Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory

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


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

[edit]

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

[edit]

The current version of article contains a phrase: "There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related bat coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV."

It is FALSE. There is (at least one) publicly available paper which proves the contrary.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 is an article from 2017 with (among others) authored by Daszak and Zheng-Li Shi (the head of the WIV). "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus".

It contains this passage:

"Construction of recombinant viruses

Recombinant viruses with the S gene of the novel bat SARSr-CoVs and the backbone of the infectious clone of SARSr-CoV WIV1 were constructed using the reverse genetic system described previously [23] (S9 Fig). The fragments E and F were re-amplified with primer pairs (FE, 5’-AGGGCCCACCTGGCACTGGTAAGAGTCATTTTGC-3’, R-EsBsaI, 5’-ACTGGTCTCTTCGTTTAGTTATTAACTAAAATATCACTAGACACC-3’) and (F-FsBsaI, 5’-TGAGGTCTCCGAACTTATGGATTTGTTTATGAG-3’, RF, 5’-AGGTAGGCCTCTAGGGCAGCTAAC-3’), respectively. The products were named as fragment Es and Fs, which leave the spike gene coding region as an independent fragment. BsaI sites (5’-GGTCTCN|NNNN-3’) were introduced into the 3’ terminal of the Es fragment and the 5’ terminal of the Fs fragment, respectively. The spike sequence of Rs4231 was amplified with the primer pair (F-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-AGTCGTCTCAACGAACATGTTTATTTTCTTATTCTTTCTCACTCTCAC-3’ and R-Rs4231-BsmBI, 5’-TCACGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTGACACCCTTG-3’). The S gene sequence of Rs7327 was amplified with primer pair (F-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’-AGTGGTCTCAACGAACATGAAATTGTTAGTTTTAGTTTTTGCTAC-3’ and R-Rs7327-BsaI, 5’- TCAGGTCTCAGTTCGTTTATGTGTAATGTAATTTAACACCCTTG-3’). The fragment Es and Fs were both digested with BglI (NEB) and BsaI (NEB). The Rs4231 S gene was digested with BsmBI. The Rs7327 S gene was digested with BsaI. The other fragments and bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) were prepared as described previously. Then the two prepared spike DNA fragments were separately inserted into BAC with Es, Fs and other fragments. The correct infectious BAC clones were screened. The chimeric viruses were rescued as described previously [23]."

^^^^ This is exactly "genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.165.236.120 (talk • contribs)

New Journal of Virology commentary

[edit]

New piece, which is interesting for contextualizing lab leak as part of the anti-science movement. It also addresses the Alina Chan newspaper article others have mentioned.

  • Alwine J, Goodrum F, Banfield B, Bloom D, Britt WJ, et al. (August 2024). "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence". J Virol: e0124024. doi:10.1128/jvi.01240-24. PMID 39087765.

Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much time has already been spent in this article about the conspiracy and pseudoscience aspects of the lab leak theory. It doesn't really need anymore of that. What this article needs is updated information regarding the 2023 report by the US department of Energy indicating their research concludes that the virus did in fact come from a lab. This is by all means a credible source, and it's not even mentioned in the heading. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Err, it's 2024 now and things have moved on. There is some recent coverage here[5] which explains how the DoE stuff was mis-reported as part of the political circus. Your suggestion (that "their research concludes that the virus did in fact come from a lab") mirrors the misinformation of the time. Bon courage (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Err, Things have not moved on. There hasn't been any major revelations that discredit the DOE's research and at the very least it should still be mentioned as many of the other sources are even older. According to the DOE: “The Department of Energy continues to support the thorough, careful, and objective work of our intelligence professionals in investigating the origins of COVID-19, as the President directed.” So you're saying this is all one big conspiracy by the Biden administration? It seems to me like you're the conspiracy theorist here if that's the case.SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some superb sources published. And Wikipedia follows sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said several times, the DOE report is a very credible source and Wikipedia articles should state opposing positions on the subject matter and a source as important as this should be be in the head like countless other sources are already. Wikipedia's foundation is a neutral point of view, not one point of view as it currently represents. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so we're not going to over-inflate a minor piece of the puzzle by misinterpreting one agency's tentative view from 2023. That would be WP:PROFRINGE. Bon courage (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply mentioning the study in the head is not "overinflating an agencies point of view". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an opinion piece. It seems to me you're the only one with an agenda here and you want this article to fit your agenda. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the message on your User Talk page carefully. Bon courage (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do be clear, Bon courage is threatening you with a ban. 2600:8804:6600:4:2DD3:9EA8:D3AB:A6F5 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discus content, not users. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the 2023 Department of Energy report /No longer fringe theory

[edit]

