Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:07, 27 March 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37Auto-archiving period: 21 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Emergency / Society / Pulmonology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Emergency medicine and EMS task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Molecular Biology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Viruses Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page history

This article was nominated for deletion on July 18, 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. On 26 July 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis to COVID-19 lab leak claims. The result of the discussion was moved to COVID-19 lab leak theory. This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jackson Ryan (27 June 2021). "Misplaced Pages is at war over the coronavirus lab leak theory". Cnet. Retrieved 21 February 2022. Rhys Blakely (11 November 2021). "The Covid-19 lab-leak theory: 'I've had death threats'". The Times. Retrieved 21 February 2022. When she first spoke out, the lab-leak theory was dismissed – in public, at least – by senior virologists as a fantasy of populist politicians and internet cranks. Facebook and Misplaced Pages banned any mention of the possibility that the virus had escaped from a Wuhan lab, branding it a conspiracy theory. Renée DiResta (21 July 2021). "Institutional Authority Has Vanished. Misplaced Pages Points to the Answer". The Atlantic. Retrieved 21 February 2021. The "Talk" page linked to the Misplaced Pages entry on the origin of the coronavirus provides visibility into the roiling editing wars. Sock-puppet accounts descended, trying to nudge the coverage of the topic to reflect particular points of view. A separate page was created, dedicated specifically to the "COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis," but site administrators later deleted it—a decision that remains in dispute within the Misplaced Pages community.

• v
• t
• e

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 () which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi '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)

• v
• e

Lab leak theory sources

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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)

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

References

Heads up on new WSJ story re DOE assessment

I am only alerting regular editors here that the WSJ is reporting via word-of-mouth that a DOE report asserts support of the lab-leak theory (though not out of any biological weapons testing program). Suspect you may see IPs/new editors trying to force its info.

WSJ story Masem (t) 15:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Getting a lot of coverage around the less-than-reliable press, but some worthwhile outlets (Ground.News shows low-factuality bias · WSJ Primary report · The Hill · Bloomberg  · National Review). Otherwise it's all tabloids and unreliable outlets. Eventually, we will probably need to modify the sentence about the DNI report to reflect this, or add a short sentence to that. it's mostly a nothingburger but probably DUE in that context. I personally wonder why the opinion of these agencies with zero biosecurity experience is relevant, but if the mainstream press starts covering it, it's probably going to be DUE for a mention. I say we sit on it for now and see how the coverage develops from here. — Shibbolethink 16:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

DOE does do biochemical and other work in that area, so they shouldn't be considered ignorant of biosecurity. But as even the WSJ points out, this is just one US Govt agency that has made a statement about the COVID origin, with several other agencies denying the lab leak theory. I just feel you might see editors demanding that "THIS IS THE TRUTH BECAUSE THE DOE SAID SO", which you definitely don't want to feed. Masem (t) 17:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that any agency has denied the lab leak theory. They've denied the related conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The Energy Department made its judgment with “low confidence;” title says, Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic. — hako9 (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Masem Outsider here (art history and history primarily) who read the WSJ article–in your experience with COVID pages, has extended protection been quite ineffective in filtering the non-constructive edits so far? My instinct, given it's contentious and not my area of focus, was to go to talk page (though I first went to Investigations into... page and @Shibbolethink redirected me to this discussion) and I'd think most of xp editors would do the same. Perhaps adding a note to the new passage in the article akin to the ones regarding consensus used in Trump article would help minimize disruptions? Ppt91 20:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

extended protection been quite ineffective. What more do you want? — hako9 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hako9 I was asking whether it has been effective or not. And–if it has been ineffective–I suggested adding notes on specific edits alerting users who are unfamiliar with the consensus but who had seen a new important development in the news. Either way, yours was hardly a welcoming response. Ppt91 21:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My question to you was rhetorical. There's a big banner, that you can't miss, compiling present consensus on this talk. — hako9 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe the message is that clear for newcomers, which is why I was using the Trump page as a comparison. I think the banner could use a larger font and a similar text that reads "Please review current established consensus before editing this article, especially the lead section." etc. That and comments throughout the article could help users slow down if they want to make a news-related update. Again, I was only trying to offer some suggestions as an outsider without rushing to make any changes myself out of respect for other actively engaged editors here. Ppt91 21:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Did the DOE disclose their reasoning or lay any new evidence? They claim to have sourced their assessment from their laboratory-staff which is so strange. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  I think technically the DoE didn't disclose anything, this seems to be getting reported on as a leak. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to edit the consensus to reflect this new information? Regardless of what is said in the main article the fact that DoE supports lab leak should clearly elevate it beyond a "conspiracy theory" to at least a "minority scientific viewpoint". The consensus seems very outdate/biased and seems intended to discourage discussion. Bertie woo (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: do you have a recommended alternate wording for the confidence rating? You said so a low confidence rating was the most likely but the rating of most likely was not low confidence, which I interpret as you want it rephrased rather than outright removed. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The current wording is accurate. It could be expanded but that expansion can't be OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the NYT source didn't include the DoE evaluation of low confidence, would citing another source which discusses this potentially resolve your concern for my original wording? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Masem It's the first time I see in the talk page of an article "warning" about content appearing on an established newspaper possibly being "forced". Can you explain your rationale for this kind of warning and how it adheres to the WP:NPOV policy—specially because you are an administrator? Thinker78 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Because right now, the lab leak theory has been one of those things that those on the right would love the lab leak theory to be true, and I could see possible disruption on this article from editors that would want to push inclusion of it. Masem (t) 04:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have to point out that you are specifically referring to those on the right. The reverse is also true. Many on the left not matter what want to stick to the zoonosis theory. Why do the right prefers the lab leak and the left zoonosis I don't know. But I think you should find more a reasonable middle ground per the NPOV policy, seeking to reflect what reliable sources say.

The way you phrased it seems to dismiss the information as unreliable, regardless that multiple mainstream reliable sources have published it. I think you could have instead said that the new info about the lab leak could create edit warring, or some similarly unbiased notice. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Many on the left not matter what want to stick to the zoonosis theory
On wikipedia, the scholarly sources and scientists set what is "true". Per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SOURCETYPES. We don't default to any abstract form of "the middle". We default to the scientific consensus in scholarly journal review articles. — Shibbolethink 13:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

My comment included, "But I think you should find more a reasonable middle ground per the NPOV policy, seeking to reflect what reliable sources say." Emphasis on "reasonable middle ground per the NPOV policy" and "seeking to reflect what reliable sources say". The word neutral equates good with "middle ground". In fact, to avoid semantic rhetoric, just reword, "But I think you should find more a reasonable neutral ground per the NPOV policy, seeking to reflect what reliable sources say." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This is simply false and only someone who is a scientifically illiterate moron or an extreme bigot and racist would say something like that. Comparing the conservative support for the lab leak to liberal support for the wetmarket hypothesis is completely intellectually dishonest, and just displays your own stupidity and scientific illiteracy. Most of the people on the right are committed to the lab leak conspiracy theory because they're uneducated and don't even understand basic virology or epidemiology, and they just want to exploit this situation to blame the liberals and the Chinese and the big scary "globalists". On the other hand, the people on the left who are committed to the wet market hypothesis are doing so because they believe in science and the scientific method, and they actually trust the opinion of doctors and scientists, unlike the uneducated, scientifically illiterate, and racially motivated elements of the right who are trying to force an unsubstantiated narrative about a supposed bioweapon. 2601:198:4100:17E0:985D:85:939A:3426 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Masem the ip reflects my concern about lack of enough neutrality. Thinker78 (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As others have said, we go by MEDRS-compliant sources which have across the board have not accepts the lab leak theory as likely. Given how much this page has been pushed at by those that want to justify the lab leak theory as being correct, the warning was completely within WP's neutrality and sourcing requirements. Masem (t) 02:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you further explain why MEDRS-compliant sources are required? In a scenario where there was a lab leak I imagine non-medical social evidence like lab documents etc. would be relevant. If an article included such hypothetical evidence would it be barred from inclusion in this article? Bertie woo (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information/Archive_2#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins. there's not consensus that disease/pandemic origins are Biomedical Information requiring MEDRS. Though the nuance of the decision was primarily regarding historical facts, and not every element of the lab leak theory is historical. This is why we frequently cite non-MEDRS (but reliable) sources regarding various notable investigative reports (see COVID-19 lab leak theory#Intelligence agencies for one example), but we generally stick to MEDRS sources when it comes to specific biomedical claims about things like the furin cleavage site or claims of genetic evidence of deliberate manipulation. But broadly speaking, our MEDRS sources mostly agree with our most reliable non-MEDRS sources, that as-of-now the lab leak is still a minority view (i.e. 4 vs 2 US intelligence agencies consider zoonosis more likely). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the way in which the two theories are being promoted is equivalent. There's not left-wing equivalent to Steve Bannon pushing Li-Meng Yan's propaganda disguised as research that I'm aware of.

I don't think it's so much an issue of what the news media is publishing, but how WP:SPA and IP editors are apt to attempt to misrepresent the reports as "proof". Similar to how we saw a lot of IP/SPA comments conflating a congressional minority report with official US government position on the same topic. That's the attempt to "force" things that affects our editing, rather than whether or not media outlet reporting is affected by their bias. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering why the right and the left have favorite and different theories about the origin of covid. Today I got a good hint from an online comment I saw in another platform. The user said that journalists reacted against Trump's statements that covid probably originated from a lab leak.

The news media was largely highly critical of Trump and they were political rivals. Therefore, the news media started saying that the thought that the virus originated from a lab leak was an absurd conspiracy theory. Then the issue became also political not just scientific.

There is an article in The Guardian that reflects this very well "‘It’s just gotten crazy’: how the origins of Covid became a toxic US political debate". Thinker78 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The sources we have on certain lab leak theories (not only one single theory, mind you) being conspiracy theories come from academia (scientists, experts on virology, conspiracy theories, etc). Not the mass media. — Shibbolethink 00:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Emphasis on "certain". And academia is not immune to politics. Specially when scientists get afraid of losing funding or having their reputation ruined by agreeing with politically tainted theories.

I have to point out a very interesting letter published in The Lancet.

" there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible."

"Scientists 'need to evaluate all hypotheses on a rational basis, and to weigh their likelihood based on facts and evidence, devoid of speculation concerning possible political impacts'".

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

academia is not immune to politics. Specially when scientists get afraid of losing funding or having their reputation ruined by agreeing with politically tainted theories.
This seems to be your personal opinion, and thus applying here could be construed as original research. Your opinion on the unreliability of scientific sources appears to run directly counter to WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:SOURCETYPES, and WP:MEDSCI. — Shibbolethink 07:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to analyze better. I am simply refuting your comment that seemed to imply that academia is immune to politics or that my previous comment didn't relate to academia only because I did not mention it.

And to clarify, I don't espouse a personal belief regarding the origins of covid as my understanding is that it could be zoonosis or it could have come from a lab. But I do take issue with editing that wants to discard one theory or another for personal beliefs or ideology. And this talk page makes it abundantly clear that some people want to impose edits based on ideology. Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 origins have certainly been politicized, but the only people trying to politicize this debate are people like yourself. Not every single issue is a "both sides" situation, as you people constantly try to insist. The vast majority of scholars and public health officials have repeatedly stated that COVID's most likely origins are from a wetmarket, and that the lab leak hypothesis is just a baseless conspiracy theory. If you people were genuinely approaching this issue in an unbiased, scientific manner, then that would be enough to satisfy you and you would go where the evidence leads, instead of just remaining dogmatically committed to the idea that this came from some sort of secret bioweapons lab. Instead, you people have spent the last 3 years repeating the same talking points over and over about Wuhan and gain of function and bioweapons, and all the other unsubstantiated claims that have come from the depths of Gab, 4chan, Infowars, and other fringe online communities. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C852:1E16:CCC1:F3DA (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

instead of just remaining dogmatically committed to the idea that this came from some sort of secret bioweapons lab.

Why do you conflate bioweapons with lab leak?

Is it intentional so that you can label people who ask about the latter "conspiracy theorists"? 140.228.54.50 (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Lab leak doesn't imply bioweapons, just that a virus which was being studied was accidentally released. The DoE has FBI both consider lab leak most likely, so at the very least I think we should get ride of the "conspiracy theory" language. Covid killed nearly 7 million people so it's important that we throughly investigate as we would with any smaller crime, or accident like an airplane crash etc. Bertie woo (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not {{investigate}}. It just gives the reader what reliable sources say. And random American organizations do not count as reliable sources. Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Drafts of mentions in the lead and body

(underlined would be new, feel free to edit or provide alternative drafts)

LEAD (paragraph 4):

In October 2021, the U.S. Intelligence Community released a report assessing that the Chinese government had no foreknowledge of the outbreak and the virus was likely not engineered. The report did not conclusively favor any origin scenario. Of eight assembled teams, one (the FBI) leaned towards a lab leak (with moderate confidence), four others and the National Intelligence Council leaned towards zoonosis (with low confidence), and three were inconclusive. In February 2023, the DOE revised its assessment from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of a laboratory leak. The White House National Security Advisor responded that there was still "no definitive answer".

Body (COVID-19 lab leak theory § Government oversight):

That same month, an intelligence probe on the origins of COVID-19 requested by President Biden assessed that the Chinese government did not have foreknowledge of the outbreak. Overall, the probe did not render conclusive results on the origins. Of eight assembled teams, one (the Federal Bureau of Investigation) leaned towards a lab leak theory, four others (and the National Intelligence Council) were inclined to uphold a zoonotic origin, and three were unable to reach a conclusion. In February 2023, the US Department of Energy (undecided in the 2021 report) released a revised assessment stating it believed with "low confidence" that the pandemic was "most likely" caused by a laboratory leak. White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan responded to the report saying there was still "no definitive answer" to the pandemic origins' question.

Again, feel free to edit the above or suggest alternative drafts below.— Shibbolethink 19:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Lede is too long btw, per MOS:LEADLENGTH. Total characters in the article are 21,251. — hako9 (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely true, but there's been so much disagreement over every single change we haven't been able to find consensus on shortening it. Any suggestions are appreciated. We could not mention this at all in the lead, I would be fine with that since it's a secondary development that occurred later, rendering it less DUE. But we should probably mention it in the body.— Shibbolethink 20:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I had the same thought, clearly too much detail for the lead section. Maybe this makes it obvious enough to reduce the resistance to such a trim, coupled with these details getting their due in the body. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say in the lead that the opinion of the US intelligence community is "split" or "mixed". If we don't want to do that, we probably need to spell it all out as we do now. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the US intelligence community assessment is a significant enough facet of the topic to warrant a mention in the lead. At most it would be a sentence, and I don't think "split" or "mixed" would be sufficiently neutral. I think "uncertain" or similar would probably be a more neutral lead description. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The WSJ is a FRINGE source for this type of material, and the DOE is considered a FRINGE organization for promoting wild conspiracy theories. As Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an academic, we must depend on reliable sourcing and not on wild conspiracy claims from fringe organizations. If you want that type of information there are many blogs out there. But it is not appropriate for here. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the US intelligence community assessment is a significant enough facet of the topic to warrant a mention in the lead
Agreed. This is a scientific topic, and scholarly sources amongst foreign policy, biosecurity, and virology set the tone for how we discuss this. Not the United States intelligence community. Again, we are not the United States Encyclopedia. We are an english-language encyclopedia for all english language users. — Shibbolethink 23:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Intelligence agencies have more specialized expertise in investigating if something in general happened, specially if it happened in a country that is not famous for its transparency. Health and related organizations rely on governments to provide them with info and access to places or people who they want to investigate. Therefore what they can investigate in China is very limited to the desires of China.

Intelligence agencies on the other hand specialize in conducting surreptitious investigations. Besides, they also have their experts in the topic at hand, namely, virologists, biologists, geneticists, etc. and they do work and consult with other government agencies, including health agencies. It is something expected.

Regarding your comment about United States Encyclopedia, it seems contradictory because throughout the page you can find info regarding diverse US agencies, institutions and news and a section regarding US Government oversight. Thinker78 (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument you should make at WP:SOURCETYPES or WP:RSN. So far, that is not the source we use on Misplaced Pages for determining consensus. We do discuss the intelligence community's opinions in the body of the article, appropriately imo. Also worth saying: the intelligence communities (both within the US and across the world) are split on this issue. So no consensus exists there. — Shibbolethink 13:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

And we indeed discuss the intel assessments in the body. But the question is about the lead section only, where we feel that a minority of US intel agencies have a low to moderate confidence isn't notable enough for the top-level summary. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Name of this subsection is "Drafts of mentions in the lead and body". My comment pertains about inclusion of US government assessment in general in the body. I tried doing it but was reverted. Thinker78 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not strictly a scientific topic. It is also an investigation. Hence the intel community is relevant. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Other comments

The energy department’s updated findings run counter to reports by four other US intelligence agencies that concluded the epidemic started as the result of natural transmission from an infected animal. Two agencies remain undecided.

Now that the US government’s formal position on the most likely source of the SARS CoV2 virus is the lab in Wuhan, this page should be edited to remove pejorative connotations, and specific words such as “misconception“, “conspiracy”, “ racist undercurrents”etc. While xenophobic use of a fact or hypothesis might expose racist intent, the fact or hypothesis isn’t a result but a tool used inappropriately. This article implies that racism was a basis for the hypothesis. That was never the case and is an inappropriate characterization.

“allegations that they also performed undisclosed risky work on such viruses is central to some versions of the idea.” Should be changed to “NIH disclosure that it funded research that was not fully vetted or comprehensively tracked, is central to the idea.”

What was once called a fringe theory, attributed to so-called conservative agents, has become orthodoxy. This article should be edited to reflect more objective tone and content.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a WikiRijder (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Now that the US government’s formal position on the most likely source of the SARS CoV2 virus is the lab in Wuhan
That is not correct. One agency of eight changed from "uncertain" to "low certainty" in favor of a lab leak. The remaining seven have not changed their positions. — Shibbolethink 20:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I pointed out is not true. Only two agencies (DOE and FBI) claim that the lab leak theory may be valid, at least 4 others have other theories but not associated with the lab leak. Masem (t) 21:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The current sourcing supports saying the lab leak hypothesis has support among some scientists, with no insinuation that they are conspiracy nuts, racists, or playing politics with China. Zoonosis can be most likely without making other hypotheses invalid. Sennalen (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

They all say the theory may be valid, the difference is that DOE and FBI are claiming it to be the most likely of the valid theories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian has reported on it at this link:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/26/covid-virus-likely-laboratory-leak-us-energy-department

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• We should not rush to include this. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. The DOE are physicists, not doctors or biologists or virologists or pathologists. We should not put UNDUE weight on the DOE report given it contradicts the CDC, NIH, WHO etc. Andre🚐 16:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  The DOE are physicists, not doctors or biologists or virologists or pathologists.

  Many thanks for bringing up this common misunderstanding! It looks like someone ought to go ahead and clear this up, in the article itself. Maybe you could paraphrase the relevant passage from Gordon and Strobel's piece?

  "The Energy Department ... oversees a network of U.S. national laboratories, some of which conduct advanced biological research."

  -Dervorguilla (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but they by and large do not conduct much high level biosafety work. They do not, for example, manage any BSL4 labs: — Shibbolethink 23:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  That's a really weak argument. There are extremely powerful angles of inquiry on the topic that don't require a wet lab, let alone a BSL4 one. A lot of genomics is done via computer, for example. Yes the progeny of the Manhattan Project employs lightweight scientists and they are the real peanut gallery, while us randos on a Misplaced Pages talk page with possibly no credentials (on the internet, nobody knows you are a dog), have the authority to denigrate their stance as "fringe". Give me a break. 2600:1012:B010:8D7D:9004:ED57:936E:67D2 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Truly a laughable statement.

