Jump to content

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Survey: reply to 2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E (CD)
Line 211: Line 211:
::::Why? What makes you say it's '''critical'''? —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 21:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
::::Why? What makes you say it's '''critical'''? —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 21:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::I guess you could ask, "whats the point of understanding the covid lab leak theory at all"? I supose none of this is '''critical'''. My mistake for over emphasis. [[Special:Contributions/2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E|2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E]] ([[User talk:2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E|talk]]) 17:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::I guess you could ask, "whats the point of understanding the covid lab leak theory at all"? I supose none of this is '''critical'''. My mistake for over emphasis. [[Special:Contributions/2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E|2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E]] ([[User talk:2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E|talk]]) 17:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
::::::No, I'm sorry, I asked the question for a very specific reason. We know the lab leak theory is worth examining because '''our sources tell us it is.''' That is the very heart of wikipedia's [[WP:RSUW|due and undue weight]] policy. We must rely on them, also, to tell us how essential it is to know these scientists were having these discussions. The relevant question is: "{{tq|Of all the sources about the lab leak theory, what proportion mention that certain scientists were sending these emails early on?}}" IMPORTANTLY, '''the question is NOT''': "{{!xt|Of all the sources about these scientists or about these emails, how many talk about it being critical?}}" The first question is how we determine how prominently to feature these sentences, whether they belong in the lead at all, etc. —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' "Some scientists" is extremely vague, if not [[WP:WEASEL]] words, and presenting it this way is [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] as the broad scientific consensus is against the theory and some early emails from a few scientists stating that they viewed it was a posibility at the time is not [[WP:DUE]] for the lead. [[User:Xoltered|Xoltered]] ([[User talk:Xoltered|talk]]) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' "Some scientists" is extremely vague, if not [[WP:WEASEL]] words, and presenting it this way is [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]] as the broad scientific consensus is against the theory and some early emails from a few scientists stating that they viewed it was a posibility at the time is not [[WP:DUE]] for the lead. [[User:Xoltered|Xoltered]] ([[User talk:Xoltered|talk]]) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
::It's the lead section. Lead sections are supposed to summarize what is covered in more detail in the lead. And there's a TON of "extremely vague" terms in the lead... just in the same paragraph the vague terms "members of the Republican Party", "liberal media" and "political circles" occur. Do you also think those are "too vague"? And if not, why not? [[User:Le Marteau|Le Marteau]] ([[User talk:Le Marteau|talk]]) 04:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
::It's the lead section. Lead sections are supposed to summarize what is covered in more detail in the lead. And there's a TON of "extremely vague" terms in the lead... just in the same paragraph the vague terms "members of the Republican Party", "liberal media" and "political circles" occur. Do you also think those are "too vague"? And if not, why not? [[User:Le Marteau|Le Marteau]] ([[User talk:Le Marteau|talk]]) 04:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:28, 23 January 2022



Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

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

Last updated (diff) on 30 November 2024 by Shibbolethink (t · c)


Lab leak theory sources

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

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

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

References

Chronological?

There is a section called chronological and a section called timeline, and then there are various dated events given in other sections. The arrangement seems haphazard. Sennalen (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it could probably do with a combination/rewrite. Do you have any thoughts? Never a bad time to start a draft. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This speaks to the need for a rewrite, that Springnuts noted above. The lead is ok, but the main body of the article is a mess, and diverts from the norm that you'd see on any other article about a theory. LondonIP (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think step one is fully dividing scientific content from media commentary. Sennalen (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a draft. Basically I just tried to group related claims. Sennalen (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like this draft. I will make a few comments there. LondonIP (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the revision draft lede, and I like it. Thank you. Springnuts (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the draft too. But some merging would be needed as the article has changed in the meantime. Not sure how that works. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no objections, I would suggest bulk replacing ASAP before it diverges more, then people can evaluate if any of the missed changes need to be replayed. They have been fairly minor. Sennalen (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"No evidence" vs. "Unclear"

Regarding this revert [5]

Per The Atlantic[6], which is cited in the paragraph: We don’t know whether that work was ever carried out Adoring nanny (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Special:Diff/1063636858 –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but what is the advantage of one kind of diff over the other? Adoring nanny (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't a diff in the OP of this section. The first link is the article's history. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Atlantic also notes that there's no evidence. Good revert. VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claims and counterclaims section title

How about just titling the section "claims"? The section content would still include rebuttal per WP:EVALFRINGE, but I don't think there's a need to mention that in the section header. VQuakr (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I tend to agree that my section title is still WP:IMPERFECT. I would like to see more people weigh in here. In any case, my edit did not remove any counterclaims. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me [7] was potato/potahto. VQuakr (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not neutral to use "claim", which implies doubt, for one side and "rebuttal", which implies certainty, for the other. See WP:SAY. That's also why I think my "claims and counterclaims" is still imperfect. Per that policy, "claim" is not a neutral word. But here we are at least using it for both sides. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Rebuttal" means "Contradiction". But since I don't have an opinion on that diff anyways it's something of a distraction from the subject of the OP. VQuakr (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIKIVOICE

Moved to correct talk page

Regarding this revert [8]. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, do not state disputed information as fact. Therefore, the revert is wrong. For example, here[9], which is cited in the article, it says The most plausible origin of SARS-CoV-2 is natural selection of the virus in an animal host followed by zoonotic transfer.(emphasis added) That's not an absolute statement. Nor should we make one. Similarly here [10]: "It is improbable that SARS-CoV-2 emerged through laboratory manipulation of a related SARS-CoV-like coronavirus. (emphasis added) Again, it's not an absolute statement. Even the Frutos source does not make an absolute statement. So the absolute statement in WikiVoice is just plain wrong. Adoring nanny (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full sentence is "SARS-CoV-2 appears to have originated in bats and was spread to humans by zoonotic transfer.", emphasis added. We already address your concern with the word "appears"; we don't need to further dilute it because as written, it is indeed a statement of fact not an opinion per WP:WIKIVOICE ("Avoid stating facts as opinions."). VQuakr (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, "appears to have" modifies to "originated in bats". The way it is written, "was" applies to "spread to humans by zoonotic transfer." When we introduce the new verb in the indicative mood, it is no longer modified by the "appears to" That's the problem. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I take no exception to removing the word "was". VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doh. I have this whole thing on the wrong talk page. I'll try again later. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Feel free to cut'n paste move the entire thread over. VQuakr (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copied to Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Further contributions should be made there. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proven lab leak

Unclassified military documents have proven it leaked from the wuhan lab of Virology and that the US funded the research for it. 2601:47:4381:A20:4954:32C8:55A7:C331 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide a link to this "proof". Bakkster Man (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph article

"Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show....Viscount Ridley, co-author of Viral: the search for the origin of Covid, said: 'These emails show a lamentable lack of openness and transparency among Western scientists who appear to have been more interested in shutting down a hypothesis they thought was very plausible, for political reasons.'"[11] Reputable source, should be reflected in the article. Stonkaments (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the people who can't access the full text, it's available at the Internet Archive --Thereisnous (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not particularly new information... And many of the included email participants waited for more data, and when more data was available, decided the zoonotic origin was more likely. As is described in this article, and demonstrated elsewhere. [12]
    Any mention of this would have to include the fact that most of these scientists revised their belief once they encountered more data/info. And now believe the lab theory is not very likely (e.g. Andrew Rambaut who coauthored a letter declaring the lab leak was very very unlikely, essentially a conspiracy theory).
    Personally, I don't believe this information is particularly WP:DUE for this article. It's tabloid level, sold as a "gotcha" when people debating whether or not something is true before deciding is not particularly notable. We can avoid the entire issue of how to describe their position fairly (and avoid WP:BLP issues of misquoting or mischaracterizing). It's maybe noteworthy for the wiki pages of these people, but I don't see how this is very DUE here. If we included every single notable person's opinion, this article would be endless. We only include very few notable opinions where relevant. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also covered in the Intercept [13]. Seems Collin's email about fox news might be relevant to the COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Chilling_effects section. The Intercept seems to suggest that Fauci didnt want serial passage to be mentioned in the proximal origin paper: "Several of the scientists on the email chain ended up co-authoring the Nature Medicine paper with Andersen and Garry. In a February 4 email, which House Republicans presented as a response to a first copy of the draft, Fauci wrote: “?? Serial passage in ACE2-transgenic mice.' The early draft has not been made public, so we don’t know what, exactly, sparked Fauci’s reaction. But his words, which refer to the process of passaging a virus in “humanized” laboratory mice — or mice that have been genetically modified to express receptors for human ACE2, an enzyme that occurs in the lungs — do not appear in the published paper." 2603:800C:3101:D064:AC6C:3DBB:9690:A2C7 (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Intercept, the letter was released on Tuesday. The opening paragraph of The Intercept is even more explicit than The Telegraph. ON TUESDAY, REPUBLICANS on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform released a letter that paints a damning picture of U.S. government officials wrestling with whether the novel coronavirus may have leaked out of a lab they were funding, acknowledging that it may have, and then keeping the discussion from spilling out into public view. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my ignorance, what is the significance of the day? 2603:800C:3101:D064:AC6C:3DBB:9690:A2C7 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe adoring nanny is trying to say this is new information.
Specific redacted letters have been released in full text, which would maybe be new content for individual BLP articles. (even then I am doubtful) But as for this article, that individual people have all done similar things is not particularly new when we already knew scientists were discussing this early on. The actual FOIA request and return happened even prior to last July. These emails have been out since before then, in redacted form. See: [14] [15]
it's identical to the story about Kristian Andersen. Some scientists were debating about the lab leak theory early. Then they decided it wasn't really all that meritous and threw weight behind the zoonosis theory. Is that really notable enough for this article? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news headlines. And it definitely is not a tabloid repository. Why is it relelvant that some scientists early on thought it was plausible, and then later decided it wasn't?
if we include this at all, we basically should just say that: "Early on, scientists such as Andrew Rambaut, Kristian Andersen, and Jeremy Farrar, discussed the possibility of the laboratory leak idea with Fauci, debating its merits over email. Ultimately, These scientists determined the zoonotic origin was the most likely scenario." And when I write out that sentence, I think to myself, "Is this really worth putting in a wikipedia article about the lab leak?" And personally, I think the answer is "no." We even know that Fauci considered the lab leak idea early and then dismissed it. [16]
I don't think the fact that different scientists were emailing each other about the lab leak in early 2020 is notable enough to include in an article like this. See also WP:RECENTISM and Wikipedia:NEWSPAPER especially this part: Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. To analogize, every tiny incident about the lab leak is not notable here.
Many tabloids are running this as "they stifled the truth to avoid hurting science" or "they are covering up the real origin for political reasons." But A) the most reputable sources don't say this, (e.g. runs contrary to WP:BESTSOURCES), B) it would be a WP:BLP violation to put that in wiki-voice, and C) the actual emails don't really bare that out. It's just yellow journalism, which makes sense given that this is basically a year-old story being rehashed to get clicks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed its a bit wishy washy to rely on hand notes taken of quasiprivate emails between people obviously thinking about things with opinions in flux. My main takeaway of anything new revealed here is the description of serial passage, it seems most lab leak theory focus has been on manual genetic insertions. Perhaps could throw a sentence somewhere to explain the difference? 2603:800C:3101:D064:AC6C:3DBB:9690:A2C7 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really a difference, for the purposes of this article? Both are often described as "gain-of-function research". Both are intentional modifications. And neither could have created SARS-CoV-2, as described by many many many experts on this topic. I would say sure, a brief mention could be warranted. But only if it is contextualized in the mainstream view of how it is not a plausible origin per WP:FRINGE and these mainstream academic sources saying as much: [17] [18] etc all available at WP:NOLABLEAK and news sources such as: [[19] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the email chain, there seems to be a possiblity that a serial passage expirmient could have accidentally introduced a furin cleavage site? Has anyone published a study looking into this? 2603:800C:3101:D064:18A6:6458:7838:3B28 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the released documents, Kristian Andersen had warned Fauci that the virus may have been engineered in a lab, noting that he and several other high-profile scientists “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." This goes directly to the heart of the lab leak vs. zoonosis question. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And do you know how Andersen feels about it now? Perhaps in relation to this: [20] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: many experts yes, but some experts like Ralph Baric say not, and that we can't know what created what, without access to the laboratory records. What this email leak shows is that even though these scientists thought a lab leak was possible, they said it was fringe, because of politics. Please stop evoking WP:FRINGE just because you don't agree with Baric's view. Scientists may disagree with each other, but Wikipedians must remain neutral, and our opinions do not matter. See WP:NOTREDDIT. Francesco espo (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I don't agree with Baric's view, it's that he's in the minority, as demonstrated by the many many review articles published in reliable topic-relevant journals and peer-reviewed by experts. That's what FRINGE tells us to figure out. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken on two accounts. Baric's view is not a minority view, snd there are other reputed scientists who have made comments in the same vein, including David Baltimore, Alexander Kekulé and Simon Wain-Hobson [21]. Secondly, this is not something that can be settled by scholarly papers [22], as Colin said in a previous discussion. Thirdly, I see that Baric's paper is still being cited, so I've tagged it as FV and will remove it unless you can show how it supports the claim. We should continue this discussion on the GoF page to clean up the COVID section there. LondonIP (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've specifically sourced it to the claim it verifies. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The takeaway here is that the mismatch between what the scientists were saying privately and what they wrote publicly destroys their credibility. If they privately say X, then three days later say that X is a conspiracy theory, without mentioning at the time that they initially favored X but changed their mind because of Y, that calls their honesty into doubt. Surely, if they themselves initially believed X, it would be more honest to say that they rejected X because of Y, not to say that X is a conspiracy. Coming up with a reason for the change at a later time doesn't eliminate the initial lie. Given that Andersen lied with his "conspiracy theory" claim, and has yet to come clean about that, I don't lend much credence to his NYT interview.
Furthermore, the reason Andersen gives for coming to his "conspiracy" conclusion does not itself support the conclusion. The existence of FCS in other coronaviruses points to Z being possible. However, it does not rule out LL.
The NYT even gave him a chance to come clean, asking him if he had any regrets. He didn't mention any. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely original research, and is fine for theorizing but has no place in the article. Frankly, it may constitute a BLP violation. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to put the "liar" part into the article based on present sourcing. You asked me for my take on it, and I gave it to you.
As currently written, the lead fails to provide any context to understand that political motivations played an important role in scientists' handling and discussion of the lab leak theory. This context is clearly DUE and necessary for an accurate representation of how the lab leak came to be dismissed by some as a conspiracy theory early on in the pandemic. Stonkaments (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Stonkaments, I agree with you and just made an attempt[23] at supplying said context, at least in part. It is likely to take a long slog to get something along these lines to be stable in the article. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What sources do you have that say this? Do they outweigh the sources that we have that don't say this? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have contextualized the views of these scientists in their current opinions, as is required by BLP. We cannot assume malice in this situation, as doing so would be OR, and frankly some of the comments on this section border on BLP violations. We cannot go around stating that scientists were lying or covering up something when we do not have evidence. People are allowed to change their opinion, and the fact that scientists are willing to do so in the face of new evidence is the hallmark of good science. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
latest edits adding Kristian G Andersen wiki link is directed to the footballer. 2603:800C:3101:D064:18A6:6458:7838:3B28 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also the dates are wrong? should be 2020? were any emails sent in 2019? 2603:800C:3101:D064:18A6:6458:7838:3B28 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"near the beginning of the pandemic" implies also early 2020, but I'm just going to say "Early in 2020" the emails were sent. Will fix both, thanks for the heads up — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we start a page for Kristian? suprised he doesnt have one. 2603:800C:3101:D064:18A6:6458:7838:3B28 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am surprised he does not have one. I haven't reviewed the notability criteria for professors/scientists in a while, but I would hazard a guess that he meets them handily. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was one created by ScrumptiousFood but DGG moved it to Draft:Kristian G Andersen. There is also Draft:Robert F. Garry. I think they both meet both NPROFF and GNG at this point. LondonIP (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adoring nanny, should we not trust the scientists on why they state their view has changed? Why not? We have RSes which directly state the reasons why some scientists now believe in the zoonotic theory: [24] [25] [26]. Is there any RS which directly states they changed their mind for other reasons? As I've said, this is a BLP issue. Misrepresentation of their views or stating there is malfeasance without evidence is a problem. We have to be very careful when discussing the views of living persons. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, starting with the very piece under discussion here. I've quoted a key portion above near the beginning of this section. The piece is even more explicit when it says Viscount Ridley, co-author of Viral: the search for the origin of Covid, said: “These emails show a lamentable lack of openness and transparency among Western scientists who appear to have been more interested in shutting down a hypothesis they thought was very plausible, for political reasons. In light of BLP issues, IMO the best response, based on current sourcing, is not to state why they changed their public positions. We do have sourcing for the "they lied" point of view, but it's not overwhelming. It's not enough to say in the article that they lied. But it is enough that we shouldn't give their reasons in WikiVoice, either. If you want to have a WP:WIKIVOICE "describe the controversy" discussion, you could include both their ostensible reasons and Ridley. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of this needs to be unpacked in the body, with a better summarisation in the lead. LondonIP (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it supports the idea that RIDLEY believes this. Not that it is true. We do not have sourcing for "they lied." We have sourcing for "Matt Ridley thinks they lied." The mere existence of a single person who questions these motivations is not enough. Statements of opinion do not trump our BESTSOURCES. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's more than just Ridley. See the lead quote form the Telegraph article above. We also do have this from The Intercept: “Neither Drs. Fauci or Collins edited our Proximal Origins paper in any way. The major feedback we got from the Feb 1 teleconference was: 1. Don’t try to write a paper at all — it’s unnecessary or 2. If you do write it don’t mention a lab origin as that will just add fuel to the conspiracists,” Garry wrote on Wednesday. and “However, further debate about such accusations would unnecessarily distract top researchers from their active duties and do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular,” Fouchier wrote. How to handle those quotes is certainly an interesting question worth exploring. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's Robert Garry and Ron Fouchier, who we don't currently mention. They also don't mention the scientists we do have. We would need to couch these as attributed quotes to those persons, if we were to use them at all. They have no bearing on the current content we have for 3 other scientists. Unless there's a connection that's spelled out in these sources that I'm not seeing...any use of these quotes to frame those other scientists would be original research. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also important to say, you seem to have taken Garry's quote out of context. The intercept added this: "After publication, Robert Garry clarified his previous comments to The Intercept: “One thing that could be misconstrued is that neither Dr Fauci or Dr Collins suggested in any way that we not write the Proximal Origin paper. Likewise, neither one suggested that we not mention the possibilty of a Lab origin. These were comments from others in emails after the call.” The story’s sub-headline has been updated to reflect Garry’s clarification that the advice did not come from NIH officials but from others following the call." Any mention of Garry's quote would have to include this part as well. And any mention of Fouchier's quote would have to include the other part of his quote, where he says the discussion is worth having: “Given the evidence presented and the discussions around it, I would conclude that a follow-up discussion on the possible origin of 2019-nCoV would be of much interest,” wrote Ron Fouchier, a virologist at the Erasmus MC Center for Viroscience in the Netherlands, on February 2..
And once we get too long, it becomes UNDUE. So it's a balance. I would err on not including these at all, given that they require so much context to become applicable. That's a great indication that we're approaching COATRACK territory. We only have one article from The Intercept (already a biased source, though considered generally reliable for news). The RSP entry for The Intercept reads: Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept. I'm not sure these scientists' comments are DUE once we already have a few sentences about this episode, and any use of them would need to be attributed to the Intercept as quotes from others. So it becomes really long. We are not building an article that describes in detail the correspondence of scientists about the lab leak theory, and we do not need a laundry list of what each and every scientist has said about it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a term for what The Intercept has done here, and it would be best described as "media junk" or "yellow journalism." There's a reason few, if any other sources have acknowledged this outside of The Intercept, Telegraph, Daily Mail, etc. The RSP entries for these sources show that there is belief in bias or opinion from these sources. Anything beyond basic facts likely needs to be attributed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the relevance of an editor's opinion that this is "yellow journalism". I see both are green at WP:RSP. Bias is allowed per WP:YESPOV. And I don't see any allegation that either source might be unreliable for quoting emails. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"green" is not all that matters at RSP. Read the specific entries and see that these sources (particularly The Intercept) should be attributed. This is also exactly what YESPOV tells us to do. The only reason the current content in the article that we're discussing is probably fine in WikiVoice is that I added an NBC piece from June. NBC does not have this stipulation. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This bit about Trump in the lead should probably be moved, tweaked or the opinions of the sciensts included? The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory, either accidentally or deliberately, appeared early in the pandemic. The theory gained popularity through its promotion by political figures such as US president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party, as well as its dissemination in American conservative media, fomenting tensions between the United States and China. It was subsequently dismissed as a conspiracy theory.[11][12] It reads as if Trump and conservative media alone made it up to antagonize china, but now we now see scientist were telling government officials that it looked like it may have been engineered. It might be worth explaining that "it was dismissed as a conspiracy theory" by the same scientists that first raised the possiblity to the government? 2603:800C:3101:D064:4C5C:71AC:11CB:6BF6 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should. The way it reads now is completely misleading and does a disservice to our readers. I have tried to fix it twice, but I don't really keep up on this page or the subject well enough to fashion a retort without a ton of effort, and a man has to pick his fights in this life. Le Marteau (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Le Marteau: existing phrasing does not say or imply that Trump & co invented the theory. Emails that were private at the time obviously didn't impact public perception. Respectfully, attempts at improvement should probably be left to those the do keep up with the subject and talk page; the change you repeatedly added isn't verifiable. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My two edits to the material in question over the course of a day to rapidly changing text was not "edit warring" any more than were your two edits to that same material over the course of a day. And of COURSE the way it reads implies the theory had a Trumpian genesis... you're saying it does not is myopic. Le Marteau (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr:It strongly suggests that trump is a conspiracy theorist. 2603:800C:3101:D064:4C5C:71AC:11CB:6BF6 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is, but that is not the issue. The issue is, as it's written, it implies the theory originated with Trump and/or Trumpers. Le Marteau (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that? We cant use our own opinions. 2603:800C:3101:D064:4C5C:71AC:11CB:6BF6 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing of it is, this could all be solved by bringing up the sourced fact that it was not just Trumpers who were walking around with this notion in their head and early on. I am perplexed as to why there is such strong insistence to have any mention of anyone else believing such a thing until well deeper into the lead.Le Marteau (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does no such thing. VQuakr (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Break

