Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2

Why declare a "consensus" on the origin, given that all options are still open

Pre-break

As a scientific researcher (not a virologist), I feel puzzled to understand the hurry that Wikipedia editors have in declaring the virus to have a zoonotic origin.

Partly, this phenomenon is fueled by the unexplainable hurry that Andersen et al., 2020 had in trying to defend the zootonic origin immediately in March 2020. Then, the dominant segments of the international community (including WHO), arguably and justifiably fearing that a man-made likelihood would ignite racial biases, released bold statements in defending such premature hypotheses of a natural origin.

However, recent investigations by multiple expert bodies raise several questions on the hypotheses by Andersen et al., 2020. Especially, the work based its judgement on a series of assumptions that to date are not validated despite considerable research efforts during the last year (e.g. traces of intermediate hosts, etc).

When we talk about the likelihood of an event, we should be aware of the axioms of probability. Following Bayesian principles, a prior probability (i.e. natural origin hypothesis) should be altered following new observations (i.e. deriving a posterior probability).

My question for the Wiki editors is: one year after the publication by Andersen et al., - are there any new supportive evidences to validate its assumptions, or - are there more evidences to the contrary, i.e. that sampled evidence does not validate its assumptions?

As the question was retorical (it is obvious that researchers have now more questions and doubts given new data), then, at least the article should also alter its pitch. E.g. in the tone: The origin of the virus was initially thought to be zoonotic, but further recent evidences fell short in validating the initial assumptions. As such, the true origin of the virus outbreak remains unknown and diverse investigations are either planned, or ongoing.

In addition, personally I feel the pitch of the current article is a bit childish in essense. Because the virus can be both zoonotic and released from a lab, e.g. one possible likelihood out of many: a researcher taking a sample from a bat violates the safety protocols and gets infected. In that sense, stating the origin as "either zoonotic or conspiracy" seems uncomprehensible. The article does not differentiate a core concept: the biological origin of the virus (hypothesis: a bat virus), from the origin of the outbreak independent on the origin of the virus (hypothesis: a natural bat virus accidentally infecting a lab staff in Wuhan).

2003:C0:6F31:7E57:745F:555:D36D:8B88 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC) — 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:745F:555:D36D:8B88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above is all WP:OR. You can claim to be whoever you want, but here on Wikipedia we rely on reliable sources. Papers published in peer-reviewed journals by virologists and experts in infectious diseases seem to agree that the virus very likely has a zoonotic origin. We report that. That this happens not to be the point of view of some politicians and that it is being promoted unduly (by cherry-picking [circumstantial, at best] "evidence" to fit a conclusion: the anti-scientific method) is misinformation, and you appear to have fallen prey to it. Researchers asking for more thorough investigation (including to more thoroughly determine a likely zoonotic origin, ex. [1]) does not change that. In any case, we follow, not lead, the reliable sources, and so far I haven't found a single credible paper which argues for the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian Why did you revert the statement attributed to Biden, cited to Reuters? Your edit comment makes no sense in this context. It is relevant for the Biden Administration section that he has stated his national security staff does not believe there is sufficient information to assess one theory to be more likely than the other. It is not stated in wikivoice. Terjen (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: The problem is that while Biden's statement is notable (and I left it there), the reasons behind it make it so that too much text is being spend describing this. See WP:UNDUE, particularly the bit about WP:PROPORTION - we can mention the reports without giving them too much attention. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian We can condense the sentence to reduce the text while restoring their attributed significant viewpoint that there is insufficient evidence to determine either hypothesis to be more likely. Terjen (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian Having addressed your concerns about spending too much text, I suggest reintroducing the sentence as "stating his national security staff says there is insufficient evidence to determine either hypothesis to be more likely." Terjen (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Terjen (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, it appears we give this way too little weight given its coverage in WP:RS press. Terjen (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: The problem with that particular suggestion is that the popular press are reporting a (notable, but political) view which is very much at odds with that of the scientific literature, which is mostly giving short shrift to it. Hence we need to balance the coverage of science vs politics, and ideally not unduly report the view of politicians (who are not qualified to do such things) on scientific matters. We can mention the most significant events (objections to WHO report, letter in Science, Biden) without quoting them for opinions. Note that if we quote Biden saying that there's not enough evidence, we also need to quote scientists saying that the evidence we do have points to a natural origin entirely consistent with previous outbreaks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

We could follow with a viewpoint based on e.g. this NYT article on President Biden’s call for a more rigorous investigation, with scientists cautioning against expecting an answer in the three-month time frame, and although becoming more open to expressing uncertainties about the origins of the virus, still noting the lack of direct evidence for a lab leak. Terjen (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not really sure that you are fully aware of the scientific discourse regarding the origin of the virus. The world's top-most scientific authorities recently sent a letter to the Science Magazine (published May 2021, link https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1) asking for an investigation on the origin and stating that "Yet more investigation is still needed to determine the origin of the pandemic. Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable. Knowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.". The authors are leading scientists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Cambridge, Yale, including the world's most knowledgeable experts on coronaviruses, and Science is the ultimate scientific venue. Please explain to the readers, what do Wiki editors know better than the experts in the field, given that you jumped into the conclusion of a zoonotic origin? Because, there is NO consensus among the scientific community in 2021 on the origin, contrary to the initial beliefs in 2020. At the current shape, this article is pure POV, unless it is rewritten from scratch to balance its tone in the form of "The scientific community has not reached a consensus on the origin of the virus".

P.s.: The letter of the scientists is not an isolated opinion letter, but came as a consequence of several research papers questioning the virus' origin. For an instance: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240

2003:C0:6F31:7E57:9595:5CD6:5CFE:6A9C (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thought I'd point out this opposing essay, written in response to the one you've cited. [2] Bakkster Man (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A response to a scientific work is fine, and a healthy way of treating disagreements through scientific argumentation. What is not fine, is WP taking a side on the discussion (fanatically supporting the zoonotic version), while the experts have not reached a consensus. I assume there is no sane editor here, independent of his/her seniority that pretends to have the expertise of arguing against the 18 respected scientists from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc. (top-most authorities in the field) who leave the leak version on the table, and heavily criticize the WHO investigation as biased. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to step back and figure out which facets of this question we're discussing, because it's easy to talk past one another. If we're talking about 'fanatical support', specifically meaning going to the extent of stating there has been no meaningful science performed or rational reason to believe the lab leak is possible/likely, then we probably agree. If we're talking about whether the majority of scientists believe that the virus was most likely natural in origin (even if that turns out to be wrong), and whether such a significantly held majority opinion is notable even though inconclusive, then we might disagree.

One of my major concerns (in both directions) is not overstating people's actual opinions, by reading something else into them. We've seen it with the recent Fauci comments, we've seen it with the Tedros comments, and we seem to be seeing it now with Baric and the Science letter: “I really believe that the genetic sequence for sars-CoV-2 really points to a natural-origin event from wildlife”.[3] I've found it better to discuss specifics, like what should actually change on the article, rather than broad strokes like "the Science letter is a monolithic opinion, the signers are the top in their field, and it was based on a particular paper in BioEssays" that don't appear to accurately reflect the sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The specifics would be: rephrase all sections where the zoonotic origin is qualified as being the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Change to a smoother pitch, e.g. "While many scientists believe a zoonotic origin is the most likely outcome, others have declared that both a lab leak and a zoonotic spillover are viable options." 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:6D15:D6AC:83A6:6D0D (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The paper by Deigin (from that Twitter group) and Segretto is about a view (possible "genetic manipulation", involving furin cleavage sites [present in many other natural viruses]) widely held to be discredited by most relevant experts (Deigin does not appear to have any valid scientific credentials in any case, and is aslo part of a Twitter group who've been actively promoting misinformation about the origin of COVID...). The paper in Bioessays is, as the journal name implies, an essay and not a review paper, so a rather weak source for an exceptional claim. In addition, the claim it makes, that of genetic manipulation, had already been ruled out before it was even published by Andersen et al. (an influential paper cited by more than 1400 fellow scientists), see this (written by three [micro-]biologists), which explicitly (like many other more recent sources, including the WHO report) states:

In a Nature Medicine study, Kristian Andersen et al. 18 categorically refute the idea that the virus has been engineered, based on the comparative analysis of coronavirus genomic data. [...] Other epidemiologists have also publicly discredited theories that the virus emerged from a laboratory environment, although it cannot be ruled out entirely, highlighted by the active discussion triggered by the Nature Medicine study on PubPeer 20 and elsewhere.

So, the "paper" you cite is not really a credible paper (as I was saying, "there are no credible papers") nor can it be cited to support anything but the opinions of its authors (since it is an essay), whose view is not significant enough and is already discredited anyway. As to the Science letter, you're not giving all of the context behind that one, either (some signatories, such as Baric, support a more thorough investigation [to make all this nonsense distraction stop?] while also agreeing that the origin is most likely zoonotic). Also, per the same FEBS paper I was just citing:

Whether the now-infamous seafood market is the site that ‘patient zero’ or the index case became infected remains inconclusively known, but the scientific consensus on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is that, like other coronaviruses, it evolved naturally and was transferred to humans via an animal.

This is also in agreement with many more recent reports in the press (scientific or popular), for example:

• Taylor, Adam. "Analysis | The Wuhan lab-leak theory is getting more attention. That's because key evidence is still missing". Washington Post.
• Beaumont, Peter (2021-05-27). "Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far". The Guardian.
• Maxmen, Amy (2021-05-27). "Divisive COVID 'lab leak' debate prompts dire warnings from researchers". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01383-3.

So I suggest you go read that (and look for scientific papers on PubMed, not Twitter) before arguing for false balance based on an extremely dubious paper. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition the whole thing about an "engineered" furin cleavage site (as promoted in that essay you cite) is bollocks, see Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Rarity_of_Furin_Cleavage_Site_is_inaccurately_described_here for some credible sources on that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yet several of those papers claiming the lab leak origin at not peer reviewed, plus their authors are known cranks who advocated against masks and vaccines. See here.--49.195.5.107 (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect, the BioEssays journal is peer-reviewed. Personal allegations against scientists outside their technical work are not an argument we should seriously consider. Especially, given that the Science letter authors are the most respected scientific authorities in the field. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC) — 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reviewed or not, it's an essay which argues for a discredited position. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

David Gorski has a look at the lab leak idea on Science-Based Medicine [4]. The start of the article is great:

whenever there is a major outbreak, epidemic, or pandemic of infectious disease, one conspiracy theory always—and I do mean always—arises. That conspiracy theory is that the causative microbe was developed in a laboratory and/or escaped a laboratory. HIV, H1N1, the original SARS, Ebola virus, every single one of them gave birth to such conspiracy theories.

Read the whole article. This is how real experts handle that sort of stuff, and this is the attitude Wikipedia should take. Use Gorski as a source, ignore all the ignoramuses, be they named Biden or Wade, and all those people who have nothing except opinions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:ARSEHOLES - opinions are just that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure “Here! Just use this relatively obscure blog!” is the appropriate response to this... Science-Based Medicine =/= science based medicine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

SBM isn't "obscure" AFAICS. Although, as I've said, we should use better sources if available (recognising that many of them do not waste their time with this shit). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thats why I said “relatively obscure.” I don’t mean to hate on them but its just a very odd response to say "Use Gorski as a source, ignore all the ignoramuses, be they named Biden or Wade, and all those people who have nothing except opinions.” I don’t care how great Gorski is thats just not right and not how things are done here. I would also note that the vast majority of what Gorski writes on the blog is explicitly presented as his opinion, its just not on the same level as good peer reviewed work (whether it be by Gorski et al or anyone else). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I broadly agree. He's presenting the skeptic's point of view, which is not necessarily the same as WP:NPOV or the majority's point of view. And, as I've suggested elsewhere, it can be viewed as being in opposition with the WHO study we have (as of late) cited as indicative of the majority view, not in agreement with it. At least, for the quote it's used for. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"From the very beginning, the general scientific hypothesis has been that, while it is possible that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, it’s far more likely that it had a natural origin." seems to be in broad agreement with the WHO report, at least as a conclusion. Of course, we have better sources than Gorski for that, and the rest goes better in the article about misinformation to debunk the misinformation, as I've said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that I didn't say it couldn't be used as a source which was WP:NPOV, only that the the two weren't so synonymous that we could pick any quote from the article and claim it was WP:NPOV. Notably the "in essence, a conspiracy theory" quote proposed at COVID-19 misinformation.

Otherwise, I think we agree: we have better sources than Gorski for that. We have good WP:SCHOLARSHIP to cite for most of our claims, and Gorski's debunking is most useful for the context surrounding the who/what/when/where/why of misinformation spread, leaving those strong MEDLINE secondary sources to describe what is actually misinformation. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

not how things are done here Actually, ignoring laymen's takes (Biden and Wade are laymen) when we have sources written by scientists working in the field the article is about is exactly how things are done here. Of course, if there are sources which are even better than Gorski, we should use those, but we should not use pieces written by people who are not professional medical scientists, since they are worse than Gorski. Science-Based Medicine is categorized as a reliable source in WP:RSP, and they are experts on medical fringe topics, which this is. Wade is just an expert on writing books the scientists he quotes in them disagree with, and Biden is just someone who was more popular than a <accurate but very unencyclopedic expletive deleted> last year. Why anyone would be interested in what they think on this subject is beyond me.

Also, Gorski analyzes exactly those sources that fervent lab-leak proponents, fervent the-lab-leak-idea-is-plausible proponents, fervent the-lab-leak-idea-is-not-fringe proponents and fervent fence-sitting proponents have been pushing here for weeks. What he writes is not just a soundbite, like an out-of-context Fauci quote some journalist decided to amplify. It is a thorough analysis of the most crucial sources on the lab leak idea, and that makes it better than the usual boring, shallow, superficial show-of-hands crap which will tell you only who likes the idea and who does not, and maybe how much they like or dislike it, but ignores the actual reasoning behind the positions. Quoting the reasoning will be useful to those readers who are smart enough to decide based on reasoning instead of just following or opposing whatever the majority says, following or opposing whatever the Republicans say, or whoever else, depending on one's taste.

The "it's just the skeptic POV" reasoning is a trope everybody who edits fringe articles knows well: "homeopathy does not work? that's just what the skeptics say!" Skeptics are just scientists who look at fringe ideas instead of ignoring them. Dismissing them because they can be pigeonholed as skeptics is just a red herring. Reliable source is reliable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that we are facing a couple of orthogonal arguments that overlap in the previous posts, which is a good indication of the complexity of the issue. The first reaction I see is avoiding the direct opinion of a large number of scientists that ask for a thorough investigation and state that a leak is a viable option. This reputation of these 18 leading scientists is in my understanding a clear argument in that "there is no clear consensus on the origin of the virus by the scientific community".

The second point I find problematic is trying to give a false sense of "a majority of scientists" supporting the zoonotic nature. The correct statement would be that "initially there were more scientists supporting the zoonotic option compared to those opposing it", however, we are referring to a very small minority of voices compared to the whole spectrum of relevant scientists in the world (few dozens of supporters, fewer opposers, and the absolute majority undeclared). What is interesting to see that the recent trend is for more opposers to raise their questions, given that the arguments of the supporters do not clearly hold as more data coming out.

The third point is asking for "publications" in support of a lab leak. Such a line of reason is flawed because we cannot have a team of virologists drawing conclusions on a potential leak from a lab without access to the site, analyzing local samples, etc., which China is denying access to. Raising questions is the most that doubters can do in the absence of an investigation.

The last point is trying to frame opposers, or doubters, as "discredited" individuals, fools, or crazy conspiracists. The ironic point is that such non-scientific personal allegations are done by the side which fanatically believes to be the "holder of ethics and truth". It is clear that the nervousness arises because the long-believed zoonotic "truth" is being seriously questioned in the last two months, by all stakeholders, scientists, activists, politicians, supranational organizations, etc.

The bottom line is: There is no scientific consensus on the origin of the virus, and to date very little is known on the exact details of the spread of the virus. Wikipedia should reflect this and not fanatically support a zoonotic origin, which unlike in 2020, does not anymore convince the scientific community in 2021.

2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"large number of scientists" - 18 is not a "large number"; and that statement would also be inconsistent with the lack of scientific papers which view the lab leak favourably. "The third point is asking for "publications" in support of a lab leak." - yes, exactly, see WP:V and WP:VNT (and avoid your personal WP:OR criticism). "There is no scientific consensus on the origin of the virus" - outright wrong; again, see the cited sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you please share what is your personal threshold for the smallest number of top-scientists that qualify for your definition of a significant cohort? 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:745F:555:D36D:8B88 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to show that there is a "significant amount" of scientists who disagree with the consensus statement. That can only be done by presenting verifiable, peer-reviewed papers which show that this is actually seriously disputed within the scientific community, not by making WP:SYNTH as to what is a significant number (especially not when some of the signatories of that letter don't even agree that a lab leak is likely, ex. Baric). As I've said, all of the sources I have found say that the scientific consensus is a natural, zoonotic origin, as with previous CoVs. If this were truly disputed, it should be trivial for you to find credible sources in quality journals which put forward a contrasting view. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The 18 scientists among the most respected authorities in the field and the top institutions are in my understanding a "significant amount" of scientists. The letter co-signed by all of them states that "Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable.". As a result, either we deduce that there is no consensus on the origin of the virus, as these scientists explicitly claim; or we have to accept they are an irrelevant part of the scientific community (despite being top professors and researchers at Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, etc.). As they further iterate "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.". I see two options i. you and/or other editors apparently are more informed and knowledgeable than these top scientists and have done a better screening of the related publications, or ii. that the related work does not conclusively support your stance. In any case, it is of paramount importance to highlight the fact that the community has not reached a consensus on the origin of the virus. Attempts to shortcut a conclusion at WP are really hard to comprehend. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The alternative conclusions are that A) you are trying to take one (WP:PRIMARY) letter and use it to override all of the other sources on the topic; B) you are disregarding sources which don't fit with your narrative (for example, the documented reactions from some signatories saying that they believe a natural origin to still be the more likely hypothesis, and that their signing of the letter was more a call for further, more thorough investigations); C) you are not able to produce a WP:SECONDARY review paper which agrees with this assessment because it doesn't exist and D) you are full well aware of our policies against soapboxing, and you are doing it nonetheless. Since we, on Wikipedia, are biased, towards academic, peer reviewed litterature, and since you have failed to provide sources which disagree with the fact that a natural origin is still the scientific consensus, well then it is not possible to change the existing article text in that aspect. Again, it should be trivial, if they exist, for you to provide us a peer-reviewed review paper which makes clear that a lab leak is a serious hypothesis and not merely an "extremely unlikely but not ruled out yet" one. Failing that, you can go right back to other sites. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring all your personal allegations and moving to the point: Does this letter express the stance of a relevant segment of the scientific community? If yes, then why twist the fact that the scientific community has not reached a consensus? I do not deny the existence of opposing views and publications on all sides (admittedly few more peer-reviewed on the zoonotic side). However, opposing views are at the core of any disputed theory with no consensus and no evidence to support any version. I do not comprehend why should we give you more publications (although I actually gave one above), only because you do not fancy considering the explicit stance of 18 top scientists in the field as relevant. A significant fraction of the scientific community is not accepting the consensus on the zoonotic version anymore in 2021, as these top scientists *explicitly* stated in the Science letter. Should we reason a consensus by our personal and amateur analyses of virology publications, or agree to use directly the explicit statements of a relevant part of the scientific community which explicitly deny that a consensus on the zoonotic origin is reached. 2003:C0:6F31:7E57:A506:11F9:ECEA:43E4 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Take a moment, and read all the previous comments, where the concerns about that letter (including it being a primary source, and so on so forth) are already addressed; and where reliable sources which explicitly state what the scientific consensus is are provided. I'm not going to reply further until your comments show evidence that you've actually done that, rather than being evidence that you're not listening. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I have already read the above comments, but they do not directly target the point. You and other peers defended the zoonotic origin and cite papers supporting that stance. The existence of zoonotic supporters (scientists and editors) is not the dispute here. What we argue is whether there is only one view (zoonotic) that is shared by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, or whether there are two, or more. The science letter is a direct primary source by a fraction of the community that categorizes more than one option as viable. It is direct support for the argument that the community (by its own explicit declaration) has not reached a consensus. As it is evident that a consensus has not been reached, I propose rephrasing the article from a one-sided "zoonotic fan-club" pitch, to a more balanced and accurate tone, e.g. "While many scientists believe a zoonotic origin is the most likely outcome, others have declared that both a lab leak and a zoonotic spillover are viable options."

2003:C0:6F31:7E13:6D15:D6AC:83A6:6D0D (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that there are not two competing views. What is argued is that one of these views falls under WP:FRINGE (i.e., it is a view which significantly departs from the consensus of experts within the relevant field). See this for more details and how we need to handle this. In short: politics = fine, can be mentioned, due to notability; science = care taken to not unduly legitimise a small minority opinion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Our disagreement is then rooted in your characterization of 18 top scientists as promoters of WP:FRINGE, by "supporting a view that departs from the consensus of the experts in the relevant field". However, WP:FRINGE is not applicable as there is no consensus in the first place, from which to depart. As these scientists define the notion of "field experts" by virtue of their prestige and expertise, then by definition they cannot depart from themselves. 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:6D15:D6AC:83A6:6D0D (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@2003:C0 For what it's worth, I'm also a scientific researcher at a R1 university in the US, and the talk among my friends and colleagues (professors, research scientists, post docs, in a variety of scientific fields; very smart left-leaning people with PhD's, though no virologists) is that the lab leak is plausible. Some think lab leak is more likely, and some think zoonotic is more likely (I'm in the zoonotic camp, but barely). Lab leak is simply not a fringe idea anymore. RandomCanadian, you would be well-served to just go any science department at the nearest university and ask around; I think you would be surprised at what you hear. We see a dichotomy: scientifically minded laypeople tend to dismiss the lab leak because it was outside the overton window until recently, but actual scientists with PhD's are open to the idea, because they know the messy and uncertain way that science and the academic system works. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Then your friends propably also think it plausible that HIV, H1N1, the original SARS, Ebola virus were lab-leaked? It does not matter what your friends believe when they sit in their armchairs. It does not even matter what the people who actually look at the evidence and are actually competent to look at the evidence believe. Only the results of their investigations matter. The better the job they do, the less their beliefs will influence those results. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No, professors and research scientists that I know do not find it plausible that those other viruses are lab leaked. They do find it plausible that SARS-COV2 was lab leaked. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

When your friends are finished strutting and boasting their perfectly ordinary and boring academic accomplishments which make them par with a few Wikipedia editors (or maybe it is you who is doing the boasting for them), you can tell them that as soon as they do actual science which shows that the lab leak is plausible, publish it in an academic journal, and get it accepted as mainstream, Wikipedia can use their results. Until then, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hob, I know you are doing your best to combat misinformation. That is an admirable goal. There is a lot of misinformation surrounding covid19, and there are a lot of obnoxious anti-science people who latched onto the lab leak theory for the wrong reasons. But you're on the wrong side on this one; currently the scientific consensus is that lab leak is a plausible hypothesis (not certain, not most likely, simply plausible). Now I'm sure you have all sorts of wikipedia policies to counter whatever I say, perhaps by redefining "scientific consensus" in some wikipedia legal manner, or playing games about which sources count in wikipedia and which don't. I'm not equipped to argue with you about this; surely you know more about wikipedia than me and would easily win. But I've been honest with everything I've said here so far. I ask you to take a moment and honestly think about your position in light of all of the new information that has come out over the last several months. 24.18.126.43 (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Except that's already what is in the article: the lab leak is possible, but deemed unlikely by scientists. I don't see what else needs to be changed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned "all sorts of wikipedia policies", but you do not seem to understand that they are there for very good reasons. A scientist's opinion is always based not only on scientific expertise, but also on personal political, religious, and ideological motives and on what the media choose to tell them. Your IP address shows that you are in the US. At the moment, the US media are permanently firing against China, using the lab leak idea as a weapon. (As an aside, I despise authoritarian governments like the Chinese one, but the reasoning used against them should be sound.) So, how can you know that the reason your friends think like that is purely scientific and not influenced by the peculiar US parochialities? Do you know what scientists in other countries think? Scientists' opinions are simply not reliable enough as sources for Wikipedia. Remember, they are something that needs to be filtered out by scientific methods! That is why Wikipedia demands secondary scientific sources instead of just people who are equipped with academic grades, but get the same media-preselected information as everybody else, answering "what is your take on this" questions.

There is a consensus about anthropogenic global warming. I guess you heard the number 97% at some time. That was one of several studies looking into the question. It was determined not by asking scientists what they think, but by looking at what scientific studies said. This is how scientific consensus is determined. Also, this article is called Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and not Opinions on the origin of COVID-19.

We have good sources for "possible, but unlikely", but "plausible" is vague. Is something plausible if it is "possible, but unlikely"? Or does it need to be more than a distant possibility? You sounded as if you are using the second definition. The word "plausible" is not good enough to convey an exact meaning. So we will keep the "possible, but unlikely" wording, as RandomCanadian says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Your misunderstanding of that letter is still apparent. Supporting further investigations is not fringe. Using a letter, which some of the signatories said themselves is being used for misinformation by people promoting the lab leak, to argue that the lab leak is not "extremely unlikely", is misleading, AND fringe under the sense of the policy. As for your WP:OR of what constitutes consensus and what does not, it is irrelevant, since we do not allow original research. There are sources, from after that letter, given here, from reputable popular and scientific newspapers (Guardian, WaPo, Nature) which explicitly describe the current position as that of a consensus. That you think it isn't one, is, as I have said, irrelevant, since per WP:NPOV, only the opinions of sources matter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

We have reliable sources backing that some influential scientists have found the WHO-China report's dismissal of the lab leak hypothesis difficult to accept and have become more willing to voice an undecided position on the origin of the virus. Such as this recent article by Carl Zimmer in New York Times. Terjen (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That brings us back to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SCIRS (or MEDRS, nearly same thing) and the description given at WP:MEDFAQ ("Why can't I use articles from the popular press?" - replace medical with "scientific" or "biomedical" and the same concerns still apply). There is a tension between academic sources and the popular press. How we deal with that is a difficult question, but policy suggests we should give precedence to academic sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In this case, it's not really a concern that readers may make incorrect medical decisions based on scientists' assessment of the origin of the virus. New York Times science journalist Carl Zimmer is well qualified to take the pulse on the scientific community. Terjen (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS sources (in this case, review articles in high-quality journals) are what are needed to determine the scientific consensus. There's no reason to put popular press articles above MEDRS sources, particularly when the popular press is expressing views that are explicitly contradicted by the highest-quality MEDRS sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please submit your strongest WP:MEDRS source that as required by WP:RS/AC directly says there is a scientific consensus. Terjen (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many sources which say that explicitly. The strongest source among those already identified (I haven't found anything so far which contradicts this) would be the article in Nature by Maxmen et al. (a reputable scientific publisher). The alternative would be asking us to prove a negative (that there are no papers which dispute this). Alternatively, we can also make clearer the distinction between scientists and politicians (as reported here - interesting read). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hold on: The Maxmen article in Nature does not directly say there is a scientific consensus, as required by WP:RS/AC. It mentions consensus twice, but these refer to consensus in strategies for health management and consensus among powerful countries. For us to state there is a scientific consensus, it should be trivial to provide solid articles explicitly stating it. If not, we shouldn't be among the first to make the claim. Terjen (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

A sampling:

• a few scientists believe that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulations of SARS-CoV-like coronaviruses... Most researchers agree that bats or pangolins are the primary reservoirs of coronaviruses, but the transmission route of SARS-CoV-2 to humans from this primary reservoir is still under study [5]
• All human CoVs have zoonotic origin and are capable of transmission among mammalian hosts; however, most CoVs originate in bats and are transmitted to humans through domestic animals (Forni et al., 2016; Su et al., 2016). Thus, bats are considered the natural host and primary reservoir of human CoVs (Cui et al., 2019). [6]

Worth noting, it appears that most sources simply leave the possibility of a lab origin unmentioned unless specifically countering such claims, suggesting such claims of majority perspective are accurate (as WP:RS/AC suggests). I'd be interested if a similarly strong source contradicting the claim that those favoring the lab hypothesis as likely (not merely 'viable' or 'possible') were a minority could be found. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no mention of consensus in the samples. Per WP:RS/AC "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." Terjen (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

If we interpret that to mean the source must say the word 'consensus' explicitly, then I'm not opposed to "most"/"few". Bakkster Man (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

reply to the preceding comment by Terjen

Conspiracy theories and speculations about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are not quite as innocent as they might seem. In addition to fuelling existing political tensions and racist bigotry, the active promotion of the lab leak by some "aggressive proponents" has lead to the bullying of scientists (including the creation of attack pages, subsequently speedily deleted, here!) and to more difficulties in collaborations (already difficult) with Chinese ones... We ought not to give these people more credence than what they have in academic sources. The article by Zimmer, nevertheless, also makes clear (in it's header, at that) that while scientists support more thorough investigations (which kind of scientist would not?), they also still agree that "the so-called lab leak theory is unlikely". So, we have multiple sources, from a broad spectrum (newspapers to WP:PRIMARY letters to WP:SECONDARY reviews to in-depth investigations like that by the WHO) saying that scientists A) support investigations (the WHO report also supports this!) [not necessarily related to the lab leak, see for ex. [7]) but B) do not consider the lab leak to be likely. I don't know what more we need to make an accurate article which satisfies NPOV - scientists agree that the matter needs further investigation, but that a lab leak is not a likely scenario (hence, it is still fundamentally at odds with the prevailing view within the scientific community - as evidenced by the quotes from many scientists - so gets treated under WP:FRINGE (which is a broader definition than that of the regular meaning of the word "fringe")). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The intention of WP:Fringe is to avoid that Wikipedia becomes the validating source for non-significant subjects or a forum for original research, which doesn't restrict us from representing other significant views than what some may consider the "prevailing" one. The Carl Zimmer article substantiates undecided as a significant viewpoint among scientists: "After long steering clear of the debate, some influential scientists have lately become more open to expressing uncertainties about the origins of the virus. If the two most vocal poles of the argument are natural spillover vs. laboratory leak, these new voices have added a third point of view: a resounding undecided." The article documents a range of views rather than a consensus, including quoting Yale immunologist Akiko Iwasaki stating "There’s so little evidence for either of these things, that it’s almost like a tossup." Terjen (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You are proposing to ignore a perspective supported clearly by a significant segment of the scientific community by an explicit letter, and instead propagate a consensus stance, only because it serves a subjectively perceived social good. However, advocating anti-fringe for the sake of a social justice warrior's agenda is not in line with scientific rigors of truth above all. It is very evident and well supported that the community has no consensus on the origin of the virus. Automated dry replies of the form "No, that is not true.", ignoring the explicit content of a letter by 18 top scientists do not help this dicussion. Furthermore, you are misreading the letter at Science, which explicitly states that "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.". On the contrary, you imply that the letter states a leak is extremely unlikely, which in my reading of the letter is incorrect.

