Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

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

Which pages use this template?

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

"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.[3][4][5][6] 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)[7] 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[8], 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 [9]. 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 [10], 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[11] 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 [12] 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 [13] [14] [15]. 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. [16] 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 [17] [18], 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 [19]. 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: [20] [21]).--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. [22] 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. [23] 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 [24](secondary source reviewing Andersen and others) [25] (expert opinions determining same)[26][27]. 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"[[28]]). 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)

@Bakkster Man:Thanks very much for bringing things into focus. I definitely agree that this section be split up between the scenario the WHO described (being attributed that that source) on the one hand, and then other scenarios (intentional manipulation and escape of "natural" virus) on the other hand. (I think that goes along with what you're suggesting here?) As for the "adaptation and transmissibility increase" figure I will try to take a look in order to better respond when I have time. Thanks again!KristinaLu (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@KristinaLu: Yes, that would be essentially what I'm proposing. The current paragraph should stay as the WHO-scenario, and whether we add a second paragraph depends if there are sufficient reliable (and WP:SCHOLARSHIP) sources to describe another scenario. Last I checked, we're light on those. Any you can find would be great. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:59, 4 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)

I know, I know. All of this is such an unimaginable stretch for you... The idea that this bat virus emerged in a place with no bats, that just so happened to be the location of China's only level IV lab that just so happened to have the worlds largest collection of viruses... from bats. Only an unreasonable crazy person would ever imagine that there might be some connection there.

So here we have established that you can't snark, which is OK. As for the WIV, it is well documented that they were working with SARS-like bat CoVs before the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2. I can provide (their own) peer-reviewed sources but I haven't yet because I was under the impression that nobody here was contesting that fact.KristinaLu (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The idea that this bat virus emerged in a place with no bats, that just so happened to be the location of China's only level IV lab that just so happened to have the worlds largest collection of viruses... from bats. It's worth remembering that we don't actually know that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan. It was first noticed in Wuhan, and that was the location of one of the first big superspreading events, but we haven't identified the index case to say with certainty where it first infected humans. We do cover this topic in the article, by the way, explicitly pointing out the Wuhan/Yunnan distance. But the lab isn't the only explanation for that distance, of course. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:Maybe I should make my position clear, since bias and retaining NPOV is always crucial on Wikipedia. The above that you quoted was sarcastic of course. It was in response to another editor referencing aliens in a post directed at me. My point was that calling hypotheses conspiracy theories can be just as silly and counterproductive as actual conspiracy theories themselves.

It's worth remembering that we don't actually know that SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan. Yes. That is indeed worth remembering. It is also worth remembering that transparency and open discussion are of primary importance to the scientific process (as I'm sure you realize).KristinaLu (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35:No, you are incorrect that In science, the best way to avoid being "scooped" is to publish information, not hide it. That's a crude and inaccurate generalization. That's true when a lab is only interested in publishing the data it found, but not necessarily if they hope to do something with said data. It depends on the PI, some are extremely secretive, some less so. Take the situation where a research group "gets lucky" (or is in an unusually good position) and ends up having sole access to some data. If said data happens to be particularly useful (and especially if it's low-hanging fruit) in the same types of experiments that the research group specializes in, it might be years before said data is available to the public (which includes other researchers).

In the future please ask for clarification on what I write before assuming that my posts are "illogical" or "lack reasoning". Thanks!KristinaLu (talk) 20:32, 4 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 [29]. 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)

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[[30]], 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)

Edit: Care should be taken when using this source for contentious claims and the source should be named in the passage eg. "According to the WHO-convened study..."KristinaLu (talk) 02:43, 3 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)

I think you're over-complicating this. One of the three types of MEDRS acceptable sources is medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies. Official reports by the WHO easily qualify. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The letter published in Science should suffice as evidence that the WHO-China should not be used as other sources are.[[31]]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 [32] [33]

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. [34] 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)."[[35]]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."[[36]]

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: [37] 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 [[38]]

3) The Segreto et al source[[39]] in Env Chem Lett is definitely peer-reviewed.[[40]] 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[[41]] 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 [[42]]) 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: @力: @Pkeets: 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.

EDIT: notifying every unpinged user who has contributed to this talk page and article in the last 72 hours: @Novem Linguae:, @Hyperion35:, @Hemiauchenia:, @ProcrastinatingReader:, @NightHeron:, @Adoring nanny:, @Thepigdog:, @Hob Gadling:, @HighInBC:, @Davemck:--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC) (Edited 12:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC))

Please note I am only involved in this page in an administrative capacity. Please do not include me in the content dispute. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS applies to "intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" so it doesn't apply here. I will look to page history for another couple editors to ping, thanks for the suggestion.KristinaLu (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused what the question is. The report generally shouldn't be used as an inline citation because it's a primary source, but if other RS discuss it then it should be mentioned as those sources portray it. If this is about whether to call it the "WHO report" or the "WHO-China report" then I think it would be better to look towards the RS (ideally peer-reviewed journals, and if that's unavailable then long-style news reporting from HQRS) and call it whatever they do? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Re: how to refer to the report, we already have that discussion. I would like to emphasize that, to the best of my knowledge, we do not cite the report in this article other than as a statement for how experts think about X thing (per MEDRS, and for uncontroversial statements which are also cited with other secondary sources.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

So what's the question in this section? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, honestly unclear. I think this is a 10 minutes hate on the report. And I guess KristinaLu wants us to talk about the criticisms of the report every time we mention it or cite it. Which, imo, would be undue.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue with these discussions is that they're very unfocused and keep rehashing the same settled issues, such as the Segretto paper. It becomes very difficult to extract what specific issue is being discussed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Agreed. I am sometimes guilty of making this worse, as are many on this page, by discussing the topic instead of the article. I guess that often happens in contentious articles. As in all things, it's a work in progress. However, I have often wondered if an FAQ would help, as is sometimes seen on other heavily trafficked pages. But I also don't want to go too deep into that, as I'm quite sure it would be a long and drawn out and horribly convoluted discussion that would repeatedly get off track. Maybe it's worth it to avoid having as many of these discussions in the future. We also should just more frequently point to talk page archives when discussions are repeated. I think that would help.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

A "Current Consensus" list, such as at Talk:Donald Trump or Talk:COVID-19, would be appropriate for the entire "Origins of COVID-19" I think. I've usually been critical about these lists, but these issues are split across so many talk pages and noticeboards and keep being rehashed that I think such a list would really help with institutional memory and dialing down the repetitiveness. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I started Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus). Feel free to add & improve it if it might be a useful concept. I don't have a list on hand of every disagreement but I found a couple major issues/discussions and added. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Definitely! Like it so far, and will add more as I am able.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have multiple concerns about the WHO-China report. The greatest is that raw data were not given to the international team,[43] and China has made it clear that raw data related to the origin of COVID-19 are to be treated like "a game of chess".[44] That's not an appropriate attitude for science. However, the issue is unlikely to be decided on this page. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and made sure that every place we have the report cited, it's either an extremely uncontroversial statement (e.g. which scientists were on the investigative team) or we have multiple other secondary sources to back up the claim. Does that resolve this?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

No, but it's still an appropriate step to take, so thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, Happy to help. What other specific unresolved concerns do you have? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Wikipedia policies are not set up to handle a situation where the official opinion of a body like the WHO is based in part on data provided by someone who is playing games. Furthermore, the report itself shows no recognition of that fact. They did note that some data were not provided, but they didn't look at the big picture of why not. A scientist should be concerned with the integrity of their data, correct??? This is a new situation. But there is a fine line to tread. I think that rewriting policies for an unusual situation could be harmful. But I do think that, in the appropriate forum, we should have a community-wide discussion about what we think of the reliability of the WHO report. For example, should it be used to support WikiVoice statements or not? My personal answer is that the WHO report is not a scientific document. Garbage in, garbage out. But we need to ask the community. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, could you be more specific and less general? If you have concerns about wiki policy, my suggestion would be to take it to the talk page of that policy. But I agree that is not advisable at this time. Better to look into it and see how things age after this controversy calms down.

As far as I can tell, you don't have any specific concerns about how we currently use the report in this article, since it's only used for statements of non-controversial non-scientific fact and of summarizing expert opinion. But I may be wrong about that, please let me know. At present, I can't find any instances where it is used solely and strictly to support statements of science. Or if it is, it's because the report cites others that we also cite. In that capacity, the report is acting as a secondary source, bolstered by other peer-reviewed or otherwise robust RSes that we cite.

What specific statements do you have a problem with in the article text? I find that broad generalizations don't tend to be as productive as specific criticisms. Thank you--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the WHO report is "garbage". I've only read portions of it, but it remains a report from the World Health Organization, which is an established and reputable body. However, it is a primary source, and thus falls under WP:MEDREV even if it were peer-reviewed. It also has to be remembered that this report is pretty much the only comprehensive scientific discussion on the origins. Media sources don't go into this level of depth, and other journal sources generally don't investigate the origins comprehensively, so it wouldn't be appropriate to cut the information out. It would be appropriate to use it to source uncontroversial statements in wikivoice, and controversial statements should be attributed in-text. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess what bugs me is the pattern of repeating debatable statements without any counterpoint. The example of this that jumps of the page for me is the following (actually not from the WHO): WIV virologist Shi Zhengli said in 2020 that, based on an evaluation of those serum samples, all staff tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies.[126] Sure, she said that, but she is forced to participate in Xi Jinping's chess game under the threat of being arrested and/or disappeared. Therefore, the evidentiary value of this statement is zero. But the article simply repeats the statement, without noting that she is speaking under threat. Maybe the article needs to discuss the fact that while everyone else is attempting to do science, the Chinese side is playing chess? Adoring nanny (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, your comment would be more appropriately placed in the sections below about Zhengli and your theorizing of her having a COI, instead of this section, which is about the WHO report.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:Thank you for the cleanup/organization that you did! @ProcrastinatingReader: said: I'm confused what the question is. The report generally shouldn't be used as an inline citation because it's a primary source, but if other RS discuss it then it should be mentioned as those sources portray it. If this is about whether to call it the "WHO report" or the "WHO-China report" then I think it would be better to look towards the RS (ideally peer-reviewed journals, and if that's unavailable then long-style news reporting from HQRS) and call it whatever they do?

@ProcrastinatingReader:I'll do my best to explain using an example. @Adoring nanny:Perhaps the following will address your concerns as well. The WHO report is used 16 times in the article. The fourth instance is the following highly contentious sentence:

Available scientific evidence and findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin.

This sentence has 4 inline citations. The first two are both the WHO-convened report. The third source which directly quotes the WHO-report is a correspondence piece, likely not peer reviewed as is the convention of the journal. The fourth source is an article. The most decicive claim in that article comes directly from the WHO report: This hypothesis has been considered as “extremely unlikely” by the official WHO investigation team. I propose the following resolution:

According to the WHO-convened report, available scientific evidence and findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin.

The above treatment of the source is how it would be most responsibly handled in an academic context, I can't speak for Wikipedia but I can't imagine why it would be any different in this case. The point is that if all we're dealing with here is one singular claim, it gives a false impression to the reader to have the claim with four inline citations as though all of those sources came to this conclusion independently. Adding the key language about where the claim comes from is both honest and clear. Thanks for reading. Thanks for reading.KristinaLu (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, oh the issue there is that this is actually partially a transcluded statement from a different article. That's why you see multiple citations etc. I'll try and clean it up a bit, but that's why it's like that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder why you would engage in so much clean-up, rather than simply be transparent with the readers.KristinaLu (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, ...huh? How exactly am I not being transparent? Please be more specific.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, Okay I've added some review articles and peer-reviewed research pubs to the citations for that statement, removed the commentary, and removed the WHO report from citing that statement. Every citation there firmly supports the article text.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I checked your first new source, the Wacharapluesadee et al. 1) Nothing in that article remotely resembles the sentence in question (so at the very least this is WP:SYN and 2) This is a primary source. Do I have to go over every one of your sources like this? Please don't edit in such a way (in haste or otherwise) that causes other editors to have to scan through jargon-filled primary sources behind a paywall just to find out that a claim isn't even supported. All I asked for is to attribute the claim to the source it came from. What we have now is WP:OR. Please change the sentence to say it comes from the WHO-report and call it a day.KristinaLu (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please not be adversarial? We are working together to build an encyclopedia, and you are not my employer, you don't even pass the 30/500 rule. You are a relatively new editor here who is very convinced they know better than quite a few editors with more experience. I would remind you, humility is a virtue in wiki. You raised an issue with the WHO source, so I found better sources. Primary sources may be used, with caution. Especially when a review paper backs up the assertions in the primary article. It's common practice to cite both for a controversial claim. So that's what I have done, and in fact provided several review sources that are also right there supporting the claim. That sentence is supported by the Wacharapluesadee source. The Wacharapluesadee source is peer-reviewed. It's published in a very well-regarded and reliable journal. But okay, because you have raised an issue with it, though I disagree, I will remove it. I went ahead and replaced it with a review published in a pretty well-regarded journal. Not as good as the others there, but pretty good.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, The reason there aren't more citations for that statement is that we have had too many at various points and wanted to avoid over-citing. But there are many more scientific peer reviewed sources (and journalistic RSes, which I'm not a fan of using in this context) which support the statement. I'll see if I can add some scientific literature sources and clean up that citation list. But no, it would be inappropriate in my opinion to make that statement attributed to the WHO report, since there are many excellent non-WHO sources which support it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's another idea as opposed to using several primary sources (that would have to be thoroughly vetted to watch for WP:OR).

