Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:51, 6 January 2025

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

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about COVID-19 lab leak theory. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about COVID-19 lab leak theory at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 18, 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis → COVID-19 lab leak theory, Moved, 26 July 2021 (discussion) COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy, Not moved, 15 August 2023 (discussion) COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 Lab Leak Conspiracy Theory, Not moved, 2 October 2023 (discussion) COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak conspiracy theory, Not moved, 20 February 2024 (discussion) COVID-19 lab leak theory → COVID-19 lab leak theories, Speedy close with one-year moratorium on any page move requests, 1 March 2024 (discussion)

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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.

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. Julian Adorney (6 November 2023). "Is it possible to save Misplaced Pages?". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 13 November 2023. The Misplaced Pages page for the COVID-19 lab leak theory, for instance, calls it a "conspiracy theory" that is "informed by racist undercurrents" and "fed by pseudoscientific … thinking." That's in spite of the fact that a 302-page Senate report found credible evidence for the theory.

• 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

http://lu.china-embassy.gov.cn/fra/zlgx/202111/t20211108_10445665.htm represents the Chinese government position and has some interesting data, like confirmation that the CCDC is feet from the wet market (current article says "within miles", which isn't appropriate. Someone please fix. I see it's not among the sources. There isn't a single .gov.cn source in the article. -RememberOrwell (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses

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

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

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

It contains this passage:

"Construction of recombinant viruses

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Seems like an unambiguous error. It's still there.

Please add after the sentence.

Visual editor doesn't work on this page. Why? RememberOrwell (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

What part of "Please add after the sentence" do you not understand? RememberOrwell (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done The visual editor doesn't work because you don't have access to edit this page. Ultraodan (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! (Today I can edit this page. E.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ACOVID-19_lab_leak_theory&section=1&veaction=edit Switching to "Visual Editor" was disabled and greyed out but today I realized I was able to get around that by removing "source" from the end of the URL. I'm not sure what is or what was preventing it the other day. And I was and am still talking about this - the talk page. I'm not talking about using "Visual Editor" for the article page at all. I suppose using the visual editor can backfire, so perhaps that's why it's greyed out.) RememberOrwell (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment

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

Is there enough reputable source material—in favor of the lab leak hypothesis—referenced in the body of this page, to justify softening the anti-lab leak tone in the lead paragraph and including some acknowledgement of the hypothesis being viable/legitimate/plausible? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the article comes across as very biased and dismissive, considering that it claims the issue is "controversial". But take a look at this source: https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/ 70.65.36.36 (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's another article: https://theconversation.com/did-covid-come-from-an-animal-market-heres-what-the-new-evidence-really-tells-us-239533. I'm sure there must be good sources by now in favour of the lab leak hypothesi, or at least ones that don't dismiss it out of hand. 70.65.36.36 (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

There is some relevant content in this source that should be added to the article. For example, after “ The original source of viral transmission to humans remains unclear, as does whether the virus became pathogenic(capable of causing disease) before or after a spillover event.” it should be added:

No SARS-CoV-2 was ever detected in live animals in the Wuhan market, nor in the supply chain for wild animals to the market. The closest natural reservoir of similar viruses is over 1,500 km away. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No SARS-CoV-2 was ever detected in live animals in the Wuhan market, nor in the supply chain for wild animals to the market
This is disingenuous. A peer-reviewed study has linked the virus to the wet market via sequencing samples recovered from around and within an animal stall, virus RNA commingled with DNA from animals in that stall, at similar levels and locations to known animal-circulating viruses. — Shibbolethink 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

So what's the alleged story here? "SARS-CoV-2 was detected there, but it was detected in the market's air/fixtures/infrastructure, and they didn't test live animals"? or "They tested live animals, but the ones they tested didn't happen to be infected, so that absence of evidence is proof that none of them ever were infected"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No live animals were ever tested. The whole market was already thoroughly sanitized and there weren't any live animals left to test by the time the researchers showed up. Thus, as with the lack of direct evidence of a laboratory incident (if any) being apparently non-existent due to delays and a lack of transparency, there is no direct evidence of a spillover from animals, only circumstantial, as no testing of live animals was ever conducted, and the zoonotic hypothesis stands on samples taken from the environment. And they never found SARS-CoV-2 per se in wild bats even when they did look for it. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's see: the first known cases was in December 2019, so the spillover event likely would have been at least a month or two before that. The first time anyone thought to ask about testing was probably a couple of months after that. So in a perfect world, with infinite resources, we'd have been testing animals in that market in February or March 2020 and pretending that this told us something definitive about the animals that had been there in October of November 2019. Turnover in a market is going to be hours-to-days, so "Animal Zero" would have been long gone.

Well, that pretty much explains to me why none of the experts seem to be fussed about not testing live animals. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

If a COVID-positive human sneezed on a raccoon cage, you would get the same results. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

No it does not as the bulk of the actual science says (at best) is that some of it is worth further investigation. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder why you are focused on "the lead paragraph" instead of the rest of the article. The lead should reflect the whole article. If you want the lead changed, then the thing to do is to show that the lead doesn't match the rest of the article.

Personally, the content I'd like to see in the future would be about the ordinary/non-expert people who feel drawn to this idea. Do they have more or less of some psychological traits (e.g., disliking people who are different, low sense of control over their lives) compared to ordinary/non-expert people who reject it? Do they overlap with the kind of person susceptible to diseases of despair (e.g., poor job prospects, low education, limited social support)? Do they believe other conspiracy theories (e.g., 9/11 was an inside job, Biden lost the 2020 election) or other false stories (e.g., women have taken over)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the body contains enough reputable source material on the side of the lab leak theory to warrant revising the lead so that it’s not so dismissive of the hypothesis. There are reputable authorities that do not consider the hypothesis a non-starter, and many of them are documented in this article. Therefore, the lead seems awkwardly ill-fitted to the rest of the article, presenting a hard-line POV whereas the information that follows is often depicted as more of a mainstream minority position, for the lack of a better word, rather than just pure pseudoscience.

Your interest in the personal traits of the people who consider the lab leak hypothesis viable is worthy of exploration, at least in the talk pages. Have you encountered any reputable content that hasn’t already been added? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I have seen no sources on this. We have scholarly sources on similar subjects (e.g., people who choose altmed for cancer, or for people who believe conspiracy theories in general), so I am hopeful that these sources will appear at some point in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Check out Fringe science#Responding to fringe science Lardlegwarmers (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have seen no sources on this "This" means "lab leak", which is obviously not mentioned in that 1995 source. Proponents of fringe ideas talk about general stuff like that all the time (see also Galileo Gambit), because if they talk about the specific fringe idea, they have nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I think it is relevant to reply to this comment by saying

The 'Biden lost the 2020 election' was a bunk nonsense before November 5th, but after the election, it's at least reasonable to thoerize how Biden got 8 million votes than Harris. It's still a conspiracy theory, but it become more interesting after November 5th.213.230.87.98 (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What has this to do with anything? Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(I think that 213.230 is talking about the 2024 election, not the 2020 election. The 2020 election is the one that resulted in events like the January 6 United States Capitol attack and Trump phoning the Georgia election officials to ask them to "find" some votes for him. Anyone who believes Trump won the 2020 election instead of Biden was wrong, and most of them believed in some election-related conspiracy theory.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Still sod all to do with the lab leak theory. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

They're both conspiracy theories from the same time period. They were even promoted by the same groups. It feels like a fair comparison point to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

No... One is a conspiracy theory and one we're unsure about. From the top of the page "This article is about the hypothesis proposing SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory. For bioweapon conspiracy theories, see COVID-19 misinformation § Bio-weapon." The position that the COVID-19 lab leak theory is overall a conspiracy theory is a fringe one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

WAID, this is really out of date.

When the House committee was conducting interviews, one of their standard questions was whether lab leak was a conspiracy theory. Collins, Fauci, and Tabak at NIH, Daszak at EcoHealth, Thorp at Science, Garry and Andersen from the Proximal Origins paper, all stated in congressional testimony that it was not a conspiracy theory. - Palpable (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's not just a conspiracy theory. There is a conspiracy theory that says something like "They™ deliberately engineered a worldwide pandemic".

There is also a rational hypothesis that says something like "Biosecurity facilities are not foolproof; if and only if this virus happened to get collected and sent to this lab , if and only if it happened to get handled , if and only if it happened to be a kind that could already infect humans, if and only if one of the lab workers happened to get exposed to it , if any only if that lab worker happened to be susceptible to infection, if and only if that lab worker was in contact during the infectious period with other people who were also susceptible, if any only if the virus were already in a readily transmissible state – well, if that whole Chain of events (accident analysis) were true, then logically, it could have happened that way."

But what I'm talking about is somewhere between these two stories. It sounds more like this: "They™ are hiding something from me. They™ did not immediately allow people whom I trust to travel into a dangerous city and sequence every single one of the millions of samples stored in multiple facilities to see whether any of them happen to match. They™ did not prove to my satisfaction that the kind of work they do in that lab is all work I would approve of. They™ should have known, several months before the pandemic lockdowns, that the lab's work needed to be suspended and the place stored in amber. I have heard reports that some of those lab workers were sick during cold and flu season! Being sick with anything means they might have had COVID-19, and it is being covered up. If there is nothing being covered up, why have we not seen a complete list of the names of every staff member, detailed logs of their symptoms for the months leading up to the lockdowns, and complete copies of lab work proving that none of them had ever had COVID-19? Surely there's a magic test somewhere that can say, months later, that person has had COVID-19, but it was in March 2020 and not November 2019. Frankly, something this disruptive to my whole life simply could not have been an ordinary zoonosis event. Someone has to deserve the blame. I want to blame someone, preferably someone who is different from me, and I blame Them™. I don't have proof, but it is at least likely that They™ are covering up something. They™ probably caused this accidentally in their lab." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

My point again is that people here are unduly obsessed with the conspiracy theory angle given that many of the people involved have testified to Congress that lab leak is not a conspiracy theory.

The evidence for research involvement is circumstantial but goes way beyond the vague suspicions, gut feelings, and resentment in your caricature. The best attempt to quantify it is Weissman's detailed analysis, which looks for probabilities that can be estimated to compare different origin theories. There's a surprising amount known, though both theories are missing the ancestral sequence that would settle it. Weissman is a retired physicist, has taught university statistics, and has a published paper in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A pointing out a statistical error in Worobey et al. You don't have to agree with his conclusion, but if you think there's no evidence you might want to take a look. - Palpable (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

We seem to have the discussion every month. "It" is not a conspiracy theory, and the article doesn't say so if "it" just means entertaining the idea that a lab origin is possible. Pretty much everything else is, however, either a conspiracy theory, irrational, political, racist, or "simply wrong". That's what the WP:BESTSOURCES say and so does Misplaced Pages. It's not hard. The Weismann stuff is useless to us. Bon courage (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This might amuse some of you: I met someone once who had testified to the US Congress. He was a nice older man telling me about his charitable interests (we were probably at a fundraiser for one of them), and he said one of the big medical charities put his name on a list of "ordinary citizens" to do the congressional lobbying thing. I asked him what the experience was like.

He described the scene, and ended with saying that towards the end, one of the legislators said that, while they were all very nice people and he was duly sympathetic, if the patients ran out of money, their families needed to pay for the rest because he didn't want to raise taxes. So, this very nice older man told me, he testified to Congress that 50% of them didn't have any living family members – a number he told me that he made up on the spot.

I realize that my sample size is n=1, but I would urge you to remember that "testified to Congress" is not a magical truth serum, and that in my own personal experience, 100% of the people I've personally talked to about testifying to Congress knowingly told at least one deliberate lie during their testimony. I accuse none of the specific people of lying; I am willing to hold them as paragons of probity. But you will, I think, understand now why "testified to Congress" is not on my own list of valid evidence for disputed points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Good story. I hope you'll take a look at Weissman's writeup sometime. - Palpable (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I have glanced over parts of it. Some of the assumptions, such as assuming that if a 2018 grant application is not funded, the work will happen in 2019 anyway, do not sound convincing to me. That might be true for an established researcher at his former employer, which is one of the largest research universities in the US, but that doesn't mean it's true for a government agency in China, and even if it's true in general, that doesn't mean it was true in this specific case.

Other assumptions, such as treating "A researcher could have been infected while gathering samples" as a case of a lab leak and not a case of zoonosis, make me wonder whether this is an If by whiskey case: If by lab leak, you mean something that was present in a lab and leaks out of it, then... but if by lab leak, you mean something that happens to a human handling a wild animal in a wild setting, then....

Overall, the whole thing makes me think of https://xkcd.com/882/ and the problems of retrospective studies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Weissman doesn't assume that the work was done? He just tries to quantify the extraordinary coincidence that a virus matching the proposal (unlike any of the thousand known sarbecoviruses) showed up near one of the sites involved in the proposal (as opposed to in one of the provinces closer to all the known relatives) one year after the proposal (instead of some previous decade). It's also worth knowing that some work was to be done in Wuhan specifically because it could be conducted at a lower biosafety level there.

As for the collection-related accident theory, that's why the term "research related" is generally better than "lab leak". An accident in the collection process wouldn't qualify as natural spillover either. But since we're stuck with the common name it makes more sense to lump a collection accident in the lab bucket, because the important questions going forward are (1) should we keep investigating the possibility of research involvement and (2) how much oversight should be required for this kind of research program.

Certainly it would be nice to have more evidence instead of failing to squeeze answers out of a small and biased sample of data points! We wouldn't be talking about this if anyone had found a close enough ancestor, either in someone's database or during the extensive wildlife surveys that followed the spillover.

That's why Weissman limits the analysis to evidence where the two theories can be compared side to side. You can't just argue that "one theory is improbable, so it must have happened the other way" because both theories are improbable. This Bayesian approach has nothing in common with data dredging, the abuse of frequentist hypothesis testing that is skewered in that xkcd.

The other part of the analysis that I particularly recommend discusses weaknesses in the papers claiming to establish a market spillover. In the surveys of experts, I think 15-20% favored research involvement. But many of the other ~80% cited the 2022 market origin papers as the reason for favoring zoonotic spillover, so it's worth understanding how flimsy those papers are. (Amusingly, the people doing that survey also had a negative control question about familiarity with a fictitious paper, and 1/3 of respondents said they were familiar with that one too.) - Palpable (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I refer to his statement that "Although DEFUSE was not funded by DARPA, anyone who has run a grant-supported research lab knows that work on yet-to-be-funded projects routinely continues", which sounds a lot like assuming that work that is not funded was still performed.

Given WP:NOTFORUM, if you want to talk about this, please leave a note on my talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The Weissman article is not peer reviewed, but it cites a few useful pieces of evidence that occur in peer reviewed articles.

Bloom found that for the DNA samples taken in the market "sample-by-sample SC2 RNA correlated negatively with the presence of DNA from possible non-human hosts" (quoting Weissman). In other words, they took a ton of swabs in the sewer pipes, animal cages, etc., at the market, and samples with wild animal DNA were less likely to have evidence of COVID-19 than any random other sample taken from the site.

Crits-Christoph et al. found that (quoting Weissman) "The raccoon dog DNA seems consistent with the local wild animals, consistent with previous reports that these were the source. Those local populations tested negative for SC2-like viruses. No evidence was reported that any potentially susceptible species was sourced from Yunnan or further south." In other words, the wild animals who were kept at the market and it was suggested that they were the host, they were caught near the market, not in the area over 1,000 miles away where the bat coronavirus reservoir is located, and there was no evidence of COVID-19 in the local raccoon dog population.

Seems like the market itself being the site of the spillover is pretty controversial. And given that the wild animal DNA samples taken from the market and found to contain traces of COVID-19 was considered a prized piece of evidence for a zoonotic spillover, it would stand to reason that these findings would be relevant and reliably sourced. Somebody would have to go through the journal articles and confirm the language. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up question, @Palpable: Know any recent surveys showing that among experts, 15-20% favor research involvement, as you say? I ask because I noticed the lede says "most scientists believe the virus spilled" sans citation, and the body says "Most scientists remain skeptical of the possibility of a laboratory origin" sans citation to anything less than 2 years old. I was going to start a new discussion but found in this discussion you already touch on it, so asking first. If we don't have anything less than 1 year old, we mustn't be speaking in the present tense, and if we do, it should be cited. Substantial evidence has come out that supports LL in the last 2 years, as the congressional report (which caused an eight-fold spike in views of the article on Dec 3 but the article is still pretending is not notable) documents. RememberOrwell (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing brought up 2020 election denialism as an example of a mere conspiracy theory. Maybe a better example would be something uncontroversially false, like the flat earth theory, or the geocentric model of the solar system. But I think the point of the comment is that some people are more inclined to trust established sources and ignore sources that challenge the majority, even if they are backed by expertise and/or evidence. We have seen in the past where authorities have provided misinformation to the public, either intentionally or unintentionally. Thus, it is good that we have some people who are “programmed” to try to poke holes in the majority view. But there is obviously a line somewhere that if you cross it then you are just a total nut. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither flat earth nor the geocentric model of the solar system are "uncontroversially false" if you allow people who are clearly incompetent or unhinged. And you have to allow those people if you think that 2020 election denialism is a valid position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I just eyeballed this, and didn’t run a regression analysis. But the total vote count for 2020 being an huge outlier is a data point in favor of that position, so it’s not completely unreasonable. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Go spread your conspiracy theories somewhere else. Someone used an analogy to support another point and now people discuss about which analogy is better instead of how to improve the article. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note as well this RFC is improperly formulated. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I created a request in Misplaced Pages:Teahouse (19:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)) to help me get guidance and sort that out. Feel free to comment there if you have any guidance! Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse people gracefully repaired my bad wikitext. Was that what you were referring to, @Slatersteven? If I don’t hear from you about this again, I will assume that the issue is fixed and we are all set to proceed with the RfC as is. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

No (with a side of impossibly vague RfC). Ledes summarise bodies and for Misplaced Pages to say this stuff is "legitimate" (whatever that is meant to mean) that would need to be in the body. In most of its aspects LL is just conspiratorial nonsense. We already say what some scientists think, and what most scientists think. Also, note that this article is about the lab leak idea, not the actual "legitimate" Origin of SARS-CoV-2 which has its own article. Bon courage (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead not lede, please respect consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

What consensus? There is a consensus to use your preferred spelling in the MOS:LEAD guideline itself, but AFAIK there has never been a discussion about, much less a consensus for, restricting the spelling choices made by individual editors in their own comments on a talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If you don't think that the guideline reflects current consenus you are wecome to challenge it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Does the MOS affect howe we post on talk pages? Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, fuck. Editing Misplaced Pages got me into the habit of using the stupid "lede" spelling and now it's trying to de-programme me. What gives!?? Bon courage (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

(It is a bit weird to see you use an Americanism.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

We beat it into you and by God we will beat it out of you... That lede is the Devil, son. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section says that the spelling ""lede" is avoided in this guideline". It does not say anything about what does or should happen outside "this guideline". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You have provided the most innovative defense of lede I have seen in the half decade I've adopted "lead not lede" as my pet wiki peeve, it is much more fun to argue alongside you than against you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, of course it has to be softened. If the science consensus starts to shift, so should this site.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Ortizesp, where's the evidence that the scientific consensus has shifted compared to, say, a year ago? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• No if the science shifts we might need to change it, I see no evidence it has. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• No, the sources presented above (a primary link to a house subcommittee hearing and a link to The Conversation) are not remotely high-quality enough to move the needle on a subject that has had massive amounts of high-quality academic coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• No, because in the first place I take issue with the characterization of the lead's tone as anti-lab leak... I think we do a pretty good job all things considered and I don't support a major rewrite of the lead at this time. Obviously its not perfect (nothing on wiki is) but I think that its more productive to address any issues individually. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
• No, as the scientific consensus hasn't shifted, and the lead does a great job of portraying what the scientific consensus is. Additionally, the house oversight committee report linked above is not a reliable source, as it has no peer review, is not published in any scientific journal, and is, in essence, a political document written for political reasons. Such documents are not verifiable for controversial or disputed claims. — Shibbolethink 21:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• No. WP:NOLABLEAK, WP:PROFRINGE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• No,I take issue with the characterization of the lead's tone as anti-lab leak..., the lead simply records that the majority of scientific evidence strongly suggests that (like previous similar viruses), an animal crossover source is much more likely and no concrete evidence exists for the lab-leak theory, certainly not in its more conspiratorial versions. We may never know where the virus came from with certainty, so lab-leak scenarios will remain possible but highly improbable and, with the present available evidence, belief in is based on factors other than available evidence. We don't know with certainty means we don't know with certainty. It doesn't mean any particular theory magically becomes more credible. The sources offered don't imply that scientists have changed their assessment as to the most likely source, which could involve human agency, but probably not.Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• No - The current wording is not too strong. It doesn't say a lab leak is crazy or impossible, just "controversial" and less likely. The current version calls it a "hypothesis" and not something more emotive like "conspiracy theory". The wording takes the hypothesis seriously, and mentions the controversy in a neutral tone. It's currently good. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  It says "some of the scenarios" are conspiracy theories, but NOT the overall concept. One of the scenarios was a story China tried to start about it being engineered at a lab the United States. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  The term "conspiracy theory" is not "emotive", it is a valid, clear and easily-done categorization. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. A conspiracy theory is a conclusion reached without sufficient evidence and that in addition requires malfeasance to fill the gaps in the evidence. It is pseudo-science (conclusion first then find supporting evidence, reject or ignore countervailing evidence) but with added paranoia.

  Compare this approach with the consensus of competent scientists: we don't know what caused it. Period. But we what we can say is that corona (and influenza) viruses regularly and frequently jump from animals to humans – especially when handling or consuming bushmeat – and there is no obvious reason why this one should be any different.