2003:C0:6F31:7E13:9595:5CD6:5CFE:6A9C (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You, on the other hand, look like exactly all of the other lab-leak SPAs, and you are also engaging in WP:OR by interpreting a WP:PRIMARY source (the letter). WP:PRIMARY explicitly says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.". We prefer WP:SECONDARY sources, and these say that 1) the scientific consensus is still "natural origin" - sources already provided above - and 2) that the letter is being misused by aggressive proponents of the lab leak (such as you and your Twitter friends) - quote: "Nonetheless, some aggressive proponents of the lab-leak hypothesis interpreted the letter as supporting their ideas.". In addition, many note that all of this diplomatic finger-pointing is needless distraction from the actual problem, which is dealing with the virus right here right now (where it came from is actually a purely "academic" debate now - it won't help with fighting it), preventing future zoonotic viral outbreaks (these happen all the time. Recent example: Influenza A virus subtype H10N3), and improving biosecurity rules - all measures which require collaboration. Reliably sourced statements from high-quality secondary sources, and not selective context-less reading of primary sources, is what is required. Until you've demonstrated a willingness to look for better sources and stop engaging in WP:OR, I'm not going to feed into your feedback loop (nor tolerate your ad hominems - calling my a "social justice warrior" implies a lot more things about you than you might think). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I never supported the lab leak theory in any of my statements or comments (although supporting it is as honorable as opposing it IMHO, as long as it serves the truth), I just insisted that scientists believe it to be a viable hypothesis. However, your expressed opposition to one side of the argument makes you biased and unqualified to treat this topic impartially. I find the remaining personal insults unworthy of any further consideration.

Instead, I have the right to demand (sadly not from you anymore) that the truth about the scientific community's lack of consensus be reflected in this article. The sources on the divide of the scientific opinions are crystal clear. Demanding more sources is pure idiocy and POV. By definition, there can be no consensus after the publicly expressed disagreements of the most respected experts in the field. We cannot re-interpret the meaning of consensus to fit our POV. Please accept it and save our precious time. 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:E5AE:EE25:F808:60 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

By definition, there can be no consensus after the publicly expressed disagreements of the most respected experts in the field. We cannot re-interpret the meaning of consensus to fit our POV. Which viewpoint do you believe is being disagreed with by the letter, and where in the letter was it expressed? The value and necessity of meaningful investigation, the likelihood of the multiple unconfirmed possibilities, or both? On a related note, have you considered creating an account? Bakkster Man (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify my point: There is no consensus in ruling out a lab leak as a fringe theory, or as an extremely unlikely hypothesis that is discredited by scientists. For a segment of the scientific community, it is a viable hypothesis that deserves serious consideration and consequently further investigation. In contrast, the current article version in a bold manner gives the impression of the leak as a discredited fringe theory with no support in terms of its viability from serious scientists.

The letter is not very long (4 paragraphs) and can be read in the blink of an eye

P.s.: I deleted an account years ago when WP started to be time-consuming :( This intervention broke my self-oath of not interfering, to the bad luck of RandomCanadian ;) 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:E5AE:EE25:F808:60 (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, then please create a new one, it is simple and it helps communication and warnings to be issued. Forich (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, when I'm referring to the lab leak being 'fringe', I'm referring to WP:FRINGE/ALT. This doesn't mean it's ruled out, only that it's adherents are a minority. And when I say adherents, I mean those who believe the lab origin is not merely possible, but likely. And not even all the signers of the Science letter even fit that definition of an 'adherent', as Ralph Baric signed specifically regarding the thoroughness of investigation: Baric had also signed Relman’s letter in Science, but he told me that his concerns had been with the W.H.O.’s failure to conduct a thorough, transparent review of biosafety measures at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. “I really believe that the genetic sequence for sars-CoV-2 really points to a natural-origin event from wildlife,” he said.[8]

Of course, that distinction is difficult to get right and make clear. I do think the article is better now than it was a few months ago, but that doesn't mean there isn't still room for improvement. But the first question is, do we agree that belief that the lab leak origin is a likely origin is a minority opinion among scientists? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That the lab leak origin is a viable and serious hypothesis is an explicit stance by a "segment" of the scientific community. Whether this "segment" represents the majority, or the minority of "opinions" is for me hard to assess. In particular, as a serious on-site investigation has not been conducted, the lack of empirical evidence in support of the original zoonotic hypothesis (e.g. the failure of finding any intermediate host carrying the exact SARS-COV-2 genetic information despite tens of thousands of sampled animals, etc.) is making the number of doubters increase on a daily basis. My very personal assessment is that while in 2020 most scientists assumed the virus has a natural origin, in 2021 a critical mass of scientists apparently has doubts. 2003:C0:6F31:7E13:E5AE:EE25:F808:60 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We agree on "viable and serious", so all we disagree on is whether the article as written current does that. If you compare to the start of the year, I'd argue we do a much better job of that (in part because, at the time, it wasn't agreed that an accidental lab leak was "viable and serious"). So now it's the tough job of assessing the sources to verify what we're writing is credible. Like you said, while it's hard to assess prevalence, most credible sources say the opinion that natural origin is more likely is the majority. If that changes, then we will change (like when the WHO published their report giving "viable and serious" investigation into an accidental lab leak).

I'd like to propose an alternate explanation of the change we're seeing publicly in statements. It may not be an increase in 'doubters' of a natural origin, and instead because there's no longer an implied connection to the loudest, most conspiratorial voices in the room (ie. Trump) that had a chilling effect last year. The NYT found some who felt that way: Some scientists attributed the shift in part to the fact that the more extreme proponents of a lab leak hypothesis, like Mr. Navarro, had drowned out the more measured discussions of how lab workers could have accidentally carried the virus outside. And like anything, we need to be able to source it reliably. So the same as I wouldn't ascribe that motivation to all the people speaking out, we also can't ascribe it to failure to find the animal source. Not without a source. Hope that helps clarify things, and let me know if you have any specific items you think could be improved (supported by sources). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't "interpret" consensus. We "report" what reliable, secondary sources say and what they say about consensus. Recent scientific papers and newspapers, as cited multiple times above, note that the scientific consensus is still a zoonotic origin. Hence we report that, per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, while leaving a minor mention of alternative scenarios, per WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE. End of. The only arguing that should be there is about the credibility of sources and how to accurately represent the subject based on the credible sources. Everything else is a waste of everyone's time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

On a lighter note, RandomCanadian sounds like he would watch the first chapters of the Lost TV series and conclude with a serious face that there is consensus on why those people are in the island.  :) On a serious note, we are witnessing an interesting case in which the scientific sources overstate the confidence of their results and the news sources do the contrary. It is a rare turning of events because normally scientists will say "taking cofee is correlated to health metrics in this tiny sample of people" and news sources will say "Scientists find that consuming cofee extends life". Forich (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

watch the first chapters of the Lost TV series and conclude with a serious face that there is consensus on why those people are in the island. Not necessarily problematic, so long as it's reliably sourced and we update if/when the majority opinion changes. Exactly what WP:FRINGE/ALT says, btw: should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. ;)

Maybe reframing things away from 'scientific consensus' to 'mainstream perspective' will be more palatable, at least for some. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC is very clear on this: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Editors' determination that the majority opinion is X, in the absence of sources directly saying "the majority opinion is X", constitutes WP:OR. Stonkaments (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

the scientific sources overstate the confidence of their results and the news sources do the contrary By using the word "overstate", you are saying that your own opinion is in between. Put more neutrally and taking you out of the picture: the scientific sources are more confident about the zoonotic origin than the news sources. Wikipedia editors can think what they want, but Wikipedia articles take the position of the more reliable sources. They do not reflect the position of the editors who happen to write the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the strongest WP:RS directly substantiating the claim of scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC? Terjen (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This states it directly, as quoted above. There are then reliable newspapers which echo this. If I look through enough academic papers I might find some which make this statement too (but that's a time consuming exercise), but many of them simply don't mention anything but a natural origin scenario so this makes me think of the scenario at WP:FRINGELEVEL where "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." and also WP:FALSEBALANCE ("plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The provided source is from June 2020, while the letter of the 18 renowned scientists, stating that the leak is a viable and serious hypothesis, was released on May 2021. How can a one-year old publication be used as a proof of consensus, while there exist an explicit consensus-disrupting declaration that is less than 1 month old? 2003:C0:6F22:6318:4DC0:7EF:B535:FEB6 (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Could we look at removing the term "conspiracy theory" from this article? Saying this implies that some avenues of investigation are inappropriate. Valid hypotheses should treated with more respect. 2601:844:4000:F910:E8E4:1C40:DCB:D45A (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You've been given sources, recent ones at that (in addition to scientific papers), which explicitly state what the scientific consensus is, and some which also explicitly state that some theories, such as the claims the virus is man-made, are conspiracy theories. You are not allowed to interpret primary sources to claim that there is no such thing, per WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. The only references to "conspiracy theory" I see in this article are:

1. "A number of conspiracy theories have also been promoted about the origins of the virus.[17][20][21]"
2. "Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions,[46] the origin is still hotly debated,[47] and, early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was bio-engineered by China,[48] amplified by echo chambers in the American far-right.[49] Other conspiracy theories promoted misinformation that the virus is not communicable or was created to profit from new vaccines.[50]"

Both of these seem correct. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The consensus claimed by a paper in 2020 does not imply that there is still a consensus in 2021, by pretending that nothing has changed in the scientific opinion between 2020 and 2021. The correct formulation would be that "Until June 2020, existing sources indicated a consensus on the zoonotic origin of the virus among the scientific community. In contrast, recent declarations in 2021 by leading field scientists consider a lab leak to be a viable and serious hypothesis." 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The page does not refer to the possibility of an inadvertent lab leak as a conspiracy. I've cleaned up the one paragraph from 'bio-engineering' to 'bio weapon' specifically to ensure that this is accurately reflected and can't be confused. The conspiracy theories the article refers to (Winnipeg Lab source, biological weapon, non-communicable, designed to sell vaccines) are not the "viable and serious hypothesis" you're referring to. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The paper titled "COVID-19 breakthroughs: separating fact from fiction" published 5 June 2020 in the FEBS Journal was proclaimed offered by RandomCanadian in response to a request for the strongest WP:RS directly substantiating the claim of scientific consensus. It explicitly states "the scientific consensus on the origin is SARS-CoV-2 is that, like other coronaviruses, it evolved naturally and was transferred to humans via an animal" but also that the virus emerged from a laboratory environment "cannot be ruled out entirely." Unfortunately, reviewing research related to the origin of the virus is not a primary focus of the paper, but limited to a single section and only a few sources. Instead, the paper discusses a range of topics such as using Ibuprofen to manage symptoms, the protective role of nicotine, whether SARS-CoV-2 linger on surfaces, the effect on ethnic minorities, impact on children, and variation in mortality rate. Is this paper really the best we have to substantiate a scientific consensus? Terjen (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Terjen: I never said it was the strongest, I said it was one source among many, and I've also given many recent newspapers which confirm this. Quote-mining scientific papers isn't my forte, and it's a time consuming process. However, in the absence of sources which explicitly dispute the presence of a consensus, we're stuck with those which do say there is one, personal interpretations of primary sources to the contrary notwithstanding. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You responded with this paper upon my request for the strongest WP:RS. If there is a consensus among scientists, it should be trivial to substantiate it. Terjen (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Re "in the absence of sources which explicitly dispute the presence of a consensus, we're stuck with those which do say there is one." No, if we only have weak sources suggesting there is a consensus, we're free to ignore them and avoid making claims about a consensus. Terjen (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the Guardian, NYT, or Nature or scientific journals, "weak sources". WP:FRINGELEVEL says that if scientific sources ignore an hypothesis, it's likely that it isn't the prevalent one. This, very recent paper, in Lancet Resp Med, has "The most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural selection of the virus in an animal host followed by zoonotic transfer." This is entirely consistent with the lab leak being a fringe theory, as per the sources (in the post just below) which explicitly say that there is a scientific consensus. If you disagree, start a bloody RfC so we can get stop talking past each other. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

My primary concern is not the lab-leak hypothesis, but that we shouldn't present the origin question as settled science. However, regarding WP:FRINGELEVEL saying that if scientific sources ignore a hypothesis it may be excluded, even the article you offered upon my request for the strongest WP:RS doesn't ignore the lab-leak hypothesis, but states that it "cannot be ruled out entirely." Terjen (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, final reply about the IP's OR definition of "consensus". Free to look at these, recent sources, which say it explicitly:

• Taylor, Adam. "Analysis | The Wuhan lab-leak theory is getting more attention. That's because key evidence is still missing". Washington Post.
• Beaumont, Peter (2021-05-27). "Did Covid come from a Wuhan lab? What we know so far". The Guardian.
• Maxmen, Amy (2021-05-27). "Divisive COVID 'lab leak' debate prompts dire warnings from researchers". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01383-3.

There are others, recent and older, which show that despite the politics this hasn't changed at all in the scientific community. In any case, consider this a final warning about engaging in WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Empty sentimental threats in the absence of arguments, cannot stop anyone from asking the truth to be written impartially. As I repeated multiple times, there is no ultimate consensus on the origin of the virus among the scientific community, because the finest members of the research community (18 elite-most scientists from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale, etc.) have recently openly declared (see cited Science letter) that both a leak and a zoonotic spillover are viable hypotheses. Citing outdated publications from 2020, or random collections of opinion articles at newspapers as a proxy of an alleged consensus, cannot overrule the explicit declaration of scientists themselves. Imagining a consensus of a scientific community, against the explicit declaration of the most important elitary segment of this very same community makes no sense. 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to join this rather spirited discussion -- but I must say that you seem to be reading what you want to read in that Science letter (which offers opinion only, no evidence). In actual published data, scientists have been saying the same thing all along -- that all evidence to date indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purposefully manipulated, and the notion that the pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident is not necessary to explain the pandemic. The media, on the other hand, have followed the opinion pendulum back and forth, from logic to fringe and back again. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment DoctorJoeE and sorry for having to witness emotionally loaded comments. I agree with you that a significant segment of the scientific community has actually expressed opinions, or published articles in favor of a zoonotic origin of the virus. What we disagree is on whether there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis, as the article portraits. The letter I cited explicitly state that both hypotheses, zoonotic or lab leak, are viable hypotheses that should be taken seriously and investigated. As a result, the question is whether this explicit declaration of an important segment of the research community, make the consensus argument still hold (i.e. can a community have a consensus if its most notable members publicly disagree)? Why is this important at all: because if a scientific consensus on a zoonotic origin does not exist and the lab leak is now considered as a viable hypothesis (hypothesis means an open option, as long as we know more), it should not be treated at this article as a fringe and discredited theory with links to conspiracy. 2003:C0:6F22:6318:8D4D:4AEF:DE89:7EC3 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

whether there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis, as the article portraits Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't even bother to correctly reproduce what the article is saying? It does not say, and did not when you wrote the above, that the lab leak idea is "not viable", it says it is "extremely unlikely". When something is not viable, it cannot be extremely unlikely at the same time, only impossible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Are we referring to the same letter. Citing "Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable." and "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data.". You are misreading the letter, in the section you refer to the authors criticize the WHO report that deduced a leak as "extremely unlikely" without a thorough consideration. I think you owe me an apology for jumping into aggressive language, instead of investing 60 more seconds to read the letter. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess you are talking to me and not to the other IP, and I guess you are the same person as the other IP. Therefore I added one more colon to your indentation to make that clearer.

I was not talking about any letter, I was talking about "the article". By which I mean the Wikipedia article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, the Talk page of which we are on. You could have inferred this from the fact that I said "the article" and not "the letter". You had written whether there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis, as the article portraits. So, you claimed that the Wikipedia article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 said that the zoonotic origin is the only viable hypothesis, didn't you? I explained to you that it does not, and you can check if by clicking on the link Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and searching for the word "viable". Now you are talking about some "letter" I was supposed to have been talking about. Well, I wasn't. In case you still have not got it, I was talking about the Wikipedia article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I implied the Science article, i.e. the letter, assuming that the context was derivable from the previous thread exchanges but sorry about the confusion in case you read only my latest comment in isolation. In that case, unless you have any point against my summarization of the letter, then I believe your concern is addressed. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:A481:48C2:80CC:AF51 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Still does not make any sense. Is there anybody who says "there is a full consensus by the community that the zoonotic origin as the only viable hypothesis"? The letter doesn't, the Wikipedia article doesn't. None of the editors here does. But you claim that there is disagreement about this question. Where do you get that? The lab leak has always been considered viable, but extremely unlikely, by the consensus. That is still the case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

See this ANI thread for further action. @DoctorJoeE: Your sum-up seems about almost an indirect quote of thie first paper I list here, "Other strategies, more speculative than those listed above, have been used to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020). The evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purposefully manipulated (Andersen et al., 2020). Moreover, the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020) is not necessary to explain the pandemic."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello; I've been lurking here for a while and find the discussion on consensus interesting, so I decided to create an account. I wanted to note that there have been two very recent articles that explicitly address this, (both from today). As a quote from a prominent scientist: '“We can’t even begin to talk about a consensus other than a consensus that we don’t know,” said David Relman, a Stanford University microbiologist. “We have nothing like the amount of data we need.”' https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-bats-china-wuhan/2021/06/02/772ef984-beb2-11eb-922a-c40c9774bc48_story.html And as a take-away 'The scientific consensus had been smashed to smithereens.' https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins Sorry about the formatting. Chvko (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, Chvko! The two relevant quotes (as I see them) from those two articles are as follows:

WaPo: Many scientists say the most likely path is that the virus spread in nature and jumped from animals to humans. But that belief is largely based on how other coronaviruses have originated, not what is known about this case.

VF: There are reasons to doubt the lab-leak hypothesis. There is a long, well-documented history of natural spillovers leading to outbreaks, even when the initial and intermediate host animals have remained a mystery for months and years, and some expert virologists say the supposed oddities of the SARS-CoV-2 sequence have been found in nature.

These aren't the only sources making such evaluations, of course, but it helps to include them here for ease of discussion. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe the most relevant quotes are the ones that Chvko highlighted (welcome!). That is two more solid sources disputing the existence of any scientific consensus at present. The Vanity Fair article also provides additional context for how problematic the notion of scientific consensus has become in this politicized debate: In April 2021, in an editorial in the journal Infectious Diseases & Immunity, Shi resorted to a familiar tactic to contain the cloud of suspicion enveloping her: She invoked scientific consensus, just as the Lancet statement had. Stonkaments (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A big source of confusion is that the word "origin" is an umbrella term. If we break down its components, one can arrange them in order of how fast evidence comes up regarding it, after an epidemic. This is more or less the order:

1. The causative agent is discovered
2. The index case is epidemiologically traced
3. A likely reservoir is discovered by genomic analysis
4. A likely evolutionary history is reconstructed from molecular genetic analyses
5. The intermediate host is discovered
6. The actual animal that hosts the inmediate virus ancestor of the virus is found in the wild

The word consensus can be safely applied to parts 1-3 above. Lots of uncertainty remain for part 4. Parts 5 and 6 are total mysteries, still. But this is normal in most epidemics. What word best summarizes the whole origin? I do not know. Forich (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the content of the article is confusing because the title refers to the "origin of COVID-19" and the first sentence states the "origin of SARS-CoV-2", which in my understanding are orthogonal concepts: the former questions "how was the first human infected?" and the second "how did the virus evolve?". If such orthogonal questions are raised, even opposing hypotheses can funnily co-exist, e.g. the origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be a natural evolution, while the origin of COVID-19 can be a lab leak from that natural virus? This highlights the need for editing the article from multiple angles. 2003:C0:6F1E:B606:3D8B:135E:DBC:48EA (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: 2. The index case is epidemiologically traced Is it actually the case that there is consensus on this? I was under the impression that one of the major reasons why we don't have a clear resolution to resolve the lab question is the lack of a definitive index case. From the article: The earliest human cases of SARS-CoV-2 were identified in Wuhan, but the index case remains unknown. This doesn't mean particular details can't be evaluated for likelihood or ruled out, but I think it's worthwhile to confirm that there is not yet an index case identified. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, 1. is obvious; 2 is not solved yet and likely won't be for a while; there is a rather clear consensus for 3 (likely reservoir = bats); I'm seeing papers about 4 ([9][10][11], so I guess that is also pretty much consensus. So that leaves 5-6. 6 took 14 years for SARS-CoV... Anyway, my two cents is that there will likely be some more time before we get a definitive answer on this, so likely we'll be dealing with disruption related to this, for a while... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with RandomCanadian, but since the pangolin evidence was found to have holes I would be cautious in calling it consensus. This is my best effort to summarize part 4: According to the WHO report, one of these reconstructed steps was that RaTG13 was found to have 96.2% genetic similarity with SARS-CoV-2. However, they qualify that by saying "Although SARS-CoV-2 is closely related to RaTG13, only one of the six critical amino acids sites [in the RBD of the S protein] is identical between the two viruses. A second step was that pangolin viruses were found to have some of the parts needed to complete the evolution, but the WHO summarizes the results from this line as inconclusive by saying "Although some researchers thought these observations [similar amino acids to the RBDs of pangolins] served as evidence that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in the recombination of a virus similar to pangolin-CoV with one similar to RaTG13, others argued that the identical functional sites in SARS-CoV-2 and pangolin-CoV-GDC may actually result from coincidental convergent evolution". Andersen summarized the advances on the reconstruction of the evolutionary history of SARS-CoV-2, in this tweet: "The 'natural' version of this actually has a lot of evidence to it by now - we continue to see more and more of the pieces that make up the puzzle of SARS-CoV-2's evolutionary origin. The problem is - it's a big puzzle.". If the puzzle is big and the main reconstructed steps have not been conclusive determined, we should be cautios to say that a lot of progress has been made on this front, in my opinion.. Forich (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:, good point. I used index case as the first identified patient, which is well-known who he is (dec 8 case according to WHO, or Dec 1 according to primary sources). As far as we know, he is the most likely candidate to have been infected by the animal source. On your point I've seen molecular clock studies that use a "root" case, which is previous than the index case. That would be what you are thinking, in case of a single introduction point, and tracing the clock of the variability observed in december, it is hypothetized that the index case from Dec 8 does not coincide with the root case, which probably happened late November 2019 or a few days earlier. That root would still be unknown, and therefore you are absolutely right. Forich (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: You're right, index case just means first identified in a given population. That could be the first human ever, or just the first for a given localized cluster. But I think we agree, in this case we're talking about the global 'root' case, not just the currently identified Wuhan index case. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I see we are currently having edit wars over the use of the word consensus. Please read a related discussion on [[12]] for further insights. My proposal is to agree that:

1. There is consensus on these aspects of the umbrella term "origin": i) The causative agent of COVID-19; ii) The Wuhan index case; iii) The likely reservoir suggested by genomic analysis
2. There is not consensus on these aspects: iv) The likely evolutionary history suggested by reconstructions from molecular genetic analyses; v) The intermediate host; vi) The animal that acts as reservoir to hosts the inmediate virus ancestor actually caught in the wild by zoologists.

Pinging the editors involved with a call to calm down the war: @Shibbolethink:, @Adoring nanny:, @CutePeach:

Aspects v) and vi) from the list above should not be realisticly expected to have a consensus soon. So we should be aware that having uncertainty on them doesn't undermine the possibility of having an overall consensus on the umbrella term "origin". Forich (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I'm very interested in using BRD in this, and not edit warring. That's why we have ongoing discussions about this on this very talk page! But I think your point 2 is a non-sequitur. We don't need all virologists to agree on those things to say "the consensus among virologists is that a zoonotic origin is more likely." We just need sources showing a consensus is that the zoonosis is more likely. And we have that, as shown here and elsewhere.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

So, to be very specific about the wording to use in relation to the evolutionary history suggested by reconstructions from molecular genetic analyses, please bring the most reliable sources (MEDRS and Primary research only, no news sources) that summarize our current state of understanding. Let's keep it short and use at most three (3) sources. Forich (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree with your point 1 section ii -- We do not have consensus in the scientific community about that index case. That is just the earliest case we have. No reason to believe the virus actually emerged in Wuhan at this point, or that this man in November was the first infected. Could have been Hubei province. Could have been Yunan. And our molecular clock analyses show that it could have been mid-October. As I go into extreme depth about in your linked thread! And as I recently added to WP:LABLEAK.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yo do realize that your observation that there is no consensus on the index case goes against your proposal to state that "there is consensus on origin"? I am confused on why you bring this, but I appreaciate your honesty in being objective. Forich (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I stand by my point 2, which really boils down to lacking consensus on the likely molecular history from ancestor to SARS-CoV-2. The other aspects of finding the animals in the wild should not be of concern to reach the word consensus. Your point that scientists use words that suggests consensus, and using them near the word "origin" lacks context. In some of those papers, they use origin to refer to the disease, in other to the pandemic, in others to the animal source, in others to the place of the initial outbreak, etc. I am sure I can pick apart any mention you bring of the word origin in top sources, to its contextual specific meaning. If we are going to use it loosely, as in the lead, I stand that having a precise summary of the molecular studies of the evolutionary history is the missing piece of the puzzle that can tilt our language to consensus. If we can not prove that that literature has settled on a likely origin, I strongly oppose that we say "there is consensus on origin". Forich (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any specific policy or source-based points to argue against the very well-written and extensively researched WP:NOLABLEAK? Or the many similar arguments made on this page? We are approaching WP:SATISFY territory with the amount of times this has been brought up without any new actual points or evidence. Because even after my own pre-wiki assessment of the landscape of scientific writing, reading that essay is what lead me to believe the "wikipedia-relevant" policy-interpretation would be that the MEDRS consensus is "zoonosis is more likely" even though the accidental lab leak is "possible." And so we must follow WP:RSUW and talk about the "zoonosis is more likely" a lot and the "lab leak is possible" a little. Which is what we do, I'm happy about the state of this article because of that. It's proportional WP:DUE weight.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:, you say We do not have consensus in the scientific community about that index case. Be aware that index case, by defintion, is whatever person we know to have been infected first, a fact that is always certain. You seem to refer to the root of the initial outbreak, the person that according to the molecular clocks, should be the real index case. We agree that we have no consensus on the root of the initial outbreak. Can you elaborate on why lacking consensus about it can be bothersome for the overall understanding of the origin? My honest take on it is that it is unimportant whether the index case is the Dec 8 case from the WHO report, or someone else two approximately three weeks before that. The real root case, if it is not too far away (in time and place) from the index case can be dismissed as small nuisance, IMHO. Forich (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about what I'm saying in that comment. That december 8 person is not even the earliest infection recorded anymore, although he may still be the earliest "confirmed" infection, I haven't checked in a few days. We want to avoid a Gaetan Dugas situation, most of all, prematurely calling someone an index case in the absence of more evidence. Here's what I'm concerned you may be doing (tell me if I'm wrong). It appears as though the argument you're forming is that since there are elements of the origin that have no consensus at this point (index, location, etc), that means that we cannot have a consensus about the zoonosis being the most likely scenario. But this is not a fair analysis. E.g. one can be reasonably sure that a large outbreak of food poisoning came from the Golden Corral on the corner of Main st. and Washington ave. without knowing whether it was the egg salad or the coleslaw to blame. This ambiguity and issue is why following WP:MEDRS is key here. We follow what the sources tell us, not our own original research. It's not our place to start playing epidemiologist here. Tell me if I'm misreading. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, just wanted to say, the SARS-1 zoonosis event occurred very far away from the city where most early infections occurred At least 1,200 kilometers away, I believe quite a bit more. Similar travel between rural and urban settings occurred with several Ebola outbreaks and MERS outbreaks. See the sections in WP:NOLABLEAK marked "Wuhan was likely not the origin" and "Viruses typically cross over rurally, then are first detected in cities". SO it is still very viable that the actual "patient zero" was infected pretty far geographically from Wuhan.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a second commentary that, if true, would constitute push back against the "there is consensus" on the origin, which I thought you were supporting. I am confused, but thanks for being careful to add comments from all sides, even if they counter your own point Forich (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify the point on context. Suppose a paper that has H0: zoonotic origin and Ha: human origin in the context of having diseases emerging from animals, versus being circulating in the species without being recognized (as occurred with hepatitis C). If it says "zoonotic origin is more likely" it has a specific meaning in relation to Ha. Now suppose a second paper has Ha: 100% synthetic virus. The same words "zoonotic origin is more likely" has different connotations. A third paper can be about the animal source of the initial outbreak in Wuhan, and it can have: H0: zoonotic animal source, vs Ha: the source was another human that brought the disease to the market. The same words "zoonotic origin is more likely" mean different things in this third paper.Forich (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

And do you have any evidence that this is what has occurred over at WP:NOLABLEAK? From my re-read just now, I believe the context in those sources is appropriate for how they're being used.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You seem to want my opinion on this specific framing:

• H0: zoonotic origin
• Ha: the virus started in an animal, at some point downstream it was manipulated in a lab by humans, then at some point later it somehow got to infect the Dec 8 index case in Wuhan

For this specific framing, I oppose saying we have consensus on "zoonotic origin is more likely". I can change my mind if you bring a specific source that says otherwise, of course. Forich (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

My opinion on the WP:NOLABLEAK essay is this one. I am prepared to comment on every source mentioned there, you want me to do it for any specific one? Isn't its talk page a more apt place to have that discussion. If I have time, I'll do it there and bring the link here. Forich (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

In response to @Shibbolethink:'s commentary above (We follow what the sources tell us, not our own original research. It's not our place to start playing epidemiologist here. Tell me if I'm misreading.) that the standard you are proposing regarding the use of phrases taken out of context may lead to pointy edits that favor the lab leak hypothesis, such as using papers that speak of the Furin Cleavage Site being "inserted" or the virus having "escaped" in papers talking about a particular property of viruses regarding vaccination or treatments. I erroneusly did one edit like that myself (I apologize) to prove the point, but now I realize it was semi-vandalic and the crux of the point can be made here at the talk page in a less rude way. Forich (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

To avoid this getting unproductive or circular, I'll repeat my proposal:

To be very specific about the wording to use in relation to the evolutionary history suggested by reconstructions from molecular genetic analyses, please bring the most reliable sources (MEDRS and Primary research only, no news sources) that summarize our current state of understanding. Let's keep it short and use at most three (3) sources. Forich (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

:

This appears high on a Google Scholar search with keywords "SARS-Cov-2 evolution*":

Despite these recent discoveries, several fundamental issues related to the evolutionary patterns and driving forces behind this outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 remain to be fully characterized

In the meantime of this discussion, I want to bring here the wording use by the New York Times in a recent piece: "having jumped from animals to humans, the explanation favored by most experts on coronaviruses." . It is simple and I have no problems if we borrow it to the lead of this article. It is similar to the compromise proposed here (see last part of diff

, but without the "vast majority" part and withouth the too-general "origin" word. Anyone disagrees? Forich (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The quote you give only says that "several issues remain to be fully characterized". Yes, there are plenty of unresolved questions, but that doesn't mean there isn't consensus on some aspects. I also don't understand why you're using a paper from June last year for this and then also don't accept statements from June last year that there is consensus (or even more recent papers that say the same thing). For context, the paragraph preceding that quote begins "Coronaviruses are naturally hosted and evolutionarily shaped by bats [4,5]. Indeed, it has been postulated that most of the coronaviruses in humans are derived from the bat reservoir [6,7]." and then continues "Although the specific route of transmission from natural reservoirs to humans remains unclear [5,13], several studies have shown that pangolins may have provided a partial spike gene to SARS-CoV-2; the critical functional sites in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 are nearly identical to those identified in a virus isolated from a pangolin [16–18]." That also indicates this particular paper might be a bit dated on this aspect since there are doubts about the links of pangolins to this. In any case, it's clear it is suggesting a natural origin, although it doesn't specifically mention zoonosis directly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The Tang et al (2020) article being outdated for being from June 2020 is a solid objection to using it to settle our debate on the current state of knowledge, and I have striked through its mention. I'd like us to discuss the exact wording and context used by much recent papers on this aspect of origin (evolutionary history reconstructed from molecular genomics). Myy conjecture after a couple of hours of perusing the literature is that none of the articles in top journals says or even dare to hint that there is "consensus". I invite all editors to participate in bringing the source and quotes that will helps us judge whether the conjecture is wrong. Forich (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This argument seems outdated since the article no longer has the words "consensus" in that context. I personally am happy with "echoing the assessment of most virologists" or "echoing the explanation favored by most virologists." To me, the distinction is meaningless between these and "echoing a consensus of..." at least for our purposes here. But I understand the distinction may mean something to you, and that is fine. Building consensus is about compromise! I think it would be WP:UNDUE and skating WP:FRINGE/WP:NPOV problems to replace the current statements of "most virologists favor explanation X" with an extremely detailed and fraught run down of what there is and isn't agreement on. Could we have that elsewhere in the article? Yes! In the section Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Direct_zoonotic_transmission in particular I think that would be appropriate. But it is not a substitute for proper summarizing, which is what the statements in question are doing. We still need that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with your message, and with the current wording. Apologize my nit picking on the word consensus, I am in the middle of writing a book chapter on likelihood assesments in science and it has made me a bit intolerant to reading tiny inaccuracies in that area. Forich (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I endorse the wording change as well. Arguably more clear, since (as this discussion shows) the word 'consensus' can be interpreted pretty differently. The important concept is most virologists and most likely, not the specific word 'consensus'. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if what I write here is verbose. I am not a paid contributor to wikipedia, and thus I'm able neither to check this page regularly nor contribute directly to the actual article.