It's not that it should be deeper in the lead, it's that it should be with similar content. What you seem to be proposing is that we should put the scientists' emails in that paragraph to somehow suggest that they invented the theory. or in any way were promoting it. This could not be further from the truth.

They were simply asking "Huh, could this actually be true?" and then soon after: "nah."

The theory already existed by the time these scientists were privately discussing it. As far as anyone can tell, the idea was actually first proposed by a random twitter user on January 5th [27]. It then spread to 4chan and Reddit from there. The Daily Mail published the first real story about it on January 23rd [28]. But it wasn't until March of that year, in 2020, when Ron Watkins (who many suspect is actually "Q" of Qanon) tweeted to his many many followers about it, and it really took off [29]. Russian and Chinese state-backed accounts began proposing that it was created in a lab in the US on January 20th [30]

The issue is, as it's written, it implies the theory originated with Trump and/or Trumpers. It did. At least in America. Ron Watkins spread it and made it huge. There's a really good documentary about this called Q Into the Storm by Cullen Hoback. It's mostly about Qanon and the search for who "Q" really is, but in the last several episodes, he talks about the origins of the lab leak theory (especially the bioweapon theory) and how it was promoted and retweeted and made viral by Qanon followers.

The rest of the lead is not chronological. Most leads are not chronological. They are thematic. It would be wrong, misleading, and disingenuous to place the sentence about scientists in that paragraph, as it would suggest that these scientists originated the theory. When in fact, they were simply running off of an idea that already existed.

If anything, we should put a sentence about Ron Watkins and the Hong Kong Twitter user in that paragraph.

If you like, we could move that scientist paragraph up a bit, but I think it's actually where it belongs, as the last part of the lead. That's sort of describing the MAINSTREAM view as a foil to the rest of the lead. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: I this this series adds far too much detail for the lead. This should be expounded in the body while we work on de-bloating the intro. VQuakr (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would be fine with removing some of that content. I agree the lead is too long per WP:LEAD. I'll start pruning it as well — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that better? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but maybe we should remove the conspiracy stuff all together. Otherwise we're calling people conspiracy theoriosts without explaining the importart details of Collin's campaign. 2603:800C:3101:D064:B140:44B1:438A:8293 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also maybe need to expand this sentence in the lead Most scientists have remained skeptical of the idea, citing a lack of supporting evidence. Perhaps chould add "After first favoring the idea," 2603:800C:3101:D064:B140:44B1:438A:8293 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide any scientific source [i.e. the kind of source needed to support the idea that "scientists initially favoured the idea", not preliminary emails or later interpretations thereof] which support[ed] this idea? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed. We have WP:RS saying that they initially favored LL. We don't have academic sources stating that they did not initially favor LL. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's RS that says that scientists favored lab leak at the beginning of the pandemic? Feel free to link. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the first few posts in this very section. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I read it just now. It doesn't provide enough context to convince me the couple of people they quoted represent the majority of the scientific community. That's quite a claim. Needs strong evidence per WP:EXTRAORDINARY –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have RS about "a majority". If I gave that impression, I apologize. For that matter, I'm not aware of any poll of scientists on the issue. We do have RS that some leading scientists initially favored it. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I responded to the "majority" idea because folks before you suggested the edit At first favoring the idea, most scientists have remained skeptical of the idea and mentioned scientists initially favoured the idea. To me, both of those sentences imply a scientific majority. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a RS that say scientists "initially favored" anything? Musing about it in internal emails isn't "favoring" anything. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are, including Jeremy Farrar's latest book in which he says Edward C. Holmes was 60/40 in favour of LL. There are others, but if the dispute here is merely about wording, then I suggest we hold an RfC. LondonIP (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably would have been better to have it be more precise about who favored it initially. You're right that it shouldn't be "most". At that point, most scientists probably weren't even aware of the question. Maybe Some leading scientists initially favored the idea. before going into the skepticism. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Proposed addition of sentence to the lead pertaining to early scientific support of the theory

The second paragraph of the lead currently reads as follows:

The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory (accidentally or deliberately) appeared early in the pandemic.[1][2] The theory gained popularity in America through promotion by conservative figures including president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party in the spring of 2020,[3] fomenting tensions between the US and China.[4] Many in American liberal media and political circles subsequently dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.[5][6]

QUESTION: Should the following sentence be added to the lead...

