Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.146.132.153 (talk) at 18:00, 7 August 2023 (→‎Fringe Science category: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.




Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

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

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


Lab leak theory sources

List of good sources with good coverage to help expand. Not necessarily for inclusion but just for consideration. Preferably not articles that just discuss a single quote/press conference. The long-style reporting would be even better. Feel free to edit directly to add to the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by Julian Brown (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]  ·
Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For a database curated by the NCBI, see LitCoVID
[edit]  ·
Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION.
[edit]  ·
Government and policy
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution!

References

Fringe Science category

I guess we're doing B-R-R-D now? Why doesn't the body of the article observe fringe prior to inclusion in this category? Have editors reviewed this category? Does the lab leak theory have as much skepticism as say, touchless knockouts or aromatherapy? SmolBrane (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we have a section about fringe science, which does not link to fringe science, so I see a use for the category. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We really need a new RfC around just how it should be treated. As pointed out above, the old one is 2 years old. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly no consensus on these talk pages for this categorization. How can it be fringe when the WHO and all US Intelligence agencies consider it a plausible scenario? As the WHO Director General has said, "lab accidents happen, it's common". A fringe theory is one with little or no scientific support, which is clearly not the case here.
Suggest we remove it for now until the inevitable RFC. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is more than one LL theory. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Trying to think of other "theory" articles that actually refer to a cluster of theories. String theory for one. Are there others? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be fringe when the WHO and all US Intelligence agencies consider it a plausible scenario?
1) There are multiple lab leak theories, and some are more FRINGE-applicable than others. For instance, the idea that Anthony Fauci and the NIAID intentionally conspired with Peter Daszak and the Chinese government to hide evidence of a previous set of gain-of-function experiments which inserted furin cleavage sites into the virus, and then virus was what caused the lab leak is undisputedly FRINGE. And by far the least plausible (aside from the bioweapons theory). The Intelligence community and basically all relevant scientists agree there is no evidence that this happened.
2) There are many "plausible" FRINGE ideas. For instance, it is plausible that extraterrestrials are visiting (and have visited) the Earth to conduct experiments on humans. It absolutely does not defy the laws of physics. It is just very unlikely. But it's also FRINGE and does not have mainstream scientific acceptance. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing up the meaning of 'plausible' with 'possible'. Plausible means "seeming reasonable or probable". PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of what's being called "fringe" here is apparently now being reported as plausible by Calvert & Arbuthnot at the Times of London. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But not all, which is the point. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there policy on whether or not an article should be considered fringe simply because portions of it refer to something that is fringe? My gut is that any unproven theory is likely to have multiple versions, and some of those versions will not have much support. String theory being an example. It is not considered fringe, even though there are certainly hundreds, and perhaps thousands of versions of it, and most of them must be fringe. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KInd of, its called wp:v, if RS say it so do wwe, RS call a lot of this fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Catagorising the whole article as fringe when the main part of the article is not fringe will just confuse people. If it's that much of a concern, I'd suggest we just delete the 'fringe views on genetic engineering' section. It adds nothing to the article and is Wikipedia:UNDUE anyway. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does the lab leak theory have as much skepticism as say, touchless knockouts or aromatherapy?
No, but it definitely has as much skepticism (if not more) as the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine, Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis, Panspermia, and Vertebral subluxation. Which all have this category.
That last one is especially interesting. Because a majority of the US public think that Chiropractic works [5]. Even though the scientific consensus is that it does not. [6][7][8] Strikingly similar to the Lab leak theory public-science divide. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do any serious scientists believe chiropractic works (genuine question)? Because there are plenty of renowned scientists who believe the possibility that COVID originated in a lab should be taken seriously. The head of the WHO Tedros Ghebreyesus, former head of the Chinese CDC George Gao, former head of the US CDC Robert Redfield, computational virologist Jesse Bloom, just to name a few. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The status or credentials of the person presenting the view doesn't equate to scientific consensus or evidence. This topic meets the criteria of WP:FRINGE because it departs significantly from mainstream science and has little or no scientific support. In science, the meaning of mainstream is that there is scientific consensus within research and scholarship. That's not the same as the WHO or FBI saying it's plausible. The void century 19:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many "plausible" FRINGE ideas. For instance, it is plausible that extraterrestrials are visiting (and have visited) the Earth to conduct experiments on humans. It absolutely does not defy the laws of physics. It is just very unlikely. But it's also FRINGE and does not have mainstream scientific acceptance. — Shibbolethink.
