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 176: Line 176:


:I think it's just a topic that gets people clicking, and with so little to be certain of every little morsel of something new gets a ton of press. I don't think it's something that should lead to a major rewrite apart from what comes from looking at the text again as we make the initial updates. [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 19:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:I think it's just a topic that gets people clicking, and with so little to be certain of every little morsel of something new gets a ton of press. I don't think it's something that should lead to a major rewrite apart from what comes from looking at the text again as we make the initial updates. [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 19:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
::We cannot use a fringe (and potentially racist) organization like the DOE, ESPECIALLY when the claims are made in a FRINGE source like the WSJ. Use academics and you wont be steered in a wrong direction! There are many blogs where you can read about wild theories. Wikipedia is for sources that are reliable and claims hat are mainstream, not FRINGE. [[Special:Contributions/76.221.134.99|76.221.134.99]] ([[User talk:76.221.134.99|talk]]) 21:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


== Wuhan lab theory ==
== Wuhan lab theory ==

Revision as of 21:18, 27 February 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

Racist undercurrents

In the 2nd paragraph, it reads:The idea of a leak there also gained support due to suspicions about the secrecy of the Chinese government's response and has been informed by racist undercurrents. Only citation #1 makes brief mention of racism and none of them talk about the government's secrecy? Why are they being linked there and should the racist undercurrents remain? Can we get/use better citations for the Chinese government's response/secrecy that is probably already in the article? Malerooster (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From PMID:36355862: "Lab leak theories are often bolstered by racist tropes ..." And there is further discussion about this racism aspect in the body, so it's due a brief mention in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we really shouldn't have to cite this in the lead, but it is so commonly argued about as a hot button issue, so we do. We have a bajillion sources to back it up, as described in these talk page discussions: 1 2 in the archives. Particularly in [2] I point out quotes from 5 or 6 sources which directly verify the content. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the phrase "informed by" seems like it could use a rewording. Someone can be suspicious without being influenced by racist ideas. 2600:8804:6600:45:78FF:CBD5:85A4:C357 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also find it strange to automatically associate being suspicious towards an extremely totalitarian and imperialistic government that uses Orwellian mass-surveillance and a vast number of Nazi-level gulags against its own population, with somehow being racist towards the people that the government in question has enslaved. David A (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine as is: the subject of the sentence is "the idea" and this has been informed by (or fulled by, or - as the source has it - bolstered by) racism. Well-sourced. If individual people want to be racist or not that's up to them and not something within Wikipedia's control. Bon courage (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should consider using the same language as the source to avoid the potential of introducing an impression different from what our sources say. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem then is WP:CLOP; we should be using our own words. Could somebody say what the actual issue is (other than "I don't agree with the source") ? I note in the article we include a quotation for "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak" – perhaps what we're saying in the lede understates the issues as set out in the sources? Bon courage (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think avoiding CLOP is a reasonable argument. My interpretation of the above concerns is people interpret the sentence as unintentionally conflating 'secrecy of the government response' with 'racist undercurrents'. Our sources seem to treat these as two distinct elements, with some overlap (ie. Li-Meng Yan probably wasn't motivated by racism, though her politically-motivated backers have been accused of it). I don't think we should lean as hard into the topic as that quotation in the lede, but there may be room to clarify this sentence to indicate 'secrecy' and 'racism' are two independent contributing factors. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good. I have inserted the word "also" to break the concepts up. Does this assuage your concern? Bon courage (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a good edit, hopefully the editors above concur. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "racial undertones" nonsense is a standard trope of the zoonosis-pushers to dismiss the lab leak theory. I was very surprised to read this in the Wiki page. 181.124.203.77 (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my discussion of the merits, but it’s almost cliche at this point to point out what so many commentators like Maher, Rogan and Weinstein have, that the claim that it’s somehow more racist to hypothesize a lab origin than to insist it was zoonosis from Chinese eating bats, pangolins, raccoon dogs, etc. from unsanitary live markets (especially with thin evidence) is farcical. JustinReilly (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any allegations about racial undercurrents or racism should preferably be removed. But if left in, the counter argument above, which has been aired plenty by commentators should be mentioned. JustinReilly (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wat counter argument? Is somebody seriously arguing this isn't racism-fuelled? Bon courage (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. -Dervorguilla (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything related to COVID is tinged by racism... For example the zoonosis theory is often summed up in racist tropes about bat soup. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a pretty double-edged sword with the wet market versus lab choice. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2nd paragraph

