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
→‎Misleading "similarity": check your racism
Line 412: Line 412:
:::::::::::Scholarly consensus is built through peer reviewed work published in reputable academic journals. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Scholarly consensus is built through peer reviewed work published in reputable academic journals. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I see yall racists still claiming Covid started from Chinese eating bats even though there's no evidence to support that. Have one of these bats ever been found??? I rest my case.--[[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:B020:1490:B09D:D95:128C:EAAB|2600:1700:B020:1490:B09D:D95:128C:EAAB]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:B020:1490:B09D:D95:128C:EAAB|talk]]) 19:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I see yall racists still claiming Covid started from Chinese eating bats even though there's no evidence to support that. Have one of these bats ever been found??? I rest my case.--[[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:B020:1490:B09D:D95:128C:EAAB|2600:1700:B020:1490:B09D:D95:128C:EAAB]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:B020:1490:B09D:D95:128C:EAAB|talk]]) 19:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to see you people tame your racism for a moment and take a more scientific approach such as in this article: https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/wet-market-coronavirus-racist_ca_5ebad4bec5b6dd02e421a876--[[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:B020:1490:B09D:D95:128C:EAAB|2600:1700:B020:1490:B09D:D95:128C:EAAB]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:B020:1490:B09D:D95:128C:EAAB|talk]]) 20:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:06, 1 March 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]
You sound like a deranged redneck conspiracy theorist, and I don't think you have the education or cognitive ability to understand basic virology or epidemiology, so maybe stick to what you know and leave the thinking and research to people who don't get their news from Fox and Infowars. 2601:198:4100:17E0:985D:85:939A:3426 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 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]

The bat soup thing is not a "trope". It's an actual part off Chinese cuisine, and if you weren't a culturally illiterate right wing westerner, then you would know that, but of course racists and conspiracy theorists like to make a lot of assumptions about all sorts of stuff. The wet market hypothesis is not racist because it is rooted in actual regional practices and asian cuisine. The lab leak hypothesis, on the other hand, was clearly motivated by racial and political concerns, which is why it has primarily been promoted by the far-right and people like Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson. 2601:198:4100:17E0:985D:85:939A:3426 (talk) 13:47, 28 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]

