Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Wuhan Institute of Virology|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Conspiracy theories vs theories (resurrected from Archive 1)

See original discussion in the archive.

I believe this topic was archived before consensus was achieved. I'd like to offer my support to the topic OP. I'm not necessarily saying the conjecture is correct, but I wholeheartedly agree it's no "conspiracy." Data8504 (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 have been discussed at length: [1]. Fringe theories that do not have significant support within the scientific community should be described as fringe. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Theories yes, conspiracy theories no because that is bias. If a Nobel prize winning virologist and prominent biologists like Bret Weinstein say that the theory is plausible then using the word “conspiracy” is a left wing bias.  Until the Chinese government allow an independent inquiry to rule out beyond a reasonable doubt that Covid 19 did not accidentally leak from a lab, always a theory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.2 (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 

At this point, that's not really a conspiracy theory, but a plausible and likely theory. the scientific 'consensus' (which itself have been shattered recently by Luc Montagnier [2]) only concerns the genetic origin of the virus, ie, it tries to debunk the engineered bio weapon theory at best.

It cannot possibly exclude an accidental leak of a natural origin virus, stored or research on in the institute. Coupled with the other facts on the initial spread of SARS-COV2: that patient zero was never found, and that it has been established that the seafood market, was not the origin, but a superspeader event. The WIV leak theory becomes the most likely source. Shturmavik71 (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This page looks very biased towards chinese propoganda

There are important facts and connections being intentionally smothered in this article:

1.the physical proximity of the initial spread at wuhan seafood market, to the Chinese CDC, which collaborated with the WIV.

2.the fact that the institute did gain-of-function studies in 2015, engineering a bat coronavirus to be highly infectious on humans, something which they published in nature. (a type of research the US banned in it's own research in 2014), while the 2015 virus is not SARS-COV2, the fact is that research is being conducted there.

4.That multiple sources, including the diplomatic cables, form experts which visited the place in 2018, claim that the safety standards are not maintained, and that research conducted is very dangerous.

The rebuking paragraph is the 'conspiracy theory' (at this point it's a very valid theory) is laughable at best, citing 2 experts, both with ties to the institute, and personal interest. further, Peter Daszak argument is more of a personal opinion than a fact. the facts that the institute collected, stored and researched, a multitude of highly infectious to humans coronaviruses under improper safety conditions.

There are multiple experts in [[3]] Which openly say that an accidental release, is not only very possible but is quite probable. Shturmavik71 (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

"Chinese lab conducted extensive research on deadly bat viruses, but there is no evidence of accidental release" Koncorde (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the work of leading virologists such as Jonathan Latham [4] and Yuri Deigin [5] (those ones are at the top of my head) and Milton Leitenberg a scureity researcher [6] that expose 2 possible routes how SARS-COV2 was formed and reached human population. both of these theories have far more supporting evidence (both genetic and factual) than the natural formation hypothesis. they are not addressed in Wikipedia, due to an obvious pro-ccp bias. -regarding your line about lab-release, you should be aware that SARS1 was accidently released no less than 6! times all well documented (2 of them with fatalities) from research labs.Shturmavik71 (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

And keep in mind that medical subjects (such as CoVID-19) have stricter sourcing requirements than usual: WP:MEDRS. A Medium blog and independentsciencenews.org do not meet those requirements. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

BSL-4 dates and accerdiation and relation to research

I've corrected a number of errors on the page regarding the BSL-4 status and it's implications.

1.The 2015 opening date is imprecise and it's unclear what kind of milestone it represents, with the construction going on from 2003. But the Nature source reports the actual accerdiation date as Jan 2017 (with the article being from 2017).

2.Xinhua article dates the lab as "put into operation" in Jan 2018.

while the lab got it's BSL-4 accreditaion in 2017. the WIV also has lower safety labs. another important disinction I've made regarding the coronovirus research. and It has been confirmed by Shi Zhengli in the ScienceMag article that it was carried in BSL-2 and BSL-3 labs. Shturmavik71 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Profoundly biased (toward no chance of lab escape) article

This article needs to be updated. The idea that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab is no longer a fringe "conspiracy theory". See this Washington Post article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-coronaviruss-origins-are-still-a-mystery-we-need-a-full-investigation/2020/11/13/cbf4390e-2450-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html

Peter Daszak, who is quoted on this wiki page, has a massive conflict of interest in this matter. He *did research* with the the WIV, and as such would be a prime subject of investigation:

https://twitter.com/PeterDaszak/status/1197631383470034951

The "leading virologists" who came out with a letter in opposition to the idea of a lab escape -- that letter was *written* by Peter Daszak and EcoHealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.199.8.56 (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The editorial pages of the Washington Post (or any other newspaper) are not WP:MEDRS. The Washington Post's opinion section previously published a now-discredited claim that American diplomats had raised alarm about the WIV. It turned out that the author of the opinion piece had selectively quoted from diplomatic cables in a way that misrepresented their meaning. We go by what the scientific community finds, rather than by what opinion columns or editorials in popular media claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post was discredited by whom? Source? WP:V takes precedence over WP:MEDRS on this article anyway.

And what does this page have to do with Falun Gong?

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

And crickets! Apparently nothing. Fixed.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

FV

"Leading virologists have disputed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute". A match to the sources would be "cast doubt on". Likewise "Leading virologists" doesn't match; 'Some leading virologists' would match. I think these changes are warranted.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL for "some" and WP:FRINGE for "cast doubt". That idea was doubtful from the start. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, if you read the full text and not just the headlines, the sources cited there are actually stronger than 'disputed'; while most other sources (especially newer ones) are more direct. I've updated it to reflect the sources at the top of the section - 'disputed' isn't strong enough when even the most equivocal sources say things like "virtually no chance" and when the sources almost uniformly describe it as a fringe conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• You're wrong to assert I didn't read the full text after I indicated I had and you misrepresent the source flagged. Of course if you choose sources that ignore the bulk of the Gain of Function (GoF) research that was being done that is consistent with lab involvement and pretend the one type of GoF research that isn't consistent with the evidence is the only kind there is, and just set up and attack straw men like, "No human using a computer could do this," you get unbalanced contributions like yours. It helps to leave out other appropriate sources, or sources that debunk claims in the ones you've used, and avoid even mentioning terms like GoF and "serial passage".

