FBI and the Energy department, for example, both have their own scientists (see [9], for example), and came to varying levels of support for LL. If there were a "consensus" for Z, that would not have happened. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the sources. Unless the sources mention there is no consensus. In which case, follow your propaganda. 2601:602:8200:4A10:B091:6793:4010:A50D (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we say anywhere that there is a consensus? Adoring nanny (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You choose not to say there is no consensus. 2601:602:8200:4A10:7AD8:FAAD:4F75:D61B (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In direct violation of WP:NPOV.
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means 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."
"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." 2601:602:8200:4A10:7AD8:FAAD:4F75:D61B (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we leave all the crappo sources to one side and go for some WP:BESTSOURCES-level WP:SCHOLARSHIP (PMID:34897750) we could say that the consensus view is that the pandemic probably started from a natural source. I'd support that. Bon courage (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RfP which concluded that mainstream reliable sources could be used for the COVID origins topic (apart from for the biomedical aspects). I don't think that consensus can be circumvented by simply calling these sources 'crappo'. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WTF is a "RFP"? And when it comes to mainstream reliable sources, then peer-reviewed, secondary, MEDLINE-indexed, on-point prestige journal articles are just that ("Politifact", not so much). So just to be clear: we're not going to be talking about origin "consensus" because it's off-topic. But if we do, it'll be to say that the origin consensus is natural zoonosis. Bon courage (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing out the typo. You are of course correct that I did indeed mean to say RfC.
  • I never said that Politifact . I said mainstream sources meaning the Wall Street Journal, NYT, Telegraph, BBC, Washington Post etc etc. 'Mainstream' obviously doesn't mean scientific journal articles.
  • How is origin consensus off topic? That is precisely the purpose of this thread and a very important question for the purposes of editing this article.
PieLover3141592654 (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just newspapers of varying quality (WSJ? for science? seriously?). Irrelevant when we have secondary peer-reviewed scientific ones. The "consensus" about "origin" is something for Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, it's not relevant to the LL "theory" itself. Bon courage (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most non-scientists are just not aware of how abysmal many newspapers' coverage of scientific subjects is, especially the WSJ. This is a WP:CIR problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said again and again and again, there's been an RfC on whether mainstream news sources are valid sources for COVID origins topics and the consensus was that they are. As Jimmy Wales has pointed out, this is a social/historical topic, not a purely scientific one. If you disagree with the RfC, feel free to launch another one. And this is not the appropriate place to discuss the reliability of the WSJ and other mainstream newspapers either - try the reliable sources noticeboard. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use science sources for science, and other sources for other things. But not crap sources like "Politifact" or WSJ for science. And in any, event peer-reviewed, scholarly, secondary, reputable sources trump lay ones in all topics. Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a now infamous debate about the reliability of the peer review system, which was made famous by a Lancet editor. I agree that we don’t know the origin of Covid 19 but the majority believe argument is absolutely deficient for the simple reason that the systems in place to claim objectivity have not ever been proven to be robust. Science is also susceptible to scientists following beliefs because they are majority beliefs, and a means to furthering careers, rather than based on conclusive evidence 2A00:23EE:2420:58AB:D493:5A8F:A9CC:3561 (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From "there is a debate about X", you conclude that "we should not use X"? That is rather thin sauce. You probably don't leave your house because "it has not been proven" that you will not be devoured by zombies if you do.
Please concentrate on improving the articles using reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wray