  My response to the RFC is also no. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  (If it doesn't pretend to be scientific, e.g., New World Order conspiracy theory or 9/11 conspiracy theories, then a conspiracy theory is not pseudoscience. Some COVID-19-related conspiracy theories are not pseudoscience because they are about "taking away my rights" or "controlling the economy".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes While every sentence in the lead is accurate, it's undue/ not NPOV to only mention evidence against lab leaks while ignoring the many scientific and journalistic sources that says it's a possibility and what evidence they have. Hi! (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I note we have no suggestion of how to soften it, so what is it we should change is it not controversial? Do most scientists agree there was a lab leak? Do most scientists disagree that it was spread by bats sold at the market? That there is actual evidence it did in fact exist in the lab prior to the outbreak? Which of these statements is correct? Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• No As the RFC question is unworkably vague. Also nothing has changed, the lableak is a minority view surrounded by conspiracy theories. The current lead does a good job of presenting these details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• No - Whatever change is requested, I haven't see any rationale. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• No - It remains a WP:FRINGE topic. Fieari (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Association between SARS-CoV-2 and metagenomic content of samples from the Huanan Seafood Market, Jesse D Bloom, Virus Evolution, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2023, vead050. Published: 24 August 2023.
2. Genetic tracing of market wildlife and viruses at the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, Alexander Crits-Christoph et al., Cell, 2024. Published online 2024.

house committee

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20241202-us-lawmakers-back-covid-chinese-lab-leak-theory-after-two-year-probe 205.220.129.246 (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear Misplaced Pages has been fully debunked once again. Wiki is considered just silly propaganda at this point which is why the world has moved on. Here's the final word on the matter:

“By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced.”

https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/ 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:653E:8FA3:A6B:F468 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A political comittee as the final word? Their words are less valuable than toilet paper. Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

They are at least worth mentioning as a word. You and several other editors seem determined to entirely quash any point of view with which you disagree, rather than presenting multiple possibilities fairly and letting the read draw his own conclusions. Whether you agree or disagree with it, whether you agree or disagree with their methodologies, whether you think they are reliable or not, a two year investigation from a governmental body is certainly worth mentioning and is most definitely not fringe. Wilh3lm 12:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That's because Misplaced Pages policy is to omit bullshit unless there are some good sources analysing it. Bon courage (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A committee of random people from a randomly selected country decides what is true? When was this way of deciding such questions introduced? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The report contains the sources and methodology from which they arrived at the conclusion that a lab leak was likely. They didn't just declare it, they had a two year investigation. Also, I wouldn't call one of the largest and most powerful and influential countries "randomly selected". Wilh3lm 12:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

So? I can say The House is full of morons, providing copious sources and methodology (such as examining their pronouncements on issues, that would not make it scientific. They are not qualified to make such judgments. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a junk source. Maybe try conservapedia for somewhere where this sort of stuff passes muster? Bon courage (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A two year investigation conducted by a bunch of political hacks? Yeah, nah that's not what we consider to be a reliable source around here. TarnishedPath 00:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is. I could give hundreds of other examples of house committee reports being cited as a source without any issue.

You can't say house committee reports are, by nature, unreliable, because they are cited thoroughly throughout hundreds of articles. So you are in effect just saying this particular report you don't like because .

You are applying a double-standard here. There has to be a specific reason THIS PARTICULAR house report is not reliable. Otherwise you're just saying you'll let in whatever house report you like and not let in whatever house report you don't like based on your opinion of it. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliability is subject-specific. Politicians do not get to decide scientific questions. See Indiana Pi Bill, Lyssenkoism and Climate change denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

A committee of random people

Not random people, sitting U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen.

from a randomly selected country

Not randomly selected, seeing as the US is at least alleged to be the ones funding gain-of-function research at Wuhan. I think that's extremely relevant. Don't know why you think that's "random."

decides what is true

I think their 2 years of official evidence and investigation at least must be shown to be incorrect, not presumed to be.

When was this way of deciding such questions

When did groups of people studying, researching, and presenting evidence of a phenomenon become the way we decide such questions? I don't know, since at least Aristotle? BabbleOnto (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

When they're inexpert and politically-motivated. Misplaced Pages has well-established WP:PAGs for sources and they're not going to get relaxed to admit this latest nonsense from a certain country. Bon courage (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Stalin got away with Lyssenkoism and with jailing scientists who disagreed with his favorite quack, but hopefully the US has enough brains and enough democratic attitude left to rebuff this ridiculous "The Supreme Leadership said it, it therefore it is true" crap. Misplaced Pages definitely has. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be relevant if the report were just "our opinions on the matter of covid." But instead of is a compilation of testimony from experts and objective evidence exhibits, such as photographs, records, and emails.

If you're accusing the House of being an unreliable source because they're somehow fabricating evidence and secretly manipulating witnesses to perpetuate some grand conspiracy, then I don't know how you can ever call me the "fringe" opinion. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. Groups of politicians are not in there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you find it acceptable if I instead cited to a news article from a reliable news organization regarding this report, then? This would seemingly quell your problem with it being directly from the US House.

Science (the journal)

CNN reporting

Al Jazeera BabbleOnto (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No, quality WP:SECONDARY sourcing is needed to establish due weight and put the fringeiness in proper context/ Bon courage (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The report is not "fringe" it is an official report of the United States Government. Even if you disagree with it personally, it is not "fringe," almost by definition. Committees of Congress are not "fringe sources." That argument is invalid. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

For the purposes of understanding a complex scientific phenomena, the opinions of politicians (especially those with an antagonistic relationship with the other nation involved) can very much be considered "fringe". Lostsandwich (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not "The opinions of politicians." This is not a citation to a politician's twitter account. This is an official report generated by a bipartisan committee. This is the collective evidence from dozens of hearings and subpoenas on the issue, and is the collective work of a dozen US congressmen and congresswomen. It at no time is or purports to be the mere "Opinion of politicians." It at all times both purports to be and is factual in nature. By your logic all scientific papers could just be defined "The opinions of some scientists" and summarily dismissed. That is a nonsense argument.

So far all arguments against this source have been semantic in nature and attempts redefine the report as something it is not, or attach adjectives to it that are not appropriate which would thereby automatically disqualify it. No one has presented a substantive issue with the inclusion of this report as a source. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an official report generated by a bipartisan committee.

So... Politicians.

. This is the collective evidence from dozens of hearings and subpoenas on the issue, and is the collective work of a dozen US congressmen and congresswomen

So... Politicians.

By your logic all scientific papers could just be defined "The opinions of some scientists" and summarily dismissed. That is a nonsense argument

Well, since the issue is scientific in nature, one wouldn't go dismissing the opinions of experts on the matter.

So far all arguments against this source have been semantic in nature and attempts redefine the report as something it is not,

So was it politicians or? Lostsandwich (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

So was it politicians or?

The point being not that Congress is not full of politicians, as you're facetiously implying, but that reports of the US government are not generally considered "opinions" of the various officeholders who submit them.

Much in the same way that we don't say "It is the opinion of some US politicians that JFK was assassinated" or "It is the opinion of some US politicians that Nixon was responsible for the Watergate scandal." We would say "A US Congressional investigation report found that Nixon was responsible for the Watergate scandal." BabbleOnto (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

So it was in fact, the opinion of politicians. Politicians of course that had both already made up their mind prior to this committee, and regularly demonstrated themselves to be firmly within the "science is whatever I say it is" camp. Lostsandwich (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Your reply does not address anything I actually said. BabbleOnto (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I addressed everything you said. Lostsandwich (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I said:

reports of the US government are not generally considered "opinions" of the various officeholders who submit them.

Then provided an example of that. You replied

So it was in fact, the opinion of politicians.

Do you see how that's not addressing what I said? BabbleOnto (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I addressed precisely that. Lostsandwich (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

So it was in fact, the opinion of politicians. Politicians of course that had both already made up their mind prior to this committee, and regularly demonstrated themselves to be firmly within the "science is whatever I say it is" camp

Where do you address my reasoning and refute my evidence that reports are not typically considered the opinions of those politicians on the committee who generates them? You don't even mention either of my examples in this supposed "precise addressment."

Point to the exact sentence. Highlight where you say "House reports actually are opinions of politicians who make them becasue..." BabbleOnto (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

So was it the opinions of politicians? Yes or no question. Lostsandwich (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Answer my question first. BabbleOnto (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The value of the report is not what members of Congress determined, but the compilation of sources. Journalists who are themselves not experts in the field are regularly cited for the compilation of witness statements and expert opinions. I don't think a congressional committee is any different than a journalist in that sense. Dustinscottc (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

When scientifically incompetent people collect stuff from competent ones, the result is not reliable because the incompetent people get to choose what to include and what to omit. When the incompetent people are also biased, it gets worse. See Cherry picking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable taking as a role model a man who proclaimed that females have fewer teeth than males. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Why can we easily reject house committee reports like this when they're about scientific topics? Because they're very often done by people without any understanding of science, for a purely political purpose, with no regard for accuracy or truth. Examples of this abound. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A politicised committee report. Oh nooos, what will we ever do. TarnishedPath 00:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

have you read the sources you're linking? Look at Science: The Republican-led Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic conducted more than 30 interviews, held numerous hearings, often fiery and partisan ... The committee’s 520-page report, released on 2 December, offers no new direct evidence of a lab leak, but summarizes a circumstantial case ... Democrats on the panel released their own report challenging many of their colleagues’ conclusions about COVID-19 origins ... The Republicans’ report, led by committee chair Representative Brad Wenstrup (R–OH), extended far beyond the origin controversy, etc. Science isn't endorsing any of the views in its own voice. It expressly denotes the report as being partisan, against prevailing scientific viewpoints, and offering nothing new to the discussion, except potentially that unspecified potential crimes related to the origin of COVID-19. Aside from that, to call it a bipartisan committee is completely misleading. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Science isn't endorsing any of the views in its own voice.

Yeah, because that's not what journalists OR scientific journals report on. Journalists do not only report things that they personally agree with. And for scientific journals, have you never seen the disclaimer that the opinions and theories expressed by the authors are solely theirs alone?

I don't know of any requirement that "The editorial board of the magazine must personally agree with the subject matter of the topic" in order to use it as a source.

And I don't know why you seem to bring up the fact that there is opposition to this report as if it would change my opinion as to whether the report should be included. Opposing and critical views of the report should be included. When have I suggested otherwise? BabbleOnto (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Why should we include something that offers no new direct evidence of a lab leak, but summarizes a circumstantial case? The lableakers never had anything but circumstantial evidence, and a bunch of powerful clowns repeats it. How is that relevant? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

There are 500 pages of new emails, photographs, testimony, and depositions in the report. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a good reason. The volume of a source is unrelated to its usefulness. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You claimed:

The lableakers never had anything but circumstantial evidence

That is false. My comment was to rebut that claim. BabbleOnto (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

So you believe that there is more than circumstantial evidence for a lab-leak because of "emails, photographs, testimony, and depositions"? That does not make sense. There is no connection. And even if there were a connection, you would need reliable sources, not your own beliefs and that of a bunch of deranged people, a.k.a. Republican politicians. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

not your own beliefs and that of a bunch of deranged people, a.k.a. Republican politicians.

I think you've had a Freudian slip and let your true reasons for trying to deny this source, the fact you personally don't like its authors, slip. I see now you're not listening to reason, you're simply trying to exclude the work of people who you find ceremonially unclean. I won't waste any more of either of our times trying to convince you logically, then.

For any outside readers, I believe the claim "You do not have anything except circumstantial evidence! Well, except for the 500 pages of hard, uncontroverted evidence in the form of photographs, emails, and sworn testimony! That does not make sense! There is no connection!" is facially void of any merit. I hope any person viewing rationally can see why. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Most Republican politicians are climate change deniers and spread COVID misinformation. They are the opposite of reliable sources. That is not a "personal dislike", it's a fact. Have you read WP:RS now?

If there were good evidence, there would be a better source for it. You are trying to sell what those corrupt deranged frauds say as "evidence", and that will not work here. (BTW, Freud is obsolete.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any rule on Misplaced Pages which prevents a source from being used if anyone involved in its creation is a registered Republican. Once again; you are just presenting your own political biases as the rules. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not about party membership. It is about politicians. I think that we should stop this, since such strawmen are not productive.

Dishonest Chinese politicians blame US scientists, and dishonest US politicians blame Chinese scientists. In short: Politicians blame scientists when it is actually politicians who are to blame for most of the deaths. But there is still no valid evidence for any of those conspiracy theories: circumstantial evidence does not stop being circumstantial because someone photographed it, emailed it to someone, or swore they heard it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not about party membership. It is about politicians. I think that we should stop this, since such strawmen are not productive.

You literally just said:

Most Republican politicians are climate change deniers and spread COVID misinformation. They are the opposite of reliable sources.

You do realize your past comments show up here? You say "Most Republican politicians are the opposite of reliable sources and are climate change deniers" then when I point out why that's not relevant at all you accuse it of being a "strawman?" Do you know what that even means? It's not a strawman if you actually said it.

You're just delving into a personal rant against your least favorite American political party.

circumstantial evidence does not stop being circumstantial because someone photographed it

Most of the evidence cited in this article is circumstantial. Most of the evidence on any article are circumstantial. Most evidence in existence is circumstantial.

Look here's a whole paragraph of completely circumstantial evidence, as it related to whether or not COVID-19 was leaked from a lab:

Previous novel disease outbreaks, such as AIDS, H1N1/09, SARS, and Ebola have been the subject of conspiracy theories and allegations that the causative agent was created in or escaped from a laboratory. Each of these is now understood to have a natural origin. Anti-biotechnology activists falsely claimed that a plant pathogen of olive trees was the result of scientists' work, despite evidence to the contrary that the pathogen was not a laboratory strain. Studies later showed the origin was long before the workshop that was the subject of the false claims, and a more typical route of introduction by an imported plant.

Each of these statements is circumstantial as it relates to COVID-19's origins. Do you propose we remove this paragraph as well? If not, why would you like to make a special exception for this evidence? BabbleOnto (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I know what I said, and when you change "Republican politicians" to "registered Republican" you are misrepresenting me. It is pointless to discuss with people who do that. EOD. -Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You literally just called Republican politicians unreliable, presumably it's the Republican part you have a problem with, not the "politician" part you have a problem with. How is pointing that out "misrepresenting" you? BabbleOnto (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

gain of function

Should gain of function be called a conspiracy theory now that it is confirmed that the USA funded gain of function research in Wuhan? "One conspiracy theory spread in support a laboratory origin suggests SARS-CoV-2 was developed for gain-of-function research on coronaviruses." 205.220.129.246 (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No, the sources explain why this is a conspiracy theory. Bon courage (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not an answer. Care to try again? 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:A041:A72E:3486:5AF5 (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is, thus is not a wp:forum, You have been told why, because RS do not support it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably because no such thing occurred. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Zero evidence of SARS-CoV-2 ever being in the WIV. TarnishedPath 00:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

How can there be a COVID-19 lab leak theory Article if there is zero evidence for SARS-CoV-2 ever being in a lab? Should we delete this Article? 95.214.66.65 (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

See also Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, Chemtrails etc. Bon courage (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a claim that "Covid-19 was or wasn't in the WIV". It's a claim that "the USA funded gain of function research in Wuhan." Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for this claim? (published in a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal, a secondary source ("review of the literature", etc.) in the field of virology or epidemiology? I did find this: Together with US scientists (who were even in charge of this), Zhenli Shi's group reported two years later, in 2015, about a genetically engineered chimeric virus that contains the spike protein from one of the bat viruses described above into a non pathogenic mouse-adapted SARS coronavirus sequence. This chimeric virus proved to be highly pathogenic: it reproduced in human lung cells in cell culture as well as in the mouse lung with the corresponding pathogenesis in animals. If the recombinant virus was reisolated after infection, it was still capable of reproduction in the cell culture and in the animal. Available drugs, such as a vaccine against the chimeric virus available in the laboratory, failed in the experiment and the infected mice could not be cured. From these experiments with recombinant viruses that gained a pathogenic function, the authors again drew the conclusion that zoonosis is possible and that the SARS-CoV epidemic of 2002/2003 could be repeated due to viruses circulating in bat populations.

Similar investigations followed at the Wuhan Institute for Virology, with further virus strains being isolated from swab and fecal samples from Rhinolophus sinicus and other bat species. Although the newly isolated strains had slightly different nucleotide sequences, they all have the gene for the S-protein, which is required to infect human cells and those of the bat). This has even been shown in a widely used human tumor cell line, the HeLa cells, which expressed human ACE2 after transfection (26). From the comparison of the isolated virus sequence, it could be concluded that in the bat population coronaviruses undergo genetic changes that also affect the spike gene. None of the viruses, however, had properties of human SARS-CoV-2. The fact that, years after the collection campaign in 2011/2012, new viruses could be isolated from the stored fecal samples can be interpreted as an indication that other previously undiscovered sub-strains are stored in the samples at the Wuhan Institute for Virology, possibly also those that have an even stronger sequence similarity to SARS-CoV-2 than those already analyzed. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

IOW what we already say: lab origin is a theoretical possibility but there's no evidence for it. As other sources therefore explain, the idea that SCV2 was in fact engineered is just a conspiracy theory. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is so utterly outdated and absurd it should be deleted and restarted with the point of view of the gain of function lab leak fact.

Why would anyone still use the "bat excuse" when we know better... Unless there is some political motive or principle contributors are trying to protect China.

Rand Paul

Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up Ecgberht1 (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Bipartisan consensus on select subcommittee

Some elements of the select subcommittee report here: ] have bipartisan consensus, in particular that the lab leak hypothesis is “not a conspiracy theory“. We should reflect that consensus in the overall tone and content of this article. should reflect that consensus in the overall tone and content of this article. Springnuts (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We do, as we do not say that all aspects of it are. Also they are not scientist, either so how can this be used to change, what we say scientists say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The main source for "what the scientists say" is the paper "Proximal Origins". The subcommittee report has as one of its findings "“The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” Was “Prompted” by Dr. Anthony Fauci to “Disprove” the Lab Leak Theory". If true, this means that the scientific basis WP relies on vanishes. The members of the subcommittee interviewed many scientists at length, and collected emails and other documents. I would guess that this report is more reliable than the current (extremely biased) WP page. Hiuk12 (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” Was “Prompted” by Dr. Anthony Fauci to “Disprove” the Lab Leak Theory". That statement itself displays the ridiculous bias of the House politicians. We don't use politically charged reports for scientific bases. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup, that was a string of false statements. And even if it true, we're not going to use moronic guff from politicians to override reputably-published peer-reviewed science from relevant experts. Bon courage (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"Ridiculous", "moronic". I see that you are not thoughtful WP editors, but are more the shouting types. Pity. Have you read the report? Hiuk12 (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is not good science to come up with an idea and then look for evidence to prove it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This guy never has any evidence to support his claims, just ad hominems. 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:A041:A72E:3486:5AF5 (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a serious discussion. You should be banned from editing this article because of your clear bias. Dustinscottc (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, at the end of the day, the US Congress is (by definition) a political body, and US politics is not exactly the most neutral country on this matter (a report by the European Commission would be more convincing). Their views and consensus are reliable for a statement attributed to them (assuming that's WP:DUE), they aren't a good source to decide what the tone and content of this article should be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

lol nevermind, it's not even really a bipartisan report. Here's what the Democrats on the same committee had to say about it: So basically the report parrots the Republican views on the pandemic, including criticism of Biden and New York's government, and some deep praise of Trump. It's not exactly the most useful of sources... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that' a lot of opinions you have there. The reality is every body is political and your opinions on such do. not. matter. 2600:1700:7BE0:1E30:A041:A72E:3486:5AF5 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding WP:DUE. The policy states that "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

This article IS the "see also" article about this specific view where the minority views get a detailed description. It's fine to put the information in context (e.g., the Congressional report was condemned by the committee's Democratic members as being. e.g., partisan, etc.) but to exclude it altogether is not justified by WP:DUE Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not in fact the "see also articles on minority views". This is the article about general views on the lab leak theory, if you want to create an article on "minority views of the lab leak theory" or "house republican views on the theory" you are free to do that, but I suspect you would not be able to find secondary sources on the same. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the article already reflects the consensus that it is "not a conspiracy theory" in general. "Not being a conspiracy theory" is a rather low bar, that is pretty far from having any significant likelihood of being true (for example, "the air is full of worms", "you had ice cream for lunch today" or "there is a dragon in my garage" would also not be a conspiracy theory, however, they too would also not be supported by any evidence, though with different prior probabilities). Are there any parts of the article that have been identified in said overall tone and content of the article that is in any way inconsistent with that? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The article uses the phrase 'conspiracy theory' 30 times and is categorized alongside 'COVID-19 misinformation'. It states that there is 'no evidence' for the lab leak. By what standard is this true of the lab leak and not also true of the zoonotic origin theory? 'Most likely cause' is not a definitive scientific statement. This is the opposite of an unbiased article and absolutely maintains that it is a debunked fringe conspiracy theory. Jibolba (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's because of the quality sources. They discuss and analyse this stuff in the light of conspiracism and misinformation; they say there is no evidence for LL. They also say here is an accumulation of evidence for natural zoonosis, but that is off-topic for this article which is not some kind of sporting event where nonsense plays science. Bon courage (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Counting the times an article mentions a phrase is not a substitute for actually reading the article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Alpha, you're right. Thats exactly what I'm getting at. A casual Wiki reader does not do the mental calculus it would take to decode the word salad of plausibly deniable faux-objectivity surrounding every use of 'conspiracy theory'. I would say 30 times is enough to give the reader a misguided impression of what the consensus actually is. The tone matters and it is so obviously skewed.

Bon, 'nonsense plays as science'? Scientists have been calling for further investigation into the origin for years. No one has ruled out LL because it has thus far been proven impossible to definitively do so with any conclusive evidence.

This article is politically captured. It is simply not reflective of the reality of the discourse. Jibolba (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It may play big in the "discourse" of the media, but Misplaced Pages is interested in actual knowledge, not the rubbish that gets the masses excited or serves the interests of the anti-science movement. For some insight into that (and a recent take on the scientific knowledge of experts) maybe see PMID:39087765. Bon courage (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it is science captured, the politics was this report, not made by scientists. if 1 scientist says X and 1000000 politicians say Y, the science says X, and so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone interested in actually reading the article instead of sealioning would read the sentences that contain those phrases, and see the parts for about half of them where in the same sentence it is made exceedingly clear what is being referred to, such as For bioweapon conspiracy theories, see (the bioweapons thing) and At that time, the media did not distinguish between the accidental lab leak of a natural virus and bio-weapon origin conspiracy theories (i.e., the media is being imprecise) and Some members of the Chinese government have promoted a counter-conspiracy theory claiming that SARS‑CoV‑2 originated in the U.S. military (incidentally, adding some variant of "not a conspiracy theory", assuming we find some suitable secondary source specifying exactly what it is that's not a conspiracy theory would add yet another mention to that count).

They would not be looking at the dozen or so mentions in the references unless they needed to go check a reference for some reason (and I doubt anyone sane would go through all 250 on a lark, unless they have all too much time on their hands) and they would have no reason to assume a reference is something in our voice rather than a transcription of the title or a quotation from a source.

The will, of course, also see things like the politicization of the debate is making the process more difficult, and that words are often twisted to become "fodder for conspiracy theories". on the other hand, they will also see a quarter of the mentions in article prose in the section titled "Chilling effects", which can more or less be summed up as "the crackpots are making it really hard for us to do actual research", and quite frankly, the political attempt to invent an alternative set of facts is going to make it more difficult, not less, to actually find and publish evidence about the theory... so, you know, I really do see their point there.