Just use this sentence:

According to the WHO-convened report, available scientific evidence and findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin.

Cite with secondary sources. Done. Please consider editing in such a way that makes Wikipedia transparent, accessible to non-expert editors, and free of WP:OR (including WP:SYNKristinaLu (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please indicate which sources that are currently cited for the sentence are "primary" ? or contribute to WP:OR? I think it's probably useful also to say that every single currently cited source for the sentence is open access. No paywalls.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I would direct you to the following explanatory supplements to WP:OR -- SYNTH is not summary, SYNTH is not important per se, and SYNTH is not explanation. I would ask that if you would like to criticize one of my edits as SNYTH, please in the future provide which two (or more) ideas I am combining to create a new thesis. I will then gladly either A) provide you quotes to show I am not doing WP:OR, or B) agree with you and self-revert or change my edits so that they are not OR. This will save us both a lot of time and headache. Thank you. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:[>This edit here.]. When you added the Wacharapluesadee et al source. Were it a stand alone source, it constitutes WP:OR as far as I can tell. And yes, you removed the article but of course only after I complained about it. Technically, if I added the King James Bible to the list of citations would that be WP:OR? Maybe not if the content was covered in other sources but it makes everything an impossible task for other editors. Other editors shouldn't have to vet primary sources in this way, especially when there is a perfectly reasonable solution that has already been suggested. No time at the moment to check the other sources. Hopefully another editor can. (Also, you're right I forgot about the paywall thing.)KristinaLu (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@KristinaLu: The reason I directed you to "SYNTH is not important per se" is because it is particularly relevant here. "What matters is that all material in Wikipedia is verifiable, not that it's actually verified. By this we mean that it is important that a suitable reliable source that supports this material has been published in the real world, not that someone has gotten around to typing up a specific bibliographic citation in the article. Citations are not an end in themselves." Now typically for controversial statements, it's important to have citations, because otherwise they will get challenged and removed. But there's no WP:PAG that says "because you added a source somebody disagreed with one time, the entire statement must be removed, you aren't allowed to keep it with good sources." At least not one I've ever heard of. The importance of the project is to have encyclopedic verifiable information. And that means saving statements that are verifiable, even if the source isn't right at the moment. In practice, that means it's okay to revert an added sentence and say in the edit summary "source doesn't support, provide good quality source" and then when somebody comes back and re-adds the sentence with a good source, that's also okay. That's just the process in action. Wikipedia is not about winning, it's about making a good encyclopedia.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

WHO-China report as a source, cont.

Creating a break here.KristinaLu (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

My crude attempt at a synopsis of what was discussed above:

The reliability of the WHO-convened report (this is the name that was agreed to, right?) has been called into question by experts as well as by the international community. We have talked about how to treat all contentious claims (made in this article) which are currently sourced to the report by treating them in one of the three following ways:

1)Introduce wording such as "According to the WHO-convened report..."

2)Replace with other RSs if all of the other peer-reviewed and other RSs agree and I would argue generally that they do not, otherwise the claim would not be contentious

3)Delete said material.

Looking forward to what the community has to say.KristinaLu (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

KristinaLu, Your option 2 does not make sense with WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE.

It doesn't matter if one or two sources from unqualified non-experts say A, when the majority of available HQRSes (peer-reviewed review articles in topic-relevant and well-regarded journals) say B.

We don't elevate viewpoint A to a worthwhile inclusion in the article if most available secondary sources don't even mention it. We treat A with due weight, which to a WP:FRINGE or extremely minority viewpoint, is to say we do not mention it. And we certainly do not just delete B because A exists. For instance, Deigin and Segretto's viewpoint can be understood as fringe when we examine the fact that no HQRSes even mention the existence of their paper.

So instead we include the statement B as supported by HQRSes, with due weight to the mention of B in available HQRSes. We do not include minority viewpoints just because they exist, only if they are mentioned by others as notable and worth giving minority weight.

For scientific claims, the relevant guideline on what counts as a HQRS is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This would tell us that we defer to scientific review articles in topic-relevant and widely-circulated journals. They determine the weight we give viewpoints.

You also left out Option 4) Adjust the statement until it is compatible with what secondary RSes say, ignoring the WHO report altogether.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I addressed a similar issue as the one raise by KristinaLu in this [[45]] discussion, abruptly closed without consensus. I believe it has aged well because other editors and readers have pending concerns on the reliability of the report. I propose we revisit the discussion at RSN if evidence keeps mounting up against the report' credibility. Forich (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Forich, why does the credibility of the report matter if we don't use it to make statements of controversial unattributed fact? And if we also discuss the many pitfalls and concerns that have been expressed with the report in the appropriate sections with the appropriate weight? (which I believe we already do)--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: [I see.] Your post did indeed age well. What a curious move it was to close that conversation. I should be clear here; to me what is at issue are the contentious claims made in the WHO-China report. On the other hand, what is conspicuously missing at key points in this article is the fact that the WHO study came up short on all of the investigations they did do (ie. found nothing at the market, found no reservoir species, found no link to frozen foods, etc.). The report could be useful (along with secondary sources of course) to illustrate that point. Well, I would gladly be willing to help compile a list some of the developments that have happened since then.

Here are four names that come to mind: Ralph S. Baric David Baltimore Robert R. Redfield David Relman

KristinaLu (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:, If the WHO did not wanted journalists and wikipedians to discuss the extent of credibility of its origin report they should not have endorsed the flawed version that came out. I have no responsibility in that, I'm just calling it out. Authority is not perennial, that's why we regularly bring hot topics to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. It took Wikipedia five years to realize that CGTN was not very reliable on some topics (it was launched in 2016 and only by 2021 user Hemiauchenia raised concerns about it, see this thread. In the case of Xinhua News, editors soon advocated for some filter (e.g. User Peregrine Fisher said Xinhua is a reliable source. Just be careful if your using them for something that the PRC would want slanted.. I hope that a proper discussion would eventually lead us to some filter of the sort of: do not trust a WHO-report that repeats political statements about Taiwan's sovereignity, or do not trust a WHO-report that repeats COVID-19 death figures that have been shown to be statistically unrealistical, or do not trust a WHO-report that repeats Chinese claims that frozen foods is more likely than a lab leak origin. These are just arbitrary examples to show that some narrow areas of distrust can be drawn. And maybe I am wrong on all of them, I just don't want the discussion to be closed within 24 hours with an explanation of "its political nonsense". Forich (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Forich, What specific changes would you like to achieve consensus on? This feels like more arguing in a ten minutes hate about the report. We cover many criticisms against it, from several different people. We also cite it only for where expert opinion is being referenced, as it is a professional body of experts. It's not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, or somehow depict the "true" nature of reality. it's our job to depict the world through the lens of verifiability and using the best available sources. So please explain, how are we not doing that in the current article text?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I've made specific diffs that have been reverted:

1. strongly questioned adjective
2. Reuters and CNN deserve to be cited
3. not seen as credibly adjective
4. A new point is this specific point on the hierarchy wikivoice -> MEDRS -> RS: I propose we prevent to put in wikivoice anything that is seen to be influenced by the documented Chinese control of information that could have transpired into the report (if it can not be substantiated by a second source). Examples: a laboratory origin of the pandemic was considered to be extremely unlikely (p. 120), / Transmission within the wider community in December could account for cases not associated with the Huanan market which, together with the presence of early cases not associated with that market, could suggest that the Huanan market was not the original source of the outbreak (p. 7), / introduction through cold/ food chain products is considered a possible pathway (p. 9.

This four points are specific, have made them before (at least the first 3, including justification on talk page). These edits got watered-down to the current paragraph that has upfront that Tedros "called for more studies" with a timid "Doubts over the report were also echoed by some media commentators". I propose to change the balance, by putting less weight on Tedros call for more studies and more weight on the lack of credibility cited in RS. Forich (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Forich, point by point:

1. My gut reaction is "not NPOV" and particularly WP:UNDUE since we already have your 30 scientists, the WSJ investigation, and multiple multiple politicians and scientists criticizing it in the article. I don't think this one particular sentence adds much of anything. In the current article, we actually describe the criticisms and who has said them, instead of making broadly uncitable pronouncements. I also don't think your citations actually support the statement you've attached them to, particularly the White House citation and the Reuters citation do not say that. The New York Times article supports what we already have in the article text: criticisms about transparency and access to samples/raw data. The Atlantic article does not even refer to the WHO-convened report on COVID's origins, instead referring to the Joint Mission that examined transmission dynamics and how to control the spread of disease [46]. Totally different report, I've made that mistake myself. I believe you've accidentally synthesized "China withheld data" and "WHO said the virus was likely zoonotic" to produce the WP:SYNTH "credibility has been questioned due to a "proclivity to side with China." I don't see that thesis anywhere in those citations, except from Matt Ridley as an opinion. And I can't find other citations talking about this Ridley piece, so I think including it even as an opinion of his would be undue. The Telegraph is well known for its very very opinionated bend towards conservatism. Ridley also has no relevant expertise other than having written some books about genetics (which I greatly enjoyed). He has no formal training in virology or epidemiology or international relations, though, and for that reason we should not cite it as even an expert opinion.

2. not NPOV, there are already a ton of references in NPOV language, why add the one quote that is a paraphrase of a paraphrase? We've already cited 30 scientists and a ton of other individual experts. Quickly becomes a race to win king of the COATRACK.

3. Of these 4, this is the one I am most sympathetic to. It's a good source, with a good non-picked quote. However, that being said, we already have specific people questioning credibility, and also joint statements, individuals, countries, scientists, and the WSJ questioning the credibility, plus others I have definitely forgotten. This very quickly becomes a WP:COATRACK where the end result is "let's put as much negative criticism as we can find here" instead of "let's duly weight the criticism in proportion to its actual coverage in the secondary sources." We need to be very careful about that tendency, I have felt it myself. I could be convinced on this one, but overall I am pretty confident it's UNDUE.

4. This is again an opinion-based argument, that has no bearing on MEDRS or statements from an expert body. If the American Heart Association all got together and made a statement, "Jumping off bridges is actually good for your heart health," then we would duly report that very statement as an attributed expert opinion. It's important to include because it's an expert body making a claim, and a claim that is covered extensively by secondary sources, showing that our depiction of it is also WP:DUE. We may not like that claim, we may find it troublesome, but that isn't what matters. It doesn't matter how much Reuters says "The AHA has been taken over by aliens!" It doesn't matter how much Matt Ridley doesn't like it.

Bungee jumping is in season, or rather, "The AHA has decided that bungee jumping is in season."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink:, user Darouet has been Wikipedia: Bold and did a major rewrite of the reactions to the WHO report. It seems to me he ignored most of the talk page discussion. We can follow the discussion starting from his new version, or revert it and invite him to join the previous productive discusssion. I can work either way, I'll let you take the call on what to do. Forich (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

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[47]. And also this Jesse Bloom twitter thread helps as well[48].

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[49].

