Talk:DRASTIC

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Francesco espo (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC) I'm the owner of laboratoryleak.com! You can find my face and name under every article.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Francesco espo (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the copyrighted content, but I'm the owner of that website!

You should see WP:DONATETEXT if you really want to use the same text. Alternately, just re-add it in your own (different) words. Primefac (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sources

@Hemiauchenia: Hi. I see that you've taken a large chunk of the article's content out. I will explain why I disagree with this:

Firstly, the "UnHerd" reference is, well, I've never heard of this site. Maybe they are bozos. But I took a look at them when I was expanding this section of the article, and they seem to have a staff which engages in oversight and exercises editorial discretion. The article did not say anything crazy, and I was very limited in what I incorporated from it anyway. The main thing I was citing to them was, specifically, their opinion (which is why it was presented as a quote with inline attribution). The opinion in question wasn't even particularly positive (they said that they "hurtle down blind alleys"). The other thing I was citing to them was the number of people in the group (which is already mentioned in another source, but I don't see the harm in including both as citations for that).

Secondly, there were a few other sources you removed, like the Washington Post, Telegraph and CNET citations. I don't really understand what was wrong with those, since they're pretty reliable and commonly used sources on Wikipedia. Could you explain your thinking here? jp×g 19:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Cnet is only usable for computer tech news. UnHeard appears to only be a blog. Why do you keep reinstating these? —PaleoNeonate – 07:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not terribly attached to UnHerd (although it's only cited for two things: as the second source for the number of members, and later as an inline-attributed citation for its own opinion per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). As for CNET, however, RSP lists sixteen separate discussions of CNET (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16); is there one I'm unaware of that concluded it was unreliable for some purpose? jp×g 21:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: in the last few days, there have been new articles primarily focusing on the exploits of this group in The Hindu (RSP entry) ("generally reliable"), Vanity Fair (RSP entry) ("generally reliable"), The Print (no RSP entry, I don't know), and Newsweek (RSP entry) ("case-by-case basis"). jp×g 04:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda

In case this survives it would be interesting to look for sources describing the propaganda efforts made on Wikipedia by members, including with the misrepresentation of sources, —PaleoNeonate – 07:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope you understand the fine difference between propaganda and investigative clarification or science ?

General: What we should certainly clarify in this context is the possible propaganda of China or the CPC in the COVID 19 area of the Wikipedia, e.g. by the famous 50 Cent Army, paid editors or state officials. The whole framing here - especially to the origin in Wikipedia - is interestingly and paradoxically strongly Chinese, synchronous with Chinese state propaganda, here one example of the Chinese Embassy in Germany. That is one to one the line, which is represented here unreflectively. Good idea with wrong propaganda - we should turn that off.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Empiricus-sextus: This comment is inappropriate and incivil; PaleoNeonate has been an editor for over five years, and has made more than 26,000 edits. You link to the 50 Cent Party: do you really think the Chinese Communist Party spent $13,000 for this person to disagree with you on a talk page? You are perfectly free to disagree about politics, but WP:ASPERSIONS are neither a helpful nor welcome contribution to the discussion. jp×g 07:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for advice. This was no personal note for Neonate. Sorry for missunderstanding. I had a "little confrontation" with chinese officials in the German Wikipedia concerning COVID 19 already, first friendly, later with super strong PA (with IPs from Berlin and Hamburg). I´m not sure if they are active here -possible yes ! To say DRASTIC makes "Propaganda" and "misrepresantation of source" is a little bit too much bashing. I don't know DRASTIC more deeply, but I already realize that it is very dangerous to get into a confrontation with China on this issue - even outside of China ! That one has to protect oneself, especially Chinese who are active as whistleblowers here and pass on many insider information to DRASTIC. I think there are good reasons to respect these people / group and not to connext them negatively - e.g. with propaganda, conspiration theory, etc.. he whole discussion has become considerably objectified and something like this (first three sentences), for example, is a kind of bashing (implicit PA). Whether she was right or wrong, we should be more sensitive about this persons..--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Members of Drastic have openly harassed Wikipedia members example. Portraying Drastic as "scientists and analysts" is I suppose technically correct if the meaning of that sentence is "scientists with no relevant expertise in virology" and the term "analyst" being a vague term that could be used to describe literally anyone, as many members of "drastic" don't have any relevant experience or qualifications. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The post you've linked to is quite unpleasant. Is this the Twitter user referred to in the article's sources (and, if so, are they related to the Wikipedia editor of the same name?) jp×g 05:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that the "BillyBostickson" in the linked tweet is the same "BillyBostickson" that is mentioned in the articles about drastic. I cannot directly comment on the Wikipedia account per WP:OUTING, but only one person appears to use the "BillyBostickon" monkier outside of Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The article says Their pseudonymity and style of engagement with other scientists although there seems to be no evidence that they actually are scientists too. Removing the "other". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, there are purportedly some scientists in this group per this VF article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins/amp although since there are also some non-scientists in this group, also per this VF article, perhaps removing "other" is still desirable.2600:1012:B01C:48CE:B84C:7768:3198:FB9C (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"Purportedly" is not enough to justify the word "other". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree that using the word "scientists" is loaded in this context. I almost removed it as well but didn't want the drama. so I support removing it. Neither of the Data Scientist or Project Manager that are referenced in the Vanity Fair article are fairly considered "virologists." personally I wouldn't consider either of them "biomedical scientists." and that would be the fair characterization of the use of "scientists" in this context. In context, we are clearly referring to "laboratory scientists." This group is basically hacktivists and hobbyists. Do any of them engage in laboratory research professionally?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, does anyone here (besides me) engage in laboratory research professionally? I don't think it matters a whole lot. jp×g 18:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

