Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Lead - where is the science?: edit reply to Fiveby (CD)
Line 314: Line 314:
:::::::I don't think this is true, the failure is here in the editing process and not in the sources. The [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] will use precise language, but they do assume some level of competence in the reader. Look at [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/ this writing] from [[Stuart Neil]] in ''Scientific American'', he does not use the term ''zoonosis'' and makes it clear in context when ''zoonotic origin'' and ''zoonotic pathway'' refer to the ''virus'', its evolution within a host animal to SARS-CoV-2; and the origin and pathway of the ''disease'', its emergence in the human population. Maybe news sources and journalists who do not do so should only be used to tell the ''story'' of the lab leak, and should not be used for explaining the underlying science? [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 13:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think this is true, the failure is here in the editing process and not in the sources. The [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] will use precise language, but they do assume some level of competence in the reader. Look at [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/ this writing] from [[Stuart Neil]] in ''Scientific American'', he does not use the term ''zoonosis'' and makes it clear in context when ''zoonotic origin'' and ''zoonotic pathway'' refer to the ''virus'', its evolution within a host animal to SARS-CoV-2; and the origin and pathway of the ''disease'', its emergence in the human population. Maybe news sources and journalists who do not do so should only be used to tell the ''story'' of the lab leak, and should not be used for explaining the underlying science? [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 13:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, that would be fine with me if we can overall find a better wording for that part of the lead. I think what we have is probably ''good enough'' for now. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 14:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, that would be fine with me if we can overall find a better wording for that part of the lead. I think what we have is probably ''good enough'' for now. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 14:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, pretty much. We need to look at the sources that journos are using to make sure that they aren't misusing the terms. — '''''<small>[[User:Insertcleverphrasehere|Insertcleverphrasehere]]<sup>([[User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere|or here]])<small><sub>([[Special:contributions/Insertcleverphrasehere|or here)]]<sup>([[WP:NPP|or here]])</sup></sub></small></sup></small>''''' 22:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
:Yes @[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] I think these were both very good! A good summary of what science knows so far. I've only added one thing about the fact that multiple reservoir candidates have been identified even if none have been confirmed. I think overall this is much better towards bringing in the scientific consensus in the most up-to-date reviews. —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 03:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
:Yes @[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] I think these were both very good! A good summary of what science knows so far. I've only added one thing about the fact that multiple reservoir candidates have been identified even if none have been confirmed. I think overall this is much better towards bringing in the scientific consensus in the most up-to-date reviews. —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 03:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
::::: "Necessary conspiracy?" We '''know''' that Xi Xinping ordered that publication of research be orchestrated "like a game of chess." [https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-coronavirus-pandemic-china-only-on-ap-bats-24fbadc58cee3a40bca2ddf7a14d2955] [[User:Adoring nanny|Adoring nanny]] ([[User talk:Adoring nanny|talk]]) 15:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
::::: "Necessary conspiracy?" We '''know''' that Xi Xinping ordered that publication of research be orchestrated "like a game of chess." [https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-coronavirus-pandemic-china-only-on-ap-bats-24fbadc58cee3a40bca2ddf7a14d2955] [[User:Adoring nanny|Adoring nanny]] ([[User talk:Adoring nanny|talk]]) 15:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:10, 22 November 2022