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]
@Masem It's the first time I see in the talk page of an article "warning" about content appearing on an established newspaper possibly being "forced". Can you explain your rationale for this kind of warning and how it adheres to the WP:NPOV policy—specially because you are an administrator? Thinker78 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because right now, the lab leak theory has been one of those things that those on the right would love the lab leak theory to be true, and I could see possible disruption on this article from editors that would want to push inclusion of it. Masem (t) 04:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I have to point out that you are specifically referring to those on the right. The reverse is also true. Many on the left not matter what want to stick to the zoonosis theory. Why do the right prefers the lab leak and the left zoonosis I don't know. But I think you should find more a reasonable middle ground per the NPOV policy, seeking to reflect what reliable sources say.
The way you phrased it seems to dismiss the information as unreliable, regardless that multiple mainstream reliable sources have published it. I think you could have instead said that the new info about the lab leak could create edit warring, or some similarly unbiased notice. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many on the left not matter what want to stick to the zoonosis theory
On wikipedia, the scholarly sources and scientists set what is "true". Per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SOURCETYPES. We don't default to any abstract form of "the middle". We default to the scientific consensus in scholarly journal review articles. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment included, "But I think you should find more a reasonable middle ground per the NPOV policy, seeking to reflect what reliable sources say." Emphasis on "reasonable middle ground per the NPOV policy" and "seeking to reflect what reliable sources say". The word neutral equates good with "middle ground". In fact, to avoid semantic rhetoric, just reword, "But I think you should find more a reasonable neutral ground per the NPOV policy, seeking to reflect what reliable sources say." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply false and only someone who is a scientifically illiterate moron or an extreme bigot and racist would say something like that. Comparing the conservative support for the lab leak to liberal support for the wetmarket hypothesis is completely intellectually dishonest, and just displays your own stupidity and scientific illiteracy. Most of the people on the right are committed to the lab leak conspiracy theory because they're uneducated and don't even understand basic virology or epidemiology, and they just want to exploit this situation to blame the liberals and the Chinese and the big scary "globalists". On the other hand, the people on the left who are committed to the wet market hypothesis are doing so because they believe in science and the scientific method, and they actually trust the opinion of doctors and scientists, unlike the uneducated, scientifically illiterate, and racially motivated elements of the right who are trying to force an unsubstantiated narrative about a supposed bioweapon. 2601:198:4100:17E0:985D:85:939A:3426 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Masem the ip reflects my concern about lack of enough neutrality. Thinker78 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As others have said, we go by MEDRS-compliant sources which have across the board have not accepts the lab leak theory as likely. Given how much this page has been pushed at by those that want to justify the lab leak theory as being correct, the warning was completely within WP's neutrality and sourcing requirements. Masem (t) 02:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the way in which the two theories are being promoted is equivalent. There's not left-wing equivalent to Steve Bannon pushing Li-Meng Yan's propaganda disguised as research that I'm aware of.
I don't think it's so much an issue of what the news media is publishing, but how WP:SPA and IP editors are apt to attempt to misrepresent the reports as "proof". Similar to how we saw a lot of IP/SPA comments conflating a congressional minority report with official US government position on the same topic. That's the attempt to "force" things that affects our editing, rather than whether or not media outlet reporting is affected by their bias. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why the right and the left have favorite and different theories about the origin of covid. Today I got a good hint from an online comment I saw in another platform. The user said that journalists reacted against Trump's statements that covid probably originated from a lab leak.
The news media was largely highly critical of Trump and they were political rivals. Therefore, the news media started saying that the thought that the virus originated from a lab leak was an absurd conspiracy theory. Then the issue became also political not just scientific.
There is an article in The Guardian that reflects this very well "‘It’s just gotten crazy’: how the origins of Covid became a toxic US political debate". Thinker78 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources we have on certain lab leak theories (not only one single theory, mind you) being conspiracy theories come from academia (scientists, experts on virology, conspiracy theories, etc). Not the mass media. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COVID-19 origins have certainly been politicized, but the only people trying to politicize this debate are people like yourself. Not every single issue is a "both sides" situation, as you people constantly try to insist. The vast majority of scholars and public health officials have repeatedly stated that COVID's most likely origins are from a wetmarket, and that the lab leak hypothesis is just a baseless conspiracy theory. If you people were genuinely approaching this issue in an unbiased, scientific manner, then that would be enough to satisfy you and you would go where the evidence leads, instead of just remaining dogmatically committed to the idea that this came from some sort of secret bioweapons lab. Instead, you people have spent the last 3 years repeating the same talking points over and over about Wuhan and gain of function and bioweapons, and all the other unsubstantiated claims that have come from the depths of Gab, 4chan, Infowars, and other fringe online communities. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C852:1E16:CCC1:F3DA (talk) 13:50, 1 March 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]
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
Agreed. This is a scientific topic, and scholarly sources amongst foreign policy, biosecurity, and virology set the tone for how we discuss this. Not the United States intelligence community. Again, we are not the United States Encyclopedia. We are an english-language encyclopedia for all english language users. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligence agencies have more specialized expertise in investigating if something in general happened, specially if it happened in a country that is not famous for its transparency. Health and related organizations rely on governments to provide them with info and access to places or people who they want to investigate. Therefore what they can investigate in China is very limited to the desires of China.
Intelligence agencies on the other hand specialize in conducting surreptitious investigations. Besides, they also have their experts in the topic at hand, namely, virologists, biologists, geneticists, etc. and they do work and consult with other government agencies, including health agencies. It is something expected.
Regarding your comment about United States Encyclopedia, it seems contradictory because throughout the page you can find info regarding diverse US agencies, institutions and news and a section regarding US Government oversight. Thinker78 (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an argument you should make at WP:SOURCETYPES or WP:RSN. So far, that is not the source we use on Wikipedia for determining consensus. We do discuss the intelligence community's opinions in the body of the article, appropriately imo. Also worth saying: the intelligence communities (both within the US and across the world) are split on this issue. So no consensus exists there. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And we indeed discuss the intel assessments in the body. But the question is about the lead section only, where we feel that a minority of US intel agencies have a low to moderate confidence isn't notable enough for the top-level summary. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Name of this subsection is "Drafts of mentions in the lead and body". My comment pertains about inclusion of US government assessment in general in the body. I tried doing it but was reverted. Thinker78 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not strictly a scientific topic. It is also an investigation. Hence the intel community is relevant. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

The energy department’s updated findings run counter to reports by four other US intelligence agencies that concluded the epidemic started as the result of natural transmission from an infected animal. Two agencies remain undecided.[1]