And crickets.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also, "Leading" (is synth): NPR said that over 6 unidentified scientists concurred. NPR said 10 leading scientists were consulted. So actually "7/10 leading scientists" would be reasonable , and simply "Leading scientists" falsely implies consensus. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

"More than half-a-dozen scientists" means anything above six. Seven is only the bare minimum and, for all we know, it could have just been another way of saying ten. The article doesn't mention any dissenting opinions so there is no basis to assume three of them disagreed. CowHouse (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources provided say that the theory was "debunked", they say the theory has been disputed. A Washington Post fact-checking analysis concluded that no scientist has been willing to completely dimsiss the idea that the virus escaped from the WIV. The New York Times reported that Richard H. Ebright has argued that the probability of a lab accident was "substantial," pointing to the lab's lax safety standards and a history of such occurrences that have infected researchers. The Washington Post reported that Shi Zhengli thought it was possible that the virus leaked from the WIV, but she later denied that it did. All of this information should be included in the Conspiracy Theories section, because as it stands, this section clearly violates WP:NPOV. That sentence should be changed to say "Leading virologists have disputed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute, saying that there is "virtually no chance" that it could have happened." JustStalin (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The broad scientific consensus is that the virus most likely emerged in nature, and not as the result of lab experiments or escape. See, for example, Andersen, K.G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W.I. et al., The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, Nature Medicine, 26, 450–452 (2020). With all due respect to Richard Ebright, he's not a virologist, and he's made his claims in the popular media - not in scientific journals. Any discussion of the theory that the virus escaped from a lab needs to also make it clear that this is a WP:FRINGE view in the scientific community. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

But nobody here is arguing against the scientific consensus that the virus most likely emerged in nature. Your claim that there is a scientific consensus that the virus did not leak from the WIV is unsubstantiated, and according to Ebright "is not credible", so WP:FRINGE does not apply here. JustStalin (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the following information should be added to the Conspiracy Theory Section: Ebright said the claim that the Wuhan Institute of Virology could not have been involved in the virus’s release "is not credible." An assessment by the U.S. intelligence community declined to rule out the possibility that the virus had escaped from the complex of laboratories in Wuhan. An anonymous U.S. intelligence official said, "There’s been speculation: Did it come from a market? Did it come from a lab? We just don’t know." In a 2019 paper published in the Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity, Wuhan chief scientist Yuan Zhiming described widespread systemic deficiencies with training and monitoring of high-security laboratories where disease-causing pathogens are studied. In addition, U.S experts and scientists who reviewed experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology said the precautions taken by scientists would not necessarily have protected them from harmful exposures. The experiments prompted Chinese scientists to issue repeated warnings about the possibility of a new SARS-like disease transmitting from bats to humans. In a 2019 article published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Lynn Klotz, a senior science fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, argued that incidents causing potential exposures to pathogens occur frequently in the high security BSL4 laboratories, mainly due to human error, and that releases of potential pandemic pathogens are fairly likely over time. In April 2020, she further elaborated, "Even if a lab is mechanically safe, you can’t rule out human error. Accidents happen, and more than 70 percent of the time it’s due to the humans involved." JustStalin (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Proven: there's no support for "debunked", in the context it's in in the article. So I second that request. Urgent: REMOVE IT NOW; this is defamatory; restoring it surely warrants administrator sanctions. And reiterate my initial ones.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

How is it defamatory? Who is being defamed? CowHouse (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What part of None of the sources provided say that the theory was "debunked", they say the theory has been disputed. A Washington Post fact-checking analysis concluded that no scientist has been willing to completely dimsiss the idea that the virus escaped from the WIV. is unclear? WP:IDHT much? The WashPo isn't bloody fringe. FS. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not describing defamation. Please don't use legal terms without knowing their meaning. CowHouse (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I am. I haven't. Right back at you. Read defamation. When wikipedia falsely claims, "debunked[:] the idea that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute" wikipedia defames everyone who has argued that it may well have leaked from a Wuhan lab, especially when it directs readers to those arguments, especially when they are identified by name; they don't need to be quoted directly in the article. If wikipedia doesn't falsely claim that, which is your (apparently fundamentalist) belief. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on defamation is a helpful start but I suggest you find other sources if you want to improve your understanding of the legal terminology you are trying to use. It would be more productive for you to suggest reasonably uncontroversial changes to that sentence rather than waste editors time talking about non-existent defamation, e.g. Leading virologists have said there is "virtually no chance" that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the institute. CowHouse (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Instead of sarcastic comments, you could suggest editing the page with my example wording and cite WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." CowHouse (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Aside: It's funny, you were Wikilawyering by writing Please don't use legal terms without knowing their meaning. The page in a nutshell: Using the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community.. Are you saying you're hearing the

I've started a section below specifically escalating these defamation concerns. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Repeated/republished defamation

The Times just wrote last month: "[B]razen political lies [by] Fox News Channel, Newsmax and OAN [that is, news media, which admittedly isn't exactly what wikipedia or the WMF are --.170] [resulted in] a planned defamation lawsuit [that is], legal experts say, an unusually strong case" <ref=NYT-defamation>Smith, Ben (21 December 2020). "The 'Red Slime' Lawsuit That Could Sink Right-Wing Media". The New York Times.</ref>. Wikipedia is legless with respect to "debunked", etc.

WP:NLT promises, "A polite report of a legal problem, such as defamation [such as this one], is not a threat and will be acted on quickly." I'm not going to file suit, but I'd strongly urge that a staff member take action on the defamatory bits identified in this page (not just including #FV) or being edit warred over. most recent example since admins are failing with respect to "will be acted on quickly"; I reiterate my request for admin help of the 3rd, above. Surely application of WP:DS are warranted. Act. Primarily because it's the right thing do. "[L]ots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.-Jimbo. Court ruling: "Internet service providers and users are exposed to liability if they republish a statement with notice of its defamatory character." So, promises made... Promises... ___________?

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is to use a legal term "nonsense". Utter and complete nonsense. There is no defamation. No person is harmed. And most importantly, Wikipedia has well-established policies on reliable sources including the now repeated several times WP:MEDRS. Slywriter (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin here, this is just silly. This is not defamation, and no admin action is needed here. Trying to insinuate that the current wording defames people who support a different wording?? Thats nuts. Defamation is a clear and serious issue, which occurs when we publish libelous information about specific real, living people. If folks continue to throw around legal terms without understanding them or in an attempt to Wikilawyer, I will absolutely apply DS to block them from editing this page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Conspiracy Theory or Theory?

The possibility of an accidental lab leak has been the subject of controversy that has been reported on by a number of publications in the last few weeks, and has been described as "credible", "plausible" and even "likely". It is most certainly not a conspiracy theory, and should not be described as such. The section should be renamed to "lab leak theory", to avoid the conspiracy label, and cleaned up to reflect the latest reports on the topic. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support the change you wish to make - just saying "a number of publications" is not sufficient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless actual scientific sources take this theory seriously, it remains WP:FRINGE. An essay by a non-expert in the popular press does not make this scientific. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please can you discuss the contents of the references provided before you revert my edits. I cited a number of sources, including the BBC, National Review, and the Times, all of which satisfy WP:RS, as you must be aware. The New York Magazine too is a reputable source and the author is well qualified to write on the subject, and the article cites a number of reputed scientists, including an interview with Ralph Baric who said "Ralph Baric “Can you rule out a laboratory escape? The answer in this case is probably not.” ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

When newly added content is disputed and removed, it stays out until there is a consensus to include it. The onus is on the person who wants it included to achieve consensus for inclusion, not on anyone who disputes it to justify its removal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

When newly added content is well cited, then you can either discuss the contents and verifiability of the materials cited, or request a comment from an administrator to mediate in the matter. There have been numerous comments from other editors in this regard going, some of which have already been archived, without consensus. I am restoring the content I contributed to this page, as I believe that the sources I cite do indeed satisfy WP:RS and you haven't taken up the issue or countered that. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition and have blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