Of course, you are not the reader, which is perfectly fine, after all, this page is for discussing changes to the article, not for reader comments. However, what is not fine is the tendentious refusal to listen to what people have been saying about what is or is not possible here. You are welcome to argue for a particular point of view, but once you are beyond the range of possible changes to the article, as has been repeatedly explained to you, this page is no longer the forum for it. This page is not about the politicisation of the lab leak theory. You are welcome to consider whether there are the sources to create a page for that instead. Otherwise, you are welcome to find another place to discuss said politicisation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I should qualify things by saying, as regards to whether I personally think it was an unnatural origin, I am largely agnostic. However, I see the state of this article in the year of grace 2024 and it subscribes to a zealous ideology that the rest of society (scientists included) has moved on from over the past 4 years.

The rhetoric is as blatantly partisan as it was in March 2020. Compare the tone of this article to the header in 'Zoonotic origins of COVID-19':

SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, was first introduced to humans through zoonosis (transmission of a pathogen to a human from an animal), and a zoonotic spillover event is the origin of COVID-19 that is considered most plausible by the scientific community. Human coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2 are zoonotic diseases that are often acquired through spillover infection from animals.

Is this serious? This clearly suggests that it is a settled issue. Who is 'the scientific community'? Are the countless researchers that favor the LL or at least have reservations about natural origin no longer card carrying members of the 'scientific community'? Not once is it referred to as a theory in the same way LL is labeled as such, but it is! Neither the LL nor Zoonotic origin has been proved through experimentation and replication. They are, by definition, theories! As for their likelihoods, there is a wide range of educated opinions. But you all know that the scientific method does not deal in likelihood. No serious scientist draws conclusions based on 'odds', but Misplaced Pages seems to do just that. Jibolba (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

that the rest of society (scientists included) has moved on from over the past 4 years.

I believe you have been more than adequately informed as to what is required to verify that kind of thing in a Misplaced Pages article (i.e., a reliable secondary source)

As for their likelihoods, there is a wide range of educated opinions. But you all know that the scientific method does not deal in likelihood. No serious scientist draws conclusions based on 'odds', but Misplaced Pages seems to do just that.

All science is based on likelihoods. p-values are likelihoods, five-sigma significance is a likelihood. Literally every hard science since statistical hypothesis testing has been a thing has been founded on the statistical likelihood of a given observation under the null hypothesis, and this is something that highschoolers should know. Gravity is a damn theory. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Did we just reach peak Misplaced Pages? Bon courage (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

There haven't been any reliable secondary source reviews of the literature published in peer-reviewed journals that would give support to the lab leak hypothesis. This means that Misplaced Pages admins are capable of suppressing that point of view, even though there are a ton of individual studies by credentialed scientists that lend the hypothesis support. Yet, the administrators here rule these sources as inadmissible due to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), which allows them to suppress a wide range of information that might risk misleading the reader about their own important personal medical decisions. But the probability of a biosafety incident at a lab in 2019 bears only a tenuous relationship with our readers' medical decision-making, which means that the application of that policy is over-broad and is being used to suppress a dissenting point of view, not to protect the reader.

But the question remains as to, given the abundant primary source material in peer-reviewed journals that have offered empirical support for the hypothesis, why hasn't any peer-reviewed journal published a review of this "pro-lab leak literature"? Consider that a former CDC director who is a virologist in favor of LL stated that he had received death threats from other scientists, which is not surprising given the acerbic tone used here to enforce the party line, including ad hominems, but the admins here have another editorial policy to even suppress even those allegations.

Regarding an article on Politicization of the Lab Leak Theory. Given the abundance of reliable sources in support of this topic and its significant impact on public discourse, it would very likely meet Misplaced Pages’s notability and verifiability guidelines, and because it is very squarely in the domain of politics, media and history, the full expression of the topic cannot be artificially throttled by the over-broad application of editorial policies. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That is an explicit statement you want make a WP:POVFORK. The way to do it would be to create a section here on politicisation (based, as it must be, on good secondary sources) and if it gets too big it can be split out. A good source on this would be doi:10.4324/9781003330769-5 (which we already cite for some things), and doi:10.1177/21533687221125818 is good on how LL has been instrumentalised to rile up anti-immigant feeling in the US. There cannot be a review of "pro lab-leak literature" because there is no evidence and no such literature beyond the fringe. Bon courage (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Bon, you prove his point exactly with that last sentence, but a section on politicization of the issue would absolutely be a step in the right direction. There is an almost uniform party line that was baked in to media coverage of the virus' origins from the start and has (clearly) yet to be broken. This is not organic and ought to be acknowledged by Wiki. Jibolba (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

There haven't been any reliable secondary source reviews of the literature published in peer-reviewed journals that would give support to the lab leak hypothesis.

And what exactly do you think we're able to do about that? We're not a secondary source. We don't do original research here. We don't do a headcount on Misplaced Pages and say, oh hey, this guy, this guy and this guy supports it, this must be the new thing now because quite frankly, people making the arguments like you do make it quite difficult to attempt to do so systematically even were we to have the resources to do so in the first place. If there really were so many primary papers in support of the lab leak hypothesis in mainstream literature, there should be exactly zero issue getting a review article saying so published in those same mainstream journals.

Hell, such a massive change in consensus, if backed up by actual evidence, would have even the top journals begging you to publish with them, so, you know... go write one, or get one of the credentialed authors you think is good to write one, and they can be cited a few thousand times. If they fail to do so, I'm sure we can learn something from that.

But the question remains as to, given the abundant primary source material in peer-reviewed journals that have offered empirical support for the hypothesis, why hasn't any peer-reviewed journal published a review of this "pro-lab leak literature"?

We don't do "just asking questions" on Misplaced Pages. You might be thinking of some debate site where people can go get the opinions of Randy on the primary literature they cherrypicked. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is this article has been strictly defined as dealing only with scientific knowledge that conforms to the strict standards of the established scientific bureaucratic process.

There is nothing wrong with this standard in 99% of cases. This article is a case in which the standard is exactly insufficient. The counter argument (LL) is, in and of itself, one that calls into question the political nature of this process -- the massive economic incentive structure, the lack of transparency as concerns governments' role in it, suppression of viewpoints, etc. These are not questions that can be investigated in the lab, they are questions about the lab. The way it has been defined creates a controlled straw man neutered of its vast geopolitical and economic context. Again, it is like if the only sources allowed for citation in the Atomic Bomb article came from US physics journals published prior to the end of WW2.

The article should be partitioned, one section dealing with the available experiments and conclusions published in prestige journals, another dealing in the political, legal, and journalistic investigations into the larger structures implicated by the LL theory, as well as dissenting opinions by accredited researchers not endorsed by a government funded scientific body. Unbiased documentation is impossible without the two afforded equal weight. No one is saying the sources currently cited need to be removed or that the info provided is 'incorrect'. But for God's sake it needs to acknowledge the actual political context of the matter and not just the heavily curated information provided under a national state of emergency in 2020. Jibolba (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Or (as this is about a medical issue), go with the science. Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

A medical issue with global geopolitical implications. Jibolba (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is why we are allowed to use other nations scientists as well as sources. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have secondary sources covering the science published since 2023, please present them. Otherwise, this is not the place to air your political grievances, and you should stop and go somewhere else to do that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

There most certainly is not "a ton of individual studies by credentialed scientists that lend the hypothesis support", and when there are instances of such a thing, it has zero bearing on wikipedia because wikipedia is not a scientific literature review.

why hasn't any peer-reviewed journal published a review of this "pro-lab leak literature"?

Probably for the same reason why credible peer-reviewed journals tend not to review things like flat earth or mole people hypotheses. Lostsandwich (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

A prominent Indian scientist, Padmanabhan Balaram described the major scientific journals as having "strained" credibility due to their "uncritical" approach to Covid-19's origins. This should factor into our sourcing decisions. the major scientific journals, which act as gatekeepers for the credibility of the scientific literature have refrained from weighing in on the controversy surrounding the origins of the coronavirus. Their own credibility has been strained by their uncritical publication of correspondence last year, declaring that a natural origin for the virus was almost a foregone conclusion. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Some weak commentary piece is not going to move any sourcing needles. Bon courage (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read wp:talk. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

A few proposals

1) In the lead paragraph, add the following sources to support the existing claim that ...some scientists agree a lab leak should be examined as part of ongoing investigations...:

Segreto, R., & Deigin, Y. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays, 43, e2000240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000240.

Deigin, Y., & Segreto, R. (2021). The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 is consistent with both natural or laboratory origin: Response to Tyshkovskiy and Panchin (10.1002/bies.202000325). BioEssays, 43, e2100137. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202100137

Goyal, V. K., & Sharma, C. (2020). The novel coronavirus 2019: A naturally occurring disaster or a biological weapon against humanity: A critical review of tracing the origin of novel coronavirus 2019. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 8(2), 01-05. E-ISSN: 2320-7078, P-ISSN: 2349-6800.

Zapatero Gaviria, A., & Barba Martin, R. (2023). What do we know about the origin of COVID-19 three years later? Revista Clínica Española (English Edition), 223(4), 240-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rceng.2023.02.010. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2254887423000395

Graner, F., Courtier-Orgogozo, V., Decroly, E., Ebright, R. H., Butler, C. D., Colombo, F., Kaina, B., Rahalkar, M. C., Halloy, J., Bahulikar, R. A., Theißen, G., Leitenberg, M., Morand, S., Kakeya, H., Claverie, J.-M., & van Helden, J. (2021). Comment of a critical review about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Letter to the Editor. Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/107885435/Cell_response-to-Holmes_2021-10-31b_to-editors-libre.pdf?1701056828

2) Insert within the first three paragraphs of the section on Zoonosis:

A) However, there have not been any documented instances of SARS-CoV-2 or its direct predecessor found in wild animals in their natural habitats.

B) The specific animal host that carried the virus and the circumstances and mechanism of viral transmission to humans are still uncertain.

3) Insert within the section on Accidental release of a genetically modified virus :

A) Over the past 20 years, researchers have frequently synthesized new viruses by combining genetic material from different sources in order to study the potential of bat coronaviruses to infect humans.

B) More cooperation by the Chinese authorities would be necessary in order to definitively prove or rule out the lab leak scenario.

4) Finally, I suggest that we all stay focused on bringing reputable sources to bolster our statements instead of making ad hominem attacks against people with a different POV. Please remember the guidelines in this space, including:

Misplaced Pages:Civility -- which incolves not using a "condescending, patronizing, sarcastic and insulting tone" in discussions.

Misplaced Pages:POV railroad -- hostility that is intended to discourage other editors from participating

Misplaced Pages:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! --excessive use of jargon meant to discourage other editors

Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers

Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

NACK 1. There are two sources cited already and style guidelines (MOS:LEADCITE) prescribe the use of the minimal necessary number of citations. It is inappropriate to add more citations without a compelling reason. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak sources / off-topic sources and original research with a WP:PROFRINGE slant to the whole proposal. It's 2024 and I can't believe Yuri Deigin's stuff is being wheeled out again. Bon courage (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's not original research. All of these claims are from results in a Google Scholar search for "reviews". Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  So how does the Deigin source support the text "some scientists agree a lab leak should be examined" ? Exact quotation pls. Bon courage (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  On the basis of our analysis, an artificial origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not a baseless conspiracy theory that is to be condemned and researchers have the responsibility to consider all possible causes for SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  So it doesn't support it. This source is expressing the view of a LL proponent, not surveying what "some scientists" think. Bon courage (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• I will add, if we already say it, what does this add other than extra links? Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Kaina, Bernd (May 2021). "On the Origin of SARS-CoV-2: Did Cell Culture Experiments Lead to Increased Virulence of the Progenitor Virus for Humans?" (PDF). In Vivo. 35 (3): 1313–1326. doi:10.21873/invivo.12384. Retrieved 24 December 2024.
2. Balaram, P. (2021). "The murky origins of the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 pandemic." Current Science, 120(11), 1663–1666. https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/120/11/1663.pdf
3. Ruiz-Medina, B. E., Varela-Ramirez, A., Kirken, R. A., & Robles-Escajeda, E. (2022). "The SARS-CoV-2 origin dilemma: Zoonotic transfer or laboratory leak?". BioEssays. 44: e2100189. doi:10.1002/bies.202100189. Retrieved 6 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
4. Zapatero Gaviria, A., Barba Martin, R. (2023). "What do we know about the origin of COVID-19 three years later?". Revista Clínica Española (English Edition). 223 (4): 240–243. doi:10.1016/j.rceng.2023.02.010. ISSN 2254-8874.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. "A Comparative Study on Covid-19 Coronavirus Variants" (PDF). International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology (IJRASET). Retrieved 6 December 2024.
6. K. Sirotkin, D. Sirotkin (2020). "Might SARS-CoV-2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?". BioEssays. 42: 2000091. doi:10.1002/bies.202000091. Retrieved 6 December 2024.
7. Zapatero Gaviria, A., Barba Martin, R. (2023). "What do we know about the origin of COVID-19 three years later?". Revista Clínica Española (English Edition). 223 (4): 240–243. doi:10.1016/j.rceng.2023.02.010. ISSN 2254-8874.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
8. Thakur N, Das S, Kumar S, et al. Tracing the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2): a systematic review and narrative synthesis. J Med Virol. 2022; 94: 5766-5779. doi:10.1002/jmv.28060
9. Segreto, R., Deigin, Y. (2021). "The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin". BioEssays. 43: e2000240. doi:10.1002/bies.202000240. Retrieved 6 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
10. Zapatero Gaviria, A., Barba Martin, R. (2023). "What do we know about the origin of COVID-19 three years later?". Revista Clínica Española (English Edition). 223 (4): 240–243. doi:10.1016/j.rceng.2023.02.010. Retrieved 6 December 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Use of "misplaced suspicion" in lead

TarnishedPath, you are insisting here on the word "misplaced" before "suspicion", which is not in the source relied on in the lead and is treating the whole question as settled and certain – although taken as a whole the page does not do that. I can't find a reliable source in the article for "misplaced suspicion" could you please give it here? Even if the claim is cited somewhere else, given the lack of any certainty any such source must be POV. Moonraker (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker, the word misplaced was placed in at Special:Diff/1262010139 by @Bon courage. My edit prior to yours was in relation to updating a link target and nothing else. TarnishedPath 05:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You are right, TarnishedPath, I have pinged the wrong user. Bon courage, the question is for you. And you say in your edit summary "The lede summarized the body, which explains this is a fallacy" – what is a fallacy? I do not see one. Moonraker (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You can search for the word "fallacy" with a browser's search functionality. This is the "too much of a coincidence" line of argument and we need to call it out as faulty for reasons of neutrality. Bon courage (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Bon courage. What I find is this:

Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues write that the location of the Institute near the outbreak site is "literally a coincidence" and using that coincidence as a priori evidence for a lab leak typifies a kind of conjunction fallacy.

The link to the source given for this is dead. We can agree on what is said about evidence, but if it did state any certainty, that would be highly unscientific, so I doubt that it does. Can you give us the exact quotation, please? In any event, it is surely the word "misplaced" which offends against neutrality, taking the article as a whole, and I see nothing about "misplaced suspicion". Moonraker (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No, for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS we are obliged to call fringe notions what they are (such as the "too much of a coincidence" middle-brow reckon). I'm not sure why you call this correction from well-published actual experts in their field "highly unscientific" - surely the opposite is true. I have no issue replacing "misplaced suspicion" with "fallacious reasoning"; both seem a fair summary of our good sources. T&F seem to be having technical issues; I'm sure they'll be back soon. Bon courage (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker, I've updated the DOI for the reference. You can find an open access version of the book at https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003330769/covid-conspiracy-theories-global-perspective-michael-butter-peter-knight, although the links to the chapter PDFs seem not be working. The book is listed on Google at https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Covid_Conspiracy_Theories_in_Global_Pers/NASqEAAAQBAJ?hl=en and you can probably see a lot of it from there. TarnishedPath 06:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems to come up a lot so I wonder if we should expand on it. One source (can't remember which) posited a scenario where COVID started in Beijing, and how the argument would then be "Beijing has more virology labs than any city in China, so it stands to reason a lab origin in likely". Bon courage (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If that quote is from the book, I think that would clarify why reasoning that there's a connection, between a lab being in Wuhan and the outbreak seemingly staring from there, is faulty/misplaced/fallacious/whatever other synonyms there are. TarnishedPath 07:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's in this source, though it does explain why you'd expect outbreaks to coincide with where virology labs are, for perfectly innocent reasons. Bon courage (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it's perfectly understandable reasoning, however as is clear to anyone who's done the tiniest amount of study in formal logic it's completely misplaced/fallacious/etc. Unfortunately we need sources to cover that sort of stuff or we're engaging in WP:OR TarnishedPath 07:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Fortunately the Lewandowsky et al source has it covered in sufficient detail (though not enough for there to be constant questions about this, it seems). Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyway I've added both a correct DOI and a link to the book from Google Books, to the reference. Moonraker should read the chapter if he wants to dispute this further. TarnishedPath 08:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Moonraker, I've just had a look at google books at it seems the whole book (a the very least the first two chapters are, which is when I stopped scrolling) is available from https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Covid_Conspiracy_Theories_in_Global_Pers/NASqEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1, which is no surprise I guess given that Francis & Taylor have released it under a free license. TarnishedPath 07:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you, TarnishedPath, but I still can't get through to it. And even if I could, reading the whole chapter is unlikely to take us anywhere. What is claimed (rightly or wrongly) on our page to be in the source makes sense, and it says nothing about a "misplaced suspicion" – nor can what it is claimed to say infer one. So that term is not cited. You say "reasoning that there's a connection, between a lab being in Wuhan and the outbreak seemingly starting from there, is faulty/misplaced/fallacious" - agreed. And what the source is claimed to say ("the location of the Institute near the outbreak site... using that coincidence as a priori evidence for a lab leak typifies a kind of conjunction fallacy") is fine too. But no one here or anywhere else is trying to use it as hard evidence for anything. It's circumstantial and feeble, all that comes from it is a suspicion. To go on from that to say that the suspicion is "misplaced" is to judge the whole question in a way that the page does not, based on no citation and no evidence. That is also fallacious, which is why the word "misplaced" needs to come out. Do you not agree? Moonraker (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Moonraker, if you click on the link for the DOI from the reference that takes you to Taylor & Frances page for the book. After discussions here last night I was successfully able to download chapters. I read the 2nd chapter last night and I believe more than adequately supports the material in the article. TarnishedPath 02:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• The "misplaced suspicion" phrasing is problematic as it suggest a definitive judgment, biasing readers against considering the proximity of the lab to the initial COVID-19 outbreak site as significant factor. I am agreeing with @ Moonraker argument that such language undermines the neutral tone that NPOV requires. I also don't think it's appropriate to go into such detail in the lead with so many citations on the issue. IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Newimpartial, you reverted my edit . Please can you show how the "misplaced" is supported by sources? Frutos et al offer innocent reasons for why a virus may break out in proximity of labs, but doesn't call the suspicion misplaced, literally or figuratively. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  To answer your question: like TarnishedPath, I find that the second chapter linked above (by Lewandowsky, Jacobs and Neil) provides more than sufficient support for "misplaced suspicion". Newimpartial (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Lewandowsky et al is a completely unsuitable source due to their lack of relevant expertise, with only one minor exception among the authors, while Frutos et al are recognized experts and their work is a review article. The term 'misplaced suspicion' is thus unsupported by appropriate sources, which must be review articles at the very least. Since Frutos et al. do not describe the suspicion as 'misplaced,' using this term violates Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Please undo your revert. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am not understanding your concern about the source: perhaps you believe "misplaced suspicion" is biomedical information to which WP:MEDRS applies, but I do not believe the community agrees with that interpretation. Newimpartial (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  The concern is primarily NPOV, not RS (or MEDRS). We cannot rise Lewandowsky et al to the level of review articles like Frutos to dismiss the relevance of lab's proximity to the outbreak as 'misplaced', particularly when expressed in Misplaced Pages's voice. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I see no NPOV issues. WP:WEIGHT is clear that we go with the majority viewpoints as expressed in reliable sources and that we don't pander to WP:FRINGE. TarnishedPath 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  But can you provide a specific text excerpt that directly states that the argument about the proximity of the labs to the outbreak is based on misplaced suspicion? If not, this would be original research, that is, taking what the sources say and applying an editor's unique synthesis. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  To answer your question, I do not need to WP:SATISFY you about this. It is simply not the case that a paraphrase with which you do not personally agree is therefore WP:SYNTH. At least two editors who have read the chapter in question are convinced that it supports the current article text. Newimpartial (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath, you reverted my attempt to combine two sentences in one, making the counterargument to the proximity suspicion clearer . As per WP:LEAD, the lead should be concise and summarize the article, yet this proximity issue is hardly even covered in article. It hardly even belongs in the lead at all. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I see no weighting issues with the lead given the size of the article. TarnishedPath 09:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Page needs drastic changes especially after House Subcommittee’s findings

In the opening paragraphs this page says, “There is no evidence SARS-CoV-2 existed in any laboratory prior to the pandemic” which is a lie as the committee found researchers at the lab "were sick with a COVID-like virus in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market." The Subcommittee also found the virus had a biological characteristic that is not found in nature and that data showed all COVID-19 cases stemming from a single introduction to humans an "By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced," the report says. This page paints anyone supporting the Lab Leak theory as quote “conspiracy theorists” plenty of sources have covered the new findings and the page still being locked further shows that this website is beyond far left and is an has been ignoring credible sources to promote the propaganda spewed by the current administration the last four years.

SOURCES: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/covid-most-likely-leaked-from-wuhan-lab-social-distancing-not-based-science-select-committee-finds.amp

https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/covid-19-unnatural-origin-theory Dreadpirate43 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

How about this instead, from a science report, about the House report: "A textbook example of shifting the standards of evidence to suit its authors' needs." - Parejkoj (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

See the discussions under the sections titled titled "House Committee" and "Gain of Function." Certain editors desperately are trying to keep out this source by all means necessary (Including but not limited to designating the US House a fringe, conspiratorial organization).

I have been unsuccessful in finding any compromise with fellow editors to allow this obviously not-fringe and obviously substantially important report, including compromising to only adding secondary sources like the one you've cited. So far all have failed to achieve a consensus, and I've had numerous threats levied against me as a result, and am currently facing an arbitration over it.

Feel free to read my arguments on this page, as well as under the "Gain-Of-Function" article's discussion page, to see what hasn't worked, and the arguments on the Noticeboard on this topic. Hope you have better luck than I have! BabbleOnto (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"According to the bipartisan House select committee that investigated the incident" this is a quote from a Misplaced Pages article lead. It's not against wiki rules to use House Committee findings in the lead. 85.206.30.170 (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Brother, believe me I've been saying that for a week now.