  "Even at low confidence, however, the Energy Department’s analysis carries weight. For its assessment, the department drew on the expertise of a team assembled from the U.S. national laboratory complex, which employs tens of thousands of scientists representing many technical specialties, from physics and data analysis to genomics and molecular biology."

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/27/little-known-scientific-team-behind-new-assessment-covid-19-origins/ 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is mainly big news because the WSJ gave it such prominent coverage. They have been pushing the lab leak theory for quite a while. The item seems to be a small part of a much larger update, but Haines including it is consistent with her assertion she would not let politics dictate what is in her reports. It does make one curious what the new intelligence was, but other reports suggest it is of limited importance, and the other agencies do not appear to have given it much weight. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's just a topic that gets people clicking, and with so little to be certain of every little morsel of something new gets a ton of press. I don't think it's something that should lead to a major rewrite apart from what comes from looking at the text again as we make the initial updates. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use a fringe (and potentially racist) organization like the DOE, ESPECIALLY when the claims are made in a FRINGE source like the WSJ. Use academics and you wont be steered in a wrong direction! There are many blogs where you can read about wild theories. Misplaced Pages is for sources that are reliable and claims hat are mainstream, not FRINGE. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you correlate racism with the DOE and say it is fringe. It is a US government agency under a Democrat president, not Trump. What's the context of your claims? Thinker78 (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The DOE is not an organization tasked with oversight of scientific rsearch, public health, or defense. They deal with environmental issues and policy related to energy. Furthermore, the Department of Energy has historically had strong ties with the GOP, the oil lobby, and the fossil fuel industry, and as a consequence, they have often been very biased in their interpretation of data and unscientific in their methods, especially with respect to climate change and renewable energy, but also regarding many other scientific issues and topics as well. It follows that we should probably be really suspicious about any scientific claims made by the DOE, especially on something like COVID that is completely outside of their area of expertise. When it comes to public health and national security, these are issues of immense significance and we absolutely need to trust the experts and rely on the best and most accurate advice and insights from scientists and government officials, not politically motivated and ideologically captured institutions like the GOP or the DOE. If it was the NIH or FDA or DOD or NSA making these sorts of claims, that would be one thing, but I would not rely on the judgement of the DOE when it comes to COVID or any other scientific or public health issues. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C4EE:2458:216E:40F5 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not ideological. It reflects what reliable sources state. I guess what is reliable and what is not can be object to some debate. If you think the information is not reliable (and not just because of your ideology) but because it doesn't conform with WP:NPOV or WP:RS, then you are welcome to start a thread to discuss it (this one is getting unwieldy). Or you can take it to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The DOE engages in racist pseudoscience. It is a FRINGE organization and must be treated accordingly. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:151E:3EF:7347:3568 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This page is now objectively false as the government is now agreeing that it was a leak from the Wuhan lab and not "zooinosis" 2600:1008:B0A8:B0D2:351E:2074:9B7D:A1DC (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, no that is not what happened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"No Consensus" among government agencies https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-no-definitive-conclusion-us-government-covid-origin-2023-02-27/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/02/27/white-house-biden-covid-originis-china-no-consensus/11358519002/ 2600:8804:6600:45:C0E0:1322:4B9C:2850 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

+ coverage in CNN: "While scientists still predominantly believe the virus occurred naturally in animals and spread to humans in an outbreak at a market in Wuhan, China, the US Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence is now the second tentacle of the US government intelligence apparatus, along with the FBI, that endorses the “lab leak theory” – the minority view that the virus occurred as a result of work in a Chinese lab." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

DoE statement (again)

This page is now objectively false as the government is now agreeing that it was a leak from the Wuhan lab and not "zooinosis" 2600:1008:B0A8:B0D2:351E:2074:9B7D:A1DC (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sigh, no that is not what happened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As userHorseEyesBack explained, the DOE is regarded as a "fringe" organization. This means they promote pseudoscience (racism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories). More importantly the WSJ is a FRINGE source. This means they publish conspiracy theories on subjects like genetics, and COIVD. They are fine if you want to report on a stock price - they are unacceptable for wild conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00B:CD0F:2DBA:494:32EB:E212 (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Government agencies and huge newspapers are not fringe. But they do sometimes have pro-fringe takes. Good thing we have good quality academic sources to lead us in the right direction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what sort of game you're playing but I didn't say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The DOE is not a "fringe" organization. Do you have any official sources drs diving it as such? This just seems like a very poorly veiled personal opinion. 207.38.151.43 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Why was this section removed?

Curious as to why this edit was reverted, especially now that the FBI director reported today that the "Covid 19 pandemic was likely caused by a Chinese lab leak" 2600:1012:B0CE:DC85:A576:965A:37A9:1E0E (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I have the same question. Thinker78 (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is still a developing story, and one that has been very politicized. The nature of these claims has been highly contentious, and pretty much all of the available evidence still points in favor of the wetmarket hypothesis and against the lab leak. One or two reports by government officials cannot just overturn 3 years of actual scientific research overnight. That's not how the scientific method works. Before making any serious revisions or major changes to the content of the article, we should probably wait until there is more reliable data and hard evidence to support these sorts of claims. Until then, the null hypothesis remains that COVID originated in a wet market, as the overwhelming majority of scientists and experts still agree. Of course, that will not satisfy the conspiracy theorists, but Misplaced Pages relies on neutral scholarly sources, scientific consensus, and experts, not original research or the personal opinions of US government officials. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C852:1E16:CCC1:F3DA (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Except that the information I included was simply about the conclusions so far of US government agencies, using reliable sources. You should read my complete reverted edit before jumping to erroneous and ideological narratives. Thinker78 (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you read their comment? That's not at all what they were referring to. Regards, 207.38.151.43 (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a question of whether moving (or duplicating) this content this much higher from its current area of the article is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Both in prominence and quantity of text. That said, I do think moving the text from its current location in a sub-heading of the Accidental release of a genetically modified virus section to a dedicated intelligence report section might make more sense. Perhaps clean up the Lab leak theories top-level category to just describe the competing ideas, and make a new top level category after it for the WHO reports, US intelligence community assessments, and the rest of the "government oversight" section. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The issues are:

1. duplicating the content multiple times on the page unnecessarily.
2. The wording you used is not as close to NPOV as the wording we currently have elsewhere in the article
3. We need to make sure this is either in a section on its own, or only making clear when we're talking about bioengineering and when we're talking about the accidental lab leak theory.

The intelligence report was about all the various theories, and dismissed the bioweapon and bionengineering ideas as completely without merit. We need to mention that, and thus it would not be proper to put it under the accidental bioengineered lab leak heading. We cannot make it seem as though the CIA, FBI, etc were endorsing the possibility of genetic modification, as that has been dismissed by the very same report. — Shibbolethink 16:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any way "Developments in 2022" can be deprecated and merged with "Coverage in 2022"? Perhaps a new section on "Government and Scientist Analysis" 2600:8804:6600:45:B510:9995:E387:8878 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

'...in February 2023 suggested that COVID was likely a lab leak...'

'Suggest' that this be changed to 'in February 2023 stated that COVID was likely a lab leak'. They weren't putting forward a proposition for consideration, but stating a position. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:50D3:D065:49D9:2965 (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

FBI also now say it was 'likely' a lab leak. Pakbelang (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As already mentioned. Bon courage (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The recent WP article was the first official confirmation from the FBI on their position. Therefore this item is due in the 2023 updates section. It is also worth adding the WP article to the citations. Pakbelang (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think an "official" confirmation is notable since we already have the FBI's position in the article. Seems like semantics to me. We can add the WaPo article to the citations for the existing text, though. I'll do it right now, that seems pretty uncontroversial — Shibbolethink 21:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Shibbolethink that the change is largely semantic and we don't need to radically alter what we have unless there is new coverage. Disagree with IP below that it was the FBI director speaking in his personal capacity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The FBI did not say it was likely a lab leak. That is a complete misrepresentation of facts. The FBI director, speaking on his own behalf, voiced his own personal opinions on the matter, but he did not provide any evidence to support those claims and those claims were not made on behalf of the agency. This was not some sort of official statement issued by the FBI, as the Lab Leak conspiracy theorists like yourself would like to think. 2601:198:4100:17E0:C852:1E16:CCC1:F3DA (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

In what way does the lab leak hypothesis qualify as a conspiracy theory? It doesn't require conspiratorial behaviour between shadowy actors. The most it requires is a simple denial.

When the FBI Director states that 'The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident' it moves beyond personal opinion, unless he is misrepresenting his own agency. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:50D3:D065:49D9:2965 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the statement was reported by reliable sources as an FBI position, not the opinion of the director voiced in his personal capacity. Pakbelang (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a reiteration of their previous official position, or am I missing something? Bakkster Man (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 DOE mention

Why no mention of the calculus of the Department of Energy's reassessment (no opinion to low confidence in lab leak)? Why just a vague reference to their updated stance? The DOE runs advanced biological labs and the FBI has expertise in biological forensics, and these two agencies' assessments, while not necessarily conclusive, matter, even if opposed to the prevailing "scientific consensus" (which is only based on data that is public, most of which was released by a notoriously coy Chinese government). The DOE siding with the FBI is a big deal, as they are agencies actually equipped to investigate the issue (i.e. doesn't the NSA only employ math geeks?) 174.193.207.28 (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I would actually agree only insofar as we should directly mention the "moderate confidence" of the FBI, the "low confidence" of the DoE, and the "low confidence" of the other four agencies who support zoonosis. I think the confidence levels are clearly DUE since most news sources mention them quite explicitly. — Shibbolethink 03:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

DoE statement (again again) and less emphasis on Trump

I can't believe the lead of this article is still going on about Trump and conspiracy theories, without mention that the Hunter Biden laptop...whoops!...wrong article sorry....without mention that two US agencies--the FBI and the Department of Energy--have stated they believe the virus likely leaked by accident from a Chinese laboratory (and the FBIs wasn't "low confidence"). When readers read this stuff, and don't see what every newspaper in the world has published in the last two days right up there in the lead, it makes the article seem...what's the word I'm looking for? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Its in the article, but in the body (twice). As discussed above, this and the overall intelligence community piece was deemed WP:UNDUE for the lead since its literally ONE agency changing its opinion from "undecided" to "low confidence" in favor of the leak. Among EIGHT agencies tasked with the question. None of the information provided in that report has apparently caused anyone else to change their minds. Since wikipedia is written based on what scientists and scholars think, this is not altogether too surprising.Per WP:LEAD, its already way too long. There's no need to clutter it further with non-expert opinions. — Shibbolethink 19:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Expecting to see what every newspaper in the world has published in the last two days right up there in the lead sounds quite contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. You wouldn't happen to be righting great wrongs, would you? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS isn't applicable in this instance. Read the policy. And with two US agencies suspecting the virus was caused by a leak, it kinda makes the "conspiracy theory" narrative--featured so prominently in the lead--look a bit goofy. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is absolutely applicable to your stated rationale of 'the last two days of news coverage' for being in the lead. If you have a different rationale, then seek consensus. I suspect you're going to have an uphill battle convincing others by ignoring the ongoing discussion above and invoking the Hunter Biden laptop... Bakkster Man (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia677 has a point, NOTNEWS doesn't mean what you think it does. 'the last two days of news coverage' doesn't fall under any of the four point at NOTNEWS, it actually falls under the explicitly allowed use at the beginning "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." This misconception is immensely common, I'd say 40% of the people invoking NOTNEWS are using it to mean "don't use contemporary news coverage" which is not at all what it means. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing against citing up-to-date news coverage. To the contrary, I support its inclusion here, in the body of the article. I was specifically referring to the idea that readers would expect to find this information in the lead section because of the current coverage, which would indeed be the kind of editing NOTNEWS is meant to prevent. I don't think this is consistent with point 2 of NOTNEWS, specifically the focus on enduring notability and breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

Maybe Magnolia677 did intend to make an argument on DUE weight grounds that this is an important enough element of the topic as to deserve a place in a lead near the recommended length limits, but without a suggestion of what information to replace to avoid bloat I still wouldn't be in favor. When paired with 'Hunter Biden laptop' rhetoric, it's hard to take it seriously on the whole. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Right. The issue is UNDUE prominence. This is a recent development, which may or may not fade into obscurity in a week or a month. We should definitely cover it as it has wide coverage. But putting it in the lead will inevitably result in the LEAD ballooning any time something happens in the news, even if we can't remember half of those things. We are not a running newspaper tally. We are an encyclopedia of significant events. — Shibbolethink 22:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If the issue is due weight thats a very different question and a very valid one. Tow thoughts on that: 1. the lead does need a rewrite 2. that being said if I were rewriting the lead I'm not sure I'd include the DOE assessment in it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could include "Donald Trump" and "conspiracy theory" in the same lead paragraph, and not mention the inconvenient truth that two US agencies now think it originated in Wuhan. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought the debate here was lab leak vs zoonosis not the geographic location. Apologies, I must have missed something. I agree that we probably don't need to namecheck Donald Trump in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I could agree with that. The notable summary is that the topic became politically polarized, not necessarily that Trump was among those polarizing figures. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed edit made: Bakkster Man (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Should we attribute the WSJ Feb 2023 report?

@Firefangledfeathers: The WSJ needs to be identified because the anonymous sources gave the information to that newspaper, and the other reports include that fact, probably because none verified it. Robert.Allen (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Other sources are independently confirming the DOE report, e.g. CBS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That's good to know. We could opt for passive voice and cite CBS as well. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit of a dilemma. Having now seen your edit summary on the timing issue, I think the status quo is fine. I might slightly prefer cutting some of the detail, but what's a few words in an article like this? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Congressional hearing on the DOE report on Wednesday so don't workshop any language too hard yet Sennalen (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Anything come from this yesterday? Bakkster Man (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It was a farce. Republicans fished for a soundbite about Dr. Fauci and Democrats cross-examined about whether the witnesses were racist. Almost self-parody. Sennalen (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit shocked, unfortunately. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Should we emphasize the DoE and FBI more in the lead?

I attempted to add information to the lead, which currently pushes the view that the virus initially spread in the Huanan Seafood Market and mentions numerous sources that back this idea, yet it says almost nothing about the lab-leak theory proponents. It mentions the WHO report which was formulated without any access to proper Chinese records and heavily presured into using the "extremely unlikely" wording by the Chinese government, with even many of those involved later stating that this wording was not accurate. "But China appointed half the scientists who wrote the report and exerted major control over it. American officials have been largely dismissive of that work." and additionally "However, the WHO investigation was deeply criticised and its director-general has since called for a new inquiry, saying: 'All hypotheses remain open and require further study.'" or even "But that report was subsequently criticized by the U.S., Canada, members of the scientific community and other governments due to the lack of access granted to the investigators." My point is not that the WHO investigation does not belong in the lead, but that it was extremely flawed and other viewpoints must be mentioned as well. Hence I added sourced content from the WSJ and the NYT article I previously just linked, which were removed as "fringe editorial" even though they are both normal news content. The Department of Energy National Laboratories employ hundreds of biological experts who engaged in Covid-19 research, in addition to the FBI's own biologists and those of the National Bioforensic Analysis Center, who have analyzed numerous different pathogens over the years. To pretend as if these are not reliable sources is pure POV pushing when any reports produced by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or other parts of the DoE are highly trusted, and preventing their conclusions from being in the lead of the article violates NPOV. Bill Williams 14:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:LEDEBOMB. Spooks aren't reliable for science, generally speaking. The WSJ even less so. Bon courage (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is the revert you're referring to, is that correct? I can't verify the sources right now, but do they say the DOE report is according to scientists, versus according to intelligence analysts?

My biggest concern with your edit is MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE, Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, applying to both the distinction between DoE intelligence/scientists and the complete lack of the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center in the body. I would also agree that there are some potential MOS:LEADREL and associated WP:UNDUE weight questions about whether these three US intelligence assessments are significant enough for the lead section or not, once they're in the body. All of these concerns should be addressed on an article as contentious as this one. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, one of the most major things about this is that this is not the "United States Encyclopedia." It is the English language Encyclopedia. Overemphasis of the US perspective is not tolerated around here. And the US is not the only intelligence community around. Giving it UNDUE prominence would violate NPOV and especially WP:RSUW. — Shibbolethink 14:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it's merely a US bias in this case. I'm concerned it might be an inaccurate summary of the DOE position, and an imbalance of elevating minority views to be the only ones mentioned by name (particularly in the case of the US intel community, where we name the two assessments in favor, but not the four against). If we go into this level of depth in the body, for instance, we should consider adding more depth to the other agency findings in the event that (for instance) readers consider the domestically focused FBI assessment to be less reliable than that of internationally focused agencies. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you re: emphasis on the minority positions. We could, for example, mention that the Defense Intelligence Agency and National Intelligence Council are on the "low confidence in favor of zoonosis" side of things. But I have actually struggled to find a good RS that names the other agencies (NIC, for example, is not one of the four assets but actually an additional "fifth" thing) — Shibbolethink 15:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this over-long article is already well into transgressing WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Articles are meant to be a summary of accepted knowledge. Pity the poor new reader who has to trudge through all this to find (executive summary) there's no there there. Bon courage (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Science-based medicine

There seems to be some confusion as to what representation on WP:RSP means, with material from Science-based medicine being restored in this edit with the justification that it is 'considered a reliable source'. I think not. It's entry at WP:SBM says 'non consensus' with discussion stale since 2012. It also says that it is a self-published source and that "articles written by subject-matter experts" can be reliable, which is the usual caveat for all self-published sources. But a self-published source is a far cry from a reliable source, and both of the articles being cited on this page are from David Gorski, who is not an expert on virology, or gene-editing, or Crispr, or gain-of-function research, but a surgical oncologist and more crucially, the managing editor of Science-based medicine, so it is not content from a guest expert in the slightest but the very epitome of a self-published source, with the man publishing himself, a.k.a. self-published opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Highly reputable source, esp. for nonsense like that promoted by the lableak stans (also cancer quacks, fad diets salesmen, antivaxxers etc. etc.). So a golden source for this fringe science topic, as summarised at WP:RSP. Bon courage (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, oops I was looking at Science blogs below. I need to look again, though still doesn't look great. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that would give a different impression, lol.

As the editor who reverted, I'll point out that one of the primary reasons for being considered reliable is for the purposes of WP:PARITY, and that's the reason I disagree with a wholesale removal. We should be using SBM specifically as a more reliable source for claims that more mainstream sources won't even validate by debunking. If there's a more narrow set of sources that you think don't fit into this category, I think that would be a discussion worth having. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm still surprised to see that this material is all attributed directly to David Gorski, who seems to be both author and managing editor, and that it is all written opinion-style, in the first person, with a chatty tone and embedded tweets. I mean, if a news source that you weren't familiar with looked like this material looks (), you would have a long, hard think about its provenance. I see it got the green tick at WP:RSP for having an editorial board (is that these three?), but these pieces have all the stylings of self-published blog posts, so I'm definitely on unfamiliar ground here. It's more like what you would expect on a Wordpress feed than any kind of scientific or medical outlet. It just seems to me that there's a real disconnect between how this content looks, and how a reliable source (almost any) should look. And in fact, there doesn't seem to be any particular doubt on the page Science-based medicine that it is fundamentally a blog. So, even if it's a temporary placeholder, this must still all surely be 'better source needed' stuff in an ideal world? This page, more than most, should surely be the domain of the peer-reviewed? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really, this is the whole point of WP:PARITY. You're generally not going to get weighty dry WP:MEDRS sources to debunk nonsense. This has been repeatedly raised over the years. For any given medical nonsense, there is rarely a better RS than SBM, especially since Quackwatch is now fairly moribund, Bon courage (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Just so I understand, from a WP viewpoint, the idea of a lab leak is "nonsense", the recent article in the WSJ is of little/no importance? 76.221.134.99 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

WSJ not scientifically credible; quite the opposite. Bon courage (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem, I was under the impression it was a reliable source for reporting on the DOE decision. I was mistaken. Just trying to understand what qualifies as a reliable source and under what conditions. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll add to what Bon courage said above, it's not generally the best source of all types of sources. When there is peer reviewed work on the topic (or otherwise more formalized/professional critique like MIT and Berkeley did around COVID) we prefer it over SBM. But for many narrow discussions of fringe science ideas, it's the more reliable source compared to researchers making wild claims or self published books promoting ideas that aren't taken seriously. Hence the parity, we don't hold debunkers to a higher sourcing standard than the claim itself.