Guy Macon please can you revert your edits not supported by sources? --Francesco espo (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No, because D.R.A.S.T.I.C. Research is indeed a Twitter group promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories.

For example,[1] says:

"How biased some virologists can be. You write about the lab leak hypothesis that is “pushed by a vocal minority”. We are a minority because of mislabelling it as conspiracy by @nature and @TheLancet at the beginning of the pandemic. Pushing? We express just another opinion."

Also, as the author of the web page https://www.laboratoryleak.com/drastic/ you have a clear conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

They came to my page asking for evidence of them having a COI... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: is this dispute really necessary? jp×g 21:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Conflict of Interest regarding Covid-19 --Guy Macon (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you [JPxG] suggesting that we should just remove all that very well-sourced WP:SUMMARY language? Or that we should be kinder to POV-pushers? I guess I agree on the latter but absolutely do not agree on the former. EDIT: I cannot actually find a good source that DRASTIC is "promoting conspiracy theories" explicitly. I will keep looking. I think that's a fair WP:SUMMARY of our current sources, but it would clearly be better to have direct quotations for such a contentious statement.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with waiting for the sources to catch up rather than getting into a dispute with other veteran editors over this, but I will be very surprised if reliable sources don't eventually come to the same conclusion I came to. Writing things like "conspiracy by @nature and @TheLancet" is pretty damning. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"I’ve learned to be on the conspiracy side of the fence"[2] -- Francisco de Asís de Ribera, member of DRASTIC --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

oooh that El Pais article is really good for this. I would say with those two refs I support the conspiracy language. but I understand that other editors may not agree. we either need to wait until it's absurdpy uncontroversial or RfC and see what most people think. I can write one up if you want, Guy Macon. I would make it extremely simple. just quotes from those two articles and a question: "Is it accurate to refer to this team as "conspiracy theorists and hobbyists" or something just on the side of neutral like that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Before posting the RfC, I would go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask (with a link to the source) "is El Pais reliable for direct quotes from DRASTIC? Are their conclusions about DRASTIC reliable with attribution?. I would do it, but I am a bit swamped. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That seems relatively uncontroversial to me, and seems as though it would devolve into the same questions as the RfC... "Can characterizations of some of the group apply to the group" etc. So I think I'm just gonna do the RfC. I'm sorry if you think that's gonna screw up the order, I can withdraw the RfC and go that route... Apologies--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem. You are right; the same issues would come up either way. Go for it! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: How should we refer to DRASTIC team?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was a clear consensus for Option D, involving use of the term "sleuths" instead of researchers, and then including a statement that others "have referred to the group as conspiracy theorists" with proper attribution. I'm closing this because the consensus has emerged very clearly and these lab leak-adjacent discussions tend to drag on and waste lots and lots of editor time. At this point, it doesn't matter whether that attribution statement is in the lead or the body, and we can have another discussion about that when it becomes relevant.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

---

How should the first sentence of this article refer to its subject? This inevitably affects the rest of the article, but this is the crux of the issue. Four basic options:

• Option A: "DRASTIC is Twitter group promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories, in particular the lab leak idea."
• Option B: "DRASTIC...is an organization of amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea."
• Option C: "DRASTIC...is an organization of conspiracy theorists and amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea."
• Option D: (Option B), but then we mention elsewhere in the lead that the group "have been labeled conspiracy theorists." by scientists and journalists.