Firstly, to deal with the use of the "consensus". Some level of expertise is apparently needed to deal with these articles. Science is at its core about the falsification of hypotheses. Anyone remotely familiar with this topic (eg. any university or above experience) should grasp this concept. Although Wikipedia has the goal of reporting on consensus where such a thing exists, any editor involved with science-focused articles must have this understanding going in, in order to assure that their edits and arbitrations do not misrepresent the very topic they are reporting on. I think it goes without saying that I strongly object to the suggestion of any "consensus" existing among the experts in related fields, which include not only virologists, but also geneticists, biochemists, biologists, bioinformaticians and all other experts who are involved with the process of gaining understanding on the origins of the virus. I would go on to respectfully suggest to any editor reading this who has previously recommended that some actual "consensus" should be described in these articles humbly excuse yourself from any involvement beyond preventing vandalism and the like.

Secondly, on hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a "conspiracy theory". A hypothesis is falsifiable. It is not the job of any editor here to chime in with their non-expert opinions about which hypotheses are "conspiracy theories" and which are not. I strongly disagree with the use of the phrase "conspiracy theories" in the first paragraph of this article. It is juxtaposed in such a way that leads a non-expert reader to correlate "several other explanations" with "conspiracy theories". The topic is notable for far-reaching reasons, and the fact that conspiracy theories are out there is in no way central to all inquiry into the question. In fact, considering the profound implications of the question at hand, any such mention should probably be left out of the lede altogether. The process of scientific discovery is not something that is helped by zealotry, quite the contrary. In direct reply to the solution offered directly above this comment, any use in this article of phrases like '"most virologists"' should be used with extreme caution. Lengths should be taken here to assume an especially strong stance of neutrality because this topic is very new, and hence very little literature exists beyond that which either forwards a hypothesis or provides argument in the form of conjecture. The later is now unusually ubiquitous most likely due to authors' and publishers' immediate concerns separate from any actual elucidation of the origins of the virus. In this spirit, I strongly disagree with the wording "most scientists say" in the lede. The lede, first and foremost, should emphasize that this is an open scientific question. An imperfect, but less objectionable wording would be something like "The origins ... remain an open question in relevant areas of research ... among the various proposed hypotheses ... natural origins is favored by a majority of scientists at this time." In other words, it is our job to show that it's an open question. Period.

Last, a quick acknowledgement to the topic of anonymous posts and other such contributions. I am grateful (as we all should be) to the anonymous IP user who started this thread. In their first reply, it appears that user RandomCanadian completely missed the valid points of that post and accused the IP account of "original research". Assuming good faith but with an understanding of what was written, that reply was absurd. (Please do not read the following as a personal attack in any form, I am only using the poor judgement of a certain editor as an example.) Being an established editor (and perhaps a paid one) on wikipedia does not make one an expert. Non-expert RandomCanadian (for example) should not be in a position to judge what constitutes a "credible paper". The very fact that RandomCanadian as of May 2021 couldn't find a single peer-reviewed source authored by an expert that argued towards a lab-origin shows at the very least that they don't have access to a basic database of journal articles, and probably that they don't have the relevant experience or skills to contribute to this article without doing far more harm than good. I think that, at least to anyone with the slightest bit of nuanced understanding of human social affairs, it should be quite apparent why there is a notable dearth of registered users here who are openly experts on this field. Very few principle investigators, post-docs or even grad students want to involve themselves publicly in such a forum, as the constant competition for grants from the likes of the NIH and other agencies is a strong motivator to remain anonymous. Hypothetically, if I myself held a graduate degree, had worked with pathogens in laboratory research settings, had many colleagues and past professors and mentors with more relevant research experience than myself with whom I could discuss such topics at length, I would certainly choose not to broadcast my details here for reasons that again should be obvious to anyone. This is not to mention the possibility of retaliation by at least one major world government that clearly whats anything but open-inquiry. In closing, let's please not play games. Assuming good faith as always.KristinaLu (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Delete sections transcluded from Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Our entry is growing in size. I suggest we delete the two sections transcluded from the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 entry, integrating the few paragraphs related to the origin of the virus: 1. Reservoir and origin 2. Phylogenetics and taxonomy Terjen (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Two concerns, and an alternate proposal. First is that this page isn't that big relatively speaking. Second is that duplicating content makes it harder to maintain (which is why we transclude in the first place), and makes the text on this page larger.

The good news is we can shrink how much we transclude, without deleting it. The Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Phylogenetics and taxonomy already excludes the final two paragraphs (and all the sub-headings) in the transclusion. If there's a place we agree that the transclusion for each section can be trimmed back, we can do that relatively easily. How much are you suggesting we trim? I'm only seeing the last two Phylogenetics and taxonomy paragraphs that would make sense to remove. Maybe the graphics as well? Bakkster Man (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to integrating the few paragraphs related to the origin of the virus, I don't favor keeping the content in sync between the two pages, but cutting the cord so that each evolves independently, eliminating the maintenance concern. Terjen (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Evolving independently means more maintenance (not less), and potentially a less coherent encyclopedia. The SARS-CoV-2 page would continue to maintain their sections, and now this page also needs to maintain a similar section. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Is any of the content from the Phylogenetics and taxonomy section really essential for a discussion of the origin of COVID? It seems like the whole section can be skipped, so readers can get to the meat of the entry. We're already linking to the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 page. Terjen (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that the first three paragraphs (sans image) give some solid context into understanding the origin investigations (even though we don't yet cover the FCS/ACE2 info here). But I'm interested in hearing what others have to say. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The origins of COVID are both a scientific and a political issue. Investigations are particularly a political one. Maybe cutting down the amount transcluded would be okay (also in line with WP:SUMMARY); but I don't think removing it entirely does any good. Some scientific matters (FCS/ACE/...) are particularly relevant to the controversy, and readers should be able to have the whole context here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The default position should be keeping this material - readers come here seeking to learn the origin of the virus. The worst thing we could do with this article is begin removing the results of scientific investigations into SARS-CoV-2. -Darouet (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

We're not talking about deleting material from Wikipedia. You can find exactly the same content at Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Reservoir and origin and Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Phylogenetics and taxonomy. It's just transcluded here, but could just as well be linked. Terjen (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s transcluded so people can read it. And your posts below show that you don’t understand the material you want to remove from this article. -Darouet (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

In light of the curse of knowledge consider the readers we may expect coming to the page curious about the origin of the virus, many of them non-scientists. I doubt most of them will get much out of the phylogenetics and taxonomy section. They shouldn't be expected to learn that SARS‑CoV‑2 is a member of the subgenus Sarbecovirus (beta-CoV lineage B); Having an RNA sequence approximately 30,000 bases in length; or that its furin protease recognizes the canonical peptide sequence RX[R/K]R↓X where the cleavage site is indicated by a down arrow and X is any amino acid. Terjen (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

That can be fixed with judicious use of noinclude or includeonly tags. Although the genetic lineage of the virus (it being in the same subgenus as SARS-CoV, and in the same lineage as MERS) is a relevant piece of information, me thinks. But the specifics can be worked out with more detail either through a discussion over at SARS-CoV-2 or via the regular editing process. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a case can be made that the subgenus and stuff are only relevant here if we're presenting information about the origin relative to them. Which, at this time, would basically just be to debunk lab origin theories that aren't currently mentioned. But yeah, just more use of the noinclude tags. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The scientists have spoken, the pandemic was not a lab accident, an accident made possible by scientists (gain of function is the scientific jargon for such research), because if that was the case how could then the ignorant populations rely on science to get over the pandemic? unsigned comment by 141.255.1.145

• Agree with Terjen’s proposal to remove the transclusion of sections from SARS-COV-2 as it gives the appearance that the scientific investigations have resulted in a scientific consensus on all aspects of the origins of the virus, which is not the case. CutePeach (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Not my reason for proposing deleting these sections. Besides, the Phylogenetics and taxonomy section doesn't give any obvious appearance of a scientific consensus on origin. Terjen (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Agree that Phylogenetics and taxonomy are okay. I was referring to the other aspects, and the previous "scientific consensus" title, which was misleading. CutePeach (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Although, to be clear about my position: People that come here to learn about the origins of SARS-Cov-2 shouldn't be fed an off-topic review of what research has revealed about the phylogenetics and taxonomy of the virus. Terjen (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Phylogenetics and taxonomy are the study of the origins of species in biology. That is exactly what people are coming here for. -Darouet (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really, it's already covered on the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 page. Terjen (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Not really? What are phylogenetics and taxonomy if not origin? -Darouet (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I strongly oppose reducing transcluded materials. Before those sections were transcluded, this article was just a place to host conspiracies about biological warfare. By adding those sections, people who come here wanting to learn about the origins of SARS-Cov-2 (I think it’s safe to say that’s most readers here) learn what scientific investigations into the virus origins have revealed so far. That’s the greatest service this article can provide.

There are further reasons to keep the transclusions in full. Those transcluded sections are carefully written by many editors and are effectively the strongest and best supported text and material in this article.

Furthermore, this one particular Wikipedia page, more than any other, comes the closest to giving credence to conspiracy theories about the virus’ origins. This article has been the target of nonstop IP and sock puppet editing. By removing transcluded text we’re just sliding this article further away from scientific knowledge of the origins of this virus.

We need to keep these transcluded sections. -Darouet (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with colleagues Bakkster Man and Darouet. WP:AINTBROKE. Ain92 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ain92: please can you explain your reasoning based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines? CutePeach (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Eh, I believe there's no evidence of transcluding relevant content from another article being a problem, what is not clear to you? Ain92 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support keeping these sections per Darouet, Bakkster Man, and Ain92. They provide valuable context to this article and are duly weighted and positioned. I explicitly oppose putting any such section at the top of the article, where it would have undue weight per WP:RSUW and its parent PAG, WP:NPOV.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent news (06/06/2021) worth considering?

FWIW - seems recent news (06/06/2021) may be worth considering - and may help improve the article by better supporting (or otherwise) some of the current content in the main article - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please explain the improvement you think this opinion piece would make (especially since it's behind a paywall), and then provide a reliable source we could actually cite. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: (and others) - Thank you for your comment - and suggestion - seems the article supports text in the main article concerning gain of function studies (ie, "intentionally supercharging viruses to increase lethality", in the words of the WSJ article) conducted by virologists at the Wuhan Virology Laboratories - apparently - a consequence of this genetic manipulation is a unique genetic sequence (ie, a "rare double CGG" segment that is not known to occur naturally) - according to the WSJ article, this genetic sequence appears in the February 2020 research papers published by virologists from the Wuhan Laboratory, detailing the genome of the coronavirus, but not clearly noted - afterwards - this genetic sequence was discovered in the published research of the Wuhan virologists by other virologists who have published their observations - seems this news information supports the "lab-leak" notion - whether this information can be used in the main article may be another matter - after all - the WSJ is behind a paywall, and is not WP:MEDRS - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Why we would want to source this red-flag claim to the WSJ when we have far better scientific sources which say time and time again how there is no evidence of laboratory manipulation is beyond me. The scientific sources take precedence per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and/or MEDRS. Ex. of a relatively recent one which specifically addresses this claim [13]: "Some linked the presence of the least preferred CGG codons in the SRAS-CoV-2 furin cleavage sites as a “proof” of engineering. A codon being least preferred does not mean it should never exist and this CGG codon present in SARS-CoV-2 is for instance present at a higher rate in MERS-CoV. The lower presence of CpG (intrachain Cytosine-Guanosine dinucleotide linked by a phosphate bond) in human pathogens has been shown to be a selective process. [...]" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you *very much* for all the comments, including the cited reference (new to me, and very interesting of course) - they're *greatly* appreciated - no problem whatsoever - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The linked opinion piece [14] is a litany of conspiracy theories that might be publishable in the opinion section of a newspaper, but never in a scientific journal article. Drbogdan, please only bring higher-quality sources for discussion here. -Darouet (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: - Thank you for your comments - Yes - I fully understand your point - and *entirely* agree with you in this day, time and purpose of course - nonetheless - being open-minded to some extent may be worthy at times - I'm reminded of the classic example that may have turned the notion on its head - some years ago, thousands (maybe millions) wrongly believed the sun revolved around the Earth, based on the official "higher-quality" sources of the day afaik - seems only a very few, in unofficial "lesser quality" sources, correctly thought otherwise - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: Wikipedia is not a [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]. Stop trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Thank you for your comments - Yes - I *entirely* agree with the points you may be suggesting as well - your suggested points, however, were not my original intentions - I agree with you that presenting text in the main article supported by the very best available reliable sources, regardless of any particular WP:POV, may be the better road in this instance of course - iac - Thanks again - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Later discussion

@Bakkster Man: See my edit summary and also the related subsection at Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Nucleotide_skewness_of_SARS-CoV-2. As I've also said, I'm not convinced the "lab leak via GOFR" is included in the "accidental lab leak" (I've added a short description, based on the given source, here, for what appears to be the lab leak scenario that "hasn't been ruled out") - the language in other sources isn't quite precise enough (since it doesn't mention GoFR directly), but they seem to agree that deliberate manipulation has been ruled out, and GOFR appears to me to be clearly "deliberate manipulation". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a topic totally worth hashing out. I'd like to break it down into three parts:

1. Is GoFR a widely accepted contributor in the lab leak hypothesis? First off, I think a big issue is that "gain of function" appears to be a charged term, which the two sides of the discussion phrase differently depending how it suits their point of view. An old news article in Nature describes the current US moratorium on GoFR: The US government surprised many researchers on 17 October when it announced that it will temporarily stop funding new research that makes certain viruses more deadly or transmissible. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is also asking researchers who conduct such ‘gain-of-function’ experiments on influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) to stop their work until a risk assessment is completed — leaving many unsure of how to proceed. But there seems to be a question around whether virus studies incidentally or intentionally result in a gain-of-function: Some researchers are confused by the moratorium’s wording. Viruses are always mutating, and Casadevall says that it is difficult to determine how much mutation deliberately created by scientists might be “reasonably anticipated” to make a virus more dangerous — the point at which the White House states research must stop. The government says that this point will be determined for individual grants in discussions between funding officers and researchers. This makes it harder for us, because it means many sources avoid the term altogether (WHO-China report, most notably), and when they do it's hard to discern which use they meant: research with the intentional result being gain-of-function, or research where an inadvertent gain-of-function may occur. I usually prefer to avoid the term if possible, and might reword the content differently if that's the only remaining concern.
2. What did the WHO say? The WHO statement describing the scenario says: SARS-CoV-2 is introduced through a laboratory incident, reflecting an accidental infection of staff from laboratory activities involving the relevant viruses. We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome. Distinctly lacking much detail ("laboratory activities involving the relevant viruses" can be construed narrowly or broadly very differently), only explicitly ruling out intentional development of a bioweapon. Their Figure 5 on page 119 (Schema for introduction of SARS-CoV-2 through a laboratory incident) and includes the icon for "Evolution" in the laboratory, but not "Adaptation, transmissibility increase". My read is that the WHO didn't explicitly rule out recombination and evolution in the lab, though the diagram makes things a bit more confusing. Did they intend to communicate that they ruled out and/or didn't consider any adaptation in the lab environment as a possibility, or did they leave it out so as not to give an unintended impression that such gains were intended in WIV research? It would be helpful if we had another source confirming the WHO study's intentions, rather than just another researcher's impression. I'm hesitant to jump straight to firm conclusions without that.
3. Is this a minority view that's not mainstream accepted, but notable for inclusion here? This is where WP:PARITY comes in. Given that this is one of the few locations (only one?) on the encyclopedia discussing the minority view, there is room to describe adherents' view per their own sources even if they're weaker than the mainstream sources (as expected), so long as we follow the other guidelines of WP:FRINGE (placed in context with mainstream, etc). WP:PARITY even goes as far as to say articles about fringe topics needn't even be peer-reviewed (though only this peer reviewed source was proposed by me, both because this article is on Investigations broadly rather than the lab leak specifically, and because PARITY suggests not suddenly jumping from peer-reviewed sources to non-reviewed (especially where reviewed sources exist). The Kaina source is clearly weaker than Frutos, but that doesn't necessarily mean excluding Kaina when speaking in sufficient depth on the topic to place its limited acceptance in context relative to mainstream. This is the direction I would prefer we go, rather than outright removal. Place Frutos immediately following Kaina, and possibly following up with the WHO's finding of no serological evidence for infection of researchers.

I'd be interested to get some outside expertise on some of these details, perhaps through WP:VIRUS, if you think they'd be helpful. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested you can leave a message for Shibbolethink. I tried running a search through PubMed specifically for GoFR in the context of COVID ([15]), but once I filter out the unrelated items and/or bollocks sources, I only have this (whatever you want to call it - it's not a review paper) and this editorial (both in journals from the American Society for Microbiology). The first one has this interesting bit:

The second hurdle may be even more daunting. The United States, in particular but not exclusively, is experiencing a resurgence in conspiracy theories and extremist behavior in the context of COVID-19. [...] Some may verge on the unbelievable, such as the conspiracy theory that gain-of-function research conducted on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronaviruses in 2015 is connected to the emergence of COVID-19 that made it to British tabloids (17),

The other has this:

In recent months, the argument was raised that SARS-CoV-2 may have accidentally escaped from a high-containment laboratory in Wuhan, China (10). At this time, the scientific consensus is that the virus emerged as a zoonosis whereby it jumped from an animal host, possibly bats or pangolins, to humans (11), and arguments about a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2 are more akin to a conspiracy theory than to a scientifically credible hypothesis. In the very unlikely event that SARS-Cov-2 had emerged by accidental escape from a lab, however, that would be a great cause for concern because the Wuhan facility was state of the art and presumably operating with a high degree of care.

Not too helpful for gain of function, but it does say what the scientific consensus is, in case any body had doubts about that. Are these citeable in the article? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The only other non-bullshit source I could find through google scholar (same query) was a piece by Rasmussen in Nature Medicine, [16], but that's already cited at COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_theories (where the ideas now seem to be correctly separated). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

My primary hesitance on each of these three sources (at least, as far as using them to support completely excluding the Kaina paper) is their being prior to the WHO report, which I think we agree changed how willing at least some scientists were to talk about even the possibility (however unlikely) of a lab origin. The first one especially was pretty closely in the shadow of the Nature letter that seemed indicative of the apparent trend of not wanting to give it even a bit of air (lest it be seized on by others to drive a narrative), which the WHO report and change in US administration seems to have changed (not the evidence or likelihood, just willingness to discuss). The gold standard would be either the WHO, one of the involved authors, or a systemic review coming through with a definitive "this is ruled out because...", but I'm not expecting that soon.

I will give a ping to @Shibbolethink: to check our work above. I know just enough about the topic to know that I'm beyond my capability to interpret with high certainty, so additional input will be useful. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll add a quick clarification. I think each of the three sources you linked would have uses, particularly for providing context around GoF and the like. Especially the dual-use nature, with past WIV research helping to mitigate the pandemic's effects through increased early understanding. It's only complete exclusion of Kaina (on this page where the lab leak is discussed in enough detail to give that context, unless we add a specific lab leak page...) that I disagree with. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That was also my concern. The few papers we have that expressly address these are mostly from before, with only Frutos et al. being more recent than the WHO report. The lack of more papers on the subject does speak volumes, but there's not much we can do with that... I don't know how we can frame Kaina in respect to Frutos, because I'm afraid simply comparing the positions of the two would be false balance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, my original thought on the four possibility descriptions was to basically give the overview of the rationale behind each. And this one was always the one most likely to have fringe sources to explain the arguments in favor (natch). It does bring up the opposing pulls of false equivalence and fringe notability. I think a big part is just the problem of how we phrase acceptance, assuming GoF is 'notable enough'. And, more importantly, it's affected by whether we have a standalone article on the leak theory, or limit it to this one. I don't think it's NPOV to both oppose the standalone article and oppose the inclusion of notable (and peer-reviewed) claims by adherents in this article as well. I know which of the two sides I'd rather bend regarding a standalone article, too. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi (@Bakkster Man: @RandomCanadian:) yes completely agree GoFR is mutually exclusive with "Accidental lab leak." And more specifically, that gain of function research must be intentional. Could phrase it as "Accidental leak after deliberate manipulation" but all of those theories (as espoused by Yuri Deign and Nicholas Wade et al) involve arguments about making the virus more human-tropic or transmissible. That's why it's become a moving goalposts game full of no-true-scotsman. One conspiracy theorist will say the manipulation was to create a bioweapon, another will say it was just scientists "playing god." But they both mean the same thing: deliberate genetic engineering.

And that, specifically, is what has been so thoroughly debunked by publications by Rasmussen, Andersen, and others as detailed in WP:NOLABLEAK. Suffice it to say, you cannot, as a virologist, "accidentally" cause gain of function in the course of an experiment. You control the variables, so how would that happen? Either you are introducing random mutagenesis (via radiation or chemicals or just passaging) to alter the viral genome, hoping to see a change in function (gain or loss), or you are deliberately mutating it in specific areas to cause same. Either way there is a deliberate act, and specifically a deliberate "selection" of which mutants will be allowed to survive from that mutagenesis. The selection and the mutagenesis both require deliberate intervention that alters the course of nature. If it were happening without any scientific intervention (or intention) whatsoever, then it is more apt to call it a natural mutation that would have occurred without any experimentation involved, and therefore it isn't GoF, because it's a natural change. Does that make sense? This is based on the National Research Council and NIH definition, which is what is important re: scientific funding:

any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.

More specifically, if we are including any deliberate alteration of the virus, then we are absolutely beholden to the consensus among scientists that it is extremely extremely unlikely if not close to impossible. Because of the viral genome, its' synonymous/non-synonymous ratio, molecular clock findings, codon usage, poor quality protease site usage, etc. As detailed in the article above. If we are talking about accidental leak of a wild natural virus, then the argument becomes about probabilities: who is more likely to contract the virus, a group of scientists with PPE who visit a cave once a year, or the guano harvesters, farmers, etc. who interact with the zoonotic reservoir without any protection every day of their lives? And if it is the former, then how is the coverup possible, without any notable leak? And so on with the dual sequencing, etc etc. There are a lot of holes in this theory anyway, but they are all inductive reasoning. Especially given the fact that the virus is just as, if not more, likely to have emerged outside of Wuhan rather than within the city. Those arguments are what are convincing to virologists, but not convincing enough to make an investigation unnecessary. As I said, they are "inductive" rather than "deductive."

And to be clear, the only people who are saying "the virus was engineered" are the fringe sources who, per my reading of MEDRS and UNDUE and FRINGE, should not be included outside of the Misinformation article. Whereas "it is possible (though unlikely) the virus was a natural virus that leaked accidentally" is a more mainstream minority view, in my reading of the situation. I believe that is also what RSes are saying from what you've linked and what our articles currently say. I have yet to find a MEDRS of high quality that has any sort of notable virology consensus or plurality saying the virus was engineered. Just old nobel winners who've always been contrarians, and modern day contrarians who are not virologists.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I appreciate that context, specifically that 'gain-of-function' refers specifically to intent. To make sure I understand, your read on the WHO report would be that their path in the figure did not consider GoF in the lab pathway, with the mutations referring only to very limited mutations unavoidable while grown in culture (presumably independent of all other viruses, no recombination)? And thus, the explanation of the WHO hypothesis should not include the Kaina paper because it would conflate two very different explanations? Bakkster Man (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: ahhhh, so I understand where the confusion is. My reading of that figure on page 119 and the overall report is that they were including any acts of "passaging" or "adaptation" or "facilitated evolution" in their description of the lab theory, but specifically not intentional "genetic engineering."

They do use the red arrow instead of the blue arrow there in that figure, which I think is just meant to denote "facilitated" evolution and adaptation inside cell culture. But their use of "adaptation" vs "evolution" is fraught because, molecularly speaking, those are the same thing. One cannot be differentiated from the other.

I suppose, in summary, I would agree with you that they specifically excluded GoFR from their analysis given its extreme improbability based on the genomic evidence. They are specifically using the GoFR definition of "deliberate engineering" which would exclude the mutations that occur as a part of any cell culture adaptation.

See that's what we call it: "Cell culture adaptation" when we take a wild virus and grow it on cells in a dish in the lab, even though we are doing nothing other than growing it, without any (intentional) selection pressures. That would not be GoFR, since it isn't intentionally altering a genotype or putting the virus inside an animal it doesn't normally infect, it just happens as part of the process of growing the virus in cells it would infect anyway. But it is blurry, because you could theoretically adapt the virus to a cell line in another species which would make it transmit better in that species, and then you are doing GoFR. But that's not what they're talking about here. I would say they excluded GoFR, but included lab leak involving a cell-culture-adapted virus. (And to be clear, this virus has no such adaptations, hence why that is also extremely unlikely as the origin).--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink and Bakkster Man: This in Nature could be used for mentioning some of the theories (depending on how much detail is really needed here) without having to cite a dubious publication. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this article very accurately represents the state of the field, in my humble opinion! As usual, even though Nature News and Science News are not peer-reviewed, they are a better summary of the state of things than typical news sources. I've found their "News Explainer"s to be extremely trustworthy and usually worth the read.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Very good source, nice finding RC. It is so good we can use it in its entirety to write a "Lab leak hypothesis" page based on it. Forich (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

References

There are a confusing variety of uses of " engineered. The original weird right wing theory was that it was deliberately engineered to be used for biological warfare and the release was a deliberate event. The reason I call this weird or fringe is not biological, but political--no nation would deliberately try to harm an enemy by using an uncontrollable agent which the would release first in their own territory with a susceptible unprotected population. I don't think anyone has ever waged warfare in this fashion. It's like spreading smallpox among the natives by releasing a supply of germ-laden blankets in one's own country in the hope that it would spread to the outsiders. The subsequent, still unusual theory is that they had engineered it for germ warfare, and intended to use it or germ warfare, but had by some mishap released it in the wrong country. This is conceivable. That the Chinese government would deliberately decide to engage in germ warfare is within the range of possibilities. That they would have dones o now seems unlikely.-- there's no such emergency. I can imagine them wanting to use it to destroy the Uighurs, but they seem to be doing so without using such untested methods. That the Chinese government would deliberately it to be used for possible biological warfare someday just in case is very possible: I see no reason why they wouldn't be trying to prepare some such agents (tho tI'd think the uncontrollable spread of flu viruses would make them a poor choice when there are so many other possibilities); many other nations, including the major English speaking countries, have prepared such weapons. In that case it could have been a lab leak from a weapons lab.

But the lab leak theory in its usual form is that they were deliberately engaging in gain of function research with flu viruss, and this one escaped control. This is a reckless thing to do, but all countries with the capability have probably done such experiments, and lab accidents do happen.