In general, I find the argument for inclusion using the Nature news[50] and Science news[51] 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 [52][53][54][55]. Bloom himself (in the twitter thread above) emphasizes that the secrecy should not be assumed to be malfeasance [56], 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 [57][58][59][60][61][62]. 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: [63]. 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 [64]. 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 [65]. 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 [66]. 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 [67] and resisting certain terms of [68] 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 [69]. 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 [70] 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 based on a WP:MISREPRESENTATION WP:MISINTERPRETATION 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)

@Thucydides411: again, the Nature Magazine article does not say that the sequences were republished. Goldstein’s comments can be quoted using WP:INTEXT attribution, but using them in place of statements made by the authors of the article or to twist the meaning of their statements is WP:MISINTERPRETATION. Bloom’s latest updates to his preprint clarify questions, including those from Goldstein, but they do not change his allegation that the SRA deletion was to obscure the existence of the data.

@Bakkster Man: your claim that this genetic information had simply been published in an alternate location is false, as the sequences were not republished, which I have repeatedly pointed out above. Bloom’s preprint certainly > hasn't been debunked as you also claim, and by "it" I mean its main finding, which was that the deletion of the sequence data constitutes prima facie evidence of the Government of China’s gag order on Chinese scientists in effect. Even Goldstein conceded that in his Disqus comments on the preprint, calling on Bloom to focus his claim on the Chinese government and not Chinese individual scientists.

Shibbolethink please can you explain why a story reported by Science Magazine, Nature Magazine, USA TODAY, The Daily Telegraph, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, South China Morning Post, Business Insider and El País is a nothingburger? More importantly, now that you are here, please can you respond to the point I made in the header of this subsection titled lab leak likely/unlikely is completely besides the point. We are discussing the removal of sequence data intended to obscure their existence, as reported by our reliable sources. Dr Bloom was careful to qualify his findings as informative but not transformative and that the attention his preprint got was because of how people are hungry for any data [71] - something which there is a severe lack of here. Some editors here seem to be misremembering the paucity of data here, possibly in a bid to downplay Bloom’s findings. CutePeach (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, Please see your talk page. It isn't enough to be covered by all those RSes, what matters is "do they cover it in reference to the virus' origins?" and more specifically, "do the WP:BESTSOURCES cover it in relation to the virus' origins?" I'm not convinced they do, given that everyone here is quick to mention how little it does to change the estimate. Purely as my expert opinion: "that table wouldn't have been enough for Bloom to do a phylogenetic analysis" is not true. SNPs, if they are comprehensive (synonymous & non-synonymous, genome-wide) are exactly what you need to do a phylogeny.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 07:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I ask you again to please respond to the point I made at the start of this subsection. As to your WP:AGF warning on my talk page, it is clearly evident that there are editors here WP:MISINTERPRETING our sources in order to downplay the significance of Bloom’s findings and delete all mention of them from our article. If you want to achieve WP:BALANCE, you can cite expert WP:OPINIONs as quoted in our WP:RSs, instead of citing only your own expert opinion. The Science Magazine article quotes W. Ian Lipkin as saying There may have been active suppression of epidemiological and sequence data needed to track its origin. On the relevance of Bloom’s findings to the subject of the article, Lipkin is quoted as saying This is a creative and rigorous approach to investigating the provenance of SARS-CoV-2. I really don’t know why you are trying to argue over every aspect of COVID-19 origins that might point to a laboratory incident. CutePeach (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

We can look again at what the Nature Magazine article says:

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. (emphasis added)

The use of "points out" indicates that Nature Magazine agrees with the statement, and even putting that aside, the above statement is simply true. Table 1 of the paper contains the SNPs, which is what you need to know the sequences. But again, we're talking about a pre-print here, not a published paper, and that pre-print is undergoing significant changes in real time. It's already been significantly modified just while we've been discussing it, and it's unclear if and in what form it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. We should not have an entire section on a pre-print. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach the deletion of the sequence data constitutes prima facie evidence of the Government of China’s gag order on Chinese scientists in effect. Even Goldstein conceded that in his Disqus comments on the preprint, calling on Bloom to focus his claim on the Chinese government and not Chinese individual scientists. Sounds like WP:OR to me. Based on the most reliable of sources, Disqus comments! You're making quite the case for removing the sentences outright. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It is or ought to be it rrelevant ot his discussions whether or not COVID19 originated in a lab, and, if so, how it became released. It'ss an interesting question, and , like many questions about the specific origin of diseases, of interest both to epidemiologists in the narrow sense, and scientists generally, and the general public. For the general public is interested in this sort of information even when the disease is not a current threat, and is very certainly interested in this particular information, because of the general and still uncontrolled threat to mankind. This requires determining in detail the science and also the factors that might tend to obscure the science, and a wide range of specialist will be involved. Personally, as a biologist with my doctoral training in the only non-medical school Department of Virology in the US, I'm inclined to (over) value the molecular biological evidence, but that's just me. as a biologist, not me as a Wikipedian. We report not the truth, but the verifiable information, and in this case, the verifiable information about the various hypotheses that people consider. Whatever the origin prove to be, and based on the molecular evidence so far, I doubt it was the Wuhan laboratory, we still need to discuss the various hypotheses; and, considering the world-wide interest in this issue, and its political and science-policy implications, people would seem likely to continue this interest and discussion indefinitely. Certainly, the mere possibility that it is laboratory origins and the especially the remote possibility that the strain was deliberate produced in a gain-of-function experiment whether true or false, will have very grave implications for the ability to do further research of this sort in China or anywhere else, and proving this was not the case will not and should not diminish the social concern about such research.

It requires neither political nor scientific sophistication to see this. That we do not cover it fully because it it possibly not the more correct hypothesis is a disgrace, and an example of OR in WP running amuck.Perhaps OR is not the right term, but the unaccountable prejudice that anything ever espoused by a far right wing source is inherently ludicrous and not worth further discussion. The principle of free inquiry is that everything ,however unlikely, and who ever supports it, is open to discussion. And if the discussion is substantial , whether in scientific or lay sources, it must be covered by Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

DGG the particular problem in this discussion is that Thucydides411 is claiming - falsely - that the sequences were republished, and Shibbolethink, is claiming that the table of mutations which were republished (not the sequences) are enough for a phylogenetic analysis. As I have explained in my indented post immediately above yours, the first claim is patently false, and the second claim is tedious, but both are WP:OR. These kind incredibly tedious discussions are what made Normchou ignore talk page discussions altogether, which Shibbolethink got him banned for. Tagging Johnuniq and HighInBC. CutePeach (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, a full description of the sequences was published, as you can verify by either opening up the paper or by reading the Nature news article about it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Description of the sequences is not the same thing as raw sequence data! Deleting such data from NCBI is not normal! Francesco espo (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The sequences and the raw reads are not the same. The former were fully described in the journal article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said, that's none of our business. Deciding whether a scientific hypothesis is sufficiently supported by th evidence is not the role of WP. We repport the proposal, and we report what others say about it. my main point remains, that, if, as I expect, the proof is sufficient and the sequence is known, and it does not seem compatible with lab transmission, the lab transmission hypotheses should be covered just the same, as disproving it would have been part of the scientific information. We can report he claims, however thr truth may eventually be. If there's a question of balance or doubt, I support including material (with the only 3 exceptions BLP, unsourced, and advertising, neither of which is relevant here). If we do include, people can judge. If not ,we give them no information. It, like all experimental or observational scientific information should be presented in the terms of "apparently confirmed hypothesis" , not "proof". Proof in science is transient. DGG ( talk ) 11:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:I respectfully disagree with the "tempest in a teapot" characterization. As CutePeach put it, the role of phylogenetics is key to the origin question. I'm including the first paragraph of the ""Discussion" section of the preprint because it is really quite accessible to readers who wish to understand the impact of this story:

I have identified and recovered a deleted set of partial SARS-CoV-2 sequences from the early Wuhan epidemic. Analysis of these sequences leads to several conclusions. First, they provide further evidence Huanan Seafood Market sequences that were the focus of the joint WHO-China report are not representative of all SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan early in the epidemic. The deleted data as well as existing sequences from Wuhan-infected patients hospitalized in Guangdong show early Wuhan sequences often carried the T29095C mutation and were less likely to carry T8782C / C28144T than sequences in the joint WHO-China report. Second, given current data, there are two plausible identities for the progenitor of all known SARS-CoV-2. One is proCoV2 described by Kumar et al. (2021), and the other is a sequence that carries three mutations relative to Wuhan-Hu-1. Crucially, both putative progenitors are three mutations closer to SARS-CoV-2’s bat coronavirus relatives than sequences from the Huanan Seafood Market. Note also that the progenitor of all known SARS-CoV-2 sequences could still be downstream of the sequence that infected patient zero—and it is possible that the future discovery of additional early SARS-CoV-2 sequences could lead to further revisions of inferences about the earliest viruses in the outbreak.

I also want to emphasize that "lab leak" is really besides the point here. The fact that early Guangdong viruses are closer to SARS-like bat CoVs agrees with the author of this widely cited phylogenic analysis published in PNAS who has stated publicly that scientists should look for patient zero in South China. In other words, just in case anyone here is under the impression that inclusion of this story is somehow "POV pushing" they're missing the point entirely. No matter where the virus came from, sequences like these are among the most important evidence to answering the question.KristinaLu (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@KristinaLu: And once the pre-print is reviewed and published, then his allegations might be credible. Until then, I'm incredulous (and I'd suggest WP policy requires us to be incredulous until then). And, per quotes in RS, seems he may have jumped the gun. Hence the 'tempest in a teapot'. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: please respond to the point made by CutePeach in the header of this subsection entitled Why lab leak likely/unlikely is completely besides the point.KristinaLu (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

hi KristinaLu I'm starting a long wikibreak as I enter the phase of medical school that starts to consume all of one's waking time in order to figure out what kind of doctor one wants to be. Wiki will unfortunately get in the way of that. Please help me maintain my wikibreak by not tagging me again. I'm sure one of the many other helpful users around here can answer any questions as well as I can. I also would like to note, it may help them answer if it were posed in the form of a question or a specific change that you or CutePeach would like to propose. From a cursory glance, I don't see either in the lead of this section. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

What to do with the Bloom paragraph

Regarding the section titled "Independent Investigations", should we keep as is, condense it, or remove it? –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think we should remove the entire section/paragraph. It doesn't seem particularly related to investigating the origins of COVID-19. It is a self-published preprint. And it requires 5 sentences of explanation. Giving this much WP:WEIGHT to a minor story seems kind of WP:PROFRINGE to me. We're amplifying this "controversy" way more than it deserves. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Remove or reduce heavily. We even say explicitly that it has no real bearing on the origins investigation (especially since the sequences were almost immediately reposted under the publication). Why are we bending over backwards to include something we even say has no bearing on the main subject of this article? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Remove: not reasonably an investigation into COVID origins. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. According to a recent news article in The Washington Post on 7 July 2021, reviewing patient zero (S01), the Bloom study is sufficiently mentioned, in context re the virus origin, to gain a note at least in the main article I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• Invalid Motion. Please see WP:NOTVOTE and WP:NOVOTE. Looking at the comments in this discussion and the #Early Chinese Virus sequencing deleted discussion, I do not see a consensus to remove this section and I’m thoroughly unimpressed with those trying to downplay the significance of Bloom’s finding and dismiss their relevance to the subject of this article. CutePeach (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  There's a lot of text above this section (more than I'm willing to grok). And people may also have changed their minds during the discussion. This format makes consensus easier to evaluate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not invalid, read the policies above. This is a worthwhile method to gauge consensus in addition to a large conversation. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae: I don't see anyone changing their mind other than Bakkster Man, who was never of the mind to include it in the first place, and isn’t voting here to remove it. Including Drbogdan who first added the report, I count more editors in support of including Bloom’s findings than those opposed. But even then, I've heard it said that we should base our editorial decisions on WP:PAGs, and not WP:POLLS. If we have new sources which say the actual sequences were indeed published in a new venue like some here are claiming, then that might change the consensus here. Until then, we should just quote Robertson and/or Goldstein for WP:BALANCE. CutePeach (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Reduce significantly as proposed above, or remove. This level of weight definitely seems WP:UNDUE now. Not just for the lack of relation to the origins (per author), but because it's a pre-print. Fine to mention it so readers find content, but shouldn't be WP:PROFRINGE. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait. How is this not related to origins if Bloom’s main findings is that the origins are being covered up by Chinese government? I am in the beach now but I can explain you deleting sequences from NCBI this is not normal! Francesco espo (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Because Bloom said this didn't relate to the origins, and it isn't a 'cover-up' when the data just changes publishing venue. That you've jumped straight to it's a coverup means either you haven't read our article or the sources, or the article is insufficient to describe it (and the WP:PROFRINGE problem is worse than I thought). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'd like to see how Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:China COVID-19 cover-up gets closed. If it's kept, remove it from here. If not kept, keep it, because I'm of the opinion that one can't stop an article being created and simultaneously remove the same RS-sourced content from all existing articles per WP:UNDUE. It's reliably sourced and should be somewhere on the English Wikipedia, even though I agree it's not integral to the investigation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Firstly, I can only emphasise that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. As soon as you ask a question and offer a limited set of options to pick from, you narrow the discussion to just those options. And as soon as one answers one's own question with a statement that contains a bold option choice the whole thing becomes a vote.

