Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shibbolethink (talk | contribs) at 16:56, 2 April 2024 (→‎Adding submission date for Project DEFUSE.: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

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

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


Lab leak theory sources

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

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

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

References

"Conspiracy" as of Feb 2024

  1. Many scenarios proposed for a lab leak are characteristic of conspiracy theories.
  2. Scientists and media outlets widely dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.
  3. Although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not definitively known, arguments used in support of a laboratory leak are characteristic of conspiratorial thinking
  4. The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic, Wuhan's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and this very closeness has made it easy for conspiracy theories to take root suggesting the laboratory must be the virus' origin.
  5. Prior lab leak incidents and conspiracy theories
  6. Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as AIDS, H1N1/09, SARS, and Ebola have been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created in or escaped from a laboratory.
  7. While the proposed scenarios are theoretically subject to evidence-based investigation, it is not clear than any can be sufficiently falsified to placate lab leak supporters, and they are fed by pseudoscientific and conspiratorial thinking.
  8. By January 2020 some lab leak proponents were promoting a narrative with conspiracist components
  9. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, speculation about a laboratory leak was confined to conspiracy-minded portions of the internet
  10. Some proposed that the Chinese government and World Health Organization were operating together in a conspiracy.
  11. One conspiracy theory spread in support a laboratory origin suggests SARS-CoV-2 was developed for gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.
  12. Researchers have said the politicization of the debate is making the process more difficult, and that words are often twisted to become "fodder for conspiracy theories".
  13. Proponents of the lab leak hypothesis reacted by accusing the agencies of conspiring with the Chinese, or of being incompetent.
  14. American laboratory, a notion long-promoted by Sachs, including on the podcast of conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
  15. After May 2021, some media organizations softened previous language that described the laboratory leak theory as "debunked" or a "conspiracy theory".
  16. At that time, the media did not distinguish between the accidental lab leak of a natural virus and bio-weapon origin conspiracy theories.
  17. In online discussions, various theories – including the lab leak theory – were combined to form larger, baseless conspiracy plots.
  18. Some members of the Chinese government have promoted a counter-conspiracy theory claiming that SARS‑CoV‑2 originated in the U.S. military installation at Fort Detrick.
  19. According to Paul Thacker (writing for the British Medical Journal), some scientists and reporters said that "objective consideration of COVID-19's origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a 'conspiracy theory.'"
  20. In February 2020, a letter was published in The Lancet authored by 27 scientists and spearheaded by Peter Daszak which described some alternate origin ideas as "conspiracy theories".
  21. Katherine Eban as having had a "chilling effect" on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who "bring up the lab-leak theory ... are doing the work of conspiracy theorists".

72.203.186.106 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely crops up a lot in the sources eh. Wikipedia reflects that to be neutral. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we change the article title back to COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:4:30ec:97d9:1b0c:3b60 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you use sources before or after the inflection point regarding the covid origin position? Because for a while researchers faced unscientific pressures to adopt a certain position, even under threat of losing their jobs, reputation, careers. On the other hand, more recently even the FBI has adopted a pro-leak criterion and the WHO has called for research also regarding the lab leak, something it would not do if it was a conspiracy theory. Although it looks you are basing your opinion in some outdated sources. For example, regarding February 20, you need to read the article Lancet letter (COVID-19), letter in which there was a worrying degree of undisclosed conflicts of interest. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all directly from the wikipedia article. They clearly state this is a conspiracy theory. 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is time to update the article instead. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sourced information for the start of the spread https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/ 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:5447:C8DA:5C49:E5A8 (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • People need to get with the times. The hot take on LL at the moment is that it was a ruse sold to the sheeple, and that those who have truly taken the red pill can see LL for the lie it is (as there was no virus)[5] For Wikipedia's purpose this has not so far been covered in RS, though I expect that will happen; then we may need to call this article COVID-19 lab leak theory conspiracy theory? Bon courage (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify if this is sarcasm? 2600:8804:6600:4:F2AA:1E57:F936:A127 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know any more. Both the antivaxx and LL communities are splintering as the the more enthusiastic members purity test the others for the most extreme position; I guess we'll need to watch RS. Meanwhile, the most recent development seems to be the Rootclaim stunt gone wrong.[6] Again, this is not covered in good secondary sources yet, though I note Rootclaim itself has been aired[7] on this Talk page a few times as an argument 'for' LL. Bon courage (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Formerly"