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option E: "conspiracy theorist" accusations are provided with attribution in the body of the article, per WP:DUE: "A CNET article said that they had been "branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists""
• Option F: "conspiracy theorist" accusations are provided without attribution in the body of the article: "They have been "branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists""
• Option G: accusations are provided without attribution in the voice of the encyclopedia in the lead: "DRASTIC...is an organization of maniacs, thugs, and conspiracy theorists".

jp×g 18:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

One more basic option:

• Option H: is a loose organization of scientists and amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea. (status quo).

Adoring nanny (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not the status quo if somebody just introduced it into the article yesterday.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong support for A & C, weak support for D, here's why:

1. It's how several of the team's own members refer to themselves.

Quotes from members of the group describing a tendency for "conspiracy" beliefs.

(Industrial engineer Francisco de Asís de Ribera): "I’ve learned to be on the conspiracy side of the fence; when I explained, we were called crazy..." (This quote shows how members of the group may identify with the "conspiracy" mindset or "side of the table.") (On the "official" website): "How biased some virologists can be. You write about the lab leak hypothesis that is “pushed by a vocal minority”. We are a minority because of mislabelling it as conspiracy by @nature and @TheLancet at the beginning of the pandemic. Pushing? We express just another opinion. (This quote shows how members of the group know they are labelled conspiracy theorists, even if some of them may not label themselves that way.) Sources

2. It's how several WP:RSes refer to the subject, and how others have referred to the group.

Quotes from WP:RSes describing D.R.A.S.T.I.C. as "conspiracy theorists."

(El Pais referring to DRASTIC's research endeavours): "All of the research was conducted under the shadow of being labeled a conspiracy theorist – an inevitable consequence of doubting the origin of the virus a year ago." (Demonstrates that it is notable that others refer to DRASTIC this way.) (The author of the Vanity Fair article on Fresh Air discussing the DRASTIC team's findings and motivations): "people felt they were absolutely determined to fight against what they saw as a conspiracy of this magnitude....let me just say that faced with this fact pattern, there have been conspiracy theories that go, you know, so far beyond what is merited here. Nonetheless, I think there are legitimate questions to be asked about the controls over that money, what the money was being used for." (Demonstrates that members of the team also perceived events/machinations as conspiracies.) (CNET, in an article profiling the group): "This unorthodox approach has seen them branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists." (Demonstrates precisely who it is that refers to DRASTIC this way.) Sources

3. Theories about various actors conspiring together are quite literally what the group repeatedly proposes:

Examples of conspiracies proposed by D.R.A.S.T.I.C.
Disclaimer: What follows is WP:PRIMARY and a little bit of interpretation/analysis of preprints the group has posted.
Warning: What follows is original research/interpretation of preprints the group has posted. DRASTIC repeatedly argues that the Chinese government, media, and scientists are engaged in a massive coverup. DRASTIC often takes unproven or or tentative data that is public, and uses it to try and argue that a conspiracy has occurred to cover-up that same publicly available information. DRASTIC has argued that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting bioweapons research in tandem with the Chinese military, a claim for which no evidence has been provided. DRASTIC argues for unproven conspiracy theories asserting that gain-of-function research was occurring at the WIV which created SARS-COV-2, claims which have been debunked numerous times. Seriously, this is the single most disproven conspiracy theory about the virus, just read WP:NOLABLEAK. DRASTIC argues that the Chinese government misled international investigators and either falsified employee testing records or selectively omitted records, all in order to cast doubt on the lab leak theory. This claim is so WP:FRINGE that no secondary sources have covered it. But as a virologist who did his PhD on the antibody responses against emerging virus infections (seriously), I can tell you they make several basic mistakes about which tests should've been conducted and when. For example, they claim IgM should be used to test active infection 2 - 6 weeks post symptom-onset. This is false. They also commit basic errors of binomial probability, assuming that lab workers are as likely as the general public to be exposed to the virus, when their likelihood (in the absence of a lab leak) is actually probably lower given the % of time they spend wearing PPE inside a heavily controlled environment. Sources

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)-- 20:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Fringe theories noticeboard. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Neutral Point of View noticeboard. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Biography of Living Persons noticeboard. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• D for now, maybe C if we flip it around to "amateur researchers and conspiracy theorists". I think we're somewhat stuck with enough non-critical press and not enough critical press to label them otherwise. Made all the more difficult by the pseudonymity and relatively loose organization.