As some examples from the revert, there's a notable element to the theory which claims "the virus was both deliberately engineered and deliberately released". This is a claim which no reputable journal would ever touch, and if they did it would fail peer review and thus not get published. So we need to cite the existence of this notable claim to something, and SBM is one of the most reliable sources for this kind of topic. On the other hand, we have high quality source that "no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic", so we could remove the SBM citation there. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand, the lab leak theory is so wildly implausible that we would require much stronger sourcing to lend any credence to it. At this time, only conspiracy theorists and quacks support the theory. The WSJ is fine for financial news, stock market stuff, etc. It is not a good source for wild claims or fringe theories. I am still learning the ropes and need to get an account next! 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:PARITY doesn't override WP:RS, its not written as an article its written as an opinion piece. Its clearly Gorski's personal opinion, that doesn't actually change anything for us here (he's a subject matter expert so his view is due) but thats an opinion piece. It doesn't matter how reliable the source is, we treat opinion pieces as SPS. Its probably more specifically an editorial because Gorski is an editor at SBM, but again that doesn't change anything... We treat editorials the same as other opinion pieces. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

As I don't understnad everything you wrote above, I am going to just take a step back and maybe observe more before editing a talk page or article. I dont totally understand all the technical information and need to study omore. 76.221.134.99 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a reply to Bakkster Man not you, its on the same level as yours not under it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Gorski's opinion as an expert on pseudoscience and conspiracy theories is relevant to understanding the expert consensus on this topic. — Shibbolethink 23:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

For COVID-19 misinformation, certainly. Sennalen (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

and the lab leak as a borderline topic. Regardless of what we think about Gorski, if he's an expert on misinformation, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience, then his opinion is also applicable to the delineation of those topics. As would be true of anyone in that position. — Shibbolethink 23:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally I don't think SBM articles are opinion pieces, a concept largely from news media; they are more analysis, synthesis and commentary on a topic like you'd find in review articles. So when an article says that there's no good evidence that electrically earthing yourself is beneficial to health, that's not opinion, it's knowledge. Likewise with lableak being mixed up with racism. Bon courage (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I scrolled to what appeared to be the latest Covid article on their front page. This doesn't look like analysis so much as ranting and raving. Fluvoxamine has been shown in multiple trials to reduce risk of hospitalization and death. This guy takes one study that finds it doesn't shorten mild outpatient courses to conclude that there is no mechanism at all and everyone taking it are crazy kooks. This is pseudoskepticism. Misplaced Pages doesn't need it. People argue about WSJ, but this blog is a tier further below. Sennalen (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like an argument that should be made at WP:RSN, not here. — Shibbolethink 13:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and as the SBM cites the latest research in JAMA ("the totality of evidence for fluvoxamine does not support its current use for treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19") this is more a case of up-to-date science rather than 'ranting and raving'! Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"Mild to moderate" is extremely load-bearing in that statement. Leaving out the use in severe covid is disingenuous. The ranting and raving is the pointless scatalogical asides that form the bulk of the post. Sennalen (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Opinion, analysis, and commentary all fall under opinion for WP:RS purposes: "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) 16:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If peer-reviewed or editorially-reviewed, as these SBM posts are, then it would no longer be primary. — Shibbolethink 16:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We would still treat it as a primary source, there is no "peer-reviewed or editorially-reviewed" exception to how we treat opinion, analysis, and commentary. Also to be clear almost all opinion, analysis, and commentary is editorially reviewed. Thats the industry standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I would overall disagree with "there is no "peer-reviewed or editorially-reviewed" exception to how we treat opinion, analysis, and commentary" and more specifically that every single word of this specific source is one of those things. If that were true, we would never employ longform journalism from Foreign Policy, The Economist etc. But we do. I am happy to bring it to WP:RSN or here as an RFC, as needed. I think we have a marginal consensus here in favor of its inclusion. — Shibbolethink 17:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(EC) If the exception exists then present a link to it or quote it. I agree that we have marginal consensus here in favor of its inclusion, but as the attributed opinion of a subject matter expert not as a source for statements of fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

here are the statements in the article where this Gorski piece is cited:

• "There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic"
• "The SARS virus escaped at least once, and probably twice, from a high-level biocontainment laboratory in China."
• "Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as AIDS, H1N1, SARS, and the Ebola virus have been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created in or escaped from a laboratory."
• "Some claims of bioengineering focus on the presence of two sequential cytosine-guanine-guanine (CGG) codons in the virus' RNA, more precisely in the crucial furin cleavage site."
• "Further claims were promulgated by several anti-vaccine activists, such as Judy Mikovits and James Lyons-Weiler, who claimed that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory, with Mikovits going further and stating that the virus was both deliberately engineered and deliberately released"

These are statements of fact, backed up by multiple scholarly journal articles and other high quality sources such as Snopes, The Guardian, Science, etc. The fact that Gorski also agrees with these things doesn't need to be attributed. He is never the sole source for these statements.(Edited to add two further places where gorski was used in the article.)— Shibbolethink 17:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(EC) I agree, if we don't use Gorski because high quality sources exist it doesn't need to be attributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I said. — Shibbolethink 17:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(EC) If something is published by multiple scholarly journal articles and other high quality sources why do we need to use the SPS? Also please stop editing your comments after they've been responded to, that is not allowed as it misleads the reader. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also please stop editing your comments after they've been responded to, that is not allowed as it misleads the reader

That's actually not what WP:TPG says. It says:

So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely. But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes.

I'll happily add ins marks to indicate when I added something a few seconds after you replied. But I will not stop editing my comments after posting. Thanks. — Shibbolethink 17:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"and this should be avoided." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes..." Take me to AN/I if you like. I think this conversation is pretty much done. You can feel free to escalate it but there is no consensus here in favor of your preferred removals. — Shibbolethink 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What preferred removals? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You have stated several times you'd like to remove or attribute the Gorski source usage. That is your preferred interpretation of the policy and sources examined here. If you want to do either of these, you'll need consensus in favor of that change. — Shibbolethink 17:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh so you meany my preferred attributions you just said something else to get a rise out of me. Just on a technical note it would actually be you who is required to obtain an explicit consensus for the inclusion of any disputed material, all the other side has to do is challenge it. The WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS are always on those arguing for using a source or a phrase not those arguing against it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

for the inclusion of any disputed material
The sources in question have been here for months (if not more than a year in some cases). it is the WP:STATUSQUO. — Shibbolethink 18:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

During the discussion it is the status quo, it doesn't get to stay after the discussion unless that discussion closes in a consensus to keep though. Status quo is also an optional editing process, as it clearly says "Nobody can be compelled to follow the advice in this essay." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

it doesn't get to stay after the discussion unless that discussion closes in a consensus to keep though
The default of this discussion is not deletionism. The default of every discussion is "no change". — Shibbolethink 19:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Re-read what you just wrote and then remember that the WP:BLP exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:YESPOV and WP:ASSERT. Attributing accepted knowledge as though it were just a point of view brings POV problems. This is kind of basic. Bon courage (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

How do you know its accepted knowledge unless you have a reliable source? And if you have a reliable source why would you need to be using an editorial? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We do have reliable sources for FRINGE topics. Like WP:SBM. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

We treat editorials as SPS no matter how reliable the publication is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Rubbish Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

In all topic areas too, not just the controversial ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:CCC. My assessment is that Science Based Medicine is an unreliable, polemical, pseudoskeptic self-published group blog. Any supposed expertise about fringe topics is irrelevant since this page is not about a fringe topic. Accidental lab release is a minority hypothesis in legitimate mainstream science, published in respectable peer-reviewed journals. Sennalen (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Accidental lab release is a minority hypothesis in legitimate mainstream science, published in respectable peer-reviewed journals

This is a red herring. This article discusses all versions of the lab leak theory, including minority viewpoints, FRINGE viewpoints, conspiracy theories, propaganda, etc. The SBM sources also do this. The entire point of WP:SBM as a PARITY source etc is that it helps delineate which is which.— Shibbolethink 14:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Still waiting for that link or quote to the exemption from WP:RS you claimed existed BTW. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

RS is just a guideline (like FRINGE). NPOV is policy, Bon courage (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Quite. And WP:PARITY help determine what those reliable sources are for FRINGE topics. Bon courage (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where it says that editorials are not SPS for the purposes of parity on FRINGE topics. Nobody is arguing that Gorski's editorial can't be used (you can use self published pieces from subject matter experts), we're arguing about whether you need to attribute it because its an editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would we need to attribute when we have multiple RSes which say the same thing? I'm also not sold that its an SPS, you just simply started stating that as fact. — Shibbolethink 18:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If there are multiple RSes which say the same thing then we generally only source the statement to the strongest among them. There is no point in tacking low quality sources onto the end of high quality sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:SBM explicitly states that the consensus is that (at least on the topic of fringe coverage) that SBM is not considered a SPS. I agree that RSN would be the venue for challenging that.

SBM is appropriate for many, but not all, uses. Let's hash through any there's debate on. On a quick look, I think all the uses in the 'genetic engineering' section are probably reasonable as they're the better choice for citing bad science than the bad science itself. I think the attributed xenophobia citation would remain as well, at least on source quality grounds (if there's a debate it's going to be on DUE or other grounds, I suspect). The novel virus epidemic citation might be able to be replaced if there's a better citation, but in its absence it seems reasonable to keep. The rest I think there's reason to believe could be replaced with either the source Gorski cited in his article, or just removing as one of the citations in the group. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thats a statement about their regular coverage not being self published, it obviously does not apply to editorials and opinion pieces. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

SBM is not a SPS. There was even a RfC on this back in the day. Bon courage (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Editorials and other opinion content are treated as SPS no matter who publishes them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should go to WP:RSN and see whether anyone else agrees that SBM is an SPS. Because the current consensus is that it is not one. — Shibbolethink 19:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that SBM is a SPS. We treat editorials as SPS: "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) 00:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

You forgot to link to show your quote is about WP:NEWSORGs, for which it is true. In other fields, it isn't. Bon courage (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is that Science-based medicine is a news organization which covers pseudoscience, conspiracies, etc no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that several actual RS consider and dismiss weapons claims, so we don't have to depend on a blog to do that. Sennalen (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Something I've noticed about the Gorski piece as well: it appears to be written in wikipedia's voice (ie as statement of fact), rather than being quoted as "According to David Gorski....". Same thing with the racism claim. That's an opinion, and a fairly controversial one. Again it should be presented as "David Gorski, writing in Science Based Medicine, claimed that the lab leak theory was fueled by racism...". This is pretty standard WP policy. Opinions are fine, if they are from a RS, but they need to be framed as just that - opinions. 2600:1012:B0CE:DC85:A576:965A:37A9:1E0E (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

We have many multiple expert sources saying this. Literally 6+ sources. It isn't just Gorski, and to state it that way would violate NPOV. see this discussion in the talk page archives — Shibbolethink 16:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There are not "6+" sources saying anything. There are a handful of opinion pieces, and they still need to be attributed. Again, the Gorski piece is being presented in Wikivoice, and this is not appropriate and a violation of policy. There is simply no good reason not to attribute Gorski's opinion to Gorski. 2600:1012:B0B2:6DF8:D1B:7C3E:D7E3:7FDF (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is. Actual (rather than imagined) policy: WP:YESPOV. Bon courage (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The policy you cited specifically says "avoid stating opinions as facts" and "avoid stating seriously contested opinions as facts". All of the sources you refer to are editorials or opinion pieces. This does not warrant stating the information in wikivoice. 2600:1012:B0B2:6DF8:D1B:7C3E:D7E3:7FDF (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, per this thread, even if it got a little off-track, I've removed the redundant referencing to SBM, but left it in where it is backing up other non-scholarly sources. There is still one line that concerns me, which is "No epidemic has ever been caused by the leak of a novel virus." - this is a very definite statement. I'm not particularly inclined to call WP:ECREE on this, because it may quite well be true (epidemics don't exactly abound), but it does seems like the sort of statement that should definitely be supported by a more authoritative source. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the journal that supports it. It was the Holmes et al. review article. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, per this thread, even if it got a little off-track, I've removed the redundant referencing to SBM, but left it in where it is backing up other non-scholarly sources
What makes you think the consensus here is in your favor? — Shibbolethink 06:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That no epidemics have come from lab releases of novel viruses is a commonplace claim. SBM articles are not "opinion pieces" (except when they offer opinions, which they sometimes explicitly do). More usually, they make factual assertions in the realm of science and so must be treated as such according to policy (see WP:YESPOV). Iskandar323's removal was particularly careless and damaging because it caused WP:V issues and took the article into containing original research (e.g. the "Most scientists remain ..." claim needs the SBM source to verify it). Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"Most scientists remain ..." is already supported by a peer-reviewed review article. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

SBM is obviously not a better source than peer-reviewed material, so removing it where it duplicates peer-reviewed material is uncontroversial. How is this not the case? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a rule that says each statement must have only one source cited? I am not aware of any instances where SBM is a component of WP:OVERCITE in this article. — Shibbolethink 06:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say the references were overcite; I merely said they were redundant. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Except they weren't, as I already said. Bon courage (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If the phrase "Most scientists remain..." is solely sourced to Gorski, then I think you need to find some better sources. Jeez. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this what the many-references-in-one "consensus" ref is for? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? As whether something's fringey science or not, is precisely where WP:SBM is at its most golden as a source, per established community consensus, I am glad you now seem to realize you broke WP:V. Bon courage (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No I don't realize that - that's your claim. That particular statement is also supported by two peer-reviewed references, which you seem to be claiming do not support the statement. If this is the case, you should be removing those references as clearly misplaced, or better yet, use the "consensus" ref that I've already pointed out seems intentionally aggregated for supporting statement such as this. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

'If this is the case ...' ← you did actually read the material before making such a bold edit, right? WP:V is a core policy. Bon courage (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to hypotheticals. So is your claim correct or not, as far as you are concerned? You can't have it both ways: either you are claiming that the statement is unsupported without Gorski, in which case those other refs should go, or, your entire premise is a load of twaddle. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:V is not satisfied without Gorski, as I said. If you read the material you would know that. I'd be fine with the other refs going. Bon courage (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

SBM provides a unique perspective, and carries an especially heavy weight with regards to WP:FRINGE ideas. — Shibbolethink 07:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is great in the spur of the moment, but two if not three years on, it should really be being displace by actual peer-reviewed conclusions and review article material where possible. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

In the extremely unlikely event that, some years hence, 'review articles' consider the question of what 'most scientists' believed in this period, by all means come back with them then. Bon courage (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then what are the other sources doing supporting that statement? Do the editors on this page just dust random statements with random scholarly sources for decorative effect? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, what's the proof of "most scientists" claim? Why is a speculation in the first paragraph? 2601:602:8200:4A10:B47C:AFAC:A6E5:95CE (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is it "already supported"? SBM is superior to most peer-reviewed material, especially for FRINGE topics. The exception would be MEDRS sources. (It also seems very odd to be zeroing in on SBM while leaving an interview in The Conversation in place). What is going on? Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"SBM is superior to most peer-reviewed material..." - hmm, seems like a bold, if not entirely implausible claim. Unless the very edifices upon which Misplaced Pages stands, self-published material with no peer review is never going to be superior to peer review. There hasn't been a conversation about the conversation yet, so given how defensive editors on this page seem to be about the need to cite opinion pieces dozens of times, like I would dare to touch other sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You've said: Unless the very edifices upon which Misplaced Pages stands, self-published material with no peer review is never going to be superior to peer review
WP:SBM says: Editors do not consider Science-Based Medicine a self-published source, but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. — Shibbolethink 07:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, but the 'peer-reviewed' corpus contains predatory journals, junk journals, and all primary research, all of which is generally unreliable for Misplaced Pages. Bon courage (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

True, but I do not believe I removed SBM leaving only predatory junk. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on the self-published part; community consensus does not mean I am not going to call a duck a duck, and great, I'm glad we can agree that it is not peer-reviewed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Making careless bold edits which are also against consensus, and on a topic subject to discretionary sanctions, is ... courageous. Bon courage (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I took my queues from @Bakkster Man and his following thoughtful comments: "The novel virus epidemic citation might be able to be replaced if there's a better citation, but in its absence it seems reasonable to keep. The rest I think there's reason to believe could be replaced with either the source Gorski cited in his article, or just removing as one of the citations in the group." and "When there is peer reviewed work on the topic (or otherwise more formalized/professional critique like MIT and Berkeley did around COVID) we prefer it over SBM." Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see Bakkster Man making sweeping edits that break WP:V. You are responsible for the edits you make. Bon courage (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No, they just made the most substantive comments, as opposed to "SBM is awesome" hand waves, so I guess in determining consensus, I was drawn to these points. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your snide misrepresentation is noticed; The WP:V issue is 'substantive'. In general, there seems to be a growing problem on Misplaced Pages of editors assuming a pseudo-admin role acting as unthinking agents of what they (often wrongly) perceive to be 'consensus' rather than, as they should, working on articles with their own care and attention. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your snide misrepresentation is likewise noticed. Seriously, fuck me. If only the editors on this page devoted half as much time to editing as one-upmanship... Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's all take a WP:WALK, then come back and work through this. Pragmatically, it seems this dispute is not about whether we retain the two Gorski references. We're arguing about whether we cite them in the body of the article a total of ~5 times between them or 10. I don't think this is worth the level of vitriol.

First, I would say I'm definitely on the side that while WP:SBM is generally reliable, it's not necessarily one of our WP:BESTSOURCES. Where it is the best source, it's the exception rather than the rule. While I take Bon courage's point that many peer reviewed articles can be junk, I think the suggestion that SBM is superior to most peer-reviewed material (emphasis added) is probably overstating things (at least, outside of areas with established consensus that it's a clearly fringe topic with little to no reliable scientific study; pyramid power, healing crystals, etc).

So I am in favor of reducing our reliance on SBM, where we have alternate sources. Not because it violates PAGs to have a second citation or because it's an unreliable source, but because I believe it better matches the spirit of the RS/P consensus and reduces the level of conflict with those with a more narrow interpretation of the WP:SBM. On the latter point, I'd rather we not press the issue to the point of another RfC at WP:RSN over a topic that I don't think needs this much dispute. Again, we're not talking about no longer citing Gorski, just about using peer reviewed sources where they are suitable. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

My point is simply that peer-reviewed does not mean reliable. Most peer-reviewed sources (i.e. primary research) are unreliable in Misplaced Pages terms. If there are MEDRS, then great; but there often aren't for FRINGE topics in which case SBM is (yes) among the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

But half of the things that SBM is currently being cited for on this page aren't fringe; they are just routine mundane facts about topics perfectly well covered in peer-reviewed material. Such as for a statement like: "No epidemic has ever been caused by the leak of a novel virus." There is zero need for SBM's input here. This isn't a statement about a fringe topic; it's a statement about routine, mundane fact, where a 'subject-matter expert in fringe', if I am correct in understanding that that is what SBM is meant to be, is wholly unnecessary. In fact, the actual statements that are a run-through of fringe narrative are fairly obvious, because they are only covered by Gorski and Snopes. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm in broad agreement with this. SBM is great for filling the gaps that reliable journals don't feel it's worth their time addressing, but when there is no gap I don't think we need to cite SBM in addition to that reliable journal article. This would be the counter argument I'd like to see; how is the article made better by citing both SBM and another high quality source (which might be the same source SBM based their article on) for the same claim? My impression is that most of the concern is related to worries that this would be a 'give and inch, take a mile' step towards no longer citing SBM at all (either in the article, or a broad change at RS/P).