Unfortunately the rules get to be interpreted by whatever a majority of people who decide to chime in on the issue say. So if 2 people say it actually does violate a rule, then "A consensus has decided the edit would violate Misplaced Pages's rules," and if I were to try to put it in again, I would be banned.

So, while there is widespread consensus amongst the media, the government, and the scientific community in general, that a lab leak is at least a plausible theory, a group of 3-4 editors on wikipedia have decided that the House Report which put forth the evidence is actually secretly a fringe group of conspiracy theorists who fabricated the whole thing, and as a result that it can't be used.

And because of that, the Misplaced Pages article will continue to feature this, and other claims that are indisputably factually incorrect as agreed by both sides because a small group has decided that it's unreliable and has rejected any source which says otherwise. Some editors openly say they will not let the source in because it was written by Republicans.

Enjoy your stay here BabbleOnto (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The "evidence" they put forth consists of the statements of non-experts and anti-science individuals, claims which amount to "I don't believe this". That isn't evidence. "By nearly all measures of science" is not only a completely empty, meaningless scare phrases repeated by anti-science individuals, it also flies in the face of actual science which doesn't say anything like that. You aren't being silenced. There is no conspiracy to cover it up. It fails to pass muster because it is garbage. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you say bipartisan house committees are trustworthy sometimes or never? 85.206.30.170 (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You are literally accusing the US house committees of being secret, conspiratorial groups of fringe science-haters who work in the dark to manufacture fake sources and publish and spread bogus reports in the media to hide the real truth; and then implying I'm the conspiracy theorist. BabbleOnto (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I made no mention of "secrets" or "conspiracies". That is entirely of your own invention. Nor did I make any statements about "manufacturing fake sources" or "bogus reports".

Sounds like you are way in over your head and not being objective. Lostsandwich (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You are, however, claiming that people with PhDs in microbiology and years of research in the area are "non-experts" and "anti-science". Dustinscottc (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that's the current consensus on the noticeboard. You seemed to be implying what they were implying when you said the hard evidence is not trustworthy because it comes from "Anti-science" people. Which would seemingly imply that the house report is somehow manufactured by "anti-science" people and the evidence isn't real. BabbleOnto (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The question of whether to describe the Subcommittee as an instance of political attention should be discussed separately from this here topic, which is about whether to consider the Subcommittee's findings themselves as a reliable secondary MEDRS source. Therefore, I suggest that we re-open The Talk topic pertaining to that question in particular (Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Mention_House_Subcommittee_in_section_on_Political,_academic_and_media_attentionLardlegwarmers (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Ralph Baric, a professor at the University of North Carolina who had done pioneering work on coronaviruses with Shi Zhengli, the Wuhan institute’s leading bat coronavirus expert, told Congress earlier this year that the facility’s procedures for carrying research on bat viruses was “irresponsible” since it was done in a laboratory with inadequate precautions for containing biological agents. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

WSJ now? it's getting worse. Bon courage (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that WSJ is not a reliable source to verify that Ralph Baric made that statement? Or that to paraphrase Ralph Baric is "biomedical information"? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

WSJ is listed as GREL in WP:RS/P. It's not clear what Bon Courage is saying.

According to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD the best possible source for a direct quote would be the testimony itself which is transcribed at . Unfortunately the PDF is not searchable as is, but there are some other quotes in there that are relevant to this debate. - Palpable (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That's an essay. WSJ is not reliable for anything in the realm of science, particularly anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Bon courage (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to assert that transcribed testimony under penalty of perjury is not a reliable source for a quote on Covid origins from the world's top coronavirologist? - Palpable (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Not even as secondary sources for the direct quotes of scientists with relevant expertise? BabbleOnto (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

News reporting is primary; any secondary argument about COVID origins the WSJ is making out of Baric's comments is not reliable/due particularly when we have serious, weighty, academic sources. Bon courage (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems a bit presumptuous to refer to the Wall Street Journal as a whole as "Unserious," and "Not Weighty," refer to the Wall Street Journal coverage of this story as "Undue and not reliable," and refer to comments from a top coronavirus researcher, and tenured research at UNC as "unacademic." I think at best all of those are debatable. BabbleOnto (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus (against which I'm in the minority) which says that we are not allowed to use anything from that committee, ESPECIALLY primary sources from that committee. The US House committee is apparently a fringe organization pushing conspiracies, I've been informed.See the relevant discussion.BabbleOnto (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I see the consensus as stating that we can use reliable sources, which would include the transcript of Ralph Baric's sworn testimony, and any quality secondary source about the subcommittee, but exclude the Subcommittee's final report. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. WP:RS/QUOTE is the relevant guideline. One minor correction on the framing: this was not "sworn testimony", I believe "under penalty of perjury" is the correct phrase (see lines 201-210 in the transcript). - Palpable (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've attempted this, it has been shot down by the consensus. See the discussion of that issue here. You're not allowed to cite to even perennially reliable secondary sources about this report. I tried to cite to CNN, Science, and Ars Technica. All not allowed, as apparently it would violate WP:UNDUE, because apparently this report is not notable enough to include, because the house committee is not a "significant enough viewpoint" which is once again because the house committee is apparently a "fringe conspiratorial anti-science hyper-partisan source."

Here's a few of the reasonings I've been provided that I've excerpted, I encourage you to read them in their full context:

Notability is not the same as reliability. The fact that these have been covered by secondary sources... ...doesn't mean they are reliable to be used as a source of information in articles other than the ones about themselves.

One purpose of secondary sourcing is to place primary sourcing in context. As I said in , you did provide secondary sourcing, but that secondary sourcing (I looked at the Science source you provided, which seemed the strongest and was the first in your list) seems to not hold this 'news' in great prominence. Instead, it suggests that this is a partisan and controversial report, whose contents are against the prevailing scientific viewpoint.

So, good luck. I support your proposed change. I'm just pointing out very powerful and very organized people have already shot down many good-faith attempts to add that report. I'm afraid you're wasting your time if you think just because you follow the rules as written you'll be able to edit the article. (And your editing life might be on the line; take a look at my talk page if you want to see what happens to people who make too much noise about it.) BabbleOnto (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

See line 456 of the transcript for the Baric quote:

But they were basically Zhengli Shi's papers. I can tell you her original paper on this, which was in Nature around 2012, they were very vague about safety conditions. They said they followed Chinese regulations. But in a Journal of Virology paper, and I believe a PLOS Pathogens paper are the two, I think, they actually stated that they were doing the culturing work under BSL-2. And then they continued that even into September of 2020, which I thought was irresponsible.

— Ralph Baric

Lardlegwarmers (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The House subcommittee report is not an RS. No peer review, no editorial review. Not written by scientists. Partisan/political by its very nature. This is precisely the sort of source wikipedia tries to avoid. — Shibbolethink 02:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. Misplaced Pages does frequently cite to House Subcommittee reports.

For example, see the article on January 6th, which directly cites a near identical report:

According to the bipartisan House select committee that investigated the incident, the attack was the culmination of a seven-part plan by Trump to overturn the election.

Furthermore, as has been stated multiple times, there is information the source could be used for that is not scientific in nature, such as budgetary allocations, which is still being prohibited. Additionally, much of the report is sworn testimony from scientists that are experts on the matter, this report is just a reproduction of those transcripts. So any complaints about not being written by scientists is both not relevant to parts of the report which want to be cited and is also just wrong. BabbleOnto (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a court, nor does it have laws, and nor does it respect "precedent". Each situation is treated individually.Also worth noting that whether or not something is an RS is also relevant to whether or not it is WP:DUE. If RSes don't cover it, don't requote it, etc. then it very likely is not DUE.Certainly for quotes said during committee hearings, for example, the report is WP:PRIMARY and thus not representing coverage demonstrating that the content is WP:DUE per WP:RSUW. — Shibbolethink 09:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

nor does it have laws

You literally cite to several policies as a reason why this source cannot be included, and if I try to include it anyway, it will be removed for not following the policies. Any differentiation between "laws" and "policies" that are enforced and you can get banned for not following is just playing semantics.

nor does it respect "precedent". Each situation is treated individually.

Yes it does, not it isn't.

Also worth noting that whether or not something is an RS is also relevant to whether or not it is WP:DUE. If RSes don't cover it, don't requote it, etc. then it very likely is not DUE.

While true, this is irrelevant, because I and others have provided numerous reliable sources covering it. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not making an argument that because one article exists another must necessarily. I'm saying if a source is reliable on an issue, it cannot later also, at the same time, be unreliable on that same issue. BabbleOnto (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You're not even talking about the same source, let alone the same issue. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You cannot both say "House Committee Reports are hyper-partisan and utterly unreliable, therefore can not be used." But also say "House Committee Reports are perfectly accept sources sometimes." No one is even disputing the content of the report people are just saying "All house committee reports are unusable," which is obvious incorrect. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. Gordon, Michael R., and Strobel, Warren P. "Behind Closed Doors: The Spy World Scientists Who Argued Covid Was a Lab Leak." The Wall Street Journal, December 26, 2024. Available online: https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/fbi-covid-19-pandemic-lab-leak-theory-dfbd8a51.

2. "Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Interview of: Ralph S. Baric, Ph.D." (PDF). U.S. House of Representatives. January 22, 2024. Retrieved December 28, 2024. See line 456.

Non-transparency/China's Role in the Search for COVID-19's Origins

Propose to add in the section on politics:

"No direct evidence is available for a lab leak as the origin of SARS-CoV-2; however, there is broad agreement that China has not done enough to investigate the virus's origins or share critical data, hindering global efforts to reach a definitive conclusion. In July 2021, the WHO proposed a second phase of studies into the origins of COVID-19, including audits of laboratories in Wuhan, although their March 2021 report had found that the lab leak scenario is "extremely unlikely". China rejected the proposal, with its Vice Health Minister Zeng Yixin calling it disrespectful and politically motivated. China also claimed that prior investigations had already ruled out a lab leak, despite criticisms about limited access during those inquiries." Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. "Covid: Top Chinese scientist says don't rule out lab leak". BBC News. May 24, 2023. Retrieved December 13, 2024.
2. "Mysteries Linger About Covid's Origins, W.H.O. Report Says". The New York Times. June 9, 2022. Retrieved December 13, 2024.
3. "WHO abandons plans for crucial second phase of COVID-origins investigation". Nature. February 14, 2023. Retrieved December 13, 2024.
4. "China snubs WHO's call for second study on COVID-19 origins". Nikkei Asia. August 14, 2021. Retrieved December 13, 2024.

Do any of these sources say "broad agreement"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

"But, outside China at least, there is broad agreement on one thing: China has not done enough to look for evidence or share it." The BBC Source BabbleOnto (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, and the WHO continues to urge China to cooperate . IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I would support a revised version, as below:Many commentators including (x, y, z) have asserted that the Chinese government has hindered investigations into the pandemic's origins by refusing to share relevant data, hindering global efforts to reach a definitive conclusion. In July 2021, the WHO proposed a second phase of studies into the origins of COVID-19, including audits of laboratories in Wuhan, although their March 2021 report had found that the lab leak scenario is "extremely unlikely". China rejected the proposal, with its Vice Health Minister Zeng Yixin calling it disrespectful and politically motivated. China also claimed that prior investigations had already ruled out a lab leak, despite criticisms about limited access during those inquiries.Although I also feel this is not as relevant here as over at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, where we already basically say this a few different ways. — Shibbolethink 02:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Mention House Subcommittee in section on Political, academic and media attention

The section on Political, academic and media attention is conspicuously missing any mention of the Select Subcommittee. We can acknowledge the committee's existence while staying in NPOV and not giving it undue weight, with something like:

An investigation by the US House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic was widely considered by critics to be a partisan effort, undermining trust in its findings. The subcommittee explored the origins of COVID-19, emphasizing the possibility of a lab leak, despite the mainstream scientific consensus supporting natural spillover as the most likely explanation. While the committee's final report criticized federal agencies for not investigating the lab leak theory further, most experts agree that current evidence strongly favors transmission from animals to humans. The investigation reflects ongoing political divides over the virus’s origins. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. Perhaps there should be a subsection on all the much reported hearings on the topic. IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed the archive tag applied to this topic by @Bon courage because that tag was not applicable to this topic. See the discussion at: Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#c-Lardlegwarmers-20241223031300-Dreadpirate43-20241211221200 and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Teahouse&oldid=1265591610#Un-archiving_a_talk_topic Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Weasel Wording and Biomedical Claims Unverified in Citation

The following claim is weasel wording, an attempt to sneak in a biomedical claim without using MEDRS, it is vague, and above all, it is not verified by the source that is being used to cite it. It comes across as original research, and combines multiple claims with subjective and loaded language:

Their letter was criticized by some virologists and public health experts, who said that a "hostile" and "divisive" focus on the WIV was unsupported by evidence, was impeding inquiries into legitimate concerns about China's pandemic response and transparency by combining them with speculative and meritless argument,Lardlegwarmers (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. "The 'Occam's Razor Argument' Has Not Shifted in Favor of a Lab Leak". Snopes.com. 16 July 2021. Archived from the original on 6 August 2021. Retrieved 18 July 2021.

Nah, Snopes is saying that LL is "based on speculation, innuendo, and overt misinterpretations of scientific research". Wehat we have seems like a fair summary. I would not object to the removal of the word "some". Bon courage (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleted. It was indeed WP:WEASEL and did not add any information. Even without the "some", nobody is going to read it as "all virologists and public health experts". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Snopes is not MEDRS. We can't use that source for any of these claims. Also, the source literally does not include the words "hostile", nor "divisive". And removing the word "some" doesn't make that statement any more clear or verifiable. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Calling out "speculation, innuendo, and overt misinterpretations of scientific research" is not WP:BMI. Good source. Bon courage (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The claim is a clear-cut instance of BMI. It pertains to the credibility of a biomedical interpretation. Also, again, even if Snopes were Medrs (which it is not) the source does not even contain the quoted terms. Lastly, the claim is vague because it leaves undefined the identity of the persons who “said” that statement. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:PARITY, paragraph 2 and 3. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

What are you saying? The lab leak hypothesis itself and arguments for and against have been throughly described by many professional scientists in peer-reviewed academic journals, as well as by respected newspapers, book publishers and magazines. The theory may be fringe to the extent that the consensus here says it is and that it diverges from the null hypothesis advocated for in the review articles in “Science journal” but that does not equate with the theory being merely an object of internet blog speculation. Snopes is less of an RS for sure. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Snopes is one of the best non-academic sources we have, and wikipedia has repeatedly recognized it as such. See WP:SNOPES. See also WP:PARITY. It's not BMI, it's a summary of conspiracy theories backed by lots of fringe people on the internet and, incidentally, in the halls of congress. But not by a lot of scientists. BMI would be Snopes talking about biomedical details of mutations and epidemiology of virus evolution etc. And even then, parity of sources applies. — Shibbolethink 02:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:PARITY does not apply to this topic. That policy is about theories that are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review (Misplaced Pages:PARITY). The lab leak hypothesis is described in very many peer-reviewed articles as one of the two possible hypotheses currently under consideration by professional academic scientists. The lab leak theory has been supported in prominent mainstream newspapers. This is far from being sourced only to obscure texts. WP:SNOPES states that Attribution may be necessary, which suggests that the source is not necessarily qualified to label fully credentialed academic scientists and government officials as a group of "bloggers". Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous. You are trying to convince us that a report on what a political appointee said is useful for more than thinking a politician said something. The FBI is pretty faulty as a primary source (Weapons of mass destruction anyone?), and isn't a secondary source. So what do you have? News says politician says thing, but nothing scientific? 107.115.5.100 (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The FBI and US politician are not so useful for global issues. This isn't a slight against US politicians or government agencies, whatever the nationality it's of little importance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. Domingo, J.L. (December 2022). "An updated review of the scientific literature on the origin of SARS-CoV-2". Environmental Research. 215 (Pt 1): 114131. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2022.114131. PMC 9420317. PMID 36037920.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
2. "FBI Director Says COVID Pandemic Likely Caused by Chinese Lab Leak". The Wall Street Journal. 2023 Feb 28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Assertion regarding racism unsupported

I made this same comment in June, but have seen no progress on it.

The following statement is not supported by the sided source: "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism."

The source appears to be a that allegations of racism from proponent of the lab league theory against proponent of the wet market theory, but both these statements and the authors response are only opinion. Nothing in the source points to data, or even anecdote, demonstrating a connection between acts of racism or racist sentiments and the lab theory. Dustinscottc (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

"blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government, or:" Also (remember) that anything in the lead must also be supported in the Body, such as "the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government". Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you please clarify how your reply here addresses my comment? Dustinscottc (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a paraphrase of what the body says. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that the source cited does not support what the article says. Other references to a causal effect between the lab leak theory and increased racism are similarly unsupported. Some sources point to increases in racist rhetoric on Twitter following a tweet from President Trump labeling the coronavirus the "Chinese virus", but that is an entirely separate issue from a connection between the lab leak theory and alleged racism. Dustinscottc (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the quotes I proved alone are enough to say, yes we do have sources that say the lad leak led to racism. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You may think that, but you would be wrong. The sources are either opinion (Gorski) or establish a connection between racism and something other than the lab leak theory. Dustinscottc (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

First you say none of the sources support it now "well one does, but opinion", so I am out of here with a firm no to your suggestions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Opinion cannot be used to establish the truth of a claim. Gorski is not a credible source for the effect of racism. The cited opinion does not even claim that there is empirical evidence of a link between a rise in racist rhetoric and the lab leak theory—only that the lab leak theory is itself racist. The inclusion of these claims clearly violates Misplaced Pages policies. Dustinscottc (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur Lardlegwarmers (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the statement. It needs to be supported by a suitable reference before being added. Aeonx (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no consensus for that. Ledes summarize bodies and this is well sourced. If you want to add a string of citations to the lede or remove them entirely that's fine. Whitewashing this major point away is not. Bon courage (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right. The statements in the main body should be removed as well. The sources in the main body are not related to the lab leak theory. Dustinscottc (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That's just wrong, and the words are there in the sources to show it. For why the current text has consensus see here. Bottom line: excellent sources say racism and xenophobia fed into LL and result from it. So Misplaced Pages has to also. End of story. Bon courage (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You just linked me to a discussion that demonstrates the current language does not have consensus. The fact that the sources simply don't say what the article says has been pointed out many times. Why you continue to insist on the language remaining is beyond me.

The sources do not say that LL feeds racism or that they are a result of it. End of story. Dustinscottc (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I checked the sources relating to this in the article and I tried to Google to find aome, I can't see any reliable references or sources to justify it being in the article. It never should have been included in the first place. Also 100% of editors to agree is not required for a consensus. Aeonx (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

In the linked discussion, there was no clear consensus but the editors leaned toward Option 3, which describes a two-way influence between the lab leak theory and anti-Chinese racism. Some editors cautioned against vague language or unverified claims about racism. These issues remain unresolved. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The article currently attempts to address two distinct topics under one framework: the scientific hypothesis regarding the origins of COVID-19, specifically the lab leak theory, and the broader sociopolitical discourse surrounding this idea, including its appropriation in conspiracy theories and online narratives. This conflation may lead to confusion and misrepresentation.

=== Scientific Hypothesis ===

The lab leak theory posits that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated from a laboratory accident rather than natural zoonotic spillover. While the majority of scientists and public health organizations consider zoonotic origins the most plausible explanation, the lab leak theory is viewed as a minority position within the scientific community. Nonetheless, it has been proposed as a plausible scenario by some authoritative scientists, warranting discussion and investigation. A neutral account of the arguments for and against this hypothesis is necessary to place it in its proper context within the scientific debate.

=== Sociopolitical Discourse ===

Separately, the sociopolitical discourse surrounding the lab leak theory often diverges significantly from the scientific debate. The theory has, at times, been appropriated in conspiracy theories and internet memes, where it has been used to advance narratives that may be rooted in fear, mistrust, or even hate. While the hypothesis itself is not inherently linked to such motives, its misinterpretation and weaponization have led to divisive rhetoric and stigmatization, particularly against specific communities.

=== Recommendations for Improvement ===

To improve clarity and accuracy, the article should:

1. Clearly delineate the scientific discussion of the lab leak hypothesis, ensuring that the arguments for and against are presented neutrally, supported by credible sources.
2. Separate this from the discussion of conspiracy theories and sociopolitical implications, framing these as external interpretations or appropriations that do not reflect the scientific discourse.
3. Ensure that claims about hate or weaponization are directly supported by reliable sources, or rephrase them to align more closely with what the sources actually state.

By addressing these elements distinctly, the article can provide a more balanced and comprehensive exploration of the COVID-19 lab leak theory and its broader impact. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We do not give equal weight to fringe theories. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

But it’s just false to broadly state that LL is itself “leveraging” racism when a minority of authority figures in science and public health consider the scenario to be worthy of investigation. So is the secretary-general of WHO then a racist? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Trump's use of the term "Kung Flu" was clearly racist and anti-Chinese violent attacks increased in the US. Whether that particular source is enough is another question. Although there are other sources in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the lab leak theory? Dustinscottc (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Because a lot of LL is rooted in and amplifies racism/xenophobia. As our sources say. Bon courage (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources don't say that though, except for a single opinion piece by someone who is not an expert on racism. Dustinscottc (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SBM is a generally reliable source, particularly for fringe subjects like this. Bon courage (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources regardless of whether the publication is reliable. Dustinscottc (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

It's knowledge, not opinion, and the consensus on Misplaced Pages is that WP:SBM is a WP:GREL, particularly for fringe topics. Bon courage (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an article that contains the following in its subtitle is not opinion?

Naturally, lab leak proponents soberly considered this new evidence and thought about changing their minds. Just kidding! They doubled down on the conspiracy mongering, because of course they did. Dustinscottc (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the policies and guidelines of enwiki, I don't believe subtitles are considered relevant in determing what is or isn't RSOPINION. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The policies and guidelines don't declare the subtitle to be irrelevant either. The source is clearly an opinion, as evidenced by its content, organization, and tone. The author is not an expert in racism or sociology. Dustinscottc (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the relevant passage from the source reads as follows:

That’s evolutionary biologist Heather Heying on the podcast that she does with her husband, biologist Bret Weinstein, claiming that it’s a conspiracy to “definitely” show that it was “those people” who caused the pandemic, not a lab leak. In a massive exercise in projection, she calls claims that the pandemic started at the Huanan market “racist,” apparently ignoring the blatant anti-Chinese racism and xenophobia behind lab leak, whose proponents often ascribe a nefarious coverup to the Chinese government

If so, the relevant question is: is the SBM article reliable for this statement? Based on the consensus about SBM expressed in RSN discussions (and elsewhere on enwiki), I believe the answer is yes. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

An opinion piece is not a reliable source except to say that so and so expressed an opinion. The entire source is clearly opinion. Beyond that, even if the source were not opinion, it does not claim there is a causal relationship from lab leak theory to a rise in anti-Chinese or anti-Asian racism. It simply labels the idea of the lab leak theory as inherently racist, with no backing. Dustinscottc (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear. The current reference do NOT meet the standard for Science Based Medicine, not in general terms and not in Misplaced Pages terms. As stated precisely, I couldn't find any reliable sources to justify the comment. The rest is semantics in argument. It's either properly sourced or its not. In this case I honestly don't think it is.Aeonx (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Trump's use of the term "Kung Flu" was clearly racist and anti-Chinese violent attacks increased in the US.