The Guardian, London, 26 February 2023

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]
    Yes, but they by and large do not conduct much high level biosafety work. They do not, for example, manage any BSL4 labs: [5] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:26, 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]
I don't understand why you correlate racism with the DOE and say it is fringe. It is a US government agency under a Democrat president, not Trump. What's the context of your claims? Thinker78 (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The DOE is not an organization tasked with oversight of scientific rsearch, public health, or defense. They deal with environmental issues and policy related to energy. Furthermore, the Department of Energy has historically had strong ties with the GOP, the oil lobby, and the fossil fuel industry, and as a consequence, they have often been very biased in their interpretation of data and unscientific in their methods, especially with respect to climate change and renewable energy, but also regarding many other scientific issues and topics as well. It follows that we should probably be really suspicious about any scientific claims made by the DOE, especially on something like COVID that is completely outside of their area of expertise. When it comes to public health and national security, these are issues of immense significance and we absolutely need to trust the experts and rely on the best and most accurate advice and insights from scientists and government officials, not politically motivated and ideologically captured institutions like the GOP or the DOE. If it was the NIH or FDA or DOD or NSA making these sorts of claims, that would be one thing, but I would not rely on the judgement of the DOE when it comes to COVID or any other scientific or public health issues. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C4EE:2458:216E:40F5 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not ideological. It reflects what reliable sources state. I guess what is reliable and what is not can be object to some debate. If you think the information is not reliable (and not just because of your ideology) but because it doesn't conform with WP:NPOV or WP:RS, then you are welcome to start a thread to discuss it (this one is getting unwieldy). Or you can take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The DOE engages in racist pseudoscience. It is a FRINGE organization and must be treated accordingly. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:151E:3EF:7347:3568 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Off-Topic
As userHorseEyesBack explained, the DOE is regarded as a "fringe" organization. This means they promote pseudoscience (racism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories). More importantly the WSJ is a FRINGE source. This means they publish conspiracy theories on subjects like genetics, and COIVD. They are fine if you want to report on a stock price - they are unacceptable for wild conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00B:CD0F:2DBA:494:32EB:E212 (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Department of Energy is Fringe, number of barrels of west Texas crude for 2007 must be unreliable. I am off to delete the history of the Manhattan project and atomic bomb as pseudoscience, Richard Rhodes was just an Astroturfer ..... I think the woke reactor has reached critical mass. 2601:248:C000:3F:59ED:92F5:DB24:DFA (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"No Consensus" among government agencies https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-no-definitive-conclusion-us-government-covid-origin-2023-02-27/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/02/27/white-house-biden-covid-originis-china-no-consensus/11358519002/ 2600:8804:6600:45:C0E0:1322:4B9C:2850 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+ coverage in CNN: "While scientists still predominantly believe the virus occurred naturally in animals and spread to humans in an outbreak at a market in Wuhan, China, the US Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence is now the second tentacle of the US government intelligence apparatus, along with the FBI, that endorses the “lab leak theory” – the minority view that the virus occurred as a result of work in a Chinese lab." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

DoE statement (again)

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]
As userHorseEyesBack explained, the DOE is regarded as a "fringe" organization. This means they promote pseudoscience (racism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories). More importantly the WSJ is a FRINGE source. This means they publish conspiracy theories on subjects like genetics, and COIVD. They are fine if you want to report on a stock price - they are unacceptable for wild conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00B:CD0F:2DBA:494:32EB:E212 (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Government agencies and huge newspapers are not fringe. But they do sometimes have pro-fringe takes. Good thing we have good quality academic sources to lead us in the right direction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what sort of game you're playing but I didn't say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 28 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 ([6][7]), 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]
WP:PARITY doesn't override WP:RS, its not written as an article its written as an opinion piece. Its clearly Gorski's personal opinion, that doesn't actually change anything for us here (he's a subject matter expert so his view is due) but thats an opinion piece. It doesn't matter how reliable the source is, we treat opinion pieces as SPS. Its probably more specifically an editorial because Gorski is an editor at SBM, but again that doesn't change anything... We treat editorials the same as other opinion pieces. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I don't understnad everything you wrote above, I am going to just take a step back and maybe observe more before editing a talk page or article. I dont totally understand all the technical information and need to study omore. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a reply to Bakkster Man not you, its on the same level as yours not under it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gorski's opinion as an expert on pseudoscience and conspiracy theories is relevant to understanding the expert consensus on this topic. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For COVID-19 misinformation, certainly. Sennalen (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and the lab leak as a borderline topic. Regardless of what we think about Gorski, if he's an expert on misinformation, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience, then his opinion is also applicable to the delineation of those topics. As would be true of anyone in that position. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I don't think SBM articles are opinion pieces, a concept largely from news media; they are more analysis, synthesis and commentary on a topic like you'd find in review articles. So when an article says[8] that there's no good evidence that electrically earthing yourself is beneficial to health, that's not opinion, it's knowledge. Likewise with lableak being mixed up with racism. Bon courage (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I scrolled to what appeared to be the latest Covid article on their front page.[9] This doesn't look like analysis so much as ranting and raving. Fluvoxamine has been shown in multiple trials to reduce risk of hospitalization and death. This guy takes one study that finds it doesn't shorten mild outpatient courses to conclude that there is no mechanism at all and everyone taking it are crazy kooks. This is pseudoskepticism. Wikipedia doesn't need it. People argue about WSJ, but this blog is a tier further below. Sennalen (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like an argument that should be made at WP:RSN, not here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and as the SBM cites the latest research in JAMA ("the totality of evidence for fluvoxamine does not support its current use for treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19") this is more a case of up-to-date science rather than 'ranting and raving'! Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Mild to moderate" is extremely load-bearing in that statement. Leaving out the use in severe covid is disingenuous. The ranting and raving is the pointless scatalogical asides that form the bulk of the post. Sennalen (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion, analysis, and commentary all fall under opinion for WP:RS purposes: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If peer-reviewed or editorially-reviewed, as these SBM posts are, then it would no longer be primary. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We would still treat it as a primary source, there is no "peer-reviewed or editorially-reviewed" exception to how we treat opinion, analysis, and commentary. Also to be clear almost all opinion, analysis, and commentary is editorially reviewed. Thats the industry standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would overall disagree with "there is no "peer-reviewed or editorially-reviewed" exception to how we treat opinion, analysis, and commentary" and more specifically that every single word of this specific source is one of those things. If that were true, we would never employ longform journalism from Foreign Policy, The Economist etc. But we do.
I am happy to bring it to WP:RSN or here as an RFC, as needed. I think we have a marginal consensus here in favor of its inclusion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) If the exception exists then present a link to it or quote it. I agree that we have marginal consensus here in favor of its inclusion, but as the attributed opinion of a subject matter expert not as a source for statements of fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here are the statements in the article where this Gorski piece is cited:
  • "There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic"
  • "The SARS virus escaped at least once, and probably twice, from a high-level biocontainment laboratory in China."
  • "Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as AIDS, H1N1, SARS, and the Ebola virus have been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created in or escaped from a laboratory."
  • "Some claims of bioengineering focus on the presence of two sequential cytosine-guanine-guanine (CGG) codons in the virus' RNA, more precisely in the crucial furin cleavage site."
  • "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"
These are statements of fact, backed up by multiple scholarly journal articles and other high quality sources such as Snopes, The Guardian, Science, etc. The fact that Gorski also agrees with these things doesn't need to be attributed. He is never the sole source for these statements.(Edited to add two further places where gorski was used in the article.)— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I agree, if we don't use Gorski because high quality sources exist it doesn't need to be attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) If something is published by multiple scholarly journal articles and other high quality sources why do we need to use the SPS? Also please stop editing your comments after they've been responded to[10], that is not allowed as it misleads the reader. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT. Attributing accepted knowledge as though it were just a point of view brings POV problems. This is kind of basic. Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know its accepted knowledge unless you have a reliable source? And if you have a reliable source why would you need to be using an editorial? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do have reliable sources for FRINGE topics. Like WP:SBM. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We treat editorials as SPS no matter how reliable the publication is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In all topic areas too, not just the controversial ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also please stop editing your comments after they've been responded to[8], that is not allowed as it misleads the reader