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

No evidence claim is false

While two of the sources provided say there is no evidence, with one saying that is no solid evidence (which is a bit different), these sources are rendered outdated by the recent interim report, which provides circumstantial evidence in favour of a lab leak. Maybe the report is partisan, but it would still qualify as evidence in favour of the lab leak, rendering the second sentence incorrect. The second sentence also contradicts a later sentence in the lede that says "a minority of scientists regard both a lab leak and natural origin as equally valid" suggesting there is evidence in favour of the lab leak. While I was wrong that the sources don't back up the claim provided in the sentence, the sentence's claim is still very questionable. @Bakkster Man@Palpable@Shibbolethink@TAPwiki@Bon courage@Mr Ernie@Firefangledfeathers@Hob Gadling@Sennalen@Adoring nanny@Insertcleverphrasehere@Stonkaments X-Editor (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruttel et al. may revolutionize the article or it may not. It will be months yet before there are adequate secordary sources to evaluate. In the meantime, some epistemic humility is called for. Sennalen (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "intermin report" is not reliable for anything and in any case WP:SYNTHESIS is prohibited. We need to be clear about the fringe nature of this topic by being up-front up the zero evidence, to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "fringe nature" is a pov you are pushing in direct contradiction to the best sources. The origin of covid 19 is an unsettled question being pursued as legitimate scientific inquiry, alongside the highest levels of national and international government. Sennalen (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "fringe nature" is a pov you are pushing in direct contradiction to the best sources. Explicitly not true. Our best sources demonstrate the theory lacks any direct supporting evidence (e.g. Science-based medicine, Hakim, Snopes, Holmes et al, Maxmen). The Government also is investigating UFOs (and it investigated JFK), it does not make these topics any less FRINGE. What makes them FRINGE is how they differ from the view accepted by the majority of the expert community. Regardless of what politicians or journalists think about it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WHO, the Lancet, the US Senate and intelligence community, ProPublica: all casually banished to the fringe by the definitive reliability of David Gorski. - Palpable (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the US Senate - do you mean the minority staff of one committee of the senate? As dismissed by multiple experts with PhDs? Including some who actually believe the lab leak theory is plausible?
  • intelligence community - Do you mean only the FBI in contrast with the CIA and National Intelligence Council?
  • the Lancet - Do you mean one person (Jeffrey Sachs) who is a chair of an independent commission and a non-expert (economist) who also thinks the US is responsible for sabotaging the nordstream pipeline and alleges a vast conspiracy of US biotech as responsible for bioengineering SARS-CoV-2?
  • David Gorski - Do you mean the guy who is a recognized expert on issues of conspiracy theories and misinformation, having published numerous articles and been interviewed numerous times by trusted media sources as an expert on these things? And as backed up by multiple peer-reviewed secondary review articles published in topic-relevant journals?
Because if so, then yes. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is a much longer list of people who consider the lab-leak theory plausible which you, yet again, confuse with people who consider it true. The same strawman argument every time.
Have other editors actually read Gorski's rantings? For a supposedly reliable source it's rather dense with mud-slinging and retweets. But I guess what it lacks in coherence it makes up for in "neutrality". - Palpable (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Common mistake that "neutrality" is what we look for in our sources. It isn't. We look for editorial oversight, fact-checking, independence from the subject, and whether other reliable sources consider it trustworthy. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the first two sentences of this article contradict traditional reliable sources, in wikivoice, citing an aggressively opinionated cancer surgeon who publishes on a glorified blog. - Palpable (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, WP:SBM is not a "glorified blog". Fringers hate it, but it's a reliable source for reality - and especially useful for pseudoscience/conspiracist topics like this one. Bon courage (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The majority viewpoint of the expert community is that zoonosis is not proven, a lab leak is not disproven, and both posibilities are worthy of continued study. Sennalen (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying a theory "has no evidence" is not incompatible with it not being disproven, or it being worthy of continued study. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: The Government also is investigating UFOs (and it investigated JFK), it does not make these topics any less FRINGE. UAPs (née UFOs) are probably a good example. By definition, they're unidentified due to a lack of definitive evidence. The fringe belief is not that we can't identify everything we see in the sky, it's that they're probably aliens. Just like the new UAP program, there's a possibility left open for alien craft as an explanation, but it's certainly not expected to be more likely than the other explanations. At least, apart from fringe believers, many of whom think even easily debunked video artifacts or CGI are aliens and are thus primed to read their preferred explanation into every example.
That last point is probably the most relevant here; some people are already convinced it probably came from WIV, and so their evaluation of the relative probability leans that direction for every piece of data. Not because the evidence is convincing to the mainstream, but because they're already looking to fit it into their existing view. In a similar way to how UAP videos aren't evidence for aliens, the COVID studies to date are not necessarily evidence of a lab leak. And that 'necessarily' is probably the key question for whether "no evidence" is an accurate phrase to use. Is a UAP video that hasn't yet had a clear explanation necessarily evidence of aliens existing and being the cause of the UAP? No. Is an uncommon codon sequence or lab proposals or the timing of research data necessarily evidence of a lab origin? Also no. Clarifying that difference between circumstantial evidence ("if aliens exist, then this video would be best explained by that origin") and concrete evidence ("we recovered an alien craft with aliens piloting it") is worth doing, where we haven't already. See below for my attempt to directly address this. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no 'definitive' evidence, but our own article cites many examples of circumstantial evidence. That sentence does not represent the body of the article and should be changed. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 22:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, WP:TINFOILHAT is non-negotiable core policy and requires us to be up-front and prominent about fringe ideas and what relevant scientists think. We say there's no evidence in the body too. "Circumstantial evidence" is just a fancy pants word for stories. There's "circumstantial evidence" for all kinds of whacky-dack conspiracy theories. Bon courage (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see four uses of the phrase "no evidence" (or similar), and think we should evaluate each in context.
  • Lead: The theory is not supported by any evidence. I see reason to be more clear on this. The phrase "not supported by any evidence" can be reasonably interpreted as lacking even circumstantial evidence. I'd be in favor of describing this as not being supported by "any direct evidence", as the rest of the lead describes the circumstantial evidence, and later sections further describe where evidence is lacking.
  • Lab leak theories lead paragraph: There is no evidence that any laboratory had samples of SARS-CoV-2, or a plausible ancestor virus, prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This seems the least controversial to keep as is. It is clear what evidence the paragraph refers to.
  • WHO assessment body: Other scientists found the report convincing, and said there was no evidence of a laboratory origin for the virus. The cited source for this sentence doesn't seem to be strong enough, but Holmes et al which does directly make the claim and I have cited it here.
  • Furin cleavage site body in the DEFUSE paragraph: There is no evidence that any of the proposed experiments were ever carried out. Similar to the second one, this seems clear enough about what we're lacking evidence of: a particular set of proposed studies having been funded and carried out.
Hopefully this helps focus on the specific uses, instead of broad strokes, and makes it easier to get consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support "any direct evidence for the Lead. I think that's a fair caveat.
  • Agree with your second bullet 100%. It's what's in our sources.
  • Support adding Holmes. Yeah we needed it, which directly addresses the report's findings.
  • Support keeping the furin cleavage paragraph as is.
Great work as always, Bakkster Man! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not go with the least controversial version in the lede? Something like "There is no evidence SARS-CoV2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic" ... Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be fine too, personally. I reread the first paragraph of the lead and i think that would flow well. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit hesitant that it might be too specific, but on second thought it does cut clearly to the core of the question. It may be too wordy relative to 'direct evidence', but I think it's a good option to have as we get more feedback from participants here. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's bad, and the subsequent wikilinking of "direct evidence" shows why. Probably the solution is to go closer to the source. Bon courage (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm alright with the current version. "no evidence SARS-CoV2 existed.." It's factual and unbiased. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair issues