@Bon courage: Yes, source reliability depends on context. We should be applying similar levels of contextual analysis to any given peer-reviewed research for reliability for the claim, as we should apply to SBM for reliability on where we cite it. We certainly shouldn't stretch this so far as to say that SBM is the de facto best source without the context that there is indeed reason to say it is more reliable than a given journal article. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course, that would be a straw man. But to repeat, if there's MEDRS of course that's great, and we use it. On the other hand the vast majority of peer-reviewed 'journal articles' are irrelevant to the job of writing an encyclopedia, whereas SBM is generally reliable for statements of fact in the FRINGE space. Is there any concrete issue left here? Bon courage (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So you are willing to accept the community consensus to remove the SBM editorial where we have appropriate higher tier sourcing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside that not-even-wrong question, The Project does not care what sourcing is used so long as WP:V is well satisfied. Appropriate reliable sources verifying content is what it's all about. Bon courage (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The community actually does care, that is why on your journey around wikipedia you will notice that things aren't sourced to every single source which supports the statement they're generally only sourced to the one or two strongest sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, so "well satisfied". Most of this article could be sourced just to WP:SBM and that would be cool enough. Bon courage (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The non-MEDRS stuff could be sourced to a SBM article, just not an editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Such as for a statement like: "No epidemic has ever been caused by the leak of a novel virus." There is zero need for SBM's input here. This isn't a statement about a fringe topic
Disagree. This is a piece of evidence used to argue against a minority view, if not FRINGE-adjacent theory. Absolutely the realm of what SBM discusses or points out all the time. — Shibbolethink 20:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Right. And remember WP:SBM is WP:GREL. Baffling how a few editors are getting in a twist about these basics. Bon courage (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If you were trying to use an editorial in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal (also WP:GREL) you would be getting the exact same response. Nothing baffling about it, nobody outside the skeptic community places SBM on a pedestal above all other sources. I understand that from inside the community it must look baffling and feel like you're being persecuted, but you aren't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

News editorials are in another world, see WP:NEWSORG. SBM articles are not "editorials". See WP:SBM. It's a good source for asserting facts in WP:WIKIVOICE in the FRINGE area. Bon courage (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

SBM publishes both news content and editorials, the consensus is that their news content is not SPS. There is no consensus that their editorials are not to be treated as SPS, that would be an extremely unique consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really; that's just your faulty imagination. It publishes reviews of topics, which is why it is WP:GREL. Occasionally it does publish opinion, in which case that's obvious though use of wording ("in my opinion ..."). Bon courage (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Its not an academic journal, its a news source. It publishes articles not academic reviews. IMO this topic is beaten to death and I will desist, I really hope you don't feel too persecuted. I had that experience interacting with editors pushing editorials in the Catholic space and I just want to make this as nice as possible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Not persecuted, maybe a little weary having to revisit the same kind of argument for the nth time over so many yers. You demolish your straw men with aplomb, but you probably just need to read WP:SBM to find what the established community consensus is. Bon courage (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Checking the two sources, I don't think SBM actually references novel virus leaks in the article we're citing, only leaks leading to global pandemics: The latter hypothesis didn’t start out as a conspiracy theory, as lab leaks have happened before—although none had ever caused a pandemic that caused millions of deaths worldwide, over a million in the US alone... None of this is to say that the lab leak hypothesis is impossible, or even homeopathy-level improbable. As I mentioned once, lab leaks of pathogens have occurred before, although none have led to a global pandemic.

Our sentence in the article seems to be solely citing the Critical Review from Cell: No epidemic has been caused by the escape of a novel virus, and there is no data to suggest that the WIV—or any other laboratory—was working on SARS-CoV-2, or any virus close enough to be the progenitor, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. With this context, I even more strongly think we shouldn't cite SBM for this sentence, just Cell. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, SBM seems redundant here and can go. Bon courage (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say this particular usage is indeed redundant based on those quotes. — Shibbolethink 20:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

SBM / opening sentence

Err, editors are removing this ref from the opening sentence. The trouble is what remains does not WP:Verify the text that remains. The SBM source is needed to explain basically what lableak is and its variant names. Do editors even read what they edit? This is kind of basic. Bon courage (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's quite frustrating that we've discussed this exact SBM question to death on this talk page, and there clearly isn't consensus in those sections to remove this source. And yet users continue to do so, against consensus. Why? What is gained? I'm perplexed and frustrated, why do we have talk page discussions if users aren't going to follow BRD or STATUSQUO? — Shibbolethink 03:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's getting seriously disruptive. The editors at fault are aware that WP:CTOP applies here. Bon courage (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed it, and that was my first and only edit to this article. I had not seen and am not part of whatever long-running dispute you have apparently been having about SBM. Endwise (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the sources before making the edit? Because WP:V is core policy ... ? Bon courage (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I read over the SBM article, and skimmed a couple of the other ones. I think a source which uses the term "laboratory escape" rather than "laboratory leak" is an acceptable source for the opening sentence of the article, and as I said, it's not a sentence which really needs a citation in the first place. Endwise (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

So you left an irrelevant one in why? Bon courage (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Because SBM is not the stellar source you are putting it on a pedestal as - so as long as you keep it on that pedestal, impartial editors are going to come along, look at the setup and say: "huh, weird to have that alongside peer-review." Iskandar323 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't need a 'stellar source' to give an overview of what LL is and what it's called. Bon courage (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You don't need a source at all for an uncontroversial first sentence in an article. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

SO you're okay with having one, but which is irrelevant? Why are you defending that? Bon courage (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Holmes Critical Review? How is it irrelevant. It outlines enough information to support the incredibly rudimentary first sentence - what about the first sentence is not supported? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That there is phenomenon called the lab leak (conspiracy) theory, or lab leak hypothesis which hold that SCV2 leaked from a lab. The Holmes review does not give this basic background. Bon courage (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't use the word 'conspiracy' anywhere, but it explains the idea. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Holmes et al doesn't use the word 'leak' anywhere. It doesn't explain the idea, it takes it as read that it's understood (reasonable, given the intended audience). Increasingly this looks like an attempt to remove a for-some-reason-despised source under any pretext, starting with misidentifying it as scienceblogs. The SBM source is just doing good basic work here, being a decent reliable source supported appropriate text. That's what we do. Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Holmes prefers the language of 'escape', for whatever reason ... perhaps because 'escape' is not colored by the connotations of intentionality. That's rarer diction for sure. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're admitting it's not a stellar source, then what are you saying here - you want to stop improving the sourcing when you have one that's just good-enough? Editors are going to keep coming here and raising their eyebrows at anything that is not peer-reviewed for perpetuity until you get with the programme. The community likes peer-review. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I 'admitted' no such thing. The only editors having problems are either WP:PROFRINGE or WP:CIR afflicted. 'The community' has established views on peer review (mostly irrelevant) and WP:SBM (great for fringe!). That is 'the programme'. Bon courage (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The only editors having problems are either WP:PROFRINGE or WP:CIR afflicted -- which of those am I? Endwise (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah ... you may want to rethink that indiscriminate aspersion-casting. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You invoked the editors that "are going to keep coming here" ... Bon courage (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, normal editors, who use blogs as the rare exception not rule. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, and if they're unaware of WP:SBM, WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY then we're into WP:CIR territory. Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If they're unaware of WP:SBM they may simply never have encountered a page deferring to this particular blog, and might naturally find that a little surprising. Editors are not expected to memorize WP:RSP by rote, and no one in their right mind would take a look at SBM and automatically assume it would likely be featured at WP:RSP, because it looks like (and reads like) a fairly opinionated and editorially moribund blog (which it is). And when that same blog is seen doubling up with peer-reviewed literature, the eyebrows naturally rise higher. This natural reaction from editors is fairly predictable. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Editors can either have a good nose for sourcing (maybe they're well-educated e.g.) or be familiar with Misplaced Pages's particular sourcing consensus. In the absence of either of those thinking "SBM=bad" (and they'd have needed to do some looking to decide it was 'a blog') and deleting without reading would be bad or appreciating WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If it's 'doubled up' with better sources it can be removed, but that discussion has been had at length. Bon courage (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but as has been raised multiple times, you are somewhat inflating the actual degree of 'fringe' that we have presented here. That questions have been raised about the possibility of a lab leak is not fringe, that it has been investigated is not fringe, most of this article is not fringe. The fringe only comes in with the pushing of the theory beyond the bounds of the evidence to date, as well as more farcical material such as the intentional leaks and bioweapons crap and US-Chinese/general political shit-slinging. You have been using the fact that some marginal aspects of the overall big picture here are fringe to draw this protective aegis over SBM for use in reference to any basic fact or statement on this page, regardless of whether or not that particular fact or statement is, in of itself, fringe - and this is an overextension of WP:SBM. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's all fringe. I suggest you ask at WP:FT/N if you think otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What's all fringe? It's exactly this vague hand-waving that's the issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The subject of this article: the "theory" that a lab leak actually happened. Bon courage (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

What's the latest discussion establishing this at WP:FT/N? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, the relevant standard is not whether or not there is a consensus to remove. It's whether or not there is a consensus to include. Adoring nanny (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That's actually only true for new insertions… It's dependent on what the status quo is. — Shibbolethink 18:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the first sentence actually needs a citation; that part is uncontroversial and sourced throughout the rest of the article. Do you at least agree that we should not use SBM for statements regarding what is and isn't the scientific consensus? The SBM article is a good source for the opinions of David Gorski, a surgeon without expertise in virology, and is not a good source for what the scientific consensus is. Endwise (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:SBM is a WP:GREL, especially for fringe science. Therefore it is good for assertions of fact in Misplaced Pages's own voice. It is fine for what it is being used for. Statements invoking 'consensus' require WP:RS/AC sourcing which is a different thing. If you think the opening sentence does not need a reference, why did you leave one in that failed WP:V? In controversial articles it's good to reference ledes to prevent (in theory) disruption. Bon courage (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Editorials published in GREL sources are still editorials. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: out of curiosity on this topic, as you've brought it up a few times, could you give some examples of WP:SBM articles you would consider WP:GREL per RS/P because they're not editorial? Because there's no explicit editorial/opinion marking on SBM (at least, that I'm aware of on the two Gorski articles at question), I'm wondering if this is due to an unfamiliarity with the standard SBM style leading to a misinterpretation of the RS/P consensus. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If it doesn't say commentary or Gorski on it then its likely not an editorial or commentary, this piece for example. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This is hopelessly mixing a news mindset with non-news sources. If SBM says something about fringe science (e.g. 'coffee enemas feature in many ineffective alternative cancer treatments') that's just knowledge and assertable as fact. Medical knowledge is not news OpEd. Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It is explicitly not a medical or scientific journal. Its a news blog. Its also not an Op-ed its an Editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You're so off beam you're not even wrong. I suggest if you're struggling with these concepts raise a query at WP:RS/N with some specific examples. SBM is used all over Misplaced Pages to assert knowledge about health fraud so you've got plenty to look at. Bon courage (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This would at least make for a specific question to be posed at WP:RSN, if we went down that path: are articles with Gorski as an author the exception to SBM being considered generally reliable or not? Bakkster Man (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Commentary and editorial pieces are always an exception to being considered generally reliable, the question is whether or not these are commentary and editorial pieces (which doesn't actually seem up for dispute, the commentary is marked and the editorials are all in the first person). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As I say, if you're in doubt formulate a specific query (with examples) and ask at WP:RSN. What you've said previously about how to cite medical sources strikes me, frankly, as total bollocks. These general struggles are off-topic here.Bon courage (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a medical source, its a news blog. Per consensus "but it is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm with Bon courage that clearly there is disagreement whether SBM articles written by Gorski necessarily fall into those categories, which is what posing the question at RSN would be for. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the way it works is that those who want to use the source are responsible for getting that consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, it seems there currently is local consensus that the sources are usable here. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That would only appear to be true if one disqualified from that consensus editors who are "either WP:PROFRINGE or WP:CIR afflicted" as Bon courage does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

We have consensus: WP:SBM. Unless you can overturn that this is a reliable source for asserting things in wikivoice. This is now getting disruptive for this article Talk page. Put up or shut up (at RSN). Bon courage (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I already linked to that consensus, it explicitly says that SBM does not count towards MEDRS. I second Endwise's observation that "I have never had an interaction on Misplaced Pages this bizarre." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not struggling with the difference between a journal and a news blog or an op-ed and an editorial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

it is fine for what it is being used for. Statements invoking 'consensus' require WP:RS/AC sourcing which is a different thing. But that is exactly what SBM is being used as a source for. What?? Endwise (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not. Consensus is not mentioned (would be weird). Did you read WP:RS/AC? Bon courage (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. This is the third time in less than five minutes you've accused me of not reading things. Can you stop please?

WP:RS/AC says A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view... Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus.

SBM is used as a source in the lead for the statement Most scientists remain skeptical of a laboratory origin, citing a lack of supporting evidence. Endwise (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why? I have never had an interaction on Misplaced Pages this bizarre. Endwise (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's cited to a bunch of stuff, the SBM ref pertains to the lack of evidence. (Add: but hang on - that cited SBM article says 'scientists have overwhelmingly concluded that evidence points to a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2', so also satifies WP:RS/AC. So what is the issue?) Bon courage (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's fundamentally unneeded in the first sentence, since it's a very basic statement indeed and far from one of that is controversial and leads obviously are not required to be cited at all, except where the information is controversial Iskandar323 (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing both, but if you're going to cite stuff make sure it satisfies WP:V. Bon courage (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No, neither are fundamentally needed, although the Holmes Critical Review does serve the dual function of being an excellent peer-reviewed introduction to the subject as a whole, so it has secondary benefits. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Citations are used to verify content, not because they're generally nice to read in other ways Bon courage (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe I said dual function. It still contextualizes the lab escape scenario. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

These simple citations are used to verify content, not 'contextualize'. This is all about basic text/source integrity. Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As I've already agreed, neither are fundamentally needed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Add me to the list of editors who don't think we should be sourcing text in the lead to the Gorski blog. Maybe we should just have an RFC to settle the issue of the perpetual removal and addition. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have a general-interest, non-academic source on the first sentence. But I'd suggest using something from a major WP:NEWSORG, i.e. (BBC, very new) or (CNN, also new) or possibly (NYT, older). Adoring nanny (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Concur. Sennalen (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:LOCALCON pimple is swelling. It doesn't matter what source is used so long as WP:V is satisfied. There is zero policy saying a 'general interest' source needs to the first in the article. In fact news sources are generally quite bad for science/med. Bon courage (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So why do you insist on using SBM which is a news blog? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. What's important is the WP:PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And our policies and guidelines suggest that we should always strive to use the highest quality of source possible. Academic journals are generally higher quality sources than major newsorgs and major newsorgs are generally of higher quality than news blogs. Note that SPS (and those treated as SPS such as opinion and editorial) are at the bottom of the reliable sources pile, in almost all cases we would prefer higher quality sources if available. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Your 'generally' is trying to do too much heavy lifting there. Lay press ('major' newsorgs or not) is generally bad for science, Especially controversial science (Andrew Wakefield anybody?). Your comments about SPS are completely bogus: WP:SBM is not one such, and various other sources are not 'treated' as such because you incompetently imagine they are, Meanwhile, we have some basic, plainly written core policies which mean that text/source integrity needs to be observed. I'm for that. Bon courage (talk) Bon courage (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And not a single individual would appear to be arguing against that point. All proposed versions maintain text/source integrity as is relevant to the lead section of an article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong again. Iskandar323 was arguing we could use another source if we could sorta kinda WP:SYNTH it up into supporting the text. But to cut to the chase: what specific change are you proposing to improve the article? Bon courage (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 does not appear to be arguing that we violate the WP:OR policy. You don't just get to cast aspersions and then insist we "cut to the chase" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

So, no proposal to improve the article, Bon courage (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Not besides for removing SBM in favor of the journal article which you seem to know as you attempted to poison that well by calling it OR (which it does not appear to be). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it would be. But what exactly do you want to do. It's completely unclear. Bon courage (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove SBM in favor of the journal article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Where? Bon courage (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that this section is a discussion about whether or not to remove SBM from the opening sentence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And if you'd been paying attention you'd see it's gone. Just having the journal source would create an WP:OR/WP:V problem but nobody is contesting removing all sources (as already happened a while ago). Bon courage (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you wanted SBM restored. If not what's the point of all the bludgeoning? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm Did you actually read the exchanges? Can somebody close this total arse-ache of a thread please? Bon courage (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Add me also to the list of editors who don't think we should be sourcing text in the lead to the Gorski blog. SBM is not a journal, and Gorski himself has, in recent years, unfortunately burned a lot of the scientific 'credit' he formerly had. Fig (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to try and overturn the community consensus WP:RSN is thataway. Meanwhile, WP:SBM is among our WP:BESTSOURCES for coverage of many aspects of this labkleak stuff. I know lableak stans hate it because it pulls together the actual science on this topic, but that's not a problem Misplaced Pages can fix. Bon courage (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Various claims of misinformation / false info

DEFUSE: There is no evidence that any of the proposed experiments were ever carried out.