New York Magazine, National Review and even BBC are not WP:MEDRS. They are popular sources, and where they make scientific claims that go against the scientific consensus, they are not reliable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the New York Magazine article was written by a novelist with no formal scientific training. Is that right? The scientific opinions of novelists, political commentators and other non-experts writing in non-peer-reviewed outlets should not be presented as a counter-weight to peer-reviewed scientific literature. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The subject of this article and the specific section we are discussing does not class as Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and therefore WP:MEDRS does not apply. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is the subject of a controversy that has been covered extensively in a number of reputable sources, including but not limited to The Boston Magazine, the The BBC, The Times, Le Monde, and the The Washington Post. You are not wrong to say that the author of the New York Magazine piece is a novelist, but you would be wrong to say that this disqualifies the piece as a reliable source as per WP:RS. According to the NY Post, Baker worked on the piece for over three months, interviewing tens of reputed scientists (including Ralph Baric), and cleared a pretty stringent editorial process in order to get published. Novelists can be journalists too. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussing the views of journalists is irrelevant since your paragraph specifically mentions scientists. In this discussion we need to keep in mind that the text that you added was this: Several scientists have hypothesized that the origin of the COVID-19 virus could have been as a result of an accidental leak from a laboratory in the Wuhan, such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology, rather than the more widely held view that the virus made a ononotic jump from animals to humans. A limited but increasing number of scientists have asserted that without concrete evidence of a zoonotic jump having occurred, an accidental lab leak cannot be ruled out as an origin scenario, while a third scenario involving laboratory manipulation and deliberate release as a bioweapon is considered to be very unlikely. There are a few problems with WP:WEASEL words in this paragraph. Firstly, in order to be verifiable it has to be based on the views of "several scientists" / "a limited but increasing number of scientists" (Who are these scientists? Are they virologists? Which source says they are increasing in number?). Secondly, "could have been" and "cannot be ruled out" only tells us that they believe it is not impossible, but says nothing about whether or not they consider it likely. For example, one of your talk page comments mentioned Ralph Baric, but you omitted this part: Baric said he still thought the virus came from bats in southern China, perhaps directly, or possibly via an intermediate host ... The disease evolved in humans over time without being noticed, he suspected, becoming gradually more infectious, and eventually a person carried it to Wuhan “and the pandemic took off.“. Since you mentioned WP:RS, there is consensus that the the New York Post is generally unreliable (see WP:RSP). CowHouse (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There are numerous scientists cited in the sources who consider an accidental lab leak to be plausible. Whether the leak is likely or unlikely, is not the topic of discussion here, rather that it is considered plausible, and cannot be ruled out, and is not a conspiracy theory. The second Times article goes further than "plausible", saying that the theory is "credible", quoting US government officials Matthew Pottinger and UK MP Iain Duncan Smith, among others. If you've read all, or even only some of the articles from the sources I provided, which I hope you have, then you will have read comments from scientists interviewed, such as David Relman, Etienne Decroly, Alina Chan, Nikolai Petrovsky, Daniel Lucey, Botao Xiao, Lei Xiao, Fang Chi-tai, Rahul Bahulikar, Rahul Bahulikar, Filippa Lentzos, Richard Ebright, Jonathan Latham, Allison Wilson, Rossana Segreto and Yuri Deigin all of whom have varying backgrounds in virology and microbiology, and have only come out over the past few months and weeks (hence "increasing"). Baric said he "thought" the virus came from bats directly or via an intermediate host, but there is no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory, which is why he doesn't rule out the accidental lab leak theory (absence of proof is not proof of absence). Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a science journal, and it's not our job as Wikipedians to decide which theory is likely or unlikely, but only that the theory is considered plausible and credible by reliable sources, and should be reflected as such in this article. As for the New York Post article, I didn't provide it as a source to support changes to this for this article, but in response to comments about the author of the New York Magazine piece. According to the New York Post article, Baker worked on the piece for over three months, interviewing tens of reputed scientists, and cleared a pretty stringent editorial process (for which we don't need the NYPost as a source, as New York Magazine is considered a reliable source, but I thought you might like to know). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