UNPRODUCTIVE
This now appears to be more about the topic itself than how we should write the article. As this page is WP:NOTAFORUM, these concerns/points should probably be held elsewhere, on a forum or message board about the topic itself. Until and unless sources change, the page likely will not.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is using the word "misconception" too strong when refering to it being "suspicious that an outbreak should happen to occur in a city with a virology institute" because other cities have similar labs? Doesnt seem wikivoice to say the conclusion is flatly incorrect. 2600:8804:6600:45:9D05:79F3:4210:944A (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the word "distinctively", which is all important. If you read in properly, it accurately summarizes the cited source. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems any city with a lab would have its lab highly scrutinized when a virus is discovered in that city? I don't see how that is a misconception, even if viruses don't always show up where one would think. 2600:8804:6600:45:99D7:B855:8CA6:9EE1 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scrutiny would follow, sure. But we're referring to the misconception that WIV is unique in researching coronaviruses, and thus the first detected cases being in Wuhan would not be even circumstantial evidence of a lab origin. Not that proximity is good evidence alone either, our source references the conspiracies of a lab origin for an Ebola outbreak because their lab was 'just' 50 miles away... working on Lassa instead.
To put it another way, if the outbreak had happened in another city with a virology lab working on coronaviruses, would that have been interpreted as evidence it had a natural origin because it was further away from WIV, or would the suggested source be that city's lab instead? If it's the latter, then the presence of a lab is not "distinctively suspicious". Bakkster Man (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this also hold true for wet markets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:45:94F9:E124:B820:5060 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All else being equal, yes. The presence of a wet market in the same urban area is not by itself "distinctively suspicious".
However, the wet market here is not equivalent. The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market has a direct epidemiological link to the early outbreak, so we have specific evidence that it was the early epicenter. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so it could have started in a laos wet market? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2600:8804:6600:45:94f9:e124:b820:5060 (talk • contribs)
Please read my above comment again to answer that. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? BANAL is a direct epidemological link to laos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:45:3DF4:4E4A:6070:F682 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the study identifying these viruses in Laos: the epidemiological link between these bat viruses and the first human cases remains to be established. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heads up on new WSJ story re DOE assessment

I am only alerting regular editors here that the WSJ is reporting via word-of-mouth that a DOE report asserts support of the lab-leak theory (though not out of any biological weapons testing program). Suspect you may see IPs/new editors trying to force its info.

WSJ story Masem (t) 15:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Getting a lot of coverage around the less-than-reliable press, but some worthwhile outlets (Ground.News shows low-factuality bias · WSJ Primary report · The Hill · Bloomberg  · National Review). Otherwise it's all tabloids and unreliable outlets.
Eventually, we will probably need to modify the sentence about the DNI report to reflect this, or add a short sentence to that. it's mostly a nothingburger but probably DUE in that context. I personally wonder why the opinion of these agencies with zero biosecurity experience is relevant, but if the mainstream press starts covering it, it's probably going to be DUE for a mention.
I say we sit on it for now and see how the coverage develops from here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DOE does do biochemical and other work in that area, so they shouldn't be considered ignorant of biosecurity. But as even the WSJ points out, this is just one US Govt agency that has made a statement about the COVID origin, with several other agencies denying the lab leak theory. I just feel you might see editors demanding that "THIS IS THE TRUTH BECAUSE THE DOE SAID SO", which you definitely don't want to feed. Masem (t) 17:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that any agency has denied the lab leak theory. They've denied the related conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Energy Department made its judgment with “low confidence;” title says, Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic. — hako9 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem Outsider here (art history and history primarily) who read the WSJ article–in your experience with COVID pages, has extended protection been quite ineffective in filtering the non-constructive edits so far? My instinct, given it's contentious and not my area of focus, was to go to talk page (though I first went to Investigations into... page and @Shibbolethink redirected me to this discussion) and I'd think most of xp editors would do the same. Perhaps adding a note to the new passage in the article akin to the ones regarding consensus used in Trump article would help minimize disruptions? Ppt91talk 20:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
extended protection been quite ineffective. What more do you want? — hako9 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hako9 I was asking whether it has been effective or not. And–if it has been ineffective–I suggested adding notes on specific edits alerting users who are unfamiliar with the consensus but who had seen a new important development in the news. Either way, yours was hardly a welcoming response. Ppt91talk 21:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question to you was rhetorical. There's a big banner, that you can't miss, compiling present consensus on this talk. — hako9 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the message is that clear for newcomers, which is why I was using the Trump page as a comparison. I think the banner could use a larger font and a similar text that reads "Please review current established consensus before editing this article, especially the lead section." etc. That and comments throughout the article could help users slow down if they want to make a news-related update. Again, I was only trying to offer some suggestions as an outsider without rushing to make any changes myself out of respect for other actively engaged editors here. Ppt91talk 21:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to edit the consensus to reflect this new information? Regardless of what is said in the main article the fact that DoE supports lab leak should clearly elevate it beyond a "conspiracy theory" to at least a "minority scientific viewpoint". The consensus seems very outdate/biased and seems intended to discourage discussion. Bertie woo (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: do you have a recommended alternate wording for the confidence rating? You said so a low confidence rating was the most likely but the rating of most likely was not low confidence, which I interpret as you want it rephrased rather than outright removed. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording is accurate. It could be expanded but that expansion can't be OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware the NYT source didn't include the DoE evaluation of low confidence, would citing another source which discusses this potentially resolve your concern for my original wording? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts of mentions in the lead and body