There now seem to be credible doubts raised[5] that the Vanity Fair piece is incompetent to the point of being misleading. I think it should be removed. Bon courage (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think we should keep our mention of it, but appropriately address it. The issue isn't that it is UNDUE, it's that it's just bad journalism. We should describe it as such. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the journos view is presented as one on a menu of options, when it seems the journos were just wrong. Bon courage (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your interpretation, I think that's absolutely going to be the thing that floats to the top here. But we should probably wait for RSes to pick up on it more. Lab leak Twitter is aflame right now, just need to wait for the news orgs usual suspects to pick up on it. I suspect we'll get a scathing article from NYT in a day or two — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage If you want to discount a source based on random twitter commentators... well... WP:RSN is the best place to have that conversation, and you are much less likely to have people on either side of the argument simply arguing for their 'side'. I don't think we can have a fruitful and constructive conversation here. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 19:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is credible journalists are going "huh"? And nobody sane is defending the piece. As a sniff test, it's common for fringe topics when some out-of-the-way claims is made to look at social media to gauge what sensible people are saying. As it happens this is snowballing and it turns out this propublica piece is indeed the famed "conspiracist turd" as suspected. I think a few editors here could usefully reflect on this. Bon courage (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that those who might disagree with you are not sane is rude and uncollegial. I'm not offended, don't worry, but I hope you realize how you're coming across here. 2600:1012:B017:C2FA:3D71:2EDA:C201:15B1 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bon courage is not saying that anyone who believes in the lab leak is not sane, he's saying "nobody sane on social media is defending this piece." See, for example: Richard Ebright, who is a pretty staunch defender of the lab leak idea, is saying this piece is nothing new, overhyped bad journalism. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We report what reliable sources say...Your opinions, original research, and twitter links are irrelevant." 2600:1012:B065:16EF:53:6B7F:9ED3:76E2 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're irrelevant to what we report, but to how we assess sources, sometimes quite important. Reputable twitter peeps are saying this Vanity Source stuff is shite. But as others have said we can wait for the demolition jobs to come in from MSM and then go to town. There's no hurry. Bon courage (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Same poster as above)...From what I understand, dates may have been mistranslated (so some things happened in August vs. November). I would agree that inaccuracies like that would call into doubt the source. However, wasn't an earlier timeline part of the theory? Wasn't there satellite imagery that showed crowded hospitals in the summer? I'm not trying to argue this either way, but I do think it's possible that the "rebuttal" will involve an update rather than a retraction. I would agree that it is "shite" if it has such errors, especially since it was written over the course of many months. But it's possible that after these errors are fixed, the evidence is still consistent with a lab leak. And I would like to note that many of your "reputable" Twitter voices likely have a conflict of interest and incentive to downplay the lab leak, because biosafety concerns could doom their research funding. There's that Sinclair quote about the difficulty with believing something when their paycheck depends on it. Furthermore, virologists aren't experts in human/criminal behavior, which the ProPublica investigation relies on. I'd like to note that it was only the FBI that leaned toward a lab leak, and unlike, say the NSA, which is full of math nerds, that human angle really is the FBI's area of expertise. Anyway, I'd support removing it because there will definitely be a better follow-up, but I don't agree that it will necessarily involve a full retraction. 2600:1012:B050:2DCD:91BA:3A6B:8081:44B1 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this is what happened.[6] On this basis I think we might have to revisit whether "propublica" or Vanity Fair are reliable sources for anything (outside hair care products, etc.). Bon courage (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite concerning. ProPublica is one of the most reputable news orgs out there, with tons of awards, a solid track record, and a far better funding model and less pressure towards sensationalism than practically any other news outlet in existence. If even they can make such basic 'journalism 101' mistakes, then all media can. My overall opinion on media reliability these days, is that we should treat everything as if it were of "no consensus regarding reliability" (yellow in WP:RSP) unless a story has been corroborated independently by multiple outlets. Far too many examples of "generally reliable" outlets also publishing junk which doesn't meet encyclopedic inclusion standards. I feel WP:RSBREAKING actually backs me up on this, but almost no one seems to know about it (or care to apply it). DFlhb (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add: elevating WP:PRIMARYNEWS to policy would solve this entirely. News reports are primary sources on their own claims, whether or not they include any analysis. That's both common-sensical, and it's absolutely the scholarly consensus, which Wikipedia has departed from — to its own detriment. DFlhb (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of what happened here with ProPublica. When it's "co-investigated" pieces like this, all bets are off. The journalist in question here, Jeff Kao, is not typically involved in science journalism or lab leak sphere stuff. He's more involved with investigations into the Uyghur crisis, a legitimate problem that the Chinese government is keen on hiding. It's not that hard to see why he might make mistakes here, as a "data" journalist, out of his element. This reflects badly on ProPublica, but I don't buy "If even they can make such basic 'journalism 101' mistakes, then all media can". The circumstances are very specific, here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes much over-used as the concept of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is, this would seem to be a case where a fledging org has burned whatever reputation it has accrued, very quickly. Bon courage (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to drag this off-topic and will keep my reply brief, but a journalist who makes basic Chinese-language mistakes regarding Covid should stay far away from the Uyghur crisis, which requires IMO even greater Mandarin skills. Yikes. I'll note that I don't think your comment addresses the substance of mine, which is based on the need for corroboration; I feel that argument is directly relevant to this article. ProPublica was a minor point non-essential to my argument. DFlhb (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the mistranslation the work of one Toy Reid (formerly Marco Rubio's staff) in the GOP document, which has been credulously swallowed by the news orgs? Thus what this is, is a complicit laundering of political messaging. And then we get Wikipedia editors instantly demanding it's included because it proves LL. If only WP:NOTNEWS existed, aye. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the LA Times.[7] They're not holding back. Bon courage (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An opinion piece by a business columnist... The trainwreck continues. DFlhb (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE issue in lead

User:Bon_courage claims the following sentence is due as the last sentence of the lead:

The new evidence led a co-author of the two papers, Edward C. Holmes, to declare in The Conversation that "the COVID lab leak theory is dead".

The zoonotic hypothesis is now by far the strongest, but this sentence plainly violates WP:DUE, especially for the lead (but also in the body).

Here's coverage of the paper in repuable outlets, and its implications for the lab leak theory:

In reaction to the papers, [scientists] say the data tips the scales toward wildlife sold at the market. — NPR
The studies don't exclude other hypotheses entirely, but they absolutely are pushing it toward an animal origin. — Jeremy Kamil, virologist quoted by NPR
“I think what they’re arguing could be true, but I don’t think the quality of the data is sufficient to say that any of these scenarios are true with confidence. — Jesse Bloom, virologist quoted by NYT
They are interesting studies, but I don’t think they close the case on what happened with the origins of the virus. — Jesse Bloom again, in Science.org
The virus would have arrived in a person, who then infected other people. And the neighborhood of the market, or the market itself, became a kind of a sustained superspreader event. — David Relman, Stanford microbiologist quoted by NYT
I have been brought closer to the zoonosis side with these preprints — Flo Débarre, evolutionary biologist quoted by Science.org
[These studies] will be taken as a blow [to the lab-leak hypothesis]. They substantially move the needle on the origins in the direction of the market. — William Hanage, evolutionary biologist quoted by Science.org

The consensus is clearly that the lab leak theory is now very unlikely, not that it is dead. I recommend we quote Hanage instead.