  For instance, the "live bats in the WIV" video that we have only a Newsweek citation for would be a critical example, if they could be shown to be a misinformation producer. Nobody else even remotely reliable seems to have picked up the story, either to confirm or debunk it, at least nobody linking it to DRASTIC. IMO, this is a sign they're too small to be notable, but that vote has already been lost, so this is where we're at for now.

  If we use the first two quotes (from members), I think the first one is the kind of thing we'd have to base such a claim on. "Some members consider themselves 'on the conspiracy side of the fence'", which feels a bit weak to be worth adding. The second claim they're explicitly rejecting the term 'conspiracy', calling it a misnomer. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  Fair criticisms. They often do recognize that they've been called that way, but some definitely reject the label, while others seem to embrace it. I could definitely get behind C with the flip in order. Tomato tomato.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment because you're seeking to call them conspiracy theorists (a pejorative term) in Wikivoice, can you please provide examples of sources that call them that? Geogene (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  I did several times above.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  No, you didn't. What you engaged is BLP violation by original research. You also have grossly misinterpreted this El Pais piece, which does not call them conspiracy theorists in any way [3]. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, I'm sorry to have upset you. If you'd like to report me to ANI or ArbE, be my guest. I don't believe I've done what you've just accused me of at all. I was very clear about which pieces of evidence I cited were quotes and which were supposition/interpretation. You and I having different interpretations of the source does not make what I've put on a talk page a BLP violation. I never hid that or misled anyone about that in any way. I'll even add a disclaimer if it makes you feel better.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  And your Source 2 in the "Quotes from members of the group describing a tendency for "conspiracy" beliefs." (pink) box does not support your claim that they refer to themselves as conspiracy theorists. In fact, it says they (DRASTIC) reject the appellation "conspiracy". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  Clarified. Thanks for the input. I didn't expect that box to be the most controversial, but now that I see that it is, clarification is probably in order.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Of the options present I support option B and to a lesser extent option D, with the caveat that is not entirely amateur and should be ...loosely defined group of scientists and amateur researchers.... The introductory sentence should plainly state what they are in terms as least loaded as possible, and the complexity of the issue should not be shoe-horned into a single sentence or phrase. The entire rest of the article can be composed of basic verifiable facts, as well as opinions from scientists, public health officials, and other significant viewpoints. From my (of course incomplete) reading of multiple sources, the organization has stimulated research, attracted legitimate scientists, and of course irritated the consensus-holding majority of virologists for pursuing aspects of the lab leak hypothesis which is often called a conspiracy theory, or lumped in with other conspiracies/misinformation regarding Wuhan lab origin. I dislike options A or C because we should not cherry-pick (nor downplay) quotes from affiliated websites, tweets, blogs, or and primary or self-published sources, nor select quotes deep within RS's to characterize the first sentence. We should look to how DRASTIC is first introduced in various media outlets to structure our introduction (omissions indicated by ellipses are primarily to reduce repeating what the acronym stands for):
  • Rowan Jacobsen writing for Newsweek: The people responsible for uncovering this evidence are not journalists or spies or scientists. They are a group of amateur sleuths... They call themselves DRASTIC. [4]
  • Also from Newsweek: DRASTIC, which discovered the recently published footage, is composed of about two dozen or so amateur sleuths and correspondents, many anonymous, working across the world. [5]
  • Katherine Eban writing in Vanity Fair: As they posted their findings on Twitter, they were soon joined by others around the world. Some were cutting-edge scientists at prestigious research institutes. Others were science enthusiasts. Together, they formed a group called DRASTIC. Their stated objective was to solve the riddle of COVID-19's origin. [6]
  • From CNET: a loosely defined group known as Drastic
  • From 20 minutes (Google translated from French): DRASTIC... is a multidisciplinary collective, made up of around thirty people , in particular Asian researchers, who are was created on Twitter in February 2020. [7]
  • From The Hindu: Calling themselves DRASTIC... a group of amateurs decided to sniff the lab leak theory to the ground. [8]
  • James B. Meigs in Commentary: One key group was an international assortment of independent researchers—few of whom were established virologists—that self-assembled on the Internet. The group called itself... DRASTIC [9]
  These articles neutrally cover DRASTIC in varying levels of detail. They all nod to the effect that aspects of lab leak are controversial, rejected, ridiculed etc. But they don't explicitly call DRASTIC a conspiracy group, and thus neither should Wikipedia (at least not in the first sentence). Even if everything DRASTIC studies turns out to be false, casually reducing them as misinformants, disinformants, or conspiracy theorists in a single introductory sentence ignores downplays the nuance that the rest of the article should describe. Reactions from virologists of the mainstream view are of course dismissive and should be included. However we have reactions like "The DRASTIC people are doing better research than the U.S. government," says David Asher, a former senior investigator under contract to the State Department. and As they posted their findings, the DRASTIC researchers attracted new allies. Among the most prominent was Jamie Metzl[10]; as well as virologist Jesse Bloom, one of the country's most respected COVID-19 researchers, became the first major scientific figure to publicly legitimize DRASTIC's contributions. "Yes, I follow the work," he tweeted, sending tremors through the scientific establishment. "I don't agree [with] all of it, but some parts seem important & correct."[11]. The organization cannot also be dismissed as purely amateurs nor purely pseudonymous because both RSs and the official website include affiliated researchers by name. Shibbolethink, the quotes presented in box 2 use terms like "branded" or "labelled as conspiracy theorists" which is different than stating "are conspiracy theorists" in Wikipedia's voice, and sweep away all nuance I've described here. By all means, let's put in block quotes by Peter Daszak calling the group conspiracy mongers. But start the article as plainly and incontrovertible as possible. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  I get what you're saying, and broadly agree (in support of D), except for any use of David Asher's opinions here. Which I would emphatically disagree with. The man is not a virologist, and has no training of any kind in virology, biology, or lab work. Why should we trust his opinion of this group? What expertise does he have to draw from in that opinion?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  The real world exists outside of peer-reviewed articles published solely in top-tier virology journals. And we are not required to only use the opinions of virologists when referring to a social group. The organization itself is not a biomedical topic although it's related to biomedical topics: the Pentagon Papers were not peer-reviewed either, nor was On the Origin of Species (Darwin didn't even have a PhD). David Asher is not a nobody with regards to US-China relations. We of course needn't treat his viewpoint as the dominant one, but merely one of many worth considering (he's comparing the group to Federal investigators, not virologists, and he may even have been facetious). As more research, coverage, and quotes emerge, the balance of viewpoints from various scientific, political, and geographic realms may of course shift the due weight to give any view, and views previously considered borderline may be included or removed as warranted. I'm also not suggesting we need to plaster verbatim quotes by him or anyone else all over the article (I think quotes are too often lazy, gaudy and uncalled-for in encyclopedias, and was being facetious with Daszak). But to flat out ignore published views based on arbitrary, Wiki-invented criteria where WP:MEDRS doesn't apply is a path to violating WP:NPOV. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  A note that Newsweek is not considered reliable by WP:RSP and that Commentary can not be used to assert facts per WP:RSOPINION. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option D Animalparty's analysis of the sources is compelling evidence that reliable sources do not describe the group as, first and foremost, a group of conspiracy theorists. That being said, I think there is enough coverage in RS to justify including the promotion of conspiracy theories in the lead. Zoozaz1 talk 21:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option B, C, or D. In other words anything but Option A which is unacceptable. Reliable sources say they are more than just a "group promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories". SaltySaltyTears (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option C or D. I think it's especially important our description accurately reflects that their investigations are amateur and decidedly not scientific research. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option C is best. Option A is incomplete and Option B misleading (unless "the lab leak idea" is changed to "promoting the lab leak conspiracy theory". Daveosaurus (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option C. "Researchers" is definitely not the right word for people who accuse scientists they disagree with of secretly working for a dictatorship, so to use the word "researchers alone in the definition would generate a false impression. That accusation alone proves that conspiracy theorists are among them. Since there are sources using that term, there is no problem with it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option E. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and certainly not original research into whether people are bozos or not. None of the articles cited by Shibbolethink in the opening for this RfC say that they are conspiracy theorists. None of the examples provided demonstrate what they're being claimed to:
  1. They do not refer to themselves as conspiracy theorists; they are describing accusations made against them.
     • A member of the group said that, at some point in the past, "we were called crazy".