That's actually not what WP:TPG says. It says:

So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely. But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes.

I'll happily add ins marks to indicate when I added something a few seconds after you replied. But I will not stop editing my comments after posting. Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"and this should be avoided." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes..." Take me to AN/I if you like. I think this conversation is pretty much done. You can feel free to escalate it but there is no consensus here in favor of your preferred removals. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What preferred removals? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have stated several times you'd like to remove or attribute the Gorski source usage. That is your preferred interpretation of the policy and sources examined here. If you want to do either of these, you'll need consensus in favor of that change. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so you meany my preferred attributions you just said something else to get a rise out of me. Just on a technical note it would actually be you who is required to obtain an explicit consensus for the inclusion of any disputed material, all the other side has to do is challenge it. The WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS are always on those arguing for using a source or a phrase not those arguing against it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
for the inclusion of any disputed material
The sources in question have been here for months (if not more than a year in some cases). it is the WP:STATUSQUO. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
During the discussion it is the status quo, it doesn't get to stay after the discussion unless that discussion closes in a consensus to keep though. Status quo is also an optional editing process, as it clearly says "Nobody can be compelled to follow the advice in this essay." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't get to stay after the discussion unless that discussion closes in a consensus to keep though
The default of this discussion is not deletionism. The default of every discussion is "no change". — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read what you just wrote and then remember that the WP:BLP exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for that link or quote to the exemption from WP:RS you claimed existed BTW. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RS is just a guideline (like FRINGE). NPOV is policy, Bon courage (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"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." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. And WP:PARITY help determine what those reliable sources are for FRINGE topics. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where it says that editorials are not SPS for the purposes of parity on FRINGE topics. Nobody is arguing that Gorski's editorial can't be used (you can use self published pieces from subject matter experts), we're arguing about whether you need to attribute it because its an editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we need to attribute when we have multiple RSes which say the same thing? I'm also not sold that its an SPS, you just simply started stating that as fact. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are multiple RSes which say the same thing then we generally only source the statement to the strongest among them. There is no point in tacking low quality sources onto the end of high quality sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SBM explicitly states that the consensus is that (at least on the topic of fringe coverage) that SBM is not considered a SPS. I agree that RSN would be the venue for challenging that.
SBM is appropriate for many, but not all, uses. Let's hash through any there's debate on. On a quick look, I think all the uses in the 'genetic engineering' section are probably reasonable as they're the better choice for citing bad science than the bad science itself. I think the attributed xenophobia citation would remain as well, at least on source quality grounds (if there's a debate it's going to be on DUE or other grounds, I suspect). The novel virus epidemic citation might be able to be replaced if there's a better citation, but in its absence it seems reasonable to keep. The rest I think there's reason to believe could be replaced with either the source Gorski cited in his article, or just removing as one of the citations in the group. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a statement about their regular coverage not being self published, it obviously does not apply to editorials and opinion pieces. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SBM is not a SPS. There was even a RfC on this back in the day. Bon courage (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editorials and other opinion content are treated as SPS no matter who publishes them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should go to WP:RSN and see whether anyone else agrees that SBM is an SPS. Because the current consensus is that it is not one. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying that SBM is a SPS. We treat editorials as SPS: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to link to show your quote is about WP:NEWSORGs, for which it is true. In other fields, it isn't. Bon courage (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is that Science-based medicine is a news organization which covers pseudoscience, conspiracies, etc no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain that several actual RS consider and dismiss weapons claims, so we don't have to depend on a blog to do that. Sennalen (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something I've noticed about the Gorski piece as well: it appears to be written in wikipedia's voice (ie as statement of fact), rather than being quoted as "According to David Gorski....". Same thing with the racism claim. That's an opinion, and a fairly controversial one. Again it should be presented as "David Gorski, writing in Science Based Medicine, claimed that the lab leak theory was fueled by racism...". This is pretty standard WP policy. Opinions are fine, if they are from a RS, but they need to be framed as just that - opinions. 2600:1012:B0CE:DC85:A576:965A:37A9:1E0E (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have many multiple expert sources saying this. Literally 6+ sources. It isn't just Gorski, and to state it that way would violate NPOV. see this discussion in the talk page archives — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are not "6+" sources saying anything. There are a handful of opinion pieces, and they still need to be attributed. Again, the Gorski piece is being presented in Wikivoice, and this is not appropriate and a violation of policy. There is simply no good reason not to attribute Gorski's opinion to Gorski. 2600:1012:B0B2:6DF8:D1B:7C3E:D7E3:7FDF (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. Actual (rather than imagined) policy: WP:YESPOV. Bon courage (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you cited specifically says "avoid stating opinions as facts" and "avoid stating seriously contested opinions as facts". All of the sources you refer to are editorials or opinion pieces. This does not warrant stating the information in wikivoice. 2600:1012:B0B2:6DF8:D1B:7C3E:D7E3:7FDF (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MERS