Perhaps the most obvious example of a "Correlation equals causation" fallacy ever put into to words.

Do you have any evidence that the former caused the latter? Or that the majority of anti-Chinese violent attacks were done by Trump supporters? If not, then you're just implying that because Trump said "Kung Flu," thousands of people were suddenly awoken from their sleeper cells to go attack Asian people. Your argument currently has no causation. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not how Misplaced Pages works. Editors do not have to find justifications for what reliable soures write. We cite the reliable sources, and that's it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Editors do have to make sure their edits are not implying a conclusion which is not present in any of their sources, however. This statement as currently written clearly implies the former led to the latter, despite no source in the article making that causal link. That is pretty blatantly WP:SYNTH, if not a violation of WP:NPOV. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You missed the sentence It builds xenophobic anger toward Asian Americans? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

1. That source does not appear in the article anywhere, and is not given as a citation for the claim in the article.

2. This is a primary source written by partisan members of a House Committee. This is an unacceptable source for a scientific claim (I need not remind you this is your position which you can read on this very talk page so I find it hilarious you're now going to try and use a house committee press release as a reliable source in this article)

3. Even if none of that were true, the statement " builds xenophobic anger toward Asian Americans," still does not prove the claim in the article, that is "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism." The latter does not follow the former. Even if we assume your source is a 100% objective scientific piece of fact, it doesn't mean that anti-Chinese racism has increased. That's a statistical question that needs more than a house caucus saying "When a politician from the opposing party said X, it caused xenophobic anger (without proof that's true). BabbleOnto (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

My mistake. That link was used in this discussion, so I assumed it was legit and just checked that one. Now I checked the sources in the article, and they indeed do not directly say that. If we want to keep this, we should have better sources than we currently have. Of course, the lab leak theory originator's Kung Flu remarks were racist as shit, that is WP:SKYBLUE, but the sources I can see do not state a connection. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the cited sources amount to either David Gorski's opinion or empirical evidence that there is a connection between President Trump's tweets and racist rhetoric, or an increase in racist rhetoric following the beginning of the pandemic. There is no empirical evidence cited anywhere in the article establishing a connection between the lab leak theory and an increase in racist sentiments, and opinion should not be used to establish the truth of a claim. I don't believe that Gorski's opinion should be mentioned at all, especially in a section that is not generally describing opinions or reactions. Dustinscottc (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the entire body; there is ample sourcing on this (kind of obvious) point, and this has been discussed ad nauseam to get what we have. Bon courage (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't. None of the sources establish a link between the lab leak theory and racism. Dustinscottc (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Rubbish, many mention it. If their reasoning doesn't satisfy you then - tough. Misplaced Pages follows good sources. Bon courage (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources don't say the thing they're cited to say. That's a problem. Your dismissal of the problem without giving it any serious thought is emblematic of the poor editing of this article. Dustinscottc (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Not verified in RS. These sources focus exclusively on Donald Trump and the coronavirus in general. The “racism” is connected with the virus originating in Chinese territory, not specifically in a lab. Sources make no mention of a lab. This is blatantly not verified.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like trolling. When we are citing sources like PMID:33786062 the comments about "unverified" are very peculiar. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The quality of the source is irrelevant if it doesn't say what the article says. This isn't an article about racism against Asians or even the link between Covid-19 and anti-Asian racism. It's about the lab leak theory. The cited sources do not establish a connection between the lab leak theory and anti-Asian animus. Dustinscottc (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no support in the source you provided for the notion that support for lab leak is correlated with racism. The article broadly discusses anti-Asian hate in the United States with Covid-19 in general as a “case study”. There are only two references in the article to the “lab leak” idea, and neither of them confirm that it’s associated with “racism”. One states that Mike Pompeo supports LL and once referred to Covid as a “Wuhan virus”. The second reference states that the lab leak is a “conspiracy theory” supported in conservative media. Again, this claim is totally unverified. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

To quote::

The conspiracy theories and Sinophobic slurs went viral on social media, as shown in various identified combinations of Asian‐ethnic slurs decorating COVID‐19, including “chinkiepox,” “kungflu,” and “chinaids” (indicating “China” “engineered” the virus) (Schild et al., 2020; Zannettou et al., 2020). Both mass media and social media, thus, facilitates the dissemination of derogatory content, conspiracy theories, and hateful speech towards Asians.

Bon courage (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The proposition states that “mass media and social media” (not “the lab leak hypothesis”) facilitate racism and “conspiracy theories” in general. The “chinaids” anecdote plays a bit in your favor, but it’s primary research to take that and infer our whole claim from just that. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Social media/media was the carrier, "conspiracy theories and Sinophobic slurs" were the payload (maybe indicating “China” “engineered” the virus). It's difficulty to engage in discussion if the plain meaning of English is denied. Bon courage (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The plain meaning of English is not being denied, please dial it back a bit and AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing here establishes a connection between Sinophobic slurs and the lab leak theory. The source says at best that two things happened, not that one caused the other. Dustinscottc (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

But that is your own original inference. The source just says that anti-Asian hate and conspiracy theories went viral on social media. It doesn’t mention LL in particular and surely doesn’t give a reference to your claim about LL being inspired by and inciting hatred. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not a statement related to cause and effect. It first presumes lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" without evidence. Next, it lumps the lab leak theory with other forms of racism without establishing any connection between the two. The source does not stand for the proposition that the lab leak theory has been causally linked to racist comments and acts. Dustinscottc (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Former President Trump on Tuesday claimed vindication for his assertion that the coronavirus originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, and defended using the term “Chinese virus,” which has been criticized as racist and blamed in part for a spike in violence against Asian Americans.

Trump and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were some of the first people to blame a lab leak for the introduction of the virus.

Throughout much of April and into May of 2020, both leaned into the notion that the virus came from Chinese lab, with Trump doubling and tripling down on anti-Chinese rhetoric. Trump even contradicted an on-the-record statement from his own intelligence community when he said at a news conference he had a “high degree of confidence” that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab.

The World Health Organization last February urged people to avoid terms like the “Wuhan virus” or the “Chinese virus,” fearing it could spike a backlash against Asians.

Trump never followed that advice though, and researchers have found his tweets led to an increase in anti-Asian backlash. However, neither Trump nor Pompeo ultimately produced any evidence.

O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This source at least suggests that Trump made some racist statements about Covid that stoked anti-Asian hate online, and that Trump also supports the lab leak theory. We can say those claims on Misplaced Pages. But that is still not enough to support the very particular claim in this article that “the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism.” For starters, Trump is only one politician. At best we could say that “Donald Trump, a proponent of the lab leak theory, made racist statements regarding Covid, which triggered an increase in anti-Chinese social media posts.” But the claim as is is really original research, insinuating a causal relationship in society in general between LL and racism that is simply not supported in this source. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Trump is only one politician. Are you serious? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Is he three politicians? Dustinscottc (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The claim in our article says politicians (plural). The source only mentions one politician. Anything more than that is literally not verified. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

To the extent this has anything to do with the lab leak theory, it's a guilt by association fallacy. Dustinscottc (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It is specifically about the lab leak theory, racial language, and harm to Asian-Americans. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that those topics are covered doesn't mean the lab leak theory either leveraged or caused anti-Asian sentiment. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Passerby here, but you are clearly engaging in WP:OR. This page is about the lab leak theory. That source you just cited only has the word "lab" twice in the entire work. And when it does, it's doing so with information from 2020 that we now definitively know is outdated, if not flat-out wrong. If that's one of your best sources, then safe to say some OR is being done.

"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went with “Wuhan virus” (Finnegan, 2020) and claimed without evidence that the virus emerged from a Wuhan lab (Pamuk & Brunnstrom, 2020)" (This is severely outdated information) Just10A (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Err, the lab leak idea is in the past; Misplaced Pages covers topics comprehensively and is not some kind of news source only concerned with current events. Bon courage (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't address the concerns raised about OR which are valid. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

To quote:

Terms such as “biowepon” (sic) and “bioattack” proliferated on 4chan′s “politically incorrect” board (a popular extremist Web community)—as a user posted, “Anyone that doesn't realize this is a Chinese bioweapon by now is either a brainlet or a chicom noodle nigger” (Schild et al., 2020). The depiction that Chinese are villains who intentionally created and spread the virus fits squarely with the yellow peril rhetoric in which Asians are framed as “devils” and “invaders” to overtake nations dominated by Whites. Although the conspiracy theories lack evidence and have been dismissed by scientists, they help fan the flames of racist hatred.

Bon courage (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a classic guilt by association fallacy. At best it is evidence that racists leveraged the lab leak theory. It's not evidence that the lab leak theory leveraged or increased anti-Chinese racism. Dustinscottc (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That isn't lab leak theory. Lab leak theory isn't mentioned, and the whole "bioweapon" paragraph is discussing a theory in which the Chinese (as "villans") have intent to purposefully use the virus as a weapon. That is not lab leak theory. The fact that you are connecting it to lab leak theory is OR. Just10A (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Thats not the lab leak theory, thats one of the conspiracy theories that this was an intentional attack with a biological weapon. There is no intentional spread in the lab leak theory (hence "leak"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The lab leak theory is scoped as "The idea that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, came from a laboratory". If you want to propose splitting that into intentional/unintentional topics, feel free to do so. Bon courage (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Those are covered at COVID-19 misinformation not here. Thats consensus and I'm pretty sure you know that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

No. And it's why this article has a "Deliberate release" section. Bon courage (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean the section which begins "Main article: COVID-19 misinformation § Bio-weapon"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Bon courage (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is stonewalling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Just follow the sources: e.g. PMID:34954709.

Since the early days of the pandemic, 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 led to an 800% increase of these racist terms on social media and news outlets, and redirected fear and anger in a manner that reinforced racism and xenophobia.

Misplaced Pages (and the lead in particular) summarises the sources we cite. Bon courage (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't support the given text. You aren't following the sources, you're working backwards from a position. A summary of the sources wouldn't end up with OR being a problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Huh? What "position" are you denying? That LL was fuelled by racism, or that it caused it? Bon courage (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Again with the wild accusations... I'm not denying anything, I'm saying that the concerns raised above about OR appear to be valid and nothing you have done has demonstrated otherwise (in fact you've made it very clear that we're dealing with some sort of OR here). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

So if sources say LL was fed by racism, and led to racism, and Misplaced Pages says just that ... then the problem is ... what? Bon courage (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The source you just provided doesn't say that, at least not in the section quoted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Your premise is wrong. The source does not say LL was fed by racism or that it led to racism. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As has now been pointed out to you numerous times, that source does not claim that the lab leak theory leveraged or caused anti-Chinese racism. The only mention of a lab leak is a statement that is provided as context, and the statement presumes without providing evidence that the theory is uncorroborated. Dustinscottc (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn't suggest that the lab leak theory itself inherently leverages racism. Rather, it states that racist rhetoric used by politicians to promote the theory contributed to a rise in racist language on social media and news platforms. However, this is not the best source for information on media, racism and language use, which should ideally come from sociology, linguistics, or media studies. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is becoming comical. Just10A (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

In other words, it doesn't fully encompass lab leak theory. The fact you are connecting it is WP:OR. This has been explained to you by multiple people now. This is becoming WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Just10A (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Splitting it isn't necessary. Lumping the bioweapon theory in with the lab leak theory in general is poor reasoning. It is, like most of what you have cited, guilt by association fallacy. If the premises are: A says X, B says X plus Y, and Y is wrong, we cannot conclude anything about A or X based on Y. Dustinscottc (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you argument is not with me, it's with the WP:BESTSOURCES. Lewandowsky et al explictly include the bioweapon stuff within the LL spectrum:

At the other extreme of the bundle of lab leak hypotheses are the explicitly conspiratorial assertions that SARS-CoV-2 was designed and engineered by the WIV, perhaps as a bioweapon, and was released either accidentally or even as a biological attack (presumably by the Chinese government against its own citizens in Wuhan). The Chinese government has a known track record of cover-ups, including dur-ing the first SARS epidemic in 2003.

Bon courage (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If that is the best available sourcing then why is the text in question a singular "theory" and not "theories" or "hypotheses"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd support such a change. Bon courage (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that such a change thoughtfully implemented would address the OR concerns raised above without giving into the baser instincts of some of those calling for it to be entirely stricken. Something along the lines of "Some of the lab leak theories have both been influenced by and increased anti-Chinese racism, especially when weaponized by politicians." Although I waffle between anti-Chinese and anti-Asian because many sources frame it in the context of anti-Asian hate and it seems that racists are generally stupid enough to conflate the majority of a continent into "Chinese" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Asian would likely be better as many non Chinese Asians have been victims of racist violence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That is fine with respect to "have been influenced by", but none of the sources provide any evidence at all that even the most outlandish theories 'increased' anti-Asian racism. The sources that discuss increases in anti-Asian rhetoric do not examine zoonotic vs lab-leak theories and instead focus on the use of terms like "Chinese virus", which is not inherently connected to any kind of lab-leak theory. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

PMID:34954709:

Since the early days of the pandemic, 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 led to an 800% increase of these racist terms on social media and news outlets, and redirected fear and anger in a manner that reinforced racism and xenophobia.

When we have sources saying LL was informed by racism, was itself racist, and that it resulted in racism, our job seems straightforward. Bon courage (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Use of such language led to an 800% increase". That is not a statement that the lab leak theory led to an increase. Again, you keep saying that the sources say things that they simply do not say. Dustinscottc (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

How can the "lab leak" in itself lead to an increase since it's just an idea? It needs to be couched in language to have an effect. Politicians promoted the unsubstantiated hypothesis the virus was developed in a laboratory, and in doing so with "language" caused/reinforced racism. Bon courage (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that the lab leak theory increasing racism is a preposterous idea. I'm confused, however, that you have reinstated a sentence that says precisely that: "the lab leak theory leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism".

But the sources don't even say that discussion of the lab leak theory has led to an increase of racist language. The source says that the use of terms like "Chinese virus" led to an increase. It provides no evidence for the claim being made in the article. That claim is original synthesis, and therefore inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. Dustinscottc (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

When you misquote you can prove anything. Try again without eliding material from what Misplaced Pages actually says. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The edit doesn't grammatically change the sentence. That's the point—to isolate the problematic claim. But the sources also do not claim that the "weaponization of the lab leak theory by politicians" has both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism. Instead, a single source says that multiple things, primarily the use of certain language, such as the "Chinese virus", led to an increase in anti-Chinese racism. If a source says that A, B, and C collectively caused X, you cannot say that D, which is kind of related to A, caused X. Dustinscottc (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the use of "and" means both propositions must be true: (1) the lab leak theory itself leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism, and (2) its weaponization by politicians also did so. Grammatically and logically, the sentence asserts both as true. Since our friend has already admitted that proposition (1) is logically impossible, it should not be controversial to edit the sentence to: "The weaponization of the lab leak theory by politicians leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism" Lardlegwarmers (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You are clearly engaging in original research by relying upon the synthesis of multiple sources in order to support your conclusion. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Best sources has nothing to do with it. Treating a part as representative of the whole is inappropriate. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There is already a section in our article on intentional release of a bioweapon, and you could use this source to write that “Conspiracy theories labeling COVID-19 as a Chinese bioweapon spread on extremist forums, using racist language and yellow peril rhetoric to demonize Chinese people, despite lacking evidence.” Again, it does not verify the broader claim that “the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism.” You are using this as OR to support a novel conclusion. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

So, your position is that even though we now definitively know a source is outdated/wrong, we should still act as if it was true in the past because it used to be thought of as correct?

Let me guess, you also think we should call Galileo's heliocentric theory dubious on his wiki page as well? After all, they thought it was wrong at the time! Who cares what we know now! Just10A (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why the Galileo Gambit has made an appearance. If Pompeo was wrong in 2020 and sources commented on it, that's worthy of coverage. Bon courage (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Not when those sources have been definitively contradicted by more recent sources. WP:AGE MATTERS. Good talk. Just10A (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, just be clear, that's not a Galileo's Gambit Einstein. There's no gambit, we definitively have a different viewpoint/evidence now. Just10A (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence of LL. Hasn't changed. Bon courage (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how to tell you this, but witness testimony on something is a form of evidence. In fact, it's literally the most common form of evidence. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT Pt. 2. Just10A (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Your comment presumes that Pompeo was wrong. Dustinscottc (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Err, what? Was not he just pumping out LL nonsense of the time? Bon courage (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You're begging the question. The lab leak theory is that the virus emerged from a lab. There are more contemporary sources showing that experts in the field believe that a lab leak is not only plausible, but the most likely explanation. There is significantly more public circumstantial evidence pointing to a lab leak than there was at the time of the sources dumping on Pompeo. The source is therefore outdated. Dustinscottc (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want Misplaced Pages to say Pompeo was vindicated, strong sourcing will be needed. Until then it's fine to relay the material with existing good sources. Bon courage (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Pompeo quoted saying “Wuhan virus” is not RS for this broad claim about LL being inspired by racism. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

No one is requesting a statement that Pompeo was correct. They're stating that a source claiming he was wrong is outdated and therefore should not be used. Dustinscottc (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Would need sourcing Bon courage (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The funniest thing about this conversation is that the most mainstream version of the lab leak theory centers on a research program headed by a British guy running an NYC-based nonprofit, in collaboration with an American scientist at the University of North Carolina and a couple of US government agencies. The lab in Wuhan were contractors. - Palpable (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Trump administration pulled funding for a group of scientists studying coronaviruses in bats and the risk of their spillover into humans -- the very kind of infection that started the COVID-19 pandemic -- according to EcoHealth Alliance, the New York-based nonprofit organization conducting the research. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That didn't end up sticking, but EcoHealth was debarred by bipartisan action this year for misuse of public funds. - Palpable (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

EcoHealth Alliance collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) on bat coronavirus research, including gain-of-function (GOF) experiments that synthesized more dangerous and infective virus strains. This work involved infecting human cells with these modified viruses and allowing them to replicate. Some of this research occurred in a biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) lab, raising concerns about safety due to its lower containment standards compared to BSL-3 or BSL-4 labs. The proximity of this research to Wuhan, where COVID-19 first emerged, has fueled debates over whether the pandemic resulted from natural zoonotic spillover or a lab incident., highlighting the need for stricter oversight and transparency in high-risk virology research. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

IOW virologists do virology and conspiracy theorists fall prey to fallacious reasoning rather than evidence. This article is meant to reflect what the WP:BESTSOURCES are saying when then analyse the LL phenomenon. It is not meant to be an apologia for LL. Bon courage (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Misplaced Pages is not a place where we determine what happened, what's fact, what's not, etc. We let the best sources do that for us, and we just reflect what those experts say. preferably in peer-reviewed scientific journals. — Shibbolethink 02:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be best to find a source that says it. ] or ] or ] or ]? Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Surely it would be best to remove the inflammatory and unsupported claim stated in wikivoice first. - Palpable (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The argument is that it is unsourced. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Which guideline says that articles can include unsourced controversial claims in wikivoice while editors try to find some support? - Palpable (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

None, but wp:consensus is clear, any changes must be discussed and agreed, and this is a change. Thus consensus is needed to change the article (as this is long-standing content). If an objection has been answered (such as "this is unsourced" and a source is provided) the conversation should stop. As it has been dealt with, not doing so might well fall could of wp:disruption. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You, a senior editor, are telling me that removing unsourced claims requires discussion? - Palpable (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

NO, I am telling you that the claim that it is unsourced is disputed, so I am actually providing a source that clearly says it is the answer. I find it odd you seem to see this as an issue. If there issue with sourcing tag it as unverified. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No source you provided says it's the answer. In fact, half of them say the exact opposite. You've still provided 0 actual support for your claim. Just10A (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It is unsourced. Your sources do not support the statement, and thus isn't an answer. Unclear which exact comment you're replying to, but those sources do not support the statement in any way. (without even mentioning most are outdated) Here's the breakdown:

Source #1

The term "lab" or "lab-leak" is only mentioned twice in the whole article. It is a tangental mention of a different article, in the very last paragraph, which is about political blame on the country of China and stricter immigration controls from that country. No mention of racism in that section. The only conclusion the section states is: "In particular, a higher threat perception linked to the conspiracy theory that a Chinese lab leaked the coronavirus increased demand for restrictive immigration controls." That does not support the statement that the lab leak directly increased racism whatsoever, racism isn't even mentioned in that same section. To link it to racism is WP:OR.

Source #2

Almost the exact same issue. The entire article is about the political pressure and how people feel threatened about China (the country). Racism is only mentioned 1 time in the entire article, and it is to expressly say that it is not covered by this paper: "future studies should investigate how the perceived China threat leads to anti-Asian racism and hate crimes." Again, how anyone could say this supports the statement about racism on the wiki page is just blatant WP:OR

It's also worth noting that even if source 1 and 2 did support the statement (they don't), there would be bias issues. Both those sources are from the Race and Justice journal, which explicitly states in it's journal description that it exists to promote progressive causes.

Source #3

Nowhere does it support the statement that lab leak directly lead to racism. In fact, article explicitly states that the people connecting lab-leak to racism are part of a "nonexistent consensus." "Obviously, it becomes more difficult to prove a hypothesis if the national media has run a series of articles claiming anybody who even entertains it is a racist crank. In any case, I prefer the media to honestly portray the state of scientific knowledge, rather than inventing a nonexistent consensus and hoping it all works out." Again, can't see how anyone would think this possibly supports the statement after reading.

Source #4

Pretty much the same as #2, does not support a statement about an increase in racism at all. Again, the word racist/racism is only said once in the entire article and it's to explicitly distinguish the two: ""But the two do not necessarily go hand in hand. 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. Keep in mind it never gives an alternative view. This is the ONLY use of the term in the whole article.