In 2023 the US Department of Energy concluded Covid 19 likely came from a lab in Wuhan. This means the lab leak theory is no longer a fringe theory, and in fact this report by the US DOE seems to be the most recent research of credibility that has been done on the virus' origin. The "consensus" that the virus came from a market comes from research that came out before DOE investigation. This isn't 100% confirmation of the veracity of the lab leak theory but this report should definitely be stated in the head of this article and mentioned further in the body and aspects of it being an unrespected theory should be reduced. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned, and has been discussed at (extreme) length on this Talk page. Basically Wikipedia's not going to be over-emphasizing this, and what we have is about right. Bon courage (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say "we" like there is some "Grand Council of Lab Leak Theory" that is in charge of the article. This is Wikipedia, everyone gets to input their opinion and consensus can change. The DOE study is in every way a reliable report and one of the most current bits of research that has been on the Virus' origin, and it absolutely deserves a mention in the head. Secondly it seems to me you need to slow your role in trying to control what goes into this topic. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's less than a year since a ginormous RfC on exactly this.[6] and we have better sources now even than then. The WP:BESTSOURCES are describing LL as racism-fuelled political theatre contributing to the anti-science movement (mostly in the US). Wikipedia just has to follow such quality sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has absolutely nothing to do with an anti-science movement. The United States Department of Energy has many of the most accomplished and well respected scientists in the world. Stop trying to drift away the topic into something it's not. This is simply about mentioning the DOE study in the heading and giving it more credence in the article which it absolutely should have. Again neutral point of view is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, not one point of view. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was settled several months ago in an enormous RfC with 60 participating editors and 200 comments. Trying to re-litigate that, especially given the DOE source is now fading into the past, would probably count as WP:DE. You are aware this is a WP:CTOP. Bon courage (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The responsibilities under the DOE intelligence arm are related to nuclear power and the protection of US energy assets and information, not medical investigations. As Bon courage says, there was a massive discussion on the DOE report resulting in a clear cut conclusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do metion it, and we had an RFC on it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, where do we call it a fringe theory? Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before. USA nuclear scientists are not a very credible source on COVID-19 origins. We have other very credible sources that we can and do use instead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the DOE does not only run only nuclear labs. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is one of the DOE's national security laboratories with a significant focus on biosafety and biosecurity. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is another DOE lab involved in biosafety and biosecurity. In addition to the LLNL and LANL labs, there is also the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, all of which are tasked with conducting biosciences research. The DOE is the most aptly qualified federal agency on Covid origins, as well Covid treatments. The DOE's supercomputing resources aided in vaccine development. 103.164.118.54 (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably put a link to this at the top of the article so the argument that DOE has no expertise stops being made. I think the reason the DOE opinion is not much discussed in the article is that, as multiple sources allude to, there is not a lot to say. We can speculate about what evidence they may have had, but other than that what is there to include beyond the content already in the article? fiveby(zero) 17:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DOE used to have some expertise in genomics. GenBank originated there, in 1982. Soon after the start of the Human Genome Project, GenBank went to the then pretty new NCBI. How many workers went along with the move, I don't know at all. After the atomic bombs in Japan, studies of the effects of radiation were done at the then AEC, which then later was renamed to DOE. It isn't that DOE has no expertise, but just not especially more than any other labs. Gah4 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the failure to mention in the introduction the DoE position, or the FBI position - that Covid likely originated via a lab leak in Wuhan - is a major flaw in the page. The Introduction currently reads like the case for zoonosis, and is not an impartial of NPOV assessment of the current science on the subject - nor indeed where the science has been for the last 2 years at least. It should be fixed ASAP. Fig (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is because that is what most medical experts say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we do mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please paste the text from the introduction where you think the DoE and FBI are mentioned. Are you looking at an old cached copy? I've triple-checked and it isn't in my copy. As for "The medical experts" - they have a range of views, and a fair number (still a minority, sure, but growing number) think lab-leak is most likely. In my experience an easy majority of scientists in the bio-sciences now consider lab-leak to be both possible and plausible, though by about 2:1 they still think zoonosis is most likely. Fig (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United States Department of Energy is mentioned in one paragraph and two references. Seems enough for me. Gah4 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is only repeats important parts of our article (read wp:lede) it is not a newspaper-style leder. So we only put in it what the bulk of relevant experts say, not just the opinions of one or two US government agencies (who are not even the only government in the world, nor the only 2 intelligence agencies in the USA). No if you have a source that says most scientists do not think it was of a natural origin please produce it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never said most scientists do not think it was of a natural origin - in fact I very clearly said the opposite. Please read more carefully in future. Fig (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that is what we need to make the change, your wp:or of what you think scientists think is not enough, you need RS supporting your veiw. Slatersteven (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And this sentence citing an unrelated article is misleading: "In the intelligence community, 'low confidence' means the information is sourced to low-quality or otherwise untrustworthy sources." The crucial fact, left out of this article, is that while the DOE considered the sources to be low confidence, they still concluded that a lab leak was the most likely cause. I guess the zoonotic theory had even lower quality sources. And obviously the reason the DOE's report is so significant vs. the scientific consensus is only the DOE has access to classified information. In fact, the report itself is classified. Fnordware (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the zoonotic theory had even lower quality sources You are assuming that the people in the DOE who wrote this are competent (for virology), honest, and have no ideology. But it is literally part of the government of a country, and as you say, uses classified information, refuting at least two of those properties. Science can never be based on classified information, and your assumption and conclusion are WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like a few editors here think the prior RFC results aren't reflective of their view of the material. But I have yet to see a substantial secondary source presented which corroborates this viewpoint. WIthout substantial sourcing showing that the view of the experts has actually changed, this is just more of the same original research/editor opinion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, and more recently the highest quality sources are unequivocal. doi:10.1016/j.lanmic.2024.07.016 for example calls LL "simply wrong". There was an extensive RfC on how to deal with US intelligence material and the article duly reflects that. That material is even less relevant now than when that RfC was held. As ever, Wikipedia leans on the WP:BESTSOURCES and if those don't support editors' favoured views it's not a problem Wikipedia can fix. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lancet is not a dispassionate observer on this issue - it is itself the prime origin of the narrative that the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory", and under controversial editor Richard Horton has spent an extraordinary amount of time promoting that amount with the views and output of a Wuhan lab funder, Peter Daszak (e.g: https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656 ).
The incredibly dismissive, and frankly rather childish language in that most recent - and notably anonymous - opinion slot is un-scientific and contrasts very strongly with more mature and measured opinion pieces in other leading medical journals. Fig (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of conspiracist musing there, but The Lancet Microbe is not the same as The Lancet and has different editors in any case. If you want further up-to-date science maybe check-out PMID:39087765. In short LL has become part of an anti-science agenda tangled up with politics, nationalism and racism. Wikipedia will be reflecting that reality, based on the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that sort of logic before: "this is not a reliable source for contradicting my opinion because they have contradicted my opinion". Still funny even if I have heard it dozens of times. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New SBM source