New racist preprint about MERS: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.02.12.528210v2 2600:8804:6600:45:C0E0:1322:4B9C:2850 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC) It seems relevant to the discussion of chimeric viruses? The wiki article discusses this in multiple places. 2600:8804:6600:45:B510:9995:E387:8878 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be a reliable source until it's peer reviewed by a reliable journal. Until then, we don't discuss topics without reliable sourcing (per WP:V). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a previous article discussing MERS, https://theintercept.com/2021/10/21/virus-mers-wuhan-experiments/ 2600:8804:6600:45:B510:9995:E387:8878 (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MERS and SARS-CoV-2 are very different viruses, that have small changes throughout the entire virus, accumulating to about 20% of their genomes. One is so distant from the other that it is functionally impossible to create one from the other. This is irrelevant to the question of SARS-CoV-2 being generated in a laboratory.
In another way, this source is irrelevant to this article: It is a WP:PREPRINT and therefore not a reliable source. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that this information demonstrates in general the type of chimeric experiments being performed? In the article it is asserted that WIV did not produce chimeric viruses? Others (including Ralph Baric) have disputed the characterization, pointing out that the experiments in question (involving chimeric viruses) were not conducted at the WIV, but at UNC Chapel Hill, whose institutional biosafety committee assessed the experiments as not "gain-of-function". 2600:8804:6600:45:B510:9995:E387:8878 (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