Not “absolutely defying the laws of physics” means something is possible, but certainly does not mean something’s plausible. Very unlikely ideas are implausible. Plausible means believable- it could easily or could well be true, or could easily or could well have happened. FRINGE ideas are not plausible.
There is a subheading of FRINGE Bioweapons ideas. If someone wants to put a link from this to FRINGE, please do, but the whole article should not be categorized under FRINGE.
If you want to go to a RfC, OK, but it certainly should be removed until such time as you get a favorable determination from the RfC. What’s with all the reversions? People (I believe you included if I am not mistaken) get on my case if I revert back once to an edit I make that is backed up with good reasoning and is seemingly mindlessly reverted with no explanation in plausibly obstructist reverting. Someone please revert until there is consensus or RfC. JustinReilly (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how wikipedia policy defines FRINGE nor how scholars define it. A more appropriate RfC would ask whether the article should describe the theory as "evidence-based". I think that RfC would be opposed, but if you want to go to a RfC, OK. As it stands, the article describes the theory as fringe science. The void century 01:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible means believable
Actually it means "has the veneer of a reasonable possibility". Which many such theories I described have. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying is objectively false. By definition, the status of an individual working in a regulatory or scholarly position is indeed relevant to determining whether or not there is consensus in a field. If an academic or public official, especially one as prominent as Tedros Ghebreyusus, claims that the lab leak is plausible and not just a fringe conspiracy theory as many people have claimed, without evidence, then by definition there is not consensus in the field on the matter of whether the lab leak hypothesis is a far-right conspiracy theory. Consensus means that basically everyone working in the field agree on a particular position. If a major figure in the field dissents from a popularly held position, then by definition, consensus on the matter does not exist. That's literally what scholarly consensus means. Arguably, by denying the authority of agencies the the WHO and CDC you are promoting disinformation. 76.146.132.153 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to stay out of the slow WP:EW here. My own opinion is that the current view in the scientific literature is that LL is a minority scientific viewpoint, i.e. WP:FRINGE/ALT, not WP:FRINGE/QS. In mainstream WP:RS, it is much closer to a 50/50 split between Z and LL. Perhaps a slight favorite to Z still in mainstream sources, but perhaps not and definitely very close at this point. And public opinion favors LL in most countries. I have no idea if the category of "fringe theories" includes WP:FRINGE/ALT or not. The fact that peoples' opinions differ, as seen above, shows it is high time for a new WP:RfC. I would be happy to work with anyone (i.e. Shibbolethink) on such an RfC. It might not be hard to get a wording we both agree is neutral. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RS reporting about the Lab leak theory is not an endorsement of it. The theory is rooted in a conspiracy theory relying heavily on accident (fallacy) and has no scientific evidence. That's WP:FRINGE/QS. WP:FRINGE/ALT theories usually solve conundrums that existing science can't solve. In this case, existing science can solve it. There is evidence that Covid-19 came from zoonosis, and that's what most scholars believe. The void century 01:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it is pretty obvious that we are not going to come to a consensus in this discussion. We need an RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if the category of "fringe theories" includes WP:FRINGE/ALT or not.
The guidelines seem to imply that in scientific matters, pseudoscience and Fringe are synonymous. Can anyone shed light on this? I think it’s very unlikely that all alternative theoretical formulations would be considered fringe. JustinReilly (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lab leak theory is rooted in a conspiracy theory relying heavily on accident (fallacy) and has no scientific evidence. That's WP:FRINGE/QS.
@The void century, by the linked “fallacy of accident,” did you mean that the lab leak theory relies heavily on coincidences as circumstantial evidence? That’s not what the fallacy of accident seems to be from the link. What did you mean exactly? The question of COVID’s origin is a question of “what happened?”, exactly, to get us this virus. Like other questions of what happened in a specific context, It’s not necessarily a question of pure science, as non-scientific evidence can legitimately form some of the basis for our conclusions about what happened. It’s more similar to courtroom questions like “what happened that night to cause the murder” where both scientific and non-scientific evidence may be germane, than a purely scientific question like “what is the genome of SARS-2.” Thus, the fact that there isn’t direct scientific evidence of either origin hypothesis does not mean that either is FRINGE. JustinReilly (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fallacy of accident is a particularly weak and easily disguised type of circumstantial evidence. The false logic:
1. There is a lab in Wuhan that studies coronaviruses.
2. Covid-19 is a coronavirus that originated in Wuhan.
3. Covid-19 originated in the Wuhan lab.
The point is that it's deductively valid but unsound. It would be like saying this year's NYC flu outbreak came from Mt. Sinai because Mt. Sinai studies flu viruses, even though there are better explanations with evidence.