     • Another member of the group said that magazines had been "mislabelling it as conspiracy". This is not "referring to themselves as" anything. If I say "Jimmy Johnson called me a bastard", this does not prove I am a bastard. "I have learned to be on the bastard side of the fence" is not the same thing as "I am a bastard".
  2. None of the provided sources say that they're conspiracy theorists. They are exclusively describing remarks made by others (including random people on Twitter).
     • In the Vanity Fair article, the phrase "people felt they were absolutely determined to fight against what they saw as a conspiracy of this magnitude" appears nowhere. Google points me to a transcript of a podcast where the Vanity Fair author is shooting the breeze with two comedy talk-show hosts. This is not a reliable source and I don't see why it's relevant; furthermore, in the sentence this quote has been taken from, she appears to be talking about something Donald Trump said. Afterwards in the transcript we have "For many, the announcement felt like a big change, putting what had been a conspiracy theory about the virus' origins back on the table". A journalist saying "people once thought JPxG was a bastard" is not the same as a journalist saying "JPxG is a bastard".
     • The El Pais quote, similarly, says that some people had considered them to be conspiracy theorists. It does not say that they are conspiracy theorists. It says that they were branded as conspiracy theorists at some point in 2020.
       1. The CNET quote, similarly, says that they were "branded" as conspiracy theorists. It does not say that they are conspiracy theorists. It says that some "scientists and researchers", at some point, called them that. It also says they were called "maniacs" and "thugs"; this also does not belong in the lead.
  3. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia.
     • The enormous collapsed box of primary sources below the quotes, and the attempts at doing original research based on them in this thread, are irrelevant both to this RfC and to the purpose of the project. Being a "conspiracy theory", generally, means that something is incorrect. For example, neither the Watergate scandal nor the Phoebus cartel are described as "conspiracy theories" despite being literal conspiracies (i.e. activities were carried out in secret, for political and financial gain, and then they lied about it). In fact, at List of wrongful convictions in the United States we can see a large number of times the government lied about things. None of them are described as "conspiracy theories". Arguing about whether the lab leak happened is not relevant to writing an article that reflects the consensus of reliable sources on people and groups that are associated with the isue. If the goal of this RfC is to simply have an argument about "lab leak true or false", I would recommend consulting the dozens of previous arguments on the subject (or one of the seven currently open threads on WP:FTN about the COVID lab leak); I believe there are ARBCOM sanctions in effect on the subject for this reason, and would recommend involved parties to tread lightly. jp×g 09:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option D - Most sources provided don't directly describe them as conspiracy theorists, that description appearing only in quotes and accusations leveled at them by third parties, usually unnamed. Furthermore, using quotes from inside a community claiming that they were accused of being conspiracy theorists in order to support describing them as conspiracy theorists is a stunning achievement in circular logic. It also probably falls foul of WP:OR. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option D, per PraiseVivec and Zoozaz1 Idealigic (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option D or E: Per other comments on this page. Again. it's OK to wait for the sources to decide what they are. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option D per Zoozaz1, PraiseVivec and jp×g, with attribution; Use the term sleuths as in sources, instead of researchers. Terjen (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Option B, E or similar as an alternative - we don't have to smear the group with a contentious label in the lead. Terjen (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option D The reliable sources that mentioned them didn't classified them as conspiracy theorists. Sea Ane (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option B - per WP:NPOV. If "conspiracy theorists" really is a significant viewpoint for this group, I would expect to see that label widely used by reliable sources. The sourcing here is very weak for a contentious label. Find better sourcing or leave it out altogether. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option C or D per JoelleJay. The latter might be a bit more weaselly than the former, but to my eye, the distinction between them comes down to splitting a moderately thick hair. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option C let's start with a harsh label and see if it ages well, their members seem to misbehave without consequences or repudiation, which is a red flag to any organization reputation. Forich (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Most of those descriptions will not stand the test of time well. Of all of them, "amateur researchers" is the least likely to have a bad look as more information comes to light. Some of the information they've dug up is straightforward and solid. Calling the whole group of them "conspiracy theorists," for example, is patently absurd. "Internet researchers" is probably the most appropriate label, and this is not in the list of options for this RfC. I'm sometimes dismayed at how much some Wikipedia editors have an ax to grind in their pursuit of defending what they imagine to be the scientific consensus. I wish Wikipedia could work out a way to defend itself from such opinionated editors. modify 23:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Option H (first choice). Of the remaining options, Option B is least bad. Would prefer no adjective. Internet researchers is also not bad. Some sources credit them with "breaking the dam" on the lab-leak theory. The Vanity Fair article even quotes someone who says they do better than the US Government. [12][13] Adoring nanny (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Options A, E, and F, in that order. Absolutely NO to B, C, or any formulation which refers to "researchers", no matter what adjective you stick in front of that noun. These are not "researchers" in any meaningful way. I don't even understand why they have an article, other than on the purely technical grounds of persuading some reporters looking for filler to write about them. --Calton | Talk 03:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment loose group of internet/digital activists would be a neutral term, unless you have quotable reference for using the term conspiracy theorists J mareeswaran (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• None. I think this is not a valid RfC because any proper RfC must include "status quo" version, i.e. this is a loose organization of scientists and amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea. This is version I would vote for. Here is why. Quickly looking at the list of their publications at https://drasticresearch.org/, I think that at least some of them do qualify as scientific publications. It does not mean that authors are right about anything. But dismissing all participants as non-scientists would be wrong I believe. On the other hand, most publications criticizing the group look like "activist" journalistic RS. Probably the best version would be "B", but labeling all members of the group as "amateur researchers" would be wrong, simply because many of them are affiliated with academic institutions according to linking in their articles. Hence labeling all of them as such would be an obvious WP:BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, as far as I can tell none of them are professional virologists/epidemiologists, all but four(?) of the authors of the two papers they have published lack any research funding, and the four who do have professions in biomedicine were not funded for this research. Neither of the papers lists funding sources, which makes sense: I would be extremely surprised if the four who work in actual science positions were permitted to use the resources from their jobs to do the "research" published in the papers (since SARS-CoV-2 origin speculation is so far afield from what their funding agencies actually cover (mycology, urology, and neuroscience)). Because their COVID stuff is not professionally funded, their present research is by definition amateur and it is appropriate to use that descriptor. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter if they are virologists. It also does not matter how they are funded. But it is important that some of them are officially affiliated with scientific institutions and are arguably scientists. This is because we are effectively saying that ALL of them are not professional scientists in all versions except "A". This is a strong defamatory statement, which I believe it is wrong and not really supported by sources, at least with regard to some people whose articles appear on the website. Things like that arguably should be removed per WP:BLP. You can not say that non-experts in a certain field are simply not professional scientists. Yes, you can only say they are regarded as not experts in this field if this is true. I am not at all certain because a lot of people do cross-discipline studies, which is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources use the term amateur sleuths, which is paraphrased as amateur researchers here. But the latter term can be confused with amateur scientists and should be avoided, as the above discussion demonstrates. Terjen (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added a status quo option above. Note to closer: this was added after a lot of people had already given their opinions. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Several other users recommended "internet sleuths" which encompasses both amateur and professional scientists, since this is not their professional area of expertise. I would draw a parallel to the case of the Golden State killer, where lots and lots of professional cops/FBI agents put extra-curricular time into researching the case, but they were still acting as internet sleuths in that capacity. Another example would be the Zodiac killer situation. Lots and lots of people at the NSA participate in those online discussions, but they're still internet sleuths in that capacity.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Option D - Majority of the reliable sources provided don't directly describe them as conspiracy theorists. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The statement of this RFC is not WP:RFCNEUTRAL and should therefore incorporate more options. Also, I think there are more important matters we should be working on, like expanding the "findings" section of the article. CutePeach (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It was certainly neutral at the time of preparation. It had the status quo at that time, it included other options as requested, some of which were even duplicative. No need to call POV when examining something through the lens of time in a fast moving article, thank you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Strange set of options