There's also a variant, in that they had isolated a strain, either a mutant from another lab strain or a strain form the wild, and were maintaining it for routine study or storage, and an accident happened. This is not an inherently reckless thing to do--it's part of their necessary function But it is a known very dangerous thing to do such work, and whatever precautions they were taking might have failed. Their precautions might have been the best possible, or sub-standard. This could have happened anywhere, and in the nature of human error will probably happen again somewhere (even tho this event wlll undoubtedly increase the level of precautionary measures everywhere). DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The WSJ is a reliable source regarding scientific matters only insofar as you can rely on this: if the WSJ holds a position on a scientific question, that position being held by many people is good for the Dow-Jones in the short term. It does not matter to them at all if the position is supported by evidence or accepted by scientists. Climate change is a case in point. The WSJ should never be used as a source for scientific matters. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Fanatically shoving the zoonotic origin as if it is the forgone scientific consensus

Pretty much the above subtitle. This WP article does exactly what WP articles shouldn't do. As it stands, this article deserves an Outdated template until it has been cleaned up. EyeTruth (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You're free to take a look at the talk page archives and see that this has already been discussed a few times. You're also free to take a look at what high-quality sources (also other good sources not included there: [17]; [18]) are saying about this. You're also free to look for such similar sources so that the content can be updated if necessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue whether it was a lab leak or not. WP should reflect the scientific consensus. If institutions are calling for investigations into the lab leak theory, then WP should reflect that ambiguity. The zoonotic origin is currently not a forgone conclusion, even though it's widely accepted as the more likely. There are ongoing investigations. There are enough bread crumbles for the lab leak theory to be a valid line of inquiry, regardless of whatever really happened. The article should reflect that ambiguity in its lede. This recent Nature article sums it up nicely: although the current evidence are iffy, they are enough to motivate serious inquiry. Also, the link you provided is just a whole lot of primary sources (or is that the preferred in this corner of WP?). On a side note, please leave my subtitle be, and I've shortened it. EyeTruth (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The link is a list of secondary, review papers in academic journals. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, [...]". The Nature article I've already linked to (if you didn't notice), and what it does say is "Most scientists say SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin, and was transmitted from an animal to humans." (before going in more detail on this) - sounds like a consensus to me. It then goes on to describe some of the common lab leak arguments and provides balanced scientific thinking on the matter. In short, as the article is saying, the lab leak is "possible but unsubstantiated and unlikely". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't become scientific consensus just by most scientists having an opinion. Scientific consensus is predicated on evidence, which so far is lacking. We should wait for the scientists to declare a consensus, rather than base it on our own analysis. Terjen (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's not duplicate the discussion with the previous thread about consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

No need to go down that path. Just avoid opinionating that "Most scientists say" sounds like a consensus to you. Terjen (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the article is clear from the beginning that zoonotic origin is not a foregone conclusion. Are there parts of the article I missed that state it as inescapable fact? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Brilliantly said. There are now so many scientists - Fauci, Rees, Redfield and many others - who agree on the possibility of a lab leak. On the other hand this wiki seems to be still stuck in 2020, because a handful of holdout editors still keep the lab leak scenario portrayed as unlikely. 183.83.147.38 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Where does Fauci say the lab leak theory is anything but "possible, but unlikely" ? I have seen no such statement. And that is the stance we portray in this article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Guys don't bother fighting wikiactivists here. Giving them primary scientific sources are not enough for them to bother updating this article from the conflict-of-interest driven narrative. You aren't going to change anybody's of these activists opinions if they can't even be bothered to read Nature articles directly on this subject. 2601:602:9200:1310:60E1:7F9E:14BC:FB2B (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk page warning issued to 2601:602:9200:1310:60E1:7F9E:14BC:FB2B for the above comment. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That the scientific community does not have a consensus is evident by the explicit statements of the leading scientists in their Nature letter. There is a confusion that is used by promoters of the zoonotic origin, in using secondary sources that state a scientific consensus. The problem there is identifying "a consensus". Is the consensus a matter of self-declaration (i.e. the Nature letter), or is the consensus a majority vote on publications. For the latter, an apple to apple comparison is not possible, because it is hard to believe within limits of human intelligence that scientists could write articles proving a lab leak without an investigation on site. All the mess is caused from the now-debunked original paper by Andersen et al. which prematurely supported a zoonotic origin with rather "childish" assumptions of the type "if the virus would have engineered than it MUST have been engineered this way". The others reasonable scientists who apparently had questions were marginalized in expressing their feelings under the fear of being framed as racists. As a result, we see a pattern, on one hand the zoonotic promoters publishing and creating a premature hypothesis which has serious gaps, while the other majority of serious scientists raising questions, yet not publishing papers supporting a leak given no investigation and data. In my assessment, the second is the right scientific stance: you do not publish conclusions without data based on vague assumptions as Andersen et al., or the WHO report with a COI authorship. WP is stuck in between, supporting the premature zoonotic conclusion, and blindly rejecting any reasonable voices that claim the leak to be a viable hypothesis. It might end up being incorrect, but at the moment is a viable hypothesis. It is not a discredited fringe theory by no standard and very serious people (top scientists at the Nature letter) are calling it a hypothesis. Few WP editors can continue to push for the article to be in the current state of misery with regards to the equal treatment of the matter, but I think that is changing. (Redacted) Intelligible.Machine (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

"Viable" or "possible" does not mean "likely". Your characterisations are obviously and quite clearly deliberately economical with the truth, and you obviously haven't read the article, since nowhere does it say the lab leak is impossible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Viable means likely by all definitions. Notice the term likely is not a synonym for a probability higher than 0.5. The current article does not treat the lab leak as a viable/likely hypothesis, instead clearly implies that hypotheses outside the zoonotic one are fringe conspiracies, see first paragraph. The truth is that although a large number of scientists "firmly assume" a zoonotic origin to be likely, there are yet no scientific evidences clearly proving it. That is echoed by the Science magazine letter (cited above) by the leading coronavirus scientists that supports a lab leak as a viable hypothesis in a direct and unambigous manner. Why would the best scientists support the likelihood of a lab leak hypothesis if a scientific consensus (or evidences) was as clear as the WP article implies? Another issue arises when WP editors, who in 2020 expressed opinions in calling a lab leak a fringe and discredited theory with conspiracy links, resist in 2021 to accept the leak as viable. I believe the dilemma is: scientific consensus vs. editor consensus for interpreting a dynamically-paced stream of reliable sources which are quickly diverting from the original "firm assumptions" on a zoonotic origin. Unless editors unite in rejecting a characterization of the lab leak as a conspiracy, and alter the article accordingly, I suspect the objections at the talk page will steadily increase. Intelligible.Machine (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Whatever "viable" means, there are plenty of (secondary, peer-reviewed) sources (as opposed to primary opinion letters) which attest to scientists (even Fauci et al., despite cherrypicking to the contrary) saying it's unlikely, so we have no reason to start looking for dictionary definitions. Again, where in the article does it say that a lab leak is a conspiracy theory? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We should stop treating the lab leak as a conspiracy theory. It has been called a viable hypothesis by many prominent scientists (Science letter and Anthony Fauci the most notable) and is being taken seriously by many government agencies and the WHO. At this point, those that keep trying to call is a conspiracy theory blatantly have an agenda. You, RandomCanadian, have kept calling it a conspiracy theory many times.Eccekevin (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Where did I call the particular "accidental lab leak of a natural virus" a conspiracy theory? Where in the article is it being described as such? We should treat it as a "plausible but currently unaccepted theory". If you keep insisting that the article says its a conspiracy theory, without being able to substantiate this, I'll have a hard time believing that there's an actual problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

My recent change from "consensus among virologists" echoes the Nature article quite nicely. "Most scientists say SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin" is what Nature said. My recent change used the phrase "most virologists". Nature used the word "most", not "consensus". We shouldn't exaggerate what they said. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I truly do think that is a fine change, that's why I reinstated it. To me, the difference between these two versions of that clause is so narrow that it is meaningless, but I understand that it means something to you, and that's why I restored. Wiki consensus is about compromise, and especially where one side thinks it doesn't really matter, and the other side thinks it matters a lot, I think compromise makes sense. Of course we can only get to a consensus/compromise if everybody's willing to discuss!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Rename into "Investigations into the origin of SARS-CoV-2"

The current label is not correct, because the article is not about the origin of the disease (COVID-19), but about the origin of the virus SAR-CoV-2. It is also not about the etiology of COVID-19, but about the genesis of SARS-CoV-2. The article should sail under the correct flag. What are the opinions here ?--Empiricus (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this fully, thanks Empiricus. -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I propose "Investigations into the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19" to include the fact that the origin of the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan is also a significant component of what a reader associates with the origin. Forich (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any change is necessary, both for consistency with the main article (COVID-19 pandemic) and for the fact that this isn't really a necessary improvement (the current title is both unambiguous, naturally flowing English, precise, and concise. See WP:CRITERIA and also bear in mind the well known "if it ain't broken don't fix it". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi RandomCanadian - unless the scope of this article changes, I think we’re going to have to change the title, either now, or eventually. The reason is that, simply put, this article is about the origin of the virus, not the disease. Of course those two things are closely linked, but they’re also very different. The origin of the disease, specifically, would be a discussion of pathophysiology and epidemiology. -Darouet (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"into the origins of the' COVID-19 pandemic" is all the change that's truly constructive if you really insist, although it's not actually necessary because the title as is is clear enough, and long enough too. The suggested solution is one to a non-existent problem. I don't think any reader would be surprised to find the information about this under the current title. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the current title. SARS-CoV-2 is not as succinct as COVID-19. A reader looking for this article is unlikely to type that and is not as likely to know what that is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose name change, I think the current title is applicable since it's the most encyclopedic summary of the contents of the article. Would it be one iota more accurate scientifically if we used the proposed wording? Yes, but at the loss of many many readers. To me, keeping the current title is pragmatism. And my experience of science and naming conventions in the viral taxonomy usually involves a lot of pragmatism. Let's keep that tradition alive!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Background reading regarding potential zoonotic spillover

A few papers I've come across. I want to help improve the article. Let me know if the below is usable. I'll post some notes.

Here's what I found:

2019 (notably, before first COVID-19 cases were reported): "Human-animal interactions and bat coronavirus spillover potential among rural residents in Southern China"

They surveyed many residents in rural China, and found that nine (0.6%) of them tested positive for bat coronaviruses (among other signs of apparent spillover such as SARS-like symptoms). They also examined how frequently residents were coming into contact with various animals, including bats. 8 out of 9 of those who tested positive for such viruses were working in crop production, i.e. farming. This background information may be helpful to understand what sort of environment that SARS-CoV-2 probably crossed over from, or at least other novel viruses related to it.

A 2020 paper cited the above. It included two of the same researchers.

2020: "A strategy to prevent future epidemics similar to the 2019-nCoV outbreak"

2021: Timing the SARS-CoV-2 index case in Hubei province

For that I'll just leave a choice quote:

Our results highlight the unpredictable dynamics that characterized the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic. The successful establishment of SARS-CoV-2 postzoonosis was far from certain, as more than two-thirds of simulated epidemics quickly went extinct. It is highly probable that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in Hubei province at low levels in November 2019 and possibly as early as October 2019, but not earlier. Nonetheless, the inferred prevalence of this virus was too low to permit its discovery and characterization for weeks or months. By the time that COVID-19 was first identified, the virus had firmly established itself in Wuhan. This delay highlights the difficulty in surveillance for novel zoonotic pathogens with high transmissibility and moderate mortality rates.

The high extinction rates we inferred suggest that spillover of SARS-CoV-2like viruses may be frequent, even if pandemics are rare. Furthermore, the same dynamics that characterized the establishment of SARS-CoV-2 in Hubei province may have played out all over the world, as the virus was repeatedly introduced but only occasionally took hold. The reports of cases in December 2019 and January 2020 in France and California that did not establish sustained transmission fit this pattern.

If none of the above is suitable to improve the page, I hope I've at least introduced editors to some interesting information concerning the origins, or maybe invited somebody to point me somewhere better for it... good day. --Chillabit (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Please propose a specific phrase to be added, the quote you provide is too long. It could also pose a problem since it seems to be primary source instead of a review. Forich (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Biden remarks at G7

As covered by NBC news, Biden said that we haven't had access to the Wuhan lab to conduct an investigation and we still don't know if COVID is a natural development or a lab leak. Shouldn't this be included in the article?[19] 73.120.83.182 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

We already have Biden's opinion on this, from when he called for a new investigation. Should would we include every subsequent thing he's said about it? No, that would go against WP:WEIGHT. Our job is to include his opinion as much as it is relevant to the topic, as shown to us by the most reliable encyclopedic unbiased sources on the topic. And his opinion doesn't hold much weight in those, because it isn't a scientific statement or policy judgment. It represents no new fact-based information or evidence. It is simply a politician saying more of what he has said before. So we only include his position a little bit, when it is extremely news-worthy. We include only the most pertinent times he's said something about it, to represent all the things he's said about it. That's what an encyclopedia is: a summary. Not a warehouse.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"We already have Biden's opinion on this, from when he called for a new investigation" it´s a new statement of the G7 - this is a little difference. --Empiricus (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

That's also not what the IP was proposing. This is more justifiable for inclusion imo. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by the G7, or by Biden while attending the G7? Reads like the latter. I think the bigger question is whether this should replace the previous Biden statement, whether it's actually substantively different from before (arguably, it's not much different than the WHO DG statement months ago: need direct access to know for sure), and how notable tracking every single statement on the topic is. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

No I think ES is right, this was a joint statement of the G7. This is distinct from what the IP was saying. I added a line in the International politicians' calls for investigations section to reflect. I would argue the G7 is significant enough to put here, although we may want to consider condensing this with the other calls for investigation in that section. i.e. maybe we should put which countries are in the G7, and then remove the individual statements from those countries (Canada, Germany, UK).--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Revert on added WSJ article to lab leak section

@Shibbolethink just because it is mentioned earlier do you think it does not belong in the section about the lab leak theory? The "why?" section of your profile shows you hold strong personal beliefs against this theory. Can we trust you to be WP:NPOV in your editing? As a virologist defending other virologists of wrong-doing, you have a possible WP:COI. Wqwt (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As to this ad hominem attack, my "POV" is that we should trust the scientific consensus. Which, in this case, is that the lab leak theory is unlikely. If that consensus changes, my "POV" very likely will as well, because such a change will likely only occur in the face of very convincing new evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ask basically any academically-trained virologist, and they will say something similar. Does that mean we don't want people who know things about viruses to edit on Wikipedia? Wikipedia has a bias for science-based facts. I would urge you, in the future, to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks like this.

It is not just that it is mentioned elsewhere, it is mostly an issue of WP:WEIGHT. We must give due weight (not equal weight) to these theories based upon the amount of coverage in secondary peer-reviewed sources in the scientific literature. In this case, the Wall Street Journal does not have expertise in science and they are not experts on this topic. The relevant experts almost unanimously agree that the lab leak is possible, but extremely unlikely. So we give one mention of the WSJ evidence in this article, but give more coverage to content from peer-reviewed sources. This is as it should be, given WP:WEIGHT.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I removed this on the other article, so let's chime in here to avoid duplicate discussions. The claim that scientists have a COI is blatantly WP:FLAT and needs no further entertainment (see here). And, yes, we are biased towards science. See WP:Academic bias and then look up WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP for why the WaPo and the WSJ are not suitable sources for scientific topics. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not my argument. See my reply to Novem Linguae below. Wqwt (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

So do you discount the WSJ article on a US intelligence investigation because it is not a scientific outlet? It does not make sense to expect a scientific outlet to break the news on a US intelligence investigation. Wqwt (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wqwt. This argument seems weak when expanded to its natural conclusion. Should virologists stop editing articles on viruses? Should historians stop editing articles on history? Arguing that a person's profession gives them COI for the entire topic is too strict an interpretation of COI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not say virologists have COI on editing about viruses, I said they may have COI when editing articles concerning investigations into fellow virologists, the kind that would be damaging to their whole profession (which is not that populous to begin with). This is not specific to the profession: I would be similarly mindful of COI of lawyers editing investigations into fellow lawyers, or historians editing investigations into fellow historians. Wqwt (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my editing in this or other related articles, why don't you bring it up to the appropriate noticeboard? I have nothing to hide. But let me tell you the thing that has always been said to me any time I thought about escalating my policy disputes... Be careful it does not WP:BACKFIRE.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I see the "threatening Wikipedia:BOOMERANG" "advice" is still well and alive. Wqwt (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wqwt, I am another editor that thinks this COI argument is nonsense, and that if it weren't, this isn't the appropriate venue to discuss it. If you feel you have points about the WSJ content discussion that haven't been addressed, you may want to start again below with less conduct dispute mixed in. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wqwt, what I would like to communicate to you, in the most civil possible terms, is that I appreciate your passion to change this article to what you believe to be a NPOV.

However, I also want to be clear that a pattern of casting WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence, or the more particular case of any user who displays a pattern of casting WP:ASPERSIONS without intending to follow through on any actual substantive evidence-based process, is on the wrong side of wiki policy. The most relevant policy I would cite to you is this: (1) COI accusations are not a trump card that can be used to WP:WIN arguments, and (2) Wiki has clear and rational guidelines on how to cite yourself if you're an expert on a topic. Why would that exist if it were an obvious COI to be an expert editing articles about topics in your area of expertise?

I'm an expert on high-level biosafety work conducted on highly pathogenic viruses, editing articles about the same. Also relevant to say that while my PhD was earned studying high-level biocontainment virology, my current area of research is brain tumors, and how we can use low-level biocontainment viruses to treat/cure them. So very unclear to me how editing these articles in the way I have been could provide me any financial or professional gain, except in an extremely roundabout and indirect way that would be far too broad to be fair. I have cited a paper I authored once in the section on ADE in COVID-19 misinformation, that's the only instance in recent memory I've been able to do that. But my PhD was 1/3 about ADE, and the paper is extremely relevant to its cited sentence, so I don't believe that was inappropriate in any way. As always, I am welcome to evidence-based and policy-relevant criticism.

Now, do I have any reason to believe that you, in particular, have a pattern of the aforementioned WP:ASPERSIONS behavior? No. Only this one instance, and you very well could go through the ropes and stake a claim at COIN. Frankly, I hope you do, because I personally believe it would clear me of any wrongdoing and I'd be able to cite that COIN entry in any future instances.

However, all in all, my friendly suggestion to you is to avoid the trouble, take this as a lesson in civility, and start over on the clean slate we're offering. You are very much welcome to make a policy-based, content-relevant argument, and I promise you I will examine it on its merits.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Fine. I will take your word for WP:WEIGHT and not having COI. Let's leave it at that. Wqwt (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wqwt I too was concerned about Shibbolethink flashing his PHD around when he first joined this discussion, but I’ve come to realise he’s a good editor and we can work together. The WSJ article may be considered WP:UNDUE fo the section you put it in, but it can go in a new Media Coverage section under development in Bakkster Man’s sandbox [20], or it can go into Dream_Focus draft on a COVID-19 lab origins hypothesis [21], which I would suggest should be renamed to COVID-19 lab origins controversy, similar to other medical/political scandals like Dengvaxia controversy and Ringworm affair. CutePeach (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  "Controversy" is usually a shit title for almost everything, and would also unhelpfully limit the scope (there is far more than just "controversy"), and I don't see why you would want to make it specifically about the political-but-non-scientific mainstream theory (it is hard to justify making such an article unless it is specifically to put a non-mainstream view into context because it could not be covered in enough details at the parent article - compare with Moon landing and Moon landing conspiracy theories) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since it was mentioned, the link to my draft is User:Dream Focus/Draft:Covid-19 lab leak theory. I didn't think there was enough valid information yet to make an article for it. Listing every thing mentioned in multiple reliable sources, and the reasons why some believe it, and a counter argument, I think could make a good article. Dream Focus 15:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: I saw comments from editors Goszei and 力 in support of a page, but I think it should be a collaborative effort. I saw some mistakes in your draft which would become the focus of a deletion discussion instead of the main subject. Is it okay for others to edit your draft? CutePeach (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course. We should all work together to get the article ready for main space. Dream Focus 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"deliberate bioengineering of the virus has been ruled out"

@RandomCanadian: What sources support the claim that "deliberate bioengineering of the virus has been ruled out" for both the bio-weapon conspiracy theory and accidental release from gain-of-function research? Numerous reliable sources contradict this, stating that the accidental release of a virus engineered via gain-of-function research is still a viable hypothesis.[22][23][24][25] Stonkaments (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Science source does not say that. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The citation provided (Andersen et al 2020)[26] says: "It is improbable [emphasis added] that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation..." That is very different from ruling out bioengineering definitively, and it should not be attributed broadly to "experts", as it comes solely from the conclusion of one primary source. I believe we should update the article to more accurately represent and attribute these claims. Stonkaments (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed source does not say that. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not eager to dig through your third and fourth sources, knowing the first two didn't check out. If you continue to contend that the sources state "that the accidental release of a virus engineered via gain-of-function research is still a viable hypothesis" by experts, could you please provide quotes? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Buzzfeed clearly discusses the gain-of-function hypothesis as viable, in comparison with the bioweapon theory which they note most experts dismiss as a conspiracy theory. They write: "More elaborate versions of the theory suppose that scientists at the WIV or another lab in the city were engaged in well-intentioned but risky 'gain of function' experiments, genetically modifying a bat coronavirus to study the changes that would make it more likely to infect people. Suspicion has fallen on Shi because she had earlier collaborated on related experiments run by Ralph Baric, a virologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Baric’s team spliced the spike protein from one of Shi’s bat coronaviruses, which it uses to latch on to the cells it infects, into another coronavirus that had been adapted to infect mice. Shi has denied running any similar gain-of-function experiments since that research was published in 2015. But secrecy surrounding research at the WIV and other labs means that speculation about this possibility continues." Stonkaments (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning the theory and stating that speculation continues does not equate to a statement that contradicts that the theory "has been ruled out by experts". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It's implied, no? When they discuss the bioweapon theory, they clearly say it is regarded as a conspiracy theory by most experts. The fact that they don't make the same statement about the gain-of-function leak theory implies that it does not have the same level of opposition from experts. Regardless, it appears that editors won't put much weight on any sources that aren't published scientific journals, so it's a moot point. Stonkaments (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Buzzfeed and Vox are not WP:RSes for matters of science, they are trumped by a consensus of literature sources. That Science letter-to-the-editor does not mention "gain-of-function," "engineering" or "deliberate" in any way. It does not support your claims here. The MedPageToday link is an opinion piece written by an Anesthesiologist, so not in any way a relevant expert. The burden is on you, Stonkaments, to provide evidence and gain consensus on the deletion of content you're putting forward, given that we have a small consensus from various editors contributing to that section. And the bar of this is high, given the many MEDRSes we have cited here to support the statement in question. So far, I don't think you've met that bar.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, here's another source published in a scientific journal[27], which says: "The leak scenario involves researchers tinkering around with a virus, perhaps in gain of function experiments..." This clearly shows that accidental escape from gain-of-function research has not been ruled out. Stonkaments (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That is one version of the lab leak theory. There are other versions. The fact that many versions co-exist does not mean that they have equal probability. Experts have largely ruled out that version, as shown by the sources we have in that section, and most of all, based on the many sources over at WP:NOLABLEAK. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

New Scientist also is not a very reputable journal, given its very poor stats on SciMago, so it would be WP:UNDUE for us to give it much credence, as per WP:RSUW. It's very very far from a MEDRS or high-quality RS. That article is basically an opinion piece. Honestly might as well be published in Medical Hypotheses. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/AC: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." Are there any sources that directly say that most experts have ruled out a virus engineered via gain-of-function research? Otherwise any such claim would be WP:SYNTH, and we need to attribute it narrowly to the individual sources making the claim. Stonkaments (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

From the WHO report: We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome. citing [28]. We've had this discussion before, several times. Worth noting two things: the text specifically says that it's deliberate bioengineering for release that was ruled out. Later discussion concluded that the diagram they presented for the scenario included only general viral mutations unavoidable with replication, not "Adaptation, transmissibility increase". I think there's room for us to either reword this to be more clear, or make a note or comment in the article or its code describing this so we can avoid repeating the discussion (at least, due to that lack of context in the article, someday we'll have actual new info to replace it). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

And this is exactly the "scientific consensus statement in RS" we need. The WHO, upon examining all of the evidence available to the, "did not consider" the hypothesis because it "has been ruled out by other scientists". Sure, people may disagree with that - and that's their right. But when the WHO (a RS) states in no uncertain terms that they believe the issue has a consensus among scientists such that they don't even need to go over it, then that's about the strongest source for a "scientific consensus" statement in WP voice you can get. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's significant that they only say that deliberate bioengineering for release was ruled out. The article previously included the wording "for release", but it has been lost in recent edits, so at the very least that should be restored (and probably clarified/reworded−I initially found the meaning of the phrase "for release" unclear without the additional context). Also, the latter half of the sentence ("with remaining investigations considering the possibility of a collected natural virus inadvertently infecting laboratory staff during the course of study") implies that only a natural virus lab escape scenario is being investigated, but that is contradicted by one of its cited sources (the New Scientist article), which discusses the gain-of-function lab leak possibility. Stonkaments (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

New Scientist isn’t really an academic science journal. As to whether any science articles have ruled out engineering - yes, this is the conclusion of the first major work on this topic, Andersen et al [29], which remains the authoritative work on the issue, cited approvingly and over 1,500 times. Surely if you’re arguing on this page about this topic you’re at least aware it exists. -Darouet (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned Andersen et al above. They did not in fact rule out bioengineering; they say: "It is improbable [emphasis added] that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation..." Stonkaments (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: see again Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Later discussion for discussion on the somewhat fuzzy middle ground of GoFR relating to the WHO report. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I should have read the sources I cited more thoroughly. Frutos et al. (recent review paper, after the WHO report) says the following three things, very clearly:

The only remaining rational option for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, is that of a naturally occurring virus circulating in the wild which came into contact with humans.

There is consensus within the scientific community to consider that SARS-CoV-2 has not been engineered and is a naturally occurring virus.

And

Considering that SARS-CoV-2 is a naturally occurring virus, the main question is then to understand how such a virus can come into contact with humans and cause a major pandemic.

I think that seals the deal as far as "deliberate engineering" is concerned. Frutos is quite clear that the scenario found unlikely [but not ruled out] is the "accidental infection of laboratory staff working on naturally occurring Sarbecoviruses". He also spends quite a lot of time refuting many of the claims about deliberate engineering, under section 1.1. Unless you can find an equally good source (review paper focused on the origin of the virus in a reputable journal) which says otherwise, but given that my attempts so far (not much progress because it's a waste of time when we keep getting bombarded with Buzzfeed, WSJ and the like) haven't come up with anything promising, with most scientific papers giving short shrift or entirely ignoring any controversy about the topic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the Frutos source is just prior to the publication of the WHO report, and I didn't see a direct reference to it on a quick search. Doesn't mean it's not a solid source that can improve a lot of our citations, though. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: For your convenience, here is a direct mention: (section 1.5) "This hypothesis has been considered as “extremely unlikely” by the official WHO investigation team" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that was between preliminary findings and full report, hence the lack of a citation at the bottom. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the link; it's hard to keep up on all the separate threads of this discussion! This Nature article[30] was cited as a good, reliable summary of the current state of understanding, and they provide yet another example showing that the possibility of an engineered virus lab leak hasn't been ruled out. They say: "In theory, COVID-19 could have come from a lab in a few ways. Researchers might have collected SARS-CoV-2 from an animal and maintained it in their lab to study, or they might have created it by engineering coronavirus genomes....There is currently no clear evidence to back these scenarios, but they aren’t impossible." Stonkaments (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the Nature article is referring to claims made by others, not necessarily the WHO's evaluation. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that's right, but of course we mustn't rely solely on the WHO. If other scientists still consider the engineered virus lab leak hypothesis viable, and the WHO itself only ruled out deliberate engineering for release, that should inform how we present the information. Stonkaments (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We should present the information in proportion to its presentation in scientific peer-reviewed literature. Over at WP:NOLABLEAK, you'll see that most scientific studies in reliable peer-reviewed well-regarded journals portray the GoFR theory as not worth considering. It doesn't matter what a small minority of non-virologist scientists think. This is analogous to climate change, where some non-climate-trained scientists have fringe theories, that we don't really cover in any considerable depth. that's what WP:RSUW tells us to do.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: I broadly agree. While the WHO is one of our most authoritative sources and the best starting place (IMO), if we have other strong (but contradictory) WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources then we shouldn't wikivoice this and instead move it to the WHO section. Maybe I've missed it in all the chaos around the topic, but I believe we've only got some non-virological journal articles (in vivo being the strongest IIRC) proposing this alternative. I'm somewhat hesitant to support adding a section on the idea if that's the best source we have and we'd have to make very clear that it's a WP:FRINGE view, but I'm not necessarily 100% opposed to it. If you think it could be well sourced, NPOV, and recognize FRINGE; I welcome you to start sandboxing it in a new section of User:Bakkster_Man/Origin Sandbox and I'll lend a hand to see if we can get it to a reasonable state for an RfC-type discussion. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Stonkaments, I think where we're getting confused here is the conflation of "ruled out" with "impossible." That's not really how scientific theories work. A theory can be, for all intents and purposes, be "ruled out" but still technically "possible." Basically nothing, no conspiracy, no absurd theory in science is "impossible." It's "possible" that aliens will land tomorrow and declare the entire human race to be an experiment into the efficacy of balogna in preventing Alzheimer's, but it isn't very probable. Likewise, the genetic engineering GoFR theory cannot be described accurately as "impossible," but our sources indicate it is so improbable, so extremely unlikely, that most relevant experts have ruled it out as not worth considering. That's why the article is written the way it is.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, and I agree with the distinction. But which sources are you referring to, that so strongly dismiss the GoFR theory? Because the only two sources cited in the article for the claim about bio-engineering being ruled out are: 1) The WHO report, which only rules out bioengineering for deliberate release; and 2) Andersen et al, which is quite dated at this point and merely calls the lab manipulation theory "improbable". Stonkaments (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

What about purple cows in Arkansas Frutos et al. (cited and quoted above)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

They found no evidence for the GoFR theory. That is not enough to support the broad claim that experts have ruled it out, especially when other sources show that others have not ruled it out. Stonkaments (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for necroposting, but is the calculation that it would have taken >15 years for RaTG13 to mutate into something like SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture useful for inclusion into this or any other article? Ain92 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Serial passage and the phrase "deliberate engineering of the virus has been ruled out by experts"

Does no one editing this article have even a cursory understanding of current genetic engineering techniques?

Segreto, R., Deigin, Y., McCairn, K. et al. Should we discount the laboratory origin of COVID-19?. Environ Chem Lett (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01211-0

Sirotkin K, Sirotkin D. Might SARS-CoV-2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?: A potential explanation for much of the novel coronavirus' distinctive genome. Bioessays. 2020;42(10):e2000091. doi:10.1002/bies.202000091

Just because a secondary source claims that something has been ruled out does no make it so. One needs to read other secondary sources before making such a strong claim. If those other sources are ignored, there is a problem.KristinaLu (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Even the first source you cite accepts that zoonotic transmission is the consensus: The near-consensus view of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a natural zoonosis (Zhu et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2020b; Zhou et al. 2020b). Bats are thought to be the natural reservoir for SARS-related coronaviruses (SARS-r CoVs) (Li et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2006) and have been identified as the ancestral source from which severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) evolved (Janies et al. 2008; Sheahan et al. 2008). And their conclusion was the amount of peculiar genetic features identified in SARS-CoV-2′s genome does not rule out a possible gain-of-function origin, which should be therefore discussed in an open scientific debate. While I am not a virologist, much of the paper appears to be discussing theoretical possibilities rather than actually showing that there is any real chance that what they are suggesting actually happened. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Claiming near-consensus means there is a consensus is like saying somebody's near-win of an election means they won. Terjen (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It was the manuscript's wording not Hyperion's! I agree, it's like saying "near-homologous." You either are or you aren't, there is no "near." But overall this manuscript is not useful for our purposes, given that not a single working virologist was involved in its authorship, it is entirely an opinion piece, and it was published in a journal that is not reliable for extremely controversial virology claims.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35:Thanks for the quote, you made my point for me. Genomic evidence does not rule out the possibility that the virus was engineered.KristinaLu (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I also cannot rule out the possibility that Christina Hendricks will come knocking on my door to declare her everlasting love for me. However, this possibility, while not technically impossible, can probably be safely declared to be highly unlikely. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@KristinaLu: See WP:NOLABLEAK section: Against bio-engineering or gain of function particularly "Passaging in animals" and "Passaging in a petri dish".