LL has no empirical evidence. No clustering near the site, pattern of cases, genetic explanation, nor confirmed cases. Just gut feelings. There is empirical evidence that the virus passed to humans from animals in the Huanan market -- confirmed early cases, clustering of cases, spatial association with live animal sales, genetic explanations, and a history of coronaviruses originating from zoonosis. There's no equivalence between these two "theories". One is a suspicion with 0 evidence, the other is science that is widely recognized within research as being the most likely scenario. LL is Fringe. Not pseudoscience, but not science either. The void century 15:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> It would be like saying this year's NYC flu outbreak came from Mt. Sinai because Mt. Sinai studies flu viruses
No it wouldn't. The primary LLH asserts that it is odd and unexpected that a bat-borne sarbecovirus with a furin cleavage site would start naturally in Wuhan (even Shi Zhengli was very surprised to hear this), and meanwhile there is a lab in Wuhan that specializes in studying bat-borne sarbecoviruses and was planning gain of function experiments that involved the insertion of furin cleavage sites into them. Your analogy would only work if it were deemed very surprising for flu to make its way into NYC by natural means, and meanwhile Mt Sinai were performing experiments on injecting unusual features into flu viruses and then a flu pandemic started in NYC with a new kind of flu with the same type of novel feature that Mt Sinai had proposed to experiment with. KaitainJones (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudoscience is a subset of fringe. Anything that departs significantly from the mainstream is fringe. Some fringe theories are still scientific - they don't incorporate unfalsifiable claims the way that pseudoscience does. An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything might be an example - it has few adherents, so it is fringe. But it will be possible to falsify it if certain subatomic particles are detected, so it is not pseudoscience. MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @PieLover3141592654: Catagorising the whole article as fringe when the main part of the article is not fringe will just confuse people
JustinReilly (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HAs it been demonstrated the m ain part of the article is not fringe. What is the "main part of the article"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrated? I don't know that we even have a definition! Possibilities include WP:FRINGE/QS, WP:FRINGE/ALT, "Fringe" according to WP:WEIGHT, and probably something else I haven't thought of. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So then we have definitions of fringe, what has not been demonstrated is that this is not a fringe topic, just that certain parts of it MAY not be. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Definitions". That's a problem! One wants one definition. Pretty sure it's up to those seeking inclusion to demonstrate that it is fringe. But prior to any of that, we need to know what we are talking about. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NO, we have to show RS call it fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven has re-inserted the category with edit summary = "This is long stadning, it needs consnesus to change it." I believe this is false because as far as I can tell the category was originally added on 27 June 2023, and even if was older the policy (WP:ONUS) is that consensus is necessary to re-insert. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong it seems. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through this discussion, it appears that we have reached consensus to re-insert the Fringe category. Per WP:CONSENSUS Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. While there are editors who disagree, I don't see any putting forth a significant policy-based argument on how this topic shouldn't be categorized as Fringe science. Is there a single HQ peer-reviewed source entertaining the idea of LL, in which it's not dismissed as either fringe, conspiracy theory, or unsupported by science/evidence? If not, then it's clearly not science, and that's what the fringe category indicates. The void century 15:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, that is not the relevant test of whether a subject is fringe. To quote Jimbo Wales:
"The consensus in the mainstream media (which is the relevant media for this, rather than MEDRS sources, as it is a social/geopolitical question, as opposed to a medical question) seems to me to have shifted from "This is highly unlikely, and only conspiracy theorists are pushing this narrative" to "This is one of the plausible hypotheses". We can reject conspiracy theorists and agenda-pushers, but we should not in the process blind ourselves to what is being said in reliable sources."
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 246#covid povs PieLover3141592654 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jimbo's is not a reliable or relevant view. When we talk about whether "it" is fringe, we need to be clear what "it" is. Allowing there is a small, non-zero possibility SCV2 might have leaked from a lab is not fringe, pretty much everything beyond that is. LL stans love to use the Motte-and-bailey fallacy to try and buy respectability for wild speculation by leveraging the "non-zero possibility" idea -- and Wikipedia should not play that game. Even if LL might have had some brief moment of semi-respectability in some US media, by now it's pretty much just all seen as conspiracy theory with a few grifters and crazies left pushing it.[9] Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zoonotic origin proponents have zero evidence to back up their claims, and indeed several factors against them. Two strains at the market suggests it was not the origin, "multi market origin" is xⁿ more unlikely, the authorities specifically sought cases related to market thereby biasing the data, there is no demonstrated route from the nearest relative to Wuhan in the wild animal trade(pangolins were not on sale), but there is for the lab leak theory since the scientists were bringing samples back to the lab for research. Project Defuse, proposed doing research which would have created specifically this kind of virus by addition of a novel cleavage site. We also now have the internal communications of the scientists who published the proximal origins paper, who very well knew how plausible a lab leak was. High Tinker (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nature family of journals unreliable writ large without retraction of "Proximal Origin"