(underlined would be new, feel free to edit or provide alternative drafts)

LEAD (paragraph 4):

In October 2021, the U.S. Intelligence Community released a report assessing that the Chinese government had no foreknowledge of the outbreak and the virus was likely not engineered.[1][2] The report did not conclusively favor any origin scenario. Of eight assembled teams, one (the FBI) leaned towards a lab leak (with moderate confidence), four others and the National Intelligence Council leaned towards zoonosis (with low confidence), and three were inconclusive.[3][4][2] In February 2023, the DOE revised its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a laboratory leak.[5][6] The White House National Security Advisor responded that there was still "no definitive answer".[5]

Body (COVID-19 lab leak theory § Government oversight):

That same month, an intelligence probe on the origins of COVID-19 requested by President Biden assessed that the Chinese government did not have foreknowledge of the outbreak.[1] Overall, the probe did not render conclusive results on the origins. Of eight assembled teams, one (the Federal Bureau of Investigation) leaned towards a lab leak theory, four others (and the National Intelligence Council) were inclined to uphold a zoonotic origin, and three were unable to reach a conclusion.[7][4][2] In February 2023, the US Department of Energy (undecided in the 2021 report) released a revised assessment stating it believed with "low confidence" that the pandemic was "most likely" caused by a laboratory leak.[5][6] White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan responded to the report saying there was still "no definitive answer" to the pandemic origins' question.[5]

Sources

  1. ^ a b Nakashima, Ellen; Achenbach, Joel (27 August 2021). "U.S. spy agencies rule out possibility the coronavirus was created as a bioweapon, say origin will stay unknown without China's help". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 29 August 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2021.
  2. ^ a b c Barnes, Julian E. (29 October 2021). "Origin of Virus May Remain Murky, U.S. Intelligence Agencies Say". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 17 December 2021. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
  3. ^ Nakashima, Ellen; Abutaleb, Yasmeen; Achenbach, Joel (24 August 2021). "Biden receives inconclusive intelligence report on covid origins". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 26 August 2021. Retrieved 27 August 2021.
  4. ^ a b Cohen, Jon (27 August 2021). "COVID-19's origins still uncertain, U.S. intelligence agencies conclude". Science. doi:10.1126/science.abm1388. S2CID 240981726. Archived from the original on 31 August 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2021. The first, and most important, takeaway is that the IC is 'divided on the most likely origin' of the pandemic coronavirus and that both hypotheses are 'plausible.'
  5. ^ a b c d Mueller, Julia (26 February 2023). "National security adviser: No 'definitive answer' on COVID lab leak". The Hill. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
  6. ^ a b Konotey-Ahulu, Olivia (26 February 2023). "Covid-19 Pandemic Most Likely Came From Lab Leak: WSJ". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
  7. ^ Merchant, Nomaan (27 August 2021). "US intelligence still divided on origins of coronavirus". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 29 August 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2021.