Secondly, you guys are quoting WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE at each other without reading them. (OK, I know you guys have read them, but really, look again). The policy says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". It does not say that weight is determined by the wise judgement of editors opinions about a research publication. This is entirely a matter for whether reliable sources publish (and continue to publish) about this topic. We give it similar prominence within the wider topic as they do. So I'd expect to see editors cite articles at each other rather than WP:UPPERCASE.

Wrt the paper being a pre-print, I think that is a red-herring in this discussion. Neither a pre-print nor a primary research paper published in the most prestigious journals such as The Lancet or Nature can establish their own weight. WP:PSTS says "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources" and WP:PRIMARY says "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved....e.g. a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. So even once Bloom's paper is published, we can't use it as a source, and it is itself irrelevant wrt weight arguments.

I also caution against citing WP:PROFRINGE. Firstly, it just gets people cross when you start saying the word "fringe" wrt a scientist who isn't a crank. But mainly because that's an argument about whether we should say "Sequences of the Covid-19 genome were surreptitiously deleted from a database as part of a cover-up by the Chinese government". And we don't say that.

I don't think the biomedical science or data forensic aspects of Bloom's paper warrant publication in Wikipedia. What I did think was notable, the other week, was the stramash among scientists discussing those claims. That found notability in a number of highly regarded magazines and newspapers. And in order to discuss that dispute we of course needed to, as briefly as possible, describe what the fuss was about using those secondary sources. Readers of those other publications may turn to Wikipedia to see what it says about it, and I think an information vacuum was not serving our educational mission. Add to that the high degree of conflict among editors interpreting this delay in reporting current affairs as "censorship" rather than editorial restraint about what may end up being, as some put it, a nothingburger. IMO, I'd rather Wikipedia had a few lines of nothingburger for a few weeks, than editors get so frustrated with each other that they start attacking precious guidelines.

For that reason, I think we should keep a paragraph on this Bloom-deletion fuss on Wikipedia for now, and revisit it in a few weeks. If, for example, at the end of July, all the reliable sources have a June 2021 date on them, then it clearly hasn't retained sufficient enduring notability. And it will have served its purpose in providing information to readers who were reading about it elsewhere. -- Colin°^Talk 14:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I also caution against citing WP:PROFRINGE. Firstly, it just gets people cross when you start saying the word "fringe" wrt a scientist who isn't a crank. With all due respect, I find it strange that you admonished other editors for failing to read policy, then turned around and used the word "fringe" differently than the policy uses it. For the record, my reference refers entirely to the advocacy above that it needs to remain because as one editor interpreted it, the preprint concludes the origins are being covered up by Chinese government. That's the pro-fringe I'm worried about, especially since it suggests the wording in the article gives this impression rather than a truly NPOV wording. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, both you and Novem Linguae cite WP:PROFRINGE in your argument to reduce/remove the text. However our article text does not actually mention the contentious aspect of the story at all (that the sequences were deleted "surreptitiously" and that this is part of a "cover up by the Chinese government"). The claim that some parts of the sequences were removed from a database is not, as far as I can see from the secondary sources, contested by anyone. Everyone seems to accept that Bloom's forensic analysis was decent science, though we do need to be cautious about that since it hasn't been published. If you are aware that this claim that sequences were removed actually "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views", per WP:PROFRINGE, then some sources would clarify that for me.

One could argue that Bloom's most inflammatory claims (that the sequences were deleted "surreptitiously" and that this is part of a "cover up by the Chinese government") are not scientific claims at all, but political speculation of a very human and social kind. I even wonder if those claims will make it to the published edition at all.

The WP:PROFRINGE section says "if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play." but Blooms paper and its various claims are covered by independent reliable sources, not just Bloom's preprint and promoters of the Lab Leak theory.

But as well as being irrelevant to our actual article text, while I do appreciate you are using the term per policy, Wikipedia Fringe theory tells us The term fringe theory is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative, roughly synonymous with pseudo-scholarship.", which is why I say that it makes people cross. Both writer and reader of a WP:UPPERCASE shortcut can make the mistake of thinking it means something it doesn't. A careful writer will both try not to say something incorrect but also to try not to say something that is perceived to be incorrect. In an area where tensions are high, it doesn't help to say what some will read as WP:TOTALNUTCASE.

Lastly, I found this article interesting. Part of it says "Last month, 18 scientists writing in the journal Science called for an investigation into Covid-19’s origins that would give balanced consideration to the possibility of a lab accident. Even the director-general of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said the lab theory hadn’t been studied extensively enough. But it’s U.S. President Joe Biden’s consideration of the idea—previously dismissed by many as a Trumpist conspiracy theory—that has given it newfound legitimacy." And that article is not alone in noting this shift in how it is regarded. Regardless of what you and I think about the origins, and no matter how correctly you think you are citing guidelines, there will be folk who skim down this page and see a bunch of pro-science editors shouting "FRINGE" and wonder if our NPOV policy is being respected. -- Colin°^Talk 14:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: The claim that some parts of the sequences were removed from a database is not, as far as I can see from the secondary sources, contested by anyone. I agree, but perhaps I can better explain my concern to clarify.

Let's consider some other hypothetical bit of information which was removed from a database and republished elsewhere. Would that change alone be notable enough to spend five sentences of the article explaining? Or, would the notability be dependent on the circumstances surrounding the deletion and republishing? I'd argue the answer is "no, unless the circumstances surrounding it are what's actually due".

My concern is that the only reason people are considering the move notable is the allegation of a 'Chinese government coverup'. If there's no coverup, the deletion and republishing isn't notable (IMO). By considering it notable, we're implying the coverup allegation. Especially on this article about the origin. As such, we should either remove the text (not notable), shrink it (to merely the deletion and republishing, no mention of the preprint), and/or more directly address the allegation (as supported by RS, I'd suggest the mainstream view is that it's a nothingburger). If you don't like the phrasing of WP:PROFRINGE, then let's stick with WP:UNDUE which PROFRINGE directs us to: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects... 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. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained... To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

The lack of coverage to other minor investigatory topics on the article suggests it would be more in keeping with the rest of the article's DUE weight threshold not to include the topic. And if we do, it seems it should basically be to debunk the WP:SELFPUB's claims. Maybe I'm missing a major argument that the deletion and republication would be WP:DUE without relating it to a cover-up, but it seems most of the arguments in favor are related to that cover-up. Hence my suggestion that the section would at least need to be reworded so as not to give that impression (which would indeed be UNDUE and PROFRINGE inclusion of SELFPUB). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You are still trying to work out WEIGHT by your own judgement. I don't agree that us considering the dispute notable (for now) we are implying there is truth in the cover up. The dispute among scientists is notable simply because reliable sources are covering it when discussing "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19". For example, Trump's comments about injecting ourselves with bleach were and remain an enduring aspect of the history of Covid-19 politics (though, fortunately, not medicine). I would imagine that would form part of any comprehensive article on that topic. I don't think any respected journalist reporting on it felt they were giving credence to the idea.

I wonder if it would help to try to look at the coverage as though they were reporting on something you really don't give a s**t about. Like something about the British royal family or a sport you don't even know the rules for. To make this talk page a lot less about what we as editors think about the deletion or the cover up or whether this might fade away or that Bloom is on a path to be Time Person of the Year 2021.

I also think we are overthinking this whole thing wrt DUE thresholds and being strict about policies. With a wiki we should be able to take a more agile approach to this, and I'm trying to suggest we be a bit more flexible wrt Covid lest we find our precious guidelines are wrecked by a mob. Regardless of all the WP:RULES, there will be readers coming to Wikipedia expecting us to cover this story, at least in July 2021 there will, and our text educates them briefly about the dispute, as well as providing reliable sources for them to read about it some more. That's our mission. Job done. At the same time, the huge pressure to mention "OMG scientist found smoking gun proving Chinese scientists deleted data as part of government cover-up" can be solved without being accused of censorship. We can say that, yes, we do cover that story, but here's what reliable sources think about it. -- Colin°^Talk 16:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with agility. That's why I added the text originally. But agility should go both ways, adding and removing. "Well, it's in there now, we should keep it" is not agile.

The dispute among scientists is notable simply because reliable sources are covering it when discussing "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19". I continue to disagree strongly with this. See WP:VNOT. For instance we don't cover Li-Meng Yan on this page, despite considerable media attention. While I'm actually in favor of adding other, similarly notable (but minor) topics to this section of the article (which will help with DUE, by sharing the spotlight a bit more), I think you go to far by suggesting that mere news coverage makes a topic notable and due. Especially since WP:DUE applies as much to the quantity of text we give a topic (hence my preference for reduction, not elimination).

I also still hold that trying to appease the "OMG scientist found smoking gun proving Chinese scientists deleted data as part of government cover-up" crowd is a terrible strategy, as they won't ever be appeased. If you think policies and guidelines mean inclusion makes for the best article, that's fine. But bending policy to make the conspiracy theorists happy is the literal definition of WP:PROFRINGE... Bakkster Man (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying "Well, it's in there now, we should keep it". But I do think it is a little premature to be ditching it. WP:VNOT is very much agreeing that a single reliable source isn't enough to guarantee inclusion. If this was some exclusive story in the middle pages of the WSJ then we wouldn't be discussing it. But WP:VNOT doesn't tell editors how to figure out whether and where to include something. It links to several other policies, including WP:UNDUE which talks about how prominent this is among reliable sources. I'm not saying this is easy and Wikipedia is generally very cautious about including events that are briefly in the news. Nor am trying to appease "conspiracy theorists", but I also don't think labelling people "conspiracy theorists" is helpful. What we included isn't acceding to unreasonable demands any more than is giving a child demanding an ice cream an apple instead. And I'm not trying to bend policy either: at the top of our policy pages is a link to WP:COMMONSENSE, which I certainly think is worth a read.