I also think the study's main arguments should be (very briefly) mentioned in the lead, not just its findings; the arguments were widely covered and are very much due. DFlhb (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes is better: more senior, a virologist, and somebody who has moved from one "side" of the debate to the other. The catchy wording also makes the lede a bit more interesting, encouraging our readers to maybe read on. Because we have no WP:MEDRS for the paper itself I'd oppose trying to comment on the arguments, especially in the lede. Bon courage (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key problem is that there isn't scientific consensus, and putting his quote in the lead breaks WP:NPOV.
"somebody who has moved from one "side" of the debate to the other"
It seems like that "conversion" happened in February 2020, over the course of days (or weeks at the outmost). He's been a proponent of the zoonotic origin theory since March 2020, and received criticism for discounting the lab leak theory early on.
If you want someone who actually moved from one side to the other, Flo Débarre (cited in Science.org) is a good example, though she unfortunately doesn't give a very usable quote. Hanage does, pointing that the studies "move the needle" and are a "blow". I don't think "catchy" wording that distorts the consensus on a sensitive subject is appropriate, and disagree that it would encourage people to read on. DFlhb (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole problem (which has bedevilled this topic) is that as always lay-press publications are hopeless when it comes to scientific topics, and love to amplify stories that are likely to garner clicks. This article only exists because of the clamour of (in my view mostly bad) Wikipedia editors who are similarly out of their depth, but oh-so-vocal. All that can be done now it to try and keep some order by insisting on good sources. And lifestyle magazine for virology content is not a good idea. Basically the lab leak stuff is a conspiracy theory only supported by grifters and loons. Scientists at most would allow it's not rulable-outable. If Wikipedia was a decent encyclopedia that's would it would say too - preferably in just a few paragraphs. Bon courage (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. My edit also has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the lab leak theory; I'll gently remind you that this talk page is for discussion of the article content, not the merits of the lab leak theory.
Above, I quote virologists, not "Wikipedia editors who are [...] out of their depth" or any "lifestyle magazine". Experts decide what the consensus is, not you or me, and including this sentence in the lead is both WP:UNDUE, and inappropriate per WP:PRIMARY. You have not yet offered counterarguments related to these policies to justify your revert; feel free to do so. DFlhb (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DFlhb: My comments about the article content as a whole, its genesis, and its sourcing were a general response to the comment[8] I was replying to (which - wtf - has now disappeared), not to you. But as for Holmes - as you say "Experts decide what the consensus is". I'd rather we quote a senior virologist than a more junior epidemiologist. Let's see what others think. Bon courage (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's inappropriate to use that quotation from one of the study's authors. I would replace it with the Kamil quote, but am not opposed to the Hanage quote. Poppa shark (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFTOPIC; this section is specifically about the last sentence of the lead. — DFlhb (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense? No. Irrelevant? Yes, which is why I deleted it. But I'll just say that I am no stranger to viewing pieces put out by ProPublica as absolute contrived garbage that attempts to confirm a narrative. I thought that my opinion is irrelevant though, as Wikipedia reflects what is published in the broad and mainstream written canon, and my views (and yours) weren't invited to that party. 2600:1012:B017:C2FA:3D71:2EDA:C201:15B1 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that is normal scientific discourse propublica, VF, etc. aren't cited. Nor in scientific articles on Wikipedia normally. This article is odd in that respect. Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Science piece uses data given out by the Chinese. I don't trust China on this. I could generate a dataset that pinpoints the wet market with an inverse bivariate normal function and a random number generator. The guy calling the lab leak "dead" has a paycheck that is threatened by virology research reform. Furthermore, he isn't an expert in criminal psychology like the FBI would be, as I noted above, so he is absolutely out of his element in some ways. I object to your characterization of people who favor or are simply open to the lab leak theory. 2600:1012:B017:C2FA:3D71:2EDA:C201:15B1 (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
has a paycheck that is threatened by virology research reform Classic conspiracist reasoning. Climate change denying loons say exactly the same thing about the scientists they want to discredit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is actual scientific debate over the merits of gain-of-function research. See [9] which was put out amid the Obama GOF "crackdown". I think that is a poor analogy. Holmes's paycheck is relevant. Furthermore, unlike with climate denial re: the fossil fuel industry, the "big money" is on the virologists' side, as it would involve the question of China paying a 14-figure sum in reparations. 2600:1012:B017:C2FA:3D71:2EDA:C201:15B1 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: whether this is DUE, here's coverage of this exact quotation and position of Holmes, in various major news outlets: Yahoo News  · Hindustan Times  · RACGP  · Australian Broadcasting Corporation  · Unherd Opinion piece responding directly to the quote — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are mostly the same news story, being republished across websites; IIRC Wikipedia policy explicitly treats that as a single source, though I don't remember in which policy, but it seems like common sense. Besides, WP:DUEness for the lead has nothing to do with how many sources cover a single quote, but with whether it's representative of scientific consensus, so I find this argument puzzling. I assume you're arguing that it's due for the article body, and not arguing it's due in the lead? I agree with the quote going in the article body. DFlhb (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't we moved beyond the due question, since the OP want to include some guy's words just not Holmes's? Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm the OP, but yes. To clarity my thesis: the quote is due, but undue in the lead due to WP:NPOV (and suboptimal due to WP:PRIMARY). My now-struckthrough "but also in the body" comment was confusing; I was saying it would be undue if put in the body on its own, without any other quotes; that's unnecessarily confusing since obviously we do include other quotes; disregard that, I've struck it through. DFlhb (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that depth of coverage speaks more to notability (it should be cited in the article) than due weight (where and how we cite it), at least as far as an author quote. I think there's a valid concern that the peer reviewed studies, plus the author quote, could be undue double dipping in the lead. That said, some of this also depends on how tight the lead is already, as undue weight depends on comparison to the weight given to other aspects. Looking at our lead, it's possible we're already bloated, and trimming the quote would be best accompanied by trimming another third to half of the text of the lead to avoid touching too many details.
On the other hand, I think only discussing these papers in depth in the final section, sandwiched between the political wrangling of WHO-China and US Republicans, is unduly minimizing it. I suggest removing the quote from the lead, but bringing the body text up from Political and media attention - Developments in 2022 section at the bottom to either the Background - Zoonosis section up top (easiest to implement) or splitting out a Origin science section for this and other peer-reviewed work since the start of the pandemic either before or after the description of the actual leak scenarios (more effort, but perhaps better long-term). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the lead, I'm not seeing much that is cruft; it gives a solid overview of the lab leak theory and its evolution. I agree with your second paragraph, though I don't think it fits in "background" very well, since it's a recent discovery. I've boldly moved it to a top-level section, above "Political and media attention" since scientific discoveries plainly don't fit there, pending further discussion on where to best put it. However, I've kept the senate report under "Political and media attention", where it belongs. DFlhb (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Err, it doesn't look like he actually said that in the article text, that is the title of the article. Did he say this elsewhere? probably should make sure before including as a quote. Anyway in the spirit of making the best of a bad article, there is a missed opportunity in going for the quote rather than looking at the content. There is an explanation of papers for a general audience (which the WP article lacks) and "The lab leak theory stands as an unfalsifiable allegation" should suggest more content per WP:FRINGE (tho if i recall Rasmussen has somewhere been more clear and direct.) fiveby(zero) 17:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a very good point I had not considered, given WP:HEADLINE. Would be happy to see a different quote there. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But "this lays to rest the idea that the virus escaped from a laboratory" is pretty damn close anyway, so don't take me wrong, not a big deal. I just don't like quoting. fiveby(zero) 23:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; it's unlikely he picked the headline himself, and attributing it to him would be incorrect. And Rasmussen's comments were about debating with randos on Twitter; not the brightest idea, and not due here. For Holmes, I doubt "unfalsifiable" would represent the consensus; that, too, seems to have been targeted at political proponents, who keep shifting the goal posts, not scientific ones. The theory is pretty clearly falsifiable. I do support detailing his arguments (as noted above), based on Holmes's article and the NYT explainer. DFlhb (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not sure where the "dead" stuff came from. As originally added (by me)[10] it weren't there. Bon courage (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May have been me, I cannot recall. But I see the flaw in the headline, of course. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is DUE enough to belongs in the lede. It is sensationalist headline making, and doesn't represent the consensus, no matter how you cherry pick it. The lede is quite clear without it where the evidence currently lands on both sides. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 20:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've moved beyond that. Everybody seems to think something is due. But what? Bon courage (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hanage is a very highly-cited scientist; many of his most-cited papers were about Covid; and he gives us a quote that closely reflects the wider consensus. Easy choice IMO. I'd also be wary of "picking and choosing our experts" based on "seniority" (which is meaningless). Not letting a primary source have "the last word" is an added bonus. DFlhb (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody's view is primary for their view. I disagree about Hanage. Maybe you could think about devising the wording for a RfC if you want to pursue this. Bon courage (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone except the studies' authors is secondary for the study's significance; that's a straightforward reading of WP:SECONDARY. I'll let the discussion follow its course; zero need for an RfC at the moment. DFlhb (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but it's not being asserted as an assessment of the study's significance, it being reported as somebody's view. Everybody's view is primary for their view; but all these guys' views are reported in secondary sources, so we're avoiding the WP:ARSEHOLES problem, We won't be asserting any view about the paper unless it appears in something super strong like a WP:MEDRS review. Bon courage (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added new papers to the template