There are fundamental problems vis a vis the Synonymous/Non-synonymous ratio [31] and the presence/location of O-linked glycans on the spike protein. These are a few of the pieces of evidence among many that make virologists like myself conclude (with a fair amount of certainty, but not 100%) that neither engineering nor large-scale lab passaging of the virus likely occurred prior to the outbreak. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: The section cites a self-published source. The article sourced is apparently not even on a preprint server. Are you the author of this? If so, please stop trying to insert your unpublished material into Wikipedia.KristinaLu (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu I linked you to a user space essay. Reliable source requirements do not apply to user space in the way that they apply to article space. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. But right now we are on the talk page of an actual article. In other words, your self-authored POV that isn't even up on biorxiv can't be considered when deciding on whether the sentence in question stays in this article. Again, this article needs to remain neutral. You yourself agree that the question at hand isn't entirely falsifiable based on current evidence. Therefore, just by an epistemological argument alone the sentence needs to be cut.KristinaLu (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

my Reddit post is A) not the basis for that claim and B) based on inline cited secondary sources which are themselves part of the basis for this sentence. The sentence in this article is based on cited WP:RS sources. which of those sources do you have a problem with? Or are you saying your original research is the reason for why it should be cut?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't need to have a problem with any of the sources in order for the sentence to be removed.. The issues is that you know that other published, peer-reviewed sources exist, and you are choosing to ignore them.KristinaLu (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Which source am I ignoring? The Segreto et al piece in Env Chem Letters? That article is not a RS for this question. A) none of its authors have any training in virology. B) that journal is not very reliable for peer-reviewing any publication about virology, given that the words "virus" and "virology" do not appear in its descriptions or any Web of Science index search terms. See also evaluations of the journal's content areas of expertise and impact [32] [33] [34]. Its editors are not experts in this field, so they are not as able to determine what is and is not good scientific reasoning in the field of virology as subject-area journals (Journal of Virology, Medical Reviews of Virology, or Current Opinion in Virology) or broad-topic journals (e.g. Nature, Science). The editors of Env Chem Lett also are likely not as good at picking high-quality peer reviewers for the same reason. Overall, these are the reasons why that piece is not a RS for these extremely controversial claims.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@KristinaLu: could you please take this argument to the other section of this page about this exact thing. And examine the arguments made there and respond to them. Because repeatedly addressing this claim is a huge drain on wiki resources.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:I created this talk section. It is based on the lab technique know as serial passage. It is original in its content. Please do not change the title of this section again. The other arguments are irrelevant to this one. Thank you.KristinaLu (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You do not own this section. Anyone can change the talk heading, because we all own this talk section, together. An informative and useful neutral heading is required. See WP:TALKHEADING.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:As soon as you admitted yourself that laboratory manipulation of the virus is not 100% ruled out, you have roundly lost this argument. The sources do not agree.KristinaLu (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't treat this as a debate to WP:WIN. It's not AGF and runs afoul of wiki policy. This is a discussion. See my comments above in the other section re: "ruled out" vs "100% impossible." Something can be ruled out by scientists without being 100% impossible. It happens all the time.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:This is simple. Do you, or don't you agree that the peer-reviewed academic sources I have provided directly conflict with the sentence in question?KristinaLu (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

As I explained above, the Segreto et al source is not reliable for evaluating the veracity of the sentence in question.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

To address the Bioessays publication, many of the same criticisms apply as the Env Chem Letters paper. But it is even worse given that it is not an actual research journal. It is a hypotheses journal. [35] AKA papers published there do not actually have to be backed up by direct evidence. You can just publish commentary or essays without in-line citations and without anyone evaluating the actual verifiability of your claims. The source in question is not a review. It isn't a research article. It's a commentary and proposed hypothesis. For these reasons (and the reasons for the Env Chem Letters paper as described above), that Bioessays paper is not a reliable source to evaluate the veracity of the sentence in question.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess we can take your silence to mean that you agree. It seems like we are all in agreement that there are peer-reviewed academic sources that directly conflict with the sentence in question.KristinaLu (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Putting words in another editor's mouth is incredibly bad form. Just FYI, that sort of behavior comes across as a failure to AGF and it makes people question whether there is any point, or really any reasonable possibility, of having a productive conversation with you. There is nothing wrong a rather large difference with between asking do you agree with me on this statement? and asserting that another editor agrees with you when it seems obvious from their comments that they do not. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: and @Hyperion35:, please answer the following question directly. (It's a yes or no question.) Do you, or don't you agree that the peer-reviewed academic sources I have provided directly conflict with the sentence in question?KristinaLu (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@KristinaLu:, that is not a yes or no question. It is also not really a relevant question. Shibbolethink has already addressed multiple problems with the sources you have provided, including the fact that one of your sources is not even peer-reviewed. I have also addressed the content of one of your sources. I am deply concerned that you may be either misunderstanding what other editors are telling you, or you appear to be possibly misrepresenting other editors' comments and views. I am also concerned because your comments come across as trying to "win" an argument, and because you appear to be attempting to justify an a priori assumption. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35:Actually, it is a direct yes or no question. The question as to whether the sources are WP:RS is another question. Surely, you can admit to the futility of multiple editors arguing several points at once and not directly addressing an explicit point. I again ask that you and @Shibbolethink: answer the following: Do you, or don't you agree that the peer-reviewed academic sources I have provided directly conflict with the sentence in question?KristinaLu (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink I agree with KristinaLu that the statement should be edited to reflect the WP:OPINIONs of the "experts" cited in the references provided - using WP:INTEXT attribution. We have statements from Ralph Baric and David Baltimore countering the premise of the statement [36] [37], outweighing all MEDRSs published on the subject to date. The Proximal Origin paper should either be removed for WP:FALSEBALANCE or juxtaposed with the Relman et al Science letter for proper WP:BALANCE, given all the reasons discussed above [38]. CutePeach (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:RSes that show that their opinions are notable and that including them would be affording due weight? Because I am aware of no such sources. It is frankly difficult to find any RSes that even mention the names "Yuri Deigin" or "Rossana Segreto." And even if you could find such RSes, we would need to figure out what would be "proportional coverage" of these minority views. From my cursory searches of the literature recently, I could not find a single mention of these 2 publications in any review articles published in scientific journals, or frankly even in any news-based RSes (See Altmetric: [39] [40]).--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Some potential consensus proposals, based on my read of how we ended up with the text we have currently.

• Text originally came from the WHO report wording: We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome. One possibility would be to specifically attribute this statement to the WHO.
• Remove all evaluation of likelihood from this section, as it is the only one of the four WHO-evaluated explanations listed in this section. This would better match the original intention of providing an entirely neutral description of the possibilities to avoid confusion when referring to one or the other, with any evaluation happening elsewhere.
• Add section specifically for lab engineering, where it can be more neutrally described as a fringe perspective without affecting the discussion of the lab leak section we're discussing currently.

Suggestions could be taken individually or together. Each of them carry some RS, NPOV, and DUE concerns in varying measures, but framing the discussion this way may help us better find a consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:Thank you for your suggestions. I would like to point out a bit of a semantic issue here, that is around the term "engineered". There are common lab protocols in which a virus (or bacteria) can be altered, where by convention the literature may not directly use the term "engineered". For the sake of clarity to non-experts, perhaps the word "engineered" should be avoided. We can also remove anything presuming any intent by those who might have altered the virus (eg. if serial passage was used in order to facilitate the evolution of a SARS-like bat CoV so that other mammalian cell lines could be readily infected for the sole purpose of well-intentioned medical research). In other words, the section could deal with two possibilities, that someone working in the lab was infected with a virus that was either:

a) Naturally occurring and being studied by the lab, the first infected person being infected by a virus very close to that found in a host animal in vivo in a non-laboratory setting

or

b) Had been intentionally altered in some way (regardless of the nature of said intent), perhaps by serial passage as this is the method of alteration most commonly suggested in existing literature.KristinaLu (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I really think "intentionally manipulated" or "laboratory manipulation" are the best terms to encompass both genomic engineering (CRISPR etc) and serial passaging.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree.KristinaLu (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean since we have a few non-WHO sources which also support the sentence in question about deliberate engineering (or laboratory manipulation is another way to say it), I do not think it would be appropriate to change this sentence to be only about the WHO. I also think the word "engineering" is appropriate since it is how most lay people think about this topic. I would also accept "laboratory manipulation" personally. I agree that passaging also should count, but I would say that it is also intentional. A virus will not passage in a novel species or cell line without human intervention. Somebody needs to actually take liquid from one petri dish (or nostril) and put it into another. That's intent. Calling passaging "non-intentional" just further obfuscates the language. But, again, our sources also support the idea that a passaged virus is not very likely. Including the Kristian Andersen piece, which directly answers the question of cell culture and lab animal passaging. [41] They go into detail about the glycans, the cleavage site, the lack of any evidence of reverse genetics. And the mutation rate. Also worth saying that, although this is OR, several papers have shown how the virus changes in cell culture, and no such changes were observed in the initial sequence. [42] This just adds to the low likelihood of manipulation via any kind of cell culture. We had a whole discussion about this recently, and the WHO source mentions "manipulation." To my reading, that includes "passaging." So again, I think it is quite clear from our sources that "laboratory manipulation" has been ruled out, including any passaging experiments. Seriously we've talked about this several times before. Search the talk page archives here and Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. Bakkster Man Do you remember that conversation we were having about what the WHO report had about lab manipulation? And its diagrams? Anyway, all of which to say, I'm quite convinced the MEDRSes and RSes (BEST SOURCES) have ruled out passaging as well. We don't need to relitigate old wounds a zillion times around this when no new sources have been provided to overturn that consensus formed on this talk page.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@KristinaLu: Some of this came from previous discussion in Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Later discussion, primarily about the WHO report's description and conclusions. Particularly Figure 5 from the WHO Report's "Possible Pathways of Emergence" section, which shows "evolution" in the lab pathway, but not "Adaptation, transmissibility increase." As mentioned in the above discussion section, this seems to allow for some incidental variation as is unavoidable in viral replication, but doesn't include gain-of-function (and possibly not even serial passage).

Expanding beyond the WHO-evaluated hypothesis just makes it trickier to delineate the various related hypotheses. Not everyone refers to the same set of circumstances as a 'lab leak', which is part of why I suggested splitting the description here between what the WHO evaluated, and what scientists like Baltimore said remains plausible (if unlikely). What I think needs to be avoided is implying that the WHO's report evaluated GoFR (for example) as 'extremely unlikely', when they actually did rule it out beforehand. And, unfortunately, they weren't explicit enough regarding serial passage to know if they considered it ruled out explicitly, or only malicious design as a bioweapon. Also unfortunately, we don't have really high quality journal sources describing the proposed serial passage or GoFR pathways (something I agree with others on the two sources you listed originally). Which isn't to say we can't include them, but without mainstream secondary sources that does point to their being WP:FRINGE/ALT] and described as non-mainstream appropriately. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding secondary sources, both the Andersen et al and the WHO-China are themselves in effect primary sources. A degree of nuance is needed here because we are dealing with everything still being at the stage of hypothesis. It should be pointed out that both of these sources which are widely cited in this particular article have been widely criticized themselves. In order to understand these circumstances surrounding our sources one particularly needs to take note of the statements made by Dr. Ralph S. Baric, among many others.KristinaLu (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I see your point now. The WHO-China source is actually a secondary source on this topic. It doesn't even deal with the possibility that the virus may have been passaged. For reference, here's the sentence of the WHO-China report:

"We did not consider the hypothesis of deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release, the latter has been ruled out by other scientists following analyses of the genome."

Their source for this is Andersen et al source.

The language in this article at this time is:

"Based on the available genomic evidence, deliberate engineering of the virus has been ruled out by experts, with remaining investigations considering the possibility of a collected natural virus inadvertently infecting laboratory staff during the course of study."

@Bakkster Man:I suggest it read as follows:

According to the joint WHO-China report, the likelihood of "deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release" has been ruled out based on genomic evidence. Other sources call for further investigation into the possibility that a virus may have infected laboratory staff during the course of study. Sentence about a collected natural virus inadvertently vs laboratory manipulation.

Looking forward to your input.KristinaLu (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@KristinaLu: I'm broadly in favor of this, it's pretty close to the original text of the section when added. I don't think the "other sources... further investigations" sentence is needed if we explain infection with a naturally collected virus. My one issue (and possibly that of Shibbolethink) is that we would need to have another section describing the possibility of serial passage and/or GoFR. The question is: do we have enough reliable sources to consider that a credible explanation, or is it also considered ruled out? We might be somewhat in between: call "deliberate bioengineering of SARS-CoV-2 for release" ruled out conclusively, and use less definitive words for the unlikelihood or lack of evidence for serial passage/GoFR. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, KristinaLu, I have a problem with the phrase "for release."

There is no difference, viral genomic evidence-wise, and Andersen et al-wise (as well as other experts' assessments) between engineering "for release" and engineering "for lab experiments."

We must also follow the consensus on the report's name as found elsewhere on this talk page: "WHO-convened report."

We also have several other experts and groups who have more precisely said "there is no evidence for" laboratory manipulation. I think that is the more accurate statement anyway. See these sources as well [43](secondary source reviewing Andersen and others) [44] (expert opinions determining same)[45][46]. It isn't just the WHO report we're relying on. So it may be better to say:

Many experts have dismissed laboratory manipulation as a plausible origin, due to a lack of supporting evidence, and the overwhelming evidence in favor of a natural origin.[citations]

It's also not appropriate to use "thread-mode," as discussed in WP:HOWEVER. These sources are not disagreeing, so we should A) not depict them as if they are, and B)not directly juxtapose them even if they were disagreeing. One can have ruled out deliberate bioengineering, and still support further investigation. So I would oppose the wording "Other sources" and prefer something like "Multiple scientists and government officials have called for further investigation into the possibility of a natural virus released accidentally from a laboratory."

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Although we are on a talkpage here, what actually goes in the article needs to follow WP:NOR. Because we are dealing with a singular source here, and because leaving out "for release" would clearly change the meaning of what was said in the report, some such wording needs to be included.KristinaLu (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am not sure what this is all about. Can the source in question be used on the page? Yes, it can, simply because it does not claim anything extraordinary or fringe. It say (Abstract) there is still no clear evidence of zoonotic transfer from a bat or intermediate species. Yes, sure, no one found the specific population of bats where this virus came from, patient zero, or an intermediate host (if any). It say The search for SARS-CoV-2′s origin should include an open and unbiased inquiry into a possible laboratory origin. Yes, sure, such opinion was expressed by many people in many publications. An inquiry is always good. What's the problem? "Serial passage"? Let me quote user Shibbolethink above: These are a few of the pieces of evidence among many that make virologists like myself conclude (with a fair amount of certainty, but not 100%) that neither engineering nor large-scale lab passaging of the virus likely occurred prior to the outbreak Here are some key words: "large-scale" and "likely". Translation: some artificial selection or "small-scale" passage could of course occur. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you may misunderstand what I mean when I say "large-scale." The "small-scale" alternative would be indistinguishable from an accidental release of a natural virus. Any time we put a virus in cell culture, it mutates a bit. A very small number of "passaging generations" could conceivably remain undetected and indistinguishable from natural virus. To me, it is equivalent to a natural virus that's just being kept in the lab. It's just being kept in the lab in a different way (in a bat blood sample versus made clonal in cell culture but not adapted). But overall, to a virologist, that distinction doesn't matter. Both are equally likely, and neither are very likely. Both are more likely than GoFR (including serial passage). And both are less likely than a zoonotic event. It hasn't truly "adapted" in the case of small-scale passaging. And if it had been "cell culture adapted" then it would be detectable via cell culture adaptation mutations. And that's what has been ruled out. It's not a useful distinction (passaged but not adapted versus just bat blood in a freezer), and no RSes make that distinction.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:I would like to mention a few things that Shibbolethink left out.

1) RNA viruses have the highest mutation rates known. More than DNA viruses, more than any known bacterium. Even if a SARS-like bat CoV was only intentionally passaged in vivo in a lab setting in live animal hosts, given that the WIV could easily have had as long as 6 years to manipulate the virus, surely some significant change could occur. The preceding is WP:SYN, but I would be happy to verify with sources. In lay terms, the suggestion that no significant change would occur in 6 years of serial passage through ferrets or cats is absurd.

2) Several other mammal species have receptors that are so similar to human ACE2 that convention in scientific literature is to actually refer to them as ACE2 (See: Sarkar & Guha, "Infectivity, virulence, pathogenicity, host-pathogen interactions of SARS and SARS-CoV-2 in experimental animals: a systematic review"[[47]]). We can see in fact that COVID has not only spread in various feline species but also widely in mink farms, with mink species being members of the family Mustelidae as are ferrets. Ferrets have notably been used in laboratories to study SARS, so one can easily imagine (WP:OR) that such a scenario would have existed at WIV, where serial passaging of SARS-like bat CoVs is known to have occurred.

3) There is nothing to rule out some combination of in vivo and in vitro serial passage of a SARS-like bat CoV having occurred at WIV.KristinaLu (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu This is the challenge. The WHO does not appear to have considered 6 years of serial passage as a possibility in their lab scenario. That would have certainly been labeled in their figure with "adaptation and transmissibility increase". Hence the need to split any section so that we can describe the scenario the WHO evaluated (no serial passage), from any scenario which other sources evaluated (serial passage/GoFR). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

When did I suggest "that no significant change would occur in 6 years of serial passage through ferrets or cats" ? Certainly it would. The issue is that 6 years of passage in an animal model would A) also significantly screw up the synonymous/non synonymous ratio of SNPs in the genome, B) adapt to that animal model, and C) /very likely/ be attenuated in humans as a result. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What we have is a) something far less deadly than SARS (ie. potentially somewhat attenuated) and b) something that transmits readily between people (as we would see with something that was passaged through an animal host with similar ACE2 receptors). Your statements about SNPs are of course WP:OR. As far as I know that point would only be relevant for passage through cell culture. Of course, we don't have a wild-type genome for comparison anyway (since the WIV hasn't released the genomes of the SARS-like bat CoVs they were working with) so all of this goes beyond the scope of any relevant discussion here.KristinaLu (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The other problem with your message has to do with your description of the mutation rate. what matters is not just the raw mutagenic incidence of the polymerase, but also the population level fixation rate of the quasi-species "cloud" of viral genomes that is generated in the process of growing and passaging the virus. the polymerase is generating polymorphism in each single virion, but this doesn't tell us how often we will actually /see/ a mutation, or detect it. it tells us only how often such a mutation is generated. Many such "errors" will result in a non functional virus, so called Defective Interfering Particles (DIPs). So when we want to assess how often the viral genome /detectably/ changes, we must sample the population over time and examine the overall diversity of sequences. and what you find if you do that in RNA viruses is that the smaller the quasi species population size, the slower the fixation rate. Because smaller virus quasi-species populations are less stable, so it takes longer to have a mutation stick around enough to become a minority variant and "fix" and even longer for it to become the predominant sequence. it helps to think about the virus in these passaging experiments as a sort of quasi species cloud, not mutating in one direction, but outwards. in all directions.

I also provide a pretty good slot machine analogy in my Reddit post along these same lines.

It may also be useful to know, this is why genetic drift in lab settings is often negligible, and why passaging experiments are so costly and laborious. Yes, your virus is mutating, but it isn't "fixing" mutations. To overcome this, you need as many possible animals as you can get, so that your have as many viral generations as possible, and also as genetically diverse an animal population as possible, so that you're providing consistent selection pressure. All so that you can try and counteract this drift problem. It quickly becomes a feasibility issue, and you realize that viruses mutate much faster in nature because they have way way more animals and transmission events to work with. I'm definitely/quite/ sure that you could not take RaTG-13 and make it into SARS-CoV-2 in 6 years. It stretches beyond the bounds of credulity.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Who said anything about RaTG-13? I am sure you are perfectly aware that WIV had (and may still have) quite a few SARS-like bat CoVs besides RaTG-13, and most of the data has not been released. Who knows what exactly Shi Zhengli was working on. She wouldn't have wanted to get scooped, so why would she have made anything available to anyone but maybe a collaborator?KristinaLu (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In science, the best way to avoid being "scooped" is to publish information, not hide it. Leaving aside that little logical flaw, the rest of this "reasoning" is even worse. Who knows what exactly Shi Zhengli was working on she was working on space aliens, it must be aliens! You can't prove that she wasn't working on aliens! Maybe SARS-COV-2 is really an alien virus!!!11!!! Why does Wikipedia insist on censoring the alien virus hypothesis?

In all seriousness, do you actually do know what Shi was working on? Do you have any evidence that WIV or Shi had access to bat coronaviruses more closely related to SARS-COV-2 than RaTG-13? Because otherwise what are saying is no more or less verifiable than claiming that Shi was working on extraterrestrial viruses. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

For sources on any of the above, you can check out the Reddit post on my user page, where I provide inline citations. I'm also happy to try and explain this with a whiteboard sometime, it's a very confusing part of virology.

For example, really confusing point: quasi-species are only really relevant to RNA viruses in the lab setting, due to the much much much smaller virus population size. Once you get enough hosts together, neutral mutations stop mattering as much, the error threshold increases, and genetic drift becomes more relevant. here's one of the field-defining articles on this, from back in 2002 [48]. I link to a lot more stuff about this topic in my Reddit post. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

all of the above is original research, but this seems a good time to remind everyone that WP:OR does not apply to talk space. I'm not arguing any of the above belongs in article space. not only because it's OR, like the rest of this thread (including most of the other comments in this section), but also because it's WP:UNDUE.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

See also

I think our SA section needs a little work here. Right now it only has World Health Organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. There's definitely more than just that one article that is relevant enough for See also. The relevant guideline is MOS:SEEALSO.

I propose adding the following:

• Zoonosis
• Laboratory-acquired infection

Thoughts? It's an accurate representation of the content of this article to include both, even if I personally think one is less likely than the other.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I also think adding COVID-19 misinformation would be appropriate, although I understand that may be more contentious. I say this because even if you believe the Lab leak theory is not misinformation, you'd be hard pressed to say that NO misinformation related to the origin has been circulating (videos of people eating bats, conspiracy theories about bioweapons, etc.)--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree only with Zoonosis. Let me also propose Emerging_infectious_disease. Forich (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Consensus among virologists"

What source describes the situation among virologists as a "consensus"? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are 4 discussions on this very talk page about that:

• Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#A_questionable_consensus

• Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#"deliberate_bioengineering_of_the_virus_has_been_ruled_out"

• Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Fanatically_shoving_the_zoonotic_origin_as_if_it_is_the_forgone_scientific_consensus

• Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Why_declare_a_"consensus"_on_the_origin,_given_that_all_options_are_still_open

Why not re-engage in any of those instead of making this new section? We want to avoid WP:BADGER, it becomes very time consuming.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, re-engaged with the "fantically shoving" one. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You're free, as ever, to present peer-reviewed journal articles which argue that the lab leak is more than unlikely or (to quote a recent one) "unnecessary to explain the pandemic". Until then, it's likely that this is just going to be a big time sink, especially if the quality of sources used to support the assertion that there is no consensus is nothing better than news reports. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

My source is the Nature ref you brought to the table. See the other section. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: The Nature piece (this one, I presume) does not support that the lab leak is anything but a minority opinion. Here, clearly: "Most scientists say SARS-CoV-2 probably has a natural origin, and was transmitted from an animal to humans. However, a lab leak has not been ruled out, [...]". In addition, it's a "news explainer", not a peer-reviewed review paper, so while it is useful for many things, I don't see why we would use it to dispute a claim which it does not dispute, especially when we have a better source (such as the Frutos paper, quoted at a couple of places already) which makes the distinction quite clear enough... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Just going through some other refs in the lead: A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin [49]. "Probable" is not a consensus. Similarly, Benvenuto [50]: "probably trasmitted from bats after mutation conferring ability to infect humans." Again, "probably". A statement that something is "probably" true is not the same as a statement that it is true . . . and is certainly not the same as a consensus that it is true. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about what the article currently says. All we ever say is that the lab theory is "unlikely" and that the natural zoonosis theory is "likely." We never say that one or the other is "true." The 'consensus' is the same, it's an agreement of probabilities. Not an agreement on what is "true" and what is "false." If you can find a place where we do say that, I would love to change it as well, because I agree that would be wrong.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused about how anyone can consider it unlikely. Dr. Redfield, one of the few people in the world to head a BSL-4 lab, has pretty much said the contrary, that it's not unusual for respiratory pathogens to infect the worker. In fact, we have proof of this from the original SARS leak from a Beijing lab, twice. It's only logical to assume if that virus had the transmission ability of this one, it very well could've caused a pandemic. Furthermore, if you look at the totality of events, from China's lack of transparency, lack of an intermediate host, the unusual prowess of the virus' transmission rate, and the fact that it started in a city with a lab that just so happened to be studying the exact species of virus that we know had a history of questionable safety protocols. It's almost against logic to dismiss the theory as "extremely unlikely", and continues to baffle me. Edit0r6781 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Our job at wikipedia is to summarize the best available sources, not to make our own calls on likelihood. THat's why we say "extremely unlikely." It's what the sources say. I would urge you to look at WP:5P and, in particular, WP:V. But welcome to wiki!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit0r6781 You might also want to take a look at this for an in-depth-but-not-technical-tone review of the subject. Also addresses the concerns about China: Both forms of the lab leak hypothesis share one element, namely constant finger pointing at the Chinese for being less than enthusiastic and cooperative about letting investigators into the Wuhan Institute of Virology to try to determine if a lab leak happened. This is, of course, not surprising and not in and of itself evidence for a lab leak. China is an authoritarian regime, and such regimes tend to be secretive. As for the fact it "started" in a city, that's dubious: see sources cited here under the "Wuhan was likely not the origin" bulletpoint). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines Scientific consensus as Consensus generally implies agreement of the supermajority, though not necessarily unanimity.. This means that in a survey of 100 scientists, if 51 agree on A and 49 agree on B, the phrase "most scientist agree on A" is TRUE but the phrase "there is consensus on A" is FALSE. Forich (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Pointy edits re: Lab leak

@Forich: I left a warning on your talk page. This edit was WP:POINTY, and that's not appropriate. I'd expect you're aware of this, given your comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Normchou. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I received your message and responded there. I inmediately went to revert the edit as soon as I became aware of it violating WP:Pointy but it was already reverted. Thanks for this second notice. Forich (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Two kinds of laboratory leak? Confusion of terms

There are lots of sources recently talking about the origins of COVID. Media changes day by day, and I think people here have read sources, so I am not citing any particular source. I want to share my reading of the theories

1. zoonosis / natural origin - the COVID virus came from an animal, perhaps a bat, which transmitted during a chance encounter to an unknown but typical person visiting the wilderness. That human then passed the virus on to other humans, starting the epidemic.
2. laboratory leak, evil scientist engineers the virus - this is the conspiracy theory for which there are not reliable sources supporting, but which a lot of reliable sources name for the purpose of denying. It says that Chinese scientists working with the Illuminati artificially created the virus for complicated reasons.
3. laboratory leak, zoonosis A virologist, perhaps in a Wuhan research laboratory, is studying COVID-19 and accidentally becomes infected by this natural virus perhaps by zoonosis. As COVID-19 is contagious, this scientist spreads the zoonotic, natural, non-engineered infection.

As I am looking at very popular media sources and the conversation on Wikipedia. I see sources in support of zoonotic origin, and I see sources and wiki conversation against "laboratory leak" but I think in context that means "leak of an engineered virus". Is there a distinction between "lab leak - mad science" versus "lab leak - zoonosis"? When sources are exploring laboratory leak, is my reading accurate that there are crazy and non-crazy lab leak theories, and that many media sources are themselves confused about distinguishing them? Or am I just confused? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I will share some sources, but there are so many more, and these are just examples but not representative. There is this paper

• Bloom, Jesse D.; Chan, Yujia Alina; Baric, Ralph S.; Bjorkman, Pamela J.; Cobey, Sarah; Deverman, Benjamin E.; Fisman, David N.; Gupta, Ravindra; Iwasaki, Akiko; Lipsitch, Marc; Medzhitov, Ruslan; Neher, Richard A.; Nielsen, Rasmus; Patterson, Nick; Stearns, Tim; van Nimwegen, Erik; Worobey, Michael; Relman, David A. (2021-05-14). "Investigate the origins of COVID-19". Science. 372 (6543): 694.1–694. doi:10.1126/science.abj0016.

and this commentary from the lead author

• Fred Hutch News Service Staff (2021-06-14). "Understanding the origins of SARS-CoV-2". Fred Hutch.

In the original letter and the opinion piece a month later, the author still frames the issue as if a lab accident cannot be a zoonotic cause. To me, a scientist who for any reason contracts a zoonotic infection is still a zoonotic origin of disease. I do not mean to do original interpretation here, but I find it hard to understand the source material. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: There are some scientific sources which mention this. In the list here, a few make the explicit difference between the "engineered virus" nonsense and the "natural virus accidentally released". The most comprehensive is this recent review, (compare section 1.1 with 1.5), as well as of course the WHO report. Regarding misinformation, and politics, there is of course much confusion between the possible (but unlikely) and the bullshit scenario - this highlights the issue rather well, IMHO:

This matters for the lab-leak theory. A headline such as "Biden Orders Investigation into Wuhan Lab-Leak Theory" does not discriminate between the credible version of that theory and the conspiratorial version. The crucial differences between these two theories are therefore likely to be lost to a reader who – as many do – simply reads a headline and then shares the article.

Most scientific sources, however, seem to be in agreement that no. 1 of the three scenarios you identify is the most likely, and many recent papers seem to be exploring details about this. For example, the paper I added here talks about closely related strains found in bat samples, and many sources which I tried to make a census of (before losing motivation by being bombarded with the same kind of non-scientific sources which are good for politics but useless for science), here, also seem to give short shrift to the "it came via a lab" idea. This makes the argument that "Moreover, the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020) is not necessary to explain the pandemic." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An opinion letter isn't much of a source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I took some of your sources from User:RandomCanadian/The_origins_of_COVID-19:_literature_review and processed them in meta:Wikicite for profiling in Scholia, both of which are projects I develop. Thanks for the response and research compilation. I was looking at your list and was unsure if all the sources you listed actually address COVID origins, because you have notes for some and not for others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: As I said, I've checked some, but then I lost motivation. The profile on Scholia seems to not contain some important papers, including this one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I added The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 (Q87830056). If I could more easily identify which papers have origin of COVID-19 (Q103224114) as main subject (P921) then I might tag more, but I will not ask you to take up a project you put down. Your documentation is interesting though, that must have taken a lot of effort. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thanks! The project is not abandoned (I do add new papers when I fall upon them), it's just on hold until I find more reason to put up the same kind of effort which led to its creation. As for doing this kind of thing, it's just a very standard keyword search strategy, as commonly employed in most forms of serious academic research (I had to do the same kind of thing, and document it quite thoroughly, for some musicology papers rather recently - the difference between searching for mendelssohn AND "organ sonata" on JSTOR and other databases and searching for covid AND origin on PubMed is not particularly substantial). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Bluerasberry please can you add these PMIDs to your Wikicite project: 32786014, 33194988, 33200842, 33531884, 32773024, 33786037, 34046923, 33910809 and 34141073. CutePeach (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Don't. None of these are in credible journals as far as I can see (I haven't checked all of them, but the first few don't seem to), none of their authors are credible virologists, and they're all WP:PROFRINGE nonsense. @CP Why are you suggesting those when they've already been discussed multiple times on talk pages and dismissed? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: please allow Bluerasberry to use his own critical thinking in selecting sources. You do not want to give him the impression that you WP:OWN this page. We are all WP:HERE to build this encyclopedia together. Tagging Loganmac [51]. CutePeach (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, come on. You and RandomCanadian are both telling Bluerasberry what to do. You said please, but RC gave reasons for the request. Don't pretend that RC's request takes away BR's choice or is in any way worse or more WP:OWNy than yours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at WP:MFD

See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Draft:China_COVID-19_cover-up Adoring nanny (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Early Chinese Virus sequencing deleted

This preprint has just been published: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.18.449051v1

It claims the Chinese deleted some of the original sequencing. Let's see what happens with the peer review but it's been shared widely by some prominent virologists.

If the original virus sequences from Wuhan were indeed deleted scientific consensus might change rather dramatically.

Also this preprint includes some interesting bibliography of cases predating the Wuhan Market outbreak. Not sure if those sources (including reputable sources such as the Lancet) are being included in origin related articles.

-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Something to watch for in the future, if and only if this passes through peer review and gets published. Regarding the pre-December cases, even this paper only cites news sources. While we don't cite them on this article, we do at COVID-19 pandemic. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"China deleted early coronavirus data that could help explain pandemic origins, researcher finds. Scientists say the findings are 'prima facie' evidence of China wanting to 'obfuscate' the potential source of the Covid-19 pandemic." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/china-deleted-early-coronavirus-data-could-help-explain-pandemic/ SaltySaltyTears (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The author of this article seem to be jumping to conclusions about this being evidence for a cover-up. While the sequence was apparently removed, the same sequence has been published as both a pre-print and in a peer-reviewed journal. The journal publication likely occurred after the request for removal. See below:

https://covid-19.conacyt.mx/jspui/handle/1000/4763

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smll.202002169

Dhawk790 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... a juicy cover-up this does not make. Hanlon's razor applies.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, a relevant reminder that pre-prints are just "according to a new PDF". Bakkster Man (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Who doesn't love xkcd? I'm going to add the link to WP:PREPRINTS, because humour can help in getting the message across. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• In fact, there's nothing in the uncovered data which somehow contradicts the zoonosis theory, see this thread for context: https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1408080693091991558 Ain92 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: and @Shibbolethink: your comments somewhat deprecate one of the most highly respected scientists in the world right now. Jesse D. Bloom’s lab is widely followed for its work researching SARS-CoV-2’s evolution and potential immune escapes from vaccines [52] [53]. Also, since there was, is, and never will be any consensus that WP:MEDRS applies to covering all aspects of COVID-19 origins, I don’t see the problem with including Bloom’s opinions in any page or section where they are WP:DUE, citing good WP:RSs, and using WP:INTEXT attribution. As such, I am in agreement with Gtoffoletto and Ain92’s comments here and I think Drbogdan’s edit - citing the New York Times was a good contribution, so I ask you to consider restoring it. Pinging DGG, Ozzie10aaaa and WhatamIdoing for a WP:THIRD opinion.