It seems strange to me that every option presented in this RfC includes calling them "conspiracy theorists" in wikivoice in the lead. This doesn't seem warranted at all; per my argument above, the only "evidence" of them being conspiracy theorists is that a couple of articles said that unspecified people had called them conspiracy theorists at some point in the year 2020 (and either going on to say that it wasn't true, or going on to say that this had happened in the past). This doesn't really justify mentioning it in the lead. I propose an Option E, where the lead does not call them conspiracy theorists at all, and it's mentioned in the body in a WP:DUE way along with the rest of the article's content. jp×g 18:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Options B and D do not include calling them "conspiracy theorists" in wikivoice in the lead. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah JPxG, what you've described is essentially option D, but you'd rather we put the "has been called conspiracy theorists" in the body of the article. That's fine with me, especially since this article doesn't really have a lead versus a body at the moment. I'm sorry that you found my set of options problematic, and I'm glad you added your own that you felt more comfortable with.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I also wanted to add, by the time we have enough reliable source coverage of this group to actually have a lead vs body, we probably also will have a better idea of whether it is appropriate to call them "conspiracy theorists" in the body, lead, or in wiki-voice or attribution. Right now, I think you're probably right, that calling them conspiracy theorists with attribution is the way to go. A lot of arguments posted above swayed me on that. I'll wait for this RfC to expire or for someone to close or whatever, but as of now I plan on going the E route, which is indistinguishable from D. That's my read of the consensus via compromise anyway.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's choice architecture presenting the options in a way that nudges/bounds our decisions. Also, note the current version in the lede is missing from the alternatives. Terjen (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