I remind you about the sticky template above, where a few papers have been added. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your tireless work on this, as always! You are of course correct, we should have added them ourselves — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New source

Some good material in here, which will be useful for better contextualizing the fringe/pseudoscientific lab leak claims, I think. Bon courage (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source is clearly marked as an opinion piece, yet you have transcribed it into wikivoice four times! Revert or add inline attribution. - Palpable (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASSERT when something's obvious. Bon courage (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to attribute the consensus view, that much is clear. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying there is no controversy around this topic, so WP:RS doesn't apply? - Palpable (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What particular assertions do you judge "controversial"? You'd need of course to produce good sources showing this, not just your own POV. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, the burden is yours.
The source is clearly marked as an opinion piece, yet you have transcribed it into wikivoice four times.
Again, you should revert or add inline atttribution. You are well aware of WP:PRIMARY. - Palpable (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to have missed the previous responses. You don't seem to understand. WP:YESPOV is policy. Bon courage (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, you saw that the source is labeled OPINION? - Palpable (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources which show that the view in the piece is NOT the consensus?
We have many multiple sources in the article already which show that it is, hence why BURDEN applies to you as the person who wants to change that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an odd interpretation. WP:BURDEN says the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
Bon Courage added four different claims to the article, in wikivoice, sourced to a piece which is clearly marked as opinion. It sounds like this was intentional rather than a good faith mistake. - Palpable (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you disagree on interpretation of the consensus view. That's fine. But it does not mean the article will depict your personal view instead. As I said, there are multiple other sources which support the statements:
Nplusone, Andrew Liu. Spring 2022. "Lab-Leak Theory and the “Asiatic” Form":
The lab-leak theory came to legitimacy by a circuitous path. It was first auditioned by Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo shortly after lockdown started, but journalists were quick to distance themselves from its overtones of crude Trumpian racism...the New York Times reported triumphantly that..."Asians have trusted their governments to do the right thing, and they were willing to put the needs of the community over their individual freedoms.” Such examples attempt to repudiate racist stereotypes of Asian disloyalty and backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity backwardness by foregrounding Asian modernity and collectivity.
Columbia Journalism Review. Jon Allsop. June 2021. "The lab-leak mess":
But virologists are generally more credible than Trump, who does lie systematically, and did seek to blame China for the pandemic to distract from his own dismal performance; various actors, meanwhile, have weaponized the lab-leak theory as part of a racist agenda that has had very real consequences. A given theory can be a conspiracy and racist and, at root, true, just as a given theory can be scientifically grounded and not racist and, at root, false; who is propounding it, and why, and based on what, matters. The mistake many in the media made was to cast the lab-leak theory as inherently conspiratorial and racist, and misunderstand the relation between those properties and the immutable underlying facts. It would also be wrong, now, to assume that the lab-leak theory is inherently clean of those taints.
Hardy, Lisa J. (17 September 2020). "Connection, Contagion, and COVID-19". Medical Anthropology. 39 (8): 655–659. doi:10.1080/01459740.2020.1814773. eISSN 1545-5882. ISSN 0145-9740. PMID 32941085.:
People question if scientists and/or political leaders created the virus in a lab and/or intentionally leaked it into the general public. Blame in conspiracies of COVID-19 is distributed differently across beliefs. Some question actions of the Chinese government and/or mention relationships with, for instance, people from Wuhan, China, reflecting xenophobic ideologies.
Beijing Review. Josef Gregory Mahoney. August 2021. "The unscientific surmise that COVID-19 was spread by Wuhan lab is racist"
The "lab leak lie" is racist. To be clear, the unscientific surmise that COVID-19 was spread intentionally or unintentionally by a Chinese government laboratory in Wuhan is racist. From the beginning, this lie was an expression of dog-whistle politics, one that has exploited longstanding racial stereotypes, and that has in turn deepened anti-Asian racism in many countries around the world.
Scientific American. Stephan Lewandowsky, Peter Jacobs, Stuart Neil. March 2022. "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth"
Motivated reasoning based on blaming an “other” is a powerful force against scientific evidence. Some politicians—most notably former President Donald Trump and his entourage—still push the lab-leak hypothesis and blame China in broad daylight...Ironically the xenophobic instrumentalization of the lab-leak hypothesis may have made it harder for reasonable scientific voices to suggest and explore theories because so much time and effort has gone into containing the fallout from conspiratorial rhetoric.
How do you suggest we depict this view in the article? And what evidence do you have that it is not the consensus, given these sources? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Makes me think we are underrepresenting discussion of the racism that underpins this stuff. Bon courage (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I suggest that you use inline attribution when quoting opinion pieces.
The rant about conspiracies and racists is completely off topic. - Palpable (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many different opinions is enough to be a consensus of experts? This seems enough to me. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Garry's opinion piece is the sole source for these two statements and they should not be in wikivoice. Garry did not see fit to provide a footnote for this novel claim.
  • Central to the idea of a Chinese leak is the misconception that it is distinctively suspicious that an outbreak should happen to occur in a city with a virology institute (the Wuhan Institute of Virology) nearby; most large Chinese cities have similar institutes
  • Proponents of the lab leak theory typically omit to mention that most large Chinese cities have coronavirus research laboratories
In fact, what Garry actually said is that "most major Chinese cities have one or more active coronavirus laboratories". Bon Courage's "have similar institutes" language is synthetic and most likely false.
Now, your wall of quotes is irrelevant to these claims. And frankly, this was a discussion of WP:PRIMARY and inline attribution; the insinuations of racism from out of nowhere seem like simple disruption. - Palpable (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think my paraphrase is good. The racism thing was fine, but has been double-sealed with the addition of more excellent sourcing (see below). Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I think this is an extremely good example of nit-picking. Those statements absolutely verify the included language in my opinion. "similar institutes" would include other laboratories that are active in coronavirus research. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Racism? Please. Alina Chan, who has repeatedly explained why LL is likely, and has probably been the most effective person to do so, is herself of Asian descent. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We follow sources though. Bon courage (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Racist undercurrents" should not be in the lead

It is briefly mentioned deep inside of one of the three sources cited for the claim. That is nowhere near enough for the lead of the article. Therefore, it should be removed per WP:UNDUE. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does "deep inside" mean? It's in the text. We need to be clear this is a racist nonsense and not a respectable position per WP:PSCI, otherwise readers might be misled. I'd be open to beefing up the explication of how this stuff is racist, in accord with the numerous sources on that (see above). Bon courage (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from abusing Talk pages to espouse fringe, conspiracy theories (like the topic in question being "racist nonsense" when it has been shown support by the likes of the FBI and british intelligence agencies) and focus instead on figuring out how to improve the article. Thank you. - LilySophie (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Deep inside". If I go to the source[11], hit control-F in my browser, and enter "racis", I get three hits. Two of those are unrelated to racism. The third one is on the word "racist". In my browser, it is about halfway through the article. That's what I mean by "deep inside". Per WP:UNDUE, that's not sufficient for the lead. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you must also look for "xenophobia" "prejudice" and "sinophobia" when you do those searches. I would tell you not to cherry pick your verifications to maximize the content you can remove, but rather to WP:STEELMAN these things. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the source says it is an "opinion" piece. Unclear to me if it's WP:RS or not. In most cases, opinion pieces are not reliable. But I don't know if there is a reason this one is different. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's RS for the purposes we us it. The racism explanation is just a point in the text - the kind of expert knowledge Wikipedia values and seeks to reflect. I've elucidated some more from the Gorski article (he's an expert on conspiracy theories &c.). The racism/xenophobia angle seems to be in quite a few RS. What others should we be using to expand on this aspect do you think? Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what policy do you say that it is RS? Is there an exception to WP:RS that applies to this particular article? See WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:RSOPINION. This is not a news article, it's an academic article. So it's possible there is a different policy for academic opinion articles. But a link to a policy page supporting your statement that this piece is WP:RS would be helpful. Can you provide one? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is a guideline, the relevant policies are WP:V and WP:NPOV. We reflect the knowledge good sources have about things. Are you saying it's somehow wrong that there are racist undercurrents to LL? That would seem to be a personal fringe view. Let's follow the expert knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple experts agree something is true, we report it as true. WP:ASSERT. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. What would be needed here to change this is some equally strong source saying there was no racist aspect to LL. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article states the lab leak is a conspiracy theory