So yes, it is unsourced, and none of the sources produced remotely support the statement "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism." That is why there is currently nearly a 2 to 1 consensus of it being removed. Also note that the WP:ONUS is on the people seeking inclusion, and that clearly isn't being met. Just10A (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, to verify the claim, please give a direct quote from these texts where you think it explicitly states that the idea itself—that covid started in a research environment—“leverages” xenophobia. Please do not paraphrase or synthesize from different fragments of text. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The use of have both in the claim makes it very clear that it's trying to say "the lab leak theory has leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism", which would entail that the idea itself has (at some undefined point in the past) used hatred of Chinese people. The only sense I can make of this suggestion is that it means "hatred of Chinese people is itself (or has been at some point in the past) an integral component of "the" lab leak hypothesis."

First of all, this suggestion is just false on its face (and offensive). The lab leak idea is, for many of its proponents, including experts in medicine, virology, and public health, simply a proposed scenario that may or may not be supported by the publicly available evidence.

But let's say that the claim were somehow viable. Thus, we would need to find a source for the claim. says demand for restrictive immigration control intensified when individuals had stronger perceptions of threats and conspiracy beliefs about the virus leak from a Chinese lab. But without doing original research, that statement simply cannot verify the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism.

Even if it were universally true that “demand for restrictive immigration control is racist” (which you haven't proven), you still haven’t shown that “hating China is an intrinsic component of the LL idea.” This type of conclusion would probably require something written by an academic expert in psychology or sociology that expressly endorsed that particular claim.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we need an RFC as clearly there is doubt over whether this is a reasonable parphrasing of RS, or needs a direct source. Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Editors' Behavior in Talk Pages

Should we mention in the lead the "increased anti-Chinese racism."

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Do sources support retention of "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism."

Or should we remove it (as unsourced) or re-write it to only say ""the lab leak theory increased anti-Chinese racism."?

• A Keep
• B Remove
• C Re-write

Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• B. Remove

The sentence, "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism," does not appear in any of the sources, nor does anything categorically similar. That conclusion appears to be one editor's opinion based on the sources, not what the actual sources say, therefore it is WP:OR, and should not stand in its current form.

I'm against the proposed rewrite because none of the sources actually say this conclusion, it's just an assumption based on the actual source material. If there are sources which support this conclusion then it may be worth keeping. But the current source just flat-out never mention this conclusion at all. Obviously can't be attributed to the current source because it's not from that source. Also don't know how it could be kept if unsourced; it is a statement which very clearly implies some sort of empirical data or study behind it, which would have to be sourced somewhere. BabbleOnto (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Question: What are the best sources that support the assertion that the lab leak theory increased anti-Chinese racism? Right now I'm leaning towards remove per WP:VOICE. The sentence attributing the idea to David Gorski is fine, however. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Locking in my option B !vote. The sources presented thus far are pretty weak. Primary sources, opinions, and sources that themselves attribute this idea to individuals. But keeping the attributed statement in the body is fine by me. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• B. Remove (Summoned by bot) The source attached to this claim, which reads more like a blog than a MEDRS article, assumes that lab leak is driven by racism and racists, but doesn't go very deep into it, and certainly doesn't support the precise claim made here, nor the proposed correction. I would expect such a claim, even in the lead, to be cited to actual research with polling, or something else with a rigorous methodology. I note with concern that a similar claim later in the article is cited via Pubmed to a journal article that uses reports of hate incidents to a monitor group as its evidence for increasing anti-Chinese racism. Anecdotal reports are something worth paying attention to, but not strong-enough support for stating in wikivoice "the lab leak theory increased anti-Chinese racism" (or "The use of xenophobic rhetoric also caused a rise in anti-Chinese sentiment", the other claim). Without careful research, how would racism be determined to be specifically caused by the lab leak theory, as opposed to general racist feelings about China as the origin of the virus? Remove unless and until sourced to something rigorous. Vadder (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

B. Remove

None of the sources currently cited in either this sentence or other statements elsewhere in the Misplaced Pages article claim a causal relationship between the lab leak theory and an increase in anti-Chinese racism. For that reason, the proposed re-write does not solve the problem. Dustinscottc (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove from lead AND BODY. As per extensive discussion already in the this talk page. One thing not mentioned so far is that there is a higher bar for sourcing reputation-damaging statements. The article insinuates that lab leak supporters are motivated by racism, and this serious accusation applies to a significant minority of scientists and a majority of Americans. There's no way this should be in wikivoice. Also if I may say so the phrasing of this RFC is very odd, the unsupported text should be removed from both lead and body per WP:BURDEN. Why was it phrased this way? Is the idea to have a separate RFC later to bring the body into compliance with WP:V? - Palpable (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven? RememberOrwell (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove. The sources only verify that Donald Trump made racist innuendoes to refer to SC2 which was correlated with an increase in racist tweets, and that extremist messageboards used similar racist language and promoted conspiracy theories about covid being a bioweapon attack. It doesn’t have anything to do with the scientific hypothesis that a biosafety incident could have caused the pandemic. Speculating about “Researchers might have infected themselves with Covid in a bat cave while sampling guano” doesn’t need to involve racial hate. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

B. Remove from lede along with any mention of racism increase in article main/body. As already discussed. No reliable sources to tie anti-Chinese racism specifically to lab-leak theories. References currently limited to opinion pieces that don't provide any measurement showing an increase either in any local country or globally. I suspect any tangible increases in anti-Chinese racism would be difficult to determine as being associated with lab-leak theories as opposed to simply the origin of the virus being identified in China, spreading out of Wuhan/China initially, and the lack of Chinese Government timely response to cooperate with international experts and authorities, and stop the spread internationally. Aeonx (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• It's a little premature to comment in an RFC without looking at the sources. Finding a source that explicitly says the early pushing of the lab leak prior to any evidence reinforced racism is embarrassingly easy, see for example Perng, Wei; Dhaliwal, Satvinder K. (May 2022). "Anti-Asian Racism and COVID-19: How It Started, How It Is Going, and What We Can Do". Epidemiology. 33 (3): 379–382. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000001458. ISSN 1044-3983. PMC 8983612. PMID 34954709.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link): Since the early days of the pandemic, 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 led to an 800% increase of these racist terms on social media and news outlets, and redirected fear and anger in a manner that reinforced racism and xenophobia. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  This problems with using this source to support the statement in question have been thoroughly discussed on this talk page. The quoted section links the use of rhetoric like "foreign", "Chinese", and "Kung Flu" by politicians led to an increase of the use of those terms by others on social media—not that the discussion of the theory itself. Dustinscottc (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not particularly keen about debating grammar, but when you have two clauses separated by a comma, it is unusual to read them as entirely independent. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know how you could read "use of such language" to mean discussion of a theory. The phrase pretty clearly refers to the words used, not the concepts.

  But even if you could read the phrase to include simple discussion of the lab leak theory, it is still impossible, based on this source alone, to disentangle the use of "Kung Flu" rhetoric from discussion of the lab leak theory. If a source says A plus B caused X, it is misleading to use that source to say that A caused X without mentioning B. Dustinscottc (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you expect people to discuss a theory without using language. "Such" language would refer to the language the politicians promoting the hypothesis use, which include the obviously xenophobic rhetoric. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  An analogy would be: “Johnny was driving and texting at the same time. The texting caused an accident.” Lardlegwarmers (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  No Lardlegwarmers, an "analogy" is supposed to share elements with the thing being analogised to. A driving sentence sharing the comma construction used in the source would be Johnny drove recklessly towards the laboratory, with erratic and dangerous maneuvers. Use of such driving techniques led to several collisions and forced many other road users off the road. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  I see what you’re saying. So I would repeat my original suggestion that we (C) edit it to say: “Politicians weaponized the lab leak theory, leveraging and increasing hatred.” It’s still kind of vague but at least it’s not implying that the hypothesis itself, but rather the conduct of certain politicians, that triggered the increased hatred. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  That analogy doesn't work because erratic and dangerous maneuvers are a subset of driving recklessly. A more parallel analogy would be: "Johnny was driving a Hummer, using erratic and dangerous maneuvers. Such driving led to an accident." Whether the Hummer is part of the cause is syntactically ambiguous, although, with context, one could easily conclude that the Hummer was not the cause of the accident. In either case, it would misconstrue the statement to say that the Hummer caused the accident. Dustinscottc (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  The more that I look at it, I concede that the words “promoted the unsubstantiated hypothesis” are analogous to hazardous driving, like running a red light and going the wrong way down a one-way street. So the source is actually saying that the lab leak theory is itself a brand of racism. I don’t like it, but that is what the author is saying. The thing is, I think she’s wrong and there are plenty of people who don’t hold racist beliefs and yet promote LL. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  How is it not SYNTH from the quoted passage?

  Furthermore, if a source was saying that the lab leak theory is itself a brand of racism, it would be absurd, IMO. Absurd enough that if mentioned at all, VOICE would need to be steered well clear of. Why? The earliest notable evidence of a lab leak theory was in records of a February 1, 2020 call during which "virologists Michael Farzan and Robert Garry told Fauci and Collins the virus might have leaked from the Wuhan lab." "It might have been genetically engineered it could have been evolved in the lab through a process known as serial passage." Per https://theintercept.com/2022/01/12/covid-origins-fauci-redacted-emails/. But still, labeling virologists Michael Farzan and Robert Garry racist or racism fomenters would be inappropriate. Fomentation of racism is an extraordinary claim, the evidence must be free of SYNTH if the claim is to be leveled in VOICE. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  B. Remove We must not be labeling the comments of the above virologists as fomenting racism - doing so violates wp:living. And hat Palpable said. Per Dustinscottc's arguments and pointing out holes in sources purported to back the defended language and notable lack of sound argumentation and sources and/or claims of phantom sources from Objective3000 (Blaming politicians' speech is not the same as blaming a theory), Extra_Jesus_Hold_The_Satan!!, and Bluethricecreamman in defending it. RememberOrwell (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed @RememberOrwell--this unqualified generalization that the hypothesis is racist implies that the statements of Christopher Wray, Tedros Ghebreyesus, and Nicholas Wade have leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism, which is libel. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Anyway, I don't actually see anyone objecting to either of the revised wordings by Horse Eye's Back (Some of the lab leak theories have both been influenced by and increased anti-Chinese racism, especially when weaponized by politicians.) and Lardlegwarmers (The weaponization of the lab leak theory by politicians leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism), so I'm going to propose a C along those lines. I would suggest that if an explicit backreference is made, instead of theory, we refer to it as "scenario" or "idea", reserving the words "lab leak theory" to refer to the broader scope of the article. For the lead, if there is any doubt whether anti-Asian or anti-Chinese would be better (as raised by Horse and O3000) we can actually just drop the specifier and go into more detail in the body. Therefore, I'd go with something like their weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased racism . Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not specifically "anti-Chinese" racism (instead it refers to anti-asian, focusing on specific areas as opposed to a global trend), it's again largely opinion and not reputable science. Aeonx (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• C it is clear that there are sources that described an increase in anti-chines racism due to the lab leak theory ]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  The closest your source gets to discussing this issue says the opposite:

  "Another reporter at The Times, Apoorva Mandavilli, got in hot water Wednesday when she tweeted that the coronavirus lab leak theory had “racist roots.” Mandavilli later deleted the tweet after it was widely criticized. “I deleted my earlier tweets about the origins of the pandemic because they were badly phrased,” Mandavilli explained in a follow up tweet. “The origin of the pandemic is an important line of reporting that my colleagues are covering aggressively…”" Dustinscottc (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ditto on Dustin's comment. I'm having trouble seeing where Slater's source directly says the theory increased anti-Chinese racism. Slatersteven - Can you highlight the exact text that supports your assertion? Can you highlight other sources? NickCT (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

From a study at the NIH National Library of Medicine:

COVID-19 caught US health institutions and programs flatfooted, neither prepared nor expecting the massive spread of misinformation surrounding the SARS-CoV-2. Since the early days of the pandemic, 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 led to an 800% increase of these racist terms on social media and news outlets, and redirected fear and anger in a manner that reinforced racism and xenophobia.

Now this doesn't say "lab leak". What it does say it was created in the lab. So, they were saying it either leaked, or worse, purposely spread by Chinese. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a primary source labeled "Psychosocial Epidemiology" with a total of 4 citations since 2021. The part talking about racism is unsupported by any reference or research. It is obviously insufficient for putting a broadly disparaging claim in wikivoice. - Palpable (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a well sourced research paper that uses many primary sources. The huge increase in anti-Asian racism is extremely well documented including violence and deaths, as well as the general racist actions. The horrid statements by certain US leaders just prior to these racist acts is also well documented. How can we ignore such disgusting activity in an encyclopedia? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is getting to the point of Misplaced Pages:STICK. One side keeps asking for an excerpt from a secondary source that explicitly mentions that the lab leak idea itself caused a society-wide increase in racism. The other side keeps providing primary sources about studies with n<200 on Facebook, or that connect the lab leak with something other than straight-up racism, like support for immigration controls, or connects racism with something other than the lab leak itself (as opposed to the covid pandemic in general).

If you want this claim about right-wing hate related to covid to appear on Misplaced Pages, it might fit better in Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There is no problem with claiming that there was anti-Asian language and behavior, if that fact is supported by sources. But to say that the lab leak caused these hateful incidents (and not just the pandemic itself, or nationalism, or international tensions over the economy or military issues, or any host of other possible causes)—it’s a very specific claim that would need to be explicitly stated in a secondary source.

Just like we can say that aquatic life in the Hudson Bay was killed by something. But it takes in-depth research to verify that it was caused by a specific pollutant. It’s not something that Wikipedians can try to connect the dots on ourselves. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you call secondary sources primary sources so you can ignore them; I guess we cannot satisfy you. And I don't know why you think STICK applies to one side of a discussion. Ours is ended. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm beating a dead horse asking you to verify this claim when you keep pointing to material that doesn't say that the lab leak theory leveraged racism. Yes, the source you provided is a secondary source, but (beating the horse here again) it only says that politicians exploited racism to promote the theory and used the theory to promote racist attitudes. It doesn't say that the hypothesis about the lab leak necessarily leveraged racism.

It would be absurd for normal people to consider it plausible, that somehow the ethnic identity of the researchers was a key causal factor in a biosafety incident. But that is what your claim connotes. It's pretty offensive. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm beating a dead horse asking you to verify this claim when you keep pointing to material that doesn't say that the lab leak theory leveraged racism
Sounds like that's your opinion, and one not shared by a number of other editors in this discussion. If we are at an impasse, typically the status quo (and thereby longstanding consensus) prevails. So maybe the best move here is to stop beating a dead horse (i.e. bludgeoning) and allow other editors who are not you, not me, not O3000, not Palpable, not DTC, not Slater, etc. to participate. We are talking in circles. if a consensus is going to emerge, it's going to emerge from outside participation. Not from editors who have already made up their minds just shouting their opinions more loudly. — Shibbolethink 12:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion should focuss on whether the sources cited actually support the claims made, not on the conduct of the editors, as in your post here and above in the WP:RFCBEFORE discussion . While Lardlegwarmers, Dustinscottc, BabbleOnto may seem persistents, we've already seen shifts in opinion among participants , and that is helpful for the closer to determine consensus. Can you provide any excerpts from reliable sources that explicitely supports the claim in question? IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, here are the numerous sources I point to every time this comes up (and it comes up a lot, because this is a hot button topic):

It's established scholarly consensus that racism and xenophobia have contributed to the lab leak idea. Literally every time I look for sources, I see more, and uncover new ones. Among experts on this topic, it's settled consensus. — Shibbolethink 08:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It is Gish-Galloping to post so many sources and expect rebuttals to every single one of them. I suspect serious source manipulation is going on here. So I'll show that at least 1 source is being cited completely opposite to its actual finding, and I hope it will draw enough skepticism on if this editor is actually representing the other sources.

Remember, the claim in the article is that "The lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism." This is a causal relationship, the lab leak theory caused and leveraged and increase in anti-Chinese racism. Which makes it very curious when the Sengul paper which is cited as one of the "settled consensus" says this:

Although no causal relationship can be inferred from the findings of this study and the concurrent rise in anti-Asian and Sinophobic racism throughout the pandemic, the significance of one of Australia’s largest political social media pages running an overtly anti-Chinese campaign cannot be dismissed.

No causal relationship can be inferred. That paper is not finding a causal connection. In fact it doesn't mention politicians at all, it's about Australian facebook pages (The whole paper is a just survey of 133 Australian facebook pages, which in and of itself is a terrible source for this issue, but that point is moot). This paper openly says a causal connection cannot be drawn from it, and yet this author offers it as evidence of a "settled consensus" of a causal connection.

I can only imagine what the rest of the sources actually say, wonder how many others are being used contrary to their actual findings. BabbleOnto (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@BabbleOnto you need to strike your statement "It is Gish-Galloping ...". You've been advised that this a contentious topic area, by @Newslinger. You need to "follow editorial and behavioural best practices". TarnishedPath 22:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Why would I strike it? That's not a personal attack, it's not uncivil, it's a description of what happened? The person was asked for a direct quote from a source to support one sentence of this article, then chose to dump 16 different articles comprising 32 paragraphs of copy-and-pasted text to read.

For the support of one (1) single sentence to cite 16 different articles is ridiculous. If the sentence were really supported by reliable source, one or two sources would be completely fine. And that's not mention the fact that (and I must compliment Shibbolethink's reading skills, apparently they are able to fully read and comprehend 16 highly technical articles and research papers, some dozens of pages long, in a few days) the few articles I've been able to finish reading don't even prove the point being asserted. I've shown so for one source in my previous comment. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. While I would not consider the use of the term gish gallop in a talk page debate to be a violation of conduct policies, posting or citing multiple academic sources to substantiate one's position is also not a violation of conduct policies. In fact, the latter is a way to fulfill the requirements needed to substantiate exceptional claims, per the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." There is no deadline on Misplaced Pages, so any editor may take all the time they need to review any presented sources. — Newslinger talk 05:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Understood that neither are a violation of policy. I drop that argument, then.

I would like to examine all the sources presented, however I fear doing so in this section would lead into a formatting nightmare (we're already how many colons over?) and fill up too many people's inboxes. Do you have a recommendation as to the best way to pursue that? Starting a new section, perhaps doing it somewhere else?

(Also just as an aside, and I understand my disagreement with the policy does not change the policy, and I understand the policy as written does support the conclusion given, but surely there is a logical limit to how many sources are appropriate to provide and expect others to disprove in order to remove a simple claim? What's to stop someone, and I'm not suggesting this is what's going on in this case, what if someone citied 100+ somewhat plausibly relevant scientific articles, and in order for the edit to be removed an editor would have to go through and systemically prove all 100+ articles don't support the conclusion? Because if even a few articles did prove it right, the edit would stay. You might say going to 100 is bad faith, but where's the line? It's greater than 16. Perhaps someone more experienced than me could ponder it.) BabbleOnto (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Creating a separate subsection in the discussion is a common way to keep analyses of sources separated from the rest of the discussion. Many requests for comments are divided into "Survey" and "Discussion" subsections to encourage this (example). Although this discussion is not yet partitioned, any editor can add a new subsection to implement this format.

I would not worry about causing other editors to receive notifications from your replies (as long as you are not explicitly pinging them), since editors have to explicitly subscribe to a discussion before they receive automatic notifications for that discussion.

There is no hard numerical limit on the number of sources an editor can provide. What is considered reasonable varies per discussion and depends on whether other editors in the discussion find the presented sources to be helpful. If an editor repeatedly provides sources that do not support the content they are citing it for, then that would be considered disruptive. Shibbolethink's sources and quotes do appear relevant enough to the discussion that I would advise continuing this discussion as a content dispute instead of a conduct dispute. — Newslinger talk 06:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Gish gallop is a rhetorical fallacy. It’s not a derogatory personal epithet. It’s fair to use that term here to refer to a strategy of argument that prioritizes quantity of sources over quality. I would personally not call this gish galloping but rather “quotation error. But his point has merit. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