In regard to the recent reverts about Wray's public statement regarding the FBI's assessment. It seems to me that this should be included. But I also think the FBI's assessment should be in one place in the Intelligence agencies subsection. The reverted version[10] had it split between the beginning and the end. That's a bit strange. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agreed. David A (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Undue. One guy from one-eighth of one country's spook agencies goes on a silly TV news show to reiterate a long-known position (which Wikipedia already relays). So what? And if it were to be mentioned we'd need secondary sourcing to make sense of it and put the fringe view in context. So, for example here's[11] an actual virologist saying that Wray's comments are only significant in that they get LL stans excitedly offering them as 'proof' of a lab leak, and that this amounts to a 'circus'. Bon courage (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a fringe theory. JustinReilly (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Angela Rasmussen has a strong opinion on the origin question, so she is not independent when putting Wray's comments in context. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Errm, we don't want sources which are "independent" of expertise. Virologists are experts on ... viruses. It's the kind of knowledge Wikipedia likes to reflect, especially in a topic beset by nonsense and conspiracy theories like this! Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the Telegraph article "Revealed: How scientists who dismissed Wuhan lab theory are linked to Chinese researchers".[1] Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/10/revealed-scientists-dismissed-wuhan-lab-theory-linked-chinese/
Yeah we have a whole article on that. All a big nothingburger being bigged up in some of the sillier British newspapers (Daily Mail, Telegraph) and elsewhere. Don't know how it's relevant to Angela Rasmussen's expertise as a virologist (except through a conspiracist framing). Bon courage (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not independent of expertise, I never said that. I meant independent in the sense of neutral, not having a strong published opinion that they are defending. Rasmussen is on many of the zoonosis papers, so it's not unreasonable that she might have a biased view, overstating the evidence to confirm her beliefs. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scientist follows science, and publications will reflect that (with the normal scientific process of peer-review etc).. Your attributing it to a "belief" and making the allegation that she "overstate evidence" is just a random opinion with zero evidence. This is not reddit or Parler; Wikipedia values expertise and knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the relevant question here is whether or not Wray's remark got a lot of coverage. The answer is that it did.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Adoring nanny (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Journalism loves readers, and conspiracy theories really big the numbers up. As our secondary source expert says, it's a "circus". Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its enough to warrant one line. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source is not independent, potentially not neutral so I wouldn't give this particular source much weight for this discussion, see my comments above. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We note the position of the FBI already, so restating it in Wray's voice is unhelpful. The part about China could reasonably included in §China–US relations, along with the Chinese official response. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we already have that one line we need. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yup. Bon courage (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partly, I think. We have the FBI, but not Wray. There were at least two rounds of coverage -- the one I noted above with respect to Wray, and a previous one with respect to the intel community generally. I'll try to find a way to work him in that has a smaller footprint that what was done previously. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Thanks! JustinReilly (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now done[21]. One sentence about Wray, not two. Also keeping it all in one place, so it's not repeated. I checked several sources, and all the ones I looked at had the quote about China trying to "thwart and obfuscate", so I shortened that to "thwart" and included it. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why we need his views, as we have those of the FBI, what does this add? Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's common on Wikipedia, when a high-ranking Gov't official makes a statement like that, we mention it. The part about China trying to thwart is also relevant, I think, as it lets the reader know the FBI's reasoning, which would otherwise be unexplained. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We also do notal ways do it, so its not much of an argument. Also other government agencies disagree, so we should not give undie weight to one of them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE is in relation to coverage. As I note above, Wray got quite a lot. If there is coverage of what the heads of other agencies said, that could well also be worthy of inclusion. But so far I haven't seen such coverage. Have you? If it doesn't exist, then giving more space to Wray simply reflects the coverage, which is how it should be. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UNDUE. It isn't covered much by our WP:BESTSOURCES, just a lot of random drive-by news stories. We already mention the FBI's position, I'm not sure what this adds. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? None of the BBC, Washington Post, NPR, Guardian, WSJ, ABC, CBS or NBC (linked to above) is a high quality source? PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how one conducts a high quality source review. The process is to search for something very neutral and third-hand to the overall section like "COVID-19 lab leak government assessment" and then see how often the HQRSes that come up mention Wray's view. Not to go cherry-picking for articles mentioning Wray, which presupposes his importance. When I did the former, none of the HQRSes on the first 10 hits in a Gale OneFile search mentioned Wray. That seems pretty concerning if we're asserting his assessment is just as DUE as the entirety of the FBI or the DoE… — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not massively bothered either way, but to me it does seem notable and due given the comments seem to have been reported prominently in, not just some, but the majority of, high quality English speaking national newspapers. This Wikipedia page is very long and contains all kinds of trivial comments and facts, so the bar is low... PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Show your work. The standard is based on a search of reliable search engines which don't reproduce material (e.g. GALE OneFile) on a targeted unbiased query like "COVID-19 lab leak government assessment", not the number of newspapers which mention Christopher Wray's name.
A majority of major national newspapers also covered the fact that Donald Trump got indicted, but it doesn't mean it's DUE for this article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please point me to the Wikipedia policy which says this? I don't have access to GALE OneFile and neither do the majority of Wikipedia editors.
  • Was this standard applied to every other fact or comment in this article?
  • A cursory Google confirms that there are articles about the Wray comments in: the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Independent, Channel 4, ITV, France 24, Le Monde, Euronews, CNN, NPR, Reuters, Associated Press, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, WSJ, Sky News, USA Today, Vanity Fair etc. I'm sure I could find many more if I looked.
PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point me to the Wikipedia policy which says this?
WP:DUE and WP:BESTSOURCES. To see a description of what happens when we don't do this, WP:CHERRY and WP:Cherrypicking.
I don't have access to GALE OneFile
Try any of these: List of academic databases and search engines. I personally like Semantic Scholar, Internet Archive Scholar, and CORE.
Was this standard applied to every other fact or comment in this article?
For controversial ones, yes.
A cursory Google confirms that there are articles about the Wray comments in: the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Independent, Channel 4, ITV, France 24, Le Monde, Euronews, CNN, NPR, Reuters, Associated Press, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, WSJ, Sky News, USA Today, Vanity Fair etc. I'm sure I could find many more if I looked.
It's also about how prominent the mention is. If it's mentioned once in 5 words in a 5,000 word article, then we don't usually cover it very prominently. And we definitely don't cover it in the lead or multiple times in the body. If anything, we replace what's already in the article with his most recent statement. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minority/Fringe Opinions & Citation Needed Tag

I agree with @Adoring nanny

that the inclusion of paragraph-length editorializing by a single writer such as this minority— or arguably Fringe— view from a book review in the New Republic was totally inappropriate in the form in which it was included- mostly stated in Wikivoice. Even as amended now with inclusion of language indicating that it is an opinion, I don’t think it should remain in its present form/location/length. It is the second paragraph in “Lab Leak Theory” section. Maybe we could move it somewhere out of the way.