However the FBI considers most likely the virus came from a lab leak. The report "An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic" Interim Report written by "The Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor, Pensions" October 2022 says that the lab theory should be considered currently as the one with more credibility currently. However this Wikipedia article directly states that "lab leak is a conspiracy theory". Even the FBI considers the lab leak to be the most valid theory at the moment. Therefore this Wikipedia article as it currently stands is very biased and is been extremely disrespectful. Obviously, stating that the lab leak was considered a conspiracy theory in the past may be correct, but to call it that directly is wrong, and exactly what Wikipedia does not stand for. 80.29.196.10 (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not state "the lab leak is a conspiracy theory". Bon courage (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the phrase "lab leak is a conspiracy theory" nor "is a conspiracy theory" occur in the article. You'll need to provide a direct quote if there is one. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Shibbolethink has pointed to a very good Scientific American article above: "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth". It's probably a useful exercise to read it side-by-side with this article. Labeling with "is a conspiracy theory" is an easy call to make, but providing a clear presentation and explanation of the conspiratorial and pseudoscience aspects for the reader is much more difficult. Without an attempt at providing that explanation this article is a net negative for the reader. fiveby(zero) 17:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Science-Based Medicine

@User:Adoring nanny, you are editing against consensus established at WP:RSP. See WP:SBM: Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources. Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.

This is not the place to litigate your personal feelings about SBM as a source. The place to do so would be WP:RSN. We of course have had several RFCs about SBM at RSN, and this consensus has not been overturned. Regardless, this is not the place to decide SBM is not reliable. The community at English Wikipedia considers it generally reliable.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. For a WP:FRINGE topic such as this, as a WP:GREL, SBM is a golden source for us. We should reflect the knowledge found therein, to ensure we have good & neutral coverage. Bon courage (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the WP:SBM link to me. I hadn't been aware that this site was on WP:RSP. I was not attempting to edit against that consensus; I merely took a look at the site, noticed that it looked like a group blog, and went from there. I may wish to challenge the consensus at some point, but until that time comes, I will obviously accept it. In the meantime, WP:SBM contains some important caveats:

Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.

For our purposes, these caveats do limit the source's quality. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, since the racism aspect is not subject to WP:MEDRS. Since this is a fringe topic it is exactly on point. You also accidently left out "Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, as it has a credible editorial board, publishes a robust set of editorial guidelines, and has been cited by other reliable sources." Generally reliable means it's good for assertions of fact. Like that LL has racist undertones. Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as far as I understand, we had a pretty large RFC a while ago which had no consensus on whether or not the lab leak was a WP:BMI issue, and therefore not the province of WP:MEDRS. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link here: Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information/Archive 2#RFC: Disease / pandemic origins. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead - where is the science?

The lead is generally well written, but it only briefly describes the general scientific consensus about the zoonosis of SARS-CoV-2, and really, the most concrete statement on this issue arrives in a short paragraph at the end of the lead.