Some scientists initially supported the lab leak theory in early 2020, but later changed their stance.[7][8]

... so that it reads ...

The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory (accidentally or deliberately) appeared early in the pandemic.[1][2] Some scientists initially supported the lab leak theory in early 2020, but later changed their stance.[7][8] The theory gained popularity in America through promotion by conservative figures including president Donald Trump and other members of the Republican Party in the spring of 2020,[3] fomenting tensions between the US and China.[4] Many in American liberal media and political circles subsequently dismissed it as a conspiracy theory.[5][6]

Le Marteau (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(boldfacing added only to highlight this proposed change)

Survey

  • Support as proposer. In the lead, the only mention of early support for the theory occurs in the second paragraph, where it mentions Trump and Republicans. No where else in the lead is early support from anyone but Republicans and Trump mentioned, even though we have strong sourcing for it. The implication for anyone just reading the lead is that this was only a Republican conspiracy theory. Because most people interested in the subject by now know that the theory received support from others besides Republicans and Trump, this damages the encyclopedia's reputation as a go-to source for unbiased information pertaining to the issue. Le Marteau (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Le Marteau: can you add a signature right after the proposed text so that the opening statement can be copied by legobot to the centralized RfC listings? It tries to copy everything from the rfc template to the first signature, but there's too much text at present. Firefangledfeathers 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Le Marteau (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, what are we trying to communicate with "initially supported" and "later changed their stance"? Both are very broad, non-specific phrases. Does initial support include mere curiosity or possibility, or only advocacy in support of it being more likely? Was the changing stance for scientists reevaluating as new evidence was found, and/or distancing themselves from what had become a politicized topic? I'd suggest that perhaps the better solution would be to combine this paragraph with the Most scientists have remained skeptical of the idea... they have expressed concerns about the risks of politicization. paragraph. That would better portray the idea in terms of scientific acceptance first, politicization second, and the results of the politics on the science third. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is where I believe we had a small mention before. I think if it were DUE anywhere in the lead, it would be here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Putting "early support" (in a few emails to Fauci; in some news; but not in any academic source [the preferred ones for reporting on academic views]) on the same foot as the very widespread skepticism (which has boatloads of proper academic sources to support it) is very much WP:FALSEBALANCE, and would mislead the reader (and "some" is also to be avoided if possible, but not satisfying alternative exists unless we go into excessive details on describing the contents of the emails and properly contextualising them, something which is truly not desirable...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but also add "senior" scientists, and add that their views only came to light through congressional review. The lead of the article is too America centric and here in Italy we don't care what Cotton, Pompeo or Trump said, so that needs to be refactored for a global view. The first scientist to discuss this publicly was Richard Ebright in Science Magazine on Jan 30 2020 [31], so it should be mentioned somewhere too. Francesco espo (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Some senior scientists" is even worse in terms of weaseling and trying to put undue credibility to this than the original proposal. Ebright's status as being in the minority is also well known to you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, then just name them. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would still be FALSEBALANCE, and even then it almost certainly shouldn't go in the lead. The lead (of an article about a FRINGE view) already correctly summarises that most scientists have "remained skeptical" of said FRINGE view. The minority that actively support this in some way or another might be name-drop worthy at some point, but their views should not be put on the same footing as the majority, mainstream opinion, especially not in the lead (where it would be most likely to mislead readers). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Balance? Where is the "balance" in a lead which has Trumpers as being the only ones who thought a lab leak might be a possibility? Your concern about how a verifiable fact might "mislead readers" seems to me to be an attempt to censor history because it might be inconvenient to certain agendas. Le Marteau (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Balance? Verifiable fact?[citation needed] Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a mainstream, academic perspective (WP:MAINSTREAM). Your strawman description the lead (I don't know where the fixation on Trump comes from, as he is only mentioned in the one paragraph dealing with the usual US political shenanigans) is disingenuous. The only thing that is inconvenient is that you have been asked to provide scientific sources to back up your statement that "[some] scientists supported this early in the pandemic", but you have not provided any. There are plenty of scientific sources (from early, or much more recently, in the pandemic) which explicitly speak against the lab leak. There is a striking lack of such sources which make the opposite point ("early in the pandemic" or at any time), except maybe from a few figures in dubious journals. The proposed addition doesn't just fail WP:NPOV, but also WP:V. The only sources provided are about the Fauci emails, but neither the newspaper coverage nor the Fauci emails themselves are good sources for the claim which is being pushed (which is not that "A few American scientists, based on preliminary assessment shared via private emails, believed the virus could have leaked from a lab, but this was disproven by later analysis", which is pretty much the only accurate thing that can be said about those emails). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry WP:V requires a reliable source, which we do have. We don't have any scientific sources saying the negative of the statement we make. So there is no contradiction. If we had, for example, a scientific source stating that "Jeremy Farrar did not initially support LL", then we might have an issue. But we don't have such a source. I would further note that the sudden desire to follow scientific sources is curious. Just as a for-example, we have first-class scientific sources for the statement "Scientists have ruled out LL based in part on emails from Shi Zhengli." It's true, it's WP:V, a short-and-to-the-point summary of our scientists' own scientific reasoning for their scientific conclusions as described in their scientific papers in their prestigious scientific journals, but apparently it's about as mentionable as Voldemort. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You not being self-aware enough to recognise cherry-picking and abstain from doing so is not Wikipedia's problem. When the scientists who supposedly "supported" this idea (and not merely "entertained the hypothesis before ruling it out after further analysis", something which you do not seem to want to admit is the truth of the situation here) themselves say their emails have been cherry-picked and misconstrued (see below), there's not much else that can be said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Le Marteau, we already mention in the lead that some scientists consider this worth investigating. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering something worth investigating is not "supporting" the theory. But you know that already. Le Marteau (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadly support, but we should be more specific. Underlying policy is WP:LEAD, particularly the phrase including any prominent controversies.. This is a prominent controversy and is frankly critical to understanding the subject. How is it that this was dismissed as some "conspiracy theory"? Still trying to come up with the best wording here. One idea would be to name some names. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is about the theory, and explains what it is, and the support. WP:LEAD does not mean the WP:UNDUE content of some scientists believing it to be a possibility early on should be included in the lead. Xoltered (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadly support per Adoring nanny. The Intercept, The Telegraph and The Times all reported this story, which is significant in the context of the lab leak theory, and it is due lead with sufficient detail for the reader to understand its significance. LondonIP (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As above, the entire article is about the theory, no one disputes the theory as a whole is notable, rather the emails being sourced are WP:UNDUE for the lead, and do not even verify what it says. Xoltered (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The emails themselves arnt important, but who they are from is. The timing is also paramount. These people, having these discussions, at that moment, is critical to any understanding of the COVID-19 lab leak theory. 2603:800C:3101:D064:F012:4772:169D:82C0 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What makes you say it's critical? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could ask, "whats the point of understanding the covid lab leak theory at all"? I supose none of this is critical. My mistake for over emphasis. 2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, I asked the question for a very specific reason. We know the lab leak theory is worth examining because our sources tell us it is. That is the very heart of wikipedia's due and undue weight policy. We must rely on them, also, to tell us how essential it is to know these scientists were having these discussions. The relevant question is: "Of all the sources about the lab leak theory, what proportion mention that certain scientists were sending these emails early on?" IMPORTANTLY, the question is NOT: "Of all the sources about these scientists or about these emails, how many talk about it being critical?" The first question is how we determine how prominently to feature these sentences, whether they belong in the lead at all, etc. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the lead section. Lead sections are supposed to summarize what is covered in more detail in the lead. And there's a TON of "extremely vague" terms in the lead... just in the same paragraph the vague terms "members of the Republican Party", "liberal media" and "political circles" occur. Do you also think those are "too vague"? And if not, why not? Le Marteau (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those terms may be too vague, but that is not what is in discussion currently. Though it should also be noted, specificity on who is making claims are far more important when talking about scientists than media outlets. Xoltered (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "some scientists" is already being used in the lead. My proposed text simply follows the style and usage already in the lead, and are no more "weasel words" than the already existing example of the usage of the phrase. Le Marteau (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph article happened since the RFC you cited. And how is "some scientists" any more a "weasel term" than "members of the Republican Party", "liberal media" and "political circles" which also occur in the same second paragraph?. Details can be placed in the body... the lead is for summarizing. Le Marteau (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't repeat the same argument in multiple places. It doesn't help reach a consensus, and it appears like WP:BLUDGEON. Making your point once, at one place, is usually more effective than endlessly repeating it (as that convinces absolutely nobody). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "bludgeoning" anyone. I am asking editors questions about the rationale for their !vote.Le Marteau (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
replying to every single "oppose" vote of this survey with vociferous repetitive arguments is the very definition of Wikipedia:BLUDGEON. Please stop. If your ideas have merit or appeal to the larger community, others will take them up. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may be fine with having the lead mention that only Trump and Trumpers thought it was a viable theory. I am not. Given that most people interested in the subject know better, this does damage to the reputation of the encyclopedia. My concern about this, and my attempt to remedy the situation is in no way "cringe" or "partisan". Le Marteau (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Unnecessarily vague. "Some scientists" are people with opinions in and outside their field. Some keep pushing for the idea, some have done so in the past, some may have changed their mind, some may promote in in the future, most don't express a public opinion about it. It's easy to find sources about individual opinions but it's not very meaningful. There never was a scientific consensus for the idea, but a switch of consensus, if it happened, would be more meaningful. If the lead reports about "some scientists", it invites WP:GEVAL: some support the idea, some don't. —PaleoNeonate – 06:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the usage of "members of the Republican Party", "liberal media" and "political circles" which also occur in the same second paragraph also "unnecessarily vague"? The lead section is supposed to summarize content which already appears in the body, not go into detail.
"Some scientists" are people with opinions in and outside their field
And "liberal media" are not? "Political circles" are not? "Members of the republican party" are not? Because THEIR opinions are represented in the paragraph in question. Should those lines remain? Because by your rational, it seems they must go. Le Marteau (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already say that some scientists have given this idea credence later on in the lead. We aren't omitting that fact. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that, amongst all the arguing here, that there has been no comment on my suggestion above to reorder the content to address what I believe to be the original concern. It does make me more incredulous that this is an earnest attempt to improve the lede, instead causes me to think this is an attempt at POV pushing. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a false equivalence, —PaleoNeonate – 04:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. but later changed their stance. If they changed their stance, why is this so weighty that it needs to be covered in the lead? Also, this quote from the source does not inspire confidence: “The email is out-of-context,” Garry wrote Wednesday in an email to The Intercept. “This was one email among many I was sharing with my colleagues.”[9] So one of the people quoted is saying that his statements were cherry picked. This whole angle seems questionable. In conclusion, seems like WP:UNDUE weight for the lead. In my opinion, the one paragraph in the body where this is covered is sufficient. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. emphasizing this in the lead at all is probably UNDUE. It's making a few emails where some scientists were saying "oh is this possible?" and then a few days later saying "nah, it's really really unlikely." into some huge factor. Scientists consider and then discard ideas all the time, and talk about those ideas among colleagues without ever giving them any real substantial plausibility. This is very similar to the hulabaloo about 'Oumuamua being a spaceship from aliens. Was it worth thinking about very briefly? Yes. Was it so plausible and important that it should be the second paragraph in the lead? No. This is giving huge credence to idle gossip/watercooler talk. It's putting a POV on a pedestal. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that if the emails were simply between fellow scientists it would be different. Trump wouldnt have had a leg to stand on if serious scientists werent telling the government it was 50:50 for a lab leak. I still havent seen a clear explination of the serial passage possibility. Mainly, I think if we name Trump, we should also mention scientists in the same or adjoining paragraph. If thats in the lead or below it doesnt matter. 2603:800C:3101:D064:F012:4772:169D:82C0 (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    wouldnt have had a leg to stand on even if he never did, it's particularly notable because he was POTUS. RS at the time have also described how a fake "investigation branch" was created and later closed, how the intelligence community was bypassed and documented other disinformation attempts including in collaboration with Bannon. It was politics, nothing to do with credible scientific evidence... Also, 50/50 is misleading, the default hypothesis remains the most plausible one, even if we don't find the exact sequence, the scientific community understands how natural sources cause epidemics. —PaleoNeonate – 04:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Im quoting the ratio's that the scientists were emailing to Trump's Executive branch of government with their concerns on a lab leak. We cant pretend highly qualified scientists werent telling the trump administration about a lab leak. 2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your discussion of the serial passage theory is original research and a personal opinion. Find sources about it, write a draft of what you'd like to be included and where. And then we can, as a community, discuss and edit it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it was Draft:Robert_F._Garry who first brought up the idea of serial passage in these emails. I'd never heard of it until these emails, not my research. 2603:800C:3101:D064:B9CE:12A6:2DCA:EF8E (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suffers from balance issues. It gives the impression that the theory had scientific support and then lost it (due to polarisation). It may be reasonable to say it had a curious response from scientists initially, but it's not accurate to imply it was accepted or ever considered a theory accepted by many scientists. (I'm aware it says 'some', but the point applies nevertheless) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written. What does it mean for a scientist to "support" a hypothesis? Does this mean the scientists supported research on the hypothesis, argued that the hypothesis was correct, or something else? A less vague sentence might or might not merit inclusion, not sure whether it would be due weight. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Kessler, Glen (25 May 2021). "Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 25 July 2021. Retrieved 19 July 2021.
  2. ^ a b Bandeira, Luiza; Aleksejeva, Nika; Knight, Tessa; Le Roux, Jean. WEAPONIZED: HOW RUMORS ABOUT COVID-19’S ORIGINS LED TO A NARRATIVE ARMS RACE (PDF). The Atlantic Council. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  3. ^ a b Wallace-Wells, Benjamin (27 May 2021). "The Sudden Rise of the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  4. ^ a b Ruwitch, John (31 March 2021). "Theory That COVID Came From A Chinese Lab Takes On New Life In Wake Of WHO Report". NPR. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  5. ^ a b Frutos, Roger; Gavotte, Laurent; Devaux, Christian A. (March 2021). "Understanding the origin of COVID-19 requires to change the paradigm on zoonotic emergence from the spillover to the circulation model". Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 95: 104812. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2021.104812. PMC 7969828. PMID 33744401. See i.a. "The origin of SARS-Cov-2 is still passionately debated since it makes ground for geopolitical confrontations and conspiracy theories besides scientific ones...The marginal conspiracy theory of a voluntary released of an engineered virus forwarded by the press, blogs and politicians is not supported by any data."
  6. ^ a b "Covid origin: Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory is being taken seriously". BBC News. 27 May 2021. Retrieved 16 January 2022.
  7. ^ a b Sarah Knapton (January 11, 2022). "Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt 'international harmony'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved January 14, 2022.
  8. ^ a b Dilanian, Ken; Perrette, Amy; Chow, Denise (4 June 2021). "Fauci's emails don't prove a Wuhan conspiracy, but raise further questions". NBC News. Retrieved 16 January 2022.
  9. ^ https://theintercept.com/2022/01/12/covid-origins-fauci-redacted-emails/

Wuhan Center for Disease Control

It states that "The Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Wuhan Center for Disease Control are located within miles of the original focal point of the pandemic" however it omits the fact that Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention is 300 yards from the wet market. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-26/lab-leak-theory-origin-covid-19 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/inside-the-the-viral-spread-of-a-coronavirus-origin-theory It seems that there is a group of people who try very hard to remove this fact from the article. Cambr5 (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory&oldid=1067493454"