False. Concerning that such an important article is riddled with disinformation.

https://twitter.com/Engineer2The/status/1615425131643547648?s=20 2601:602:8200:4A10:9572:F4F8:FC6B:ECCE (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Needs a reliable source. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

He's a member of DRASTIC. Why is he not any more reliable than Robert Garry who has a demonstrable history of acting in bad faith? 2601:602:8200:4A10:9572:F4F8:FC6B:ECCE (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

DRASTIC is not a reliable source. Robert Garry who has a demonstrable history of acting in bad faith?Do you have a reliable source to backup the assertion that Robert Garry acts in bad faith? — Shibbolethink 14:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a wiki-reliable source, there is evidence. The claim that there is not evidence needs a citation tagged on that sentence at a minimum, and attribution in-text to whatever source claims there is not evidence. Sennalen (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a citation on this sentence. Tagging. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The verification for that statement is actually from the citation in the very next sentence, the New Yorker piece : "Andersen emphasized that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the work described in the proposal was actually done"It's also verified by the other citation in the following sentence from "The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review": No published work indicates that other methods, including the generation of novel reverse genetics systems, were used at the WIV to propagate infectious SARSr-CoVs based on sequence data from bats. Gain-of-function research would be expected to utilize an established SARSr-CoV genomic backbone, or at a minimum a virus previously identified via sequencing. — Shibbolethink 21:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't see those while skimming the nearby refs. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"No published work" is different from "no evidence". Adoring nanny (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"Published work" is how Misplaced Pages defines the truth. E.g. WP:NOTTRUTH. — Shibbolethink 02:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You are using the policy in a way in which it doesn't apply. We have no policy saying that if a source says "no published work", we can freely substitute the phrase "no evidence." Rather, our articles are based on published work. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

We have no policy saying that if a source says "no published work", we can freely substitute the phrase "no evidence."
No, but we do have WP:YESPOV, experts saying there is no evidence, and a quote from a scholarly review article published in an extremely reputable journal saying there are no published experiments. We're not "freely substituting" anything. We're saying what the sources say. Anonymous biased pundits from The Intercept saying "evidence exists in the published literature" is not enough to contradict that, and it runs directly counter to what our best sources say. — Shibbolethink 04:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Editors have some options when dealing with WP:INACCURACY. WP:V is not a suicide pact. Sennalen (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen@Adoring nanny overall this is a waste of time. If you believe the phrase should be removed, given that no consensus exists here to make that change, then you should pursue one of the usual avenues (e.g. WP:RFCBEFORE, WP:3O, or a noticeboard). — Shibbolethink 04:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

3O is a no go, but the noticeboard option could be explored. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Evidence is mentioned here: Other scientists contacted by The Intercept noted that there is published evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was already engaged in some of the genetic engineering work described in the proposal and that viruses designed in North Carolina could easily be used in China. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

So just to summarize:

• We have a source (The Intercept), which we have consensus to say is biased, should be attributed, and is not very reliable for science
• That source went to anonymous unnamed "scientists" (Alina Chan? Giles Demaneuf?) and asked them about genetic engineering
• Those sources say there is evidence that the experiments were conducted
• The Intercept source itself says the grant proposes genetic engineering experiments be conducted in North Carolina, not China: pointed out that the proposal called for most of the genetic engineering work to be done in North Carolina rather than China. “Given that the work wasn’t funded and wasn’t proposed to take place in Wuhan anyway it’s hard to assess any bearing on the origin of SARS-CoV-2,” Stephen Goldstein...
• Nobody in our more reliable sources (especially peer-reviewed ones) agrees with any of this

Not exactly a slam dunk, is it? — Shibbolethink 20:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Related coverage from the WaPo editorial board yesterday: https://archive.is/wintb Sennalen (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like we should attribute Andersen's false statement. And yes, in the article, we can leave out the "false" part, because false reliability beats truth in WikiLand. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Why would we attribute a statement when peer-reviewed scholarly sources say the exact same thing? — Shibbolethink 03:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Because, in unattributed form, the statement is false. Consider it an exercise in editorial discretion. Don't we have a policy somewhere that says "just because something can be sourced, doesn't mean it has to be?" Adoring nanny (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the sourcing is strong enough to say, even here, that the statement is false. Even assuming the source is reliable and the unnamed scientists are correct, it can both be true that "some of the genetic engineering work described in the proposal" was done and that the experiments described in the article paragraph were never carried out, or at least that there's no evidence of their being done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The site consensus on the Intercept is not that it's uniquely unsuitable for science, just that it's non-peer reviwed news (which is equally true of The New Yorker). The article should have an attributed opinion of Andersen via the New Yorker and Alina Chan via the intercept. Going by this MIT Technology Review piece Chan was a bigger part of the topic than the offhand mention currently in our copper mine section, and an approximate counterpart to Andersen in the controversy. Sennalen (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article should have an attributed opinion of Andersen via the New Yorker and Alina Chan via the intercept
Why would we do that when we have peer-reviewed scholarship (The Critical Review paper) which says exactly the same thing as Andersen? That would be putting peer-reviewed secondary review articles published in high caliber journals (Cell) below The Intercept. — Shibbolethink 16:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that it was published a month before the DARPA proposal was leaked, it doesn't precisely speak to the question. (It also makes part of its case on the lack of index cases at WIV, which became known shortly after publication.) It's part of the range of views in reliable sources, but not the last word. Sennalen (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Some interesting quotes from the same New Yorker piece that might also be worth highlighting,

Fauci recalled that, among the participants, opinions were divided. “Knowledgeable people were saying, It does look like it could be something that might be engineered, because it’s not something you usually see,” he told me. “Then you have somebody else equally as knowledgeable say, Oh, nonsense, you can see that in other situations.”

But Susan Weiss, a coronavirus expert at the University of Pennsylvania’s medical school, who co-authored a recent paper with Andersen and others that outlines the evidence for a natural origin, was surprised when I told her that they had been working in BSL-2. “That’s not a good idea,” she said.

According to Shi, the W.I.V. has only isolated and grown in culture three novel coronaviruses out of their nineteen thousand samples. What this chapter of her work demonstrates, however, is a high tolerance for risk. “They were essentially playing Russian roulette with the virus that the world’s expert had labelled poised for human emergence,” David Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford, said. “It’s the willingness to manipulate them without due concern.”

But, they wrote, the team “does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research.” That is, the group didn’t have a plan for the event that their experiments created a novel, pandemic-ready virus. Reviewers within DARPA “were really shocked” by the “irresponsible” nature of the proposal, and its lack of consideration for the risks that gain-of-function research would entail, an official, who was not authorized to speak to reporters, told me.

And yet, SARS-CoV-2’s intermediate animal—among the only things, at this point, that could definitively prove that it did not originate in the Wuhan labs—has not been found.

WP:SOURCEMINE Sennalen (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

again, we trust peer reviewed secondary scholarship over things like this. Many of these statements (particularly 1, 3, 4, 5) were either A) talking about a point in the past, or B) have since been refuted or superseded with more evidence/scholarship/analysis. For instance, no animal host has been confirmed but several have been found to harbor very similar viruses in nature. — Shibbolethink 16:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, do we just trust peer reviewed secondary scholarship? Or do we trust David Gorski too? Sennalen (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Check. Mate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Each claim is evaluated independently based on the sources available for that claim. If there are instances where Gorski is cited, no scholarship is cited, and multiple more recent high quality news sources (not just cranks quoted or sources low-quality for science e.g. The Intercept) directly contradict Gorski, then we should definitely talk about it. SBM itself is a high quality non-scholarly non-news source, and WP:PARITY applies, so it isn't as simple as one or the other. In instances where high-quality scholarship and Gorski are both cited, WP:YESPOV applies and we should state it as fact in wiki-voice. — Shibbolethink 19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

. . . but the backing-up is for the weaker phrase "no published work", not for the stronger, and false, claim of "no evidence". So we should go with the backed-up "no published" work phrase. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Or possible more like "No peer-reviewed assessment..." Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

From the cited review article: "no evidence exists to support such a notion". See it, say it. Sorted. Bon courage (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

the most annoying slogan ... you must be a tube victim Iskandar323 (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the available evidence and WP:STICKTOSOURCE I suggest replacing

There is no evidence that any of the aforementioned experiments were ever carried out.

with

An EcoHealth spokesman said the work described in the proposal was not done. Kristian Andersen, an infectious-disease expert at Scripps Research, says there is no evidence that the expierments were carried out. According to The Intercept, it spoke to some scientists who say there is published evidence of some genetic engineering work described in the report being done. There is no published work that suggests infectious SARS viruses were created from bat sequences at WIV. Sennalen (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Howling pov. Makes it sound like one guy's thought. Just assert what the strong source says and it's job done. Why cite shit sources? Bon courage (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The Intercept isn't shit; it's good investigative journalism. Also, this piece is fairly balanced and itself confirms that the "no evidence" statement. It just draws in other details about some of the potentially more risky work the lab applied for funding for and how some of its research dipped a toe in gain-of-function, but without drawing any specific conclusions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It's shit in comparison. We're not going to be undercutting secondary, peer-reviewed science with "journalism". Bon courage (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, it's not clear that the article does any undercutting. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It is just one guy's thought. If we take out Andersen, there are zero sources saying that the work in the DEFUSE proposal was not done. Cell came out a month before the leak and doesn't mention DEFUSE, so using it to talk about that work is SYNTH. What it specifically says is that an infections SARS virus was not created from bat sequences. That's not the totality of what was proposed to DARPA. Sennalen (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no SYNTH in the article, and no we're not undercutting accepted science with "one guy's thought" in lay press, especially in a FRINGE space. Come back when there's some secondary peer-reviewed science. Bon courage (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You do realize you are arguing against the sole source for the claim of no evidence that DEFUSE work was done? Sennalen (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Are there any sources for the claim of no evidence that are both lay press and undercutting accepted science? Or are you equating lay press that corroborates accepted science with lay press that contradicts it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

From the good sources, there is no evidence the virus existed in any lab. No decent source contradicts that. The DEFUSE stuff is a red herring unless some excellent source says otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The Cell review uses the two terms for two different claims: Further, there is no evidence of prior research at the WIV involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses... No published work indicates that other methods, including the generation of novel reverse genetics systems, were used at the WIV to propagate infectious SARSr-CoVs based on sequence data from bats. The current text of the article mentions two elements of DEFUSE: the furin cleavage site insertion (as the Cell source directly referred to not having evidence supporting such a thing), and the creation of vaccines to distribute among bats. I interpret "no evidence" as referring specifically to the furin cleavage site claim (we should clarify that the bat vaccination plan isn't included in the "no evidence" statement if you think the current wording is confusing).

There may be room to ensure our text makes sense chronologically. Proponents were speculating without evidence about artificial furin cleavage site insertion prior to the DEFUSE grant proposal became public knowledge, and go from there to describe the rejection (in 2018? Seems to be missing from the article) and lack of later publications which would indicate similar work was later carried out. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the right avenue to go down Sennalen (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I interpret "no evidence" as referring specifically to the furin cleavage site claim (we should clarify that the bat vaccination plan isn't included in the "no evidence" statement if you think the current wording is confusing). Although I will say, per WP:SKYBLUE, there also is no evidence of anyone ever doing any of the proposed vaccination experiments with spike proteins. I would also be fine with removing the spike protein vaccine from the paragraph altogether since it has nothing to do with any live virus and thus is completely unconnected to the lab leak theory. — Shibbolethink 18:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather see it rearranged than removed, as the spike protein vaccination in bats is seemed to be the relevant part of the proposal for preventing future human epidemics (and thus the mundane rationale for why it would be proposed in the first place). Bakkster Man (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A good point. Maybe added back in the first couple sentences of the paragraph? — Shibbolethink 20:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe rephrase the sentence summarizing the intent? The grantees proposed to evaluate the ability of bat viruses to infect human cells in the laboratory by creating chimeric coronaviruses which were mutated in different locations, as well as creating protein-based vaccines which would be distributed to bats in the wild to reduce the chances of future human outbreaks. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I like that idea. I think the edits we already have to the sentence referencing the Cell and New Yorker sources already fix any confusion between the vaccine idea and 'evidence experiments were conducted' etc. So we can just reintroduce the vaccine thing in this way and it's fine imo. — Shibbolethink 15:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Not just one guys thought. We also have numerous sources from after DEFUSE saying "there is no evidence to support a lab leak. E.g. To this day, no scientific data exist to support a lab leak of SARS-CoV-2 — Shibbolethink 15:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Not remotely the same claim Sennalen (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

We have no actual evidence that any of the experiments were conducted. Even the intercept, which provided every other document in extreme detail, failed to actually provide any of these purported "publications" their anonymous sources refer to. That's a pretty glaring hole in the logic, when all the named experts say no such publications exist. NPOV tells us to report what the consensus of our "best available" sources say. And The intercept is not in that category. — Shibbolethink 15:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I think maybe it relates to the person named in the same paragraph talking about samples being mailed between Wuhan and North Carolina, but I agree the phrasing is sloppy in a way that invites suspicion Sennalen (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's too much for that particular point. We should just change "no evidence" to "no published work" and leave it at that. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Original research (WP:PROFRINGE) failing WP:V, so obviously not. Bon courage (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It's straight from the Cell source. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The cell source also uses the phrasing "no evidence" — Shibbolethink 18:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

According to The Intercept, it spoke to some scientists who say there is published evidence of some genetic engineering work described in the report being done. As an alternate way of thinking about this, why are we citing an investigative journalist citing (unnamed?) sources citing publications? Why aren't we citing the publications themselves, with added context from a secondary source as necessary? Bakkster Man (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

How's this?

Project DEFUSE was a rejected DARPA grant application, that proposed to sample bat coronaviruses from various locations in China. The rejected proposal document was leaked to the press by DRASTIC in September 2021. Co-investigators on the rejected proposal included the EcoHealth Alliance's Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric from UNC, Linfa Wang from Duke–NUS Medical School in Singapore, and Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. To evaluate whether bat coronaviruses might spillover into the human population, the grantees proposed to create chimeric coronaviruses which were mutated in different locations, before evaluating their ability to infect human cells in the laboratory. One proposed alteration was to modify bat coronaviruses to insert a cleavage site for the Furin protease at the S1/S2 junction of the spike (S) viral protein. There is no evidence that any genetic manipulation or reverse genetics (a technique required to make chimeric viruses) of SARS-related coronaviruses was ever carried out at the WIV. All available evidence points to the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site being the result of natural evolution.

It takes the Critical Review piece and the NewYorker piece, and gets as close as possible to quoting them without doing so, still a paraphrase. It directly addresses the claims made about DEFUSE. Is that better? We should remove the spike protein vaccine anyway, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the lab leak theory (as proteins are not viruses) and is thus UNDUE.

— Shibbolethink 18:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems fine apart from the last sentence, which oversimplifies. The first sources says it is 'highly possible' for it to have evolved in nature; the last says it would be illogical to engineer a virus with a suboptimal cleavage site (and there being no evidence of such work at WIV), as well as pointing to other things that are naturally indicative; and the middle source says the cleavage site is highly unusual and notes that a viable natural origin has proved to be elusive. So, the full picture to include is: 'unlikely furin cleavage site engineering' and 'high probability/strong indications of natural origins', despite the 'unusual cleavage site' and 'the absence of a viable natural origin to date'. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a substantial improvment over what's in the article. I would not object to replacing what is there right away. However, the last two sentences still over-synthesize. The claims that are clearly stated in Cell are:

1. There is no evidence that furin cleavage sites were inserted into coronoaviruses at WIV.
2. Natural emergence of the furin cleavage site is plausible.
3. There is no published work indicating any method was used to propagate infectious SARSr-CoVs based on sequence data from bats

There are holes in those clauses big enough to drive trucks through. Was there unpublished work? Was there work that didn't happen at WIV? Did they make non-infectious pseudoviruses? Did they create something using sequences from anything other than a bat? Jack Nunberg in the Intercept seemed to think something was engineered in North Carolina and mailed to WIV. Maybe a reasonable person should infer that none of these things happened, but Misplaced Pages can't do it using these sources. Sennalen (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The NYT says "China has destroyed evidence". So if you say there is no evidence for something, you need to include that, or you are painting a misleading picture. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That's actually a paraphrase of what Avril Haines said, not the NYT. — Shibbolethink 15:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

"Most Scientists Believe" Indefinite & Inaccurate

It isn't correct to say that most scientists believe something when there is not clear consensus. Such a statement would have to be demonstrated by repeated polling and qualified. It likewise isn't correct to say that a zoonotic or lab leak origin is more likely-- the evidence for both ideas is completely inadequate, and the inadequacy of *both* hypotheses (they are hypotheses, nit theories, until they are proven) is reflected in pieces of scientific literature on both sides of the debate. Regardless of the fact that there exist conspiracy theories associated with the lab leak theory, and part and parcel to their existence, it is clear that media bias has clearly brought social and political pressure down on the scientific community in favor of zoonotic origin, and that pressure has indirectly tainted this article. The article is broadly fine and well written and edited, but the sentence following the phrase "most scientists believe..." *must* be eliminated. It is not verifiable and *it is not true.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8853:6961:54EB:A103:1195:3CF5 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is actually painfully NPOV, and appears to be an extension of American "culture wars" rather than a serious assessment of the scientific situation. I simply cannot believe that in all these thousands of words, which frequently accuse the theory of being driven by "racism and xenophobia", it is somehow not mentioned that the theory was first publicised in a Feb 2020 research paper by two Chinese scientists, Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, the latter of whom works at the Wuhan research hospital just a few hundred metres from the outbreak.

In the light of the US DoE and FBI both announcing that they believe this theory to be the most likely, can we please have a review of this article that removes all the nonsense American "culture wars" accusations of racism and conspiracy theories... Fig (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

which frequently accuse the theory of being driven by "racism and xenophobia",
You mean twice ? (once in the lead once in the body?) The mention cited to nearly a dozen reliable sources, many not associated with the U.S.?
it is somehow not mentioned that the theory was first publicised in a Feb 2020 research paper by two Chinese scientists, Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao, the latter of whom works at the Wuhan research hospital just a few hundred metres from the outbreak.
This is a WP:PREPRINT and therefore not reliable. We have a peer-reviewed source which says the first mention was in a January 2020 preprint. Do you have secondary reliable sources which back up the assertion that yours was the first mention of the theory? — Shibbolethink 16:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Per a recent news piece from Nature,

Scientists have for some time been divided over the provenance of SARS-CoV-2.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't really dispute the claim in this section. A majority vs minority opinion is still a divide. — Shibbolethink 19:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but it's obviously a prominent point of view on the topic of what scientists think. I've updated the lead to include it. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I see my edit was reverted with a reference to WP:NPOV. But that is precisely why the edit is appropriate. For another recent source which supports the edit, see the NYT

Scientists who have studied the genetics of the virus, and the patterns by which it spread, say the most likely cause is that the virus jumped from live mammals to humans — a scientific phenomenon known as “zoonotic spillover” — at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China, the city in which the first cases of Covid-19 emerged in late 2019.

But other scientists say there is evidence, albeit circumstantial, that the virus came from a lab, possibly the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had deep expertise in researching coronaviruses. Lab accidents do happen; in 2014, after accidents involving bird flu and anthrax, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tightened its biosafety practices.

The NYT is saying essentially the same thing I said in my edit. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Nor sure what the issue is here. Most relevant scientists reject the lab leak; a few round the fringe still entertain it. We say that, it's sourced, nothing contradicts it. So what's the issue. I hope we're not trying to stretch 'divided' into 'equally divided' eh!? see WP:GEVAL. Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The mainstream scientific position is that neither spillover or lab leak are proven or likely to be proven, and both deserve continued inquiry. You are trying to spin language about what is "likely" in order to push the POV that lab leak theories are confined to the fringe. That's not the consensus of reliable sources. Sennalen (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really. The topic here is governed by WP:FRINGE per our sourcing: if in doubt ask (again) at WP:FT/N. Bon courage (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Why would you say the scientific position is that? I don't really see that in our sources. Zoonotic sources take time, it took years for them to prove it for SARS-CoV-1. — Shibbolethink 19:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The question is not "what is the true origin of Covid?" but, "Is the lab leak hypothesis a significant minority, taken seriously by (some) scientists, published in legitimate journals, and studied in a way that does not conflict with known laws of nature?" That answer to that is emphatically yes. Sennalen (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure the answer to "taken seriously by (some) scientists, published in legitimate journals, and studied in a way that does not conflict with known laws of nature?" is yes. I have seen no peer-reviewed expert-authored secondary review papers published in authoritative topic-relevant journals which actually argue the lab leak is more likely.But that is mostly irrelevant. These notions have absolutely nothing to do with the language Adoring nanny inserted into the lead. That language is WP:WEASEL wording to make the lab leak seem more supported than "a significant minority". It gives false balance. — Shibbolethink 20:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't need sources saying that a lab leak is most likely in order to say a lab leak is plausible, not pseudoscience. Of those papers saying natural origin is most likely, 95% accede that a lab leak is plausible. Sennalen (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying here it isn't plausible. That is a red herring. Aliens visiting earth is plausible, but still a FRINGE idea. — Shibbolethink 20:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the lab leak hypothesis a significant minority, taken seriously by (some) scientists, published in legitimate journals, and studied in a way that does not conflict with known laws of nature? This description is similar to the one in WP:FRINGE/ALT, the fringe guideline explicitly applies to more than pseudoscience (which - to be clear - the lab leak theory broadly isn't, except for some extreme pseudoscientific outliers). But it isn't the mainstream view, hence using FRINGE to ensure we place it into that context.