Readers should be provided with more information, in the first paragraph of the lead, about the scientific consensus concerning the origins of the virus. Without that, it's hard for a reader to really understand why this idea is considered so unlikely by scientists. -Darouet (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think we should have some sentences about the recent discoveries of similar viruses in bats, the papers analyzing early cases in Wuhan and how it centers on the Wet Market in network theory and proximity, the samples taken at the market itself which were positive for the virus on surfaces in animal cages, etc. All of this could be summarized in one paragraph and we have lots and lots of secondary sources which talk about it! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So are we done? I think Worobey said somewhere in relation to the new papers something along the lines of "this is the best we are going to get". If zoonosis is the endpoint of the investigations then none of the original aims of investigating the origins have been achieved. Some attention should be paid to those aims because more than lab vs. zoonosis that is the good "science". fiveby(zero) 17:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to know the animal source[s] coming into the market, and to get closer to the original population of bats harboring something close to the progenitor[s]. But that might not be possible for a variety of reasons. -Darouet (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, i am commenting on the wrong article! Thought i was on Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 so ignore the rambling. fiveby(zero) 19:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with regards to the lab leak theory isn't "did it come from zoonosis?" (I think most sources agree that has been established fairly conclusively), the question remains as to where that zoonosis actually occurred, and whether it happened as a result of lab experiments or lab samples gathered from the field. The lab-leak hypothesis and zoonosis are not mutually exclusive. Why are we pretending that they are?
Zoonosis 'in the wild' is suspected by some, due to circumstantial evidence at the Hunnan market, but secondary animal links have not been found (which may not be possible to find at this stage). The other option would be the Chinese govt actually letting investigations look through the Wuhan Lab's records and documents (which may not even exist anymore), but due to a culture of secrecy, that isn't going to happen either.
My point is that just because we can say "this came from animals" doesn't mean that we can say "this didn't happen as a result of a leak from a lab". I think this is why we have sources saying that a large majority of scientists support a zoonotic origin, but yet also say that a lab leak can't be ruled out.
Journalists like to talk as though the two are mutually exclusive, but they aren't, and our article isn't doing much better at making this clear to the reader. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 01:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent example of the "god of the gaps" argument. The truth is, the more connections epidemiologically to the Wuhan Market, the fewer connections to any laboratory. And that is what the most recent evidence shows. Continuing to say "well it could have gone from the lab to the market" is an excellent example of special pleading. Sure, it can't be ruled out. But it has no supportive evidence.
Aliens visiting earth can't be ruled out, there's just no evidence of it. Bigfoot can't be ruled out, there's just no evidence of it. Ancient martian civilizations can't be ruled out, there's just no evidence of it.
At the end of the day, it's a probability game, and special pleading demonstrates how low the probability is for the lab leak at this point. We aren't saying it's impossible. We aren't saying it 100% didn't happen. No one is saying that. But it is extremely unlikely, in the absence of any supportive evidence, and a mounting weight of necessary conspiracy. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
excellent example of the "god of the gaps" argument Actually, it is about Shifting the burden of proof, Occam's razor and falsifiability. God of the gaps is "I cannot find a natural explanation, and because I am so smart and should have found one, God (or aliens or psi) must have done it." I think there is no relation to the logic here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This post made me check if the article is using wikt:zoonosis and wikt:zoonotic properly. NIC leaned towards zoonosis should be NIC leaned towards a zoonotic origin and classified as a zoonotic disease is redundant and should be classified a zoonosis? fiveby(zero) 04:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Insertcleverphrasehere: yes, you can in theory make an argument that SARS-CoV-2 originally came from a wild population, but spread into the community and became a pandemic through research activities. That's not what the vast majority of experts understand to be likely, however. The point of my post is that we should describe their views prominently so that readers learn about the "lab leak theory" while being provided the context of mainstream scientific understanding. -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What should be "prominent" is the mainstream view. That's policy. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bon courage - agreed, but it's not being made prominent right now. Will try to fix, stay tuned. -Darouet (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added two sentences here [12]. Let me know what you think. Shibbolethink, pinging you here since you may have ideas for improved wording. I was trying to keep things concise. -Darouet (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis correct? COVID-19 is a zoonosis—SARS-CoV-2 emerged into the human population through zoonotic pathway(s)/event(s)/transmission(s)—COVID-19 has a zoonotic origin; seem to be the correct phrasings. fiveby(zero) 21:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"zoonosis" is both a process and a type of disease. E.g. "diagnosis" is both a process and a thing someone gives you. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usually i see a greater effort at precision in terminology within medicine. Regardless, for this pathosis, if so, rarely. fiveby(zero) 12:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is honestly how few words we have to describe that process. I suppose "transmission" would work here e.g. "natural transmission" or "from a natural animal reervoir". But those are actually even less precise. Zoonosis specifically means "from a wild or domesticated animal to a human, in the course of human-animal interaction". Technically zoonosis might include an animal handler in a lab, but it typically also means in a natural setting. I think for what we're going for, zoonosis is the best available term. Since we're talking about crossover at a wet market from a natural animal reservoir. I would also be okay with "from a natural animal reservoir" but it's just not as succinct. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried about conflation of zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, a zoonotic path to emergence in humans, and increasing evidence for at least two crossover events or jumps, with the classification of COVID-19 as a zoonosis. One instance in the article: because no natural reservoir of SARS‑CoV‑2 has yet been found, some scientists have argued the classification is premature citing[13]. Regardless of the quality of that paper it misleads the reader by confusing classification of the disease with emergence of the virus into the human population. It might be reasonable to say that, like HIV, COVID-19 is no longer a zoonosis, i don't know. Anyway, a difficult job in making all this clear for a general audience, so enough said. fiveby(zero) 14:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"some" whereas the majority of scientists call it a zoonosis. We reflect the consensus view of scholars here, right?! The other issue is that it is 100% a zoonosis due to the animals we have infected who can in turn infect us. E.g. minks. Regardless of the origins, it's a zoonosis. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe i wasn't clear enough, some scientists have argued the classification is premature should be removed from the article as misleading. My no longer a zoonosis, i don't know was referring to how HIV has a zoonotic origin, but is no longer a zoonosis. Another example, we have both zoonotic influenza and seasonal influenza. Not for article content, but an example of confusion in phrasing. fiveby(zero) 16:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh I see what you mean. Yes I would agree with that. how's this?
It's confusing as something transitions from a zoonosis to an emerging human pathogen to an emerged to a ever-present. Yes I understand, these things are so vague and transitory. Eventually we won't call COVID a zoonosis as the scientists stop calling it one. As the human strain of the virus becomes so distinct as to not be going between us and animals in the One Health model. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink, 'typically' is an issue here. Technical journals will use Zoonosis to refer to the origin of the virus regardless of whether it happened in a lab, a cave, or a wetmarket. While news sources will use Zoonosis is reference to lab origin vs. not lab origin. How we can make sense of this, as journalists tent to misuse the technical sources, I don't know. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 07:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is true, the failure is here in the editing process and not in the sources. The WP:BESTSOURCES will use precise language, but they do assume some level of competence in the reader. Look at this writing from Stuart Neil in Scientific American, he does not use the term zoonosis and makes it clear in context when zoonotic origin and zoonotic pathway refer to the virus, its evolution within a host animal to SARS-CoV-2; and the origin and pathway of the disease, its emergence in the human population. Maybe news sources and journalists who do not do so should only be used to tell the story of the lab leak, and should not be used for explaining the underlying science? fiveby(zero) 13:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be fine with me if we can overall find a better wording for that part of the lead. I think what we have is probably good enough for now. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much. We need to look at the sources that journos are using to make sure that they aren't misusing the terms. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 22:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Darouet I think these were both very good! A good summary of what science knows so far. I've only added one thing about the fact that multiple reservoir candidates have been identified even if none have been confirmed. I think overall this is much better towards bringing in the scientific consensus in the most up-to-date reviews. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Necessary conspiracy?" We know that Xi Xinping ordered that publication of research be orchestrated "like a game of chess." [14] Adoring nanny (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this source should be included

https://project-evidence.github.io/

Just because it's written by people who don't like to publish their names doesn't mean it has no credibility, especially if you take the actual time and read through it. Elyos92 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely to meet our criteria for WP:RS. See the linked page. It would need to meet the criteria there. My initial reaction is that's unlikely. That said, some of the pages linked from the page you provided might meet the criteria. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, our policies explicitly indicate that an anonymous github repo is unreliable. Whether or not one considers that to also mean non-credible, reliability is the threshold. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1123283257"