More importantly, @Bon courage objects to such things as any mention of FBI Director Wray’s reiteration of FBI’s position.

He also just deleted my “citation needed” tag for a Chinese government funded primary source journal article, all of whose authors, if I understand correctly, work for the Chinese govt for the purpose of discrediting a fairly random vaccine skeptic’s quite low profile journal article, whose opinion on Lab Leak he doesn’t like. It seems to me having made such an enormous quantity of edits, you know that this type of primary sourcing to discuss an obscure primary source isn’t best practice, to put it very mildly.

I would rather the type of lengthy editorializing from a single source not be included, but if it is, it should be put out of the way. And realize that that opens the door for inclusion of similar low quality source opinions that you DONT agree with to be added.


Mnority/ Fringe View Text:

”ln The New Republic, Lindsay Beyerstein argues that the lab leak theory is not a single coherent proposed scenario, but a collection of different possible scenarios which have as a common theme Chinese carelessness or Chinese malicious intent. She posits that the lab leak hypothesis has accumulated an “ever-growing arsenal of seemingly suspicious facts, each pointing in a slightly different direction,” rendering itself “completely unfalsifiable.” Beyerstein contends that its "very flimsiness makes the lab leak conspiracy theory so hard to eradicate."


“Citation Needed” Tag was at the end of this paragraph under:

“Lab Leak Theories”/ “Fringe Views on Genetic Engineering”

I would like to add the “citation needed” tag back. @Bon courage, Please let me know why it was deleted. Others, chime in w your thoughts, pls.

“Further claims were promulgated by several anti-vaccine activists, such as Judy Mikovits and James Lyons-Weiler, who claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory, with Mikovits going further and stating that the virus was both deliberately engineered and deliberately released.Weiler's analysis, where he argued that a long sequence in the middle of the spike protein of the virus was not found in other coronaviruses and was evidence for laboratory recombination, was dismissed by scientists, who found that the sequence in question was also found in many other coronaviruses, suggesting that it was "widely spread" in nature.”

JustinReilly (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are built on secondary sources in reputable publications, and this is one such. It provides some useful knowledge about the umbrella nature of LL (which we don't mention othwerwise, but is kind of basic) and offers some important context on how the conspiracy theory evades rebuttal. This is excellent for contextualizing the subsections which follow. Good stuff. Bon courage (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that describes something as "Terrible" is an opinion piece, not News. Furthermore, the claim that LL is "non-falsifiable" is just not true; see multiple other diseases where non-LL origins have been verified. And The New Republic is not a particularly strong source. So this content fails on multiple levels. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen anything in wp:rs or wp:sps that says anything of the kind. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It's a book review. Books get bad reviews all the time. The New Republic is a WP:GREL per consensus FWIW. Bon courage (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ostensible lab-leak hypothesis is not a single identifiable theory but a loose constellation of diverse possibilities held together by the common theme that Chinese science institutions—be it the WIV or some other arm of the Chinese government—are to blame for the pandemic.[22] from Stuart Neil for additional citation. fiveby(zero) 14:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's not disputed. Bon courage (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does actually appear to be disputed to some sense, note that our current page covers both what Neil describes and the competing constellation held together by the common theme that American science/military institutions are to blame for the pandemic. Perhaps we should separate those two out? Early coverage doesn't differentiate but current coverage seems to treat them separately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose the "loose constellation" thing is not disputed but you're right there is a a fringe-upon-fringe contingent supporting the made-in-Fort-Detrick scenario. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Use science sources for science, and other sources for other things. But not crap sources like "Politifact" or WSJ for science.'
So which is it to be? Is New Republic really any more relevant in science topics than the Wall Street Journal is? 219.88.179.61 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're giving too much weight to this book review. I would similarly oppose such a lengthy treatment of other reviews of the Chan/Ridley book. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the value is that it diverts into a general discussion of LL (which is why it is relevant here). Anyway, I have reduced the para; see what you think! Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still way WP:UNDUE. The book has received other reviews in stronger sources. We don't include those either.[23][24]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they divert into general discussion of LL they may be useful. On the book itself, not so much. Bon courage (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to revert (edit out) @Bon courage’s reversion. We are far from consensus in favor. JustinReilly (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about (1) my citation tag and (2) the passage I wanted to take out about Lyons-Weiler? JustinReilly (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a {{better source needed}} tag to the same effect of my earlier reverted {{citation needed}} tag, with the date and below text in the “reason” field, but for some reason when I click on the tag, it just goes to [[WP:NOTRS]] instead of displaying the date and reason. When I go into visual editing it also doesn’t display or link to date and reason. Only in wikitext editing does the date and reason appear. Any advice on how to correct this? JustinReilly (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, {{better source needed}} tag text:
June 2023;
Pls see Talk topic: Minority/Fringe Opinions & Citation Needed Tag (June 6, 2023): current cite is a Chinese government funded primary source journal article, all of whose authors, if I understand correctly, work for the Chinese govt; cite for purpose of discrediting fairly random vaccine skeptic’s quite low profile journal article. So better source needed- probably a WP:MEDRS. But also think Lyons-Weiler’s article probably isn’t notable enough to be included. Certainly open to other views on its notability. JustinReilly (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Times of London article