@Dhawk790:, please send your potentially revelational findings to Jon Cohen of Science Magazine [54], Ewen Callaway of Nature Magazine [55], Alison Young of USA TODAY [56], Jennifer Rigby of the Daily Telegraph [57], Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post [58], Carl Zimmer of the New York Times [59], Amy Dockser Marcus of the Wall Street Journal [60], Simone McCarthy of the South China Morning Post [61], Grace Dean of Business Insider [62] and Manuel Ansede of El País [63]. If it can be verified that all the sequences deleted from the NIH and CNGB databases that Bloom managed to recover from those cloud drives - as reported in these reliable sources - match the sequences that you say were republished in journals, then it should be included in follow-up reports from our reliable sources, complete with retractions, clarifications and apologies. However, if you read any of the reliable sources I referenced above, you will quickly realise that your claim is false and should be struck. The data associated with the two papers you linked was removed and the authors haven’t responded to any requests for comment. CutePeach (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I only went to the first article (the Science one) and it looks like this being accurately reported: "But critics of the preprint, posted yesterday on bioRxiv, say Bloom’s detective work is much ado about nothing, because the Chinese scientists later published the viral information in a different form, and the recovered sequences add little to what’s known about SARS-CoV-2’s origins." We need to have more patience about a lot of this stuff. There are plenty of other possibilities about why the sequence might have been deleted other than some sort of cover-up. Dhawk790 (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

+1 to the call for patience. This article will be much easier to write 10 years from now. This year's goal shouldn't be trying to chase after every will-o'-the-wisp the moment it appears in the news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: your comments somewhat deprecate one of the most highly respected scientists in the world right now. Jesse D. Bloom’s lab is widely followed for its work researching SARS-CoV-2’s evolution and potential immune escapes from vaccines. Not only is this an appeal to authority fallacy, the policy recommending against using pre-prints applies entirely apart from the author's credibility (or lack thereof) and makes no suggestion to that extent. I do find it ironic that his article is red-linked (suggesting he's not all that notable).

Also, since there was, is, and never will be any consensus that WP:MEDRS applies to covering all aspects of COVID-19 origins... Strawman fallacy, the argument against inclusion isn't based on MEDRS. It's based on WP:PREPRINTS "Preprints... are not reliable sources" (along with parent WP:SCHOLARSHIP) and WP:NEWSORG "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics". I'm sure you're not arguing this "highly respected scientist" is expressing a non-academic opinion via pre-print, are you?

I don’t see the problem with including Bloom’s opinions in any page or section where they are WP:DUE, citing good WP:RSs, and using WP:INTEXT attribution. His opinion is not notable, nor due. Definitely not the original wording (we'd need to make very clear that the claim is unsubstantiated, at which point why bother bringing it up just to debunk it?). Once it's peer reviewed that may change. Patience.

citing the New York Times was a good contribution, so I ask you to consider restoring it. Considered, but I'd make the same revert again per the above WP:PAGs. Easy call, IMO. If it's a solid claim, it's worth waiting for peer review. If it turns out it's in error, we'll be glad we didn't republish a single author's claims prior to the claims being reviewed by others. It's said "falsehood will fly from Maine to Georgia, while truth is pulling her boots on", we don't need to hasten its spread. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, I agree pre-prints should not be sources. And even once peer-reviewed and published, that paper is primary research, which WP:MEDRS generally rejects. The pre-print server reminds everyone it should not "be reported in the press as conclusive". We cannot report biomedical claims in that paper as though they were agreed fact. But the "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" is largely an ongoing news story. And this claim has sparked significant news coverage, not least discussing the mix of opinions by scientists. I can't read The New York Times article (though I think Carl Zimmer is a respected science reporter), but can read the Washington Post and Science mag. Both of those discuss the scientific reaction to the claim. I see that CNN quote Bloom and two other scientists who are dismissive. In an wiki article on "investigations", then we need to, per WP:WEIGHT, describe these investigations. Scientist proposes something; other scientists pick holes in it or agree with it. This article isn't "The origin of Covid-19".

I strongly advise all sides to cool their language considerably, or else both will find blocks coming their way. This is a wiki, so the text that appears today can be changed or removed next week. So don't try to write it as though we were publishing a book that has to be absolutely correct. There's clearly a desire for this information to be up-to-date. We aren't writing an article about the causes of lung cancer, which we can say with some authority and knowledge that it won't change next month. So relax a bit. Find a way to cover this "missing data" story using the most reliable sources we have. Present it as part of the scientific investigation. When sources, as they do, claim this neither benefits or harms any side in the debate, then let's make that clear, rather than offering a statement that misleads the reader. If it turns out that in a month or two, nobody is the slightest bit interested in this missing data, and it is, as some suggest, not particularly significant or present elsewhere, then our coverage can be removed. The WP:WEIGHT given to these ongoing investigations is going to keep shifting. -- Colin°^Talk 14:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: There's two sides to this, as you point out: how we present it neutrally in the article, and the general notability of the claim. On the former, the edit I reverted lacked any suggestion of inconclusiveness or dispute. On 22 June 2021, 13 (or a total of 241) missing SARS-CoV-2 virus genetic sequences, apparently deleted from earlier virus databases for reasons not clearly understood, were reported to have now been uncovered in archival internet databases.

I reverted, rather than improving, because I simply don't believe this meets the notability threshold we've used for this article in the past. Same reason we don't mention Li-Meng Yan's discredited preprints, or early studies that appeared to identify antibodies in Europe in September 2019 (results which, to my knowledge, were never replicated despite an attempt by the WHO). And I don't think our preference to at least wait for peer review is out of line. I'd argue we should be preferring peer-reviewed secondary sources, so a peer-reviewed primary source is still arguably 'cutting edge' and the limits of what WP:PAGs permit.

If you still believe I've made an unacceptable (read: actionable under DS) comment above, please be more specific so I can redact and apologize. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach just wanted to add in here that I actually have a huge respect for Dr. Bloom and his work. As it happens, he served as the outside examiner for the thesis defense of a friend of mine a few weeks ago. I've also followed his work with interest, especially the "mutagenic catastrophe" and "stochastic selection" stuff. He's a great scientist. That doesn't mean he's right about everything, though. And criticizing his preprint for making a mountain out of a mole hill is not "deprecat[ing]" him personally. Science thrives on criticism. I think Dr. Bloom is right about a lot of stuff, I also think he may be giving too much credence to DRASTIC team's work on this. But I will edit however the WP:RSes cover the events (in this case, scientific sources, as the news media often get this stuff wrong), and in due proportion to that coverage, regardless of what I personally think.

Colin, I would propose to you that we wait to see what the scientific sources say on this information. Given that it was put forth in a preprint. We don't want to start including stuff like this [64], just because news media are covering it [65]. (You'll note that article has been hugely updated, because it received a lot of criticism upon initial coverage (see here: [66]). That's what makes me say that we shouldn't cover this preprint before it gets published and other more scientific WP:RSes cover it. It's controversial and could create BLP issues, if a citation like this is used in any way to imply or say directly that Shi Zhingli or other WIV people have lied about their database. I think we all need to tread lightly, given that those BLP issues mean that the maxim in WP:V to report verifiable information, not "truthful" information is especially true here.

I think if there's still a great deal of disagreement and many editors think we should include this preprint in some way, then somebody (preferably the users who want to include it) should start an RfC. It's controversial, it deserves wider input. Please, don't make this more adversarial than it needs to be. Let's just work together to make these articles good.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you please not use escalating language, such as suggesting I have to find a criticism deserving of DS. The original text had problems I agree. I'm not particularly interested in a revert but more on whether you are willing to engage on this talk page to find a solution. Your original comments here focused on the pre-print source and if that was all there was to this, then that would be where this ends. But CutePeach found considerable news coverage of the scientific controversy. I mean, Nature Magazine wrote a decent length article on it.

I think you've got the wrong viewpoint when you think we need "peer reviewed secondary sources" to cover events. The "investigations into the origin of COVID-19" are a bunch of events. For sure, some of this article will need to make biomedical claims with whatever degree of confidence or speculation that sources permit. It may even mention biomedical claims that are discredited or rejected. A reason we require academic sources that have all these layers of checks (peer review, secondary sources, reputable publishers) is because this gives us confidence in biomedical facts. But the events here are not in dispute. A scientist really has reported such-and-such about data, and their publication is at a pre-print stage. This really has caused other scientists to voice their opinions publicly. This really has been widely reported in the press. The scientists really do agree on some things that have been claimed and really do disagree on other things. This is why I said folk need to stop reviewing sources here as though this article was "The origin of Covid-19" which would be mostly biomedical claims. This article is about the investigations, along with information about what is agreed and disagreed currently.

Some of these investigation steps will turn out to be dead ends, or even discredited perhaps. Some will bear fruit. Some will be irrelevant when examined in months to come. All we can do each day, is weigh what reliable sources are reporting about these investigations. And as far as I can see, reliable sources think this aspect has some weight today.

Remember this is a wiki. If we get the weight of this wrong, what's the consequence? If we can come up with a few sentences that cover what Nature and Science mag think worth reporting on, then it isn't like we'll be saying ridiculously untrue things about the origin. The very worst is we'll be accused of mentioning something unimportant. And that's easily fixable.

CutePeach, your argument that Bloom is a respected scientist and therefore we should give weight to his opinions isn't how it works here. We give weight based on that afforded by reliable sources. If we look at the quality journalism on this, Bloom's opinions are not be reported on as though they are correct and uncondested, and every one of them gives a voice to criticism. Stop looking at these things as evidence you are right. If you try really hard to be neutral, that will be a step towards agreements forming.

Shibbolethink, can you please not mention the RFC word. This isn't about "should include this preprint in some way". The preprint isn't a source and has no weight. Wrt "just because news media are covering it" ... well, I disagree, as I explained already. Agree fully that it needs to stop being adversarial, but it needs you guys do to that. -- Colin°^Talk 15:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: My apologies if the mention of DS came across as escalation. I simply intended that to be the broadest category of behavior for which I "will find blocks coming their way". I feel I was assertive, but not inappropriate. So I hope this clarifies, this is an earnest attempt to express that I absolutely would like to apologize and retract any statement if it has crossed a line. The articles are difficult enough to maintain, without my making it more difficult if I've done so inadvertantly.

I feel my edit history stands as strong evidence that I'm quite willing to work to improve article text when I feel a suggestion has validity, even if original wording was problematic. I'd suggest CutePeach would say similar, as they pinged me for input on a similar question at Talk:Peter Daszak#WP:RS linking Daszak with Wuhan lab and suggested addition. The difference here is that while I agreed the other article had a DUE addition with solid sources about an update to a WP:SCHOLARSHIP source, I feel this is an UNDUE addition of WP:PREPRINTS content which a rewording would not solve. While I try to perform neutral rewrites when possible, I can't think of one here that wouldn't end up making nearly everyone unhappy and thus don't think it would improve the article (and, by extension, the encyclopedia).

I strongly disagree with the interpretation of this article being a bunch of events which we can/should cover primarily through the general press. Along with the repeated mention of WP:BIOMED. I absolutely agree this is NOT a biomedical claim, however this is unambiguously an academic claim to which WP:SCHOLARSHIP applies. As I implied in my response to CutePeach, that the claim was made in a preprint marks it as scholarly. If it was merely the authors non-scholarly opinion, he would not have published it on biorXiv (see: Robert R. Redfield's comments in interviews, saying "I'm allowed to have opinions now" for an example of what a notable non-scholarly opinion looks like, something I previously added to this article's text as notable). To suggest it's merely opinion would implicate the author of an ethical violation by misusing a preprint server, to suggest it is academic means we can't apply WP:RS as if it were merely a notable event. For academic claims we need a better reason for inclusion (Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics - WP:NEWSORG), which I haven't seen presented yet. If you disagree, please present a rationale for why we should make an exception.

Remember this is a wiki. If we get the weight of this wrong, what's the consequence? If we can come up with a few sentences that cover what Nature and Science mag think worth reporting on, then it isn't like we'll be saying ridiculously untrue things about the origin. Two comments here.

1. I agree, minimal consequence. This is why we're acting on WP:BRD, rather than suggesting consequences for anyone. Being WP:BOLD doesn't mean we are WP:RECKLESS.
2. I welcome your suggestion of a few sentences which you feel would be appropriate. My earlier comments replied to a request to restore the original edit (based on what I believe to be a flawed policy argument), not to rewrite and improve NPOV/DUE.

All the best. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The approach editors here have taken so far isn't working. Can we agree on that? An attempt to define everything to do with the origin of a disease as being under the remit of MEDRS failed. Both you and CutePeach said there needs to be more nuance to our consideration. Trying to determine WP:WEIGHT by one's own arguments isn't how it works. One says he's an eminent scientist. The other says it is just a PDF on some server. One points to the multitude of reliable journalism on the scientific squabble. The other points to a pre-print server that can be dismissed. Both of you are right but missing the point and arguing past each other. Policy says we can make this "somebody else's problem": what weight is given to it in reliable sources? And I think that approach of only discussing what reliable sources say is vital too for any editors with strong opinions on facts or strong political opinions about certain countries.

If this weekend you were to give a talk about investigations into the origins of Covid-19, you'd be sure you'd need to at least mention this "deletion" story or else someone will ask you about it. Similarly readers hearing about it elsewhere will come to Wikipedia to see what it says. Nature abhors a vacuum. Some of those readers will try to add the "missing" material using what they think are "reliable" sources. And it is random how reliable those will be and what agenda they will promote. They'd presumably then get their good faith edit deleted by someone. And they the will get accused of "censoring" Wikipedia. And we just keep arguing round and round.

So, I'm suggesting that editors propose some short text+sources that they think the other guys will accept. Rather than dismiss it with lectures containing lots of WP:CAPITAL_LETTERS, try to find something agreeable. Something your average reader of Nature or Science magazine would regard as fair and informative. Don't worry about it being relevant in a month or six month's time. You are editing an article on an ongoing series of current and recent events, so things are expected to change, and what was important this week may not be important next week. That is a different mindset to editing an article on something established.

By including some text on this scientific squabble, for now, you get a chance to shape what is said, and you get to resolve one point of conflict among editors. By refusing outright, you get to do neither. The last paragraph of this article makes a similar point. -- Colin°^Talk 19:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I get your arguments here, and agree broadly. As an aside, I hadn't seen that Science news article on this before, that passes the test for me that this is notable in the scientific community as well. If someone had already posted that here, my apologies.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Same here, I agree in principle. This is how I try to make most of my edits on the topic: rewrite if possible. But this is an outlier. I continue to disagree (and strongly) that it's notable enough to include, for the same reason I feel other pre-prints have not been notable enough to include. That said, here's my best stab at it, which seeing in text makes me feel even more confident that it's a tempest in a teapot which just doesn't belong here (though I'll obviously support a consensus which said it should be include it, I advise against it).

In June 2021, biologist Jesse Bloom published a preprint paper identifying 50 SARS-CoV-2 sequences which had been withdrawn from the US National Institutes of Health Sequence Read Archive. The NIH confirmed the data had been removed in June 2020 per standard practice at the request of the investigators who owned the rights to the sequences, under the rationale that the sequences had been submitted to another database. Bloom claims his findings did not provide any insight into the nature of the spillover of SARS-CoV-2, but might provide additional evidence that the virus was circulating prior to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market outbreak. Virologist David Robertson said that circulation prior to December 2020 was already well known by scientists, and that the paper doesn't support a conclusion of "a cover-up rather than a more mundane deletion of data."

I'm not sure we can get this much shorter without losing necessary nuance. Adding the David Robertson opinion as a counterpoint feels reasonable to me given the discussion above if we're including Bloom's opinion. And at this length I continue to have some WP:DUE concerns (Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery., even though my NPOV concerns are alleviated. Though the thing I found weirdest in writing this is that Dr Bloom told multiple media outlets that this doesn't tell us anything about the virus' origin, suggesting he himself might not recommend the study be used in our article on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19.

Anyway, best effort text written, I still don't think it's suitable for the article. However, if consensus is against me, I'd suggest a new category for Independent Investigations between The Lancet COVID-19 Commission task force and International calls for investigations would be due (presuming nothing major changes in the state of the story). Bakkster Man (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, thanks for doing that. I'm impressed. Thanks especially for doing it despite your misgivings. What I'm suggesting, is that we could include that text today, even though some feel it is likely to prove to be an irrelevance, with the acceptance by all sides that it should be reviewed at some point in future (a month?). And if reliable sources are no longer mentioning this, then it is dropped. One website I read from time to time suggest this weekend that the deletion was "evidence of a cover up". By including the above text now, and for a short time perhaps, Wikipedia educates readers with NPOV. It is a win-win because those who think the deletion is important get something about it on Wikipedia. And those who disagree it is a cover-up get to point out how mundane it really is. A wiki allows easy come and easy go, particularly so for an article covering ongoing current affairs. Would you consider adding it? -- Colin°^Talk 20:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: I can appreciate that view, but I'd prefer at least one other person support that so we have at least mild consensus. I'm not a fan of doing something I think is counter to policy, just to keep some off-wiki conspiracy theorists satisfied. But as I said before, I'll take whatever consensus says we should do. Feel free to copy-paste to a new talk section for consensus if you think it's a good path forward. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Preprints of scientific papers can be reliable sources: the free posted preprints of peer-reviewed accepted articles are essentially indistinguishable from the final versions except in typography. They only reason they're not official is a compromise forced on those promoting open access to avoid destroying the scientific journal publishing industry -- see our Open access for the details. Not only do we accept them, we actually prefer them--we include the links to the open access versions whenever they are available. Preprints that have never been formally accepted are a standard method of publication in many fields of science. But their authority depends upon the reputation of the scientist and institution publishing them. We normally use them, but say what they are. That doesn't mean we publish rumors. But there's a while range of reliability and usability that has to be considered. It also needs to be considered that peer-review and formal publication are not definitive evidence of quality--there have been many hoaxes and errors in the formal literation that I'm sure we're all aware of--and I'm sure everyone here who read peer-reviewed science looks to see not just where it was published, but who did the work and the analysis. . (And there have been official approval by the most reliable bodies of even therapies with no proven benefit, as in the 2021 approval of Aducanumab for Alzheimer's. Our general article on the disease needs tor reflect it; it's at present taking the arguments of the promotors at face value) ) Nothing in science is ever final. No publications is absolutely definitive. Hypotheses in the experimental sciences are never fully "proven"--they are always subject to change and correction from further research. (Indeed, one standard pseudo-argument of cranks who wish to denigrate true science is the fallacy that "it's only an hypothesis". One standard argument of that majority of the population who at least tries alternative remedies, even those of spectacularly unlikely nature, is that nothing in medicine is certain, as if anything could be). I can compare the attempt above to avoid taking account of the scientific research as it develops to those anti-vaxers who won't get the covid vaccine because it has only "preliminary approval". (I doubt they know that the "preliminary" data for at least some of the vaccines is very much better than the accepted data for the current used vaccines for influenza-- and better than most other vaccines in medicine; unfortunately, I doubt it would change their mind if they did know. ) True science uses the best data available, recognizing that it may be inadequate. All research is preliminary research, though the degree of confidence in it can vary.

There is a general misunderstanding here: we are not trying to establish the origin of Covid. It is of course extremely important that it be understood as definitively as possible, but that's original research, which is done elsewhere. WP just reports on the progress of science, as it happens. For important topics, WP has always covered not just on the final state, but the stages of the development of the knowledge.

And I suppose I should point out that the MEDRS requirements are designed to prevent the promotion of pseudo-medicine among the ignorant, by rejecting claims for unproven therapies under the principle that we wish to do no harm. That does not apply in this matter. Nothing about the prevention or therapy of this disease is affected by known how it originated. (The need for good research on this is much broader--it contributes to our ability to prevent similar diseases in the future. And the need for open discussion of this has a positive benefit, regardless of the conclusion--it has made everyone in the world more aware of the existence of laboratory accidents with dangerous biological agents, and also of the danger produced by not adopting measures that would control transmission from other animal species--and this is true regardless of which hypothesis is proven correct). DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

No, a preprint is not the same as an accepted, awaiting publication. You're discussing "accepted, awaiting publication" - in which they are "essentially indistinguishable from the final versions except in typography". An accepted, awaiting publication paper has been through peer review, no scientific or other major changes are necessary, and you're correct that the only difference between that and the actual published online/print paper will be typography/stylistic changes. However, a pre-print has, by definition, not been through peer review yet - it is awaiting confirmation of the scientific and other logic in the paper. Sure, the paper may be stating what you consider to be true - but until the paper is actually accepted, it does not qualify as a reliable source - it's no better than an "op ed" at that point. By your definition, I could write up whatever I want in a "paper", submit it to a journal, then publish it as a preprint on a free repository (which is my right, as I maintain copyright to my journal articles even when submitting them for publication until such time as they are accepted). That "paper" I wrote, no matter what I say in it, would then be considered reliable by you simply because it's been submitted to a publication - even though it hasn't been peer reviewed yet and may fail peer review. This paper has a multitude of outcomes that are still equally likely - accepted, accepted with changes/clarifications (i.e. major changes to the science/logic in the paper), rejected, or rejected with prejudice (the difference being that rejection with prejudice means generally that the author cannot submit a similar paper again because of egregious errors/malfeasance). Any of these is possible as the peer review process at almost all journals is rigorous and will make corrections no matter how "minor" if it helps ensure accuracy and sound logic, or they may find so many errors that a few corrections can't solve it and reject it outright, and perhaps it will be resubmitted in the future with major changes. This is the reason preprints are not considered reliable - they're not yet "published in a reliable source" until they actually pass peer review. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Not only do we accept them, we actually prefer them--we include the links to the open access versions whenever they are available. This is a major misinterpretation of WP:PREPRINTS (which is policy). Please reread it. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a long-standing consensus that preprints are not acceptable for anything COVID-related. Especially not when it involves a sensitive subject like this one. We're not a breaking news website, and we follow, not lead, the academic sources. So there's no harm done in waiting for proper reviews to come out about this, instead of making an unwarranted case that preprints are suddenly acceptable (no, they're not - anybody can put up anything in a preprint - compare with the infamous Yan papers). Common sense and WP:GOODRESEARCH favour using better sources if we have access to them, and that's definitively the case here, so there's no reason to use any kind of preprint. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@DGG, Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19#Application notes effectively banned the use of preprints for pandemic-related content. Although it's technically been superseded by the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, I don't think there is an expectation that the status of preprints has changed as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I hadn't realized that was required under GS (though I'd certainly agree it's ideal). It might be good to get clarification on whether this restriction remains under DS. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, I think DGG has confused the draft that we often see on PubMed Central, which is essentially the final copy after editorial and peer review but still awaits a final proof read and layout tweaking for publication. The preprint here is a relatively new phenomenon and entirely unreviewed. I fully expect Ben Goldacre's late cat Henrietta has written and published a preprint on some database somewhere. Speculation about what MEDRS is "designed" to do, and therefore apparently limited in scope, is quite wrongheaded, unhelpful and not useful to resolve the problem. DGG, you were right when you said we aren't trying to say what the origin of covid definitely is (nobody knows) but if someone makes a biomedical claim about that origin, then MEDRS applies. What this article is about, is the investigations. And those investigations, the controversy, the progress and the misteps, are fair game. We need to find a balance between being a "breaking news website" as RandomCanadian fears we might, and being so far behind the curve as to be utterly irrelevant. Both sides need to try to move towards a middle ground. -- Colin°^Talk 20:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: I think it's more likely they mistook WP:PREPRINTS advice that they're acceptable as open-access after approval, and missed the explicit description as "not reliable". Bakkster Man (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That "Application notes" section was largely illegitimate. The discussion that authorised it indicates editors weren't even sure what they were voting for; the one editor who asked the question was pretty much ignored. A 'consensus' where the proposer of a novel idea fails to clarify what they're even proposing, especially in a proposal that has never been enforced since its formation, can hardly be considered an active or valid consensus. But even if one considers it legitimate, in the abortion case when ArbCom took over the DS without the rest of the community's GS remedies, it had implicitly vacated the others, such as the 1RR (this was clarified in a 2020 ARCA I filed). Finally, an RS that decides to use a preprint as its base, and Wikipedia citing that RS, is not the same as citing to a preprint. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I added my above workshopped text to the article. After thinking over it for the weekend, I'm comfortable with the level of sourcing. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Good addition. This is the case when the claim has nothing to do with medicine. Hence WP:MEDRS does not apply. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

What's the wikilink for 'suggesting people are leveraging a WP:PAG they've never mentioned applies to the discussion at hand'? Bakkster Man (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea. But looking at citations in this segment, in particular article in Nature [67], I do see something interesting. It says The earliest viral sequences from Wuhan are from individuals linked to the city’s Huanan Seafood Market in December 2019, which was initially thought to be where the coronavirus first jumped from animals to people. But the seafood-market sequences are more distantly related to SARS-CoV-2’s closest relatives in bats — the most likely ultimate origin of the virus — than are later sequences, including one collected in the United States.. "SARS-CoV-2’s closest relatives in bats" I assume is RaTG13. That would be interesting indeed (i.e. the virus circulated in US represented an earlier version of the virus compare to one found in Wuhan market?), but looking at their article, I am not certain they proved this based on the sequence analysis. One must wait what reviewers say. As a side note, the COVID-19 of course did not originate from RaTG13 ("ultimate origin of the virus"). They had a common ancestor, unless it was completely cooked in a lab. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Why two discussions?

Can someone please cojoin the two discussions on this topic? It's too difficult for me to do as I’m on mobile and I am about to doze off after a long day at work. Please note that more discussions and indentations makes it harder for mobile editors. CutePeach (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The wording for the WHO-China joint report

In the "Laboratory incident" section, I've reworded this sentence:

A final scenario, considered unlikely by most experts, and "extremely unlikely" by the World Health Organization...

as follows:

A final scenario, considered unlikely by most experts, and "extremely unlikely" by a joint report by WHO and China...

Yet the change was reverted.

I would suggest to use my wording, and not just "WHO".

We must indicate that the report was authored (in part) by Chinese authorities.

Firstly, because it's true. As per the report itself, it is a joint report by WHO and China, not just a WHO report.

Secondly, because there is an obvious conflict of interest here. As many sources mentioned on this page indicate, the Chinese gov is actively working on suppressing the idea that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab. Thus, we must be especially careful while using sources that are directly connected to the Chinese gov.

Calling it a "WHO report" would indicate that the report is a neutral source, which is misleading.

But (correctly) calling it a "joint report by WHO and China" would indicate a possible conflict of interest, which is the reality of the situation.

BTW, judging by the List of laboratory biosecurity incidents, such incidents happen on average every 3 (!) years (and every 6 months in the past 10 years). If some report calls such an incident "extremely unlikely", it is a strong indication that the report is biased. Compare: "A report XYZ says that a sunrise in the next 24 hours is extremely unlikely".

--Thereisnous (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Here are several reasons why:

1. The final report did not have input from the Chinese government, which is what is heavily heavily implied by that wording. The report was commissioned by the WHA and written by WHO affiliates, with input from Chinese scientists (as well as other countries, but to be fair mostly Chinese scientists). Chinese scientists collaborated on the study that forms the bulk of the evidence cited in the report. A fair depiction of the COI means explaining all of that. Why would you want to obscure that fact? We cannot make it sound like CCP officials had oversight or editing authority on the final report, because that was not the case.

2. Did Chinese people collaborate on the study? Yes! And it's important to reference that. Because that is a fair COI criticism, that we need more international involvement and unaffiliated involvement. Totally agree with you there. But I disagree that it's fair to call this report "authored but the Chinese government." Chinese scientists collaborated on the study. This is patently evident in the fact that the report is written grammatically from the point of view of "The WHO team." In the acknowledgments, each paragraph starts "WHO wishes to thank..." You can also tell because the Chinese scientists are cited in the acknowledgments, but not the authors of the report.

3. It isn't how reliable secondary sources refer to it. When the heads of state of a bunch of different countries criticized the report, they did so in reference to "the WHO convened study in China." Here are several other secondary sources on how people discuss and refer to this report which demonstrate it is "WHO-convened" and operated in collaboration with China, which hosted the international team of visitors hand-picked by the WHO. Chinese scientists helped gather the data, helped author parts of the report, but the final say was from the WHO team.

Sources

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Btw, not to get into a protracted discussion on lab leaks, but your wording in those statements is also misleading. It's also an example of the Gambler's fallacy. Only some of those accidents resulted in human infections, and extremely extremely few actually result in outbreaks of disease in the general population. It would be more fair to ask "How often does a lab leak result in a general public outbreak?" and even then, it's not as relevant to say "What is the probability that this occurs, regardless of place, context, or time?" the more accurate question is "What is the probability this occurred in China in late 2019 in this lab with this virus, causing this outbreak?" It's akin to the difference between "what's the probability of someone winning the lottery?" (extremely high) versus "what's the probability of you, in particular, Thereisnous, winning the lottery?" (much lower).--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shibbolet's point, but I note that even if he were wrong, persistently referring to the report using "joint WHO-China report" is needlessly verbose and repetitive. The report, how it came to be, the actors involved, ... is already described in plenty of details. There are also plenty of sources, some of which I think have already been linked, which use simply "WHO report" or "WHO [something]". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The report's acknowledgements are written by the WHO as an individual entity. That section also says that David W. FitzSimons edited the document. A google search with his name shows that he worked with the "External relations and Governance" Division of the WHO. In the "Methods of work" section, the report says "The final report describes the methods and results as presented by the Chinese team’s researchers. The findings are based on the information exchanged among the joint team, the extensive work undertaken in China in response to requests from the international team, including re-analysis or additional analysis of collected information, review of national and local governmental reports, discussions on control and prevention measures with national and local experts and response teams, and observations made and insights gained during site visits." So, it is a complex authorship structure in which the heavy work was done by the Chinese team's researchers, followed by observations and comments from the international team (we can't tell whether these observations were minor or major), followed by a formal editing and publishing, and posting as official position, on behalf of the WHO as an individual entity. In sum, I vote to use WHO-convened study in the first ocurrence followed by the use of the abreviatted WHO report or WHO study in all subsequent uses. Forich (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

'Joint WHO-China' report is its official name, other than being the most accurate and providing context. Not mentioning is highly inaccurate and misleading. Eccekevin (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this is the official name and should be used. Which it is, currently, four times in the article. My only suggestion would be to reference it once near the top the World Health Organization section, which it used to be prior to recent rewrites giving more background to the process behind the report (a worthwhile addition, IMO, which also aims to address this topic of China's involvement). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - I also agree that the official name, "Joint WHO-China" report, be presented - maybe a first-time "Joint WHO-China" (WHO-CH) report - and just "WHO-CH" report for all relevant instances afterwards (to help avoid being too "verbose and repetitive" as suggested earlier)? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait! Did I miss something? Since when is there a WHO-Switzerland report on this? Humour aside, no need for either abbreviations or repetition. Many sources refer to the report as the WHO report, and we should strive to use language which will be familiar to our readers and which is not needlessly verbose- especially given the presence of a complex enough section on the actual science, already. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Even on the WHO website[[68]], it is referred to as the "Joint WHO-China study". I'm not sure why this would be controversial with other editors. Strong agree with referring to this report using similar language. Further, any time this report is used as a source it must be specified so that the reader is well aware.KristinaLu (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, please check out the very detailed section of evidence and argument we have about this exact thing on this very talk page over here. This is a lot more complicated than simply one cursory mention on the WHO site. They also refer to it as the "WHO-convened global study" in several places. It is not so simple.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

WHO-China report as a source

There are many sources that call this source into question. It should be avoided as a source whenever possible.KristinaLu (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It's WP:MEDRS. There really isn't anything to discuss here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's the first sentence of WP:MEDRS:

"Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."