[edit]

A useful up-to-date overview of the state of things. From this, we are fast approaching (maybe past?) the point where this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory". Bon courage (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beating a dead horse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, but it's probably Wikipedia's duty to report that the horse is dead. For NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not what I mean't. You are beating a dead horse. This section should not have been opened, especially based on an editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact a WP:GREL source, especially for fringe topics such as this. See WP:SBM. Wikipedia moves on when the sourcing moves on. Dead horses don't move on. Bon courage (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with it being an editorial? Its clearly written as opinion, yes its expert opinion but its making no attempt at impartiality its arguing a POV (sceptical movement). The horse is dead, you are welcome to continue the beating. I will be elsewhere doing something constructive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've made this mistake before, and been corrected. If you want to overturn the community consensus on what a reliable source is for scientific knowledge, you'll need to attempt it elsewhere. Bon courage (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not civil or collegial to make overly personal comments after an editor has said they are leaving a discussion to force them to continue to comment. Good day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't this section have been opened? Points to "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence" in first paragraph, already looks very useful. We can beat up on BC when he cites Gorski in preference to our 40 authors in Journal of Virology. fiveby(zero) 20:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something "The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence" is also commentary. That is besides the point that they don't actually seem to call it a conspiracy theory, the call it the "lab leak theory" or "lab leak hypothesis" so while we could cite Gorski for that we can't cite "our 40 authors in Journal of Virology" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seemingly think everything is commentary opinion and nothing is knowledge (even opioids causing constipation IIRC). It's a bizarre, wrong view which is of no use to us here. I suggest it's ignored and we stick to the WP:PAGs. We should certainly cite "our 40 authors in Journal of Virology" - I opened a section on just that source above. Bon courage (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC); change 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its published in the commentary section... Its labeled commentary... The four sections of the piece are "abstract," "commentary," "acknowledgments," and "references." The section above is called "New Journal of Virology commentary" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I mean 'opinion' not 'commentary' per youc comments before.[7] The crucial thing is NPOV applies: these secondary sources by experts on a topic a rich sources of knowledge which needs to be asserted if it's not seriously contested (these pieces will contain some opinion too). The non-need to attribute SBM, in general, has already been discussed on this very Talk page. Bon courage (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not in NPOV... And these are not secondary sources for wikipedia purposes... NPOV builds on V, and V has WP:RSEDITORIAL... Which says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If if were true this entire article and most of Wikipedia would need to be re-written. You say it's not NPOV but in fact YESPOV requires: "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested". In academic publishing editorials are often a rich source of knowledge which Wikipedia must assert (and probably some opinion too!). NPOV is not negotiable. WP:RSEDITORIAL is for the material from news organizations, so irrelevant here. Newspaper editorials and scholarly publishing editorials are rather different things. Bon courage (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to propose a re-write of V you can, but not here. SBM is a news organization, not a scholarly publishing house and we treat opinion pieces in scientific journals the same as news ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Err, it's not a "news organization" and the community has already considered it many times: see WP:SBM. Scientific journals seldom have 'opinion pieces', their commentaries and editorials are often golden secondary sources packed with knowledge we can (and do) happily assert - just as with WP:SBM. You've been told this before[8] but somehow keep popping up to bludgeon discussions with the same fundamentally mistaken understanding of NPOV and source types. As was said (not by me): "Gorski is not an opinion piece, and is WP:GREL. This is clearly supported by WP:RSPSOURCES and the RSN discussions it links". Bon courage (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commentaries and editorials are types of opinion piece. If its not a journal and its not a scientific news organization, what is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a society's publication online (the New England Skeptical Society to be precise, a rational-scientific organization). Society publications are common in academia, in the olden days they were often journals.