Title says it all folks. Without retraction of "Proximal Origin," the Nature family of journals cannot be considered reliable sources but rather political propaganda and must be removed from this page and Wikipedia in general.--2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:8967:8E24:7F18:48A7 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

make a case at wp:rsn, I think I will know the outcome. Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis

This is a highly biased and controversial statement. By what measure do you count "most scientists"? The link is to a single paper, there has been no general survey on the matter to see what the real dominant opinion is in the sciientific community. I propose changing the above to "some scientists believe that..." to more accurately reflet that it is one opinion of a number that need to be seriously considered. 83.33.197.248 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sources. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Bon courage (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the talk page threads we already have you have brought nothing new to the table. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Informed by racist undercurrents"

A (yesterday): The lab leak theory has been described as racist and xenophobic, because it has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment.

B (today): The lab leak theory is informed by racist undercurrents, and has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment.

Diff. I don't dispute this idea, and I don't think anyone can, since the citation for this is incredibly thorough. But I have concerns about the phrasing of B from a copy editing perspective. What's it mean for a theory to be informed? What's it mean to be informed by an undercurrent? Surely there's a clearer way to say this? I suggest we go back to A for now. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a Brit v US thing? (Inform here is used to mean "give form or shape to"). For informed maybe "fuelled", or "underpinned", or "fed"? In the article body we quote Goski's "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak" and that should be somehow mirrored in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should go back to A, using a blanket "is", tars the whole theory as a racist endeavour, which is it clearly not. Some proponents maybe motivated by racist animus, but saying "is informed", is simply inaccurate High Tinker (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not what the sources say. Or have you one to back your opinion? Bon courage (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the sources? "Blame in conspiracies of COVID-19 is distributed differently across beliefs", a quote from the Chinese ambassador, "The mistake many in the media made was to cast the lab-leak theory as inherently conspiratorial and racist", "They identified 6 frames, including authoritative agency, intolerance, virulence, medical efficacy, prophecy, and satire", "Lab leak theories are often bolstered by racist tropes". None of those say the lab leak is a purely motivated by racism, so that's why we should make it clear that "some" lab leak advocacy is motivated by racism, rather than the blanket statement "The lab leak theory is informed" High Tinker (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't say it is "inherently" or "purely" racist, rather it is informed by undercurrents: that's at least two levels of remove & well backed by the sources. Some is just pure racism; I wouldn't mind adding that too.. Bon courage (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The impression of the sentence, with "is", unhedged or unmodified gives the misleading impression, it just needs some refinement. I don't need to say 2+2 is purely 4, 2+2 is 4 has the same meaning. High Tinker (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we need to be up-front about the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak. Bon courage (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're more interested in trolling than constructive criticism, I'll leave you and your personal blog in peace High Tinker (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personal blog? huh? Leave personal opinion out, stick close to the sources, and all shall be well. Bon courage (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I literally quoted the sources to you... High Tinker (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While carefully leaving out the stuff about the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak. What we have is a good summary without being overly coy about that. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go with A. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with "A" is it's not accurately reflecting the sources, they don't say this it racist-y simply because it has resulted in anti-Chinese sentiment, rather than there is racist and xenophobia behind it. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then "The lab leak theory has sometimes been racist and xenophobic, utilizing anti-Chinese sentiment." Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well "utilized" is an odd word (fancy variant of "used") here. This is what we have in the body:

By January 2020 some lab leak proponents were promoting a narrative with conspiracist components; such narratives were often supported using "racist tropes that suggest that epidemiological, genetic, or other scientific data had been purposefully withheld or altered to obscure the origin of the virus." David Gorski refers to "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government".

So the question is, how to summarize that? Bon courage (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undue revert

I am not understanding how this revert is about WP:FORUM. It looks simply info that that at least partially has been mentioned in reliable sources[1] and it is a legitimate thread regardless. Although I don't think the majority of reliable sources state that the leak is the most accepted theory, that can be discussed. What am I missing? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://theintercept.com/2023/06/17/covid-origin-wuhan-patient-zero/ Documents Link Potential Covid Patient Zero to U.S.-Funded Research in Wuhan
Is there an edit proposed? If not it's just forum-ing. Bon courage (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is normal in talk page discussions to simply point out information, specially by inexperienced editors. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, as a not inexperienced editor, what is your proposal from this? or are you wanting to forum? Bon courage (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to forum but are you trying to unduly censor information? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal is to reinstate the thread. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page comments are supposed to be about improving the article, not telling us its wrong. But you are correct, it would have been better not to delete this but just to respond "discussed above". Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TALK, There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation. I think it's not necessary to state, "I hereby prompt editors for further investigation". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But It is widely accepted that the most likely source of the covid 19 virus was a leak from the Wuhan institute is either speculation nor suggestion nor personal knowledge. It's just bullshit. -Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per the above, it is not reasonable "speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge", as a simple reading of all the threads above (and in the archive) would have told them. There does come a point when dealing with the 15th repetition of the same old cobblers produces only time wasting. So well done on having convinced me Old Hob was right. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and WP:CGTW#12 applies. This is page meant to be to be focused on article improvement, not indulging in silliness. Bon courage (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although Slatersteven has a point about repetitions, the proper way to deal with that is to point the OP to the existing consensus, if there is such. New editors don't know the intricacies of Wikipedia, they don't know to look in the page history for reason of removal, they just assume Wikipedia censored out their post. And again, the post warranted discussion or—if it was a repeated topic already dealt with in a proper discussion that reached proper consensus—then point out that to the editor.
Now, "It's just bullshit". "Not indulging in silliness". I don't think this heavy editorial bias is according to WP:NPOV. After all, "widely" is subject to interpretation and therefore subject of discussion not undue censorship.
Also, I remind editors about the civility policy, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IP was the one who claimed that there was a consensus (in favor of LL). Someone who writes something like that is either a troll or so immersed in their irrational anti-intellectual echo chamber that any discussion would be pointless. It is not a sign of "heavy editorial bias" to reject it out of hand, it is a sign of competence. Can you please stop complaining about people not taking such bollocks seriously? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1169201095"