Wrt prominence in reliable publication, the story has certainly peaked, but the NYT still includes Bloom's claims in its "Here’s what you need to know:" box. And Science Mag reworked their story on 2nd July. -- Colin°^Talk 17:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man I am not opposed to reducing and clarifying the text. I am opposed to the blatant WP:MISINTERPRETATION of our sources and the claims that Bloom’s findings aren’t significant or relevant to investigation into the virus. May I remind you that there are a number of very reputed scientists who are of the WP:OPINION that there isn’t enough data to determine whether the virus has natural origin or laboratory origin. If the virus does indeed turn out to be of laboratory origin, then Bloom’s findings will have been proven to be very significant and relevant at this time. CutePeach (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll be much more inclined to agree on the significance and relevance once the paper has been peer reviewed and approved for publication. Until then, there arguably aren't any "findings" we can reliably source to Bloom (since it's WP:SELFPUB). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, you really need to keep your talk page discussions focused on actual article text and cite actual reliable sources, rather than just commenting generally and offering your opinion of the state of affairs. All the text in the paragraph is reliably sourced, as far as I can see. If there is text that is wrong or should be reworded, propose an alternative and give reliable sources. That's how it works. If you do continue to soapbox on these pages, then I think I shall be asking for admin intervention. It isn't productive to turn these pages into a forum where two sides debate Covid 19's origins for themselves. -- Colin°^Talk 14:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man:, I hear you, but this case is similar to the Pangolin paper which did not provide any supporting data, which we have discussed before without resolution [72]. This is a matter of Data publishing, and many journals today require supporting data, yet the authors of these papers haven’t responded to anyone on why they deleted their sequence data. If Bloom’s paper passes peer review, it will mount pressure on the SMALL journal to retract Wuhan University researcher’s paper, which will give us another sentence to add. We will also have more to write about the phylogenetic analysis, but not more than a sentence, as it's not transformative. This incident shows how hungry the scientific community is for data, which the Chinese Government continues withholding, which is why I and other editors have countered other editors here claiming Bloom’s findings aren’t significant or relevant to the subject of this page. CutePeach (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: If Bloom’s paper passes peer review Bring up the topic if that happens, stop wasting everyone's time with WP:CRYSTAL. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

As Colin pointed out, even if it does pass peer review, it would still be a primary source. The significance of Bloom’s findings and their relevance to the subject of the article, as I said directly above, does not gain more weight with peer review. CutePeach (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If that's how you feel, I agree. We shouldn't give Bloom any weight in the article, because his preprint is unreliable. Sounds like consensus to me, I'll make the change. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because it doesn’t add more weight, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a lot of weight already now. CutePeach (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: perhaps you’ve missed parts of the discussion here about the WP:V of the phrase Thucydides411 added to the Independent Investigations part of the article, and the little "failed verification" tag that ProcrastinatingReader added to it? I would edit it out myself, but I don't want to get maligned and banned in ANI or ARE. This is a seriously egregious case of WP:OR which goes to show what the larger problem is here. CutePeach (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to double check my attempt to better reflect the source.[73] Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your edit. Case closed. CutePeach (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: Please remove the failed verification tag if you feel it's appropriate. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, I don't think this edit represents our sources at all. Basically, you've personally decided which parts of the story are relevant and snipped out the bits you'd rather we didn't mention. You don't want to mention Bloom and his claims because you are focused on thinking our source for that is a PDF on some pre-print database ("because his preprint is unreliable") and because you disagree with Bloom's suspicions and regard them as a fringe view. The text remaining ends up being some confusing pointless statement about deleted data and a comment about the "conclusion" of a paper that is no longer even mentioned. But Bloom's paper is not our source. Our reliable secondary sources have titles "Seattle scientist digs up deleted coronavirus genetic data, adding fuel to the covid origin debate" and "Deleted coronavirus genome sequences trigger scientific intrigue". Our reliable secondary sources mention Bloom and his claim and they cover the story because of the heated scientific debate it provoked. You and CutePeach are still playing the game of decided for yourselves what has weight, when Wikipedia policy is to give that problem to our secondary sources. Try to regard Bloom's paper as inadmissible evidence in court -- you have to pretend you didn't read it and care nothing about its contents or its reliability or publication status. Focus on what our reliable secondary sources are saying, and cover the story in proportion they give to the details. -- Colin°^Talk 16:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: If you disagree, revert it. But you appear to be the only one opposed to that part of the change, and consensus doesn't require unanimity. Try to regard Bloom's paper as inadmissible evidence in court -- you have to pretend you didn't read it and care nothing about its contents or its reliability or publication status. Focus on what our reliable secondary sources are saying, and cover the story in proportion they give to the details. IMO, that's exactly what I did. Removed any mention of the preprint, covering only the removal of raw reads from NIH database, republishing in different form, and response from a scientist. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man, wrt disregarding the paper, I mean as a "source" from which we make judgements and extract quotes. I don't mean you can disregard Bloom or his claims when our reliable sources do mention it. You can pretend you didn't read the paper but you can't pretend you didn't read the secondary sources. They mention Bloom and his claims in their headlines, and Bloom and his claims are the meat of the story. So removing that is just very very weird. You haven't based your text on what reliable sources say, but instead on simply what bits of the story you yourself want to mention or don't want to mention. Our readers frankly won't have a clue what that section is about because it describes things that are secondary and mentions random other people. For example, you give weight to virologist David Robertson but zero weight to Bloom. How is that in proportion per WP:WEIGHT? Our sources don't do that. The source, businessinsider.com, says "Prof David Robertson, an expert on viruses at the University of Glasgow, said in a statement..." As far as I know Robertson's views haven't made headlines around the world, so what's your justification, per policy, for quoting him and not Bloom? Robertson's statement seems to come from Science Media Centre.

Let's consider the example I mentioned elsewhere: Trump in April 2020 said that because disinfectant "knocks [Covid-19] out in a minute", "is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning". This is a White House press briefing, not a pre-print or a peer-reviewed research paper or any other formal kind of publication, but ramblings by a president who fails WP:V's requirement for a reputation for fact checking an accuracy. So by the standards you are applying to Bloom's claims, Wikipedia should not mention this at all. The idea of treating Covid-19 by injecting bleach certainly comes under the scope of MEDRS (whether one thinks that is biomedical claim or health advice or anything else). So apparently must say nothing and wait for "A systematic review of household cleaning products and their efficacy as intravenous Covid-19 therapeutic agents". Or, per your recent edit, we write something like "In April 2020, a White House press briefing caused Deborah Birx to shuffle her feet in awkward frustration and shocked commentators around the world", which is factual but pointless.

Instead, editors applied common sense, and realised this was a big political news story, not a medical claim. We have a huge section at Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant coverage at COVID-19 misinformation by the United States. A mention at White House COVID-19 outbreak and Miracle Mineral Supplement. A paragraph at Trumptini. A sentence at Kayleigh McEnany. A table row at Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2020 Q2). A section at Bleach. A paragraph at Virucide. I could go on because Google had many more pages of results. -- Colin°^Talk 14:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: Which is it? Do you want us to regard Bloom's paper as inadmissible evidence in court, or merely not cite the preprint directly? Because hearsay about inadmissible evidence seems worse to me.

They mention Bloom and his claims in their headlines, and Bloom and his claims are the meat of the story. So removing that is just very very weird. Sounds like good reasons to support removing the topic entirely from the article. Unless you intend to propose an improved paragraph wording in search of better consensus?

As far as I know Robertson's views haven't made headlines around the world, so what's your justification, per policy, for quoting him and not Bloom? Because Bloom's claims were made in WP:PREPRINTS, which are not reliable, we should treat them as such. Simply repeating an unreliable claim in an unreliable source because it was reported on could be considered WP:Fact laundering, and we mustn't give WP:UNDUE weight to such a claim. As part of discussing the WP:FRINGELEVEL of an unreliable minority claim, we must place the claim in context with the mainstream. The Robertson quote is one way of doing so (I'd suggest the simplest, but not the only person we could quote nor the only way to provide that context). Robertson's quote is acceptable because his opinion was not made as a WP:RSSELF or under the guise of WP:SCHOLARSHIP which we hold to higher standards (which is the answer to the Trump bleach comment, DJT didn't publish a pre-print of the claim so we followed different sourcing rules), and we attributed the quote rather than wikivoicing it. This is all assuming we haven't blown the whole thing out of WP:PROPORTION, and decide to remove the topic entirely. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man you are still trying to weigh Bloom and Robertson yourself, not per the proportion given to views in reliable sources. And you are still confusing a political story with a biomedical one. As biomedical claims or scientific claims that we might put in Wikipedia's own voice, neither Bloom nor Robertson's original publications meet the grade (the pre-print server or the sciencemediacentre's random list of scientists they found at short notice who wanted to express an opinion) and they are not our sources either per WP:V nor per WP:WEIGHT. And some of our reliable sources interviewed Bloom. The only way you guys are ever going to stop banging heads against each other and wrecking MEDRS is if you accept this is a political story. I don't understand at all that you seem to think that because Trump's bleach comment sprang from his own brain during a press conference that somehow it is more reliable than if he'd spent the morning reading a pre-print server for the latest daft ideas. The solution to many disagreements on Wikipedia is to make it "somebody else's problem". We cover this political story per what reliable sources on political stories say, in similar proportion to how the reliable sources do it. -- Colin°^Talk 13:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: Your edit removes the fact that the Small paper includes the sequences. Despite what CutePeach has repeatedly claimed, the paper contains the sequences, in the form of the single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). CutePeach is confusing raw reads with sequences, but the SNPs are in the paper, and they fully specify the sequence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: Thanks for the fix. I was trying to describe that the vital info was there, just not in raw form, but you explained it much more clearly. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: The sequences were deleted from NCBI database, from which Science Magazine most virologists expect to be able to download whole viral genomes. But this is not even the main point of the story.

@Bakkster Man: I have to agree with Colin here. I was very tired last night, so I didn’t read all the edits, and I think your text doesn’t fully represent the sources. Here is a full chronology of events as detailed in our reliable sources:

1. Curtains open slowly, swooping up from the center as they draw, revealing the stage, with a spotlight: In a world starved for data to clarify the origin of COVID-19, a study claiming to have unearthed early sequences of SARS-CoV-2 that were deliberately hidden was bound to ignite a sizzling debate. [74]

2. On 6 March 2020 researchers from Wuhan University’s Renmin Hospital posted a preprint on medRxiv describing early COVID-19 patients and the specific mutations in their viruses.

3. Some time before 31 March 2020 the researchers posted sequences the NCBI's Sequence Read Archive (SRA).

4. On 24 June 2020, the paper was published in Small, a journal more focused on materials and chemistry than virology. According to the Journal’s records, the paper was submitted to them on 03 April 2020.

5. Fast forward to an unknown date, Bloom Bloom wanted to do his own analyses of the viruses detected in the earliest cases [75] which led him to a study [76] that listed all SARS-CoV-2 sequences submitted before 31 March 2020 to the SRA [77], but "when he checked the SRA for one of the listed projects, he couldn’t find its sequences.

6. Bloom goes about Googling some of the project's information whereupon he found a study from a scientist we need not name, from the Wuhan University's Renmin Hospital, that low and behold had been posted as a preprint on 6 March 2020 on medRxiv and published in June of that year in Small, a journal little known to virologists. Needless to say, this is the same paper as in 2..

7. Bloom then sets about internet sleuthing leading him to discover that the SRA backs up its information in Google's Cloud platform, which turned up files containing some of the [WU team]'s earlier data submissions. As the Science Magazine explains, the Small paper mentions no corrections to the viral sequences that might explain why they were removed from the SRA. For Bloom, this reinforced suspicions that the Chinese government has tried to hide how the pandemic started, and Ian Lipkin is quoted as saying This is a creative and rigorous approach to investigating the provenance of SARS-CoV-2.

8. But now critics are given the stage and they call his detective work much ado about nothing because the Chinese scientists later published the viral information in a different form, and the recovered sequences may add little to the origin hunt. Andrew Rambaut is quoted as saying The idea that the group was trying to hide something is farcical. Another critic is Stephen Goldstein and Bloom acknowledges them, and toned down this sentence and other accusatory language but says most virologists expect to be able to download whole viral genomes from a database like the SRA.

9. Science Magazine concludes with a quote from genomicist Sudhir Kumar saying Many people feel that there is a lot more Chinese data out there, and they don't have access to it. Nature Magazine concludes with a quote from Bloom saying There are probably more data out there [78].

10. Bloom bows. Curtains close. Audience applauds.

Can we fit all of this into five or six sentences? One part I missed out is Bloom’s phylogenetic analysis, which Rambaut disagreed with, but that would require another sentence. CutePeach (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, I really appreciate that the green text all comes from the sources (at least, the ones I checked did). I think Bakkster Man did a fair job in his initial edit of condensing the story and writing in encyclopaedic form rather than journalistic prose. But I suspect his patience is growing thin at working on a story he thinks is a "nothingburger" so probably unfair to expect him to redo it all. There isn't really an appetite for making the text longer than it was originally. You could propose some text here if you want to have a go. -- Colin°^Talk 15:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Bakkster Man did a fair job in his initial edit of condensing the story and writing in encyclopaedic form rather than journalistic prose. But I suspect his patience is growing thin at working on a story he thinks is a "nothingburger" so probably unfair to expect him to redo it all. Accurate assessment.

Two sets of inputs. First one would be to suggest that whatever we end up with should be no longer than it was before, and probably shorter (this appears to be the consensus across the breadth of the discussion, and I don't think that's a stretch in the slightest). I'd also argue that any discussion of Bloom's phylogenic analysis should wait until the preprint is reviewed and published, as the media sources primarily focus on (and only give us reliable validation of claims regarding) the data deletion from the SRA. Finally, I'd suggest that we copy edit any suggestion here on the Talk page prior to going on the article to avoid past issues with POV.