I can't believe the lead of this article is still going on about Trump and conspiracy theories, without mention that the Hunter Biden laptop...whoops!...wrong article sorry....without mention that two US agencies--the FBI and the Department of Energy--have stated they believe the virus likely leaked by accident from a Chinese laboratory (and the FBIs wasn't "low confidence"). When readers read this stuff, and don't see what every newspaper in the world has published in the last two days right up there in the lead, it makes the article seem...what's the word I'm looking for? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its in the article, but in the body (twice).
As discussed above, this and the overall intelligence community piece was deemed WP:UNDUE for the lead since its literally ONE agency changing its opinion from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of the leak. Among EIGHT agencies tasked with the question. None of the information provided in that report has apparently caused anyone else to change their minds. Since wikipedia is written based on what scientists and scholars think, this is not altogether too surprising.
Per WP:LEAD, its already way too long. There's no need to clutter it further with non-expert opinions. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expecting to see what every newspaper in the world has published in the last two days right up there in the lead sounds quite contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. You wouldn't happen to be righting great wrongs, would you? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS isn't applicable in this instance. Read the policy. And with two US agencies suspecting the virus was caused by a leak, it kinda makes the "conspiracy theory" narrative--featured so prominently in the lead--look a bit goofy. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS is absolutely applicable to your stated rationale of 'the last two days of news coverage' for being in the lead. If you have a different rationale, then seek consensus. I suspect you're going to have an uphill battle convincing others by ignoring the ongoing discussion above and invoking the Hunter Biden laptop... Bakkster Man (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Magnolia677 has a point, NOTNEWS doesn't mean what you think it does. 'the last two days of news coverage' doesn't fall under any of the four point at NOTNEWS, it actually falls under the explicitly allowed use at the beginning "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." This misconception is immensely common, I'd say 40% of the people invoking NOTNEWS are using it to mean "don't use contemporary news coverage" which is not at all what it means. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing against citing up-to-date news coverage. To the contrary, I support its inclusion here, in the body of the article. I was specifically referring to the idea that readers would expect to find this information in the lead section because of the current coverage, which would indeed be the kind of editing NOTNEWS is meant to prevent. I don't think this is consistent with point 2 of NOTNEWS, specifically the focus on enduring notability and breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.
Maybe Magnolia677 did intend to make an argument on DUE weight grounds that this is an important enough element of the topic as to deserve a place in a lead near the recommended length limits, but without a suggestion of what information to replace to avoid bloat I still wouldn't be in favor. When paired with 'Hunter Biden laptop' rhetoric, it's hard to take it seriously on the whole. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The issue is UNDUE prominence. This is a recent development, which may or may not fade into obscurity in a week or a month. We should definitely cover it as it has wide coverage. But putting it in the lead will inevitably result in the LEAD ballooning any time something happens in the news, even if we can't remember half of those things. We are not a running newspaper tally. We are an encyclopedia of significant events. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is due weight thats a very different question and a very valid one. Tow thoughts on that: 1. the lead does need a rewrite 2. that being said if I were rewriting the lead I'm not sure I'd include the DOE assessment in it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you could include "Donald Trump" and "conspiracy theory" in the same lead paragraph, and not mention the inconvenient truth that two US agencies now think it originated in Wuhan. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the debate here was lab leak vs zoonosis not the geographic location. Apologies, I must have missed something. I agree that we probably don't need to namecheck Donald Trump in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree with that. The notable summary is that the topic became politically polarized, not necessarily that Trump was among those polarizing figures. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed edit made: [11] Bakkster Man (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be mindful of the NPOV policy

The origins of covid and the lab leak theory, at least in the US, is a highly partisan issue. Therefore, try to analyze sources impartially without an ideological objective, per the WP:NPOV policy. This talk page already reflects trying to impose information from an ideological, political, or partisan perspective. ‘It’s just gotten crazy’: how the origins of Covid became a toxic US political debate Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78 if the subject is highly partisan the article should reflect that. Just like the article on Hitler is mostly negative in tone as he is considered a mostly negative person the article on the origin of covid should neutrally but fiercely present both sides as that is how it is reported and debated in the media and by the public. it's not wikipedia's job to decide what is and isn't controversial. If the origin of covid is reported to be controversial then the article should not pretend like there's a calm and serene ongoing debate about the origin. News reporting on the origin of covid is highly divided and fiercely ideological. the article should reflect that. I expect the article to present both theories, the supporting facts and circumstantial evidence, and the opposing facts and evidence. 95.246.59.34 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although some bias is ok within limits, editors should refrain from ideological editing in violation of NPOV. Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources state, it is not a free for all propaganda platform. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this section removed?

Curious as to why this edit [12] was reverted, especially now that the FBI director reported today that the "Covid 19 pandemic was likely caused by a Chinese lab leak" 2600:1012:B0CE:DC85:A576:965A:37A9:1E0E (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question. Thinker78 (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is still a developing story, and one that has been very politicized. The nature of these claims has been highly contentious, and pretty much all of the available evidence still points in favor of the wetmarket hypothesis and against the lab leak. One or two reports by government officials cannot just overturn 3 years of actual scientific research overnight. That's not how the scientific method works. Before making any serious revisions or major changes to the content of the article, we should probably wait until there is more reliable data and hard evidence to support these sorts of claims. Until then, the null hypothesis remains that COVID originated in a wet market, as the overwhelming majority of scientists and experts still agree. Of course, that will not satisfy the conspiracy theorists, but Wikipedia relies on neutral scholarly sources, scientific consensus, and experts, not original research or the personal opinions of US government officials. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C852:1E16:CCC1:F3DA (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a question of whether moving (or duplicating) this content this much higher from its current area of the article is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Both in prominence and quantity of text. That said, I do think moving the text from its current location in a sub-heading of the Accidental release of a genetically modified virus section to a dedicated intelligence report section might make more sense. Perhaps clean up the Lab leak theories top-level category to just describe the competing ideas, and make a new top level category after it for the WHO reports, US intelligence community assessments, and the rest of the "government oversight" section. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The issues are:
  1. duplicating the content multiple times on the page unnecessarily.
  2. The wording you used is not as close to NPOV as the wording we currently have elsewhere in the article
  3. We need to make sure this is either in a section on its own, or only making clear when we're talking about bioengineering and when we're talking about the accidental lab leak theory.
The intelligence report was about all the various theories, and dismissed the bioweapon and bionengineering ideas as completely without merit. We need to mention that, and thus it would not be proper to put it under the accidental bioengineered lab leak heading. We cannot make it seem as though the CIA, FBI, etc were endorsing the possibility of genetic modification, as that has been dismissed by the very same report. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way "Developments in 2022" can be deprecated and merged with "Coverage in 2022"? Perhaps a new section on "Government and Scientist Analysis" 2600:8804:6600:45:B510:9995:E387:8878 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Distance from Wuhan Lab to the Market is 18 kilometres or over 11 miles