To add to what Shibbolethink mentioned about journals, our WP:BESTSOURCES do favor natural zoonosis. As far as I can tell, nearly exclusively, with the strongest statements in top journals being more along the lines of "we should seriously consider this a possibility" rather than "it's probably the most likely explanation". Which indeed fits with that fringe assessment. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that the current lead leaves out the second paragraph. My proposed version includes it. My proposed version did clearly say that most scientists believe in zoonosis, specifically:

Scientists are divided, but most believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis, similar to the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV outbreaks, and consistent with other pandemics in human history.

Adoring nanny (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I would characterize this as WP:WEASEL way of detracting from the scientific consensus to overemphasize "divided". We have one recent news source which says this. We have multiple high quality scholarly review sources which do not say this. — Shibbolethink 19:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

You may have forgotten the Nature news source above? That is two. Furthermore, WP:NPOV is more about prominence of sources than about number. Nature and the NYT are both among the most prominent sources out there. And it just took me about one minute to come across a third source that says something similar, this time a scholarly one:

One of them is the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, while the second one is the possible leak of this coronavirus from a laboratory.

A fourth source is already cited in our lead and goes on to argue for zoonosis, but clearly acknowledges that LL is a main hypothesis

Recent debate has coalesced around two competing ideas: a “laboratory escape” scenario and zoonotic emergence. Here, we critically review the current scientific evidence that may help clarify the origin of SARS-CoV-2.

Adoring nanny (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither of these sources supports the language you inserted.

Nature and the NYT are both among the most prominent sources out thereAnd how do those news sources compare to a scholarly review published in Cell? And other similar secondary scientific journal articles? Including one published in February of this year? Or to these many multiple other news sources also published recently?

• Perlman, Stanley; Peiris, Malik (March 2023). "Coronavirus research: knowledge gaps and research priorities". Nature Reviews Microbiology. pp. 125–126. doi:10.1038/s41579-022-00837-3.:

Where did SARS-CoV-2 originate and how did it evolve to infect humans? The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 continues to be an area of controversy and has been, and is being, investigated by many national and international organizations, including the WHO (World Health Organization). It is almost certain that the virus originated in bats and crossed species to humans either directly or indirectly via intermediary hosts. There remains debate on whether the virus first infected humans from a zoonotic source or from a research laboratory, but, no matter what the answer to this question is, it is clear to us that in order to be prepared for the next pandemic, we need to further delineate the panoply of coronaviruses present in bats and possible intermediary hosts

• Smith, David (28 February 2023). "'It's just gotten crazy': how the origins of Covid became a toxic US political debate". The Guardian.

Opponents say there is still no hard evidence for a lab leak, as many scientists still believe the virus most probably came from animals, mutated and jumped into people

• Duff, Meg (28 February 2023). "It's Not Case Closed on the Lab-Leak Theory". Slate.:

In the meantime, since the original intelligence agency report, there has been new evidence for natural spread. Two related papers published in Science in July 2022 combined epidemiologic methods and genomics to map the earliest known COVID cases. They found that cases centered on one particular live-animal market in Wuhan, China, and that two slightly different variants emerged there within a few weeks. This implies that the virus was mutating in infected animals being sold on-site, rather than originating in research labs across the river. Still, it’s not clear where the first infected animal came from. As an author on one of the papers pointed out, a lab leak is still technically plausible.

• Bettelheim, Tina Reed,Caitlin Owens,Adriel (27 February 2023). "New COVID lab leak assessment reignites furor over pandemic origins". Axios.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link):

many scientists remain convinced the virus most likely originated naturally..."As I said before, I am willing to reconsider my hypothesis if presented with verifiable, affirmative evidence," tweeted Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization. "For now, I see no evidence that suggests the current scientific evidence base is incorrect. And that evidence base continues to suggest the pandemic originated via zoonotic spillover at the Huanan market.

The overall sourcing landscape does not support the "divided" WP:WEASEL language. — Shibbolethink 19:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Two of your own sources support the "divided" language. From your own Guardian source: Some scientists and other observers argue that the lab leak theory cannot be ruled out and should be kept separate from the racist propaganda that often accompanies it. It demands careful investigation, not peremptory dismissal or acceptance, they contend. And your own Perlman quote straight up says that there remains debate about LL. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact that there remains debate or that a minority of scientists think X does not mean we should overemphasize how "divided" a group is about X. Some scientists think String theory is B.S. But we don't describe the subject prominently in that lead as "dividing" scientists. Instead, the lead says: These issues have led some in the community to criticize these approaches to physics, and to question the value of continued research on string theory unification. That's as far as they go. Which is analogous to our situation here.Ditto for ADHD. Some scientists don't think ADHD is a real disorder. But we don't say that Scientists are "divided" on the issue. Instead, the article says (in the body): The pathogenesis of ADHD is not wholly clear, however a large body of scientific evidence supports that it is caused by a complex mixture of genetic, pre-natal and early post-natal environmental factors.etc. etc. ad infinitum. WP:FALSEBALANCE is a policy. Not a guideline, or a suggestion. — Shibbolethink 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Rather than emphasizing the "divided" aspect, we should just emphasize that lab leak hypotheses have not been ruled out, that they continue to be a topic of scientific investigation, and canot be dismissed as mere conspiracy or racism. Sennalen (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The current lead is definitely oddly balanced, but also tricky to remedy. The first paragraph massively front-loads the lead not with information about the subject but with assurances about the prominence of the zoonotic theory. Only in the second paragraph does the lead continue where the first sentence left off and actually resume explaining the subject. (Only to immediately dispense with the exposition and resume the zoonosis apologetics again thereafter.) The first paragraph should really include both the first sentence of the second paragraph and the first sentence of the fourth paragraph to actually half outline the topic properly. The only thing that has prevented me from boldly attempting this is that the lead has been worked into such a rigid formulaic straightjacket that if you move even a single sentence then the flow of the whole thing (and its inbuilt narrative) gets messed up. That's no credit to the narrative, but no one wants chaos. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe what you're describing is called WP:FRINGE-compliance: Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. — Shibbolethink 19:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite so. The fringe stuff needs to be framed within the mainstream take, Here, that's easy. Bon courage (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really. It is basic lead writing. The current first paragraph goes into more detail of what the lab leak theory is not that what it is. That is just ineffectually outlining the subject. I get the desire to guard this page from fringe material, but that shouldn't overshadow really basic stuff. At present the first paragraph does not even cover the who, what, where, when, why. It takes until the second paragraph to even mention the WIV, which, as the second paragraph notes, is central to the theory. WP:FRINGE says nothing about ignoring the basics of MOS:LEAD. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason for the discrepancy you're noticing is that multiple laboratories have been implicated (Wuhan CDC, WIV), with multiple mechanisms (accidental leak of a naturally collected virus, accidental leak of a modified virus during experiments, intentional bioweapon, intentional manipulation to make it more infectious, etc). We don't preference any one of these ideas, because none of them have any evidence in their favor. We only say "The COVID-19 lab leak theory, or lab leak hypothesis, is the idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, is the result of a laboratory leak" Because that's the only thing all these various and disparate theories have in common. We only mention WIV because that was the first one implicated, in the paragraph about the beginning/overall basis of the idea. — Shibbolethink 21:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place for claims of intentional bioweapon creation - that is COVID-19_misinformation#Bio-weapon. Re: multiple laboratories, if two is the total number (both in Wuhan), that doesn't seem very hard to add or integrate with the opening statement about a laboratory leak. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place for claims of intentional bioweapon creation - that is COVID-19_misinformation#Bio-weapon.Why is that? A bioweapon which is unintentionally released would be a "lab leak".if two is the total number (both in Wuhan), that doesn't seem very hard to add or integrate with the opening statement about a laboratory leakWe also cover the Chinese Government-touted Fort Detrick/ USAMRIID lab leak theory in this article. — Shibbolethink 17:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

All the bioweapon stuff, aside from being daft (why even create a bioweapon as untargeted and only semi-lethal as Covid, when better pathogens already exist?), is obvious conspiracy theory. It is hardly relevant whether such ideas revolve around an intentional release or leak narrative, since the conspiracy theories are not considered plausible by reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

As an aside a "leak" does not inherently imply an accidental release. People in politics intentionally "leak" information all the time. Sources about the "lab leak" also commonly refer to intentional formulation of viruses, and the bioweapon conspiracy theory. E.g. . Thus such information is clearly WP:DUE in this article.Another aspect of this is that misinformation commonly cited as "evidence" for the virus being "manipulated" in a lab to make it more transmissible in humans is also often cited as "evidence" for many other versions of the lab leak. E.g. "the virus was adapted to humans already" "it has evidence of a modified furin cleavage site" etc etc. These little nuggets of misunderstanding the science are also often cited to say "see! They were messing around with viruses!" by both people who think "this was a bioweapon!" and people who think "maybe scientists were tinkering with the virus in a lab and something went wrong!". It's all very intimately wrapped up together in many ways, hence why our sources often discuss both together or synonymously, making little distinction. There are a minority of non-expert scientists (who are experts in other areas, but not virology or viral genetics) who cite this information. But I have yet to see serious practicing-today non-senile non-Nobel syndrome actual-factual expert-virologists who think it was intentionally manipulated in a lab. — Shibbolethink 19:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Virologists are not the only group with relevant expertise. The FBI, for example, is an expert in investigations, including homicides and possible homicides (i.e, deaths which may or may not be homicides), which applies here. They have expertise in areas such as behavioral evidence, where virologists are not experts. And it is striking that the virological papers you keep citing have a habit of ignoring the behavioral evidence that is so telling. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a flawed argument. The FBI are expert in investigations, but not in medical or scientific topics. The FBI and physicists (i.e. those at DoE) aren't experts in medicine or biology or epidemiology or virology or public health policy or any of those topics. It's worth documenting those fringe viewpoints as they are newsworthy and significant. But the mainstream view hasn't changed. If it does, we can change that then. Otherwise, we're playing at WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:ADVOCACY to promote a false WP:NPOV. Andre🚐 21:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Virologists aren't experts in investigations. It's relevant expertise. For example, the virological papers routinely make the elementary investigatory error of taking the word of suspects at face value. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, and that's your WP:OR. The topic of COVID-19 lab leak theory isn't "investigations." It's a public health topic. FBI might have expertise in criminal investigations and forensic investigations. Not medical ones. Andre🚐 04:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It illustrates the fact that multiple forms of expertise are relevant here. Some editors seem to assume that it is descended from Heaven on a stone tablet that virologists are most qualified to investigate this. But there is no Misplaced Pages policy saying that, and it's not true either. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The WHO, the FBI, CIA, DOE, the National Intelligence Council and the US CDC all agree that both a natural origin and a leak from a Wuhan lab are plausible and worthy of further investigation.

It's not credible to claim that the main Wuhan lab leak is a fringe view. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Most relevant scientists reject the lab leak".

Folks keep repeating this like a broken record, but it's not demonstrably true. The precise reason that the operative words are "scientific consensus", and not "scientific majority" is that the latter is indefinite. The truth is not subject to a majority vote-- not by "relevant scientists" or anyone else. It's OK to use "most scientists" colloquially in a case where there is broad agreement in the scientific community which is referenced and objectively malleable based one new information. That simply is not the case here. Please delete the offending sentence beginning with "most scientists", or provide a meaningful rebuttal of this and the original argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2005:339D:ADA2:C3AA:122F:E800 (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I would rather question your premise.

It's OK to use "most scientists" colloquially in a case where there is broad agreement in the scientific community which is referenced and objectively malleable based one new information

Why is that only okay in your very limited example criteria? Why not in a situation when multiple reliable sources indicate the vague "scientists" or "experts" or "virologists" "agree the zoonosis is the most likely explanation"? All of these are fairly summarized in the current language.

Misplaced Pages is not in the business of adjudicating truth. We reflect a fair summary of what our sources say. — Shibbolethink 15:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Molting

Around two years ago I found this page in a state where it had been just acreting claims and organized it into the sections that it mostly still has. I think by this point it has outgrown the framework I tried to impose on it, and it's time to do it again. Particular issues are:

1. I left a few claims in a section called "Developments in 2021" because it wasn't clear what their overall significance would be at the time. Now there's similar sections for 2022 and 2023. The things that we know actually mattered should get folded into the main analysis or narrative. Some things have and some haven't, making a disjointed presentation.
2. Current state of knowledge should be prioritized more over who said what, when.
3. The background section on zoonosis has expanded significantly. Originally this was supposed to be literally background, explaining the concept of zoonosis itself or important examples of it before covid. Since then there have been several publications about the evidence for covid zoonosis and how that impacts the viability of lab leak theories, since the two are in competition. There needs to be a section built more for that dialog to play out, because it's not background.
4. It may make less sense now to even have a background section divorced from actual covid claims at hand. There's a lot of WP:HOWEVER and pre-/re- litigating.
5. The section on lab leak theories gets interrupted by the WHO report. This section was supposed to break down the types of theory: intentional/unintentional, natural/engineered. The WHO report is not itself a type of leak theory, so doesn't belong here. I think I may have put it in the politics section, which I'd stand by still, but in light of points above there does need to be a top-level section on origin investigations that this could go in. Even still, it needs trimming. The report has its own article.
6. The subsections by type of theory are themselves no longer justified. It gives equal weight between fringe and maintream theories.
7. The lede is over-long, largely because of a lack of hooks in the body to hang things on, including those mentioned above.

I expect another covid news cycle to drop this week because of congressional hearings, but here's a tentative suggestion of an updated outline.

• A slightly unorthodox approach, instead of relegating fringe views like bioweapons to a bare mention at the end of the article, raise them immediately after the lede in order to dismiss them quickly and WP:MNA the rest of the time.
• Next a whole treatment of the laboratory at the heart of the question, WIV. What it is, what was done there, why some scientists are concerned, and why some aren't. This would take material that is currently scattered among background, lab leak, and politics sections, and give it an integrated treatment without internal PoV forks.
• Then the current leading science on zoonosis, the market, and what that means for the leak theory. Again, the full timeline and range of reliably published views.
• After the evidence is all on the table, the sociological aspects about pro-leak people being resistant to evidence and anti-leak people rushing to judgement. (Lewandowsky and Thacker, basically)
• Finally all the blow-by-blow politics, government investigations, and media.

Sennalen (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's worth the effort to do a rewrite (because my prediction is that it will be argued and litigated to death on all sides), but I think your concerns are overall valid. I think it will be much more effective to massage what we currently have into a better version of itself. Such as merging the year-by-year subsections and removing duplicated content.I disagree with some of your concerns in detail, though, such as The subsections by type of theory are themselves longer justified. It gives equal weight between fringe and maintream theories. Many of these ideas are FRINGE, but this is an article about those ideas. E.g. the "genetic manipulation" idea is overall FRINGE given the scientific consensus that the virus shows no signs of manipulation. But its a major major DUE point in this article.I think your updated outline is well written and formulated, except for these points:

• After the evidence is all on the table, the sociological aspects about pro-leak people being resistant to evidence and anti-leak people rushing to judgement. (Lewandowsky and Thacker, basically) That's just "media coverage". How we portray that section is extremely important, and your summary is not very NPOV.

• I think any new structure should maintain subsections describing the differences between various versions of the theory e.g. intentional manipulation, accidental release of a natural virus, etc. Many of the parts of this article relate to genetic manipulation, and rightly so, as this is extremely DUE. And so is the scientific consensus describing this as complete bullshit. Other parts relate heavily to the natural release idea, e.g. proximity of the lab, those supposed early infections at the lab, etc. and also all the scientific consensus that that also is bullshit. We cannot simply assume one version of the theory or the other in this article.

— Shibbolethink 16:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I think differences between types of theory should be described, but that can be done as one section that dismisses most types. Only accidental release is worth further attention, and at most limited gain-of-function research. Sennalen (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that an editor's job is to make no assumptions about the truth or falsity of a particular position, but only to report the position or positions that are described in sources deemed reliable by Misplaced Pages.

And while I am here, another question is when it is acceptable to use editorial writing as a reliable source. For example, I notice that one of the main sources for saying that the lab leak theory has racist motivations is from the CJR, which is a reliable source, but the article itself appears to be purely opinion and appears to cite no evidence in support of its claims. The author of the CJR article is a journalist, but this appears to be an article of pure opinion and not news.

I can see including the opinion of a scientist or some other expert in regards to matters involving that person's area of expertise.

For assertions that the lab leak theory is motivated by racism (an ad hominem argument), I would expect to see evidence from the social sciences such as polls based on proven statistical methodologies.

However, considering the title of the article, I also feel that motivations for the various epistemic claims are irrelevant, and that a focus on evidence sourced from publications Misplaced Pages deems reliable that supports or disproves the hypothesis would serve Misplaced Pages's audience the best.

I am responding to you, Shibbolethink, but I want to make sure you understand that I think you are doing good work here, and I appreciate your efforts. I am mentally disabled, so I could easily be misunderstanding a host of concepts.

49.145.164.91 (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit and, most of the ideas, in Sennalen's proposal. Shibboleth also makes goods responses to specifics. I believe that important details of what is currently known should follow an outlay as foñlows. For zoonosis: causative agent; place and events of initial cases; index patient; reservoir; intermediate host; proximal molecular ancestor and ancestral molecular ancestor. For lab leak: a description of the circumstance of the Wuhan location; a description of WIV (history, activities with similar viruses, biosafety, and the laboratory personnel's official statements responding to the lab leak accusations), a description of the Furin Cleavage Site covering why it raises concerns. After the two competing hypothesis, I would add a section on Media coverage, and that's it. The political aspects should get reduced space, since we are three years into the pandemic and we are not newspaper but an enciclopedic effort, in my opinion. Forich (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Robert Redfield 2023

C-SPAN Video from March 8, 2023

Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield: "Based on my initial analysis of the data, I came to believe and I still believe today that it indicates that COVID-19 more likely was the result of an accidental lab leak than a result of a natural spillover event."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EvvQ03BCZc

I think this should be added to the article.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this is probably overall WP:UNDUE given that we already have this person's opinion in the article. — Shibbolethink 00:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to indicate he reiterated it this year, or replace this year's comment with the old one. Though it should probably cite the C-SPAN site itself, rather than a YouTube link. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think replacing the comments would be fine. — Shibbolethink 20:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. I had thought that the C-SPAN official YouTube channel was considered reliable, but your link to the actual C-SPAN website (which is given in the description of the YouTube video) is definitely preferable. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 origin debate escalates with reignited lab leak suspicions Moxy- 23:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The quote does not appear in the wikipedia article. I'd like to remind everyone that this wikipedia article is called, "COVID-19 lab leak theory." That makes the quote extremely notable and relevant to the article. And C-SPAN is an extremely reliable source. The quote is from a former CDC Director. I do not understand why the quote is not included in the wikipedia article. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

So let's replace some or part of where we currently say: Former CDC director Robert R. Redfield said in March 2021 that in his opinion the most likely cause of the virus was a laboratory escape, which "doesn't imply any intentionality", and that as a virologist, he did not believe it made "biological sense" for the virus to be so "efficient in human to human transmission" from the early outbreak. in COVID-19 lab leak theory § Accidental release of a natural virus. What would your preferred text be? — Shibbolethink 15:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

CBS News article March 13, 2023

"Robert Redfield, the former director of the CDC, testified that money from the NIH, the State Department, USAID and the Defense Department provided funding for high-risk virus research in Wuhan."

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-government-agencies-may-have-been-double-billed-projects-wuhan-china-records-indicate-probe/

I think this should be added to the article.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No indication this relates to a lab leak Sennalen (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Inferring that this is somehow connected to a lab leak constitutes original research. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 23:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"Scientists dismissed lab leak theory due to conflict of interest"

From Professor Anton van der Merwe, Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, writes the following: "What is under-appreciated is the potential conflict of interest among the scientists who dismissed the lab leak hypothesis at the outset in prestigious scientific journals such as The Lancet and Nature Medicine."