Commentaries and editorials can have an opinion element, but often contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas – which make them secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The New England Skeptical Society is not an academic or professional society, unless I'm missing something it is not within academia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "news organisation". Whether it's "in academia" is an academic question. For our purposes we know it's WP:GREL and that's what matters for the purposes of writing encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we know how to handle editorials in GREL sources. The only one arguing against how we do things is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By directly asserting anything that's not seriously contested, as NPOV requires. We do it here, we do it throughout Wikipedia. You keep bludgeoning Talk pages with your odd views but it seems you never actually edit articles to follow through with article edits to match. This means the only effect of these arguments is to clog up the Talk page, as here. Forgive me if I now ignore. Bon courage (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again this level of personalization is neither civil or collegial. Even on the personal level I have a slighly higher percentage of mainspace edits than you do (and we have roughly the same amount of total edits) and when it comes to actual article creations I have almost an order of magnitude more than you do so your blanket criticism of my editing practices is unfounded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific journals seldom have 'opinion pieces', their commentaries and editorials are often golden secondary sources packed with knowledge → this is patently false. Commentaries and editorials are not of the same quality as peer reviewed research, and should be not be treated as such. 103.164.118.54 (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, Wikipedia doesn't cite "research" but uses WP:SECONDARY sources, especially for sci/med. A random example of a good editorial would be something like this[9] for a roundup on Dengue fever. If in doubt check at WT:MED where tis is raised from time-to-time. Bon courage (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source, like the drivel from Gorski that you cited above, is an editorial and has limitations on its use. We cannot use an editorial to support your POV that the lab leak theory is a racist conspiracy theory when we have much more qualified experts and organisations who say otherwise. 203.176.178.251 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sourcing aligns more on saying it is/was fuelled by racism and xenophobia (both anti-Chinese and anti-American depending on which flavour of conspiracy you pick). This is somewhat covered in the article already. There is actually quite a bit of actual research on this topic too, for example doi:10.1177/21533687221125818. Bon courage (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again the ASM piece does not support "this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory"" so not sure why we're quibbling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SBM does refer to the "scientific hypothesis turned conspiracy theory known as lab leak". Bon courage (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you wish to cite Gorski in preference to our 40 authors in Journal of Virology? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but maybe alongside. Bon courage (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't support the assertion that "this article needs to be renamed "COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory"" so how can they be cited alongside Gorski to support that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't directly comment on whether the hypothesis is a conspiracy theory or not. For that, we need sources that consider that aspect of things. The point is, the sourcing is shifting and while there is moratorium on page move requests (i.e. renaming) unit 5 March 2024, it is only something that can be noted and not actioned. Let's see where we end up next Spring! Bon courage (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC); 13:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then using them alongside would be a WP:SYNTH issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if something is synthesized. SBM expands upon (not contradicts) the other sources it cites, and Wikipedia can follow .... Bon courage (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing both a source and one which explains it for the same bit of info which can not be independently verified from the first source would be synth, in that situation you could only cite the second source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All SBM articles, except the satirical ones, are pretty much the same. There is no distinction "this is an editorial or commentary, and this is not". Therefore, the WP:SBM decision applies to this article, and this discussion is unnecessary. SBM is a good source, period. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the distinction they make for the satirical ones? I've never seen a satire section on the site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[10] --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating... So they do actually have a satire category[11], they just don't put the vast majority of the satire in it. Are you aware that they have a commentary category[12] in which they don't put the vast majority of their commentary? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not use this page as a forum. If you think SBM is not reliable, this is the wrong page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think this is an Editorial HEB? All I see is fact based reporting on a recently published expert position statement from many multiple virologists. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1244488404"