There is also some false equivalency going on (e.g., saying that "being pro lab leak is correlated with support for restrictive immigration controls" literally means the same thing as "the lab leak theory leverages racism", which it does not). Here, have a look at the list: List of fallacies. Apparently there have been other human beings who tried similar strategies in the past... to the point where they actually made a name for it! Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not right to just rest on a flawed status quo without attempting to address my legitimate concerns. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of the "high quality" sources provided by Shibbolethink, they do not give the needed excerpts for support the contested statement, and some of them, like the Beijing Review, are literally Chinese government propaganda, and are completely unusable. Another one offers a statement from Cui Tiankai, the Chinese ambassador to the US at the time, giving the official Chinese government line that the lab leak idea is racist (is of unsanitary wet markets are not). Some sources mention it only in passing or as a small point, so it is WP:CHERRYPICK. Most sources do not treat the lab leak theory or its proponents as racist. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• A Keep - Sourced and an important aspect of the article. Clearly DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why is it DUE? Is that because once a position is declared Misplaced Pages-FRINGE then it becomes open season to ascribe its adherents with whatever derogatory status the editors want, taking liberties with what is contained in the sources? I would beg to differ. The namespace article is not a venue for original thought. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• A or secondarily C There's plenty of available academic sources on the topic. In addition to those mentioned above, there's also Perceived China Threat, Conspiracy Belief, and Public Support for Restrictive Immigration Control During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Race and Justice, 13 (1), which is entirely about how the lab leak conspiracy claim was utilized by politicians in order to increase anti-Chinese sentiments and move toward preventing Chinese immigration. There's also The (Re)surgence of Sinophobia in the Australian Far-Right: Online Racism, Social Media, and the Weaponization of COVID-19, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 45 (3), which has a segment discussing the use of the lab leak claim in Australian media to push racism. Silverseren 18:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  We already discussed the immigration source above. Both of these sources are about hate toward China in the broad context of covid and do not examine the relationship between racism and the lab leak idea in particular Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Then your discussion above is incorrect. The source is explicitly about how the lab leak claim influenced anti-Chinese sentiments and its investigation of that impact is what the study is about. Per the study, During the ongoing pandemic, one conspiracy theory (i.e., the lab-leak conspiracy theory) claimed that a Chinese lab intentionally created and leaked the new virus (Maxmen, 2022; Schaeffer, 2020). Viewing the pandemic situation through the lab-leak lens could make the public perceive threats from China to a greater extent, leading them to support more punitive control of outgroup members. Accordingly, our research investigates the joint effects of perceived China threats and the conspiracy beliefs on public support for restrictive immigration policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our research is timely as it explains how perceptions of a pandemic-specific threat and a political plot may shape popular opinion about outgroup control. Silverseren 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  You may want to review that discussion first. The Kim paper is more explicit about the lab leak theory (albeit a specific version of it), but it connects that theory to views on immigration—not racism. Kim et al explicitly note that their data do not let them look at differences between racial groups or the connection to hate crimes, and so "future studies should investigate how the perceived China threat leads to anti-Asian racism and hate crimes." Dustinscottc (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  You should include the full quoted section. Here, let me help: The most recent year of the pandemic has raised our awareness about Asian hate crimes. Indeed, FBI statistics (2020) show that reported Asian hate crime incidents have substantially increased compared to the pre-pandemic period. Since perceptions of threats can shape not only popular attitudes but also public actions (e.g., Flores, 2017), future studies should investigate how the perceived China threat leads to anti-Asian racism and hate crimes. This line of research is critical for understanding the unprecedented increase in anti-Asian sentiment and behavior (Yam, 2022). So it explicitly notes that racism and hate crimes has increased after the beginning of the pandemic and the usage of the lab leak claim, but that analysis of that will require further studies. For example, studies like the one linked by Alpha3031 above directly about that. Silverseren 19:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  The section you quoted does not say that the lab leak theory caused an increase in anti-Asian sentiment. It specifically disclaims having the data necessary to draw that connection. Drawing inferences from multiple studies would be OR. Dustinscottc (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Emphasis on the could. Viewing the pandemic situation through the lab-leak lens could make the public perceive threats from China to a greater extent. That is not a claim about what did actually happen. The article only concludes that LL proponents tend to support restrictive immigration controls. Is that the same as being racist? Maybe, but it’s not what the source says. So you guys who use that source are adding your own assumptions. Why don’t one of you guys in the NPOV camp propose to add something specific that’s actually reflected in these sources? For example, you could say that “one study found a correlation between support for LL and restrictive immigration controls. Meanwhile Donald Trump, who endorsed LL, was variously quoted as saying racist epithets, which was correlated with an 800 percent increase in racist tweets on X.com. Meanwhile, extremist message-boards like 4chan published hateful suggestions that covid was a bioweapon intentionally deployed by the Chinese state. Oh wait, cause that would all be original research using primary sources. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  The Sengul paper does not make the claim at issue here, and in fact, it undermines the claim: "Importantly, while Hanson and One Nation clearly sought to push the lab leak theory and the idea that the virus was intentionally created and released by China in an act of aggression against the West, they also saw utility in promoting the Wuhan 'wet market' explanation for the origins of the virus. While adopting two clearly contradictory positions may appear to be evidence of a poor communication strategy, it performs a particular strategic function. The lab leak theory serves as evidence of China's malevolence and existential threat to the West. Conversely, the natural origins explanation reinforces the long-standing Orientalist tropes of Chinese people as 'unhealthy and untrustworthy'" Dustinscottc (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  That doesn't undermine it at all. In fact, it explicitly states that the lab leak theory is used to increase beliefs of "China's malevolence and existential threat", as you yourself just quoted. This article isn't about the wet market explanation or any reasons or beliefs about it. So that part isn't relevant here. It may be useful for any other article or section of article that's actually about that, but not here. Silverseren 19:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  You appear to be inverting the claim at issue. If the claim were “politicians have leveraged the lab leak theory to weaponize the pandemic to stoke anti-Chinese racism”, then the source would support that claim. But the claim is “the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism”. A revision such as the one above would be fine as far as it goes, but using the Sengul paper to do so in an article specifically about the lab leak theory would be odd because both the lab leak explanation and the zoonotic origins explanation were used in the same way. Dustinscottc (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  There is still a lot of Misplaced Pages:Original research going on here. The Sengul paper is primary research on 133 Facebook posts by extremists in Australia. That doesn’t verify a broad claim about the LL hypothesis. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Sengul paper verifies secondarily that many multiple experts agree on a connection between racism and the lab leak conspiracy theory. Every time it makes a claim about conspiracy theories and xenophobia, it cites other articles. That's called a secondary source. — Shibbolethink 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Quoting directly from the Sengul paper:

  Although no causal relationship can be inferred from the findings of this study and the concurrent rise in anti-Asian and Sinophobic racism throughout the pandemic, the significance of one of Australia’s largest political social media pages running an overtly anti-Chinese campaign cannot be dismissed.

  The current iteration of the article says there is a causal relationship.

  You are using this source to prove a conclusion which the source explicitly says cannot be drawn from the paper. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

A Keep, obviously the biggest impact of this nutty conspiracy is the racism it fuels. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

A keep. by any measure a key issue that matters for the lab leak theory is the underlying anti chinese racism. would be undue not to include that and associated analysis in lede. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources don't support the claim. Can't keep an unsourced claim. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLUDGEON, you already had many opportunities to make your point in your own vote. 107.115.5.100 (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building."

The people who are simply stating that the sources back up the claim without addressing the issue are acting as spoilers. We need to get past the spoilers to build consensus. Dustinscottc (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Those accounts who just vote on the Rfc and maybe give a brief fallacy like begging the question should not carry much weight in the consensus. It’s not about the numbers but more about the quality of the position given the sources. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

A keep - All of our best sources mention this, why would we censor it? Extra Jesus Hold The Satan!! (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that make the claim in the article. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Where? Quote directly any source already cited in the article that says this? BabbleOnto (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

A per sources shown by SilverserenC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Addendum. And the more recent source from O300 in the RFCBEFORE discussion. Option C would also be acceptable if it helps alleviate some of the concerns. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Struck part of that after realising what the rewrite suggested by the RFC question was. While it could be rewritten I wouldn't support that particular version. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to rely on those sources, please address the problems that have been pointed out with respect to those sources. Dustinscottc (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Please stop bludgeoning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not bludgeoning. I'm addressing spoilers. If you're voting to keep without addressing the source problems, you're just spoiling consensus. Dustinscottc (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not how RCs work. This is not a democracy and the closer takes into account the content of each !vote. No one is "spoiling" consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Then what are the people who are commenting while completely ignoring the very reason for the RC doing? Dustinscottc (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

You are being disruptive. Please stop bludgeoning while casting aspersions about others. If you continue being disruptive, it may lead to sanctions 107.115.5.100 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do not keep Misplaced Pages:SANCTIONGAMING. Example: Refusing to provide a proper citation to an editor looking to verify your claim, and accusing the editor of being disruptive for making repeated requests. Citations should be accurate so that other editors may verify them. The Misplaced Pages:FALSECIV is obvious and clearly disruptive. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

There is also WP:SATISFY. Just because editors are unconvinced of your argument doesn't mean you can badger them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Good question. Hence the banging on the table - in the form of Misplaced Pages:SANCTIONGAMING. And lack of an answer. Many are asking for sources that they see haven't been provided. It'll be a travesty if the closer fails to note that. And it should be acknowledged. Example: Refusing to provide a proper citation to an editor looking to verify your claim, and accusing the editor of being disruptive for making repeated requests. Citations should be accurate so that other editors may verify them. RememberOrwell (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It could equally be said that many have been provided with sources they don't agree with, and there comes a point where repeatedly banging in the table is just bludgeoning. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear the sources provided by SilverserenC and O3000 show this should be included. That other editors believe that those sources must explicitly state the exact wording used isn't supported by policy or the concept of summarising sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be the exact wording, but it the summary has to have the same meaning as the source and not draw new inferences. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That other editors believe that those sources must explicitly state the exact wording used isn't supported by policy or the concept of summarising sources.

This is simply a strawman argument. Nobody is claiming this.

We are simply arguing that claims which are cited to articles should actually come from those articles which are cited. Again, all this could be quelled if any editor could provide a single direct quote from the current citation which supports the conclusion that the article draws. It's incredibly frustrating to see people just say "Who cares if this is actually sourced correctly we all know it's right so include it." BabbleOnto (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

inthats the case then the sources already provide should be enough to support the content. That we disagree on that is by now extremely obvious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not a mere "Disagreement." You are being asked, and are required to show, under WP:BURDEN, a proper source for the claim. Otherwise the edit must be removed.

Citing a source which has been shown to not support that claim in this discussion does not change this into a "disagreement." Otherwise an editor could cite a completely unreliable source and say "well you have to keep it because we just disagree on the reliability of the source." This is not how it works. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is about article content not user conduct, however WP:SATISFY is about user conduct. I disagree and believe the current sources do support the content, that you believe that not to be the case doesn't need to be restated. Stating "I have shown it not to be true!" repeatedly and loudly doesn't mean that everyone is going to agree with you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is about article content not user conduct

But the argument is about article conduct, whether a sentence should be in a lead, not user conduct, so what does this distinction prove?

Yes, you're right, WP:BURDEN does concern article content. And this issue is perhaps the most clear example of a dispute over article content, whether or not one particular sentence should be included. So WP:BURDEN does apply

And furthermore, even if it was, WP:BURDEN does regulate user conduct, in that if an editor attempts to add an unsourced claim, see:

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source

So, yes, if you try to edit the article to keep in an unsourced claim, and fail to provide any source for that claim, then WP:BURDEN precludes your edit.

I disagree and believe the current sources do support the content, that you believe that not to be the case doesn't need to be restated. Stating "I have shown it not to be true!" repeatedly and loudly doesn't mean that everyone is going to agree with you.

The difference being I have taken every proposed source and carefully examined it and, as well as others, have shown how the alleged "Source" does not actually say what the current claim is.

You still have never given any quote from any source to explain why you believe this conclusion is properly sourced. You have provided no argument at all to why you think this is true. You just keep repeating that it is true, and apparently you think that's enough to include it.

As I said again, this is not an issue which you can just WP:IDONTHEARYOU disagree with because you don't like it. If you want the edit, you have to provide some source behind it AND ALSO have it examined by other editors to build a consensus. Just saying "Sources exist, I'm not going to present them though, and also I'm jsut going to disagree with all findings otherwise, therefore you have to keep my edit" is not how WP:BURDEN works for improperly sourced claims. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe BURDEN has been met. I'm not saying sources exist but I won't show them, I'm saying that the sources previous shown do support the content. I have read your assessment of the sources and do not agree with it. I'm not making unsourced claims, I'm saying the sources previous shown support the content. That I don't agree with you is because I'm not convinced by the arguments against those sources. I can hear you quite well, as I have said repeatedly I just don't believe you are correct. I am not required to WP:SATISFY you, stop. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe BURDEN has been met. I'm not saying sources exist but I won't show them, I'm saying that the sources previous shown do support the content. I have read your assessment of the sources and do not agree with it.

You are being asked "What specific part of any source supports this highly controversial claim that you want kept." Refusing to answer that question directly is acting in bad faith, and I don't say that lightly.

I don't even know what assessment of what source you're saying you disagree with. You refuse to even explain that. You are not allowing anyone to discuss anything with you or even attempt to build consensus. Because we don't even know who's claims you disagree with or what it is you're supporting or disagreeing with. This is outright WP:STONEWALLING. BabbleOnto (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop, I do not have to satisfy your every question. I have made my point you dislike my point I get it. If you believe I am acting in bad faith then take me to ANI, otherwise just stop. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not have to interact with you, and at this point I really don't want to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Dustinscottc everyone is thoroughly clear on your opinion, there is no need to continually repeat it. I believe you are wrong, as do others. Sometimes this happens and bludgeoning the discussion won't change it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• A Keep - the weaponization of the lab leak theory by politicians is one of the most consistent aspects of the topic, and is noted in multiple, high-quality reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is NOTCENSORED and should not be whitewashed, either. Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Remove. According to my understanding of the discussion above, some sources talk about a link between lab leak theory and anti-Chinese racism, especially how politicians used it, but don’t prove it. There were also doubts about the relevance and scope of the cited references, which often address broader anti-Chinese sentiment or political rhetoric without specifically tying it to the lab theory, making it original research. Adding this to article makes it seem like a way to tar proponents of the theory as racist, which (coincidentally) mirrors Chinese government propaganda on the topic. IntrepidContributor (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

C re-write.

Anti-chinese racism is connected to this topic both in many sources and academic research. Mentioning it is due. I would rewrite in a way that reflects the sources more closely.

Daphne Morrow (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• B, remove !vote. Or at worst, a significant rewrite with C. It's genuinely frightening that editors keep stating the sources support this statement. The only semblance of a source that has been produced in this RFC (ironically by an editor who is now currently throwing a tantrum on the admin noticeboard, of all people) is one that has already been expressly addressed and refuted in a previous talk posts .

The other, to my knowledge, includes no statement that overtly connects overall LL theory to racism. I'm assuming people are just refusing to actually read, given the talk page's and source's great lengths, but it's still bizarre either way.

I also didn't see this until now and almost missed it, despite this RFC being started as a direct result to the previous talk post. Pinging the previously involved users who might be in the same position as I was. @Horse Eye's Back. Just10A (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Or those who disagree with you can actually read and don't believe the sources have been refuted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging editors who agree with you is unadvisable (see WP:CANVASSING). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

1.) That'd be a Competence is required issue then. Unfortunately, the sources need to actually support the statement, without WP:OR doing the heavy lifting. No amount of strawmanning other editors changes that.

2.) It is not canvassing (as far as I know at least) to inform an editor that a conversation they were involved in has moved to a different venue without them being informed. Lest they be excluded just by being "gamed" out. If it is, I'll strike it. Just10A (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

1) If that's the case then you should take all the editirs who disagree with you to ANI and provide proof of your accusations, or otherwise you could be civil and follow WP:AGF in those that disagree with you.

2) I would strike it, I have respect for HEB and wouldn't want any of their involvement to seem canvassed. This is still the same venue, so if they have it watchlisted they will know, or they could look for the RFC notification, or check on the page if there are semi-interested in the subject. You could have even placed a neutrally worded notification on their talk page, but your pinging of one participant who agrees with you has a bad look to it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I did/do assume good faith. Unfortunately, the assumption is refuted when one begins their comment with "Or those who disagree with you can actually read". Just10A (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

So you good faith doesn't extend to the fact that editors who disagree with you can read, good to know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary, my initial comment suggested the opposite. Feel free to produce another straw-man fallacy for the *3rd* time now. Just10A (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

So you believe that they are deliberately ignoring was has been written, also a failure to assume good faith. It was after all what you wrote "I'm assuming people are just refusing to actually read". You know at any point you could accept that editors who disagree with you do so in good faith and understand the situation, they just disagree with your interpretation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You're right, "refusing" was a poor word choice. It should've said something like: "I'm assuming people are just scanning and not actually reading the sources in-depth." If we're getting this pedantic, my mistake.

Beyond that, there's nothing I could add that's not already clearly refuting you in this part of the thread . You've already been called out for strawmanning multiple times by independent editors, and it is not merely a difference in "interpretation". Objective reasoning exists. Particularly in terms of addressing sources. Misplaced Pages is not just a never-ending war of arbitrary interpretation void of fact. Besides that, I'd say just refer to the other part of the thread. Just10A (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If it's pedantry I guess my reply shouldn't have said Or those who disagree with you can actually read but instead Or those who disagree with you have actually read. Other have read the sources, they don't believe you have refuted them, and do the believe sources support the content. I disagree with your statement of "object fact", because I don't see that you have proofed what you believe you have proofed. Those who disagree with you may do so in good faith and with a complete understanding of the situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

A or secondarily C in addition to a D option to improve sources -- Keep and improve the sources. If we decide to reword, then the exact rewording should be proposed in a separate RfC. The void century 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

A. As a side note, I wish that an WP:RFCBEFORE discussion had identified good sources and thus suggested a specific re-write to both the body and the lead of the article. As it stands, C is asking editors for carte blanche to re-write the statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• A per the metric fucktonne of reliable sources which state exactly that. Refer to the arguments of Alpha3031, Objective3000 and Silver seren above. TarnishedPath 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• A per TarnishedPath rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903
2. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-lab-covid-19-origin-premature-tedros?utm_source=google.com
3. https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/?utm_source=google.com
4. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-023-04755-w

Article out of date - WSJ - FBI believes it was a lab leak

This article is out of date. A number of sources throughout 2024 have pointed to the lab leak origin of Covid including the NYT and WSJ. Many experts believe that the virus showed artificial gain of function.

Even if the editor disagrees, this should at least get a mention on the page. Moreover, there is no definive proof that Covid was from zoonosis. 2600:6C40:4C00:463:C807:F1DD:CB00:1E53 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The consensus here states that claims about the origin of Covid-19 do not need to clear Wp:medrs. The only problem is that we have been blocked from including anything from an authoritative source (e.g., FBI) due to the so-called “undue” impact that the prestige of that source would lend to a position that is considered fringe. Basically that boils down to: “if the source has a good reputation, then we can’t include it unless it agrees with the NPOV. We can only acknowledge LL proponents that have a bad reputation.” Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is a more narrow excerpt from the article:

"Three scientists there—John Hardham, Robert Cutlip and Jean-Paul Chretien—conducted a genomic analysis that concluded that the virus had been manipulated in a laboratory. Specifically they concluded that a segment of the “spike protein” that enables the virus to gain entry into human cells was constructed using techniques developed in the Wuhan lab that were described in a 2008 Chinese scientific paper. That was an indication, they argued, that the Chinese scientists were conducting “gain of function” research to see if the virus could infect humans. " 2600:6C40:4C00:463:C807:F1DD:CB00:1E53 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

That would count as biomedical information, so we have to wait 'til it gets picked up in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal. So if the scientific establishment steamrolls it then it will never get in here. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What about other circumstantial data such as a patent application for a COVID in China by Zhou Yusen in February, 2020 on the virus (author, mysteriously died a couple months later). Yusen had ties to both the PLA and the WIV. Many say that the extent of the research would have been impossible if the virus was just discovered in January of 2020. 2600:6C40:4C00:463:C807:F1DD:CB00:1E53 (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What are the best quality sources you can cite for all that? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Fairly bad ones, I'd guess. I remember seeing sources debunking that claim early in the pandemic. Reduction to practice is the standard for a patent, and when it comes to high-level biotech content, it doesn't require much research. In fact, I'll do it right now: Whatever the next scary new virus is, I hereby invent a vaccine for it. The key ingredient in the vaccine will be a fragment of a protein from the virus, preferably a fragment of a spike protein on the surface of the virus, and preferably a fragment that is a unique antigen with a linear sequence of at least 30 amino acids. There you go: one new vaccine reduced to practice. Call me when my royalty check is ready. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So, what I'm gathering from your comments here is that the entire point of you making an account on Misplaced Pages is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and to push your personal opinion on this fringe subject area. That certainly explains the multiple discussion sections you've made on the page above. Silverseren 21:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this article has a few issues that need to be dealt with. I'm not trying to do anything about great wrongs. I believe that the scientific establishment has a conflict of interest on this issue that calls into question their reliability for the purposes of this resource. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately by design Misplaced Pages relies on the sources you believe have a conflict of interest. If you have evidence of falsification or fraud I would suggest trying to get a major news organisation to publish the details. Otherwise the article will be based on the sources you distrust, because they are (until shown otherwise in reliable secondary sources) the best quality sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The evidence of a conflict of interest is prima facie: virology experts rely on funding from the same policymakers whose decisions are then based on the research outcomes. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

That's great, but what does it have to do with anything? As ActivelyDisinterested has said our reliable sourcing requirements are our requirements. I mean you could go to WT:RS or something and try to get them changed, but this is incredibly unlikely to happen. In any case, until it does, you talking about how you want it to change here isn't helping. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Ideally this would be true, but the reliable sourcing requirements are applied very selectively on this and related articles.

A month or so ago we had a senior editor insisting that WSJ was "a crap source" for reporting on the US intelligence community (editor in question is well aware of RS/P, which has WSJ listed as GREL).

It is frequently asserted that anything relating to this subject is BMI subject to MEDRS, despite the explicit consensus notice to the contrary at the top of this page (editors in question are regulars in the topic area, and several of them participated in that RFC). This is so common that there an example of it in this very section.

The article's maintainers will try to argue that quotes from scientists who have published in this area are UNDUE. Vague references to FRINGE are used to exclude reliable sources, though there has been zero process to designate this area as fringe. In fact, given the published surveys showing that around 20% of scientists (and 70% of americans at large) believe in a lab leak of some kind, it is clearly a "minority scientific viewpoint".

People arguing for agnosticism on the subject are consistently lumped in with bioweapons conspiracy theorists for rhetorical purposes. And a couple of the senior editors like to spice things up with aspersions that would get a newbie a solid spanking but are overlooked for editors with enough "social capital". Any junior editor who hasn't gotten the message at that point can be assumed to be a sealion, warned of disruption, and taken to AE.

In this context I hope you can see why an explanation of "our reliable sourcing requirements" is unsatisfying. This page is a battleground, gaming is rampant, and oversight has been sparse at best. - Palpable (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This point about RS is specific to the lab leak topic, not necessarily the whole site. Certain sources we use, such as virologists like Shi Zhengli, Peter Daszak, or public health authorities like Anthony Fauci, do have vested interests in the outcome of the debate on the lab leak theory. We should at least describe the full context when citing such authors. For example, Shi and Daszak are involved with virology research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and their professional reputations and future opportunities are tied to the perception that the lab leak theory is implausible. Similarly, public health officials like Fauci are involved in shaping public policy and scientific consensus at the same time, and their positions on the debate could be influenced by a desire to maintain public trust and funding in their respective fields. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Certain sources do have vested interests in the outcome of the debate Every scientist has such "vested interests" because LL undermines trust in science. Let's just make the text frown at all the sources from scientists, shall we? Let's trust Donald Trump and his brown-nosers instead, they have no vested interest at all.

Irony aside, aspersions such as yours are exactly the reason why LL is a conspiracy theory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling, your comment does not contain irony, but rather sarcasm, which is uncivil and will not be tolerated going forward. Furthermore, the comment is pure fallacy and should have no weight in this discussion. Strawman Argument: suggesting I am proposing distrust in all scientists and advocating for reliance on political figures like Donald Trump. My comment does not imply this at all; it focuses on specific individuals (whose works this article cites) with clear ties to the issue at hand. Ad Hominem: You dismiss the point by labeling it as an "aspersion" and aligning it with conspiracy theories, rather than engaging with the substance of the argument. False equivalence: Your reply implies that every scientist has the same "vested interests," which is false and oversimplifies the matter. My comment distinguishes between general scientific biases and specific conflicts of interest related to the lab leak debate. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

suggesting I am proposing distrust in all scientists I stopped reading at this point because this alleged strawman is actually a malicious strawman on your side. Expanding your "vested interest" bullshit to all scientists was clearly a reductio ad absurdum and not an accusation. I see no point in having a discussion with someone who stoops to such methods. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You literally said Let's just make the text frown at all the sources from scientists, shall we? as if that were implied by my argument, which it is not. I clearly specified a direct financial and professional interest that specific authors have to the issue under investigation.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

"suggesting I am proposing distrust in all scientists" I stopped reading at this point because this alleged strawman is actually a malicious strawman on your side.