Excerpt from the page

The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic, Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and this has been used to argue in support of the lab leak theory.

Located within miles? 11 miles ? That's by car as advised by google. Duncansby (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous! Everybody knows that SCV2 viruses travel by air! Bon courage (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we should put the actual number in miles. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'...in February 2023 suggested that COVID was likely a lab leak...'

'Suggest' that this be changed to 'in February 2023 stated that COVID was likely a lab leak'. They weren't putting forward a proposition for consideration, but stating a position. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:50D3:D065:49D9:2965 (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FBI also now say it was 'likely' a lab leak.[13] Pakbelang (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As already mentioned. Bon courage (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The FBI did not say it was likely a lab leak. That is a complete misrepresentation of facts. The FBI director, speaking on his own behalf, voiced his own personal opinions on the matter, but he did not provide any evidence to support those claims and those claims were not made on behalf of the agency. This was not some sort of official statement issued by the FBI, as the Lab Leak conspiracy theorists like yourself would like to think. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C852:1E16:CCC1:F3DA (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does the lab leak hypothesis qualify as a conspiracy theory? It doesn't require conspiratorial behaviour between shadowy actors. The most it requires is a simple denial.
When the FBI Director states that 'The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident' it moves beyond personal opinion, unless he is misrepresenting his own agency. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:50D3:D065:49D9:2965 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading "similarity"