"conspiracy theory" appears throughout the media and is well-sourced, but only up until 2023, when the language changed. Now, even the CDC's Anthony Fauci testified that it was not a "conspiracy theory".[8]

I propose that we add language in an efn, because it will be confusing to readers who see sources discussing a "conspiracy theory" and a normal "theory", both from reputable sources. DenverCoder19 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't say "it" is a conspiracy theory, because "it" is a huge collection of different things, many of which are conspiracy theories. Like all the bioweapon stuff for example. Bon courage (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While "[t]here is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint", it's obvious that there is an abundance of reliable sources which refer to the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory. TarnishedPathtalk 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But are those sources still reliable as to what the lab leak currently is considered by relevant subject matter experts or are they outdated? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cite the most recent sources, so far as I can find. And (once again) they generally don't say "it" is a conspiracy theory, so much as the idea of LL has proved fertile ground for the racism and conspiracy-mongering which dominate the discourse in the absence of any actual evidence. DOI:10.4324/9781003330769-5 really is essential reading on this (and yes, it covers the US intelligence material). Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to revisit current consensus, which resulted in no consensus on the question at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation/Archive_9#RFC to fix this once and for all then have at it by starting a RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 07:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way out is through the door, best simply to take it by following the best sources (like Lewandowsky, et al). In a nutshell

much of the argumentation by proponents of the lab leak hypothesis is not normatively optimal and instead exhibits hallmarks of conspiratorial cognition. ... We conclude that although the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not fully settled, at present the evidence for a lab leak does not withstand scrutiny.

Bon courage (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists and reporters contacted by The BMJ say that objective consideration of covid-19’s origins went awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling the lab leak hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory.”[1]

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An old (wasn't there concern just above about 'outdated' sources) piece by Paul D. Thacker is relevant how? I sometimes wonder if editors here have read our actual article recently. Wikipedia does not say LL is a conspiracy theory; it more complex than that. Embrace the complexity. Bon courage (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an old piece but what I quoted is not outdated. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A journalist's opinion piece from 2021 will always be what it is. Meanwhile, actual scientists and scholars have advanced and refined knowledge and those sources are now published and useful for Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"abundance of reliable sources which refer to the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory" I believe this statement would be in support of moving this article to the singular name: COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory 2600:8804:6600:4:E857:BFEB:7B9A:9779 (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a huge collection of different things" I believe this statement would be in support of moving this article to the plural name: COVID-19 lab leak theories 2600:8804:6600:4:E857:BFEB:7B9A:9779 (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If users have a page move request, can they make just one? Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a moratorium of a year on this page if Im not mistaken. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then such requests should (and now will be) removed as they waste time. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Thacker, Paul (8 July 2021). "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". The BMJ. Retrieved 13 Mar 2024.

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19

Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 has been nominated at Articles for Deletion. Interested editors may participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoonotic origins of COVID-19. TarnishedPathtalk 09:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DRASTIC

Now that the main phase of the pandemic is in the rear view window, it's clear to me that the lab-leak advocacy group DRASTIC doesn't pass WP:SUSTAINED, and could adequately be covered in a few sentences in this article. Most of the sources in that article don't even mention DRASIC, but merely debunk claims made by its members. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good points made here. Perhaps we should prune most if not all mentions of this group. 2600:8804:6600:4:4980:DCD1:EEA7:32F2 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and redirected the article here.[9] The contents of the DRASTIC article are already covered pretty much in their entirety in this article already, so I don't feel there is need to merge content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
excellent work, That page was likely set up by one of the member of that group anyway. 2600:8804:6600:4:4980:DCD1:EEA7:32F2 (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear origin but lab leak possible