Alternate consensus suggestion: does it make more sense to have a "Data Availability" section instead? This seems to be the primary concern: who has what data in what format with how much access? We echo this regarding the WHO report and most of the notable open letters have referenced this is an issue. Both calling for China to be more forthcoming, and warning against accusations leveled at China making such data less likely to be shared. The text we write about the SRA kerfuffle might not change much, but it would definitely put it into better (and broader) context. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think reliable sources are covering this as a "data availability" story. Or do you have examples? But I agree that revised text should be proposed here. -- Colin°^Talk 13:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's clearly being covered primarily as a data availability story. I did a Google News search for 'bloom preprint' and most of the headlines mentioned the data being "deleted"/"removed"/"hid"/"obscured", and few mentioned the phylogenic analysis (which, per above, I don't think we can reliably use until peer review, unlike the independently verified NIH SRA removal). Even if we need to agree to a different synonym of "availability" (I thought that was the most neutral term, but I'm sure there's other options I didn't consider). I'd be interested in hearing an alternate synonym, if you have one to propose. Examples from the quotations immediately above:

• "In a world starved for data to clarify the origin of COVID-19, a study claiming to have unearthed early sequences of SARS-CoV-2 that were deliberately hidden was bound to ignite a sizzling debate"
• "virologists expect to be able to download whole viral genomes from a database like the SRA"
• "Many people feel that there is a lot more Chinese data out there, and they don't have access to it."

The other big advantage of this reframing, is it would better link us to the thread running through the WHO study's reactions about "more timely and comprehensive data sharing", and even the prevalence of pre-prints and open access to improve the speed with which the origins were able to be investigated. As can be seen above, that seems to be the reason this preprint got the attention: everyone was primed to discuss whether or not we have the data from Chinese researchers to independently evaluate. We also seem to have more examples of data availability topics worth writing about than "independent investigations". Bakkster Man (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree, I'm just cautious that sources aren't saying "data availability", and it is fairly nerdy language. Whether making data available or information sharing or some other phrasing, we should consider negatives and positives. There's the quite remarkably early and open sharing of the genome by Chinese scientists, which has benefited us all in giving the vaccine researchers such a head start. If this is a new angle to consider "investigations", then one wonders what else fits into that pot? -- Colin°^Talk 15:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Bakkster Man and Colin, the main story here is definitely lack of data, but Bloom’s phylogenetic analysis is quite central to it too. In their critique, Lipkin, Goldestein, Wertheim are quoted as concurring with Bloom’s analysis, confirming what was speculated WRT to the virus circulating before the market outbreak. This is uncontroversial, but where we need to exercise more care is in describing the disagreement between Bloom and Garry WRT to what Bedford calls the "rooting issue", and passing review won't change that. I don’t see any need to omit details for the sake of shortening the section and I don’t see any consensus here to do that. I think reports of Bloom’s findings should stay in the Independent Investigations section, as there will be more publications from independent scientists, such as the new paper from Nikolai Petrovsky in Scientific Reports [79] [80] [81] [82], which I will add tomorrow. CutePeach (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Remove.

  The partial genome sequences address an evolutionary conundrum about the early genetic diversity of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, although scientists emphasize that they do not shed light on its origins.
  — Callaway, Ewen (2021-06-24). "Deleted coronavirus genome sequences trigger scientific intrigue". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01731-3.

  TrangaBellam (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit proposals

I will put an edit proposal here tomorrow morning. CutePeach (talk) 14:31, 12 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)

ITT: people with absolutely no sense of humour High Tinker (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Is it possible to keep the link to COVID-19 misinformation somewhere in the without using the phrase "conspiracy theories" in the first paragraph? We have so many highly notable experts now on record (Ralph S. Baric, David Baltimore, Robert R. Redfield, David Relman etc.) that in order to be in line with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE care should be taken to not write off all hypotheses besides "natural zoonotic origin" as "conspiracy theories".KristinaLu (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If only there were a stand-alone lab leak article, you could mention Several other explanations, including a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and a variety of conspiracy theories, have been proposed about the origins of the virus. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

How about this:

"Most scientists say that the virus is likely of zoonotic origin in a natural setting, from bats or another mammal, although complete investigations into other explanations have been encouraged by experts. The origin of the virus has also been the topic of many conspiracy theories."

One sentence for science, a separate sentence for conspiracy theories.KristinaLu (talk) 08:57, 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)

That's my main point, I hope it was clear for others.KristinaLu (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The so-called conspiracy theory is a valuation without empirical evidence. Only if we would have a proof here, which verifies this surely, one can carry out a valuation strong scientifically. It is only purely subjective evaluation - nothing more.--Empiricus (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

First choice would be to remove the phrase "conspiracy theories". Without clicking through to the references, it's not even clear what it is referring to. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

So COVID has not been the subject of conspiracy theories about its origins? Do you happen to live on planet Denial? Here's a small serving of reliable sources, all across the spectrum (recent and not so recent, from national organisations, high quality and lesser quality academic journals, to mainstream newspapers et al.), which indicate that in this case, your statements couldn't be further divorced from what is verifiable in reliable sources, and that there has indeed been many "conspiracy theories" and "speculation" about this: [83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91]. That and all the other sources cited in the misinformation article and at the NOLABLEAK page. In short, as some kind of people like to say, facts and logic prove that your position is, unambiguously, incorrect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

These sources are outdated, except for the new LANCET letter - there is nothing there about conspiracy theory.. We referred to the laboratory theory alone and this, even in science (see Lancet Letter) is no longer a conspiracy theory. Your "old interpretations" are now a fringing position, which is perhaps still relevant in China - but no longer in the Western world, neither in science, the WHO, nor in states nor in the public.--Empiricus (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

These sources aren't outdated. They demonstrate, beyond a doubt, that at some point in time, the origins of the virus were [still are] subject to conspiracy theories. Are you denying the statement "the origins of COVID have been the subject of conspiracy theories"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A statement can be true but still WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Closure from the RFC on MEDRS vs RS

An uninvolved editor closed this RFC which I think is relevant to edit this entry.

After considering the best point of that discussion, the closing editor came up with this rule:

MEDRS level

• How a disease spreads
• What changes a disease likelihood to spread
• A disease mutation information
• The details concerning a naturally-ocurring medicine

Examples: How Ibuprofen is synthesized, What a disease does to a living organism, any information on the contagiousness of a disease

RS level

• Who created something
• Where something was created
• If something was discovered by accident (like the stimulating properties of Viagra)
• If something is found as the result of targeted research
• Who first discovered a naturally ocurring medicine or where

Example: A medicine was discovered by Stewart Adams and John Nicholson in the 1960s while working at Boots UK Limited

This rule gives a little less ambiguity to sort what information requires MEDRS or RS, let's adhere to it as it is the best we have. Forich (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Forich, Agreed. I was pleasantly surprised with this closure personally, it's basically how I felt about MEDRS versus RS. Of course, we cannot forget the importance of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which for example, tells us that history and virology publications in peer reviewed journals are more important than newspaper sources in determining the state of the world in Wikipedia's eyes. I think that was also something that broadly got lost in that discussion, we don't really need to use MEDRS, because SCHOLARSHIP tells us what we need to know for the purposes of this article's extremely frequent disputes.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, Wikipedia:Scholarship does overlap with WP:MEDRS and is free of many of its objected points. Forich (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk page consensus on high-quality "Lab Leak" sources

According to the [template] for this page, [> this is where to find the following discussion:] In prior discussions of several manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. I couldn't find any cohesive consensus so I'm moving the discussion here. I can think of several sources that are conspicuously missing from this article.

• Segreto & Deigin "The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin: SARS-COV-2 chimeric structure and furin cleavage site might be the result of genetic manipulation" Bioessays
• Segreto et al "Should we discount the laboratory origin of COVID-19?" Env Chem Lett
• 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

And most importantly,

• Bloom et al "Investigate the origins of COVID-19" Science

Even if carefully included as primary sources, these articles have been referenced in one way or another across many forms of media in order to justify them being included in the article. With mainstream experts including Ralph S. Baric, David Baltimore, Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson Robert R. Redfield and David Relman all calling for more investigations things are to the point where this article at the least needs to acknowledge that such sources exist. I of course expect everything to be in line with WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE etc. as far as how claims are introduced to the article. By WP:FRINGE, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. There are plenty of secondary sources now. These are only hypotheses being discussed, not truth claims. KristinaLu (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Cherrypicking sources that agree with what you wish to be included, while ignoring the dozens of other, much better sources, that give credence to not including - this does not help build an encyclopedia. Not to mention that the three sources you give first are no more than editorials published in whichever journal would take them. Nobody is arguing that some people don't believe in the lab leak. However, the scientific consensus, as demonstrated by a plethora of sources already in the article here, is that it is extremely unlikely. So you're right - we must consider DUE and FRINGE - and adding any credence to the lab leak hypothesis based on the sources you provide is not in line with DUE or FRINGE. These are not secondary sources anyways - they're all "essays" or "opinion" pieces - which are only valid on Wikipedia for the opinions of the authors - which are not DUE weight to include here. Yes, you're correct that the sources are "conspicuously missing" - because it is not due weight to repeat every single person's opinion on the matter. Being referenced by others does not make it any less of an opinion/editorial piece - and does not suddenly mean we can ignore that fact when deciding to include or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not "cherry-picking sources I agree with" so that's not an issue. This article is unbalanced based on the current opinions of experts. That's the issue.

You are incorrect. There is no scientific consensus that it is "extremely unlikely". Just because one is the less likely of two scenarios doesn't make it somehow non-existent. That's not how hypothesis works, and it's not Wikipedia's job to "pick a winner". The entire article is based on natural zoonotic origin (for which there is currently zero evidence). Based on WP:DUE at this point a lab escape scenario deserves a balanced (not equal) mention.

There are many secondary sources now. The fact that we now have Ralph S. Baric, David Baltimore, Robert R. Redfield and David Relman should be more than enough to shoot down any immature notion that there is some "consensus" and scientific questions are akin to winning prom king, whoever is most popular goes in Wikipedia. Surely there has to be some degree of nuance allowed when dealing with open questions.KristinaLu (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not our job to "pick a winner", but when the vast majority of scientists consider something the winner, then DUE and WEIGHT (which you referenced, so I'll assume you read) apply. Individual people expressing their opinions is not a secondary source. You keep talking about "many secondary sources", but all you've presented are a bunch of primary/opinion sources. And no, 4 scientists you can name does not mean there still isn't a consensus among the hundreds of thousands of other scientists in the world. That's exactly what I mean by "cherry picking" - you are saying "well these four people say one thing, so we should ignore everyone else". Four peoples' opinion is rarely due for expressing on the same level as the opinion of hundreds of thousands of others. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Now I am curious. If you did not select those four sources because they agree with you, why did you select them? What was the criterion for including Segreto et al, but not including other papers missing from the article? Such as:

• Morens et al, "The origin of COVID-19 and why it matters" [92]
• Zhang et al: "Strategies to trace back the origin of COVID-19" [93]
• Alanagreh et al: "The human coronavirus disease COVID-19: its origin, characteristics, and insights into potential drugs and its mechanisms" [94]

Those are the first three hits in a Google Scholar search for "origin covid virus" [95].

And your logic concerning the "extremely unlikely" thing is also weird. How does "extremely unlikely" turn into "somehow non-existent"? I am accustomed to this type of logic from creationists who say mutations cannot lead to evolution because beneficial mutations are rare - they turn the "rare" into "nonexistent" the same way you do.