The WHO-China report doesn't accurately reflect current knowledge. That's why the letter to Science is relevant.KristinaLu (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, I should clarify my use of "whenever possible". Where the report makes non-contentious claims I see no issue whatsoever in using it as a secondary source. It should be pointed out however that the WHO-convened study is a primary source as well as a secondary one, we can see this in the "ANIMAL AND ENVIRONMENT STUDIES" portion where they have "Methods" and "Results" sections. It is not so simple as a literature review in how it needs to be handled here.KristinaLu (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The letter published in Science should suffice as evidence that the WHO-China should not be used as other sources are.[[69]]KristinaLu (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Letters to the editor are not a very reliable source. I'd say it ranks pretty low on the totem pole. No peer review, and similar to a newspaper opinion piece. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the point where a sensible user would think, "Oh! It seems that I, with my handful of edits spread over the last two years, am not familiar enough with how to judge if something is a reliable source or not! It seems that I routinely mistake reliable sources for unreliable ones and vice versa! I should be more modest to better fit my rookie status!"

Can't we add big, fiery letters to the top of every lab leak Talk page which say: "before you post here, be aware that you are probably on the low end of experience with medical and scientific sources and the sources you suggest are very likely crap, while the sources you want to reject, which are used in the article, have very likely already been vetted and are immaculate. If you search the archives of the Talk page, you will very likely find several discussions about the very subject you want to talk about" or something like that? WP:RANDY has been relevant to this subject for months now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:One could have experience with both reliable sources and scientific sources through, say, both graduate school and employment in labs working with pathogens. I would refer you to WP:NPA, but I'm not particularly insulted by someone calling me a "Wikipedia rookie".KristinaLu (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:Perhaps I can't speak as a veteran Wikipedia editor, but in an academic setting, if a substantial number of experts have derided or criticized a particular source, one should question whether or not to use said source or at the very least name the source/authors whenever it is used. The mere fact that the source in question is for example published in a prestigious journal or funded by a major organization or even that it is a secondary source doesn't make it "immaculate". I would expect this convention to pertain to science related articles here as well.KristinaLu (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@KristinaLu: Perhaps the issue is with limited experience with the policies and guidelines the encyclopedia is based on (WP:PAG). Of particular note reading between the lines: WP:NOR and WP:COI. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, from one academician to another, I feel it is my duty to tell you that the gulf between what Wikipedia expects of its content and what academia expects is very large indeed.

There are parts of academic science which A) are better at this than wiki and parts which are B) much worse. There are very opinionated scientists and very neutral ones. There are scientists who write inflammatory subject matter reviews which would never work here. And there are ones who are much more careful than the best wiki editors at citing their sources.

But, overall, in both academic science and Wikipedia, the ultimate result is more than the sum of its parts. The peer-review process takes these inflammatory reviews and pours cold water on them. In areas of science described as "Hatfield and McCoy" feuds, continual back and forth from different camps in review articles and primary research will eventually give way to one or the other "view" of the field. As Max Planck said, science advances one funeral at a time.

Wikipedia, though, does have some assets that make it even better than academic science at its chosen goal. Scientific review articles aren't beholden to any policies like WP:DUE or WP:MEDRS, not formally anyway. That's something I really like about this place, and something it took me a really long time editing to understand. There's still a lot about it that I do not understand.

What is often told to PhD graduates at their defense? That old Socrates-ism? "What I have learned most is how much I do not know."

The same is true here. You, like me, may be an expert in your corner of science. You may be the world's foremost expert on solid state physics and its applications to Quantum computing for all I know. But here on wiki, humility is really important. Respect that you may be an expert in your field, but you are not an expert in how Wikipedia works.

My other suggestion would be to make policy-based arguments with evidence drawn from a combination of the policies themselves, the Reliable Sources in question, and examples drawn from other wiki articles. Arguments about your own knowledge of science, or, more pointedly, arguments drawn from conspiracy theorists like Deigin or Sirotkin....will not go very far around here.

I would tell you the best piece of advice I have ever learned is "figure out the precedent." Check out the extremely long and detailed archives of this talk page. You may find that the sources you've referenced, or the arguments you've made, have been made before. Read the gold standard WP:PAG like WP:NPOV (especially WP:DUE and WP:RSUW), WP:AGF, WP:MEDRS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:V.

None of the above is to say that I have figured any of this out, but more to tell you that we are all still learning, and humility is key.

We need as many content experts as we can get, but they are not the only thing worth keeping around here. And being a content expert alone will not get you very far in terms of arguments. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your personal view that Deigin and Sirotkin are conspiracy theorists is WP:OR and should not guide your or anyone else's edits here. I also wonder if you consider Ralph S. Baric or Robert R. Redfield to be "conspiracy theorists"?

Also, thanks for bringing up peer-review. As the joint WHO-China study is never went through the peer-review process, this should be considered as well.KristinaLu (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, if I were you, I would read WP:STOPDIGGING. I am trying to help you, not engage in battlegrounding.

Many others have described these two as conspiracy theorists, it isn't just my opinion. For example: Angela Rasmussen [70] [71]

Also helps to know that Dan Sirotkin's highest qualification for knowing anything about science or medicine is that he was a janitor in a prison hospital for 4 months. Seriously, that's it. [72] Karl Sirotkin (his dad) used to be a big name in bioinformatics.

All of which to say, no I am not alone in thinking these two are conspiracy theorists. I'm not trying to say it in wiki-voice, mind you. And I don't think these two are even notable enough to be included anywhere on wiki. But my advice to you is not meant to start an argument. It's meant to show you how your arguments can be more effective.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• An official report from a government agency based on a large international investigation is exactly the source that we need. You have not provided a policy-based reason for removing the WHO report, and in fact your sole reason appears to be that some other, non-peer-reviewed sources have disagreed with it. But these sources appear to be calling for more investigation. They do not appear to be directly contradicting the report. You have provided no evidence to indicate that the report is unreliable. You have not even demonstrated that you have sources that directly contradict it. Our rules and policies on sourcing say that the WHO Report is the highest quality, or one of the highest quality sources available. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Is it possible the WHO report is unreliable and/or out of date? Possibly. But the only source put forward to back that claim so far is... an opinion letter. Such a farcical claim doesn't help build credibility. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Especially given how many other sources we have that are A) more current than both the letter and the report and B) confirm the assessment of the report.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The joint WHO-China report never went through peer-review. Environmeltal Chemistry Letters on the other is peer-reviewed:

"Content published in this journal is peer reviewed (Single Blind)."[[73]]KristinaLu (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Science, but all letters are also peer-reviewed in Nature:

"The following types of contribution to Nature Portfolio journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Matters Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives and Insight articles."[[74]]

This appears to be the convention.KristinaLu (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, I think you may be confusing "Letters" and "Letters to the Editor."

These are two different things. At Nature letters to the editor are actually called a "Correspondence." See their instructions for authors: [75] However, a letter to the editor about the need for further investigation, etc. would probably be instead solicited as a "Commentary." Also not peer reviewed, but more about topical disagreements about X, Y, or Z current event. Plus Correspondence can only have up to 6 authors I believe.

As for the other sources you've indicated, they are not reliable for questions about this content. See the other arguments made against those sources elsewhere on this talk page. It does not help you sway consensus towards your view if you just leave those unanswered and choose to ignore them. See WP:1AM.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35:

1) I never meant to say that the WHO-convened report be removed as a source altogether. If I gave that impression I apologize for the miscommunication. English is not always easy for me, especially when I'm tired. What we have in the joint WHO-China study is a non-peer-reviewed source that has undergone significant criticism by notable experts. The WHO-convened report is not exactly a secondary source either, as we can see where they have there own "Methods" and "Results" sections.

2) As to the veracity of the letter to Science to provide context for reliability of the WHO-China study: Some "Letters" in Science are peer-reviewed, according to their website. Whether or not this source was peer-reviewed appears to be an open question on this talk page. We can see however that Ralph S. Baric is one of the authors, and we of course know that Science is one of the world's top journals. Here is a secondary source in Nature documenting criticism of the WHO-Convened source [[76]]

3) The Segreto et al source[[77]] in Env Chem Lett is definitely peer-reviewed.[[78]] I am adding this source to show that the Science letter is not the only evidence suggesting that the WHO-convened report has problems. We also have this[[79]] published in the PNAS saying WHO-led efforts have been "cloaked in secrecy".

4) Surely the public statements by virologists Ralph S. Baric, David Baltimore and Robert R. Redfield (as well as microbiologist and medical professor David Relman [[80]]) need to be taken into consideration as to whether every single word in the joint WHO-China study be taken as gospel in this article. At the very least, I am arguing that whenever we have a claim which is argued by such experts that we a) source said claim in text specifically to the "WHO-convened report" and b) note the controversy as per WP:DUE. @Bakkster Man:I would like your take (as well as anyone else who wants to reply) on this last point as I am not particularly well-versed in the many WP:PAG.

Following advice from Shibbolethink as per WP:1AM and pinging @CutePeach: @My very best wishes: @Thucydides411: @Terjen: @Forich: to see where other editors stand how the WHO-convened report should be handled as a source. The last thing I would want to do is argue for the sake of my own ego if there truly was a consensus against me.KristinaLu (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

it's a WP:CANVAS violation to ping selectively. my suggestion would be to ping everyone who has posted here or edited the article in the last 3 days or so. thanks. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Investigations into the origin of COVID-19's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "who":

• From Immunity passport: ""Immunity passports" in the context of COVID-19". World Health Organization. April 24, 2020. Retrieved May 1, 2020.
• From Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on science and technology: "UN health chief announces global 'solidarity trial' to jumpstart search for COVID-19 treatment". United Nations, World Health Organization. 18 March 2020. Retrieved 2 April 2020.
• From Zoom (software): Vigliarolo, Brandon (April 9, 2020). "Who has banned Zoom? Google, NASA, and more". techPresident. Archived from the original on April 13, 2020. Retrieved April 14, 2020.
• From Covivac (Vietnam COVID-19 vaccine): "Draft landscape and tracker of COVID-19 candidate vaccines". WHO. 30 March 2021.
• From Sotiris Tsiodras: "Κορωνοϊός: Ποιος είναι ο λοιμωξιολόγος Σωτήρης Τσιόδρας που κέρδισε την εμπιστοσύνη των Ελλήνων" [Coronavirus: Who is the Greek infectiologist who has won the trust of Greeks]. I Efimerida (in Greek). Athens. 6 April 2020. Retrieved 11 April 2020.
• From Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers: "How to protect health workers now: WHO Hay COVID-19 briefing". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 13 May 2020.
• From COVID-19 in pregnancy: "Q&A on COVID-19, pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding". www.who.int. Retrieved 6 April 2020.
• From Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico: "México, en Fase 2 de pandemia por Coronavirus: OMS". Forbes México (in Spanish). March 23, 2020.
• From COVID-19 vaccination in Sri Lanka: "First batch of COVID-19 vaccines from the COVAX Facility arrive in Sri Lanka". who.int. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
• From Nanocovax: "Draft landscape and tracker of COVID-19 candidate vaccines". WHO. 26 February 2021.
• From UN COVID-19 Supply Chain Task Force: "WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 10 April 2020". www.who.int.
• From COVID-19 vaccine: "Draft landscape and tracker of COVID-19 candidate vaccines". World Health Organization (WHO). 26 February 2021.
• From COVID-19 vaccination in Vietnam: "Draft landscape and tracker of COVID-19 candidate vaccines". WHO. 26 February 2021.
• From List of unproven methods against COVID-19: "Falsified medical products, including in vitro diagnostics, that claim to prevent, detect, treat or cure COVID-19" (PDF). World Health Organization. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 April 2020. Retrieved 3 April 2020.
• From Cluster 5: "WHO | SARS-CoV-2 mink-associated variant strain – Denmark". WHO. Retrieved 6 November 2020.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

We made the news!

• Ryan, Jackson (24 June 2021). "Inside Wikipedia's endless war over the coronavirus lab leak theory". CNET.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Great read. Thanks for mentioning. Courtesy ping to the folks mentioned by name in the article: @Forich, L235, Alexbrn, Colin, and Jimbo Wales:. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

While they used my sock puppet picture (which is fine) I should note I was contacted by the journalist for an interview and declined. But the piece seems broadly fine. Alexbrn (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Always a good technique Alexbrn. I have great respect for journalists, but yeah I also would have declined if I were you. I only agree to interviews when I can respond to direct questions in text form, and if I can see the final version of the article and decline to participate if I believe I've been misconstrued. A lot of journalists will say no to that, but some will say yes.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, great to see our work being covered in the news! Congratz to all the hard-working editors who have participated in the discussions reviewed in the article. Jackson Ryan is the name of the journalist who wrote the piece, he did a very good job I think Forich (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I've got a few minor complaints (didn't really mention this article, was basically limited to Pandemic main article and the deleted POV-fork), but overall complimentary and recognizes that it's a difficult task no matter what the answer. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It is rare to read an article about Wikipedia that gets things broadly right. Nobody contacted me, despite being mentioned. It looks like Forich got interviewed, and for getting such Wikipedia-positive quotes, surely deserves an "I edit Wikipedia" t-shirt from WMF :-). -- Colin°^Talk 07:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Great article. I wonder who these "socks" and "state actors" are. Could it be that Alexbrn is an MI6 sock covering up yet another foiled plot of the British royal family? Why was Prince Harry and his dad James Hewitt in Wuhan for the military games? What are they hiding? CutePeach (talk) 08:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Did CP just unironically accuse Alex of being an "MI6 sock"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

lol RandomCanadian, I believe CP was making what the kids are calling a "joke." --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Probably ironically, but separately there is a gross BLP violation in that comment which an admin may need to attend to. Alexbrn (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: How should we refer to the report on SARS-COV-2 origins?

RfC withdrawn because it's a WP:SNOWBALL in favor of option B (WHO-convened report/study) as first use per-section, with a slightly more abbreviated "WHO report/study" thereafter. I'm withdrawing because these articles are so contentious and discussions tend to devolve, and I think it's good to recognize a very clear consensus when it exists. If anyone thinks I called this one the wrong way, or wants me to re-open, absolutely I will, just let me know. But otherwise I'm withdrawing and leaving this open so as not to ruffle any feathers unnecessarily. Deal? Deal.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Throughout this article, we often refer to a report published by the WHO about the origins of SARS-COV-2 [81].

The basic question of this RfC is: How should we refer to this report?

This is a more complicated question than it might seem at first glance, and I encourage all editors to read the evidence presented below these options before weighing in.

Here are the options as I see them:

• A: Refer to it as the "Joint WHO-China study" in the lead and then explain the process of how the study/report came to be, who was involved in what capacity, etc.
• B: Refer to it as the "WHO-convened study" in the lead and then explain the process of how the study/report came to be, who was involved in what capacity, etc.
• C: A mix between A and B where we refer to the study/report throughout the article switching off between the two names, with the first usage being "Joint WHO-China study."
• D: Variant of C where we switch off, but the first usage is "WHO-convened study."
• E: We scrap this dispute altogether and use novel language such as "WHO-convened study conducted jointly with China" or "joint study convened by the WHO and conducted with China."

RfC prepared 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC) by Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} (updated 19:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC))

Evidence

Here are the relevant questions and data:

• What name do news agencies use?

News agencies

Use some form of "Joint WHO-China study": CNBC, The Economist, Voice of America, Vice News Use some form of "WHO study" or refer to WHO as the sole author of the report: BBC, Bloomberg, Fox News, The Guardian,Newsweek, Politico, Times of India, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post Use a mix of the two: ABC News, Ars Technica, Associated Press, MIT Technology Review, NBC News, NPR, Denver Gazette, New York Times, Reuters Sources

• What name do peer-reviewed journal articles (and book chapters) use?

Peer-reviewed literature

Use some form of "Joint WHO-China study": Bloom et al in Science, Gündüz et al in European Journal of Therapeutics, Hidalgo et al (Book Chapter), Lee et al in Public Health, Thoradeniya et al in Globalization and Health, Use some form of "WHO study" or refer to WHO as the sole author of the report: Decroly et al in Virologie, Frutos et al in Infection, genetics and evolution, Koopmans M in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Wacharapluesadee et al in Nature Communications, Wu et al in Nature Medicine, Xiao et al in Scientific Reports Use a mix of the two: Zaracostas in The Lancet Sources

• What about other trustworthy sources (e.g. press releases)?

Other non-news non-academic sources
Use some form of "WHO study" or refer to WHO as the sole author of the report: Official press release from the governments of the USA, Australia, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Korea, Slovenia, and the UK Sources

• What about the primary source?

Primary source material

What is the official document called? (as in the report PDF) "WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part" Subtitle: "Joint Report" What is the study that formed the background of the report called? "Joint WHO-China Study" Who commissioned the report? The World Health Assembly (decision-making body of the WHO) in May 2020 (Resolution WHA73.1) Who is the author in the report's own words? The WHO team. The acknowledgments section is written as: "WHO wishes to thank...." The team acknowledges the China-appointed participants, but not themselves. Who prepared/edited the document? David W. FitzSimons, Sun Jiani, and Lisa Scheuermann. Google searches reveal that all three work at the WHO. How was the report put together? In the "Methods of work" section, the report says "The final report describes the methods and results as presented by the Chinese team’s researchers. The findings are based on the information exchanged among the joint team, the extensive work undertaken in China in response to requests from the international team, including re-analysis or additional analysis of collected information, review of national and local governmental reports, discussions on control and prevention measures with national and local experts and response teams, and observations made and insights gained during site visits." Who is the report officially released by? Posted as an official position statement, on behalf of the WHO as an entity, and presented to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom. Note: Thank you to Forich for gathering a lot of this primary detail from the report itself. I would not have found those quotes without your work here.

Note: I gathered this evidence to start, but I'm happy to add any WP:RSes that anyone else finds to this section. Just let me know.

Evidence Gathered 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC) by Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} (updated 23:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC))

Adding that Fox and Newsweek have also referred to it as either a WHO report or WHO-led report, which I think helps point out that this is a term used across the political spectrum.[82][83] Bakkster Man (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Done! I hadn't seen the Fox News one! I didn't add the Newsweek originally because the Perennial RS list has it as a non-RS post-2013. But it also says "case by case basis" and I think for the purposes of this survey, it makes sense to include. So I did just add it, if that wasn't clear! If anyone objects let me know.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, I wouldn't propose it as a source for article content, but as context of how the report is referred to across the political spectrum. it feels like precisely the kind of exception to make on a talk page for building consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment - I see several places where we do not explicitly refer to the study as a "joint study" or "WHO-convened" (Scientists involved in the WHO report), so option A (or the article) should be updated to recognize this. My preference isn't quite represented above, which would be to use one of the two official names the first time it's referenced (in the article or per-section), and then refer to it throughout the remainder as "the WHO study" or similar (perhaps with parenthetical explanation of the shortened name chosen). Also note, we should involve Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as at least one reference to the report comes from text transcluded from that page. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, I see how that option isn't precisely represented. I guess I would summarize your position as A or B at first in the lead or per-section, and then B throughout the rest of the body/section. Is that a fair summary? I'll simplify the options to make that more clear--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Close, but I'd say A or B on first use (possibly per-section), "WHO report" for all remaining. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Fringe theories noticeboard. 19:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the NPOV noticeboard. 19:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. 19:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Any of these appear to be justifiable with sourcing. Geogene (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  We have had several revert-revert stalemates and WP:BRDs about this exact thing. So we probably need to come up with a consensus on which is best. If we don't, it just means more wasted editor time and headache. The point of this RfC (like most RfCs) is to resolve ambiguity about a question in which there is considerable disagreement, by gathering wider input. If we can establish a consensus about this, then at least we can point editors here when they try and introduce their preferred wording.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• B - Personally I find the name itself to be the least important part of portraying the findings of this study. I get why some users may want to, in some way, acknowledge the COI of China being involved with the study. But the report itself was prepared, edited, and written by WHO affiliates and employees. We can help explain that COI, however small I personally believe it to be, by giving a short description of how the report came into existence, as we currently do in the 4th paragraph of the lead. The study was conducted jointly, but the report was written exclusively by the WHO. I think the WP:RSes also support B, as the most well-regarded peer-reviewed literature sources refer to it this way, as well as many reputable news agencies, though not all of them. It's clear this doesn't break down along political lines, and that this is just a confusion resulting from the study being conducted jointly. But we should refer to the report and its findings as authored by the WHO, because that's who wrote it. My 2 cents anyway.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• B (and shortened thereafter) per the excellent and thorough WP:GOODRESEARCH done by Shibbolethink. There's little more to say, except maybe add a few more outlets/sources (I've looked for ones outside of the US, for variety): The Guardian clearly describes the report as being the "WHO report" or being the work of the "WHO team"; The BBC is very similar, clearly describing the report as issued by the WHO, simply a "WHO investigation" or report - there's one instance of mixed-usage, although the piece describes work done by the "WHO team". CBC has "joint WHO-China study", but it's a reprint of an AP piece so not particularly interesting as far as we are concerned. As for some scientific sources not already mentioned, Frutos et al. has "the official WHO investigation team". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• B is at least accurate and not misleading. Option A seems to suggest that the Chinese government coauthored or formally endorsed the report (although the word joint could be interpreted differently by different readers). NightHeron (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• A, C, or E - I think leaving out "China" at first mention would be close to bordering on deceptive (but not quite, just nearing there); I don't necessarily think it would be helpful to say "WHO-China" over and over and over again, though, as that would venture into the territory of hitting the reader over the head. BUT, alternating between the two could also be problematic: it could make one think there are two different reports being discussed. So perhaps after first mention just call it "the report" or "the Report" (I know capitalisation nazis are not likely to allow the latter; I think all the fuss over what can and can't be capitalised is silly, myself). Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  If we explain the context of China's involvement in the lead immediately after the first use of the term, what's deceptive about B?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose switching between "WHO-convened" and "WHO–China" as proposed in "C" and "D", because that will make it sound like there are two separate studies/reports. User:Bakkster Man's comment has made me wonder whether the real question is how to describe the study (which obviously involved the Chinese government) or the publication (whose authors do not seem to include the Chinese government). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• B on first use (possibly per-section), "WHO report" for all remaining. Forich (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• B but D is okay too, depending on context. The study and its report are notable enough for their own page, which should also include responses from the WHO DG, WHO member states and independent scientists. CutePeach (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

References

why the Bloom lab preprint doesn't make the lab leak more likely

(and also another reason why we probably shouldn't include it in articlespace yet).

Just wanted to drop this excellent Twitter thread from Trevor Bedford[84]. And also this Jesse Bloom twitter thread helps as well[85].

What this shows is that the added sequences that Bloom had his preprint focused on only further solidify the phylogenetic argument that the B lineage of the virus (which is most of what we've seen in early Wuhan) was probably not the founder strain. Molecular clock vs rooting in closest known viruses disagree, but it's clear that the most parsimonious arrangement has the A strain as the founder. If true, this makes Wuhan a less and less obvious origin point for the virus. The Bloom preprint sequences only emphasize that further.

and this debate, this confusion about what the preprint means, is precisely why peer review is so valuable and why preprint findings should not be included in these COVID-19 articles, regardless of how much coverage they get in news sources.

We need the robust criticism and context from other scientists to make these findings clear and robust. and useful.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC) (edited 15:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC))

So lemme get this right. We've got well-sourced assertions, given without attribution in the sources that appear to be factually correct and are undisputed (even by those who take a different interpretation on what the event means), published in Nature, the New York Times, CNN, and other HQRS, and we want to exclude any mention of this from Wikipedia on the basis of a Twitter thread by Trevor Bedford? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not really what I said. I'm sorry let me try and make it more clear.

My argument about non-inclusion is that these news coverage sources don't know how to properly contextualize or interpret the findings of the preprint, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. News agencies do not, by and large, have the expertise to understand the science behind this controversy. And, more specifically, the Nature article you're referring to is a news article. It is not peer reviewed or (usually) written by a scientist who has training in this field. Ewen Callaway has a master's in microbiology, to be fair[86].

In general, I find the argument for inclusion using the Nature news[87] and Science news[88] pieces to be more compelling.

But I still think for something this controversial, this debated, we are way more likely to get it wrong than right by relying on news sources. Here are several news agencies with great reputations who completely fumble the coverage of this preprint, by emphasizing how "secretive" and "cloak and dagger" this is [89][90][91][92]. Bloom himself (in the twitter thread above) emphasizes that the secrecy should not be assumed to be malfeasance [93], that the issue is the totalitarian regime of the Chinese government, and also how these sequences make the phylogenetic argument for a zoonotic origin slightly more solid.

The academic press news sources (which, at least in the case of the Nature piece, do cover this well) push me a bit closer in the direction of inclusion, but not all the way. I'm sorry that you disagree. I'm not trying to be tendentious, just asserting that there is a reason why Preprints are problematic. They need the context of peer review, much like what Bedford is doing openly in this twitter thread. The final published version of Bloom's article would do well to have a more clear and frank discussion of the multiple rooting possibilities. And better phylogenetic trees that show this rooting problem. He discusses it some, but in a confusing way. It's confusing for me, and I have a PhD in this field. So why do I expect news reporters to have a better grasp of it?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, there was a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information saying that special sourcing requirements do not apply to the origins. Although currently unclosed, by numbers alone it's obvious it won't be closed any other way. If our WP:RS guideline is resulting in factually accurate information, that should be addressed separately.

About this, it appears nobody disputes the core facts. Here it says Some scientists are skeptical that there is anything sinister behind the removal of the sequences. ... “You can’t really say why they were removed,” Dr. Bloom acknowledged in an interview. “You can say that the practical consequence of removing them was that people didn’t notice they existed.” Even those disagreeing on the interpretations agree on the core fact that sequences were removed due to a request by the Wuhan University.

There exists no policy that allows editors to unilaterally decide publications by community accepted reliable sources are factually inaccurate. We are not citing to a preprint, we're citing to reliable sources discussing things in a preprint. These are two very different things. Reliable sources are allowed to do original research - in fact, that's precisely the point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There were actually a fair number of comments on that RfC that also emphasized that the RfC was meaningless or unnecessary, because we already have policies which say that scholarly journal articles have primacy over news articles, even in spaces where MEDRS does not apply.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, iirc that was my argument, but no peer reviewed scholarly sources exist for this particular issue, so we go to tier 2 RS (good illustration: User:Levivich/Tiers of reliability). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we're arguing past each other. I get what you're saying, I get the tiers of reliability. The other important point would be the way the General/Discretionary Sanctions handle preprints in this topic area. There are quite a few other preprints which never got published, or which are preposterous, or even get published in crappy journals, which got lots and lots of news coverage. However we don't cover them here. This case with the coverage about this preprint is different, but this serves to show the edge case. One example would be this absurd paper in a Biophysics journal published by those two Norwegian guys that is full of misinformation [94][95][96][97][98][99]. Sørensen et al got lots and lots of basic facts about the virus wrong, and a few WP:RSes covered it. In some cases, they actually repeated false claims of the paper, without proper fact checking. Does that mean we also should have a section on this paper/preprint? If we had done so right when it happened, we would have repeated those false claims. And not had the proper context to know this preprint was bogus and full of misinformation.

I guess what I'd like to say is, if we're going to include it, the weight and proportion and context should be entirely based upon the news articles published in Nature, not these other outlets. And frankly, if it were solely my decision (which it isn't, I'm a fan of consensus), I wouldn't include it at all until it were peer reviewed. Because it's a controversial set of claims and ideas, in a controversial topic area, under DS.

If we're going to include it, the context of the Nature news article is probably the best around, and should form the basis for inclusion. Emphasizing the way this changes the phylogenetic argument, and how it means we need a more open investigation with less interference from the Chinese government. NOT emphasizing the "secret deletion" or the way this somehow means a conspiracy is afoot. Does that make sense? I think our due weight should be based on the best quality sources, namely those two articles in Levivich's Tier 2.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

In that example you gave, the only tier 2 RS is The Telegraph, and that's a "Letter to the editor", not a news article, so the piece itself is not RS, and The Telegraph made no such claims in its own voice. So it's not really comparable to this situation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

More generally, there could be a case where the RS get it wrong, but then Wikipedia (as a tertiary source that merely summarises the reliable secondary sources) will and should get it wrong too. Wikipedia can only do as well as the RS do. Editors setting their own standards is a hazy line (if it were acceptable, then surely "the sources are POV" would be a valid claim to exclude content in the American politics topic area). I have no strong opinion on how exactly this material is covered, but complete exclusion or a presentation that is not reflective of the best sources is contrary to Wikipedia policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

We are not citing to a preprint, we're citing to reliable sources discussing things in a preprint: Pre-prints are unreliable for factual claims. Popular press articles about pre-prints are even worse. We should not be relying on low-quality sources for any remotely scientific claim, and in the context of virology, the NYT, CNN and the rest of the popular press is low-quality.

By the way, it should be noted that the sequences in question were published by the Chinese researchers who obtained them in a peer-reviewed journal in June 2020: [100]. The specific claim being made by Bloom is that they were removed from a specific database, but the researchers did subsequently publish the sequences elsewhere. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The articles I saw, most of them explicitly mentioned that Bloom himself said this doesn't affect the origin debate (specifically where the zoonosis occurred). It's the insistence to add information about the preprint to this article which seem to be wanting to make the link, contrary to the author's statements.

I think we can (and should) improve our discussion of the pre-Huanan Market spread without needing to rely on the preprint. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• It does not matter if it makes "lab leak" more or less likely. Were new sequences of the virus found, was it an important finding, and was it reported in secondary RS, such as CNN (certainly not Twitter)? The answer to all these questions is definitely "yes". So include this sourced info on the page please. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Why lab leak likely/unlikely is completely besides the point

As those of you who have read the preprint already know, Bloom never claimed his findings gave more weight to any lab origins hypotheses. Rather, Bloom presents the removal of the data from NCBI and CNGB as prima facie evidence of the Government of China’s gag order in effect, as clearly stated in the preprint’s abstract. This gag order was first reported by the The Associated Press in their bombshell investigative report [101]. This behavior is not the norm in Public Health Emergencies as per International Health Regulations, and this is why I highlighted the importance of phylogenetic evidence in the RFC about COVID-19 origins [102]. Serological or phylogenetic analysis of the index patients and virus are probably the only means for scientists to investigate the origins of this virus, without the Government of China’s cooperation on a forensic investigation of wet markets and labs in Wuhan.

Those here trying to downplay the deletion of these sequences and advocating for the WP:POVDELETION of this story either don’t understand the role of phylogenetics in epidemiology, or the importance of Data publishing for Reproducibility in Open research and Open science - so you should click these links if they’re blue for you, and read this letter too [103]. For sure it was nice of the authors of that paper to leave us a table of mutations in and publish it to a nanotechnology journal where no virologist would ever have found it, but that table wouldn't have been enough for Bloom to do a phylogenetic analysis and publish the findings of what he believes are ancestral sequences of the virus as it was spreading in its early days. With that said, we should include the critical comments from Robert F. Garry in the WashPo for WP:BALANCE, as he is one of the most respected virologists in the world, even if still red linked. It should be noted that Gary’s response is to Bloom presenting his finding as evidence of cover up, and not to his phylogenetic analysis, which he hasn’t commented on, yet.