This is a nice review in the BMJ from July 2023 discussing new findings and positions. https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1556

We should probably soften our wording here. The cause is unknown and various organizations have various positions on what is most likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current consensus section at top of this page is clear that there is no consensus whether the lab leak theory is considered minority scientific opinion or conspiracy theory. If you want to revisit that then have at it. TarnishedPathtalk 05:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read that. The consensus is based on 3 year old sources and that was a reasonable position 3 years ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We keep going round the same point; "it" is not a conspiracy theory (the plain proposition), but it has given risen to an enormous ecosystem of conspiracy theories as soon as any flesh is put on it. Are are we wanting to say that yes it might have been made by the Americans in Fort Detrick (i.e. the Chinese version of the story)? That BMJ piece also gets suckered in the the 'sick workers' misinformation[10] and commits several of the fallacies actual virologists have subsequently complained about (like the 'too much of a cooincidence' line), so is a poor source.
For an even more up-to-date source on Pubmed, perhaps we could consider PMID:37697176 which has (my emphasis)? :

While the American, Australian, and Chinese claims were all theoretically possible, as mentioned, they have now been discredited as there are no good data to support them, and we have to look elsewhere for the “origins” of the new virus. Luckily, here, the evidence is plentiful. A substantial body of knowledge, supported by a great deal of data, favours the original hypothesis of most informed experts: that the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus occurred, like its predecessors, as a result of the well-documented processes of mutation within animal reservoirs followed by cross-species transmission to humans.

Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC); 09:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the journal you cite has an impact factor of less than 1.[11] and has been only around for 20 years. The BMJ has an impact factor of 107 and been around since 1840.
About the sickness of workers the BMJ says "allegedly sick with signs of a respiratory illness" and "It concluded that, although several researchers were “mildly ill” in autumn 2019, “they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with covid-19, and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to covid-19.” Two of the three researchers named told Science5 that the accusations were “ridiculous,” with one denying being unwell and another pointing out that they work mainly on bioinformatics and not with live viruses."
Not sure you read the BMJ piece... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay they do go on to disclaim it. But I'm not sure this BMJ editorial adds anything to what we already say. We have scholarly sources going into more depth on the various lab leak narratives. Bon courage (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the age it's my understanding that new RfCs are required to revisit the results of previous RfCs? TarnishedPathtalk 09:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But to do what? We're not going to say "it" is a conspiracy theory (whatever it is), and we already say a leak is a theoretical possibility. We say there is zero evidence. We say that's it's a magnet for conspiracy theorists and racists. We even go into the weeds about the US spooks. What are we not saying? Bon courage (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BMJ supports "Many virologists, epidemiologists, and other infectious disease experts still say that all available evidence points to SARS-COV-2 spilling over to humans from an animal host, most likely at a wet market in Wuhan." rather than most so added that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some recent research on that. It's "most".[12] ~~ Bon courage (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting "77% probability to a zoonosis, 21% to the lab-leak scenario" making this one of the two main hypothesis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James, the most scientist bit has been discussed here many, many times before and I believe there is consensus on this. TarnishedPathtalk 10:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With Bon courage’s source I agree. The lab leak is viewed as less probable currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unclear, what is the suggested edit. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing toning down "highly controversial" to simply "controversial" based on experts feeling that the lab leak hypothesis has a 21% probability based on Bon courage's source.[13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular strong feeling on "highly", but the 21% presumably doesn't include the LL proponents who think the virus was a bioweapon, that it was engineered not to affect Jews, or that virologists should be executed for their supposed role in it. The point is LL is a lot more than just entertaining a possibility, it's also a whole morass of some of the most disgusting and stupid ideas possible. Bon courage (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yah definitely. And all those things you mention are full blown conspiracies. But diseases do sometimes escape labs ala Marburg virus outbreak. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has happened. The issue here is that in order for this particular virus to have escaped that lab it would have to had been there in the first place and there is zero credible evidence of that. The evidence we have been presented in the past has been along the lines of 'employees of the lab were amongst the first to get infected from the virus' as if it is of some significance that people living in an area in which they work would catch a highly communicable disease that's going around. TarnishedPathtalk 10:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is more that they were known to be working with that family of viruses. The sickness bit had no support. Though it is a super common family of viruses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 or any plausible ancestor virus was in any lab prior to the pandemic. But there were lots of bats: so the 'zoonosis in the lab' (or zoonosis via lab-worker fieldwork) scenario is one at the more respectable end of things that has been discussed.
The problem with this Wikipedia article is that is splices together the extreme fringe Alex Jones-esque topic with the more respectable bare hypothesis (it's possible it might have 'come from' a lab). It would be much better to hive off the 'covid origin conspiracy theory' material and put the respectable stuff in the Origin of COVID-19 article. But this is how the lab-leak proponents on Wikipedia seem to like it. Why, is a puzzle! Bon courage (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Sennalen was doing a great job of trying to balance things out before she got site banned for her troubles - Palpable (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting an arbitration block for disruptive/fringe editing across multiple topics[14] (including this one) speaks of an idea of "doing a great job" which is at odds with the Wikipedia community. Bon courage (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their current situation suggests otherwise. TarnishedPathtalk 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The DEFUSE proposal is a lot more than just "working with that family of viruses". They described an uncanny number of features of SARS-CoV-2 in 2018. A recently FOIA'd draft even suggested saving money by doing some of the work at BSL-2 in Wuhan.
Yet the current article doesn't even have a sub-sub-section for DEFUSE. - Palpable (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but this is just lore among LL pushers. A proposal for something else that's didn't happen is not relevant to reality. Bon courage (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article should classify all DARPA baaed theories as strictly conspiracy based. There is zero evidence ANY of this work was performed.
j 184.182.203.105 (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Project DEFUSE was a rejected DARPA grant application, that proposed to sample bat coronaviruses from various locations in China.[136] The rejected proposal document was leaked to the press by DRASTIC in September 2021."
Add "One conspiracy theory focuses on Project DEFUSE that was..."
184.182.203.105 (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DocJames: @Colin: iff you guys are taking an interest in improving this article I can try to contribute.
For an quantitative-minded overview of the evidence I strongly recommend the Bayesian analysis from physicist Michael Weissman [15]. I think Weissman doesn't allow enough space for unknown unknowns, but his well-referenced breakdown of the evidence is useful whether you agree with his numbers or not. - Palpable (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More Bayesian wank on .. Substack. Seriously? Bon courage (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a remarkably juvenile criticism, based entirely on the URL.
The actual article is a long and careful analysis by a senior physicist who has a side interest in statistics education. So far, one result of his investigation [16] has been published in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society and it sounds like there is more to come. - Palpable (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A retired physic professor with no expertise in biomedicine self-publishing on substack is never going to be of interest to Wikipedia. And the bayesian stuff is just a way to lend a science-y veneer to ignorant suppositions fed into the process (this guy seems to think SCV2 was 'pre-adapted' to humans, for example). If his properly published works gets any serious interest get back to us. Bon courage (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would encourage anybody with a serious interest in this topic to read Weissman's analysis.