To make it easier for people in this discussion, it would be helpful for you to link to specific sources and then include the scientists mentioned per source. Otherwise it is citation WP:BOMBARDMENT, considering the number of lengthy articles you have mentioned. Whether the leak is likely or unlikely, is not the topic of discussion here, rather that it is considered plausible. Plausible means "seeming reasonable or probable". Do the sources use the word "plausible"? Regardless, the topic is about likelihood since your text contrasts the lab leak with the "very unlikely" laboratory manipulation / bioweapon scenario. Likelihood is mentioned for one scenario but not the other, giving readers the impression that the lab leak is not considered very unlikely. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a science journal, and it's not our job as Wikipedians to decide which theory is likely or unlikely. According to policy, likelihood is certainly relevant, as is whether or not it is a minority view. WP:FALSEBALANCE: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." The second Times article goes further than "plausible", saying that the theory is "credible", quoting US government officials Matthew Pottinger and UK MP Iain Duncan Smith, among others. You seem to be arguing in favour of a different paragraph than the one you originally added. Your original text was about scientists, not government officials. [S]cientists interviewed ... all of whom have varying backgrounds in virology and microbiology, and have only come out over the past few months and weeks (hence "increasing") You are acknowledging that "increasing" is original research and not contained in any of the sources. Baric said he "thought" the virus came from bats directly or via an intermediate host, but there is no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory. Baric never said there was no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory. Can you also clarify how there is a lab leak without a zoonotic jump? Your text says laboratory manipulation was a different scenario to a lab leak. As for the New York Post article, I didn't provide it as a source to support changes to this for this article, but in response to comments about the author. My point was that when another editor disputed the quality of a source you provided, you cited an unreliable source to justify the quality of the previous source. CowHouse (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll take your advice on linking to specific sources and paraphrasing scientist quotes. I think the main topic of discussion in this section is whether the accidental lab leak theory should be considered a conspiracy theory or not. The sources I provided quote a number of scientists who propose that no origin theory can be ruled out, with the current dearth of evidence. Many of the sources I provided, source their information from scientific literature, like this article from David Relman (it also explains why deliberate engineering and lab release are unlikely), and all, or at least most of these articles, assume the reader already knows that there is currently no evidence for any origin scenario (as is the current consensus in the scientific community). The fact that Covid-19 has unknown origins is also mentioned in articles that I provided from mainstream sources, such as the Bloomberg article, and is explained at greater length in Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory. As such, that Baric didn't say there was no evidence for the zoonotic jump theory isn't relevant here, as it is common knowledge in scientific circles that no intermediatory host or virus has been found, and doesn't need to be further stated. To clarify on a lab leak without a zoonotic jump, the New York magazine cites the preprint by Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson proposing a link between an obscure but deadly coronavirus collected from the Mojiang miners in 2012/2013, and the serial passaging in human cells at Wuhan Institute of Virology by Shi Zhengli and Ralph Baric who collaborated extensively, with funds from the NIH's PREDICT program and the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, via EcoHealth Alliance (not that Baric is implicated in any way and is said to be advising the US government on its investigation). Baric himself, who is perhaps one of the world's foremost experts in viral engineering is on record as telling Presa diretta that using mordern assembly methods, one could build a synthetic virus that is completely indistinguishable from a natural one (a Swiss lab made the first synthetic clone of SARS-CoV-2 in just one month). So to clarify, laboratory manipulation with deliberate lab release is a different scenario to laboratory manipulation and an accidental lab leak. It's an important distinction. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is also a distinction between a lab leak with laboratory manipulation and a leak without it. We should not conflate the views of scientists who are talking about the possibility of one and not the other. My understanding of the scientific consensus is that the available evidence suggests zoonotic origins. The available evidence means different origin scenarios are much more or less likely. Having incomplete evidence about the details of the virus' origins is not the same as having no evidence at all. I also don't think we should cite a preprint before it has been peer reviewed. CowHouse (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is also a distinction between a lab leak with laboratory manipulation and a leak without it. This statement is untrue in the context of Covid-19 lab leak theory, and its really important for you and other editors with a contrarian view to understanding this, as it is the very crux of the issue we are discussing. Central to the Covid-19 lab-leak theory is that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was known to have collected deadly coronaviruses (such as the ones from the Mojiang mineshaft which a few miners fell ill with and some died from) and performed gain of function research on them to make them even more transmissible among humans, which is well documented not only in all the sources provided, and is well explained in the Boston Magazine and New York Magazine pieces. It is also well documented that Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric, who have been collaborating for a number of years, in once instance built a chimera with the spike of the bat virus attached to a mouse-adapted SARS virus (called MA1 virus]), obtained by Baric some years earlier (source) and tested it on human cells, showing effects similar to those of SARS, thus demonstrating that this spike too could potentially attack humans (source). This kind of research isn't nefarious in any way, but it does carry risks as were these chimeric pathogens to leak, they would be better adapted to spread, and this is why the US government yielded to the pressure of the Cambridge Working Group (a group of scientists especially concerned about lab leaks) and issued a Moratorium on such studies, though they didn't apply to research being carried out with partners abroad (such as the research being carried out between funded by US scientific organizations and the Wuhan Institute of Virology). It's important for you to understand that without gain of function research or "lab manipulatoin", a lab leak wouldn't be of huge concern, and if the original virus/es that was/were collected in the Mojiang mineshaft had leaked, it/they probably wouldn't have caused much of a pandemic, and like most of the hundred billion trillion pathagons in the natural world, they were likely not well suited for human transmission. This explains the statement of Richard H. Ebright in the New York Magazine piece that likens virus hunting and collecting to “looking for a gas leak with a lighted match,”, as most viruses in nature do not cross from one species to another without some help along the way (which he infers as gain of function studies). My understanding of the scientific consensus is that the available evidence suggests zoonotic origins. The available evidence means different origin scenarios are much more or less likely. Having incomplete evidence about the details of the virus' origins is not the same as having no evidence at all. No there is currently no "evidence" of a zoonitic jump having occurred and there is no scientific consensus on this at all, so it is but a theory, and perhaps a likely one, but a theory nonetheless. It is certainly possible for a virus to make a zootic jump from one species to another in a once in a century event, but to do so in the case of a bat virus, it would have to mutate in order to successfully transmit between humans, otherwise, it would just die out with the first few hosts it infects, and currently, there is no known intermediatory host or virus. Instead, what is known instead is that from the start of the virus spreading in Wuhan, as noted by the above-mentioned preprint from Alina Chan in biorxiv, that was quoted by all the reliable sources of above, is that the virus was well adapted for humans (indicating that underwent mutation in a human population for a number of months without any trace, or that it may have undergone this process in some other way, such as gain of function research in a lab). This is highly unusual, as with most other viruses that made the jump zoonotic, intermediate hosts were found, and observations were made of the mutations they underwent from the first few hosts they infected to later stages hosts. I also don't think we should cite a preprint before it has been peer reviewed. I agree that we cannot reference it in the article, but the preprint is of note, in that it was quoted by a number of reliable sources, and I am mainly referencing it in our discussion, and not in the article, where we should reference just the reliable sources that referenced it. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No there is currently no "evidence" of a zoonitic [sic] jump having occurred. The World Health Organization disagrees: "All available evidence for COVID-19 suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic source. Many researchers have been able to look at the genomic features of SARS-CoV-2 and have found that evidence does not support that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct. A constructed virus would show a mix of known elements within genomic sequences – this is not the case." (source) CowHouse (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I explained the distinction between a lab leak with laboratory manipulation and a leak without it, which I hope you have read, because the World Health Organisation Report is dated and isn't relevant. The particular excerpt from the World Health Organisation situation report you provided which is from back in April does appear to conflict with the more recent sources I have provided, but it doesn't negate my statement that there is currently no evidence of a zoonotic jump, demonstrating only that there is a controversy. The situation report states a "constructed virus would show a mix of known elements" which does not take into account modern methods, and which is in direct contradiction of what Ralph Baric (perhaps the foremost expert in the world on viral engineering and coronaviruses) told Presa diretta on Nov 11 2020, that when using assembly methods recently developed, one could "build a virus that is completely indistinguishable from a natural one". The methods that Baric is referring to are known as "seamless cloning", such as Gibson assembly, Golden Gate Cloning, which are now commonly sold in commercial kits available online. So to reiterate my point, there is currently no evidence of a zoonotic jump having occurred, and the lab leak theory which has received significant media coverage by a number of reliable sources, can be considered possible, and according to some sources, even quite credible. It certainly cannot be considered a conspiracy theory, and I hope our discussion has brought you to understand my position so that we can reach a consensus among ourselves as how to edit the relevant section in this article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is a newer WHO report which contradicts the old one then feel free to provide a link. Otherwise, the report not being new doesn't help your case. It tells us that even at that time "all available evidence" suggested a zoonotic source, which refutes your point that "there is currently no "evidence"". Hand-waving and dismissing the WHO report as irrelevant, while citing the opinion of a single person (Baric) and continuing to incorrectly refer to the popular press as a reliable source on scientific information, is not productive. If you are representing Baric accurately, then his views are still undue unless you can provide reliable sources indicating his view is uncontroversial in the scientific community. CowHouse (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we cannot reference it in the article, but the preprint is of note, in that it was quoted by a number of reliable sources, and I am mainly referencing it in our discussion, and not in the article, where we should reference just the reliable sources that referenced it. Your comment assumes the sources are reliable, contrary to policy. WP:MEDPOP: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. ... Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters." CowHouse (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't plan to cite any sources that don't measure up to WP:MEDPOP, and I cited them only for our discussion here on this talk page as you asked me to explain you some of the finer points of the accidental lab leak theory. The case I am making here is for renaming the conspiracy to controversy or accidental lab leak, and reflecting the position of scientists on the theory based on reliable sources. Do you accept or reject the use of any of the reliable sources I have provided to support these changes so that we can reach a consensus on this matter? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you accept or reject the use of any of the reliable sources I have provided to support these changes so that we can reach a consensus on this matter? If you mean the preprints and popular press, then you are not talking about reliable sources. CowHouse (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your position is not consistent with WP:NPOV, and it seems we are unable to reach a consensus, so we must make a request for a dispute resolution. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory and a scenario that cannot be ruled out are not mutually exclusive. It is not an endorsement of a theory to say it cannot be ruled out. Conspiracy theories don't have to be impossible, just without evidence. The text you added says nothing about whether there is evidence of a lab leak. CowHouse (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your general statement that a conspiracy theory and a scenario that cannot be ruled out are not mutually exclusive. However, I think you might be missing something here, as indicated from your previous post. The origin of the virus is still unknown. All that is known is that it that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a type of horseshoe bat, but no plausible virus intermediate nor a confirmed animal intermediate host has been found to date, and it's been over a year now. With SARS and MERS, the animal intermediate, namely the civet cat and camel, respectively, were identified within a few months. Moreover, there are many questions about why Covid-19 first emerged in Wuhan, which is over 1,400km away from where the horseshoe bats are found in Yunan, and how well adapted the virus was for human transmission (which is unlike SARS and MERS or any other virus first passing the species barrier). These questions and many others are the subject of numerous scientific preprints under review, such as this one. Can it really be a coincidence that the only Biosafety level 4 lab in China, completed only a few years prior, and which was collecting coronaviruses and performing gain of function studies on them, is in Wuhan, the epicenter of the virus outbreak? Is it really such a far stretch to think that an accidental leak may have occurred, perhaps through hazardous waste not being disposed of correctly, or a scratch from a humanized mouse? These questions and many others, made a number of publications like the BBC give air to the theory. If Covid-19 was an accidental leak, it would not even have been the first. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper you linked to says this: A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information. We should wait for these preprints to be peer reviewed before even considering referencing them. CowHouse (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the standard disclaimer of biorxiv for any preprint undergoing peer-review, but that does not stop the news media from interviewing their authors and citing their studies, especially while a worldwide pandemic is raging and there is a dearth of evidence for any origin scenario. Given that paper's coverage by other publications, such as the Boston Magazine piece, they can be referenced together. There are other preprints, like this one which are awaiting review by Journals since June, but which haven't been picked up by any reliable sources and referenced as part of a story, so on those we can wait. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDPOP. We don't have to reference papers that haven't been peer reviewed just because they were mentioned in news articles, especially when the preprint's disclaimer actively discourages it. CowHouse (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As per WP:MEDPOP I agree we don't have to reference it in the article, but it is useful for conversation among editors on the topic, in establishing the veracity of the lab leak theory. It is especially relevant to this discussion for those editors unaware that the virus has been adept for human transmissibility from the start of the outbreak in Wuhan, as reported in the reliable sources provided. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are you describing them as reliable sources when WP:MEDPOP specifically says they are generally unreliable in this context? CowHouse (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't describe them as reliable. I said they are useful for this conversation. I agree we should cite articles only the sources considered reliable according to WP:MEDPOP. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The opinion piece in The Washington Post (link) says Most likely, the virus was a zoonotic spillover, a leap from animals to humans. Relman is mentioned but he says nothing at all about a lab leak. He says “the ‘origin story’ is missing many key details,” including a recent detailed evolutionary history of the virus, identity of its most recent ancestors and “surprisingly, the place, time, and mechanism of transmission of the first human infection.” The portion about the Lancet Commission is the most relevant: The Lancet Commission, formed by the British medical journal in July, has made a primary goal identifying the origins of covid-19 and averting future zoonotic pandemics. The journal declared “the evidence to date supports the view” that covid-19 “is a naturally occurring virus rather than the result of laboratory creation and release.” But the commission says, “The possibility of laboratory involvement in the origins of the pandemic should be examined with scientific rigor and thoroughness, and with open scientific collaboration.” However, I'm not sure it belongs on this page since the commission never specifically mentions the WIV. CowHouse (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The Washinton Post piece also says Beyond the blame game, there are troubling questions in China that must be examined, including whether the coronavirus was inadvertently spread in an accident or spill from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had previously carried out research on bat coronaviruses. The institute collected samples from the Mojiang mine in Yunnan province in China in 2012 and 2013. Earlier in 2012, six miners at Mojiang exposed to bats and bat feces were hospitalized suffering from an illness similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and three died. The disease was similar if not identical to covid-19 and may have been a previously unrecognized parent virus. Conspiracy theorists have proposed more outlandish scenarios of a deliberately created pathogen, but they do not hold much water., which is very much relevant to the WIV. As for the Lancet Commission, and its now-famous letter attempting to discount a lab leak as a possible origin scenario, it been criticized by numerous scientists and was also mentioned in the BBC and other articles as a controversy. It is telling that both Ralph Baric and Linfa Wang's names had been taken off the list of co-signees. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The opinion piece mentions the WIV, but the Lancet Commission does not. Your earlier comment said this: So to clarify, laboratory manipulation with deliberate lab release is a different scenario to laboratory manipulation and an accidental lab leak. It's an important distinction. Is laboratory manipulation different to a "deliberately created pathogen"? If not, the piece describes that as an "outlandish scenario" proposed by conspiracy theorists. CowHouse (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The Lancet Commission's letter, is at the center of the controversy, as its author Peter Daszak as mentioned by the BBC article, has "previously called the lab-leak theory a "conspiracy theory" and "pure baloney" and has statedly absconded any duty he has to consider a lab leak scenario as a possible origin and investigate it accordingly. The BBC questioned Daszak on conflict of interest, and the sources also not this concern (such as the Le Monde, New York and Boston Magazine pieces), given that his organization EcoHealth Alliance funded the WIV's gain of function research on coronaviruses. Even the US government, according to The Times article is concerned with his involvement with the WHO investigation, which has agreed to the Chinese government's terms, and they have cut his funding for that particular project and asked him to help procure the original virus specifying which the WIV first sequenced SARS-CoV-2 from, along with genetic sequences of another eight samples of coronaviruses that were collected along with RaTG13 which have not been shared. Concerns that the Lancet letter omits the WIV and any possibility of a lab leak occurring is the subject of further media reports, such as the US Right to Know article here. Given this controversy, the Lancet letter cannot be considered a reliable source to disprove the lab leak theory, as it doesn't not represent a consensus by scientists and even Ralph Baric and Linfa Wang (the two foremost caronavirus experts in the world) withdraw their signatures, and have said that a lab leak theory cannot be ruled out. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The article in The Times says a "majority of scientists believe that the Covid-19 virus originated in nature." One American national security adviser, who is not a scientist, is quoted in the article supporting a lab leak. According to the article, Iain Duncan Smith told the Daily Mail that Mr Pottinger’s comments showed the US was doubling down on the theory that the virus came from a leak at the laboratory. It is therefore completely false to say The second Times article goes further than "plausible", saying that the theory is "credible", quoting US government officials Matthew Pottinger and UK MP Iain Duncan Smith. CowHouse (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The statement that the Covid-19 virus originated in nature does not contradict the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a lab. As I clarified above, the lab leak theory entails the virus being collected from a patient, who caught it from a horseshoe bat, underwent gain of function studies, and accidentally leaked, either through the sewer system, garbage disposal, a hole in the wall, or an infected human carrier. Other than that, I am unsure how the National Security official not being a scientist is a concern, as I didn't add it as a source. We should add it if we add government officials along with scientists, as they marshal a lot of scientific human resources. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be contradicting your own sources. The BBC article you cited says: "Those three deaths are now at the centre of a major scientific controversy about the origins of the virus and the question of whether it came from nature, or from a laboratory." CowHouse (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How is that a contradiction? As I explained, there is more than two scenarios. The BBC is but one of multiple sources I provided, and it didn't delve into the finder details of each scenario. I explained the scenarios above, and nature vs laboratory conundrum is better explained in the Boston Magazine, New York Magazine and Le Monde pieces. talk (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your original text included a reference to the National Review ("There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review". See WP:RSP). The article presents the views of journalists rather than scientists. It only contains speculation that "many scientists" had suspicions/concerns but they "didn’t want to speak publicly about the possibility of a lab accident while the Trump administration was touting the same idea". CowHouse (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I thought that the National Review was more respected than it is, apparently. I will leave it out as a source. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to make a very general point about this discussion: scientific sources are all that matter for determining the weight of scientific opinion. Regular news outlets are often not particularly good at reporting on scientific topics. The general standard that's been followed on Wikipedia for SARS-CoV-2-related material is WP:MEDRS. Arguing back and forth about what the Washington Post's editorial board thinks about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 or what a writer for The Times thinks about the illness that struck the Mojiang miners is not a productive use of anyone's time. Any discussion should focus on high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific literature. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You have made your position quite clear many times before, but I countered your point, saying that WP:MEDRS applies primarily to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, a point which was also brought up by another editor. The subject of this article is that of a laboratory in China which is subject to a controversy related to a possible accidental leak, that has been reported by numerous reliable sources, including but not limited to the Washington Post, the BBC, Bloomberg, The Times, Le Monde, RAI, the New York Magazine and the Boston Magazine, which quote numerous reputed scientists, including but not limited to David Relman, Etienne Decroly, Alina Chan, Nikolai Petrovsky, Daniel Lucey, Botao Xiao, Lei Xiao, Fang Chi-tai, Rahul Bahulikar, Rahul Bahulikar, Filippa Lentzos, Richard Ebright, Jonathan Latham, Allison Wilson, Rossana Segreto and Yuri Deigin all of whom have varying backgrounds in virology and microbiology. Notwithstanding, there are a number of scientific preprints that are undergoing review on the topic of an accidental lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, such as the piece from Jonathan Latham and Allison Wilson here, and some which are already peer-reviewed, such as this one. With or without peer-reviewed scientific papers, WP:RS takes precedence over to WP:MEDRS to establish that there is indeed a controversy here over a possible accidental lab leak of one of the coronaviruses undergoing gain of function studies at one of the institute's labs. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411 I 100% agree with you. However, I think if you review the WIV subsection titled "Conspiracy theories" you will find that this methodology has never been applied, except for the one recent source identifying a Dec 2019 sample in Italy. I think ScrupulousScribe has legitimate NPOV concerns about both entries he is trying to edit in that it's a one way street with respect to using non WP:MEDRS sources. I don't agree with his approach but I sympathize with his frustration. My suggestion for WIV is that the "Conspiracy theories" subsection be renamed to "Lab link theory" and the paper identifying the Dec 2019 sample in Italy be used as a possible counter factual source with NPOV wording. Everything else should be tossed and any future updates should be held to the standard of 'high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific literature'/WP:MEDRS. Let's get back to basics, and quit wasting everyone's time on politics. Dinglelingy (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Regular news outlets account for almost all of the references in the conspiracy theories section at the moment. I agree with your point that if WP:MEDRS is going to be invoked we need to apply it consistently. CowHouse (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You're both right. We should just mark WP:V as a guideline. Will make it easier to use MEDRS iff it suits our agenda. </sarcasm>. SMH. WWJD? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