Again, feel free to edit the above or suggest alternative drafts below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, but there's been so much disagreement over every single change we haven't been able to find consensus on shortening it. Any suggestions are appreciated. We could not mention this at all in the lead, I would be fine with that since it's a secondary development that occurred later, rendering it less DUE. But we should probably mention it in the body.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought, clearly too much detail for the lead section. Maybe this makes it obvious enough to reduce the resistance to such a trim, coupled with these details getting their due in the body. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fair to say in the lead that the opinion of the US intelligence community is "split" or "mixed". If we don't want to do that, we probably need to spell it all out as we do now. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree that the US intelligence community assessment is a significant enough facet of the topic to warrant a mention in the lead. At most it would be a sentence, and I don't think "split" or "mixed" would be sufficiently neutral. I think "uncertain" or similar would probably be a more neutral lead description. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ is a FRINGE source for this type of material, and the DOE is considered a FRINGE organization for promoting wild conspiracy theories. As Wikipedia is supposed to be an academic, we must depend on reliable sourcing and not on wild conspiracy claims from fringe organizations. If you want that type of information there are many blogs out there. But it is not appropriate for here. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Now that the US government’s formal position on the most likely source of the SARS CoV2 virus is the lab in Wuhan, this page should be edited to remove pejorative connotations, and specific words such as “misconception“, “conspiracy”, “ racist undercurrents”etc. While xenophobic use of a fact or hypothesis might expose racist intent, the fact or hypothesis isn’t a result but a tool used inappropriately. This article implies that racism was a basis for the hypothesis. That was never the case and is an inappropriate characterization.

“allegations that they also performed undisclosed risky work on such viruses is central to some versions of the idea.” Should be changed to “NIH disclosure that it funded research that was not fully vetted or comprehensively tracked, is central to the idea.”

What was once called a fringe theory, attributed to so-called conservative agents, has become orthodoxy. This article should be edited to reflect more objective tone and content.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a WikiRijder (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the US government’s formal position on the most likely source of the SARS CoV2 virus is the lab in Wuhan
That is not correct. One agency of eight changed from "uncertain" to "low certainty" in favor of a lab leak. The remaining seven have not changed their positions. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I pointed out is not true. Only two agencies (DOE and FBI) claim that the lab leak theory may be valid, at least 4 others have other theories but not associated with the lab leak. Masem (t) 21:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current sourcing supports saying the lab leak hypothesis has support among some scientists, with no insinuation that they are conspiracy nuts, racists, or playing politics with China. Zoonosis can be most likely without making other hypotheses invalid. Sennalen (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They all say the theory may be valid, the difference is that DOE and FBI are claiming it to be the most likely of the valid theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian has reported on it at this link:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/26/covid-virus-likely-laboratory-leak-us-energy-department

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • We should not rush to include this. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. The DOE are physicists, not doctors or biologists or virologists or pathologists. We should not put UNDUE weight on the DOE report given it contradicts the CDC, NIH, WHO etc. Andre🚐 16:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The DOE are physicists, not doctors or biologists or virologists or pathologists.
    Many thanks for bringing up this common misunderstanding! It looks like someone ought to go ahead and clear this up, in the article itself. Maybe you could paraphrase the relevant passage from Gordon and Strobel's piece?
    "The Energy Department ... oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research."
    -Dervorguilla (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is mainly big news because the WSJ gave it such prominent coverage. They have been pushing the lab leak theory for quite a while. The item seems to be a small part of a much larger update, but Haines including it is consistent with her assertion she would not let politics dictate what is in her reports. It does make one curious what the new intelligence was, but other reports suggest it is of limited importance, and the other agencies do not appear to have given it much weight. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a topic that gets people clicking, and with so little to be certain of every little morsel of something new gets a ton of press. I don't think it's something that should lead to a major rewrite apart from what comes from looking at the text again as we make the initial updates. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot use a fringe (and potentially racist) organization like the DOE, ESPECIALLY when the claims are made in a FRINGE source like the WSJ. Use academics and you wont be steered in a wrong direction! There are many blogs where you can read about wild theories. Wikipedia is for sources that are reliable and claims hat are mainstream, not FRINGE. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhan lab theory