I would like to get a copy of this: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pandemic-china-america-qhjwwwvm0. Lots of people are describing it as strong evidence for LL, and some are even saying "case closed". But I want to see for myself. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.is/hC1US
Nothing looks like new information to me - all of this has been reported elsewhere - but it puts it all in one page. Sennalen (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this article has nothing new, I think it should be cited, because it is such a highly reliable source. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be particularly reliable to me. It cites a lot of anonymous things and "confidential reports" which the public cannot verify. Typically we don't prefer sources with unverifiable statements. It is, thus, PRIMARY and we would want a more reliable secondary review of such things before we mention it or use it. Another good essay which makes this point clearly is WP:BNS — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could literally shut down Wikipedia if you don't like sources with "unverifiable statements." Don't ever quote most of the MSM. 185.182.71.29 (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday Times has reviewed hundreds of documents, including previously confidential reports, internal memos, scientific papers and email correspondence that has been obtained through sources or by freedom of information campaigners in the three years since the pandemic started. We also interviewed the US State Department investigators matches the definition of WP:SECONDARY IMO.
I'd also expect that the sourcing on bioweapons research would normally be rather weak compared to sources on civilian biomedical research. It's unreasonable to expect that information on bioweapons research would be published in unclassified peer-reviewed scientific journals. This alone doesn't make available mainstream news sources fringe. PaulT2022 (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph of the Times of London report is not covered in the article:
Scientists in Wuhan working alongside the Chinese military were combining the world’s most deadly coronaviruses to create a new mutant virus just as the pandemic began. If one continues to read the article, it seems they are actually attributing that to US investigators working for the State Department.
Also new to the article would be the claim about vaccines and bioweapons:
The investigators believe the Chinese military had taken an interest in developing a vaccine for the viruses so they could be used as potential bioweapons. If a country could inoculate its population against its own secret virus, it might have a weapon to shift the balance of world power.
The article treats the bioweapon idea as a conspiracy theory. This is out of step with what is being reported in the Times. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SquirrelHill1971: Just a cautionary note that the (London) Times is no longer regarded in the UK as impeccably reliable, since their take over by Murdoch's News International, which also owns the (UK) Sun, Fox News, The Australian. It is a valid citation but I advise looking hard at what is said and what is unsaid. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero actual evidence that Wuhan labs were conducting gain of function chimeric work on live viruses. The only evidence is rejected grant proposals which would have had labs in North Carolina and Singapore conduct such work. We have none of our best available RSes saying such work actually occurred in Wuhan. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally worth saying that one article from the Murdoch-owned Times which fails to cite any verifiable evidence does not , in one fell swoop, overturn the dozens of high quality RSes we have already in the article which treat the bio weapons theory as conspiracy-ridden gobbledygook. This reflects even more poorly on the article and calls further into question its overall verifiability. It seems it carries many FRINGEy viewpoints other sources do not treat as worth consideration. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a word: yep. XOR'easter (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is entirely appropriate to bring up concerns about sources, including green sources, here at the talk page. I've done so myself. I'd also suggest that unless one can get a consensus that a formerly-reliable source is no longer reliable, it's a good idea to not try to enforce one's personal concerns in article space. This would parallel what I've done with my own concerns about sources authored by people operating under Chinese law. Bring it up in talk absolutely, maybe make a WP:BOLD edit based on it, but then back down unless/until you have consensus that the source is no longer considered WP:RS. And in case it's not clear, I don't personally see any problem with the Times of London. However, the discussion here on The Times of London appears to be close, with multiple users taking each point of view. That being the case, it could well make sense to bring it to WP:RSN. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WIV has published GoF work- they inserted a Furin cleavage site in at least one sarbecovirus- SARS-1, IIRC. They did GoF on one virus that increased infectivity 10K times. IIRC they’ve published on other GoF beta coronaviruses. Baric has talked a lot about how he taught them his GoF techniques including the “no see um” technique to produce apparently undetectably genetically modified viruses. It’s the world’s biggest coronavirus lab; has BSL4 labs and is attached to Chinese military. Fauci said on one show that the reason we do our GoF in Wuhan is bc we don’t want mutant viruses escaping in New Jersey. NIH said it does GoF at WIV. None of this is ringing a bell? JustinReilly (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WIV has published GoF work- they inserted a Furin cleavage site in at least one sarbecovirus- SARS-1, IIRC. They did GoF on one virus that increased infectivity 10K times
Sure, they are authors on papers where such work was done. Do we have evidence the work was conducted at WIV? Or was it done at a collaborator's laboratory in another country or city? Anyone who has worked in the sciences knows these papers are almost always multi-institutional. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fauci’s defense to that in his testimony was that it was “molecularly impossible” that these virus(es) in the NIH funded paper by BatWoman he was being asked about could have been ascendant(s) of SARS-2. This was in the context of interrogating whether it leaked from WIV. I’m sure he would also have said the work was done somewhere else if that were the case. JustinReilly (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s the world’s biggest coronavirus lab; has BSL4 labs and is attached to Chinese military
You appear to be confusing several different facilities in Wuhan.
Fauci said on one show that the reason we do our GoF in Wuhan is bc we don’t want mutant viruses escaping in New Jersey. NIH said it does GoF at WIV.
Where is the reliable source which says this? I recall only seeing this in conspiracy-ridden low quality sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note the source does not say case closed, and is very careful to attribute everything to "US researchers". Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not implying that the source said that. I was referring to reactions to said source. Thank you very much for the link. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree at a minimum it’s no longer appropriate to assert in wikivoice that bioweapon hypothesis is conspiracy theory or misinformation. JustinReilly (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? I don't think we could even consider that unless we separated out the two competing bioweapon theories (US weapons and Chinese weapon). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a US lab bioweapon leak theory would be considered fringe etc. Doesn’t mean we can say that a lab engineered origin theory (in general) is a conspiracy theory. JustinReilly (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lab engineered origin theory
Any lab-engineered origin theory which includes a project to create a bioweapon is FRINGE, by our sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this part went off the rails
::We do not go by reactions to sources, unless those reactions are in RS, and not (say) "someblokeontheinterment.com". Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not saying that should go into the article. Just remarking on how people were interpreting the source on the web. There is no need to refute a suggestion I did not make. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum, it is a talk page about improving the article, not discussing the topic. This needs closing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RSN will say it is reliable for what IT says, not for that being true. That would be a matter for wp:undue or wp:fringe. Also what will we use it for? as a source for what we already say? if so it will pass RSN, as it says exactly what other RS say.