It is a carefully reasoned review of the scientific evidence, and whether you agree with the conclusions or not it will improve your understanding of why many reasonable and intelligent people suspect research involvement.
It is also refreshingly free of the insults and mudslinging that have driven most people away from this topic. - Palpable (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a remarkably juvenile criticism, based entirely on the URL. You may want to familiarize yourself with WP:SELFPUB. Editors are correct to immediately label Substack as unreliable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with SELFPUB (and the special Gorski exception). This is the discussion page, it is fine to share articles that would not be considered RS in article space.
If you skim the analysis you will find that it is packed with supporting links, many of which are RS. - Palpable (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If's the usual rubbish that forms the lore of the LL cultists, busily citing each other on Substack. Honestly, who reads this rubbish!? Bon courage (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, part of it has been published in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Proximity ascertainment bias in early COVID case locations.
I don't blame you for being sick of this debate, but if you can't accept new evidence, you have no business gatekeeping here.
For those who want to understand the topic, I still recommend Weissman's analysis. - Palpable (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any point reading substack for the purposes of editing this article. As to the published article, let's see if it gets picked up by any relevant secondary sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage: I really wish you would make an attempt to engage with people on talk pages in a way that did not involve calling them cultists and rubbish and wank -- it's extremely unpleasant to read, and it actively drives people away from the conversation. jp×g🗯️ 07:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My disdain is not for "people on talk pages" (and I'm not "calling them" anything), but rather for very poor sources being pushed (blog posts). Bon courage (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but in the real world Weissman is a subject matter expert in statistics who has published on COVID origins in a respectable stats journal. - Palpable (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's a retired physicist. Experts on "statistics" are in any case not qualified to make assessments about any biomedical priors they invent to feed into their processes, and this is of no interest since it's in a blog post. As to the published source I wrote "as to the published article, let's see if it gets picked up by any relevant secondary sourcing". Bon courage (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Send a bottle of wine to Gorski and he should be able to pound out something you like pretty quickly. - Palpable (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Bon courage (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder of the flexible quality standards for sources here. Enjoy your article. - Palpable (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything here is out of kilter with WP:CONSENSUS and/or WP:PAGs by all means raise it directly, rather than making odd comments about wine? Is this some kind of trolling? Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize that would be such a touchy subject. - Palpable (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were notified this was a WP:CTOP. I'm going to disengage now because your contributions just look unproductive. Bon courage (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly you seem a little thin-skineed for a guy who goes around flinging accusations about racist conspiracy theories all the time. But I'll strike the reference to wine. - Palpable (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Of the 1138 experts invited to participate, 168 provided usable data—a pretty low response rate" - not that many experts. Graham Beards (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of source is this BMJ article? The journal classifies this as a "feature" and Mun-Keat Looi is the BMJ's "International Features Editor". Other "features" on the BMJ are here which seem a mix of UK medical politics and social healthcare concerns. Isn't this a bit more like a magazine article, albeit in a magazine for doctors, than what MEDRS might call a "review". And this article, which is now nearly a year old, was explicitly written in response to the theory being "in the news" again, such as a Sunday Times investigation and a BBC podcast and US "intelligence". On the matter of what the scientific consensus is, the article mentions Michael Worobey, who is themselves a researcher into Covid origins, so might not be independent enough to be a great source for what the consensus is, and cites what they told The Economist, which last time I checked, wasn't a medical journal. So the article is fine for what it is, but it seems to be a tertiary source, based on stuff the author found on the internet, by a non-expert "science" feature writer. -- Colin°Talk 14:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a "feature" which I assume is a kind of news/editorial piece, and not peer-reviewed. Not a terrible source (considering some we've been offered) but not a review article and I don't think it really offers anything new in the mix.
An interesting source is this[17] podcast in which three virologists (Worobey, Andersen & Holmes) talk to two academic about LL, but probably not suitable for use here? Bon courage (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we include this podcast as a source in the article? Seems important to include the views of the scientists studying this most closely. 2600:8804:6600:4:4980:DCD1:EEA7:32F2 (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so; I think it's a superb source for anybody wanting to understand LL, but we really want more independent/secondary sourcing here for 'accepted knowledge' on this topic. Bon courage (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This recent Risk Analysis paper suggests that the Lab Leak possibility is rather more likely than the zoonotic one. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a primary study which generally fail WP:MEDRS. Graham Beards (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted at the top of this page:
  • There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS.
Palpable (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But MEDRS is pertinent to anything biomedical (which you forgot to mention). In any case, the is just primary research doing the making-up-numbers thing with a mathematical veneer, like the rootclaim thing which came out with bizarre probabilities.[18] Pseudosience basically. We won't be going there without reliable sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This study appears to be an attempt to get headlines to say "covid came from a lab" without actually scientifically demonstrating that. 2600:8804:6600:4:C85E:667E:14B1:53B (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps this discussion, BBC Science Focus magazine has a rather good appraisal of the the article, quoting respected scientists.