This page is now objectively false as the government is now agreeing that it was a leak from the Wuhan lab and not "zooinosis" 2600:1008:B0A8:B0D2:351E:2074:9B7D:A1DC (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, no that is not what happened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science-based medicine

There seems to be some confusion as to what representation on WP:RSP means, with material from Science-based medicine being restored in this edit with the justification that it is 'considered a reliable source'. I think not. It's entry at WP:SBM says 'non consensus' with discussion stale since 2012. It also says that it is a self-published source and that "articles written by subject-matter experts" can be reliable, which is the usual caveat for all self-published sources. But a self-published source is a far cry from a reliable source, and both of the articles being cited on this page are from David Gorski, who is not an expert on virology, or gene-editing, or Crispr, or gain-of-function research, but a surgical oncologist and more crucially, the managing editor of Science-based medicine, so it is not content from a guest expert in the slightest but the very epitome of a self-published source, with the man publishing himself, a.k.a. self-published opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highly reputable source, esp. for nonsense like that promoted by the lableak stans (also cancer quacks, fad diets salesmen, antivaxxers etc. etc.). So a golden source for this fringe science topic, as summarised at WP:RSP. Bon courage (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, oops I was looking at Science blogs below. I need to look again, though still doesn't look great. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would give a different impression, lol.
As the editor who reverted, I'll point out that one of the primary reasons for being considered reliable is for the purposes of WP:PARITY, and that's the reason I disagree with a wholesale removal. We should be using SBM specifically as a more reliable source for claims that more mainstream sources won't even validate by debunking. If there's a more narrow set of sources that you think don't fit into this category, I think that would be a discussion worth having. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I'm still surprised to see that this material is all attributed directly to David Gorski, who seems to be both author and managing editor, and that it is all written opinion-style, in the first person, with a chatty tone and embedded tweets. I mean, if a news source that you weren't familiar with looked like this material looks ([5][6]), you would have a long, hard think about its provenance. I see it got the green tick at WP:RSP for having an editorial board (is that these three?), but these pieces have all the stylings of self-published blog posts, so I'm definitely on unfamiliar ground here. It's more like what you would expect on a Wordpress feed than any kind of scientific or medical outlet. It just seems to me that there's a real disconnect between how this content looks, and how a reliable source (almost any) should look. And in fact, there doesn't seem to be any particular doubt on the page Science-based medicine that it is fundamentally a blog. So, even if it's a temporary placeholder, this must still all surely be 'better source needed' stuff in an ideal world? This page, more than most, should surely be the domain of the peer-reviewed? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, this is the whole point of WP:PARITY. You're generally not going to get weighty dry WP:MEDRS sources to debunk nonsense. This has been repeatedly raised over the years. For any given medical nonsense, there is rarely a better RS than SBM, especially since Quackwatch is now fairly moribund, Bon courage (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I understand, from a WP viewpoint, the idea of a lab leak is "nonsense", the recent article in the WSJ is of little/no importance? 76.221.134.99 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WSJ not scientifically credible; quite the opposite. Bon courage (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I was under the impression it was a reliable source for reporting on the DOE decision. I was mistaken. Just trying to understand what qualifies as a reliable source and under what conditions. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add to what Bon courage said above, it's not generally the best source of all types of sources. When there is peer reviewed work on the topic (or otherwise more formalized/professional critique like MIT and Berkeley did around COVID) we prefer it over SBM. But for many narrow discussions of fringe science ideas, it's the more reliable source compared to researchers making wild claims or self published books promoting ideas that aren't taken seriously. Hence the parity, we don't hold debunkers to a higher sourcing standard than the claim itself.
As some examples from the revert, there's a notable element to the theory which claims "the virus was both deliberately engineered and deliberately released". This is a claim which no reputable journal would ever touch, and if they did it would fail peer review and thus not get published. So we need to cite the existence of this notable claim to something, and SBM is one of the most reliable sources for this kind of topic. On the other hand, we have high quality source that "no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic", so we could remove the SBM citation there. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, the lab leak theory is so wildly implausible that we would require much stronger sourcing to lend any credence to it. At this time, only conspiracy theorists and quacks support the theory. The WSJ is fine for financial news, stock market stuff, etc. It is not a good source for wild claims or fringe theories. I am still learning the ropes and need to get an account next! 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1141975164"