Regarding the "mainstream experts": let's just wait until they have done studies that confirm their opinions, shall we? Wikipedia traditionally only clucks when the egg has been laid, not before. Or, in other words, WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

We mention the Bloom et al letter to the editor in the reactions to the WHO report section. We also mention Ralph Baric's thoughts in that section as an expert, independent of the bloom et al letter of which he is a co-author. Relman is cited twice, once as senior author on the Bloom et al letter and also in this transcluded SARS-COV-2 section. We also cite the bloom letter in one of those SARS-COV-2 sections as well, under reservoir and origin. Both the Relman opinion piece and the Bloom et al letter have been through editorial review of a topic relevant journal but not peer-review, and are accordingly cited for statements of uncontroversial fact and also for expert opinion in due weight. David Baltimore's opinion is the most describable as WP:FRINGE among those listed (based on a lack of inclusion in scientific peer-reviewed publications or even in editorial-reviewed opinion pieces). I would put it closest to Deigin and Segretto who have not been published in any relevant topic-area journals or mentioned or cited in expert peer-reviewed review articles. They are the least deserving of weight. I have a great respect for some of Dr. Baltimore's achievements (and abhor his misconduct [96]), but he is far from the first or the only current Nobel prize winner to be on the fringe. At least he walked back his statements a little bit [97]. But doesn't make them any more WP:DUE. Personally I don't think we need any more inclusion of these sources than we already have.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The point of the template is to stop sinking time with these discussions repeatedly. While it doesn't stop people making them, so long as the template is honest and neutral, it's an effective resource for editors to just point to the relevant numbered issue. I couldn't find every discussion where this was discussed, but even from the linked ones it's clear every time this has been brought up editors disagreed with calling these RS. The WP:SOURCE policy says the credentials of the author affect the reliability of the work. Given that (IIRC) Segreto is a botanist, and Deigin is an entrepreneur, I'm surprised this was even debated in the first place -- neither has credentials in virology. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, without disagreeing with your main point, I would like to point out that the claim that Segreto is a botanist is entirely false, and is sourced to an editor who made other similarly false claims about scientists who have made comments supporting the lab leak hypothesis. Segreto is in fact a biotechnologist, using the same technology virologists do to create fungal mutants, so she is more than qualified to be cited for her findings - which are very significant. I will also point out that Deigin’s father is a reputed scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, so though he has had a good knowledge of the subject from an early age, I agree that papers authored by him alone may not qualify for citation in accords to WP:SOURCE, but he is credited with a number of findings in numerous secondary sources - which are also very significant. I will make a list of all the DRASTIC findings that I think are worthy of inclusion under the section Independent Investigations of our article. Both Segreto and Deigin’s findings have been widely reported in secondary sources, so let’s not get hung up in the red herring that is these primary sources. CutePeach (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Are DRASTIC getting peer review? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

DRASTIC members are credited with things like discovering the Mojian miners' PHD theses, which was - in large- what started the debate on the lab leak possibility, and Fauci recently called on China to release their medical records [98]. If debris of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 washed up on a beach in Australia, would we need to wait for peer reviewed studies, or would reliable sources be enough to cover the story? CutePeach (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

And yes, several DRASTIC members have gotten peer review in several journals, in case you were unaware. CutePeach (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The PhD thesis would be the actual finding, and Fauci isn't a member of DRASTIC. Flight 370 comparisons would be odd, since it seems unlikely they'd be directly contradicting existing peer-reviewed research to see a similar application of WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Out of curiosity, did that WIV live bats thing that DRASTIC "discovered" ever get independently verified? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: And yes, several DRASTIC members have gotten peer review in several journals, in case you were unaware. Why didn't you lead with this? When you go off on tangents about Fauci and Flight 370 instead of answering the original question, it comes across as if it were POV-pushing. I don't want to presume you are, but you make it very hard not to come to that conclusion with troubling frequency. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: which of their publications were published? Can we add a section to DRASTIC, titled "Publications" or some such, with a list of them? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bakkster Man: I am surprised you hadn’t heard about DRASTIC members' peer reviewed papers, as they’ve been discussed ad ad nauseam in earlier discussions, and they’ve been covered in numerous secondary sources. The Mojian Miners PHD thesis was found on a Chinese gov website [99], so it's easily verifiable and it has been acknowledged by Shi Zhengli, as she dismissed it numerous times and claimed instead that the miners died of a fungus. There are also papers supporting the lab leak hypothesis from non DRASTIC members, which are covered by secondary sources, which I will add tomorrow.

@ProcrastinatingReader: I will add the papers tomorrow. They are mainly from Segreto, Design, Rahalkar, Bahulikar, and one other anonymous member who published under his own name. The Sorotkins’ paper was the first, but Sorotkin junior was expelled, so the father probably departed too. CutePeach (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach: I recognize those author names, but it's not like they put "Member of DRASTIC Team" on their papers (nor do we have a list of members on our article to cross-reference). Probably because they don't want to be associated with the trolls in the group. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, there should be no need to credit DRASTIC for individual members' papers and their findings. Same for the "Paris Group", which has published three open letters which can be credited to them, but Decroly's paper should be credited to him and his co-authors. Sorry I didn’t manage to compile the list today. Will do tomorrow. CutePeach (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Bloom et al is already cited, as I'm sure a second look at the article will confirm for you. The previous consensus here has mostly been that BioEssays and Environmental Chemistry Letters weren't reliable for the topic. Primarily since they seem to be lacking peer review and/or were published outside of journals directly related to biology/virology (implying their WP:FRINGE/ALT status). I'm probably less opposed than some others on including them, however if we do include them we need to be very clear that these are contrarian, non-mainstream, less-reliable views. I suggest that if you have a strong disagreement on inclusion, that you seek outside input from someplace like WP:RS/N and link that discussion here. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Gain-of-function research

Okay, Drbogdan, you got me. This is my last one before a wikibreak. I probably won't respond, but I was the revert so I will go ahead and start the BRD in your stead. By all means I welcome everybody else here to discuss without me, I'm just starting it.

You have restored with further reliance on the two citations from a collaboration with Ralph S. Baric and a quote that describes how the work occurred, but not where. Ultimately, when you run this down, it is describing how the Baric lab created mutant viruses, not the Zhengli lab at the WIV. See these relevant quotes from the Christian Science Monitor: [100]

• "In a U.S.-funded study published in 2015, Dr. Baric, using virus sequences provided by Dr. Shi, created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus that showed the potential to infect humans. The NIH had approved the study, but it raised eyebrows among some scientists. UNC’s School of Public Health said in emails to the Monitor that there was no gain of function and the hybrid virus was not sent to China."

• "Dr. Fauci repeatedly and emphatically denied the senator’s assertions. “With all due respect, you are entirely incorrect,” he said. “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in that [Wuhan] institute.”"

• "Scientists don’t agree on how exactly to define gain-of-function research, but generally it involves enhancing a pathogen to make it more virulent or transmissible. Critics say the NIH is using a narrow interpretation of what counts as gain of function, and has not provided ample transparency into the grant review process for such research."

So clearly this is a controversial claim, that should rely on more robust sourcing than two primary research articles which depict collaborations where the actual reverse genetics experiments were conducted in the US. Can you provide secondary review articles or RSes which demonstrate that it's an accepted fact among relevant experts that "WIV was conducting gain-of-function research on coronaviruses" ? If not, any such claims should probably be duly weighted and put in attribution from relevant people like Dr. Relman.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: (and others) - re: Gain-of-function research (GoFR) reverted edit (+cited refs) - Seems the following recent references in Scientific American, MIT Technology Review and The New York Times" may be relevant to the discussion I would think - there may be more such review references as well - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

References

New Lancet letter

Update from last year's letter. [101] Bakkster Man (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting. With the new letter, the conspiracy theory is dead in the western world. The authors no longer speak of its existence. We should delete the conspiration saga in all related WP articles. It's history. If there is any evidence of the laboratory hypothesis - these scientists would run the risk of sustaining massive reputational damage not only concerning their research and personal reputation - also for science at all. The German magazine Spiegel published a very large cover story on the Wuhan Institute this week. --Empiricus (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory-leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It´s the old argument with "scientific literature" - but there is no empirical evidence. As long as the transmission animal has not been found, there is no evidence. Sure, the laboratory-leak has also no validated evidence (until now) but the serious difference is that the authors can no longer exclude this hypothesis or discriminate the laboratory option as a conspiracy theory. This position is history with the new letter.--Empiricus (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This sentence massively relativizes the old letter: "Careful and transparent collection of scientific information is essential to understand how the virus has spread and to develop strategies to mitigate the ongoing impact of COVID-19, whether it occurred wholly within nature or might somehow have reached the community via an alternative route, and prevent future pandemics."--Empiricus (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

the old argument with "scientific literature" is still good. It is to be found in WP:RS too: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources

Your WP:OR about empirical evidence is worthless in Wikipedia. We go with RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because it has always been the case does not mean that it is the case now. For laboratory accidents e.g. with SARS there is a lot of evidence in the literature or e.g. Marburg, etc.. The origin question can only be answered by empirical evidence - scientific, also in Wikipedia. Otherwise, we would not need any investigations, which everyone also the Lancet Group - is demanding now. It´s not WP:OR - it´s simply science.--Empiricus (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Empiricus-sextus: With the new letter, the conspiracy theory is dead in the western world. The authors no longer speak of its existence. We should delete the conspiration saga in all related WP articles. Related purely to the WHO-evaluated lab-origin (WIV gathers bat viruses, accidental infection of staff), I agree. But there are other conspiracy theories which are still very much conspiracy theories per reliable sources.

• The conspiracy theory it was being developed by WIV as a bioweapon
• The conspiracy theory it was being developed at Fort Detrick as a bioweapon
• The conspiracy theory the virus was manufactured so to promote the sale of vaccines
• The conspiracy theory Bill Gates asked them to manufacture the virus to control the world's population

And those are just the conspiracy theories relating to a laboratory origin (add meteorites and 5G). So while we need to carefully word to not imply every lab origin is a conspiracy theory, there remain lab origin scenarios accurately described as conspiracy theories. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but this are studip fring theories -like the frozen food thesis - without any public relevance, that's not even worth talking about. Maybe only as missinformation. It will be very interesting to see what the Biden report says about the laboratory, since a senior official, China's deputy security minister, is said to have deserted to the United States. --Empiricus (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but this are studip fring theories -like the frozen food thesis - without any public relevance, that's not even worth talking about. Stupid? Absolutely! "Without public relevance"? Seems pretty relevant to me if multiple US representatives are repeating the bioweapon claim.[102][103][104] Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources say more about "Facebook censorship". As far as the possibility of military preventive research under the Biological Weapons Convention is concerned - it is not unusual and it is also legal (Source: - Role of Chinese military lab, page 3)."The United States has a number of high-containment laboratories in which viruses can be studied safely with engineering controls, including negative air pressure. Some of these labs are located at military laboratories, such as the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Frederick, Maryland. China, France, Germany, India, Russia, the United Kingdom, and many other countries similarly have laboratories operated by military researchers that are declared to the Biological Weapons Convention in confidence building measures. Scientific investigation in military laboratories is not uncommon; coronavirus research performed in a Chinese military research institute is not in itself suspicious, as asserted". The only problem for years is that these experiments are not transparent. The German government and others have long called for clarification here. There are X programs, also in the US also China - where "quasi bioweapons" are developed - with the aim to protect against them.--Empiricus (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You didn't read this source, then. It doesn't mention Facebook a single time, and the headline is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene suggests COVID-19 was 'bioweapon,' demands Fauci be held accountable. So I again assert that three members of the US congress claiming in public that China developed COVID as a weapon makes that repeating of the conspiracy theory of great public relevance. Want to change my mind? Address that directly. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Although I'm on wikibreak, since I logged in for another reason I just resist as I saw this discussion earlier when looking to see if the latest pre-print [105] to make the news [106] [107] [108] [109] has made it here yet. Interesting enough AFAICT it hasn't yet although I can't help thinking it would have if it were in the opposite direction.

@Empiricus-sextus: "since a senior official, China's deputy security minister, is said to have deserted to the United States" you seem to be referring to Dong Jingwei but I'm fairly sure only crazy people are still saying this so I suggest if you're reading such sources you may want to discard them at least for when it comes to editing Wikipedia. As per our article, an unnamed senior US official took the unusual step of definitively denying it only a few days after the reports began to spread (and over 2 weeks ago). This was followed soon after by a photo of Dong doing his official duties after this alleged defection.

So it can only be true if there is some crazy stuff going e.g. body doubles or China manipulating photos to hide a truth which will surely be self evident if true, sometime in the near future. That's the sort of stuff which North Korean and perhaps Comical Ali may pull or *cough* *cough* a former US president I won't name, but China? Whatever their flaws, yeah, nah.