So can some actually say what it is suggested we use it for? Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think above there are several users who want to use the source to justify removing any description of the bioweapons theory as a "conspiracy theory." I would oppose such a removal based on one questionable source without a great deal of secondary verification. We would need to compare the sourcing for what we have (many multiple RSes including scholarly sources) compared to this (one article from the Times) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then (as I said) it's not a RS issue (but may be a wp:v issue, does it, in fact, say (in its voice) it's prooven?). Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by The Sunday Times article, but I still think it should be cited in the media-coverage section because it's a very notable newspaper. Just take care not to imply it's correct. 92.17.181.63 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In order for us to do that, we need secondary sources which cover the fact that the Times said this. To say it's WP:DUE only because the Times said it would be conducting original research. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These exist, e.g. https://asiatimes.com/2023/06/what-if-china-really-did-develop-covid-as-a-bioweapon/ 92.17.181.63 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To consider mentioning in this article:
"The investigators spoke to two researchers working at a US laboratory who were collaborating with the Wuhan institute at the time of the outbreak. They said the Wuhan scientists had inserted furin cleavage sites into viruses in 2019 in exactly the way proposed in Daszak’s failed funding application to Darpa."
Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inside-wuhan-lab-covid-pandemic-china-america-qhjwwwvm0 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New article on public.substack.com

According to multiple U.S. government officials interviewed as part of a lengthy investigation by Public and Racket, the first people infected by the virus, “patients zero,” included Ben Hu, a researcher who led the WIV’s “gain-of-function” research on SARS-like coronaviruses, which increases the infectiousness of viruses.[25]

Although they are a substack, Public says they have a team of eight, and their corrections policy appears to be robust. I am not familiar with them and don't know how strong the evidence is to support what they say here: We correct our stories immediately upon discovering errors, whether of fact or opinion, both here on this website and on Twitter. The founders of Public have written at length about our own errors and why we made them. Our Corrections Policy thus involves not simply correcting the error but also seeking to understand and avoid the reasons for the error in the first place and sharing those lessons with our readers.[26] Adoring nanny (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, but rather than having a lengthy debate about the reliability of Public, we could just wait for other sources to collaborate or disparage the claim. If Ben Hu were indeed patient zero, that would be an extremely important piece of evidence, so I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot more coverage about this topic, particularly with US COVID origin investigation documents about to be declassified. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Hu were indeed patient zero, that would be an extremely important piece of evidence, so I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot more coverage about this topic
Yes, that is the heart of WP:ECREE. We need extraordinarily high quality sourcing for something like this, not the musings of a substack newsletter. And neither, for that matter, the musings of the FBI or the DoE or the DNI. We rely on expert assessments published in scholarly journal article reviews per WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Especially if we want to overturn longstanding consensus on such highly contentious topics. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So your take, if I understand it correctly, is that academic newsletters (journals) almost entirely consisting of the musings of those from the amateur ranks (academics) somehow trump the work of professionals? Did I hear you right? - 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:7991:215A:FD55:90DA (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Substacks are not generally considered RSes. What history of corrections do they have, policy aside? What reputation do they have? How wide is their circulation? Are they professional journalists or hobbyists? What experts do they consult? This appears to be conspiracy-laden gobbledygook from my reading, not based on anything but anonymous "sources".
As far as I can tell, this is just repackaging of that old BS about three WIV researchers getting colds in the fall of 2019. Which we discuss and debunk already in the article.
OH wow, this is from Matt Taibbi? You mean that guy who fabricated an entire chapter of his book in 2000? That guy who went from tabloid to tabloid and was dropped by several publishers for putting satire and exaggeration in non-fiction books and articles? Not exactly a "reputation for fact-checking" that we expect in RSes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 07:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't know how strong the evidence is [should have added -- or isn't] to support their stated corrections policy. You may have noticed I did not make a WP:BOLD edit based on the story. My uncertainty about reliability is the reason. Can you provide links for the above statements about Taibbi? That said, Michael Shellenberger appears to be the main author. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Matt Taibbi article goes into detail with sources. Basically in 2010 someone figured out there was a chapter in his coauthored 2000 book about Russian expats that was made up out of whole cloth and the publisher dropped him and disavowed.[27][28][29] Apparently a lot of this was because he was addicted to heroin at the time.[30] There's also the time he basically threatened a Vanity Fair interviewer and followed him after a bad interview.[31] Then with Twitter files lots of ppl pointed out blatant falsehoods and he said that was just the cost of doing lots of journalism.[32][33] Musk dropped him and he left Twitter altogether.[34][35] I think there are also instances of him repeatedly leaving NY tabloids after 1-2 years as well, after publishing questionable stories.[36][37][38] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that does not inspire confidence. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 journalists: MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER, MATT TAIBBI, AND ALEX GUTENTAG + 3 “Patients zero” scientists researching SARS-like viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology: Ben Hu, Ping Yu and Yan Zhu — Lab Leak 100%? Covid ‘Patients Zero’ Were WUHAN LAB Docs Doing GAIN-OF-FUNCTION: Shellenberger, The Hill − Please, try to curb your ad hominem attacks!--93.211.215.12 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hill.TV is not the same as The Hill (newspaper), any more than Fox & Friends is the same as Fox Broadcasting Company's various local TV affiliates (they are not). Different editorial standards, fact-checking, etc. I don't think we have a consensus on wikipedia that Hill.TV is reliable. Criticizing a journalist's reputation for fact-checking is part of evaluating the source, not an ad hominem fallacy.
See also: WP:RS:

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

  • The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  • The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Additionally, this Rising piece appears to be simply reprinting/hosting the Public story. Not independently evaluating it, and thus would run into exactly the issue with WP:BNS: For significant claims about significant news events, wait for two or three independent reliable sources to source the material. If one source says that "the other reports...", the sources are not independent.
So right now, it appears we have 0 RSes covering this. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So glad this Wikipedian (of the website that considers the New York Times and Washington Post to be reliable sources despite them being wrong 80% of the time) can tell us all what a reliable source is. Hilarious. - 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:7991:215A:FD55:90DA (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink well the new York times is now confirming their reporting. 2601:1C0:717E:B870:ED11:A66B:DF5:325C (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well the new York times is now confirming their reporting
Are they? This is an opinion piece, and therefore not reliable.
This, which is a reliable piece, does not confirm it at all. In fact, it says People briefed on the material say there is no smoking gun. and Intelligence agencies view the information about [the three sick workers] neutrally, arguing that they do not buttress the case for the lab leak or for natural transmission, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unnamed officials briefed on the intelligence are nearly as bad as our three State Department investigators. Have no idea about The Messenger, but Goldstein is the only one i see commenting so far with unsurprisingly: “The amount of information we have is completely insufficient...[39] It seems they might have asked him about the loss of smell and lung scan assertions floating around. fiveby(zero) 17:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Applicable questions:
  • If this is true, why don't the Director of National Intelligence or National Intelligence Council find it convincing? Surely they would have access to such "classified" materials as the governing person and body over the intelligence community. Why didn't they include that in their previous summaries? What "new evidence" would have arisen?
  • If this is true, why did one of these supposed "anonymous sources in the government" say they were "100% convinced" it was a lab leak? How can anyone be 100% sure of something without contemporary lab testing of these supposed "patient zeros"?
  • Mechanistically, materially, what actual evidence could a US government official have that Ben Hu was patient zero? It would have to be contemporary documents, testing, etc. Which we have no evidence or reporting actually exists.
  • etc. etc. There are a lot of unanswered questions here and that's exactly why it's clearly a WP:ECREE situation, and doesn't raise anywhere near the level of inclusion yet.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The climax of this summer: "addicted to heroin at the time" is not ad hominem... seriously.--93.211.215.12 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with all of the above arguments, I do agree that at this point, we don't have sufficient sourcing for this. A person who becomes convinced on any side of any debate runs a risk of falling victim to confirmation bias. In this case, I think accepting the public substack as WP:RS would be confirmation bias by me. Public's reporting may or may not be borne out at some later time, but that's immaterial. The crux of it is that Shibbolethink is correct that we don't have sufficient indicia of reliability here. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with characterization as click bait. The prose does not inspire confidence Public and Racket are the first publications to reveal the names of the three sick WIV workers and place them directly in the lab that collected and experimented with SARS-like viruses poised for human emergence. The journalists placed the 3 people directly in the lab? Sloppy writing indicates unreliable source. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link under "at length" goes to Amazon for a book by one of the journalists. They even use their "Policy" and "Ethics" section to sell their own books. Wow. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should certainly start working towards adding content on this, there's also more reliable sources reporting this as well. Wish I had more time to do it myself, but I have other responsibilities too. Theheezy (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The author of that substack, Michael Shellenberger, is not a reliable source.[40] He in the past, often promotes shoddy theories like climate change denialism and UFOs with poor half truth reasoning. And yet seems many are thinking this is all a shut and close case because of a report from a journalist who denies climate change and think UFOs is real. Or at least strongly desire to believe it. But I would like to weight in and advise to avoid the FALLACY OF CERTAINTY. Nothing is even proven outright in his report. It's all circumstantial and on "maybes". Nothing conclusive. So thinking that it is all proven conclusively, is just fooling yourself. And if lab origin was now proven without a doubt, majority of scientists and most mainstream media will be stating that as a fact. But they don't because it's not proven beyond doubt. And an in-depth analysis of the virus, instead convince many scientists to still believe it's of natural origin because of the overwhelming evidence to support that. [41][42] And US gov knows that Intel and still rank a recent Lab origin report as being "low confidence". Which doesn't show they even believe such Intel strongly themselves and instead do not oppose the overwhelming scientific consensus that's it's NOT some engineered bioweapon.49.180.44.81 (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that over time, the picture will become clearer. Theheezy (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not acceptable proof of lab origin. To go hold to hope that lab origin can one day be proven. You instead need hard evidence and so far, I have yet to see any.