That was partly me: I gathered that some people were probably basing their choices on the incomplete and shoddy state of the Wikipedia article, and not reading reliable sources, so I took action to improve and expand the article accordingly. As someone once said (probably at least twice), people would rather argue for days over a single word than write a single paragraph. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that the Lab Leak Hypothesis was itself called a conspiracy theory by mainstream sources for a long time, it seems a bit wrongheaded to call DRASTIC conspiracy theorists for pursuing it while it was so considered. Most sources now agree the original "conspiracy theory" treatment was wrong. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Animalparty. Terjen, and Adoring nanny that's all well and good, I respect your contributions, but you cannot edit against consensus to insert POV here. The options were made based on an earlier version of the article. I'm gonna try and incorporate the consensus from that RfC with your edits, but don't freak out if I'm WP:BOLD about it. You made lots of improvements and I appreciate that as much as I hope you appreciate mine.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. So the text under discussion was modified during standing RfC by the user who submitted the RfC [14]. Well, perhaps it was an improvement, I do not mind. But then just withdraw the RfC, please. I agree, it was not very helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It was also edited by many others before me? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is entirely proper to edit the text while the RfC is ongoing, as soon as a consensus sort of emerges. That's what I did. If some uninvolved person wants to come along and close, that would also be fine with me. But to be clear, withdrawing would be the wrong thing to indicate what has happened because the status quo is not what won the consensus of commenting editors.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