CowHouse Exactly. And they all need to come out, as does any reference to the term conspiracy theory under the topic of WIV, as it no longer applies, if it ever did. Or, as 50.201.195.170 is suggesting, any other similarly sourced material such as that provided by ScrupulousScribe needs to be included, provided it has a NPOV. Calling this topic a conspiracy theory is not a NPOV and serves no purpose other than political. I think it meets the qualification of "Alternative theoretical formulations" under WP:Fringe and should be given appropriate but not undue weight, until the science prooves otherwise. I support either approach if it is consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinglelingy (talk • contribs) 08:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The weight of scientific opinion has to be determined by WP:MEDRS sources. That's a consistent policy. I agree that we should quit wasting everyone's time on politics, which is why I do not think that conspiracy theories should be included on the basis of coverage in the popular press. Above, ScrupulousScribe is arguing, for example, that we should use an essay written in New York Magazine by an erotic novelist with no scientific training. ScrupulousScribe has also repeatedly touted independentsciencenews.org. A recent title from that website: "Messengers of Gates’ Agenda: How the Cornell Alliance for Science Spreads Disinformation on behalf of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation". As for the out-of-context lists of names that ScrupulousScribe has been giving, I'll just make this point: If I wanted to introduce WP:FRINGE climate-change denialism into Wikipedia, I could also assemble an impressive-looking list of scientists from outside of climatology. Excuse me, but big claims, like a lab leak, require solid backing, and this isn't it. Peer-reviewed scientific literature, as laid out in WP:MEDRS, is what counts in determining where the weight of scientific opinion lies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the relevant topic of conversation is whether the "conspiracy theory" description comes from WP:MEDRS sources or only the popular press. CowHouse (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Skimmed, but too lazy to read all of the above. An opinion piece in WaPo is unconvincing. If this is a legitimate theory, you should be able to link a couple of reliable sources, and say no extra words, letting the sources speak for themselves. If nobody can do so, it's probably a conspiracy theory. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are too lazy to read the sources, then of what value is your input in this conversation? In addition to the WaPo piece, there are also articles from the Boston Magazine and the New York Magazine, both of which are over 1000 words, explaining why some reputable scientists think an accidental lab leak is a possible origin scenario of SARS-CoV-2. There is also the BBC and while it says the theory is unsubstantiated (which any theory is, until its proven), this is in light of the fact that the no origin scenario has full scientific consensus, including a natural zoonosis. Yes, there is no scientific consensus on the origins of the virus, and how it made a zoonitic jump from bats to humans, as you can see stated here in this Nature article and many others like it. There are also articles covering a possible lab leak as an origin scneario, from the The Times, Bloomberg, Presadiretta and Le Monde. Frankly, if you are not going to read these articles, your input is of little value and can't be factored into a consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I replied to your sources in the below section. I am too lazy to read the WP:WALLOFTEXTs, which are a lot of words and very little substance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not the first user who has brought up this issue. If you made the time, you can find numerous other users and "walls of text", which have not resulted in consensus on this issue. What has changed in the lat few weeks, is that a number of sources meeting WP:RS have reported on an accidental lab leak as a possible origin scenario, and I am seeking to make changes to this article to better reflect that, and also spint it off as a new article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes a reliable source varies by subject matter. For the origin of a novel coronavirus, an erotic novelist writing in a popular magazine is not a reliable source, even if he writes over 1000 words. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The New York Magazine is considered by Wikipedia to be a Wikipedia:reliable source, not just because of the quality of its writers, but because of its editorial process. Are you going to attempt to discredit the reporting capabilities of journalists from the other sources I provided? That is not based on Wikipedia policy. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to talk about policy, how many times do I need to link to WP:MEDPOP and quote it? "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." Let me remind you of your own previous comment: I didn't describe them as reliable. I said they are useful for this conversation. I agree we should cite articles only the sources considered reliable according to WP:MEDPOP. For your information, this is what WP:RSP says about New York magazine: "There is consensus that New York magazine, including its subsidiary publication Vulture, is generally reliable. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements." CowHouse (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, let's talk about policy, and specifically WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDPOP. As another editor has pointed out, the conspiracy section of this article as it is now doesn't comply much with WP:MEDRS, and I don't see any WP:MEDRS sources provided indicating that the accidental lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory, and instead draw from the popular press, such as NPR from back in April (long before new studies and media reports of them surfaced). I see an article from sciencemag.org from back in Feb, which cites the Lancet letter from Peter Daszak which is of ambiguous credibility, based on the BBC, The Times and the Le Monde article I provided. All I see are a few popular press items to support your position that it's a conspiracy theory. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• "On the basis of our analysis, an artificial origin of SARS‐CoV‐2 is not a baseless conspiracy theory that is to be condemned[66] and researchers have the responsibility to consider all possible causes for SARS‐CoV‐2 emergence." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bies.202000240#bies202000240-bib-0001 (17 November 2020)
• "It seems ill‐advised to rule out the possibility that gain‐of‐function techniques such as serial passage may have played a role in the creation of SARS‐CoV‐2 until more definitive data are collected, and when the Center for Arms Control and Non‐Proliferation has calculated that the odds that any given potential pandemic pathogen might leak from a lab could be better than one in four" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000091 (12 August 2020)
• "Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts. Just because there are no public reports of more immediate, proximal ancestors in natural hosts, doesn’t mean that these ancestors don’t exist in natural hosts or that COVID-19 didn’t began as a spillover event. Nor does it mean that they have not been recovered and studied, or deliberately recombined in a laboratory." https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29246 (November 24, 2020)