In summary: no new evidence, as before anything is possible, dressed up speculation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social media hostility

I feel like we should mention that these two Rutgers professors have been the leading source of conspiracy theories surrounding this topic. 2600:8804:6600:4:4980:DCD1:EEA7:32F2 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do any RS say they are? Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Now a dozen scientists, some of whom have been direct targets of Ebright and Nickels, have called on Rutgers to open a formal investigation into whether its two faculty members have crossed the line distinguishing between responsible scientific debate and defamation, harassment, intimidation and threats." https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-03-20/leading-scientists-accuse-two-rutgers-professors-of-poisoning-the-debate-over-covids-origins-heres-why — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:6600:4:C85E:667E:14B1:53B (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But now, their targets have had enough. A dozen scientists filed a formal complaint with Rutgers yesterday alleging that the two faculty members have violated the university’s policies on free expression by posting “provably false” comments that are often defamatory, and that some of their actions could even threaten scientists’ safety." https://www.science.org/content/article/lab-leak-proponents-rutgers-accused-defaming-and-intimidating-covid-19-origin 2600:8804:6600:4:C85E:667E:14B1:53B (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of those say they are have been the leading source of conspiracy theories? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"posting “provably false” comments" You're correct, these sources don't say it verbatim. 2600:8804:6600:4:242E:11D8:5D4A:CD23 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt this be called a conspiracy theory?

I mean, supposedly and by definition a conspiracy theory is a theory that there has been a conspiracy, which this topic falls right under since the argument is that there was a conspiracy to either engineer or at least hide the origin of the virus. Kasperquickly (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on which version you mean. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you just assert "it's possible it may have come from a lab" that's not a conspiracy theory. But beyond that, nearly all the narratives that have been woven very much are conspiracy theories. About the only 'respectable' hypothetical narrative is that lab workers got accidentally infected while handling bat samples in the lab or out in the field, before travelling 15km to the local seafood market where they infected others. And it's debatable whether that scenario counts as a 'lab leak' anyway. Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the only possible strict/literal laboratory origin scenario that does not include claims of a conspiracy would be an accidental infection via a sample that had not yet been analyzed where no record would have yet been generated, or failure to discover records of an analysis during investigations. I don't think I've seen this proposed by LLers. Given this and the scenario Bon courage has listed above being the only non-conspiratorial scenarios, it seems safe to label the lab scenario category in general as a conspiracy theory. 2600:8804:6600:4:C85E:667E:14B1:53B (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to bet money that this specific question has been asked and discussed more than ten times over the course of this talk page's history (there are three failed RMs in the header on that issue alone), so whatever the article says is the result of quite a lot of yelling, and indeed some cyberblood was drawn in the form of sitebans and noticeboard threads. It is probably not a great idea to relitigate it, but I can't stop you if you really want to. jp×g🗯️ 07:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this sounds like a threat ? Kasperquickly (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since a admin has placed a one-year moratorium on page move requests (i.e. renaming) running from 5 March 2024, editors kicking off about this are at risk of sanctions. So seeing it as a threat is wise. Bon courage (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Section