fungus or coronavirus

Scientific American, describing what Shi Zhengli told them about what sickened the miners:[15] "Although the fungus turned out to be the pathogen that had sickened the miners . . ." Adoring nanny (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's what Scientific American said, not what Shi Zhengli said. They're paraphrasing, and we need better sourcing if we want to say she was 100% convinced. This also may be a case of bad translation, if anyone is determining that Shi Zhengli somehow thought differently in working with those master's students. It's all in all not high enough quality sourcing to avoid WP:BLP in my opinion. If there's lots and lots of disagreement about this, we can bring it to the BLP noticeboard.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, my point here is that if we want to say that somebody lied about something, in wiki-voice, or even in attribution voice, we need an actual QUOTE of that person saying that thing. We can't just use hearsay to accuse someone of malfeasance. That would be BLP all over the place. And in these very controversial topic areas, that is a very frought thing we need to be careful of.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just as an example, what if it was a coroner who determined the cause of death to be fungus, not Shi Zhingli? Or a state minister? Or the police detectives? And Zhingli ultimately still thought coronaviruses were a possibility? Then it would be inappropriate for us to say this. I have no idea who actually made that determination, or if it was determined 100% by anyone. Just making clear: BLP needs us to be very firm in these citations in articlespace.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Cherry-picking CNET

The CNET source[16], from the title on down, is about how DRASTIC is rewriting the origin story of covid. However, our current use of it misses that completely. Instead we have a throwaway quote about thugs and conspiracy theorists that CNET was using to contrast with DRASTIC's substantive contributions. From our article, one gets a misleading impression of the CNET source. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I edited this per the consensus on the RfC above. Most respondents agreed that the appropriate way to handle this was to quote with attribution that epithet. We must follow consensus via compromise, we can't just disregard an entire RfC because of a few edits made in the meantime that do not substantially change the sources cited. Interpretation of those sources is the appropriate angle of the RfC, and it is what happened. Many editors disagreed with me that we can put it in wiki-voice, but agreed that we should put it in attribution-voice. So that's what I did.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)