Note that the Government of China is holding up talks for [104] and resisting certain terms of [105] the International Treaty for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, which will be the biggest revision of International Health Regulations since the last revision created after their well documented cover up of the early spread of 2002–2004 SARS outbreak. This is still all coming together in WP:RS, so we should take it slowly. CutePeach (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: Those here trying to downplay the deletion of these sequences and advocating for the WP:POVDELETION of this story either don’t understand the role of phylogenetics in epidemiology, or the importance of Data publishing for Reproducibility in Open research and Open science... To be clear, the opposition appears to have been almost entirely a difference in interpretation of WP:PAGs, not the content itself. We'd be having a much different discussion right now if this was already peer reviewed. Let's not jump on the POV-train. As you said later: This is still all coming together in WP:RS, so we should take it slowly.

With that said, we should include the critical comments from Robert F. Garry in the WashPo for WP:BALANCE, as he is one of the most respected virologists in the world, even if still red linked. It should be noted that Gary’s response is to Bloom presenting his finding as evidence of cover up, and not to his phylogenetic analysis, which he hasn’t commented on, yet. I broadly agree that this is the key in how we present this. We have a RS that sequences were deleted at the request of the submitter (on the basis of submission elsewhere, do we have a RS that identifies them as not being available?), the initial claim in the preprint isn't itself an RS and the coverup claim should be handled with care (as I explained above), with RS for other scientist's reactions. Could you link the WaPo article with the Garry comments? I included a critique from David Robertson in Business Insider in my proposed rewrite above (see discussion) and could see the potential to drop that one in instead if that's what we're going with. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man thanks for your reasoned response as always. Here is the WashPo article with critique from Gary [106]. Please note that Gary is one of the holdouts of the Proximal Origin paper, and I suspect it's personal for him because he has worked closely with Shi of WIV for many years, and he has also been falsely implicated in lab leaks before, which may be noted in other RS. CutePeach (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, your claim "there was a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information saying that special sourcing requirements do not apply to the origins" is entirely false. There was a poll asking "to unambiguously define disease and pandemic origins as a form of biomedical information" (i.e. under the scope of MEDRS). That poll failed. But it doesn't mean that it is entirely not biomedical information. As many, including myself (who opposed) said, there are aspects of the origin of covid that are biomedical information (and thus under the scope of MEDRS) and there are aspects that are not (and covered by other guidelines and policy). Just because it isn't entirely biomedical information doesn't mean it is entire not biomedical information.

I note that Bakkster Man has added some text on the deletion dispute per discussion further above. In my view, that dispute warrants coverage as a (for now) notable scientific dispute about the origins of covid 19, and not for the actual biomedical claims made by Bloom (which fail MEDRS and fail the sanctions against preprints regarding covid). Whether that dispute rumbles on or gets forgotten in a week or two will determine if the text is notable enough to remain. -- Colin°^Talk 18:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: I'll point out again, nobody has yet made the case that this claim requires MEDRS sourcing. The first references of MEDRS regarding this topic were from people arguing against a strawman that the revert was based on WP:MEDRS rather than WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Let's not allow preemptive arguments against MEDRS to become an albatross that prevents productive consensus building.

In the end, I pulled the pre-print note from Li-Meng Yan's article (to point out that it lacks review), and followed up the deletion claim (clearly non-biomedical) with the confirmatory note from a news RS. If there's room to improve it's with the claim of the phylogenics, which I watered down significantly (and I suspect we have prior strong sources we can point to to make the claim that this was already well established science, but need help finding) and the contrary opinion from another scientist. The thing that ended up swaying me mostly was that while I cite the pre-print, it's not really used to make any claims but has to be at least referred to because it prompted the discussion. Definitely a better inclusion that the originally requested bare presentation of 'he found missing sequences and we don't know why they were missing', and calls to restore prior to at least adding that context. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You may be right that nobody removed it is claiming it requires MEDRS sourcing, but those arguing for its inclusion have mentioned MEDRS and their views on its apparent non-applicability to this entire article. -- Colin°^Talk 19:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The first mentions of MEDRS were people advocating for inclusion, and the only mentions by those advocating against inclusion were in agreement that MEDRS didn't apply. Just because someone mentioned MEDRS in another discussion about other content doesn't mean we should keep referring back to it preemptively, especially not when used to say something along the lines of 'this isn't a BMI claim, and there are no other applicable sourcing policies'. That's why I call it a strawman, and why preemptively mentioning it hurts our consensus building. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes... So, the origin of COVID-19 isn't covered by MEDRS, which is what I said. If some particular sentence in this article falls under a different applicable category then obviously it's covered as usual, but it's not covered by virtue of being related to the origins of COVID. The idea that sequences were deleted is not covered under a different applicable category. The text you have introduced is pretty much what I was arguing should've been added (or, at least, there was no sourcing reason not to add it), so I don't really have any remaining concerns here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Saying "the origin of COVID-19 isn't covered by MEDRS" won't make that true no matter how many times you repeat it. Some aspects of the origin of COVID-19 are covered by MEDRS and some aspects aren't. Look, if some academic had discovered a recent ancestor of COVID-19 in some Chinese bat cave, and nobody had ever suggested a lab leak, this entire thing would be a short paragraph or even just a sentence in some other article, and be sourced entirely in compliance with MEDRS. -- Colin°^Talk 11:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As it stands, there's far too much space given to the Bloom/SRA story. The problem is that it takes several sentences to adequately explain what happened (reads published in the SRA, reads deleted from SRA, sequences published in a journal, Bloom writes preprint, various people comment on preprint). But in the context of the overall investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, this is a minor story, and it shouldn't take up this much article space. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This was my primary concern as well, though I think it's mostly mitigated by being near the bottom of the article and contextualized (your edits were very beneficial). I'd actually like to see that section expanded with some other (more notable) independent findings. That might also point out if this preprint is a nothingburger that it's worth removing (and will reduce our reliance on the single WHO study). Bakkster Man (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The WHO study is, by far, the most thorough investigation into the origins of the virus. It should take up most of the space in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting otherwise, it should have top billing right now. But I do think there's room to flesh out information on other, less notable studies lower on the page. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, your edit [107] puts the claim that the Wuhan University researchers published the sequences, which is not what the Nature article or any of our other sources say. The Nature article makes it clear the sequences were deleted from the SRA before the paper was published, and the sequence information it was published with did not contain the raw data. I have explained above that a table with a list of mutations is not the same as raw sequence data, and the entire section seems to brush that aside as a "nothingburger". CutePeach (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In this case, the single nucleotide polymorphisms contain all the relevant information. The criticism is that the raw reads were deleted from the SRA, but the paper still made the most important information available (though I don't think even Bloom is claiming that these particular sequences say much of anything new about the origins of SARS-CoV-2). -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Still, Nature Magazine does not make that distinction. Your edit is a WP:MISREPRESENTATION of our source. What you call relevant information and raw reads are not the same thing and we should not be presenting them as such for our readers. CutePeach (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assertion that my edit misrepresents this issue. As the Nature article explains,

Stephen Goldstein, a virologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, points out that the sequences Bloom recovered were not hidden: they are described in detail, with enough sequence information to know their evolutionary relationship to other early SARS-CoV-2 sequences, in the Small paper.

The issue Bloom is criticizing is the deletion of raw reads from a particular database, but as the Nature article points out, the same authors who deleted the raw reads also published the sequence information. But again, Bloom's pre-print is still a pre-print, and I'm highly doubtful that we should say anything about it in the article at all. Just in the time that we've been discussing the pre-print here on the talk page, it has undergone very significant revision. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think, with this information part of the section, it's worth wondering whether this is a nothingburger that shouldn't be covered, or if it is that it's covered more directly as 'much ado about nothing'. Something more along the lines of "A preprint claimed to find missing genomes which had been deleted from the SRA, however this genetic information had simply been published in an alternate location." We've mentioned it, but not given it more credence than it's worth. @Colin: ping since you had input on this previously. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I just gave that Independent Investigations paragraph a quick read. I think the whole paragraph/section should go. Giving this much weight to a WP:SELFPUBLISHed preprint seems a bit WP:PROFRINGE to me. If it takes 5 sentences to explain something claimed in a preprint, that is just way too much weight to something that is self-published, imo. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the main argument was that if someone comes looking for discussion of the Bloom preprint, they should find information about it here. Hence my suggestion to reduce it to a sentence or two of it basically being debunked, rather than the tempest in a teapot of "someone moved genetic info, another person noticed, and some other people freaked out". Bakkster Man (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, agreed. We are basically extremely WP:UNDUE by drawing out the entire saga instead of just saying how much of a nothingburger it is.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cnet article

The discussion of Covid 19 origins on wikipedia has made into news: https://www.cnet.com/features/inside-wikipedias-endless-war-over-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory Just a comment: we should have an article named "Wikipedia discussion war over the coronavirus lab leak theory" Sgnpkd (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong oppose. We don't have an article on the basis of one RS, Wikipedia is not particularly significant on this issue, CNET is only reliable for tech-related articles, and we've (for content reasons) decided against various (otherwise notable) spinoff articles on this topic. Nice that Wikipedia has press coverage, but we don't need an article every time Wikipedia makes it into the news. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I concur with ProcrastinatingReader here. It's very rare that wiki-drama warrants a mention in an article, let alone an article dedicated to it. Moreover, this is outside of CNET's area of reliability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The "relevant" article already exists at Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic - we can add a sentence or two about this there, if you deem it is warranted to do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we can call CNET a reliable source for this topic (their area of expertise appears to be cellphone reviews and the Top 10 Things to Stream On Amazon Prime Tonight). If our back-channel forum drama is actually noteworthy, other publications will pick up on it. It's happened before on other topics, but I don't think we're there yet. XOR'easter (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• The sentences are already there. ;-) Ain92 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Last foreign scientist

1 TrangaBellam (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

An interesting source, even if I'm not sure what we'd use it for on this article. Good background context, though. I also added it to the misinformation article, since it included another description of threats related to misinformation. Thanks! Bakkster Man (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Military connections of Wuhan lab scientists?

The NBC Evening News had a segment on Wuhan lab scientists' military connections on 6/29. See video here where they detail their evidence and state this is central to President Biden's current investigation. [108] This is mainstream media on the current investigation, so perhaps the topic merits coverage in the article? Pkeets (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI, this is the same thing, same thread of accusation, as the "intelligence fact sheet" which was not actually an intelligence document, not a threat assessment. It was a political document, authored by politicians and other non-experts like David Asher, as far as I can ascertain. That's why we must treat it extremely carefully as it includes unproven unsubstantiated accusations of malfeasance for BLPs like Shi Zhengli. I understand what you're saying, but we do already cover this in the article. See Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Biden_administration.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: Please be mindful of WP:OR. The US State Department fact sheet was a very carefully vetted documented, and according to Ned Price, it remains the position of the current administration [109] [110] [111]. There is virtually no dispute about this. CutePeach (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages. Re: the document, here are some relevant quotes from that WaPo article you just linked showing how much dispute there is:

"Therefore, the official said, [the fact sheet details] do not represent a fair and balanced representation of what the U.S. government knew about the coronavirus origins at the time. By focusing only on the lab, the fact sheet highlighted only the data points that supported the conclusion Pompeo wanted..."

"“From the start, the fact sheet was a State Department messaging document, rather than some sort of complete accounting or intelligence-driven analytic product,” the official said. “There was certainly not consensus [inside the U.S. government] on the still unproven theory that this emerged from the lab.”"

"the Biden State Department determined that some of the facts in the Jan. 15 statement are supported by either U.S. government information or public sources, a senior State Department official told me. But that doesn’t mean the Biden team is endorsing Trump’s or Pottinger’s assertion that the lab was probably involved."

It is not the official position statement of the US government, that's why Biden called for further investigation. To create such a statement down the road.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: granted WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, but we are discussing Pkeets’s proposed inclusion of NBC's report on an alleged link between the WIV and the PLA’s alleged Chinese biological weapons program. Ned Price’s on the record statements make these allegations official US government position, and that’s about as clear as the US government will ever be wrt bioweapons. The off the record statements from the anonymous source in WaPo can be quoted for WP:BALANCE where they are WP:DUE, but we should be mindful of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Please read the article in its entirety, as well as more recent articles, such as the one from Vanityfair [112] and the response from Christopher Ashley Ford [113]. CutePeach (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: Where in that transcript you provided does Ned Price say that the fact sheet is, in its entirety, an official position statement of the US Government?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: just the fact that Price pointed to the sheet - instead of reversing its position as the Biden admin has on other issues [114] - makes it the current US government position. Making charges wrt bioweapons is not something governments do lightly, as they have to be filed as complaints as per Article VI of the BWC, and I don’t think the US government would want to do that. It's entirely possible that the Chinese biological weapons program is purely defensive in nature, so this is a sensitive and delicate matter and should be treated as such. As much as I enjoy our conversations, I suggest we focus on how to include the NBC report in this page. CutePeach (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach:Okay, well. I understand what you're saying, that certainly would make it more difficult to find an RS showing that a bioweapons program exists. So far, I personally have seen no actual WP:RS evidence that such a link exists. It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely a government is to say something explicitly, the requirement for WP:RSes is still the same.

I think for such an extremely controversial set of assertions (the US government's official position is that the Chinese government has a biowarfare program, and was operating it at the WIV), you'll probably need a lot more than the fact that a spokesperson pointed at a document to get to consensus on this.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I do not think "WP:RS evidence" is a requisite policy for inclusion. If we see reports in WP:RS that the WIV conspired with Tikbalang to create COVID-19, then it would be WP:DUE for inclusion in this page - with WP:INTEXT attribution of course. If you want us to qualify the bioweapons allegation as first being made under the Trump administration, then that’s fine with me - but to say it has been taken back under the Biden administration is WP:OR. Btw, the fact sheet was not authored by Asher, but by several highly experienced State Department officials from across a number of divisions. It would have been impossible for Pompeo to get them to publish the sheet in his last few days if it was political in nature. Of all federal executive departments, the US State Department is the most resistant to political pressure, and Trump would often deride it as the "Deep State Department". CutePeach (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: From your above linked sources: Price said the January 15 fact sheet was "very clear that it was inconclusive -- it didn't give credence to one theory over another." That's my concern, trying to turn an uncertain fact sheet into an "official gov't position" feels very 'gotcha' to me. Which, in turn, makes it hard to determine if there's actually an NPOV way to include it without its very inclusion ending up pushing a certain POV. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: sorry, me and Shibbolethink got a bit carried away discussing the nuances of official US government position. We don’t have to cover these nuances in our mention of the NBC report. We now also have this CBS report on those military ties [115]. CutePeach (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The CBS News article says that some US officials claim the lab has military ties, and it offers no evidence for this claim. This claim absolutely cannot be made in Wikivoice in any article, and is UNDUE in this article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• If you guys check this source, it say Wuhan Institute of Biological Products has been apparently involved in the Chinese biological weapons program. This is a producer of COVID-19 vaccine. As about lab you are talking about, it is also mentioned in the source, and I would be surprised it was not involved if they have an active biological weapons program (apparently they do). My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes I read that integrated study a few years ago and I just created Chinese biological weapons program using your contributions from China and weapons of mass destruction. I hope that’s okay with the copyright policy. CutePeach (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products is not the same as the WIV, it just happens to be right next door. Sgnpkd (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it is not the same. That's the point. That is why I was always surprised why US intelligence (or whoever) were talking so much about this Wuhan lab. That could be just as easily any other lab (or labs) in Wuhan or elsewhere. I am sure there are many other labs in China capable of handling such virus. My very best wishes (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Citing Shi Zheng-Li for the origin of COVID-19.

Due to her considerable conflict of interest, we should not cite a paper with Shi Zheng-Li's name on it for the origin of COVID-19. In addition to the conflict itself, we have the problem that the paper[116] does not disclose it. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

So because she is on the paper, you think we should not use it. Even if the editorial review process vetted the veracity of the paper's claims, and the peer reviewers agreed. And there's all the other authors on the paper as well. Do all of those people's opinions and verifications not matter? Because of what you perceive as a COI? Because you think one of the world's foremost experts on coronaviruses has a vested interest in finding potentially zoonotic coronaviruses in the wild? This is exactly what she was doing before the pandemic, and what she will be doing for many years to come. Finding bat viruses in the wild. She's good at it. It doesn't make it maleficent. I would also remind you that there is, as yet, no actual proof that Shi Zhengli has done anything wrong.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Do you have a BLP-compliant, reliable source which unambiguously declares Zheng-Li has a conflict of interest? Without one, I don't think we can even begin to have this discussion. And even in that case, I'd suggest we'd want to see the change reflected in WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources, such as secondary papers describing it in that manner or the original paper being retracted for that reason.

I'd also mention, this logic would have us not citing Investigate the origins of COVID-19 in Science, because it was signed by members of The Cambridge Working Group who would also have 'considerable conflict of interest' in a lab origin. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Re Shi, that's not needed per WP:BLUE. See in particular "Pedantry, and other didactic arguments" on that page. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It isn't self-evident to me, and I would wager it is not self-evident to many of the other users here. I tend not to believe a COI exists unless I have concrete evidence of a conflicting incentive structure. In this case, I don't see anything beyond vague aspersions thinly cast.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine. The order said communication and publication of research had to be orchestrated like "a game of chess” under instructions from Xi, and propaganda and public opinion teams were to “guide publication.” It went on to warn that those who publish without permission, “causing serious adverse social impact, shall be held accountable.” [117]. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The current state of the investigations on SARS-CoV-2 origin have not led to an official investigation in a court of law against the Wuhan Institute of Virology or Shi Zheng-Li. Therefore, we can not exclude the opinions and comments of Shi Zheng-Li on this page. However, I would suggest we use WP:COMMONSENSE when dealing with particular sentences, for instance, if her opinion departs signficantly from other RS we should always include both views instead of leaving her opinion alone. That said, we should probably start considering whether to improve the coverage of the allegations at Wuhan Institute of Virology, I'll may try it later today. Forich (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Right. Shi has followed Chinese law, so she has not been investigated. But when people publish information contrary to Chinese law, we get things like this: Coronavirus: Why have two reporters in Wuhan disappeared? [118]. So the question becomes, is threat of enforced disappearance if one says the wrong thing sufficient to create a conflict of interest? That's where WP:BLUE comes in. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The paper you removed is not primarily published by people at the WIV. It's primarily authored by people at Eco-Health Alliance. Authored by Americans and Europeans. WIV people were collaborators. Not the primary authors. So I have serious doubts that any interference from Xi Jinping was tolerated....--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: I agree with Shibbolethink: there's only a conflict of interest regarding the origin of COVID-19 if she was somehow involved in the origin. And that's far from certain.

I'll also point out that you've cited no WP:PAG why such a COI (if it existed) would even prohibit our citing this paper. WP:RS only mentions COI regarding WP:NEWSORG and WP:SPONSORED, neither of which apply here.

Regarding WP:BLUE, there are cases where this kind of pedantic insistence is useful and necessary. I also propose WP:NOTBLUE applies here: if the journal didn't disclose a conflict, and hasn't retracted or otherwise noted such a conflict, then it is very much not obvious that one exists. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to be clear, though-- I agree that citing Shi Zhengli alone for statements of fact about the lab leak, such as:

The lab leak did not occur. [Insert ref to an interview with Shi Zhengli]

would be wrong. Clearly she has a reason to say that, and it would be wrong to cite her for such a statement. I would agree with Forich on that point in particular. Where and when she diverges from mainstream scientific opinion, we can state as much. But in this instance, she doesn't. We're citing her paper as part of a multi-sourced statement about the existence of other coronaviruses found in bats. Many people who are not Shi Zhengli can confirm the veracity of that claim. It also matters how controversial the supported statement is (this one is not very, given how many sources we have that support it. It's very clear this is what most scientists think).

In accordance with PAGs, we also elevate sources that go through rigorous peer review and editorial filters to be published in well-regarded scientific journals. And that's what the source you removed is. Zhengli is a middle author, it's an overall research product, evaluated by many different eyes, and peer-reviewed. At that point, it becomes a useful secondary source, not a primary one. The farther we get from unevaluated opinion, and the closer we get to secondary review, the less such an association matters. And the less fair it is to call it a true COI.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Daszak's involvement is a further reason not to use the cite, in light of this: It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Freedom of Information group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity.[119] Adoring nanny (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, Okay, I disagree that Daszak has enough of a COI to invalidate the publication. And he definitely does not have enough of a COI in this to invalidate the ability for us to use this publication to answer "did they find coronaviruses in the wild?" and "Is this Nat Comm article useful in determining what most scientists think about the virus origin?" On both counts, the answers are yes.

On both counts, we have no reason to think a peer reviewed and editorially scrutinized publication in a very reputable journal is tainted in any substantial way, such that it is not useful in answering these questions.

And we actually discuss what other people think about his possible COI in the article already. But we also cover his opinions on the matter, I believe.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that there's a substantial difference between noting a perceived/apparent/alleged conflict of interest in the article (which we do for Daszak, last I checked) and refusing to cite an otherwise reliable source for perceived/apparent/alleged conflict of interest. Arguably, the latter might even end up acting like WP:CENSORSHIP. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Bakkster Man, that is an extremely important distinction. And I want to make clear, this section is all COI assertions based on allegation alone. There is no proof that Daszak has actually done anything wrong enough to assume he is lying or committing malfeasance. A reasonable person could agree or disagree that Daszak should have disclosed a COI when signing the Lancet statement. Given that he himself is not a Chinese national, he owes very little if anything to the Chinese government, etc. etc. If China banned Daszak tomorrow, it would suck, but he would go on doing his job all the same. EHA has a metric TON of international collaborators.

As a personal anecdote: Before this pandemic, I knew and became friends with several people who worked for the EHA in New York (people who now have jobs elsewhere). Maybe 1/4 of them had any contact with Shi Zhengli's group at the WIV. And all 4 of them had multiple projects that were completely unrelated to China. Is the WIV a good collaborator and is Southern China an important place to look for Viral Zoonoses? Yes. But would EHA be completely fine if they were banned from entering China? Yes. EHA would focus more on Cambodian or Vietnamese bats, probably.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Of course she can and should be cited. Just as Deigin et al. Yes, her words can not be trusted, but that's irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that Shi Zhengli is one of the world's foremost experts on bat coronaviruses and Deigin isn't even a virologist. The above discussion about disregarding research by Chinese scientists by virtue of them being Chinese is quite disturbing, in my opinion, and not a road we should go down. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is not the fact that they are Chinese. It's the fact that the Government of China will disappear them if they say the wrong thing. I would have no issue with citing Taiwanese scientists, or American scientists of Chinese ethnicity, for example. Furthermore, I have no problem with citing them for the official position of the Government of China. But in light of Xi Jinping's direct threat above, they shouldn't be cited in WikiVoice. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm against putting xenophobia into Wikipedia policy, as well as the suggestions that various internationally recognized experts (such as Daszak) should be discounted because they work with Chinese scientists. We should go on what passes peer-review in high-quality WP:MEDRS, rather than deciding that all Chinese scientists should just be discounted. I'm surprised and disappointed that we're even having this discussion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not we who made the decision that 'communication and publication of research had to be orchestrated like "a game of chess”'. That type of orchestration is not science. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Even accepting that the wording by ABC News is accurate (despite the prevalent anti-China bias in US news media these days), that still wouldn't mean that publications coming from the Wuhan institute are not science. During the course of the pandemic, the US CDC and other reputable sources have "orchestrated" their public messaging, usually with good intentions (although not always with good results). That does not mean that CDC publications are not science, and the same goes for publications from China. Wikipedia should be even-handed and should not take sides in the new Cold War between the US and China. NightHeron (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

ABC News is not more competent than the journal Nature to determine what is and is not good science. Shi Zhengli is one of the world's foremost researchers into bat coronaviruses. She did some of the critical work that determined the origins of SARS. We're not going to start overruling the publication decisions of expert peer-reviewers and editors at journals like Nature, based on some generalized argument that Chinese scientists are unreliable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Like I said: her paper can be used and should be treated just as any other peer-reviewed publication. Same about the paper by Deigin et al. As about trusting her statements in interviews (usually conducted through email), this is a different question. That would be obviously affected by the Censorship in China and other aspects of people living under the communist regime, i.e. people may be forced to withhold information, etc. That affects scientific publishing. It appears from publications that China has something similar to Soviet "First Departments" which had to approve the release of any scientific publications on the matters deemed significant for state security. That does affect people and affects a lot. Just for the sake of example, let's consider Yuri Ovchinnikov who convinced Brezhnev to begin a large-scale program of Soviet biological weapons (according to book by Ken Alibek). During a competition with Har Gobind Khorana Ovchinnikov intentionally published an incorrect amino acid sequence (a peer reviewed publication), so that a competitor would spend some time to find out the reasons for disagreements. This is a story Ovchinnikov was telling his students. Of course it was a rare occasion, and for an important cause. But simply not publishing something (if it was deemed important by censors for "dual purposes") would be a lot more common. My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your insinuation that highly regarded Chinese scientists might be publishing fabricated data really has no place here. Enough is enough. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I am only saying that Chinese government controls scientific research and publishing, especially on this subject [120],[121], pretty much like USSR did it in the past. Obviously, any censored publications, including scientific ones, may be less reliable/trusted under such circumstances. It does not mean they can not be used. Same with personal interviews through emails, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that logic is we can never verify it. If the publication was censored, we'd never know since it would have presumably been suppressed. And since it was published, that means it wasn't censored. So the papers we'd want to cite would never exist to cite, and the ones which do exist don't suffer from the original concern to need avoiding. "What about disinformation" I hear you say? Back to WP:V, we're going to reflect the mainstream view. If all reliable journals are intentionally suppressing contradictory studies, then we're going to base the article on that mainstream set of publications until either the journals or WP:PAG changes.

This whole discussion is silly, and a waste of time. Especially when we're talking about a paper signed by 15 scientists, rather than something primarily (or solely) authored by the person under discussion. This argument over (essentially) WP:IDONTLIKEIT has gone on too long. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability is not the truth. If published in a reputable journal (as it was), this passes WP:V. That's why I am saying we can use it. Do I personally trust anything she said in interviews through emails? Of course not. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The focus of this discussion is moving from Shi Zheng-Li to our treatment of academic sources from Chinese scientists under pressure from the Chinese government. The appropiate venues would be, on content, Censorship_in_China#Health and Censorship_in_China#Education, where appropiate RS sources describing what is allegedly being censored (or self-censored) should be mentioned. Given that censored stuff is, well, usually hidden from public knowledge, we should consider that whenever a specific scientific journal publishes papers that i) show evident signs of manipulation by Chinese authorities; ii) is accused by many RS of having being manipulated by Chinese authorities; we bring the discussion to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, with a case by case basis of how to deal with the bias introduced in the source (deprecation is one remedy, but there could be other workarounds). Forich (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the phrase "conspiracy theories" from the lede

I move that this term at the very least be removed from the first paragraph. As a precedent we can look to Earth#Size_and_shape for example. There is no mention of Flat earth. The primary importance of this article is to document legitimate inquiry. "Conspiracy theory" is not a major factor in the process of legitimate inquiry and hence should be left out of the lede. Any talk of "conspiracy theory" could potentially be saved for a controversy section and link to other existing COVID-19 pages.KristinaLu (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The conspiracy theories are a major component of the origin investigations. Your precedent is more suitable for the COVID-19 and COVID-19 Pandemic articles, where we don't mention the conspiracy theories in the lede. I think the more apt comparison is History of geodesy. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that your comparison is more apt. However, History of geodesy doesn't mention conspiracy theories in the lede. If we were contemporary to Pythagoras, we would not be referring to the flat disc of Homer as a "conspiracy theory". Again, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is an open question and needs to be treated as such here.KristinaLu (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, WP:V is the pertinent PAG here. We follow what other people say, not what we think is the "truth." And lots of other people talk about conspiracy theories related to the origins of the virus. So that's why we mention it. It is analogous as to why "flat earth" is mentioned in the lead of History of geodesy. The specific phrase "conspiracy theory" is not as important as the content itself. Both this article and that article discuss dissenting views, and frame those views in how experts discuss them, proportional to how often they are discussed that way. That's WP:DUE for you. Is it always right? No. But it tends to be right more often than it is wrong. That's why Wiki policy is built this way.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Neither WP:V nor WP:DUE point to the term "conspiracy theories" being used in the very short first paragraph of this article. Maybe it could be included later in the lede, but it should not be juxtaposed in such a way to lead the reader towards WP:OR ie. that any hypothesis besides non-laboratory zoonotic origin constitutes a "conspiracy theory". This may be your personal opinion, but as per WP:NPOV and WP:VOICE we report what sources say not our opinions about them, and we should avoid stating opinions as facts.KristinaLu (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree. Linking to COVID-19 misinformation in the lead is essential, and the current wording seems fine. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The way the lede is written clearly relegates the lab leak theory to conspiracy status. Pkeets (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

New Republic Article from June 29

I don't think we use this one yet, it's pretty good. [122]

Written by Lindsay Beyerstein. Covers the lab leak theory inside and out, from the perspective of scientists and why the consensus is the way it is. There isn't much in here that isn't already in our article, though. So I'm just gonna add it to bolster up non-MEDRS non-SCHOLARSHIP sentences that have become controversial, that it also addresses.

WP:RSP calls TNR generally reliable for long read journalism like this.Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think if we are going to start accepting 'long read journalism' then there is not a consistent argument against such journalism from other reliable media outlets. I would prefer to stick to the best sources we have, which is the peer-reviewed scholarship, on the more substantial points. Especially since this source is biased and opinionated (per RSP). I don't mind having it as a link in the "External links" section, or for sourcing the especially political aspects of the issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

1) RSP says opinion pieces from this outlet are opinionated, but that isn't what this source article is. It isn't an opinion piece, it's a descriptive one. It shows us, through a secondary lens, why a bunch of scientists don't believe the lab leak theory. 2) I'm not saying we should use them for controversial statements, I agree we should only use them for EXTREMELY uncontroversial statements that are also covered elsewhere. I have not put this source anywhere where scientific evidence is being cited, except where the citation is to say "an Expert believes X thing" because it's an interview with several experts. Does that make sense? I would analogize this to the WSJ piece about hospitalized workers. I want to be very clear about how I'm using this, because I agree, it's a very complex area and very grey in a lot of ways. I don't want to rock the boat to start introducing lots of journalism pieces here. It would be counter-productive in controversial places. This source just helps us understand what experts think about this situation. And it is one of only a few sources that reference the annual serum sampling at the WIV, so I cited it for that as well. Just to say it happened, not that it proved anything.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "longform journalism" also includes stuff like the Nicholson Baker piece, which I think it best not included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The BAS where that's published is not a reliable source, and that essay is an opinion piece. Different from this New Republic piece in that very important way. Again, not sourcing this for anything disputed (e.g. it is also never the only source cited).--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You're getting confused. The BAS piece was Nicholas Wade, I am referring to the long-form journalism piece entitled The Lab-Leak Hypothesis in New York (magazine) from January. On further reflection, the direct quotes from Rasmussen and Robert F. Garry are probably usable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, You're absolutely right I was confusing the two. And agreed, that piece is highly opinionated and masquerades as longform journalism in the same way this one does. I'll make sure that we're only using this TNR piece for the quotes, and put that in the ref template.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a good article to read for discussion of evidence against a lab leak, but it should be used in a similar way to the Nicholas Wade piece; that is to say sparingly, and not at all for contentious biomedical claims. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion about reliability of a podcast

Please comment on the reliability of the podcast "This Week in Virology" to source information about this page. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"This_Week_in_Virology"_(TWIV)_Podcast. Forich (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Daszak in lede

@Ali mjr: Please note WP:BRD. The addition may violate BLP policies and certainly has NPOV issues. You don't seem to understand what WP:Consensus is either. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Diff: [123] User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)