The article states, with a rather dubious reference, "most large Chinese cities have similar institutes" [11], implying "similar to WIV". The relevant article Wuhan Institute of Virology makes it abundantly clear that it is unique. The reference is unclear about the "similarity" so the passage has to be reworded as to avoid a false suggestion. Ael 2 (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine as is. Source is good for this. Bon courage (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually inaccurate. And willfully misleading. A more realistic description is in [5]. There does not seem to be other "similar" level-4 labs in China or for that matter "institutes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ael 2 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, source supports the statement. And most large chinese cities do have similar institutes. The BSL4 is relatively new, but there are several coronavirus labs in the major cities around china which are on the same level of "major" as Wuhan. (Edit 17:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC): make clear antecedent) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think more specifically, the discussion is about whether the the suspicion was based on WIV and Wuhan in particular, or if an outbreak centered on Beijing (which houses the labs that SARS samples escaped from in the past) or any other city would have had the same suspicion that the outbreak was a result of the most local lab. I'm fine with clarifying from "similar institutes" to something like "laboratories studying coronaviruses", and will make that update. The relevant wording from the source is: Most lab leak proponents don’t mention that most major Chinese cities have one or more active coronavirus laboratories. The Chinese government established these laboratories after multiple spillovers of the first SARS-CoV in 2002 through 2004, which caused approximately 8,000 cases of severe respiratory disease worldwide and at least 744 deaths. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with clarifying from "similar institutes" to something like "laboratories studying coronaviruses", and will make that update
Yes I think that's fine. Doesn't lose any meaning for sure — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the old language was not well supported by the source, and think that the change made was appropriate. I would also add that the source is labeled as an opinion piece and that piece of information is uncited. As an opinion piece, shouldn't the assertion be credited to Dr. Garry, not presented as fact? Poppa shark (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, unless you can show (from RS) it's somehow contested; just WP:ASSERT. Bon courage (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What source does the WIV wiki page use to make its claim as cited in the OP's first statement? 2600:8804:6600:45:B510:9995:E387:8878 (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my reading of that policy, anything subjective should be attributed to the author. In this case, the word major seems subjective to me. Does he mean any city with a population over a million? Does he mean each of the 10 largest cities? Poppa shark (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources which discuss this argument and agree with it, not just Garry:
Per WP:SKYBLUE we also don't need a zillion RSes supporting this. It's a known and acknowledged fact in the literature among scholars and scientists. Coronaviruses are a huge problem emerging out of animals in the wild and the wildlife trade in and around China. As a result, China has multiple coronavirus labs in various cities, the largest of which happens to be in Wuhan which is one of three major cities in China, and the largest by population in Central China.
It's not a "coincidence" that it happened there, because if there was going to be a coronavirus outbreak in China, it was bound to be near a lab studying coronaviruses since such labs are there on purpose to study real threats to the Chinese people. Similar to how Lyme disease was a major topic of study at Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York, just across the long island sound from Lyme, Connecticut. Similarly, conspiracy theories assert that Lyme disease was created there in a lab. But of course these theories are also complete B.S., as we have evidence of Lyme disease occurring in humans for centuries before the U.S. was even a country. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Gorski's opinion (the other pieces cited are editorials/opinion pieces as well) stated in Wikivoice? Opinions should always be attributed to the author. This is WP policy. 2600:1012:B0B2:6DF8:D1B:7C3E:D7E3:7FDF (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. WP:YESPOV is policy. Gorski states a fact; Wikipedia relays it. There's no doubt in RS that lableak is mixed up with racism. Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no doubt in RS that lableak is mixed up with racism" - then you need to cite those RS, and if they are OPINION pieces or editorials they need to cited as such. 2600:1012:B0B2:6DF8:D1B:7C3E:D7E3:7FDF (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We cite RS. You're making policy up. Bon courage (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many RSes which back this up:
The lab-leak theory came to legitimacy by a circuitous path. It was first auditioned by Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo shortly after lockdown started, but journalists were quick to distance themselves from its overtones of crude Trumpian racism...the New York Times reported triumphantly that..."Asians have trusted their governments to do the right thing, and they were willing to put the needs of the community over their individual freedoms.” Such examples attempt to repudiate racist stereotypes of Asian disloyalty and backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity.
But virologists are generally more credible than Trump, who does lie systematically, and did seek to blame China for the pandemic to distract from his own dismal performance; various actors, meanwhile, have weaponized the lab-leak theory as part of a racist agenda that has had very real consequences. A given theory can be a conspiracy and racist and, at root, true, just as a given theory can be scientifically grounded and not racist and, at root, false; who is propounding it, and why, and based on what, matters. The mistake many in the media made was to cast the lab-leak theory as inherently conspiratorial and racist, and misunderstand the relation between those properties and the immutable underlying facts. It would also be wrong, now, to assume that the lab-leak theory is inherently clean of those taints.
People question if scientists and/or political leaders created the virus in a lab and/or intentionally leaked it into the general public. Blame in conspiracies of COVID-19 is distributed differently across beliefs. Some question actions of the Chinese government and/or mention relationships with, for instance, people from Wuhan, China, reflecting xenophobic ideologies.
The "lab leak lie" is racist. To be clear, the unscientific surmise that COVID-19 was spread intentionally or unintentionally by a Chinese government laboratory in Wuhan is racist. From the beginning, this lie was an expression of dog-whistle politics, one that has exploited longstanding racial stereotypes, and that has in turn deepened anti-Asian racism in many countries around the world.
Motivated reasoning based on blaming an “other” is a powerful force against scientific evidence. Some politicians—most notably former President Donald Trump and his entourage—still push the lab-leak hypothesis and blame China in broad daylight...Ironically the xenophobic instrumentalization of the lab-leak hypothesis may have made it harder for reasonable scientific voices to suggest and explore theories because so much time and effort has gone into containing the fallout from conspiratorial rhetoric.
Why would we attribute any statement when so many experts agree on this? It's established scholarly consensus that racism and xenophobia have contributed to the lab leak idea. We don't need to attribute it per WP:YESPOV. What would you want the article to say? "As described by Andrew Liu in Nplusone, Jon Allsop in Columbia Journalism Review, Lisa Hardy in Medical Anthropology, Josef Mahoney in Beijing Review, Sephan Lewandowsky, Peter Jacobs, and Stuart Neil in Scientific American, and David Gorski in Science Based Medicine, racist and xenophobic underpin aspects of the lab leak theory." Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should be using those high quality sources instead. They don't seem to be currently used in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that Beijing Review is not a WP:RS and thats an opinion piece to boot. Not included in "those high quality sources" being referenced above. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facts in editorials are treated the same way as everything else in the editorial. It does need to be attributed if used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it's established scholarly consensus. Not if it's an undisputed fact. Not if experts are seemingly all in agreement and few experts disagree. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If its established scholarly consensus we have zero use for an editorial. We can cite the established scholarly consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly consensus is built upon the confluence of expert opinion. It is precisely publications like Gorski's which build that consensus. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly consensus is built through peer reviewed work published in reputable academic journals. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see yall racists still claiming Covid started from Chinese eating bats even though there's no evidence to support that. Have one of these bats ever been found??? I rest my case.--2600:1700:B020:1490:B09D:D95:128C:EAAB (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC) I'd like to see you people tame your racism for a moment and take a more scientific approach such as in this article: https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/wet-market-coronavirus-racist_ca_5ebad4bec5b6dd02e421a876--2600:1700:B020:1490:B09D:D95:128C:EAAB (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1142327039"