The whole article can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/1eafa0dc-1ce3-4a86-a35e-7132b505e7a4

- 2A02:8071:B86:8060:1AB:5411:4F9D:7DEA (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there any new information in this source, or is this just one random Pathologist's (non-expert) opinion? This guy's expertise is in T-cells. We already cover the controversy surrounding these two letters he refers to in the article. Unless this man's opinion is picked up by many multiple other sources, I have a hard time seeing it as WP:DUE inclusion. — Shibbolethink 00:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"Lab-leak" hyphenation

Shouldn't lab-leak be hyphenated wherever it's used adjectivally, i.e. when prefacing theory/hypothesis. The sources are about 50:50 on this, but it's generally better practice to hyphenate compound modifiers ... is there a reason not to here? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Is there a part of the manual of style that says what we should do about this? If the sources are split 50/50, typically our default is not to add punctuation/modifiers in stuff like this. — Shibbolethink 19:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Would you hyphenate "laboratory leak theory"? Bon courage (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Weasel wording

Rowing007 is repeatedly adding their own weaselly editorial to the article. Reminder: you can't insert stuff like 'Opponents of the theory point out that ...' unless it's supported by a source, otherwise it infringes WP:NOR (as well as being problematic wrt WP:WEASEL, WP:BLP and WP:SAY). Bon courage (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage: Hello, could you please explain why you believe my edit included weasel wording? Per that guideline, the examples given are not automatically weasel words. The views expressed in the sentences in question are properly attributed to a reliable source and accurately represent the opinions of the source. Therefore, per the guideline, the expressions may be used. In a second instance, could you please explain why you believe my edits do not maintain a neutral point of view? I reworded things to be able to present both sides in an impartial tone.

I'll tell you what I took issue with, which is what pushed me to implement my edit in the first place. The section of "However most large Chinese cities..." until "...and therefore near a laboratory studying coronaviruses." is problematically worded as it does not draw a common thread through its disjointed sections, which, on their own, do not constitute a logical statement. My rewording of that section unifies the distinct concepts to be able to illustrate the actual logical conclusion being made in opposition of the lab leak theory, as explicitly stated in reference #13 (so this is not a case of WP:SYNTH). The fact that I included "Opponents of the theory point out that..." is to maintain neutrality, because the article in its current state reads as if it's arguing against the theory, but if you take issue with "point out" because of WP:SAY, then there should be no problem with "Opponents of the theory say that...". As for WP:WEASEL, everything was properly sourced to begin with; I merely included language that frames the arguments in a balanced and impartial way. Please pinpoint how you believe my edit is "problematic with respect to WP:BLP".

In reference #15 (the one with the multiple sources), the current wording of "This has been described by numerous experts:" is not neutral. I reworded it to "Both directions of this causal mechanism have been described in a number of sources:" because, in fact, some of the sources in the reference mention the lab leak theory being informed by racism and xenophobia, while others describe the opposite causal mechanism, namely that the lab leak theory fueled racist and xenophobic rhetoric. It is important to not imply causality in one way or the other, as this is not neutral, and it could potentitally declare reverse causality.

I removed 2 of the sources in reference #15. The first one, by Nie, Jing-Bao, I removed because the quoted passage is in a section of the paper which is discussing the theory that the U.S. government is the perpetrator of the virus. That theory, the source states, "appeals to a long-rooted xenophobia, growing anti–United States and anti-Western sentiments." Once again, the paper is not talking about the lab leak theory in that quote. It does talk about the lab leak theory in a separate section, but it does not mention any xenophobia or racism; it only presents the lab leak theory in a neutral manner, also alluding to the bioweapon theory, which is again a separate topic. I therefore judged that it was not a relevant source for this Misplaced Pages article. Similarly, I removed the source by Al-Mwzaiji, Khaled Nasser Ali, because the quoted passage refers to the bioweapon theory, not the lab leak theory.

I modified the section which states "...Orientalist tropes suggesting that...", so that it is instead directly quoting the source material: "...racist tropes that suggest that...". This is another change toward neutrality.

I also made a few copyedits, such as rewording "noticed first" to "first noticed", and added a missing space after a period in the quote in the source by Aria Adibrata, Jordan; Fikhri Khairi, Naufal: "...corner China.Bolsonaro's views...".

I notice you've been involved in this article and its discussions before and you seem to have fairly strong convictions with regards to this topic and associated guidelines, but please WP:AGF when it comes to my involvement. I am truly trying to improve the article through the precise and measured changes I have detailed above. I believe your blanket reversal of my edits has overlooked some of these details, and I would appreciate you taking the time to address these with careful thought, and in a non-accusatory manner. I am in no rush; I am just trying to improve the article. Rowing007 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule, it's a bad idea to perform enormous article-wide edits on controversial topics, particularly if they mix original research and odd labelling in, especially for a WP:CTOP. I was clear in my statement of what you did wrong. The minor copyedits I can take or leave but making stuff up (e.g. your 'opponents of the theory' idea) is not neutral, and the violates the basics of editing here. If you are labelling Holmes (or Garry) as an 'opponent of the theory' that could be a WP:BLP issue yes. Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I can see how that language could be construed in that way; the only problem is the word "proponents" is used in various places throughout the article. Either way, "Arguments opposing the theory say that..." is the essence of the rewording I was trying to achieve. Basically, moving away from a POV into a balanced and neutral presentation of both viewpoints; I am not saying the authors of the sources holds those views, I am just presenting those views as they are presented - in opposition to the lab leak theory. My edit was neither enormous, nor article-wide. I implemented precise changes. The large number of bytes is mostly because of the 2 sources removed (per my explanation above). You claim you were clear in your statement of "what did wrong", and I have been clear in why I believe I did not use weasel words, per the guideline itself. I am now communicating to you that you have not been sufficiently clear in your reasoning for me to be able to ascertain your exact disagreements with my edit. Above, I have detailed precisely what I changed and why I changed it. You have not yet addressed the majority of these points, beyond saying you "can take or leave" the minor copyedits (I certainly hope you're not implying ownership). Please go point-by-point (according to my message above) and explain why you take issue with each of these changes. Rowing007 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not an 'argument opposing the theory'. That's POV. It's some knowledge about a common misconception (the 'it would be too much of a coincidence' idea). This framing of this topic as some kind of pro and anti arena, like for a sports team, is puerile and smacks of WP:GEVAL. The WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for your changes. Bon courage (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Haven't looked at this in detail, but you definitely shouldn't use "pointed out" for anything. See WP:SAY. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I did indeed acknowledge this point in my original message, above, and have written a simple substitution which is in line with WP:SAY: "Arguments opposing the theory say that...". As I've said to Bon courage, I believe a detailed examination of my proposed changes is warranted, rather than a cursory glance. Rowing007 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Here are some issues with your most recent edit:Opponents of the theory point out that most large Chinese cities have laboratories which study coronavirusesThis takes the statement out of wiki-voice, and makes it seem like this is a minority position which isn't accepted by the scientific community. Which is the opposite of the truth. Scholars and scientists decide what we say on Misplaced Pages, and per WP:RS/AC, we use secondary review articles like the one published in Cell to decide what that is. That review article (and many multiple other high quality sources: ) make this point, so we should say it in wiki-voice. Doing otherwise creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE which gives the fringe opinion of the lab leak more legitimacy than it merits in the sources.Opposition to such narratives states that the latter were often supported using "racist tropes that suggest that epidemiological, genetic, or other scientific data had been purposefully withheld or altered to obscure the origin of the virusSimilarly, we have ample secondary reviews and other high quality sources which support this statement. Per WP:RS/AC, we should not state these as subjective opinions, but as facts in wiki-voice, given the wide breadth of acceptance among researchers.Simply changing the way you insert the edit does not fix these problems. The issue is taking the idea out of the mainstream viewpoint and making it seem falsely equivalent or as another side to an argument with the lab leak POV. This violates WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Shibbolethink 15:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, and qualifying the racist stuff (accepted knowledge) with "and some sources say" is textbook WP:WEASEL wording. Bon courage (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll reply to both of you here, as I'm not a fan of splitting up conversations. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.. I am not trying to favour the lab leak theory through my edits. The fact that it has its own article signals significant weight already allocated to discussing it. Therefore, what I was trying to achieve was a clear delineation between what the theory itself contends, and the arguments/evidence/research against it. I am not trying delegitimize the body of literature/research disproving the lab leak theory, nor am I attempting to weasel in support for the theory itself. A modicum of compusure would be appreciated in the future, as the incessant accusatory undertone of this campaign by both of you is frankly a disturbing overreaction. Rowing007 (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We're both more concerned with what your edits do than we are with your personal beliefs or position, which are not very relevant here. Your intent is admirable, and your edits are made in good faith. But they plainly violate those principles described above. — Shibbolethink 17:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And it should be noted the personalization was started with the "you seem to have fairly strong convictions" comment from Rowing007, above. Bon courage (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage, you have a long-standing pattern of portraying lab leak theories as fringe or racist tout court. That did not start with Rowing007. Cutting to the heart of the issue, the article can say that some lab leak theories are racist, or that some people say lab leak theories are racist, but not simply say that lab leak theories are racist. (Because many aren't.) Sennalen (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Err yeah. Defining the "theories" out there as ... whatever (with solid sourcing) is one thing. Making personal remarks about the your fellow editors is another. It's a fairly important distinction. WP:FOC ! Bon courage (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: The racism/xenophobia described in Nie refers to anti-US/anti-Western xenophobia/racism specifically resulting from the fringe theory that the US government started the virus at the Seventh World Military Games. The sentence in the actual article is that The idea of a leak at the WIV has been informed by racist and xenophobic undercurrents. This is not what Nie talks about. That source has no place in that section of the article. As for the sentence-threading in the lead, Maxmen & Mallapaty states the overall point being made (see, specifically, the section on page 314 titled "Is it suspicious that the WIV is in Wuhan?"). It ought to be threaded together with commas (as I did), because the sentences on their own are too choppy/disjointed. I'm adding to the informed by racist and xenophobic undercurrents sentence to also reflect the fact that the lab leak theory has fuelled racist/xenophobic sentiments (i.e., not only has it been informed by racist/xenophobic undercurrents, but it has also fuelled them). I also modified "Orientalist" to be "racist" instead, as is worded in the actual source. Rowing007 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

oh interesting. Sure, let's remove the Nie source then. It does support the overall sentiment, but not the Chinese-specific sentiment. I also support the modification of "orientalist" to "racist." As to the rest of your comment, I disagree completely with your interpretation. — Shibbolethink 19:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

With respect to the dual causality in the racism/xenophobia section of the lead, I am plainly assessing the words quoted in the sources. I invite you to take a look at the quotes listed in that multi-source reference (i.e., the This has been described by numerous experts: reference).

The following sources (in that singular multi-source reference) indeed state that the theory is informed by racism/xenophobia: Hardy (People question if scientists and/or political leaders created the virus in a lab and/or intentionally leaked it into the general public. reflecting xenophobic ideologies), Mohammadi (Racist Issues: This category is about blaming the Chinese, as a nationality or ethnicity, for causing and spreading the COVID-19 virus), Liu (The lab-leak theory overtones of crude Trumpian racism), Aria Adibrata (Bolsonaro Sinophobic views have received support from Minister of Education Abraham Weintraub, who supported the theory that the Covid-19 pandemic stems from a virus lab leak in China.), Gorski (blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak), and Garry (Lab leak theories are often bolstered by racist tropes).

On the other hand, the following sources (in that same singular multi-source reference) state that the theory fuels racism/xenophobia: Al-Mwzaiji (virus rumors create "racial discrimination, xenophobia."), Allsop (various actors have weaponized the lab-leak theory as part of a racist agenda), Neil (xenophobic instrumentalization of the lab-leak hypothesis), and Perng (politicians promoted the unsubstantiated hypothesis the virus was developed in a laboratory in Wuhan, referring to COVID-19 as "foreign," "Chinese," and "the Kung Flu." Use of such language reinforced racism and xenophobia).

Do you now see the difference between stating that and stating that ? While they go hand-in-hand (i.e., they can be mutually reinforcing), they are distinct causal mechanisms. This is the reason I think it is completely neutral and worthwhile to simply mention this double relationship between the lab leak theory and racism/xenophobia. Rowing007 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

so let's insert text akin to: "and has fueled". E.g. The idea of a leak at the WIV also gained support due to secrecy during the Chinese government's response. The idea has been informed by (and has, in turn, fueled) racist and xenophobic sentiments. A lot less ambiguous and gets right to the point you're making. I agree it's clearly well-sourced, so let's add something we can agree on. — Shibbolethink 21:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I was going to say something about "in turn", but, of course, racism and xenophobia existed before COVID-19, so it would absolutely make sense for racism/xenophobia to serve as catalysts for the theory, before the theory itself came to galvanize the very rhetoric that contributed to its formation and subsequent popularity, so there is no causality dilemma. Rowing007 (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

"Best" vs "available" evidence

@Bon courage: RE: Yes, lines 325−326 state The best existing scientific evidence supports a direct zoonotic origin. However, lines 319−320 state the available evidence favors the latter . Note that the quote from lines 325−326 specifies existing evidence. Think about this for a second, saying the available evidence (from lines 319−320) is actually a stronger (i.e., more encompassing) statement than saying the best existing evidence. This is because saying the available evidence implies that there is no existing evidence for the lab leak theory, whereas saying the best evidence (or even the best existing evidence) implies that evidence exists for the lab leak theory, just that it isn't as good as the evidence for zoonosis. By insisting on best, you are favouring a weaker statement than what is said in the source. Rowing007 (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think "best" captures the source's stance well. Maybe "best available" would work? Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

But like I explained above, even "best available"/"best existing" is weaker than the explicit statement on lines 319−320 that the available evidence supports zoonosis. In each of the pieces of evidence the source provides for hypotheses #1 and #2 (the lab leak theory), they immediately refute them with However, , meaning their statement on lines 319−320 is not a slip-up, and they are truly implying that there is, in fact, no evidence for the lab leak theory, so it would not be a misrepresentation of the source for us to use the exact language from lines 319−320. Rowing007 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I will, however, concede that because the available evidence is such a strong statement, it could potentially lead to more editing disputes. In that sense, the best available evidence is a good middle ground, in my opinion. Either way, the specification of availability/existence of evidence (regardless of its relative quality) is a crucial nuance not omitted anywhere in the source, so it should definitely be included, whether we keep best or not. Rowing007 (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think "best available" is also a good summary of our other available sources e.g. Hakim, Maxmen, Snopes. We could add those sources if a refn if it would help. But overall I think the body is so seldom the subject of editing disputes (the sad truth is people rarely lead much far beyond the lead these days) — Shibbolethink 14:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The 'best available' wording should probably go in the lede too. Bon courage (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Use of academic source whose authors are all subject to CCP control

Notwithstanding their publication in Nature, I don't think we should treat this article or its addendum as WP:RS for the statements therein. There are two problems. The first is that every single author listed an affiliation that is under control of the Chinese Communist Party. The AP describes an order from Xi Jinping as follows:

The order said communication and publication of research had to be orchestrated like “a game of chess” under instructions from Xi, and propaganda and public opinion teams were to “guide publication.” It went on to warn that those who publish without permission, “causing serious adverse social impact, shall be held accountable.”

This is a conflict of interest for the authors. If they don't follow Xi's order, they may be "held accountable". The AP article dates various CCP orders relating to control of publication to February and March of 2020. The Nature article was published on 3 February 2020, and the addendum was published in November 2020. Yet (this is the second problem) the addendum does not contain any conflict statement noting that the authors were operating under the guidance of propaganda and public opinion teams, or that they might be "held accountable" for publishing the wrong thing. It is therefore unreliable. This unreliability should also extend to the original paper. At this time, the CCP had already lied repeatedly about the virus, for example when they said there was "No clear evidence of human-to-human transmission". Although we lack the later smoking gun, this shows that at that time, the CCP already had a record of lying about the virus. And at that time, the authors were already under the control of the CCP.

A related RfC was closed as "overbroad" and "inconclusive". I assume this will end up on RSN, but it could be useful to discuss here first. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Here are the statements in the article currently cited to the paper and addendum:Later, Shi's group published a paper about a virus named RaTG13 in Nature in February 2020. Via sequence comparisons, it became clear that RaBtCoV/4991 and RaTG13 were likely the same virus. Shi has said that the renaming was done to reflect the origin location and year of the virus...Nature later published an addendum to the 2020 RaTG13 paper addressing any possible link to the mine, in which Shi says that the virus was collected there, but that it was very likely not the cause of the miners' illnesses. Laboratory tests conducted on the workers' serum were negative, and "no antibodies to a SARS-like coronavirus had been foundIt appears every single part of this is either patently obvious, or attributed. Why would the Xi Jinping order (created after this paper) have any impact on the reliability of these statements? We are, truly, only describing that statements were made by these groups. Which the papers directly verify. We take nothing about them as fact in wiki-voice (or where we do, other sources also verify that content). — Shibbolethink 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This part for starters: Laboratory tests conducted on the workers' serum were negative, and "no antibodies to a SARS-like coronavirus had been found Adoring nanny (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to keep the same opinion as then, that it leans towards WP:RGW to second guess an otherwise high quality journal's peer review solely because of the author's nationality. It would need a specific reason to doubt this specific publication and/or for this specific citation, or an incredibly broad sweeping deprecation of every journal article with Chinese authors. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

All the sources in this topic (even the peer-reviewed ones) have potential political biases. As always, that's not ground to exclude but to attribute. Sennalen (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

New: Raccoon dog DNA at Wuhan Market associated with SARS-CoV-2 DNA

See "The Strongest Evidence Yet That an Animal Started the Pandemic", The Atlantic, March 16, 2023. Robert.Allen (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Updated The Atlantic news report and related NYT news report - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Need to wait see if there's any decent WP:MEDRS sourcing for this. Bon courage (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Technically, the latest consensus is that disease and pandemic origins are not WP:BMI (see here). A MEDRS source would be ideal, but we shouldn't restrict ourselves to MEDRS data that points away from a lab origin when we have no such restriction on information supporting it. That said, we should wait for peer review, as is typical. Science news gives a better background of the who said what when, the state of the research, and various additional context that will be useful to us. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The consensus was that the biomedical aspects were BMI. "It came from raccoons" or "DNA was present in material swabbed" is such. It'd be the same if some "revelation" purported to show it was a lableak. I say wait for the reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

My read on the consensus was that while the specific epidemiological distinctions are BMI, a statement like "researchers presented their findings on Tuesday to the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens" wouldn't be. It's certainly the way we currently handle statements by Robert Redfield, DRASTIC, DEFUSE, US House minority staff reports, Li-Meng Yan, etc. An argument is made that they're notable history, and the science often gets hashed out and reliable MEDRS sources are added to the article later.

I'm aware I'm being a bit contrarian and provocative here, but I do think it's worth at least discussing whether or not this set of research being delivered to SAGO and reported on by reliable sources meets the same threshold for reporting that we've used for other sources in support of the lab leak theory, instead of just dismissing it offhandedly. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

You are correct in that we probably could say things like "The wet market was engaged in illegal raccoon dog trading", but without going on to point out the likely epidemiological significance, and so straying into WP:BMI land, it would be a total head scratcher for our readers. Bon courage (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes - agreed - WP:MEDRS would be ideal of course - nonetheless - the Science news reference, now detailed and added here - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes agreed, the Science source is optimal, though the Atlantic source is also quite good. I was able to get a full text version from WP:TWL, available as PDF here: for verification purposes. These quotes from The Atlantic I think are salient:

• “This really strengthens the case for a natural origin,” says Seema Lakdawala, avirologist at Emory University who wasn’t involved in the research. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist involved in the research, told me, “This is a really strong indication that animals at the market were infected. There’s really no other explanation that makes any sense.”
• Unlike many of the other points of discussion that have been volleyed about in the origins debate, the genetic data are “tangible,” Alex Crits-Christoph, a computational biologist and one of the scientists who worked on the new analysis, told me.
• an infected animal, with no third-party contamination, still seems by far the most plausible explanation for the samples’ genetic contents, several experts told me; other scenarios require contortions of logic and, more important, additional proof. Even prior to the reveal of the new data, Gronvall told me, “I think the evidence is actually more sturdy for COVID than it is for many others.” The strength of the data might even, in at least one way, best what’s available for SARS-CoV-1: Although scientists have isolated SARS-CoV-1-like viruses from a wet-market-traded mammal host, the palm civet, those samples were taken months after the outbreak began—and the viral variants found weren’t exactly identical to the ones in human patients. The versions of SARS-CoV-2 tugged out of several Huanan-market samples, meanwhile, are a dead ringer for the ones that sickened humans with COVID early on.