[43] And I read Michael's blog. He is no scientist. You really need to listen to the real scientists and not those who discuss science with comedian Russel Brand (non scientist). There been so many times when scientists have been explaining in frustration that furin cleavage can be found naturally in many viruses. Yet such info gets filtered out by his many conspiracist fans. Michael's article is scientifically flawed when he presents furin cleavage sites as the ultimate proof that lab origin is indisputable. Despite so many scientists have already thoroughly explained how wrong that thinking is. Furin cleavage sites, however, exist in many other coronaviruses, such as feline coronaviruses and the virus that causes MERS. Because similar sequences for the cleavage site are found in other coronaviruses, “its presence is not at all suspicious or indicative of lab manipulation.[44] Wikipedia shouldn't take science news from someone who is a climate change denier and long time promoter of so many extreme conspiracy theories. Period.[45]49.180.44.81 (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ben Hu led the chimera experiments at WIV.
  • Yu Ping wrote the key thesis on the 9 Mojiang viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2.
@Theheezy: there's also more reliable sources reporting this as well
Which ones are those? All I could find are various heavily biased conservative-leaning non-RSes which don't independently investigate, they just re-report what Public.substack said: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, try to curb your ad hominems for this one: The 3 “Patients zero” scientists were already in "reliable source" The Sunday Times:
These aren't sources we typically give much reliability in matters of science. The Times hasn't been regarded as very reliable in matters of politics either since Murdoch took over. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange comment. Murdoch took over The Times in 1981! The Times is as reliable as it gets. Along with the FT, it's the least political/biased of the UK broadsheets. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But just to clarify, as far as I can tell the Ben Hu claims haven't been properly reported in an RS (apart from where they've been sourced directly from Public), so can't go in the article. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to speculate or consider the sources, most likely will be more reporting in a couple days. fiveby(zero) 17:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User "fiveby" wants to remind us Jun 19 2023 is 90 days following S.619, the "COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023" being signed into law by President Biden Mar 20 2023 which states: "Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall--
           (1) declassify any and all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)..."
If the US-security-apparatus indeed shows researchers at the WIV working with RaTG13 and related viruses were the first infected with COVID, this puts US funding at the epicenter of the pandemic. → Karolina Corin: U.S. funded discovery of close COVID-19 relative at the center of origins controversy, U.S. Right to Know, June 16, 2023. Our "Knowing" depends on the US-security-apparatus. --87.170.197.3 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday Times (and The Times) has been discussed for reliability numerous times and is considered [[WP:GREL]] by Wikipedia [[WP:RSPSOURCES]]. It is owned by Murdoch and is considered conservative or centre-right according to Wikipedia; but there is no note on [[WP:RSPSOURCES]] that the Sunday Times might be biased. Wikipedia refers to it as a [[quality press]]/broadsheet for its “seriousness.” During the Murdoch years it has had some bumps including publishing unproven and disproven theories on AIDS. But the consensus is it is GREL and apparently not considered biased so we should go with that unless there’s a specific reason to establish a particular article is unreliable for a particular reason(s). JustinReilly (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally reliable" does not mean "reliable for all purposes", particularly when there is evidence of untrustworthiness on a directly pertinent topic. XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they released something, but can't yet find the report online. fiveby(zero) 16:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Now 404, NewsNation might have pulled that article, so who knows? fiveby(zero) 18:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept earlier reported how that gain of function research, isn't seen as proof that the lab is behind Covid-19. Since none of the viruses listed in that US grant funded write-up are directly related to the virus that causes Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, and why the scientists unanimously told The Intercept that Wuhan experiments could not have directly sparked the pandemic.[53] And so unless the US government can confirm that their anonymous and speculative Intel is airtight and undeniable and officially state that it's a bioweapon, or scientists show some real proof. It's just original research and really politicised to claim the virus is a bioweapon at this stage of loose speculations and unbacked assumptions.49.181.87.71 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that last Intercept article is just shallowly reporting on what other papers are reporting. It is citing the Sunday Times and other outspoken individual bloggers, and writing what they are reporting. They doesn't actually say that they themselves believe the virus is a bioweapon. And even if they did, how could they ever say this when there is no actual official proof to confirm it? Only right wing media like Fox News or Sunday Times are too freely claiming (lab workers are infected with Covid-19) as a confirmed fact when it's really not. No professional impartial media are really claiming that Covid-19 is proven to be a bioweapon. They only can speculate but not claim it as a hard verified fact. 49.181.87.71 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This A weaker version of this has now been confirmed by the WSJ.