CowHouse and Thucydides411 - Is there any disagreement that these 3 sources meet the criteria for WP:MEDRS? All three? Again, no one is arguing for undue weight here. The argument is for consistency in sourcing requirements and NPOV, until the scientific research says otherwise. I don't have anymore time to add to this topic but I think CowHouse understands the problem, and I would support any solution that he and ScrupulousScribe both sign on to. Dinglelingy (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue with the conspiracy theories section at the moment is that almost every reference is to the popular press. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems WP:MEDRS sources don't specifically mention the WIV. At best they will talk about a hypothetical lab origin but don't specify a particular lab. The sources that do mention the WIV are from the popular press and are, according to WP:MEDPOP, generally unreliable for scientific information. So that leads me to wonder if the question should be whether the conspiracy theories section belongs on this page at all, instead of merely renaming it. It may be relevant on other pages but unless the WIV is mentioned by MEDRS sources it is WP:SYNTH to include in this page. CowHouse (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a totally valid approach too and it makes sense to me. Looks like Forich is going to re-open discussion on this RFC given the published thought in the science community over the last few months, so I think guidance will come out of that. Dinglelingy (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

None of the three proposed sources are WP:MEDRS. Whether MEDRS applies to this story depends on which aspect of it is being considered. A claim that a researcher accidently dropped a flask is not in the realm of WP:Biomedical information; a claim that a virus has telltale signs of being human-engineered, most certainly is. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Systematic bias and unfair ban

Yesterday, I made some edits to this article, addressing the controversy relating to the accidental lab leak theory that has been reported on by a number of reputable sources. Issues of bias in this article have been brought up by numerous users on this talk page, which can be found in all three archived talk pages, but armed with newly published sources, I took a crack at it. My edits were deleted, and when I reverted the deletion, I was met with a ban for "edit warring" from Boing! said Zebedee, despite explaining my position on this talk page before (directly above). When I contested for the ban to be lifted, NinjaRobotPirate declined, questioning New York Magazine as a reliable source, based on the fact that the author of the piece is also novelist (which does not contravene WP:RS), and he/she further threatened to topic ban me (not very nice). Thucydides411, a longstanding editor of this page has taken it upon himself to counter any claims of the possible accidental lab leak by invaliding the reliability of any sources provided, as per WP:MEDRS, which applies primarily to Wikipedia:Biomedical information. And so, any proposals to include the controversy surrounding the Wuhan Institue of Virology relating to a possible accidental lab leak have been stifled with RP:MEDRS, over and over again.

So far, a number of reputable publications have reported on the accidental lab leak theory, including but not limited to The Boston Magazine, the BBC, Le Monde, Bloomberg The Washington Post, The Times 2 and the The New York Magazine. No Wikipedian would deny that these publications meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and those Wikipedians that have read the contents of these articles, will surely understand why some scientists consider an accidental lab leak to be a possible origin scenario of Covid-19 (not a conspiracy theory). Have users Boing! said Zebedee, NinjaRobotPirate and Thucydides411 read the contents of these publications? We can't know, because they discount them as sources, and aren't willing to discuss their inclusion here on the talk page. Any edits made to the article itself will result in a ban, apparently. This contravenes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Going forward, can we assume good faith and discuss my proposals for making changes to the current "conspiracy theory" section, renaming it to the "lab leak theory" or "controversy", and better reflecting the issues of bias that I and other users have complained of? If we are unable to reach a consensus through discussion, I will have to make a dispute resolution request. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You were not banned, you were blocked (which is different). Your block was for edit warring. Please read WP:EW and adhere to it. I will also remind you (again) that disruptive editing in the Covid-19 topic can lead to sanctions, including bans. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is a block ok, when I explained my reversion here on the talk page, and didn't contravene The three-revert rule? Who gets to decide what is disruptive, and being that you have blocked me once already, please can you indicate whether you will participate in the subject matter of this conversion, instead of blocking me based on rules and sanctions without any explanation? I have a genuine concern about the neutrality of this article and I am not the first user to bring up this matter on the talk page. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The block was not for WP:3RR, it was for WP:EW. You really should read it, especially the part that says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". Merely explaining your reversion does not justify edit warring. And no, I will not participate in the content discussion, and will only act in my admin capacity in upholding Wikipedia policy plus the special restrictions imposed by the community covering Covid-19 topics. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe After getting sucked into this topic and following it for the last day I think there are some real nuggets of good information you should heed if you want to make good edits. CowHouse has some excellent ones and there are others mixed in the other Talk page, along with the inappropriate remarks and policy violations of some other reviewers. I would nail down those good suggestions by implementing them all exactly as requested, and then ask for another review. For instance, there was a concern about copy violation that I don't know if you addressed. Get rid of all the rifraff policy/wording issues so that other reviewers can focus on agreement/disagreement with your primary argument.

I think there are more than enough legitimate and authoritative references within many of the articles you referenced for the subsection here to be changed from "Conspiracy theories" to "Lab leak theory". Refer to them individually if necessary. WP:FRINGE defines "Alternative theoretical formulations" as scientific process and not fringe/pseudoscience. But let me support you in this effort by first alleviating the concerns of reviewers here that are providing you good feedback. I know it's not easy but these pages have sanctions because they are under continual assault. Maybe there are some reviewers that are a little quick on the trigger and time constrained in reading references, but I think you can get your edits in if you do this right, piece by piece if necessary. I find it difficult to believe anyone would support suppressing the hypothesis of a lab leak scenario if scientists in the field say it can not be ruled out. Dinglelingy (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I am working on fixing the copyright issues in the draft on the lab leak theory, so that I can resubmit it again for review. I am concerned that there is a problem of systematic bias by editors of this article, and I am shaken by the unfair 24-hour block. I feel that if we cannot reach a consensus through a discussion on this talk page, then I must request a contest the neutrality of this article through a dispute resolution, as any edits I make will be reverted and my account continually blocked. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I just clicked on the BBC. The opening paragraph says: A Chinese scientist at the centre of unsubstantiated claims that the coronavirus leaked from her laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan. A bunch of RS' commenting that a conspiracy theory exists doesn't legitimise the conspiracy theory, especially when they say themselves that it's unsubstantiated.

So I clicked another name I like, The Times: From the start of the pandemic, they have been dismissed as conspiracy theorists. Dr Daszak has been prominent among those attacking the idea and those who promote it., plus Publicly, many extremely senior scientists have opposed this idea. “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin,” wrote one group in the Lancet, back in February.