I would like to see some scientific secondary sources backing this up. But we clearly have some WP:DUE material for the article from this and the Science source. — Shibbolethink 20:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we can go as far as to say something along the lines of "researchers presented data pending peer review to SAGO which they said suggested raccoon dogs in the market were infected with SARS-CoV-2" and provide contextualization that its not being widely accepted. The same way we do for the Li-Meng Yan preprints, or the 2021 report by the Republican House Minority. Both are currently in the article despite making similarly strong (or stronger) biomedical claims, alongside the necessary contextualization to not be taken at face value. I'm not opposed to holding such a high standard for sourcing, I'm saying we don't currently hold the article to such a high level, and should not reflexively do so here without reconsidering the other sources used in the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Not consistent with Andersen's comments: adds to evidence base but not "direct evidence of infected raccoon dogs at the market" and "high up on my list of potential hosts? Yes, but it’s definitely not the only one." But that's just my take to prioritize Andersen's views in any news item. fiveby(zero) 15:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The real news here i think is buried by flashy headline from The Atlantic: Shortly after the meeting, the Chinese team’s preprint went into review at a Nature Research journal—suggesting that a new version was being prepared for publication. fiveby(zero) 15:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

My reading of these sources is there was DNA evidence that raccoon dogs were present at the market, which proves nothing vis a vis covid. It makes it more plausible that there were infected raccoon dogs at the market, but there is still no evidence that the animals were infected, much less than they were responsible for human patient zero. RS think this relates to the lab leak hypothesis, so it bears a mention. The factual claim is there was evidence that raccoon dogs were at the market, and the interprative claim is that this increases the likilihood of zoonotic spillover. Sennalen (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It actually shows 1) there were raccoon dogs present and 2) the virus and the raccoon dog DNA were present in the same precise swabs, correlated near 100%. If the sources describe this as evidence of association between raccoon dogs and the virus vis a vis one was infected with the other, then we do as well. We describe what the sources say, not our personal opinions thereof. — Shibbolethink 14:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Some sources may be drawing the conclusion that this is evidence that racoon dogs were infected, but this fact definitely seems to be contested. For example,

"this doesn’t prove that raccoon dogs or any of the other animals at the market were infected with the virus in December 2019 and such evidence is now impossible to source, says Hughes"

New Scientist PieLover3141592654 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

New source: Scientific American (March 17, 2023):

• "Samples containing viral RNA, which had been collected at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in early 2020, also contained genetic material from raccoon dogs—a foxlike type of canid apparently sold at the market—as well as other animals. The genetic material came from the same areas of the market where SARS-CoV-2 was found, suggesting that the raccoon dogs may have been infected with the virus (possibly by other animals) and could have been the first to spread the virus to humans."
• "Once we sort of stripped away all of the supposition and the data that didn’t hold up to scrutiny, all that was left was the market."-Joel Wertheim, evolutionary biologist at UC San Diego. — Shibbolethink 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this about the "lab leak theory" though? Probably more for the investigation/origin article. Bon courage (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Why ‘lab leak’ proponents are unconvinced by raccoon dog evidence" If you build on the evidence, they will come and move the goalposts. fiveby(zero) 23:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The evidence is that spillover happened before September 2019, so you can analyze market swabs from November all damn day and never prove anything about the pandemic's origin. Sennalen (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That appears to be original research based on your personal opinions. We say what the sources say. — Shibbolethink 14:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We have to wait for RS to catch up with the evidence, sure. As editors though everyone should recognize that spillover can not have happened at the Huanan seafood market in November. Consequently, the Andersen proximal origin paper is revealed to be as much of a just-so story as any lab leak hypothesis. Anyone who thought that was an ironclad case should update their priors and recognize their own motivated reasoning. (Or they can be fringe theorists who move the goalposts.) Sennalen (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources indicating a pre-September spillover? The current prose and sourcing in the COVID-19 pandemic article indicates mid-October to mid-November spillover. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Linked above Sennalen (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Am I correct that this is a correspondence, versus what we would typically consider a more thoroughly vetted literature review? They seem to be proposing an alternative interpretation, versus being the accepted view. They may turn out to be right, but aren't yet considered the mainstream interpretation. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I would say that is an WP:RSOPINION, and probably not one that is DUE for inclusion here. — Shibbolethink 16:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This is probably more relevant on that article, yes. If anything, because it's not (yet) the mainstream explanation we're contextualizing this article against. I think it's a more compelling reason to adjust our sourcing around than just not being MEDRS. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just worried that as anything to do with SCV2 origin happens, it will get piled in here. Ideally this article should refocus onto the (conspiracy) theory and what it is, rather than all the stuff it's not. Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation is the main article for conspiracy theories. Lab leak is a mainstream minority scientific hypothesis. Sennalen (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That appears to be your interpretation/opinion. I think the scope of this article also includes some conspiracy theories as well as minority scientific viewpoints. We certainly discuss them. — Shibbolethink 16:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This sums up the whole story of these raccoon dog claims. Sennalen (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

We typically don't consider The Telegraph very reliable for scientific/political claims. — Shibbolethink 16:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It's adequate for debunking misinformation in The Atlantic. Sennalen (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see The Atlantic''s article cited here, so what's your article content suggestion? Per Bakkster Man there's an issue in the article with the varying levels of sourcing. I think some editors have tried to write an encyclopedia article with WP:BESTSOURCES and try to keep it that way as much as possible as per Bon courage. But that seems difficult to accomplish in the face of the flood of news article content and WP's policies; all the comments, reasonable or not at the time, amplified by and filtered through journalists wanting to make headlines.

I don't know how that could be fixed, but including content from the article you've pointed to is way over the line into the self-sealing reasoning that should at least be kept out of the content here as it definitely does not serve the reader. fiveby(zero) 12:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It could be fixed by deleting the article and confining the core of knowledge elsewhere. But that isn't gonna happen because scoffpag editors don't really want to heed WP:NOTNEWS. Bon courage (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, apologies to those who tried, but i would vote delete as providing a net-negative educational value to the reader. fiveby(zero) 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This section is about a story broken by The Atlantic. If you want to explore self-sealing reasoning, talk about how the presence of an uninfected raccoon dog proves anything about zoonosis. Sennalen (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This section is about a pre-print research paper delivered to SAGO. The Atlantic is only one of the potential sources we could have used, if the topic was determined to be appropriate for the article. Cherry picking the weakest opposing source in order to claim your preferred source is stronger is not a good tactic. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The Atlantic broke the story of a correspondence marked "not for publication" and the other news sources are secondary coverage that credit The Atlantic. Sennalen (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep. What's your point? All that secondary coverage is the heart of what makes a topic WP:DUE on wikipedia. They also did other coverage and reported other things that were not described directly in the original report, such as interviewing additional scientists etc. — Shibbolethink 17:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone is proposing we put the claims from The Atlantic piece in the article, so I'm wondering why we're arguing about this.

The scientists referenced in the article have now confirmed that they won't be submitting a paper for peer review on this data and pre-prints are not RS, so I think it's pretty clear cut.

If a peer reviewed paper is published based on this data at some point in the future we can re-evaluate. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The point is The Telegraph has rough parity. If something about raccoon dogs goes in the article using existing sources, the article can also explain why it sheds no real light on the pandemic's origin. Sennalen (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I take the point, but my view is it doesn't warrant inclusion in the first place unless and until there is a peer reviewed paper. Misplaced Pages policy is very clear that pre-prints are not RS for biomedical topics and writing an article about a pre-print doesn't magically transform the pre-print into a RS. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The point is The Telegraph has rough parity
Does it? WP:RSP says: Some editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics. This is doubtless a topic tainted by politics given the widespread anti-Chinese sentiment in these issues. And the aforementioned outlets have no such considerations in their WP:RSP entries. I would heavily dispute the assertion that the Telegraph is as reliable as The Atlantic, the NYT, Scientific American, or Science when it comes to questions of science that are tainted by americo-centric sinophobic politics. — Shibbolethink 19:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I can at least see the validity of arguing that the Atlantic and Telegraph should be given similar weight if the two gave contrary reports. I'd disagree that they had parity, but I'd understand why someone would make the case.

But as you point out, we also have the NYT, Scientific American, and Science News as available sources. This isn't a case where only the Atlantic and Telegraph weigh in, as is more typical of these kinds of source reliability discussions. We don't need to cite the Atlantic at all, and if we don't we shouldn't use the potential that The Telegraph is roughly equivalent to a source we haven't used because it's less reliable than the WP:BESTSOURCES we choose to cite as justification for citing a source that's equivalent to the source we didn't cite for being less reliable. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Most sources in this topic should be considered "biased or opinionated for politics", even the peer-reviewed articles. The routine application of WP:BIASEDSOURCES always applies. Sennalen (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that most sources in this topic are biased one way or the other. The whole debate has become politicised in a way that most scientific topics are not. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Most sources in this topic should be considered "biased or opinionated for politics", even the peer-reviewed articles This seems to be your personal opinion, and does not reflect the consensus described at WP:RSP. — Shibbolethink 20:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The Atlantic broke the story of a correspondence marked "not for publication". Back to my original point, how does this differ from DRASTIC breaking the story of an unfunded grant proposal? Or a report by US House Republicans based on sketchy science? Or the debunked preprints published by Li-Meng Yan? Or conclusions based on private correspondence with Anthony Fauci early in the pandemic? All of these are currently covered in the article because of their reactions being considered notable, despite the original publication being what we would generally consider unreliable. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Because you and Shibbolethink saw objections to the content and didn't just add it to the article anyway based on: it's cited to what i consider an RS so you can't keep it out? As long as the content isn't "Raccoon Dogs!" or "Best Evidence Yet!", then inclusion probably make for a better article. fiveby(zero) 19:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I truly think it's borderline. I would prefer a scientific RS or secondary review paper which considers these findings. But these high quality news-based RSes (meaning The Atlantic, Science, NYT and Scientific American) aren't prohibited, per se. They just aren't preferred. I think any mention should be more brief due to the lower quality of the sourcing, but basically my preferred inclusion would be relying more heavily on the quotations from prominent experts on the topic and how it relates to the lab leak theory rather than just describing the events themselves. I agree with Bakkster Man, this is roughly on par with those other controversies in its quality of sourcing, so we should mention. I would very explicitly say, though, that we should exclude anything from The Telegraph as it is considered much less reliable for this type of content compared to those higher quality longform news sources described above. — Shibbolethink 19:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

And to be clear, I think there's a reasonable argument that this report isn't notable to the lab leak theory, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. I just disagree that the source quality argument is even valid, unless we also use it to trim a lot of content based on low-quality sources from the article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll always argue for better source quality, but that's really not helpful when reasonable editors try but unreasonable editors don't. What was it The Telegraph said? They were planning on releasing COVID-19 particles into the air or something like that? Yet still have to argue against including that source here. fiveby(zero) 21:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

My view remains that it shouldn't be included (yet) as any articles and quotes on this topic are referring to pre-print research that has not been peer reviewed and is explicitly not RS for biomedical questions such as 'does the sample suggest a racoon dog was infected with COVID?'. If a pre-print is not RS, a quote about the results of a pre-print is also not RS.

There are good reasons why pre-prints are not considered RS for biomedical questions, namely there could be issues with the data and/or the analysis. In this case other equally qualified scientists have come up with different conclusions from the same data.

In any case, I'm not convinced this research moves along the debate. The authors have admitted that it doesn't prove racoon dogs were infected. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"doesn't prove racoon dogs were infected" sure.It provides evidence for the conclusion that raccoon dogs were infected. Amidst a growing mountain of experimental and empirical evidence which supports the same. — Shibbolethink 20:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Wu, Katherine J. (March 16, 2023). "The Strongest Evidence Yet That an Animal Started the Pandemic - A new analysis of genetic samples from China appears to link the pandemic's origin to raccoon dogs. - updated". The Atlantic. Retrieved March 17, 2023.
2. Mueller, Benjamin (March 16, 2023). "New Data Links Pandemic's Origins to Raccoon Dogs at Wuhan Market - Genetic samples from the market were recently uploaded to an international database and then removed after scientists asked China about them". The New York Times. Retrieved March 17, 2023.
3. Cohen, Jon (March 16, 2023). "Unearthed genetic sequences from China market may point to animal origin of COVID-19 - French scientist finds previously undisclosed data from Chinese research team". Science. doi:10.1126/science.adh8345. Retrieved March 17, 2023.

Requested edit

I'm requesting that the following be added to the article. I know that this is just an opinion column, but the writer is a regular reporter for the Washington Post, and this piece actually reads more like a news column than an opinion column. I think it's reliable. I will understand if people object based on it being listed as an opinion. I do think it at least deserves consideration and discussion. I'd like to hear what others think. Thank you.

On April 14, 2020, in an opinion column for the Washington Post, Josh Rogin said that two years before the outbreak started, U.S. officials had visited the Wuhan lab that had been studying coronavirus, and that they had said that lab workers were not following proper safety procedures. Rogin wrote that a letter from these U.S. observers, "warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic."

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC) SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for this article and likely not DUE at any of the other related articles given that this person is not an expert and thus WP:RSOPINION probably doesn't apply. "Anonymous unnamed sources" typically don't count for much on Misplaced Pages. I believe we already mention this with more reliable sources at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19.— Shibbolethink 21:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The opinion belongs to U.S. state department workers who visited WIV. That seems extremely DUE to me. Sennalen (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree. "Officials from the embassy’s environment, science and health sections" would not have been sent to the lab if they didn't have any expertise in lab safety. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We've actually had several discussions about this in the talk archives, see: 1, 2. The consensus at that time in those discussions was not in favor of it being WP:DUE. It bears mentioning that the two US state dept officials actually wanted to increase funding to the WIV. and increase US support of their virus sampling programs. — Shibbolethink 02:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. I guess that's why opinion is treated differently than news. And thanks for all of the other things that you said. I'll go with the consensus, which is against adding the content. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Unwarranted Exclusion of Intermediate Lineage A-B SARS-CoV-2 Genomes Is Inconsistent with the Two-Spillover Hypothesis of the Origin of COVID-19

Steven Massey et al. "Unwarranted Exclusion of Intermediate Lineage A-B SARS-CoV-2 Genomes Is Inconsistent with the Two-Spillover Hypothesis of the Origin of COVID-19" https://www.mdpi.com/2036-7481/14/1/33

About one of the two "siren has sounded" papers: Multiple errors, biases, and inconsistencies were observed in the exclusion process. For example, 12 intermediate genomes from one study were excluded; however, 54 other genomes from the same study were included, indicating selection bias. Puzzlingly, two intermediate genomes from Beijing were discarded despite an average sequencing depth of 2175X; however, four genomes from the same sequencing study were included in the analysis. Lastly, we discuss 14 additional possible intermediate genomes not discussed by Pekar et al. and note that genome sequence filtration is inappropriate when considering the presence or absence of a specific SNV pair in an outbreak. Consequently, we find that the exclusion of many of the intermediate genomes is unfounded, leaving the conclusion of two natural zoonoses unsupported. Sennalen (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

MDPI. "Person X", lovely, just what's needed. fiveby(zero) 17:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

MDPI journals are typically not considered very reliable on Misplaced Pages. — Shibbolethink 20:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources with documented WP:INACCURACY should be de-weighted, even if the criticisms aren't repeated in the article. Sennalen (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Some recent research

Courtier-Orgogozo "SARS-CoV-2 infection at the Huanan seafood market"Based on available evidence, we suggest that several early infections at the Huanan market may have occurred via human-to-human transmission in closed spaces such as canteens, Mahjong rooms or toilets. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122010295

Frutos "There is no “origin” to SARS-CoV-2" To date there is no experimental data to support a spillover of SARS-CoV-2 from any animal species. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935121014742

Domingo "An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2" Although most data certainly point to a natural origin, the intermediate host has not been found, and the hypothesis of a laboratory-leak has not been yet scientifically discarded. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512201458X

Flegr "Thus spoke peptides: SARS-CoV-2 spike gene evolved in humans and then shortly in rats while the rest of its genome in horseshoe bats and then in treeshrews" we can suggest that the small hexapeptide T-distance between both SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13 and the treeshrew indicates that both of these viruses were recently shortly passaged in the treeshrew. This animal is relatively cheap and easily bred in captivity. Moreover, it is phylogenetically related to primates, which is why it is kept in many medical research laboratories . In virological laboratories, treeshrews are often kept for the purpose of serial passage of viruses. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2022.2057010

Hassan "Non-uniform aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 intraspecies evolution reopen question of its origin" Such atypical characteristics have contributed to the resurfacing of the question of the origin of the SARS-CoV-2. So far, no clear animal progenitor or intermediary host has been confirmed. Therefore, in light of these observations, the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 originated as a leak from the Wuhan lab is taken seriously now. Primarily, a zoonotic source was thought to have spilled over to humans through the ‘wet market’ in Wuhan, China, where the virus was first detected in December 2019 , , , , . But later, several other orthogonal hypotheses reverted to the old question about the SARS-CoV-2 origin , , , , . It is clear that although it is very likely that SARS-CoV-2 has zoonotic roots and originated as a result of a transition between bats and humans, the available data also suggest that this transition is most likely to have necessitated an intermediate animal. Importantly, this view does not tell whether the spillover happened in an open environment setting or within a laboratory, as many virology laboratories use animal models. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141813022021158 Sennalen (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtier-Orgogozo is from November 2022, not exactly recent. It's from before the recent evidence about animal DNA was described.Frutos (the one you linked) is from May 2022, and I believe already referenced heavily in the article.Domingo is also from 2022 (December) and thus out of date and from before more recent findings.Fiegr is a primary reference and thus not suitable for our purposes.Hassan is also a primary reference and thus not suitable for our purposes.What is the point of compiling these lower-quality and out of date references? — Shibbolethink 20:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed articles are going to be several months behind preprints. Should we be giving more priority to recent preprints? Should we start deprecating all the sources in the article older than this January? How about David Gorski's super-expert self-published blog? The goal-posts here are mounted on rocket skates. Sennalen (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that using these to invalidate the comments in the sections above would make no sense. If you are interested in just integrating some of these ideas outside of what was discussed in those sections...be my guest, we can, as always, all follow WP:BRD in that. — Shibbolethink 18:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class COVID-19 articles
• High-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Low-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• C-Class emergency medicine and EMS articles
• Low-importance emergency medicine and EMS articles
• Emergency medicine and EMS task force articles
• C-Class society and medicine articles
• Mid-importance society and medicine articles
• Society and medicine task force articles
• C-Class pulmonology articles
• Mid-importance pulmonology articles
• Pulmonology task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class Molecular Biology articles
• Low-importance Molecular Biology articles
• All WikiProject Molecular Biology pages
• C-Class virus articles
• Low-importance virus articles
• WikiProject Viruses articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press