Perhaps it would be useful to move all theories that rely on conspiracies into its own section? This way the few proposals that dont wont have to be associated with the craziness. 2600:8804:6600:4:B803:97C2:78FF:BEFA (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Kialo link in external links

I removed a link to a Kialo discussion on this topic from the external links. It doesn't seem to meet any of the points under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Also, given it's user-generated content it doesn't seem suitable for linking on a contentious topic link this. Unsurprisingly the weightings given to the arguments on Kialo don't accord with the reliable sources in the article and skew towards promoting a lab leak. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that recently-created {{Kialo arguments tree}} is being spammed all over the Project. I have nominated it for deletion. Bon courage (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not being "spammed" but linked at a few places at once where it's likely very useful for many readers and usually more useful than the other external links in that section. I'm not surprised it was removed here; the argument map aims to just neutrally show all the arguments from all sides and in a way that is transparent, overseeable, and scrutinizable. I don't see why it would not be a useful resource here. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's just a site where any joe-know-nothing can create an account and write whatever ignorant statements they want. It seems to have spammed into multiple articles. Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, claims need to be accepted by debate moderators. If arguments are coherent, relevant and reasonable, they can get included. This is the antidote to ignorant-statement-making in the conventional linear writing that can't be scrutinized and without their relational structure and context visible. I'm not saying these can be useful resources on all articles, just some such as this one. Are you saying Wikipedia is "just a site where joe-know-nothing can create an account and write whatever ignorant statements they want"? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, with its massive number of moderators and 864 admins, is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. User-generated sites don't fare well here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know but you don't seem to understand that I'm not arguing about whether or not it's a reliable source. It can often be a useful resource. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how opinions from people unrelated to SARS-CoV-2, Wuhan Institute of Virology, virology in general, genome engineering, etc. are useful to this article. Wikipedia is very fussy about anything medical WP:MEDRS. If you wish to read those arguments yourself and use them to debate a case on this talk page, that might be OK, assuming you can find RS to back them up. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not opinions but arguments extracted from sources like The New York Times or studies. They are just all integrated into one structured map.
…are useful to this article Yes, agree – that's why it is not and cannot be a reference here but is just a useful resource in the EL (that by the way nearly nobody looks at anyway and is contextualized as providing insights about what arguments there have been in the public debate, not as providing information from a select authoritative source). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not opinions but arguments. Arguments are presentations of opinions. sources like The New York Times. I just looked and very little is sourced to anywhere. Some is sourced to this article. Citogenesis O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the majority of lab leak theories are conspiracies, why is MEDRS relevant to this article? 2600:8804:6600:4:2012:A971:5473:A6A4 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure we reflect reality? Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding submission date for Project DEFUSE.

I think it would be relevant to add the submission date for Project DEFUSE which is 3/27/18 [19]? 牢记使命 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This addition would provide historical context and improve clarity for readers especially those looking into chronological development of events. 牢记使命 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about it, and what would it tell us (as it was rejected)? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While Project DEFUSE was indeed rejected, the submission date still adds important context to the timeline of events. It helps readers understand when these ideas were first proposed in relation to other developments in the COVID-19 story. The aim is not to emphasize the importance of this specific project but rather ensure a comprehensive and chronological overview. 牢记使命 (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what has this to do with COVID? As it was rejected it has no link to subsequent events. 15:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the timeline for mentioned events in the article is still important. Do you think it's not? 牢记使命 (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A time line of events that helped spread the virus, yes, a time line of events that might have had an impact, yes, even a time line of accusations about the lab leak. This is none of those as a rejected idea can't have had any impact, it was rejected. There really is no more to say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't refute the point about the project being rejected or argue for it having any connection to COVID-19, I just think it would be relevant and useful to add the submission date. Does it make sense to you? Maybe it would make more sense to remove the section with the project DEFUSE completely, if adding information such as submission date is considered to be irrelevant. 牢记使命 (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this would not have a reliable secondary-source demonstrating it's a WP:DUE factoid. So I am opposed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1216901457"