I suspect the others are the same. Please read your own sources before sending links to them. This is currently not respectful to everyone else's time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are not willing to read the sources provided, then your input here is of little value. As for the Lancet Commission's letter, it at the center of the controversy and it does not qualify for WP:RS, as its author Peter Daszak has been questioned by the BBC and a number of other sources listed above (such as the Le Monde, New York and Boston Magazine pieces) on conflict of interest, and the sources also not this concern, given that his organization EcoHealth Alliance funded the WIV's gain of function research on coronaviruses. Even the US government, according to The Times article is concerned with his involvement with the WHO investigation, which has agreed to the Chinese government's terms. Concerns that the Lancet letter omits the WIV and any possibility of a lab leak occurring is the subject of further media reports, such as the US Right to Know article here. Given this controversy, the Lancet letter cannot be considered a reliable source to disprove the lab leak theory, as it does not represent a consensus by scientists (while I have provided a number of very reputable sources that do meet WP:RS). Ralph Baric, the foremost coronavirus experts in the world, withdrew his signature, and has said (in Presadiretta) that a lab leak theory cannot be ruled out. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe Unless you cite high-quality scientific sources, you're not using anyone's time productively. Even the US government: US government officials' statements are noted in the article, but US government officials are not reliable sources for determining scientific opinion. About Ralph Baric, a lot of unlikely things cannot be ruled out with 100% certainty, but that's not how science works. Baric has consistently said that he believes the virus spilled over naturally. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There are only two or three origin scenarios, which zoonosis or lab origin, or a mix of the two, and Baric saying that none of them can be ruled out is significant in that it cannot be considered a conspiracy theory, implausible or uncredible. Baric is not the only scientist on record as taking this position as reported in reliable sources meeting WP:RS, with some scientists saying that lab origin + accidental leak are more likely, and the issue we are discussing is whether we should factor that into this article, as per WP:NPOV. No one is claiming that an accidental leak happened, but this article is very much biased to the zoonosis origin scenario, without any evidence, other than a few articles which meet the criteria of WP:RS no less than the ones I provided. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Baric hasn't made any statements supporting this conspiracy theory or presenting it as plausible. Unless you actually present WP:MEDRS sources, there's nothing more to discuss. An essay by an erotic novelist in NY Magazine or by a food critic in Boston Magazine are not reliable sources about virology. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said above, the fact that Baric and other scientists won't rule out an accidental lab leak as a possibility means that it should not be considered as a conspiracy theory, and this is significant given the fact that there is no evidence for any alternative theory, and the origins of the virus remain unknown. WP:MEDRS applies to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and like other editors have pointed out above, the conspiracy section cites mostly non WP:MEDRS sources. Can you tell me which WP:MEDRS source in the conspiracy section specifically calls an accidental lab leak a conspiracy theory? The NPR one isn't WP:MEDR and is from back in April. Any? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Two WP:MEDRS sources that say that the lab leak hypothesis is heavily disfavored by the available scientific evidence:

1. Andersen et al. (2020), in Nature Medicine: We offer a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and discuss scenarios by which they could have arisen. Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.
2. Baric et al. (2020), in Immunity: In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence.

If you want to claim that this is a theory that has real traction within virology, then present WP:MEDRS sources that support it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

My question was "which WP:MEDRS source in the conspiracy section specifically calls an accidental lab leak a conspiracy theory?" Neither of the two WP:MEDRS sources you linked to call distinguish the accidental lab leak theory a conspiracy theory. Those papers were published before CoV/4991 was linked to RaTG13 and the addendum made by Shi Zhengli to her Nature article, clarifying that they found RaTG13 in the Mojiang mineshaft in 2012-2013. The articles that I provided were published in the past few weeks, refreshing the accidental lab leak theory with this information. Keeping this section named "conspiracy theory" is in violation of WP:NPOV. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, If you want to claim that this is a theory that has real traction within virology, then present WP:MEDRS sources that support it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

To repeat myself, you do not have any WP:MEDRS sources that allege that the lab leak theory can be considered a conspiracy theory and you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Furthermore, WP:MEDRS applies primarily to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, which is more relevant for entries like Coronavirus disease 2019, not this article which is related to a laboratory, subject to a controversy covered by sources meeting WP:RS. I have repeated this point to you multiple times, and I am in the process of requesting a dispute resolution. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It comes under WP:FRINGE. The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that the "Lab Leak theory" has real traction in the scientific community, beyond a handful of cherry-picked papers. Your entire edit history on Wikipedia is dedicated to WP:ADVOCACY of this idea, suggesting that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to WP:POVPUSH your own beliefs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There are literally dozens of reliable sources that have reported on a possible lab leak as an origin scenario, including the BBC, CNN, PBS, Bloomberg, The Washington Post 2, The Times, 2, the South China Morning Post, The Boston Magazine, the New York Magazine, Le Monde, RAI. Given the sheer volume of coverage from reliable sources, on what basis can you say a lab leak theory as an origin scenario of SARS-COV-2 constitutes WP:FRINGE? As I have repeatedly said to user:Thucydides411 directly above, there are no WP:MEDRS sources provided in this article that allege that lab leak theory can be considered a conspiracy theory, and the two provided say only that the scenario is unlikely (and even then they do not rule it out), so the title and contents of the conspiracy theory section of this article are misleading and is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Moreover, WP:MEDRS mainly applies Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and should not apply to an article about a laboratory subject to a leak controversy. You have joined this conversation, immediately asserting that the lab leak theory is WP:FRINGE, without addressing any of my above two points in order to bring us to a consensus. The main topic of discussion here is whether the lab leak theory should be classed as a conspiracy theory or not, and I would appreciate if you can stay on that topic. I would like to ask you to scroll higher up in this talk page as well as the archives, and note that I am not the first user to bring up the matter of a plausible theory being labeled a conspiracy theory, yet no consensus has been reached on renaming and editing the section. I would also like to ask you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, as I am a relatively new user (I used to contribute a lot but I've been away for nearly ten years), as I still have a lot more to contribute to Wikipedia. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

People have been pushing to include the "lab leak theory" in this and related articles for many months. This isn't my first rodeo. Your entire contribution history to wikipedia so far is solely to advocate for the inclusion of this theory. Per WP:MEDPOP "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles". Whether or not the virus leaked from a lab is a scientific issue, and requires high quality sourcing. The Washington Post article doesn't even support the theory. It just states that "Trump officials", said that it is, but the veracity of anything said by the Trump administration is questionable. The piece states that a natural origin is the "apparent consensus" of virologists, and that there is "no evidence" to support the Lab Leak idea, ergo, it is fringe. The Washington Post article cites a "politicized and conspiratorial atmosphere" surrounding the viruses origins, which wikipedia should avoid furthering. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove the ban on ScrupulousScribe so that we can restart the discussion on the points he is making? It seems like his inputs may be valuable. Forich (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Forich, What ban are you talking about? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC) PM

Aside from being quite vocal, they have failed to show evidence of their claims despite multiple requests. Sourcing that doesn’t say what they are trying to say with it, and frankly comes across as if they just googled “Wuhan lab theory” and pasted links without reading them, does not count. The uninvolved editors who have commented here appear to not have bought in, but understandably do not have the time to reply to each and every comment. SS should build a convincing argument and then test it in a {{rfc}}. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

When looking at the currently used sources, the Vox and NYT do express that most scientists discredit the theory, with Vox citing a statement about an unwarranted related conspiracy theory of coverup. —PaleoNeonate – 04:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)