[54][55] Ben Hu, a scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who had done extensive laboratory research on how coronaviruses infect humans, was identified in U.S. intelligence reports as one of the researchers who became ill in November 2019 with symptoms that American officials said were consistent with either Covid-19 or a seasonal illness. None of the researchers died. and The researchers’ names were noted last week in an article in Public, which publishes on the Substack platform, and were independently confirmed by the Journal. For me, this moves it from "we shouldn't cover it as the sourcing sucks" to "we should cover it as the sourcing is good". Adoring nanny (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"They became ill with Covid, or something else", not exactly confirmation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the statement confirmed by the WSJ is weaker than the one made by Public. It's another reason not to treat Public as WP:RS. I've edited my note above. But the WSJ does still draw, at length, a connection with LL. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not draw any connection to any theoretical lab leak. It says "These three researchers were sick in November 2019" which we already had sourcing for. The only thing this adds is that one of the three people was named "Ben Hu." — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it does, repeatedly. The first one may fall under WP:HEADLINE. I'm unclear if this type of subheader is a headline or not, or how one would know. The others are squarely within the article. Identification of three who worked at Wuhan Institute of Virology fuels suspicion for proponents of lab-leak theory the three scientists “published on SARS-related coronavirus experiments done at inappropriately low biosafety settings that could have resulted in a laboratory infection.” and Hu is a leading researcher on coronaviruses who worked closely with Shi Zhengli, the leading expert on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. also Yu Ping, who also worked for the institute along with Zhu, is an expert on the geographic spread of coronaviruses and wrote a thesis that was the first to describe a new family of SARS-like coronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2. There's more about LL in there, too. I can't quote the full article per WP:COPYVIO. But the connection is repeated and obvious. They don't describe a specific LL scenario, sure. But saying it's not about LL is just not true. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
saying it's not about LL is just not true
That's not what I said. I said they cannot draw any connections. All they do is speculate and theorize that a connection could exist. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably 24 more hours before US govt declassifies this information. J mareeswaran (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the sourcing is now good and think it should go in the article (obviously in the WSJ form of words not the Substack one). No harm in waiting a few days to see how it's reported elsewhere or if the US intelligence is declassified if that's what others want to do. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing was always good. WHAT in the WORLD are you talking about??? --2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:90EC:568A:19ED:47DE (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's really old news being rehashed again. Media does that every few months [56] because it sells. But nothing got proven here. Merely unconfirmed rumours about the lab workers. Should go without saying, but you shouldn't believe in unconfirmed spook rumours 100 percent as it's weak sauce. WSJ writing that it "fuels suspicion for proponents of lab-leak theory", isn't even confirmation that it's verified and they don't fully support Michael Shellenberger's extreme claims either on that such rumours can be full acceptable proof that the lab workers were patient Zero for Covid-19.49.180.84.109 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As others have pointed out, the new information is the names of those who went to hospital. It's not being written about because it 'sells newspapers', it's being written about because it's an important new piece of information. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A name doesn't change the fact that people can go to hospital for different reasons outside of Covid. My only point is that if one cares about integrity of Wikipedia, it's important not to give too much weight to an unconfirmed speculation particularly when it's vulnerable to being politicised and out of context. A necessary relevant point here is that when one say someone went to hospital. It sounds very serious in the West. But in China, do note they do things so differently there where unlike in the West where family doctors and clinics handle most outpatient services, most Chinese prefer to visit large public hospitals for their not so serious outpatient consultations instead. [57] In China’s health care system, people with ailments typically go to large hospitals in big cities and wait in long queues for hours to see a specialist rather than starting with a family doctor in their communities.[58] Such basic context is suspiciously not even mentioned in the US Intel reports. And for all you know, those lab workers could have non serious flu yet hyped up by the media and US gov. If lab workers were infected with a bioweapon and knew it. They should have protocols to quarantine themselves instead of going to a crowded public hospital. And the US Intel reports are not even transparent with how they managed to collect their info. So why I would urge caution in giving too much weight towards US Intel reports as they have not earned enough trust to be regarded as a high quality reliable source. Especially when the US Government themselves, who knows the entire details of the report, have graded their lab escape theory as (Low Confidence); meaning "scant, questionable, fragmented or that solid analytical conclusions cannot be inferred from this information."[59]49.180.84.109 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make some good points. To me it still seems like a relevant piece of information, but I agree it doesn't prove anything and we should be careful to weight it appropriately and in line with the sources. I would be tempted to wait until the US intelligence is declassified and for further reporting. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1161450928"