And the US for some reason is also seemingly wishing to hide something which China (the only ones they have good reason to want to hit from) surely already knows if true, rather than just let it remain in mystery until they reveal all. The other even crazier possibility is that he defected for a few days but then went back and was allowed to serve in his old role, at least publicly. Again, any source which believes all this probably shouldn't be trusted.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The addendum adding Peter Daszak's conflicts of interest to the original Lancet letter is revealing. A bit more than a year late High Tinker (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Centralized discussion on MEDRS vs NEWSORG on the origin of SARS-CoV-2

I've begun a Centralized discussion on MEDRS vs NEWSORG on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Please visit, read, and comment there. Forich (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Lancet Commission task force

This section need to be corrected, Daszak no longer leads/is a member of this task force. It should be mentioned that he was recused due to conflicts of interest. High Tinker (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Got an RS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Archive links to list of Lancet commissioners, Jan 7th 2021 Peter Daszak present. June 28th 2021 Peter Daszak listed as recused. July 8th 2021 Peter Daszak removed.

Also, reliable source The Times(archive link), quoting "technical work will be conducted by independent experts who were not themselves directly involved in US-China research activities that are under scrutiny". High Tinker (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@High Tinker: - added with Times source. Thanks. starship.paint (exalt) 08:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

References

WHO report reception - in the Lead

We currently have:

Scientists found the conclusions of the WHO report to be helpful but noted that more work would be needed. In the US, the EU and other countries, some criticised what they said was the study's lack of transparency and data access. WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom said he was ready to deploy additional missions for further investigation

I have the following observations:

1. "Scientists found the conclusions...." Perhaps, we can change it to "In general, scientists found the conclusions ...". A simple read of the reviews of the report quickly reveals that the conclusions are, for the reviewers, the least helpful part of the document.
2. "... but noted that more work would be needed". This is an accurate summary of the positive reviews of the WHO report, but it lefts out what the negative reviews said. We have at least 30 scientists talking about "serious structural gaps" and the BMJ editor in chief raising concerns publicly. In my opinion, "serious structural gaps" is very different from "more work would be needed"
3. "In the US, the EU, and other countries" Why is this geographical qualification relevant? This is almost the whole western world. So, the critics are non-Chinese, is that the point?
4. "Some criticised..." is vague, we can have "Some scientists and journalists", "Some experts and media" or something along those lines. Normally, we'd name scientists first, followed by "They were echoed by the media", but in this case it is important to have them on the same level, as the WHO report just did a poor job of communicating to the general public what was found and how much information continues unknown, in my opinion. The WSJ dedicated a piece of investigative journalism to call them out on their defficiencies, so it is not a minor thing.
5. About the criticism itself: I wonder if "lack of transparency and data access" being the most accurate depiction? Please read the WSJ investigation, or the Le Figaro letter to see that the wording is too soft. Again, "Stymied from the start" is very different to "lack of transparency and data access". The first depiction speaks of intent on China's part, while the latter is more of an involuntary error. Forich (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree on points 1, 2 and 3. But disagree on points 4 and 5. I think 4 is too complex/clunky. And I do not believe 5 brings us closer to NPOV, and instead over-weights criticism in comparison to the weighting of views found in RSes. Perhaps a better wording would be: "In general, scientists found the conclusions of the WHO report to be helpful, but some noted the study's lack of transparency and data access created serious barriers. WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom said he was ready to deploy additional missions for further investigation." Thoughts? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

thanks, seems a good agreement to settle on 1, 2 and 3. Forich (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Forich and Shibbolethink: point number 1 ("in general"), is fine, but the rest of these proposed changes give undue weight to criticisms of the report, which overall remains highly consistent with the scientific consensus on the spillover of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population in SE Asia. For every criticism and caveat Forich proposes, far more text could be added supporting the WHO report: this would be necessary to maintain a NPOV but would create a bloated introduction. We shouldn't change the lead to begin giving undue credence to the lab leak idea that remains fantastical for most people who study infectious diseases. -Darouet (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet:, thanks for commenting. I am pretty sure none of my 4 points mentions the lab leak hypothesis, though. Point 1, we all agree. Point 2, mentions the Le Figaro open letter standpoint that the report has major flaws, instead of minor ones. But the Le Figaro scientist are not known advocates of the lab leak theory, they only converge on some points. Points 3 is a comment on letting the criticism be stated to come internationally, instead of attaching it to specific regions of the world. This is not linked in any way to the lab leak hypothesis. Point 4, argues for a clearer mention of China's arguably antagonistic attitutes to being investigated. It has nothing to do with the lab leak hypothesis, except that it is a point of convergence with the opinions of their advocates (Drastic, Ebright, Metzl, etc). Forich (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with Darouet on keeping the lead as short as possible. I have searched for fair depictions of the reactions of the report and found this one, maybe we can borrow some of its content or tone to reach a middleground between the three of us:

Overall, the report offers few clear-cut conclusions regarding the start of the pandemic. Instead, it provides context for the possibilities and helps home in on the studies researchers should tackle next.

Forich (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Covid origins: Australia’s role in the feedback loop promoting the Wuhan lab leak theory

Interesting new piece in The Guardian on Australian journalist Sharri Markson's large role in amplifying the lab leak claims, and their amplification in the American right-wing media. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the Member State Information Session on Origins

16th July remarks of WHO Director-General are out. Link here. Transcription here:

Honourable Ministers, Excellencies, dear colleagues and friends,

Good morning, good afternoon and good evening to all Member States, and thank you for joining us for this special briefing on the steps that WHO is taking to identify the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

As you know, at the end of March this year, the WHO-led international scientific team delivered its report following its mission to China in January, in line with World Health Assembly resolution 73.1.

That report filled in several knowledge gaps, and identified areas for further study.

Earlier this week, Member States received a circular letter detailing the proposed next steps that the Secretariat will take to advance those studies, in several areas:

First, integrated studies of humans, wildlife, captive and farmed animals, and environment, as part of a One Health approach.

Second, studies prioritizing geographic areas with the earliest indication of circulation of SARS-CoV-2, and neighbouring areas where other SARS-related coronaviruses have been found in non-human reservoirs;

Third, studies of animal markets in and around Wuhan, including continuing studies on animals sold at the Huanan wholesale market;

Fourth, studies related to animal trace-back activities, with additional epidemiology and molecular epidemiology work, including early sequences of the virus;

And fifth, audits of relevant laboratories and research institutions operating in the area of the initial human cases identified in December 2019.

The Secretariat will continue to develop operational plans and terms of reference for the next series of studies, in collaboration and consultation with Member States and the international scientific community.

I thank China and the other Member States who wrote to me yesterday, and I agree that finding the origins of this virus is a scientific exercise that must be kept free from politics.

For that to happen, we expect China to support this next phase of the scientific process by sharing all relevant data in a spirit of transparency. Equally, we expect all Member States to support the scientific process by refraining from politicising it.

Finding where this virus came from is essential not just for understanding how the pandemic started and preventing future outbreaks, but it’s also important as an obligation to the families of the 4 million people who have lost someone they love, and the millions who have suffered.

But we also know that SARS-CoV-2 will not be the last new pathogen with pandemic potential. There will be more, and we will need to understand the origins of those pathogens too.

It is therefore our view that the world needs a more stable and predictable framework for studying the origins of new pathogens with epidemic or pandemic potential.

Accordingly, I am pleased to announce that the Secretariat is establishing a permanent International Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens, or SAGO.

SAGO will play a vital role in the next phase of studies into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, as well as the origins of future new pathogens.

Members of this new advisory group will be selected based on their technical expertise, taking into account geographical representation and gender balance.

We will soon be launching an open call for nominations, including from Member States, for highly-qualified experts to join SAGO. As required, the Secretariat will also appoint technical advisors to SAGO.

Dr Mike Ryan and Dr Maria Van Kerkhove will say more about this new approach shortly.

As always, we are grateful for your engagement, and we look forward to your questions, comments, input and guidance.

I thank you.

Since this is a controversial area of editing, please read carefully the statement above, and comment on whether some of it merits inclusion here. Forich (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Forich, I think it's a very good statement, and i think it's great that that is the official position of Tedros. I hope the WHO is able to actually conduct all the investigations he details here, that would be really good. But I'm not sure anything in here is novel enough to merit inclusion in this article. We must avoid undue quotations, and especially avoid WP:RECENTISM. I think covering everything Tedros says with a fine tooth comb would not be appropriate. What specifically did you have in mind?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks promising. Do we have some links to secondary sources we can take a look at, to see what secondary sources think are the most important parts of this statement? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Reactions" section reverses scientific consensus

The current "Reactions" to the WHO report section is, with the exception of one sentence, wholly dedicated to criticizing or dismissing its findings. From the way the reactions section is written a fully scientifically naïve reader will naturally come to the opposite conclusion of the current scientific consensus: our text strongly indicates that the conclusions of the report are fundamentally flawed.

This is a deeply disingenuous method of describing the report - rather than attacking the conclusions directly, attempting to emphasize doubts about report credibility overall - and does not convey how scientists have reacted to it. I think we need to just rewrite this whole section and I've attempted to so. -Darouet (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree that it seems like there was a POV WP:COATRACK here. Over time, we had hung every criticism on this section, until it completely changed the meaning and obscured what our sources were telling us about the overall reaction to the report. I support your rewrite, I think it's much closer to NPOV.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What We Know About the Origins of COVID-19

From a June 26, 2021 article in WSJ (a reliable source):[110]

A WHO-led inquiry into the origins of the virus was stymied from the start. An investigation found China resisted international pressure for an investigation it saw as an attempt to assign blame, delayed the probe for months, secured veto rights over participants and insisted its scope encompass other countries as well. The WHO-led team that traveled to China in early 2021 to investigate the origins of the virus struggled to get a clear picture of what research China was conducting beforehand, faced constraints during its monthlong visit and had little power to conduct thorough, impartial research without the blessing of China’s government. In their final report, the investigators said insufficient evidence meant they couldn’t yet resolve when, where and how the virus began spreading.

China withheld data on potential early cases and delayed sharing information on animals sold at a market where the first cluster was found. Chinese authorities refused to provide WHO investigators with raw data on confirmed and potential early Covid-19 cases that could help determine how and when the coronavirus first began to spread in China. Chinese researchers also directed a U.S. government archive to delete gene sequences of early Covid-19 cases, removing an important clue.

If the virus truly originated in the wild, why would China hide information and delete data and be so secretive? The way this current article is written makes it seem like an accidental leak from WIV is still some outlandish claim, even though many scientists and reliable sources disagree. This article needs more balance and due weight given to the most likely scenario for the origin of the virus which is an inadvertant lab leak. Yodabyte (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"If the virus truly originated in the wild, why would China hide information and delete data and be so secretive?" - Authoritarian regimes tend to be secretive by nature; see the paragraphs at the bottom here (starting with "Think of it this way. What country would welcome investigators [...]"); and also the comparison with the now infamous WMDs in Iraq here. The WSJ piece is already cited. The rest appears to be WP:OR, and is not supported by the vast majority of reliable sources, even newspapers (most of which will correctly tell you that the mainstream scientific view is that the virus likely came from nature). This article already gives more than enough weight to the "inadvertant lab leak", considering how that hypothesis is received in the peer-reviewed, WP:SCHOLARSHIP sources on which we should be basing this (see WP:NOLABLEAK for a sampling). FWIW, you should read the paragraph at the bottom of the Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#International_calls_for_investigations section... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Authoritarian regimes tend to be secretive by nature" - don't you think an authoritarian regime that has imprisoned millions of ethnic minorities in forced labor camps and concentration camps would try to deceive the world from finding out how the virus originated? The Guardian article you referenced says this "team members were sceptical of the lab leak theory after their visit, on the basis of what they were allowed to see – although that does not rule other material having been hidden. And China, as the WHO’s head, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, made clear, did not provide all the information. Common sense says if China has data/evidence that the virus originated outside of the lab they would share that with WHO team members (in other words it's logical to conclude there very likely was a lab leak origin).

Here is another Guardian article I re-read recently about how the Chinese communist party controls the narrative and censors any debate on the origins of the virus: China is cracking down on publication of academic research about the origins of the novel coronavirus, in what is likely to be part of a wider attempt to control the narrative surrounding the pandemic. Yodabyte (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

That's all WP:OR. We trust scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, not the "common sense" of Wikipedia editors. China being authoritarian is not evidence for the lab leak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but China covering up and deleting data and not sharing information with WHO team members is. Yodabyte (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What matters is what published peer reviewed secondary sources have said, not what we feel in our hearts or are “suspicious of” about China. We also have most of these criticisms in one form or another already in the article. Not much to add here...—Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Are peer reviewed articles secondary sources? Pkeets (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)