You said, sarcastically and flippantly, less than 24 hours ago, about his argument:

Every scientist has such "vested interests" because LL undermines trust in science. Let's just make the text frown at all the sources from scientists, shall we?

Are you aware your comments are public and other people can verify what you did and did not say? You go onto claim:

Expanding your "vested interest" bullshit to all scientists was clearly a reductio ad absurdum and not an accusation.

So are we supposed to take this argument seriously or not? If not, then that's all your comment contained, aside from an ad hominem argument. So you haven't actually challenged the point, you've just name-called. If it's not an argument or an accusation and you're just name-calling and being sarcastic you're violating the rules of conduct.

If it is a proof by reductio ad absurdum, and you are using it to show how ridiculous the other side's point is, then it can't be a strawman. Your actual argument cannot be a strawman. You can't both claim something is a "malicious strawman of your real argument," but also demand it to be taken as your real argument.

In short, if you want it to be taken seriously as a real argument, you have to stop claiming it's a strawman. If it is not supposed to be taken serious as a real argument, then you've presented no challenge to the original post. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Unproven doubts about sources should be ignored. Otherwise people could make up anything to undermine the usability of any source. Unless the doubts come from other reliable secondary sources of equal quality of course. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The article cites works by individuals who have direct involvement in virology labs in Wuhan, which is well-documented--an obvious conflict. We should at least disclose the relationships that the authors have to the subject. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If that's the case then finding reliable secondary sources discussing it shouldn't be an issue, otherwise the article will remain based on the secondary sourcing it currently uses. That's the fundamental nature of Misplaced Pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, check out this source. An article that meets your criteria describes the conflict of Dr. Shi, whom we cite in this article (Lab leak theory) Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

So one article questions the impartiality of work by Shi, it's a very small start but hardly proves a vested interest of all virology experts and policy makers. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

While the majority view is that COVID started in animals, it is far from settled and a large source of debate in politics and science at the moment. In that sense, this article is fringe by purporting that the theory has been dismissed and dismissing the lab leak as fringe seems more of a way to unnecessarily raise the bar on evidence. The US government will likely leave WHO over this next month over this. While they may be merely foolish, corrupt or have an ulterior motive, not even reporting the other side of the side is pompous. 2600:6C40:4C00:463:B3F1:B0A3:3D9D:9B4C (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Nearly all reporting on the lab leak theory will be removed by Misplaced Pages until it comes from a major scientific journal. Editors have already pre-emptively banned sources regarding it from The US House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus, the FBI, the Department of Energy, CNN, Science, Ars Technica, and implied that any future journalism from non-scientific journals would be removed and the user potentially banned. Read that discussion here and various discussions here.

You might say "but there are plenty of citations in the article to some of the very same sources that are now being classified as unreliable." And to that I have no real answer. You're out of luck on this one until if and when a major science journal covers it. BabbleOnto (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes all sources for scientific information should come from scientific sources, although more stringent standards apply if the content related to medical matter (per WP:MEDRS). The statements of US politicians or government bodies are of little weight when it comes to a global issue like COVID. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Nearly half of the sources in this article are not from scientific sources, they are from sources like CNN, The Guardian and the New York Times.

If you say that those sources proper because they are citing scientists, then you're defeating your own point, because the proposed WSJ article also is directly citing and quoting scientists.

If a CNN source is allowed to be used on a source on this scientific subject because it's directly quoting scientists with expertise, then I see no reason a WSJ source can be used in that exact same manner.

(For example, see citation 207, which a clearly MEDRS statement, "a declassified report from the National Intelligence Council likewise said that the fact the researchers were hospitalized was unrelated to the origins of the outbreak," is cited to CNN which is quoting a primary source. Why can this same process not be followed with the WSJ article? It is a double standard to allow such a citation to a CNN article but not a WSJ article.) BabbleOnto (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And also we use Snopes to support a claim that virologists wrote a letter saying the lab leak theory is not supported by evidence. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Snopes requires attribution in fringe areas per WP:RSNP 107.115.5.100 (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually not what RSP says. It says on one hand, attribution may sometimes be necessary, and then SEPARATELY, that WP:PARITY of sources is relevant in fringe topics. — Shibbolethink 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Snopes is cited with no further attribution three times in this very article.

This is becoming borderline trolling. BabbleOnto (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

for scientific information Yes if you ignore this point then your response makes sense. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it. I directly addressed it with an example. I suppose I can repeat myself if you missed it the first time.

(For example, see citation 207, which a clearly MEDRS statement, "a declassified report from the National Intelligence Council likewise said that the fact the researchers were hospitalized was unrelated to the origins of the outbreak," is cited to CNN which is quoting a primary source. Why can this same process not be followed with the WSJ article? It is a double standard to allow such a citation to a CNN article but not a WSJ article.) BabbleOnto (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My opposition to the over use of sources relying on US government institution should be clear at this point, one bad source doesn't necessite more of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

To be doubly clear I would support cutting the article back to remove such sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we should not be citing a single WP:PRIMARY government source anywhere in the article - they have no relevant expertise and therefore no weight on medical issues. The positions taken by politicians, political appointees, and by intelligence services or other organizations that operate under the direction of the executive branch may sometimes be relevant when discussing their own views as it is relevant to politics of a situation, but even then, for complex or controversial aspects it is best to rely on secondary sourcing. For medical questions they have no value at all and can only be cited via a secondary source; and even then the weight and overall framing needs to come from the WP:BESTSOURCES, which in this case would be academic ones with relevant medical expertise. If such medical sources treat a position as fringe then it is fringe even if every politician in the government disagrees. --Aquillion (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see the consensus statement at the top of this page.

* There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. 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)

In addition to the notice that has been on this page for years, it is particularly odd to be reminding Aquillion of this since they were the original proposer of the RFC in question. - Palpable (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are we not simply confronting this head on in the lead. Something along the lines of....."the theory has remained prominent in society due to media coverage (insert recent study) and non-medical evaluations such as (insert FBI here)." Moxy🍁 04:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that addressing this directly is probably the right choice. It may help people who hold that POV feel like they're not being overlooked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, even if you have to give a really deprecating attribution, the political attention given to the lab leak hypothesis by the United States House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic is very notable and needs to be mentioned. This is not a suggestion that we use them as a source to verify biomedical information. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No we should not be giving US politics an undue prominence in a global issue. I like Moxy's idea though, dependent on wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed as said, this is not solely a USA topic, so USA findings should not have undue prominence. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Governmental investigations are DUE in proportion to the degree that they exist. The US investigation is going to end up dominating, not because of nationalistic bias but because:

(a) It's the only serious investigation that's been done.

(b) The US has the largest intelligence gathering apparatus in the world.

(c) The US has more internal evidence than other countries because the research program at the heart of the gain-of-function-gone-wrong theory was funded and coordinated from within the US.

By analogy, note that the major papers favoring zoonotic origin were written almost entirely at US institutions, but thankfully nobody is arguing that they are UNDUE because of this. - Palpable (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Or we could say:

(a) All the other investigators and countries that investigated are feeling insulted by you declaring their work to be frivolous.

(b) The Chinese might disagree with you, especially wrt to what happens inside their own country.

(c) This would be the research that did not get funded, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

(a) I have not seen anything from any other country that approaches the volume of hearings, transcribed interviews, and FOIA responses from the US investigations. If you have similar reports from other countries, those would be DUE, but speculation about what other countries might have obviously shouldn't make the US investigation UNDUE.

(b) I agree - if you have access to verifiable intelligence reports from inside China, those would certainly be DUE as well. Can you take a moment and reread what I wrote? I thought it was clearly a statement about what's available and therefore VERIFIABLE.

(c) By "research program" I was intentionally referring to something broader than DEFUSE, though that is the most detailed plan I know of. But, to your point, Daszak committed in email to finding other funding for that work, was subsequently funded by NIAID for a more open-ended grant, and had earlier reported on successful gain of function experiments in, I think, humanized mice at WIV. This is all on the US side. On the WIV side, Shi Zhengli refused to answer a question about whether any of the DEFUSE work was done.

Again, we are not talking about proof here, just about a "lab leak" article that accurately describes the evidence, such as it is, for some kind of lab involvement. Written plans to test viruses very like SaRS-CoV-2 at WIV are hardly proof, but in a court of law they would certainly be evidence and indeed adverse inference could be be drawn from the fact that the proposal leaked instead of being disclosed by the investigators soon after it became relevant. - Palpable (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

All the other investigators and countries that investigated are feeling insulted by you declaring their work to be frivolous

They're probably more insulted that you couldn't even name a single one of them.

And now that you're going to name them, why is the solution "don't add any of the sources," instead of "let's add the US source as well as other countries' sources?" BabbleOnto (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That point makes it seem like you have not read the section on political attention in the article. Please take a look at it. The section weaves together a global narrative consisting of notable events in politics and media from the US, China, UK, WHO, etc. Even Tucker Carlson gets a mention for his impact on the public discourse. Omitting the info I mentioned would be a conspicuous inconsistency. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

We mention the FBI. Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't this defeat your previous point of:

Agreed as said, this is not solely a USA topic, so USA findings should not have undue prominence.

Why is the FBI, a US government institution, allowed to be cited, but the US House, a US government institution, not allowed to be cited, because it represents only the US's point of view? BabbleOnto (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The FBI has not been a political institution since Hoover. (Although the new appointee has said he will make it one again.) They are profession investigators. The committees of the House are extremely political groups. At the present time, they do not even represent the US POV. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes different organisations across the global are mentioned, that's how it should be. Rather than giving undue prominence to the machinations of the US political system. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent surveys

Follow-up question, @Palpable: Know any recent surveys showing that among experts, 15-20% favor research involvement, as you say? I ask because I noticed the lede says "most scientists believe the virus spilled".. sans citation, and the body says "Most scientists remain skeptical of the possibility of a laboratory origin" sans citation to anything less than 2 years old. I was going to start a new discussion but found in this discussion you already touch on it, so asking first. If we don't have anything less than 1 year old, we mustn't be speaking in the present tense, and if we do, it should be cited. Substantial evidence has come out that supports LL in the last 2 years, as the congressional report (which caused an eight-fold spike in views of the article on Dec 3 but the article is still pretending is not notable) documents. RememberOrwell (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: I asked this far above , and seconds later, discussion was closed off, so I'm asking exactly it again. Open question.

RememberOrwell (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there any survey to show that anything has changed in light of the US congressional report? Sourcing doesn't go off, age matters but it matters because it is superseded by newer sources. So the question isn't whether there is anything to maintain the current content, but whether there are any new sources that mean it should be changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I put it in a different section below, because the title of this section is a little misleading for the source. - Palpable (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The best survey of scientific opinion on Covid origins is "The Origin and Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Expert Survey", published in early 2024. Summary here with links to the full paper and methodological annex . From the summary: "The experts generally gave a lower probability for origin via a research-related accident, but most experts indicated some chance of origin via accident and about one fifth of the experts stated that an accident was the more likely origin." This is clearly not a FRINGE position.- Palpable (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

My opinion on this hasn't changed, this is a minority view around which a lot of conspiracy theories have formed. The current lead covers this well. There was a recent RFC that covered a lot of this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately many editors are still trying to apply FRINGE to this topic and it would be good to get consensus that it is in fact a minority scientific view point. - Palpable (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE still has a place when it comes to minority views, as discussed in the page itself. Just mentioning FRINGE isn't saying that the hypothesis is a fringe view. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

FRINGE sounds like a very badly written policy and is equally badly applied to this topic area, where little is actually known what happened, and peer review is hardly relevant. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There was a RFC about that recently, see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 196#RfC on reform of WP:FTN, WP:FRINGE. FRINGE had widespread support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't have to look far on this page to find editors asserting that this is a FRINGE view though! I'm pretty sure that the majority of references to FRINGE in this page are to categorize LL as a fringe viewpoint, not to mention painting other editors as PROFRINGE merely for arguing for NPOV. - Palpable (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Well I would disagree with those editors, again I'm guessing, but they're allowed their own opinion even if I think they're wrong. I would guess I would disagree with you on how the lab leak should be put in context as a minority view. FRINGE isn't the only guidance against stating minority views in a way that detracts from the majority one.
But all of this is only a distraction from discussing the survey. I personally don't see how this changes the article as it stands, it doesn't say that the lab leak is a conspiracy theory only that there are conspiracy theories about it and the prior RFC result agrees with that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Last I checked the article had more than twenty references to conspiracy theorizing, while the DEFUSE proposal barely gets a paragraph. - Palpable (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Presumably that's because it's a conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

According to the careful study linked above, the majority of scientists do not consider it a conspiracy theory. I thought Misplaced Pages tried to follow the science. - Palpable (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Being generous I assume he means the reference to DEFUSE rather than lableak in general. I also don't understand why it would require extra attention in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that because the conspiracy theories about the minority view are relative high profile and still being heavily pushed. Why would they not take up more of the article than a reject grant application. If there is other work carried out by the team who made that application it could be added if it's shown to be relevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

There's also a note to be made about the difference between lab leak as accident and lab leak as purposeful release. Much of the individuals and POV groups pushing the lab leak claim are doing so to push the latter, hence why it's considered a conspiracy and FRINGE. You can even go a step further and note that there's a difference between lab leak of Sars virus that was just collected from wild samples and lab leak of virus made from gain of function research. Again, much of the lab leak claims are about pushing the latter, usually in a conspiratorial manner. Silverseren 00:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The DEFUSE proposal (which we only know about because of a leak) proposed to create viruses that almost exactly match SARS-CoV-2 (20% difference from SARS-CoV-1 but with an FCS) and test them at WIV in Wuhan. Earlier drafts acquired through FOIA specifically mentioned doing the assays in Wuhan because it could be done more cheaply at lower biosecurity levels. While the DARPA grant was not funded due to safety concerns, less detailed grants to the same investigators were made by NIAID. Zhengli Shi has refused to say whether any of the work was done.

I accept that some people here will be unable to see the relevance of this, but if you want to understand why a significant minority of scientists suspect that there was research involved, it is far more relevant than the twentieth mention of conspiracy theories. - Palpable (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said if there are other sources showing that other work is of relevance it could be added, but obviously there needs to be sourcing for it. That a minority of scientists have suspicions is not much to base any content off. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your open-mindedness and wish it were shared by more editors. But there are plenty of others here who will STONEWALL anything that might be construed as supporting a lab leak.

I have provided the first actual serious survey of scientists on this subject, which I've known about for close to a year but haven't mentioned here because trying to improve this article seems so futile. Having finally posted it, the self-styled defenders of Science don't want to engage with it and some of them are actively unpleasant with zero consequences. I'd like to see some progress before I start taking requests, hope you understand. - Palpable (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I've zero interest in other editors behaviour. But I have to say the survey you've shown seems to agree with the article as it is, lab leak is a minority view and the article says that. There having been an RFC closed about the current wording very recently I wouldn't expect much appetite to discuss this again from editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is predominantly concerned with disparaging comments about racism and conspiracy theorists, to the extent that there have been repeated attempts to put "conspiracy theory" in the title and make the article solely about psychopathology. Meanwhile, the careful recent study has shown that a majority of experts find some form of lab leak to be plausible and ~20% of them believe it to be the most likely origin.

You are certainly correct that there is no appetite here for discussing this, so we are stuck with a consensus that 20% of the relevant experts are racist-adjacent fringe conspiracy theorists. For what it's worth, in STEM disciplines reaching a conclusion like that is a signal that you need to go back and carefully examine your assumptions to figure out where you went wrong - whether you have an appetite for it or not.

Unfortunately I think we're past the point of this being productive. Thanks for listening. - Palpable (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

One of the problems with lableak is that the actuality of it has always been less high profile than the conspiracy theories. So the discussion of the conspiracy theories is due.

I would definitely be against adding conspiracy theory to the title, as would most editors given that it hasn't been. I would disagree with so we are stuck with a consensus that 20% of the relevant experts are racist-adjacent fringe conspiracy theorists. The article makes clear that there is a valid minority view, stating that there are racist conspiracy theories about lableak doesn't say that all those who do believe in lableak believe one of those racist conspiracy theories.

As an example in the UK there are those who support the monarchy, David Ike pushes a conspiracy theory that the royal family are lizards, stating that that conspiracy theories exist isn't saying that anyone who supports the monarchy are lizard lovers. The same is true here, saying that there are racist conspiracy theories in regard to lableak isn't saying anyone who suspects a lableak is a racist conspiracy theorist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

In the annexTable F3 of this paper appears that 40% of the experts did not know the most relevant (scientific) papers about the origin of covid 19. EilertBorchert (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

BMJ article - no definive answer yet on origins of covid

Fairly recentarticle from the British medical journal (Sep 2024):

https://www.bmj.com/content/386/bmj.q1578

"The pandemic’s origins, the lab leak theory, and the blame game have been in the headlines again. Despite another war of words, we aren’t any closer to a definitive answer as to where the novel coronavirus came from"

" In a nutshell, the trail for definitive, scientific evidence is cold. The decisions that Chinese officials made during the early stages of the Wuhan outbreak in the winter of 2019 meant that very little information was communicated—possibly not even collected—when the virus emerged in the first patients. Also, the Chinese government has been reluctant to share data and cooperate with international investigations, including those led by the World Health Organization (WHO) since the pandemic began" Cyanotrop (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The consensus among scientists is that, although a lab leak origin is possible, the scientific evidence points to a natural, zoonotic origin from wild animals.

Don't forget this part three paragraphs down. Silverseren 04:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, from reading the rest of it, the article seems rather definitive in showing that the evidence really doesn't point toward a lab leak for a variety of reasons, including quoted scientists and other evidence that debunk gain of function research being related due to the fundamental number of differences between the CoV2 we got and the CoV1 that was being studied at the lab. And the evidence that repeatedly came up in investigations showing raccoon dogs being the likely wet market reservoir species.

Though I suppose the question here is is there anything new in this piece that would be meaningful to add or is it already covered information from past sources? It does seem like a good overall summary article from Mun-Keat Looi, so it may be able to shore up referencing in some spots. Silverseren 04:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren

Yes, the article doesnt say that there was a lab leak and even sides with the alternative theories in its town. perhaps I should have elaborated in what I found interesting

1) that the article says that there is no conclusion at all, only that a majority of scientists (at the moment) think it's wrong. in contrast , the wiki articles tone appears definitive and almost dismissive. the burden of proof should be two way -- the implied framework seems to be that the lab theory needs proof for it to be taken seriously. while an elevated burden of proof may be fair given it's an odd and disturbing thing to consider, the field of public health is not math/ physics -- everything has an alternative theory that should be put on record without prejudice. just 30 years ago, the US government thought pasta, rice and bread were the healthiest dishes in their now infamous food pyramid.

2) the zoonotic theory and the lab leak theory are not "mutually exclusive" meaning that a natural origin virus may have been leaked by the lab while being studied and therefore it was accelerated by the large neighboring population. this is a viable theory as some research has pointed out that the candidate animals don't live near Wuhan and were not sold at the market. in contrast, the zoonosis theory is being framed as an alternative to the lab leak theory, so it creates a false dichotomy that's not fair to the lab leak theory Cyanotrop (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Except the part you quoted originally aren't saying that there is a lack of evidence for zoonotic origin, just that the ability to currently do more research isn't available due to the Chinese government not allowing further outside scientific involvement (and that it's been long enough that finding the definitive zoonotic reservoir is a matter of long-term study at this point rather than being able to find the specific source that Covid came from, since it would no longer be in the same form at this point and we already know the local wildlife contains Sars viruses).

Also, what "some research" are you referring to? The candidate animals are the raccoon dogs, which were being sold at that market. The DNA samples collected alongside the viral samples were from raccoon dogs that were there. The article you linked is very specific about all of that.

If anything, this summary article is even more of a definitive example of the lack of evidence for any lab leak claim. Silverseren 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The consensus off what the most scientists think about the origin of Sars Cov 2 has no value if appears that most scientists did not read the scientific papers about the covid 19 origin.The scientific (correspondence) paper of Lancet Letter Covid 19 is a proven misleading paper.(see Misplaced Pages)The editors of Misplaced Pages should be more objective and accept that there is on the moment no evidence for the hypotheses of the lab leak or zoonotic origin.For both possibilitys exist indirect evidence. Editors of Misplaced Pages should learn a bit more about sequence techniques off viruses. Therefore they are adviced to read the with facts argumented book Wuhan Trilogie ( 1200 pages in Dutch) ISBN 978-90-832800-5-9 EilertBorchert (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that there is less evidence for it being a bio-emerged weapon (for example), or even for the lab leak in fact. Most papers (most, not just one) treat the zoonotic origin, Indeed most of the arguments here for the lab leak seem to rely on intelligence or political papers, not scientific ones. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It is going about missing knowledge of wikipedia editors EilertBorchert (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Which is what we should do, go by what RS say, and not what we know (read wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

If a new diseaese outbreaks you should consider all the hypotheses of possible origin and not block any hypothese by ridiculous arguments but look after all the possibilities on an integre, and base science manner ,including the financial situation.The editors should be aware of the basic molecular techniques about working with viruses.(only the basic) EilertBorchert (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

NO, we consider what the medical profession thinks, not what anyone else does. And wp:npov is clear, we follow what the significant views are, and in medical matters that means doctors. And we do "most scientists believe the virus spilled into human populations through natural zoonosis..." we (by inference) say that not everyone thinks that. So until the SCIENTFIC consensus changes my opinion does not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

What "" most scientist believe"" give not scientific evidence. Surely if it is

known that these scientists did not read the most important scientific papers about the corona origin. See page 368 , 369 , end 370 of the book part 3 : Wuhan Trilogie (Dutch) about the origin of corona. EilertBorchert (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

For editors who were unaware of the "Corona trilogy" in Dutch - as I was - it was written by noted coronavirus skeptic Jan Bonte. It appears to be someone writing a dissenting opinion about matters outside of their own field, and therefore not a reliable source about coronavirus origins. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The 1200 pages of the Wuhan Trilogy is fact based on relevant scientific literature and other information as Right to Know and Drastic.The book does not present a dissenting opinion nor present it a conclusion about the 2 important hypotheses about the origin of covid 19.That is up to the reader EilertBorchert (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

everything has an alternative theory that should be put on record without prejudice

That's not what WP:NPOV has to say on the matter. TarnishedPath 05:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath

except that you are ignoring a lot of circumstantial evidence. there is no proof that OJ Simpsons wasn't framed either Cyanotrop (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence that OJ was framed wouldn't prove he was, and it wouldn't change the result of the court cases against him or the reporting on those cases. Annoying as it might be something more concrete is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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